Ron Paul is a Republican candidate for the Presidential Nominee Position

I think I heard of him once. His father was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil.

The Force is strong with this one.

The sun came up today. Ron Paul gain?

Discuss.

I had nothing to do with this.

Ron Paul once roundhouse kicked Rudy Giuliani to the face so hard that he won all the internet polls.

He can also eat 62 bratwursts in 15 minutes flat.

Ron Paul talking on patriotism in Congress.

The way it is. 100%

Absolutely.

Happy 30th Anniversary, Darth!

Dr. Ron Paul once saved a basket of puppies, floating in a river, from going over a waterfall.

A Socialist threw them in.

AND...

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

All of which are, unfortunately, completely undermined by the ceaseless machinations of Paul Ron, evil twin.

Way to pick and choose your "facts", Jube.

Huh? What picking and choosing? Those are the facts, jack!

Pick and choose? Tell me what I am leaving out then, all knowing one.

It's so amusing... every time someone on the boards attacks Ron Paul, it's over some petty detail.

The anger, denial, etc., etc. keeps bubbling up from the left and the right, but the very issues Ron Paul brings up are undeniable, and they are based on philosophy that nearly anyone regardless of political view can agree on... more freedom, less government interference...

billybobsky's deflowering a virgin is Ron Paul's gain.

Yeah!

I hate when those nitpickers get on Ron Paul's case for trivialities like his desire to abolish all welfare and the federal income tax and eliminate most cabinet agencies.

Nearly anyone?

His idea of less government "interference" is minimalist to the point of absurdity. For instance, I want my government to "interfere" with businesses so they have rules and regulations requiring them to sell safe products, rather than letting the "marketplace work it" via death, disease, and injury -- patterns of problems consumer's might not even detect because of corporate-controlled media.

I haven't the slightest problem with the dreaded phrase... redistribution of income. (bum buh BAH!) Nothing draconian, but a well-enforced progressive taxation system is something we need. The free market is NOT PERFECT, nor is EVERY SINGLE government solution (as libertarian/free market extremists would have you believe) doomed to be worse than any problem it tries solve.

There are some problems which are better solved via cooperation than competition, and where government is the best vehicle for organizing the necessary cooperation.

I think that the kind of libertarianism Ron Paul represents is a useful force to have at work in the mix of forces which produce political outcomes -- when not carried to extremes, libertarian impulses are a necessary counterbalance other strong tendencies toward excessive spending, taxation, regulation, etc. Carried to Ron Paul's level, however, and acting with the power of the Presidency, that much libertarianism would probably be a disaster.

Of course, Ron Paul's biggest problem is this: reality.

Very, very few people actually would be happy with the results of minimalist government, no matter what they might dream when it's all hypothetical. Nearly every one is a member or beneficiary of at least one "special interest" group which wants the government to do something about their own special interests. The only way such a dynamic ever works out (short of imposing a dictatorship) is for everyone to compromise so that everyone gets a little of what they want government to do -- bye, bye, theoretically streamlined government.

[QUOTE]
It's not hypothetical. It worked before, it'll work again.


More reason why we need Ron Paul.


A Libertarian president would not appeal to the 2 parties in power, but it might be just the counter-balance we need to get the Republicans and Democrats back on track, doing what the country needs.

[QUOTE=SpamSandwich;1086335]

yup. Worked fine.

I notice that you've mentioned these a couple of times in manner that suggests an assumption that we should all take for granted that these are bad things but have failed to provide any argument as to why. Perhaps because we should just assume (as you appear to be doing) that doing such things are obviously just bad. This way you don't actually have to demonstrate why they might bad.

Do you have any reasoning or logic or facts to support your apparent assumption that these would be bad moves?

You want. Fine. What gives you the right though to tell someone what they can make or sell?



What about redistribution of income to corporations? Because this happens too with the power of government to tax people and give it to others. Some of those others are corporations. Is that kind of redistribution fine with you? This government thing is a double-edged sword and it is usually the very powerful (and, I would argue, corrupt) that are holding that sword.



Why do we "need" such a thing? Do you have any good reasoning? Facts? Or are you just telling us what you think, feel and believe and trying to pass it off as an unassailable "fact"?



And freedom gives people the opportunity to cooperate as desired and needed and compete as desired and needed. There need not be any "forced cooperation" through the mechanism of state.



Is this another case where you are trying to pass off your feeling and belief as an unassailable "fact"? Can you support this statement with any facts?



Once again you've made a statement without anything to support it. Please try to. Otherwise we'll just have to accept these as your opinions and nothing more.



So? Does this somehow justify using the mechanism of state to take things from other people in order to satisfy the desires or "needs" of each special interest group? This certainly cannot be a sustainable model long-term. Surely you must realize that eventually there are so many "special interest" groups taking money from so many people that it simply collapses. Or...only the very strongest and best connected special interest groups survive and succeed in taking from the rest of the people to meet their own desires and needs (which I thinOK is exactly what we have going on right now).



I disagree. Freedom provides a great framework for people to get what they want or need (so long as they are not stealing it from others) in a voluntary and cooperative fashion. The reason the state is required is when some people cannot get what they want by voluntary and cooperative means and the only resort is to take it from others by force. If you do this through the mechanism of state, then it takes on the appearance of respectability. But it is theft no matter how you dress it up.

Let's see now, how about chaos, anarchy, and lack of governance to start with? Please show me a system of governance that doesn't have numerous forms of "taxation" to support itself, and impose some minimal semblance of order.

I guess we really don't need a transportation system (national, state, and local), an education system (ditto), a food supply system (ditto), a system of commerce (ditto), a system of protections (national defense, state, and local), a national energy policy, labor policies (national, state, and local), etceteras.

Nope, let's just abolish the federal, state, municipal, and local systems of governance!

Seems TOTALLY logical and rational to me!

Just say NO to Dr. No!

You are just hand waving and begging the question. You say things like "I guess we don't need..." and provide a litany of things that you seem to assume we would not have without the mechanisms of state. But you provide no facts to support this. We are meant to simply assume and agree with you that the only way these things could be provided would be through the mechanism of state.

Curiously you list a couple of things that aren't even provided by the state (food supply system and system of commerce). The fact is that there is no provable need for government intervention or control or provision of any of the things you have listed. In fact, there is an argument to be made that the government's provision of a national transportation system (the interstate highway system) was a short-sighted program that has encouraged and caused a much wider use of those dastardly carbon-emitting cars which seem to be vexing us now.

Well, one thing's for sure. Whenever classical capitalism rules the day, two industries boom: grave diggers and jail builders.

What in the world does that mean?

Clever. Cute. Of course this is true because you say it it so. Geez. You're doing just like this shetline person and simply trying to pass off your opinions and beliefs as unchallenged "fact" and hope that no one will notice.

I am not sure what you mean by "classical capitalism" but true free-market capitalism helps to raise the standard of living people. Free-market capitalism is based upon freedom. The word "free" is the operative one here. Market capitalism are simply the natural outgrowth of this freedom. Freedom to work. Freedom to trade. Freedom to enter into voluntary, collaborative and mutually beneficial arrangements. Freedom from coercion, force and violence by anyone (individual, corporations or government).

It doesn't mean anything. It is a rhetorical trick to simply dismiss the entire conversation without actually engaging it. It sounds cute and clever. It is great if you want to have a "sound bite" counter-"argument" which, of course, is the only argumentation approach used in this day and age.

Any your "hand waving" is beyond obtuse!

Like I said, let's just abandon all forms off governance, since they are ALL clearly irrational and illogical.

But please, just to humor me, please point out just one group of people (numbering in the millions) within a territorial boundary that has NO form of governance?

Please do!

Oh, you mean it's a Giulianism.

Exactly.

Unconstrained capitalism != Freedom

I am talking about unrestrained freedom (with the obvious limitation that you are not free to infringe on other people's freedoms). The result of this freedom is market capitalism.

And just do as Dr. No says "Just say no." is engaging the conversation?

Yes, that's capitalism that includes sole proprietorships and other small businesses... not just faceless, scary mega-corporations.

OxyMORON!

Evidently, nothing was learned today.