I'm dealing with a guy who seems to be ardently in support of Ron Paul on Facebook, I say "seems" because he seems more interested in attacking everyone one of my statements semantically then really selling Ron Paul's ideals. I could be wrong in places because admittedly it's not something i've been looking into lately but I don't like Ron Paul. My points were quoted, but in some cases I believe he missed what I was trying to say and if you need me to post the quote from before I will. My biggest issue here is that I think he's trying to distract from Ron Paul's crazy agenda by attacking my wording and making references to economic red herrings. He's an economist as well, but I sense a lot of political bias towards a pro corporate standpoint since I found that a few of his sources are right-wing or libertarian. My posts are in quotations, his responces are italicized.
I think you have a fews things wrong. I hope you take my suggestions and check out the literature I recommend. From your comments im assuming you haven’t challenged the public school narrative of history you learned in middle and highschool. Theres a ton of misinformation out there, all of it very consequential. I put your text in quotes and mine without so you can see what I’m responding to. I haven’t proof read any of this, so ask any question you’d like, for clarity or rebuttal. I hope you take the time to read it and maybe even check some of the lit I mention.
“A lot of his "reforms" boil down to dismantlement of the Federal Government in many ways which just aren't even feasible. He's just trying to appeal to a disgruntled base of voters who feel that since the Federal Government doesn't make sense to them it should be redesigned so it does.”
I don’t see this as much an argument, but a plain assertion. The paul plan is “just not feasible”? How so? You haven’t offered an ounce of evidence other than an assertion that something isn’t feasible simply because it isn’t feasible. As for feasibility of massive cuts to a central government, the cases of China in 78, India in the 90s, and the Scandinavian countries in the mid 90s, I think, answer the feasibility question.
“Really he's the ultimate libertarian which is exactly what many Corporations want. “
This is curious, given that Obama has amassed more corporate money for his current campaign that any other politician in history breaking the current record set by himself in his 2008 campaign. Moreover, can you name a corporation that has donated to the libertarian party? To my knowledge the number is zero. The paul campaign has gotten money from one billionaire, peter thiel, and for anyone who has ever watch a minute of cnbc known theil’s donation is purely ideological, he’s been touting libertarianism since the founding of paypal. Last, if libertarianism is all corporations want, why did big business fund the progressive movement, and most notably Woodrow Wilson? Why did big business side with LBJ over goldwater? Why do corporations like Monsanto and GS repeatedly support interventionists? Why does wal-mart support a higher minimum wage? Wghy does buffet support a higher marginal tax rate? (he owns life insurance companies and doesn’t pay income tax!) Why is obama’s number of campaign contributor gldman sacs and GE? Why did health insurers funnel money to George W? (answer: medicare part d). If corporations love libertarianism, why don’t they support dr. paul who wishes to eliminate the fed (because big banks borrow from the fed at .025 and lend to the treasury at 6%!)… and the most obvious question, if corporations love libertarism, why don’t they donate to paul, the “ultimate libertarian”??? I think I spot a case of cognitive dissonance.
“No one donates to Paul's campaign because he doesn't stand a chance, and Mitt Romney is the far more attractive corporate shoe in.”
Sure, because he supports high tariffs on foreign goods, minimum wage laws, Sarbanes oxly to crush startups, government debt so big banks can collect interest, et etc. Mit is the furthest from libertarian one can be. You corporations love libertarians but don’t fund libertarians therefore corporations love libertarians. Interesting logic.
“Aside from that, Ron Paul is all just a complete and utter crackpot. He actually said that he believed the Civil Rights Act should be removed because it impedes America's Economy! “
If you keep up on labor economics, and most specifically, compensating differentials, you’d know that scholarship in this area comes to the same conclusion. The last time black youth unemployment was lower than white was circa 1948 before a higher min wage was passed. You’d also know, if you kept up on the recent scholarship on the black family, that it was the post civil right act era the marriage rates decline and illegitimacy rates increased in the black community. There is a good amount of scholarship on the economic effects of the civil rights act, and what improvements and setbacks are attributable to it and what aren’t. I suggest to pick up two books by Thomas sowell which provide a decent survey of the recent scholarship, “Civil Right, Rhetoric or Reality” and “Economic Facts and Fallacies.” It’s interesting stuff.
“He wants to remove the Federal Bank and work in gold, because he really believes the world was better off before market globalization. “
This shows a complete misunderstanding of money and its history. It was gold that made globalization possible. It is innumerable paper monies that keep us at a partial barter system, which obviously impedes global trade. Moreover, he doesn’t belevieve “the world was better.” If you knows the specifics about the various gold standards before 1971, none of them are advocated by paul. I suggest you wiki the gold exchange standard, bretton woods, the greenback, and the classical gold standard.
“He insists that Global Warming is a hoax, and that climate change isn't happening”
I am no scientist. I cannot speak for paul. I’ve seen videos where he says he believes the earth is warming. I’ve seen him say it wasn’t an issue. I have also seen scholars suggesting the effects of global warming are too unclear. There are a decent amount of scientists at MIT that challenge the orthodoxy. I suggest you google them.
“he also believes the UN is trying to take over America!”
I don’t think I’ve heard him say this. If you can provide a quote that’d be great. Safe to say he is against centralization, and the UN is quite a centralizing institution is it not? (rhetorical)
"These are not the views of a plucky, ambitious man, he's just a complete wacko. His supporters always advertise what they believe are his more "reasonable" views but their is nothing reasonable about wiping out taxes (the government's chief source of income) and getting rid of the Federal Bank. (The primary means in which America interacts with the global market.) His supporters are just disgruntled. They don't know anymore about the Federal Government than he does, and because they have precisely zero interest in learning about real politics they're attracted to a man who will do them a favor and just remove that pesky obstacle completely! It's so easy now isn't it!
“"Local Governmental" or government by the states has historically, never, ever worked. “
Sweden and the cannons “don’t work”? The US before the civil war “didn’t work”? Ulster county government “doesn’t work”? I, to a degree, completely agree with you. Government doesn’t work. Monopolies of ultimately decision making with the power to unilaterally determine the price for their services do not work. But small government is historically preferable to large states. Think soviet union. Moreover, look at the movement of people over history, they vote with there feet. Did people stay in highly centralized great britian of nearly anarchistic US? Are people not fleeing china to hong kong? Did people not flock to the west from the more centralized north during the 19th century? And in which area was there more violence and lawlessness? (if you say the west, again, you’re going to have to tell us why the recent scholarship is wrong and you are right!) Moreover, have you the studies linkinh decentralization to sustained GNP growth? They all come to the comclusion that economic growth is highly correlated with decentralized government. I’ve seen some with correlations of .75! This is HUGE correlation if you keep up with the work done on national accounts.
“The Articles of Confederation and the Confederate States of America were attempts on two separate occasions to allow the states overwhelming power over the Federal Government. The first case ended with economic and political stalemate in every area.”
If this not the case in the present world? Moreover, some of us would conclude that the constitution has been an immense failure. Government keeps growing, schools shitty, constant wars, dollar devaluation, you can be made slave by draft, obama can indefinitely detain you at a whim, we can bomb countries for 20 years and it’s a “military conflict”, not a war, Vietnam, Iraq, desert storm, Afghanistan, clusterfuck in Africa right now, 40 percent of the middle Americans money is taken from them and given to GE, GM, goldman, et al. AND THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT?????? An honest person, I think, should question the public school, 7th grade history lesson. I came across this article about 4 years ago. It really got me thinking. I suggest you check it out. : http://mises.org/daily/1296
“The second case ended with Confederacy being integrated right back in to the Union after trying to impose their idea on the rights of the states (particularly in deciding on slavery) vs. the right of the Federal Government.”
One could go on forever about states right, their record on fighting slavery (there are volumes on this), and the like. But I think the core problem with the anti-states rights camp is their logic. Simply, you do not think there should be anarchy between two people, therefore we should have a state to keep order. We should also not have anarchy between states because it is chaotic, therefore we should have a federal government. But, in your world of a federalism, there is still anarchy between federal governments. Logic forces you to call for world government. Until you throw up your hands in support for world government, you being content with numerous federal governments is precisely the logic of the who want numerous state government. Again, a contradicting in your logic. This all, of course, assumes you don’t support world government. If you do then, well, that’s another story, and ill address it later if you’d like.
“The Articles of Confederation were a failure, complete and total, their is no other way around it. Lack of a uniform currency and inability to enforce tax codes is NOT something to be proud of. “
Since when does paul not want a uniform currency? I thought he was for gold. Again, you are contradicting yourself.
The rest of your argument involves an number of assertions which I wont address, name calling and the like. But the core of it is.. welfare is good, taxes are good, we’d all be dead without them. They are “social progress.” I’ll address them as quickly and concisely as I can, though its hard to teach nearly the entire corpus of economic science in a facebook post.
People respond to incentives. They try and achieve the highest end with the least means employed. Or in the economic sense, they strive for the highest psychic profit with the lowest psychic cost. Therefore, if you raise the cost of an activity, this is a disincentive to engage in this activity, humans will find it less attractive relative to less costly endeavors. Now lets apply this to taxation. If tax activity X higher than Y, some will shift from the former to the latter. With this in mind, it is no surprise then, that poverty in the united states declined each year less depression years at least 1%, then after the great society, the largest expansin of the welfare state in US history, the poverty rate began to increase for the first time in non depression years. So.. plainly speaking, if you punish production, people will produce less. If you pay people not to work. They will work less. Most illustrative of this point is the recent recession, where unemployment benefits have had their lngest duration, highest pay, and where individual spans of unemployment are the longest they’ve been in any economic downturn.
Moreover, I think your assumption that “the middle class and poor need taxes” or whatever is based on some belief that things like schools and roads would not be provided for. Its interesting to note that great Britain’s entire infrastructure was built by private individuals, and that the Netherlands (I’m pretty sure, could be another euro country) have numerous private roads which businesses pay for absent corercive taxation. There are many more examples, also for schools, see this short post : http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/dollars-up ... ores-down/. For more historical examples of the private provision of goods and services absent taxation and the state, check the historical works by tom woods, tom dilorenzo, and murray rothbard. Most of their works are offered for free online.
For other, economic issues, I think you should check out “The Big Ripoff” by Tim Carney, “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt, “race and economics” by walter Williams, and “How Capitalism saved America” by Thomas dilorenzo. There are short texts and easy to read. If you need some more technical stuff, I’m a walking, talking bibliography. Just ask.
This guy has done some serious homework and that's better than a typical RP fanatic, but I feel like he's an economic idealist. IE: He's arguing from a purely economic outlook and makes the typical RP fan assertion that "the world has problems therefore RP is the way to go". I mean, I could be wrong on things but I sense the pungent stench of veiled right-wing/pro corporate bias.
EDIT: I make a lot of claims about what Ron Paul's been claiming in my posts, I attest that all of these claims are true. I didn't provide exact sources on them because they're literally all as simple to find as a Google search or looking right at the man's campaign and Facebook posts are a pain in the ass to do this with.
Debunking avid Ron Paul supporter.
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
-
CaptHawkeye
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2939
- Joined: 2007-03-04 06:52pm
- Location: Korea.
Debunking avid Ron Paul supporter.
Best care anywhere.
-
CaptHawkeye
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2939
- Joined: 2007-03-04 06:52pm
- Location: Korea.
Re: Debunking avid Ron Paul supporter.
Cut to the chase with some thinking letter and went to town on him myself.
I think you have a fews things wrong. I hope you take my suggestions and check out the literature I recommend. From your comments im assuming you haven’t challenged the public school narrative of history you learned in middle and highschool. Theres a ton of misinformation out there, all of it very consequential. I put your text in quotes and mine without so you can see what I’m responding to. I haven’t proof read any of this, so ask any question you’d like, for clarity or rebuttal. I hope you take the time to read it and maybe even check some of the lit I mention.
Alright, if my information is so wrong what makes any of your information so right? Next you’ll me you believe the moon landing was a hoax.
I don’t see this as much an argument, but a plain assertion. The paul plan is “just not feasible”? How so? You haven’t offered an ounce of evidence other than an assertion that something isn’t feasible simply because it isn’t feasible. As for feasibility of massive cuts to a central government, the cases of China in 78, India in the 90s, and the Scandinavian countries in the mid 90s, I think, answer the feasibility question.
An assertion is just as valid as an argument. What’s feasible about dismantling the Federal Government? Do you know how he’ll do it? How he plans to do it? I don’t need to offer evidence for what is a very practical consideration. Rather it is *you*, and his supporters who must offer evidence to how any of the changes he proposes are realistic. This is a major problem I have with his supporters from top to bottom and it’s never, ever answered. China and India are poor examples of places where cuts have been supposedly “beneficial”. I mean unless you’re rich and live in Shanghai. Plenty of Chinese don’t, and have not, benefit from the decisions their governments have made about backing off from economic control.
This is curious, given that Obama has amassed more corporate money for his current campaign that any other politician in history breaking the current record set by himself in his 2008 campaign. Moreover, can you name a corporation that has donated to the libertarian party? To my knowledge the number is zero. The paul campaign has gotten money from one billionaire, peter thiel, and for anyone who has ever watch a minute of cnbc known theil’s donation is purely ideological, he’s been touting libertarianism since the founding of paypal.
Who’s funding who honestly doesn’t matter and was just brought up before by someone else. We *both* need to stop throwing around Corporate Funding like it’s an organized movement that you can cover under a sweeping generalization because it isn’t. Like I said, it really doesn’t matter who’s getting money from where. If you want to get airtime on a CNN or Fox News political debate with people like Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich then you’re getting money from somewhere pal.
Last, if libertarianism is all corporations want, why did big business fund the progressive movement, and most notably Woodrow Wilson? Why did big business side with LBJ over goldwater? Why do corporations like Monsanto and GS repeatedly support interventionists? Why does wal-mart support a higher minimum wage? Wghy does buffet support a higher marginal tax rate? (he owns life insurance companies and doesn’t pay income tax!) Why is obama’s number of campaign contributor gldman sacs and GE? Why did health insurers funnel money to George W? (answer: medicare part d). If corporations love libertarianism, why don’t they support dr. paul who wishes to eliminate the fed (because big banks borrow from the fed at .025 and lend to the treasury at 6%!)… and the most obvious question, if corporations love libertarism, why don’t they donate to paul, the “ultimate libertarian”??? I think I spot a case of cognitive dissonance.
Naming an occasional bright side of something corporations do is honestly useless. The Nazis wanted to ban smoking in public, I guess that means their other decisions and policies are totally validated now right? (You should be arguing for Wal Mart least of all, I don’t care at all about their opinion on raising the minimum wage when many of their employees don’t even make minimum wage.) There is nothing dissonant about corporations liking Libertarianism on paper but not supporting it in practice, especially because the man spouting it stands a snowball’s chance in hell of winning any real election.
And another thing, don’t accuse me of being too aggressive and then try to passively insult me.
Sure, because he supports high tariffs on foreign goods, minimum wage laws, Sarbanes oxly to crush startups, government debt so big banks can collect interest, et etc. Mit is the furthest from libertarian one can be. You corporations love libertarians but don’t fund libertarians therefore corporations love libertarians. Interesting logic.
What’s interesting is how hard it is for you to understand that just because people like something doesn’t mean they support it. Do not make me have to spell this out again.
If you keep up on labor economics, and most specifically, compensating differentials, you’d know that scholarship in this area comes to the same conclusion. The last time black youth unemployment was lower than white was circa 1948 before a higher min wage was passed. You’d also know, if you kept up on the recent scholarship on the black family, that it was the post civil right act era the marriage rates decline and illegitimacy rates increased in the black community. There is a good amount of scholarship on the economic effects of the civil rights act, and what improvements and setbacks are attributable to it and what aren’t. I suggest to pick up two books by Thomas sowell which provide a decent survey of the recent scholarship, “Civil Right, Rhetoric or Reality” and “Economic Facts and Fallacies.” It’s interesting stuff.
Sorry man but I’ve looked into your so called “scholarship” and I can’t say I consider the views of an openly right-wing, pro laissez faire economist that much. I’m not saying I care that he is any of those things, I’m saying that I care he’s open about his politics and clearly lets it influence his skill. It should be the other way around.
This shows a complete misunderstanding of money and its history. It was gold that made globalization possible. It is innumerable paper monies that keep us at a partial barter system, which obviously impedes global trade. Moreover, he doesn’t belevieve “the world was better.” If you knows the specifics about the various gold standards before 1971, none of them are advocated by paul. I suggest you wiki the gold exchange standard, bretton woods, the greenback, and the classical gold standard.
See maybe you’re used to arguing with people who won’t call on these things but I happen to know about those. Thing is, it doesn’t matter. The fact that the gold standard existed before the global economy is a no brainer obviously. What *isn’t* a no brainer is the level of market co-operation that exists today and the population of the world, AND the quality of life improvements across the board. None of which existed when the gold standard was dropped. Yet again I find myself in the position asking a Ron Paul supporter how he will solve practical problems, and I get no answer outside of the usual rose colored glasses claims of how much better things were “back then”. Do you like Glenn Beck too?
I am no scientist. I cannot speak for paul. I’ve seen videos where he says he believes the earth is warming. I’ve seen him say it wasn’t an issue. I have also seen scholars suggesting the effects of global warming are too unclear. There are a decent amount of scientists at MIT that challenge the orthodoxy. I suggest you google them.
Challenge the orthodoxy? Dude, the consensus on global warming is out. It’s happening, we are responsible. Do not try to peddle out that old “some experts disagree” excuse. Some “experts” think that Evolution is a hoax. MIT is a tech school, it is not their place nor within their expertise to comment on climate change.
I don’t think I’ve heard him say this. If you can provide a quote that’d be great. Safe to say he is against centralization, and the UN is quite a centralizing institution is it not? (rhetorical)
What’s centralizing about an institution who’s upper house needs a unanimous vote in order to enact serious legislation? Now THIS shows a complete misunderstanding of how a political system works. You want to throw around passive aggressive insults? I can do it too pal, especially when you say stuff like this.
Sweden and the cannons “don’t work”? The US before the civil war “didn’t work”? Ulster county government “doesn’t work”? I, to a degree, completely agree with you. Government doesn’t work. Monopolies of ultimately decision making with the power to unilaterally determine the price for their services do not work. But small government is historically preferable to large states. Think soviet union.
Wow, now THIS is cognitive dissonance. I am thinking the Soviet Union though…and I’m thinking about a state with severe internal issues coming from many, many centuries of feudal (that is, local) rule by government which eventually led to such complete disgust and dislike of the establishment that a radical change was demanded by the populace. (Where’s that people love decentralized governments circular logic you love so much again?) Too bad most Russians were only united by their common hatred of the Czar and his nobles though; otherwise they might have realized how dangerous the Bolsheviks, Lenin, and their “Revolution” were. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
Moreover, look at the movement of people over history, they vote with there feet. Did people stay in highly centralized great britian of nearly anarchistic US? Are people not fleeing china to hong kong? Did people not flock to the west from the more centralized north during the 19th century? And in which area was there more violence and lawlessness? (if you say the west, again, you’re going to have to tell us why the recent scholarship is wrong and you are right!) Moreover, have you the studies linkinh decentralization to sustained GNP growth? They all come to the comclusion that economic growth is highly correlated with decentralized government. I’ve seen some with correlations of .75! This is HUGE correlation if you keep up with the work done on national accounts.
They stayed in Great Britain duh. Jesus dude, the population of Britain into the late 19th Century was easily 7 times that of America until the 1950s. Word to the wise? Your history is not as good as you think it is. People didn’t “flee” from to West in America in any sense of the term. If they did why is the population of the entire region still a fraction of the West or East coasts combined? And I am YET AGAIN forced to tell you that is not appropriate to ask someone to give you sources to common sense statements and claims vs. you’re not-at-all accepted ones. But hey if you’re going to trot out that tired old double standard of my scholars vs. your “scholars” again then you won’t be hearing from me.
If this not the case in the present world? Moreover, some of us would conclude that the constitution has been an immense failure. Government keeps growing, schools shitty, constant wars, dollar devaluation, you can be made slave by draft, obama can indefinitely detain you at a whim, we can bomb countries for 20 years and it’s a “military conflict”, not a war, Vietnam, Iraq, desert storm, Afghanistan, clusterfuck in Africa right now, 40 percent of the middle Americans money is taken from them and given to GE, GM, goldman, et al. AND THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT?????? An honest person, I think, should question the public school, 7th grade history lesson. I came across this article about 4 years ago. It really got me thinking. I suggest you check it out. : http://mises.org/daily/1296
That’s all your opinion, and it’s a bad one. If you really think living in a world where the standard of living is 3 times what it was even 50 years ago and that the average human lifespan now being upwards of 60 is bad, then I’ve got nothing to say. That speaks for itself. Don’t bring Obama up to me. Many of his supporters annoy me just as much as Paul’s. The difference is they understand their movement is about working with people and not just driving a tractor trailer of “change” into Congress with the intent of burning everything down and then claiming they’re the reasonable ones.
Yet again, you’re really not used to people actually calling you on this stuff are you? The Ludwig von Mises Institute openly peddles a libertarian political agenda (sure is easy to claim you’ve found information from “scholars” when they support your views isn’t it?) and I doubt they’re an accredited university. Man, it’s just rude to demand sources from me about whether or not the sky is blue, and then you feed me obviously politicized sources anyway.
One could go on forever about states right, their record on fighting slavery (there are volumes on this), and the like. But I think the core problem with the anti-states rights camp is their logic. Simply, you do not think there should be anarchy between two people, therefore we should have a state to keep order. We should also not have anarchy between states because it is chaotic, therefore we should have a federal government. But, in your world of a federalism, there is still anarchy between federal governments. Logic forces you to call for world government. Until you throw up your hands in support for world government, you being content with numerous federal governments is precisely the logic of the who want numerous state government. Again, a contradicting in your logic. This all, of course, assumes you don’t support world government. If you do then, well, that’s another story, and ill address it later if you’d like.
One could go on forever about states right’s, or just admit that they’ve totally failed to guarantee the rights of people living in them routinely. Even today, with their limited power available, they’ve set out to deny the rights of gays and lesbians living in their borders and have so far been successful. I am not going to spoon feed you what’s wrong with this, and why it proves the states at best deserve no more power than they have.
And stop making claims to how things are in other countries. I know how things are in other countries and I also know you can’t hold the United States Government responsible for things happening outside of its control. Gee, where’s that circular logic about the US “military conflicts” and the world being “so fucked up” now?
[/i]Since when does paul not want a uniform currency? I thought he was for gold. Again, you are contradicting yourself.[/i]
I didn’t say this to you, I was responding to another guy about the Articles. Seriously bro? Putting words in my mouth is fucking rude.
The rest of your argument involves an number of assertions which I wont address, name calling and the like. But the core of it is.. welfare is good, taxes are good, we’d all be dead without them. They are “social progress.” I’ll address them as quickly and concisely as I can, though its hard to teach nearly the entire corpus of economic science in a facebook post.
Oh poor wittle you I may have called someone a name. Deal with it.
People respond to incentives. They try and achieve the highest end with the least means employed. Or in the economic sense, they strive for the highest psychic profit with the lowest psychic cost. Therefore, if you raise the cost of an activity, this is a disincentive to engage in this activity, humans will find it less attractive relative to less costly endeavors. Now lets apply this to taxation. If tax activity X higher than Y, some will shift from the former to the latter. With this in mind, it is no surprise then, that poverty in the united states declined each year less depression years at least 1%, then after the great society, the largest expansin of the welfare state in US history, the poverty rate began to increase for the first time in non depression years. So.. plainly speaking, if you punish production, people will produce less. If you pay people not to work. They will work less. Most illustrative of this point is the recent recession, where unemployment benefits have had their lngest duration, highest pay, and where individual spans of unemployment are the longest they’ve been in any economic downturn.
Marketing common sense of course. Nowhere have I ever claimed capitalism is a bad system, it just isn’t perfect. This is another major problem I have with Ron Paul fanatics though in that they DO make that leap in logic on everything. Instead of pointing out some long, dreary books for you to read I’m just going to ask you to look up what a “slippery slope” fallacy is.
Moreover, I think your assumption that “the middle class and poor need taxes” or whatever is based on some belief that things like schools and roads would not be provided for. Its interesting to note that great Britain’s entire infrastructure was built by private individuals, and that the Netherlands (I’m pretty sure, could be another euro country) have numerous private roads which businesses pay for absent corercive taxation. There are many more examples, also for schools, see this short post : http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/dollars-up ... ores-down/. For more historical examples of the private provision of goods and services absent taxation and the state, check the historical works by tom woods, tom dilorenzo, and murray rothbard. Most of their works are offered for free online.
For other, economic issues, I think you should check out “The Big Ripoff” by Tim Carney, “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt, “race and economics” by walter Williams, and “How Capitalism saved America” by Thomas dilorenzo. There are short texts and easy to read. If you need some more technical stuff, I’m a walking, talking bibliography. Just ask.
No because frankly I’m done dealing with you. You’re as typical a Ron Paul indoctrinee as they come, you just cover it up in a faux-intellectual blitz of vague historical references and baseless slippery slopes.
And how fucking egotistical is it to walk around on Facebook calling yourself a “walking, talking bibliography”?
I think you have a fews things wrong. I hope you take my suggestions and check out the literature I recommend. From your comments im assuming you haven’t challenged the public school narrative of history you learned in middle and highschool. Theres a ton of misinformation out there, all of it very consequential. I put your text in quotes and mine without so you can see what I’m responding to. I haven’t proof read any of this, so ask any question you’d like, for clarity or rebuttal. I hope you take the time to read it and maybe even check some of the lit I mention.
Alright, if my information is so wrong what makes any of your information so right? Next you’ll me you believe the moon landing was a hoax.
I don’t see this as much an argument, but a plain assertion. The paul plan is “just not feasible”? How so? You haven’t offered an ounce of evidence other than an assertion that something isn’t feasible simply because it isn’t feasible. As for feasibility of massive cuts to a central government, the cases of China in 78, India in the 90s, and the Scandinavian countries in the mid 90s, I think, answer the feasibility question.
An assertion is just as valid as an argument. What’s feasible about dismantling the Federal Government? Do you know how he’ll do it? How he plans to do it? I don’t need to offer evidence for what is a very practical consideration. Rather it is *you*, and his supporters who must offer evidence to how any of the changes he proposes are realistic. This is a major problem I have with his supporters from top to bottom and it’s never, ever answered. China and India are poor examples of places where cuts have been supposedly “beneficial”. I mean unless you’re rich and live in Shanghai. Plenty of Chinese don’t, and have not, benefit from the decisions their governments have made about backing off from economic control.
This is curious, given that Obama has amassed more corporate money for his current campaign that any other politician in history breaking the current record set by himself in his 2008 campaign. Moreover, can you name a corporation that has donated to the libertarian party? To my knowledge the number is zero. The paul campaign has gotten money from one billionaire, peter thiel, and for anyone who has ever watch a minute of cnbc known theil’s donation is purely ideological, he’s been touting libertarianism since the founding of paypal.
Who’s funding who honestly doesn’t matter and was just brought up before by someone else. We *both* need to stop throwing around Corporate Funding like it’s an organized movement that you can cover under a sweeping generalization because it isn’t. Like I said, it really doesn’t matter who’s getting money from where. If you want to get airtime on a CNN or Fox News political debate with people like Mitt Romney, Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich then you’re getting money from somewhere pal.
Last, if libertarianism is all corporations want, why did big business fund the progressive movement, and most notably Woodrow Wilson? Why did big business side with LBJ over goldwater? Why do corporations like Monsanto and GS repeatedly support interventionists? Why does wal-mart support a higher minimum wage? Wghy does buffet support a higher marginal tax rate? (he owns life insurance companies and doesn’t pay income tax!) Why is obama’s number of campaign contributor gldman sacs and GE? Why did health insurers funnel money to George W? (answer: medicare part d). If corporations love libertarianism, why don’t they support dr. paul who wishes to eliminate the fed (because big banks borrow from the fed at .025 and lend to the treasury at 6%!)… and the most obvious question, if corporations love libertarism, why don’t they donate to paul, the “ultimate libertarian”??? I think I spot a case of cognitive dissonance.
Naming an occasional bright side of something corporations do is honestly useless. The Nazis wanted to ban smoking in public, I guess that means their other decisions and policies are totally validated now right? (You should be arguing for Wal Mart least of all, I don’t care at all about their opinion on raising the minimum wage when many of their employees don’t even make minimum wage.) There is nothing dissonant about corporations liking Libertarianism on paper but not supporting it in practice, especially because the man spouting it stands a snowball’s chance in hell of winning any real election.
And another thing, don’t accuse me of being too aggressive and then try to passively insult me.
Sure, because he supports high tariffs on foreign goods, minimum wage laws, Sarbanes oxly to crush startups, government debt so big banks can collect interest, et etc. Mit is the furthest from libertarian one can be. You corporations love libertarians but don’t fund libertarians therefore corporations love libertarians. Interesting logic.
What’s interesting is how hard it is for you to understand that just because people like something doesn’t mean they support it. Do not make me have to spell this out again.
If you keep up on labor economics, and most specifically, compensating differentials, you’d know that scholarship in this area comes to the same conclusion. The last time black youth unemployment was lower than white was circa 1948 before a higher min wage was passed. You’d also know, if you kept up on the recent scholarship on the black family, that it was the post civil right act era the marriage rates decline and illegitimacy rates increased in the black community. There is a good amount of scholarship on the economic effects of the civil rights act, and what improvements and setbacks are attributable to it and what aren’t. I suggest to pick up two books by Thomas sowell which provide a decent survey of the recent scholarship, “Civil Right, Rhetoric or Reality” and “Economic Facts and Fallacies.” It’s interesting stuff.
Sorry man but I’ve looked into your so called “scholarship” and I can’t say I consider the views of an openly right-wing, pro laissez faire economist that much. I’m not saying I care that he is any of those things, I’m saying that I care he’s open about his politics and clearly lets it influence his skill. It should be the other way around.
This shows a complete misunderstanding of money and its history. It was gold that made globalization possible. It is innumerable paper monies that keep us at a partial barter system, which obviously impedes global trade. Moreover, he doesn’t belevieve “the world was better.” If you knows the specifics about the various gold standards before 1971, none of them are advocated by paul. I suggest you wiki the gold exchange standard, bretton woods, the greenback, and the classical gold standard.
See maybe you’re used to arguing with people who won’t call on these things but I happen to know about those. Thing is, it doesn’t matter. The fact that the gold standard existed before the global economy is a no brainer obviously. What *isn’t* a no brainer is the level of market co-operation that exists today and the population of the world, AND the quality of life improvements across the board. None of which existed when the gold standard was dropped. Yet again I find myself in the position asking a Ron Paul supporter how he will solve practical problems, and I get no answer outside of the usual rose colored glasses claims of how much better things were “back then”. Do you like Glenn Beck too?
I am no scientist. I cannot speak for paul. I’ve seen videos where he says he believes the earth is warming. I’ve seen him say it wasn’t an issue. I have also seen scholars suggesting the effects of global warming are too unclear. There are a decent amount of scientists at MIT that challenge the orthodoxy. I suggest you google them.
Challenge the orthodoxy? Dude, the consensus on global warming is out. It’s happening, we are responsible. Do not try to peddle out that old “some experts disagree” excuse. Some “experts” think that Evolution is a hoax. MIT is a tech school, it is not their place nor within their expertise to comment on climate change.
I don’t think I’ve heard him say this. If you can provide a quote that’d be great. Safe to say he is against centralization, and the UN is quite a centralizing institution is it not? (rhetorical)
What’s centralizing about an institution who’s upper house needs a unanimous vote in order to enact serious legislation? Now THIS shows a complete misunderstanding of how a political system works. You want to throw around passive aggressive insults? I can do it too pal, especially when you say stuff like this.
Sweden and the cannons “don’t work”? The US before the civil war “didn’t work”? Ulster county government “doesn’t work”? I, to a degree, completely agree with you. Government doesn’t work. Monopolies of ultimately decision making with the power to unilaterally determine the price for their services do not work. But small government is historically preferable to large states. Think soviet union.
Wow, now THIS is cognitive dissonance. I am thinking the Soviet Union though…and I’m thinking about a state with severe internal issues coming from many, many centuries of feudal (that is, local) rule by government which eventually led to such complete disgust and dislike of the establishment that a radical change was demanded by the populace. (Where’s that people love decentralized governments circular logic you love so much again?) Too bad most Russians were only united by their common hatred of the Czar and his nobles though; otherwise they might have realized how dangerous the Bolsheviks, Lenin, and their “Revolution” were. Sounds familiar doesn’t it?
Moreover, look at the movement of people over history, they vote with there feet. Did people stay in highly centralized great britian of nearly anarchistic US? Are people not fleeing china to hong kong? Did people not flock to the west from the more centralized north during the 19th century? And in which area was there more violence and lawlessness? (if you say the west, again, you’re going to have to tell us why the recent scholarship is wrong and you are right!) Moreover, have you the studies linkinh decentralization to sustained GNP growth? They all come to the comclusion that economic growth is highly correlated with decentralized government. I’ve seen some with correlations of .75! This is HUGE correlation if you keep up with the work done on national accounts.
They stayed in Great Britain duh. Jesus dude, the population of Britain into the late 19th Century was easily 7 times that of America until the 1950s. Word to the wise? Your history is not as good as you think it is. People didn’t “flee” from to West in America in any sense of the term. If they did why is the population of the entire region still a fraction of the West or East coasts combined? And I am YET AGAIN forced to tell you that is not appropriate to ask someone to give you sources to common sense statements and claims vs. you’re not-at-all accepted ones. But hey if you’re going to trot out that tired old double standard of my scholars vs. your “scholars” again then you won’t be hearing from me.
If this not the case in the present world? Moreover, some of us would conclude that the constitution has been an immense failure. Government keeps growing, schools shitty, constant wars, dollar devaluation, you can be made slave by draft, obama can indefinitely detain you at a whim, we can bomb countries for 20 years and it’s a “military conflict”, not a war, Vietnam, Iraq, desert storm, Afghanistan, clusterfuck in Africa right now, 40 percent of the middle Americans money is taken from them and given to GE, GM, goldman, et al. AND THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT?????? An honest person, I think, should question the public school, 7th grade history lesson. I came across this article about 4 years ago. It really got me thinking. I suggest you check it out. : http://mises.org/daily/1296
That’s all your opinion, and it’s a bad one. If you really think living in a world where the standard of living is 3 times what it was even 50 years ago and that the average human lifespan now being upwards of 60 is bad, then I’ve got nothing to say. That speaks for itself. Don’t bring Obama up to me. Many of his supporters annoy me just as much as Paul’s. The difference is they understand their movement is about working with people and not just driving a tractor trailer of “change” into Congress with the intent of burning everything down and then claiming they’re the reasonable ones.
Yet again, you’re really not used to people actually calling you on this stuff are you? The Ludwig von Mises Institute openly peddles a libertarian political agenda (sure is easy to claim you’ve found information from “scholars” when they support your views isn’t it?) and I doubt they’re an accredited university. Man, it’s just rude to demand sources from me about whether or not the sky is blue, and then you feed me obviously politicized sources anyway.
One could go on forever about states right, their record on fighting slavery (there are volumes on this), and the like. But I think the core problem with the anti-states rights camp is their logic. Simply, you do not think there should be anarchy between two people, therefore we should have a state to keep order. We should also not have anarchy between states because it is chaotic, therefore we should have a federal government. But, in your world of a federalism, there is still anarchy between federal governments. Logic forces you to call for world government. Until you throw up your hands in support for world government, you being content with numerous federal governments is precisely the logic of the who want numerous state government. Again, a contradicting in your logic. This all, of course, assumes you don’t support world government. If you do then, well, that’s another story, and ill address it later if you’d like.
One could go on forever about states right’s, or just admit that they’ve totally failed to guarantee the rights of people living in them routinely. Even today, with their limited power available, they’ve set out to deny the rights of gays and lesbians living in their borders and have so far been successful. I am not going to spoon feed you what’s wrong with this, and why it proves the states at best deserve no more power than they have.
And stop making claims to how things are in other countries. I know how things are in other countries and I also know you can’t hold the United States Government responsible for things happening outside of its control. Gee, where’s that circular logic about the US “military conflicts” and the world being “so fucked up” now?
[/i]Since when does paul not want a uniform currency? I thought he was for gold. Again, you are contradicting yourself.[/i]
I didn’t say this to you, I was responding to another guy about the Articles. Seriously bro? Putting words in my mouth is fucking rude.
The rest of your argument involves an number of assertions which I wont address, name calling and the like. But the core of it is.. welfare is good, taxes are good, we’d all be dead without them. They are “social progress.” I’ll address them as quickly and concisely as I can, though its hard to teach nearly the entire corpus of economic science in a facebook post.
Oh poor wittle you I may have called someone a name. Deal with it.
People respond to incentives. They try and achieve the highest end with the least means employed. Or in the economic sense, they strive for the highest psychic profit with the lowest psychic cost. Therefore, if you raise the cost of an activity, this is a disincentive to engage in this activity, humans will find it less attractive relative to less costly endeavors. Now lets apply this to taxation. If tax activity X higher than Y, some will shift from the former to the latter. With this in mind, it is no surprise then, that poverty in the united states declined each year less depression years at least 1%, then after the great society, the largest expansin of the welfare state in US history, the poverty rate began to increase for the first time in non depression years. So.. plainly speaking, if you punish production, people will produce less. If you pay people not to work. They will work less. Most illustrative of this point is the recent recession, where unemployment benefits have had their lngest duration, highest pay, and where individual spans of unemployment are the longest they’ve been in any economic downturn.
Marketing common sense of course. Nowhere have I ever claimed capitalism is a bad system, it just isn’t perfect. This is another major problem I have with Ron Paul fanatics though in that they DO make that leap in logic on everything. Instead of pointing out some long, dreary books for you to read I’m just going to ask you to look up what a “slippery slope” fallacy is.
Moreover, I think your assumption that “the middle class and poor need taxes” or whatever is based on some belief that things like schools and roads would not be provided for. Its interesting to note that great Britain’s entire infrastructure was built by private individuals, and that the Netherlands (I’m pretty sure, could be another euro country) have numerous private roads which businesses pay for absent corercive taxation. There are many more examples, also for schools, see this short post : http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/dollars-up ... ores-down/. For more historical examples of the private provision of goods and services absent taxation and the state, check the historical works by tom woods, tom dilorenzo, and murray rothbard. Most of their works are offered for free online.
For other, economic issues, I think you should check out “The Big Ripoff” by Tim Carney, “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt, “race and economics” by walter Williams, and “How Capitalism saved America” by Thomas dilorenzo. There are short texts and easy to read. If you need some more technical stuff, I’m a walking, talking bibliography. Just ask.
No because frankly I’m done dealing with you. You’re as typical a Ron Paul indoctrinee as they come, you just cover it up in a faux-intellectual blitz of vague historical references and baseless slippery slopes.
And how fucking egotistical is it to walk around on Facebook calling yourself a “walking, talking bibliography”?
Best care anywhere.
Re: Debunking avid Ron Paul supporter.
In what way can he show that the Chinese central government has actually gotten *smaller* :stare:
I dispute his assertion on two points:
1) The Chinese gov't switch from overt totalitarian control to more indirect methods, and arguably has engineered the most sophisticated means of controlling a populace the world has ever seen; that they seem to be on the brink of social unrest and upheaval should actually be seen as high praise as no other government could possibly remained in power for so long in the same circumstances. Instead of getting larger government has arguably gotten smarter.
2) The market reforms I would, and this may sound counter intuitive but I argue this made the government more powerful as before the Chinese had little to lose, their living standards were no where near the United States and in many ways lagged behind even the Former Soviet Union, so to them revolting can be seen as preferable to the status quo that would objectively be seen to make China "no better than the Soviets but worse than the Americans and Europe"; but with the reforms and massive economic growth they *do* now have something to lose and an incentive to support the government and defend it from detractors.
"Oh sure you would want us to take them down, you're just afraid of us reaching your standard of living." i.e: "You cannot harm my brother, only I can harm my brother" thinking you see among even Chinese expats and Overseas Chinese.
The exploding membership among the youth of China within the Chinese Communist Party is potentially linked to this, especially among former 1989 activists who may feel that the only productive way to change the system is from within.
Possibly relevant:
I dispute his assertion on two points:
1) The Chinese gov't switch from overt totalitarian control to more indirect methods, and arguably has engineered the most sophisticated means of controlling a populace the world has ever seen; that they seem to be on the brink of social unrest and upheaval should actually be seen as high praise as no other government could possibly remained in power for so long in the same circumstances. Instead of getting larger government has arguably gotten smarter.
2) The market reforms I would, and this may sound counter intuitive but I argue this made the government more powerful as before the Chinese had little to lose, their living standards were no where near the United States and in many ways lagged behind even the Former Soviet Union, so to them revolting can be seen as preferable to the status quo that would objectively be seen to make China "no better than the Soviets but worse than the Americans and Europe"; but with the reforms and massive economic growth they *do* now have something to lose and an incentive to support the government and defend it from detractors.
"Oh sure you would want us to take them down, you're just afraid of us reaching your standard of living." i.e: "You cannot harm my brother, only I can harm my brother" thinking you see among even Chinese expats and Overseas Chinese.
The exploding membership among the youth of China within the Chinese Communist Party is potentially linked to this, especially among former 1989 activists who may feel that the only productive way to change the system is from within.
Anyone whose taken a 200 level course in international politics knows this is bullshit, what the UN does is contribute to the body of international law and customary law and continues the process of further standardization of international procedures and integration. As well as acts as an institutional legitimizing authority for global governence which is by its nature a multinational and decentralized effort. I suggest he reads "Sovereignty Games".I don’t think I’ve heard him say this. If you can provide a quote that’d be great. Safe to say he is against centralization, and the UN is quite a centralizing institution is it not? (rhetorical)
Possibly relevant:
I have also spend the past hour trying to find this infodump about Ron Paul, I will never get this time backAyn Rand wrote: Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]
AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.
Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]
AR:They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.
Q: Do you think Libertarians communicate the ideas of freedom and capitalism effectively? [Q&A following LP’s “Objective Communication,” Lecture 1, 1980]
AR: I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.
Q: Why don’t you approve of the Libertarians, thousands of whom are loyal readers of your works? [FHF: “The Age of Mediocrity,” 1981]
AR: Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.
Q: The Libertarians are providing intermediate steps toward your goals. Why don’t you support them? [Ibid., 1981]
AR: Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.
I'm trying to find a post from SA regarding the Gold Standard and why it's a terrible idea regardless of what form it takes, but suffice it to say it comes down to making recessions worse and more frequent while severely limiting economic activity due to the limited amount of currency that can exchange hands. See for example the money shortage in New France that resulted in playing cards acting as a medium of exchange.Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.
Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..
-
CaptHawkeye
- Sith Devotee
- Posts: 2939
- Joined: 2007-03-04 06:52pm
- Location: Korea.
Re: Debunking avid Ron Paul supporter.
Ron Paul is as right wing a nutter as they come and most of his supporters are too. They just try to come off as faux-Progressives to trick left wing voters or disgruntled youths to their cause. I've found that a lot of Ron Paul supporters don't even really know anything about him most of the time. They've just heard one or two things they sort of like about his agenda and move to support him without actually looking into his history. His more ardent supporters on the other hand are usually all sorts of morally undesirable. Usually hiding their real views behind Paul's craziness.
Best care anywhere.