Why do people group Ron Paul Enthusiasts With These People?

[clb09]

YouTube - Listen to and support LaRouche if you want to stop the NWO.

YouTube - Brazil Russia India China (BRIC) takes suicide pill

 

[pcosmar]

Why do people group Ron Paul Enthusiasts With These People?

Not sure, Possibilities include,
Ignorance
Stupidity
Malice.

 

[clb09]

My Favorite!

YouTube - LaRouche has Broken the Media Containment of him around the health care issue.

 

[Don't Tread on Mike]

Well don't group me in there, i want no part of that lol

 

[t0rnado]

Those are the mentally challenged lunatics that stand outside of town hall meetings with photoshopped posters of Obama. They're pretty much cult members who have no knowledge of history, economics, or anything else and they just use vague references in an attempt to back up what they're saying.

 

[Mini-Me]

I think mainstream culture just likes to lump everything that's not mainstream into the same category of "kooky," without bothering to differentiate the wheat from the chaff. Of course, people with a vested interest in the status quo will naturally encourage this.

In other words, what pcosmar said.

 

[clb09]

LaRouche on Paul:

December 10, 2007 (LPAC)--LaRouche replied to several e-mails addressed to him from avowed supporters of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul's Republican Presidential pre-candidacy:

"Although U.S. Representative Ron Paul and I have coinciding opinions on a variety of important matters of national policy, his policies on national credit and currency, are not only in grave error, but are fatally at odds with what I know to be the measures which must be adopted if our republic is to survive. Under what he has represented as his views on this matter, our republic could not survive the presently on-rushing, global breakdown-crisis in progress."

 

[Long_Lamkin]

LaRouche and his zombies are more fun than a sack of confused weasels.

 

[BenIsForRon]

That was so weird.

 

[wizardwatson]

I was a reader of LaRouche long before Rockwell. LaRouche I guess was a better advertiser on the net.

LaRouche is more wrong than the Austrians, but the Austrians are wrong on monetary theory, which sucks actually, because that's where they've convinced themselves they are strongest. LaRouche is wrong too on banking/monetary theory, oddly though I think LaRouche's solution might actually be better. Of course this is 'relatively' speaking, as both approaches, in my opinion, are toxic to the real economy.

The Ron Paul/Liberty movement has disappointed me in its devotion to this Austrian thought and education as if it is the holy grail of knowledge to be attained. We should look at its theories and axioms with intense scrutiny, since the elaboration of these theories are not only young, but have really failed to congeal into any kind of strategy. And the supposed ground-breaking work done by Rothbard and Mises in the field of monetarism and banking/credit has yielded no real fruits in systems theory or strategic theory.

 

[jmdrake]

Umm....were those clips supposed to be parodies? Does he really think he's going to get anywhere by saying "The only solution is mine"? And why are all 3 of his spokesmen women?

 

[tggroo7]

My Favorite!

YouTube - LaRouche has Broken the Media Containment of him around the health care issue.

From the video (about 5:50): "The primary form of human existence occurs in the form of human dynamics. As a specific formation of culture, is subsumed by a particular dynamic. An intelligent understanding of classical tragedy shows us that there is no such thing as a tragic individual only a tragic culture subsumed by a self-destructive dynamic. What is crucial in the case of a cultural tragedy is a limited number of people who are exceptions to that culture and don't go along with it. They're not intimidated that their ideas don't correspond to their neighbors and friends but they will stand up for them on the basis of principle. You break the previous dynamic when you break with the corruption."


Is it bad that my brain is pulsating?

 

[tggroo7]

Allow me to step down to their level and present an equally mature counter-argument: "You people are wrong. Stop talking. LaRouche? More like LaDouche."

 

[Mini-Me]

I was a reader of LaRouche long before Rockwell. LaRouche I guess was a better advertiser on the net.

LaRouche is more wrong than the Austrians, but the Austrians are wrong on monetary theory, which sucks actually, because that's where they've convinced themselves they are strongest. LaRouche is wrong too on banking/monetary theory, oddly though I think LaRouche's solution might actually be better. Of course this is 'relatively' speaking, as both approaches, in my opinion, are toxic to the real economy.

The Ron Paul/Liberty movement has disappointed me in its devotion to this Austrian thought and education as if it is the holy grail of knowledge to be attained. We should look at its theories and axioms with intense scrutiny, since the elaboration of these theories are not only young, but have really failed to congeal into any kind of strategy. And the supposed ground-breaking work done by Rothbard and Mises in the field of monetarism and banking/credit has yielded no real fruits in systems theory or strategic theory.

Where do the Austrians go wrong on banking and monetary theory, where do they go wrong on the solution, and what alternatives to theory and solution would you propose? I went searching through some of your posts over the past half year, but I haven't found any mention of this yet.

 

[Elwar]

I cannot be grouped.

 

[Cowlesy]

From the video (about 5:50): "The primary form of human existence occurs in the form of human dynamics. As a specific formation of culture, is subsumed by a particular dynamic. An intelligent understanding of classical tragedy shows us that there is no such thing as a tragic individual only a tragic culture subsumed by a self-destructive dynamic. What is crucial in the case of a cultural tragedy is a limited number of people who are exceptions to that culture and don't go along with it. They're not intimidated that their ideas don't correspond to their neighbors and friends but they will stand up for them on the basis of principle. You break the previous dynamic when you break with the corruption."


Is it bad that my brain is pulsating?

Sounds like something straight out of a Phish song

 

[The Original Gentleman]

Tggroo7: LaRouche's understanding of classical tragedy--he apparently thinks the Illiad is tragic because everyone dies, which isn't true, and that it was written by Aeschylus, which is false--is pretty warped.

 

[wizardwatson]

Where do the Austrians go wrong on banking and monetary theory, where do they go wrong on the solution, and what alternatives to theory and solution would you propose? I went searching through some of your posts over the past half year, but I haven't found any mention of this yet.

You may not find it here, because I haven't concentrated solely here. I've posted on forums at Mises.org as well as a forum run by Fred Foldvary that has a few Georgist minded individuals ( who, incidentally, I disagreed with on numerous points as well ).

I only say Larouche is more solid in ideas ( when it comes to money/banking ) because LaRouche wants to strip powers from the bank and fix the money system directly. Rothbard, et al, want to strip the power of government and empower people to use, and have the government enforce (at least for its own dealings) a gold standard. Ron Paul, noteably (though often ignored by RP supporters) understands Rothbard's position but does not have the same stance.

You see, I'm dissappointed in myself as well. I wish I could have seen this movement sooner, and done something while it was still fresh. And I get more fatigued when I see that everyone is 'settling in' to this libertarian/anarcho-austrian economic view instead of finding holes and contradictions and missing pieces. Why don't we have libertarian run banks? Credit unions? Community Currencies? If the problem is economic at root, why are none of our strategies economic? How much more effective is a 500K money bomb vs 10K people handing out 500K worth of pocket constitutions? What is our litmus test for effective strategies? Where is CFL? Why is everyone falling back into standard political campaigning as an effective means to achieve liberty, when the essence of the state itself in most cases is liberty's anti-thesis?

I'm disappointed and have been for awhile, not because I'm better or older or more 'in the know', but simply because I see no one asking any real questions on these forums anymore.

All I see is the same mindless......."Rand, Rand, Moneybomb, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Austrians, Education, Gradualism"...and on and on. The same kind of follow the flow mentality that we ribbed the Obamabots for.

You see Rothbard recognizes the ancient Chinese roots of libertarian thought. And he grasped the concept of 'non-action' and 'non-agression' in his exposition of this knowledge. But he did not see the whole thing. He did not see economics any more clearly than Adam Smith or Henry George or Milton Friedman. He did not see the strategic side of liberty. The "action" side of the yin-yang combo. Well, he saw it perhaps as evidenced by the little credit he gives to it at the end of Ethics of Liberty, but he certainly didn't develop it.

And developing this strategic side for achieving liberty is crucial for understanding the real nature of money. Money and how people use it is inextricably linked to their strategic imperative to 'liberate' themselves from their current economic dilemma. But none of these "monetary theorists" ever considers 'money' from the perspective of the individual in the context of providing solutions that an individual could implement. The solutions are always presented as anti-dotes to try to 'reverse the process', but on a State level or private institution level.

And this understanding can't really be grasped by reading theory. But it can be grasped through dialog. We gather information through reading and theories and stories. We 'learn' through our interaction with others.

Anyway, tired of typing, does this help elaborate?

 

[hugolp]

You may not find it here, because I haven't concentrated solely here. I've posted on forums at Mises.org as well as a forum run by Fred Foldvary that has a few Georgist minded individuals ( who, incidentally, I disagreed with on numerous points as well ).

I only say Larouche is more solid in ideas ( when it comes to money/banking ) because LaRouche wants to strip powers from the bank and fix the money system directly. Rothbard, et al, want to strip the power of government and empower people to use, and have the government enforce (at least for its own dealings) a gold standard. Ron Paul, noteably (though often ignored by RP supporters) understands Rothbard's position but does not have the same stance.

You see, I'm dissappointed in myself as well. I wish I could have seen this movement sooner, and done something while it was still fresh. And I get more fatigued when I see that everyone is 'settling in' to this libertarian/anarcho-austrian economic view instead of finding holes and contradictions and missing pieces. Why don't we have libertarian run banks? Credit unions? Community Currencies? If the problem is economic at root, why are none of our strategies economic? How much more effective is a 500K money bomb vs 10K people handing out 500K worth of pocket constitutions? What is our litmus test for effective strategies? Where is CFL? Why is everyone falling back into standard political campaigning as an effective means to achieve liberty, when the essence of the state itself in most cases is liberty's anti-thesis?

I'm disappointed and have been for awhile, not because I'm better or older or more 'in the know', but simply because I see no one asking any real questions on these forums anymore.

All I see is the same mindless......."Rand, Rand, Moneybomb, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Austrians, Education, Gradualism"...and on and on. The same kind of follow the flow mentality that we ribbed the Obamabots for.

You see Rothbard recognizes the ancient Chinese roots of libertarian thought. And he grasped the concept of 'non-action' and 'non-agression' in his exposition of this knowledge. But he did not see the whole thing. He did not see economics any more clearly than Adam Smith or Henry George or Milton Friedman. He did not see the strategic side of liberty. The "action" side of the yin-yang combo. Well, he saw it perhaps as evidenced by the little credit he gives to it at the end of Ethics of Liberty, but he certainly didn't develop it.

And developing this strategic side for achieving liberty is crucial for understanding the real nature of money. Money and how people use it is inextricably linked to their strategic imperative to 'liberate' themselves from their current economic dilemma. But none of these "monetary theorists" ever considers 'money' from the perspective of the individual in the context of providing solutions that an individual could implement. The solutions are always presented as anti-dotes to try to 'reverse the process', but on a State level or private institution level.

And this understanding can't really be grasped by reading theory. But it can be grasped through dialog. We gather information through reading and theories and stories. We 'learn' through our interaction with others.

Anyway, tired of typing, does this help elaborate?

Thanks for the reply because I was curious as well, but I have to say that I am still as much clueless to what you really mean as before I read it.

So what are this mistakes in strategy, and what strategies should be followed? Put it this way, if you were Ron Paul, what would you be doing?

 

[acptulsa]

Anyway, tired of typing, does this help elaborate?

Not much. You didn't address where the holes in the Austrian logic lie. A means of exchange is a means of exchange--until someone comes up with one that can easily (and in fact is designed to be) manipulated. So, if we don't go for sound money, how can we protect ourselves from those who manage the fiat? Or is there a third variety I'm not considering?