Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Curious......Whats so great bout ron paul???
Elevz:
--- Quote from: The Overfiend on May 25, 2007, 07:16:54 AM ---When you scale down government, all those responsibilities the government previously had end up falling to private contractors and big business, big business becomes symbiotic with the government. The US needs a high wall between state and business, in the same fashion as the wall between church and state. If Ron Paul is 'against big government', without recognising that, he is no different from Bush.
--- End quote ---
I like the thinking behind that, +1
jeromechickenbone:
He's against big government in the centralized form. He believes that the centralized government aka Washington should have a scaled back role, and that the individual states should mandate their laws.
It's the exact same cause that lead to the Civil War - State Rights vs. a strong centralized government.
He's not saying to do away with government, he's saying it's gotten WAY too far away from states rights and into one almighty powerful dictatorship basically.
J @ M @ L:
Ron Paul ownz the Fed.
Shallow:
--- Quote from: The Overfiend on May 25, 2007, 07:16:54 AM ---
--- Quote from: Shallow on May 23, 2007, 05:15:01 AM ---
--- Quote from: The Overfiend on May 22, 2007, 08:26:55 PM ---Somebody has to keep order in the world, the idea of an unregulated free market is nuts. Slave trading, weapons trafficking, you name it, there are downsides to letting the free market run utterly free. If we are going to have a One World Market, we need a regulator of that market, an umpire at least with the ability to enforce the rules. The idea that the UN has too much power is a joke, it is impotent as to it's true cause and intention because it depends on the US. Therefore, it would probably be a good idea for the US to take a break from the security council, it's not like it adheres to International law anyway, a break from the security council only, not from the entire UN movement. But whether the president wants it or not, I doubt the US would give up it's veto power, even for an instant, Paul's changes are so radical it wouldnt surprise me if he ended up dead at the apex of some symbolic triangle, with the media blaming it on black religious radicals.
--- End quote ---
No libertarian believes in a completely unregulated market. Obviously some things will be illegal (like selling human beings as slaves) and people breaking laws will be punished. Paul's objective is to take care of America before it goes into the shitter. He sees a downward turn on the horizon and he wants to prevent it.
--- End quote ---
Ron Paul says he is against big government. But what does that mean? When you scale down government, all those responsibilities the government previously had end up falling to private contractors and big business, big business becomes symbiotic with the government. The US needs a high wall between state and business, in the same fashion as the wall between church and state. If Ron Paul is 'against big government', without recognising that, he is no different from Bush.
--- End quote ---
The difference is that there is only one government calling the shots and forcing us to do things. There is not one big business that would take over. A lot of businesses would emerge and they would compete against each other, and competition is always better than monopoly, particularly a monoply that has the power to send people to jail. A free market would be absolutely perfect. It would just be better in the end than it is now. Now if we're going into conspiracies of all the rich businessmen banding together then it won't be any different than it is now, except I won't have to pay stupid taxes. This idea that people have about society going to moral hell with out some socialist force keeping the evil businessmen honest just doesn't fly with me. I don't think the the top capitalists are great people therefore they won't screw people over. I think they'll want to treat consumers better than the other guy so we buy from them instead.
AndrE16686:
--- Quote from: Shallow on May 28, 2007, 06:12:35 AM ---A free market would be absolutely perfect. It would just be better in the end than it is now. Now if we're going into conspiracies of all the rich businessmen banding together then it won't be any different than it is now, except I won't have to pay stupid taxes. This idea that people have about society going to moral hell with out some socialist force keeping the evil businessmen honest just doesn't fly with me. I don't think the the top capitalists are great people therefore they won't screw people over. I think they'll want to treat consumers better than the other guy so we buy from them instead.
--- End quote ---
Believe me son, have you ever been overseas to a third world country? If you havent then you have never been to a REAL capitalist country. I recently been to the Philippines (among other places) and let me tell you that country is more purely capitalist than the USA or any European country. If you dont have money, you simply starve and die slowly wallowing in poverty. And poverty is only a word son, it dosnt describe the living pain, its something you have to experience for yourself. Sure the banks offer loans, but who can afford the interest and more importantly, the market is already full, forget about making a return. The fact is the Philippines has tourism and alot of exports, its potential markets have pretty much been fulfilled to their potential already, there is not much more prospect of growth, needless to say, people there live day to day, off less than 1 Australian dollar a day. The market has been fulfilled to its potential, there are heaps of locally owned business, but the fact is the market economy cant support everybody. So what happens to the remaining people not covered by the market? Well the slums are absolutely HUGE, im talking City of God here, they go on for horizon after horizon, children being raised in garbage tips, while we sit behind our LCD computer screens, praising the free market's name like it was a gold calf. The fact is when there is not a dollar to be made, businesses wont give a shit about people or the Earth. However, the government is supposed to, this is where government needs to differentiate between the people and business interests, the high wall of separation, I talked about. You cant tell me, 'an absolute free market would be perfect'. Such a thing dosnt exist, only theoretically. You say it would be better in the end than it is now, well bear in mind, between then and now, millions of human beings (not to mention the Earth, hoepfull only to certain extent) will slowly die in the process between then and now. Capitalism is morally corrupt. You cant deny it. But it is the only system the world has. So ill just go back to looking at high resolution pictures on my LCD screen while drinking my coke and icrecream. Socialism once may have been an alternative system, that time has gone, so the negative impact of capitalism on human lives is a fact that is supposed to be accepted. However, the impact on the environment is the new challenge to capitalism, because like the human element, it is not something that capitalism is geared to address. Despite what neo-liberals try to assure us, the free market will not handle the environmental challenge byitself as has been shown by its failure to address poverty. Therefore it is once again up to the socialist tradtion to regulate, although it is no longer called socialism, but follows in it's tradition.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version