Ron Paul Presidential Video

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

So if he's not in favor of outlawing abortion on a federal level, and he's not in favor of infringing on "gay rights" on a federal level, then I don't see how this could possibly be seen as a vice to you.

Puts a hell of a lot of faith in his convictions. He won't get elected without conservative Christians, he won't get conservative Christians without speaking about speaking about these issues. Then you expect him to veto bills he got elected under (assuming he did the aforementioned)?


(essentially I am wondering if we are really saying he is going to get elected as a republican, then spend his time in office vetoing most of the republican platform)

[R-Type]

so I guess this guy doesn't mind if I dump my used petroleum into his water supply because it's cheaper for me? He misses the fact that reducing governmental power alone is worthless because the now unchecked powerful private interests will rise up to fill that vacuum with their own self-serving agendas. What changes for me? not a thing. For example, he mentions privacy. What happens to that in his society? Well, I have 'privacy' as long as I choose not to do business with anyone who demands my personal information before selling product. What corporations aren't interested in my information? None. What corporations would go right along with 'information requests' done by whatever's left of law enforcement or anyone else with sufficient funds to bribe? All of them. So much for privacy.

All he'd accomplish here is a shift in who has the power, not a redistribution of it. Personally, I don't see a difference between big statist government and corporate autocracy. They're both run by people who lust for power and privilege at others' expense. Whether it's kim jong II or enron/exxon, it makes no difference to me because, unchecked, they both pose threats to my life and/or liberty.

[lew]

Originally Posted by R-Type

so I guess this guy doesn't mind if I dump my used petroleum into his water supply because it's cheaper for me? He misses the fact that reducing governmental power alone is worthless because the now unchecked powerful private interests will rise up to fill that vacuum with their own self-serving agendas. What changes for me? not a thing. For example, he mentions privacy. What happens to that in his society? Well, I have 'privacy' as long as I choose not to do business with anyone who demands my personal information before selling product. What corporations aren't interested in my information? None. What corporations would go right along with 'information requests' done by whatever's left of law enforcement or anyone else with sufficient funds to bribe? All of them. So much for privacy.

All he'd accomplish here is a shift in who has the power, not a redistribution of it. Personally, I don't see a difference between big statist government and corporate autocracy. They're both run by people who lust for power and privilege at others' expense. Whether it's kim jong II or enron/exxon, it makes no difference to me because, unchecked, they both pose threats to my life and/or liberty.

Corporations are not a threat to you - as long as they don't have the backing of the government.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by lew

Corporations are not a threat to you - as long as they don't have the backing of the government.

really? how about insurance companies? heavy industry? you're telling me they're altruistic entities? please.. both are private interests who wouldn't blink twice at choosing profit over my general wellbeing... whether it's personal health or paving over my property to make room for a new factory. Liberty is worthless if it can only be guaranteed to the highest bidder.

[lew]

Originally Posted by R-Type

really? how about insurance companies? heavy industry? you're telling me they're altruistic entities? please.. both are private interests who wouldn't blink twice at choosing profit over my general wellbeing... whether it's personal health or paving over my property to make room for a new factory. Liberty is worthless if it can only be guaranteed to the highest bidder.

Those companies are only horrendous now because of government forced laws that require certain services.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by lew

Those companies are only horrendous now because of government forced laws that require certain services.

yes because my friendly neighborhood insurance conglomerate cares for nothing but my wellbeing? No. The only thing that concerns them is their bottom line. They could give a shit about my rights. I'm sure governmental interference adds cost, but it's a drop in the bucket compared with the need for ever increasing profit margins. Their stock exchange rates are more important to them than anything else.

[Diamond Cross]

So do you believe that corporations can do no wrong except when governments get involved?

[lew]

Originally Posted by R-Type

yes because my friendly neighborhood insurance conglomerate cares for nothing but my wellbeing? No. The only thing that concerns them is their bottom line. They could give a shit about my rights.

You don't have an understanding of the free market.


The free market has this "magical" propety to it that when people seek out their own best interests, it benefits society as a whole.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So do you believe that corporations can do no wrong except when governments get involved?

Corporations can screw people over. No doubt about it.


There are scam artists out there.


However, the scams are about 1% or less of the real, legit corporations. Most corporations today that people perceive as evil, are exactly that way because of the government's legislation that allows them to be that way.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by lew

Corporations can screw people over. No doubt about it.


There are scam artists out there.


However, the scams are about 1% or less of the real, legit corporations. Most corporations today that people perceive as evil, are exactly that way because of the government's legislation that allows them to be that way.

so if we remove all gov't regulation, they'll suddenly cease their 'evil' ways? I highly doubt that. most regulation is put in place to prevent the abuse of citizens' liberties. Its effectiveness is variable at best, but that's the reason why it's done.

[Donkey®]

This guy has absolutely no chance. I'd honestly be surprised if he didn't drop out.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by lew

You don't have an understanding of the free market.


The free market has this "magical" propety to it that when people seek out their own best interests, it benefits society as a whole.

I prefer the Adam Smith term "invisible hand" but you got it!


Invisible hand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by R-Type

so if we remove all gov't regulation, they'll suddenly cease their 'evil' ways? I highly doubt that. most regulation is put in place to prevent the abuse of citizens' liberties. Its effectiveness is variable at best, but that's the reason why it's done.

No! But "they" get exposed fast enough. It is far better a system than government protecting the corrupt failures against competition and market choice! Not perfect, but much better. The biggest example is how banking can be so wreakless in what they do with so much federal protection. The FDIC insurance protects them a whole lot more than it protects your deposit. In a free market system the corrupt and incompetent banks would fail in short time and the responcible would be well known.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

This guy has absolutely no chance. I'd honestly be surprised if he didn't drop out.

I think he's got a great chance.


He'll be on CNN Monday night with Lou Dobbs and he has been invited to CNN's first Presidential Debate in a couple months. Most people on the Interent love him and there is a vast grassroots movement right now.


I think he has a real legit shot here, small though it may be.

[Ardentfrost]

I think his biggest hurdle will be the RNC since he's running Republican. Even if a lot of people across the nation like him, it's the super-republicans that must give him the thumbs up.

But it'd be pimp if he continued to run as independant or even *gasp* libertarian.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

No! But "they" get exposed fast enough. It is far better a system than government protecting the corrupt failures against competition and market choice! Not perfect, but much better.

Exposed, laughed at, wrist-slapped, but not really punished since a weak government can do little to rectify wrongdoing. Today's corporates scale world wide, and with some cash, it's quite easy to lock up entire markets and skirt the law. Once one is free of the 'bothersome' shackles of real competition, he can jack up prices, cut safety corners (for employees, consumers, and the general population) and there's not a damn thing anyone can legally do about it. Some proactive force has to be able to reign in powerful interests when they get out of control because the 'free market' is unpredictable and uncaring of what it does to liberty and the human condition. How can one maintain access to his liberty while functioning in a system where it is blatantly bought and sold as a commodity?

Please note that I don't advocate statist gov't either because that would still be placing all the eggs in one basket so to speak.

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

The biggest example is how banking can be so wreakless in what they do with so much federal protection. The FDIC insurance protects them a whole lot more than it protects your deposit. In a free market system the corrupt and incompetent banks would fail in short time and the responcible would be well known.

Well that's what we had before the depression, yes? That turned out well. If I recall, lots of people lost lots of cash because of stupid decisions on the parts of those unregulated banks. ...and no, I'm not implying that the lack of FDIC, or free market forces by themselves, caused the depression.

----
Anyway a lot of what this guy said seemed good, it's just that I don't buy how he hopes to maintain such a thing. I do question his voting record though.