 |
|
Add to My Group
|
January 6, 2008 at 15:50:22
Ron Paul-Is Being Against the War Enough? by Ron Jacobs Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
When I was hanging out with the youth element of the Revolutionary Unions (RU) back in the early to mid-1970s, there was a fellow member who attended American University and was part of our branch. While returning from a meeting in Washington, DC one afternoon, our conversation turned to what brought us to leftist politics. During the course of the conversation, she related that she was originally interested in libertarianism until Alex—an RU organizer and member of our branch—explained via the use of history that even if capitalism could exist as the libertarians envisioned, it could not remain within that vision because capitalism requires profit to survive. Since profit requires a continual expansion of markets and the accrual of profit by some capitalists, that means that other capitalists would not be able to make a profit since the amount of capital is finite. This creates intensified competition among the capitalists, which in turn causes the less predatory businesses to fail, thereby creating monopolies and inequality in their wake. In other words, a fair capitalism that depended completely on the fairness of the market could not exist for any amount of time because the market can not remain fair. That’s the only verifiable outcome of the capitalist economic experience. But this piece isn’t about libertarianism in the general sense of the word. In fact, it is about the current campaign run by Ron Paul and his supporters for nomination to be the GOP’s standard bearer for the 2008 presidential election. More specifically, it is about a growing trend on the left side of the spectrum to support that campaign. Naturally, I am in total support of Mr. Paul’s call to end the war and occupation of Iraq immediately and I applaud his ability to make that call something that other politicians must respond to. I also support the standard libertarian call for legalization of marijuana. In addition, there are other elements of Paul's campaign that are quite appealing. However, the Libertarian hatred of labor unions and public education, opposition to universal health care and their generally objectivist (as in Ayn Rand) approach to human societal relations leaves me cold. When one reads most left/progressive calls to support Mr. Paul, they tend to dismiss these and other libertarian aspects of Paul’s program by stating that these extremist views will never succeed because the moderate and progressive voices in Congress won’t allow them to. This argument is politically naïve and potentially dangerous. After all, who would have ever thought that the moderate and progressive voices in Congress would have passed the PATRIOT Act, given the White House blanket permission to wage war whenever and wherever it wishes, and steal billions of dollars from working Americans to hand to their wealthiest countrymen? In essence, what I’m saying here is that Congress can be convinced to do almost anything contrary to the majority of its constituents’ interests. The solution Ron Paul appears to provide is inviting if for no other reason than its sheer simplicity. Vote for Paul in the GOP primaries and get him into the presidential race. Then elect him president. Then he will end the war. That alone is reason enough for many fervent (and not-so-fervent) anti-warriors. Hell, a half-dozen of my old leftie friends are seriously considering the idea and I have to admit there are times it even appeals to me. After all, not too many other candidates have consistently opposed allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant or continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. Even fewer said of the 2001 attack on Afghanistan while connecting it to Unocal's desire to build a gas pipeline through the country: “The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the "mob"or some international criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan people.... The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war.” 
However, I can’t give my vote to Mr. Paul. I can’t ignore the repercussions of the libertarian capitalism Mr. Paul espouses, especially in a world where corporate monopolies have been ruling the market for over a hundred years and, by doing so, have made any possibility of a free, much less fair, market absolutely impossible. I can’t ignore his musings about preventing people from so-called terrorist countries from visiting the United States. I can’t ignore his yes votes on building a fence along the Mexican border, or his vote against tipping off immigrants about the Minuteman Project, or on reporting undocumented residents who receive hospital treatment. Furthermore, his calls to find and deport every person living in the United States with an invalid (or no) visa and to end the constitutionally guaranteed citizenship of every person born in the United States are just plain wrong and would increase the police state he claims to oppose. I can't ignore his votes against restricting employer interference in union organizing or his opposition to increasing the minimum wage. I couldn’t ignore Ronald Reagan or George Bush’s fundamentally anti-labor positions and I won’t ignore Mr. Paul’s. Nor can I ignore Mr. Paul's position against women's reproductive choice. His vote to ban gay adoptions in DC ticks me off as does his vote against continuing the moratorium on drilling for oil offshore, his vote for continuing military recruitment on college campuses, and his support for the Star Wars weaponry plan (SDI).
What the support for Ron Paul among potentially progressive voters signifies to me is the failure of today’s left to enunciate an anti-imperialist position better than that put forth by the libertarian right. This is not a new phenomenon in US history. Indeed, some of the members of the Anti-Imperialist League of the late nineteenth century were much closer to the Ron Paul philosophy than anything Marx, Lenin, or Luxembourg ever wrote. This is not necessarily because that philosophy is a better one, but it is certainly better received in a capitalist nation like the US. The most positive thing I can pull out of the Ron Paul phenomenon is that the people of the United States want something radically different. In a capitalist society, radical capitalism is as far as many folks will go--and that's essentially what libertarianism is.
But, say the supporters of Paul who consider themselves progressive or left, he has promised to end the war. My immediate response is, so have Kucinich and Mike Gravel, so why not lend them your support? At least on the slight chance they got elected they wouldn’t want to turn the country into a greater paradise for predatory capitalism than it already is. My more thoughtful response is that nothing—especially nothing as important as ending the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan—can be solved simply by voting another face into the White House. Getting rid of the current one and replacing him with someone who has at least expressed a desire to end those adventures is certainly a step in the right direction, but only a widespread and mobilized movement willing to use a multitude of tactics is going to accomplish that. On the other hand, do I think it’s the end of the world if Ron Paul gets your vote (or gets elected)? Of course not. In fact, a vote for Ron Paul is certainly a better use of the franchise than a vote for almost any of the other candidates currently running. For better or worse.
http://stillhomeron.blogspot.com/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 63 comments |
|
Ron Paul
This is useful for Ron Paul's legislative record: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html Since many supporters dispute his support for corporate power (as opposed to his opposition to government) please note: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.r.1789: H.R.1789 He is in favor, in other words, of one big oil company, among other things. When Libertarians become part of government the pro-business aspect of their agenda takes center stage. Please note Greenspan calls himself a Libertarian. Most Republican business conservatives call themselves Libertarians. Joining a movement, for instance, to gut Social Security would have have practical consequences for millions of elderly today. It would as much an act of war as the attack on Iraq. We aren't dealing with theory. Experience teaches - what people want to do "in the long run" is what they really want to do. The one-issue argument one hears from Stan Goff is the mirror opposite of the one-issue argument one heard from Chris Hitchens. Progressives certainly weight the various issues differently. But we rarely give all issues except one a weight of zero. by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 5:14:50 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: I am so sick of this propaghanda leftist attack
I AM SO SICK OF THIS ATTACK ON RON PAUL THAT IT'S SERIOUSLY PISSING ME OFF TO NO END. DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET IT?!?! CORPORATIONS WILL NOT FLOURISH AND GAIN STRENGTH WITH PAUL'S POLICIES!!!!!!!! WHY ARE THE CORPORATIONS NOT GIVING HIM MONEY?? WHY ARE THEY FUNDING HIS OPPONENTS? WHY IS FOX FIGHTING TOOTH AND NAIL TO SILENCE HIM?? WHY HAS NOT A DIME OF HIS CAMPAIGN COME FROM WALL STREET IF THEY STAND TO GAIN NEW LEVELS OF POWER AND PROFIT?? IF PAUL WAS GOING TO GRANT THEM THIS POWER THEY WOULD BE SENDING HIM MONEY LEFT AND RIGHT AND PUTTING PAUL PROPAGHANDA ALL OVER THE AIRWAVES, TV AND INTERNET! Why has not one corporate PAC run ads favoring him or sent him money?? GET A CLUE!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!! AND STOP POSTING THIS BULLSHIT!!! by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Why are you here?
So you can pitch a fit? by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 1:59:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No
No, so he can tell you the truth. You CAN still recognize the truth, can't you? by Tom deSabla (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 51 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 7:02:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Tom,
Address some of the issues I have brought up instead of whining and snivelling about the unfair treatment Dr. Paul suffers at the hands of propagandaists, please. You've a lot of comfort amongst your misdirected animosity to be slinging insults in your new hangout. I've given Ron Paul fair treatment, I have come to his defense, and I can agree with some of his positions, however, I won't buy into his followers' herd mentality that I should support him based on just a handful of issues that even other candidates have similar positions on. You, like many of the other Rontrons, mistakenly believe that what to you is the sole most pressing and important issue should be the same qualifier for everyone across the board or trump all the other issues. That's some of the most irresponsible reasoning behind selecting a candidate that I have ever heard of! I will never bend to the bullying and mockery of your crowd or anyone else's to give support to someone who's stances on nearly every issue I do not agree with. I have more than enough strength of character and self-respect to resist the band-wagon BS of a so-called rEVOLution who's members' drumbeatings remind me of the current administration's take on every dissenting voice of opposition... In addition to the excuse making and whining that many of the Paulites have been doing, folks like yourself are continually reinforcing the extremely honest and unflattering critique I wrote on this site about the majority of RP's supporters who've recently shown up on OEN. I have to wonder why so many of you flocked to this site? And again, why do so many of you have this chip on your shoulder? What's all the anger and hostility about? by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 10:55:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: dude i made my freakin' point
the notion that he will somehow empower corporations is so ridiculous. you try to sell me this garbage that somehow the corporations just don't realize how much more power they will gain with Paul, so they are sending all of their money to the democrats and republicans opposing him who will regulate and control them?? are you kidding me?? that's why your whole argument is asinine. it is your uneducated rookie guess of your impression of what "free market" economics means, and then spew this garbage in an editorial when you don't even really know what you're talking about. if you want to know which candidates will empower the corporations just look at opensecrets.org and see who wall street is funding, it is literally that simple. by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 1:35:25 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I'm not trying to sell you anything, DUDE.
1)It wasn't my article. 2)I didn't make the claims you're attributing to me. 3)I pretty much DID make an uncalled for dismissal of your comment on the basis of its appearance alone but went on to further answer you with the comment that perhaps it was his opposition to the Military Industrial Complex that was causing much of his grief and the opposition of the MSM. 4)If you've read my comments, you'd have noticed that NOWHERE have I argued that the Ron Paul supporters are wrong in their understanding or assesment of the economics!!! However, I did bring up a question concerning 'corporate personhood' that another supporter (one who's interested in two-way communication and has steadfastly rejected the 'chip on the shoulder' attitude of many from your camp in favor of an interest in discussing his candidate and thoughtfully addressing other commentors) has even wondered about his candidate's stance on rather than the single issue approach. 5)Furthermore, I made no 'rookie assumptions' about a damn thing. In fact, I've only raised some questions myself about the selling points of his supporters by pushing what they believe is the single most important issue to themselves as the universal pivot point of whether or not a person should support a certain candidate... which I will say, again, is an irresponsible reasoning behind choosing who you will stand behind. Curiously, not a single one of you (well, one guy near the bottom did -Thank you!) has answered the question posed by the article... IS ONE ISSUE (THE ANTI-WAR POSITION) ENOUGH TO MAKE YOU VOTE FOR RON PAUL??? A few of his opposition HAVE answered that. WHY WON'T ANY OF HIS SUPPORTERS ADDRESS THE REAL ISSUE HERE??? by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 9:04:03 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: to answer the question of the article
the reason i pitch a fit is because of the incredible misinformation "progressives" throw out there about ron paul, like the whole basis of this article. i used to be part of the liberal crowd, and i helped hand control back over to this "progressive" democratic do nothing congress last year, and i voted for john kerry in 2004. i'm no stranger to the left side of politics, and i left that pathetic party for a reason. the reason gravel and the like don't deserve my support is, to answer this article's question, no, being anti-war is not enough. Ron Paul has addressed the single most important issue in our country that none of these ridiculous democratic candidates have addressed and that the even more clueless republican candidates have tried to deny- inflation and monetary policy are what is destroying our country. what has any one democratic candidate said they would do about the destruction of our dollar? have they openly said 'the federal reserve needs to go.' ? no they haven't. we should not have a fiat monetary system, and your party continues to support it so they don't have stay within a budget, then they say they want to help the poor with social programs. oh yes, help the poor by allowing the government to devalue what little wages they make and transfer the value their money just lost to the newly created money that will boost the stocks on wall street and allow congress to fund their bs pet projects and subsidies. i despise the hypocrisy of the democratic party and none of them deserve my vote or yours. by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 2:59:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you, Jeremy.
But, like yourself I'm no longer a Democrat either. And you raise a good point. Very good point. But, I just cannot support him on a handful of agreements. However, that's not to say that any of the others deserve my support either. But, I probably will throw myself behind someone before it's over with... Do you have a second choice -supposing that Dr. Paul drops out? I think he might pull the third party thing and I'd almost encourage that because I never really understood why he was running under the Republican party. I would look forward to seeing how his bid as a third party candidate would effect the race and perhaps help to legitimize third party opposition to be widely more accepted in the current two-party fiasco! We aren't so far as separate in our views as either of us perhaps thought at first -and I apologize for ad hominem attack on my part. Cheers, Bid by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 5:38:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: to you also..
thanks for your apology, i apologize for flipping out myself.. this whole election cycle has just been very frustrating as far as the huge misunderstanding people have had about Ron Paul's platform and what his policies would truly mean for our country. it's been nothing but amateur-ish interpretations and smears like this article. i will say this though, if michael bloomberg throws his hat into the ring and paul turns out to not be a viable candidate i will support him. the best part is i have no idea what any of his views are on anything. but to break up the 2 party system would be the best possible alternative to the corporate puppets on the 2 sides of the aisle right now. the reason Paul ran as a republican is because he has been a republican for 10 terms in congress and aside from that 1 year period running for president as a libertarian he has been a republican his entire political career. i just wish there was SOMEONE talking about the looting of our monetary policy other than him, and no one is. No other issues matter in the face of the dollar crisis. be it the war or foreign policy or terrorism or abortion or civil liberties, if gasoline is going to be $9 a gallon and taxes consume 70% of our income none of it will matter, we will have no freedom left because the wealthy will have taken all of our ability to fund our lives.as far as his third party bid i really don't think he'll do it, especially if michael bloomberg enters the race. but paul has said as president he would work very hard to remove all of the obstacles third parties face in getting into the general elections and break the 2 party system, which is another reason he is the only candidate i support. sadly it will never happen from the outside, we need the crack to start on the inside like his strategy implies. by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Thursday, Jan 10, 2008 at 4:28:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I am a supporter...
although not as flamboyant as some. no i do not find his no-war policies to be the only reason for my support. i dont agree with some of his personal beliefs, but according to his platform, and his public record, he is all about personal beliefs being personal, and political policies are supposed to protect the right for one to hold personal beliefs without reprisal from anyone else. he is a strong supporter of a hands-off foreign policy that dictates "US policy is for US sovreign territory, and not to be forced on anyone else" and vice versa. there are many more reasons for me, but i dont want to waste ink on fiddling details ;). by jason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 9, 2008 at 6:03:34 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I can respect that.
I just wonder, though, how many support him on one cause only? Seems to be a lot... and that's fine if it's the only thing that matters to them. It's just not enough for me, personally -even though I respect more than just one of his policies. by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 9, 2008 at 9:34:05 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: corporations
Are you in favor of ending the Sherman antitrust act? Are you in favor of one oil company? Are you in favor of ending all restrictions on where this company can drill? by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 5:12:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: dc,
I'm not sure if your question was intended for me, but I'll answer it anyway. Unequivocally, NO. My 'fit' comment was directed at the 1st commentor on the thread and not the author of this article. by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 6:16:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Correction.
Sorry. I meant the 2nd commentor -Jeremy Frombach who through his furor came off sounding like a 6 year old's temper tantrum... which is really kinda unfair of me to give him a hard time about, but hey -a guy needs to think about what they post from time to time. I've sure sounded stupid as hell before. by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 6:21:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Have you considered...
His opposition to the Military Industrial Complex as a reason...? by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 11:01:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The Anti-Paul Propaganda Over Simplifies to Confuse Issues
The problem today is the US military and CIA forces are being used as body guards to protect thuggish leaders who betray their people and sell US corporations their people's slave labor, and looted resources. Then when those people become angry at America because we pay to repress them, we pay the price. We also pay the price because corporate welfare pays massive federal dollars to bolster oil and nuclear . . . thereby making solar and wind seem artificially costly compared to oil and nuclear. We are being played by the corporate militarist system. ONLY Ron Paul has stood directly against that. Kuchinich and Gravel came the closest and the corporate democratic party axed them. WHY? Because they know that Obama and Hillary will pay lip service to taking on corporate money . . . but Obama and Hillary BOTH GET CORPORATE MONEY. Look at Ron Paul's campaign funding. From ordinary people. His average donation is $52. Ask yourself with clear eyes, not being played by the corporate "left" and "right" media spin . . . who will be able to take on the corporatist government? If you are honest you'll have to answer RON PAUL !! by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 2:54:09 AM (0+)
|
|
Is Capitalism Unfair?
The first paragraph of your article reveals a profound error about the nature of capitalism. Capitalism can only function with freedom. That means all transactions are done voluntarily, and only if they are to the benefit of all parties to the transaction. It also means that if any one party tries to raise prices to a level that is unreasonable, other people will have the incentive and freedom go into competition with them. Basically, what you are saying is that allowing individuals the freedom to deal with each other without force is unfair. On the contrary, introduction of the gun between peoples' dealings with each other is unfair. You cannot manage other peoples' affairs for them without destroying their rights and any fairness that might exist. You cannot have enough information to make these decisions without introducing injustice, even by mistake. But it's never a mistake. The power to rule over others, expropriate their property, and pick winners and losers in the economic realm always devolves into corruption -- whether by extortion, bribery, or 'lobbying'. That is why we have ended up with a nation of 'the politics of pull', with lobbyists and special interests swarming Washington like a flock of seagulls circling for a tidbit. You are also mistaken on your premises that profit requires continually expanding markets to survive, and that the amount of capital is finite (which in the context you used, means fixed, or static). Two people who decide to specialize, each in something different, produce their products more efficiently than if they didn't specialize. When they trade with each other, each can sell his product for less than it would otherwise cost, and obtain a higher profit margin for it at the same time. Both of these fictional people would profit, and continue to profit indefinitely as long as they dealt with each other, with no need for an expanding market. The scenario which makes your statement have some validity is the scenario in which we have a central bank printing money the same way a counterfeiter would. Under these conditions, everyone loses permanently a portion of their wealth and their wealth-producing capacity every time a new dollar is printed and spent into the economy. Under these conditions, and as now when printing and money creation greatly exceeds the expansion of the productive part of the economy, then yes, everyone loses, and it is happening now. It's happening on a scale where it appears we have passed the tipping point, beyond which a general economic failure is all but inevitable. To sum up, it is fiat currency creation that requires a continually expanding economy, not capitalism itself. For a clear explanation of this, see "Money As Debt", freely available on Google Video. Lastly, your assertion that capital is finite is only partially true. It is not infinite of course, because not all possible capital that can be created has been created yet. But it is not fixed, either. Capital is wealth. Wealth is created by the application of human thought and effort to something dug up out of the ground or grown, that makes it valuable to human beings. So, wealth is not only created, but consumed. Not to be confused with money, which is portable wealth used for convenience, or paper dollars, which are only a symbol of wealth, not even being a receipt for real wealth as they once were. So you can see that in our present economy, we have a central bank that creates dollars like a counterfeiter would, loans them to the government, and collects the dollars back (after we have to earn them by creating real wealth and selling it for dollars), and charges interest on the dollars too. Thus you have a mass transfer of wealth from the people who create it to an elite bunch of power brokers on a scale unimagined throughout history. The system itself allows the central bank, the government, government contractors and all recipients of government money to consume and destroy wealth. It has been destroying and consuming wealth faster than it can be created for so long now that our manufacturing base has been gutted, and we are in debt to the tune of 9 trillion dollars, a figure that cannot possibly be paid back now that the productive sectors of our economy are broken. If we had stable currency that carries real value, then increases in wealth would simply lead to lower prices for everything and everybody. Then, if you saved a gold coin under your bed, the productivity of the economy would make its value appreciate, without interest, without taxes. Probably the most important thing about Dr. Paul's candidacy is the education of the American people about the pernicious evil of our monetary system that puts government interests at the mercy of a private, secretive, unaccountable central bank. We are headed towards a financial meltdown, caused by inflation of the currency in the face of a declining dollar. When the next depression hits, possibly accompanied by outright currency failure, we will be faced with the spectre of police-state dictatorial controls, maybe even famine, riots, and other Bad Things. Where's the fairness in that? It may be impolite of Ron Paul to mention these things, but the people need to be aware of what is happening, and to be aware of the contingency plans laid by government in case of a currency collapse. Does this concern you? Do you really think denying people the right to own property will result in an increase in peoples' standard of living? Are you willing to report to a work camp or a collective farm in order to eat? by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 5:53:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: unfair?
Capitalism gives some people the power to rule over others every day the laborer goes to work for the boss. Also, there is only so much money(capital) to go around, otherwise the money that existed would have no value. So, even when new capital is crested via labor and resources, the profit made is taken from someone else (in addtion to the laborer) , thereby diminishing their capital. by Ron Jacobs (62 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 17 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 8:43:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Employers rule over employees?
You don't sound like you have ever owned a business and hired an employee to work for you. It doesn't sound like you are aware of what it takes to be the kind of man who someone would trust his mortgage and his future on. An employee needs to be confident that you won't stiff him on his paycheck, run the business into the ground, or treat him like dirt before he will come to work for you. That means you have to have the integrity to be worthy of that trust, resourceful enough to keep business flowing in, and worthy also of the trust of your customers. As an employer, you are dependent on the ability of your employees to do their jobs. You need to earn their trust and you need them to want you to succeed. If you try to 'exercise power' over them, you wouldn't be very successful in business. Your characterization of the relationship indicates to me that you view the relationship as a high school student views his compulsory schooling. I would never employ a man who viewed me as his enemy. And I would never work for a man who viewed me as his enemy. Now, if you hire a man who agrees to do a task for a certain price, and he does the task, and you pay the price he charged, how the hell can any subsequent profit you make on the product have any cost to that man? Your comments indicate that you are missing a few fundamentals about what money is. Profit is not 'taken from somebody else'. It is willingly given in exchange for something that the buyer considers worth more to him than the money he gives. The money a laborer charges for his services is worth more to him than the time he uses in rendering the service. As long as all transactions are voluntary, it is win-win, everybody walking away from the deal with more (to them) than they started with. It's how economies work! Everybody views the success of everyone else as good for business. Economics is not a zero sum game. If you work in a library, I can recommend some excellent books. by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 9:23:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: John,
Profit is not 'taken from somebody else'. It is willingly given in exchange for something that the buyer considers worth more to him than the money he gives. Is this how you'd characterize record profits by Big Pharma and the Oil companies? Despite Dr. Paul's economic theory, if I have a difficult time supporting many of his myriad other stances (as Ron Jacobs cataloged quite a few of those in his article above), why would I ever consider giving him my vote? I am fundamentally opposed to most every one of his positions -with the exception of thw immediate withdrawal of troops. Unfortunately, I think that's the sole issue many of his supporters mistakenly think should be the basis of their choice for president regardless of how his other positions may be detrimental to them... This was the case with Bush in my part of the country as well. It was truly stunning to see Bush signs in the yards of primarily uneducated, shack-dwelling, rural poor who's only criteria for winning their vote here in the Bible Belt was if their preacher said the candidate was on Jesus's side and stood for 'family values'. There's also the bandwagon effect that I see happening with plenty of Dr. Paul's followers that gives off the 'cult-like' appearance that truly brings into question some psychological issues of some of his more fanatical 'disciples' who treat their campaigning like 'missionary' work and using all the catch phrases of their newfound 'faith' to the point of overkill. I can't support a candidate on only perhaps two issues that I agree with him on. by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 2:31:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul will shut down the Military Industrial complex
Nothing is more important than that. The majority of US tax dollars is wasted on the pentagon budget. But Ron Paul has a lot more going for him than that, and as a Kucinich supporter, I will vote for him over the other so called Democrats. No matter who is president- We need a new Congress. The current Congress is almost completely corrupt. We need every day Americans to run for Congress. Just say no to career politicians! www.peacecandidates.com by Nadia (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 49 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 7:05:33 PM (0+)
|
|
ERROR-ERROR-ERROR
As Danforth has pointed out - there are mistakes in this article. Since I'm far more obnoxious -not only are there mistakes, there are sufficient mistakes of a very fundamental nature IN YOUR VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH to completely and utterly disqualify you as a legitimate arguer of anything economic. And now, as always, the proof: "profit requires a continual expansion of markets" Bull. All profit requires is selling something for more than what it cost you to produce it. As to whether you can continue to do that - well, the only way you can't is if the thing you sell has already been sold to everyone on the planet AND it lasted forever AND they only need one of them, AND they only want one of them, AND it never went out of style or became obsolete. AND that STILL wouldn't account for the people who haven't been born yet who can't have bought the "thing" or service, whatever it is. "the amount of capital is finite" Whoa there now, this one's a biggie! To say this, you must be profoundly ignorant of economics. Capital is nothing more than property or value, and it is most certainly not finite, and the simplest example proves it conclusively. If I buy 20 2x4's from Home Depot, they represent capital, roughly to the tune of what I spent on them, meaning, the labor I expended to earn the money to buy them, ok? So we're talking about 50-60 bucks. Now, if I mix my labor (which doesn't exist until I expend or perform it, right?) with those 2x4's, I can make a bunk bed, after I screw it, glue it, sand it and paint it up. I can sell that bunk bed for a couple hundred bucks if I want to - that's what they go for at IKEA. So, with another twenty bucks for supplies, I can turn 80 dollars into 200 dollars. Voila! Capital has been created. It's been happening since the dawn of time, Ron. Do you really think that there is the same amount of capital in the world now as there was 500 years ago? Don't get hung up on terms like "markets" and "capitalism" - remember, "capitalism" is a term that was invented by Karl Marx, who didn't understand economics either. Also, don't get hung up on where the money came from to buy the bunk bed from me - remember, I can use the bunk bed myself too. The value, the capital, if you will, does not get created when someone buys it from me; it gets created by me when I make the bed. That bed, which didn't exist before, is new capital, period, whether I sell it or not. You want to understand what's going on in the world, start hanging out at libertarian and financial websites and reading what you find there. I'd recommend Financial Sense, Lewrockwell.com, and the writings of Ron Paul. Until then, in my opinion, you oughtn't write about economics. Now don't let me catch you doing it again, or I'll have to give you a good spanking... by Tom deSabla (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 51 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 8:07:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: capitalism
Capital is finite. There is only so much. The facrt that there is more now than a hundred years ago proves my point. The capitalist system has opened up more places to obtain resources (via colonialism and imperialism). They then created goods which they need to sell. Those they can't sell via further atomizing of the market and the extension of credit, they send overseas to markets they have "discovered" via colonialism and imperialism. The pure capitalism you and other libertarians speak of does not exist beyond the very local level. If capitlaism were to stay at the local level, it would shrivel up and die. Why? Because there just isn't enough money, resources or people to buy goods at that level. So capitalism expands, creating more goods and more consumers. The world we live exists as the result of capitlism and the free market, not in spite of it. As for Mr. Paul's stances on the issues--I got them from his website and issues2008.org, among other places (like the Congressional Record). by Ron Jacobs (62 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 17 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 8:31:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Evading The Point
Capitalism is the natural way of dealing between humans, since the days when the hunter traded skins and meat for spears from the spear-maker. Any alternative to voluntary trade involves the use of force. Your argument pretends that voluntary associations and transactions involve force, and it pretends that putting your gang in charge and having them put a gun to my belly will somehow make a better world. I got news for you: I won't work under compulsion. I might go through the motions, but I'll stop inventing, creating, taking risks, tackling monumental tasks, solving problems, and everything else that makes me a real man. Based on what you write, I wonder -- How's your career going? And a less relevant question -- Does your money come out of other peoples' taxes? by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 9:40:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: economics
I assume you have never heard of market failure, market power, imperfect competition, monopolies, monopsonies, cartels, monopolistic competition, economies of scale, externalities, public goods, transaction costs, agency problems, informational asymmetry, liquidity traps, problems of effective demand. At least mainstream economists recognize, for instance, that externalities are a problem. Market participants have no incentive to concern themselves with the social, as opposed to the private, costs of transactions. You are appealing to a small number of left-wingers who like your "wipe the slate clean". They like the Hooverian/Mellon aspect: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate" "It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life." There has always been a "Depressions are good" component to a section of the Left. This is who you are appealing to. I guess its a lot easier than convincing Iowa farmers to give up farm subsidies, or Georgia residents to give up bases. by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 8:52:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Markets
Fed policies are an effect, not a cause. They have been trying to smooth over, or cover up, what would otherwise have been a tremendously destructive decline in jobs and living standards due to cost cutting, automation and union-busting. The dollar is weak because American production is less competitive than in the past. American production is less competitive because our large corporations are taking advantage of lower costs elsewhere. Greenspan was a Libertarian btw. So I take the Libertarian economic statements to be a kind of apology for Greenspan's actions. In any case, a sudden move to a Gold standard would probably bring about a Depression and financial collapse. This would certainly be true if Federal Deposit Insurance is eliminated (also part of the Paul program). Very few economists support Paul. Very few support the Gold Standard. I assume no Ron Paul supporter maintains accounts at banks insured by the FDIC. I assume they would never take unemployment insurance, or Social Security. I assume they never ride mass transit, which receives enormous federal subsidies (and would not exist without those subsidies). If Ron Paul panders to "red-state" voters around immigration (and he is the most anti-immigrant of all the candidates at this point) he will pander to them on the military-industrial complex. They will not want to see the bases closed down. This is aside from his general tendency to support big business, as shown in the record from the earlier post. by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 8:36:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Fed policy an effect and not a cause?
I suppose inflation must come from global warming, then. Let's see, a private bank with a monopoly on money creation, that lends printed dollars to the government. Taxpayers have to create wealth to get dollars, to pay taxes, to pay the dollars back to the bank. But the interest hasn't been created until more money is printed, borrowed by the government and spent into the economy, so taxpayers can create wealth to get dollars, to pay taxes, to pay the new principle and last year's interest. But the interest to pay this week's loan hasn't been printed yet. It'll have to be borrowed today. That's an effect, and not a cause of our collapsing dollar? The price of oil has been steady compared to gold. The dollar has been debased probably beyond salvation. At the end, the bank ends up with all of the worthless currency owed to it, and with title to most of the assets. It all sounds so very egalitarian. Wait a minute - the central bank and fiat currency is one of the planks of the Communist Manifesto. It is sold with lofty phrases meant to veil the truth above. Nothing could be less egalitarian than having a cabal of bankers running the government and stealing the wealth of every citizen, while keeping them distracted with class wars, world wars, drug wars, etc. Just what is it you are defending here? by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 9:51:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: the dollar and government
The dollar is declining because US competitiveness is weaker than in the past, which is in part due to multinational corporations moving jobs overseas. It is also due to the rise of economies such as Taiwan, China, and India. It was artificially strong for some time as it has been the world's reserve currency. The Chinese central bank, among others, bought dollar assets with the earnings from trade. This state-directed policy kept the Chinese currency artificially low, and Chinese exports artificially high. This allowed the Federal Reserve to maintain an expansionary monetary policy, with low interest rates, which enabled the dot-com and housing booms. Eventually the combination of weak competitiveness and low interest rates was too much for the dollar. It had to fall. The current fall in the dollar is actually helping US exports, for the time being, which might prevent a serious recession. Your "theory" is actually close to crude Marxism. In your "theory" the role of capitalists is played by the Fed. "Surplus value" is replaced by taxes and interest. This is similar to the John Birchers. For decades they have been stating that all the problems of capitalism are actually problems of socialism. I think capitalism has problems. Like a famous English man, I believe it is the worst of all possible systems, except for the alternatives. I actually believe strongly in good efficient government, not wasteful government. Programs should be large in scope, centralized, simple, and well run. One of the problems of US government is the localism. There is far too much duplication of services at the local level. Each tiny suburb tries to build the full infrastructure of a city. I certainly don't want to live in a capitalist anarchy. I lived in one for years - New York in the 1980s and 1990s. And as someone who worked in the World Trade Center, let me state - I would trade 100000 Libertarians for one New York City fireman - goddamn government worker and all. by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 10:50:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Bull
Very few economists support Paul? Peter Schiff does. I think he's one of the smartest guys around. by Tom deSabla (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 51 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 7:34:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: candidates
We have our debates on the Left, between the various Democrats, and/or between the Democrats and third parties. You miss these as we don't mention Ron Paul. When you google "Ron Paul" on blogs, sort by date, you miss all of this. Such a pity. by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 9:09:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: WARFARM
Lame. by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 2:41:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: support
sorry - I didn't realize where you were coming from. I don't know of many socialists running this year. Contrary to what the Paul people state, there are very few socialists in the U.S. I'm a Democrat in my middle-age. Kucinich has been good. There's no doubt I'm being drawn to Obama on historic and emotional grounds right now. by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 5:34:46 PM (0+)
|
|
The amount of capital is not finite
For the love of Jehovah the amount of capital is not finite. Think about it, when you create a computer program and stick it in recycled materials, you <i> create </i> capital. When it becomes obsolete, the capital depreciates. Capital is created and destroyed at will by the market, and is constrained by only the most absurd limits on natural materials (there are ungodly amounts of minerals in the earths crust, including millions of years of uranium for energy), mabye in a few thousands years we might mine the moon, but the basics are practically infinite for the species). by jacob klein (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 9:47:55 PM (0+)
|
|
fed
Just in case the paleos are worried the Libertarians aren't covering their perspective enough. When they mention the Fed they do mean the conspiracy of Jewish bankers, the Federal Reserve, the Illuminati, the Masons, the CFR, ZOG, and the Bilderbergers. And as a Jew who was at the WTC on 911, how come no one told me in advance? by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 11:07:00 PM (0+)
|
|
While we discuss intellectual hypotheses
I regret that all the Paul people will immediately jump on your article. I can only imagine the battle over currency and all. I too support Dr. Paul because I know he will end the war. I am different however, in my perception of this "issue." I am older and would happily debate the semantics of it all. I think that political left and right are endlessly fascinating. Whatever is the threat of this free market thinking in the white house and how the Libertarians will be our eventual doom are all reasonable topics. I respect anyone's feelings on these and other matters. I will not forget the most important part of your article and will conclude with it. I know families with young men stationed in Iraq. Each day they do not know if their children are alive or dead. I know families with sons in Afghanistan. Each day Mother and father and brother and sister do not know if their family member is alive or dead. The suicide rate, as published by the V.A., of veterans of both Iraq wars is 24%. I realize the importance of political affiliation and economic approach. I remain in defense of human life, both American and Iraqi, with parties and theories be damned. The answer to the title of your article, is yes. by tom storey (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 58 comments) on Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 at 11:07:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: One issue.
Supporting only one or two of Dr. Paul's positions (though they may be the most important to you) is NOT how one should choose a candidate. I may agree with the immediate withdrawal of our troops, but I'm still fundamentally opposed to nearly every other stance RP takes on the many many other issues... That's why he's not going to be my candidate. by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 2:40:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Libertarian hatred of labor unions?
In a libertarian system, labor unions are certainly fine to have. It's the right of any individual to form any group to do whatever they want, as long as they aren't violating the rights of anybody else. There's absolutely nothing in libertarian thought that would prevent a labor organization to form - this is just propaganda that has survived 100 years, and you're repeating this falsehood 10 decades later. Amazing. by fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 1:36:19 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: But...
Wouldn't corporations have the same rights as a person? I believe they might even wind up having more. There would be little to interfere with them under RP. Deregulation, no oversight, little restriction. And the rights afforded to an individual. My, that's something... by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 2:44:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: That's a Paul position I WANT DEARLY TO KNOW
C Bid, Man. That is huge. Read Gerry Spence-Justice for None circa 1980's (late). The corporate personhood created (1896) must be removed from our lawbooks if Paul's credo is to lead to a successful transfusion of liberty. How on earth it ever occured that the court deemed things to be equal to a person with inalienable rights is beyond my comprehension. The only way I would support Paul was if he believes (he can't do it alone) that corporate personhood must be removed. I'm hyped right now, so excuse the tirade. I mean, if you allow corporations to continue with these protections it will take 50 paul's and a mil pak of bass ale and we still wouldn't feel the prod. by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 9:17:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I agree.
Mikel, It's a pretty big evil in my book too, but somehow I get the feeling that it might only get worse under Dr. Paul. I could be absolutely wrong about that because I haven't seen him address that issue either. We should try to let each other know -if we happen to find a legititmate answer to that question! Cheers, Bid by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 11:18:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: labor unions would be a necessary part of life
if a libertarian were in charge and managed to make any substantial changes (doubtful, you still have the entrenched mainstream congress to get through) labor unions would be a HUGE item just for the fact that without federal labor law, the only protections afforded would be union contracts, which by dint of being contracts, would be under federal jurisdiction. if a company or union broke their contract, either they could go back to the table, or they could go to federal court. your god(s) of choice knows full well that the states' labor laws dont really go into detail, so unions would be the best defense from abusive companies. by jason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 4:26:30 AM (0+)
|
|
practical definitions...
capital isn't a piece of cloth or paper, it isn't exhaustible, and it is very real. capital is someone else's urge to give you compensation (usually a coveted or valued item) for something they need or want . believe it or not, capital is an emotion triggered by necessity or greed. as far as ron paul's campaign platform is concerned, i understood it as not destroying these sometimes useful programs, but moving control of them to the individual states, and reducing the federal government by that much. by jason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 2:32:02 AM (0+)
|
|
programs
We already live in a self-reliant society. The people you are conversing with have all made it on their own; like most Americans they had no choice. Which raises a question. Why are the Ron Paul supporters so fanatical? Statisitics apparently show they come from the upper-end of the economic spectrum. Is this about tax cuts for the rich? Is this about ending the estate tax? Is this about self-reliance for the rest of us? But a pampered trustafarian life for people like the Ron Paul supporters? by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 7:50:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Again,
Yeah, he stands for the constitution... so does Kucinich -even so far as to file his articles of impeachment for the vice-president and, hopefully soon, the president too. RP doesn't want to touch it that much because he won't even sign on as a co-sponsor or throw his support behind it... Liberty? Liberty for who? And this is the ONE issue that convinced you to support him or was it troop withdrawal? Sorry, given the other positions he takes, no way in hell! by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 2:50:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ron Paul stands for cannabis farmers
The Democrats don't. Cannabis sustains the economic localization of progressive communities in the NoWest USA. NoWest cannabis collectives for Ron Paul! America is sick and needs a Dr. by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 5:11:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: cities
What about mass transit for those of us (the vast majority of Americans) who live in large metropolitan regions? How would that possibly exist without federal support? Mass transit shouldn't be cut off; it shouldn't be merely maintained; it needs to be greatly expanded. Every city should have a mass transit system similar (proportionally) to NY or DC. by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 5:39:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: mass transit
if there was no federal meddling, there would be plenty of state and city money just for the fact that the local government is more receptive to local needs than an overarching national system. some of the federally required baggage could be trimmed, and the resulting /local/ surpluses used for decent purposes, instead of a topheavy bureaucracy. AND since you dont have to jack around waiting for the huge piles of red tape, your lead times will be shorter. by jason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 3:51:30 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Jeanette,
Did I miss something? Or are you just throwing us some info? How did cannabis pop up in the discussion? by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 6:31:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It's a major issue for me
There are several issues Ron Paul is an "only" candidate and cannabis is one, a really important one for me because it's an umbrella issue, war on drugs, privatized prisons, healthcare, economics, state's rights, constitutional rights...and that's just the medical part, we have the industrial part, with Ag and trade, and then we get into where we used to have treaties, and now have nafta and trade is unfair...so I believe cannabis is a eally important issue to follow and stand for, and Ron Paul is making a stand, He is also the only candidate saying he will recind Executive power (empoerting congress). That's music to me ears...no taxes...hey..I don't have to agree with him on every issue and I don't, and yet, with his philosophy of states right "act locally~ trade globally" I don't feel like I can't handle it. I feel like it's an opportunity for me to embrace, especially with my cannabis issue...and I like the rEVOLution...did you see the YouTube clip where there's a "mob" of Ron Paul supporters "chasing" Hannity? Where were the Democrats who have been complaining about Hannity for nearly a decade? They were there. by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 9:07:29 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: right-wing anarchism
There is no doubt that Ron Paul is using localism as a starting-point for a further right-wing anarchist agenda. His closest ally is Lew Rockwell. Their mentor was Rothbard. Rothbard is quoted endlessly by Paul supporters. I'm going to quote him: "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism." -Murray Rothbard From the Wiki site: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard146.html by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 11:02:56 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks for clarifying.
Kucinich supports the Cannabis issue as well... which I'll agree does effect the other issues you mentioned to varying degrees and, overall, would have a very positive impact on our country. It's the State's Rights thing that is a bit of a Pandora's box for me -though there are many other reasons why I can't support him. That said, when it comes down to it -do most of the Paul supporters ignore their differences with their candidate on all but what they deem is the most important position to themselves? Maybe it comes down to one's own priorities, I'm not sure -but it certainly seems that he's a one-issue endorsement to most... I just can't support anyone by that criteria which is why I am withholding my support for any candidate currently. My support and vote is deserving of their efforts to convince me before I will stand behind them. Cheers, Bid by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 12:51:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: self-reliance
The point was we already live in a society in which if you are of work age and healthy, and decide to be a lazy bum, you will starve.Which - we can all agree - is a good thing?RP supporters are against handouts, as a general principle. You yourself have stated they "must" take handouts from the government. by dc2412 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 5:51:50 PM (0+)
|
|
That man is dangerous.
I agree with about 30% of what Paul says, like getting rid of the Federal Reserve and stopping support for the military-industrial complex. His ideas about choice, however, make him dangerous. I'm not anxious to see women become birth slaves. If you really want inprovement in this country, Paul isn't the answer - Kucinich is. by Morgaine Swann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 17 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 7:09:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Dude...
"Capital is finite. There is only so much. The facrt that there is more now than a hundred years ago proves my point." This makes no sense. There is only so much, you say; but if there is only so much now, then doesn't it stand to reason that the same was true five hundred years ago? So, how did a finite existing amount of capital five hundred years ago become so much bigger today? How can you admit that capital is created, and then in the next breath say that there is a finite amount of it? No. The truth is that you have been confused by Marxist psuedo-economics. You are wrong. Capital is not finite. Never was, and never will be. The human factor alone guarantees it. The fact that there is a finite amount of raw materials in the earth is not determinative, because there is an infinite amount of ingenuity and creativity among the people who create value (capital) by mixing their labor and ever-evolving knowledge with those raw materials. "If capitlaism were to stay at the local level, it would shrivel up and die." This is another ignorant statement. Capitalism is just people making things and performing services for other people - nothing more. How their business is organized doesn't change the basic purpose of providing a good or service for a profit. Like I said, we've been doing it for thousands of years, in completely localized economies, and nothing shriveled up and died. People bought and sold, formed companies and parterships, and the human race advanced. Honestly, don't you realize that you're not making sense? I told you to do some reading, didn't I? Do you want to continue to embarrass yourself like this? Are their other people around here who believe this kind of goofy stuff? God, I hope not! by Tom deSabla (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 51 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 7:31:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Do your research!!!
Voters need to RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH I too fell victim to support based on one issue (ending the war) but soon I realized that you need to: 1.- Follow the money trail: Prez candidates get a lot of financial "support" and it is essential to know where they are getting it from because that affects most of their policy decisions regardless of what they say on the campaign trail 2- Who their campaign advisors are, I for one would defintely want to know if they where involved with the previous administration and if so in what capcity, God forbid we should end up with another "Karl Rove" type "operator and last but not least 3- their voting record if they served in congress or senate or the condition of the state they were govornor in, this tells you alot about what the rest of the country will be in store for (Remember George Jr.'s "sucky" record in Texas) I guess all I'm trying to say is just like all the other decisions we make in our lives that we take careful time to consider and make an informed decision about this election year is no different we have a lot at stake and now is not the time to vote based on emotions and religious or political pandering. We need a leader who is willing to do the difficult work of restoring civil liberties, repairing a wretched economy, giving quality health care to ALL Americans, ensuring excellent education that truly "leaves NO child behind" and last but not least getting us out of this costly, immoral WAR. by enid dennis (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 7:36:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron You shot yourself in the foot
Capital is finite,since when? The federal reserve prints money from zilch,it is a bottomless pit of fiat trash. Hence Ron Paul wants to ABOLISH THE FED and give us real money,another reason you should vote for him. If we dont end the wars its bedtime for Bonzo,we are all going to die. Do You want to die Ron, if not You better vote for Paul and quit your whining and nit-picking. Whether we are right or left we want justice. The rule of law is not only to be applied to the poor,"the soul that sins,it shall die" Money and privilege has me tired and POed. Blanket and equal enforcement of the law is what RP stands for,and I will vote for him. by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 7:40:24 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What other issues...
What other issues do you support his positions on? by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jan 7, 2008 at 11:21:21 PM (0+)
|
|
big corporations
i believe that without a federal "backdoor" into the states, these big companies that usually get by with saying "oh, its OK, the feds said so" would be in for a gut check. it would be much more difficult and expensive for them to make any effort for/against any policies if they had to convince 50 different legislatures (that dont want, need, or care about some piss-ant little lobbyist) on 50 different topics . the state governments would be in dire fear for their jobs because voters would have the ultimate say in most -if not all- matters pertaining to their existence, therefore a smaller federal government would be beneficial. its easier to fire a local official than it is to fire a federal one... by jason (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 4:15:35 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you for making that point.
I'm not convinced that it's the right thing to do, still. But, at least you clarified some of the reasoning behind it -which seems sensible enough. by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 8:52:32 AM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul
I respectfully beg to differ, on your opionion of Ron Paul voting record. For you to critizize his support for a fence around the southern border, and immmigration law enforcement, your points have no merit. Ron Paul is the only candiate who has a monetary policy to improve the economy which could be considered in Recession. by gerard styles (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 5:11:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Dennis Kucinich
Dennis Kucinich supports legalisation of marijuana and hemp. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2008 at 10:55:33 AM (0+)
|
|
Check out our interview with the Minuteman Project's founder
To check out our interview with the Minuteman Project’s founder Jim Gilchrist tonight Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 8pm EST go to http://thirdrailradio.com Feel free to call in and speak with him on-air. by Chuck Browder (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 16, 2008 at 3:18:08 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
