The Ron Paul appreciation thread!
- Thread starter AD Chaos
- Start date
roy22341
Member
Personally I don't see any correlation between a free market and workers rights. The idea that a free market and well protected workers are incompatible is as much of a false dichotomy of "motivated hard-working citizens" vs "lazy freeloading slacker." As a libertarian I believe that everyone's right to be treated fairly trumps everything else. As it exists now, the system is set up in favor of huge multinationals and billionaires.
And as it sits, I think its pretty safe to say at this point that the Democrats have certainly done no favors for the working class in the past four decades.
And as it sits, I think its pretty safe to say at this point that the Democrats have certainly done no favors for the working class in the past four decades.
MarcusGHedwig
Member
How so, though? Who provides the protection for those workers? (not trying to be provocative, genuinely curious) Saying "unions" and "strikes" is all well and good, but there will always be people willing to take your job if you decide you want to fight for more pay, which I can imagine being a pretty tough pill to swallow for someone with a family to support on the verge of total destitution, so I can't say eliminating OSHA (which is "government intervention", after all), for example, is a very appealing thought for me - again, all I can think of is "The Jungle", but I will also totally admit my ignorance of the specifics of this discussion and bow out after this point!
MarcusGHedwig
Member
One question about a general concept of libertarianism though: let's say you've got food company A and food company B; one makes high quality, all-natural products; the other, because of the absence of the government intervention of the FDA, loads it with god-knows-what (carcinogens, preservatives, whatever) in the interest of cost-cutting/volume - I have no trouble imagining that company B could make its products visually indistinguishable from company A's, so how many people would have to get sick/die/permanently injured from eating company B's food before "the market" would realize that they make horrible shit and cause B to go under?
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I can't really think of how else it would play out (unless libertarians don't support eliminating the FDA and the aforementioned OSHA, but then wouldn't that still be some degree of regulation/intervention?)
Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but I can't really think of how else it would play out (unless libertarians don't support eliminating the FDA and the aforementioned OSHA, but then wouldn't that still be some degree of regulation/intervention?)
jipchen
ForesterStudio
*puts on flame suit* You see, libertarianism is a lot like communism: It sounds good in theory but it doesn't work in practice
There is absolutely no proof a free market will help anyone except the richest percentile - yet lots of proof things get worse for lower classes. Still a lot of people "believe" in it and if you ask for specific solutions to critical problems they will tell you "the market's gonna regulate itself", yeah right because people are essentially good and don't fuck others over if they are in the position to improve their own standing make shitloads of money. Also god does exist and unicorns do, too. Oh and Elvis is alive.
There is absolutely no proof a free market will help anyone except the richest percentile - yet lots of proof things get worse for lower classes. Still a lot of people "believe" in it and if you ask for specific solutions to critical problems they will tell you "the market's gonna regulate itself", yeah right because people are essentially good and don't fuck others over if they are in the position to improve their own standing make shitloads of money. Also god does exist and unicorns do, too. Oh and Elvis is alive.
roy22341
Member
I'm not nearly as hardcore in my libertarian values when it comes to some things as most people. For example - I don't think the FDA or OSHA should be abolished. The government entities that are there to protect people and consumers from corporations are vital - but very often horribly mismanaged, misguided and more often then not are motivated by political and personal gain than for actual protection of consumers.
Like I said, I'm not a hardcore libertarian on a lot of business issues, so when I say free market I don't necessarily mean "robber barons" - I mean government shouldn't pick which companies are winners and losers by giving out bailouts or subsidies. Massive corporations should not be allowed to buy their way out of regulations and rules that smaller companies cannot. Those are the types of things that really prevent the market from doing what it needs to do - its not like I want to see children working in coal mines which is what most people think when they hear libertarian.
Like I said, I'm not a hardcore libertarian on a lot of business issues, so when I say free market I don't necessarily mean "robber barons" - I mean government shouldn't pick which companies are winners and losers by giving out bailouts or subsidies. Massive corporations should not be allowed to buy their way out of regulations and rules that smaller companies cannot. Those are the types of things that really prevent the market from doing what it needs to do - its not like I want to see children working in coal mines which is what most people think when they hear libertarian.
egan.
daylightdies.com
roy22341
Member
Maybe I'm not as hardcore as most "libertarians" - I think the main reason I describe myself that way is that I agree with the Ron Paul-esque foreign policy, the fiscal nuts to say we need to reign in our out of control spending, and to tell the government "No! We're not all terrorists." I had a lot of hope for the Obama administration, but honestly I cannot tell the difference between him and Bush. Ron Paul is the only candidate who seems honest enough about his convictions to try to change things.
egan.
daylightdies.com
And I think that's his mass appeal. Aside from the racist publication (accusations) thing he seems genuine and consistant in his stance. He also has some opinions that no other party offers (stripping out the military, etc.). I just take issue with some of his specific stances. I'm glad he's in the race.
roy22341
Member
I support him - but that doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. But I tend to agree more with his stances than I do with Obama, Romney, Gingrich or any of those other twats.
Aaron Smith
Envisage Audio
Ron Paul's the only dude who has a shot at beating Obama. There's no way the disenfranchised independents and Democrats will vote against Obama for one of the other Republican candidates.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
This, although...
Do you actually think he's got a shot? And not just "I want so badly for him to win that I'll take any positive sign as a great one especially considering how much better he's doing than he used to," but a legitimate shot at the presidency? He's unelectable for either party, and I'd even go so far as to say for most of independents.
Aaron Smith
Envisage Audio
I think he has a shot, although his chances are incredibly slim. If every person who says "I like Ron Paul, he has good ideas, but he'll never get elected" actually was willing to throw their support behind him though, he would probably actually get elected. But instead, most people are still inclined to vote for whoever the TV set tells them has the best shot, simply for that reason, completely ignorant to the fact that the media has no interest in being fair to every candidate.
Also, just let me say this- I used to think that unless you vote for one of the two big candidates in a political race, you're throwing your vote away, but I've come to a point where I'm so philosophically opposed to what the generic big party candidates represent, that I literally don't care which big candidate wins. The reason we have such an economic, fiscal, monetary, and foreign policy mess is because for too long, Americans have continued buying into the lie that every election cycle (Presidential especially), the only choices are the ones who are fed to us. It's easy to keep voting for the "lesser of two evils" every four years, but I've come to realize that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and I am entirely, thoroughly DONE playing that game.
I'll be writing in Ron Paul's name if he's not on the ballot come election day. The fact that the whole election cycle system remains so rigged in favor of the status quo, even despite the gravity of our fiscal and economic issues, has made me quite heavily pessimistic about the possibility of there being a bright future for the United States as a nation (in terms of remaining a superpower, and future generations enjoying a higher standard of living). Thankfully my relationship with God is where my ultimate hope and identity lies, not in some utopian dream that mankind will finally learn to perfectly manage itself, so I have peace no matter what. Owning gold and guns is nice too
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
Why is this thread still going? Obama will win again. Am I the only person that can see this? I swear, I took one look at the guy and said out loud: "That's it, it's set in stone. He wins" last time around. I don't want to sound all conspiracy like but come on, the corps with the cash want him there. Ronny has 0% chance, they would sooner have him dead. I guess you can dream though.
- Aug 3, 2009
- 1,602
- 14
- 38
I agree with this a lot. And I'm quite sure RP is NOT the kind of person who is going to let people 'die on the street'. If anything, he's the only guy out in the race who's actually concerned about THE PEOPLE. Why? Because he's sponsored by THE PEOPLE.
ALL of the other candidates are sponsored largely by CORPORATIONS, so it's quite obvious who they're going to be working for once they get elected.
RP -or any other GOP candidate, for that matter- cannot start talking about socialist policies atm. It would be a political suicide and the other candidates would cling onto in an instant (even Obama himself, in due time).
A candidate dumb enough to make such a move right now is pretty much going to be toast. So don't expect any of them to do so.
Besides, without fixing the economy first, discussing anything else is only an exercise in futility that serves the purpose of distracting people from what they should really be most concerned with.
Fix the economy & reduce government first, and then talk about implement a better healthcare policy. Why is that so hard to understand.
Over the weekend's two debates Romney was saying how it's good that he has multimillion companies because that makes him 'more understanding of how to help businesses'. That's quite scary. The guy has personal interests worth millions of dollars. Add to that the fact that he's being sponsored by characters such as Bush Sr. McCain, etc. This is the robot that corporations want to shove down your throat (Obama or him, doesn't really matter, they're all the same):
Funny, that is exactly what's happening right now with corporate sponsored administrations and huge government.
The way I see it is pretty simple:
You're in a bus speeding down towards a cliff. Four guys battling over who gets to take over the wheel. Three of them want to keep heading in the same direction (even though they tell you they won't) which means you're eventually going to fall down the cliff. One of them though, wants to actually hit the breaks and then reverse.
And incredibly enough, people in the bus complain about things like 'oh but what if he were to stumble upon some rocky road, or can't drive as smoothly -if we allow him to try- as if he was driving forward'.
I think it is beyond clear no one actually believes Ron Paul has a secured nomination. Which is all the more reason to keep pushing him forward.
..Or be apathetic and then bitch about being unemployed, having to pay more and higher taxes, having relatives going to war to die, having your liberties ripped to shreds, etc etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
MarcusGHedwig
Member
As do I, and hopefully as does any sane, sympathetic person reading/replying to this thread! (but if so, can you still consider yourselves "libertarians?" Maybe I'm the one with the wrong definition of the word, cuz I did kinda have the "kids in coal mines" image haha)
Because, like egan said, implementing better healthcare and other policies could actually help fixing the economy. The economy won't get better just by reducing government.
That would be me. I used to be a Paul supporter back during the 08 elections, but now I'll be voting for Huntsman. He is a moderate who won't push social conservatism (the bane of our existence). His obvious flaw is that he is against same sex marriage, but I've yet to see him make any of that a significant component of his campaign. He's the only who's made the concept of "trust" a huge part of his message.
Paul is just too much of an ideologue, and that's the last thing the country needs. I think we need someone who is more pragmatic. Not to mention Paul has never passed any significant legislation. The man essentially votes against everything. I adore him for his anti-war stance, but beyond that I don't see the appeal anymore. When you get past all of that small government rhetoric, this is a guy who still wants to turn abortion over to the states and have those who perform it be criminally punished. He also voted to ban adoptions for gay/lesbian couples, and voted to report illegal immigrants who seek hospital services. He wants to cut financial aide for college students. He wants to shrink public libraries which rely heavily on government funding. Seriously, where is the appeal outside of his anti-war stance? His libertarian views? He's much more of a paleoconservatism than he is a libertarian.
Also:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/02/budgets_and_bargaining_power
http://www.criticalreview.com/crf/jf/11 3 libertarianism.pdf
SocialNumb
Damn Christians!
I'll just translate what Colton said above for those who don't have the time to read it.
Ron Paul is a Damn Christian.
Ron Paul is a Damn Christian.
Joematthews
Member
- Dec 15, 2007
- 1,547
- 0
- 36
You just made that up...
Because it's fundamentally wrong. The responsibility of government lies in so many more places than fixing the economy and withdrawing from public affairs. You think it's ok just to brush all the other issues aside, ignoring the fact that issues such as poor health care and poor education are significant reasons why the economy is in such a poor state?
Do you libertarian guys believe that because big government is tied with corporate interest it is out to fuck you over? Why do you believe that big government is fundamentally such a bad idea? I'm still struggling to understand the ideology that says take power out of government and give it to big business, the very thing which is accused of corrupting the government in the first place. Or is there something else to it?
Genuinely curious.
Also, thank you Roy for talking sense and not resorting to rhetoric. I actually agree with you a lot because your views are well balanced, not totalitarian and idealistic and are based on logic.
