Ron Paul is leading in the straw polls and being talked about non-stop, but...

[Nonphixion]

Dr. Ron Paul will be on Pappa Bear Bill O'Reilly "O'Reilly Factor" on Wednesday I believe.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

Dr. Ron Paul will be on Pappa Bear Bill O'Reilly "O'Reilly Factor" on Wednesday I believe.

I heard it was tonite.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I heard it was tonite.

It was tonight. Fairly good interview I guess.

[ccsraj]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

So he's unarguably one of the leading candidates according the straw polls, which debunks the hypothesis that it's "just a small online group."

• 6th (8%) - South Dakota Straw Poll (9/3/2007)
• 1st (27%) - Maryland Straw Poll (9/3/2007)
• 3rd (17%) - Texas Straw Poll (9/1/2007)
• 1st (45%) - Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (8/26/2007)
• 1st (24%) - DeKalb County, Georgia Straw Poll (8/25/2007)
• 3rd (16%) - HRCC, Minnesota (8/22/2007)
• 1st (28%) - Ronald Reagan Club, Washington (8/21/2007)
• 1st (81%) - West Alabama (8/18/2007)
• 1st (72%) - Strafford County, NH (8/18/2007)
• 4th (12%) - West Lafayette, Indiana (8/18/2007)
• 3rd (19%) - Illinois State Fair (8/17/2007)
• 4th (9%) - Students for Life of America (8/16/2007)
• 6th (4%) - Western Montana Fair (8/15/2007)
• 1st (37%) - Gaston County, NC (8/14/2007)
• 5th (9%) - Ames, Iowa (8/11/2007)
• 3rd (14%) - National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), St. Louis, MO (8/6/2007)

But yet he gets very little mention in Google News.


And even the major news outlets.




He wins all the straw polls, but gets no mention in the news. Anyone see a problem here?





And just for shits and giggles, I made this. It shows how much Ron Paul et al. are talked about in the blogosphere (top), compared to how much they're talked about in the news (bottom).


Take note that the most talked about candidate on the rest of the 'net is almost consistently the most talked about candidate in the news ... except when Ron Paul becomes the most talked about candidate online.

I dont think it will come true.

[Nonphixion]

Ron Paul bit his tongue like a gentleman on numerous occasions. Good show of reserve and limits by Dr. Paul

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Libertarians cannot have it both ways..if your for companies doing whatever they want to do with their media then don't cry about what they choose to show or not show..mass media is owned by corporations and by the libertarian standard, they can do whatever the hell they want too. They have no obligation to Ron Paul, to America or anyone else, if the people don't like it, don't read their papers or watch their programs.

Let the free market decide, oh wait they did, they don't want to hear about Ron Paul

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by lew

It was tonight. Fairly good interview I guess.

I am West Coast so I can catch that at 8PM here when they re-run the Factor. I will take a look.

[David Octavius]

I find it ironic that a growing number of libertarians are crying "conspiracy" against Ron Paul, that the media is purposefully keeping Ron Paul down and not exposing him to a broader audience.

Haven't they stopped to think that if it is a conspiracy, then that means the free market failed and failed in a big way? That the implication of what they are saying is that private companies are dictating the market place and not the consumers for something that is arguably the most important issue of our time?

If they want to scream conspiracy as a matter of fact then they just disapproved their whole ideology of the free market as King and the bastion of liberty - and for once they would be right.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I find it ironic that a growing number of libertarians are crying "conspiracy" against Ron Paul, that the media is purposefully keeping Ron Paul down and not exposing him to a broader audience.

Haven't they stopped to think that if it is a conspiracy, then that means the free market failed and failed in a big way? That the implication of what they are saying is that private companies are dictating the market place and not the consumers for something that is arguably the most important issue of our time?

If they want to scream conspiracy as a matter of fact then they just disapproved their whole ideology of the free market as King and the bastion of liberty - and for once they would be right.

I believe it's the increased stake a lot of industries hold in the outcome of elections that this brings to light. We all know the agreement Fox News has with the gov't in Iraq (and who knows what else that is unspoken), so what do they have to lose with Ron Paul in the white house? I'd say a bit.

That's an example, and I'm sure there's lots more. This happens all the time, though. It isn't free market capitalism, it's corporatism which is a fancy way of saying fascism. No libertarian wants a government that can be purchased... that's kinda the opposite of the point of libertarianism.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I believe it's the increased stake a lot of industries hold in the outcome of elections that this brings to light. We all know the agreement Fox News has with the gov't in Iraq (and who knows what else that is unspoken), so what do they have to lose with Ron Paul in the white house? I'd say a bit.

That's an example, and I'm sure there's lots more. This happens all the time, though. It isn't free market capitalism, it's corporatism which is a fancy way of saying fascism. No libertarian wants a government that can be purchased... that's kinda the opposite of the point of libertarianism.

Good analysis and I agree with that (although I don't think I can go as far as fascism), but how would that be stopped in a libertarian society? Certainly as we see consumers are not doing anything about, they are getting duped.

If we agree that this (and I don't mean this particular example per se, but the more general problems that have these symptoms) can be dangerous and can get worse than would it not need some kind of force - be it regulations, fines, or prison terms for the most heinous offenses? If the people get tricked, then who is it left to ensure liberty is protected? who is the last line of defense? Or is there none?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Good analysis and I agree with that (although I don't think I can go as far as fascism), but how would that be stopped in a libertarian society? Certainly as we see consumers are not doing anything about, they are getting duped.

If we agree that this (and I don't mean this particular example per se, but the more general problems that have these symptoms) can be dangerous and can get worse than would it not need some kind of force - be it regulations, fines, or prison terms for the most heinous offenses? If the people get tricked, then who is it left to ensure liberty is protected? who is the last line of defense? Or is there none?

Well, the basis of libertarianism promotes smaller government. In that, there are less avenues in which companies (or whatever) can buy favor, and less reason to. In a truly free market, there is no legislation to buy, because legislation makes the market un-free No government contracts because the government isn't doing stuff that requires it.

That is the ideal, anyway. We should at least be shooting for as close to that ideal as possible.

As far as "last line of defense," well, that's supposed to be the voters. But, as you said, voters are often duped. It'll continue until they get pissed, then hopefully they opt for a reform that pushes closer to the previously outlined ideal rather than farther from it. Historically, this rarely happens

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Haven't they stopped to think that if it is a conspiracy, then that means the free market failed and failed in a big way?

Well David, that sentiment begs the question: Is this a free market?

I know you're inclined to say "Why yes it is! ZING!"

But as a libertarian, I'm inclined to say, "No, it's not."

I don't consider us to be a free market because anything outside of complete separation between government and market is not a "free" market, as far as I'm concerned. I understand my opponents disagree with me on that, but I don't particularly care. You're asking me if I would consider the conspiracy (assuming there is such a conspiracy) to be a failure of the free market, and my answer to you is: No, I don't because I don't consider this a free market.

I would consider the conspiracy (again, we're assuming there is such a conspiracy) to be a failure of corporatism. And as a libertarian, I can guarantee you that I don't appeal to corporatism in the slightest. A statutory corporation is a form of government intervention within the free market.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Well, the basis of libertarianism promotes smaller government. In that, there are less avenues in which companies (or whatever) can buy favor, and less reason to. In a truly free market, there is no legislation to buy, because legislation makes the market un-free No government contracts because the government isn't doing stuff that requires it.

That is the ideal, anyway. We should at least be shooting for as close to that ideal as possible.

As far as "last line of defense," well, that's supposed to be the voters. But, as you said, voters are often duped. It'll continue until they get pissed, then hopefully they opt for a reform that pushes closer to the previously outlined ideal rather than farther from it. Historically, this rarely happens

That's a fair answer..kudos for the debate, you made very good points.

Of course there will always be companies that will use government favors to gain an advantage, whether or not the market is "free" or not.

I would like to see the market more free, but not laissez faire

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Well David, that sentiment begs the question: Is this a free market?

I know you're inclined to say "Why yes it is! ZING!"

But as a libertarian, I'm inclined to say, "No, it's not."

I don't consider us to be a free market because anything outside of complete separation between government and market is not a "free" market, as far as I'm concerned. I understand my opponents disagree with me on that, but I don't particularly care. You're asking me if I would consider the conspiracy (assuming there is such a conspiracy) to be a failure of the free market, and my answer to you is: No, I don't because I don't consider this a free market.

I would consider the conspiracy (again, we're assuming there is such a conspiracy) to be a failure of corporatism. And as a libertarian, I can guarantee you that I don't appeal to corporatism in the slightest. A statutory corporation is a form of government intervention within the free market.

So long as there is a government - whatever its form - and a market, there will always be corporatism, it cannot be separated. Now I realize your an anarchist libertarian but this is valid reasoning for the vast majority of libertarians that admit there must be some kind of government to have a functioning society.

The "free market" is a pie in the sky ideal that will NEVER happen, either government or corporations will do something to make it un-free. Libertarianism cannot address this defect without there being some kind of force, once there is force, it ceases to be libertarianism in the form you (they) define it.

[Ardentfrost]

Even though I'm not smart enough to come up with a method to specifically keep the government and the market apart, in a general sense the best way to keep two parties from joining is to put them in a situation where competing is better for each party than collaborating. We can see the government create situations that destroys this concept within the market itself, which results in oligarchies, but considering that the market and government are supposed to be focused on two very different parts of society in the ideal, at first glance it's a fool's errand to try to come up with something which keeps them apart.

Of course, I can easily come up with ideal situations that would keep them apart, such as responsible and involved voters, and having fewer immoral politicians... but that really is a pipe dream.

Anyhow, all I really wanted to say was that anarcho-capitalism isn't the same as anarchy, and no libertarian promotes an abandonment of government altogether. You'll have fringe groups that subscribe to libertarianism because it's the biggest party that is close to their anti-government ideals, but small government certainly doesn't mean no government. There are certain things for which government is needed.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

So long as there is a government - whatever its form - and a market, there will always be corporatism, it cannot be separated. Now I realize your an anarchist libertarian but this is valid reasoning for the vast majority of libertarians that admit there must be some kind of government to have a functioning society.

The "free market" is a pie in the sky ideal that will NEVER happen, either government or corporations will do something to make it un-free. Libertarianism cannot address this defect without there being some kind of force, once there is force, it ceases to be libertarianism in the form you (they) define it.

I don't agree with the idea that anarcho-capitalism is an impossible quality in a government body. I think it's entirely possible for the government to keep legislation out of the market sector, while still protecting the rights of the citizens. Negative externalities can be addressed in civil courts. Other legislation that applies to the private sector would also exist in the market as well, and that would not necessarily go against libertarianism.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I don't agree with the idea that anarcho-capitalism is an impossible quality in a government body. I think it's entirely possible for the government to keep legislation out of the market sector, while still protecting the rights of the citizens. Negative externalities can be addressed in civil courts. Other legislation that applies to the private sector would also exist in the market as well, and that would not necessarily go against libertarianism.

There has never been a time since government was first instituted that government was not involved in some way in the economy. So your belief that legislation can be separated from the marketplace is a guess at best and a pie in the sky dream that you must know would never happen.

So lets deal with the reality of the situation, there will never be a time when government and the marketplace is mutually exclusive and if it was so - you are giving entirely too much power to the court system that has no power to enforce it's decisions. Force must come somewhere to enforce decisions, you say the free market, I say you don't trust the rule making to those that play the game.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

There has never been a time since government was first instituted that government was not involved in some way in the economy. So your belief that legislation can be separated from the marketplace is a guess at best and a pie in the sky dream that you must know would never happen.

As far as I know, the American Revolution and the French Revolution are the only two major libertarian-leaning movements in world history. Considering that libertarianism was discovered (yes, I use "discovered" to imply that it's objectively correct; I'm an arrogant blowhard like that) merely 250 years ago, I don't think it's a pie in the sky dream to expect that there will eventually be an anarcho-capitalist government.

So lets deal with the reality of the situation, there will never be a time when government and the marketplace is mutually exclusive and if it was so