Can a Mormon be President?

[welsh]

The problem with Bill Richardson is that he's a political opportunist (same problem that Romney has). Richardson actually had something to do with Afghanistan- its in the book Ghost Wars. Anyway, he's governor of a largely Latino state. I think his plan is to be vice president. Will he plot Hillary's assassination attempt? Will he run after Hillary? I don't know. But he can drag in the Spanish vote away from the Republicans.

Which, by the way, is another way the Republicans will fuck themselves in the ass.

Lou Dobbs might not be a racist, but most of the people thinking that "all these illegal immigrants got to go back to Mexico" have a damn hard time distinguishing who is legal and who is not. "Cuz they all look da same."

The Bill Clinton think works for her and against her. You have a lot of Republicans who still hate Bill Clinton. God knows why as he was a better Republican than Bush. ANd I think a lot of the anti-Hillary crowd are making that determination based on that.

But I have to say, she's impressive in debate. Me and my wife are both pro-Edwards and neither of us believe in Hillary, but she's good in debate.

I think Jeb Bush will suffer from the Florida fallout. Remember, Gore did win the election by the popular vote and a lot of Democrats think, had Gore won, than things would be different.

To be fair- I think we still might have had a war with Iraq. Regime change was on the agenda during Clinton and might have carried through with Gore. Had we gone to war I don't think it would have been quite the cluster fuck that Bush has created.

And as for 9-11? Check out Ghost Wars. Clinton had a few chances to take out Osama and passed it up because the consequences of failure outweighed the chances of success. It didn't help that the Pentagon went against Clinton on this and made action against Osama difficult.

But near the end of the Clinton administration, Osama was becoming a main target of the administration. Clarke, and most of the senior staff, wanted Osama out. The transition staff warned Bush that Osama would be a problem.

The Bush staff ignored it. Typical, they had other issues- Anti-Ballistic Missiles especially. So yeah, I think things would have been much different.

And I doubt Democrats will forgive Jeb Bush for that election.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Big business under the last four administrations is to blame for much of the immigration problem now. Amnesty won't ever pass because it is too much of a hot button issue. And frankly, it should be, because it has punished all those who abide by the process. Our guest worker programs and H1B visa process sucks.

I believe quite strongly that we have an immigration problem, and building fences isn't going to do too much to staunch it. We've let big business grow dependent on cheap import labor, and big business has the capital to make their views heard. Immigration is probably one of the larger splits in the Republican party.

Historically, most of our Hispanic vote came from the relatively small number of politically active Cuban Americans anyways. We have done a poor job in soliciting the Hispanic vote, but I often wonder how well they are served by the Democrats.

I feel bad for Jeb. He's the Bush that should have won. I also tend to think he'd get screwed by the 2000 elections. Then again, if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, I'll believe anything is possible.

 

[welsh]

In Fast Food Nation- there is a bit about illegal immigrants coming to work a food packing plant (ironic that there was a raid on a food packing plant?) While I agree that big business has a problem, the problem is labor- we don't have enough low-skilled labor. The Bush idea of immigrant workers would create a population of second class citizens. We've had that before and it hasn't worked. I don't think Latinos (legal ones) would be keen on it.

But the real reason we have immigration is because there are opportunities here that don't exist south of the border. People immigrate to the US for economic opportunity. Under Bush 1, the administration began to deny that, but that's still why people immigrate.

And why the US economy generally does well. Immigrants are, generally, awesome workers and contributors to the national economy.

Building a fence is not going to stop all the people who come in on planes and overstay their visas. Its just going to keep the poorest out. Is that a form of class discrimination? Maybe.

Its easy to target the illegal immigrant population- it generally has no lobby besides those who stand to benefit- agricultural interests, construction firms, etc.

Not sure if its ture that the Cuban Americans dominate the vote. We have a big Brazilian community and a large Mexican community as well. While Cubans may be proportionally highly representated, especially in Florida, I am not sure if that holds for the American Southwest, or even New York.

But the Cuban Americans are fiercely anti-castro (and so the embargo remains) and generally speaking the Cubans should vote Republican. They are fiercely nationalistic (as are many immigrants), they serve in the armed forces (partially out of the whole macho thing), are upwardly mobile into the middle class (and so like tax breaks and low taxes) and as Catholics are fiercely anti-abortion. Even family values (keep girls at home) is consistent with the Republican position.

So yes, the Hispanic vote should go Republican- if the Republicans weren't so anti-immigration.

Not sure if they are served worse by Democrats.

Jeb promised his brother Florida and delivered. Likewise the Republicans manipulated Ohio in 2004.

Sorry Johnny, Bush isn't responsible for all the things the Republicans have done or have failed to do.

Considering the election manipulation of two presidential elections, I find it hard to believe that the election laws haven't dealt with this problem yet. Absent reform, this creates a race to the bottom- encouraging each party to manipulate the vote.

And when the vote gets manipulated- so goes democracy.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Too marginal?
What is that even supposed to mean?
The majority of Americans don't even vote.
Several fringe candidates and low pollers have become president in the past, this is far from impossible.
Ron Paul is higher than Huckabee in a lot of states polls, highest in online polls for the GOP, typically, has raised the most money of any of the GOP runners, and has the most devoted followers (downright fanatical). He also has voters from both sides of the political spectrum, has the majority of independant vote, has the endorsement by Barry Goldwater Jr., and he is the only GOP running that is not a Bush clone.

I hardly consider any of those traits a problem.
I don't think it's too likely he'll win, but he sure as hell has a chance of getting a GOP nomination (unless the voting and political advertising system remains rigged... and it will).

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Welsh, I am well aware of the positive contribution of legal immigrants. The problem is that illegal immigrants violate the concept of a free market economy by manipulating the supply side of labor. They drive labor rates down because they are willing to do work that most Americans are unwilling to do, and are willing to do it for less.

This has had some positive economic effects at the cost of several negative social consequences. I have a high degree of familiarity with the construction trades, where illegal immigrants make for a high concentration of the labor force.

It's great that I can get drywall work for $38/hour. It's a hot, difficult job, and having done it in my youth, I can understand why people don't want to do it for the money, even though the money isn't bad. However, it's not priced at what the market would set it at if it weren't for immigrant labor. We are in the process of transitioning to a service based economy. This should have the added effect of driving up the cost of domestic labor in the free market. Instead, we keep it artificially low with poor immigration practices, which also leads to abuse of the immigrant worker.

I am all for a revised H1B process to attract skilled workers for the service economy, and even for increased migratory worker permits to allow for certain domestic agricultural products. But I am not for the flood of illegal immigration we have because big business has acted in it's own best interests.

And although I may not particularly care for George, I don't hold him entirely accountable for our party's evils, any more then I did Bill when he was in charge. I even voted for George twice; once out of ignorance when I actually believed in his "compassionate conservatism and diplomacy" campaign, and the second time as the lesser of evils.

I'd love to pursue immigration further, but I'm being wife-grounded for the evening, and won't be around all that much over the next few days. I look forward to your thoughts.

 

[welsh]

Too marginal? It means that the guy is a fringe actor.

If he wants to get his point out, than he should do what Nader did- run independent, because his position is inconsistent with the Republican body. But he won't.

Don't get me wrong, he's a breath of fresh air in the Republican debates, but he won't go far. He's supported by the harder line of the Libertarian party, but that's about it. His supporters are, as you said, 'fanatical' - but like the Dean supporters, he won't carry him.

He's the Republican's Kucinich.

According to Wikipedia-

Paul's nickname "Dr. No"[33] reflects both his medical degree and his contrarian insistence[152] on "never vot[ing] for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."[32][153]

Well, that's not very Republican! Afterall Republicans are calling for a line item veto- which Guilliani reminds us is unconstitutional.

Paul adheres deeply to Austrian school economics and libertarian criticism of fractional-reserve banking, opposing fiat increases to money in circulation;[36] he has authored six books on the subjects, and has pictures of classical liberal economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises hanging on his office wall.[20][154][/qoute]

Generally speaking it seems Republicans are largely Chicago School- unless it happens to be contrary to their position.

Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[155] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002.[156][157]

ANother exception

He advocates withdrawal from the UN and NATO for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.[155][158]

Extremely marginal position. Considering NATO is pivotal to the Atlantic Alliance and the UN has been a core element of US internationalism for 60 years?

He supports free trade, rejecting membership in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade".

Which has been us by US industry to its advantage internationally. Kiss of globalization? That's a bit too much free trade- afterall those are the institutions that are supposed to keep trade free.

He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens,[159]

That's a fairly republican position.

and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty;

Hey, what about rewriting the constitution?

he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks,[77] but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists.

Letters of Marque? Reprisal? Ok, never mind that those ideas have lost legitimacy in international law. More privateers?

Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives,

Again, not very republican of him. Given the last 20 years or so, the Democrats have been more fiscally conservative. Considering the W's debt and Reagan's debts?

or taxes.[24] He has pledged never to raise taxes,[32][160] and states he has never voted to approve a deficit budget.

Despite all the rhetoric- there is little chance of not raising taxes, or shall we say the tax burden. As mentioned before, its not a question of whether taxes will go up. Its a question of who will get fucked more.

Paul would abolish the individual income tax by scaling back the federal budget to its 2000 spending levels.[69][161]

Unrealistic... back ot marginal.

Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.[162]

Oh yeah... like that will work.

He would eliminate most federal government agencies, calling them unnecessary bureaucracies.[163]

Again consistent with Republican rhetoric but not Republican action.

Paul is also vocal in his opposition to inflation, arguing that the longterm erosion of the dollar's purchasing power arises from its lack of commodity (such as gold) backing, which would restrain excess "printing" of money and consequent devaluation.

Back to the Gold Standard? Wow, It was Nixon that got us off the Gold standard.

Paul says he "wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard,"[164] but would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove the sales tax on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[165] can compete on a level playing field with fiat Federal Reserve notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use "sound money" to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money.[166]

WTF? What are we going to use Spanish piastra's instead of money? Gold Dabloons?

Oh and if we measure value by actual mineral content - and commodities are actually freely traded on the commodity exchange and are fungible- are we talking about a clearly mercantilistic program in the works?

He advocates gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve central bank for many reasons, believing that economic volatility is decreased when the free market determines interest rates and money supply.[167] He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security to protect the system for everyone.[168]

Yes, because we really don't need monetary regulation?

Paul strongly supports Constitutional rights including the right to bear arms, jury nullification,[169] and habeas corpus for political detainees.

Civil libertarian

He believes the internet should be free from government regulation and taxation and opposes internet gambling restrictions and net neutrality.[170]

More net gambling is a great idea... for Donald Trump.

Civil liberties concerns have led him to oppose the Patriot Act, a national ID card, federal government use of torture, domestic surveillance, presidential autonomy, and the draft. Paul is a federalist and supports certain states' rights over individual rights in areas he does not believe are protected by the Constitution (e.g. abortion rights.) Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life,"[171] "an unshakable foe of abortion,"[83] and believes government regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is constitutional and "best handled at the state level."[172]

Whoops so much for being a civil libertarian- afterall, doesn't civil rights also mean you have the right to do with your body what you want? And fetuses, until birth, aren't legally recognized as people.

[173] (He says his years as an obstetrician lead him to believe life begins at conception;[174] his pro-life legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade for ethical reasons and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters.")[175][176]

Consistent Republican position. But odd that it contradicts what a woman can do with her body- but that's right, women don't have the same rights to control what's in their bodies.

But yeah, that's republican.

He also opposes federal regulation of the death penalty,[172] of education,[177] and of marriage. He has voted against federal funding of joint adoption by unmarried couples (including same-sex adoption); he also supports revising enforcement of the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy to focus on disruptive behavior and include members with heterosexual as well as homosexual behavior issues.[178][179]

A republican position?

He defers to private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention.[180]

SO kiss off years of law. Yet both republicans and democrats support environmental law.

He also opposes the federal War on Drugs, wishing to leave the decision on whether to regulate or deregulate drugs, including medical marijuana, to the states.

So lets have more crack, cocaine and heroin addicts?

Paul advocates for the elimination of federal involvement and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to drop due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market.

Because what we really need is more people without health insurance?

The guy really should run as an independent, because generally the republicans couldn't do half of what he suggests. Nor, in my democratic opinion, should they.

People often vote republican because they see the republicans as conservatives and supporting of sustaining the status quo.

I think the status quo has led to increased inequality and the marginalization of many communities, espeically Blacks and will probably marginalize Hispanics (because Republicans don't believe poor kids should get a college education- see the number of pell grants go down- especially when they could go to the army and fight wars that benefit corporations). That's why I support change-

But Ron Paul change? I have libertarian students and most of them would say that he's too radical for them.

Sorry- I actually like a few of his ideas but for most Republicans he's a ball of hot air.

 

[welsh]

Welsh, I am well aware of the positive contribution of legal immigrants. The problem is that illegal immigrants violate the concept of a free market economy by manipulating the supply side of labor. They drive labor rates down because they are willing to do work that most Americans are unwilling to do, and are willing to do it for less.

Of course you realize the net effect is to raise inflation. The impact of which is felt most significantly by those on fixed income or the poor.

This has had some positive economic effects at the cost of several negative social consequences. I have a high degree of familiarity with the construction trades, where illegal immigrants make for a high concentration of the labor force.

Which was the irony of the "job creation in construction" that Bush tauted- it was going to illegal immigrants.

It's great that I can get drywall work for $38/hour. It's a hot, difficult job, and having done it in my youth, I can understand why people don't want to do it for the money, even though the money isn't bad. However, it's not priced at what the market would set it at if it weren't for immigrant labor. We are in the process of transitioning to a service based economy. This should have the added effect of driving up the cost of domestic labor in the free market. Instead, we keep it artificially low with poor immigration practices, which also leads to abuse of the immigrant worker.

To be honest, Johnny, I keep thinking that this transition to a service based economy thing- which has been going on for nearly 20 years- might not be all its cracked up to be.

The further you go to a service based economy the more you have the "whose hand is in your pocket" problem. Frankly, I think the fewer hands the better. I also think we should be thinking of how to return to a more manufacturing economy- an economy where we actually make something instead of buying it cheap from the Chinese.

Could our richness in capital achieve that? Agriculture in the US is becoming a capital intensive sector. Couldn't manufacturing?

Don't get me wrong, I sympathize for the illegal immigrant. I think our immigration policy is inherently discriminatory. The number of years it takes for a person to get a visa, the amount of money it costs to get a visa?

US immigration was mostly made up of economic refugees from Europe. And that was fine. Economic refugees from Latin America... oh we don't those hispanics in our country. God forbid we have more Catholics! God forbid we have to listen to Salsa! SO what if we like Mexican food...

(I have a gut feeling that we wouldn't be so concerned about illegal immigrants if they came from Sweden).

Hey according to Lou Dobbs- those immigrants are also bringing lepers! What bullshit.

You know, I like Lou and respect his defense of the Middle Class. I don't think he's a racist. But I think its safe to say that the campaign against illegal immigrants has a fundamental problem- its hard to tell the difference from an illegal hispanic and a legal one.
I think every American is entitled to certain rights, including freedom from discrimination.

I am all for a revised H1B process to attract skilled workers for the service economy, and even for increased migratory worker permits to allow for certain domestic agricultural products. But I am not for the flood of illegal immigration we have because big business has acted in it's own best interests.

You want to end illegal immigration-

(1) make it easier to immigrate to the US legally, and make it cheaper. In fact, cultivate an import of labor. But make them citizens, not second class citizens. Why? Because that's what that whole Equal Rights thing is about.

(2) Reduce the incentives for people to immigrant not through punishment but by reducing need. The best way to stop a flow of economic refugees is to stop providing the incentives for them to leave. People come to the US from Mexico because most of Mexico and Latin America is terribly impoverished.

And although I may not particularly care for George, I don't hold him entirely accountable for our party's evils, any more then I did Bill when he was in charge. I even voted for George twice; once out of ignorance when I actually believed in his "compassionate conservatism and diplomacy" campaign, and the second time as the lesser of evils.

So you were lied too and then bought the story told by a smear campaign led by a guy who later happily turned over a US agent for political gain? Treason is still a capital offense.

Ok, I admit that Democrats may come off as weak, but its the hypocracy of the Republicans and their corruption that I can't stand.

Sorry, I am biased, but I think Kerry was the better option than W. W wins because of the Christians and the war.

I'd love to pursue immigration further, but I'm being wife-grounded for the evening, and won't be around all that much over the next few days. I look forward to your thoughts.

Ha, so am I- I have to finish a lot of work because I am off traveling to see my wife's family... in Brazil- so you can tell my bias having gone through the legal immigrant experience.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Welsh, to be honest, the republican leaders dont follow the republican platform.

Same with supposed 'conservatives'
conservative VS neo-conservative.

Ron Paul is a conservative and a republican, in the truest sense of the word. Once upon a time, Republicans believed in national sovereignety and non-interventionist policy. They have lost their way. He may be marginalized, but that is because he follows his parties historic positions, and the rest of the party have warped and twisted the meaning of their affiliation.

The concept of income tax is really non-essential in the united states, as it only provides for roughly a third of our current governments income, but costs the general populace tremendously. Ending the war on drugs, is a bit more of a Libertarian concept, but it is a losing war. You can't declare war on an ideology in that way without being invasive. It is a permanent problem, and repealing criminalization, or at least reforming it, would have the same effects of ending alcohol prohibition. It's not hard to get drugs, and it never will be, so instead of fighting peoples right to do it, we are better off educating people and letting them make the choice. Tons of people use drugs and have no detrimental effect to society. It is unfair and illogical to penalize people who are not hurting anyone else. I don't agree with all his stances, the environmental laws should remain federal authority, but most of our federal programs could and should be handled at the state level instead. As for his removal of the federal reserve, it is a fair concept to have hard currency, it has worked wonderfully in the past, and anyone with a basic understanding of macroeconomics can see the serious downsides of government inflation. Perhaps if we cut all the programs he wanted... or atleast most of them, it would be feasible to actually remove the income tax and allow people to invest as they feel so inclined.

Oh btw, Ron Paul is now 3rd in Iowa, and 2nd in New Hampshire, and is doing well all over the country.
And like I said, he also has more money than Mitt, Huckabee, Thompson or Giuliani. His fund raising record is supposed to be broken this month. We will see.

 

[welsh]

Once upon a time the Republican party was the party of the bourgeoisie. They still are.

If the Republican leaders don't follow their platform- then why vote for them at all. At least the Democrats will keep to their platform. They might even pass reforms that contradict their platform if its essential for the country. After all, Clinton did cut back on spending, shrink government- and even helped make government work.

Paul's platform would essentially fuck the wealthy upper class in the ass. He would also fuck the poor in the ass. I am not even sure the white middle class would benefit, probably not in the long-term.

Actually, despite all the hype, last I checked drug consumption was down. The idea of ending the War on Drugs is utter foolishness. England tried it and the heroin epidemic bit them on the ass- why, because England figured it could disperse heroin at regulate prices in order to monitor. But in the process it created more addicts. And then someone figured that they could undersell the official rates.

-Oh and I'm willing to bet that explains the increase in violent crime in England.

To support ending the War on Drug is to support a policy that will futher leave poor minority communities destitute. Of course, that's a contemporary Republican policy. The problem with the war on drugs, as its been waged since Reagan, is that it mistakes a public health crisis with a criminal crisis. Why? Because actually helping poor folks is anti-Republican.

To confuse alcohol with crack or heroin is just naive. What the US needs is a policy that makes sense. Legalize and regulate soft drugs in modest quantities and get really hard on hard drug dealers. If it were me, I would take dealers of hard drugs out to the field and shot.

I know the democrats are pro-choice. I think of this as retro-active abortion.

Supporting state control over many issues of the federal goverment is an invitation to greater corruption- and the destruction of government. Destruction of government means that it can no longer regulate markets, providing the authority for overcoming the collective action problem of economic interaction. In otherwords, it fucks the economy.

We don't need to go to the consequences of removing 33% of federal revenue- if we go by your stats.

The thing about Libertarianism is that it sounds good. In practice and in total, its nonsense and the consequences are disasterous.

Liberianism serves as a means to keep government from overregulating and rent seeking. But happily the Bush administration has replaced social welfare with corporate welfare, and has enjoyed the fruits of that in contributions. Libertarianism is a form of idealism, but its not realistic. That's why Paul is an idealist Libertarian, but even his policies are inconsistent.

So add up Paul's agenda and its a cluster fuck. Its also idealistically extreme and will require big changes in not only our economic structure. The strength of the US has been the stability of its economy. Paul's reforms are unacceptable and would never pass Congress.

Which is why he's a bag of hot air. A lot of his funding comes from outsiders. I don't think he believes he can win and is happy being critical. Which is fine. But if he was serious he'd run as an independent. Nader did, why can't Paul?

 

[Moving Target]

Just thought I'd chime in again, and say that one very major idea that no candidate is behind, and one that this country DESPERATELY needs, is job protection. The "transition to a service economy" is ultimately bullshit, a smokescreen behind which lies the horrible inequity of so-called "free trade." Which, when you get down to it, is the true culprit behind many of this country's economic ills.

Chief among these is the ever-shrinking well-paying job market. Allowing U.S.-based companies carte blanche to build anywhere, in any percentage, and still retain the benefits of being a U.S.-based company, have done nothing but hurt citizens and citizens-to-be.

So, there's a simple (but considering the political climate of the times, nigh impossible) solution: have companies based in this country manufacture and distribute their products mostly in this country. No more need to demonize the labor unions, and no more need to worry about downsizing (yes I know that since pretty much all manufacturing jobs in this country are gone, never to return, this is sort of a moot point, but my point still stands) and more people would be able to buy into the economy, bringing greater growth to the United States.

But the odds of this happening? Like I said, nearly impossible.

 

[welsh]

I think you'd have a stronger chance of that in Europe in the US. Why? Stronger unions.

But yes, I agree that job protection would help. I would go so far as to say a strengthening of unions.

What the US really needs, and in this I generally agree with Lou Dobbs- is reduced inequality. There is a big class divide growing in the US- and liberalism/neo-liberalism isn't going to change that.

Rather, this notion of destroying government only promotes the empowerment of capital over labor.

The problem is the US advocacy of liberalism/neo-liberalism. Unfortunately it doesn't work abroad and in the US its killing the middle class.

Liberal Economics?
According to the Economist-
Liberal economics

LAISSEZ-FAIRE CAPITALISM by another name.

Laissez-faire

Let-it-be ECONOMICS: the belief that an economy functions best when there is no interference by GOVERNMENT. It can be traced to the 18th-century French physiocrats, who believed in government according to the natural order and opposed MERCANTILISM. ADAM SMITH and others turned it into a central tenet of CLASSICAL ECONOMICS, as it allowed the INVISIBLE HAND to operate efficiently. (But even they saw a need for some limited government role in the economy.) In the 19th century, it inspired the British political movement that secured the repeal of the Corn Laws and promoted FREE TRADE, and gave birth to The Economist in 1843. In the 20th century, laissez-faire was often seen as synonymous with supporting MONOPOLY and allowing the BUSINESS CYCLE to boom and bust, and it came off second best against KEYNESIAN policies of interventionist government. However, mounting evidence of the inefficiency of state intervention inspired the free market policies of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, both of whom stressed the importance of laissez-faire.

Which also stands in contrast to -

Classical economics

The dominant theory of economics from the 18th century to the 20th century, when it evolved into NEO-CLASSICAL ECONOMICS. Classical economists, who included Adam SMITH, David RICARDO and John Stuart Mill, believed that the pursuit of individual self-interest produced the greatest possible economic benefits for society as a whole through the power of the INVISIBLE HAND. They also believed that an economy is always in EQUILIBRIUM or moving towards it.

Equilibrium was ensured in the LABOUR market by movements in WAGES and in the CAPITAL market by changes in the rate of INTEREST. The INTEREST RATE ensured that total SAVINGS in an economy were equal to total INVESTMENT. In DISEQUILIBRIUM, higher interest rates encouraged more saving and less investment, and lower rates meant less saving and more investment. When the DEMAND for labour rose or fell, wages would also rise or fall to keep the workforce at FULL EMPLOYMENT.

In the 1920s and 1930s, John Maynard KEYNES attacked some of the main beliefs of classical and neo-classical economics, which became unfashionable. In particular, he argued that the rate of interest was determined or influenced by the speculative actions of investors in BONDS and that wages were inflexible downwards, so that if demand for labour fell, the result would be higher UNEMPLOYMENT rather than cheaper workers.

Has liberalism/ neo-liberalism worked?

Generally no. The countries that have generally performed well have involved some level of state intervention.

The most recent disaster has been economic reform in Iraq.

The problem is that sometimes State intervention works, sometimes it doesn't.

See-http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/After%20Neoliberalism.pdf

And note the following- states are important because

A strategy of institution building

Markets are not self-creating, self-regulating, self-stabilizing, or self-legitimizing.

Economic growth requires more than getting a temporary boost in investment andentrepreneurship. It also requires effort to build four types of institutions required to maintain the
momentum of growth and build resilience to shocks:

• Market creating institutions (property rights and contract enforcement)
• Market regulating institutions (to deal with externalities, scale economies, informationalincompleteness)
• Market stabilizing institutions (for monetary and fiscal management)
• Market legitimizing institutions (social protection and insurance; redistributive policies;institutions of conflict management, social partnerships)

Building and solidifying these institutions take time. Using an initial period of growth to experiment and innovate on these fronts can pay high dividends later on. As suggested earlier, the “functions” that high-quality institutions perform (providing property rights, aligning incentives, and so on) map into multiple institutional forms. ....the objectives to be attained: productive efficiency, macroeconomic and financial stability, distributive justice, and poverty alleviation.

That Ron Paul doesn't get it is because he's an ideologue. You want to have faith in dogma- fine. I prefer reason.

 

[xdarkyrex]

OUTRAGE! - CNBC ADMITS POLL SHENANIGANS!
Read it and scream:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

In a post dated Oct.. 11th 7:21PM ET, Allen Wastler (Managing Editor, CNBC.com) tried to spin the poll shenanigans...

An Open Letter to the Ron Paul Faithful
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21257762

Excerpts:
"...I haven't seen him [Ron Paul] pull those kind of numbers in any "legit" poll. Our poll was either hacked or the target of a campaign. So we took the poll down."

"But you also ruined the purpose of the poll. It was no longer an honest "show of hands" - it suddenly was a platform for beating the Ron Paul drum. That certainly wasn't our intention and certainly doesn't serve our readers ..."

I guess they don't consider anything that doesn't support their self-annoited frontrunners "legit" - even ones conducted OFF-LINE by county Republican parties - where Ron Paul has dominated.
See: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_GADQv3vKs[/youtube]

SF Straw Poll
NOTE: The complaints only started after the poll was cancelled.
I paid my $33 for the dinner and vote. A $5 option was also offered to vote after the festivities. We patiently listened to the guest speaker support Fred Thompson and talk on the issues of water and budget problems in California. They then held a raffle, while all the "cheap" voters waited in the lobby. When they finally let them in, the room was flooded with Ron Paul supporters and the organizer notified us the poll was cancelled. I started the video after the initial announcement and pandemonium broke out. The sudden cancellation and an attempt to change the rules, understandably, upset quite a few people. A Short segment closer to the podium: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IcNK3zYc5ts --http://www.dailypaul.com/node/11180

They canceled the poll because it was flooded with Ron Paul supporters.
You have your right to vote, only as long as its for who the establishment wants winning.
The people who were running this straw poll should be indicted.
The numbers for Ron Paul are horribly misrepresented.




oh, and fyi, heres a little giuliani moment for you-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT-ouQPgMmI[/youtube]

giuliani VS ron paul
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF3NtEWj6ws[/youtube]


I think I rest my point.

I have some serious problems with just about every candidate, but in order of least hated, it goes Ron Paul, Obama, Kucinich, and then Huckabee, with my most loathed being Hillary, Giuliani, Edwards, Thompson, and Romney, in that order. Everyone else just sort of hovers in limbo on how much I detest them.

 

[welsh]

Dude, not of your pics are not working.

As for Ron Paul- hey, ya can love the dream.

Here's the problem with Libertarians- they believe the problem is the state, and thus destroy the state. Yet they don't have a substitute.

Its like those who say, let's get out of Iraq, and don't have an answer for what follows. Let's end the war on drugs, and allow the number of addicts to grow.

I hurt my thumb! I'll chop it off.

Let's destroy government- and who takes over?

Sometimes the answer is not destruction but change.

The argument is based on a dogma that the state and regulation is evil. In the process lets destroy the very institution that has, generally speaking, improved the quality of life for millions.

 

[xdarkyrex]

You're dramatically oversimplifying libertarian style beliefs. This is why I refuse to associate with the libertarian party, because it is full of people similar to how you suggest, borderline anarchists. But this is not about anarchy at all, or even libertarianism, its about classic liberalism, which is about decentralization, low spending, and socially it is about a personal right to choice. You can't stop people from hurting themselves, it is their choice, and stopping them is just plain wrong. The government has no right to step in until someone stops destroying themselves and starts hurting others. Offer programs for addicts and the homeless instead of offering free money or fines and criminalization. One part where I differ strongly with Ron Paul is the state of free enterprise. He believes in a nearly laissez faire market where states regulate the businesses housed within, and the federal government merely oversees interstate and international relations, constitutionality, and other minimal powers. I feel that we need to stop corporate welfare and seperate business rights from personal rights (Ending corporate personhood). I also feel strongly that pollution is not only a state problem, but a federal and world problem that must be handled on every level. Those are just a very few exceptions though. The FDA should be replaced with laws in each state regulating their own food practices, the FCC should be replaced with state legislature within each state too (but the federal government should oversee interstate communication laws, interstate resources, power, dumping and a few other contentious basics). We may be one country, but the states rights and powers need to be more than merely symbolic and petty. If I don't like where I live, I want it to be DIFFERENT if I move to a different state, I want education regulated by state laws (completely), I want our national borders patrolled by military so that we don't have to worry about security so much so that we can repeal some of these laws that invade privacy. I want to not have to worry about Guantanamo. I want to be able to smoke pot or drink alcohol or have gay sex if I choose to (not into guys though, ladies only). I want to be able to parter with anyone of any religion, I want to be able to practice my own religion, I want to be able to build a house on my property that someone else may find ugly, I want marriage to have NO connection to legislature at all and not to be government regulated. I want to have the right to 'mutilate' myself (tattoos and piercings) or just downright commit suicide. It is my god damned body, and there is no way or reason the government should stop me from doing what ever I want TO MYSELF. If I want to be addicted to heroin, great, but the second I break the law, I ought to be penalized... infact, the penalty should be greater if the law is broken while under the influence. I also, get this, want to be able to ride my car without wearing my seatbelt. I think healthcare should also be a state issue, and my retirement should be a choice of my own. If some states want to be downright socialists, go right ahead! If they want to be an Amsterdam-clone, great. If they want to have no public schools and be a pure capitalism in their state as far as is constitutionally viable, awesome. Infact, I ENCOURAGE having atleast one state of each of those types. We could have an entire state where the state animal is a Deathclaw. I'm all fucking for it. Oh, and I prefer non-interventionism quite a bit, considering that I have a sister, grandfather, father, and brother in the military. I'm not ready to go to any of their funerals yet. And I see no reason to give terrorists more reasons to want to blow up our buildings. I want immigration reform to make it easy for Mexicans to move here, also, so that they can pursue the dream we all have in this country.

These are seemingly reasonable requests, I'm not asking to hurt anyone else in any way shape or form, why are these not rights of mine? I am not asking anyone else to change their lives, you all can keep doing exactly what you are doing, I am only asking them to let me change mine.

I have no problem with regulation, I just have a problem with central regulation, as it is far FAR harder to change. When the states have power, changing the law and bringing awareness is a much much easier thing to do, and the average person has to digest MUCH less information to understand the law and whats happening in their political sphere.

I mean, am I not understanding something?

(btw, my last post had 3 videos, no pictures)

 

[welsh]

You're dramatically oversimplifying libertarian style beliefs. This is why I refuse to associate with the libertarian party, because it is full of people similar to how you suggest, borderline anarchists. But this is not about anarchy at all, or even libertarianism,

Wait a second. Read that to yourself- Libertarian is not about Liberatarianism?

its about classic liberalism, which is about decentralization, low spending, and socially it is about a personal right to choice.

Socially, I'm a liberal. But economically, I tend towards a more classic approach.

My point above is that if Libertarianism is an extreme form of liberalism, its a recipe for disaster and untenable as a political platform- at least not when you consider the importance of economic stability.

You can't stop people from hurting themselves, it is their choice, and stopping them is just plain wrong.

As mentioned elsewhere- governments have historically taken a position that they have every right to both stop people from hurting themselves or hurting others. Why? Because their labor is socially important, and that transcends their individual desire.

Before we were citizens we were subjects. Subjects being subject to the whim of the king.

The government has no right to step in until someone stops destroying themselves and starts hurting others.

A right not yet accepted by any modern state. Where did this right come from? From God perhaps? Or from your sense of values.

What should be is not what is.

Offer programs for addicts and the homeless instead of offering free money or fines and criminalization.

That's called state intervention- not a libertarian position.

One part where I differ strongly with Ron Paul is the state of free enterprise. He believes in a nearly laissez faire market where states regulate the businesses housed within, and the federal government merely oversees interstate and international relations, constitutionality, and other minimal powers. I feel that we need to stop corporate welfare and seperate business rights from personal rights

If you disagree with him and the broad laissez faire market- that you are not really a libertarian.

(Ending corporate personhood). I also feel strongly that pollution is not only a state problem, but a federal and world problem that must be handled on every level. Those are just a very few exceptions though.

SO you also think Ron is a little whacked? Welcome to the majority- and why he can't win.

The FDA should be replaced with laws in each state regulating their own food practices,

You might want to reconsider that in light of the concentration of Methamphetimine in the midwest compared to the rest of the country. WHy there and not New York- lax laws.

the FCC should be replaced with state legislature within each state too (but the federal government should oversee interstate communication laws, interstate resources, power, dumping and a few other contentious basics).

So different states have different communications rights? How is that constitutional?

We may be one country, but the states rights and powers need to be more than merely symbolic and petty.

Are you kidding? Do you realize that states have virtually unlimited constitutional authority while the US constitution is rather limited? Go to a library and check out your state's constitution. See how long it is and how state law covers most everything. Note, for instance, how states and feds have blue sky laws, environmental regulations? Note how under Erie Doctrine, federal courts are supposed to enforce state law when federal law doesn't pre-empt.

If I don't like where I live, I want it to be DIFFERENT if I move to a different state, I want education regulated by state laws (completely),

SO you support mass migrations and social dislocation?
So you want to bankrupt education?

I want our national borders patrolled by military so that we don't have to worry about security so much so that we can repeal some of these laws that invade privacy.

You do realize that most 'illegal' immigrants fly into the US under legal visas? And you support the intervention of the US military into domestic politics? Politicize the military- expanding both its mission and involvement with local politics? And this is a good thing?

I want to not have to worry about Guantanamo.

A Republican idea?

I want to be able to smoke pot or drink alcohol or have gay sex if I choose to (not into guys though, ladies only).

So why are you republican?

I want to be able to parter with anyone of any religion, I want to be able to practice my own religion,

So why are you republican?

I want to be able to build a house on my property that someone else may find ugly,

As long as we can build a wall around your house so the rest of us don't have to see it? Or do we have to be exposed to your eye sore?

I want marriage to have NO connection to legislature at all and not to be government regulated.

So no more civil union? No more inheritance right? Visitation right? Custodial rights? Family rights?

So where a lot of gays want the civil without the religion, you want the religion and not the civil?

I want to have the right to 'mutilate' myself (tattoos and piercings) or just downright commit suicide. It is my god damned body, and there is no way or reason the government should stop me from doing what ever I want TO MYSELF. If I want to be addicted to heroin, great, but the second I break the law, I ought to be penalized... infact, the penalty should be greater if the law is broken while under the influence. I also, get this, want to be able to ride my car without wearing my seatbelt.

Again, the right to do whatever you want to yourself, irregardless of the social consequences.

So tell me, do we have the right to stop the crime associated with a rise in the heroin addicted population perhaps by keeping heroin out? Are we going to have to pay for your kids because your heroin addiction stops you from supporting them? Are some of us going to have to pay for their healthcare and support because you are too addicted to hold a job.

You'll forgive us if we think you're an arrogant egocentric selfish fuck and a parasite on society.

I think healthcare should also be a state issue, and my retirement should be a choice of my own.

Because what we really need is lots of sick people or old folks who freeze to death in their homes.

If some states want to be downright socialists, go right ahead!

As long as they are socialist libertarian? Or are you merely replacing one dictator with another.

So let's call it a confederacy of 50 seperate little royalties? And when these states begin to collapse because one of the strengths of the US is that its basically a common market- but you've ruined that- making interstate commerce that more expensive- or haven't you figured out how to get states not to tax imports- or you want to replace the current system?

If they want to be an Amsterdam-clone, great. If they want to have no public schools and be a pure capitalism in their state as far as is constitutionally viable, awesome. Infact, I ENCOURAGE having atleast one state of each of those types. We could have an entire state where the state animal is a Deathclaw. I'm all fucking for it. Oh, and I prefer non-interventionism quite a bit, considering that I have a sister, grandfather, father, and brother in the military. I'm not ready to go to any of their funerals yet. And I see no reason to give terrorists more reasons to want to blow up our buildings. I want immigration reform to make it easy for Mexicans to move here, also, so that they can pursue the dream we all have in this country.

Again, not very republican.

These are seemingly reasonable requests, I'm not asking to hurt anyone else in any way shape or form, why are these not rights of mine? I am not asking anyone else to change their lives, you all can keep doing exactly what you are doing, I am only asking them to let me change mine.

The problem of Libertarianism is that it embraces the ethics of a child who doesn't like what he gets and decides to break it. In the end he will end crying because once broken, the toy can't be replaced. Keep the toy away from him and he cries for the injustice of it.

It is the ideology that embraces irresponsbility and selfishness.
Which is fine, except the rest of us have to pay for the consequences.

Go you.

As I have argued above- the idea of Libertarianism, to keep the state from becoming too much of a predatory leviathan, is a good one. To actually achieve that negates some basic realities of economic life.

Without states, modern rational economies don't function, and we are all worse for it.

Seriously, think it through critically and try to get away from the dogma. What you advocate is the destruction of the US as we know it (with the 12th best quality of life scores, and the strongest performing economy).

Asking people to give up what they have for that crack pipe dream, is what makes it a marginal movement and Ron Paul a marginal player- even based on your own views.

I have no problem with regulation, I just have a problem with central regulation, as it is far FAR harder to change. When the states have power, changing the law and bringing awareness is a much much easier thing to do, and the average person has to digest MUCH less information to understand the law and whats happening in their political sphere.

I mean, am I not understanding something?

(btw, my last post had 3 videos, no pictures)

 

[xdarkyrex]

(OCC- From welsh- sorry about this, I hit edit rather than quote- I think its fixed)

So your argument, largely, just points out that I'm a bit of a moderate.
Is there a point to saying "not a republican ideal"?

You dramatically misunderstand libertarianism, it is a very very diverse group of beliefs that vary between individuals who share one common ideal- being able to follow their ideas without trampling on others.
That being said, I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not a neo-conservative, I'm not a liberal, and I'm not a Democrat. I am a fiscally conservative, socially classical-liberal (very similar to traditional conservatism), foreign non-interventionist, who believes in semi-social economic controls. I believe in many of the republican ideals, also including the support of the republic that we are versus the populist democratic way.

Libertarianism is NOT an extreme form of liberalism, it is in fact the PRECURSOR to modern liberalism. You and I clearly disagree about economics, considering I feel that only mildly controlled, but still largely free markets are the best way to thrive. The concept of personal sovereignety is simple to say the least, the government is here to serve the people, not vice versa. I am not an 'asset' of the government, I am a human being with the inalienable rights that our country offers us- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And guess what? I will pursue happiness if it kills me. You need to do a little reading on different types of liberalism, you're grouping things into stereotypes and making fallacious claims about the assertations, and then also condemning me for not being a self-marginalized republican stereotype...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

As for the comment about being exposed to the eyesore of my ugly house if I want one, I ask you only this.
If you don't like the way black people look, do you have the right to tell them to move out of your neighborhood?

The short answer is no. If you don't like my house, and want me to hide it, I ask you this... how would you feel if I said the same to you?

As for the war on drugs thing... yes, I believe local laws have the right to regulate drugs to a certain degree, but it most certainly should not be a federal law. And no, I do not and would not ask you to burden yourself with raising my children, why should that be your or anyone elses job? Shitty parents are just part of the world, and some people are stronger for that. There is a bit of luck with being born, from genetics to environment, and I don't seek to change that. One particular time I agree with waiving peoples personal rights to an extent is when they are a parent. As a parent, you are legally obligated to take care of your child to a certain degree, and since it is no longer just your own body that you are responsible for, there is a certain amount of rights attributed to the child that should be fervently protected by the government since a child can not essentially defend themself, psychologically or physically, and are not born aware of their rights as human beings and how to express them and make sure they are met.

In any case, I never said anything about export and import costs for states, trade tariffs, or import filtering between states. I beleive that keeping that from happening is a part of the job of the federal government (as outlined by the constitution).

So tell me, how is the idea of paying for the consequences of others failures any different than the current system? You don't consider your tax money jailing people for Marijuana use to be considered paying for other peoples problems, or more importantly, OVERPAYING for their clearly excessive punishments?

Your taxes go to welfare and child protective services, government funded addiction programs and education for those who can't afford to put their children in private school.

Your taxes go to a government that is too large to be efficient, and to wars in Iraq and occupation of over 130 countries. Your taxes ensure your retirement funds will put you below the poverty line. Your taxes pay for healthcare for the fat and geriatric and self destructive . Your taxes pay for all the court cases, all the executions, all the appeals, all the forced racial integration, all the tax cuts for the rich, all the corporate welfare, and all the drunk drivers who kill other people. Your taxes pay for rights for illegal immigrants, and wiretapping of your cellphone, of people held without Habeas Coprus, and of pre-emptive strikes to other countries who MIGHT attack us, for aid to other countries that are needy and to special interests that do not benefit you. How could you call that 'better' or 'different'?

 

[TheWesDude]

welsh, no double posting!

from what i gather, ron paul is opposed to the federal reserve bank being run by private industry like it is now.

one of the drawbacks of the current system is the fed reserve bank tells the government how much to print for money, and then charges the government intrest on the money when they put it into circulation.

 

[welsh]

So your argument, largely, just points out that I'm a bit of a moderate.
Is there a point to saying "not a republican ideal"?

Actually I think you are left of moderate. The further you move to Ron Paul the move revolutionary you go.

You dramatically misunderstand libertarianism, it is a very very diverse group of beliefs that vary between individuals who share one common ideal- being able to follow their ideas without trampling on others.

You know, people ask me how can I believe in Catholicism if many of my personal views contradict it. To me Catholicism is merely a pathway to religious understanding, not some dogma that I feel obligated to follow. But in that sense, the further you veer away from the tenants of a faith or an ideology, the less you are a member of that. Its the ideas that unify the ideology.

So, if that makes me a free thinking Catholic, so be it. I actually like that label.

Which is cool. The problem of every movement is that it wants people to join it and give up their thinking. Don't. Better to be yourself than a member of a movement. Be critical, especially of the things you believe in and consider carefully the consequences- not just for yourself but for the society in which you live.

Movements, be they political or religious, are institutions and all institutions exist to mobilize bias.

That being said, I'm not a Libertarian, and I'm not a neo-conservative, I'm not a liberal, and I'm not a Democrat. I am a fiscally conservative, socially classical-liberal (very similar to traditional conservatism), foreign non-interventionist, who believes in semi-social economic controls. I believe in many of the republican ideals, also including the support of the republic that we are versus the populist democratic way.

Fine.

Libertarianism is NOT an extreme form of liberalism, it is in fact the PRECURSOR to modern liberalism. You and I clearly disagree about economics, considering I feel that only mildly controlled, but still largely free markets are the best way to thrive. The concept of personal sovereignety is simple to say the least, the government is here to serve the people, not vice versa. I am not an 'asset' of the government, I am a human being with the inalienable rights that our country offers us- the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And guess what? I will pursue happiness if it kills me. You need to do a little reading on different types of liberalism, you're grouping things into stereotypes and making fallacious claims about the assertations, and then also condemning me for not being a self-marginalized republican stereotype...

Actually, I am arguing with you that Ron Paul is a marginal player with no real hope of victory- a hot air bag. I am also arguing that his policies are too revolutionary to be considered substantive or real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

As for the comment about being exposed to the eyesore of my ugly house if I want one, I ask you only this.
If you don't like the way black people look, do you have the right to tell them to move out of your neighborhood?

A big difference. I am not denying you the right to build an ugly house. I am merely defending my right not to have to see it.

But yes, under our constitutional I have the right to tell black folks to get the fuck out my neighborhood. I am perfectly entitled to the right to think prejudicial thoughts. My ability to act on that (like burning a cross on their yard) is constrained. Furthermore, they have the right to call me a racist fuck and that I can go fuck myself.

Free speech.

The short answer is no. If you don't like my house, and want me to hide it, I ask you this... how would you feel if I said the same to you?

Hurt feelings is part of the consequence of living in society. Thats why you can say offensive things to each other.

And I wasn't saying you can't build your house. But I was saying that if I can organize my society to build a wall around your house so no one has to see it- I can do that too.

There is a difference between you doing what you want and we having to put up with it.

As for the war on drugs thing... yes, I believe local laws have the right to regulate drugs to a certain degree, but it most certainly should not be a federal law. And no, I do not and would not ask you to burden yourself with raising my children, why should that be your or anyone elses job? Shitty parents are just part of the world, and some people are stronger for that. There is a bit of luck with being born, from genetics to environment, and I don't seek to change that. One particular time I agree with waiving peoples personal rights to an extent is when they are a parent. As a parent, you are legally obligated to take care of your child to a certain degree, and since it is no longer just your own body that you are responsible for, there is a certain amount of rights attributed to the child that should be fervently protected by the government since a child can not essentially defend themself, psychologically or physically, and are not born aware of their rights as human beings and how to express them and make sure they are met.

That's utter hypocracy. We live in a society today where generations of generations of kids are being born to narcotics addicts and society does jack shit to help them. These kids grow up in neighborhoods in which escape is largely foreclosed, without parents or proper homes- largely because their parents are addicts. And you willing to embrace a policy that will not only increase the number of addicts but also increase the level of penetration of governments in the lives of people. And you want the states- both rich and poor- to largely do this on their own?

And this is Libertarianism?

Hey, but you know what- it's ok as long as you get your right to do your drugs because the next generation is on its own. Yes, its a matter of luck the social conditions you are born into. But here's the thing- its possible to limit the degree luck places in determining if a person has a good life or a wasted one.

And that's the moral bankruptcy of libertarianism- it doesn't care about anything but itself- it is selfishness. As long as my rights are not foreclosed, it doesn't matter what happens of the rest of society. Hell, we don't even want organization of society to remedy social ills if it contradicts my rights.

The problem is that social collective action requires an individual to give up some rights for the benefit of a better society.

In any case, I never said anything about export and import costs for states, trade tariffs, or import filtering between states. I beleive that keeping that from happening is a part of the job of the federal government (as outlined by the constitution).

So you don't want federal intervention except where its necessary or constitutional. And how do we know when its constitutional? Well we have a court to do that.

Which is the status quo.

It seems what you object to are policies you don't like but the consequences of which you don't understand. You don't like how the system works, like you might not like how a car runs, but you don't understand how it works.

So tell me, how is the idea of paying for the consequences of others failures any different than the current system? You don't consider your tax money jailing people for Marijuana use to be considered paying for other peoples problems, or more importantly, OVERPAYING for their clearly excessive punishments?

Are you asking me if I like our bans on marijuana- the answer is no, I think they are foolish. The thing is that most people see the war on drugs as a ban against marijuana. But they neglect that its also a ban against crack, cocaine, meth, and lots of other drugs.

Do I think the law will change? Yes, eventually. Why? Because generally speaking society is moving away from a norm that is anti-marijuana and becoming more tolerant. So am I willing to live under the current system- yes. Why? because living in this society and under these rules is better than living without them.

Democracy isn't about getting what you want. Being upset about not getting what you want is called childishness. Democracy is about about compromise. Its about different classes learning to live together and working out their problems as a society.

Capitalism, on the other hand is collective benefit of individual selfishness.

Your taxes go to welfare and child protective services, government funded addiction programs and education for those who can't afford to put their children in private school.

And this is a bad thing? Why? And note, your suggestion on the war on drugs actually promotes more public spending. Or are we going to, consistent with Republican spending, cut programs- increase the number of addicts, reduce the education of people, and increase the level of poverty in the country?

Your taxes go to a government that is too large to be efficient,

Actually the problem for the federal government is not that its too large but that its too small to do things its supposed to. Hiring freezes have reduce the efficiency of government.

Its hypocracy to criticize government for its failure when the Republican party, which criticizes government, has been the agent of government failure.

Governments are tools of social interests, that's all. Governments, on their own, have no soul, conscience or will. Rather, they serve the interests of those who control them- and that's social groups.

The question is what social group controls your government. Currently its the to 1/10 of the top 1%. So is it any wonder that we see corporate welfare?

And you suggest reducing the power of government- what, to make this group even more autonomous and powerful over society.

and to wars in Iraq and occupation of over 130 countries. Your taxes ensure your retirement funds will put you below the poverty line. Your taxes pay for healthcare for the fat and geriatric and self destructive

My party is not the one that keeps raping social security with debt. Also my party isn't the one that botched the war. And should we have that war? Well it wasn't my party that fucked energy policy or is in the pocket of big oil.

You're pissed off with government? Why- the government serves as a tool for those who rule. Who rules in the US- right now and for most of the last 30 years, Republicans.

Don't sell me this shit that its government fault when its the Republicans who have fucked this country up. All things considering, our government works pretty good- its the ruling party that has its head up its ass.

Oh so your solution for the geriatric is to take them out and shoot them?

Your taxes pay for all the court cases, all the executions, all the appeals, all the forced racial integration,

Because living in a racially integrated world is a bad thing? And last I checked most of the public defense in this country is either underfunded or is paid for by donations.

All the court cases- actually most court cases involve court fees that are paid for by parties. And yes, its better we solve these disputes in court than with fists and knives.

all the tax cuts for the rich, all the corporate welfare, and all the drunk drivers who kill other people.

Republican policies?
Not sure how my taxes pay for all the drunk drivers- that seems a stretch.

Your taxes pay for rights for illegal immigrants, and wiretapping of your cellphone, of people held without Habeas Coprus, and of pre-emptive strikes to other countries who MIGHT attack us, for aid to other countries that are needy and to special interests that do not benefit you. How could you call that 'better' or 'different'?

Again, it seems you are targeting the wrong actor. Its not government (the toy the Libertarians so desperately want to break- that and the economy) but the Republican party.

You want to break the Republican Party, go right ahead.

Which is why I said earlier, if Ron Paul is serious he would run as an independent. But he's not- so he's a bag of hot air.

 

[xdarkyrex]

If you wan't to live in a welfare state, there are plenty of them already out there, why don't you just move there?

I don't WANT my ogvernment to take care of me, I want to get all of my pay check and decide how best to take care of myself, trhrough investments and buying things of my own choice, through paying for healthcare and retirement if I want, and if I die from starvation because I didn't set up a retirement... so be it, that is the consequence of my actions. I realize that some people want a world where they go to work from 9-5, and they give 70% of their opaycheck to the government, and their government pays them back with a government bought car and a government bought healthcare and government retirement. But not me, I don't want that. I don't have a problem with racial integration, I ahve a problem with FORCED racial integration. It just makes things even worse, imho. I agree with your statement about freedom of speech, and I worded my comment poorly, I didn't mean that you can't tell them tio get the hell out, I just meant that they don;t have to leave. See, I want to have to tolerate everyone elses wacky and disagreeable ways, I want everyto do their thing and I can do my thing and we can disagree and smile and shake hands. I don't want to live in a socialism, and will relentlessly fight against an ideal that basically has me work for the government to pay the government to pay me back in the way they choose. This is not what I want, I want personal responsibility and choices of how and what to do with my life and my money that I had to work for. If I don't want a car with my paycheck, than I want to make that choice, if I don't want to retire, then that is my choice, if I don't want healthcare... well that issue is more complicated since doctors can't turn you down, so that issue I'm still up in the air about. Healthcare is something I haven't decided on, but privatized clearly doesn't work, but socialized is too expensive. Anyways, how do you know we would have more addicts if drugs were legalized? I mean honestly, alcohol is more addictive than many drugs. (I am iffy about legalizing heroin, morphene, methadone, crystal meth, oxycontin, barbituates, and opiates... but thats personal issue with each of them and would need to be ironed out, most of the rest of them: ketamine, shrooms, acid, weed, alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, dmt, salvia, peyote, cocaine, mdma, nootropics, and many others are comparitively non-addictive).

Oh, lastly... yes, I do want to break the republican party, it's a party of sycophants and manipulators at the moment, and once upon a time it was a noble ideal. Not any more, and people like me intend to take it back, in spite of the religious right and corporate elite.

 

[welsh]

If you wan't to live in a welfare state, there are plenty of them already out there, why don't you just move there?

Excuse me, but is this your real answer? You don't like the government or the economy, and your answer is to exclude those who are happy with it for a minority who aren't?

WTF?

I don't WANT my ogvernment to take care of me, I want to get all of my pay check and decide how best to take care of myself, trhrough investments and buying things of my own choice, through paying for healthcare and retirement if I want, and if I die from starvation because I didn't set up a retirement... so be it, that is the consequence of my actions. I realize that some people want a world where they go to work from 9-5, and they give 70% of their opaycheck to the government, and their government pays them ba ck with a government bought car and a government bought healthcare and government retirement. But not me, I don't want that.

You are making a speech again.

There is a difference between a speech and an argument.
There is a difference between an reasonable argument and faith in dogma.

You will note that my points above are that this world you protray is not the world we live in. We don't pay 70% of our checks to the government, and most people don't have government bought cars or homes. Most of us can't rely on the government for retirement, and most plan for themselves.

You live in a country with remarkable freedoms.

But I sympathize- you want more (ok so being disappointed that things don't go your way is typically called childishness).

You are pissed off that the government isn't working the way you want it too. You can't go to the democrats-because they are protrayed as the party of big government (and social justice- but lets leave that out), and you realize that the Republicans have a habit of enjoying your vote and then fucking you in the ass.

Well, sorry. But at least you're aware of it.
Your solution is to vote Ron Paul.
Go for it.

But that doesn't mean that my point- that Ron Paul is running as a republican and not an independent makes him a bag of hot air - is wrong.

Sorry, I hope you are not angry.

I don't want to live in a socialism, and will relentlessly fight against an ideal that basically has me work for the government to pay the government to pay me back in the way they choose.

But you do realize that there are a range of choices between complete socialism and complete libertarianism, right?

You will also note that I am not arguing for socialism. I argue for efficient government that serves all people equally. My position supports a more equal democracy- a democracy that looks after the interests of society and the individual.

This is not what I want, I want personal responsibility and choices of how and what to do with my life and my money that I had to work for.

Yes, and in the past we have had people who didn't want to pay taxes. Some of those folks tried to make a soveriegn country within the US. Others have bought little islands. Others argue that its an expression of civil disobedience.

And you can vote.

Libertarianism is one of those ideologies that promotes low taxes. Low taxes means greater amounts of investable surpluses that go private investment and economic growth. This is a good thing.

But democracy and government, social prosperity and development, cannot thrive on selfishness alone.

Sorry. But the sad truth of it is that the free market doesn't work for everthing and that you need government.

I don't mind the Libertarians arguing for constrained government. Ok. But I suggest that the real culprit is not government but the class that controls government.