• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Whats wrong with Ron Paul?

leftysergeant said:
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that for-profit companies are fit to write their own safety rules and to control a major part of the transportational infrastructure?:eek:
Click to expand...


As a sidenote:

Was mich nicht umbringt veraergert mich dennoch.
 
MNBrant said:
I just looked at what Ron Paul supports and none of it involves spending money. Any idea of what a Ron Paul budget would look like? Obviously if you gut intelligence, the military, and homeland security, there would be something left to spend? Is he for roads and bridges? Maybe I don't understand politics.
Click to expand...

Check for yourself. It's radical, but he's not exactly destroying everything.
 
leftysergeant said:
Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that for-profit companies are fit to write their own safety rules and to control a major part of the transportational infrastructure?:eek:
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that governments are fit to write their own safety rules and to control a major part of the transportational infrastructure?:eek:
 
That looks like lack of maintenance, likely due to lack of funds due to a variety of problems. I don't think the "government" decided that... "We shall install 15.7 potholes and 3.4 curb collapses per mile" as policy...

Many seem to forget that the vast majority of those "job stifling" regulations were enacted to address problems. In many cases, very severe problems concerning worker safety, child labor, abuses, pollution, price-fixing, sub-standard construction... We can go on and on.
Paul and other Libertarians seem to think all these sorts of things will get ironed out by the free market. That abusing companies and corporations will simply be left behind by the bright, shiny, responsible ones.
That's, at best, unproven and at worst, nonsense. Yes, Enron was shut down... After nearly bankrupting California and causing untold misery. The Chinese firms that were putting melamine into baby formula and pet food was shut down.... After untold numbers of death, sickenings, and heartbreak.
And these firms (to name only a couple off the top of my head) were shut down by the various regulatory structures that the Libertarians say we don't need.
 
I am curious who actually thinks the government creates regulation because it wants to and not because there is a demand for it. Always seemed like a failure of learning from history.
 
MNBrant said:
He wants to gut the income tax. Hmm. I don't suppose the powers that be would let him do that. Would he replace that with a land tax? Possibly a poll tax? It really doesn't look like he wants to spend money anywhere!
Click to expand...

I think essentially he wants to go back to the Articles of Confederation where the central government had a much smaller role/authority.

Funny thing is people espousing that position go around claiming to be dedicated to the Constitution!
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I think essentially he wants to go back to the Articles of Confederation where the central government had a much smaller role/authority.

Funny thing is people espousing that position go around claiming to be dedicated to the Constitution!
Click to expand...

Preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine) I'm not convinced he has even read the constitution.
 
RandFan said:
(emphasis mine) I'm not convinced he has even read the constitution.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Many of them don't see the federal government as the guarantor of "the blessings of liberty" (even though history shows it has been just that), but rather as the usurper of freedom somehow.

ETA: I'm especially thinking of the likes of Grover Norquist who said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
 
Last edited:
If the Libertarians had their way, Union Carbide could write its own safety regulations.
 
leftysergeant said:
If the Libertarians had their way, Union Carbide could write its own safety regulations.
Click to expand...

And of course they like to ignore the fact that some industries couldn't exist at least in recognizable form without government "regulation". For example, without patent protections for new and expensive drugs, the pharmaceutical industry would be in dire straits.
 
Bikewer said:
That looks like lack of maintenance, likely due to lack of funds due to a variety of problems. I don't think the "government" decided that... "We shall install 15.7 potholes and 3.4 curb collapses per mile" as policy...

Many seem to forget that the vast majority of those "job stifling" regulations were enacted to address problems. In many cases, very severe problems concerning worker safety, child labor, abuses, pollution, price-fixing, sub-standard construction... We can go on and on.
Paul and other Libertarians seem to think all these sorts of things will get ironed out by the free market. That abusing companies and corporations will simply be left behind by the bright, shiny, responsible ones.
That's, at best, unproven and at worst, nonsense. Yes, Enron was shut down... After nearly bankrupting California and causing untold misery. The Chinese firms that were putting melamine into baby formula and pet food was shut down.... After untold numbers of death, sickenings, and heartbreak.
And these firms (to name only a couple off the top of my head) were shut down by the various regulatory structures that the Libertarians say we don't need.
Click to expand...

These discussions always seem to force me to bring up The Jungle. As you say, this lassez faire gov't concept has been tried before. In plenty of places. It was finally put to an end because, well, it's kind of like communism. Communism (little c) can, and does, work - in limited size communities where everyone knows and deals with everyone else on an almost daily basis (see: Amish, Quaker, et al). Lassez faire capitalism works when the community is small enough that the number of consumers is limited enough that businesses are forced to compete using customer service and quality. With today's global marketplace, even a state-wide company feels less influence from bad quality (If market A drops, move to market B. Rinse, repeat, as often as necessary to keep selling your crap). And when a corporation gets big enough, it doesn't even need to move to different markets because it will simply crowd out any other competitor to the point of little, to no, competition.

It's happened. It's called history. Look it up.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
Exactly! Many of them don't see the federal government as the guarantor of "the blessings of liberty" (even though history shows it has been just that), but rather as the usurper of freedom somehow.

ETA: I'm especially thinking of the likes of Grover Norquist who said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."
Click to expand...

JoeTheJuggler said:
And of course they like to ignore the fact that some industries couldn't exist at least in recognizable form without government "regulation". For example, without patent protections for new and expensive drugs, the pharmaceutical industry would be in dire straits.
Click to expand...

BobTheDonkey said:
These discussions always seem to force me to bring up The Jungle. As you say, this lassez faire gov't concept has been tried before. In plenty of places. It was finally put to an end because, well, it's kind of like communism. Communism (little c) can, and does, work - in limited size communities where everyone knows and deals with everyone else on an almost daily basis (see: Amish, Quaker, et al). Lassez faire capitalism works when the community is small enough that the number of consumers is limited enough that businesses are forced to compete using customer service and quality. With today's global marketplace, even a state-wide company feels less influence from bad quality (If market A drops, move to market B. Rinse, repeat, as often as necessary to keep selling your crap). And when a corporation gets big enough, it doesn't even need to move to different markets because it will simply crowd out any other competitor to the point of little, to no, competition.

It's happened. It's called history. Look it up.
Click to expand...
It was these needling facts that caused me significant dissonance and to move to the left. All the socioeconomic theory in the world is worthless in the face of facts.
 
Libertarianism depends on a population in which money does not corrupt. Come back and talk to us in another millenium or two.
 
leftysergeant said:
Libertarianism depends on a population in which money does not corrupt. Come back and talk to us in another millenium or two.
Click to expand...

Sadly Libertarians come in to power in one hundred years and deregulate the electrical providers.

Due to the constant brown outs and rolling blackouts cryogenic storage is impractical.
 
madfoot said:
yes, because government is incorruptible!
Click to expand...

Has anyone said the government isn't corruptible?
Do we really want to argue for a demonstrably worse solution because the current one isn't perfect?
 
Here is the difficulty with Ron Paul:

You are a 'progressive' who is fed up with the continuation of the neo-con foreign policy under Obama. You are a progressive who wants civil liberties restored (e.g. get rid of the Patriot act). You are a progressive who thinks the War on Drugs is the most destructive and wasteful policy inflicted upon society. You are a progressive who is sick and tired of the excessive influence of lobbyists. You are a progressive that believes justice should be served to those who were responsible for the 2008 financial crisis. As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, didn't these kinds of issues used to matter to progressives?

On all these points, Obama scores very poorly.

Yes, Obama wants to defend the welfare state and maintain government departments, but from a progressive standpoint, what else is he good for?

I don't think there is any danger of the US cutting 5 departments, even if Ron Paul were president. Or of getting rid of the IRS. There is no danger there.

The real danger comes from not having a presidential candidate that will bring up some of the issues that Ron Paul will bring up. I think that a debate between Romney and Obama would leave a lot of issues off the table that are important to many Americans; you know that with Ron Paul, in the debates, this is not going to be so. Paul and Obama/Romney disagree on almost everything, so at least there would be a genuine and wide-ranging debate. Isn't that to be welcomed?

The 2012 Ron Paul movement has doubled his usual support and he has attracted a large amount of young people to his campaign, young people who are concerned with liberty. These are people who are not interested in the usual candidates who represent the status quo. They share many concerns with Occupy Wall St. and one of these is that they have a deep suspicion of the political process and a distrust of the two party system. Ron Paul was the only Republican candidate that didn't go out of his way to disparage the OWS protesters, as he is the only candidate that understands the disappointment and anger within the younger generation towards the political process which appears to be of superficial use to the people and also appears to be controlled by money and corporate interests.

The recent assault on the proposed SOPA legislation demonstrates how politics in the internet age is changing, and changing very quickly, and there is no-one more representative of that change than OWS, and ironically, the 76 year old Ron Paul and his liberty movement. Both of these movements have been dismissed as fringe groups, outside of the mainstream and as a threat to the establishment. Ron Paul and OWS are often attacked via the traditional left/right divide, Ron Paul being represented as a 'kook', or 'nutjob', a far right racist; OWS portrayed as anarchists and communists that wish to destroy 'decent' American society.
The truth, that is not often acknowledged, is that while each movement certainly contains 'fringe' elements, the overwhelming majority of OWS and the Ron Paul 2012 supporters are decent mainstream Americans who care deeply about their country and who perceive the current 'system' as having failed them. The continual marginalisation and disparagement within the media towards these groups, only reinforces the idea that media is on board with the current system and will fight to protect it.

So, while I would encourage any discussion of Ron Paul's ideas, I think that those who dismiss him as an inconsequential nutjob will be in for quite a surprise. 2012 is going to be an interesting year; there are many people unhappy with the current regime that do not see anyone to vote for among the mainstream Republicans or Democrats that cares one bit about the issues that they see as important. When this anger and disappointment is excluded from mainstream discourse, interesting things will happen. Ron Paul is currently polling at 18% as a 3rd party candidate. Add the OWS support to that and you have a significant 3rd force in American politics. This almost certainly means that the Republican candidate will not be successful, but it also means that Obama will finally have to answer some tough questions about his progressive credentials and what he is going to do to address cronyism and restore civil liberties. And that, surely, will be thanks to Ron Paul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom