Some fun facts on Ron Paul

[Atac]

As a strong Ron Paul supporter (have read all of his books), I would really love to get into this right now, but there is too much text in this thread and I just finished too much homework.

Just posting to remind myself to come back to this thread.


EDIT:
Just did a quick skim of the thread out of curiosity, and Deadly is spot on.
Seems to be the only person here who understands Dr. Paul's policies and WHY he believes in those policies.

[Genevieve]

Ugh, far too many individual points to do at once so I'll try, try to answer everything in one long ass post.

Overregulation is what got us here because the government and the corporations are the same thing. People refuse to believe that the government can be every bit as 'evil' as the corporations they despise. They believe that the corporations are out to get them and it's the government's job to save them, in fairly tale land this is true, but it is not reality. The government did not fail to act correctly, they refused to. Does this compute at all? It is in their best self-interest to go along with the corporations, not the people. This is why you see so much war, this is why you see the bailouts. If the government was pro-people and anti-corporations, why did they punish the people for Walstreet's criminal behavior by taking their money and giving it to the bankers? If people are out of a job because of Walstreet, they could've put those people on government support instead of bailing out the people who caused the problem. 'Well, that's just crazy!' I agree, it is crazy, but the government actually didn't go that, but even went one step higher on the crazy ladder and gave the people who MADE those poor people lose their homes and jobs the money. This is not a failure of regulation. This is deliberate action to help the bad guys and screw over the good guys. This is HOW the government regulated it.

A person will always do what's in their best self-interest, if this best self-interest is achieved by, for example, being in the government and helping the super rich, why wouldn't they do that? Where does the politician's best self-interest lie? With the wealthiest 1% or the poorest 99%?

Democracy is nice and all, you know, electing officials does not garuantee that you'll get the good people in charge. Nothing does. Who are the people everyone wants to see elected? The people who want the power. And have you ever seen a debate? Do you see what type of answers people give? Have you noticed how Obama said he'd pull back the troops around the globe but deployed more?

I'll never for a second deny that what these bankers did was bad, but government did not fail to regulate. They straight up don't give a shit. They're not crying over this. Yes, there are a number of very decent and honorable politicians out there, but politicians, like boardmembers of a big corporations, will 9 times out of 10 do everything they can to further themselves and then their pals. We are the least of their concerns.



This degree of corruption is not limited Rick Perry. Obama is cut from the same cloth. Clinton is as well. And I'm not 'criticizing' them for it, Jesus, of course they're gonna look out for themselves more than others, they're people. You people are no better than that and I am no better than that.

Democracy does not ensure that good people are in power. Cameron, Bush, Clinton, Blair, Thatcher are the result of voting. 'Well, it's better than nothing' how?

The government regulates certain company's success. And yes, without government, a corporation wouldn't exist. It's legal status, corporations came about through law. There is no argument there.

This is the first line on Wikipedia about corporations: A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

Without government, a corporation wouldn't exist and without government to influence legislation, corporations wouldn't have that power. The regulatory power of the government is IN the corporations you wish would be regulated by th government. Who do you think gives corporations tax breaks? And why? Do you think this is a 'failure to regulate'? I usually do not results to namecalling in such discussions, but if you believe that the same government that goes out to kill half a million innocent children in Iraq through sanctions and claims that this was worth it, if you believe that these people aren't mouth-foaming sociopaths who clearly do not care for anybody but themselves, like the corporations you claim to hate, and just 'failed to regulate' rather than 'regulate in a way that is purposely detrimental to the people and beneficial to the corporations', then you have a very severe form of Stockholm syndrome. To call Ron Paul nuts because he wants to limit this system as much as he can while you're still celebrating a murderer who has deployed more troops around the globe than Bush did, like Obama and even killed mere suspects of something that amounts to speech crimes, then I don't believe there is much hope for you.

Government regulation equals corporations regulating in each and every way.

[deadly_habit]

also to his supporters who want him to get the nomination, in order to vote for him in the primaries you need to be a registered republican, and in order to do that you need to switch parties at least 12 weeks beforehand.
pain in the ass i know, but at least it sends a message

[magma]

Then the answer isn't to elect another person from the current system, it's to occupy our cities until we're given an option that represents the people. We've been exercising a democratic "survival of the fittest" in our parliaments since the 1700s and they've slowly been getting better... their far from perfect, but equally, they're a lot better than they used to be and a LOT better than other regimes around the world.

I still don't buy that people will act right if they're given enough freedom. Powerful people will always exert power if they can... regulation is required to make sure they can't. The little man must be protected by the law. If the current crop of politicians isn't interested in proper economic regulation (as older generations' governments weren't interested in civil rights, votes for women, minimum wages and universal healthcare) then we have to force a new generation in. That's perfectly natural progress.. it will happen, the only question is how long it will take.

Democracy is the framework you acheive progress from... democracy includes voting AND protest/civil disobedience. Nowhere is made perfect over night or even in a single generation. Building society takes centuries if not millennia.

I totally understand where you're coming from, but your last couple of paragraphs get pretty paranoid and don't make too much sense... corporations exist, in the main, so that they can be subject to the rule of law. They exist so that groups of people acting as one can be held liable for crimes, sued by individuals or other corporations and held liable for tax collection. A corporation HAS to be a legal entity otherwise it would be absolutely free to act however it wanted.

The reluctance of politicians to hound them when necessary is separate to that. You don't need to scrap the idea of the corporation, you need to scrap the current crop of politicians.

[tyger]

Overregulation is what got us here because the government and the corporations are the same thing.

well, you're using the term "regulation" in a rather odd way, to refer to when the government is completely controlled by the corporations. yes, that happens a lot. yes, it's a big problem. it's confusing to call it "regulation".

if governments had made rules preventing dangerous lending practices and financial derivatives, that would have avoided the financial crisis. the fact that they still haven't made these rules is putting us at risk of having further similar crises. i'd call making these rules "regulation". if you don't want to call it that, ok. the point is, it's something we should be trying to make happen. and it's something RP is against.

asserting that corporations and government are the same thing, and seeing what follows from that, makes your argument ridiculous. they are deeply intertwined, to a dangerous degree. but not the same thing.

democracy is not something that's fully achieved in countries that hold (free & fair) elections. it is an on-going struggle, because of the danger that elected politicians will be controlled by the 1% rather than the people who voted for them. the more successful that struggle is, the less true it becomes that government and corporations are the same.

certainly one should not assume that governments will automatically do the right thing. if anything, the opposite. political struggle is about making it harder for them to do the wrong thing than the right thing.

as a result of past struggles, we do have a few good laws: minimum wage, anti-discrimination, environmental protection (though not enough of it), health & safety (i mean genuine health & safety, not "health & safety" as a catchall excuse for not doing anything). RP would to undo some of these good laws.

[Genevieve]

Then the answer isn't to elect another person from the current system, it's to occupy our cities until we're given an option that represents the people. We've been exercising a democratic "survival of the fittest" in our parliaments since the 1700s and they've slowly been getting better... their far from perfect, but equally, they're a lot better than they used to be and a LOT better than other regimes around the world.

I still don't buy that people will act right if they're given enough freedom. Powerful people will always exert power if they can... regulation is required to make sure they can't. The little man must be protected by the law. If the current crop of politicians isn't interested in proper economic regulation (as older generations' governments weren't interested in civil rights, votes for women, minimum wages and universal healthcare) then we have to force a new generation in. That's perfectly natural progress.. it will happen, the only question is how long it will take.

Democracy is the framework you acheive progress from... democracy includes voting AND protest/civil disobedience. Nowhere is made perfect over night or even in a single generation. Building society takes centuries if not millennia.

I totally understand where you're coming from, but your last couple of paragraphs get pretty paranoid and don't make too much sense... corporations exist, in the main, so that they can be subject to the rule of law. They exist so that groups of people acting as one can be held liable for crimes, sued by individuals or other corporations and held liable for tax collection. A corporation HAS to be a legal entity otherwise it would be absolutely free to act however it wanted.

The reluctance of politicians to hound them when necessary is separate to that. You don't need to scrap the idea of the corporation, you need to scrap the current crop of politicians.

On one hand you don't trust people to make the right choices for themselves and think it's fine for law to reflect that, but you trust them to make the right choice to elect the right people to make the right choice for the country? This just doesn't work at all from a logical standpoint and is exactly reflective of the Stockholm syndrome I mentioned earlier. Government is composed of people too, you know, the same ones that make poor choices for themselves.

And there is nothing 'paranoid' about treating a faceless entity with the same characteristics as a corporation to the same standards. One main difference between corpoerations and governments is that you vote for governments through a ballot and vote for a corporation by paying them money. The other main difference of government and corporations is that the government has legislative power, but this power is used by the corporations.

Also, I used to work for a venue and after a friend of mine who worked there too got back after having been to New Zealand got back, she got a free ticket to an event there that was organized by a private company. Officially they were breakign the rules for her and gave er benefits over the customers who had to pay simply because she was a friend. It's harmless and I'm not criticizing them for it at all. It's normal human behavior. Thing is, government does the exact same thing all the time, I mean why wouldn't they? It's normal human behavior. You're saying 'well, they need to get better people in office!' Ok and then? They do this by voting, right? And then? The cycle continues. This is just inherent to human nature. They will break the rules for friends or for self-interest. To assume that it's possible to vote in a government comprised of angels who won't do such things is incredibly naive.

And yes, I don't trust people to make the right choice for everything, but I respect them enough to make mistakes. You don't respect people if you don't respect their freedom of choice, hence why I don't want to impose my moral behavior on them. We all do fucked up things, as you said, like smoking, but it's a conscious decision people make and they take personal responsibility for their actiosn. THEN you flip-flop and say that people should only vote for things that they do to each other and uhh, yeah, that's libertarian philosophy. You can't exercise force on others unless it's self-defense. Libertarianism seeks to minimize the force people exercise on each other, and maximize people's freedom to do things to themselves. And sometimes, it means they'll do stuff you won't like, but you're not their boss.

Overregulation is what got us here because the government and the corporations are the same thing.

well, you're using the term "regulation" in a rather odd way, to refer to when the government is completely controlled by the corporations. yes, that happens a lot. yes, it's a big problem. it's confusing to call it "regulation".

if governments had made rules preventing dangerous lending practices and financial derivatives, that would have avoided the financial crisis. the fact that they still haven't made these rules is putting us at risk of having further similar crises. i'd call making these rules "regulation". if you don't want to call it that, ok. the point is, it's something we should be trying to make happen. and it's something RP is against.

asserting that corporations and government are the same thing, and seeing what follows from that, makes your argument ridiculous. they are deeply intertwined, to a dangerous degree. but not the same thing.

democracy is not something that's fully achieved in countries that hold (free & fair) elections. it is an on-going struggle, because of the danger that elected politicians will be controlled by the 1% rather than the people who voted for them. the more successful that struggle is, the less true it becomes that government and corporations are the same.

certainly one should not assume that governments will automatically do the right thing. if anything, the opposite. political struggle is about making it harder for them to do the wrong thing than the right thing.

as a result of past struggles, we do have a few good laws: minimum wage, anti-discrimination, environmental protection (though not enough of it), health & safety (i mean genuine health & safety, not "health & safety" as a catchall excuse for not doing anything). RP would to undo some of these good laws.

No, I'm using regulation in a neutral term. A regulation in the market can and usually does have adverse effects and it disturbs the natural choice people make when they partake in the market. Just because something bad happens as the result of regulations, doesn't mean it's not a regulation. As I said before, corporations regulate the competition through government, as described by Doug Wead here. You can't just go and say 'well.. yeah, but it's not a regulation because it's not done the way I want it to be done'.

Do you think the anti-child labor laws in Bangladesh are a good thing? Because once they were implemented, a large portion of kids turned to prostitution or starved. I'm not saying that child labor is a good thing, but child labor doesn't exist because of evil parents who hate their kids that need the government to step in. It's a necessity in some countries. Sometimes, working is deemed as being the better alternative.

And the thing is... if the central bank had not been able to artificially lower the interest rates, this wouldn't have been able to happen. I'm confused as to why people are against monopolies and cartels, but think it's fine when the government grants monopoly rights on currency. This was not a free-market problem. The free marketers have warned the public for this and were ridiculed. Among them Peter Schiff, in 2006, who told America on Fox news about the coming collapse. He was the fuckin' outcast. He warned to a T what would happen and he's an Austrian economist and he's against it. You can't just 'brush this off' as nonsense. If you think that this was handled poorly by the government, fine. I'm not going to argue that seeing as we have a fundamentally different view of what the job of government is. But to blame libertarian philosophy, that is founded in a large part on Austrian economics, which is the biggest critic of these types of situations is ludicrous. Just because George Bush and McCain claim to be free-market (which by all means they're not) and endorse it doesn't mean that free-market capitalism is to blame. Whether you still dislike free-marketism is your choice and I don't care.

[magma]

On one hand you don't trust people to make the right choices for themselves and think it's fine for law to reflect that, but you trust them to make the right choice to elect the right people to make the right choice for the country? This just doesn't work at all from a logical standpoint and is exactly reflective of the Stockholm syndrome I mentioned earlier. Government is composed of people too, you know, the same ones that make poor choices for themselves.

No, you're missing the point of voting en masse. Individuals believe all sorts of crazy things. Individuals convince themselves it's ok to murder, steal and rape. En masse, however, when the People's opinions are aggregated, it's obvious that those things should be illegal.

Individually, people think it's ok to be loan sharks (or act in the same way as a "legitimate" business)... however, when popular opinion is aggregated these individuals are shouted down by the masses who realise this is morally unacceptable - in order to keep 99.99% happy and safe, sometimes you have to restrict 0.01%.

And there is nothing 'paranoid' about treating a faceless entity with the same characteristics as a corporation to the same standards. One main difference between corpoerations and governments is that you vote for governments through a ballot and vote for a corporation by paying them money. The other main difference of government and corporations is that the government has legislative power, but this power is used by the corporations.

Only if the politicians and the legislative framework allow them to. This is a large amount of what the Occupy protests are about. The people are slowly making it known that the majority of us don't believe politicians should be beholden to corporations anymore... progress is the answer, not scrapping the democratic system completely. The people need a better voice, not a quieter one!

Also, I used to work for a venue and after a friend of mine who worked there too got back after having been to New Zealand got back, she got a free ticket to an event there that was organized by a private company. Officially they were breakign the rules for her and gave er benefits over the customers who had to pay simply because she was a friend. It's harmless and I'm not criticizing them for it at all. It's normal human behavior. Thing is, government does the exact same thing all the time, I mean why wouldn't they? It's normal human behavior. You're saying 'well, they need to get better people in office!' Ok and then? They do this by voting, right? And then? The cycle continues. This is just inherent to human nature. They will break the rules for friends or for self-interest. To assume that it's possible to vote in a government comprised of angels who won't do such things is incredibly naive.

They can't break the rules if they're being put in prison for it. Regulation of government is as important as regulation of the market. Government is already quite regulated, but nowhere near enough.

And yes, I don't trust people to make the right choice for everything, but I respect them enough to make mistakes. You don't respect people if you don't respect their freedom of choice, hence why I don't want to impose my moral behavior on them. We all do fucked up things, as you said, like smoking, but it's a conscious decision people make and they take personal responsibility for their actiosn.

You have to draw a line somewhere, surely? Do you think Murder should be legal? I mean, sure, most people will never murder anyone... but is it ok for a few to "make a mistake" and then be allowed to go about their life with no legal repercussion? I think most people would say it's not ok in the slightest. There is a grey area over what people should be allowed to do... my personal opinion is you should be allowed to do whatever the hell you like *to yourself*, but offering shoddy loans is not doing something to yourself... it's doing something to someone MUCH poorer and weaker than you. It should be illegal in the same way that theft, murder and torture are illegal.

However much you respect the individual, he will ALWAYS be part of a much wider society and must compromise in order for it to work. This is as true now as it was when we were living in small hunter/gatherer groups... we're social creatures, we must work TOGETHER to reach our shared goals.

[AllNightDayDream]

No, I'm using regulation in a neutral term. A regulation in the market can and usually does have adverse effects and it disturbs the natural choice people make when they partake in the market. Just because something bad happens as the result of regulations, doesn't mean it's not a regulation. As I said before, corporations regulate the competition through government, as described by Doug Wead here. You can't just go and say 'well.. yeah, but it's not a regulation because it's not done the way I want it to be done'.

Do you think the anti-child labor laws in Bangladesh are a good thing? Because once they were implemented, a large portion of kids turned to prostitution or starved. I'm not saying that child labor is a good thing, but child labor doesn't exist because of evil parents who hate their kids that need the government to step in. It's a necessity in some countries. Sometimes, working is deemed as being the better alternative.

And the thing is... if the central bank had not been able to artificially lower the interest rates, this wouldn't have been able to happen. I'm confused as to why people are against monopolies and cartels, but think it's fine when the government grants monopoly rights on currency. This was not a free-market problem. The free marketers have warned the public for this and were ridiculed. Among them Peter Schiff, in 2006, who told America on Fox news about the coming collapse. He was the fuckin' outcast. He warned to a T what would happen and he's an Austrian economist and he's against it. You can't just 'brush this off' as nonsense. If you think that this was handled poorly by the government, fine. I'm not going to argue that seeing as we have a fundamentally different view of what the job of government is. But to blame libertarian philosophy, that is founded in a large part on Austrian economics, which is the biggest critic of these types of situations is ludicrous. Just because George Bush and McCain claim to be free-market (which by all means they're not) and endorse it doesn't mean that free-market capitalism is to blame. Whether you still dislike free-marketism is your choice and I don't care.

You're using "Regulation" in an overgeneralized way. You can't accept that government policy could involve the loosening or lack of regulation. Another case in point for you to ignore: The CFMA.

Monopoly rights on currency is the inherent power of ANY government. It is what defines a government. It is in our constitution. To bring the necessity of that home for you, the countries in Europe who gave up their sovereign right to print currency now have no independent way out of their current fiscal problems. Our ability to print money turned what could have been a greater depression into a deep recession. You can argue on principles and morals yadda yadda yadda but in the real world you have to look for policies that actually work.

Schiff, like other conservative theoconomists, thought the recession was going to be hyper-inflationary, so he didn't predict it down to a T. He wasn't the only one to predict it either. There's Dean Baker, Robert Shiller, Nouriel Roubini, Nassim Taleb, Investors like John Paulson, Michael Burry, and not to mention the liberal minded senators and congressman who voted against The GLBA (a form of de-regulation that repealed glass-steagall) because of the inherent risks that would bring. Unfortunately, these people and others don't get guest spots on Fox.

"Free Market" is about as useless a term as "freedom". What it actually means is terribly ambiguous and differs from person to person. But, it's used to justify the stupidest things. A free market in my mind refers to equal and fair opportunity where the powers of firms, unions, and law are balanced so economic growth is spread evenly. I think we agree we don't operate under a fair system. But the policies ron paul advocates in the name of "free markets" goes in the opposite direction to leverage even more power to those who already have it, i.e. large corporations.

Onto your paranoid antagonism against government: Gov't is a utility of the people, and like you admit it's made of individuals that we ultimately have the power to choose. Saying that because you don't like government policy, the solution is to abolish it is like saying you don't like the way your parents treat you so you shoot them. Minorities didn't achieve the right to vote by being anti-government, nor did the workers of the industrial revolution achieve fair standards by attacking regulation (there was none).

[LACE]

I don't know about 'ol Ron Paul. His actual stance on issues are harder to put together because he votes NO on everything, so you have to see where he places his tax breaks and read between the lines.

But, despite the fact that he's got a libertarian label, he voted Yes on banning gay adoptions in the DC area (even though he voted for DC getting their own reps). Voted Yes on tax breaks and other incentives for private Christian schools. He also voted Yes on presenting creationism "facts" in schools as well. He's voted Yes on basically every issue reducing choice and chipping away abortion rights that doesn't cost a lot of money.

He voted No on hate-crime enforcement for gays, he votes down all alternative energy and environmental protection. No's on amber alerts.. and no's across the board for children's health insurance. He opposes all gun regulation, and voted No on network neutrality too.

Soo basically..me thinks Ron Paul is a big business Republican, siding with social issues as well on all domestic issues (abortion, gay rights, support for private Christian schools). The only reason he differs on domestic issues is that he never, ever votes on spending, even if it promotes issues he supports..

Still debating whether or not I'm even going to vote this election. Obama's a puppet and everyone else is fucking bonkers.

[tyger]

No, I'm using regulation in a neutral term. A regulation in the market can and usually does have adverse effects and it disturbs the natural choice people make when they partake in the market. Just because something bad happens as the result of regulations, doesn't mean it's not a regulation.

ok, so i'm in favour of good regulations and against bad regulations. why are you against good regulations, such as banning irresponsible lending practices and dangerous financial derivative products? that would clearly have prevented the financial crisis. (whereas it is not at all clear that setting interest rates differently would have prevented it.)

there is no such thing as a "natural" market without government interference, and if there were such a thing, there is no reason to suppose it would be the best possible system. all markets are regulated, i.e. there is a system of rules within which there are free markets. you are assuming that one particular system of regulation, viz. complete freedom of contract, is the best possible system. in fact, it clearly not the best system for everything, because (to take one example) in healthcare, socialism clearly works better.

Do you think the anti-child labor laws in Bangladesh are a good thing? Because once they were implemented, a large portion of kids turned to prostitution or starved. I'm not saying that child labor is a good thing, but child labor doesn't exist because of evil parents who hate their kids that need the government to step in. It's a necessity in some countries. Sometimes, working is deemed as being the better alternative.

so your position is that child labour should never be banned, because free markets are always best? if you seriously believe that, then your moral sense is completely out of line with that of most other people.

to answer your question, i don't know what changes they should be making first in bangladesh, but i do know that what they should be working towards is a situation in which child labour is banned, and parents are able to earn enough money themselves that they can support their children without making them work, and free (or affordable) schooling is available for all children.

[Intended Malice]

I don't know about 'ol Ron Paul. His actual stance on issues are harder to put together because he votes NO on everything, so you have to see where he places his tax breaks and read between the lines.

But, despite the fact that he's got a libertarian label, he voted Yes on banning gay adoptions in the DC area (even though he voted for DC getting their own reps). Voted Yes on tax breaks and other incentives for private Christian schools. He also voted Yes on presenting creationism "facts" in schools as well. He's voted Yes on basically every issue reducing choice and chipping away abortion rights that doesn't cost a lot of money.

He voted No on hate-crime enforcement for gays, he votes down all alternative energy and environmental protection. No's on amber alerts.. and no's across the board for children's health insurance. He opposes all gun regulation, and voted No on network neutrality too.

Soo basically..me thinks Ron Paul is a big business Republican, siding with social issues as well on all domestic issues (abortion, gay rights, support for private Christian schools). The only reason he differs on domestic issues is that he never, ever votes on spending, even if it promotes issues he supports..

Still debating whether or not I'm even going to vote this election. Obama's a puppet and everyone else is fucking bonkers.

I don't follow the deluded logic that is necessary to maintain any validity in the farce known as politics any more, but I did vote for him in 2007-2008; and I'm baffled how you come to the conclusion that he is Big Business, when he overtly states he is against corporatism, has focused his campaign and books around ending one of the most malignant corporations of all time (US Federal Reserve) and coined the term 'moral hazard' to describe supporting it. I won't support his position, but your views are clearly skewed in such a way that you want the State to create and enforce gays to have a different set of codes of conduct, which I thought goes against the whole gay mentality (or feminism or whatever self-imposed handicap people create) of being perceived as just normal person. Advocating these points only furthers the discrepancy that most try to achieve.

Don't bother voting, it won't change a thing and morally justifies your servitude and serfdom to the State--you participated in its farce with or without the best intentions, thus must suffer the consequences thereof--, you want change go and make it happen yourself, its quite popular where you're from; although as an outsider (I take it you hold dual citizenship?) looking in that probably seems weird to you. But let me refresh your memory:





The only question is where were you?

(Fuck the Arab Spring propaganda, Iceland and Greece started actual and meaningful revolt!)

Also, Ron Paul supporter: Ron Paul is not an Anarcho-Capatailist, he's a politician for God's sake, thus is contrary to the central dogma of its ideology by default--so was Rothbard and some of the most staunch supporters of it for that matter. I hate isms and ologies when trying to describe someone, but if I had to, he is best defined as an Austrian-limited government type; unfortunately for us and all of his efforts the latter is a contradiction: History has proven it time and again. Its clear you have done some of your homework, but you still need work; but big up to you for fighting the 'futile battle,' I say futile because I did it in 2007 and early 2008 when there was still a possibility but in 2008 collapse was made imminent. Its just a matter of controlled or chaotic now, and you need only look at Greece to decide how the Western model has been crafted. The only thing I might consider interesting is if they actually count his votes in the primaries this year and don't ban him from speaking at RNC and other fora like they did in 2007-2008.

Here's a good start on further explaining State condoned and established Fascism/Corpratism:

[karmacazee]

I pray for the day idealism and utopianism dies, then we can finally stop bickering about irrelevant shite and get on with our lives

[erratech]

So we shouldnt allow the government to interfere in the affairs of corporations because they themselves show self-interest? Children in Bangladesh are turning to prostitution BECAUSE of regulation, as opposed to a marked lack of regulation? What do you define 'monopoly rights' on currency as? I am genuinely interested.

Just as an aside what is your opinion of the Seasteading Institute and their plans?

[LACE]

For the simple fact that he supports big business. Now I'm not as well read into politics like some posters in the forum but Corporatism and supporting big businesses aren't one in the same in my eyes. I'm positive he doesn't want corporations to exude control over us or our actions, or for our society to be organized in such groups as they are now (especially since he's keen on eliminating the Departments Energy, Commerce, Education, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development). He wants to lower corporate taxes, he wants to repeal healthcare, and allow U.S. firms to repatriate capital without more taxes. This all amounts to support for big businesses, not for corporatism. Take that as you will, it's neither positive nor negative.

I won't support his position, but your views are clearly skewed in such a way that you want the State to create and enforce gays to have a different set of codes of conduct, which I thought goes against the whole gay mentality (or feminism or whatever self-imposed handicap people create) of being perceived as just normal person. Advocating these points only furthers the discrepancy that most try to achieve.

Perhaps, but not in such a way that you describe. I believe gays should be able to adopt children and live normal lives, I believe there should be laws to enact that, because in actuality the laws are there to deny them what should have never been a problem in the first place. The only one wanting to ''enforce gays to have a different set of codes of conduct'' is Ron Paul himself.Why wouldn't he support the right for gays to adopt children then? That's the way the system works, the bill is being proposed and this is the opportunity to give people the rights entitled to them. Voting ''no'' in a sense is only punishing them, we're not living in anarchy, the State is already here and your views seem idealistic. The opportunity is lost, and back to reality where we're still living in a world where people are getting hashed. Also, the only way for him to come across as level headed to me is to rid himself of his social conservatism.

As for as the Pots and Pans protests here in Iceland, I was there and the fight was just but all in vain. We were clanging on pots and pans and throwing skýr and eggs towards the police. A few windows of the Alþingishúsið were broken, and a scuffle here and there. The bonfire was lit later at night when all the children had gone and when the downtown party crowd was out and about. It was messy and sadly a failure. The new government instated were just in bed with the previous one, enforcing the same conduct as the last guys. Iceland is far too nepotistic to envoke any real change and there simply aren't enough differing points of view to enact meaningful debates about which direction we should head. It's a real problem. Everyone's gone home, and even less people are interested. People still shop at Bónus and Hagkaup and our protests in front of parliament these days include bouncy castles for kids and BBQ's. It's an oligarchy of family ties and no one wants to run as a serious candidate. The most important issue in the head of most Icelanders is not joining the EU, not the obvious corruption still running rampant or the seemingly stalled process of this government.

[Intended Malice]

Like I said, I cannot support his positions. I must reiterate that.

Your first point and argument undermines the fact that he is trying to sever the tie of the State from the Market, to describe it as big business undermines the actual purpose of its intent: to allow commerce to function in a Market not (less) manipulated by obstructive hindrances that distort progress, the State is not entitled to anyone's property under circumstance; suffice it to say, taxation is the anti-thesis of this argument. This supports small businesses (a lot more in its early stages) just as much as it does large businesses, and in the US small businesses have been where the majority of the private sector (only productive sector of the economy and indication of TRUE GDP) tends to hire from for decades. Cheveron, GM, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and all the other welfare teat-sucking whore corporations that are supported by this Welfare/Warfare State should be ostracized for their previous activity and allow other companies to compete for procuring and offering their services--but to do this you need an actual Rule of Law based on the premise of Property Rights and Justice. The State is neither, and will destroy itself and its populace before it ever reforms. All of those departments are unconstitutional, there is no justification for any of those to exist much less mandate that others participate in them by force, and infringe on the basic premises by which this supposed Republic was founded; the DOE is perhaps one of the most malignant institutions (think Hitler Youth and Soviet brainwashing camps) of all time, especially when you figure out that its origins are akin to that of the US Federal Reserve you'll know why Lenin said 'Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.' You speak of oligarchy in a negative tone, do your homework on these departments and you'll find out the US is no different, and State mandated indoctrination and propaganda via the DOE lies at the crux of all despotic States, as it is vital to achieve its ends: complacent serfdom.

You're missing the larger aspect regarding Iceland, the IMF and World Bank loans didn't get to set the red carpet for them to rape and pillage Iceland's natural resources and enslave its populace--take a look at Greece and the Troika/EU FIRE sales and the subsequent misery. Repudiating the debt from Icesave outright in defiance to the former colonizing nations' (UK, Holland) threats was significant and then considering reneging on the nations debt seemed like an actual possibility at one point; also not nationalizing the debt incurred by the banking collapse was another success you undermine--this only came after storming Parliament and getting a large part of the populace to mobilize and stand outside the President's house with an obvious threat should he consider doing otherwise (pictures below). This led to a rapid decline in quality of life, of course, but national sovereignty was maintained and in two years growth emerged in Iceland's GDP, and in 2011 their bonds became a viable asset once more--something I'm personally averse to attributing wealth/value to as they are debt based, but it is indicative of allowing the Market to correct itself and designate investment choices. A new constitution is being drafted, while using alternative methods to be crafted is also a huge deal you are ignoring; not joining the EU when all of Scandinavia, barring Norway, has been devoured by its yoke is a huge deal, too, in terms of National Sovereignty--especially for a self-sustaining energy nation. The real problem coming out of there lately is the the Central Bank (another evil self-serving construct vital for the State) is going to re-introduce the carry trade that had Iceland at what was it... a national debt of 300% of GDP? That should be your collective target if you want or need a target: the Central Bank is your enemy.

Idealism? Your problem is that you still fantasize that real reform will ever come while a State continues to operate, the source of your grievances (and the World's population for that matter) is the State. The State doesn't beget itself, or is inherently integral to society, its an advent and construct of Human greed, ignorance, and evil. I think it is YOU being deluded by your own self-imposed idealism of a benevolent Leviathan and think it can be beneficial society as a whole, especially when History has proven such a notion erroneous countless times.

Even if Ron Paul were to win (and I used the term loosely) one of his most staunch proponents Lew Rockwell has said it outright that it will not have the effect many think it will; the State and its various apparatuses do not rely on his sole discretion--past legislation and nefarious accounting tactics has made it possible for many the secret departments like the Pentagon/NSA/CIA to still be fully funded regardless of who is elected or economical climates. You would need decades to dismantle (if at all possible, which I don't believe so) the MIC, Departments of X, tax code, monetary, foreign policy, penal and legal system for it to even begin to resemble a Republic operating under the confines of the US Constitution. Collapse will come far sooner, I'm afraid. Let us hope (I detest the connotation that word carries post 2007) it follows a Soviet style withdraw of its satellites from the empire with little to no warfare.

Pictures of the aforementioned:

[LACE]

*backs away*

Wow, that's fucking extensive. Haha alright, you're pretty well versed, just gonna process all that.

[pkay]

not gonna get into this too much again as we did this 4 months ago i think

anywho Ron Paul failed in the state of Texas. His district is shit. Cannot emphasize this enough. His district is a racial segregated piece of shit that is an utter failure in the easiest state to make a buck in, in 2011. Texas is thriving. We have jobs falling from the sky.... we've dodged a large part of the housing bubble, central texas has a massive energy and tech boom going on.... Texas is the place to be right now. But his district is a piece of shit because it is mismanaged, overlooked, and categorically not given a shit about. Minorities are marginalized for the great white dream to live on.

If you fail at managing your local mcdonalds I'm not going to make you ceo

[pkay]

also, the president can't make the changes Ron Paul is speaking about.... so it's all null and void really.

[iz__]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDMnj5t52ZY

Ron Paul is America's last hope is restoring individual Liberties and Sound Money.

[deadly_habit]

also, the president can't make the changes Ron Paul is speaking about.... so it's all null and void really.

the president alone often can't deliver on campaign promises, never stopped em before