Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Having the Government saying Monopolies are bad and then pulling all regulations and leaving the room is helping how?

 

Monkey Boy

As I’ve tried to explain mine is not a criticism of parts but of the whole, the whole ideological stance to me seems deeply flawed. I’ve covered a large number of issues with right wing libertarians and so far all their ideas have not seemed to stand up to scrutiny.

And to me that is the big problem with a lot of American political thought, too many people see their political ideas as a religion, based on faith not rational or reasonable thought and argument.

To such people their political ideas don’t have to hold water or be defendable, they just have to be accepted without question.

But as I and many others have explained right wing libertarian ideas would in their opinion make many Americans lives a misery while enriching wealth so that its power and influence over the system would increase. Criticisms that no right wing libertarian seems able to refute.

Someone cannot claim that you are doing what is best for their country when they cannot refute rational and reasonable criticisms that they seem to be doing the very opposite.

Ron Paul is a right wing libertarian as are most of those supporting his ideas. And in my opinion it is right wing because it is about favouring the interests of wealth rather than the interests of everyone.

 

Monkey Boy

Again this is a string of hollow slogans – if these statements can’t be explained or defended from criticism.

So why do right wing libertarians what to give even more power to wealth so that it can increase its power and influence?

As I said earlier “The problem is that right wing libertarians push the theory and dismiss the reality. For example the theory is that the ‘competition’ of a ‘pure free market’ would undermine established wealth’s power and influence. The problem is that the move toward this supposed ‘pure’ market only gives more power to wealth. This is the lesson of the last thirty odd years of the ‘neoliberal’ push for a more ‘free market’ society.”

What does that mean? In differing contexts it could be mean full and comprehensive regulation or little at all.

Sorry but that is often just a code for Social Darwinist ideas. I mean what do you mean by ‘dependent’?

More hints at Social Darwinism here, the thing is as has been explained the ‘freedom’ talked about by right wing libertarians seems to be the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak.

 

Ron Paul is a racist.

 

I am not a Ron Paul supporter, but I do not believe he is a racist. I believe that the rich and powerful are happy to mislead us into thinking that, tho, instead of criticizing his actual beliefs.

 

They see you trollin'....:troll:

 

Hopefully this helps to explain the position. Often the government can cause monopolies to form.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C4gRRk2i-M"]Anti-Trust and Monopoly (with Ron Paul) - YouTube

What I mean by dependent would be spending my time trying find ways to get money from the government instead of spending my time looking for ways to become self sufficient. When people come to depend on the government it can weaken them in the long run.

 

Monkey Boy

You did realise this was an advert didn’t you I’m hoping you didn’t think it was an objective debate?

Which begs the question why would you present this? I mean would you present an advert for Acme Soap to back up an assertion that it is the ‘best’ soap around, when a critic points out that it seems to turn things black?

*

Here we have three people with the same views pushing the same agenda, no criticism is presented, no alternative viewpoint aired, there is total unquestioning acceptance that what is said is right – because that is what they want people to think – its an advert.

The host is Roger Ream a lifelong right winger who in 1982 joined the staff of guess who – that’s right - Ron Paul. Now this video is from 1983 so presumable he was still in Ron’s employment at the time.

The guest is Professor Dominick T. Armentano another right winger who at the moment works for The Independent Institute a right wing think tank paid for by such people as the Koch brothers.

Monkey Boy can I ask when you watched this did you question it at all or did you just nod at everything said, did you even wonder why no criticisms were made, why no difficult questions were asked or did you just think that none were needed?

 

Monkey Boy

OK let’s look at what was said.

The problem is that the Ron Paul advert just reinstates the same arguments that I’ve heard from right wing libertarians before and which still have outstanding criticisms levelled against them.

To repeat - The problem is that right wing libertarians push the theory and dismiss the reality. For example the theory is that the ‘competition’ of a ‘pure free market’ would undermine established wealth’s power and influence. The problem is that the move toward this supposed ‘pure’ market only gives more power to wealth. This is the lesson of the last thirty odd years of the ‘neoliberal’ push for a more ‘free market’ society.

In the clip once more the ‘theory’ is presented as if it was achievable and desirable, that in a perfect world there perfect ideas would work perfectly, in that once a perfect free market was in place everything would be perfect – the trouble is that view comes up against the real world.

There is no magic spell that can instantly bring in a ‘perfect’ free market, and stepping toward it as has been done in many places over the last 30 odd years or so has just increased the power and influence of wealth wherever it was tried.

More movement in that direction rather than diminish that power and influence is much more likely to just increase it, up to the point were you have a plutocratic system with wealth even more firmly in control. That is why a free market has NEVER existed and NEVER will exist.

The theory ignores the existing power and influence of wealth and seems to believe (against all contrary evidence) that such wealth will not try and use that power and influence to try and mould the system in their favour. That is what power and influence has done throughout history so why do right wing libertarians ignore that fact, probably because they have to because otherwise their ideas are just not credible.

 

Monkey Boy

Again you need to ask questions rather just making assertions.

Why does the person need assistance?

Which leads to the thought - what can be done to relieve that need so the person doesn’t need assistance?

I mean you seem to be presuming some type of guilt on anyone that looks to such relief - that the person is trying to find ways to get money out of the community on false pretences - but why are you making that presumption?

*

There is an old con game often used by right wingers about the deserving and undeserving poor.

This is the idea that the deserving are those that don’t ask for help who are noble, dynamic and worthy of admiration and who deserve help but don’t need any.
While the undeserving are those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are lazy, feckless, scroungers who don’t deserve any help.

So it is plain - the argument goes – that there is little or no need to give assistance to those that may find themselves in hardship, the deserving wouldn’t be in hardship and those in hardship are undeserving of help because they’ve brought that condition on themselves.

The problem is that these disadvantaged people were and are often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

(This idea of fit and unfit is also the basis of Social Darwinist ideas of the survival of the fittest – those that seek assistance show by that very fact that they are not fit and should not be given assistance to survive)

Anyway that is why voluntary welfare never worked and why so many fought over so many years and in so many places for state systems of welfare.

Such provision is hated by the right because it limits wealth’s ability to manipulate the system to its advantage though the offering of the lowest wages possible.

That is why they go on about ‘welfare scroungers’, dependency and the implication that anyone seeking such assistance is really only trying to rip off the community.

For many if not most right wing libertarians the ‘perfect market’ would have no state welfare systems so once again they seem to want to give more power to wealth.

 

Ron Paul came in second in the NH primary-and how little the media says about his rise in popularity-I mean, he's ahead of Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich,and they're deliberately ignoring him. Go, Ron Paul, go!!!

 

bob

Why do you support him given all the outstanding criticisms of right wing libertarian views that no Paulet has yet addressed (let alone refuted)?

 

Well, I like a lot of his views-not all of them, of course-but he has a lot of good ideas. And things like abolishing the Dept of Education (which I don't support) he would have to have the support of Congress for (which he won't get anyway) So, I think he deserves a chance-it would be an interesting give and take between him and Congress if he got elected

 

Well, shame on me for criticizing the news media...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-n-h-crowd-dangerous-status-quo-132631014.html

 

Bob

But as I and many others have explained right wing libertarian ideas would very likely make many Americans lives a misery while enriching wealth so that its power and influence over the system would increase. Criticisms that no right wing libertarian seems able to refute.

The idea that some ideas are good and others bad is a problem to me since everything about this ideology seems to be interlinked so that when any aspect is actually looked at in detail it is found to be negative because of the whole.

I’m a great believer in education especially the kind that teaches people to question ideas to see if they’re rational and reasonable.

But it is much easier to bamboozle the uneducated and ignorant as Thomas Jefferson put it “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be”.

But as critics of the US educational system have pointed out many of its problems stem from too much localism. As Susan Jacoby points out “children in the poorest areas of the country would have the worst school facilities and teachers with the worst training”. Bringing about a situation were the children of the already advantaged are yet more advantaged by receiving better education.

So yet again a proposal of Paul would seem to be much more advantageous to wealth than the majority so you are right to not support that but so far i have not found anything he's proposed that doesn't turn out to be negative when actually looked at. So what is it you think is good.

 

Nobody's perfect-some of Paul's ideas, indeed the great majority of them, are very good. You know what I don't like about the other candidates' ideas? They're almost universally bad. And I'm not so sure that his policies will make anybody poorer-maybe just the opposite. And like I said, he won't be able to enact most of his ideas without the approval of Congress. He wants to get the US out of foreign wars and stop the Us from wasting money on Israel and dictators around the world. If we did that, maybe we'd have more money to spend on education. Why not give him a chance-are the poor going to get richer if Mitt Romney's elected?

 

Could he do a worse job than most of the others????? Hell No.

 

Honestly Balbus, do you see Ron Paul if he theoretically gets elected, being able to do half of what he is saying? There is no way. And I live in America, the economic situation is already very very bad. Just came back from Easton a few days ago, my old home city, the large amount of for rent and for sale signs on buildings where thriving businesses used to be is amazing. Not to mention the increase in homeless people. It's happening all over the country. I already know and see a lot of people who have been in misery for a while here. The real problem and the real things to focus on are a congress that is unwilling to compromise about nearly anything. This country being inundated with politicians that are more concerned with career ambitions than what is best for this country. Politicians that say one thing and do another. And Washington being filled with lobbyists and other such human filth. I don't focus on political ideology debates they are not pragmatic, I focus on the true and cross-party political ideology of Washington and that is GREED.

 

Unfortunately we can't order our candidates A-la-carte. Have to take the whole meal as served and tho much of it appears tasty, I am allergic to some of the stuff on Ron Paul's plate.

So, NO!

 

Ron SPEAKS THE TRUTH