Still have loads of respect for him, especially for his previous works on Corporatism, Globalization, War, Drugs, Secret organisations and pretty much all the fanfare of crazy things that shrinks our freedoms.
But finally his religious soaked rants got to me and I stopped following him.

-I don't believe Ron Paul to be directly pro- or anti-education, he is indifferent to it. What he is against is paying taxes. But, without taxes there are no schools. He talks about vouchers and school choice, but doesn't go into any depth as to how those would be achieved. At the end of the day, I don't see much difference between anti-education and anti-education-funding. The outcomes are the same.

-I don't disagree with the fact that local, state and federal governments have different strengths and weaknesses. Local school districts should decide how to run their own schools, and they largely do from my experiences in education. The only federal mandates I'm aware of are the NCLB testing (which is admittedly terrible - and the schools districts have the option of opting out at the cost of federal funding) and the basic restrictions and protections that apply to government programs (religious restrictions for teachers, religious freedoms for students, civil rights protections, low income aids, etc.)

-My arguments were more aimed at anarcho-capitalism, since my window into libertarianism was opened by a fairly extreme ancapper. You sound like a more reasonable states rights conservative. Again, I agree with you that states should be given greater power, but I do like the idea of having a greater constitutional authority that prevents prejudice and corruption. Of course it's all so confused and corrupt at the moment, big or small...

-But big business does already intervene at the local and state level. They even pick off city council seats when they need to. It would be much easier and cheaper for corporations to destroy state houses one by one or to buy them outright, rather than to lobby them. Be careful what you wish for.

My main gripe with Paul is that he talks a good game against corporatism, but at the same time supports the kinds of deregulation and tax cuts that empowered corporatism in the first place. Fighting fire with gasoline.

Was about to say the same thing.

There I was thinking it was a rather unsubtle allegory for the outcomes of the industrial revolution and mass production mixed with the abstract and inhuman nature of corporatism...

Then the machine made man?

/me scratches head

You didn't respond to main thrust of my comment. I'll take that to mean you have no coherent response. Instead you've given me a hodgepodge of political slogans.

(I know I shouldn't lavish you with undeserved attention, but I've got a debate jones to satisfy.)

"Tax the rich" All those record profits are doing the economy no good stagnating in corporate coffers. Take that money and pump it into the economy. Use it to create jobs, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to provide health care. Tax revenue can create jobs when markets fail. It worked in the last great depression. It will work in this depression too.

"Socialism" Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I don't want extreme socialism anymore than I want extreme capitalism. A balanced system that takes advantage of the best of both systems is the wisest.

"Founding fathers" I find it funny that when conservatives come up short in the argument department, that they put words in the mouths of the founding fathers. If your argument cannot stand on it's own then don't make it. Putting words into the mouths of dead people is no more acceptable than putting them into the mouths of the living.

"Tyranny of the majority/Cover for oligarchs" These two stock arguments you've chosen to regurgitate contradict one another. Clearly oligarchs and the people can't both be in charge. You've got to pick one or the other. These types of contradictions reinforce my belief that you are unable to think things through for yourself.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).
Well, we've now lived under this assumption for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.
Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in their bank accounts. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.
This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.
Capiche?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.


So let's raise taxes on the rich! That'll teach 'em! And our problems will be fixed.
The most most glaring error in your analysis is that "democracy" got us here.
Socialism is not a remedy. Socialism always has and always will always be a mechanism to consolidate the wealth of the people before looting it.
Our founders didn't set up a "democracy". They recognized the fundamental flaw to "group think". The minority is always at the tyranny of the majority. Protecting the rights of the minority is the only way to preserve the rule of law, and the smallest minority is the individual.
And just like socialism is used to deceive the people, so is democracy. It's political cover for oligarchs. It's not about taking "control of our democracy", for that's the entire point. Democracy is either a false perception or tyranny of the majority. The people lose either way.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).
Well, we've now lived under this assumption for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.
Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in their bank accounts. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.
This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.
Capiche?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.



So let's raise taxes on the rich! That'll teach 'em! And our problems will be fixed.

The most most glaring error in your analysis is that "democracy" got us here.

Socialism is not a remedy. Socialism always has and always will always be a mechanism to consolidate the wealth of the people before looting it.

Our founders didn't set up a "democracy". They recognized the fundamental flaw to "group think". The minority is always at the tyranny of the majority. Protecting the rights of the minority is the only way to preserve the rule of law, and the smallest minority is the individual.

And just like socialism is used to deceive the people, so is democracy. It's political cover for oligarchs. It's not about taking "control of our democracy", for that's the entire point. Democracy is either a false perception or tyranny of the majority. The people lose either way.

I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).

Well, we've now lived under this doctrine for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does (obviously) give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.

Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in the bank. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.

This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.

Capiche?



>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.


You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.

It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?

Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.

>> ^shagen454:

No one has anything to say about this? I disagree with some of the things said in this video...


The only thing I would disagree with is that the "conservative movement" part. Classic conservatives like Barry Goldwater or William Buckley would have supported OWS, but today's "mainstream" conservatives are more likely to back corporatism.

OWS is an anti-corporatism movement, and it is a position that many liberals and conservatives can get behind.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'corporatism, greed, radicalism, fiscal consrvative, OWS' to 'corporatism, greed, radicalism, fiscal conservative, OWS' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^marbles:

>> ^messenger:
I'd buy that the US and friends decided to back the rebels in Libya because they saw more financial benefit from it than, per your example, in Uganda. That doesn't mean that the Libyan people would have preferred not to have self-determination. Whatever perks they had under Gaddafi, they had only because Gaddafi himself decided they would, not because the people decided they would. And there's no reason after Gaddafi's gone that they can't still have them. The oil's still there, and it will still flow. If you're upset that this benefits the West, then OK, be upset, but don't conflate Western cynical gain with the new freedom of the Libyan people.
You're going to have to sell me on how having a dictator is better than having even a pseudo-democracy like we have.
Getting a human rights award from the UNHRC is the most cynical award possible. The council is a majority-decision court whose majority is made up of the worst human rights violators on the planet. It is dominated by countries who routinely commit gross human rights abuses against their own people, and have an understanding amongst themselves not to vote against one another, and can all avoid being held accountable.
It's called imperialism. Wall Street-London oligarchs run the world. They use mafia tactics to take and do what they want. And if a country's leader doesn't fall in line, then they are taken out.
Is that what this is, self-determination of the Libyan people? No, it's the determination of NATO using violent ideological extremist groups cultivated over the last 30 years by US and British intelligence in the eastern cities of Darnah and Benghazi.
Nothing about this benefits "the West". It benefits big oil interests, defense contractors, and megabanks.
If you don't understand how socialism is better than fascism, then this is a wasted conversation.
I don't put a lot of stock in anything the UN does or says. Nor do I think it has the authority to decide what one country can do to another. But this is were NATO supposedly got their authority to terror bomb and back the rebels in their "civil war". (Even though it violates the UN charter) Basically picking and choosing what international laws to follow when it suites your agenda is what the UN is for.
Using the US and NATO's rationale, China or some other country has the authority to bomb the US governmnet and support dissenting groups here. Are you ok with that?


You use words you don't understand the meaning of. You argue extensively for the benefits of socialism. You point repeatedly to Libya as a great example of it. You close by arguing for this as acceptable because the alternative is western based fascism.

Mussolini described fascism as something that "should more properly be called corporatism, for it is the merger of state and corporate power". In the west, the struggle continues between the power of the state and the power of corporations. The fight as separate entities each trying to influence one another. In Libya this was done away with, and corporations powers were nationalized into part of the state's power. You call that socialism, but Mussolini literally wrote the book on fascism and called it that instead.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Honestly, that's kinda a pretty juvenile comeback. I expected better from you

I promise to internet to your liking next time.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
That analogy is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, the bully doesn't use your money to build services you can use.

Most of the federal government services I can't use either. War. Unilateral hegemony. Nation-building. Corporate welfare. Etc. Can you?
>> ^ChaosEngine:
You are free to not pay taxes to your government, you are just not entitled to do so while under the protection of that nation. If you do not wish to pay taxes to the US government, you are entitled to leave the nation and live somewhere else.

Emphasis mine. This is what's awesome about your comment: Isn't it always people like you (statist) that say if I don't like the system then get involved and change it? But here I'm doing that and pointing out a major flaw in "our" representational government, that the government is claiming it's spending more than it earns and spending the majority of that money on things the people no longer want, yet you tell me that I need to like it or get the hell out.
You know how many redneck neocons I've met in my life that have told me the same thing? Congratulations.
>> ^ChaosEngine:
If you don't like all the things your taxes pay for, at least stop being a hypocrite and using them. So, to start with, get off the internet (designed by DARPA and CERN, both tax funded agencies).

Translation: "If you don't like the services you're forced to pay for, you should stop using them but keep paying them!"
How about instead I could stop spending that money on... War. Hegemony. Imperialism. Corporatism. Crony capitalism. That option not good enough for you? You'd much rather I GTFO of the country?
And yet the real point of all this is you say the collection of funds is what's important, not what it's spent on. I think that's dangerous. Who cares how they collect. I care more about what this so called "representational government" spends that money on. I'm a bit disconcerted you don't.


You are more than welcome to campaign against war, imperialism, etc. I'm actually right behind you on those issues. But you don't get to just decide not to contribute at all to society.

And I never said that what it's spent on less important than how it's collected. The two are orthogonal. I said I don't have an issue with paying taxes. I have have all kinds of problems with how it's spent.

In fact I pretty much said the direct opposite of what you claimed I said. I buy into the social contract by paying taxes, voting and so on.

You're not "pointing out a major flaw", you just want to throw your toys out of the pram without contributing at all. I think you missed the "without representation" part of "no taxation without representation".

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Honestly, that's kinda a pretty juvenile comeback. I expected better from you


I promise to internet to your liking next time.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

That analogy is wrong for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, the bully doesn't use your money to build services you can use.


Most of the federal government services I can't use either. War. Unilateral hegemony. Nation-building. Corporate welfare. Etc. Can you?

>> ^ChaosEngine:

You are free to not pay taxes to your government, you are just not entitled to do so while under the protection of that nation. If you do not wish to pay taxes to the US government, you are entitled to leave the nation and live somewhere else.


Emphasis mine. This is what's awesome about your comment: Isn't it always people like you (statist) that say if I don't like the system then get involved and change it? But here I'm doing that and pointing out a major flaw in "our" representational government, that the government is claiming it's spending more than it earns and spending the majority of that money on things the people no longer want, yet you tell me that I need to like it or get the hell out.

You know how many redneck neocons I've met in my life that have told me the same thing? Congratulations.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

If you don't like all the things your taxes pay for, at least stop being a hypocrite and using them. So, to start with, get off the internet (designed by DARPA and CERN, both tax funded agencies).


Translation: "If you don't like the services you're forced to pay for, you should stop using them but keep paying them!"

How about instead I could stop spending that money on... War. Hegemony. Imperialism. Corporatism. Crony capitalism. That option not good enough for you? You'd much rather I GTFO of the country?

And yet the real point of all this is you say the collection of funds is what's important, not what it's spent on. I think that's dangerous. Who cares how they collect. I care more about what this so called "representational government" spends that money on. I'm a bit disconcerted you don't.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Nevermind the fact that Washington University, the school that created the Foldit program, is a public (that is to say, funded by the state; a.k.a. statist) institution.


Right, and I'm sure the researchers there are fantastic. Still, they opened the market to allow more people to work on what they themselves and others weren't able to succeed at.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Nevermind the fact that healthcare, up until very recently, has been privatized (excluding medicare and medicaid) for a substantial time now; yet the lifetime cost of HIV medications and treatment is roughly $385,000.


And available only from big pharma. And that's thanks to government regulations. Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine privately and offered it without patent. If he were to bring the same drug to market today by FDA restrictions he'd have to pay millions.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Shouldn't free market generic meds have landed in your local Wally World for $5 a month by now? Why is the free market dictating these insane prices where how much you can pay is directly relational to how long you get to live.


The pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated. I think you're erroneously conflating corporatism with free market.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Now, as we know, if the market was not worthy, pharmaceutical businessmen would not get involved with it and essentially let the project die. The logical solution to these huge dilemmas in cost then is to create a larger customer base. All they need now is a furtive way to deliver the virus to a sect of the population that is either expendable and large or rich and small.


Again, you're claiming the current market is free. If it was, people like Salk could enter and compete (much like the gamers in the article above) without retribution from government. What you have today is a limited amount of pharma companies that can compete in the market, and because there's less competition, you have higher prices.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I don't see where the "market" part comes in. Just the "free" part.


The market is just a system of exchange. Look at my example of Salk above. He developed and released a cure to polio, but today the restrictions on the market makes this kind of charitable action illegal. But in regards to the article specifically, Wash. Univ. opened their system of exchange and asked the online gaming community to help in figuring out a complex structure of an AIDS protein. The exchange was charitable. That's the free market.

Now if there was a regulation against this sort of thing because the online gamers weren't "licensed" for instance, then that would be a restrictive market. Right?

>> ^aurens:

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:

1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."
If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)

2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."
Too absurd to even address.

3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."
You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.

4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."
Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.



Of course the post is highly speculative: It says that RP gets elected. I thought this would be obvious.

1. The question would be: What would happen if Antitrust-laws exist no more at all, not: Are Anti-trust laws at the moment used fairly?


2. Either you adress it or you don't. It is not absurd. Tell me why it would be.


3. Again, the inferred question is not: Does it work now?; the question at hand is: What would happen if the farm subsidies in a first-world-country would fall away? Would farming become too unprofittable and only be used for subsistence; importing cheaper food from outside the US? Or would it become profittable again by increasing the price of food immensely, cutting heavily into the income of poorer people?


4. That text says on the first page (paraphrased): "46 million USAsians have no health insurance: Not a problem: 40 percent of those are young, 20% are wealthy." Yes, fuck the poor and the young, they don't need health insurance. Give me a serious unbiased text on this, and I'll read it. I really will. But to dismiss at least 40% of the uninsured right out of hand is highly irresponisble and assholish.

I suspect you realize that your post is wildly speculative. I'd rather not spend too long on this, but I'll humor you and point out a few of the fallacies in your imaginative dystopia. In general, though, you seem to be confusing small government and a lack of regulation for lawless amorality. In any event, here we go:


1. "As there will be no more anti-trust laws in the free market, companies will merge until mega-cons rule a specific field of commerce."

If you think antitrust laws are an undying force of good, read this. (Also, don't confuse free-market capitalism with corporatism.)


2. "People can get fired on a whim without regulations."

Too absurd to even address.


3. "People spend their money on the expensive food (no subsidies)."

You're right. Government subsidies on food have been enormously successful in the United States.


4. "Healtcareproviders will be either expensive or underfunded."

Read pages three and four (or the whole thing, for that matter): http://mises.org/journals/fm/june10.pdf.
>> ^DerHasisttot:
Dystopian? Can't happen? Tell me why. Tell me why any of the things would not be as described without regulations and subsidies and social welfare. I await your response.