In trying to understand Ron Paul's support the only logical explanation is that most of his passionate supporters are running away from our corrupt, eveil and dishonest two-party system.  Disgust and anger drives them to Paul.  But they really do not understand that his policy beliefs are quite ludicrous.  Of course, exactly the political system that drives people to Paul will never, ever make him a nominee of the Republicrooks.  The big question is: what will Paul do and say when he does not get the nomination....

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 9:50:59 AM

  (0+)

Though I do not fear a Ron Paul cnadidacy, I would like some of my moderate friends to know that this guys is definitely an extremist.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:07:41 AM

  (0+)

Please note that when Ron Paul is asked about his more radical views, he consistently admits he would have to work with Congress to get any movement in those areas.  Ron Paul would reduce the recently expanded power of the Executive Branch and make Congress go back to work. 

You say radical views, I say we have a voting public, a democracy, a Congress and a Constitution which will temper what he proposes.  He has been in Washington for ten congressional terms, and he has not lost his integrity, or his honesty.  His positions on the issues have not changed, he owes special interests nothing.  Given the alternatives, I'm voting for Ron Paul.

by David Martin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:44:46 AM

  (0+)

Really.  We're picking a President here- your argument is, "he has some good views mixed in with a lot of bad ones, but hey, at least it will be a Democratic Congress."

 Why accept less than the best?  Why not get the whole, progressive package with one of the Dems?  They'll have the samer good ideas and far fewer extremes.  Hell, Kucinich couldn't get elected if he was the only one running, but I vastly prefer his views to a guy who wants to abolish a huge chunk of our national security apparatus right when we need it most.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 2:47:50 PM

  (0+)

You count Clinton or Obama as the best? If they are the best, then I'd hate to see the worst. No question about it, I'm going with Ron Paul. Abolish the Federal Reserve? Fine with me. Get out of Iraq? Okay by me also. Get someone who has at least been honest and straightforward in his tenure? What a breath of fresh air that would be!

by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 7:40:58 PM

  (0+)

I believe that Paul's inate honesty is seductive, especially in this era of dishonest politicians and abysmal leadership. The very worst thing about non Libertarians support for Paul is that they fail to do their homework.

If you agree to do away with all social safety nets, to abandon the poor, the powerless, the children, then vote for Libertarian principles. If you like rampant capitalism and expect that, in the absence of welfare and govt run social security there will be a miraculous surge of compassion from our Boards of Directors, that our corporations will spread largesse to cover the absence of those social safety nets that Paul abhors, then by all means vote for him.

Please do not become a single issue voter, please recognise that we have a lot of reforming to do but throwing away the bedrock principles that made this nation great is far from the answer to our current plight.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 8:21:39 AM

  (0+)

Well put, Ardee.  I frequently ask why anyone would think the richest in our society, the ones more likely to be a tad greedy, would for some reason have compassion after years of busting their asses to acquire wealth and power and just trickle it down to someone underprivileged.

Our history shows us what happens when the fatcats have their way absent governmental controls of any kind- take a look at the Bush administration and you're pretty close to an unregulated chaotic market that does not promote the safety of the people (can you say Vioxx?  How about Escherichia coli?)

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:38:44 AM

  (0+)

If you want to abolish the Federal Reserve, how would you propose to exercise control over national markets to avoid another Black Tuesday?  We learned then that the Fed could have manipulated interest and currency and possibly headed off the Great Depression, or at least lessened the blow to a recession.

 Look at the way central banks all over the world injected liquidity into the mortgage markets to keep the housing bubble from crashing economies worldwide.  Without a "handle" on the situation things would be FAR worse.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:34:55 AM

  (0+)

These Paul suporters simply havent done the hard work necesary to accurately assess a candidates worth. This is unfortunately a rampant symptom of todays political climate. That poster may very well be a well meaning and principled American but she is simply too lazy to do the work necesary to an understanding of what it is she supports.

These folks post undying love for Paul and then, when those nasty little facts are presented, run away....what a system!

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 9:12:23 AM

  (0+)

"These folks tend to proclaim long-standing support for Dr. Paul, but I suspect they are mostly disillusioned former Bush supporters, seeking a candidate to help minimize the humiliation created by the president's foolishness over the last seven years."

 what?! former bush supporters?? i have no idea where you found information to base this opinion on. There is no one who voted for bush in 04 that now supports paul, absolutely no one. I also don't quite understand certain points of your article, such as making it seem like a negative that he wants to abolish the dept. of education, the federal reserve, and the cia.

let's start with the fed. reserve-

even alan greenspan concedes that he's not even sure we should have one. the fed is an utterly horrendous organization that literally steals from the poor by devaluing the currency and causes all inflation and economic bubbles. The rich get their hands on the new money first while it has full value,  spends it, and the consequence is a less valuable dollar by the time it gets to us and devaluing our salaries and savings. this is literal thievery. Ron Paul simply wants to legalize other forms of currency, such as gold and silver, to compete with the dollar to stop the fed from doing this nonsens and give citizens and businesses the right to choose what they want to accept as payment. This will also curb inflation and help the lower classes.

secondly the cia

it is responsible for multiple unconstitutional actions such as illegal removal of democratically elected foreign leaders, the most prominent being the shah of Iran in 1953, who was elected and then removed by the cia for american oil interests. there is a long list of horrible things the cia has done and absolutely should be abolished. an intelligence community should (and according to paul) will be kept, but not a covert organization like the cia.

 the dept of education- nowhere in the constitution does it give the right to the federal government to make states accountable for education- the education system has one standard and that is to be accountable to the parents in their district. What is important to be learned in nebraska is not the same as what is important to students to know in philadelphia. It all requires context and practicality and there most certainly should not be one broad brush being made by the idiots in washington.

abolishing lastly, the irs-

are you kidding?? this is a negative?! the only people who feel we need an income tax are people who aren't educated in government revenue and spending- word to the wise, the income tax accounts for 40% of the government's revenue and budget- roads are paid for by gasoline tax, other government services are paid for by the tons of other taxes-

property tax

estate tax aka the death tax,

transfer tax

state tax

telephone tax

utility tax

sales tax

fica tax

cigarette tax

court fines

capital gains tax

toll tax

federal  and state "licensing" fees

and there is more! and on top of these taxes we need our income taxed at nearly a third as well!? 

I'd love to hear your defense on this one.

Ron Paul serves on multiple House monetary and finance committees and knows better than anyone what our country needs in this aspect. Please reconsider your opinion. 

Jeremy Frombach, Las Vegas NV 

by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:45:12 AM

  (0+)

Safely from the boistrous House floor, of course.

 I have only one question for you- if you abolish the CIA and FBI now, what institutions would you stand up in their places to ensure we have the best possible national security apparatus possible? These are troubled times - do you really want to vote in a guy who wants to do this?

The Libertarian retort to this thus far today is that with a Democratic Congress Paul would be held in check.

WTF?  You want another President with aims contrary to the Congress and the public at large, so that the gridlock currently ensnaring the Senate continues?

Are you nuts? 

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:07:39 PM

  (0+)

I have only one question for you- if you abolish the CIA and FBI now, what institutions would you stand up in their places to ensure we have the best possible national security apparatus possible?

The FBI didn't even exist until 1908, it basically took over the responsibilities of the Department of Justice.  The DOJ is SUPPOSED to enforce immigration, which it doesn't.

The CIA was for a long time a secret organization that the Federal Government wouldn't even admit existed.  If you can name something good about what the CIA has done, I'd sure like to hear it.  Military Intelligence is what should replace the CIA entirely, and Military Intelligence.

by fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:42:21 PM

  (0+)

I'm not convinced.  You do not state how you would pick up the law enforcement and intelligence gathering capapcities of these bodies... military intelligence gave us WMD's in Iraq, so I'm not as big a cheerleader for that idea as you seem to be.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:42:06 AM

  (0+)

"They controlled the assets, and the less fortunate looked to their lords to protect them and keep them alive, similar to the faith my dog has in my ability to fill his food dish."

Isn't this what the sheeple do now looking for their handouts from their government?

 Rarely does one get to read a more clueless, unresearched, ridiculous piece of claptrap. Sadly, you deserve the socialist government you get and don't come crying to me when the almighty dollar collapses and your savings, if you have any, are wiped out.

www.ronpaul2008.com

by Jason Droon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:47:31 AM

  (0+)

I have to say I dislike your tone, first of all, so I make no apologies being harsh in return.  Your ad hominem attacks are unsupported and logically fallacious.

Unlike you, I have compassion for my fellow humans, especially my fellow citizens, be they rich or poor.  Since when did the American dream become dog eat dog, may the biggest bankroll survive?  Why do you personally feel the need to oppress the least economically fortunate amongst us?

If you had some kind of history in school, you'd know we've been down the unregulated road before in this country.  I do not look forward to another President that will take us backward.  The time has come to move ahead. 

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:12:54 PM

  (0+)

You say badly researched- I link directly to Dr. Paul's writings repeatedly.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:13:59 PM

  (0+)

Mike,

I must disagree that Ron Paul's views are radical have have never been tried before. Following the Constitution may seem radical today bcause we have strayed so far from the system setup by our founders. For instance we never had a Federal Income Tax until 1913. It was not needed nor is it now. It has become accepted as normal simply because that is all that you and I have ever known.

The people of this nation have forgotton how and why it was created. The ideas we now have of being the world's policeman and creating undeclared wars are relatively new.

Go back and read the history and then see if Ron Paul seems so radical.

by Cleaner44 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:48:08 AM

  (0+)

Teddt Roosevelt, FDR and other progressive president and Congressmen helped move this country the direction we have gone.  The founders made it explicitly clear that the Constitution was intended to be a living document, able to change with the times.

 I'll ask you the same question I asked above- if you truly support Paul's positions, what is your answer to how to fill the void after he abolishes the CIA and FBI?  Here's another- without payroll taxes how would you save the Social Security system that so many people depend on today, and many more will in the future?

If you do not support these positions you really shouldn't support Ron Paul. 

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:17:28 PM

  (0+)

Libertarians recognize that no change happens overnight or without a broad consensus.  We'd be happy to just start heading in the direction of our Utopia, taking baby steps to get there.  ANYTHING heading in that direction, compared to the way it is today, would be an improvement. Ron Paul is the only candidate that can make any difference at all.

I can't fathom the logic presented in this article!

by BugMan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:11:53 AM

  (0+)

We've gone down the road of free markets and deregulation.  That lead to the robber barons and 18 hour work days for kids.  That led to monopolies and a stifling of the small entrepreneurs.

 Please be specific in your criticisms of my logic.  Where did I go wrong?  Is it your ideology that is offended?  Your emotions?  We're talking about the next leader of the Free World, here.  It's a big job, and having someone with whom a majority of the population disagrees on most substantive policy positions, similar to the impasse we face today, would be a disaster for this country.

There's no time for crybabies.  We need a leader, not a deconstructionist. 

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:21:56 PM

  (0+)

Mike, it difficult to believe that you could support our current system and totally decry a voice of some basic reason.

Webster’s - Radical; “as in, favoring basic change in the social and economic structure.” Count me radical and count me a supporter of Ron Paul.

I do agree with you that big government and regulations have worked out well. 1% of our population controls more money than the lower 90%. So for that top 1% it has worked marvelously.

Government controls that benefit our public? Agriculture and industry is leaving this county like rats off a sinking ship.

Does government invade freedom? All day every day.

Ron Paul is not running for Dictator of the United States, he’s running for President. However, with the corrupt and spineless whimps that we send to represent us each and every year, I can see why you would believe that a Dictator is in charge. Lest I remind that you that Congress has an 11% approval rating. And you think we need more of ‘em?

Change we must Mike and when you’re running out of fuel, radical change is not the most effective course, it’s the only course.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:23:04 AM

  (0+)

Not such a big fan of abolishing large chunks of our current national security setup.  That alone disqualifies your man.

 I'm all for change.  I don't want to go backward, though.  We need regulations, we needs government subsidies, we need the FBI, we need the CIA, we need a strong, efficient Department of Education to knit the education of our children into a strong national consisitency.

Radical, as I use it, means way the hell off the current path.  Not the Bush path, the FDR path we've been on since the New Deal.  It works, when correctly run.  The problem we have had is bad management for the last seven years.

 You should really think about whether you truly agree with all of Dr. Paul's positions, and then you need to ask yourself another question;

Do we want another President with views diametrically opposed to that of the nation at large, stopped from extreme federal restructuring by a majority of the opposing party in both houses of Congress?

Do you? Really?

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:29:00 PM

  (0+)

Maybe yoo'd better read some of Paul's views again, friend. By saying he will get rid of the Dept of Education, he means will return that power (and others) back to individual states, where they belong according to the constitution anyone with scholl aghe kids knows that the 'no child left behind ' means they all get left behind. Pauls approach to streamlining government lets each state decide how best to taech their children and how to pay for it, instead of the cookie cutter 'one size fits all' plans that mandated by the federal government that are not working. similarily with sociual programs, medical plans and abortion, let each state decide what's best for them; in effect, re-establishing competition in government, which should lead to efficiency and a variety of workable solutions.

by Brad Griffeth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 138 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:48:13 PM

  (0+)

So you say now that the US is lagging behind the other industrialized countries of the world in school, we should suddenly scrap the system that attempts to standardize education across state lines so that we can "promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access" (from http://www.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml?src=gu)

Bush has run it badly, that doesn't mean government doesn't work. 

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:46:12 AM

  (0+)

"deluded Libertarian's views is in order." He did run as a libertarian but he is more of a constitutionalist. Show me in the constitution where any of what you want the government to do is constitutional. You sir are a socialist. You think that the government has the right to take what I work for and do whatever it wants with it. If that is true what will stop them from taking it all?

I learned a long time ago that you can't win an arguement with an idiot so I wont try. 

by chessmaster (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:38:26 AM

  (0+)

Ad hominem attacks do not win an educated argument.

Correct me, then.  Tell me why we should abolish the FBI and the CIA.  Make me believe it is the best course for us now that the entire Middle East is ready to devolve into outright warfare at any moment? 

Why do you think I am an idiot?  Because I don't agree with your opinion? 

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:31:40 PM

  (0+)

I'm a Brit. I keep hearing about 16 intelligence services in the media. all I know about are the FBI and the CIA and Homland Security and FEMA, if that qualifies. What ARE these 16 intelligence services?

And in my 'across the pond' opinion, the CIA's activities over the last 50/60 years, if only the American people knew, would be condemned and the CIA would be abolished tomorrow, based on its world-wide reputation of interfering into other countries affairs, drug running, training extremists to overthrow other country's democratically elected leaders,etc.

The Shah of Iran has been mentioned, but that is old news and far away from America - how about in its own back yard? South America, never mind 60 years agqainst Cuba, how about the latest against Chavez, just because he is a socialist anti big business kind a guy. Even one of your 'religious' leaders has called for his assassination!

So much for Christian values like 'Thou shalt not kill'.

by ibrahim turner (26 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 9:43:11 PM

  (0+)

Now, of ALL times, is not the time for America to be deaf, dumb, and blind in the world.  We need intelligence now more than ever, and I have not heard from anyone here how they plan on acheiving the same goal.

Someone said "military intelligence" above, but as I retorted, those guys gave us WMD's in Iraq (since they report to the President, their independence is questionable.)

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:49:31 AM

  (0+)

According to the dictionary radical means relating to the origin or foundation.  That is a good compliment because Ron Paul is the most consistent candidate who desires to return to the origin of the limitations of public officials under the constitution.  Doesn't any coach desire an athlete who is consistent?  Dr. Ron Paul is obviously the most consistent candidate for president.  Anyone who researches well understands your little adjectives of degradation are shallow and lack substance.  Ron Paul is the most knowledgeable and honest candidate for president.

by dutchman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:39:35 AM

  (0+)

Why do I say that?  Because the Constitution itself provided a means by which it could grow, organically.  From Article V;

 "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress..."

 Why would you build the ability to modify the Constitution into the document unless it was intended to evolve over time?  Radical is trying to undo the decades of settled law so that fatcats can have a better tax rate.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:51:50 PM

  (0+)

Your article is a stunning example of what nearly every politician running for President is doing currently - poking fun or denigrating current "issues" without proposing an idea on how to actually do anything to change them.

So, I am to assume that you are desirous to intervene in every human rights crisis in the world with the full resources of the US Government?  If that is the case, explain how you intend to cover the cost of such actions.  I do not disagree that what is happing in Darfur is atrocious, as I'm sure Congressman Paul does as well.  Fortunately for us, Darfur is the only place in the entire world where such atrocities are occurring, so it should be a very simple matter to wipe out all human rights violations in the world... let's jump on over to Darfur and handle that situation for them.  It probably won't cost that much... maybe a few billiion.  And hey, there are soldiers just standing around now with nothing better to do than go fight someone else's battle for them.

And how about the falling US dollar and the spiralling national debt?  What is your proposal for dealing with those issues?  You're probably an advocate of taking a "tough stance" on that discretionary spending that is so out of control in Washington, yes?  You'd get in there and really clean house, eh?  Well, when you finish tinkering with that $60 or so billion, I'd like to know what you'd do about the $500 billion annually that we are adding to our national debt.  Heck, the interest payments alone are the 3rd largest budget expenditure... unfortunately, these payments fall into the dreaded "non-discretionary" funds category.  It's pretty hard to tell China, the American people, and a host of other creditors that we just won't be able to make our minimum payments to them anymore.

I suppose you view Iran as the next great world-wide threat as well and we need to march more of our bored and standing-around-with-nothing-to-do troops over there and kick some American imperialistic butt.  I guess we'll just write a hot check for that effort as well.

It's too easy to simply argue your points one-by-one, so I'll let others do that.  I am just really more interested in hearing what your sweeping change proposals would be to solve these problems that generations of "progressive government" have so willingly created.

Aaron Walker, Fort Worth, TX

by Aaron Walker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 12:06:51 PM

  (0+)

I disagree with your first sentence, so I expect the rest will be as objectionable.  You are saying that because I defend the existence of the CIA, FBI, Department of Education etc from being deconstructed by a politician way outside the mainstream of American political thought, that I should somehow come up with better ideas?  OK, my idea is NOT to abolish these institutions.  Done.

I'm not going to wade through the rest of your fundamentally flawed thinking.  Moving on! 

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:55:47 PM

  (0+)

Well, you stuck to the easy stuff in your reply, which I feel grateful for by the way, because you have responded to so few others.  I didn't make specific mention of Paul's ambitions to abolish many government agencies, because frankly, with the exception of the DOE and the Fed, I'm not all that passionate about those ideas.  The idea of abolishing the CIA and FBI are more, "hmm, I'd never really thought about that" kind of ideas designed more as a wake up call to sleeping mainstream media zombies, in my opinion.  However, I would hardly call a proposal to abolish the DOE as being way out on the extreme of American political thought.  There are plenty of mainstreamers who are none to pleased with this bloated, ineffective, and extremely expensive bureaucratic debacle.

The more important issues I mentioned to you are the vastly more important ones, which you have chosen to simply ignore.  I suppose that if you have no meaningful or educated proposals for dealing with these problems your safest bet is saying "I'm not going to wade through your fundamentally flawed thinking".

What, you're not willing to take the "Pepsi Challenge", Mr. Kuykendall?

Aaron Walker, Fort Worth, TX

by Aaron Walker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:22:17 PM

  (0+)

The burden of proof is on you, to explain fully to us why you should do away with these entities.  I do not have to explain anything- you are the one advocating these actions.  I am disgreeing with you and calling you on it, and yet you cannot seem to get away from circular logic and profoundly disjointed philosophy in your retorts.

There are a lot more interesting and insightful people to discuss this with on here.  Take it easy. 

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:54:31 AM

  (0+)

For someone who does not have a vote but thinks that what happens in America is important to the rest of the world, the fact that there are detractors of Ron Paul's ideas is great! It gives publicity to what he stands for, increases the level of debate about what is wrong with the American system, and by reflection the democracies of Europe, especially Britain, that any publicity and discussion, no matter on what idiotic or sublime level, is all to the good. It seems to me, from across the pond, that the American public are asleep at the wheel, much the same as in Britain, but at least we have 3 (three, countem) parties to choose from. Not that I'm advocating the situation as in Italy where there are so many parties that nothing can ever get done without coalitions and bargaining between rivals, leading to many elections in the years since the war, far more than any other country. Phew! end of rant.

But seriously - all parties co-opt your vote, for the elite leaders, so that they can pass legeslation for the betterment of their own kind, and f**k the rest of us. The conservative leader in Britain is a millionaire, for example; the 'new' labour party, sold out to big business, but was formed by the working class, for the working class, and look what's happened to that! Blair went  to war in Iraq with Bush, against the largest demonstrations ever in Britain against it. Go figure. 

by ibrahim turner (26 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:00:18 PM

  (0+)

I just don't want his ideas in the White House.  Keep him in the House where crazy theories and zeal go a long way.  Give me a methodical manager with diplomacy skills for 1600 Pennsylvania.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:56:18 AM

  (0+)

Ron Paul is a con man not a radical. Ron Paul is neither a true libertarian or a constitutionalist. A true libertarian would support separation of church and state. Paul also supports subsidies for oil companies. Libertarians on the only hand oppose corporate welfare so Libertarians would oppose subsidies for oil companies. A real constitutionalist would support impeaching George W Bush and Dick Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. Ron Paul is against impeachment. Paul voted to table Kucinich's impeachment bill. Paul also failed to defend the Constitution when he failed to show up to vote against HR1955. A real constitutionalist wouldn't seek to ban abortion which is protected by the 9th amendment. Libertarians are more accurately called right-wing anarchists.

Some of your criticisms are invalid though. While we shouldn't leave all international institutions there are some we should leave and that should be completely scrapped like NATO, WTO, IMF, and World Bank. We should stay in the UN but the Security Council in the UN should be scrapped. America should also sign the treaty for the International Criminal Court. CIA, NSA, Department Of Homeland Security should all be scrapped.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:16:27 PM

  (0+)

And I do not diasagree that these are all valid arguments that deserve to be debated.  I am, however, suggesting a little pragmatism- do we really want to get rid of all of our foreign connections now that Bush has dragged us so far down in the minds of most of the world?  This is the time to go out there and try to mend fences, not cut ties and renege on international obligations that, even if you disagree with them, the United States entered into in good faith.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:59:17 PM

  (0+)

Federal Reserve should be abolished or at least put under government control under Congress.

Forget Ron Paul everyone needs to support Dennis Kucinich.

http://www.dennis4president.com

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:27:22 PM

  (0+)

Though I think Kucinich would get creamed in the general against any of the current crop of GOP candidates.  As such, I think Edwards is the next best progressive candidate with a chance against the dirty politics of the right.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:01:17 PM

  (0+)

Read the US Constitution. If that does not promote the idea of Libertarianism, I don't know what does.  Government is supposed to get its power from the people, not the other way around. 

by rc (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:51:01 PM

  (0+)

But over time our nation figured out a little socialism goes a long way.  Do you have a Grandma on Medicaire or Social Security?  Have you read about the Great Depression?

Liberty is good- because I do not support Ron Paul and his radical strict constructionalism does not mean I do not support a free society.  I just do not support a completely free society where there are no institutions to protect citizens from dangerous pharmaceuticals, for instance, or where lead-filled Chinese toys receive no inspection before going striaght into our childrens' hands.

Bush is the best example of what a deregulated society would look like, since he stacked federal agencies with incompetent ideologues and cronies.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:06:24 PM

  (0+)

The libertarian perspective Ron Paul advocates is indeed extreme.  I believe it is wrongheaded.  I don't believe in Ron Paul's case it is a smokescreen to protect the rich.  I think it would have that effect, but I believe Paul and most libertarians genuinely believe it would not.

The point that Paul, if elected President, would have to work with Congress is a good one.  There would probably be no one in Congress who is a full-bore libertarian.  So I think his worst ideas would be DOA.

With the possible exceptions of Huckabee and Gravel, Paul is the only honest candidate among the major party candidates.  All the rest have sold their souls in the pursuit of ambition.  I believe this is a significant factor in his attractiveness, and it is a valid one.

The other thing is that only Kucinich approaches him in strength and consistency in opposing war (and not just the Iraq War, but wars in general, which may be a kooky idea to Kuykendall but not to me and probably some other readers).  Unlike most other policy areas, this is one area where the President even without strong support in Congress can make a real difference.  So it seems to me that it is valid to weight position on this in the Presidential race much more strongly than any other issue.

For those of us who favor life across the board, Paul hits the trifecta - he opposes war, abortion and capital punishment.  And he is the only major party candidate to do so.  The "top tier" of Democratic candidates are all consistent death ethic - they strongly favor war in general (whatever their real positions on the Iraq War in particular), abortion and the death penalty.  They are certainly much better than Paul on social issues, but for some of us direct life issues weight higher.

 I certainly disagree with Paul on most of the things you have identified him as being extreme about (I would favor getting out of NATO and any other primarily military alliance), but I would probably still vote for him if the nominated by the Republicans (not very likely but a lot more likely than the Democrats nominating Kucinich).  If he was elected, I would lobby against most things he would propose on social programs, but I would be comfortable in voting for him because I would feel confident he would keep the U.S. out of war.

by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:51:50 PM

  (0+)

Why support a candidate when you disagree with his ideas and expect the coming Democratic veto-proof majorities to keep him in check?  Then you have a weakened executive and gridlock like we have now.

Why not pick a candidate who has a chance of actually winning, and holds as many of your views as is praticable?

 Now is not the time to restructure the federal government or radically alter our tax code.  We have to fix what Bush broke before we can have a chance to make it even better.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:10:28 PM

  (0+)

I like a lot about Ron Paul. I trust him as an honest man. I support his opposition to the war and to our interference in the middle east. I love his attitude towards the constitution. But he scares the hell out of me with many of his anti-government libertarian ideas. He'd be a hell of a lot better than Bush or any of the other Republican primary people. It would be fascinating to see a race between Paul and Clinton-- a moderate Republican running against a conservative Democrat. Or even better, Paul against Kucinich.  That would be the best!!

rob kall

publisher, opednews.com 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 2:34:58 PM

  (0+)

It would be fascinating to see a race between Paul and Clinton-- a moderate Republican running against a conservative Democrat. Or even better, Paul against Kucinich. That would be the best!!

rob kall

I agree, that would be ideal to change the tone of public debate to where it needs to be right now. I'd prefer to vote for Kucinich but I'm a pragmatist so Ron Paul will do. They both have integrity and they're both against preemptive military aggression so for my primary requirements, they're tied. At this point, I'm putting my vote where it can help the anti-war cause the most. I hate to admit it but I really think Hillary's got the Democratic nomination in the bag due to her celebrity, just as Giuliani has the Republican's celebrity for best actor in a 9/11 drama. I'm hoping Ron Paul wins the primary because I REALLY don't want to be forced to vote for Hillary just so Guiliani won't win. Might have to be the first POTUS election I skip. Speaking of, why are so many Republicans lining up to back the man responsible for our present mess? If Giuliani had been more competant, 9/11 would never have occurred. Who's to say he'll run the country any better than NY or his marriages?

by Over It (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:32:59 PM

  (0+)

I truly hope Rudy wins.  It would be hilarious to watch the Dem candidate bat him around like a cat with a mouse...  any of them could do it, except maybe Gravel (ha!)

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:15:20 PM

  (0+)

And I really don't dislike the guy personally.  I think he is perfectly positioned now, considering his radical ideas.  The House is the place for fire and zeal and experimentation.  Not 1600 Pennsylvania.

My favorite matchup? Edwards/Obama versus Giuliani/Who the hell ever.

Edwards would eat Rudy's lunch! 

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:13:05 PM

  (0+)

I'm a former Democrat against preemptive military aggression and am crossing over and voting for Ron Paul in the primary.

(We can do that in my state.)

If Ron Paul wins the GOP nomination, I'm betting the majority of conservatives (give or take the strict pro-war minority) will buck up and rally around him, plus he'll win a lot of anti-war, fringe, and not-Hillary votes.  He could WIN against Hillary because of her stance and record on the civil liberties and on the Middle East, etc.

Politicans are pulling all the strings and making bold moves without our say.  If you think it's not a feudal plutocracy already, you live in a charmed world.

If enough voters disenfranchised by the two-party system get out and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, we could make a significant statement against Imperialism.  If you're not stirred by the ethical implications of continuing a policy of preemptive warfare, at least recognize it's well past time to address the debt or lose the dollar.

[ Reference Einstein on the symptoms of insanity... ]

The GOP primary will decide this race if it's not rigged.   

[ long response>> ] 

by Over It (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 2:40:10 PM

  (0+)

Paul would continue the destructive cycle- look at his position on handouts for the oil industry. A petrochemical-based economy is untenable in the long term.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:17:54 PM

  (0+)

Now is not his moment in the sun. Now is not the time for expanding social programs even though a lot of people need them and would benefit by them, perhaps they should have objected more vehemently to Bush foreign policy before he sold us out foreign bankers to finance the invasion, destruction, oil plundering, and occupation of Iraq.

Now IS the time to end failing, unethical, and financially disastrous policies of preemptive military aggression however, Kucinich isn't capturing the level of following necessary to win the presidency so sorry Dennis, I love ya but...

Ron Paul has widespread support yet Kucinich appeals to a narrower audience of progressives and liberals. Your grandma will not vote for him but she might vote for Ron Paul. It adds up.

by Over It (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 1:12:47 PM

  (0+)

One of the problems I have with your argument is that you quote the Cato Institute as the libertarian bedrock principle.  Cato is a pseudo-libertarian think tank at best (philosophically speaking). 

If you really want to get at the ideas Ron Paul submits to, look at his influences:  Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and the other Austrian School Economists. 

To be a libertarian, you need only adhere to this axiom: The principles of non-aggression and private property.  With this said, let me reevaluate your argument.

 “What else is government than the method by which such spontaneous relationships is exercised?”

The “method” you mention is the one aspect that separates a government from its citizens: the legal use of force.  I think what the Cato Institute is aiming at in the passage you provided is the distinction in the government’s duty.  Governments are formed as a type of collective security organization, to protect its citizens from violation of their property rights (which include both life and liberty). 

However, this is distinctly different from a government that uses aggression in order to achieve goals.  As Fredric Bastìat puts it in his book “The Law,” the government becomes the instrument of plunder, and no longer the defender of it.  For example, the Eminent Domain for private that came from the Kelo vs. New London decision.  The idea of Eminent Domain for private use was central planning; they thought that because it would benefit the economy, it was just in taking someone’s property in order to do it.  It is this kind of government philosophy that hinders society from “empowering the individual freedoms of its citizens.”

“It seems like Libertarians are advocating a return to feudalism. Without government, unrestrained free markets would enrich the already powerful, allowing them to rule the way lords of old did. They controlled the assets, and the less fortunate looked to their lords to protect them and keep them alive, similar to the faith my dog has in my ability to fill his food dish.”

Libertarians advocate the free market within the bounds of defensive law.  The government must leave people alone, and allow them to associate freely, and only intervene when one party aggresses upon another (i.e. theft, murder, fraud, etc.).  A feudal system is contradictory to this for obvious reasons.  So that statement is pretty bunk. 

“In America laws were written and governmental bodies were formed, for the most part, to address real situations, not to slowly steal away the rights of citizens.”

The USSR was created to give equality to all and to correct the injustices committed by the bourgeois society (generally speaking).  Good intention does not necessarily lead to good outcome.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  For the most part, our government does not set out with a Machiavellian intent to grab power and repress its citizens, but it can degenerate into that unconsciously.  

“It seems Libertarians forgot the days of the robber barons, the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Morgans, and Harrimans. That's exactly what we would get if we relied on people's good intentions to rein in a wild, completely free market.” 

It’s a common myth that the robber barons are somehow a product of the free market.  Let’s say I have a computer that I would like to sell.  I decide to sell it for $300, and you buy it.  We have come to a mutually beneficial trade, meaning we both got what we wanted.  That is the free market in action… mutually beneficial exchanges.  Now, let’s say that I want to sell more computers at $300, and I’m selling lots of them.  My friend Joe sees this as a great market, but he thinks he can do better than I can by selling his computers for only $250.  He is new to the market, but he has the advantage of coming in with new technology and more efficiency than me.  I don’t want to sell my computers for only $250, and I don’t want to be constantly reworking my company to be more efficient, so I decide to talk to my friend, Congressman Bob.  Bob introduces legislation that sets a price control on computers that says they can’t be sold for under $300.  Thus I can’t be out-competed by a more efficient company, and I have the advantage of name recognition.  It is this kind of scenario that played out for pretty much all of the Robber Barons.  They invoked the force of the federal government to enforce their monopolies on their services.  Read Murray Rothbard’s “The Origins of the Federal Reserve” for a fantastic account of these things.  It isn’t the free market that created the elites… it was the perversion of the markets that did. 

But my diatribe has gone on long enough, and I’ll be surprised if anyone read the damn thing… but I’m a libertarian supporting Ron Paul because I do agree with him philosophically in many areas.  Furthermore, I believe libertarian ideas deserve more credence than they currently get, and I think Ron Paul’s publicity may lead to a wider look at the ideas to enhance further debate.  Just my 2 cents.

by Leon Kassab (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:24:53 PM

  (0+)

A couple of paragraphs into your comment I got lost in the fractal complexity- I will challenge you with a simple question, however, since my fingers are nearly bloody from responding to the Ron Paul Brigade here...

If you support Paul's idea of abolishing the FBI and CIA, what national security apparatus would you put up in its place, especially in this violent and dangerous time when we need our protections the most?

If you don't support it, why vote for him?  If you come back with the "Democratic Congress" argument, I will counter that gridlock is partially the reason our nation is imperiled today, or at least the reason why a "fix" cannot be implemented.  The last thing we need after the Bush debacle is a complete deconstruction of the federal government and a complete revamp of the tax code.  We need to fix the institutions Bush damaged, we need to repair foreign relations.  Not vote in yet another radical with an agenda opposite the needs of his (or her) constituients as a whole.

I respect your argument, and promise to come back and carefully read it later.  I would, for the sake of concision and my sanity, at the least, like an answer to the above questions.  No one on here has gotten even close yet, and you seem like the heavyweight of the bunch.  I'll admit right off the bat you're probably 10 times more well read than I am.  I am just trying to be pragmatic and think of the best thing for our nation now.

I hope to hear your thoughts.  Thanks for the careful and thoughtful response.  It's way better than being called an idiot as above!

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:27:52 PM

  (0+)

<Quote>

If you support Paul's idea of abolishing the FBI and CIA, what national security apparatus would you put up in its place, especially in this violent and dangerous time when we need our protections the most?

<End Quote>

Our current military for one.  Private firms for another.  Who says we need to have a formal government agency gathering our intelligence?  Intelligence is nothing more than information gathered through mostly covert means, which, at the end of the day must be supported through evidence, documentation, and multiple sources before we should take any sort of action.  Do we really need a body of bureaucrats to manage the collection, corroboration, and legitimization of intelligence?

by Aaron Walker (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:45:44 PM

  (0+)

I do.  I will not trust more contractors with our national security or our image abroad.  As for the military, they report to the Commander in Chief, so their independence is far from guaranteed.  They gave us WMD's in Iraq under Cheney's direction, for pete's sake!

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:59:11 AM

  (0+)

Sorry for my style of writing, I get so bogged down in writing history and philosophy papers that I just get in the habit of writing everything like that. I long for the writing talent of David McCullough.

Anyways, on to the good stuff

"If you support Paul's idea of abolishing the FBI and CIA, what national security apparatus would you put up in its place, especially in this violent and dangerous time when we need our protections the most?"

I think when stuff like this is brought up, it kind of distorts Paul's position. To understand Paul's position, you have to understand his rational behind his foreign policy. The jist of the problem, as Paul sees it, is that the U.S. since the end of World War II, has been meddling in other countries affairs both covertly and openly. It has usually been done to protect or advance U.S. interests, despite the unjust acts committed. Furthermore, it often leads to the imposition or the protection of brutal dictatorships. This is especially prominent in the Middle East. The CIA's imposition of the Shah in Iran, covert aid to Afghani rebels against the USSR, military aid to Saddam Hussein, subsidies to Musharraf, etc.

Its through these things that opponents of the United States view us. In other words, Paul would argue, they are the root affliction. Get rid of the root affliction, and you'll find that not so many people want to attack us anymore. Abolishing the CIA would be a step in the right direction.

The FBI is a different matter, and I'm honestly not sure what his argument is against the FBI. I would assume it is a Constitutional thing. On the other hand, Paul has said that real national defense is one of his goals, and to stop messing around with countries we have no business being in. I do not see how the FBI is in conflict with this, so I'll have to do research on this one to find out what he says.

My own opinion on the matter is that yes, I think the CIA is an unjust organization. Furthermore, I agree with Paul's assessment of those that attack the U.S., and if you want justification for this, look at the reasons Bin Laden gives for the Trade Center attacks (EXCLAIMER: I'm not saying that killing thousands of innocent people was a justified response, but understanding how enemies are created is an important step in avoiding it in the first place).

As far as the FBI goes, I really don't know... but what I do know is that Ron Paul has been the closest embodiment of my political ideology I've seen in politics. Which brings me to my next point:

"If you don't support it, why vote for him?"

I take my political philosophy very seriously. Needless to say, libertarian views haven't exactly been mainstream. Often, libertarian views are even shunned and tossed away as wacko. Thus for me, the popularity of Ron Paul's candidacy is more than just a breath of fresh air... it is a vindication of my years of seemingly futile study.

While I don't always agree with Ron Paul (and there are a few main areas I don't agree, such as immigration), 9 times out of 10, I find him to be a good choice.

"The last thing we need after the Bush debacle is a complete deconstruction of the federal government and a complete revamp of the tax code. We need to fix the institutions Bush damaged; we need to repair foreign relations. Not vote in yet another radical with an agenda opposite the needs of his (or her) constituents as a whole."

I think I would disagree with this point (though this is one of those points I don't think we're going to be able to come to a consensus on). I think a severe deconstruction of power is exactly what we need in order to save this country. Executive power is far far far too extensive right now, and that needs to be scaled back to the checks and balances level. I've dealt with the foreign relations issue already above. As far as the institutions and the tax code, I would argue that the monetary system of fiat money is the source of most of our domestic ills. I'm going to sound like a broken record recommending all of these Austrian Economics books, but Ludwig Von Mises' "Human Action" explains the entire theory thoroughly. I concede though, that we are probably going to be at an ideological difference on these points that cannot be easily debated over internet comments, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

By the way, thank you for the compliments... I always try to keep my debates civil. I've always admired the Socratic Dialogue-esque fashion point-by-point arguments over the yelling and name calling that comes with trying to convince someone that just won't be convinced. As far as being more well read, I really don't know. I've done my share of reading, but I'm also only 22 years old, and there's a lot more out there that I have yet to read.

by Leon Kassab (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 8:06:13 PM

  (0+)

I do like your style- well read, civil, and logical.  I could ask for no better opposition :)

You have a lot of good points, but beside the really detailed points (which are legitimate, and worthy of discussion) here's my argument, boiled down to Fox News-level sophisitication; why now?

Why do all this now, when we need to put our currently functional system on a path to energy independence and international comity?  Would it really make sense to institute all these reforms now?  It's like rebuilding an engine to change the spark plugs!

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 12:05:46 PM

  (0+)

"Why do all this now, when we need to put our currently functional system on a path to energy independence and international comity? Would it really make sense to institute all these reforms now? It's like rebuilding an engine to change the spark plugs!"

One way to respond to this is to ask if not now, when? I'm in favor of minimal government, and now is the chance to obtain it.

The more pragmatic answer to this question, though, is that just because someone is elected president, it doesn't mean that every reform and change they want to make will be adopted. Paul has said that he'll really have to work with congress to get the changes he wants passed to be passed. There is no way he could just immediately abolish all the government agencies in a day.

I personally have faith in the free market. If the government got out of the business of interventionalism, I think we would see a lot more resources put into alternative energy resources. In fact, I think it is the very fact that the oil lobbies are so powerful in using the strong arm of government to quell competition that it is the significant factor in no alternative energy presenting itself.

However, faith in the free market is another one of those issues we will likely disagree with on a fundamental level.

But in regards to the analogy of the engine, I would say that a Ron Paul presidency (in my opinion) would be more changing your trusty 15 year old Ford for a brand new Toyota. But I'm not the best person with car analogies.

by Leon Kassab (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 4:43:15 PM

  (0+)

Mike wants to protect our current National Security setup?  It is based on fabrications and is totally out of control.  We have air marshals shooting innocent passengers, police locking up drunk women on the way to rehab, grandmothers arrested for having a butterknife in her carry-on bag that was used to make peanut butter sandwiches for the children, and now the Canadian police are at it killing a Polish traveler who had never flown before with a Taser.  All the while, narry ONE "terrorist" foiled.  Methinks you need a priority change.

by daveys (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 272 comments [20 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:38:48 PM

  (0+)

Reign in the illogical arguments.  Firstly Canadian police did what they did under their government and their laws- the US has nothing to do with that.  Anyone can cherry-pick bad examples of law enforcement, but how about the successes?  It's hard to dismiss someone who is alive who would be dead, or some kid who is un-raped due to our brave first responders.

What would you do?  Do you seriously think abolishing the FBI en masse (currently somehwere around 1700 experienced professionals) or the CIA (unknown numbers of vital foreign contacts) is a good idea right now?

If you do, then you have no place in the discussion, as your ideas could destroy our nation. 

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:33:49 PM

  (0+)

Never again will i vote for a Republocrat; defense of the Constitution is the oath and number one job of our elected and appointed officials, and neither that purpose or "national security" is best served by anyone in the "top tier" of plastic human shells controlled by corporate elite $. 

 9/11 changed everything, our Republic and our nation need people in office who will obey the Constitution and put the public interest first. We need someone with integrity who will clean the parasites out of govt and corporate America. 

HistoryCommons.org 

 War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed

Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert 

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:03:40 PM

  (0+)

I would vote first for Kucinich because he speaks for the Constitutional Responsibilities of investigating and removing elected officials who committ high crimes.  I would vote for Paul second.  He also talks about restoring the Constitution and restoring our "Original Foreign Policy".  He has chosen not to sign on the Impeachment effort.  That is more then words, it is an action our more appropriately an inaction.

Impeachment is a dividing line.  It is essential to reign in and hold accountable this pursuit of unchecked executive authority.  This is how "WE THE PEOPLE" get government to be responsible to the people.  We have to demand that this group of lawmakers instill some ethics into our government.

The debate brought up the influence of Corporate Dollars on our government.  Edwards fired the shot and I expect there will be some cross fire on the subject.  That is a win for the people as long as the issue isn't allowed to be swept under any carpet.  Dodd talks about accountability and the Constitution however I'll believe Kucinich and Paul more when they speak on the issue.  They seem to walk the walk where Dodd is talking the talk but it takes all kinds to bring about a lasting unity.

I guess I think some substance has finally entered the debate rather then the Corporate media selling us the woman and the black guy.  I think gender and race have very little to do with what I look for in a leader.  I look behind the eyes into the soul. 

Bush sold his as a child.  I think Kucinich pursues the position for the best reasons.  Paul is second he pursues it but seems more overwhelmed by the possibility of getting it and refuses to sign on to the Articles of Impeachment.  He is dropping the ball there.   I think Edwards would be my third pick, but because he would be a compromise of principles.  I would like to see him grilled on the money issue.  He has a sizable War Chest although it doesn't really compare to the top two Corporate Whores who claim to be Democrats but look like Neo-Cons to me.

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 10:36:05 AM

  (0+)

"Without government, unrestrained free markets would enrich the already powerful, allowing them to rule the way lords of old did."

 Mike, you simply do not understand the way a free market works and how it differs from government. The only thing that makes a government a government is that it uses force and coercion to obtain its social, political, and economic goals. In fact, it is only because of the existence of a government that systems like feudalism are even possible. In the market place, businesses (unlike governments) can only achieve their goals by convincing individuals to take action on a voluntary basis. A business owner cannot hold a gun to a potential customers head and threaten to shoot them for not purchasing their products. On the other hand, this is what government does everyday and, in fact, this is what distinguishes a government from a business, or a group, or an association, or an organization etc. 

To believe that an unrestrained market would enrich the already powerful allowing them to rule like lords is a fallacious line of reasoning that is completely irrational. Using the word “unrestrained” is a bit misleading as well. Free markets are restrained by the economic law of supply and demand as well as natural laws. I think the word “unregulated” is a much more accurate descriptor of a free market because what is a free market but the grand total of free exchanges between individuals? Free exchange is what we want isn’t it? If you and I want to do business with each other, do we really want a third party looking over our shoulder telling us what we are allowed to trade, how much we can trade it for, when we can trade, where we can trade, etc? To cap it all off, after this third party interferes with our private matter, they than ask to skim some of our profits off the top for the so-called “service” they have provided us. I think free men in a free society out to be able to trade freely with each other. What do you think?

Here’s why it would be impossible for any private organization to rule over the masses like a lord. Business owners must cater to their clientele and provide excellent customer service in order to survive and flourish whereas governments do not have to provide customer service to flourish. All a government has to do is increase taxation, print more money out of thin air, or borrow more money from other governments. If you think the government has to provide customer service just go down to the DMV or post office if you haven’t been their in awhile. Oh and lets not forget the frightening deficiencies of government transportation, government schools, government protective services (police and fire departments, government retirement programs (social security), government healthcare (medicare/medicade) etc etc etc.

Because free markets generate the most competition between businesses, customer service and customer satisfaction would become even more important than it is in our current mixed market (1/2 free/ ½ government regulated). If a particular company got so big and powerful that they started to try to “rule” over their customers, the customer’s would simply stop frequenting the company and start giving their business to one of the company’s competitors! Unfortunately, citizens of a state do not have the same recourse as customers of a business. Governments simply pass statutory laws to protect their monopolies when they are in danger of being down-sized or dismantled by the will of the marketplace.  

Another check and balance provided by the marketplace is the press. In a society with a much smaller government (or none at all) journalist, bloggers, and other members of the media would not be able to fill newspapers, websites, and television shows with stories about new government programs, new government mandates, the latest instance of government intervention, scandalous stories about the private lives of government officials, etc. Have you taken a look at a newspaper lately? 80 percent or more of the stories are directly or indirectly related to some form of government interference into the marketplace. Without the government intervention tree to pluck stories from,  the media would have to start looking elsewhere for that next shocking story that’s going to capture their audience’s attention. This means that journalist would have to start doing some real investigating into issues that really matter to its customers.

If a particular person, company, or group of companies were able to amass so much power and influence that they were becoming a threat to individual liberties, freedom or human rights, this would definitely be of interest to the public and would quickly become a font page story that would get picked up by the AP (or a similar organization) for national and international distribution.  The business owner(s) could try to pay off the media but remember that a truly free society is not controlled by the same centralized power structure that exists today. Currently only a few influential people control most of the main stream media. This is very unlikely to be the case in a deregulated market. Therefore, a powerful company could probably pay of some or the larger media outlets to keep quite but with so many independent news sources with thousands of reporters looking for a scoop, the word would eventually get out that there is a conspiratorial plot underway to impose tyranny upon the masses! The internet would take care of the distribution of the story plus, in a free market, there would likely be even more television stations than there are today owned by an even greater diversity of individuals.

Unfortunately, the above scenario would be ineffective against a government. If you think the size of a government is too big or if you don’t like a government’s so-called services, if you refuse to continue paying for these unwanted services, a government will simply threatened to use force, violence, and coercion to get you back in line.  This is analogous to the mafia telling a proprietor that he must continue to pay them for the “protection” they are providing him. You can run to the press and try to expose the government but good luck. They don’t care if they get some bad press because they have a forced monopoly and most of the guns! “Yeah, we are corrupt, but what are you going to do about it citizen?”

If the initial threats of violence aren’t enough to deter you, a government has no problem with sending some of its henchmen to your front door to deal with you further. After all, one bad apple could spoil the bunch, right? If you continue to try to expose the government for what it really is, a violent group of thugs with a monopoly on force, you will then be sent to a government gulag and the remaining citizens at large will be forced to pay for your confinement to a cage. Of course, if you resist government tyranny enough, you will simply be shot and/or killed.

Do you see now why it is impossible to have tyrant or lords or kings or nobles in the absence of government? Do you see now that, in fact the only way you can forceful rule over others is with government?  Come to think of it, the only way that a term like “lord” (along with its connotation) could ever arise to prominence is through government tyranny. Free men have no need to bow down and beg for leniency at the whim of some arbitrary aristocratic.  Free men working in a free, unregulated market are judged by their ability to produce something of value that others in the marketplace desire. The only individuals that can rise to prominence or affluence in the marketplace are those proprietors that are willing and able to provide the best product at the best price. This will in turn improve their reputation. All too often, the government paradigm seems to promote officials that offer the least amount of value at the highest cost with the worse reputation. In a private business, if you don’t like your boss because he treats you like a surf and he seems to think of himself as a lord, JUST QUITE YOUR JOB AND GO SOMEWHERE ELSE where the boss isn’t a jerk. Labor is a product/service in a free market. It has value and can be traded for other things such as food, shelter, money, etc. Employers have to compete for labor in a free market so they must make sure their employees want to work for their business on a voluntary basis. I government does not have to do this, that is why slavery was possible, because of governments. There could be no involuntary slavery with government.

Mike, I do not doubt that your heart is in the right place, but after reading your article, it was obvious to me that everything you know about economics must of learned from a government school. Maybe you have read some books about economics on your own but remember that most authors out there were also taught by government schools. Here’s a couple of suggestions I have for you on this subject:

Economics in One Lesson Henry Hazlitt

Why Government Doesn’t Work – Harry Browne

Anthony

by Anthony Knittel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:06:03 PM

  (0+)

Government evolved organically to help the down trodden and to uphold the institutions that keep our nation vital.  It was not imposed on others by force.

I will not entertain your Libertarian mythology, it is so similar to the practiced mantras of the Rovian school of politics.

Have fun with the tinfoil hat, buddy.  Don't worry, while your scribbling in a notebook in your basement and defecating on yourself the rest of us will be busy healing our nation and trying to make a difference from within the system.

Good word count, though.  Was that all original or do you copy it from battlefront to online battlefront?

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:37:48 PM

  (0+)

Government evolved organically to help the down trodden and to uphold the institutions that keep our nation vital. It was not imposed on others by force.

BWAHAHAH!

Read the Social Security Trust Act. The original one. It was originally voluntary, it was a TRUST fund, and the money was barred from being placed in the general fund.

But the "organically evolved government to help the down trodden" started stealing from this trust fund and made it compulsory. The Social Security program has run a surplus for almost it's entire existence. What happened to all this surplus money?

The government, which you think is there to help the down trodden, spent it on Korea, Vietnam, SDI, Iraq I, Iraq II. How much did they spend? All of it.

Over the next 30 years, according to the Goverment Accountability Office (GAO), the Federal government will have to find 60 trillion dollars to meet it's obligations for Social Security and Medicare, in today's dollars. How much money is that? Well, the Federal Government brings in 3 trillion dollars a year, so it's 20 years of taxes, and don't forget we have a 9 trillion dollar debt to service.

Now, if you think for a moment the "organically evolved government to help the down trodden" is going to do this, you're insane.

I will not entertain your Libertarian mythology, it is so similar to the practiced mantras of the Rovian school of politics.

Rove is a fascist, not a Libertarian.

Libertarians recognize that business are frequently corrupt, they also recognize you don't have to do business with corrupt businesses.

Libertarians also recognize that government just like businesses go corrupt, but a government has the power to put you in jail, kill you, and controls all your wealth and governments never go out of business, they just get bigger, and bigger and bigger until they are so much of a burden on the citizens, they collapse.

Have fun with the tinfoil hat, buddy. Don't worry, while your scribbling in a notebook in your basement and defecating on yourself the rest of us will be busy healing our nation and trying to make a difference from within the system.

This sort of childishness is unbecomming to anybody.

Good luck heating your home, as the devaluation of the dollar has trippled the price of heating oil, food, and gold. Isn't the Federal reserve wonderful at protecting the dowtrodden?

Good word count, though. Was that all original or do you copy it from battlefront to online battlefront?

by fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 7:10:30 PM

  (0+)

Damn, you guys can sure swarm well!

I was determined to at least partially address as many Paul supporters as possible throughout this thread.  Look above for more of my arguments, if you are interested.  I have put a considerable amount of energy into trying to change some minds here, and for the most part, have enjoyed the good discussions thus far.  Other than the name calling and ad hominem arguments, of course.

 I have not yet heard a good follow up to one of the main objections I have voiced a dozen times or so above- do you guys truly support abolishing the FBI and CIA?  If so, what would you do to gather intelligence and enforce laws across state lines?  If you don't support these ideas, why install another president to gridlock our system with radical ideas that could endanger us all?

I really just can't get past that point.  Can someone at least try to answer me?

For the record, I do like a lot of what Dr. Paul says.  Does that mean I think he should ransack the federal government?  No.  Keep him in the House where his ideas will generate good legislation.  Put a good manager in charge of 1600 Pennsylvania so we can try to fix the horrific damage Bush has done to use domestically and abroad.

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:45:22 PM

  (0+)

Damn, you guys can sure swarm well!

I was determined to at least partially address as many Paul supporters as possible throughout this thread. Look above for more of my arguments, if you are interested. I have put a considerable amount of energy into trying to change some minds here, and for the most part, have enjoyed the good discussions thus far. Other than the name calling and ad hominem arguments, of course.

I have not yet heard a good follow up to one of the main objections I have voiced a dozen times or so above- do you guys truly support abolishing the FBI and CIA? If so, what would you do to gather intelligence and enforce laws across state lines? If you don't support these ideas, why install another president to gridlock our system with radical ideas that could endanger us all?

I really just can't get past that point. Can someone at least try to answer me?

by fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 7:53:37 PM

  (0+)

Your Heart Is In The Right Place But You Bend The Result By Not Viewing Holistically.

Any Conclusion Can Be Reached When The Data Is Limited To Support A Preconceived Notion.

I am not sure whether you have any ability to be objective. I think that Fear For Your Paradigm allows your to dismiss valid argument.

Things Are About To Go Very Negative In Our Country At A Very Rapid Rate, Yet You And Others Still Suffer From The Narrow View That Your Government Is Benevolent.

Government Does Nothing Well. All The Programs That Have Been Initiated Out Of A Desire To Be "Kind" Or "Protect" The Fellow Human Have Degenerated Into Inefficient Overlords Allowing No Possibility For Option Of Another Choice And In Effect Have Become Counter To Their Intent.

As A Member Of The Armed Services I Took The Oath To Defend The Constitution Against All Enemies Foreign And Domestic. I Take This Oath Very Seriously. I Can Assure You There Is A Greater Threat On The Domestic Front At This Point Than Any Perceived Threat From Abroad.

Bad Things Are Approaching That Have Little Chance Of Being Averted Unless Ron Paul Is Successful In His Bid For The Presidency.

A Little Bit Of An Education In Current Events That You May Want To Write About Next Time:

Follow The Links:

August about The GAO Comptroller Report:

summation of Current Economic Catastrophe:

Doom Predicted:

Most Recent:

Government Hiding Inflation

The Government Lies Again

That Should Give You A Glimpse Into What Is About To Take Place With The Economy. Ron Paul's Stance On This Issue Will Be Vindicated In The Coming Year. The Average Consumer Will See The Effects Of Rampant Inflation Soon.

On the Continuing Attitude Of "Get Them Before They Get Us" That Seems So Pervasive, And Is The MAIN Reason For The Out Of Control Inflation We Will See.

Iran and Russia Have A Mutual Defense Treaty. War With Iran Is War With Russia. Russia Still Has Its Nuclear Arsenal. WAR WILL COME TO AMERICAN SHORES WITH FIRE LEADING THE WAY !!! Russia Has A Conscripted Army And Their Leaders Have No Benevolence For Them. They Will Nuke Before They Send The Invasion. Look At Their Declassified Plan For Europe Should The Cold War Have Become Hot. Nuke And Advance, All the Way To The Sea. Scorched Earth Policy.

And Here Is Something that Should Be Disconcerting To All Americans; Yet I Have Seen Only One Article About It.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SRJCS83&show_article=1

If This Tips So That Private Citizens Are Not Allowed To Own Guns, Doom Will Come Very Soon.

As A Basis For Just How Grave This Could Be:

>>Another History Lesson...
>>
>>
>>
>> 20th Century Gun Control History
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> 1911
>> Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million >> Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated >> .
>>
>> 1929
>> The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about >> 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and >> exterminated .
>>
>> 1935
>> China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million >> political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and >> exterminated .
>>
>> 1938
>> Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 >> million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded >> up and exterminated .
>>
>> 1956
>> Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million >> educated people , unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and >> exterminated.
>>
>> 1964
>> Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan >> Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated .
>>
>> 1970
>> Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 >> Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated >> .
>>
>> In the 20th Century, because of gun control, 56 million Defenseless >> People were rounded up and exterminated.
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> Now a more current history page.
>> It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced >> by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms for destruction by >> their government. This program cost Australia taxpayers more than $500 >> million dollars.
>> The first year's results are now in:
>>
>> a.. Australia-wide, homicides with firearms are up 3.2 percent.
>>
>> a.. Australia-wide, assaults with firearms are up 8.6 percent.
>>
>> a.. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 >> percent)!
>>
>> a.. In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are >> now up 300 percent.
>> Note: while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the >> criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
>>
>> a.. While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady >> decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically >> upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that >> their prey is unarmed.
>>
>> a.. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and >> assaults of the ELDERLY.
>> After a monumental effort and cost was expended in ridding the >> Australian Society of personal fire arms, Australian politicians are at a >> loss to explain why public safety has decreased. The Australian >> experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our >> president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. >> Guns the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, >> gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
>>
>> Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!
>>
>> The next time someone talks in support of gun control, please >> remind them of this history lesson.
>>
>> With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are just subjects.
>>
>> If you value your freedom.
>> Please spread this Gun Control Information message to all of your >> friends.

A Letter I Received On Taxes:

Remember, the only 2 things that are for sure in life are taxes and death, right? Read on...

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries, then
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers,
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid.

Put these words
upon his tomb,
' Taxes drove me to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service Charge Tax Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax


Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

I would hope that you have attained a greater understanding of just how grave the situation currently is.

I hope we can save the republic. Ron Paul's Message Is More Important Than The Man. Do Not Get Caught Up In Idyllic Goals; One Man Can Not Wave A Magic Wand To Change It All. He Is About Phasing Out And Giving Alternatives.

Only Through Content Of Character Can Tragedy Be Averted.

Thank You For Your Time.

Brad Evans

by Brad Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments [11 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 4:48:52 PM

  (0+)

After 8 years of GOP mismanagement and illegality you want the American people to give another Republican a chance, especially since he espouses such extreme positions?

 Let me put it in terms you might understand-

How Stupid Do You Think We Are?

(Your capitalization is excessive, I just HAVE to point that out.  Well written, grammatically-correct arguments are always better recieved.  Just a tip.)

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 7:09:57 PM

  (0+)

When you screw up your critique by mispellingm "received."

 Ha!

by Mike Kuykendall (47 articles, 83 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 91 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 7:12:06 PM

  (0+)

After 8 years of GOP mismanagement and illegality you want the American people to give another Republican a chance, especially since he espouses such extreme positions?

 Let me put it in terms you might understand-

How Stupid Do You Think We Are?

by fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 7:23:59 PM

  (0+)

If Ron Paul is a Republican...then Kucinich is a Democrat.  bleh. 

The Democrats act like ethanol is going to save this country.  They think we're all idiots to believe their nonsense.  Kucinich doesn't buy into it.  He has said that ethanol is one of many alternatives to oil dependence but is not alone the answer.  The rest of the Dems are up Big Ag's arse.

 Seriously, Kucinich and Gravel are great guys, I like them both but they don't have the edge that Ron Paul has.  

 Ron Paul can do some good short-term.  For one, he can save us from a North American Union.  

I saw "Meet the Robinsons"  (the movie) and in the future, Canada was officially "The State of Canada"...  How about, "The State of America"?  How relevant and valuable will the U.S. Constitution be then, American friends?  Think about how they're treating detainees nowadays shipping them off to foreign countries to be tortured/interrogated and possibly never seen again.  Think your Democrats will put a stop to that?  How good is their record on taking a stand?  Pretty bad.  Yes, Kucinich is a great exception but he's not winning the numbers.  Think that doesn't matter?  I hope Ron Paul gets elected because there's some very important human rights violations he will put a stop to.  That matters.  It's not everything but it's enough to earn my vote.

by Over It (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 1:31:46 PM

  (0+)

The thing that really scares the hell out of the real rulers of this country is that Ron Paul transcends the dog whistle politics that pit us all against each other while a system gone rotten and criminal fleeces us, steals our liberties and sets up us up for the kill.

The existing paradigm is being exposed as the sham that it always has been and Ron Paul is only the beginning - a movement is starting to form and it will one day take back this country from the looters, the blood barters and the elitists and God willing and if the creek don't dry the bitches and bastards who have collaborated will be held accountable in a court of law for their treason.

You can see the fear of the status quo by their intensity of ratcheting up the attacks against Paul supporters but it's too late - word is out that the game is rigged and it's time for the house to pay up as promised instead of relying on the same old divide and conquer tactics that no longer work quite as well now that the internet exists.

 Just my two cents

 EE 

by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 7:30:11 PM

  (0+)

Mike,

I know you’re a smart guy, so I want to address you like I would a friend who I respect. Ron Paul supporters do get upset when you post negative stuff, but it’s only because there is so much to understand about Paul and the mainstream media doesn’t give him a fair shake. You’ve been more charitable to him in your comment section than the snickering, sneering mainstream press.

You make good points; I just don’t think that you’ve been exposed to some of the guiding principles of Paul’s political platform.

1. I’ll address some of your points first:

a) Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He is a Libertarian Republican. This is a very old platform that’s been largely forgotten thanks to the neoconservatives. It means he has a libertarian (small ‘L’) view on economic matters and a devolutionist view of federal matters. Alan Greenspan is also a Libertarian Republican and he tends to agree with Paul on almost everything.

b) Paul is not opposed to the separation between church and State as it is explicitly described in the Constitution. What that means is that he believes that the state should not mandate religious views or any specific religion. What he *is* opposed to is the state mandating the reverse: namely, the state telling children they cannot pray when they want to.

c) Paul does not oppose international intervention in humanitarian crises. He opposes unilateral state-sponsored interventions by the federal government. I think Paul would point to the fact that Amnesty International, as a private entity, does more for the world than America does when it steps into world affairs with guns-a-blazing. For all the orphans of these crises, there are also orphans of service-members who died in Iraq, Viet Nam, and our other various other misadventures to liberate the world. Like me, you are a veteran, so you know that our blood is just as red as anyone else’s. The problem with sending troops to help foreign countries is not that it is always wrong. It’s that it’s difficult to draw a non-arbitrary line between when it is right and wrong. I would prefer to err on the side of troops staying home to watch their children grow and having a high standard for when it’s alright to intervene.

d) He would probably have opposed the Civil rights Act in practice, but not in principle, because it is an example of the Federal Government going beyond the prescription of the Constitution. That said, he usually has alternative ways of achieving the same goals. For instance, he believes the Civil War did not need to be fought because the federal government could have paid the southern states for loss of remuneration to their agricultural industry. It would have cost a lot less in blood and money in the end. There is also the constitutional amendment-process that would achieve identical goals. That leads into (2).

2) One of the principles of Strict Constitutionalism is that the Constitution can, and should be, amended. Without Strict Constitutionalism people to focus their efforts to achieve things like racial and social equality through a divided legislature. This results in gridlock and a waxing and a waning of the efficacy of policy. By contrast, when the people focus their efforts on constitutional amendments, it gives the Congress an unequivocal mandate which they cannot snub.

When the Congress is restrained by a strict-consitutional philosophy, people focus their efforts on permanent reform rather than the temporary whims and wills of pseudo-representaives in Washington. This results in more productivity and less political wrangling. It may also result in less political division and more political parties. But as it stands now, we get no productivity because there is so little effort to deal with problems through the appropriate process. I have no doubt that things like energy policy, social justice, and global warming would be addressed by now if politicians appropriately directed us through the correct channels instead of nodding their heads and making promises they cannot keep.

3) I also ask you to genuinely compare the whims-and-wills-type front-runners to this sort of policy. Paul’s political philosophy only sounds radical when you haven’t sought to understand the underlying tenets. It also sounds outside the mainstream because mainstream politicians would rather battle, so that they can increase their donations and fill their coffers, rather than be told what to do by an electorate. In that sense, Paul is the champion of the electorate because he believes the Constitution was intended to enumerate and limit the powers, rather than advance, the powers of government. He wants to do what the people have mandated rather than what the politicians have conceded to special interests. It is quite amazing that we have a politician like this. A politician who cannot be bought or sold is a rare creature, my friend. I think we should capitalize on it. You know, send a message to Washington.

4) Also, I don’t think you have to worry about Paul’s policies. An executive who is hell-bent on stripping executive powers down to a constitutional level is going to leave a lot of room for Congress to act like a congress. Paul laments that so many congressmen refused to go “against” President Bush even when they felt that they were doing the wrong thing. He wants Congress to act as a check on the powers of the executive. That’s also rare.

Most of the policies that you disagree with him about, are directed through the Congress, not the executive. Paul has already conceded the reality of that in many one-on-one interviews, but the mainstream press has such fascination with his more exotic ideals, that they can’t seem to get around the realities of a Paul presidency.

Finally, I think that there’s a lot more to Paul that you would like than his views on war. Here is the short list:

-         Stop the war (of course)

-         Don’t get into new wars!

-         Fix the impending financial crisis before it comes (it’s coming)

-         Monetize the debt. (Must have the cash on hand before you spend it).

-         No more Patriot Act.

-         No more violations of privacy.

-         No war with Iran

-         No National ID Card

-         No domestic surveillance

-         No military tribunals except on the battlefield

-         Restoring Habeas Corpus to enemy combatants (In Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere)

-         No evidence extracted by torture or coercion

-         No detaining citizens as unlawful enemy combatants

-         Prohibiting warrantless spying by the National Security Agency

-         Renouncing Presidential signing statements -         Ending secret government by invoking State Secrets Privilege

-         Stopping extraordinary renditions

-         Stopping threats to prosecuting journalists under the Espionage Act

-         Ending the listing of individuals or organizations as terrorists based on secret evidence

I think you should give this guy another look, Mike. Forget about the fact that Paul supporters are pretty hot about this. I’d also be happy to talk to you about his economic policies. I think they’re pretty sound to handle potential problems in the near future. They don’t have to be permanent, but we have to do something soon. I don't think Clinton or Obama are even thinking about this.

by Greg Albert (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 34 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:27:58 PM

  (0+)

I'm sorry about the size of my text. Didn't mean for that to happen

by Greg Albert (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 34 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:29:35 PM

  (0+)

When our Founding Fathers decided to rebel against tyrany they were considered extremist that attempted to design a government that had never existed before. 

He is so radical that he suggests that we should return to the Original Foreign Policy rather then our current policy of pursuing EMPIRE through both overt and covert means.  He believes that we should follow the Constitution rather then refer to it as an out modded piece of paper.

Our biggest problem arises because we have lost the controls that we originally had over Corporations and their ability to own interrests in other Corporations.  They would be dissolved for spending money on campaigns or any effort to buy favors from our political process.  Granting Corporation "Personhood" was a sham that has never really been challanged.  This is the reason that our government has ended up on the auction block where foreign interrests purchase more representation then "WE THE PEOPLE".

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:59:30 PM

  (0+)

To address your issues one-by-one Mike:

- U.S. participation in in international organizations such as NATO and the United Nations erode our national sovereignty. Americans fund nearly all of the UN costs and about half of NATO's costs and there is little benefit derived from this tremendous expense. America can take care of itself.

- International intervention, even for genocide in Darfur or Rwanda is not an authorized function of the general government pursuant to our constitution, the "supreme law of the land" and the guiding document for a government that exists to serve the American people. There are charitable entities that provide aid to people in need. Our young men and women in the military serve to defend our nation, not to impose our will on others. It is terrible that there are atrocities commited against people around the world but is it our responsibility to make the world "right" as we see it?

- The IRS is the enforcement arm of a complex and opressive direct tax on the labor of a human being, a form of slavery, and slavery was abolished here many years ago. Is there any difference between the government taking 20% of your pay and forcing you to perform some labor they direct for one day of your work week?

Here Mike - take this broom and sweep the highway for 8 hours every Monday, because with the omnipotent government want it kept clean and that is now your job on Mondays.

I'd suggest you read a little history on the income tax (like the Congressional Record between 1909 and 1913) and you'll discover that it was started in 1913 as a tax on the profits (unearned income) of the "idle rich". It wasn't until WWII that the "Victory Tax" asked Americans to give a portion of their labor to support the war. This was slowly converted into the horrendous direct progressive tax we have today, punishing those who better themselves and breeding mediocrity in this nation.

- The Federal Reserve, a private organization, making our "money" out of thin air since 1913, is the main reason our "dollars" buy about what $0.04 bought in 1913. Interestingly enough, a $20. gold piece bought a suit of clothes in 1850 and I'll bet you that that same $20. gold piece would entice most tailors to make you a nice suit today. By the way, the courts recently recognized that there is no definition of a "dollar" today as we currently have two different "dollars" in circulation - post-1986 silver "dollars" and Federal Reserve Note (FRN) "dollars". They don't trade evenly in the free market. Read about Robert Kahre on the internet as you'll not find much in the major media on this interesting story. Seems Mr. Kahre paid his people in silver dollars and the IRS wanted to get taxes based on their value in FRNs. The IRS spent over four months and millions of "dollars" prosecuting this case with over 160 charges filed and couldn't secure a single conviction!

- The Department of Education has done a terrific job in shaping history to fit a desired world view and an even better job of indoctrinating the masses for a subservient future. Read "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" - it's free on the internet. http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html

- The DOE supervises the creation and management of our nuclear arsenal - something the entire world would be much better off without. Private industry and state utilities provide the "energy" most Americans require.

- The Department of Homeland Security, now here's a real winner! Their motto should be "Annoying American Travelers since 2001". Tell me, are our ports and borders more secure or have they done nothing but waste large sums of our worthless "dollars"?

- The FBI functions to enforce the misinterpretation of the "commerce" clause, to address the vast number of extra-constitutional "laws" created by congress to control and manipulate virtually every activity of every American. There are very few "crimes" that can be committed against a proper federal government: espionage, counterfeiting, and treason are about all of them.

- The entire concept of separation of church and state is a misinterpretation of the constitution, which prohibits the formation of a government-chartered religion. Our constitution also prohibits the suppression of free expression of our faith and prohibits a religious "test" as a condition of office.

- Universal Health Care - The very concept that it is somehow the responsibility of our servant government to provide medical services for everyone is ludicrous! If we had a free-market approach to health care it would be more affordable for everyone. If people want government-controlled health care, they're free to relocate to a country that provides it.

- Segregation and forced integration are equally wrong. It is not the function of government to force or prohibit free association.

These positions alone clearly identify that Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands the role of our servant government pursuant to the constitution, the "supreme law of the land". It is time that we return the freedom to the people of this country and that is the platform that Ron Paul is running on.

by Sean Freeman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 7:33:25 AM

  (0+)

The only terrorists, that exist that are not worse than those of 70 years ago before during and since WW II in is in the minds of cowards. Terrorism is a faux issue. It was worse during WWII and we needed none of the Habeas Corpus destroying, Constitutional crushing BS which was constructed merely to make the Bilgenberg Group David Rockefeller's evil pals.

I want no national security beyound what the USA military can give us. The Federal agencies are tools of the governing power structure and the framers of citizens always. I own a dozen guns and know how to use them. If every also did, we'd need nothing but ourselves and the USA armed forces. I would take away from government the right to give No-Bid contracts to anyone, ever-the FED Reserve is the Turtle Island monstrosity which allowed old world wealth to continue its death grip here. The CIA, lovely as valary Plaime-Wilson is, not thnaks to the CIA-I would dump them in a NY Minute. They tried to recruit everyone who finished in the top 100 on incoming OCS testing. The ones with common sense and working consciences, said NO THANKS. My own comment was, "If I want a one way trip to Hades when I die, there much more fun ways to do it." I don't know much about R. paul, but what I doknow about the MainStream candidates leaves me canidateless. They all except Kucinich are a part of the One Party system and that is not gpoing to get us back Habeas corpus.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 9:36:59 AM

  (0+)

A government big enough to give you everything you want, ie healthcare is also big enough to take it all away from you, too! And I might add, make damn sure you never make an issue out of it in the process (with imprisonment, torture & even execution). For example, many Americans believe that Social Security is a right. Nothing good be further from the truth. There have been two Supreme Court rulings that upheld the denial of benefits to an indiviual. At any given time, this program could be terminated by the federal government. You can bet if & when that ever happens, the bureaucrats & politicians will have the modus operandi to subdue any dissention within the populous. Keep that in mind when you demand a handout from the system!

by iman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 89 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 3:23:15 PM

  (0+)

Dear Mike Kuykendall... maybe you will change your mind when witnessing the collpase of the dollar ripple through the world, all of which is well documented on www.moneyfiles.org. Then maybe you will consider that American (the failed empire addicted to war) got there because of the evils of taxation and fiat money (IRS and Fedeeral Reserve)... this first realization/epiphany, whem/if it occurs, will surely help you grasp the Framers' motives and why Ron Paul mereley embrace their views.

Saying that Paul is a radical and utopian comes down to insult the Consitutution itself and proves that you are confusing globalization with globalism which is an ideology of absolute domination.

Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives -– Ayn Rand.... There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. -– Goethe .... If humanity cannot live with the dangers and responsibilities inherent in freedom, it will probably turn to authoritarianism - Erich Fromm...

by sharon kayser (13 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 at 9:41:16 AM

  (0+)

here is my latest... just in... the so-called order you endorse has caused 1,000 trillion black hole in the world economy... as to wonder where the utopians really are.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sharon_k_071117_hey_buddy_2c_can_you_s.htm

by sharon kayser (13 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 at 3:06:08 PM

  (0+)

The Ignorant Bliss in America is over

being ruled the way we have in America is a travisty! Globalism and Technology is a failure and will not solve these problems! Everyone is guilty before the law and the government

break free your chains to live again innocent

our society is like a nightmare mousetrap!! Every path leading to legal action jails and prisons fines fees and tolls

fear is the breakfast course lunch course and dinner course!

and every snack in between!

our leaders make sure we eat all they dish!

Ron Paul offers hope and the America we have pleged for since a youth

the only thing radical about him...he is standing up

everyone else is on there knnes awaiting thier execution and thievery you can expect from facists and commy dictators

of course like the sheeple they are they are hailing thier holy got the pope

and Jesus

But no one is going to save you from the big bad wolf!!!

Maybe Just Maybe Ron Paul

will!!

by E E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 at 10:12:04 AM

  (0+)

Mr. Mike Kuykendall,

First, thank you for your military service, your sincere patriotism, and your aim to preserve our democracy. I respect that.

That being said, the tone of your original article was arrogant and condescending. That makes it hard to understand your thin skin when the tone of some of the responses to it was not to your liking.

In my response, I will try to stay civil and show that it is your arguments that were illogical, and your knowledge of history and science is suspect. You certainly have tried to respond to many of the comments critiquing you, and my response is lengthy, so I would understand if you choose not to respond to my comments point by point.

1. Referring to Ron Paul’s views as extremist, deluded, kooky, and radical is an appeal to emotion and irrational itself.

2. Referring to your friends who support Paul as being “seduced” by Paul is arrogant and condescending, again an emotional response and not rational.

3. To say that he espouses a form of government that has never before been attempted on the planet Earth is hyperbole and historically incorrect.

4. Your comment about Libertarian beliefs never having been tried in practice is historically incorrect. The ideas have already been tried and tested, right here in the United States.

5. You attempted to refute the validity of Ron Paul’s positions by attempting to refute the Libertarian principle of Spontaneous Order, but you did not establish that Ron Paul positions are based solely on the principle and you did not establish that the principle itself is illogical.

Ron Paul’s positions are based primarily on the early history of the United States and the philosophy behind its Constitution. As I understand it, his past association with the Libertarian Party is due to the fact that its philosophy and positions correspond most closely with the philosophy behind the U.S. Constitution, not the other way around.

The principle of spontaneous order is indeed logical and scientists do in fact recognize that various complex physical and biological systems exhibit the principle of spontaneous order. The following is a statement of the principle, with the important concepts you omitted from your argument in bold and the last part, which you omitted from your quotation in italic:

A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It's easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society -- language, law, money, and markets -- all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society -- the complex network of associations and connections among people -- is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.

6. You wrote, “In short, Libertarians believe government is an obstacle to personal liberty.” This is an obvious misstatement or omission of the actual principle; it states quite clearly that central direction from a central authority instead of spontaneous organization is the problem.

By building your argument on the false premise omitting the key ideas of central authority and direction, you challenged the logic of the principle of Spontaneous Order with an argument that was illogical. An argument built on a false premise is a false argument.

Libertarians and Ron Paul do not say that the constraints of government necessarily stop societies from empowering individual freedoms. They say that a complex society with intricate organization does not need a central authority and central direction to organize itself. If Ron Paul would care to make a general statement about all governments and a specific statement about ours, it is likely he would say that all governments are capable of stopping societies from empowering individual freedoms, that our government has gone too far in that direction, but not that all governments do that at all times.

Societies can, will, and have historically organized themselves in complex and intricate ways without central authority and direction. As a military man, you should be well aware of the limitations of top-down chain-of-command systems. Modern U.S. military theory strongly supports the idea that the soldier in the field should not be hamstrung in the field by central direction. It’s been tried; it leads to failure and death on the battlefield. To be successful, modern soldiers must have freedom to organize their actions spontaneously in the field in order to adapt to rapidly evolving combat conditions and priorities.

7. You wrote, “News flash- these systems did spontaneously generate. That's how we ended up with government to begin with!” On one hand that statement is vague to the point of being meaningless. Does “these systems” refer to all government systems that have developed, does it refer to all U.S. government systems, or are you simply referring to the fact a U.S. government was established?

Although I would tend to agree that our government spontaneously organized from the actions of thousands or millions of colonists, it is ridiculous to suggest that the Federal Reserve Bank organized itself spontaneously from the actions of millions of citizens in the absence of central authority and direction.

8. You wrote, “What else is government than the method by which such spontaneous relationships are exercised? In America laws were written and governmental bodies were formed, for the most part, to address real situations, not to slowly steal away the rights of citizens.”

I agree with the second sentence, not the first. I would edit the first sentence, this way, “What else was government in the early years of the United States than the method by which such spontaneous relationships were exercised?”

Your patriotism appears to cause you to confuse the U.S. government of the present with that of a much earlier period in its history. Certainly, you cannot deny, logically that governments are capable of degenerating over time, or that historically great nations have in fact degenerated over time, even if your patriotism does not permit you to admit that the United States today is not what it once was.

9. You wrote, “It seems like Libertarians are advocating a return to feudalism. Without government, unrestrained free markets would enrich the already powerful, allowing them to rule the way lords of old did. They controlled the assets, and the less fortunate looked to their lords to protect them and keep them alive, similar to the faith my dog has in my ability to fill his food dish.”

At this point, you have turned the entirety of Libertarianism and Ron Paul’s positions upside down. This is the exact opposite of what they both say, and the premise of the statement about free markets is historically inaccurate, to boot.

Currently, some 3% of the already rich and powerful control the vast majority of assets in the United States, our future leaders are served up to us like the apparatchiks of our old adversary, and we grow closer to feudalism every day. The serfs are fed pablum by the public schools and mainstream media. The less fortunate look to their lords to protect them (the “War on Terror”), keep them alive (Social Security), and the average American has the same faith in our current government as my dog does in my ability to fill his food dish.

10. You wrote, “If after reading this those of you supporting or considering Ron Paul are not swayed that his Libertarian principles are a little kooky, or at the least require a tad more thought, then it's likely you supported Bush as well, and thus convincing you with reason was already impossible. Maybe I could dress up like God with a wig and false beard and chuck lightning bolts to change those kind of minds.”

In other words, anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a fool. Insults and sarcasm are not rational arguments. Occasionally, they can make effective sound bites on radio or television, but only if your target is not allowed to respond or debate you. In print, it is a big mistake, as you are probably beginning to realize.

It is sad that you chose to accuse others of being illogical, when they wrote to criticize you, while your writing demonstrates a lack of logic throughout.

11. You wrote, “Ron Paul adamantly opposes U.S. participation in in international organizations such as NATO and the United Nations. He also opposes any international intervention, even for genocide in Darfur or Rwanda ("You don't get involved, but you can make a moral statement." Tell that to the orphans of Rwanda or Darfur!)”

Ron Paul is against what the founding fathers called “entangling alliances” and in favor of trade, travel, and exchange of ideas. He doesn’t believe that everybody’s problems around the world are necessarily the problems of the United States government. Alliances that are a pretext for empire-building, or lop-sided relationships in which the U.S. foots practically the entire bill should be phased out. He is not alone in questioning the need for NATO sixty three years after WWII, and the need for the U.N. for which we foot the bill disproportionately and which, by the way, isn’t helping us in Iraq and isn’t helping much in Afghanistan.

Ron Paul was not alone in not wanting to get involved in Darfur or Rwanda. Every nation, including the United States, stayed out of Rwanda, because they didn’t have any great interests at stake there. For the most part, Darfur isn’t getting much attention either, for the same reason. Kind of makes you wonder why Kuwait and Saudia Arabia deserved so much more our government’s attention. NOT! So, you can’t fault Ron Paul for anything on this account, except he says he has a reason why our government should stay out of Rwanda, Darfur, and other areas where we do not have a national interest. He is not opposed to any charitable actions private individuals may choose to undertake.

What you should asking is, why our politicians mug for the cameras and cry for Rwanda and Darfur, do nothing to help them, and then criticize people like Ron Paul for saying we should not get involved. If not helping is wrong, then the pot is calling the kettle black.

12. You wrote, “He wants to abolish the IRS, Federal Reserve, the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security, and the FBI.”

Although I suspect it might prove impractical to completely abolish the IRS, I’m not inclined to dismiss the idea out of hand. Certainly, if the size of our government were reduced, it could also be reduced in size. If the personal income tax was eliminated and replaced by a national sales tax, it could shrink to the point of near invisibility, similar to our state tax agencies, I suppose.

The Federal Reserve’s existence and its actions are of questionable legality and are certainly of dubious morality. Giving a private banking cartel a monopoly controlling legal tender currency based on paper of no intrinsic value for the “most powerful nation on earth” seems like a radical idea to me. Do you really understand what that means? It means the Federal Reserve can inflate the currency at their discretion and tax the savings of the citizenry without restraint. By the Constitution, only Congress can raise federal taxes, but they found a way to circumvent that inconvenient document. Now, the Fed confiscates property without due process of law, and the people are taxed by the Fed without representation. The actions of the Fed to consistently inflate the currency in response to every economic problem is the worst thing that has every happened to seniors in our country.

The Department of Education is completely unnecessary. What logic is there to the idea that there needs to be central direction for education of the entire country? Believe me, I’m a public school teacher. One size education does not fit every student, every city, every county, and every state. There could not be a better argument in favor of local control and variation in educational curriculum than the fact that parents will act in the best interests of their children according to local conditions and opportunities, far more so than any government agency ever will.

Same goes for the Department of Energy. My father was in the oil business his whole life. People will spontaneously find and capitalize alternative forms of energy production, and do a much better job of it than the government. Many people used to think that no private company could ever do what the U.S. Post Office does, or that no company could ever do what AT&T and the three major television networks did (effective monopolies with the aid of the FCC), but we all know how true deregulation of the postal, telephone, and television markets turned out. Anyone who would dare suggest that the computer industry or the Internet would be better off today would be laughed out of the room.

Do we really need a Federal Police Force (FBI), another Federal Police Force (Department of Homeland Security), a Federal Secret Police Force (CIA), a Federal Communications Spy Agency (NSA), and a Presidential Police Force (Secret Service), an Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) agency (I can’t think of how to rename it; it defies easy categorization), in addition to the Army, Navy, and Air Force in order to defend this country? Or is that vast apparatus there as much to spy on our own population as it is to interfere with the affairs of a hundred or more foreign nations around the globe?

You claim that anyone proposing to eliminate any of these agencies must explain what they would propose to replace them. In particular, you were driven to the point of challenging your critics to justify eliminating the CIA and FBI, and taking a pass on responding to other criticisms. Leon Kassab in his response to your article did a good job of explaining how eliminating the CIA would in itself do a good job eliminating the need for the CIA. “Get rid of the root affliction, and not so many people will want to attack us anymore”.

Regarding the FBI, first, I can understand how some kind of national police force can be justified if national government is right to intrude into all aspects of life and commerce in the United States, and I can understand why people in today’s climate of fear of terrorism, fear the idea of eliminating or reducing any “security” agency. However, if national government reached it’s present state by wrongfully usurping states rights, then the burden of proof to justify the existence of a national police force falls on it supporters, who did not justify its existence to begin with by amending the Constitution. The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, and the Constitution did not mandate a national police force.

Second, several of your critics have suggested that national security is rightly the responsibility of the military, and military intelligence can take on the task of protecting us from terrorism, and you summarily dismissed their arguments by saying the military intelligence failed concerning WMD in Iraq. In another of your responses, you dismissed a critic of one of our national security agencies by saying, “Anyone can cherry-pick bad examples of law enforcement, but how about the successes?” One moment, you cherry-picked a bad example of military intelligence to make your point, then a moment later, you denied the validity of the argument of your critic, who used the same logic.

13. You wrote, “He opposes the separation of church and state.”

You seem to want to frighten people by implying that Ron Paul wants to repeal the First Amendment of the Constitution, when in fact, he wants to restore it. Do you know it? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." Do you understand it? Six of the original 13 states had official state-supported Christian churches. It was meant to protect people practicing Christian religions in the colonies from the possibility that the new federal government might try to interfere with their establishments of religion or their religious practices. Christianity was intricately entwined in our early government. In no way was it intended that our government would systematically exclude and eliminate religion from every aspect of public life and re-establish itself as a purely secular state.

We do not need a purely secular re-interpretation of the Second Amendment and the replacement of it with a legalistic doctrine of “separation of church and state”. We need only retain the First Amendment and our knowledge of its intended purpose: no national government supported church and no interference with the people’s free exercise of their religion. The First Amendment does not require the elimination of all Christian symbols, religious practices, and morality from public life.

14. You wrote, “He opposes universal health care.”

It is a mystery why you would consider this position to be “extremist, deluded, kooky, radical” or why you think it should “disqualify him” as a viable presidential candidate in most people’s minds (as if you have the right to say what most people should think). Just look at countries that have instituted universal health care, how long people must wait to get care, the quality of the care, and how they flee to countries without universal health care when they need a good doctor or a safe and effective treatment. Government universal health care plans have a long list of respected detractors.

15. He opposed the adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, landmark legislation that outlawed segregation.

Ron Paul’s objections to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are that it did not improve race relations or protect individual rights. Instead, forced integration, racial quotas, racial preferences, and affirmative action increased racial tensions and did the opposite of leading to a color-blind society.

I would also add that racial entitlements and the rendering of the entirety of the majority white culture morally illegitimate were almost immediate results. The extent to which racial minorities now view all whites as inherently guilty of racism and not worthy of their trust was made abundantly clear in my teacher education class on multi-culturalism only a few years ago.

The act also resulted in a massive expansion of government power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. That expansion lead to massive violations of property rights, contracts, and diminished individual liberty.

Although I do not claim to always agree with the Supreme Court, the fact that the Supreme Court struck down many consequences of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in recent years including: racial quotas, nearly all race-based preferences, and desegregation laws based on direct consideration of an applicants race are certainly an indication that Ron Paul’s views are not “extremist, deluded, kooky, or radical”. The fact is, history is proving the harmful effects of the act that Ron Paul was concerned about have indeed played out in society.

16. You wrote, “Hopefully posts like this will serve to educate the public, and keep citizens from being snookered by his more popular antiwar positions.”

I fail to see how a mother of a National Guardsman who has served three tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq and could be called for a fourth could possibly be “snookered” by a candidate who promises to bring our soldiers home, unless the candidate is just saying it to get elected and doesn’t really mean to do it. I think Ron Paul means to do it.

17. You wrote, “Having the temerity to post on Ron Paul means one thing; an inevitable viral rush of Paul supporters with snide comments and logically fallacious arguments.”

Yes, Ron Paul is gaining support rapidly. Instead of making snide-remark pre-emptive strikes and logically fallacious remarks yourself, perhaps you should drop the attitude of disrespect and study his positions more.

18. You wrote, “These folks tend to proclaim long-standing support for Dr. Paul, but I suspect they are mostly disillusioned former Bush supporters, seeking a candidate to help minimize the humiliation created by the president's foolishness over the last seven years. Hopefully this post will sway a few of them back over to the side of reason and sanity.”

Insults, arrogance, and condescension do not make a logical argument. To parrot a remark you made to one of your other critics. I don’t like your tone.

19. You linked to a previous comment you posted on Digg, “…he seems to me to be a supply-sider in wolf's clothing, an elitist with an elaborate political philosophy to cloak less than honorable intentions. It seems Libertarians forgot the days of the robber barons, the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Morgans, and Harrimans. That's exactly what we would get if we relied on people's good intentions to rein in a wild, completely free market.”

Aside from the fact that you have put forth another false premise, the idea that completely free markets are necessarily “wild” and lead to terrible outcomes, you appear to have a middle schooler’s knowledge and conception of what it meant to be a so-called “robber baron” in the United States. The original robber barons were feudal lords who collected excessive, illegal tolls along the Rhine River in Europe, without the consent of the Holy Roman Emperor. Americans tabbed with the same name have been referred to as “Captains of Industry” as well as “Robber Barons”, depending on the historian. The main similarity between the American industrialists and the feudal robber barons what that both got rich. For the most part, the similarity ends there.

The Robber Baron conception was popular in the United States during the Great Depression and until the 1940s, but by the end of the Great Depression, historians looked more favorably upon our early industrialists. Economist Thomas DiLorenzo and others argued that industrialists labeled “robber barons” obtained their wealth, for the most part, through legitimate economic means on the free market. The true robber barons were those who used political means to enrich themselves and their political cohorts through government subsidies, protective tariffs and government-enforced cartels.

Other historians argue that the so-called “robber barons” were essential to the transformation of the United States into a world power, due to their significant investments in industry, infrastructure, and education. New York City owes much of its monumental architecture and many of its museums to the patronage of these men: Rockefeller Center, Grand Central Terminal, Cooper Union, The Frick Collection, Carnegie Hall and The Astor Library. Carnegie sought to encourage literacy and funded the establishment of 2,500 public libraries across the U.S. and around the world. Although men such as J. P. Morgan were sometimes noted for uncharitable statements such as "I owe the public nothing", Morgan nevertheless made significant contributions to the arts and universities.

Just imagine, a private individual stated publicly he owed the public nothing, nevertheless he made significant contributions to society. And what have we gotten from our government lately: over a trillion in spending on wars in the Middle East, private contractors earning two to three times as much as our soldiers who are fighting and dying, an embassy in Iraq bigger than the Vatican, and it appears we will have to abandon it in a few years. That is, if the American public can overcome the combined will of Congress and the lobbyists for the oil companies, the private contractors, and the military-industrial complex.

It is worth repeating, “The true robber barons were those who used political means to enrich themselves and their political cohorts through government subsidies, protective tariffs and government-enforced cartels.” We support the royal families of Saudi Arabia and other oil rich kingdoms so they will keep the oil flowing at a reasonable price. One more time, “Government-enforced cartels”.

20. You wrote, “Government has a purpose. The different branches of our current system evolved to take care of problems that popped up organically over the lifetime of our country.”

I think you meant to say that the different branches evolved organically not that the problems popped up organically, however, even with the re-phrasing, the latter part makes no sense. Actually, some branches evolved, some devolved, and some grew out of control into wasteful monsters. Other than that, all I can say is that your statement is a gross over-generalization that lacks sufficient specificity to refute any further.

21. You wrote, “People don't just wake up and say "Let's go tax the hell out of someone and regulate everything in sight." When some kid loses an eye on a toy or somebody's balls are sucked off in a pool drain the free market doesn't swoop in to make it all better. Indeed the Bush administration proves this; during their tenure toy manufacturers greedily sold our children lead-laced toys, drug companies sent dangerously under-tested drugs through a corrupt FDA to hurt and kill lots of people (think Vioxx) and contaminated produce ends up on our tables.”

As far as I know, Ron Paul is not in favor of eliminating the legal system and courts of justice, and it is not the job of participants in a free market such as toy or pool manufacturers to sue themselves. What is true is that such participants have an economic interest in making changes to improve their products or compensating people who have been harmed by defective products, at least to the point that such actions improve their reputation and do not put them out of business. Other than that, it is up to the courts to settle disputes between aggrieved parties.

Certainly, people don’t just wake up and say “Let’s go market a toy that puts kids eyes out or a pool drain that’ll suck somebody’s balls off”. The government can say they are interested in protecting you from such eventualities, but the fact is that the manufacturer has a far greater and more direct interest in marketing a product that will please you and not harm you, than the government, provided that they are not shielded from prosecution by the government. The only companies that can continue to harm people year-after-year without paying the consequences are companies that lobby (bribe) federal officials for protection. Under government protection, they can continue business as usual for decades. Can you spell tobacco?

Lastly, if you are trying to make the case that we cannot afford to cut back any federal government agencies, then by citing the failures of the “corrupt” FDA, you have a strange way of making an argument.

22. You wrote, “American history clearly shows what deregulating industry does- it hurts the average joe and enriches the elites. Anyone who makes this concept a cornerstone of their governing philosophy must be treated like they are RADIOACTIVE and be quickly and quietly led well away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Citing middle-school history pablum approved by the Department of Education is not a credible argument.

You really ought to examine the logic of the California electric power crisis, in response to which Lawrence A. Kudlow, chief economist, ING-Barings, quipped, “California is the perfect example of statism run amok -- statism and over-regulation leading to bankruptcy.” California’s Dreaming

California state regulators deregulated certain aspects of the electric power “market”, however, they froze the retail price of electricity. It boggles my mind that any sane person could refer to such an action as “deregulation”. Utilities lost so much money as to face bankruptcy. They barred utilities from signing long-term supply contracts and saw spot prices soar. They dragged their feet on new power-plant construction and found electricity in short supply. They ignored the need for more long-distance transmission lines and then couldn't import enough power to meet demand. They shielded consumers from higher utility bills and gave them rolling blackouts instead. In a Kafkaesque twist at the end, they declared that deregulation had failed and the State of California got directly involved in the electric power market, selling billions of dollars worth of Electric Power Bonds.

Once hailed as a deregulation pioneer, California today has the most governmentally dominated electric utility industry in the United States. Despite its idyllic climate, California pays among the highest electricity rates in the U.S., an average of 15 cents per kWh. Oregon pays less than 9 cents, Washington less than 8. The average joe continues to pay a very high price for government regulated electricity in California.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 at 6:20:51 PM

  (0+)

Oops, some of the formatting didn’t print.

The following is a statement of the principle, with the important concepts you omitted from your argument in bold and the last part, which you omitted from your quotation in italic:

A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It's easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society -- language, law, money, and markets -- all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society -- the complex network of associations and connections among people -- is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Nov 18, 2007 at 6:30:53 PM

  (0+)

I know Ardee, I should not use Jerk, but these Ron Paul Jerks have just  pirated this web site. Not smart.

I would vote for GWB again because of taking this blog over as a hostage to RP. These guys are dangerous, even more dangerous than Bush and he is really dangerous.

Rob, I really wonder how many making comments on this blog are real Progressives and I do not mean that as an attack at you, but as a simple reponse of no one coming to Mike's defense which is a main stream Progressive position.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Nov 23, 2007 at 11:11:08 AM

  (0+)