Ron Paul

[Pliny]

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.

Ahhh, then you prefer force to rational and logical?

I agree there does need to be a balance which is why I am not a complete anarchist. What are your feelings of sympathy and concern for the plight of your fellow man rooted in Mr. Hardener? Their fragility and incompetence coupled with their basic human faults of avarice and evil intent? Or are they rooted in the hope and ability that it can face and rise above it's future challenges?

I think you need to have a little more faith in the basic goodness of man, start seeing him for what he is and forgive him his transgressions despite their obvious detriment as long as they can be used as knowledge.

I think forums like this are good in that we can determine those who enjoy the brotherhood of man and his basic desire for bringing order to chaos and don't wish to see him chained because it is deemed by the few not to be in the interests of the many. But who are the few that should have the power to deem such things when they too are human and we know ourselves well enough that selfish interests are often coupled with that ever corrupting influence - power. What other purpose does power serve if it is not to use force to benefit those who shall decide the fate of mankind? Power, this overwhelming drug, once tasted, does not encourage it's sharing, and the addicted would destroy any attempt to weaken it's concentrated form. Like a drug it often brings death with it. We must steel ourselves from making the formula so concentrated as to allow those indulging to feel they have attained the state of god over the lives of others.

[Michael Hardner]

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

Really. Then how did Ron Paul get through ? I suppose it was a few years ago, and the gatekeepers continue to involve.

[Michael Hardner]

Ahhh, then you prefer force to rational and logical?

Force is always present. You're talking about forcing people to pay into a collective fund versus (eventually) having police forces patrolling everywhere to guard against theft.

I prefer the cheaper, easier and irrational approach.

I agree there does need to be a balance which is why I am not a complete anarchist. What are your feelings of sympathy and concern for the plight of your fellow man rooted in Mr. Hardener? Their fragility and incompetence coupled with their basic human faults of avarice and evil intent? Or are they rooted in the hope and ability that it can face and rise above it's future challenges?

You don't need to have a single view of human nature, that applies to all people. Some are redeemable, some aren't.

I think you need to have a little more faith in the basic goodness of man, start seeing him for what he is and forgive him his transgressions despite their obvious detriment as long as they can be used as knowledge.

We've had these systems in the past, though. People may be essentially good, but they certainly don't prioritize the problems of others to the point where those problems are adequately addressed.

I think forums like this are good in that we can determine those who enjoy the brotherhood of man and his basic desire for bringing order to chaos and don't wish to see him chained because it is deemed by the few not to be in the interests of the many. But who are the few that should have the power to deem such things when they too are human and we know ourselves well enough that selfish interests are often coupled with that ever corrupting influence - power.

You don't seem concerned with the fact that anarchy will allow power to accumulate in a few.

What other purpose does power serve if it is not to use force to benefit those who shall decide the fate of mankind? Power, this overwhelming drug, once tasted, does not encourage it's sharing, and the addicted would destroy any attempt to weaken it's concentrated form. Like a drug it often brings death with it. We must steel ourselves from making the formula so concentrated as to allow those indulging to feel they have attained the state of god over the lives of others.

Meh. Taxation is a check on the accumulation of power over generations. Your model leaves no cheques or boundries to the corruption of the powerful.

[nicky10013]

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.

Social engineering? How are we being socially engineered? Just another conservative watchword meaning absolutely nothing. Furthermore, the implementation of shorter work weeks and the elimination of child labour had nothing to do with productivity. To think that companies happily followed those laws and didn't fight against it, as you're implying here, because there was enoguh wealth and productivity is so naive it's not even funny.

Exactly, we need some hope and change.

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.

Isn't that what you want, though? Cut spending no matter what? Chretien did it, so why don't you support it? BEcause it's just as partisan as it is ideological.

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.

What are you talking about? The structural deficit hasn't changed. The reason why the deficits have been so large has been because of the 2 stimulus packages and the bank bailouts, which economists of all political leanings have argued was necessary to avoid another depression. (See Krugman, Ferguson). After the stimulus ends at the end of this fiscal year, the federal deficit goes back down to Bush levels of about 400 billion. Much less if damaging tax cuts are eliminated.

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

Well, it is. Every western country where lending practices were relaxed and banks were allowed to lend gigantic amounts of money to bad credit risks is where there has been a financial crises. In Canada where the regulations weren't relaxed, or, I think we should say weren't relaxed quick enough (Harper was certainly heading that way), there wasn't one. Banks had to be leveraged at a certain levels, subprime wasn't allowed and certainly banks weren't allowed to package loans into securities to re-sell.

So, tell me how Wall Street was perfectly well regulated. This should be a treat.

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.

Every time it has gotten there through violent revolution or foreign occupation. Every time. Soviet Union - revolution, Vietnam - Revolution, North Korea - occupation by the USSR, Mozambique and Angola - Revolution. Cuba - Revolution. East Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland - Foreign Occupation. China - Revolution.

[Shady]

Taxation is a check on the accumulation of power over generations. Your model leaves no cheques or boundries to the corruption of the powerful.

That type of mindset is absolutely frightening.

So the government NEEDS to take more of your own money, for your own good, in order to prevent you from becoming corrupt. Yikes!

[Michael Hardner]

That type of mindset is absolutely frightening.

So the government NEEDS to take more of your own money, for your own good, in order to prevent you from becoming corrupt. Yikes!

Where did I say "more of your money". I'm saying "some of your money". Libertarians say "none of your money".

Having billionaires pass their power on to their progeny so that power accumulates in families over time, that sounds like monarchy to me.

[Shady]

Having billionaires pass their power on to their progeny so that power accumulates in families over time, that sounds like monarchy to me.

You mean having people pass on their already taxed and legitimately earned income to their families sounds like monarchy to you? This type of hyperbole is really unbelievable.

[Michael Hardner]

You mean having people pass on their already taxed and legitimately earned income to their families sounds like monarchy to you? This type of hyperbole is really unbelievable.

Accumulation of power due to hereditary privilege makes the system into an aristocracy instead of a meritocracy, generally. The system should never be set up to match an abstract idea of ownership and title, but rather it should be set up to foster a functional economy.

[Shady]

Accumulation of power due to hereditary privilege makes the system into an aristocracy instead of a meritocracy, generally.

It's not about hereditary privilege. It's about private property rights. Especially on priveate property one has already paid taxes on. Wealth doesn't automatically equate to power.

The system should never be set up to match an abstract idea of ownership and title, but rather it should be set up to foster a functional economy.

Freedom and strong private property rights are the best way to foster a functional economy. Not government bureaucrats deciding whether or not you can pass your already taxed private property on to your family or friends.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not about hereditary privilege. It's about private property rights. Especially on priveate property one has already paid taxes on. Wealth doesn't automatically equate to power.

At the extremes it does.

Freedom and strong private property rights are the best way to foster a functional economy. Not government bureaucrats deciding whether or not you can pass your already taxed private property on to your family or friends.

Strong private property rights, as in zero taxes ?

We're talking about Libertarianism here, so it's all about the extremes.

[maple_leafs182]

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.

You say it could of been possibly been avoided if they originally followed a non-interventionist policy, I agree. Then you say war is now necessary, I don't agree their. I think continuing to intervene will only escalate the problem.

Truthfully I don't think Islam is the problem. I think this threat is being over hyped like every other threat, the swine flu, the war on terror, the war on drugs. All they want to do is gain public support for more war.

"War is a terrible chisel for carving out tomorrow" - Martin Luther King Jr.

If peace is the objective, we won't obtain it threw war.

[Shady]

Strong private property rights, as in zero taxes ?

Yes, zero taxes on private property one has already paid taxes on.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, zero taxes on private property one has already paid taxes on.

No, zero taxes in total. Do you not understand what Libertarians believe in ?

Some of them believe in taxation to support defense, or maybe roads but not much beyond that.

[Shady]

Some of them believe in taxation to support defense, or maybe roads but not much beyond that.

Who exactly are you talking about other than generic, nameless libertarians? Are you talking about income taxes, sales taxes, or property taxes?

Before you were specifically talking about people's inheritance.

Edited September 16, 2010 by Shady

[Michael Hardner]

Who exactly are you talking about other than generic, nameless libertarians? Are you talking about income taxes, sales taxes, or property taxes?

Before you were specifically talking about people's inheritance.

I'm talking about taxes in general. Inheritance tax is one example of a tax, yes.

[Pliny]

You say it could of been possibly been avoided if they originally followed a non-interventionist policy, I agree. Then you say war is now necessary, I don't agree their. I think continuing to intervene will only escalate the problem.

The problem will definitely escalate. More parties will have to become involved. It isn't good.

Truthfully I don't think Islam is the problem. I think this threat is being over hyped like every other threat, the swine flu, the war on terror, the war on drugs. All they want to do is gain public support for more war.

Islam does pose a threat to their authority and vise versa.

The current government is a welfare/warfare state.

"War is a terrible chisel for carving out tomorrow" - Martin Luther King Jr.

If peace is the objective, we won't obtain it threw war.

To achieve peace one must be prepared for war.

[maple_leafs182]

The problem will definitely escalate. More parties will have to become involved. It isn't good.

More parties don't have to become involved.

Sadly more parties will probably get involved.

Gerald Celente, the number one trends researcher in the world is predicting World War 3 to emerge from these wars.

Islam does pose a threat to their authority and vise versa.

I don't believe that Islam poses a threat. It kind of reminds me of Hitler saying the Jews posed a threat.

The only reason that these so called extremist would want to attack America or any other NATO contry is because of those countries foreign policies of present and passed.

The current government is a welfare/warfare state.

Soon to be a failed welfare/warfare state.

Truthfully I think of America as one of the most fascist countries in the world.

To achieve peace one must be prepared for war.

One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but that it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. -MLK

But I do understand what you are saying. Thomas Jefferson learned that lesson when the British invaded Virginia.

Edited September 18, 2010 by maple_leafs182

[Pliny]

Gerald Celente, the number one trends researcher in the world is predicting World War 3 to emerge from these wars.

Well, maybe. Let's hope it doesn't.

I don't believe that Islam poses a threat. It kind of reminds me of Hitler saying the Jews posed a threat.

The only reason that these so called extremist would want to attack America or any other NATO contry is because of those countries foreign policies of present and passed.

There is another reason. Western culture being adopted and/or preferred by their own citizens over their own culture. The Berlin Wall was not put up to keep people out. In Iran there is a hard-line fundamentalist power based upon the Islamic religion. The same is true of Afghanistan. The leaders do not wish their citizens minds to be poisoned.

Soon to be a failed welfare/warfare state.

Truthfully I think of America as one of the most fascist countries in the world.

Internationally or domestically. Internationally, in my opinion and I'm certain some Americans would agree with me, they do over-zealously protect their interests and interfere where they shouldn't. Domestically, people would sooner take it than leave it which tells me there is quite a degree of freedom and liberty. You have a choice of taking it or leaving it. Fascist, not at all. Somewhat socialist, yes, but not addicted to government like Canadians.

One day we must come to see that peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but that it is a means by which we arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. -MLK

MLK was quite the individual. We will achieve peace through understanding.

We are bound to have a few misunderstandings along the way. And calling the US, the equivalent of an extremist totalitarian socialist state would be, I think, contributing to one of those misunderstandings.

[nicky10013]

MLK was quite the individual. We will achieve peace through understanding.

We are bound to have a few misunderstandings along the way. And calling the US, the equivalent of an extremist totalitarian socialist state would be, I think, contributing to one of those misunderstandings.

So, calling anyone even an inch to the left of you state socialists and marxists doesn't lead to misunderstandings? Wowzers.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The only reason that these so called extremist would want to attack America or any other NATO contry is because of those countries foreign policies of present and passed....

Then why no "extremist" attacks from Vietnam, or Haiti, or Chile, or Guatemala, or Cuba, or Japan, or Serbia, or.....your common denominator is wrong.

[Shady]

Then why no "extremist" attacks from Vietnam, or Haiti, or Chile, or Guatemala, or Cuba, or Japan, or Serbia, or.....your common denominator is wrong.

Not only that, but these extremists seem to also target people and countries that they've had absolutely no history with. Yes, the common denominator is definitely wrong. However, I think I know the real one. I'll give them a hint. It starts with an 'I', ends with an 'm', and has the word 'sla' in between!

[Machjo]

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.

I agree, he's not very solid on the economy on a number of fronts. First off, a modern government does need to ensure all get an education in one way or another. Sure the education system could be privatized to a degree such as through voucher programmes and such. but at the end of the day, we must ensure all get a decent education. Another point has to do with rapid and drastic tax cuts. Tax cuts are fine, but only once spending and debt are brought under control.

Also, on foreign policy, he wants to withdraw from the UN, NATO, and essentially all other international organizations. While I can agree there is currently way too much overlap, and it would be wise to remain a member of one catch-all organization like the UN and just withdraw from all the others, it would not be very bright to withdraw from all of them. That's another issue I take with Ron Paul. Then again, seeing how little the US respects UN resolutions anyway, I guess withdrawal wouldn't make that big of a difference anyway. So he does have a point there of sorts I guess.

Beyond those points though, Ron Paul has some good ideas. Overall, it's not so much that I agree with everything he says, but that he's honest about what he believes He has character, integrity, and so can be trusted to do at least what he genuinely believes to be right. And he'd stand as a good counterbalance to those who lean too far in the opposite direction. He'd serve as a healthy counterbalance in US politics today. He may swing too far towards libertarianism, but then again, most other US politicians swing too far towards big government. Good counterbalance there.

[maple_leafs182]

There is another reason. Western culture being adopted and/or preferred by their own citizens over their own culture. The Berlin Wall was not put up to keep people out. In Iran there is a hard-line fundamentalist power based upon the Islamic religion. The same is true of Afghanistan. The leaders do not wish their citizens minds to be poisoned.

I don't know if western culture is naturally being adopted, I think it is more on the side of being forced upon them.

Internationally or domestically. Internationally, in my opinion and I'm certain some Americans would agree with me, they do over-zealously protect their interests and interfere where they shouldn't. Domestically, people would sooner take it than leave it which tells me there is quite a degree of freedom and liberty. You have a choice of taking it or leaving it. Fascist, not at all. Somewhat socialist, yes, but not addicted to government like Canadians.

Mussolini said fascism is when corporate and political interests converge. In my opinion corporate interests do control or have a great influence over government.

They do have freedoms but the government is slowly taking them away in order to 'protect' its citizens from terrorism and as Ron Paul says, "Don’t we know if we sacrifice liberty for security we lose both, that’s what is happening in this country today".

Not only that, but these extremists seem to also target people and countries that they've had absolutely no history with. Yes, the common denominator is definitely wrong. However, I think I know the real one. I'll give them a hint. It starts with an 'I', ends with an 'm', and has the word 'sla' in between!

Well I disagree with you saying the problem is Islam but lets say you are right. What is your solution? eradicate all the evil people in the world with guns and bombs?

Another point has to do with rapid and drastic tax cuts. Tax cuts are fine, but only once spending and debt are brought under control.

That is why he wants to end the wars, the CIA, the departments along with other government programs. He wants to cut spending and shrink government.

[bush_cheney2004]

....That is why he wants to end the wars, the CIA, the departments along with other government programs. He wants to cut spending and shrink government.

"He" would not have the authority to do so, and your continued assertion only reflects ignorance of how the US government works. Ron Paul cannot become a king.

[Machjo]

"He" would not have the authority to do so, and your continued assertion only reflects ignorance of how the US government works. Ron Paul cannot become a king.

No, he canot. And le'ts not fool ourselves that he wouldn't get even half of his proposals through the House and the Senate. That said, he'd at least stand the line against increased government spending.

Now, where support for him could backfire would be if he succeeded in cutting taxes but failed to reduce spending in line with the tax cuts. Then we'd be right back to where we are now, only worse!

The hope behind supporting him (and yes, this would be a gamble) would be that he'd fail to cut taxes but succeed in reducing spending at least enough to balance the budget.

And seeing that he's an isolationist, we can imagine that his first priority would be to shrink military spending, though granted he'd try to reduce social spending too. If he should succeed in cutting both, so much the better. If he should succeed only in cutting military spending, still a step forward. if he should fail to cut spending but succeed in reducing taxes, then we're in trouble, seeing that the country is on the verge of bankruptcy already.

Also, Paul would certainly not support corporate bailouts. he might not help the poor, but he certainly would not help the rich either.

Or we could argue that he would help the poor in his own way by balancing the books, lowering inflation and interest rates, assuming of course the best case scenario that he succeeds in cutting government spending but fails to reduce taxes at least until the debt is paid off.