Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

I don't honestly even know who Ron Paul is. So no, I wouldn't vote for him.

 

At this point, I"m thinking he's the only one left I could vote for.

It's unbelievable what this election cycle has become. How people could be even voting for these other dirt bags is beyond my comprehension.

 

I would love to see the final election as between Paul and Obama. I like a lot of what RP says, but his assertion that removing -all- laws and regulations affecting business guarantees harmony is wack. In the 1900s companies in the USA literally machine-gunned their employees in famous massacres. Slavery took about 15 generations to end, and only in my lifetime did black Americans get the right to vote- and unregulated business is 100% to blame.

 

He's a social darwinist and a threat to the human race. I'd vote for Mussolini before I voted for Ron Paul, at least there would be labor laws that protected workers, and an environmental policy.

Between fascism and Ron Paul, fascism is the lesser of two evils, and that is saying a great deal.

 

Or there's no conspiracy and he is legitimately losing, because most people - Republicans, Democrats, and Independents realize going back to the Industrial Revolution in terms of labor relations and the state is insane.

 

I say vote ring Paul just to rebel against the insiders. To all those who won't vote RP cause of environmental issues..im sure he has something in mind and if you don't vote Dr. Paul in one of the other dirt bags will get the nomination and I assure you the environment is the last thing on their mind. To those who say they never vote period and hate politics, its corrupt now but I guarantee you and will be at risk yo die violently any second in a country with no government.

Lets face it, we can donate and volunteer all we want but the rain forest will be all but hacked to bits so I'm doing something I feel like I can actually help with - which us promoting the ron Paul movement

 

Even if some think his policies are a bit extreme do we really want to keep going in this direction?? With Dr Paul as president it won't be industrial revolution times it will be back to times of prosperity.

However if run Paul does not get this and this country becomes third world, I say America gets what it earns.

 

Everyonr - if it came to it, mitt Romney or Gingrich or ron Paul? None isn't an option.

 

I never even watch main stream media. I watch the revolutionPAC live stream during primaries. Just the fact that news ignores Dr Paul shows I chose a man with a different game plan

Well I do watch the news only to see what crap their pushing next and their obvious brain wash techniques

 

No, the social darwinists are the people running the government you love so much.

 

^^^ THAT. Pwn

 

Indie

As I’ve said repeatedly - bigger-smaller, fatter-thinner, shorter-longer, etc etc doesn’t seem important when talking about governance, what is important is good governance, as I’ve said right wing libertarians don’t seem to want to achieve good governance they just want to cut government.

This is an ideological position it has nothing to do with making governance better, (they would cut good government just as much as bad government).

The thing to understand is that the charge levelled at right wing libertarianism is that it is more likely to bring about governance by wealth I think that would be bad for the majority of people irrespective of its size.

And so your answer seems to be to bring in a regime run on a more Social Darwinist model (your term Spenceristic) where the few ‘fittest’ rule over the weak (and the definition of fitness is equated to wealth).

As I’ve said you seem to think the desire of left wingers to help people is based on irrational emotion – whereas the views you have the “true rational reasoning based on the facts” is that those in hardship should not be helped, but be exploited or even allowed to die of want.

You do seem to support this “Spenceristic” approach named after that great champion of Social Darwinism Herbert Spencer and here is something of his views -

Basically the “true rational reasoning” is that the weak and disadvantaged should suffer for the benefit of a few.
I mean this neoliberal free market approach to how human society should be ordered has seen in the last 30 odd years the wealth of a few grown vastly while the incomes of the middle and lower sections of society stagnate or fall.

It seems to me to be a matter of aims, my viewpoint is based on trying to bring about societies that are fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity to all the habitants of fulfilling their potential and having a healthy and worthwhile life.

This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a worse society.
And that is why I can’t understand your thinking or that of other right wing libertarians and neoliberals, because they and you do seem to want to live in a worse society.

 

Indie

Again you are bringing up thinks you were unable to defend from criticism the first, second or ninth time you bring them up for example -

No it wasn’t –

The original government of the US was set up mainly by and in the interests of the ‘squire class’. That is why it was originally an oligarchy, with a limited voting franchise (white men of a certain property qualification) and why slavery continued. It has been argued that the US actually didn’t become a ‘true’ modern democracy until 1965.
Posted back in September 2010

Or –

at the time of the ratification there were property limits to voting and holding office which meant only about 10% of the population (white male population women, black people and natives didn’t get the vote) of the new nation had any chance of voting or gain positions of power. And in many places there were further higher property qualifications for holding office, meaning only the wealthy could stand.

Or –

in the main only 10% of the population had the vote and you don’t dispute that – and many posts had a higher property qualification so basically over 90 percent of Americans had no say in what the government of the time did

Or –

On democracy you have suggested giving wealth extra voting power so that it could counter the votes of majority, and you have implied you support some early system in the US where only property owners could vote or hold office (limiting the franchise to only about 10% of the population).
2011

I could go on and on pointing out where and how you have fail to address the criticisms levelled at your views but I think most people have worked out by now just how dishonestly your approach to debate is.

 

Indie

 

Indie

And the criticism of your ideology (that you seem unable to address let alone refute) is that you would give more power and influence to wealth so it could hire more lobbyists and rig elections more easily.

Your idea that State politics is pure as snow and only on the Federal is the system broke is laughable.

Also I’ve posted on ideas to curb the power of the lobbyists, in what way would you regulate their activities?

 

Indie

Oh and again you make assertions that already have unanswered criticisms already levelled at them. You’ve asserted this about Europe before for example in the Did the Tea Party takeover/ruin libertarianism? Thread and I had to pint out to you –

As pointed out to you before - all of the countries of the EU have had neo-liberal governments in power during the last 30 years. Many political parties of the right and the left succumbed to neoliberal ideas.

In the UK the flawed neoliberal ideas of the Thatcher era were taken up by the New Labour leadership.

In Greece the government that was in power just prior to the crisis (2004-2009) was the “strictly neoliberal” right wing New Democracy Party which used derivatives as a means of hiding the true level of their debts. In Spain the neo-liberal Peoples Party was in power from 1996-2004 (and created the conditions for that countries housing bubble) and was succeeded by an opposition party ‘of the left’ that followed many of its neoliberal ideas and as for Italy the right wing neoliberal Silvio Berlusconi has been in power for eight of the last ten years.

*

As to problems in the US I’ll repeat the posts 405 –

The major problem has been the neo-liberal/free market ideas that came to dominance in the US in the last 30 years or so coupled with a manufactured anti-left viewpoint that was willing to sacrifice economic responsibility for a possible ideological victory.

What we have at the moment it the equivalent of war, basically a free market ideology promoted by wealth waged a war on the majority of the people.

In the last few years the wealth of a few grew vastly while the incomes of the middle and lower sections of society stagnated or fell.

The ideology set up a system that would inevitably crash but those that had manufactured it either were delusional about it not happening or knew that they wouldn’t be the ones to pay.

Thing is that the forces of wealth have convinced many that it is not its fault but that ‘government’ is to blame and that the thing to do is give even more power to wealth.

After WWII the US’s national debt was up to around 117% of GDP it was brought down in just 36 years less than one generation (by 1981 it was down to 32.5%) until successive right wing and neo-liberal policies (tax cuts and anti-communist military spending) from the 1980 onward increased it cumulating in the profligate spending and tax cuts of the Bush Admin. At the same time the free market ideology (deregulation, hollowing out of manufacturing and a belief that the ‘new’ markets were safe) set up the financial sector for a fall and has caused the debt to rise to around 80-90% of GDP.

The problem isn’t ‘government’ the problem is a right wing, wealth supported, neo-liberal, free market ideology that hijacked the system.

Try - The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36

 

Indie

And once again you are bringing up things you were unable to defend from criticism the first, second or ninth time you bring them up for example -

How about this reply -

Oh we have been there before - the ‘real life examples’ that you presented in the past never stood up to scrutiny, being basically yet more unsubstantiated assertions that you were unable to defend from criticism - so why do think other ‘examples’ would do any better?
Why not just stop falling back on your personal dogma and instead started to address the criticisms levelled at your views in a thoughtful and open minded way.
Or this -
We have been through this before using self-serving apocryphal examples isn’t a rational argument. How can I or anyone else gauge the validity of your examples.

You are trying to say your viewpoint is right so there is an incentive to claim you know of ‘example’ that back up your view, the problem is that these cannot be verified or quantified.

Thing is that you see the world through the prism of your chosen dogma and of course you will twist everything around to as to suit that dogma.

To me that is the reason why you are unable to put up any rational or reasonable defence of your ideas because you’ve had to twist reality so much to fit it to your dogma that the rational and the reasonable have had to be abandoned.

 

Bob - LooK

But can you address any of the criticisms of right wing libertarianism that remain outstanding?

 

Since I am neither a socialist nor a communist that makes it quite difficult for me to be as far left as your little illustration would have us believe. Furthermore, while you have stated at length your personal views, what do you know of my own other than that I disagree with you? This once again shows that you believe anyone to the left of yourself is far left.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is that it is the most fallible of any type of scientific data. Here's an example analogous to your type of 'proof':

There's abundant proof that drinking water cures cancer. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. After drinking water she was cured.
(borrowed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)

Do you have any sources? State them and we can discuss them. I know Balbus has provided sources - instead of discussing them you simply ignored them.

 

You didn't read my previous post-I'm not going to discuss 'right wing libertarianism' in general-I'll talk about Ron Paul's specific policies, things he has personally advocated-mention some of those, and I'll talk about them