This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Jon Stewart's Extended Interview With Ron Paul
About a month ago, after everyone in the wholly conflicted media (just ask one question: who pays all that advertising money - nuf said), on both the left and the right, was ignoring the most promising presidential candidate this country has had in decades, Jon Stewart decided to take Ron Paul under his wing, and made it clear that while those who don't matter can pretend to ignore Ron, the one man who does, and who reaches more than most of the legacy "serious media" combined, has certainly noticed Paul. Naturally Stewart could have left it there, especially given his own personal political view. To his great credit, he did not. Instead last night in an extended exclusive interview, he presented Ron Paul in a way that he should have been presented from the beginning: no tricks, no gotchas, no gimmicks, no commercial breaks every 45 seconds. Hopefully this is the beginning of the transition of the Paul campaign to one where he has enough critical mass to be taken seriously by everyone - something "everyone" should be doing regardless.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
»
- 50514 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
mdb:
Obviously not one of the Ivies nor 7 Sisters, who at least have to be able to spell two and three syllable English wordz before admittance.
Where are you guys hangin' out?
- Ned
{note that I'ma droppin' my in'z to be able to communicate with all y'all}
My bad, I've only got a BS in Forestry, and got a D for Done in your Keynesian Econ 101. Maybe because I grew up living with actual supply and demand economics. As for the rest of my "re-education," after actually working in the woods on an internship I was kind of jaded on the rest of the BS that was being crammed down my throat to get a piece of paper that stated I have learned to learn.
I've got a creeping feeling that you actually have a PhD. in Economics, and "employed" as a Professor (tenured). As the saying goes, those that can, do, and those that can't, teach.
1. Legal tender is not lawful tender, at least in the U.S. Just because a beaurocrat says I have to take scrip in exchange for a product, and pay for said scrips use, doesn't mean I'm not going to trade my chicken eggs for my neighbor's rutabagas. I guess I'll be sent to the gulag for re-education, and a few "liquidity injections" if I'm not tough. But blue helmets make great targets.
2. As per 1, my eggs will go for whatever I need, not to your notional mathematical supply chain. How many people do you envision it will take for the whole 'supply-demand dynamics' preferences to be eradicated? Worked pretty well for Stalin in the Ukraine, as I mentioned before.
3. Ja wohl, wir sind den Hitler-Jugend! This has been tried before, also.
I think you've given us all something to work with. This is fun. You sure know how to stir up the bee's nest, and I realize you are right: it sure does require patience and maturity to truly understand Keynesian economics, but a lot of the people here have to work and live in the real world, where theory and practice diverge considerably.
You're a good sport!
I'm trying to remember his former name to go with his muscle bound former avatar from last year...it will come to me. He's from the same group/cell...they always roll in as a unit.
This one has improved...a little...he's not so dry...lol.
Are you thinking of "More Critical Thinking Needed" ?
I remember his avatar changed colors, like it was heating up or something.
You da man!!!...thats him.
He's changed his approach...but thats him.
Thanks!
At first I thought the people accusing M$B of being a performance artist were crazy- some morons actually believe the things he posts. However, he went too over the top with this. Keynesian global central bank? A global system of price and wage controls? Giving economists more power due to their exceptional foresight? (you mean the people who totally missed the 2001 and 2008 bubble collapse)
Good job, M$B. You've forced us Ron Paul supporters to hone our skills and rhetorical attacks. Thank you.
On the .00001% chance that you actually believe the shit you're spewing...nah, nobody that comes to ZH can be THAT stupid! Or use a computer. Or breath without mechanical assistance. Or wipe their own ass.
couldn't pass the entrance exam. on the other hand, bodily functions don't really play a part (thank the gods) in here.
- Ned
MillionDollarBonus
Keynes principle is you put money away in surplus years and then use that treasure chest to stimulate the economy FOR A SHORT PERIOD in a slowdown.
Fed pimped blog trolls like MillionDollarBonus spread proganda that Keynes would approve of massive pump priming when you have not saved a warchest to pay for it - KEYNES NEVER SAID THIS
Japan has tried this for 22 years and the stock market is currently 78% below it 1989 peak!!!!!
So we now know that it is possible to earn a Million Dollar Bonus being Bernanke's Fed Proganda Bitch spewing that print, twist, borrow and spend is the way back to prosperity
Long live the Fed and all her shareholders
"it" wants attention. Feed the trolls for comedy value only.
I appreciate it's view. Not too far off from many others without a clue. Although I think it has a good clue, its rhetoric is reflective of the average joe's opinion.
Is the MDB "it" a skoshi'-troll-wannabee consortium? Inquiring mindz wish to know. - Ned
[ed. your handle is fantastic: used to tell young skull-full-of-mush 'don't let the little head to the thinking that the big head is 'spozed to do'.]
Well, I'll just be damned. I wasted my time in an earlier post on this $million comedian. Jokes on me, I guess.
Great stuff!!! I haven't laughed that hard since Geithner visited my classroom in China . . .
Someone should have said this earlier on...:
Don't Feed the Trolls.
No Phil, let's give him a special meal.
Trolls have to eat as well you know.
Actually, Joshua...it's Rick Perry who suggested that Bernanke (Keynesian) be lynched.
To obvious Hamy.
truly, you are a troll who should be banished to the marketwatch blogs from here to eternity, like those superman villains stuck in the rectangular rotating piece of shiny, glassy realm that floated in space for a few centuries
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/6781/325671-pz_super.jpg
Yes, those are Mr. Paul's stated positions, but only his desire to end SS gives me pause. But you need to understand something here. The enemy is at the gate. Of the passal of professional politicians running for president, only Ron Paul has vowed to fight that enemy. The enemy, in case you have missed the last decade, is the financial elite. Wake up! Worrying about gays raising kids is pure idle idiocy when you are being robbed blind.
Ron Paul wants to leave Social Security as is for folks who've been paying into the system for years, and give young people the option to opt out. He doesn't want to just yank it from people.
Annnnd Herman Cain.
There, Fixed That For You.
FFS Cain used to work at the Federal Reserve, and his whole campaign sound's like a gimmick.
MillionDollarBonus, is that you George Carlin, reaching out from the afterlife that you stated didn't exist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWlgK6lnE_E
You sir are a whore with no understanding of what it means to be human.
You sure feel more comfortable with the wise Keynesian Krugman-Stiglitz school tha sure can provide that your million dollar bonus will be delivered and probably will be enough to buy a... bourbon bottle
Yours truly
A clown without bonus
P.S. So... auditing is compromising independence???? I´m gonna need that bourbon
By that logic, the entire tax system compromise my freedom too.
Oh wait. . .
mdb: a greene on ya, for ballz, not necessarily your points. Actually, not for anything related to your points.
But RP being indifferent to Iran nuclear weapons capability is as irresponsible as Our Dear President's indifference to Libya "revolution" losing control of SA-7/SA-14 stockpiles and possibly chemical weapons stockpiles. Don't know if the materials are binary or unary (needing to be mixed) but there is enough talent to cause trouble in either case.
Don't know about the age and maintenance status of the prospective Grailz/Gremlinz, but it will be a piss-your-pants situation with a 76 Heavy on final and even a fizzle. Then, of course, it could become worse.
Mr. Claire Shipmen: "When we decided to lead from behind in the Libyan revolution, we didn't envision that bush would have permitted those weapons to be used in this manner."
- Ned
"Shipman":. Tr: Schiffman.
(@ milliondollarbonus)
Hi, Mr. Bernanke.
QE3 next week?
Your statement is so utterly ridiculous, I'm not going to dignify it with a decent response. Please just go away.
1. He supports regular audits of the Federal Reserve, which would seriously compromise their ability to set monetary policy independently without political meddling
You're missing the point. He'll not only try to audit it, he'll try to end it, and rightfully so
2. He favours the end of social security which could see millions of elderly and disabled people on the streets during these tough economic times
The transition will be gradual. If it's not ended now, SS will eventually collapse under its own weight, except no one will be prepared for it. I'm capable enough of saving for my own retirement, I don't need the government to do it for me. Better start the process now while it's not too late.
3. He intends to legalise ALL drugs, giving children access to life-threatening substances such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin to name a few
At the federal level. Besides, alcohol is one of the worst drugs out there and we've managed.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3206587/Alcohol-worse-than-har...
ps When did marijuana become a life-threatening substance?
4. Mr Paul follows the long discredited ‘Austrian school of economics’ which consists of nothing but a motley crew of eccentric and clownish anarchists
Still a lot better than the clowns we have to deal with now
5. He supports the legalisation of gay marriage at the state level, which could see children being raised by parents of the same sex
It's called progress - after a few generations we won't have any more homophobic, racist, imbred backwoods hicks (remind you of anyone?) in our society"It's called progress - after a few generations we won't have any more homophobic, racist, imbred backwoods hicks (remind you of anyone?) in our society "
Wait a minute! I am one of those backwoods hicks. Whats wrong with being from the back woods? On the point of gay marriage, I personnally don't give a rats ass what two adults want to do in the privacy of their bedroom. If they want to commit to each other, and the state they live in allows them to marry, so be it. I could care less.
Regarding bringing children into the situation: we really don't know if there would be any long term "issues" regarding bringing children up in an environment with two parents of the same sex. People from both sides of the debate make the argument for or against it, but there has been no real study done on the issue. The truth is these are little people we are talking about, not lab rats, so you can't really experiment on them.
Truth is kids respond to love, and if they are raised in a home that they feel loved, they will probably do better then individuals that grow up in some institution with no love or affection. If you want to see the results of broken homes, and kids that were never tought how to love another person go to your local maximum security prison, most of them are there.
P.s. At this point RP has my vote, unless he makes some really stupid statement, or screams like Howard Dean prior to the election.
It's called progress - after a few generations we won't have any more homophobic, racist, imbred backwoods hicks (remind you of anyone?) in our society
What if his concerns are brought about due to Muslim beliefs? Have thoughts to share regarding breeding for this?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_isla.htm
Don't get me started on religion.
Obvious troll is obvious? Ok, I'll play your game.
Quite frankly, you are an embarssment. Leave.
Thanks for playing this round of "Someone is Wrong on the Internet"!
It's deadpan snarc.
He a troll, a comic troll.
@milliondollar, Hammy, Harry, Texas Gun Slinger et al,
You forgot:
6. He supports recycling anyone over 70 into a light green cracker.
Whoa! Hold on there!!!!!!
I was all for the guy prior to finding out about that!
I wanna be a White Cracker Honkey.
Muthafuckah.
Kumayah.
Booyakasha!!
Kumbaya??
The only embarrassment to the country are the MSM touted Rinos. Mr MillionDollarsof MonopolyMoney: Austrian economics is far from clownish...it requires discipline, something the government must have. The Federal Reserve should be abolished and money issued by the Treasury, or perhaps you like the bailouts of banks and foreign govts. Freedom does have its extremes...views like yours continue to shackle the country in bondage...sealed with the blood of young Americans fighting useless undeclared wars.
Perhaps it is your views that are less than objective. Seriously you really expect any difference in the country with Romney or Perry as President? Theyre just Bush with a better haircut. We know what a hideous criminal President HE was.
Frankly there is no possible way that Paul could be any worse for the country than any of the current or past criminal Presidents.
1. How is FED monetary policy working out for you lately?
2. Have you noticed how many more formerly working people are on the streets, and yet perfectly capable "disabled" people on the dole?
3. The govt is effectively controlling the use of marijuana, cocaine and heroin?
4. "The criterion of truth is that it works, even if nobody is prepared to acknowledge it." Ludwig von Mises
5. Gay couples do not exist in the US and certainly none of them have children.
Central planning fails every time it is tried and you are a troll.
1.) So we should just leave all the decision making to a corupt bank of the world?
2.) Its not like hes going to take office and end Social Security with one fell swoop of the pen, and in any case, the social security system is going to collapse and end on its own anyway! because the Federal government steals all the money and spends it into oblivion, all these forecasts that suggest social security is perfectly funded for the next 10 - 15 years are a total lie! if government spending continue to increase at the rate its going the system will be bankrupted within 5 - 8 years.
3.) Like making something illegal stops people from doing it!, my entire neighborhood smokes pot, and here it has become somewhat of a local alternative currency (New York), a lot of friends actually PREFER IT TO DOLLARS.
Instead of having pointless wars on drugs, leave it to the states to educate people about the dangers of specific substances, and offer people restitution and help in getting OUT OF DRUGS , don't just throw them in jail for using it.... then on the other side of the coin we have government telling you what you CANT put into your body, and then turning around and TELLING YOU WHAT YOU HAVE TO PUT INTO YOUR BODY, like all the vaccines and drugs that OUTRIGHT KILL CHILDREN IN A MATTER OF HOURS FROM INJECTION DUE TO POOR QUALITY CONTROL ON THE FEDERAL SIDE.
4.) How is free-market economics "discredited"? we haven't even been on a free market system since the 70s, and thats when everything started turning to shit due to governments waste and ineficiency.
5.) You shouldn't need a "license" to get married ANYWAY.... WHO IS THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL YOU IF YOU ARE WORTHY OF SPENDING THE REST OF YOUR LIFE WITH ANOTHER PERSON, all these "licences and fees" for getting "married" are a joke anyway... they only serve ONE PURPOSE and that is to consolidate and tax "couples", and this is coming from a person who think gay people just have some phycological dis-order or hormonal imbalance, theres no such thing as a "gay" person, its just people with mental instability/hormonal problems that never got taken care of.
RON PAUL PROMOTES LIBERTY AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, I guess people against him want to just stand on the sidelines waiting for the government to hand them out their "bread license"
My only question milliondollarboner is howd you get the 8
You couldn't be more wrong.
1. He actually wants to abolish the FED and let the market set the rates. And to say that FED today is independent...are you kidding me?
2. I don't believe that he would do all this in a day. Of course it would take a long time to bring the country back to prosperity and to make people independent from social welfare. Perhaps a generation or so.
3. Well the regulatory system which costs a lot of money every year haven’t really made a difference. People don't stay out of drugs because the government forbids them. They stay away because they know they are dangerous. The ones who does them anyways don't give a sh*t.
4. Austrian school economics is real economics. Keynesian voodoo got 80 years or so now and guess what. He is dead and we arrived "at the long run." Because of his Keynes the entire developed world is in a deficit financed mess.
5. What's your point?
You say: Ron Paul is an embarrassment and should leave politics to more mature professionals who know how to represent America. Has there ever been such a president? There is no country in the world ever that have been involved in so many wars and to a great cost to the American public. RP is running on a much more humble attitude to the rest of the world and he wants to actually bring the soldiers back home. That's a great start to represent America and with his free market policies maybe America could become what it once was. The greatest country in the world.
Ummm...
#1 - Fedaeral reserve - All money is now some onelese debt and we are at debt saturation globally - so you mus not be very infromed.
# 2 SS Wrong.
# 3 drugs. I could get ANY illegal drug i wanted in High school - See proabition and mexican drug cartels as you answer. I have children, and it is MY JOB to teach and protect them, not the Nanny state.
#4 see #1
#5 Gay marriage - Why is the gubmint involved at all OH YEAH The income tax
# 6 Your are a paid troll, traitor, period.
Yeah..
@ MllionDolarsbonus_
Give us another Million Reasons bonus to vote Ron.
Go ask your CIA superiors if you can do that. Oh and bring us some sanduiches.
Smoke another one, scheisskopf!
seem's like you have an axe to gring more than any valid points. You must be a welfare queen.
Move over dumbo trader
Now we have million dollar Dufus
Gotta love the calibre of the ponzi supporters nowadays.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.
~George Orwell
George Orwell AKA Eric Arthur Blair famous member of the FABIAN society (Rockefeller link) I don't think he was being prophetic, more likely had seen the Grand Scheme himself and was sowing the neuro links into our collective psyche.
What a pile of utter degenerate horseshit,are you a lawyer?
This folks is what a shill looks like
MillionDollarBonus_ folks this is what a shill looks like
MillionDollarBonus_ folks this is what a shill looks like
Deadpan snarc: he's a comedic troll.
Probably jacks off to every post that takes him seriously!
I'm high right now, and the only thing threating my life is views like this! I do worry that he jerks off to pictures of Ayn Rand, which gives me horrible nightmares. Maybe John Stewart can ask him about that one......
Dear Milliondollar TROLL:
I could easily tear apart everyone of your subtly crafted points, but I'll just do one for an example
3. He intends to legalise ALL drugs, giving children access to life-threatening substances such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin to name a few
No, he does NOT support drugs for children and by claiming that legalization AUTOMATICALLY means they have "access" you are a complete moron of the highest caliber... OR you are a troll. I vote TROLL and since I am the exposer of internet shills, I can spot trolls just as easily. Children have had "access" to these drugs for years and BTW, lumping in marijuana in WITH drugs makes you a a F#^Ktard as well. Get your nose out of the AMA's Arse
Shouldn't you be giving a "wealth" seminar in some crappy hotel in Boise or Omaha right about now. Yeah, there are five or six guys in the audience and they are looking none too pleased. And when you said "...life-threatening substances such as marijuana" ALL of them started thinking about getting their money back. Funny thing is you don't have an exit plan.
I thought his let free markets handle everything was classic. Yes, let the hedge funds club together run AAPL to $2M a share in a week and then see it drop down to $5 the next day. You think volatility is high now wait until Ron gets into office and removes all rules and regulations. I understand why he has his small cult following, its mostly a bunch of drug heads that want to get pot and shrooms legalized so they can smoke and eat them on the train. This guy must be insane if he thinks the free market can run anything, has he ever read a history book about times before 1920? Wow
Beavis?
Thumbs up because 1-5 are correct; everything else is garbage.
You are a complete ass clown.
seriously million dollar bonus, havent you gotten then fucking point with 266 junks? go shoot yourself in the balls...
You are a moron.
1. Monetary policy is the source of many of our economic ills. The status quo must be broken. It is also Congress' job to coin money, not a GSE.
2. He favors the replacement of Soc. Sec. not just throwing people in the streets. You understand it is bankrupt anyway? It is full of IOU's that cannot be honored. A private program would have had a contract.
3. Drugs have been legal for 99% of history including the founders' time. Ron Paul does not favor stupid things like giving them to kids. Guns are legal but we don't encourage kids to shoot each other. Knives are legal but kids don't commonly stab each other. Baseball bats are dangerous.
4. You really don't read much economics do you? The Austrian School of economics is more popular and gets more press than ever. It is not only correct but precisely predicts what is happening and will happen.
5. Marriage IS currently a states' rights issue and IS currently legislated at the state level you moron. That's why it's legal. Maybe the Constitution is inconvenient to you. You have to have a Constitutional amendment to change that. Then you have to ask the question if the Feds should regulate marriage. I am not particuarly pro homosexual but I believe if you own yourself then the government cannot forbid you to make any contract you wish with another competent adult. Conversely, I believe the government cannot force you into an unwanted contract and marriage like common law marriages.
Ron Paul IS mature, consistent and...not a professional politician. Refreshing, actually. If you like the status quo and history of the last 50 years...vote for someone else.
You can fool some of the people all of the time.
Without you, MDB, there would half as many comments on a typical ZH article.
Amazing some of the regulars here are like Charlie Brown getting fooled by Lucy time and time again. Have they no pride?
Life-threatening substances such as marijuana!!! DANGER!!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
Moron.
"Ron Paul is an embarrassment and should leave politics to more mature professionals who know how to represent America properly."
... like whom for example?...
It is a joke right?
1 FED not political?
2 Social Security comment?
3 Ok the legal profession and war on drugs has moved the country to the largest prison population in the world TO PROSECUTED SICK PEOPLE..
4 You have to be kidding Mr Market ALWAYS WINS. Clowns are much better than Turbo Tax, Helocopter, Krugman and Keyanisian Neo-con war mongers.
Your political comments at this point it is downs -317 ups 24
92% of the informed Zero hedge people dissagree with you. Clown? look in the mirror pal.
This is teh win!!!!!!!!
Haha, so few ZH posters got it!I love it, the joke is on you.
Seriously, for a bunch of brilliant folks...you need to get the Fed to QEase some humor out of you!
For the people who think Ron Paul is extreme:
what is extreme about the constitution he constantly uses in his reason and argument for his positions???
heh. I noticed. http://thecivillibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/09/good-samaritan-male-poin...
Does milliondollarbonus work for Bank of America
Shakes the mighty eight ball
"MOST LIKELY"
"..Signs point to yes.."
Stewart has pretty much been a complete dickhead, as he calls up his own mirror on the Daily Show. Just because he's using Paul (pandering to the in crowd he really does not agree with) does not mean the boy discovered anything beyond pandering to morons that laugh at pathetic ''shit in hand jokes'' etc... The boy is still a little Antichrist dipshit, he is not not brave or on the edge of anything but the black hole still.
@Cynical Sidney-Congratulations for posting the dumbest comment ever on ZH. Well done.
lol what u have against paul and huntsman?
Huntsman = cartel.
huntsman is a moderate and he's for small business; other GOP candidates push policies much more favorable to mnc cartels than huntsman; besides there's no other gop candidate in the running who can complement ron paul's libertarian stance
"moderate", "conservative", "liberal"--each take roles in the great melodrama. remember Cynical that they are all part of the same cast. think outside the paradigm. huntsman is part of the mold that must be broken.
Jon Stewarts fan base is internet savvy. They have already discovered Ron Paul. Had Stewart tried to ignore Paul like everyone else, he would have lost half of his audience. By bringing Paul on he not only retains his current flock but gathers several lost sheep. Smart move by Stewart, yet ultimately disingenuous, since he and his tribe are not thrilled by populism.
I think you have it all wrong on Stewart's motivations. Perhaps I'm speaking mostly for myself, but I think many left-leaning independent thinkers who are not easily defined by the labels "liberal" or certainly Democrat, have a fundamental problem with the idea that the free market will be answer to all of our problems. But we strongly agree with Ron Paul on many of his points, especially dismantling the Fed, the military industrial complex, respect for the Constitution, and dismantling the police state. I get the sense that Stewart similarly supports a lot of what Paul has to say, but strongly disagrees with some aspects. I am a strong believer that we need more regulation of large business and not less, and that we need a trade policy that puts an end to endless off-shoring. Paul disagrees on both points, but I will vote for Paul if given the chance. I applaud Stewart for giving Paul an audience so that people who get most of their information from the TV can make up their minds with actual information instead of MSM talking points.
Yeah...what you said. +1
Large businesses? Um, sort of like the banks? How many regulatory agencies are there in the financial sector? Hard to keep count, but hey, they're doing a bang up job regulatin' them "big businesses".
Tard. Stick around - maybe the term 'regulatory capture' might waft by in the air.
So the answer is to let the companies that captured the regulators convince the public to eliminate the middle-man (regulators)? I tend to think the answer is to take big money out of politics and to create real rules with teeth that prevent the revolving door of regulatory agency employees and heads heading straight to Goldman et al.
That's a pretty good left-liberal endorsement of Dr Paul, LTERand. I disagree with the regulatory argument (the regulatory capture that is endemic to our system is what allows people like Goldman Sucks to financially rape us, TWC to control our cable options, GE to pollute our streams, Pfizer to charge so much for drugs, Disney to control our copyright system and Monsanto to control our good supply) and think if we stripped the regulatory system and replaced it with a free-market mechanism that punished violators (as well as abolishing the corporate "no-liability" bullshit) then we would be better off.
I've talked with a lot of liberal friends who have started to come around to Dr Paul's side, mostly due to the wars. If he wins the nomination, he will demolish 0bama.
I'll argue 'till I'm blue in the face that I'd rather have an elected government watching my back than letting the oligarchs run wild and believing that the free market will keep them in check, but that's a debate for another day. I strongly agree with roughly one half of Ron Paul's views, which is far far more than any other candidate. Thus, he has my vote. Perhaps he can even help heal some of the divide in this country when people can come together and at least agree on some things. To me, Obama is just another corporatist who supports the military industrial complex, the police state, using the existence of social programs to maintain a stratified society rather than to help those who need it, etc... I agree with you that Paul is by far the best candidate to beat Obama, and he has my vote if he can pull it off. I live in a state where my party affiliation decides which party's primary I can vote in. I will be changing to Republican so I can vote for him in the primary. I'll bet and certainly hope a lot of others do the same.
"I tend to think the answer is to take big money out of politics..."
I agree. Let's abolish politics - and everything they represent - immediately. Withdraw your consent. Don't vote.
Also, re: regulators. The big companies are already writing the regulations via lobbyist groups. Those groups are never going away. The only solution is the abolish all regulations & make companies accountable for their actions. The good ones will survive, the bad ones will dry up. My guess is the majority of major companies in the US today will go tits up without favorable treatment from DC.
Stick around; you have much learning to do.
I've heard the arguments and I don't buy them. Show me an example anywhere in the world where it works as you predict. By the way, the fact that it doesn't happen in the real world reveals the fundamental flaw in the ideology you espouse. It doesn't work because human beings don't operate as would be necessary for the theory to become reality. If the ideology had merit, it would have sprung up long ago on its own.
"By the way, the fact that it doesn't happen in the real world is one of the most fundamental flaws in the ideology you espouse."
Hey, I'm all for returning to our existing quasi-fascist environment if a libertarian society cannot flourish. But, as a statist, you are thinking in binary terms (i.e., nationalistic governments). I suspect what you mean in the above quote is "The fact that NO COUNTRY has tried a free market is one of the most fundamental flaws...." which reveals you for the simple minded statist that you are.
Fact is, libertarian organizations exist throughout the world. Hell, you might even be a part of one. Any organization/action where people are free to pursue their own self-interest (or act in such a way to protect themselves from harm) is a libertarian-like environment. Traffic patterns are one example. Alcoholics anonymous and Underwriter Laboratories are some more. Good things happen whenever people are free and understand they are accountable for their actions.
You are unable to offer a single example of yoru ideology working in the real world other than AA and UL, but you're right and I'm not just wrong but a troll? And I'm a fascist/statist because I don't want to let the oligarchs rule over me without any elected representative buffer system to keep them in check? Okay, goodnight Gracie.
No, you are a fascist/statist because you support (or are too simple to see/understand) the mechanism you support is the one that creates the very environment you claim to despise.
In other words, the state is what makes rule-by-oligarch possible. It is a symbiotic relationship based upon usury and racketeering.
Spend more time reading this site (and those linked) and you'll see many, many examples of this symbiotic relationship.
Yep, keep changing the subject, glossing over your inability to offer any evidence to support your view (unless you think we ought to model our society on AA), and tell me to keep reading ZH and I'll see it your way.
wait, isn't AA about surrendering, admitting you are powerless?
sounds like amrka's already there?
Bill W./Dr. Bob 2012?
Nice reflexive critique, now what do you propose as an answer? No regulation? I thought we already had that with OTC derivatives, Dark pools and shadow banking. How's that working out? Seriously, what do you propose?
Here is a proposal. Let people who make bad decisions suffer the consequence of their poor decisions. Fear of faliure is the greatest regulator of human behavior. We are trying to create a society where no one fails. It goes agains Mother Nature. It will not work.
Nice idea - the problem is just that your "darwinistic"-approach has - contrary to popular opinion (which is that nature is sadomaso, lol) - little to do with what you may call "evolution". Why? Because evolution when collective aspects matter too, doesn't fall for the flaws of what you're proposing.
What am i talking about? Well in short, what you propose would guarantee GIANT volatility spikes, that would cause destruction not just of the "unfit", but actually be rather blind.
Let me explain this with the example of monopolies. Your argument is that monopolies will fail. Agreed! The problem is just: "When" will they fail, and "how late" will they fail? And finally, what degree of "contagion" will they pull with them, when they fail?
To get to the point: Your "darwinistic" approach doesn't solve the "TBTF"-problem AT ALL. It just lets it grow until it becomes unsustainable, and then cause mass-destruction. Your approach only corrects big failures, when they become unsustainable, while staying completely inactive while they develop right before your eyes.
And may i remind you? That INCLUDES, "big failures" that accumulated a cost of many generations. Can you say "near extinction"?
So, what does such an approach imply? Basically, no collective selfcontrol at all..... fuckups only fail, when an even higher level (i.e. global ressources) pull the plug. No thanks. Granted, it's "a little better" than what we have now, but "a little better" far from sufficient to fix the mess civilization is in.
a strong case can be made that TBTF is only so because of the oligopolistic control of the currency funneled through an agency that perfectly satisfies Mussolini's definition of fascism.
and Darwin thought earthworms were the most valuable creatures on the planet, because they transformed waste into wealth, not the other way around.
free the currency, free the earthworms.
Good point, but again - how do you prevent a monpoly - even an "oligopoly controlling the currency" - without some kind of collective measures? Can a handful of individuals prevent a powerful vendor creating a currency, and via it controlling most of the economy?
The problem with those "darwinistic individualists" is that they assume, that "as by magic", no powerful "groups" form, and via that "leverage" build up power.... supposedly, all those lone individuals will wild-west-style be able to prevent it, without any such a thing as a "mob".
That makes no fucking sense at all. This specific kind of "anarchism" beats its own premises.
That does not mean, that i disagree what those people would like to achieve. I'd love if what they seek to achieve, were actually achieved. I just think that their "implementation", is contradiction defined, and thus is wishful thinking, unless they come up with an implementation, that can actually achieve what they claim.
Bottom line: individuals cannot beat groups, and groups WILL form, regardless of how much one may like to deny their existence. So what are you gonna do about malicious groups, hmm? We don't need to get as far as currencies. Just imagine a bunch of guys with a lot of equipment and influence create a cartell - what are you gonna do about that, without forming a counter-group?
good point as well, ry. most definitely agree that there must be a buffer. as always, neither extreme is satisfactory, so it's a question of the proper balance. how and where is that buffer applied and who enforces it? are those buffers written in stone and enforced from Above or are they developed organically based on the collective experience of Below?
not quite sure anyone has an adequate answer to this, as of yet. in the past, people have collected into groups (like fish do when a predator comes). but once the group of prey get strong enough, they become a predator themselves (see unions, the mafia, street gangs, etc.).
personally, i think the website we're commenting on (and others like it) is a good example of an alternative way to coalesce into a group to attempt to slow down the advance of predators. considering that we're all devoting our time & energy to this for free (trolls & shills excluded), there must be some sort of power there somewhere. of course, there's always a chance these types of groups will get corrupted too. but then, seems there are many people these days that have a good enough bullshit meter these days to eventually call a spade a spade and cut bait as long as they have freedom of choice.
somehow somewhere deep down, i choose to believe the core of the issue is what the Hebrews call 'timshel' : thou mayest (thanks John Steinbeck). there has to be a point where we are either willing to trust ourselves and our innate intelligence and that of our brothers and sisters as well (either/and individually, collectively) or we don't.
very interesting subject, thanks for cookin the noodle.
Mostly agree. And BTW - my current experimental approach (which by no means i consider "final"), is something that brainfucks the current dualistic distinctions: A gov model, where depending on participlation it can be as "dictatorial" or as "anarchistic" as the participation is - aided by easy popular access to current decision-making (in short, anyone can at any time get in, inform him/herself, and participate.... but doesn't need to). So in principle: The "type" of the gov changing by the participation of the population, without requiring any doctrine (except of ANYONE caring) for "governance" (including anarchism) to function.
You are absolutely correct; the problem is "groups forming". Your ideas are not new or novel our founders were very aware of these issues. If you took the time to study the Constitution and how it came to be you would recognize that it is probably the most effective pact ever written for the formation of a group (government) which was designed to limit the power of groups, both government and non government.
Monopolies rely on the collusion or acquiescence of Government. Without the support of the governing authority in a society they cannot form or survive.
The only proper role for organized government in any society is to provide justice in support of civil society, to protect the liberty and property of its citizens. It should protect the weak and small from the big and strong. It can do this without the formation of complex laws and regulations. It simply needs to enforce basic law. Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not kill. Do no harm to others. Government must protect us from one another and from our external enemies.
Our problem is that the rule of law has been destroyed by excessive law and regulation. Structured Bankruptcy for instance is an injustice in the name of law. It is a most recent example of government and powerful groups stealing with impunity. Just ask the Indiana Teachers Retirement Fund, a small weak group which was the victim of theft by a much more powerful group.
Almost completely agree, except of with one part:
From an economic POV, i do not think that this is sufficient. See, the root issue of the "unemployment problem".... which btw really is just a symptom of something bigger - is that people's existence depends on a free market job. Now, the free market model is highly reductionist... or should i say individualist? So, it never takes the "big picture" into account, but creates "transactions" based on individual demand. As i explained a few times i other threads, this is a major flaw, because it cannot handle there being less fulltime "job demand", than there is fulltime "workhours" available.
In a nutshell, the problem can be summarized like this: When it comes to the most basic existencial needs, why is a free market even *required*? After all, you have X demand, and Y supply, so considering just those things, it should ALWAYS work out, and the question is just how many workhours each individual has to work to satisfy the demand. But you see, the free market model cannot account for such "big picture"considerations. It only creates transactions on an individual basis.
What's my point? There is a need for a common society wide base, that ensures the most basic needs for individual survival. It can be gov coordinatend or even to a low extend be gov sponsored, but it doesn't need to be fully gov controlled (cooperatives could do the majority of the work). But there IS an need for such a "collective POV" to deal with basic existencial needs.
Why is there such a need? Because if you do not have this, your "free market" will be built on an "unfree market".... a "job market" that is based on intimidation and outrightly threatening people with death (lack of basic existencial needs). You simply cannot have fair "price discovery" without either party of the transaction being able to say "No!"... and a party whichs outright individual survival depends on agreeing to an offer, no matter the conditions, always has to agree, no matter the conditions - which is the antithesis of the premises of a free market.
TL/DR? You cannot get a fair "individualistic" market, without it being based on an efficient collective market. You need BOTH, not "either or". And the gov is an optimal candidate in coordinating and policing such a collective base, even if perhaps it doesn't need to do or provide all the workload.
Who gets to decide what these "basic existencial needs" are? You and your buddies or me and mine? You are now arguing against yourself. Either "groups forming" is a problem as you previously said or you and your buddies get to decide what my "needs" are. If you use the power of your "group" to insure what I need is taken from those who have more than they need and given to me is that not a "group forming", a monopoly of the worst kind.
Now I just feel sorry for you.
By the way I recognize Marx when I see it no matter how you try to disguise it. From each according to his ability to each according to his "basic existencial needs". This dogma was responsible for the untimely death of several hundred million "individuals" in the last century but then we are Americans and if anyone can make it work we can, right? Let's give it one more try. Maybe we can do it without all that death and stuff.
Things are much simpler than you seem to realize.
Actually, enforcing current laws & regs would go along way to solving these problems...but I am for the big regulatory bomb for the financial industry.
BRING BACK GLASS-STEGALL.
After all, it worked pretty well for over 60 years, until the de-regulators took over.
Exactly right. And history is filled with examples of horrible consequences of de-regulation or lack of regulation. The industrial revolution is a perfect example. Robber Barons raped the land and abused their workers, used child labor, engaged in unfair competition that destroyed small and less evil competitors, etc. Kind of like China today (which of course the current oligarchs say is the preferred model). If we could only cross Ron Paul with William Black (the senior regulator who actually did something in response to the savings and loan crises of the '80's), we'd be in business.
Amen to William Black. Real bankers and real politicians went to jail as a result of the Savings & Loan fiasco...and the cost if it was less the $500 Billion ($150Billion sticks in my head) to the taxpayer.
Ever wonder what it'd be like if, instead of working as Wally-World greeters, the retired MSGs, 1SGs, MCPOs, et. al., would be hired to be regulators, QCs, and work-time investigators for .gov?
Betcha a lot more would be done with a lot less.
You are either a troll or you don't understand history. Perhaps both.
Re: Robber Barons. Yeah, folks rightly despised Rockefeller for driving down the price of gasoline, increasing its availability to those same oppressed masses during the industrial revolution. I hate lower prices and wider availability. I'll grant you the Rockefeller family is far from a perfect example, but in this context Rockefeller is the perfect counter-example to your silly claims.
I also love the "unfair competition" remark. Was Henry Ford engaging in unfair practices while pioneering the assembly line? After all, he discovered an advantage that increased production utilizing fewer individuals. The gall! He increased unemployment!
Re: Industrial Revolution. People worked in factories because life on the farm (or in other occupations) was not preferable. In other words, people worked in factories by choice, not by coercion. Conditions sucked, yes, but people endured it because they believed their effort would yield a better life for future generations of their families. That's the funny thing about wealth, it takes a long time to accumulate. Unfortunately this point is lost on today's need-it-now mindset.
There's more, but I have to move on. Your views are shortsighted and completely ignorant of history. On the bright side, your high school histroy and social studies teachers would give you an "A"
Rockefeller RAISED prices after he lowered them. He lowered them to destroy competition and he was big enough that he could sell for below cost, driving smaller competitors out of business. Once competition was destroyed and he had a monolopy, prices went up higher than they started. You should expand your readiing list. Prices went back down after his monopolies were busted by your hated government. I don't there's much I can do to convince you that the feudal system of serfs and lords is an inherently bad thing, so I won't try. I know you believe you're destined to be one of the top of your feudal pyramid. If you're right and you have no empathy for others, you'll be happy which is all that matters to you I know.
Um, no. Houghton Mifflin and/or Prentice Hall might endorse your fairy tale version of history, but that assertion has been debunked many, many, many times.
Predatory pricing does not work. You might want to read about Dow Chemical's actions against a German producer of Bromide. Here, I'll even do the legwork for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Henry_Dow
BTW, that you are implicitly cheering the only real monopoly to have ever existed (government) in its actions against a perceived monopoly (Standard Oil) is delicious irony.
No, it has not been debunked factually. Show me where. Your attempt to change the subject to the Dow Chemical bromide story proves that you don't have facts to back up your argument. That is consistent with everyone I've ever met that shares your ideology. The fact that you can find one example where predatory pricing did not work does not render the entire concept debunked. Rockefeller did it quite successfully. Conversely, your argument that government acts as a monopoly is true. But why would you want to replace an elected monolopy entity that may at least potentially represent our interests and that is not driven by a selfish profit motive, with an unelected group of ladder climbing sociopaths who run multi-national corporations and that would sell their own mothers if there were a buck in it?
Let me play devils advocate here. Short version: What i will be "hitting" on, is the "pseudo"-aspect of ... well, pseudo-democracy, that will sooner or later arise from any kind of democracy, that primarily relies on "representative democracy via elections".
One would want to replace it, when all the options whom to elect are shit, and are sponsored, by precisely those whom you - falsely - portrait as being incompatible with those you CAN elect.
Phrased another way: Imagine a dictatorship, that creates a bunch of parties, that however all follow the same agenda. Does the mere fact that you can "elect" someone matter anymore at all, or make it NOT a dictatorship? Furthermore, do the results have anything to do anymore with "demographics"?
See, welcome to what in current societies is called "democracy", and is falsely portrayed as the opposite of dictatorship, when in reality, it isn't far from it.
I guess, now you'd mention RP as an exception - but may i remind you? Even he has to succumb to the system, by running as a republican, instead of his own party.
"But why would you want to replace an elected monolopy entity that may at least potentially represent our interests and that is not driven by a selfish profit motive, with an unelected group of ladder climbing sociopaths who run multi-national corporations and that would sell their own mothers if there were a buck in it?"
Government is the only mechanism powerful enough to grant and enforce monopolistic activities; in other words, government is the only reason these mega corporations exist.
I happen to think earned profit (free from force or fraud) is a pretty damn good thing. I also think selfishness is an admirable trait.
I'm sorry you have such thin skin. Maybe Fight Club is not the place for you.
Still no facts or evidence to support your view so you resort to childish personal attacks and advocating selfishness as a virtue, effectively acknowledging that it's always been all about what you think is best for you personally and society as a whole can just be damned meaning that even you don't believe your own BS? Pretty much how these discussions usually end.
OUCH, epic fail! I can't even bother to dig out counter-historical evidence, because the abundance is so high.
What in a best case *the current style of govs* ensures, merely is *management* of such monopolies, so that they will go apeshit later, rather than sooner (which may depending on the case, be undesirable).
Sorry, but you are as naive, as a "libertarian" can go. Absent governments and central banks, and absent any other measures, there is absolutely NOTHING stopping monopolies from forming - the only thing that may be different, is that when the time for "bailouts" arrives, they only get out 0-3 bailouts, instead of a dozen... while that may sound better than the current state of affairs, it does absolutely nothing about such monopolies forming (friendly reminder: "Government" is just a word, that may simply be replaced by any other rather powerful entity).
To add salt to the wound: You won't change anything by "banning words". And even if you go over to banning "meaning", you have to do it in a way, that isn't in conflict with reality (read: isn't wishful thinking - you need to actually change anything, to change anything, instead of just playing word games, or playing "lalala, i don't see what i don't want to see!")
Naive, maybe. As I said above, the US can always return to today's quasi-fascist form of government if government (however you care to define it) does not work.
As for your assertion that a new kind of government will crop up to replace the existing one, absent what the US currently has, I guess I'll have to take you ar you word. Just as there is no solid example of anarchy at work (save maybe Icleand in the 1500s), you have no example proving your case. What you've said is merely your line of thinking, just as what I've said is mine.
You and LTER appear comfortable with the devil you know, which is fine. Borh of you are also incapable of grasping the simple truth that government is what makes monopolies - monetary or otherwise - possible. I'd like to improve the situation by abolishing the devil. While monopoly formation is POSSIBLE with any governing mechanism. sustaining them is a completely different ballgame. In a true free market, sustaining monopolies is impossible.
As for my "epic fail" perhaps you'd care to explain the revolving door between Washington and Wall St. Explain why the CEO of GE is in the President's cabinet, explain why Goldman Sachs runs all things monetary, explain how/why the military industrial complex has gotten so big, explain the need for government control of everything from education to food, etc.
I'm naive? Again, maybe. But your post above is as silly as they come.
Besides of what letthem... replied:
False dichtomy. The one does not contradict the other. I.e. you can engineer an environment where choice X is preferable to choice Y, even if without you inteference, choice Y would be prefereable, and then argue that people did choose X out of free will, even though YOU were the one who did make X more advantagous than Y, even if Y now is less advantegous than it ORIGINALLY was (or could have been).
Bottom line: choosing one above another, at a single point of time, tells you NOTHING about the context (and thus, possible manipulation).
No. I'm saying no one forced workers to migrate to the cities and work in factories. People made that choice on their own, for whatever reason. All things being equal, people choose the best alterative available to them at the time. What's best for one person may not be what's best for another.....choice is subjective. No sane individual would choose a less desirable occupation when a better occupation is available.
"the best" at a single point of time, ignoring the context.
I do not see how your reply is in contradiction of what i wrote. And i may add: Just because there MAY be possible malicious manipulation, does not mean that there IS malicious manipulation (heck, it doesn't even tell you if there was manipulation, if it was benefical and fair).
All i was saying was: Your argument proves nothing. Neither the one way, nor the other. It simply was irrelevant.
OK, I see what you mean - I think we (kind of) saying the same thing....although you said it better: just because there may be possible malicious manipulation does not mean there IS malicious manipulation.
It was LetThemEatRand's original contention that the Industrial Revolution lead to widespread worker oppression.....until the government swooped in and saved them. I disagree with this, and I used a poor example in refuting it. I should have attacked his assertion instead of using the wrong example.
Thanks.
Partially agree and disagree.
In theory (read: utopian wonderland), the industrial revolution should have resulted in a giant raise of living standards for the entire population. And i do not just mean an "adjusted" raised living standard - i mean just flat out pure collective growth of satisfaction.
Why? Simple: If you can achieve the same output (goods and benefits) with less input (work-hours!), then everyone would get more, by working less.
That's how in theory it should work out in utopian-land.
What happened in practice instead?
Well, there is that old, and hopelessly obsolete doctrine, on which the ENTIRE current foundation of society, culture, morals, politics, government, economy - actually ENTIRE CIVILIZATION rests on:
The need to work (fulltime) to survive.
See, as i mentioned above, in theory gaining more via less costs, shoudl benefit everyone. But because of the doctrine that people's SURVIVAL is only GRANTED by a "free market job", the outcome was the OPPOSITE: Worse living conditions!
How so? Simple. If having to work X hours to sustain your survival is taken as an axion, then if the amount of required work hours decreases (LOWER DEMAND), then to get just that, you have to work more, or earn less, or a mix of both - while some others will get *absolutely nothing*. To simplify it: By there being more people, than there are job offerings, you create a casino: It is already certain anyways, that X amount of people will either die, or be "sponsored" by entitlements.... but from the POV of an individual, it is under distress for survival - so it is pushed to accept free market job offerings, even if the conditions and the way how "price discovery" happens, are far from what is called a "free market".
Or to put it bluntly: Wage dumping.
So, what about that fancy industrial revolution? In theory, everyone should be better off. In practice, because of a broken economy model (INCLUDING popular capitalism and free markets), the majority is worse of, to be exploited by a minority.
Yup, "progress" can suck big time, if you fail to adapt to it efficiently.
Hmmm, interesting. Please explain, using your logic above, why real wages haven't improved standards of living in 40 years?
Workers should be paid according to their marginal productivity. That is, if I can't add XXXX dollars above what it costs to employ me, I will not be hired. The Austrian School is quite clear on this.
I suspect you are confusing wage dumping with a flawed monetary policy. It wasn't *that* long ago a household could afford a decent life with only one parent working. But hey, we gotta keep that government-run monetary system because, well, without it things would REALLY get bad......right?
You are forgetting regulatory capture and legislative capture. We have the best government money can buy.
Unfortunatelly, money doesn't mean much in this case. Actually, considering the "primary dealers", money may very well be a measure of anti-desirable-votes, in this scenario.
The answer - as almost always - lies not in the "WHAT" but in the "HOW".
That applies to almost every ideological topic. Doesn't matter if you take capitalism, communism, socialism, regulation, the gov, the people, the collective, the individuals, or really ANY ideologically hot symbol.
NONE of those things are generally "good" or "bad" by definition, but by how they work and for what they are used for (INTENTION, something that no machine/concept can replace!).
But of course, it's mentally much less effort, to simply fight over the "what", rather than over the "how" - because if you were argueing about the "how", you'd actually have to come of with proposals how to implement someting, instead of braindead throwing around with terms, that are so vague, that they are void of meaning and significance.
It's also telling that the left/right paradigm and war of the "whats" that is shoved down our throats each day does not account for a "liberal" supporting Ron Paul, yet many do. And I'm not a young pot smokin' college kid (I think there are some that support him merely because he will legalize pot). I'm a small business owner in my 40's and I support Ron Paul because he represents real change to a system that needs real change, even if I greatly disagree with some of his ideas. The idea that liberals and conservatives are diametrically opposed on all important things is just plain false. But TPTB have managed to divide us to their benefit and I suspect their formula will continue to work for a long, long time.
I wouldn't even call myself a libertarian, do not fully agree with the popular mindset on ZH, and have never ever voted in my life (and so far have no intentions to do so).
And yet, i can like RP simply because he is honest, consistent, has so far acted on his words, and his intentions are fair and in line with what i like (even if i may disagree in some cases on the "means" with him).
To me, why i respect RP is not because he is a libertarian, not because of the ideas he promotes, but simply because he is honest and the intentions of what he'd like to achieve are not far from mine. And THAT is a potential president i feel much more comfortable argueing with (even from an oppositional stance), than the lying parasitary plague that are run-of-the-mill politicians. In a worst case, gimme a honest enemy any day over a lying sack of shit.
"(I think there are some that support him merely because he will legalize pot)."
sorry to debunk, he can & will not "legalize" anything : he supports allowing the states to decide the matter and stepping the back away.
as for "pot", does your definition include the male of the species? if so, why is this such a childish reason?
You are correct -- he would seek to end federal laws criminalizing pot, but leave it to local communities and states to criminalize it on a more local level. As for your other point, I did not intend to imply that the desire to change federal drug laws -- especially those that deprive society of the benefits of the marijuana plant -- is childish. There are compelling reasons to legalize the male of the species which has massive utility for fuel, fibers, and many other uses. Having said that, I believe there probably are those who support Paul solely because they seem him as the champion of their beloved drug of choice. I don't personally care and if that causes them to go vote, great.
Respect for the Constitution? How can you say you respect the Constitution then argue we need "more regulation"? Our Constitution is fundamentally a Libertarian document. The greatest regulator of human behavior is FEAR Of FAILURE. That is what Ron Paul is trying to say when he talks about free markets and enforcing basic law. The day after the Constitution was signed and every day since people have been working to undermine it. These people want to use the power of government to insure their personal success, to reduce or eliminate the possibility of their own failure. Many of these people are now working for or on the board of TOO BIG TO FAIL financial institutions. They want to disadvantage their competition with regulatory barriers to competition and tax payer funded bailouts. The USA is not TOO BIG TO FAIL. Let the TBTF bankers eat cake. Restore justice by sending violators of basic law to jail. Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not kill. It really is not all that complicated.
I disagree in that I believe the Founders were fundamentally interested in avoiding needless or especially self-interested interference by the State (especially an unelected King), not in avoiding all regulation. Even assuming they could have imagined the complex business world which now surrounds us, they fundamentally believed in the rule of law as opposed to might makes right. To enforce the rule of law, you need law men and women (aka regulators). It's really not a leap and that is where Ron Paul loses me. I'd rather have elected leaders try to keep the oligarchs in check, than leave the world to the oligarchs to do what they please. I also don't believe for a second that oligarchs need government to do their evil. They corrupt government because they can, and it is an obstacle they have to overcome. Without government and regulators, they would corrupt the police and judges. Without police and judges, we would have no law except theirs.
The constitution is not a libertarian document, the articals of confederation was a libertarian document, and it failed in less then a decade so badly that the founding fathers had to trash it and start over.
Somalia looks to meet the libertarian ideal rather well, yet I don't see alot of people going galt there. Maybe you have some other place in mind that meets the libertarian ideal, I would be interested in knowing if such a place exists and is worth going too.
#41
" we need more regulation of large business "
Give me a break. How bout maybe a little enforcement of what has been bought and paid for.
Yup, if existing regulations would be used for their claimed purposes, there'd be no problem at all. At the risk of repeating myself: Considering that besides of rootlevel overhauls, pretty much anything can be made law, and considering that it all across the board is in desync with the claimed purposes, perhaps the issue is neither "what" kind of tools are in place, nor "how many".... but rather that those in control have intentions, that are in total contradiction with the claimed purposes of the tools.
Perhaps, the person you replied to should have worded himself a bit differently: What is needed isn't "more".... what is needed is different intentions and them being promoted "more intensely".
Or in short: Your problem aren't the tools in place - your problem are the people in control and their intentions. THIS is what you should get rid of to further your goals - more/different concepts will to exactly -nothing-, if only because tools can be used for different purposes, and concepts can - obviously - be MODIFIED, while retaining their terms (symbols), so that a concept can be turned into someting entirely different, without the words changing.
let's see i voted for Mondale Dukakis Carter Clinton Gore and Obama and now i'm so disgusted with Obama and the Dems that I think Jon Huntsman with Ron Paul as VP would be great. Obama better watch out he's gonna go down
Well said. The Libertarian position actually crosses both parties at some points and irritates both parties. That has it's advantages and disadvantages. Freedom is incovient to large parts of both parties.
A libertarian will not tend to compromise. They will tend to ask you to choose. That is a better proposition.
Half?! C'mon man...
I deffinately do not think Stewart is being disingenuous. He devoted a large segment of his show to an honest question and answer format. Paul had more time to explain his views than on any Network or cable news station. This is about free speach and it is long overdue that so called "minor" political candidates get a fair public hearing.
did you not watch the interview? sounded like there was very few ron paul supporters in the audience, whenever stewart made any kind of argument against ron paul's views or idea the audience cheered him on
Don't know if i watched the same interview as you, but what i saw was that the audience simply cheered:
1. By command at the beginning of each interview section (blergh!)
2. When any of both made well presented arguments, regardless of if it was RP or JS.
Hell, I'd vote for Jon Stewart over any of the republican candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul.
Even if Stewart is completely fake, at least he is good at pretending he gives a shit- that's more than I've seen out of most politicians.
He'd also make state of the union adresses much more entertaining. If you've gotta have a puppet, it may as well be amusing when it dances.
America will get the President it deserves and that is unfortunately why Ron Paul will not be elected!
Oh man...we've got the president we deserve right now. Can't we get more than we deserve for a change?
Carefull what you ask for. What makes you think we deserve better?
#41
Newt would be the safe choice for Ron Paul's running mate, but I'd like to see him pick Rand. He could also consider picking Herman Cain or Michelle Bachmann for the outsider factor.
i"d rather have schiff....but the choice would be easy with others from the same cloth......r
fuck i'll tak paul/tylers....