So what do you DISAGREE about with Ron Paul?

[dannno]

3. He's not addressing the blatant communism coming from the left. This upsets me.

Maybe you should address the blatant communism coming from the right?

I know RP does.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

His support for knuckleheads like Don Young and Michele Bachmann. I can't think of any disagreements with him on policy though.

 

[NMCB3]

I disagree with his foolish "parchment worship" The Constitution is a severely flawed document, it never worked and the chances of it ever working in the future are slim to none. A limited government that protects your rights but goes no further is a Utopian fantasy, we need something new and different. Other than that I love the guy.

 

[nodope0695]

His "Dumbledore-ish" tendency to put too much trust into people who work for him or do things in his name...this bit him in the ass with the newsletter fiasco, and it bit him in the ass with his poorly-run campaign.

Took the words right outta my mouth!

 

[qh4dotcom]

- the egregious earmarks he requests for his district
- too tough on legal immigration
- his position on the 2nd amendment scares me...sorry I don't own or like guns
- his endorsement of Don Young
- there are liberty-minded candidates who haven't had the chance to get an endorsement from him
- I can't trust him with donations after he didn't get better results from the $34 million his campaign raised.

As Glenn Beck once said "I don't need the perfect politician"...neither do I

 

[Trance Dance Master]

Took the words right outta my mouth!

Paul himself is to blame for failing. Not the people he trusts. He denounced his own supporters and publication instead of championing them, which would've been the honorable thing to do.

 

[Uriel999]

Paul himself is to blame for failing. Not the people he trusts. He denounced his own supporters and publication instead of championing them, which would've been the honorable thing to do.

The publication he didn't pay attention too was full of racist bigoted statements. Oh wait, nevermind I forgot I was talking to the resident nazi. Don't you have better things to do like press your brownshirt or work on getting your next nazi youth badge?

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Ron Paul is too European-centric.

So I have been thinking about posting this for a few months but have been hesitant to do so. I debated whether or not this would be controversial but have come to the conclusion this thread could be most interesting. The question is simple, as far as Ron Paul's stands in your opinion what do you disagree with him about?

Me personally, since I started the post will offer my criticism's:

seriously, no disagreements over political issues whatsoever that I have heard him comment on, not saying we may not disagree on some minor issues that I have not heard since I started following the man roughy 2 years go but I don't know them. that being said, I disagree with how the man ran his campaign...or rather didn't run his campaign. Especially with what we the grassroots did with the money bombs and a freaking blimp. Where was his campaign?! Say all you want about how the media screwed him over (and I don't necessarily disagree with much criticism towards the Ministry of Truth) but as far as the press goes RP could have had much more exposure if his campaign had been run better. That is my only criticism I can think of, but what is yours? Be honest, do you disagree with him on abortion? How about Capital punishment? Chuck Baldwin endorsement? Campaign for liberty? Perhaps your a broad constructionist Hamiltonian bastard? etc, etc?

The European way endangers the American way of life as do African and Hispanic cultures. There is nothing to understand about American government outside of the self evident truths and unalienable rights. These principles were developed before science created the dark and heavy cognitive sciences. The cognitive sciences have created a modern political science in Europe while they have confused American politics.
Simply put, the self evident truths can't be misunderstood because they unalienably reduce to natural rights to the extent that they exist beyond even an idea as they are indelibly written onto the soul of every human being whether he or she be a Master or a slave, King or a peasant, or a Lord or a commoner.
Our Founding Fathers played the part of "we the people" commoners when they created our government.

 

[Trance Dance Master]

The publication he didn't pay attention too was full of racist bigoted statements. Oh wait, nevermind I forgot I was talking to the resident nazi. Don't you have better things to do like press your brownshirt or work on getting your next nazi youth badge?

Even though Ron Paul may not have agreed with the statements in the publication, he didn't have to renounce his supporters like he did. That was his mistake. He let the power of being the personality cult leader get to his head. He rejected the elite that gave him that power, and the elite retracted the power we once gave him.

McCain showed better character. He didn't renounce Hagee's support when called on it, like Paul renounced Black's support. In fact, McCain defended Hagee. If only Paul were so trustworthy, the cause of freedom would've advanced much further.

 

[Wendi]

There is NO excuse for people to be sleeping on the street, particularly veterans, when the churches sit empty at night and are staffed with volunteers.

The problem isn't entirely one of lack of places to go. I personally talked to, and tried to help over a period of almost two years, a homeless man who frequented a convenient store in my neighborhood. He spoke of deplorable conditions in the shelters, refused to go to them even when the weather was nearly unbearable.

So I did some investigating, and learned that most times of the year the homeless shelters in Houston are less than half full. This changes only during the absolute coldest times of the year - and even then, there are always reports of those who refuse to go to the shelters.

The number one cause of homelessness is mental illness. Without treatment, most of these folks are never going to be able to overcome their situation no matter what kind of help is offered to them. Which brings us back to the issue of health care.

If Americans had adequate access to healthcare in the first place, maybe they wouldn't end up in that situation.

Edit to add: PARTICULARLY veterans, who have historically gotten the shaft when it comes to all aspects of healthcare after returning from wars they shouldn't have been sent to in the first place.

 

[RonPaulMania]

What history? Is there some place you can point to in history that has had a free market to which my logic doesn't follow?

Would you consider the beginning of this country a free-market? If not what type of free-market do you think ever existed? If something has never existed than it stands to reason it never will. You are making some kind of puritanical existence of a free-market, which never existed without corporatism or croneyism. People are, by nature or fallen nature, greedy and selfish.

What we're talking about here is, of course, the free market.. not the Constitution. Government's nature is to scratch the back of those that scratch its back. But in a free market, the government has no claws.

That's my point and you don't see it. You are talking about an Utopian gov't that is always acting in perfect harmony with the whole. The closest you will get is a king-philosopher or a merit based government. The closest we have got to that was king-philosophers.

In case that analogy is lost on anyone, here is the crystal clear version of it. A free market means zero taxes of any kind (taxes impose on rights, and an imposition of rights is not a free market). If there are no taxes, then government has no vast sums of cash to spread around to large businesses.

They don't need large sums to help, just laws to facilitate their continuing and expanding marketing share. If there is gov't there is taxes. You cannot separate them, and gov't will always go where the taxes are. This world cannot be changed unless you are talking about a spiritual take-over and a guild society based on distributionism.

So my original claim stands. In a free market, you cannot have corporatism because government has no tools with which to favor big businesses.

They have laws, and that's enough. Again, show me a free-market society which has prevailed civilly and equitably. They don't exist for a reason. Read why labor laws were so strong with unions to understand what happened, and how people were forced from the farms and rural development, to cities where apartments became the rule of the day and land was not be bought by the working classes.

If a strict free market did exist in this world that you envision it there wouldn't be a middle-class. The middle-class are strong in this country because we had production, and then labor unions to protect wealth from only going upstream without proper wages. The Thomas Jefferson vision of a strong agrarian country died when money became the rule of the day, and it always does.

 

[nickcoons]

Would you consider the beginning of this country a free-market?

No, but it was probably the closest we've seen on a large scale.

If not what type of free-market do you think ever existed?

The Icelandic Free State worked out well for over 300 years.

If something has never existed than it stands to reason it never will.

Well that's just a ridiculous thing to say. If that were the case, there would have been no need for the word "invention" in our language .

You are making some kind of puritanical existence of a free-market, which never existed without corporatism or croneyism. People are, by nature or fallen nature, greedy and selfish.

There is nothing wrong with being greedy and selfish. It is, in fact, what drives production and is a virtue.

That's my point and you don't see it. You are talking about an Utopian gov't that is always acting in perfect harmony with the whole. The closest you will get is a king-philosopher or a merit based government. The closest we have got to that was king-philosophers.

The only thing I ask of the government is to protect rights without infringing on them. I don't see that as utopian.

They don't need large sums to help, just laws to facilitate their continuing and expanding marketing share.

They would need large sums of money to enforce those laws.

If there is gov't there is taxes.

Historically, that is the case. There's no reason that it has to be that way.

This world cannot be changed unless you are talking about a spiritual take-over and a guild society based on distributionism.

I wouldn't call it a spiritual take-over, because I'm not sure what "spiritual" has to do with it. Mary Ruwart is excellent at explaining the non-aggression principle and how it provides greater prosperity.

If a strict free market did exist in this world that you envision it there wouldn't be a middle-class. The middle-class are strong in this country because we had production, and then labor unions to protect wealth from only going upstream without proper wages. The Thomas Jefferson vision of a strong agrarian country died when money became the rule of the day, and it always does.

If a strict free market existed the way I envision it, virtually everyone would be part of the middle class. You're right about the correlation between the middle class and production. Labor unions protected nothing but their own existence. There is nothing wrong with workers organizing to pool their negotiating resources, but they don't need the force of government behind them. Government doesn't need to protect wages from going upward; competition does that. But when government regulates business, it stifles competition by raising the barrier to entry.

A strict free market is the simplest and most moral system of exchange. In essence, it's two parties trading with each other voluntarily without anyone forcefully interfering with that transaction (either by taking a piece of the transaction or by specifying how the transaction may take place). Government's job in the market is to insure that such transactions can be made freely.

 

[Sergeant Brother]

Even though Ron Paul may not have agreed with the statements in the publication, he didn't have to renounce his supporters like he did. That was his mistake. He let the power of being the personality cult leader get to his head. He rejected the elite that gave him that power, and the elite retracted the power we once gave him.

McCain showed better character. He didn't renounce Hagee's support when called on it, like Paul renounced Black's support. In fact, McCain defended Hagee. If only Paul were so trustworthy, the cause of freedom would've advanced much further.

I don't think that Paul lost primarily because he denounced his more right wing supporters, I do think that it hurt his campaign. Not just because it reduced the enthusiasm that his supporters had for him, but it showed his weakness. I think that is the primary goal of the left crying racism - it causes the accused to grovel and bend over backwards apologizing. Not only does this reaction not win any converts from people who oppose of racism, it makes him look weak and docile to undecided voters who respect power and dominance. Apologizing or making excuses doesn't placate race baiters, it just makes them more aggressive like blood in the water to sharks.

So it made me sad when Paul cowered in fear from the accusation of racism, it made me sad because it seemed like a compromise in his values and an event which hurt his chances. He still had my strong support, but I wish he would have had more of a spine in the face of the race baiters.

 

[jonhowe]

I don't think that Paul lost primarily because he denounced his more right wing supporters, I do think that it hurt his campaign. Not just because it reduced the enthusiasm that his supporters had for him, but it showed his weakness. I think that is the primary goal of the left crying racism - it causes the accused to grovel and bend over backwards apologizing. Not only does this reaction not win any converts from people who oppose of racism, it makes him look weak and docile to undecided voters who respect power and dominance. Apologizing or making excuses doesn't placate race baiters, it just makes them more aggressive like blood in the water to sharks.

So it made me sad when Paul cowered in fear from the accusation of racism, it made me sad because it seemed like a compromise in his values and an event which hurt his chances. He still had my strong support, but I wish he would have had more of a spine in the face of the race baiters.

Thats where you and I differ. He chose not to comprimise his values for votes.

 

[RonPaulMania]

No, but it was probably the closest we've seen on a large scale.

Ok, if that's the case then you realize the immediate interventionism by the gov't with business. I'm sorry, it's impossible to separate the 2 with an economy seeks expansion.

The Icelandic Free State worked out well for over 300 years.

I beg to differ. That Free State you speak of had mandatory conscription, and again many of their beliefs in freedom came under the Christian/spiritual world-view.

Well that's just a ridiculous thing to say. If that were the case, there would have been no need for the word "invention" in our language .

Inventions belong to those things we can create, we cannot create nature, or re-define it. If you think nature can be re-defined that's ridiculous.

There is nothing wrong with being greedy and selfish. It is, in fact, what drives production and is a virtue.

Neither avarice nor selfishness is virtuous. Self-preservation is virtuous only insofar that you seek the mean between liberality and miserly behavior.

The only thing I ask of the government is to protect rights without infringing on them. I don't see that as utopian.

It is sadly. Men aren't typically virtuous without hard labor, the study of virtue, and the cultivation of the above. The most we can do is minimize their invasion in our lives.

They would need large sums of money to enforce those laws.

No, it wouldn't. They pass or allow Corporation X to build new billboards, and voila the new Corp gains a strong advertising share than little man Y can't handle. Eventually Corp X will lower prices, give worse service, but most people will go there to save money to the detriment of the small guy so they can save more. Rinse and repeat to the next city.

Historically, that is the case. There's no reason that it has to be that way.

There is no reason to think human nature is going to change conversely.

I wouldn't call it a spiritual take-over, because I'm not sure what "spiritual" has to do with it. Mary Ruwart is excellent at explaining the non-aggression principle and how it provides greater prosperity.

World of difference between explaining and people doing it. There has to be an impetus to change, and that's a spiritual question as all of man's desires, passions, and ideas are spiritual in nature. Spiritual meaning non-material, not in the Skooby-Doo sense of the word.

If a strict free market existed the way I envision it, virtually everyone would be part of the middle class. ... But when government regulates business, it stifles competition by raising the barrier to entry.

It also protects the middle men. It's one of the toughest questions that is unresolved. You see I'm a big fan of history, and I have never seen the resolution. If you don't regulate you have a situation like you do in small cities in Central and South America where people blast their music all night long, and while there is more freedom to run a business without zoning laws, listening to loud music all night while you sleep is ridiculous. I've spent a year traveling down there. Sometimes regulation becomes a must.

A strict free market is the simplest and most moral system of exchange. In essence, it's two parties trading with each other voluntarily without anyone forcefully interfering with that transaction (either by taking a piece of the transaction or by specifying how the transaction may take place). Government's job in the market is to insure that such transactions can be made freely.

St. Augustine wrote the just war theory, and he was also known to say in the field of economics there is no perfect way in an imperfect world and that by nature the evolution of economics would happen. I tend to agree with him. I also agree that in an Utopia what you are saying is correct, but I cannot see how it's possible when there is a lot of money at risk as corporations and gov'ts seem to work in collusion. I don't know how you stop that except by trying your best in voting the best man. That's why I love Ron Paul, he's honest and a God fearing man.

 

[Trance Dance Master]

So it made me sad when Paul cowered in fear from the accusation of racism, it made me sad because it seemed like a compromise in his values and an event which hurt his chances. He still had my strong support, but I wish he would have had more of a spine in the face of the race baiters.

His cowardice enraged me.

 

[Sergeant Brother]

Thats where you and I differ. He chose not to comprimise his values for votes.

I feel like he did compromise his values in the attempt to win the votes of people who don't like him anyway. I've heard plenty of people say that Paul's "racist connections" are what ruined his chance and say he should have come out more strong against his White Nationalist supporters - but all of the people have one thing in common - they don't like Ron Paul's politics and wouldn't have supported him in any case.

His cowardice enraged me.

I wouldn't say it enraged me, but I was definitely disappointed in him.

 

[nickcoons]

I beg to differ. That Free State you speak of had mandatory conscription, and again many of their beliefs in freedom came under the Christian/spiritual world-view.

We are talking about the market though.

Inventions belong to those things we can create, we cannot create nature, or re-define it. If you think nature can be re-defined that's ridiculous.

You said, "If something has never existed than [sic] it stands to reason it never will." My comment regarding inventions was not an implication of redefining nature, and I don't know how it could have been interpreted that way. A free market is what exists in the absence of institutionalized aggression. So I suppose technically a free market existed in all of the tens of thousands of years of human history, except in the past few thousand years when governments sprung up. But of course I'm referring to more recent civilization.

So specifically, actions aren't taken to create a free market, because it exists in the absence of action. Instead, counter-actions (so to speak) are necessary in order to discontinue the destruction of the free market.

Neither avarice nor selfishness is virtuous. Self-preservation is virtuous only insofar that you seek the mean between liberality and miserly behavior.

Why is selfishness not a virtue? I suppose since I claimed that it was, I should first make that point and let you respond.

If I am selfish (and everyone is), it means that I want to acquire those things (tangible or intangible) that make me happy, however I define happiness. If helping others makes me happy, then that's what I will do. I'll give to charity, I'll donate my time and resources, and I will have taken actions which generate certain emotions that contribute to my happiness.

If making gobs of money makes me happy, then I'll take action toward that end. The easiest way to get money is to have people give it to me voluntarily (as opposed to taking it by force, because in a free society that's simply too risky). And if I want lots of money, then I'll need lots of people to give me money. The best way to get money from someone is to give them something of value in return. The most common manifestation of this is in starting a business. In order to gain the level of wealth I may desire, then I have to provide something of value to dozens, hundreds, or perhaps even thousands of people every year. So my selfishness has contributed positively to all of those people. Selfishness, when allowed to thrive in a free society, is a virtue because the side-effect is an improvement in some to those around them.

You mentioned nature, so I'd like to bring up briefly the nature of man, and that man is always selfish. Everyone does what they believe to be in their best interest at any given point in time. Because this is nature and cannot be redefined (as you and I agree), then it is futile to try and change this. But it's also unnecessary, because it's the free market that puts this selfish nature to good use instead of trying to suppress it.

No, it wouldn't. They pass or allow Corporation X to build new billboards, and voila the new Corp gains a strong advertising share than little man Y can't handle. Eventually Corp X will lower prices, give worse service, but most people will go there to save money to the detriment of the small guy so they can save more. Rinse and repeat to the next city.

But again, laws are no good without enforcement. How are they going to allow Corporation X to build new billboards while simultaneously prevent me from building them without a way to enforce that law?

They would either:

- Pay for the billboards for Corporation X, but not pay for my billboards, which puts me at a disadvantage, or
- Allow Corporation X to build billboards, and then pay someone to prevent me from doing the same.

In either case, they need money to enforce these laws. If they don't have a method of forcefully extracting money from people (because taxation and free markets are incompatible), then they have no way to provide such a favor to Corporation X.

There is no reason to think human nature is going to change conversely.

I think there is. We've had slavery in our country up until the 1860s. Other countries had slavery before ours. Slavery goes back even before ancient Roman times to the Egyptians, and perhaps even further than that, so it has existed for most of human history. But somehow it was virtually abolished in only the most modern of times (with respect to all of human civilization). The way humans view the world can be changed between generations.

World of difference between explaining and people doing it. There has to be an impetus to change, and that's a spiritual question as all of man's desires, passions, and ideas are spiritual in nature. Spiritual meaning non-material, not in the Skooby-Doo sense of the word.

Explanation is part of education and increasing the spread of rational thought. As in my above example regarding slavery, there are now more atheists (or, at least, non-religious folks) in the world than there have been before. With the advance in world-wide communication, ideas based on reason are likely to spread and be adopted more quickly than they have ever in the past.

It also protects the middle men.

How do regulations on businesses protect the middle men in a way that they wouldn't be protected in a free market?

It's one of the toughest questions that is unresolved. You see I'm a big fan of history, and I have never seen the resolution. If you don't regulate you have a situation like you do in small cities in Central and South America where people blast their music all night long, and while there is more freedom to run a business without zoning laws, listening to loud music all night while you sleep is ridiculous. I've spent a year traveling down there. Sometimes regulation becomes a must.

I think you're presenting a dichotomy where there are more than two choices.. that is, either (A) We regulate to prevent loud music in residential areas, or (B) We don't regulate and have to put up with loud music. This is ignoring choices C through Z. For instance, a Home Owner's Association is a perfectly legitimate organization to enforce community wishes, because everyone owning in such a community has explicitly signed a contract to abide by the rules set out by the community.

St. Augustine wrote the just war theory, and he was also known to say in the field of economics there is no perfect way in an imperfect world and that by nature the evolution of economics would happen. I tend to agree with him. I also agree that in an Utopia what you are saying is correct, but I cannot see how it's possible when there is a lot of money at risk as corporations and gov'ts seem to work in collusion. I don't know how you stop that except by trying your best in voting the best man. That's why I love Ron Paul, he's honest and a God fearing man.[/QUOTE]

Governments and big business work together because has a legal monopoly on the use of force. The solution isn't to restrict businesses, but rather to de-claw government by taking away their ability to initiate force against individuals. When government loses that ability, businesses will no longer seek government's assistance, because it has none to give.

I don't agree that a Utopia could ever exist. Striving for happiness is a journey, not a destination. If we were to all somehow reach such a destination, the feeling of perfection would last all of five seconds until someone found some shortfall and began pursuing a solution, thereby eliminating the perfection needed to create the Utopia.

One thing to keep in mind about corporations is that their existence as we know them today would also not occur in a free market. The fact that corporations are actually created by government is often overlooked in conversations such as this. A corporation is an artificial person created by government for the purpose of taking the fall for bad decisions made by those in charge of the corporation; whereas an individual in that same scenario would take the fall personally. In a free market, the individuals in charge would all take personal responsibility for the decisions that they made because they would not have government grant to pass on the consequences of their actions to a non-existent person. People are more likely to make more responsible decisions if they are responsible for the consequences of those decisions. Relieving someone of accountability for their decisions is the best way to get them to behave irresponsibly.

I agree with your sentiments about Ron Paul (however, as an atheist, I don't really care that he's God-fearing). Right now, one of the few weapons that we have is in electing the right people to office. However, this can be extremely difficult. Not because the right people are hard to elect, but because they're hard to identify. People that appear to be the right people are, more often than not, corrupted by their new-found power in office.

Take Alan Greenspan. Based on what he preached prior to him being appointed the Counterfeiter-in-Chief (his love of gold as money), it would have appeared that he was the right person to head the Federal Reserve because he would have tried to control the damage that it had done and eliminate it. Of course, none of that happened and he changed his tune once appointed. So identifying the right people to put in office can be challenging.

I think our best bet is in spreading ideas that have sprung from reason. This will create better voters and better candidates.

 

[Trance Dance Master]

So identifying the right people to put in office can be challenging.

I think our best bet is in spreading ideas that have sprung from reason. This will create better voters and better candidates.

The real challenge is making sure the candidates and officials don't step out of line. We won't let them demand supporters toe their line.