Wow! Ron Paul Gives Blue Print to Peace Prosperity and Liberty!

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
And your point of that is???

Because American libertarianism is not liberty. It's more like a sick joke, and the true libertarians want their word back.

It's just another example of the right appropriating left-wing terms.

Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there. Somewhat ironically, this results in some right-wing “libertarians” complaining that we genuine libertarians have “stolen” their name in order to associate our socialist ideas with it!

150 years of Libertarian

Capitalism is liberty for property owners only, a small minority who have the right, by law (their law), to exploit the majority.

Ron is just another capitalist who wants more rights to exploit. Exploiting people with your property is not liberty for all.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by Jeremiah65

 

That is exactly why he wants it thrown down to the States to decide. He is a liar and con artist, hell the only reason he is all about the gold standard is because he owns a crapload of gold and stock in gold mines. He is the same corporate douche bag Romney is he just dresses it up a whole lot better.

He's been talking about the gold standard since 1971 when we went off of it. That's also about when he entered politics. Maybe, just maybe, it's the other way around -- he owns a crapload of gold and stock in gold mines because of what he thinks of the monetary system?

He enters politics for 40 years with the goal to scam people over gold.. yeah that makes sense. There are much easier ways to scam people than getting elected to Congress to scare people about gold prices in 40 years time.


If he had the foresight to plan a 40-year scam, why even bother getting a medical degree?

I am a pretty liberal kind of guy, long hair, tats, and all of that. I am also a veteran, although be it of a voluntary type (post Viet Nam). Dr. Paul says a lot of good things, things that I can whole heartedly agree with. Then he or his son will come out with some stupid comment that goes against everything I think, usually it is his son. I am socially liberal and a fiscal conservative, personally I stress about cash all the time, but the republicans have lost their collective minds on this socially conservative platform. All of you evangelical christians, get out of my bedroom, and everyone else's bedroom, get your own lives in order, and then try and create some jobs. Yeah evangelical christians piss me off. I have gotten drunk tonight, reading the BS that all sides are putting out. Legalize weed and prostitution, tax the bejesus out of it, call it a sin tax, call it what ever makes you feel good. Only by legalizing, taxing, and regulating these things are you going to get a grip on them.

While I am drunk and ranting, this is not, or was never designed to be a christian nation, so for all you evangelical tea party persons, please take you theocracy and join the taliban, they will most likely welcome your 2nd century BC ideas. I am atheist/agnostic depending on the day, the next evangelical that approaches me is most likely not going to have a pleasant day, unlike them, I have read the book, they will forever remember the day they met the crazy long haired white boy.

While I do not entirely agree with Dr. Paul with regard to tax policy, welfare, property rights, and reproductive rights, I do agree with him about a great many issues and have great respect for what I have perceived to be his consistency and integrity in overt defiance of the status quo and how unpopular this might make him among his peers and colleagues. He has had a long and distinguished journey, and I thank him for it, regardless of any disagreements I might have.

And much of what he says I do agree with, particularly the nexus of our current financial and military structures and the potential rise of outright fascism, preemptive warfare (which he calls, I believe accurately, aggression.) and 4th amendment issues. He is neither the first nor most prominent to warn of this down through the decades (see Eisenhower,) but few have listened to him or others.

Peace.

The thing about "property rights" is it doesn't mean peoples personal property. It doesn't even have anything to do with you and me. It means 'economic property rights'. It means the right, by law, to use property to exploit labour.

It's nothing to do with protecting your personal property.

Property rights are a controversial, theoretical construct in economics for determining how a resource is used, and who owns that resource - government, collective bodies, or by individuals.[1] Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components[2] and is often referred to as a bundle of rights[3][4]:

the right to use the good
the right to earn income from the good
the right to transfer the good to others
the right to enforcement of property rights.

Property rights (economics)

It might seem like a good thing on the surface, protecting peoples rights, but shouldn't workers have the right to not be exploited by property owners? Most of us here are workers right? Hands up how many own and make their living from their property?

Workers are the majority, "property owners" (capitalists) are the minority. Why support the protection of a minorities right to exploit the majority?

"Property . . . violates equality by the rights of exclusion and increase, and freedom by despotism . . . [and has] perfect identity with robbery." Proudhon, "What is Property", p. 251

"Our opponents . . . are in the habit of justifying the right to private property by stating that property is the condition and guarantee of liberty.

And we agree with them. Do we not say repeatedly that poverty is slavery?

But then why do we oppose them?

The reason is clear: in reality the property that they defend is capitalist property, namely property that allows its owners to live from the work of others and which therefore depends on the existence of a class of the disinherited and dispossessed, forced to sell their labour to the property owners for a wage below its real value . . . This means that workers are subjected to a kind of slavery, which, though it may vary in degree of harshness, always means social inferiority, material penury and moral degradation, and is the primary cause of all the ills that beset today's social order." Malatesta, "The Anarchist Revolution", p. 113

Originally posted by ANOK
The thing about "property rights" is it doesn't mean peoples personal property. It doesn't even have anything to do with you and me. It means 'economic property rights'. It means the right, by law, to use property to exploit labour.

It's nothing to do with protecting your personal property.

Property rights are a controversial, theoretical construct in economics for determining how a resource is used, and who owns that resource - government, collective bodies, or by individuals.[1] Property rights can be viewed as an attribute of an economic good. This attribute has four broad components[2] and is often referred to as a bundle of rights[3][4]:

the right to use the good
the right to earn income from the good
the right to transfer the good to others
the right to enforcement of property rights.

Property rights (economics)

It might seem like a good thing on the surface, protecting peoples rights, but shouldn't workers have the right to not be exploited by property owners? Most of us here are workers right? Hands up how many own and make their living from their property?

Workers are the majority, "property owners" (capitalists) are the minority. Why support the protection of a minorities right to exploit the majority?

Anok you are a communist!

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
Anok you are a communist!

And you say that as a bad thing? Yes I am a communist, a socialist, and a Libertarian. In the original, and true, intent of those terms. (theoretically of course, I sit on my skinny ass most of the time lol)

So what is the problem? It doesn't change the facts I present.

reply to post by hawkiye


Yes, WoW!!

This post's flags has surpassed it's responses. If by tomorrow it is not on the HOME PAGE as one of the two most populare topics, I will be deeply disappointed in ATS! There! MODS!

I am not AMerican but read the entire transcript. Have followed Ron Paul since I heard of him in 2008 and have nothing but respect and admiration for him.

I cannot understand why the AMerican people still believe that choosing between Romney and Obama makes a difference.

But like Ron Paul, you can fool some of da people some of da time but you cannot fool all da people all da time!!

In my mind, doing the same thing over and over but expecting a diffirent result is a form of insanity.

I have said it so many times on ATS, so here it goes again: As a specie we will keep walking the path to that drop off cliff, the path leading in the wrong direction, until we change from within the heart of every human. It is the agression that has to stop. And yes, it is wrong for a person to walk into his neighbour's house and take stuff, beat him up and the like, but it is quit alright for governments to do this to other coutries. Excuse me?? How is that???

The pretence that they move into other countries to 'protect their borders, or their people for nasty dictators' is exactly that: A PRETENCE. And I agree with Ron Paul, what happens in other coutries has is not the business of America or any other country, no matter how contravercial. Killing thousand of woman and children in Iraq in the 80s was NOT justifyable to bring peace to the Iraqi people, which has been left in a worse state than before.

If I do not agree with my neigbour eating meat or drinking wine it has nothing to do with me. As long as he does not infrince upon my libery as a human surely he may eat and drink until the cows come home!!

There is so much fire in me this moment and so much about this paper that I want to scream about because I back it with all my being, but what there is not, is time. Hey hey its off to the slave pits I go!! Late for work, once again, due to my ATS addiction!

The leaders of the world care nothing about us. Why do we elect them? Or do we? I am not so sure anymore.

S&F OP.
Even tho i'm an Aussie iv'e always had a keen interest in Ron Paul, but does anyone notice that in the majority of his congress speeches, there is virtually no-one else there, maybe another 1/2 doz or so other buffoons, but no-one ever seems to take any notice of what he has to say. seems to me that he is slotted in last on the list because no-one else will be there and have to listen to some home truths... Any wonder he couldnt get anywhere...

Cheers.

reply to post by hawkiye


meh.

It's just more of his tired rhetoric...

US Libertarianism is unpopular and it always will be... it should've died the second Ayn Rand went on welfare, but the corporate kings and their unwitting lackeys, people too stupid to realise they're slitting their own throat, prop up it's corpse.

See you Doc; don't let the door hit you on the way out... and hey, take your son with you...

Mr.Paul is no longer relevent. To little, to late. Speeche's are great, action is what's required. And seeing how Mr.Paul went missing during the election, stayed within party lines, and did exactly what the GOP wanted him to do. For me anything the man say's now is meaningless. Just another politician doing what politicians do. Talk.

It's really clear; what Ronald would have brought to the Oval office: A broom, rat traps and some Fabreze.

Yet people still criticize Ron Paul, despite the fact that he is the only person who is asking all of the difficult questions. He also seems to be one of the few who both know what the problems of this country are, and also knows how and is willing to fix them. Yet Romney and the GOP leadership screwed him out of the presidency, as he would have beaten Obama had he gotten the face time that Romney did via the MSM.

Yet those who continue to criticize, especially members of the GOP, will REFUSE to even discuss the cheating done by their party, and they continue to offer up support for the GOP. It is obvious that Paul is the best candidate to come around in years, as far as for the benefit of the people is concerned. So many do not seem to care that the Constitution is neglected by our government, or only want to see the wrongs when they are committed by the "other" party. They are hypocrites.

reply to post by ANOK


Ok...now I understand.

Yes, I am fully aware of the semi-anarchist roots of true Libertarianism. That is why when I describe my personal political and "life in general" philosophy...I say I am a "Libertarian" with a touch of anarchist.

I am not looking for chaos in the streets..which is sadly what many people think anarchy is....talk about abusing another word.

I am all about personal responsibility and freedom. I am old enough and intelligent enough and empathetic enough to know the difference in right and wrong. I do not need or want some "majority empowered" hammer hanging over my head....

All I ask for is the freedom to live my life and I will gladly reciprocate. I will do my utmost best to not impede upon your freedom with my actions and all I ask is that you extend the same courtesy to me.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by ANOK

 

Ok...now I understand.

Yes, I am fully aware of the semi-anarchist roots of true Libertarianism. That is why when I describe my personal political and "life in general" philosophy...I say I am a "Libertarian" with a touch of anarchist.

I am not looking for chaos in the streets..which is sadly what many people think anarchy is....talk about abusing another word.

I am all about personal responsibility and freedom. I am old enough and intelligent enough and empathetic enough to know the difference in right and wrong. I do not need or want some "majority empowered" hammer hanging over my head....

All I ask for is the freedom to live my life and I will gladly reciprocate. I will do my utmost best to not impede upon your freedom with my actions and all I ask is that you extend the same courtesy to me.

LOL.

Any when you completely deregulate corporations, deregulate lobbying, allow corporate monopolies, and defund public education, what's stopping the monsters you create from over-running our democracy?

This sort of idiotic proto-hippy claptrap that you're espousing is much worse than anything Romney or Obama pushed... and it's miles worse than things like the NDAA.

There's NO examples of deregulated industry behaving morally, because it's not in the remit of capitalism to "behave" at all.

US Libertarianism is trading democracy for unaccountable corporate boards, at best. It is certainly nothing the founding fathers would have recognised as American.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by ANOK

 

Ok...now I understand.

Yes, I am fully aware of the semi-anarchist roots of true Libertarianism. That is why when I describe my personal political and "life in general" philosophy...I say I am a "Libertarian" with a touch of anarchist.

Lol no it is not "semi-anarchist". The original socialist anarchists created the term Libertarian, period. They created that term because the term Anarchism was being demonised in the press.

The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social [The Libertarian, Journal of the socialist movement]. Somewhat ironically, given recent developments in America, it was published in New York between 1858 and 1861 by French communist-anarchist Joseph Déjacque.

150 years of Libertarian

How can you consider yourself anarchist in anyway whatsoever? Are you anti-state? Do you really think capitalism can work without government oversight to protect both capital and the workers? Capitalism with no over sight would be chaos on the streets, workers would revolt and riot.

Anarchism is a socialist movement, always has been, because liberty is impossible unless workers own the means to produce. Otherwise we are at the mercy of the capitalist.

"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." Mikhail Bakunin

I am not looking for chaos in the streets..which is sadly what many people think anarchy is....talk about abusing another word.

No, anarchism, libertarianism, is not chaos on the streets no matter what people think it is. Why do you base your beliefs on other peoples misunderstandings?

I am all about personal responsibility and freedom. I am old enough and intelligent enough and empathetic enough to know the difference in right and wrong. I do not need or want some "majority empowered" hammer hanging over my head....

But do you not support capitalism? How can capitalism be personal freedom when the very act of a private ownership economy turns the majority into wage slaves?

Private property is in effect like a private form of state, the workplace a dictatorship. The owner has a monopoly of power over it. That is most certainly not in the spirit of Anarchism.

All I ask for is the freedom to live my life and I will gladly reciprocate. I will do my utmost best to not impede upon your freedom with my actions and all I ask is that you extend the same courtesy to me.

But if you support capitalism then your system impedes the liberty of every non-property owner who has to sell his labour to the capitalists at a rate lower than it's worth.

True liberty for all can only come from worker ownership.

Originally posted by ANOK
True liberty for all can only come from worker ownership.

No it won't.

True liberty will only ever occur if there are no workers or owners.

Only when each humans needs and wants are fulfilled at a whim will we achieve true liberty.

Well, that or if we all have absolutely nothing, but I kind of prefer the former.

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by hawkiye

 

I agree intolerance is one of the keys, but he has the first one dead wrong. It is not envy, but greed that inhibits our ability to achieve liberty and peace. Without greed there cannot be envy. Sadly greed has become the foundation of the United States.

To focus on envy is to suggest one should turn a blind eye to the pursuit of excess, and not begrudge anyone's achievement of excess, even though you may be destitute yourself. Can't really say I stand for that.

So while he makes some other valid points I see no blueprint here, only further support for the uninhibited pursuit of greed, and that we should all be happy about it. [/quote


I agree with you. The use of the word envy was very strange. I think he maybe should of used the term 'tall-poppy syndrome' where that is being jealous of someone just because of what they have. But i will take one of your comments one step further, "sadly, greed has become the foundation of the world, not just the US" !

If someone works hard for their money or assets, then i say good luck to them, but if someone becomes wealthy through manipulating the stock market, dealing off the misfortune of others, theft or insider trading, then i don't think they deserve to have a single cent of what they have aquired. There is no point being wealthy when no one respects the way you came about your wealth.

Originally posted by openyourmind1262
Mr.Paul is no longer relevent. To little, to late. Speeche's are great, action is what's required. And seeing how Mr.Paul went missing during the election, stayed within party lines, and did exactly what the GOP wanted him to do. For me anything the man say's now is meaningless. Just another politician doing what politicians do. Talk.

Yeah 30+ years of trying to get congress to act according to the constitution is to little...Sigh! The people kept allowing idiots to get in office and ignoring Ron for 30+ years but its somehow Ron's fault nothing has changed for the better and we are on the precipice of perhaps the greatest fall of a a nation in history it couldn't possibly be the peoples fault who have done nothing while he has been fighting for 30+ years... Sigh! Yeah anything he says is meaningless because idiots refuse to listen to him despite his amazingly accurate predictions of it all leading to exactly where we are today... Big sigh! Troll much do ya?

Anyone else get the sense that the economic situation may be much dire than we all know? I think this house of cards is coming down quick.