Ron Paul

[Machjo]

You can do that now without any government action. Pleass write a check today! With you own money, of course.

I won't write a check today, but I did two weeks ago, as I regularly do.

That said, I don't see how you fail to see the relationship between government spending and personal spending power. Clearly increased government spending, at least when it is ill-managed which is the usual case, regardless of whether it's from the right or the left, contributes to government debt, inflation and higher interest rates, all of which bite into our incomes. Cut back on government spending, and though there would be no guarantee that I'd give even more than I do now, at least it would put an end to inflation and high interest rates, thus raising the value of the money I give. And who knows, maybe I would give even more if taxes dropped.

Again, I'm opposed to socialism too, but it's still the next best thing after libertarianism as opposed to neo-conservatism.

More of an investment in what?

When spent wisely, it can go towards education and job training for the unemployed to help them back to work... in the private sector so as to make them temporarily dependent. With military spending, they make it a career to be supported by taxes.

Most government social program expenditures do not go to "poor people"

Agreed. Even when a socialist government is in power, much of the money goes to waste and bureaucracy.

...nor should they.

Partially agreed. I agree in principle, but if it comes down to a choice between that money going towards fighting wasteful wars abroad and retraining the unemployed at home, then I'd still want it invested, not wasted.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Machjo

[Machjo]

Overall I like Ron Paul and his platform. He does have some wisdom in him. And he represents the old school Republican thinking. Not what you would call republicans of today.

The one thing is he is consistent in his words and actions. Can't say that about 90% of the politicians out there.

That is what I like about him overall. Agree with him or not, he is quite consistent. Cut help to the poor... along with help to the rich. Levels the playing field.

[GostHacked]

That is what I like about him overall. Agree with him or not, he is quite consistent. Cut help to the poor... along with help to the rich. Levels the playing field.

This is one major problem with most politicians, when the pressure mounts they change their tunes and views. usually when they do it's to benefit them because someone greased their palms. Paul does not, he sticks with what he thinks and keeps at it. I don't agree with everything he says, but if we got this kind of consistency out of every other politician out there, we'd have a government that has more integrity and people would have more faith it the government and the system it's trying to uphold.

[bush_cheney2004]

I won't write a check today, but I did two weeks ago, as I regularly do.

Good....then we can agree that the concept can be decoupled from government. I do not claim or worry about the tax deduction.

That said, I don't see how you fail to see the relationship between government spending and personal spending power. Clearly increased government spending, at least when it is ill-managed which is the usual case, regardless of whether it's from the right or the left, contributes to government debt, inflation and higher interest rates, all of which bite into our incomes.

If you check today, you will find that many interest rates are at historic lows. Inflation is not a concern yet. My income is directly proportional to my efforts...not government debt.

Cut back on government spending, and though there would be no guarantee that I'd give even more than I do now, at least it would put an end to inflation and high interest rates, thus raising the value of the money I give. And who knows, maybe I would give even more if taxes dropped.

Again...these concepts are decoupled. Your personal actions do not necessarily project to others' actions or priorities (e.g. "helping poor people").

Again, I'm opposed to socialism too, but it's still the next best thing after libertarianism as opposed to neo-conservatism.

You wouldn't like libertarianism either.

When spent wisely, it can go towards education and job training for the unemployed to help them back to work... in the private sector so as to make them temporarily dependent. With military spending, they make it a career to be supported by taxes.

Government employees also have fine careers with very expensive entitlements and retirement programs....at the federal, state/provincial, and local levels.

Agreed. Even when a socialist government is in power, much of the money goes to waste and bureaucracy.

Better that than financing a permanent underclass.

Partially agreed. I agree in principle, but if it comes down to a choice between that money going towards fighting wasteful wars abroad and retraining the unemployed at home, then I'd still want it invested, not wasted.

It's not wasted any more than other domestic spending. Most of the contract dollars come right back home.

[Pliny]

Libertarianism, such as the kind Paul preaches, is garbage. No "small government conservative" has ever lived up to their title. Either because they lied to get elected or because once they actually get into government and run an administration, realize that government is a lot more complicated than they thought it was and a lot of spending is indeed necessary.

In truth Libertarianism is closer to classical liberalism than small government conservatism. It is just that socialist ideology has pushed Libertarianism out of modern Liberalism altogether.

Classical Liberalism

Def: A political belief in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the state. In its economic form, it advocates a respect for private property and free markets.

Small government conservatism is, in my view, a bit of an oxymoron. Conservatism has always been about maintaining a status quo and small government has not been in recent history the status quo of any country except for the origination of the United States. American conservatism, is today more aligned with Libertarianism now as it wishes a return to a more Constitutional era of limited government. American Conservatism correctly fits the definition of conservatism as it is "reactionary" whereas Libertarianism has always been more related to classical liberalism as defined above and has never altered in definition but has rather shifted on the political spectrum to escape the progressivism of social democracy. Conservatives today are dropping the "progressive" label and ties to progressive ideology linked to the growing state and socialism.

The thread mentions "cutting spending" a lot as being the big lie that Conservatives have been telling and that while they promise cutting spending to get elected they never do. It has proven very difficult for democratic governments to cut spending. Even worthless programs are fought tooth and nail to maintain. So the opposition to cutting spending comes when the actual cuts have to be made. No one is willing to accept cuts to their programs and it winds up that cutting spending in a democracy is just too unpopular because the programs of the right and the left and in between are just too important, cutting jobs or wages is not popular either. In other words if spending were cut as it should be and as is necessary then there would be rioting in the streets, and no governing party wishes to be responsible for that. Greece is the example of what must occur in order to effectively cut spending and time will tell if even it has achieved that effectively or not, I'm of the opinion it hasn't.

So really, nicky your love affair with the Turdeau era and all things of the State is really all you have ever looked at. I would think a Poli Sci major would have a broader understanding. You once advised me to read a book. You should actually read something that hasn't been assigned for you. People disagree with state socialism for a reason and I think the basic reason is we are, as individuals, supposed to be looking after each other but don't feel the urge to do so when the State is lazily and irresponsibly assigned the task.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Pliny

[nicky10013]

In truth Libertarianism is closer to classical liberalism than small government conservatism. It is just that socialist ideology has pushed Libertarianism out of modern Liberalism altogether.

Classical Liberalism

Socialist ideology? What would be your definition of socialist ideology.

A proper one would be below. Furthermore, for you to relate modern Liberalism to this is nothing more than a smear.

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a free association of workers to directly maximize use-values (instead of indirectly producing use-value through maximizing exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the means of production. Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind; at least for the factors of production.

Small government conservatism is, in my view, a bit of an oxymoron. Conservatism has always been about maintaining a status quo and small government has not been in recent history the status quo of any country except for the origination of the United States. American conservatism, is today more aligned with Libertarianism now as it wishes a return to a more Constitutional era of limited government. American Conservatism correctly fits the definition of conservatism as it is "reactionary" whereas Libertarianism has always been more related to classical liberalism as defined above and has never altered in definition but has rather shifted on the political spectrum to escape the progressivism of social democracy. Conservatives today are dropping the "progressive" label and ties to progressive ideology linked to the growing state and socialism.

A constitutional era of limited government doesn't mean small government. The two aren't synonymous. Going back to what the founding fathers wanted (in terms of US politics) historically would absolutely shock people who want to return to a "constitutional era." As for libertarianism and classical liberalism, there's a reason it evolved 100 years ago. The biggest reason why classical liberalism became modern liberalism was universal suffrage. People were given more power and they didn't turn to socialism. They merely outlawed things like child labour and the 18 hour workday. Bloody communists. Besides "freer markes" and less regulation, tell me, what would be the classical liberal platform in a modern nation?

The thread mentions "cutting spending" a lot as being the big lie that Conservatives have been telling and that while they promise cutting spending to get elected they never do. It has proven very difficult for democratic governments to cut spending. Even worthless programs are fought tooth and nail to maintain. So the opposition to cutting spending comes when the actual cuts have to be made. No one is willing to accept cuts to their programs and it winds up that cutting spending in a democracy is just too unpopular because the programs of the right and the left and in between are just too important, cutting jobs or wages is not popular either. In other words if spending were cut as it should be and as is necessary then there would be rioting in the streets, and no governing party wishes to be responsible for that. Greece is the example of what must occur in order to effectively cut spending and time will tell if even it has achieved that effectively or not, I'm of the opinion it hasn't.

Ah, so conservative parties in the US and here don't have the wherewithall to actually do anything about it? What's the point of voting for them? If government waste is to be combated, but we can't cut spending, shouldn't you vote for a party that spends money but spends it responsibly? As far as I'm aware, the only party in Canada to eliminate deficits and reduce debt in the last 30 years was the Liberals under Chretien. Same thing in the US with Clinton.

So really, nicky your love affair with the Turdeau era and all things of the State is really all you have ever looked at. I would think a Poli Sci major would have a broader understanding. You once advised me to read a book. You should actually read something that hasn't been assigned for you. People disagree with state socialism for a reason and I think the basic reason is we are, as individuals, supposed to be looking after each other but don't feel the urge to do so when the State is lazily and irresponsibly assigned the task.

Again, what's your definition of state socialism? Being in favour of some government spending obviously in your books is certainly tantamount to being a socialist. Or, is it anyone with whom you disagree?

[dre]

Ron Paul is a compelling character and I find him to be a real easy guy to like. And hes the only politician in US history with intelligent, reasonable and sustainable views on foreign policy. So theres 2 big points in favor of the guy.

After that though theres not much else I can get on board with. His domestic adgenda is extreme... almost bordering on minarchist, and his rants about returning to the gold standard make me doubt everything else he says about economics.

[punked]

You're a pathetic liar. It's a fact that spending was cut. It's why Newsweek had a cover called "How The Gingrich Stole Christmas."

PIC

Yes Shady Newt stole Christmas when he wasn't even speaker that makes perfect sense. You know he didn't become speaker until after the lame duck sitting right? A cover from Dec 94 BEFORE Newt was even speaker he cut spending. That makes sense in Crazy Shady world but not in the real world. Fact is Newt didn't cut anything. There was a lot of talk but Bill told him how it was and that was how it was. For the screaming republicans do in the end all you are doing is rewriting history.

[maple_leafs182]

Ron Paul would end all the wars and bring home all the troops from the hundreds of American military bases around the world.

He would end The CIA, the Federal Reserve and all of the departments(Homeland Security, Education, etc...).

Ron Paul would abolish the income tax, he stated in an interview on Jay Leno that the country would have the same revenue as it did in 2000 if the income tax was eliminated today.

Ron Paul would end the war on drugs and leave drug laws up to the States. He would also decriminalize prostitution at the federal level.

The whole tea party movement started as a result of his 2008 campaign for GOP presidential nominee. Doug Wead, a Presidential historian, former special assistant to George H. W. Bush stated "Thomas Jefferson does live, he is Ron Paul".

his rants about returning to the gold standard make me doubt everything else he says about economics.

He does believe in the gold standard, he hates paper money because of the inflation and deflation that is associated with it. All paper money is, is debt created out of thin air. He also doesn't like how the Federal Reserve manipulates markets and keeps certain information secret from congress.

Great speeches by Ron Paul

[bush_cheney2004]

Ron Paul would....

Ron Paul would be unable to accomplish any of your proposed changes. Dream on....

[maple_leafs182]

Ron Paul would be unable to accomplish any of your proposed changes. Dream on....

If he got elected? I think he would push towards those changes, in the end it would be up to congress.

I don't think the powers that be want Ron Paul to get elected. Ron Paul would of let all the too big too fails fail, he wants to end the Federals Reserves monopoly, he doesn't have support from big banks or big corporations.

What values of his do you disagree with.

Personally I would love to see a Ron Paul as President and Jesse Ventura as Vise President.

[Pliny]

Socialist ideology? What would be your definition of socialist ideology.

A proper one would be below. Furthermore, for you to relate modern Liberalism to this is nothing more than a smear.

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.

In a socialist economic system, production is carried out by a free association of workers to directly maximize use-values (instead of indirectly producing use-value through maximizing exchange-values), through coordinated planning of investment decisions, distribution of surplus, and the means of production. Socialism is a set of social and economic arrangements based on a post-monetary system of calculation, such as labour time, energy units or calculation-in-kind; at least for the factors of production.

This definition fits the totalitarian socialist state just fine.

Believe it or not, you can take some of the ideas of socialist ideology and incorporate them into other forms of government and get things like social democracies.

A constitutional era of limited government doesn't mean small government. The two aren't synonymous. Going back to what the founding fathers wanted (in terms of US politics) historically would absolutely shock people who want to return to a "constitutional era." As for libertarianism and classical liberalism, there's a reason it evolved 100 years ago. The biggest reason why classical liberalism became modern liberalism was universal suffrage. People were given more power and they didn't turn to socialism. They merely outlawed things like child labour and the 18 hour workday. Bloody communists. Besides "freer markes" and less regulation, tell me, what would be the classical liberal platform in a modern nation?

I can see how classical liberalism morphed into Modern liberalism. It progressively adopted and incorporated social engineering from socialist ideology. Classical liberalism bears no resemblance to modern liberalism. The definition of classical liberalism was in my last post and it was about limited government and a free market.

Outlawing child labour and the 18 hour workday was a result of increased productivity and wealth. It could not have happened any other way. Because government made laws does not mean those laws caused enough economic productivity to be able to have people work less and eliminate child labour. It could only have happened if had been economically feasible.

Just as we today get shorter and shorter work weeks. Are we going to say in a hundred years that government made laws that we only have to work four hours a day? Just think how awful it must have been for those greedy capitalists to have made people work 8 hours a day.

Ah, so conservative parties in the US and here don't have the wherewithall to actually do anything about it? What's the point of voting for them?

Exactly, we need some hope and change.

If government waste is to be combated, but we can't cut spending, shouldn't you vote for a party that spends money but spends it responsibly? As far as I'm aware, the only party in Canada to eliminate deficits and reduce debt in the last 30 years was the Liberals under Chretien. Same thing in the US with Clinton.

The Liberals do not spend responsibly. Turdeau racked up the deficit above and beyond anyone else. Chretien was riddled with scandal while he choked the provinces to make himself look like a fiscal hero. But we've covered that ground before.

Clinton couldn't spend too much after 1994 and Hilary was not pushing her health care.

Take a look at the spending when the Democrats took over congress and the Senate. Granted Bush could have vetoed all that spending but he didn't. The fiscal policy pushed by Pelosi, Dodd, Frank and Reid would put any Republican to shame. The CRA was the enabling social policy and Fannie and Freddie made it all possible.

Of course the alternate theory is that Wall Street was to blame and needed more regulation.

Again, what's your definition of state socialism? Being in favour of some government spending obviously in your books is certainly tantamount to being a socialist. Or, is it anyone with whom you disagree?

Your definition is just fine. Being in favour of a lot of government spending and big government in general is what I would disagree with.

As I learned in high school socialism is an evolutionary means of achieving the totalitarian socialist state. According to your definition socialism only exists in the totalitarian sense and there is no description of how it gets there. Basically, it gets there through progressivism.

[August1991]

But .... but .... a Republican with brains! Seriously, I'm still in shock. Can it be only a matter of time before there's a conservative in Canada with brains?!

A Republican with brains?

Surely you mean an American with brains... (Let's be honest. You Americans are so stupid. Heck, most of you think New Mexico is in Mexico!)

-----

Machjo reminds me of the small road signs urging me to vote for Ron Paul that I saw driving through Georgia and Virginia, or maybe it was North Carolina. The signs were about 1 m by 30 cm in size, stuck in the ground every 20 metres or so, around intersections. Who put these signs there, I wondered? Do they have the right to pollute this way?

I realized that a few fanatics in America can put a lot of political signs wherever they want. It means nothing.

Machjo is someone who puts signs on a roadway, pollutes the environment, and thinks that he is making a difference. He is like an urban bomber. It's graffiti.

Ron Paul? He's a one trick pony. You gotta love America.

[ToadBrother]

Ron Paul is absolutely amazing. Heck, he puts Democrats to shame, let alone Republicans.

I'd come across Ron Paul's ideas a long time ago. but I have to say that though I usually vote left, Ron Paul is one Republican I'd seriously consider voting for if he were running in Canada.

Amazing, honest politician who doesn't succumb to stupid rhetoric. Truly a politician with brains in his head.

And a complete lunatic to boot.

[Machjo]

And a complete lunatic to boot.

I'll admit that Ron Paul does go too far towards libertarianism for my taste. However, I guess part of the attraction is that he could serve as a valuable counterbalance to big government politicians.

I'll also say that for all his flaws, he does come across as more honest than many other politicians. Like him or not, at least you know where he stands.

[Michael Hardner]

I'll also say that for all his flaws, he does come across as more honest than many other politicians. Like him or not, at least you know where he stands.

You appear to know where he stands, but you don't actually know. He has been known to accompany racists (see the debacle with his newsleter) and 9/11 truthers. He has ridden the wave of new media into the public consciousness, while traditional media keeps mavericks like him on the sidelines.

There was another politician in 1930s Germany who used new media (at that time, radio) to go directly to the people for support.

[ToadBrother]

I'll admit that Ron Paul does go too far towards libertarianism for my taste. However, I guess part of the attraction is that he could serve as a valuable counterbalance to big government politicians.

He's like all Libertarians, the useful idiots of Conservatism.

I'll also say that for all his flaws, he does come across as more honest than many other politicians. Like him or not, at least you know where he stands.

Well yes, he's a honest lunatic. It's better than finding out after the fact that he has virtually no ties to reality.

[maple_leafs182]

He's like all Libertarians, the useful idiots of Conservatism.

Well yes, he's a honest lunatic. It's better than finding out after the fact that he has virtually no ties to reality.

Why do you constantly call him a lunatic. You should be attacking his ideas not his person.

What is so crazy about wanting to end the war on terrorism, the war on drugs and shrink government.

Who do you consider to be a noble candidate for president.

[Guest American Woman]

But .... but .... a Republican with brains! Seriously, I'm still in shock. Can it be only a matter of time before there's a conservative in Canada with brains?!

A Republican with brains?

Surely you mean an American with brains... (Let's be honest. You Americans are so stupid. Heck, most of you think New Mexico is in Mexico!)

Speaking of stoopid, I wasn't the one who made the comment; a Canadian did. I was just responding to the stupidity of it.

Machjo reminds me of the small road signs urging me to vote for Ron Paul that I saw driving through Georgia and Virginia, or maybe it was North Carolina.

Or maybe it was Mexico, eh?

The signs were about 1 m by 30 cm in size, stuck in the ground every 20 metres or so, around intersections. Who put these signs there, I wondered? Do they have the right to pollute this way?

I realized that a few fanatics in America can put a lot of political signs wherever they want. It means nothing.

Machjo is someone who puts signs on a roadway, pollutes the environment, and thinks that he is making a difference. He is like an urban bomber.

He's also a Canadian.

You gotta love America.

Yep, you just gotta. Gotta love Canadians that care so much about us, too.

[DogOnPorch]

Ross for Boss!

Oooops...am I too late?

[GostHacked]

You appear to know where he stands, but you don't actually know. He has been known to accompany racists (see the debacle with his newsleter) and 9/11 truthers. He has ridden the wave of new media into the public consciousness, while traditional media keeps mavericks like him on the sidelines.

Don't tell McCain that !!

There was another politician in 1930s Germany who used new media (at that time, radio) to go directly to the people for support.

There are many leaders these days using direct media to get their voice heard. With the Internet, Obama uses it just as much as television to get the message to the people, directly.

[Pliny]

I'll admit that Ron Paul does go too far towards libertarianism for my taste. However, I guess part of the attraction is that he could serve as a valuable counterbalance to big government politicians.

I'll also say that for all his flaws, he does come across as more honest than many other politicians. Like him or not, at least you know where he stands.

Libertarianism is something to which you have to gradually introduce yourself. We are so used to the having the State around and influencing our lives feeling they are totally necessary to the organization of society that the thought of them not being around is, well,a bit unsettling and perhaps even frightening.

I am not a total Libertarian in the sense I am an anarchist. I still have issues to sort out with Libertarianism but I am over the belief that big government is a necessity in our lives and for the engineering of society or is necessary to leveling out the inequities of capitalism.

In order to understand Ron Paul you must have a basic understanding of the philosophy and why, although it is against our recent governmental experience, it is more rational and logical than the status quo.

I struggled for a long time with ideas that I thought were great and found out they were very socialist in that they promoted the State. How could I be reading about Libertarianism and supporting socialist concepts. I had to realize that the socialist, talking about liberty and freedom and human rights was not the same as the liberty, freedom and human rights of Libertarianism.

What it took was looking at the actual solutions to the problems of liberty, freedom and human rights and defining what they were.

The solutions of the socialist involved the creating an advantaged group and a disadvantaged group. The solution of the Libertarian was one more of a natural order of things undetermined by any mere human who should have advantage and who should not, keeping in mind

the ethic that we are all here to serve each other and not intend harm in whatever form such as in racism or religious persecution.

For example, if it is a human right, as described in the UN charter of Human Rights to have the essentials of life, food, clothing and shelter, provided to all, then someone must provide it. In fact, it is not a human right, it is a natural human condition for each of us to overcome individually and in co-operation with our community and society and it depends upon each of us doing as much as possible for ourselves and contributing co-operatively with each other in a division of labour. The UN Charter while intended t be good is merely an expression of the Marxist philosophy of from those according to their ability and to those according to their need. It is coercive and does not take into account the circumstance of the time but would have those who are starving share with those who are starved.

Or, in another example, one of language and how the State will suppress language or support only a few languages. There is an interesting article on that called "Language and the socialist calculation problem" I know it is one of your interests, machjo. It is here.

I do not agree with all that Ron Paul says but I understand his position enough to know why he believes in what he does and I could on our points of disagreement discuss them from my point of view.

I will say I agree with his stand on money, the return to the gold standard or a commodity backed currency, the abolition of income tax, the IRS, and the Federal Reserve, and there are many other things I could probably be convinced to agree with him on. But I disagree with his view on the war in Afghanistan. It could have been avoided but it is too late. I agree with most of his foreign policy concepts of non-intervention but I feel a war with fundamentalist Islam is unavoidable and if not fought now would be fought in the future. But it would be far better and more justifiable if a non-interventionist policy had been followed in the first place. There is an outside chance that reason could have prevailed and war could have been entirely avoided. It would have meant concessions from Islam regarding it's use of force and it's political aspirations.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

There are many leaders these days using direct media to get their voice heard. With the Internet, Obama uses it just as much as television to get the message to the people, directly.

And other German leaders used radio too in the 1930s. The point is that new media let in outsiders, not that insiders can also use it. Gatekeepers for new media haven't evolved yet.

Edited September 15, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Michael Hardner]

In order to understand Ron Paul you must have a basic understanding of the philosophy and why, although it is against our recent governmental experience, it is more rational and logical than the status quo.

Rational and logical doesn't equal better for humans. Of course, there's a simplicity in an 'every man for himself' set-up for society, but power accumulates over time, and without institutions to force the powerful to cede some of their advantage it will not happen.

[GostHacked]

And other German leaders used radio too in the 1930s. The point is that new media let in outsiders, not that insiders can also use it. Gatekeepers for new media haven't evolved yet.

The gatekeepers are more evolved that we care to admit. Controlling flow of information online, is actually not that difficult.