Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Orison

Common mistake, you can’t see big ben because it is the bell that is hidden inside the Clock Tower of the Houses of Parliament.

 

The state level argument as I pointed out before is a misdirection another con game.

This is an ideology about governance it is not specific to the Federal level it goes on down to the State and local level.

It is a way of putting off arguments through misdirection as in - ‘oh that would be a state matter..’ - as if that is an end to it – but if a right wing libertarian had control in a State they would still try an implement the same ideological goals.

 

Rat

I replied to this several days ago (7th Oct) in another thread you didn’t reply –

Post 96
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=432054&f=342&page=10

 

I disagree on this. As it is we have to many things being handled at a federal level in which they have no authority being there. Drugs, Abortion and the like are a state level concern not a national concern. The president should have zero control over making laws to these things forced on every state regardless of his personal views.

The only things that where meant to be at the president level was national/international concerns.. Treaties and foreign relations ... The states had complete independence of each other until the snaked laws in enslaving them over to federal law, which should have never been allowed to be done in the first place.. Especially not at 100% like it is now.

The Republic was built so if one states economy failed, it would not have dragged down the rest of the country and could have been amended... As we are now everything being tied together you clearly see the result. This was also to limit one group from having complete power over the nation like it does now.

 

Istar


Sorry you misunderstand my point.

Right wing libertarianism is an ideology with a view on governance, be that national or regional government.

*

But let us look at your idea –

If one states economy failed, it would not dragged down the rest of the country

If one district/country’s economy failed, it would not drag down the rest of the state

If one city/town’s economy failed, it would not drag down the rest of the country.

If one block’s economy failed, it would not drag down the rest of the city

If one family’s economy failed, it would not drag down the rest of their neighbours

If an individual ‘fails’, through no fault of their own let them die from want.

As I’ve said there is a certain mentality behind such thinking, that I’ve meet before.

 

Actually Exactly, There was reasoning behind this being the function of the republic that the founders made.

The mentality that we have now is the exact opposite.. We have towns tied into the county, While counties are tied into the state.. The States are tied to the federal government ... We allowed Corporations tie into International domains.

We have the term "To Big to fail" which in a sense is right since they are integrated into multiple currency systems around the world effecting to much. Now we have governments around the world Crying for more control via a world bank. To control all monetary systems ...

It took hundreds of years however now people are finally seeing what the failures of this way are and why Washington, Jefferson and so on went after and condemned corporations and foreign merging with our economy.

We destroyed our control over our own system from having foreign entities telling us what value our money is. To also top it off, you have people coveting money as if its supposed to be hugely valuable.

The system is broken, Its point is to run society as a whole. If it means resetting the system to have everything running efficient again then so be it. Or a new system should be put in place.. and in this time of age that is actually what is needed. We have waste piling up everywhere in this world. Including continents of pure trash compiling in the oceans. We have outdated technology polluting and destroying the world even though there is already technological solutions to this already made.

The Money system is a failure and cannot fix anything due to profit/greed ideal that it upholds. Therefore its existence has out lasted its need to be used and should be dismissed, and a real economy needs to be established.

 

Istar

The problem is that some people seem to have been bamboozled into believing that right wing libertarians like Ron Paul are the answer rather than the problem.

The problem being that wealth has too much power and influence in US society and therefore its governance.

But right wing libertarian ideas would be more advantageous to wealth

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.

 

Ron Paul will be assassinated if he wins...Because he doesn't fit the agenda of the big "I"...

But yes I would probably vote for him if I actually voted...
Just feel like it's a big sham anyways...

 

The problem created by wealth is that the people who have all the wealth are the ones who influence the regulations which the government puts forth so that they end up being in their favor. Wealth is always going to have power, there's nothing to do about that, but if you don't regulate every aspect of the market you cut the ties between the wealthy business men and the government, leaving the market to regulate the market and the government to regulate the government. In a free market the people are the ones who decide whether or not a company succeeds based on whether or not they provide a useful service or product in a good, consistent, and kind manner. We should have the power to regulate businesses by providing their customer base or taking it away, but as it is, big businesses could care less whether or not they provide what the people want as long as they can maintain their ties with politicians and receive tax breaks and the like to keep themselves rich. Government regulation is not the solution to everything, you give them enough power and they'll become corrupt, it's an inevitability of the human condition. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Eatly

The idea that deregulation will stop wealth having an influence on governance is incredibly naïve and totally impractical in any real world sense, that is why there never has been and never will be a ‘free market’.

Read - Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/modules/News/showarticle.php?threadid=353336

 

Eatly

This is a neoliberal fantasy.

A study by the IRS in 2004 estimated that there were about 2.2 million people, that is around 1% of the adult population of the US, whose net worth was above $1.5 million and it was calculated that they owned around $3.3 trillion in stocks, or more than half of the $6 trillion in stock owned by households that year. And another study worked out that the top 10% lumped together owned in the region of 85% to 90% of all stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity.

‘People’ do not have the time, knowledge or inclination to make a decision on everything they buy. And actually they’d be hard pressed to find anything that didn’t support the rich.

In the real world it doesn’t matter if John Doe buys from the Acme Corporation or the Bcme Company it is likely that wealth still gets its cut. Well you might say that people should shop only with small businesses - but they are usually in hock to the banks and…well you guessed it, that means once again wealth gets a slice.

 

Eatly

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely”

The quote is attributed to John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, a rich and powerful nobleman (knight and later a Baron) who was a supporter of the Confederacy (and presumably the slave system) in the American civil war.

Here is his assessment of the US constitution “Far from being the product of a democratic revolution and of an opposition to English institutions, the constitution of the United States was the result of a powerful reaction against democracy, and in favor of the traditions of the mother country” The English mother country being a place where in his time only a few had the vote and the wealthy ruling classes were firmly in control.

The thing is that if someone has power they may wish to preserve it, a member of a ruling class may fear something that might limit its power such as a more powerful person or a more powerful group. So they can misdirect people from their own power by warning of the absolute power of say a tyranny of one or of the many.

In a society there are competing interests and powers, in a monetary based system power 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.

The problem here is that the right wing libertarianism that you seem to be supporting only results in giving greater power and influence to wealth.

 

To repeat why do right wing libertarians want to hand even more power and influence to wealth when the problem with the US political system seems to be that wealth has gain too much power and influence already?

 

Individuals have more chance of getting rich if the initial start up can be done on a shoe string.

 

To address the topic of the thread-the poll doesn't matter ,because he won't get the nomination. I think it will go to that grown-up Ken doll,Romney.

 

lol

That is exactly what he looks like. Or a used car salesman.

 

Yeah--he's slicker 'n owl shit.

 

Can we see a picture of owl shit? I'd like to compare it to Romney.

 

None of those that beat the drum for right wing libertarianism or any other neoliberal ideology seem able to square the circle.

Seeing that the problems with the US’s political system are seem due to wealth having too much power and influence why do they want to give more power and influence to wealth?

 

I get to vote or the first time this year and it will deinitely be for Ron Paul. He seems to be the only candidate not totally fake and not talking totally out his ass. He can't possibly be more of a puppet than our current! I used to buy into modern politics but its a bunch of BS. The Pauls are the only ones I really respect anymore.

Rat, I agree with almost everything you say. Our monetary system is the biggest problem we face.

Ron Paul isn't neoliberal, he is pro freedom. If you can't agree with pro freedom than I suppose you'll never be happy. What is so wrong with being able to do what you want with your life as long as you're not hurting anyone else or their property?