Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

Oh LOL - I can see another evasion trick coming up

I don’t care if you have a different perspective - I wonder if you can defend your perspective in anything like a rationale or reasonable way from its critics – so far you have failed completely. Which begs the question why are you promoting ideas you can’t defend from criticism?

Yes we have no control over whether we are born into advantage or disadvantage but that seems to have a very big impact on when people are likely to die.
http://www.ourchanginglives.net/impact/health.aspx

Again to whom we are born can have a great impact on the range of options open to you and the possibility of having success in them, which has nothing to do with personal responsibility.

Thing is that - “As background, it helps to know what has been happening to incomes over the past three decades. Detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office - which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn't changed - show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That's growth, but it's slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II. Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn't a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million. So do the wealthy look to you like the victims of class warfare?” Paul Krugman
Basically during the period when neo-liberal ideas (ideas you generally support) have been dominate the social mobility of the middle and lower classes have basically stagnated.

The ideas that right wing libertarians and neoliberals like you and Ron promote

1) low or no tax
2) deregulation
3) Little or no welfare
4) Free market/laissez faire based economics
5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc.

Would not only perpetuate that situation they are likely to make it worse. Again an accusation you seem unable to address let alone refute, meaning it still stands.

 

Balbus:

Would you prefer to call it class envy?

The truly wealthy are not going to see their wealth diminish at all, and are some of the most vocal supporters of your ideas. It is the middle and upper middle classes that suffer the consequences, and while social programs may be seen by the poorest as helpful, in the long run they move upward very little except in comparison to the middle classes who are brought downwards. All these compassionate social programs result in unsustainable government spending, and massive government debt which even ALL the wealthiest are incapable of paying off. As a result, collapse when it eventually occurs will provide a godsend for the truly wealthy, who will be able to withstand rapid and massively increasing prices of necessities, and accumulate even greater wealth buying up the things which have intrinsic value.

All this could be prevented if everyone would simply live within their means, and even more importantly government who can only take what exists and no more.

Enough said.

 

Indie

I know your views you’ve repeated them enough times the question is can you defend them from criticism and so far the answer is a resounding NO.

So why are you trying to promote views you cannot defend?

 

Balbus:

What am I supposed to be defending? Since your views differ so greatly, how would you implement, and even more important sustain them?

 

No, yet I like the notion of ultimate freedom but I do not think the market can take care of itself. Especially as witnessed, the greed and corruption is just looking for an open door like Ron Paul would leave them. He seems very naive here.

Also, I don't think people are very charitable at all. By shutting down all the public welfare systems would absolutely create chaos like the world had never seen before. A sure recipe for class revolution. How can charity institutions stay alive if they aren't helped, by generous handouts from other public institutions ? He hasn't thought this area out that much either.

I cannot see how the commercialization of all industry and entities can make our economy the best. It sounds so out of control. This poor planet can't take much more of the rape and pillage under the name of sovereign countries, instead he would create ultimate corporations that are more powerful than any government. Sci Fi here.

 

Indie

Indie again evasion rather than anything of substance or use I mean we have covered this all before.

Well virtually all the ideas you have presented and promoted seem in some way fatally flawed or down right dangerous.

Ignoring criticism does not make it go away it just indicates that your ideas are so bad that not even you can defend them.

They may be different but the problem is that you seem unable to defend your ideas and I do.

As I’ve pointed out to you before. In what sense do you mean ‘implement’, I mean I can suggest and back up ideas and criticise ideas that I think are wrong but I’m not the world’s dictator.

I’ve put forward many ideas in varying degrees of detail over the many years I been coming to this site, ones that I think would make for a better system. And they could be implemented if there was the political will to do it.

The problem is that virtually all would be opposed by the political and wealth based establishment, because they would limit their power while boosting those of the majority.

But things change in fact your obvious inability to defend the ideas of the wealth supported right show just how defunct those ideas are. I think that many more are coming to realise just how bad they are.

Again we’ve covered this in detail already and you still refuse to address the criticisms of you ideas –

The problem has been the unsustainable neo-liberal ideas (that you seem to support) that have been followed in recent history and that are unstable and make crashes more inevitable while only boosting the wealth and power of a few to the detriment of the many.

There are many alternative ideas to neo-liberalism that are much more stable and sustainable and I’ve often linked in my posts to such ideas. The problem is that again these are opposed by the right sponsored right because they would limit their power while boosting those of the majority.

 

But Indie is not alone in his seeming inability to defend right wing libertarian and neo-liberal ideas from criticism.

Take two of the most recent posts

Claymation - points out what he sees as the problems with Ron Pauls ideas – the greed driven instability of the markets – the deficiencies of a charity based welfare system – the problem of unsustainable exploitation – and the strong possibility that such ideas could bring about a plutocratic regime.

And Rastababy - says ‘He’s great”

 

Balbus:

You seem to propose the idea that everything should be shared equally, but while that may work in a subsistence society which produces only the bare essentials of life and each individuals labors have basically the same value in relation to that of another, but that is not the case in a society where some things have been made available only through the combined labors of many and as such have become deemed necessities, although unaffordable instantly to all equally.

You are just too hung up on wealth to look at things rationally.

 

Indie

Again the simplistic sales pitch – it is either the extreme inequality produced by neo-liberal ideas or complete and utter communistic equality, I’m not in favour of either but argue as I keep doing so for a balance.

To repeat for what seems like the thousandths time - I don’t think there will ever be a totally equal or completely perfect society, but I would like to work toward societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places where people are more likely to realise their potential.

My criticism of your ideas (and those of Ron), criticism you still refuse to address, is that they would produce the opposite - a society which was less fair and where the prospect of the majority of peoples of having a healthy and fulfilled life was lessened.

 

Indie

LOL – this new ‘subsistence society’ tactic will not fly because I’ve already explained - at length and in detail - that in fact it is your ideas that seem only suited to a pre-industrial, non-urban subsistence/agrarian societies with primitive economic systems while the critics of your ideas seem more about dealing with the problems of more complex developed societies.

Post 195, Page 20 of the ‘What to do in the mad, mad world?’ thread.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=425761&page=20

That time (as can be seen) you refused to discuss these criticisms of you ideas that seemed to fundamentally undermine your stance, will you now?

*

Also as I’ve recommended to you before you should read The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

As one reviewer put it -

“Income inequality, they show beyond any doubt, is not just bad for those at the bottom but for everyone. More unequal societies are socially dysfunctional across the board. There is more teenage pregnancy, mental illness, higher prison populations, more murders, higher obesity and less numeracy and literacy in more unequal societies. Even the rich report more mental ill health and have lower life expectancies than their peers in less unequal societies.” Will Hutton

*

 

Balbus:

Sorry, but I don't dig through previous posts and rely on the each current post to provide adequate reference to what was mentioned previously. Maybe that's why you seem to feel I haven't answered something, as if you don't restate clearly what you're talking about I likely will fail to answer it.

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better

The question arises, "What is it that creates inequality in societies?" I've visited, and lived temporarily in some areas where there was very little inequality, and I guess that's why the original title contained the word 'almost'.

I tend to become suspicious of claims such as "they show beyond any doubt". I put greater trust in what I see with my own eyes than what I read when it comes to the human situation. And from what I've seen over my lifetime, the problems while often similar seldom if ever can be resolved with a single solution.

Income inequality for me has provided opportunity, and rather than let it bother me, I've looked for ways to take advantage of it. It does however provide an excellent tool to use as the source of all forms of woes in making it the causal focal point.

There are so many variations of how persons become wealthy, and the same is true of those who become or remain poor. I have great difficulty in accepting that government or society has a right to legislate or assign responsibility based upon wealth.

I've not seen how you would bring about equality to society through government. I think you should know by now that I feel that each individual should be held responsible for his/her own success or failure in life, and society alone should be allowed to judge who and where help is needed, and left free to decide when, where, how, and how much help to give.

Your criticisms, I think are amply by the fact that the publicized U.S. National debt is 1 $15,053,341,334,798.54 as of November 22, 2011. And that ignores unfunded liabilities, State and local debts, rapidly growing deficits to fund government pensions, social security, medicare and medicaid.

 

Indie

LOL - But as we all know if I repeat you just ignore or evade – I mean I’ve repeated some things a hundred or more times and you just make up excuses, like you are doing now, for not addressing the criticisms of your ideas.

As to the rest – I’ll repeat - I think we all know your views by now – but can you please address all the outstanding criticism of them that you seem to be refusing to address?

 

Balbus:

You see problems where I don't. As such just elaborate on the solution.

 

Indie

Again just ignoring the criticism doesn’t make them go away it just makes it clear you don’t have any answers – which begs the question why are you promoting ideas you can’t defend from criticism?

I have on many occasions across multiple threads but all you do is claim you can’t see them, or ask me to repeat them, or ask for more detail, or…or...or….The end result of it being that you never address the criticism of your own views the ideas highlight.

Could you please stop all the tricks and start debating honestly?

 

As nothing we are posting has anything at all to do with voting for or against Ron Paul, I responded to your post here by combining it with my response to your post in the thread titled "Is there anyone left who doubts we live under corporate fascism?? "

 

This is RP's third run for president and I never heard of him till now because of the powers that be have silenced him until now!
If Ron Paul is not elected this time around, I fear the worst for all of us. The government is close to shutting down, we are so far in debt. with the federal reserve we will never even pay the interest off if they aren't ended soon. I know this is our last chance at it, we will be in a bloody revolution if RP isn't elected. This could be the end of our country.

 

The funny thing about this whole post is that if the republicans dont move him through the primary none of this conversation make any difference at all. I doubt there are a whole lot of registered republicans on this site that can assist in helping him though the primary process. Wouldnt it make more sense to go the a republican site and try and convert the people that can actually help your cause?

 

You never heard of him cause you never paid any fuckin' attention, not because he was silenced. You are what is going wrong, not the powers that be.

There will be no bloody revolution, people like you can't even be huffed to vote properly (or learn about the candidates), how could you fight a revolution?

 

Surprised at the number of no's. People either need to get educated, or stop being so negative that nothing will change! You're part of the problem!

I'm Libertarian, but since that's not on there, I chose conservative-leaning, since Ron Paul is running as a "true conservative" Republican. Not conserving his own pockets like the others.

 

How can libertarian not even be an option in a Ron Paul poll?