another Ron Paul post

[Universe Prince]

Ron Paul on Jay Leno:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0KwY9Uzqtk

I did not see the show, but I've heard that John Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten of the band Sex Pistols) seems to be something of a fan.

[Michael Tee]

Pretty slick message.  Attracts the anti-imperialists with an isolationist message (which he very unconvincingly denies) which was the heart of old-fashioned Robert Taft Republicanism and sells them on laissez-faire domestic policies which in effect roll back every last vestige of the New Deal.  You can have a liberal (non-interventionist, anti-imperial) foreign policy, and presumably a liberal domestic social policy but you have to agree to live in a Darwinian domestic economy.  No more social welfare safety nets.

I don't even know if I'd agree with that kind of foreign policy.  America's economic needs being what they are, a governmental withdrawal from "imperial" adventurism would leave a vacuum that Amerikkkan capitalism (at its most irresponsible) would have to fill.  There'd be an inevitable return of Somoza-Trujillo-Batista clones to rule over whatever parts of Latin America are vulnerable, but I guess the upside would be that Chavez and Castro would be able to take a freer hand to forstall the return of fascism.  Sounds like a bad deal in the long run.  Big money can subvert and ruin even the most idealistic of socialist states over time, as the real revolutionaries die out and are replaced with opportunists and careerists.  So the net result would probably be more fascism in the Third World, at least in the short run.  The up-side would probably be a shot in the arm for the international communist movement and maybe with any luck at all, World Socialist Revolution, depending on how bad things become under Third World fascism.

At home, just a dog-eat-dog Darwinian society, a kind of pre-New-Deal Amerikkka where the states enforce (or not) their own voting rights and civil rights legislation and what you save on social welfare safety nets gets blown on more policing and prison costs.

In a nutshell, this guy is just looking for a way to retreat from the post-war 20th century.  He's spring-boarding off the anti-war  vote.

[Religious Dick]

In a nutshell, this guy is just looking for a way to retreat from the post-war 20th century.  He's spring-boarding off the anti-war  vote.

"One of the authors of the Daniel Bell volume says, in horror and astonishment, that the radical right intends to repeal the twentieth century. Heaven forfend! Who would want to repeal the twentieth century, the century of horror, the century of collectivism, the century of mass destruction and genocide, who would want to repeal that! Well, we propose to do just that.

With the inspiration of the death of the Soviet Union before us, we now know that it can be done. We shall break the clock of social democracy. We shall break the clock of the Great Society. We shall break the clock of the welfare state. We shall break the clock of the New Deal. We shall break the clock of Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom and perpetual war. We shall repeal the twentieth century.

One of the most inspiring and wonderful sights of our time was to see the peoples of the Soviet Union rising up, last year, to tear down in their fury the statues of Lenin, to obliterate the Leninist legacy. We, too, shall tear down all the statues of Franklin D. Roosevelt, of Harry Truman, of Woodrow Wilson, melt them down and beat them into plowshares and pruninghooks, and usher in a twenty-first century of peace, freedom and prosperity."

--Murray Rothbard

[Xavier_Onassis]

We, too, shall tear down all the statues of Franklin D. Roosevelt, of Harry Truman, of Woodrow Wilson, melt them down and beat them into plowshares and pruninghooks, and usher in a twenty-first century of peace, freedom and prosperity."

\
=======================================================================
That's just stupid. This will never happen.

In the US they haven't even torn down statues of Jefferson Davis. Americans do not tear down statues. Period.

[Lanya]

I bet that Murray Rothbard is going to cash his Social Security checks.  I wonder if he drives on the socialized roads and gets the socialized mail, and eats government-inspected meat?  Or if his house burns does he not call the socialized fire department?   Does he hire his own detectives and bodyguards so he doesn't have to use the socialized (all of us pay for them) police?
What a guy. 

[sirs]

And yet again the knee jerk response that those that don't support widespread insidious Government control of every aspect of their lives, doesn't want any, zip, nada, Government intervention, in any way, shape, or form.  Sad, but unfortunately consistent       

[Xavier_Onassis]

And yet again the knee jerk response that those that don't support widespread insidious Government control of every aspect of their lives, doesn't want any, zip, nada, Government intervention, in any way, shape, or form.  Sad, but unfortunately consistent       
=======================================================================
Anyone who feels that the government is too oppressive in the US can choose many other places to live where they will be pretty much entirely free, free free of government control.. The Bay Islands of Honduras, many communities in Panama andCosta Rica, parts of Alaska and Northern Canada, Mongolia, and several of the Pacific island nations offer this.

You won't find many of these libertarian assholes in any of these places, because they want socialized police, socialized transportation facilities and decent heatlh care. Lord forbid they would have to learn a foreign language. They are, in a word, hypocrites and not to be taken seriously.

And no one does, to be sure.

Except perhaps sirs and UP.

[Universe Prince]

In a nutshell, this guy is just looking for a way to retreat from the post-war 20th century.

In a nutshell, you're wrong.

America's economic needs being what they are, a governmental withdrawal from "imperial" adventurism would leave a vacuum that Amerikkkan capitalism (at its most irresponsible) would have to fill.  There'd be an inevitable return of Somoza-Trujillo-Batista clones to rule over whatever parts of Latin America are vulnerable, but I guess the upside would be that Chavez and Castro would be able to take a freer hand to forstall the return of fascism.

Let me get this straight, you are actually arguing in favor of American imperialism? 'Cause that has worked out so (not) well. I would not idolize Chavez and Castro, if I were a socialist. Chavez and Castro are the kind of socialists, seems to me, that Orwell (a socialist) tried to warn people about.

At home, just a dog-eat-dog Darwinian society, a kind of pre-New-Deal Amerikkka where the states enforce (or not) their own voting rights and civil rights legislation and what you save on social welfare safety nets gets blown on more policing and prison costs.

Ah yes, the old Social Darwinism bit. It always pops up when people discuss liberty. And the funny thing is, much of the time, the people who bring it up are the folks to complain about things like fascism (usually from the left) or socialism (usually from the right). And what people usually mean by Social Darwinism is some sort of every person for himself society where criminality runs rampant and people (anyone but the absolute wealthiest people) die horrible, lingering deaths all alone with no one to care. Scary isn't it? The problem is, that whole scenario (that Michael Tee tries to express with "dog-eat-dog Darwinian society" and "Amerikkka") is entirely wrong. Not pre-New Deal, merely a post-New Deal progress that reasonably addresses what is left of a program that hobbled economic and individual progress. The old "people will become financially better off if we just keep taking money away from them" thinking belongs in the dustbin of history along with the geo-centric universe.

Ultimately the problem with Michael Tee's complaint is that it is based on the notion the people need a government to tell them how to live. Otherwise society will devolve into "dog-eat-dog Darwinian society" of chaos and criminals, like some sort of movie version of a bad town in the Old West. This would likely be why he finds appealing the notion of authoritarian rulers like Castro and Chavez rising in power. Society must be controlled. Capitalists, he insists, would resort of fascism of the worst kind, but socialists like Castro and Chavez are going to help save us from ourselves. We're supposed to hate people who attain economic wealth by running a company that produces, via the cooperation of many people, something many more people want, but we're supposed to like people who want people to become the servants of the state, i.e. the ruler, and will do what is necessary to support that goal. Do you see what this means? You're all selfish children who need someone to think of your best interests for you because you cannot be allowed to do that on your own. From this view of society comes the notion that liberty is going to result in Social Darwinism.

I should point out here that I don't really care if people like Michael Tee want to live in a socialist society. What I care about is that people like Michael Tee want to see that everyone lives in a socialist society whether or not everyone else wants to do so. I realize that folks like Michael Tee think of that position as humane and as helping other people. I don't agree with them. What they don't seem to realize is that I think of my position as humane and as helping other people. If other people want to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler, I don't want to stop them. I just don't want them acting to force everyone else to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler. I see this as little different than, say, Christian fundamentalists deciding they want to have their lives ruled by the Bible and their preachers. I don't care, so long as they don't try to force everyone else to do the same. And if you look at their arguments, the folks like Michael Tee and the fundamentalist Christians, they are quite similar. Without the control of their preferred rulers, society will devolve into the worst possible scenario because there are evil forces that would ruin everything for everyone, and everyone is too selfish to be allowed the liberty to make such decisions for themselves. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. It comes down to the same thing, controlling society.

Is liberty a panacea, a cure-all for society? Absolutely not. I'm not suggesting there would be no problems. I'm merely saying that I think people have a right to their own lives, their own liberty, and their own pursuits of happiness. I'm not calling for no government, just a better one, one that protects the rights of individuals rather than imposing the social desires of some on everyone else. And I can already guess the comeback. Aren't I arguing for the imposition of my social desires on everyone else? No. I'm not arguing for the imposition of anything. The right to freedom of religion does not impose a religion on other people. Arguing for freedom of association does not stop you from deciding to live with Socialists or fundamentalist Christians or anarcho-Capitalists or Wiccans or teetotaler, vegan, free-love Atheists. Nothing is imposed on you, but nothing is imposed on others either.

[Universe Prince]

Anyone who feels that the government is too oppressive in the US can choose many other places to live where they will be pretty much entirely free, free free of government control.. The Bay Islands of Honduras, many communities in Panama andCosta Rica, parts of Alaska and Northern Canada, Mongolia, and several of the Pacific island nations offer this.

You won't find many of these libertarian assholes in any of these places, because they want socialized police, socialized transportation facilities and decent heatlh care. Lord forbid they would have to learn a foreign language. They are, in a word, hypocrites and not to be taken seriously.

Actually, wanting to live in a modern society does not make libertarians hypocrites any more than you living in the U.S. when the government was controlled by the Republicans makes you a hypocrite. Many libertarians seek to change the country in which they live, change toward what they believe would be a better society. You can scoff, but that isn't any different than what Democrats keep saying about America needing a change from President Bush and his neo-con pals. That Democrats who hate Bush and the neo-cons still live here and seek change is not heralded as hypocrisy. I don't see people telling you to move to Switzerland or Norway or Venezuela or Cuba. You're the hypocrite for suggesting libertarians should all leave if they don't like it here. When you move, then maybe you'll have some grounds to talk about libertarians leaving the country.

They are, in a word, hypocrites and not to be taken seriously.

And no one does, to be sure.

Except perhaps sirs and UP.

You say that as if someone should be taking you seriously. Sorry, but you've just proven people should not take you seriously. Well, that's not entirely true. I'm not sorry.

[sirs]

I should point out here that I don't really care if people like Michael Tee want to live in a socialist society. What I care about is that people like Michael Tee want to see that everyone lives in a socialist society whether or not everyone else wants to do so..... If other people want to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler, I don't want to stop them. I just don't want them acting to force everyone else to have their lives controlled by an authoritarian ruler.

QOTD material         

*Golf Clap*

[Universe Prince]

I bet that Murray Rothbard is going to cash his Social Security checks.

Actually, Rothbard is dead. But would it really make him a hypocrite to take back money that had first been taken from him by the government? And what the hell is with the socialized roads comment? You expect all principled libertarians to stay home and refuse to take part in society? Don't be ridiculous. Or did you refuse to accept the income tax cut and make sure to pay your income taxes at 1999 rates? Do you refuse to travel on private roads? Would you refuse help from, say, a security guard if you were being mugged? Have you refused to ever eat, say, venison that was killed and butchered without being inspected by the government?

[Michael Tee]

<<"One of the authors of the Daniel Bell volume says, in horror and astonishment, that the radical right intends to repeal the twentieth century. Heaven forfend! Who would want to repeal the twentieth century, the century of horror, the century of collectivism, the century of mass destruction and genocide, who would want to repeal that! Well, we propose to do just that.>>

Ludicrous.  What they want to repeal is all the good of the 20th century - - basically the New Deal - - and bring back everything bad, basically fascism and socio-economic Darwinism.  Oh, and here's a little cookie for all you liberals: the state will get out of the bedrooms of the nation.

<<With the inspiration of the death of the Soviet Union before us, we now know that it can be done. We shall break the clock of social democracy. We shall break the clock of the Great Society. We shall break the clock of the welfare state. We shall break the clock of the New Deal. We shall break the clock of Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom and perpetual war. We shall repeal the twentieth century.>>

Crazy and frightening at the same time.  I bet Hitler inspired pretty much the same mix of derisive laughter, incredulity, fear and disgust in his day.  These lunatics aren't dangerous at almost any point in the time-line, but they have the potential to wreak havoc when conditions combine to make people forget their common sense and vote for this kind of crap out of desperation.

<<One of the most inspiring and wonderful sights of our time was to see the peoples of the Soviet Union rising up, last year, to tear down in their fury the statues of Lenin, to obliterate the Leninist legacy. >>

Biggest mistake they ever made, as they are now starting to realize.  Luckily Putin is showing some common sense here at last.

<<We, too, shall tear down all the statues of Franklin D. Roosevelt . . . >>

Bite your tongue!!  Somebody please wash his mouth out with soap!

[Michael Tee]

<<Let me get this straight, you are actually arguing in favor of American imperialism? >>

I'm against all forms of U.S. imperialism.  But state-sponsored is better than corporate-sponsored.  I'm for a society where the state respects the sovereignty of other nations and also either owns the means of production or closely audits the books of all companies  having business interests in foreign states to ensure that the corporations are not doing privately what the fascist Amerikkkan state formerly did publicly for their interests.

<<I would not idolize Chavez and Castro, if I were a socialist. Chavez and Castro are the kind of socialists, seems to me, that Orwell (a socialist) tried to warn people about.>>

Well I guess the people of liberated Venezuela and liberated Cuba aren't as impressed with Orwell's warnings as you are, or they don't see their leaders as the equivalent of Big Brother or Napoleon.  But hell, what would they know?  They only live there.

<< . . . the old Social Darwinism bit. It always pops up when people discuss liberty. >>

Yeah, well funny thing, there's a reason for that.

<<And the funny thing is, much of the time, the people who bring it up are the folks to complain about things like fascism (usually from the left) or socialism (usually from the right). >>

Why wouldn't an anti-fascist complain about social Darwinism?  To the extent that fascism provided ANY social welfare benefits, it was only to compete with the appeal of communism to the working class.  It was certainly not the social welfare aspects of fascism to which the anti-fascists and/or socialists objected.

<<And what people usually mean by Social Darwinism is some sort of every person for himself society where criminality runs rampant and people (anyone but the absolute wealthiest people) die horrible, lingering deaths all alone with no one to care. >>

Why not just say "pre-New-Deal Amerikkka?" 

<<Scary isn't it? >>

To most sane and normal people, yes.  That's why FDR was able to bring in the New Deal in the first place.  The folks had just about had it up the old wazoo with old-fashioned laissez-faire capitalism.  But don't worry - - they can have it back if they want.  All they have to do is listen to idiots like Murray Rothbard.

<<The problem is, that whole scenario (that Michael Tee tries to express with "dog-eat-dog Darwinian society" and "Amerikkka") is entirely wrong. Not pre-New Deal, merely a post-New Deal progress that reasonably addresses what is left of a program that hobbled economic and individual progress. >>

LOL.  I'm wrong about that, am I?  My parents, my aunts and uncles all LIVED though those years.  I know first-hand what they were like.    The Great Depression, the bread lines, the factory closings, the Hoovervilles, the labour violence, "Brother Can You Spare a Dime?, that's all just a figment of my imagination, right?  And before them, Coxey's Army, the Ludlow Massacre, the Pullman Strike, the child labour, the right to hire and fire on racial prejudice alone, the frauds on pension funds, the unregulated workplaces, the unregulated consumer products.  You don't know what you are talking about.  Plain and simple.

<< the The old "people will become financially better off if we just keep taking money away from them" thinking belongs in the dustbin of history along with the geo-centric universe.>>

The old people ARE better off when the government takes their money and invests it responsibly.  Period.  They are NOT better off when the banking and finance industry is allowed to get their dirty, greedy little fingers into it.  One financial scandal after another should prove that conclusively to anyone who has the basic reading skills to handle a daily newspaper.

<<Ultimately the problem with Michael Tee's complaint is that it is based on the notion the people need a government to tell them how to live. Otherwise society will devolve into "dog-eat-dog Darwinian society" of chaos and criminals, like some sort of movie version of a bad town in the Old West. >>

Uhh, no, actually more like America before the New Deal. In fact, EXACTLY like America before the New Deal.

<<We're supposed to hate people who attain economic wealth by running a company that produces  . . . something many more people want . . . >>

ROTFLMFAO.  I hate to bring you back to the real world when you're on such a roll, but the fact is that most of Amerikkka's wealthy are inheritors, and of those who made millionaire or higher "rank" on their own, most of them made it through speculation (i.e., gambling,) mainly in real estate.  Their sole contribution to a better world was to needlessly escalate housing prices through their bidding up the market so they could sell early and cash out. 

<< . . . but we're supposed to like people who want people to become the servants of the state>>

Uh, no again, you are wrong once more.  Socialists want the state to serve the people, to protect the people against exploitation, wage slavery, unregulated production of harmful products, unregulated workplaces (i.e. sweatshops, fire traps) and unregulated labour relations, i.e., sexual and other exploitation.  All the things that DID exist before the New Deal, and which the New Deal was intended to reduce or eliminate.  But never went far enough in its efforts.

 << Do you see what this means?  You're all selfish children who need someone to think of your best interests for you because you cannot be allowed to do that on your own. From this view of society comes the notion that liberty is going to result in Social Darwinism.>>

That last thought is breath-taking in its appeal to stupidity and egotism.  I have laid out for you readers what a socialist state is expected to do for its citizens.  Consider what I think a socialist government can and should do for people.  Then consider the way Prince characterizes both (a) what the socialist state can do for you as a citizen and (b) what kind of person you, as a citizen, must be if you wish to accept the services of such a state.  Are you really "selfish children" for expecting the state to regulate the production of drugs and food and baby cribs, etc. to reduce harm to the citizens?  To enforce safe-workplace laws, toxic pollution laws, etc. rather than leave them to the mercies of the marketplace and economic competition?  Do you really believe that on your own, you can enforce safety in the workplace, adherence to the highest standards of consumer safety, invest your savings wisely and never get ripped off in the world of financial services, thereby guaranteeing yourselves a secure old age?

Prince is appealing to your ego and fantasizing a world that never was and never will be.  In the real world, there are unscrupulous manufacturers, and unscrupulous employers, financial sharks, swindlers and con men.  You may or may not navigate the real world successfully on your own.  Before the New Deal, many did not.  There will still be Triangle Shirtwaist fires in workplaces, poisonous products sold in the marketplace, none of these things can ever be eliminated 100%.  But the New Deal and its reforms cut back significantly and to a very large degree on all kinds of abuses.  It DID provide a safety net.  Anyone who thinks in this complex society we live in that he or she can do it all on his or her own is just living in a dreamworld.  Many cannot.  And the abolition of the social safety nets is guaranteed to bring back what already was.  Prince is telling you to ride on top of the elevator cab in your apartment building - - it's fun and nobody ever falls off.  Don't be so fucking stupid.

<<Is liberty a panacea, a cure-all for society? Absolutely not. I'm not suggesting there would be no problems. I'm merely saying that I think people have a right to their own lives, their own liberty, and their own pursuits of happiness. >>

People had all that before the New Deal, and the New Deal left their right to their own lives and liberty largely intact (except that nobody's free to set his own standards if he manufactures drugs for public consumption or operates a workplace that he or she thinks is "safe enough.")  Pretty much everybody can pursue happiness his or her own way.  Your argument, to the extent that you imply that a socialist state imperils liberty, the right to pursue happiness, etc. is flagrantly dishonest.  The activities that are regulated are largely those that impact upon other people's lives and happiness. 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I didn't say Libertarians should leave. I said they COULD leave. They don't like government, and there are places that have very little government. The Cayman Islands will allow anyone with a decent sum of money to live there with no real irritating government regulations. The people are well-educated and speak English with a pleasant lilt. The weather is nice, and there is always a tropical breeze.

I mean, if the goal of the Libertarian is to be free of Big Brother, then they could realize that they do not have to live across the street from said oppressive sibling.

There is no chance that they are going to b

If Libertarians were taken seriously, they would be elected in far greater numbers than just Ron Paul. We would award Ayn Rand the Medal of Freedom posthumously at the very latest. I am not the only one that refuses to take them seriously. I favor some of their views, such as the futility of the war on drugs, and their opposition to government intervention in education, sex and sexual orientation.

[Plane]

The old people ARE better off when the government takes their money and invests it responsibly. 

This never happens , the Social Security Administration was robbed by our Congress , who would have predicted that the congress would be attracted by a big pot of money?

Prince is appealing to your ego and fantasizing a world that never was and never will be.  In the real world, there are unscrupulous manufacturers, and unscrupulous employers, financial sharks, swindlers and con men.  You may or may not navigate the real world successfully on your own.  Before the New Deal, many did not.  There will still be Triangle Shirtwaist fires in workplaces, poisonous products sold in the marketplace, none of these things can ever be eliminated 100%. 

Like conditions in China?
The energy and productivity of China , as well as their seeming contempt for safety , remind one of 19th century America quite a bit. America was not all bad before FDR there was a lot of good going on and now that FDR has had his day whatever good he has done will not be forgotten or abandoned , Trueman said that in the USA no good idea is ever forgotten , of course he was talking about the Populist platform which got replayed in the Democratic platform because you can't patent these good ideas , and ou can't get rid of thm till the people stop likeing the idea.