Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

So where do you address the many criticisms of your views, not here.

I mean I know your views already I think everyone who’s been in one of your threads knows your views by now, but just repeating them over and over does not address the many criticisms of them that you refuse to address.

That is the big problem with right wing libertarianism, on the evidence of its supporters, it cannot be defended from criticism, as an ideology it is a dead end, it’s useless, it’s dumb, it’s stupid, ridiculous and it’s potentially dangerous.

Now please Indie go and prove me wrong and stop evading and actually address your critics in a rational and reasonable way rather than just telling us we are all wrong and you are right.

 

Balbie:

What is it I need to address? I value freedom to pursue my wants and needs, and the freedom to provide aid or assistance to whomever I please based upon my observations and knowledge of facts, which allows me to determine if or when such aid or assistance should be withheld. Left wing government plays on emotions with little regard for the consequences of ignoring facts and costs of what it promotes. Hence, we and most of the developed world have become indebted beyond our capacity to repay as a result. Good government is the goal, and it should be obvious that cost, waste, corruption, redundancy and inefficiency can be more easily controlled by reducing government to no more than what is necessary.
If you can't understand that, accept my sympathy. As to being right or wrong, I have no complaints of your form of government applied to a group of people who support it, but you promote it as necessary to impose upon a nation where not all willing subscribe, and as such would eliminate their ability to choose. That is what our Constitution went to great length, when interpreted accurately, to avoid happening.
Ron Paul has my full support, although there may be a few things I may differ with, basically he would try to bring about the changes needed in a way that would not be imposed upon the people but instead through their acceptance.

 

I've only read through 5 pages so far, but I wanted to quote this before I forgot where it's at. It's very well said, and I thank you for trying to clear things up. So far in the 5 pages, I've read Balbus asking the same question over and over, completely oblivious to the fact that it's been answered several times. Repetitively claiming that Ron Paul and all Libertarians want to give the wealth and influence to the rich, ignoring posts like the one above and those by Pressed Rat that explain how that's not the case. I look forward to reading more, and will try to add input as I do so.

And yes, I will be voting for Ron Paul. I also voted for his son Rand

 

+1
thank you

 

Letlovin

LOL so letlovin didn’t you read my replies to that post or what? I mean to imply I’ve not addressed these things seems disingenuous at best and at worse a lie.If you want me to cover anything else I’ll be happy to do so.

Eatly – post 90

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 – post 91

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 – post 92

“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.
__________________

 

Indie

Well like all the criticisms of your ideas. I mean again you repeat your views but we know your views what we’d like to know is can you defend them from criticisms and so far the answer has be a categorical NO.

 

Indie

This is the same self serving argument mentioned before about the deserving and undeserving – The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help. So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed out many times this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward by right wingers that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they probably don’t deserve assistance.

I mean you have made it very clear that you base your views on Social Darwinist ideas and the belief that each individual is responsible for their position, so it is no wonder you’d like to remove benefits from the many and give rewards to the few.

 

Indie

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 your view 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

As explained to you and something else you refuse to address the main problem has been the financial crash caused by neoliberal policies that you basically support.

But the main problem at the moment with the political system is that wealth seems to have too much power and influence the problem I and other have pointed out about your ideas is that they would give wealth even more power and influence a charge you are unable to refute.

It’s not your sympathy I’m looking for and its not your constant evasion either – what I and others would like is know is can you defend your ideas from criticism so far the answer is NO.

You mean interpreted the way you’d like to interpret it given your preconceived prejudices and bias.

You support ideas that you seem totally and utterly incapable of defending - again why?

 

Ok letlovin try post 286

The problem is that right wing libertarians push the theory and dismiss the reality. For example the theory is that the ‘competition’ of a ‘pure free market’ would undermine established wealth’s power and influence. The problem is that the move toward this supposed ‘pure’ market only gives more power to wealth. This is the lesson of the last thirty odd years of the ‘neoliberal’ push for a more ‘free market’ society.

 

letlovin or post 310

There is no magic spell that can instantly bring in a ‘perfect’ free market, and stepping toward it as has been done in many places over the last 30 odd years or so has just increased the power and influence of wealth wherever it was tried.

More movement in that direction rather than diminish that power and influence is much more likely to just increase it, up to the point were you have a plutocratic system with wealth even more firmly in control. That is why a free market has NEVER existed and NEVER will exist.

The theory ignores the existing power and influence of wealth and seems to believe (against all contrary evidence) that such wealth will not try and use that power and influence to try and mould the system in their favour. That is what power and influence has done throughout history so why do right wing libertarians ignore that fact, probably because they have to because otherwise their ideas are just not credible.

 

Balbie:

I think you've made it quite clear that you would not vote for Ron Paul, or anyone who is right of center, and go to great length to put a left spin on everything posted by those who do not agree with you. Ron Paul, and his Libertarian Constitutional views are just what the U.S. needs to save the U.S. both socially and economically if todays youth are to have any future at all. "You don't get out of a hole by digging it deeper. Some of your posts are so out of touch with reality that it would become a full time job trying to re-educate you so that's likely the reason most don't make a great effort in trying.

 

LOL

Again you repeat your views but we know your views what we’d like to know is can you defend them from criticisms and so far the answer has be a categorical NO.

And still is NO.

*

I and many others have given our criticisms of Ron Paul and right wing libertarian views that seem to show that they would be very bad for most Americans while rewarding a few greatly - charges that you seem unable to refute – why not?

*

I agree and as pointed out right wing libertarianism is basically just neoliberalism on steroids and 30 odd years of neoliberalism has vastly increased the riches, power and influence of wealth while the real term incomes of the middle and lower classes have either stagnated or fallen. Criticisms that you refuse to address.

*

LOL – if they are so out of touch with reality shouldn’t they be easy to counter, why is it then that all you ever do is evade or make excuses why you can’t answer?

If you could you would, what better way to humiliate me and my views than by destroying my criticisms and grinding them into the dirt in front of me before dancing a jig on top of the heap.

The fact that you never do speaks volumes about just how bad your ideas really are as I’ve said as an ideology it is a dead end, it’s useless, it’s dumb, it’s stupid, ridiculous and it’s potentially dangerous.

Now please Indie go on, prove me wrong, stop evading and making excuses and actually address your critics in a rational and reasonable way, but if you can’t why are you pushing these worthless ideas?

 

I am an anarchist/voluntaryist, I do not vote...

However I did hold a sign because I think Ron Paul is like the "gateway drug" to voluntaryism!! If he does not win, people are going to get mad... I voted until I campaigned for RP in the last election, after he lost I was sad, I focused that sadness into educating myself more about government.


What is the difference between a Ron Paul supporter and an anarchist?

About two years!





However if I HAVE to vote for someone, it will be for VERMIN SUPREME! Check him out, free ponies for everyone.

 

Balbie:

You remind me of an employee I had years ago who had a knack for disappearing when there was work to be done, but made a point of telling me several times a day, "You owe me." Since the company was unionized it was difficult, but I eventually got rid of her.
Until you put aside your contempt for those who have accumulated wealth lawfully, there's nothing I could say which you would find acceptable.

 

Ok, is there a way to delete my posts from this thread so it doesnt keep popping up in my post history?
Sorry, just sick of thinking a twist in the same old Washington reach-around two step will solve anything is all.

 

Balbus,

You keep saying Paul's ideas will not work because it hasn't worked over the past 30 years. When in the past 3 decades has there ever been a politician that has shared Paul's ideas in the white house? I can't think of one.

The corporations are greedy and unethical, right? Yes.
The corporations own the government, right? Yes.
Giving the government more power is a good idea, right? NO!

Giving the federal government full control is giving the corporations full control.

 

How has indie not defended his views? He/she has gone to great lengths to try and explain them to you, but you will not listen to a word of it because it's not what you believe. You're being a hypocrite.

 

I think you summed it up as clearly and concisely as possible in just the last sentence.

 

Indie

LOL – oh and are you ever going to address the criticisms or just throw out such useless and hollow homilies?