38 replies to this topic

[Ash]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-15949571

Spurred by Tom's constant Ron Paul hero-worship on Facebonk ( )On this above link there's a comparison of all the current Republican candidates on a series of issues. To be honest, they're all fairly predictable conserva-Republican sentiments, and if I'm honest there isn't a great amount to choose between them. I imagine the only reason one man might get the vote over someone else is based on his general charisma and je ne sais quois, that another candidate might not have.

It's perplexing, really. I wonder how many are simply toeing the party line in order to win themselves a shot at the big job or who actually believe everything they say deeply.

I thought I'd see how Tom's favourite super-Tory compares to his rivals within his own party, as much for his benefit as anyone else's. So here goes:

Economy

Mitt Romney - Would reduce the corporate income tax rate, cut "non-security discretionary spending" by 5% and "tear down the vast edifice of regulations the Obama Administration has imposed on the economy"

Now, let's take a look at what 'non-security discretionary spending' means. That is basically the stuff that the President and Congress argue about for a few hours while they decide just how much the federal government is going to spend on stuff. That doesn't include anything each individual state spends, just what Capitol Hill spends. And note it says 'non-security'. So let's just have a wild guess as to where the extra tax dollars saved by cutting public spending will be going? Right. To build yet more weapons and, potentially, fund yet more wars. Rather than cut military spending back a tad and perhaps re-allocate that money to either pay a little of America's debts off or to help stimulate growth in some other quarter, no we'll just build yet another aircraft carrier or two. Because we really, really need those to fight an enemy which either a) doesn't exist or b) is comparatively in the Bronze Age technologically (delete as appropriate).

I'm failing too to see why reducing corporate income tax will help solve US debt problems in any way. You can promote growth all you like, but all those rich corporations will, as a result of such a tax cut, not be helping pull the US out of its debt spiral. To balance the books that money's going to come from somewhere. Probably out of the honest working man's pocket (assuming he's even got a job anymore, mind you). Better to reduce his tax bill to give him more money to spend. That'd make the corporates just as happy.

I lack the specifics of his "vast edifice". But naturally, being Republican, because they were enacted by a Democrat, they must be the Words of Satan etched onto legal parchment.

Rick Perry - Would cap federal spending at 18% of GDP, which the campaign says is the average since 1960, and replace the complicated income tax code with a 20% flat rate.

Ok this guy actually says something practical. I would always be in favour of a flat-rate income tax. Whether this applies to corporations every bit as much as it does to the man-on-the-street remains to be seen, though. No doubt they'll get a tax break - it isn't so much about what the man says as what is left unsaid. Call me cynical...

Can't see a problem with a spending cap there, so long as they stick to it. At least there's plenty more money going into the federal kitty than there is going out of it, which can't be a bad thing. It's just a question of how much more than GDP everything else costs.

Hermain Cain - "9-9-9" plan calls for a flat 9% individual income tax, a 9% corporate income tax, and a 9% national sales tax

Yeah, his campaign was suspended, but hey - I can't see anyone else whose plan is as fair as this. Not so sure about the VAT on the end there. VAT is very regressive and hits those at the bottom hardest. How's about slapping capital gains tax on there instead? Or would the Republican Party's corporate paymasters disapprove too strongly?

Michele Bachmann - Would reduce corporate income tax rates; opposes increases in the US debt limit

Once again with the helping of corporations. I appreciate the need for a free market and facilitating enterprise but on the other hand I question vehemently how, if she's cutting taxes, she intends to balance the books and help pay off some of the debt. It's quite simple. If I was earning £100 a year before in taxes and my outgoings were £120, I'm in trouble. Let's say I lower my taxes to £90. My outgoings aren't getting any less, so I'm in even more trouble. It might make more businesses spring up like weeds, but they've got to do a lot more to make up the difference assuming they appear in the first place. It seems a very risky approach to tackling the problem to me.

Ron Paul - Would veto any "unbalanced" budget; refuse to raise the US borrowing limit; and eliminate the income, capital gains, and estate taxes, and cut $1tr (£633.6m) from the annual federal budget

Another one with the stripping of taxes, particularly ones that probably pull in a good amount of the income. I can't disagree with stopping unbalanced budgets, although given the inability of Republicans and Democrats to agree on the wetness of water this probably will result in nothing ever getting decided. Nor can I dispute the need to cut budgets, but I do have to query where the money's being cut from. Doubt it'll be from defence. That'd be unpopular. More likely to be from a more useful bit of infrastructure.

Jon Huntsman - Would eliminate the current system of income tax deductions and credits and lower individual and corporate tax rates; would eliminate capital gains taxes

So...where's the money coming from, Jon? Do you have a magical pixie who farms money trees? Do you intend to win the lottery on a weekly basis? Please enlighten us.

Newt Gingrich - Would make permanent Bush-era individual income tax cuts; eliminate the capital gains tax; reduce the corporate income tax rate; and establish an "optional" 15% flat income tax

Again...where's the money coming from? Though I imagine the majority of everyone and everything will elect to not take that option of paying 15%. There's a pattern emerging; generally very few are doing things that benefit the man-on-the-street, instead preferring to benefit corporations. Either way it makes the books harder to balance but I imagine there's more to be gained by taking the squeeze off the honest working man rather than the corporates who swim in lakes of money.

Rick Santorum - Calls for a 0% tax on the manufacturing industry and on repatriated corporate profits earned overseas

Right. So the US would then lose out on the vast sea of profits that is made by multinationals. Christ if I were to buy a fucking KFC the US wouldn't make a cent out of it by that logic, and the company'd net all the profit (after whatever our government took)! Let's also look at this from another perspective - most businesses would probably find it more profitable to operate only overseas, but base themselves in the States. Provided those organisations limited their activities in Europe the'd net a massive tax fiddle, and the USA would become a corporate tax haven. And what does the US get out of it? Not a great deal that I can see.

Healthcare
I'm not going to bother to quote this one. They all say exactly the same thing - wail on Obama and to fuck with the people. Let the paupers die as they can't afford life-saving treatment, or to get into crippling debt forever. God forbid we'll ever try and make something big like this work. Newt Gingrich is the only one who offers anything constructive following the inevitable step backwards - tax benefits to encourage purchasing private health insurance. To be honest, it's still a case of God forbid you get ill, as you'd have to pay the excess on the insurance and it'll go up because you've had to claim on it. But I can imagine the same thing happening soon in the UK, particularly if the Tories keep their stranglehold on power - the healthcare budget is massive and so is the amount of National Insurance contributions everyone pays. They'll probably reduce the NICs for those with private plans with, say BUPA.

Immigration

Mitt Romney - Would make English the official language of the US and "turn off the magnets like tuition breaks or other breaks that draw people into this country illegally

Rick Perry - Has been criticised for his support in Texas for offering children of illegal immigrants the same low university tuition rates as native-born Texans; has suggested using Predator Drones to patrol the US-Mexico border; says a fence along the entire border "does not make sense"

Herman Cain - "We should secure the border for real, and it would be a combination of a fence, technology, as well as possibly boots on the ground for some of the more dangerous areas"

Michele Bachmann - Calls for a fence along the entire US-Mexico border and will "enforce" English as the official language of the US government

Ron Paul - Would "abolish the welfare state" to discourage illegal immigration and end automatic citizenship for everyone born in the US

Jon Huntsman - Has said it would be unrealistic to deport all 12m estimated illegal aliens in the US

Newt Gingrich - Would make English the official language of the US and favours "100% control" of the US-Mexico border

Rick Santorum - Would penalise employers who hire illegal immigrants

Right. Because Mexico's the only problem. Although I suppose you guys across the Pond don't have the unelected Eurocracy to worry about. I think soldiers and predator drones might be a bit excessive though - are they invading your country forcibly? Errr no... also fencing it should surely already be done - but then they'll just come around in boats and dinghies, or on trucks. Talk of making English the official language won't make a blind bit of difference, considering it primarily already is. Ron Paul's comment is a big sticky wicket though - as if it's the fault of children of illegal immigrants that they're the children of illegal immigrants? Why punish them and make them pariahs (which denying them citizenship will doubtless do, either by sending them back or rendering them as an underclass of untouchables)? I sense a Metric fuckton of lawsuits here. Although I am absolutely gobsmacked that Santorum's idea isn't already being done.

National Security

Mitt Romney"It's worth working with the insurgents in the country to encourage regime change in the country. And if all else fails, if after all the work we've done there's nothing else we can do besides take military action then of course you take military action. It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon"

And it's acceptable for the US or anyone else to have it...why? I note he's not closed the door on full-on military action. North Korea has nuclear weapons - is that more acceptable than Iran? I don't foresee Iran being more likely to deploy theirs than Korea. Meddlement in foreign governments has landed the US in hot water a few times before, and yet still they don't learn. One would imagine being forced to withdraw from Vietnam and the monster they created in Bin Laden might have made the upper echelons of American political power think "hmm we should stop pissing people off", but no.

Rick Perry - Would deploy thousands of soldiers to the US border with Mexico

Damn man, the fuck do you have against Mexico. Bad burrito? Yet in the same breath he says tightening the border control and fencing it off "does not make sense". But it does make sense to deploy a divison of troops to keep them out?

Herman Cain - "The first thing that I would do is to assist the opposition movement in Iran, that's trying to overthrow the regime"; Would deploy warships to the Persian Gulf

Yep. What America needs right now is another war.

Michele Bachmann - "We have a President who devalues the special relationship with our most trusted ally, Britain, even as he bows to kings, bends to dictators, bumbles with reset buttons, and babies radical Islamists"

Scathing. So, from that I read that, if elected, you will yank on the leash you're holding the UK on, and tell everyone else in the world (particularly those who don't subscribe to your personal idea of freedom) to fuck off with bombs. An interesting take on foreign policy, and at least mildly refreshing compared to the fact all her opponents are a bit one-track: fuck Iran, fuck Mexico. She does that too, but it's nice to know that some of the upper echelons of the Republican Party are aware that the world is bigger than those three nations.

Ron Paul - Openly questions his rivals' aggressive talk on Iran and calls concerns about Iran's nuclear programme "propaganda" aimed at building support for another US war

Ah. A voice of sanity does occasionally arise. Even from Ron bloody Paul, a man who doesn't believe in evolution. Unsure if the take-home message from that is "don't listen to the voice of sanity" or "not every creationist fuckwad is a complete fuckwad."

Jon Huntsman - Questions the "ill-advised counterinsurgency campaign" in Afghanistan; calls for a "sober-minded" assessment of US commitments abroad

Can't disagree with a word here. Hopefully that is a codeword for "downsize the US military in a time of peace", but I can't see it somehow.

Newt Gingrich - Calls for "maximum covert operations" to disrupt the Iranian nuclear programme

So basically everything short of outright declaration of war then. No doubt you'll do it with NATO/UN flags flying and it'll all be ok! \o/

Rick Santorum - "We should be working with Israel right now to do what they did in Syria, what they did in Iraq, which is take out that nuclear capability before the next explosion we hear in Iran is a nuclear one and then the world changes"

As above.

Social Issues
Again, they all oppose gay marriage and abortion. I wonder if it's a Republican Party entry requirement that you hate gays. You can pick the staunch God-botherers out too - the ones facilitating homeschooling.

So basically, out of eight, then, to summarise just where the Republican Party's hearts lie, and also illustrating the similarities between the candidates:

Corporate Tax Cuts - 6/8 at least
Individual Tax Cuts - 4/8 at most
Something Approaching A Plan To Balance The Books (Whether It Would Work Or Not) - 3/8
Regress Obama's Healthcare Work, For Good Or Ill - 8/8
Fuck The Mexicans! - 7/8
Fuck Iran! - 6/8
Fuck The Gays (Metaphorically, Not Literally - That'd Be A Sin)! - 8/8
Raped And Pregnant? Well Fuck You All Over Again! - 8/8

[Soul]

I feel sorry for the US citizens who are stuck having to vote for one of these people :/. US politicians these days don't seem to learn from past mistakes or they just aren't paying attention.

[Elvenlord]

Comparison? They're all the same, just with varying levels of crazy.

[Pasidon]

Ashy... why you make novel?

But yea, Republicans these days all have similar styles and goals. But this is the 21st century... just pick the politician with the skin color you prefer.

But the two republicans I wish were running are Sarah Pailen and Mike Huckabee. Especially Mike Huckabee . Now that man is one of the few people I would even consider hugging. But with what I have to pick from, I'll probably go with my man Mitt. It just upsets me that all my choices want to ban abortion... that's cold.

Edited by {IP}Pasidon, 04 January 2012 - 09:16 PM.

[duke_Qa]

Hehe, I wonder what it would take to get the republicans in here to not vote republican. if you voted democratic would you get thrown out of the house or something? Put in a burka and married off perhaps

I love the fact that the Iowa caucus was so close, it just means that none of the candidates are good choices, even for republicans. It also means the republicans have to spend even more precious time on soul-searching themselves instead of attacking their real rivals.

Beyond that, I don't even understand how these republicans can vouch for these political opinions in this day and age. The only thing they apparently give the grassroots is a promise of governmental intervention against anti-christian morals and illegal immigrants. Which is ironic on its own since beyond that they preach as little government as possible.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

Maybe they should take the fuck Mexico policy further and go to war with them.
So many Mexicans go to the US because they are poor, there are few jobs and it's a dangerous place.
If they want a war why not make it on their doorstep, if they were to do what they did in Iraq or as they claim in bringing in Democracy and supposedly creating stability.
Make Mexico stable and then there'd be less immigration from there.

Now that's how you get crazy Republican support.
Unfortunately I'm only half joking.

[Ash]

I love the fact that the Iowa caucus was so close, it just means that none of the candidates are good choices, even for republicans. It also means the republicans have to spend even more precious time on soul-searching themselves instead of attacking their real rivals.

Or it means that the eight candidates are so similar in policy that there's really nothing to choose between them. That's more or less like the recent UK election. The majority of parties had the same outlook on the majority of issues. What'd be good is to see a policy check-list to see exactly how many they've succeeded in doing.

Actually, I might do that in the not-too-distant. For the sake of brevity I'll only include the biggest six parties that stood for election throughout the UK (so not plaid cymru or sinn fein, who only stood for election in Welsh and Northern Irish constituencies respectively. It is interesting to see just how much politicians all piss in the same pot irrespective of the colours they wear.

My question is where Republicans think the money is going to come from if they cut taxes significantly. Whether it's on the rich or poor, the US debt grows by the second. How do they propose to slow it down or stop it if they stop the money coming in? Let's also not forget how gun-happy the Republicans are; "Throw more money at the military!" is the general Republican battle-cry, compared to the "namby pamby commie pacifistic" Democrat battle-cry of "hospitals! schools! fair wages!".

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

We had the same thing happen here with the last election, maybe it's a growing trend in politics the natural result of one-up-manship, superficial policies and a flawed 2 party system.
Ours was probably worse because it was both parties standing for the same thing.
I wonder if that will be the fate of US politics.
They seem to have same corporate backing so it's likely.

[duke_Qa]

Luckily it seems that some people are noticing the trend of outwashed politicians that really doesn't stand for anything different beyond what party they belong to. I personally feel at least that the events of the last year has caused a change in the way people see these people. Something's gotta give in the end, people aren't interested in living barely-average lives with no larger goal than serving corporations.

[Pasidon]

Hehe, I wonder what it would take to get the republicans in here to not vote republican. if you voted democratic would you get thrown out of the house or something? Put in a burka and married off perhaps

Worse: we get a democrat as president. But I'm not dumb-loyal... I'd vote for the first Democrat that follows my ideals better than a typical Republican. But that's not bound to happen, so I'll stick with my Elephantidae Comitto.

[duke_Qa]

I actually thought John Huntsman had some very good lines yesterday when Romney attacked him from working as a diplomat under Obama. He quickly countered "This nation is divided because of attitudes like that". I think that's one of the first times I've heard a GOP'er actually put nation ahead of party.

That's pretty sobering in its own right. The moment you realize there are those who rather bring ruin to their nation if their party can't rule it. Sounds like every dictatorship ever to me. Obama might not be perfect, but at least he tried cooperating for the good of the nation, and all he got in response was shit-throwing monkeys.

[Tom]

Dear Ash. I can't be bothered / do not have the time to argue every point. This are quite a few misrepresentation of what I've stood or argued for. Also, there is so much wrong with your analysis. Actually, your analysis is piss poor and incredibly biased. If you had actually properly read Paul's books, or any economics that isn't neo-liberal bollacks, or any other research on the monetary system, you would see he is incredibly different from all the other candidates and not to mentioned, actually principled (unlike most politicians today). You would not be lumping him in with the neo-conservative pieces of corporate-sponsored shit that are the other candidates in the Republican Party (and Obama who is also corporate-sponsored shit).

Now I'm not claiming he's perfect but he is not anti-gay at all. His actions are all to do with resisting the Federal Government (as he feels) - taking power from the states unconstitutionally. He personally believes gay people should have as much right to get married as anyone else. The reason you have made this misconception is because he argues for the end of Federal Government meddling in marriage. He believes it should be left to society, the states and organisations. Government definitions of marriage are complete bullshit and only the religious fundamentalists in the Republican Party want the Federal Government involved in it. (And the liberals who want to enforce gay marriage as well ) Paul believes in getting the government out and letting people decide how they get married though independent organisations and churches. Seems completely rational to me. He also voted to repeal Don't ask, Don't tell. He does have a few things he voted for that make him seem anti-gay, but as this quote below shows his real position on this.

http://en.wikipedia....ons_of_Ron_Paul

Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[134] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[135] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[136] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[137][138] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[137]

He has some flaws, but main reasons I support this man is because he's a Libertarian, not a typical neo-conservative republican or supposed progressive democrat. He actually doesn't fit the conventional political spectrum. He's right on some issues, left on others, if you buy into the old style political compass, which is becoming more and more outdated imo. If you want proof of that look up his presidental run in 1988 and what ticket that was on - it wasn't democrat or republican. He has joined the republican races in 2008 and 2012 because he understands that in US politics the democrats and republicans have a monopoly (duopoly?) on the political system and wanted to get his views out into the mainstream - he seems to have done a good job on most issues I care about.

Now, he wants to audit the Federal Reserve/rein it in, which will be important if we do not want a complete and total economic collapse within the next decade.

He will oppose the wars in the Middle East that make the West a target for terrorism (research CIA BLOWBACK). He also has the most donations from the US Army than any of the other candidates COMBINED. His largest donators are US troops - not corporations like Romney and Obama. This shows you who the troops support too.

He believes in Free Market Capitalism not Corporatism (soft fascism).

Most importantly he believes in the philosophy of Liberty. Something beginning to diminish in the West in the name of "anti-terrorism" and economic recovery.

Please please do some research before spouting complete shit about what he actually stands for and the economic arguments behind it. The economic arguments are completely rational and makes sense.

He has NEVER said he believes in creationism. He has said he doesn't believe in evolution - if that automatically makes him a creationist rather than open to ideas, so be it. I understand the argument against him in this regard and "using evidence to change views" but I feel his positions on the wars and economy are far more important to the world than a person belief that he will not impose on anyone. It doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. My main reason for support is: ending the federal reserve and reforming the global monetary system, ending the global war on terror, ending the war on drugs, ending corporate subsidies and entitlements, and ending general social entitlements too.

I have never claimed Paul is perfect so please stop trying to make out I worship him because of a coverage on Facebook. There are things I disagree with Paul on, including his stance on Abortion. I have been following him for 5 years now. He is becoming an influential figure in US politics - to the point he could potentially cripple the Republican party's chances of winning if he runs third party. This is not because he's the same, this is because he is radically different. Ultra-tory - no. A Libertarian. A complete different ball game.

If Obama or any of these monkeys are re/elected then the whole game begins to shift. The US dollar is nearing the end of it's lifespan - it is a fraudulent world system that has been created. It is the world reserve currency and can inflate in complete secrecy under the Federal Reserve System, giving the US power and economic sway that doesn't truly exist. Nations are waking up around the world as the dollar becomes worth less. Iran has already dumped the dollar (due to the sanctions signed 31st Dec 2011) - Russia is doing the same. If a major movement to shift from dollars is made, the US is going to have a different type of economic crisis. An inflationary one.

So please stop listening to the mainstream media, do some fucking research. A lot of the mainstream and corporate media are biased and rarely stimulate any real discussion or questions about our modern/current issues. I believe in JFK's premise that media should criticise but the mainstream media does not seem to do this unless it benefits a certain corporate or government agenda. JFK, 27th April 1961: "That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants" — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion." Corporate/Mainstream Media does this when it suits them, but they fail to inform about much outside of the mainstream, potential solutions to problems we have today. We just keep doing more of the same.

Also, Wikipedia seems to have fairly good sourced article on his positions:

http://en.wikipedia....ons_of_Ron_Paul
http://en.wikipedia....Austrian_School


http://articles.busi...ll-report-money

The first audit of the privately owned Federal Reserve by the GAO, has turned up $16 Trillion dollars of loans all over the world to prop up the global fiat empire. This massive money creation is over and above Hank Paulson’s $700 billion dollar heist of the American public. It is also in addition to QE1 and QE2 that resulted in an illusionary recovery of the economy. All of this money printing has done nothing to create any economic growth and it never will. The scary part is that this was done with no oversight or accountability . (Thank God we have someone like Ron Paul to hold these Elite accountable and expose their crimes before the collapse.)

$16 trillion dollar loans/bailouts were revealed by an audit bill initiated by Ron Paul (this was loaned out BEFORE the bailouts and the 2008 collapse). It has taken him decades to get this passed. These are the people in control of the worlds reserve currency. Research please.

[Tom]

Ron Paul - Would veto any "unbalanced" budget; refuse to raise the US borrowing limit; and eliminate the income, capital gains, and estate taxes, and cut $1tr (£633.6m) from the annual federal budget

Another one with the stripping of taxes, particularly ones that probably pull in a good amount of the income. I can't disagree with stopping unbalanced budgets, although given the inability of Republicans and Democrats to agree on the wetness of water this probably will result in nothing ever getting decided. Nor can I dispute the need to cut budgets, but I do have to query where the money's being cut from. Doubt it'll be from defence. That'd be unpopular. More likely to be from a more useful bit of infrastructure.

Once again, more poorly researched ignorance. You are making things up as you go because you simply have no idea what you are talking about. If you had been researching/following different politicians around the globe (via the web of course) as long as I have, then you would know Paul doesn't care about being popular with the establishment. He is the anti-establishment candidate.



He will cut defence by 15% in the first year. Remember though, war and defence are not the same thing. He is really talking about ending wars and cutting that money. He also wants to cut other government departments which he deems pointless. These departments can be run at state level. When we think about the US government, we have to ensure we are not being biased based on our own view of England. We have a much smaller country - the US is a continent wide country. States are far more efficient at these things and can be held accountable much better than a Federal Government, which could be 3k miles away for some people. He's saying end these departments, shift them down to state level. Again more Libertarian rather than Authoritarian ideas. He will not make ANY cuts to social security (at least not in his proposed first year cuts).

Oh also, he wants to lower the presidential salary from £400k/year to around $38k (which is the median of an average American worker).

That's enough ranting fromm me about his positions and trying to act as a counter balance to the poorly researched claims from Ash. The presidential debates do not much justice for these candidates as they are loaded questions and fairly meaningless when it comes to real philosophical ideas. We can't see why they believe these things and therefore either dismantle their poor/good views. As for Paul, there is rarely the opportunity to talk about what he feels is the ethical side of these issues - he covers these well in his own writings however.

Just my 2 cents on this matter. Blah blah... I want to make love to Ron Paul... or whatever Ash thinks.

[Ganon]

The Republicans had better nominate Ron Paul, or I'm voting for Obama again. Obama hasn't been fixing problems here at home as much as I like, but at least he hasn't started any wars...
The rest of those nit-wits seem to want a shift from a welfare state to a warfare state.

I don't see why we can't do away with both. That might be too much to ask for.

Edit: Also, Ron Paul seems to align his views with what the US "supposedly" stands for. Which is personal Liberty.
Now, I'm all for the gub'ment breathing down the backs of mega corporations. Large corporations lead to monopolization and a host of other problems that can only hurt the middle class. An un-regulated free market system always leads to collapse. If you don't agree, then you probably didn't pay attention in history class. Small business is the answer to the issue of unemployment, NOT corporations. Never forget that.

Now, that doesn't mean that Government should interfere with our personal lives. We Americans have our freedoms, and our rights, but our personal liberty is all too often signed away. Vote Libertarian dammit!

Edited by Ganon, 12 January 2012 - 08:18 AM.

[duke_Qa]

I don't see Ron Paul as a very sensible character. He seems to have gotten a good fan base though, and some of the things he says are okay... in isolation.
I would say I would have been just as nervous if he got the republican nomination, because it seems he acquires tons of independents for his more radical ideas, which definitely would have hurt Obama's vote(The hunt for Obama votes right now seems to be "I be democrat, I voted Obama, never again" astroturfing, which is smooth if you believe those that write them actually voted for him in the first place. Having a candidate that could pick up those unhappy votes, would have been more risky than a crazy republican that would get [x==Bush] posters to kill his candidacy).

But I don't understand Libertarianism when you start using it on sub-national entities. The only ones who are well off with libertarianism are those that have private jets, million dollar private healthcare and elite bodyguards. I visualize a world where every man has a bodyguard and have "pokemon duels" with them to rob each-other(that is a concept for a comic methinks).

This article defines it pretty well:

Like most other little kids, all I wanted to do was eat junk food, play video games and goof around with my friends. I didn't like being made to go to school, going to bed at 9 PM, eating vegetables, doing homework after school, or taking out the garbage. And like most other little kids who don't like abiding by the rules of their parents, I sometimes fantasized about what it would be like to run away from home. But when I packed my backpack full of clothes and individually-wrapped packs of peanut butter crackers from the pantry, I could never go through with my plan. I knew if I ran away, I'd be hungry, cold, lost, and eventually found by the police and returned home. Libertarian views of government regulation are very similar to how the 6 year-old views the authority exerted by their parents. Ron Paul's every-individual-for-themselves rhetoric appeals to young, radical libertarians with simplistic viewpoints of authority, and an ignorance of why government exists in the first place.

[...]

Problem is, if you follow through with libertarianism, you don't end up hungry, cold, lost and returned home by cops... You end up robbed, enslaved, traumatized and executed by the people with the biggest armada. "freedom" and "liberty" whispered by the devil.

Edit: Also, Ron Paul seems to align his views with what the US "supposedly" stands for. Which is personal Liberty.
Now, I'm all for the gub'ment breathing down the backs of mega corporations. Large corporations lead to monopolization and a host of other problems that can only hurt the middle class. An un-regulated free market system always leads to collapse. If you don't agree, then you probably didn't pay attention in history class. Small business is the answer to the issue of unemployment, NOT corporations. Never forget that.

Now, that doesn't mean that Government should interfere with our personal lives. We Americans have our freedoms, and our rights, but our personal liberty is all too often signed away. Vote Libertarian dammit!

Some good words here, Small business is indeed the answer. Local inefficient(altruistic) businesses not bought up and optimized for centralized corporate income, but there to support the local community for the local community's sake.
"Free" market leaves corporations free to monopolize and out-compete the smaller businesses because they don't waste their money on keeping the local economy spinning.

But if you don't support your government in battling the megacorps, you leave them to a losing battle. And once the government is down, they will come after you(you might even say they are coming after you as we speak, puppeteering the government to do their deeds against you. It's not like we will see headlines in the newspapers going "Government concedes defeat to global corporations! Surrenders right of governance to private enterprises!" ). If libertarianism is the only choice you're given in protecting your freedom, then you need to find a better option because its just as much a trap what you currently have.


Ron Paul might have 2-3 good ideas, but they are not worth the entire package. Go progressive and take the good stuff he says with the better: Strong Government to stop corporation-fascism, federal reserve made public, money out of politics, military industry complex marginalized, transaction taxes on wall street combined with removal of tax loopholes, taxes to support small-business against mega corps, proportional representation. Notice how those never mention anti-abortion or marriage or other distractions, because they are totally irrelevant for proper politics.

Oh well, we'll see what happens. Sarkozy is apparently about to implement transaction taxes on stock-markets, so we'll see if the US follows up once that happens.

Edited by duke_Qa, 12 January 2012 - 04:06 PM.

[Tom]

This is going to take me a while to respond, but I'm going to post this video whilst I write a post:

[Tom]

I'll try keep this short (yeah right), as I have History lesson plans to write

When we talk about a free market, we are talking about a market without government interference; however this does not mean total anarchy. You still have laws. Theft is still theft, murder is still murder, the police still exist and so do other government services to an extent. Free markets can only operate when property rights are respected and upheld, and when contracts are enforced. Without a law system doing this, you get anarchy which is the system you are talking about. Do not confuse the two.

Now those who support Free-Market Libertarianism will argue that monopolies are not possible without government intervention - which is true to a point (view video in previous post). In this argument, the only reasons monopolies occur are either though state monopolies, e.g. Education, or when legislation is passed (through lobbying) which benefit big business. The corporatism (Crony-capitalism) that we have today is an example of this system - although what we are talking about today is not a full monopoly but a disproportionate big-business influence in government.

Austrian economics primarily focuses on Praxeology, which is the study of human action and motivation. If government tramples on small businesses, as they do today, but benefit large business, then you will not have the small business growth required to maintain a middle class. This is why the middle class is shrinking today in the US, UK, etc. It is also to do with the inflation tax taking wealth from the middle and poor and transferring it to the rich via corporatism/crony-capitalism. Printing money devalues currency, and when money is printed those who benefit are government contractors and corporate interests. They spend the money at its full value, everyone else gets the inflation. This is why Libertarians call inflation the hidden tax, because it is a tax.

An un-regulated free market system always leads to collapse. If you don't agree, then you probably didn't pay attention in history class. Small business is the answer to the issue of unemployment, NOT corporations. Never forget that.

Now, this is not entirely true. What caused collapses in the past are things like fractional-reserve banking (which causes fluctuations in the money supply). Credit is easily available so people/businesses/corporations/banks begin to go crazy with it, this promotes irresponsibility and people malinvest – eventually interest rates have to rise and cheap credit dies up which leads to a bust. Read the Austrian economic theory of boom and bust. I personally believe it's rather accurate. Fractional reserve banking still exists today and allows banks to creation money out of thin air.

Now Austrian theory as a whole isn't just about free markets, it is also about Praxeology and sound money. Without either of those you cannot have prosperity. It also doesn't claim to stop the business cycle, it just promotes a deeper understanding of it in that hope that we can educate people enough to make them more responsible choices and less likely to be manipulated by predator capitalism. Austrian theorists also argue monopolies can only truly be enforced through government.

This article defines it pretty well:

Like most other little kids, all I wanted to do was eat junk food, play video games and goof around with my friends. I didn't like being made to go to school, going to bed at 9 PM, eating vegetables, doing homework after school, or taking out the garbage. And like most other little kids who don't like abiding by the rules of their parents, I sometimes fantasized about what it would be like to run away from home. But when I packed my backpack full of clothes and individually-wrapped packs of peanut butter crackers from the pantry, I could never go through with my plan. I knew if I ran away, I'd be hungry, cold, lost, and eventually found by the police and returned home. Libertarian views of government regulation are very similar to how the 6 year-old views the authority exerted by their parents. Ron Paul's every-individual-for-themselves rhetoric appeals to young, radical libertarians with simplistic viewpoints of authority, and an ignorance of why government exists in the first place.

[...]

I read that article Duke and I thought you would have been intelligent enough to see the logical fallacies in it. Here’s a list of a few of them:

Inconsistent comparison fallacy - where different methods of comparison are used, leaving one with a false impression of the whole comparison
Reification fallacy
Wrong direction fallacy – I never wanted to run away from home when I was a child. Maybe there is a reason this child wants to run away from home? Abusive or restrictive family?
Argumentum ad populum
Association Fallacy – Ron Paul is a leader of a Libertarian movement. He is childish for questioning government authority (even if it’s unconstitutional) – this means all Libertarians who support Ron Paul are childish.
Appeal to consequences – Kid running away from home represents adult running away from government. Kid running from home must return home to remain safe and be provided everything they need to survive, therefore adults who are against big government must also eventually return to big government because government is the only provider for their needs.

The list goes ON AND ON, but it’ll take me all day to hyperlink them for you.

You should read some of the comments at the bottom of that page. The commenters are far more aware of these fallacies than the author obviously is.

Now, this article states that if you are for personal responsibility, you’re childish? That’s a backwards logic to me. This author uses a child running away from home and tries to link it to people demanding freedom from increasingly growing and oppressive governments. This is ridiculous. In my opinion, the people that need to grow up are the people who want their mums and dads to feed them, clothe them, tell them what to think and live freely without having to work. It’s a childish fantasy to think government can solve complex social problems. This has been proven false time and time again that big-government tends to create more problems than it solves – namely economic ones. The author is essentially stating that slaves who try run away from bondage need to return home one day because they are not “strong enough” to survive alone. This comparison cannot be made. A child is not a grown man. Children cannot make decisions on the same level as an adult. The argument above is completely fallacious.

I’m disappointed in you Duke for not thinking for yourself on this one [/end teacher voice].

Problem is, if you follow through with libertarianism, you don't end up hungry, cold, lost and returned home by cops... You end up robbed, enslaved, traumatized and executed by the people with the biggest armada. "freedom" and "liberty" whispered by the devil.

Completely false – poorly researched and argued claims. Libertarian fundamentally believes in property rights and enforcement of contracts. People cannot rob you, people cannot murder you, people cannot buy guns and create a mob to force you to be a slave. There is still rule of law - all that is different is government is also expected to abide by it. You are talking about an immoral form of anarchy – almost a Somalian influenced view. Libertarianism is not immoral anarchy.

As for the rest of the argument, small business is indeed the answer, but it can only be “stimulated” through free markets and removing unfair legislation passed by lobbyists for corporations. Hence, ENDING CORPORATISM. We also need sound money to ensure the money supply cannot be manipulated and with it wealth concentrated into the hands of a few.

There are a few arguments on how to do this. Ron Paul’s way: legalise competition. I like this idea.

Other way – return currency creation to an open central government treasury. Get government to produce debt free money and obviously be open and transparent with money creation, e.g. accurate reports on real inflation rates.

Personally I think Paul’s idea is better because then the market will regulate the money supply (for different currencies). Businesses and people can refuse to trade in certain currencies. If a currency goes bad, there are options to switch to another. In this current system, government enforced banking monopoly, if currency goes bad then we are all screwed.

[Tom]

Oh... and being a History teacher, this one niggled me a little.

An un-regulated free market system always leads to collapse. If you don't agree, then you probably didn't pay attention in history class.

Other than being condescending, you're also stating that history classes somehow proved this statement. If you believe in state education and government indoctrination, then yes, you would probably not question this and accept it as fact.

Absolutes such as ALWAYS are not ALWAYS true. (circular logic, shock horror!). Government education does not promote critical thinking very well at all. That's part of the reason why we have such a largely ignorant population.

Paying attention to what a government mandates you learn doesn't mean it's a fact. These are economically debatable arguments and have and are still argued today.

Oh yeah... http://en.wikipedia....al_to_authority

[Tom]

Ron Paul might have 2-3 good ideas, but they are not worth the entire package. Go progressive and take the good stuff he says with the better: Strong Government to stop corporation-fascism, federal reserve made public, money out of politics, military industry complex marginalized, transaction taxes on wall street combined with removal of tax loopholes, taxes to support small-business against mega corps, proportional representation. Notice how those never mention anti-abortion or marriage or other distractions, because they are totally irrelevant for proper politics.

You've got me going now. Dammit!

Here is more circular logic. Support Strong (big) government to stop corporation-fascism, which is only possible anyway because of big government. You sound like some of the guys at the occupy events. You can argue with the more progressive guys about how big government attracts psychopaths, the power hungary and/or corporate lobbyists which helps to create fascism and their response is that we just need more government.



I'm not trying to generalise of course, Isupport the occupy movements as it is dissent against an immoral and corrupt system. I just don't agree with everyone at them, as obviously not everyone there would agree with me too.


Big government cannot stimulate the economy or make small businesses prosper. I still fail to see how you think this works economically. It's almost like Keynesianism with the broken window fallacy. Break a window, stimulate the economy by helping the glass man.

[Radspakr Wolfbane]

Wow that was short.