Post by: Waitone on January 08, 2008, 11:21:39 AM
I'll go first since I asked the question. I think it would be a major boo-boo to run as a third party. He will expend lots of money in the quest of a goal which he could not exploit even if he was successful. As a candidate he would draw increasing fire from his opponents. Just today an article was release by the New Republic which "conclusively" shows the libertarian philosophy to be historically rooted in racism. I'm surprised that kind of bilge came out so late. I would expect it to come out much earlier. My point is as a third party candidate he can look forward to unending waves of attempts to discredit him and his philosophy.
Instead I think Paul would be well advised to retain his seat in congress to keep the fight going on in congress. Simultaneously I think he would be well advised to set up a foundation for the purpose of retailing the concept of a constitutionally constrained republic. He could convert some or all of his war chest for the foundation's use. He has a huge contact list which could be tapped for further contributions. His foundation could then set about locating and arming like minded people who in turn become candidates for national and state office. There exist a number of "libertarian" oriented foundations but they are not in the retail business. Cato Institute is a high browed group that does good work which is mainly invisible to the great unwashed masses. Mises Institute is the same. Lots of good stuff but certainly no retail emphasis. The Paul Institute would be oriented toward the popularization of the principals of constitutional government and libertarian philosophy.
Paul's quest for the white house is a fool's quest. That said, he has conclusively shown there exists a retail interest in constitutional government. Setting up of an institute would hopefully increasing the supply of presentable candidate. Paul has shown constitutional libertarians don't have to have beards and dress in flannel. Thanks to his work we all now have a base from which to start building a movement.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 08, 2008, 11:23:52 AM
Post by: Paddy on January 08, 2008, 11:24:08 AM
Post by: Ron on January 08, 2008, 11:29:11 AM
He would win in a landslide!
Post by: wooderson on January 08, 2008, 11:40:24 AM
Post by: HankB on January 08, 2008, 11:56:59 AM
. . . Just today an article was release by the New Republic which "conclusively" shows the libertarian philosophy to be historically rooted in racism. . . .
This sounds almost like a desparate attempt to discredit libertarians, lest they embarass RINOs.The only purpose a Ron Paul presidential run as a third-party candidate would serve would be to help elect the greater evil rather than the lesser evil to the White House.
If he was serious, he'd start leveraging his grassroots supporters to begin electing libertarians to lower state and local offices - sheriff, dog catcher, county clerk, alderman, mayors, school boards, etc.
Post by: Bigjake on January 08, 2008, 12:32:33 PM
I once thought the Libertarians had something worth looking at. I agree with much of what they think, but if the rabid Paulians on this forum are representative of Libertarians as a whole, I want no association with them (politically, anyway).
Post by: Manedwolf on January 08, 2008, 12:41:08 PM
He would do well to bow out while graceful is still an option. Every time Ron Paul gets the microphone, he makes Libertarians look like utter wackos. If the Libertarians really believe all of their platform, it's time to find a guy who better articulates it. Keep your convictions, get a new spokesman.
I once thought the Libertarians had something worth looking at. I agree with much of what they think, but if the rabid Paulians on this forum are representative of Libertarians as a whole, I want no association with them (politically, anyway).
I once thought the Libertarians had something worth looking at. I agree with much of what they think, but if the rabid Paulians on this forum are representative of Libertarians as a whole, I want no association with them (politically, anyway).
You should see the carpetbaggers that came up here for their "free state" project thing. One of their number got arrested for not having a valid registered vehicle or driver's license, did the "flop to the ground" thing and had to be carried to the cruiser, and then the rest of them marched around outside the jail wearing "V" costumes and masks. Federal Marshals have shown up to question them about threats made against authorities in support of the Browns, the armed tax evaders...and one of them is up on federal charges in Vermont for supplying them with weapons.
Oh, yeah, and they're 9/11 troofers, too.
Thus, Libertarians.
Post by: Bigjake on January 08, 2008, 12:48:32 PM
Post by: Waitone on January 08, 2008, 01:06:53 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 08, 2008, 01:09:10 PM
. . . Just today an article was release by the New Republic which "conclusively" shows the libertarian philosophy to be historically rooted in racism. . . .
This sounds almost like a desparate attempt to discredit libertarians, lest they embarass RINOs. The New Republic is a leftie magazine, but surprisingly worth reading. At least they were a few years ago.
Quote
If he was serious, he'd start leveraging his grassroots supporters to begin electing libertarians to lower state and local offices - sheriff, dog catcher, county clerk, alderman, mayors, school boards, etc.
That might be a good idea. He might instead/also try doing something to sway other libertarians to his position on certain topics where he differs with the Lib. party.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 08, 2008, 02:03:57 PM
He would do well to bow out while graceful is still an option. Every time Ron Paul gets the microphone, he makes Libertarians look like utter wackos. If the Libertarians really believe all of their platform, it's time to find a guy who better articulates it. Keep your convictions, get a new spokesman.
I once thought the Libertarians had something worth looking at. I agree with much of what they think, but if the rabid Paulians on this forum are representative of Libertarians as a whole, I want no association with them (politically, anyway).
I agree. I've been somewhat conflicted about Ron Paul. His positions are good, but he himself is a political disaster. His most visible supporters are the some of the worst advocates any cause or candidate have had recently.I once thought the Libertarians had something worth looking at. I agree with much of what they think, but if the rabid Paulians on this forum are representative of Libertarians as a whole, I want no association with them (politically, anyway).
It's a real shame that Paul has to be the one to represent libertarianism these days. I think he and his supporters have done more harm than good. It's only going to get worse if he runs as a third party candidate.
Post by: Paddy on January 08, 2008, 02:13:03 PM
Quote
It's a real shame that Paul has to be the one to represent libertarianism these days.
There really are no sane representatives of libertarianism. It's a wacky, theoretical, self-centered, egocentric and antisocial philosophy.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 08, 2008, 02:13:31 PM
I've been somewhat conflicted about Ron Paul. His positions are good, but he himself is a political disaster.
I thought you had some pretty big disagreements with his foreign policy and economic ideas.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 08, 2008, 02:30:49 PM
Post by: TwitchALot on January 08, 2008, 02:34:25 PM
What should be his next move. Rumor has him weighing a third party bid. Should Paul run as a third party candidate? Alternatively, should he resume his seat in the house and continue the fight for there? Or should he try something else.
I'll go first since I asked the question. I think it would be a major boo-boo to run as a third party. He will expend lots of money in the quest of a goal which he could not exploit even if he was successful. As a candidate he would draw increasing fire from his opponents. Just today an article was release by the New Republic which "conclusively" shows the libertarian philosophy to be historically rooted in racism. I'm surprised that kind of bilge came out so late. I would expect it to come out much earlier. My point is as a third party candidate he can look forward to unending waves of attempts to discredit him and his philosophy.
Instead I think Paul would be well advised to retain his seat in congress to keep the fight going on in congress. Simultaneously I think he would be well advised to set up a foundation for the purpose of retailing the concept of a constitutionally constrained republic. He could convert some or all of his war chest for the foundation's use. He has a huge contact list which could be tapped for further contributions. His foundation could then set about locating and arming like minded people who in turn become candidates for national and state office. There exist a number of "libertarian" oriented foundations but they are not in the retail business. Cato Institute is a high browed group that does good work which is mainly invisible to the great unwashed masses. Mises Institute is the same. Lots of good stuff but certainly no retail emphasis. The Paul Institute would be oriented toward the popularization of the principals of constitutional government and libertarian philosophy.
Paul's quest for the white house is a fool's quest. That said, he has conclusively shown there exists a retail interest in constitutional government. Setting up of an institute would hopefully increasing the supply of presentable candidate. Paul has shown constitutional libertarians don't have to have beards and dress in flannel. Thanks to his work we all now have a base from which to start building a movement.
I'll go first since I asked the question. I think it would be a major boo-boo to run as a third party. He will expend lots of money in the quest of a goal which he could not exploit even if he was successful. As a candidate he would draw increasing fire from his opponents. Just today an article was release by the New Republic which "conclusively" shows the libertarian philosophy to be historically rooted in racism. I'm surprised that kind of bilge came out so late. I would expect it to come out much earlier. My point is as a third party candidate he can look forward to unending waves of attempts to discredit him and his philosophy.
Instead I think Paul would be well advised to retain his seat in congress to keep the fight going on in congress. Simultaneously I think he would be well advised to set up a foundation for the purpose of retailing the concept of a constitutionally constrained republic. He could convert some or all of his war chest for the foundation's use. He has a huge contact list which could be tapped for further contributions. His foundation could then set about locating and arming like minded people who in turn become candidates for national and state office. There exist a number of "libertarian" oriented foundations but they are not in the retail business. Cato Institute is a high browed group that does good work which is mainly invisible to the great unwashed masses. Mises Institute is the same. Lots of good stuff but certainly no retail emphasis. The Paul Institute would be oriented toward the popularization of the principals of constitutional government and libertarian philosophy.
Paul's quest for the white house is a fool's quest. That said, he has conclusively shown there exists a retail interest in constitutional government. Setting up of an institute would hopefully increasing the supply of presentable candidate. Paul has shown constitutional libertarians don't have to have beards and dress in flannel. Thanks to his work we all now have a base from which to start building a movement.
Yes, because Ron Paul dropped out and the election is over.
Oh wait...The people who say Ron Paul doesn't have a chance are generally the same ones who have the least understanding about libertarianism, capitalism, foreign policy, the Constitution, and the history of this country. They're the ones who can't tell you who people like Marcos P?rez Jim?nez and Suharto are, and have little understand of US foreign policy, let alone for the last 60 years. The only reason Osama Bin Laden, Iran, and Saddam Hussein are names that are familiar to them is because of the media, not because they understand the history of the Middle East and our involvement in the overthrow of democratically elected leaders for despots that didn't support Communism (or human rights, for that matter) They can't tell you the difference between capitalism and corporatism and libertarianism and anarchism. They talk about islamofacism and asymmetric warfare or all the other junk while never asking anyone, "why do we even have these problems in the first place"?
No doubt it has already been answered with, "it's because of religion, or economics, or culture," which is why of course, all Christian, capitalist, nations are facing the same threat that the United States faces today. They reject the notion that if I were to go into your house without your permission, assassinate you, have my way with your wife, beat your kids, and spend your money lavishly while letting your family live in poverty, you would be angry.
No, they say. You would angry at me not because I did that, but because I'm a Christian, or a Muslim. They say that islamofacists who want to rule the world are a big threat, but never ask how that came to be the case. They say, "we're the good guys here." Which is why of course, if you put yourself in the shoes of someone living in the Middle East, they'll foolishly believe that you would side with the US.
AQ: "The United States seeks to rule the world, destroy Islam, seize our wealth, land, and oil, and indeed, destroy Muslims." :Points to the 700 military bases in dozens of countries all over the world, the permanent bases being established in Iraq, the hundreds of thousands of troops in the region, the aircraft carriers and battle groups stationed off their coasts, the numerous dictators that came into power after the democratically elected leaders who didn't serve US interests were overthrown by the CIA, the Muslims killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts (among others), and the torture that we perform on prisoners in the name of democracy and liberty, the democratically elected groups that have been declared "terrorist organizations" by the US, and unilateral military actions in the Middle East:
US: "We come to bring democracy and peace to the Middle East!" :Points to the above:
Oh yeah, it takes a real genius to see why the hundreds of "islamofacists" who do want to take over the world (like a few neo cons) have become a huge threat. It's so hard to imagine why it's easy for them to get hundreds of recruits, thousands of dollars in donations, the support of many states (implicitly), and a wide base of followers and believers who are pissed off at us. I mean gosh, why on Earth would anyone believe AQ and be more than happy to fight the infidels in their homeland and abroad? Why on Earth would anyone hate democracy ? The answer, of course, is because theyve seen what democracy brings, no thanks to the United States.
And then, when a man of honor and integrity tries to stand up to that and follow the oath that all of those others guys only paid lip service to, he is "discredited." They call his ideas radical and crazy. They make up rumors and ridiculous statements that anyone who knows Ron Paul worth a damn knows isn't true. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, but he actually believes in following the Constitution despite his views (like his views on abortion). Good lord, that's insane! Following the oath you promised to follow, even if it means not letting your personal feelings about an issue get in the way? Not enforcing a federal pro life law even if you're pro life? CRAZY! And of course, Ron Paul has the voting record to back it up. No matter how many times the allegation has been discredited, it'll keep coming up, just like that famous, "43 times more likely" or "23 times more likely" "statistic" that the Brady Bunch keeps spewing.
But I'll tell you what- his ideas ARE radical and crazy. I mean after all, we haven't followed the Constitution for a very long time. For someone to suggest that and by god, actually put his vote where is mouth is consistently, is crazy. For someone to believe that he can make a difference and restore liberty to the American people, and strength to the dollar, while fighting an establishment that wants to maintain corporatism and government power over the people, you HAVE to be crazy. I mean, when on Earth has an individual ever made a difference in the world?
Whether Ron Paul wins or not, I will support him. And among the many reasons, Ill do it because its right, not because its easy, or because he has no chance.
Quote from: Headless
It's disconcerting, for example, to see him advocating for smaller government, and doing it so badly that he makes it sounds like a bad idea.
Well it certainly is a bad idea to follow the Constitution. It doesn't allow for corporations to use the government to profit at the expense of the people. It doesn't allow for you, me, or anyone else, to enforce our beliefs on everyone else (at least, from a federal standpoint). It limits the power of individuals to control other individuals through force. It sure as hell sounds like a bad idea for most people, because most people love to control other people and force everyone to follow their opinions.
Post by: Waitone on January 08, 2008, 02:41:25 PM
Post by: Bigjake on January 08, 2008, 05:25:05 PM
Quote
Well it certainly is a bad idea to follow the Constitution. It doesn't allow for corporations to use the government to profit at the expense of the people.
Which is why they are currently drilling up a storm in ANWAR, and the gulf is so full of offshore rigs one could walk from Key West to Galveston without getting his feet wet. If these mystical corporations were having such a field day at taxpayers expense, don't you figure they would have already found away around those peons that object? Everyone knows corporations like nothing more than to be taxed into oblivion and then be subject to a litigious HELL for any screwup.
Quote
he people who say Ron Paul doesn't have a chance are generally the same ones who have the least understanding about libertarianism, capitalism, foreign policy, the Constitution, and the history of this country.
Tell me again who doesn't understand these important ideals you just laid out?? I'd like you to put up or shut the hell up, and personally boycott all of these "corporations". Don't EVER take pharmaceuticals again, or drive a car, or buy groceries. Also, no more Internet or computers for you, chances are your provider is a "corporation making profit at the expense of the people". Shouldn't the man who wrote the OS profit from his labor??
You talk down to anyone thinking of questioning your pet candidate, Lecture us over these high ideals like history and capitalism, and the very essence of these elude you. What the hell is the point of innovation if theres no f*#$ing reward to ones work??!!
Hard work and prospering because of it are what makes America great, If you can't grasp this concept of freedom , go back to your mother's basement and hit the ol' bong til' it comes to you. Legal pot seems to be Paul's biggest selling point anyway...
Post by: K Frame on January 08, 2008, 05:33:09 PM
And since when are they drilling IN ANWAR?
Every attempt to allow drilling in ANWAR's boundaries has been killed.
Royal Dutch Shell has permission to drill 12 wells in the sea off ANWAR's borders, but that's currently under court challenge and probably won't be decided for months.
Post by: Glock Glockler on January 08, 2008, 05:42:33 PM
Post by: Bigjake on January 08, 2008, 05:54:11 PM
that was my attempt at tongue-in-cheek. It was the first really obvious thing I could think up that would be true if SuperbigEvil Corp really did run things like the typical Paulian or liberal likes to shriek about.
Sorry about the rant, Idiocy in print gets my hackles up.
Post by: GigaBuist on January 08, 2008, 05:58:50 PM
Quote
If he was serious, he'd start leveraging his grassroots supporters to begin electing libertarians to lower state and local offices - sheriff, dog catcher, county clerk, alderman, mayors, school boards, etc.
That might be a good idea. He might instead/also try doing something to sway other libertarians to his position on certain topics where he differs with the Lib. party.
You might be onto something there. If the Libertarian party would drop the pro-choice and open-border stuff from their platform perhaps the Constitutionalist party would merge with them.
I caught something earlier today with regards to a Ron Paul independent run and I came away from it thinking that, yes, he's more of a Constitutionalist than a Libertarian, but the Libertarian's have better access to getting him on the ballots. So, perhaps a merger would be beneficial to both, but that won't happen until the Libertarian's eliminate some of their party's platforms.
I think they differ on drug legalization too, but I'd side with the Libertarians on that one.
Post by: Ron on January 08, 2008, 06:05:27 PM
Quote
The people who say Ron Paul doesn't have a chance are generally the same ones who have the least understanding about libertarianism, capitalism, foreign policy, the Constitution, and the history of this country. They're the ones who can't tell you who people like Marcos P?rez Jim?nez and Suharto are, and have little understand of US foreign policy, let alone for the last 60 years.
What a load of BS.
Ron Paul got one presidential vote from me back when I was young and dumb.
You assume too much, but then again that is the MO of the RP supporters. They have constructed a little fantasy world where they hold the keys to truth and the rest of us are mind numbed robots. I know plenty about libertarianism, the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul. I weighed him and them in the balances back in '88 after the election and found them lacking.
Save your condescension and self righteousness for the easily swayed and vacuous pot heads. In the real world Mr. Paul would get eaten alive by the partisans if he were to miraculously win. His foreign policy isn't ready for prime time. We would have few allies left after we reneged on the decades of agreements we have made.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 08, 2008, 06:09:08 PM
Quote
The people who say Ron Paul doesn't have a chance are generally the same ones who have the least understanding about libertarianism, capitalism, foreign policy, the Constitution, and the history of this country. They're the ones who can't tell you who people like Marcos P?rez Jim?nez and Suharto are, and have little understand of US foreign policy, let alone for the last 60 years.
What a load of BS.
Save your condescension and self righteousness for the easily swayed and vacuous pot heads. In the real world Mr. Paul would get eaten alive by the partisans if he were to miraculously win. His foreign policy isn't ready for prime time. We would have few allies left after we reneged on the decades of agreements we have made.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 08, 2008, 06:16:22 PM
Quote
If he was serious, he'd start leveraging his grassroots supporters to begin electing libertarians to lower state and local offices - sheriff, dog catcher, county clerk, alderman, mayors, school boards, etc.
That might be a good idea. He might instead/also try doing something to sway other libertarians to his position on certain topics where he differs with the Lib. party.
You might be onto something there. If the Libertarian party would drop the pro-choice and open-border stuff from their platform perhaps the Constitutionalist party would merge with them.
I caught something earlier today with regards to a Ron Paul independent run and I came away from it thinking that, yes, he's more of a Constitutionalist than a Libertarian, but the Libertarian's have better access to getting him on the ballots. So, perhaps a merger would be beneficial to both, but that won't happen until the Libertarian's eliminate some of their party's platforms.
I think they differ on drug legalization too, but I'd side with the Libertarians on that one.
I'm onto something, but I'm afraid it's a pipe dream. I have this hopeless dream that the freedom-loving Jesus people, and the freedom-loving hyper-rationalists can learn from one another, develop a truly pro-liberty platform, and cooperate in a small-govt. revolution that would mirror much of Ron Paul's platform on social issues, but with a strong foreign policy.
But there is too much animosity on both sides, and the limited-govt. sentiment of the Religious Right is too often buried under the desperate need to stop the abomination of the week RIGHT NOW, WHATEVER IT TAKES!!
Post by: Tecumseh on January 08, 2008, 06:17:58 PM
Quote
If he was serious, he'd start leveraging his grassroots supporters to begin electing libertarians to lower state and local offices - sheriff, dog catcher, county clerk, alderman, mayors, school boards, etc.
That might be a good idea. He might instead/also try doing something to sway other libertarians to his position on certain topics where he differs with the Lib. party.
You might be onto something there. If the Libertarian party would drop the pro-choice and open-border stuff from their platform perhaps the Constitutionalist party would merge with them.
I caught something earlier today with regards to a Ron Paul independent run and I came away from it thinking that, yes, he's more of a Constitutionalist than a Libertarian, but the Libertarian's have better access to getting him on the ballots. So, perhaps a merger would be beneficial to both, but that won't happen until the Libertarian's eliminate some of their party's platforms.
I think they differ on drug legalization too, but I'd side with the Libertarians on that one.
Post by: Bigjake on January 08, 2008, 06:19:56 PM
Quote
What a load of BS.
Save your condescension and self righteousness for the easily swayed and vacuous pot heads. In the real world Mr. Paul would get eaten alive by the partisans if he were to miraculously win. His foreign policy isn't ready for prime time. We would have few allies left after we reneged on the decades of agreements we have made.
Save your condescension and self righteousness for the easily swayed and vacuous pot heads. In the real world Mr. Paul would get eaten alive by the partisans if he were to miraculously win. His foreign policy isn't ready for prime time. We would have few allies left after we reneged on the decades of agreements we have made.
Dude, whoa. I'm with the Rabbi here, that was awesome! Thats what I was trying for! I hope to someday have half the fisking talent you, Headless, and Manedwolf possess.
Post by: Bigjake on January 08, 2008, 06:21:54 PM
Quote
The Constitutionalist party is really a Christian Theocracy. They make Huckabee look tolerable They are the anti-thesis to freedom. If you thought Islamofascists were bad then you have another thing coming.
Tecumseh, does "overplayed your hand" mean anything to you?
Post by: The Rabbi on January 08, 2008, 06:23:00 PM
Quote
The Constitutionalist party is really a Christian Theocracy. They make Huckabee look tolerable They are the anti-thesis to freedom. If you thought Islamofascists were bad then you have another thing coming.
Tecumseh, does "overplayed your hand" mean anything to you?
I think that's what Ron Paul supporters have been doing for a while. That's why their hands are so tired all the time....
Post by: Bigjake on January 08, 2008, 06:24:33 PM
Quote
I think that's what Ron Paul supporters have been doing for a while. That's why their hands are so tired all the time....
Not even going there.....
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 08, 2008, 06:35:27 PM
Mike,
that was my attempt at tongue-in-cheek. It was the first really obvious thing I could think up that would be true if SuperbigEvil Corp really did run things like the typical Paulian or liberal likes to shriek about.
Sorry about the rant, Idiocy in print gets my hackles up.
that was my attempt at tongue-in-cheek. It was the first really obvious thing I could think up that would be true if SuperbigEvil Corp really did run things like the typical Paulian or liberal likes to shriek about.
Sorry about the rant, Idiocy in print gets my hackles up.
But it was a pretty darn good rant!
Post by: Bigjake on January 08, 2008, 06:37:18 PM
Made my night, thank you, Sir.
Post by: TwitchALot on January 08, 2008, 06:46:25 PM
Quote from: BigJake
Which is why they are currently drilling up a storm in ANWAR, and the gulf is so full of offshore rigs one could walk from Key West to Galveston without getting his feet wet. If these mystical corporations were having such a field day at taxpayers expense, don't you figure they would have already found away around those peons that object? Everyone knows corporations like nothing more than to be taxed into oblivion and then be subject to a litigious HELL for any screwup.
Tell me again who doesn't understand these important ideals you just laid out?? I'd like you to put up or shut the hell up, and personally boycott all of these "corporations". Don't EVER take pharmaceuticals again, or drive a car, or buy groceries. Also, no more Internet or computers for you, chances are your provider is a "corporation making profit at the expense of the people". Shouldn't the man who wrote the OS profit from his labor??
You talk down to anyone thinking of questioning your pet candidate, Lecture us over these high ideals like history and capitalism, and the very essence of these elude you. What the hell is the point of innovation if theres no f*#$ing reward to ones work??!!
Hard work and prospering because of it are what makes America great, If you can't grasp this concept of freedom , go back to your mother's basement and hit the ol' bong til' it comes to you. Legal pot seems to be Paul's biggest selling point anyway...
Tell me again who doesn't understand these important ideals you just laid out?? I'd like you to put up or shut the hell up, and personally boycott all of these "corporations". Don't EVER take pharmaceuticals again, or drive a car, or buy groceries. Also, no more Internet or computers for you, chances are your provider is a "corporation making profit at the expense of the people". Shouldn't the man who wrote the OS profit from his labor??
You talk down to anyone thinking of questioning your pet candidate, Lecture us over these high ideals like history and capitalism, and the very essence of these elude you. What the hell is the point of innovation if theres no f*#$ing reward to ones work??!!
Hard work and prospering because of it are what makes America great, If you can't grasp this concept of freedom , go back to your mother's basement and hit the ol' bong til' it comes to you. Legal pot seems to be Paul's biggest selling point anyway...
Ah, an excellent example of what I was talking about.
Im not quite sure what youre trying to argue, since I am a capitalist, but let me try to explain probably the most fundamental difference between capitalism and corporatism is, since it is clear you lack knowledge in that arena.
The man who wrote the OS should certainly profit from his labor. What he shouldnt be allowed to do is use the government to prevent other people from writing OSs so that he essentially has a monopoly on code writing (or making OSs). Pharmaceutical companies are a fine example of this.
Want to know why drug prices are so high? No, its not because of capitalism or lack of government involvement. It is because of corporatism and excessive government involvement. When pharmaceutical companies lobby and get laws passed that says you cant import drugs from other places, what do you think is going to happen?
As capitalism essentially predicts, when there is no competition (because its been made illegal through corporate lobbying), prices are going to go up, and services will degrade. While the pharmaceutical companies benefit, the people, who have no option except to break the law or accept the prices, lose. The mystical corporations that are having a field day at the taxpayers expense already HAVE found a way around those who object. They get laws passed in their favor, through lobbying. You dont like being subjected to the essential monopolies that pharmaceutical companies have in this country because of the government? What are you going to do about it BigJake? Break the law and get your drugs from Canada?
Now let me explain the difference between a capitalist and corporatist society, since you dont quite get it.
In a capitalist society, a company will make drugs, and they will benefit from that. Another company will come in since its a lucrative market, make drugs, and they will benefit. There will be competition because the companies want to make money, and this keeps prices down, so the people will benefit.
In a corporatist society, a company will make drugs, and they will benefit from that. But instead of another company competing (which results in lower prices, which is good for the consumer), they get a law passed via the government that says something along the lines of, only this company is allowed to produce drugs. No other companies can legally compete. Now what happens? This company, that now has a government enforced monopoly, can charge as much as they want for their drugs. Since there is no competition, they dont have to keep prices low, and consumers cant go to other companies to get drugs without breaking the law. The company benefits, consumers get hurt.
Do you recognize the difference now, BigJake? People should benefit from their labor, and keep the fruits of their labor. But they shouldnt be able to do it using the government to pass laws preventing competition. In other words, they shouldnt use the law to prevent OTHER PEOPLE from working hard in the same industry, and benefiting from their hard work.
Why you object to that, I dont know. You dont have a stake in pharmaceutical companies, do you? :scratch:
Quote from: Ron
What a load of BS.
Ron Paul got one presidential vote from me back when I was young and dumb.
You assume too much, but then again that is the MO of the RP supporters. They have constructed a little fantasy world where they hold the keys to truth and the rest of us are mind numbed robots. I know plenty about libertarianism, the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul. I weighed him and them in the balances back in '88 after the election and found them lacking.
Ron Paul got one presidential vote from me back when I was young and dumb.
You assume too much, but then again that is the MO of the RP supporters. They have constructed a little fantasy world where they hold the keys to truth and the rest of us are mind numbed robots. I know plenty about libertarianism, the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul. I weighed him and them in the balances back in '88 after the election and found them lacking.
I should have said, the people who criticize his ideas. But then again, I said, generally speaking, which means it is not universally applicable, so Im still not sure what youre complaining about. There are of course, several people who wouldnt want RP to win. Plenty of people have a lot to lose if he won, and plenty of people have no idea what theyre talking about (who think they do, of course).
First and foremost, Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, not a libertarian (as some would believe).
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 08, 2008, 06:52:55 PM
The Constitutionalist party is really a Christian Theocracy. They make Huckabee look tolerable They are the anti-thesis to freedom. If you thought Islamofascists were bad then you have another thing coming.
Yeah, but you see theocracy every time a priest enters a voting booth.
You've been pretty forth-coming about your irrational fear of religion. Now, I used to be a Const. Party guy, and I am still a religious nut. The party is a little over-the-top with all the Christian talk. If they would tone that down, they would be a good fit for a lot of the other-religious or not so religious. But the small, Constitutionally-constrained govt. they propose is so limited that any theocratic elements would be negligible. I doubt you could really find anything theocratic in their platform, even.
Post by: Bigjake on January 08, 2008, 06:59:20 PM
Just for the record, I didn't bother reading past the second sentence of your reply, because I'm sure it's been covered one time or another by either shootinstudent or wooderson and those few min of life I'd never recoup...
I know the current system isn't perfect, but the world you are living in only works in a vacuum. Should things go exactly to your plan, they would end up in the mess we have now in short order.
Post by: Bigjake on January 08, 2008, 07:03:16 PM
Quote
First and foremost, Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, not a libertarian (as some would believe).
Somebody better tell the Libertarians that...
Post by: TwitchALot on January 08, 2008, 09:46:57 PM
TwitchALot;
Just for the record, I didn't bother reading past the second sentence of your reply, because I'm sure it's been covered one time or another by either shootinstudent or wooderson and those few min of life I'd never recoup...
Of course you didn't. Why on Earth would you actually want to have knowledge about the subject at hand? It's a hell of a lot easier to talk out of your ***, after all. But I will give you credit for being honest. That's more than I can say of most people.
Quote
I know the current system isn't perfect, but the world you are living in only works in a vacuum.
Hate to say it, but I live in the same world you do. And you're right- it isn't working. Well, it isn't working well, anyway.
Quote
Should things go exactly to your plan, they would end up in the mess we have now in short order.
As you're apparently very familiar with the statement, I am sure you will understand this: Put up, or shut up.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 09, 2008, 11:17:26 AM
You think we don't understand your positions. You're wrong. Not only do we understand those positions, but we have already weighed them on their merits and found them lacking.
You need to quit posturing as if you're the smartest person to ever grace these message boards with your wisdom. You aren't, not by a long shot. You may think you're brilliant, but the posts you've made so far lead the rest us to the conclude the opposite.
You may not realize it, but I think many of us snickered when we read your initial post. If you want to be taken seriously around here, you need to learn some humility, not to mention some common sense.
Post by: The Rabbi on January 09, 2008, 11:54:08 AM
The man who wrote the OS should certainly profit from his labor. What he shouldnt be allowed to do is use the government to prevent other people from writing OSs so that he essentially has a monopoly on code writing (or making OSs). Pharmaceutical companies are a fine example of this.
Want to know why drug prices are so high? No, its not because of capitalism or lack of government involvement. It is because of corporatism and excessive government involvement. When pharmaceutical companies lobby and get laws passed that says you cant import drugs from other places, what do you think is going to happen?
As capitalism essentially predicts, when there is no competition (because its been made illegal through corporate lobbying), prices are going to go up, and services will degrade. While the pharmaceutical companies benefit, the people, who have no option except to break the law or accept the prices, lose. The mystical corporations that are having a field day at the taxpayers expense already HAVE found a way around those who object. They get laws passed in their favor, through lobbying. You dont like being subjected to the essential monopolies that pharmaceutical companies have in this country because of the government? What are you going to do about it BigJake? Break the law and get your drugs from Canada?
Now let me explain the difference between a capitalist and corporatist society, since you dont quite get it.
In a capitalist society, a company will make drugs, and they will benefit from that. Another company will come in since its a lucrative market, make drugs, and they will benefit. There will be competition because the companies want to make money, and this keeps prices down, so the people will benefit.
In a corporatist society, a company will make drugs, and they will benefit from that. But instead of another company competing (which results in lower prices, which is good for the consumer), they get a law passed via the government that says something along the lines of, only this company is allowed to produce drugs. No other companies can legally compete. Now what happens? This company, that now has a government enforced monopoly, can charge as much as they want for their drugs. Since there is no competition, they dont have to keep prices low, and consumers cant go to other companies to get drugs without breaking the law. The company benefits, consumers get hurt.
I'd suggest going and learning something about it before posting on the subject again. You have already garnered something of a reputation here I see.
Post by: K Frame on January 09, 2008, 01:33:50 PM
You either keep it civil, or you simply won't be keeping time with us anymore.
This one is closed.