Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Letlovin

Your post seemed a perfect example of a problem I’ve highlighted here many times; you seem to be thinking in black and white, good and bad - in absolutes. I’ve noticed that it is a common trait amongst those that follow an ideology.

For you it seems to be EITHER full free market OR full government control.

Sorry I don’t think that way – reality is messy and humans are made up of many hues and that is why either/or dogmatic ideologies can be so dangerous.

If you read my posts you’ll find that I prefer a more pragmatic approach involving balance, a balancing of interests that results in the best outcome for everyone. Between the interests of the individual and that of the community, between public and private interests, between the interests of the few and that of the many.

Because in any society there are competing interests and powers, in a monetary based system power, if allowed to do so, can pool within wealth and wealth can use that power and influence to promote its own interests over that of other groups, in a well functioning democracy that influence is countered (is supposedly countered) by the voting power of the majority.

Also in a monetary based system you are going to get a market, but any market has to be regulated in such a way that it works in the interests of everyone, from laws against the sale of possible dangerous items to making sure toxic derivatives containing subprime mortgages are not being sold as triple A, to making sure corporation don’t get too powerful, monopolistic or ‘too big to fail’.

Thing is that businesses can be forces for good and bad, they don’t have to be by their very nature greedy and unethical in fact the laissez-faire (leave it alone to do as it wishes) attitudes promoted by neoliberals and right wing libertarians encourages greedy and unethical while a more regulatory system discourages it.

The problem I have with right wing libertarianism is that it has nothing to do with balance it would basically just hand power over to wealth.

Its main tenets all seem to favour wealth from the lowering or removal of taxes, through to deregulation and the lowering or removal of welfare on to its free market/laissez faire based economics and Social Darwinist based social outlook.

I ask you in what way do these ideas reduce the power of wealth?

 

Letlovin

LOL – Indie has claimed this many times and I’ll ask you the same question I ask him – produce the evidence - every time I ask him to do so he refuses – which is strange because I’m sure he would if he could, I mean what better way could there be to destroy the critics arguments than to refute them?

I mean you’ve already falsely claimed that a criticism had been refuted by a post that had done no such thing - so could you please actually produce your evidence rather than make unsubstantiated claims?

 

To many the problem in the US is that wealth has gained too much power and influence within the society. That wealth has used that power and influence to dominate the political system and therefore who gains political power and what policies are pursued by government. This has meant that in the last few years many neoliberal ideas have been pushed such as unregulation/deregulation and tax cuts that favour wealth and have increased its power and influence.

The right wing libertarians view seems to ignore the underlying problem (in influence of wealth) and instead to blame ‘government’ without seeming to realise that governments are the product of the political system and who dominates it.

Since right wing libertarians blame government they wish to punish government by reducing its power, claiming that this would reduce the power of those dominating society. Basically they wish to reduce the power of the one democratic element in the system by which the majority could have to reduce the power of the few.

And how to they punish democratic government? By pushing for even greater levels of such things as deregulation and tax cuts that favour wealth.

 

Wealth is power and always has been, so WTF are you talking about when you refer to taking power away from wealth? That isn't going to happen until you address the monetary system (which you refuse to do), which allows a small minority of people to print money out of nothing and amass ungodly amounts of power through that ability to create wealth out of nothing. That is the root of the problem you refuse to address.

The banking system owns the government you want to give more power to. Are you too dense to grasp that? The only way you take power away from wealth is by limiting the mechanisms of control by which government (which is controlled by the corporations) uses to manipulate and control society.

The only reason the corporations do (and get away with) what they do is BECAUSE (not in spite of) the government. The government funnels tons of taxpayer money to the corporations every year, but go figure, because the government is controlled by these same corporations and banks. We are dealing with ONE entity here that disguises itself as two, and you want to give more of your money and your rights over to them. Wow.

 

In the past few years, what deregulation has happened in the United States? I've asked you this before and you've used the same evasion tactics that you're accusing others of using.

In an earlier post you called someone out because they believed what they believed, and to them everything else was wrong. That is exactly what you're doing. You believe something works in a certain way, and anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong. You are a HYPOCRITE. I hold no respect for hypocrites. All you are doing here is bashing a group of people for having a different thought process than you.

 

Rat

Yes - but the charge levelled at right wing libertarianism is that it would give more power to wealth? A charge no right wing libertarian has been able to refute.

Can you even address this charge?

 

letlovin

Where did you ask me this before? Because I’m sorry I can’t seem to find it or my supposed ‘evasion tactics’ in response.

Also as I say it not just deregulation but un-regulation where something that should be regulated isn’t.

I’ll give an example of both that had a great impact on why the financial crisis occurred

Deregulation – The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act

Un-regulation – the blocking of regulation aimed at derivatives.

If you need me to explain either I’d be happy to do so.

 

Letlovin

Again you are making claims you are not backing up – which post are you talking about?

Again another accusation and assertion that is unsubstantiated, can you give an example of my supposed ‘crime’?

Thing is if something cannot be defended from criticism by the very people that support it are the probabilities in favour of it being wrong or right?

I’m of that quant old view that good ideas are more likely to be defendable whereas ideas that don’t seem to be are probably not that good.

LOL – what do you feel about people that use hyperbole to try and hide the fact they’re evading answering questions?

‘A different thought process’ – you think right wing libertarians think in a different way to other human beings?

All I’m pointing out here is that right wing libertarians seem totally unable to address the criticisms levelled at their ideas.

I mean I‘m sure I’m not the only one that’s noticed you haven’t – you’ve not addressed what I’ve brought up or answered the questions levelled at you.

You’ve ranted and thrown out a lot of accusation that so far you’ve been unable to substantiate, to me it looks like more right wing flimflam and evasion.

CAN YOU ADDRESS THE CRITICISMS OR NOT – and if not why are you promoting these ideas?

 

Balbie:

I have numerous times and in numerous ways. It boils down to a choice between freedom or force. I prefer the prior while you prefer the latter.

 

Indie

You have what? I mean if you are claiming you have addressed the many criticisms levelled at your views in a rational and reasonable way I’ll repeat - you never ever have been able to produce evidence of this.

Oh for pity sake Indie we have been through this many times. You are not opposed to government, or government cohesion you’re not an anarchist. The government you seem to envision would still enforce laws and impose taxes. You just seem to wish that this force is used to more to favour the interests of wealth rather than those of the majority. A criticism of your ideas that you still refuse to address.

 

Regarding post 528:


1. Refer to post 114

2. Refer to this entire thread. You claim libertarians wish to give power to corporations, and ask why they would want to do that. Several people claim that this is not true, and lay out reasons why they believe the idea works. You repeat question pretending that no one just answered it. This is how the entire thread has gone.

3. It annoys me. Hence why everyone is becoming frustrated trying to communicate with you.

4. A) you obviously do not have the same thought process as right wing libertarians.

B) comment is void. You're just not listening because you do not agree.

C,D,E) I could easily say all of those things about you and it would be just as valid.

I'm tired of running around this circle. It is useless

 

letlovin

Actually I say wealth; corporations are just one aspect of wealth.

Once again I’ll ask you for your evidence. I’ve asked twice now for you to produce evidence that right wing libertarians have addressed the criticisms in any rational and reasonable way - twice you’ve refused.

The rest of your reply seemed to be setting out excuses why you will not address the criticisms of right wing libertarianism.

 

Your criticisms have been addressed. If not by me then by someone else. I am not a right wing libertarian and don't agree with all of their policies so I don't feel a need to address every criticism that is thrown their way.

 

Letlovin

LOL - ok so you can’t produce any actual evidence that has been addressed (on the third time of asking) and you’re not going to do it yourself because you can’t be bothered or know little about the subject?

In what way is this meant to advance your argument?

 

I don't even know what the question is anymore. What evidence are you asking for?

 

Balbie:

If could pose the same complaints against you. You have presented a view from the Left which fails to convince me in any way that it would solve any problems, but would only increase the power of government to control the people as desired by those with wealth.

Talking about government, wealth is a source of power ONLY when it can be used as a means of controlling those who make the laws. A powerful central government is what we need to rid ourselves of as guaranteed by the 10th amendment, which as I've noted previously more than once, repealing the 16th and 17th amendments along with the eventual elimination of the Fed, and repayment of the National debt would allow the creation of a stong and stable currency and a path to prosperity for future generations. Either way, at my age, it matters little as none of this could be accomplished quickly, but the longer it is put off the more difficult it will be, and in the aftermath there will be but two classes, the rich and the poor. Government from the Left does little, actually nothing at all to reduce economic disparity between the wealthiest and the poorest, but only elevates the poor by bringing down the middle classes. Although you have much disdain for a free market system, it alone provides us with the route through failure or success to move from one economic class to another. The Left would like to remove many of the rungs from the middle and use government redistribution as the means to lift those from the bottom up a few rungs. That plays well emotionally, but is irrational, unreasonable, and results in a gradual decay of the society.
Certainly government should enforce the laws, but how many 10's and 100's of thousands of pages of laws should we need to add each year? Taxes are required to fund what the people have given their consent for government to do, and repealing the 16th amendment would be a step in returning us to a fair tax system.
As it would take a book to cover in detail what change is needed and why, I don't expect you or those who prefer government from the Left to do more than criticize so it only wastes time and energy to try and convince you and your fellow travelers, but maybe some of the younger more open minded voters and taxpayers might take a harder look at where 20th century government has brought us and try and make necessary changes for their own benefit and that of their offspring.

 

Balbie:

Take two individuals, one with an income of $50,000 a year and the other $250,000 a year. What additional benefits does government provide the higher earner over the lower earner?

 

Access to legislators, potentially large donations to influence same for tax loopholes/favorable legislation ,to name a few.

 

I am still gonna vote for him cause no matter what Balbus says he has not convinced me not to vote for him. i like his foreign olicy and his domestic policy, It could not be any worse than it is right now. I also think he could fix the health care bill and send the vampires back to their coffins.

If get gets anything on the sate for us that woud be great. I realize the powers that be don't want him in the office. The people do not want their personal power they like the government controling everything . I feel I still have the right to vote for him if I want to,

 

Indie

Thing is that I’m not trying to convince you, I’m just wondering why you are totally unable to address the criticisms levelled at your ideas – but continue to hold them.

LOL – do you know any history?

Ok one of the major themes of political thought has been about this relationship about the best means of balancing the powers and interests within a society to serve the best interests of everyone in it.

As explained you would seem to want to place the balance of power firmly in the hands of wealth by such measures as – the removal of taxes and low taxation – deregulation – the reduction of social programmes and welfare – Free market/laissez faire based economics and Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc. And again you seem unable or unwilling to address these problems with your ideas.

Can you back this opinion up with anything more than irrational prejudice?

Try reading – Utopia, no just Keynes

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

Again can you back this opinion up with anything more than irrational prejudice?

Try reading – Free Market = plutocratic tyranny

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

And once again can you back this opinion up with anything more than irrational prejudice?

My view stated many times and often at length is that a society should serve the interests of ALL those in it – to me a very key element is the so called ‘middle classes’, but as has been seen the type of neoliberal ideas held my right wing libertarians has in the last thirty odd year very badly squeezed that class to the advantaged of wealth, with the real term incomes of many middle class earners stagnating or falling.

Try reading

Try reading Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922

Again with the Social Darwinist based ‘emotional’ argument that hasn’t stood up to scrutiny the last few times you’ve used it.

Like here - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7127260&postcount=410

And here - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7131531&postcount=452

And here - http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7140787&postcount=508

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.

To repeat – It’s not about convincing me, I’m just wondering why you re totally unable to address the criticisms levelled at your ideas – but continue to promote them.

I hope they do and I hope they realise that an ideology that cannot even be defended from criticism by its own supporters, is more likely to be a con trick to try and bamboozle the gullible rather than something to follow.