Why has Ron Paul failed?

20Cent

Blowfish wrote: »

No he doesn't, he believes forced payment is unconstitutional and that payment should be voluntary. Given that he has paid in (and still is), there really isn't an issue with him getting some of it back out.

Where is the courage of his conviction?

20Cent

20Cent wrote: »

Where is the courage of his conviction?

Don't pay his tax and go to prison?

Blowfish

20Cent wrote: »

Where is the courage of his conviction?

This doesn't contradict his convictions at all. He has paid for a service for the past 60 years and is now receiving that service. Had he refused to pay for it and now wanted to benefit from it, then yes, he would be a hypocrite, however this isn't the case.

His sole argument is that paying into it in the first place should be optional.

20Cent

Blowfish wrote: »

This doesn't contradict his convictions at all. He has paid for a service for the past 60 years and is now receiving that service. Had he refused to pay for it and now wanted to benefit from it, then yes, he would be a hypocrite, however this isn't the case.

His sole argument is that paying into it in the first place should be optional.

He also argues that Social Security is unconstitutional so accepting it is hypocritical. Pretty simple. Doesn't matter if he paid more in don't accept the cheques.

Blowfish

20Cent wrote: »

He also argues that Social Security is unconstitutional so accepting it is hypocritical.

Again, you have missed his point. He is not against Social Security.

In essence his view of how the economy should be run is quite simple. You work, you receive almost all of your wages. You are then free to choose what services you want. This would include health, education, transport etc. Once you pay for a service, you then receive it. If you don't pay for a service, you then have no right to, nor should you receive it. Social Security would be one of these services and like the others it would be optional.

As it stands now, he has already paid for his use of roads, health, education and Social Security, therefore will receive them. He is not receiving any service he has not paid for, therefore is not being hypocritical.

20Cent

Blowfish wrote: »

Again, you have missed his point. He is not against Social Security.

In essence his view of how the economy should be run is quite simple. You work, you receive almost all of your wages. You are then free to choose what services you want. This would include health, education, transport etc. Once you pay for a service, you then receive it. If you don't pay for a service, you then have no right to, nor should you receive it. Social Security would be one of these services and like the others it would be optional.

As it stands now, he has already paid for his use of roads, health, education and Social Security, therefore will receive them. He is not receiving any service he has not paid for, therefore is not being hypocritical.

He has clearly stated many times he considers Social Security to be unconstitutional. He doesn't have to accept it but when given the choice between upholding his convictions and dollars be goes for the $$$$. He's been living on the Gov paycheck most of his life. In fairness he said he won't accept a gov pension, though this does make his acceptance of his social security cheques stranger. Do as I say not as I do.

Blowfish

20Cent wrote: »

He has clearly stated many times he considers Social Security to be unconstitutional. He doesn't have to accept it but when given the choice between upholding his convictions and dollars be goes for the $$$$.

How many times does it need to be said? Social Security is an insurance policy service. He has paid for that service. for 60 years. The $$$$ that you claim he is after is simply the return of the $$$$ that he has put into the service itself. He is upholding his convictions.

20Cent wrote:

Do as I say not as I do.

Ok, lets break this down into extremely simple terms.

What he says:
He will make Social Security optional for those under 25. If they don't pay in, they won't receive anything. Those over 25 have (mostly at least) already contributed, and have hence paid for the service so they will continue to receive it.

What he does:
As someone over 25, who has contributed/paid for SS, he receives his SS payments (incidentally, he receives far less than he is currently contributing).

20Cent

Blowfish wrote: »

How many times does it need to be said? Social Security is an insurance policy service. He has paid for that service. for 60 years. The $$$$ that you claim he is after is simply the return of the $$$$ that he has put into the service itself. He is upholding his convictions.
Ok, lets break this down into extremely simple terms.

Paid into it with money he gets from the Gov teat, while decrying the evils of Gov. You couldn't make it up.

Blowfish wrote: »

What he says:
He will make Social Security optional for those under 25. If they don't pay in, they won't receive anything. Those over 25 have (mostly at least) already contributed, and have hence paid for the service so they will continue to receive it.

What he does:
As someone over 25, who has contributed/paid for SS, he receives his SS payments (incidentally, he receives far less than he is currently contributing).

What he says
Social Security is unconstitutional and akin to permitting slavery.
What he does
Takes the cheque anyway. Despite being a multi millionaire. So long as he's ok I suppose screw everyone else. He could lead by example but that would cost him $$$$$.

Blowfish

20Cent wrote:

Social Security is unconstitutional and akin to permitting slavery.

Indeed. Slavery is wrong because the slave loses the power to choose whether they wish to work for the master or not. In return for the forced labour, the master feeds and clothes the slave. Undoubtedly the slave's labour is worth more than the food and clothes, but would you criticise the slave for accepting the food and clothes as this could possibly be seen to be a tacit endorsement of slavery?

20Cent

Blowfish wrote: »

Indeed. Slavery is wrong because the slave loses the power to choose whether they wish to work for the master or not. In return for the forced labour, the master feeds and clothes the slave. Undoubtedly the slave's labour is worth more than the food and clothes, but would you criticise the slave for accepting the food and clothes as this could possibly be seen to be a tacit endorsement of slavery?

By Ron Pauls definition everyone who pays tax is a slave, an extremely wealthy man in one of the most privileged positions in the world whining about being a slave is beyond ironic.

Brian?

20Cent wrote: »

By Ron Pauls definition everyone who pays tax is a slave, an extremely wealthy man in one of the most privileged positions in the world whining about being a slave is beyond ironic.

Agree completely.

The reason Ron Paul "failed" is that his political ideals are unworkable and imo immoral. Libertarianism is basically the politics of the rich throwing a hissy fit and demanding to keep all of their money with ZERO regard for the greater good of society.

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

Agree completely.

The reason Ron Paul "failed" is that his political ideals are unworkable and imo immoral. Libertarianism is basically the politics of the rich throwing a hissy fit and demanding to keep all of their money with ZERO regard for the greater good of society.

That's complete BS. You're acting like the only libertarian policy is to remove taxes. There's a ton of other libertarian policies that take higher priority. Like legalizing marijuana. The libertarian party has put a candidate on the ballot whose main priority is legalizing marijuana but you would rather debate a strawman that wants to turn America into Somalia.

What Ron Paul has succeeded in doing is convincing million of people that less government is better, and it was Paulites who convinced me that the Iraq war was wrong, and that drug prohibition was wrong. He wasn't trying to be president. He was trying to get his ideas into the mainstream. He is one of the people responsible for bringing the economic views of American's to the right, and bringing social and foreign policy views of Americans to the left, and he's the best ambassador any far-out ideology can hope for. I have been told many times by people on the far left that they wish they had someone the caliber of Ron Paul to represent them.

Blowfish

briankeating wrote: »

Agree completely.

The reason Ron Paul "failed" is that his political ideals are unworkable and imo immoral. Libertarianism is basically the politics of the rich throwing a hissy fit and demanding to keep all of their money with ZERO regard for the greater good of society.

Actually, no, most of the richest quite like the system they have now and would hate to be in a Libertarian country as they'd immediately lose their influence over government. This is particularly important to them given that a chunk of them actually spend more on lobbyists than they do taxes.

No protectionism, subsidies, trade barriers, tax rebates, revolving door etc. That's not even getting started on the 14 trillion of bailout.

There's a damn good reason he's the only candidate that doesn't appear on the 2012 or 2008 list of lobbyist recipients.

KyussBishop

I don't know Ron Paul's views in detail, just by proxy from debates with other Libertarians, but safe to say I think that his Libertarian policies in the social sphere are probably very good/desirable.

Libertarian views outside of the social sphere though, that is Right/Austro-Libertarian views, are all that briankeating describes; I've been researching aspects of Libertarianism in detail the past number of months to understand it better, and there is much fault to find in many of its core policies.

I haven't explored it all though, so maybe there's merit to more of its policies outside of social ones, but at the very least it has pretty much fatal flaws in its policies towards the education and economic sectors, as well as the more extreme end of its views towards property rights.


Probably there's more I don't remember, from past debates, but a significant portion of Libertarian views (particularly the economic ones) are primarily pushed with vested (financial) interests in mind; any short look over the history of the Libertarian lobby-groups/'think-tanks' in the US will show that, and once you dig down to the faults in policies discussed on this forum, it becomes clear to see how deliberately unbalanced (in favour of concentration of wealth with zero effort or contribution to society) a lot of it would be.

The entire ideology is so well-spun though, that it's easy to be taken in by it if you don't approach it skeptically; it takes a not-insignificant learning curve to get to the very core of some of its faults, so even some extremely intelligent people get duped or co-opted by it.

KyussBishop

Oh and also, the usual argument (often repeated lately) that "the government is bad because of x, y, z", even where x, y and z are perfectly correct and valid criticisms, does not mean that equally flawed Libertarian policies "a, b, c" are better.

It's not a case of "the government is bad therefore any alternative is better"; in most cases I've explored thus far, working to improve what we have now is almost unerringly less harmful to society than the Libertarian alternative.

AVN_1

20Cent wrote: »

It is now clear that Ron Paul has failed to gather enough votes to become the republican nominee for president. He is third behind two divisive weak candidates. Online one would think there was great support for him but in reality this support is not turned into votes. A US senator seems to be the highest office a libertarian can reach and without a serious replacement for Paul is this the end of libertarianism in the US?

My opinion is that his ideas and policies make him unelectable in a democracy.

1) US is not a real democracy, they have elections only between 2 very similar political parties, called "democrats" and "republicans". It is a kind of duopoly rather than a real full spectrum democracy. They also have the indirect voting system, which is rubbish.

2) Ron Paul should create a new political party and run as an alternative to the mainstream two. Then he would enjoy at least 20-30% countrywide.

troposphere

AVN_1 wrote: »

1)
2) Ron Paul should create a new political party and run as an alternative to the mainstream two. Then he would enjoy at least 20-30% countrywide.

Ron Paul if he had wanted could have run under the Libertarian Party, the same party he ran for President under in 1988 and where he is still honorary lifetime member.

Brian?

matthew8 wrote: »

That's complete BS. You're acting like the only libertarian policy is to remove taxes. There's a ton of other libertarian policies that take higher priority. Like legalizing marijuana. The libertarian party has put a candidate on the ballot whose main priority is legalizing marijuana but you would rather debate a strawman that wants to turn America into Somalia.

Hold your horses there. I never once mentioned Somalia. NEVER. Do not accuse me of creating a strawman, when you are clearly doing so yourself.

Removal of taxes is not their only policy, but it's a big one. Don't try and dance around it by naming policies that actually make sense, at the heart of Libertarianism is greed. Libertarians would like the dismantle the state so they can live "free". It's their definition of freedom that I have serious problems.

What Ron Paul has succeeded in doing is convincing million of people that less government is better, and it was Paulites who convinced me that the Iraq war was wrong, and that drug prohibition was wrong. He wasn't trying to be president. He was trying to get his ideas into the mainstream.

There have been people on the left trying to highlight the same issues for decades! Why do you want to congratulate Ron Paul for coming late to the party?

He is one of the people responsible for bringing the economic views of American's to the right, and bringing social and foreign policy views of Americans to the left, and he's the best ambassador any far-out ideology can hope for. I have been told many times by people on the far left that they wish they had someone the caliber of Ron Paul to represent them.

It's not Ron Paul the man I have issue with. It's Libertarianism. I would also add that the last thing America needs is more right wing economic policies, they're bad enough as they are.

matthew8

Removal of taxes is not their only policy, but it's a big one. Don't try and dance around it by naming policies that actually make sense, at the heart of Libertarianism is greed. Libertarians would like the dismantle the state so they can live "free". It's their definition of freedom that I have serious problems.

You're making it up. Tons of libertarians prioritize social/military issues. Like me. Do I get searched at airports? Does the US government spy on me? Does the US army drop bombs on me? Am I a gay person who wants to marry? Do I smoke? Do I do drugs?

No. But I care a hell of a lot more about these issues than I do about taxes (unless we're talking about something like a 50% tax) which do affect me. So don't say I only hold my positions because of greed. It's insulting.

There have been people on the left trying to highlight the same issues for decades! Why do you want to congratulate Ron Paul for coming late to the party?

He's actually good at it.

20Cent

matthew8 wrote: »

He's actually good at it.

What legislation has he passed or political victories has he had?
Not seeing much from his career so far.

Belfast

20Cent wrote: »

It is now clear that Ron Paul has failed to gather enough votes to become the republican nominee for president. He is third behind two divisive weak candidates. Online one would think there was great support for him but in reality this support is not turned into votes. A US senator seems to be the highest office a libertarian can reach and without a serious replacement for Paul is this the end of libertarianism in the US?

My opinion is that his ideas and policies make him unelectable in a democracy.

of course he failed he never hand a chance.

The campaign was always more about building a long term political movement.

as to whether he can be elected in a democracy. probably not.

But America is not a democracy . America is a Constitutional Republic .

To be elected in a democracy or Constitutional Republic you need the support of the media and vested interest groups.

With Ron Paul plan to down size the Federal Government and remove it power to control he economy, this leaves him with nothing to reward the vested interest groups.

Even if Paul were elected and get all of his polices passed congress., this only affects the federal government.

There is nothing to stop state governments doing the opposite of what Ron Paul is doing a federal level.

example Cannabis could be legal at a federal level but still could be banned by state governments, counties or cities.

This happen when alcohol was made legal at a federal level, many states hand laws banning in some of their counties. These were know as dry state of dry counties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_state

Under the present electoral system any one running for president who promised a balanced budget could be elected.

It appears to be elected you need to be willing to bankrupt the county and reward vested interest groups.

I suspect that even under a dictator ship support of vested interest would still be need to stay in power.

No honest politician socialist, Keynesian etc. stands a chance of being elected.

America like most of the world is closer to a Kleptocracy than a Democracy or Constitutional Republic.

Brian?

matthew8 wrote: »

You're making it up. Tons of libertarians prioritize social/military issues. Like me. Do I get searched at airports? Does the US government spy on me? Does the US army drop bombs on me? Am I a gay person who wants to marry? Do I smoke? Do I do drugs?

I'm not making anything up. You seem to be attempting some sort of argument with points I haven't made, can't get my head around it at all.

No. But I care a hell of a lot more about these issues than I do about taxes (unless we're talking about something like a 50% tax) which do affect me. So don't say I only hold my positions because of greed. It's insulting.

Choose to be insulted if you want, I never said it was the only reason to be libertarian. I said the heart of libertarianism is greed. If civil liberties were paramount in your philosiphy then why not be a socialist?

He's actually good at it.

Good how? Good at never walking by a camera? He only gets attention because he's a member of the Republican party and his economic views allow him to be a member of the GOP. No decent minded left wing politician would join either of the main parties and therefore would never get the attention Mr. Paul receives.

Blowfish

briankeating wrote: »

Choose to be insulted if you want, I never said it was the only reason to be libertarian. I said the heart of libertarianism is greed. If civil liberties were paramount in your philosiphy then why not be a socialist?

Socialism by definition curtails your individual rights.

Brian?

Blowfish wrote: »

Socialism by definition curtails your individual rights.

Absolutely and completely incorrect. A complete misconception of what socialism is.

Blowfish

briankeating wrote: »

Absolutly and completely incorrect. A complete misconception of what socialism is.

Well the definition of Socialism tends to vary somewhat, so how would you describe it?

Brian?

Blowfish wrote: »

Well the definition of Socialism tends to vary somewhat, so how would you describe it?

A socialist society is one that allows for the ultimate freedom of choice. It does this by creating a level playing field for all members of society and thereby allowing for equal oppurtunties for all the members of the society.

Brian?

briankeating wrote: »

A socialist society is one that allows for the ultimate freedom of choice. It does this by creating a level playing field for all members of society and thereby allowing for equal oppurtunties for all the members of the society.

I didn't explain that very well. So to expand, in a Socialist society the state itself becomes a tool of the workers. It is directed by the workers to work their common interest. This means the state cannot control or set rules on it's members because the state is controlled and not the controller. The opposite is true now.

Blowfish

briankeating wrote: »

A socialist society is one that allows for the ultimate freedom of choice.

What about the freedom of choice to spend your earnings how you want to? Also, what if someone wanted to work at less than the minimum wage?

Do you see these as being freedoms allowed under a socialist state?

briankeating wrote: »

It does this by creating a level playing field for all members of society and thereby allowing for equal oppurtunties for all the members of the society.

If a wealth generator wants the freedom to provide for their offspring on their death, does this not conflict with the provision of equal opportunities above?

briankeating wrote: »

I didn't explain that very well. So to expand, in a Socialist society the state itself becomes a tool of the workers. It is directed by the workers to work their common interest. This means the state cannot control or set rules on it's members because the state is controlled and not the controller. The opposite is true now.

I'd certainly agree with you that the state largely does not work for the common interest. On that point both Socialism and Libertarianism has a common goal, i.e. destruction of the power/influence that occurs when a vested interest gains influence in the state.

Our approaches though are obviously radically different. Libertarianism seeks to break the link by weakening the state to the point that it cannot benefit the vested interest, while Socialism seek to break the link through regulation and enforcement both of and by the state.

The problem as I see it is that by using regulation and enforcement, you end up encroaching on the freedom you aim to achieve.

KyussBishop

The whole problem is that both polarities of socialism and libertarianism, in their extremes, massively curtail freedoms (simple labeling and generalizing about either doesn't help); the freedom and choice in libertarianism, becomes more illusory the more extreme the policies you choose, it's no panacea.

You need a balance basically; as shít as government is in many areas, it's the lesser evil in some ares, and should stay totally out of other areas.

Brian?

Blowfish wrote: »

What about the freedom of choice to spend your earnings how you want to? Also, what if someone wanted to work at less than the minimum wage?

None of that matters in a socialist state as the accumulation of wealth is no longer necessary. The method of compensation and reward in a socialist society would be based on an authentic meritocracy, along the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".

Do you see these as being freedoms allowed under a socialist state?
If a wealth generator wants the freedom to provide for their offspring on their death, does this not conflict with the provision of equal opportunities above?

See the above, wealth is longer a goal and providing for ones offspring is no longer necessary because they will be given equal oppurtunity with everyone else. It's up to them how they chose to use this oppurtunity. Can't ask fairer than that.

I'd certainly agree with you that the state largely does not work for the common interest. On that point both Socialism and Libertarianism has a common goal, i.e. destruction of the power/influence that occurs when a vested interest gains influence in the state.

Our approaches though are obviously radically different. Libertarianism seeks to break the link by weakening the state to the point that it cannot benefit the vested interest, while Socialism seek to break the link through regulation and enforcement both of and by the state.

Why weaken the state though? Why not strengthen it so it is a tool of the worker? The people who contribute the most are rewarded the most, isn't that true freedom? In a socialist state there can be no vested interests as that would conflict with the majority.

The problem as I see it is that by using regulation and enforcement, you end up encroaching on the freedom you aim to achieve.

Freedom to do what though? The only "freedom" it encroaches on is the freedom to amass wealth at the expense of society as a whole. Why should individuals be allowed to amass wealth that's out of line with their contribution? What good does it really do?

Brian?

KyussBishop wrote: »

The whole problem is that both polarities of socialism and libertarianism, in their extremes, massively curtail freedoms (simple labeling and generalizing about either doesn't help); the freedom and choice in libertarianism, becomes more illusory the more extreme the policies you choose, it's no panacea.

You need a balance basically; as shít as government is in many areas, it's the lesser evil in some ares, and should stay totally out of other areas.

Tell me exactly what freedoms socialism curtails.

KyussBishop

briankeating wrote: »

Tell me exactly what freedoms socialism curtails.

It depends on what variety and how extreme its policies are; a completely planned economy is particularly susceptible to corruption, leading to indirect loss of freedoms as power concentrates to those who gain greater control over (and who abuse that control over) government, and over certain industries too as a result.

I'm not saying all socialism is bad (and neither all libertarianism), just that when either are put to their extremes it is damaging; that's why it's not helpful to pick a label 'socialism'/'libertarianism' and start bashing it wholesale.

For instance, as much as I disagree with some aspects of libertarianism, it's usually policies centered around right/austro libertarianism, not every single facet of it; most people are somewhat libertarian when it comes to society.

Blowfish

briankeating wrote: »

None of that matters in a socialist state as the accumulation of wealth is no longer necessary.

It doesn't really matter if it's a necessity or not, some people will wish to pursue it.

briankeating wrote: »

The method of compensation and reward in a socialist society would be based on an authentic meritocracy, along the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution".

Without the price system though, how does one work out the 'contribution' that a particular role in the meritocracy has? How do you work out it's compensation? How do you incentivise people to always perform to their best?

How does this take into account scarcity? How does it handle the problem of knowing how much of any particular good is required for the economy at any one point? i.e. how does the state calculate opportunity cost or make marginal decisions?

Also, how do you envisage a socialist society working in relation to any surrounding societies that aren't socialist? Would there be free trade? How would the socialist state calculate the volume and price of goods it needs from the other states?

briankeating wrote: »

See the above, wealth is longer a goal and providing for ones offspring is no longer necessary because they will be given equal oppurtunity with everyone else.

Again, it wouldn't be about necessity, but about fulfilling the parents desire for the offspring to begin from a better material state than they did.

briankeating wrote: »

It's up to them how they chose to use this oppurtunity. Can't ask fairer than that.

You are far more idealistic about people's motivations than I am.

Personally I don't see that it's possible to eliminate self interest from society, nor should a society which promotes freedom attempt to do so. Any political system that does not take self interest into account though is going to have major issues. For me, instead of fighting self interest, it should be allowed, but done in such a way that it has a secondary effect of benefiting society while it's being pursued. The free market does this pretty well.

briankeating wrote: »

Why weaken the state though? Why not strengthen it so it is a tool of the worker?

In essence, the state you mention would be a monopoly which it is impossible to go against as it controls the entire means of production.

briankeating wrote: »

In a socialist state there can be no vested interests as that would conflict with the majority.

The majority can be a vested interest though. As a (probably overly simplistic) example, say the state/people decide they would like some hot beverages so put aside some land to produce this.

Now what happens if 60% of the population love coffee but hate tea? They would then use their majority to have the land planted with coffee plants. What of the 40% that want tea though? Why should they lose the choice of what to drink because the majority says so?

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

Tell me exactly what freedoms socialism curtails.

The freedom to keep the money that you earned. The freedom to run the business you set up the way you want to. It's like socialists assume that every human being is this robot who's satisfied with living some lower middle class life. It's a crusade against natural instincts.

20Cent

Can anyone tell me what legislation Ron Paul has passed? How has he built a long term political movement?

FreudianSlippers

20Cent wrote: »

Can anyone tell me what legislation Ron Paul has passed? How has he built a long term political movement?

He has sponsored hundreds of bills since the 1970s... his congressional record is freely available through the Library of Congress.

20Cent

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

He has sponsored hundreds of bills since the 1970s... his congressional record is freely available through the Library of Congress.

He's sponsored 464 bills in 14 years.
1 passed.
"To authorize the Administrator of General Services to convey a parcel of real property in Galveston, Texas, to the Galveston Historical Foundation."

Cracking record there.

Brian?

20Cent wrote: »

He's sponsored 464 bills in 14 years.
1 passed.
"To authorize the Administrator of General Services to convey a parcel of real property in Galveston, Texas, to the Galveston Historical Foundation."

Cracking record there.

I wonder where his Congressional district is?

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

I wonder where his Congressional district is?

Houston suburbs on the gulf coast.

Belfast

It seems to be that even if Ron Paul was a follower of Keynesian economics he would still be unelectable.

As he believes the the US constitution does not permit the federal reserve to issue currency or the Federal government has very limited powers control the economy.
These functions would need to be carried out by state governments and would be outside Ron Paul's control.

"The Powers Delegated to the Federal Government are Few and Defined
LIMITED: THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT

Federal violations of the Constitution goes beyond anything the founders and ratifiers would have accepted.

James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, "The powers delegated ... to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=535

Edit

I seems to me the main thing that makes Ron Paul unelectable is his views the limits in the constitution on the power of the federal government. Whether his economic are Austrian or Keynesian he would have very little control of the economic policies of state governments could pursue.

Under a Keynesian Ron Paul President America would be more like the EU with most control over the economy at state level not a federal level.

Channel Zero

Wrong Paul failed to gain popularity because of his genocidal economic policies. Simple.

The corporate elite know it would send the country down the drain. So they're plumping for Romney's starve the beast policy. Which sends the country down the drain anyway, but they get to make their money at the same time.

troposphere

I doubt the "corporate elite" gave much thought to Ron Paul. The guys appeal was vastly overestimated by his crazy supporters.

matthew8

Genocidal economic policies? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Channel Zero

matthew8 wrote: »

Genocidal economic policies? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Cutting €1 trillion just in the first year.
Cuts of 44% to child health insurance
35% cut to Medicaid
6O+% cut to Food Stamps that are relied on by 50 million US citizens
Link
Link
Link

matthew8

Channel Zero wrote: »

Cutting €1 trillion just in the first year.
Cuts of 44% to child health insurance
35% cut to Medicaid
6O+% cut to Food Stamps that are relied on by 50 million US citizens
Link
Link
Link

But genocide? Do you even know what that word means?

Belfast

Channel Zero wrote: »

Wrong Paul failed to gain popularity because of his genocidal economic policies. Simple.

The corporate elite know it would send the country down the drain. So they're plumping for Romney's starve the beast policy. Which sends the country down the drain anyway, but they get to make their money at the same time.

and Obama and Romney are not going to send the economy down the drain?

corporate elite are one of the vested interests that would lose out under Ron Paul.

Are you saying if his economy policies were Keynesian like the other candidates , but wanted leave control of the economy to state governments to do he would be electable?

Belfast

Channel Zero wrote: »

Cutting €1 trillion just in the first year.
Cuts of 44% to child health insurance
35% cut to Medicaid
6O+% cut to Food Stamps that are relied on by 50 million US citizens
Link
Link
Link

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

KyussBishop

At a brief look on websites related to him, he is an advocate of 'sound money' and it seems more particularly, a gold standard.

A gold standard is deflationary (as would be a bimetal silver/gold standard, most likely), which is quite an inherently unfair way to base currency because it rewards hoarding of money with an inherent accumulation of wealth (money increases in value all the time), through no productive effort whatsoever.

Obviously, the primary beneficiaries of this would be those that already have a lot of money; creating a regressive system, which is in effect a de-facto tax on economic growth.


I don't think, offhand, that there are setups of 'sound money' that don't either lead to deflation, or lead to potential for manipulation (which erodes their benefit over fiat); though if anyone thinks there is I'd be interested in hearing the details.

poeticseraphim

Hi

I think the problem for libertarianism is that the Ayn Rand roots of the ideology expose it's hypocracy , she accepted medicare at the end of her life, this despising taxation and social services as 'cannabalim'.

One of the main fallacies of libertarianism is that you can put your needs first and fully achieve the potentional of your ambitions without huge co-operation of others and services. It would not be a capitalism society it would be a pre-capitalist society. You need the decades of investment to build up infrastructure that surrounds capitalism.

You best potect your position in society by protecting society.


On a pragmatic level a lot of early rhetoric of libertarians is so heavily influenced by Ayn Rand who considered altruism to be evil that Jesus was the worst thing to happen to humanity. She also despised disabled people. I don't think it would fly with many who might be in the target demographic for libertarians.

Also ...you could argue that really America has been ruled by a Libertarian ideology Alan greenspan has heavily influenced almost every administration. Look where it got American economics it has gone years backwards.

It is an uncivilised backward ideology. It would work for large populations. people need things ro unite them.

America is a top heavy economy ..with a lot of wealth in a small percentage ...but these people still need nurses doctors teachers..road sweepers..and these people need services...they best protect their businesses by proctecting the roads their trucks transport goods on etc

The rich need the infrastructure to protect their wealth and they need an educated workforce and services at cheap prices....if capatalism took over there would be even less icentive for people to be nurses and such and the wealthy need good investment in these professions and their educational bodies too and regulation..

Thats why libetarianism has never found a base.

The only places where no taxation works in my knowledge are places with oil other other natural comodities to support investment in infrastructure.

Blowfish

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I think the problem for libertarianism is that the Ayn Rand roots of the ideology expose it's hypocracy , she accepted medicare at the end of her life, this despising taxation and social services as 'cannabalim'.

She opposed enforcing of those services, she had no problem with them existing.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

One of the main fallacies of libertarianism is that you can put your needs first and fully achieve the potentional of your ambitions without huge co-operation of others and services.

Where did you get that idea that Libertarians oppose co-operation with others when fulfilling ambitions? The free market by it's definition requires social cooperation. The entire point of Libertarianism is that this cooperation should be voluntary rather than enforced.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

On a pragmatic level a lot of early rhetoric of libertarians is so heavily influenced by Ayn Rand who considered altruism to be evil that Jesus was the worst thing to happen to humanity. She also despised disabled people. I don't think it would fly with many who might be in the target demographic for libertarians.

Actually, Rand was an Objectivist who disowned Libertarianism.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Also ...you could argue that really America has been ruled by a Libertarian ideology Alan greenspan has heavily influenced almost every administration. Look where it got American economics it has gone years backwards.

Given that the mess he caused was by actively using the state to intervene in the economy, it's difficult to see how he was a Libertarian.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

It is an uncivilised backward ideology. It would work for large populations. people need things ro unite them.

Why would these 'things' needed for uniting people not exist in a Libertarian society?

poeticseraphim wrote: »

America is a top heavy economy ..with a lot of wealth in a small percentage ...but these people still need nurses doctors teachers..road sweepers..and these people need services...they best protect their businesses by proctecting the roads their trucks transport goods on etc.

The rich need the infrastructure to protect their wealth and they need an educated workforce and services at cheap prices....if capatalism took over there would be even less icentive for people to be nurses and such and the wealthy need good investment in these professions and their educational bodies too and regulation..

Absolutely they would need these. Why then do you think that the rich wouldn't pay handsomely to ensure these take place in a Libertarian society? If, as you say, the wealthy will always need to invest in these, what makes you think they wouldn't?

poeticseraphim wrote: »

The only places where no taxation works in my knowledge are places with oil other other natural comodities to support investment in infrastructure.

The first peacetime income tax in the US was only introduced in 1894. Do you think they had no roads before then?