Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

Interesting that you use the words ‘belong to’ as in ownership I don’t think in terms of ‘owning’ a society but of being a member of it, of being one of its custodians, and wishing to protect and nurture it.

I presume you mean a society as in the sense of a community of people and in my view a community should work together in the best interests of ALL those that are a part of the community and in that communities best interests.

For that reason I oppose those like yourself that seem to want to give control and ownership of society to just a few so that they can run it only in their own self interests.

 

Indie

Are you thinking about "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money”

AGAIN – the same problem in that you seem to think that any political view to the left of your rather extreme form of right wing libertarianism is socialism. It seems to pop into your head whenever you talk about those on the left for you they seem interchangeable

It seems part of your programmed response and reveals your conditioning so that you seem to think that anything that varies from free market, Social Darwinist based ideas is ‘socialism’.

We’ve been through this before I refer you to Post 149 of the thread - What to do in the mad, mad world?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=425761&page=15

Anyway I’m economically a Keynesian and in discussion on the merits of your ideas and Keynesian ones you still have not addressed the criticisms of your ideas refusing to do so and only replying that you are a Free Marketeer (post 236 etc - Effort and Luck thread) which wasn't exactly a satisfactory reply

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

 

Indie

Problem is that you don’t seem to have anything to convince with beyond hollow rhetoric and slogans – I mean you still have not given any rational or reasonable answers to the many criticisms of your ideas.

Again this is a con, you still seem unable to address the charge that you would actually give more power and influence to a few at the expense of the many.

 

Indie

And again we’ve been through this and once again you were not able to address the criticisms of your views.

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

 

DrKlunk

Yes you’ve already said that in post 291 only 10 days ago – but again you still seem unable to address the many criticisms of right wing libertarianism and the charge that it would actually make most Americans life worse

 

Balbie:

Due to the fact that I recognize that nothing short of agreeing with you would satisfy you, I see no need to further attempt to satisfy your fallacious arguments.

Well, how would you define a community? And how would you defend that "I" would give control and ownership of society to but a few, when it is you not "I" who promotes greater central government? I, and Ron Paul, on the other hand are strong proponents of the 10th amendment, which along with the eventual demise of the Fed, creation of a currency which itself has value, repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments would begin to empower the people over the government, both State and more importantly the Federal.

Yes, you cannot disassociate the Left from Socialism. Call it what you like, Communism, Marxism, Socialism, Progressiveism, Social Democracy, Social Liberalism, the view from the Left exploit the emotions in an attempt to prevail over true rational reasoning based on the facts, with little regard for the undesirable consequences produced, most often by putting them off for a future generation to contend with. Just look at the debt held by the worlds "richest" nations.

Don't give me links to past posts while wasting words irrelevantly when you can instead simply post what it is you wish to make a point of, clearly and concisely.

I do not subscribe to Keynesian economics at all. Sorry.

 

This is true. His/her mind has been made up long before this thread was even created and there is absolutely no point in arguing with somebody that refuses to see other points of view. Even he/she said "to my total satisfaction". I find it somewhat disconcerting that this person is even a moderator as I have been a site founder and moderator on other boards and there is/should be a level of conduct that moderators should be held to, but that's just my opinion, as I've sought out individuals who are open minded, even tempered, and fair when choosing my moderators. What others do is their own business I suppose. Arguing with this person is circular.

 

Indie

LOL – yep that’s another trick you’ve used in numerous threads to evade actually addressing the many outstanding criticisms of your views.

As I’ve told you many times I don’t care if you agree with me or not I’m just trying to find out if you can defend your views in any rational or reasonable way – so far you have been unable to do so.

And if my arguments are so fallacious shouldn’t they be easy to counter rather than having to evade all the time?

I and others have explained numerous times and often in detail how your ideas seem likely to increase the power and influence of the few over the many, criticisms you seem unwilling or unable to address let alone refute.

 

Indie

I’ve tried clearly and concisely, I’ve tried long and detailed, I’ve tried writing while hopping on one leg but it doesn’t seem to matter how I do it or how many times I do it – you just refuse to address any of the criticisms of your ideas and instead just as you are evading now.

To repeat what I said last time you said this - I know you are an advocate of the ‘free market’ but as pointed out before you don’t seem able to defend it from criticism.

This is the problem with you statement about having responded to all criticisms to your total satisfaction, it’s basically a con.

 

Indie

We have been through this before and from what I can tell (you often refusing to explain or answer questions) this is based in your Social Darwinist thinking – the key line is –

You seem to think the desire of left wingers to help people is based on irrational emotion – whereas “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.

I mean you have already said you support a “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.

 

Dave

Yes I looked at right wing libertarianism with an open mind, did a lot of reading and research on the subject and at the beginning gave it and its supporters a fair hearing and over time I formed an opinion on it – that it’s deeply flawed and probably dangerous.

The sorry thing is that many of its critics seem to understand it a lot better than its supporters and that’s why the supporters seem totally unable to address the many criticisms levelled at their pet ideology.

I see the other point of view I just don’t agree with it or understand why someone would hold onto views that they are unable to defend from criticism.

It wouldn’t be so circular if the right wing libertarians debated honestly and openly rather than being evasive and obtuse.

I mean can you defend right wing libertarianism from the many criticisms levelled at it?

 

Balbie:

Yes, I am an advocate of the free market system, which does not mean that I would like ALL government regulations to be eliminated, but when they number hundreds of thousands of pages already with constant additions, who? but the largest and most monetized companies can create, compete or even remain in business?

Minimal, clearly written unbiased regulations understandable without need for legal interpretative expertise, along with a freely competitive market system based on supply and demand, allowing failures and/or successes to occur naturally, with profits or losses borne only by the investors and employees is what I consider to be most rational and reasonable. Governments responsibility should only be in the creation and enforcement of the rules and regulations pertaining to doing business. Afterwards it should bear no responsibility in bailing out or subsidizing anything with taxpayer funding.

Curious, but why would you bother to even participate in a thread that asks the question "Would you vote for Ron Paul" when you aren't even an American citizen, and he will have no voice in your Parliment? I believe it was Great Britain we fought a war with in order to gain our freedom in the first place. Are you still holding a grudge?

 

Well, if Ron Paul's so terrible, then who should we vote for? Rick Perry's dropped out (yay!) so has John Huntsman (no big loss) and Newt's second wife here exposes what a total hypocrite he is and was on this whole 'family values' issue-he dumped his first two wives when he found out they were sick, and he was cheating for years on his second wife with this plastic-loooking Barbie doll that he's married to now-so, enlighten us, anti-Ron Paulers-who should we vote for? Who's gonna save America?

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-gin...er-president-ex-wife-135852543--abc-news.html

 

Nobody......

 

A vote for Steve Colbert is a vote for America :2thumbsup:

 

Who the hell is Steve Colbert?

 

I think that was supposed to be a joke but I could be wrong. But anyway the sad reality is that the only ones left to save America are us, Americans. But the good news is that people are waking up and right and left are starting to put their feet down and taking actions that hopefully will bring about the massive amount of reforms and changes needed to save our country. So really vote for whoever you want, I really do not see any GOP nominee being able to oust Obama so if your voting GOP your vote will probably be more of a statement than anything.

 

Why should I choose to defend it? As a "conservative" who leans toward Libertarianism I still see the need for government. I however, do not see the need for corrupt corporatocracy which we have today in America. Thusly, instead of simply accepting it, I choose to change it. I suppose I could ask those of you who see the need for the FDA, USDA, EPA, DOE ad nauseum and ask "Why do you accept the level of corruption taking place today within these organizations?" By accepting it, you perpetuate the problem, do you not? You all say "Yeah, I know they're corrupt but we need them.". I take that to mean..."I accept a corrupt government and choose not to do anything about it."

 

Well, you are certainly more optimistic than I my friend. I hear many people speak about choosing Gingrich. This despite has stance on drug policy. His answer to the drug war is to send users off to state run rehabs and execute drug dealers. He stated this on Fox News (I have the youtube if you'd like). He came out publicly stating that he's OK with "firing" judges who might not see things "his way".

The man is scary. At least Romney would be nothing more than 4 more years of Obama and that's bad enough.

 

:iagree: Excellent post!