Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Bal,

Although at times I find you entertaining, I'm afraid overall you're a lost cause. You tend to ignore the fact that a great many Americans, and perhaps most, have no desire to change their form of government, but only to get it working like it is supposed to. European socialism is not something I think most Americans feel to be a step towards progress, except perhaps even greater and more rapidly increasing unsustainable debt. After a century of gradual drifting towards a more socialist democratic Federal government, it has proven to be without a doubt fiscally unsustainable. If you cannot recognize that to be a fact, there is little to argue over.

 

How is it even possible to 'get government working like it is supposed to' without a 'desire to change the form of government?'

 

I too would call a wealthy person using social darwinism to justify their lofty position quackery.

However, what do you think about the value of viewing laissez faire capitalism through the lens of social dawrinism? Ideas I hear from capitalists sound like Herbert Spencer to me.

 

How is this even a question?

 

The U.S. Constitution describes the form of, and powers given, our government, which our elected Representatives freely admit has come to have little influence upon them and the laws they produce. Therein lies the source of many, if not most of our problems when rationally analyzed.

The Federal government was never intended to deeply involve itself with the recognition of problems of individuals and attempting to find solutions which it would have power to impose upon all Nationally, but only to exercise the powers given it by both the people and the States, each one a sovereign entity.
Of course all Federal laws are applicable to all the people and all the States, but all the laws created at the Federal level should be very basic, very clearly and very concisely written, allowing States and the citizens of each State latitude in the application by whatever means they feel most efficient, reasonable, and effective in producing the results mandated by the Federal laws. The courts, local, State, Federal, and ultimately the Supreme court provides the means of resolution when State or local governments, or individual(s) are found to be out of compliance with laws.

If the change you wish to bring about is not a change which can be accomplished within the means provided by our existing Constitution, then you should also accept the fact that both the people and the States then have an inalienable right to either accept or decline becoming a member of that form of government as clearly stated in our Declaration of Independence, which served as the foundation for the creation of the government which exists today.

The elimination of the governed from having their voice heard loudly and clearly in the form in which those who govern them are taking them results in a widening division between not only those who are governed, but also between them and their government, which if ignored and left unresolved eventually results in a more violent revolt due to a division which government gradually had created, exploiting for political reasons which increasingly become more imposing and unacceptable upon a significant number of the population.

 

Indie

LOL just another way of saying you can’t address the criticisms levelled at your views – why hold on to ideas you can’t defend?

But isn’t getting something to worked properly changing it, I mean if something isn’t working well and you improve it so it does then it has been changed.

Yes I know you want to turn back the clock to a time when wealth had greater power but we have been through that and you still haven’t addressed the criticisms of it.

Also we’ve been through this – the problem is (see above) that left wing alternative voices were suppressed in the US accompanied by propaganda that tried to convince the population that all left wing views were socialist and all socialism was Stalinist.

This has lead to a situation where the two major political parties are right wing to some degree so many Americans don’t realise there are alternatives to those right wing views.

It has also led to right wingers like you to term anything ‘socialist’ you don’t like in the hope of a negative pavlovian response from indoctrinated Americans when you have no real counter arguments.

We’ve been through this a few times now – I’ll repeat what I said in post 456 of this thread that you still haven’t addressed.

“Oh and again you make assertions that already have unanswered criticisms already levelled at them. You’ve asserted this about Europe before for example in the Did the Tea Party takeover/ruin libertarianism? Thread and I had to point out to you –

As pointed out to you before - all of the countries of the EU have had neo-liberal governments in power during the last 30 years. Many political parties of the right and the left succumbed to neoliberal ideas.

In the UK the flawed neoliberal ideas of the Thatcher era were taken up by the New Labour leadership.

In Greece the government that was in power just prior to the crisis (2004-2009) was the “strictly neoliberal” right wing New Democracy Party which used derivatives as a means of hiding the true level of their debts. In Spain the neo-liberal Peoples Party was in power from 1996-2004 (and created the conditions for that countries housing bubble) and was succeeded by an opposition party ‘of the left’ that followed many of its neoliberal ideas and as for Italy the right wing neoliberal Silvio Berlusconi has been in power for eight of the last ten years.”

Thing is that many of the countries in Europe that have weathered the economic storm the best. like Sweden and Germany for instance, have social systems in place that you’d call socialist, while places like Iceland and Ireland that were hailed as neoliberal inspired economic miracles went bankrupt.

We have been through that many times and the problem is that you cannot defend that supposed ‘fact’ from criticism.

Again you repeatedly make assertions that you cannot and have never been able to defend – again why do you hold ideas that you are incapable of defending?

 

Indie

But you have argued against democracy and have even suggested that wealth should have extra voting power so it can block the voting wishes of the majority.

 

Bal,

What you offer at criticisms, you seem incapable of recognizing to have been proven to be economically unsustainable.

Yes, Bal, you could call call getting something working to be change, but the basis of what change is needed is not a 'new' form of government, but only to government as described in our Constitution, which our representatives have long ignored.

Why should I need to address criticisms which you have based upon what appears to be an intentionally misunderstood understanding?

Government on the Left side of center, as well as government on the extreme Right side of center is one in which government needs to exert much control over the governed in achieving an agenda of those who govern.

And I see both major parties to have moved far to the Left, with the Democrat party furthest Left.

While Left wingers like you espouse as, Libertarians, Conservatives, or Republicans as a response to evoke reaction from those who have been indoctrinated by the government education system, main stream media, and wealthy Left.

What you call Right wing from an European view would be more appropriately termed Left wing from an American definition.

We have a debt and spending problem, and nothing you've proposed would appear to resolve that. Arguing over labels and their definitions resolves nothing. In my opinion, the only solution is to be found by the creation of jobs and products/services which allows for the redistribution of wealth in what is the most reasonable and rational way.

 

To what purpose are our votes put to use now? We only vote on who will be allowed to represent us, and the real power remains in the hands of those who fund the campaigns of those who are elected, be they Democrat or Republican.

If you can't be bought you stand little chance of winning an election, as can be seen in the case of Ron Paul.

 

Outthere2

Oh I though that was implicit, it’s the same con game.

Neoliberal/Free Market/ laissez faire theory is based on the idea of supposed ‘free competition’ between all social entities (be they the lowest individual or the wealthiest corporation) were by a process of ‘natural selection’ the ‘fittest’ product or service always achieve ascendency to the ‘evolutionary’ betterment of society.

But the human constructed marketplace is not a ‘natural environment’ and ‘free competition’ is virtually impossible to achieve because of the inequalities within any system (an individual and a wealth corporation are unlikely to be on an equal footing in a competition) so it is likely to stifle fair competition by promoting unfair competition (look at the metaphorical running race above).

Plus there is the problem of positive outcomes, the problem with Neoliberal/Free Market/ laissez faire ideas is that it seems to encourage short-term maximisation of profit (see above) this can mean harmful speculation rather than positive investment leading to bubbles and crashes that have a detrimental rather than beneficial effect on society. In other words such thinking is it more likely to harm than benefit society.

 

Indie

LOL – Proven by who or what, I mean so far virtually everything you have presented seems to be somewhat flawed (even mortally flawed) while your criticisms of anything I’ve said is that – it isn’t what you think so it must be wrong and it is socialism/communism/neomarxist and is therefore wrong - and as pointed out before neither seems rational or backed up in any substantial way.

We’ve been through this many timesyou seem to what to ‘improve’ things by making them worse. Increasing the power and influence of wealth, limiting voting, reducing social programmes etc, it seems to me that the constitution gambit is just a Trojan horse.

But as I’ve pointed out before you accuse me of this but never seem able to back it up with any evidence. I can only go on what I’m given if anything it is your wilful and intentional refusal to debate honestly that seems to be the major problem.

Why not just address the many criticisms levelled at your view and if you can’t why are you holding onto ideas you are unable to defend?

I’ve presented my reasoning for thinking they’re right wing so now can you present your reasoning for your viewpoint or is it another unsubstantiated assertion?

I’ve explained my reasoning for my viewpoint can you back up yours or is it another unsubstantiated assertion?

I’ve explained why that is “In an American context ‘liberals’ are seen as left wing only because much of left wing thought has been systematically purged from US society over the last 50+ years. This is why many outside the US believe that Americans have two right wing parties with a centre right Democratic Party and are more right wing Republican Party.”

We’ve been through this many times – one of the main reasons why the US has a debt problem is that it pursued neoliberal policies and that it spent heavily on wars (and they felt comfortable doing that in part because it believed in neoliberal ideas).

We’ve been through this many times -

“I’ve already covered that – the problem is that right wing libertarian/neo-liberal ideas don’t seem to encourage investment in employment (or not American employment). The neo-liberal ideas of the last thirty odd years have seen US manufacturing decline while outsourcing and speculative financial bubbles have grown”

Try reading – Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

 

Bal,

Yes we've been through all this in every thread you respond to me in, no matter what the topic.

The answer to why I hold the views I hold is entirely based on the economics. And Keynes is not the answer.

 

Indie

And the problem is that you seem incapable of addressing the many criticisms levelled at your ideas.

But as pointed out many times you seem incapable of addressing the many criticisms of your economic ideas in any rational or reasonable way.

Yes you have said similar many times but even when asked you seem incapable of explaining why.

 

Bal,

Sorry, but while I agree with you that children are incapable of making decisions as to who they are born to, in the U.S. a basic education is made available to everyone which even without a college degree should easily suffice in finding employment, making everyday decisions, and providing at least the basic needs of life.

Economically, I live within my means, and government could do so also but not if it tries to look after each and every individual by redistributing money it doesn't have.

Maybe you should read some of Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Sowell or others writings.

And I've yet to see anything at all from you which would reduce the influence of wealth upon government. It seems that you would like to see all wealth be in the hands of government so that it alone could 'fairly' distribute it as those who govern see fit.

 

Our state legislators are (with few exceptions) refusing to put a cap on donations. Proposed is a $100 limit, enough to buy dinner for two at all but the most ostentatious restaurants. A lobbyist can take a congressman to dinner, state his case and pick up the tab. That should cover expenses without tempting the congressman to sell his(her) vote.

 

Maybe there should be a law that when a lobbyist takes a politician to dinner, a random selection of that politicians constituents are required to be brought at the lobbyists expense and included in the dinner and all accompanying conversation, just to keep things honest.

 

That would shine light in a very dark place. We need more of that!! Good idea!

 

Seriously, our Federal government representatives, once the elections are over, tend to view the voters who put them, or keep them in office, virtually irrelevant. Once in Washington their respective parties are who they show greatest allegiance to in working with lobbyists and others in preparation for the next round of elections and campaign contributions for their parties candidates, as well as their own.
Between elections, our respective House representatives should remain in contact with their constituents as frequently as possible, and the Senate members should do the same, except with their States government as originally intended.

Those of us who support strong Constitutional government do so not because we wish to reinstate slavery, eliminate child labor laws, or any amendments which have improved our Constitution, but only as the means by which the people and the States are able to have more control over those sent to Washington by the people and the States.

Repeal of the 16th and 17th amendments would go a long way towards reducing power of wealth, lobbyists, and the political parties, and could make debt reduction and a balanced Federal budget much easier to accomplish. In my opinion, our form of government can only work when the people and the States have the greatest control over it.

 

Late reader. Didn't attempt to catch up.

When Ron Paul first tried, I would have voted for him ... sadly.
The second time his name is being mentioned for candidacy (recently) and I will not.

What changed?
I've read the allegations, I've read the defense; it seems to me he's racist. That was my biggest problem. My second problem was his stance against women's right to choose to have an abortion. Third, though in my mind not as big a deal, was that he was a creationist. I've come to accept that politicians will be religious for many years to come, but to go so far as creationism was a little over the top for me.

I suppose that his belief in a 6,000 year old Earth doesn't necessarily have much relevance in the Whitehouse, as long as he didn't try to get religious stuff passed into government ("intelligent design" in schools type of nonsense) but I saw potential for government/religion affliction.

Really, it came down to the problems I saw with his stance against (my words from my perspective) women's rights and obviously racism.

I would love to be shown concrete proof that he's not a racist, that would make me feel better about him being in government at all, president or not, but his anti-choice policy is enough to make me say no.

 

^ he doesn't have an "anti-choice" policy. In fact it is pro-choice. As far as racism goes, you can call him that. But as long as you're judging someone for a string of papers written 20 years ago by someone else, you should keep in mind the person who the current president went to for religious guidence for 20 years. Who presided over his wedding, and baptized his children. Just sayin.