Ron Paul Ideas: Utopia vs Reality.

[RonpaulSupporter7777]

Hi.

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

Could this Ron Paul inspired American Revolution really be the root of all reform or simply another enthusiastic idea whose time will bring us some good, but also lots of the bad?

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic? If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies. We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

 

[dannno]

How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Because it is the rich elitists who currently use our government regulate the markets in their favor.

The End.

 

[powerofreason]

Hi.

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

Could this Ron Paul inspired American Revolution really be the root of all reform or simply another enthusiastic idea whose time will bring us some good, but also lots of the bad?

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic? If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies. We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

I would suggest doing some reading. Check out mises.org. They have a lot of free reading material. Visit their forums and ask questions there. Also, you need to keep in mind that many regulations that we have help not hurt large corporations. I may do a more in-depth response later, I'm busy atm.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Hi.

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

Could this Ron Paul inspired American Revolution really be the root of all reform or simply another enthusiastic idea whose time will bring us some good, but also lots of the bad?

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic? If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies. We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

Thank you for doing something no one dares on this forum. Challenging our own status quo. If we hate the current status quo so much we should not emulate that on this forum. We should be open to new ideas.

And a utopia is NOT possible. Zeitgeist doesn't advocate it.

Please watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTQXgVb8V9M

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Because it is the rich elitists who currently use our government regulate the markets in their favor.

The End.

In a free market society, some will win and some will lose. The winners will try to maintain the competitive edge. As time goes on, things like the fed, lobbyists will show up to MAINTAIN that edge and keep the profits rolling in. These people, then, will be considered elites. This current state in America is effectively what Capitalism creates: greed, self interest, no accountability, etc.

 

[powerofreason]

short article on regulation: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=485

 

[Anti Federalist]

Hi.

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

Could this Ron Paul inspired American Revolution really be the root of all reform or simply another enthusiastic idea whose time will bring us some good, but also lots of the bad?

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic? If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies. We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

There are many pratfalls within a pure free market economy.

The "cure" for these "downsides" are worse than the disease. Any form of a government "managed" economy must, by it's very definition, become, or start out as being authoritarian.

Put another way:

In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war* and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms*, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

 

[me3]

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Libertarianism is not conservatism. Milton Friedman was not a libertarian.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

He's not "more of a", "he is a" LvM Austrian School guy. Consequences? Life is filled with consequences. Ron Paul's philosophy is not consequentialist or utilitarian. Theft and murder are wrong. All of the time.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

"We as a movement"? There is nothing theoretical about liberty. And we're not a movement. I don't know you. You don't sound like a Ron Paul supporter.

If you don't know the difference between Austrian economics and communism/socialism then you need to go do some research.

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

What movement? There are lefties, righties and independents. Anarchists, libertarians and minarchists. You got old, young, male, female, black, white and other. The "movement" is only concerned with the ideology of liberty. Not democracy. Liberty.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Because if the market is deregulated, you will always have alternatives. And thus, there can be no corrupt monopolies because as soon as they provided a bad product, poor service or price gouged, a competitor would come and take away their customers.

The rich don't consolidate their wealth through deregulation. They consolidate their wealth through regulation that limits competition and institutionalizes their market position.

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic?

No. The truth is the truth. There are economic truths and economic fallacies.

If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies.

Why don't you do some research instead of constructing strawmen about "conservative libertarianism" which doesn't even exist!

We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

This is just nonsense. Please learn something, anything about Austrian Economics. Please.

 

[brandon]

Hi.

First off, I started this thread in hopes that an open and intelligent dialogue between the supporters of Ron Paul's political philosophy could be born. While I am an ardent supporter of Conservative Libertarian values, especially in regards to foreign policy measures, I am not at all convinced that our society will greatly benifit from hard-line "Milton Friedman" stlye economics.

Now I do realize that Ron Paul is more of a Ludwig Von Mises, Austrian school of economics type of guy. I am not out to criticize Conservative Libertarian economic philosophies, but only to examine the potential consequences these particular ideologies could have in regards to the Liberty Movement that is alive and well in America.

Could we as a movement be blinding ourselves by only seeing through the lense of theoretical utopia rather than experience and reality? What about the potential consequences that leftist utopian movements have been plagued with such as communism and socialism.

Could this Ron Paul inspired American Revolution really be the root of all reform or simply another enthusiastic idea whose time will bring us some good, but also lots of the bad?

Certain aspects of this movement rest on the assumption that democracy is a constantly moving entity that must be upheld and defended by a largely apathetic/distracted American people; just as socialism is reliant on a government with strict checks and balances carried out by a majority of corrupted politicians/beauracrats.

My main point is that sometimes a great idea is worth fighting for, but when enacted it could potentially lead to another set of disasters. How are we so sure that deregulated markets in the American Economy will not lead to corruption and further consolidation of wealth among the already rich elitists of this world?

Maybe Economics is just as alive and changing as a democratic republic? If so, we will have to be on gaurd to potential pitfalls of Conservative Libertarian Economic Policies. We may even have to let the government step in to regulate in certain situations. If we hold true to a dogmatic belief of "infallibility" within our economic outlook and blame everything but our own belief system we will be just as doomed as communism and socialism.

I welcome the debate, and it is always good to challenge your own beliefs. However, no where in your post did you make any specific criticisms of austrian economics other then the vague "it may lead to corruption." Can you be a little more specific?

Also, Friedman was a monetarist. He believed that a central banking system is vital to a healthy economy. That is the opposite of what Paul and the Austrians believe.

 

[RonpaulSupporter7777]

Exactly TeenforPaul.

I am also trying to state that the Ron Paul movement will become another high-minded know it all movement if we think that our ideas, and ours alone, will provide the answer to all our ills as a society.

There are many many factors at play in this economy. Liberals do have some credibility when they critcize certain aspects of a free economy. Free Market Capitalism does have its downsides and those downsides can be potentially debilitating to the middle class and impoverished.

Liberal economic policies try to make our society more equal and fair through collectivism. Free Market, conservative economic policies try to make society more equal and fair as well. I am still fairly new to differentiating between the similar aspects of liberal and conservative economic outcomes.

One thing I do know is that conservative economists and liberal economists for years have debated that each side holds the better idea when both sides rest on unstable variables such as government respectablility and an informed and active American public.

 

[me3]

In a free market society, some will win and some will lose. The winners will try to maintain the competitive edge. As time goes on, things like the fed, lobbyists will show up to MAINTAIN that edge and keep the profits rolling in. These people, then, will be considered elites. This current state in America is effectively what Capitalism creates: greed, self interest, no accountability, etc.

Nonsense. Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

 

[Mini-Me]

In a free market society, some will win and some will lose. The winners will try to maintain the competitive edge. As time goes on, things like the fed, lobbyists will show up to MAINTAIN that edge and keep the profits rolling in. These people, then, will be considered elites. This current state in America is effectively what Capitalism creates: greed, self interest, no accountability, etc.

...however, if the federal government is not permitted to interfere in markets whatsoever, lobbyists will not be able to use government force to kill off competition.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

There are many pratfalls within a pure free market economy.

The "cure" for these "downsides" are worse than the disease. Any form of a government "managed" economy must, by it's very definition, become, or start out as being authoritarian.

Put another way:

In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war* and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty, which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms*, is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!

That quote is invalid because at no point in history has a people (all of them) experienced a life of wealth, luxury and tranquility. This notion that we won't have an incentive if free-market is overthrown is a fallacy.

The fact is, in a pure free market society, some will win, other will lose. The winners will do whatever they can to hang on to that lead, will they not? Things like corruption will be acted upon to maintain that "competitive edge." Face the facts. Our nation's history is our witness.

 

[me3]

Liberals do have some credibility when they critcize certain aspects of a free economy.

Such as?

Free Market Capitalism does have its downsides and those downsides can be potentially debilitating to the middle class and impoverished.

What downsides? How is it "potentially" debilitating?

One thing I do know is that conservative economists and liberal economists for years have debated that each side holds the better idea when both sides rest on unstable variables such as government respectablility and an informed and active American public.

Austrian Economics is not conservative! Stop saying conservative! There is nothing conservative about Austrian Economics!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mini-Me]

That quote is invalid because at no point in history has a people (all of them) experienced a life of wealth, luxury and tranquility. This notion that we won't have an incentive if free-market is overthrown is a fallacy.

The fact is, in a pure free market society, some will win, other will lose. The winners will do whatever they can to hang on to that lead, will they not? Things like corruption will be acted upon to maintain that "competitive edge." Face the facts. Our nation's history is our witness.

The fact is, the market is not a zero-sum game. You're right that corruption has screwed up the market, but if we actually had an enforceable Constitution and a way to prevent the government from interfering whatsoever, that would no longer be the case.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

...however, if the federal government is not permitted to interfere in markets whatsoever, lobbyists will not be able to use government force to kill competition.

Ok then, if the governments don't interfere, Microsoft would be the only software company. GE would be our only energy company. And exxon would be our only oil company.

When a company gets that edge, they will do what's neccesary to keep it. Standard oil did it by controlling prices. Just think about it. Monetary based systems of any kind (socialism, capitalism, communism) doesn't work anymore.

 

[powerofreason]

That quote is invalid because at no point in history has a people (all of them) experienced a life of wealth, luxury and tranquility. This notion that we won't have an incentive if free-market is overthrown is a fallacy.

The fact is, in a pure free market society, some will win, other will lose. The winners will do whatever they can to hang on to that lead, will they not? Things like corruption will be acted upon to maintain that "competitive edge." Face the facts. Our nation's history is our witness.

You really need to be specific.

 

[me3]

That quote is invalid because at no point in history has a people (all of them) experienced a life of wealth, luxury and tranquility. This notion that we won't have an incentive if free-market is overthrown is a fallacy.

Why should all people have wealth, luxury and tranquility? When you are born, is wealth a right? Is luxury a right? Who owes it to you if you cannot provide it yourself?

The fact is, in a pure free market society, some will win, other will lose. The winners will do whatever they can to hang on to that lead, will they not? Things like corruption will be acted upon to maintain that "competitive edge." Face the facts. Our nation's history is our witness.

There has never been a pure free market society. A free market society would have a political free market as well. Corruption would be limited, because courts would have an incentive to be just, and fulfill contract law, or they would go out of business and be susceptible to prosecution themselves (no monopoly on justice)

 

[powerofreason]

Ok then, if the governments don't interfere, Microsoft would be the only software company. GE would be our only energy company. And exxon would be our only oil company.

When a company gets that edge, they will do what's neccesary to keep it. Standard oil did it by controlling prices. Just think about it. Monetary based systems of any kind (socialism, capitalism, communism) doesn't work anymore.

Do you really think that?

 

[Teenforpaul08]

The fact is, the market is not a zero-sum game. You're right that corruption has screwed up the market, but if we actually had an enforceable Constitution and a way to prevent the government from interfering whatsoever, that would no longer be the case.

Ok, if the government doesn't interfere then RIGHT NOW, standard oil would be the world's only supplier of oil. THINK ABOUT IT. they, as a company will do what it takes to control market share (and they can because they would have the resources to do so). They would just lower prices until everyone is out of business and jack them up when they are all alone.