Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Great post!

Count me among the also curious.

 

Pic or it didn't happen.

 

LOL – and again not one right wing libertarian is able to defend their ideas form criticism. We have indie whose been evading for a year or so now – the new comer Dave who’s following in that tradition and we get 56 yet another pom-pom waving cheerleader who seems unable to string a coherent sentence together.

Come on – this is frankly pathetic – why do you continue to hold views that you are so clearly cannot defend from criticism?

 

Indie

You say government – “should bear no responsibility in bailing out or subsidizing anything with taxpayer funding.”

I agree but to bring that about you needed a strongly regulated system not a ‘free market’ approach which concentrates wealth and makes catastrophic crashes more likely.

Try reading - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353&highlight=Utopia%2C+Keynes&f=36

 

Indie

LOL - Thing is that I’m a leftie and am opposed to imperialism and I’m also opposed to bad political ideas where the interests of all are not taken into account. It is for the latter reason that I oppose right wing libertarianism.

Again this is the same misdirection trick you have used before – unable to actually address my criticisms but try to undermine them by implying they are nothing but anti-Americanism. It was a trick often used on this forum during the Bush era by neo-cons who’d dismiss any criticism of their imperialism as anti-Americanism (even against fellow Americans).

The problem then - as with you now - is that criticism of a bad ideology that could or would cause the US and many Americans problems is not anti-Americanism in fact it could be seen as the opposite.

Indie could you please just address the criticisms of your ideas, instead of playing one tired trick after another?

 

Indie

Yes and we have been through this many times – why do you constantly bring up thinks you couldn’t defend the last time you brought them up? The question is what laws and regulations would be ‘reformed’ because when looked at those most likely to be are those that would actually benefit wealth and its ability to exploit the majority.

I could use this quote -

“Easy to say but the problem is in the detail with the wealth controlled government your ideas would bring about, the laws it would repeal (or enact) would further their interests not those of the public so the protection of the ‘public good’ goes out the window”.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=425761&page=18


Or this quote

“The thing is that laws are brought in when they are thought to be needed and things change. I’d be the first to say they needed to be reviewed regularly but you should never throw out the baby with the bathwater”
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=413208&page=24

*

Thing is that many right wing libertarians don’t seem to think government should help people, promote their potential or improve their quality of life.

To quote you -

To which I replied

“Why not? I mean a lot of laws and regulations that protect the public good are by definition enhancing people’s quality of life.
From the laws that protect our property, protect us from physical or mental harassments, protect us from unscrupulous traders, make sure our food, air and water are clean and so on and so on…”

To repeat something I’ve said earlier on this subject –

“a decent working week was fought for and won meaning people had a life outside of work, health and safely laws were fought for in such industries as coal mining so that people didn’t have to work in dangerous or unhealthy conditions, I could go on and on. But the point is many of the things that allow people to improve themselves and their lives come from government action of some type.”
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=361461&page=4

*

 

Dave

You don’t have to but if the criticism can’t be addressed (and so far no right wing libertarian has been able to do so) then the ideology seems mortally flawed even dumb. And dumb ideas are more often as not dangerous ideas.

LOL you mean a right wing libertarian, its anarchists that want no government - right wing libertarians want ‘small’ government (although none has yet been able to explain exactly what they mean by ‘small’) which as far as I can tell seems to be a government that serves the interests of wealth over that of the majority.

Need? I think you’d find few that think a corrupt political and economic system is ‘needed’. Or are you trying to suggest, to con people into believing that anyone that opposes your viewpoint actually wants such corruption?

Anyway many that have looked at this corruption of the system have come to the conclusion that wealth has too much power and influence.

And as explained many times and at some length, the right wing libertarian solution to this problem seems to be a desire to give even more power and influence to wealth, which as pointed out by many is likely to make a bad situation worse.

Can you address this criticism?

 

Of course you do. Your answer to solving the corruption problem seems to be MORE government intervention. Government is the corrupt entity. It is government that is serving the needs of the wealthy at this very moment, yet you and others feel that government is the answer. It is not. You strip the power away from the federal government and cede the power to the states as stated in the 10th Amendment. The states then have the power as do the counties. It is at this level that people such as I can effect change. I attend Board of Directors meetings and Planning meetings within my county and I speak out on issues directly to the men and women, at my local level, that enact local ordinances and whatnot.

I get the strong impression that you, and your ilk, wish for a strong federal government. The federal government is broken and corrupt. By granting it more authority, how will that ever fix anything other than allow for the corporations to exert influence over our lives? I've already laid out facts that corroborate that...The FDA, USDA, EPA is full of former corporate executives that contributed heavily to the coffers of our lawmakers. And you want more government? Or you like the government the way it is? It's too late. Corporations already are running the show under the current system. Private banks, which were given the authority by our "illustrious" elected officials, were given control over the monetary system. We have a federal government that now has the power to indefinitely detain American citizens without charging them....but has promised not to do so (yeah right). Under the current system of federal government control, we are on the fast track to a corporatocracy/police state...although it is my humble opinion that we are already there.

Your answer? No thank you. I understand your concerns, I just don't agree with your justification of continuing with the Status Quo thinking that everything will be "hunky dory" and/or thinking that effecting a change will allow for more power to be wielded by the wealthy as they already do under the current system run by both parties. I'll settle for risking a smaller federal government and cede the power back to the states and the individuals as guaranteed by my Constitution. We don't need a Chancellor.

Do you get involved in local politics or do you simply, as a moderator, berate people online for have different political viewpoints that do not coincide with yours?

 

Dave

Nice rant but I’m sure I’m not the only one that noticed you still haven’t actually addressed any of the criticisms levelled at right wing libertarianism – you’ve told me I’m wrong, but that’s not a rational or reasonable counter argument is just denial and as I’ve said just ignoring criticisms does not make them go away.

This is the problem its not about more or less but good that’s important, that’s the problem with so many right wing libertarians they don’t seem to want good governance they just demand ‘small’ government, less government or little government.

Oh could you please read the posts before going off all half-cocked? As pointed out I and other who have studied this have come to the conclusion that the power and influence of money has corrupted US society and its governance – and you seem to agree.

The problem with right wing libertarianism is that rather than reform society and its governance to restore the balance between the power of wealth and the power of the people they seem to prefer to hand more power and influence to wealth. To reduce the power of a democratically elected government to counter wealth.

They wish to do this through policies that push ‘free market’ and neoliberal ideas - lower taxation, reduced regulation and the curtailment or stopping of social programmes and welfare benefits.

Oh sorry Dave this is a con many right wing libertarians have tried to pull here before, I don’t know why you always try it on I mean its so easy to see through – thing is right wing libertarianism is an ideology it doesn’t matter if its at a national or local level the agenda is the same as do the criticisms of it.

LOL I see, anyone that doesn’t support right wing libertarianism wants to continue the Status Que? Problem is that right wing libertarianism isn’t ‘radical’ its just an extreme form of the neoliberalism that promoted the interests of wealth and has caused so many problems in the world.

 

OK Balbus...Like I said before, discussion with you is circular and I see no need to enter into dialog with someone whose sole purpose is to abuse their status as moderator and berate and belittle the members of the community. I have not said you are wrong. In fact I mentioned that I understand your position and I disagree. If you wish that to mean "You're wrong"...so be it. I will concede to you the win, OK? Fair enough?

 

Dave

Sorry but this is just evasion, its basically saying you are not going to answer or address the many criticisms levelled at right wing libertarianism.


I don’t see that as a ‘win’ in fact I see it more of being a loss, since I’m still in the dark as to why you and others would continue to hold onto views you and they clearly can’t defend from its criticism.

 

Balbie"

Is it then your opinion that the bigger government is, the better it is?

The Left would be more appropriately and accurately described as Regressives rather than Progressives. Socialism, Communism, and even Democracy in its pure form may have worked relatively well in small primitive societies where nature was the primary source of lifes needs, and unoccupied lands were abundant.

While you continue to argue for the Left, recognize as fact that the U.S. was founded as a Nation to be governed by the consent of the people. In my opinion, most of us on the Right, who might call themselves Libertarians, Conservatives, Republicans, and even a few Democrats have no wish to change our form of government to a Left wing, Socialist, Communist, or Progressive form, but are intent in restoring it to operate within the law of the Constitution, which would take power from the Federal government and return it to the States and more importantly to the people who would be in control and provide any additional powers they felt necessary to the Federal government through the amendment process of the Constitution. As it is, wealth has been provided with a 'one stop shopping' environment with the Nations capital essentially a home for lobbyists, and the representatives of both parties spend little time once being elected listening to their constituents as their time is consumed by the lobbyists who funded their election campaigns.

Your criticisms are a waste of time as we can all see the results of Left wing government in Europe today, and the consequences we ourselves in the U.S. are facing since the Left began to gain greater control over our own government in the early 20th century.

 

a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for America, do it

 

In the South Carolina debates the other night, Ron Paul said that we shouldn't treat other nations in ways that we don't want them to treat us-he got loudly booed. That is really pathetic. What kind of country has this become, when the Golden Rule is suddenly so unpopular? And which other candidates would even be bold to say something like that (and mean it)? Nobody but Ron Paul

 

Except that as has been explained to you many, many times - just being left of your extreme right wing position does not necessarily make one a socialist or a communist. Also, try using academic references instead of unsubstantiated claims.

 

Left Center Right
|.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|.........|
<----->______________<----->
You Me

I guess you would see my views as extreme, compared to your own.

While you may have faith in academic references which can often appear quite believable, I find real first hand life experience more effective in making good decisions, with fewer unintended consequences. That aside, would you accept references from Right wing academia without question?

Like I said previously, the solution is in ending the Fed, and repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments, which although could not be accomplished overnight, would put us on the path to government once again controlled by the people and not just the rich who are NOT a majority voting block.

 

hii!! is anyone on here actually a real hippie? if so,text me! 7248804063

 

I'd vote ron paul, from what ive seen he seems liek the only real guy out there, the rest are just a bunch of jerks who prob get paid off for everything they do

 

after he waffled on creationism/evolution I can't get behind him. I concede that the man I'm going to vote for is religious but he doesn't bring it in to his politics. If I had my way, I wouldn't vote for a man who believes in a talking snake. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpent_%28Bible%29 or that the Earth was created in seven days.

 

Rest assured for the anti-pauls will get their way. Voter fraud is running rampant.