Chomsky on Ron Paul

[inspectorgadget]

From the znet sustainers forum:

Questioner: Hello Mr. Chomsky. I’m assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I’m also assuming you have a general idea about his positions. Here my summary of Mr. Paul’s positions:
- He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).

Noam Chomsky: Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.

- He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)

Noam Chomsky: “Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded — like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

- He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).

Noam Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you’ve already mentioned.

There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power — itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.

- He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).

Noam Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultra-nationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

I really can’t find differences between your positions and his.

Noam Chomsky: There’s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being “broken” are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based — the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).


this is Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul
So I have these questions:

1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of “Libertarianism”?

Noam Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion — on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.

2) Can you please tell me what role “private property” and “ownership” have in your school of “Libertarianism”?

Noam Chomsky: That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.

3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate…and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

Noam Chomsky: No.

[booyalab]

That interview doesn't really mean much to me. I could've told you they're on opposite ends of the economic spectrum.

[PsiKik]

Initially I thought Ron Paul had some good ideas until I read further.
If all his ideas were instituted the system would implode in a short time, as Chomsky says.
Now I think Ron Paul is batshit crazy, an example of how worthless libertarianism really is.

Chomsky continues to make more sense.

[inspectorgadget]

Initially I thought Ron Paul had some good ideas until I read further.
If all his ideas were instituted the system would implode in a short time, as Chomsky says.
Now I think Ron Paul is batshit crazy, an example of how worthless libertarianism really is.

Chomsky continues to make more sense.

I think you and Chomsky are both missing the point, really.

[Krill]

I think you and Chomsky are both missing the point, really.

What's the point being missed?

(For the record, I'm a Ron Paul supporter, it's just your post is very vague)

[fresh]

Chomsky is a twat. Too little faith in the people, too much in government. Private corporations are accountable to the people they serve to the degree a free market allows. If a company is socially unacceptable to too large a sector, they'll sink. Just as the government ought to. Is the IRS held publicly accountable to any degree worth a damn? Fuck him.

[Marston]

Too little faith in the people, too much in government.

I thought Chomsky was an anarchist.

[fresh]

I thought Chomsky was an anarchist.

Anarchy with no assault rifles? No thank you.

[inspectorgadget]

What's the point being missed?

(For the record, I'm a Ron Paul supporter, it's just your post is very vague)

Well, when I read Zinn and when I read Chomsky they point out all the times in history where Government has stepped in to protect the interest of business at the expense of the people. There have been many times in history where the state has come and and busted up strikes and even massacred whole groups of people (see Ludlow Massacre for an example.)

Government has continued to do what it can to protect the concentration of wealth - wherever that happens to be at the time, until it becomes politically impossible to continue to do so to a certain degree. So what's the Governments response? OKAY OKAY we'll pass some legislation to give you an 8 hour work day and OKAY OKAY we'll pass some child labor laws.

And that seems just fine, find and dandy - and the people shut the fuck up and go home, they've won - or they feel that they've won. Keep them at bay, and you don't see people running for office to actually do something about how government is NOT being the objective referee that it's supposed to be FOR the free market.

Government as it is allows for these huge businesses to come about, this is known as corporatism. Here, in the United States, we have had a serious problem with Corporatism. So if you have one company that's doing so damn much then sure they can pay workers whatever the hell they want - there's no real competition, no one offering higher wages. And the system is setup in such a way where small businesses are not able to start up easily. The wealth can't move around as freely, and that's unfortunate.

Anyway, there could be flaws here (as far as my reasoning goes) because i'm honestly still shaping this new outlook. I need more history to back it all up. I need to better understand economics.

I know this is a bit weird to say - but it FEELS logical right now haha.

And that's why I chose to make a vague response about THINKING they were missing the point, I am not to the point where I feel I can 100% back all this up yet. :)

-IG

[Roger Mexico]

Chomsky is a twat. Too little faith in the people, too much in government. Private corporations are accountable to the people they serve to the degree a free market allows. If a company is socially unacceptable to too large a sector, they'll sink. Just as the government ought to. Is the IRS held publicly accountable to any degree worth a damn? Fuck him.

I think he makes the valid point that democracy has produced the consensus that if government is going to enforce the property rights of capitalists, it should also enforce certain other rights for those whose lack of economic power makes them vulnerable to exploitation by those with property. Eliminating the "tyranny" of government regulation of businesses without eliminating protections for capitalist property equates to government favoring the interests of owners over the interests of workers.

History has amply demonstrated that "the market" fails to protect the interests of workers and consumers on its own. Read The Jungle.

[fresh]

I think he makes the valid point that democracy has produced the consensus that if government is going to enforce the property rights of capitalists, it should also enforce certain other rights for those whose lack of economic power makes them vulnerable to exploitation by those with property. Eliminating the "tyranny" of government regulation of businesses without eliminating protections for capitalist property equates to government favoring the interests of owners over the interests of workers.

History has amply demonstrated that "the market" fails to protect the interests of workers and consumers on its own. Read The Jungle.

That was summit like 100 years ago. If you worked at Google, Home Depot, the local zoo or even a modern meat plant... how the hell do you expect to fall into a meat grinder?

Just 'cause the government steps in to take action for the people doesn't mean the people necessarily need that aide. Or that corporations will need that further prodding.

The government wags its dick in my face, telling me what to do all the time. You think it's a priority interest to obey? Fuck no, I work a black market. The closest I'll get to slavery is a jail cell... by the government's word. At least working a shitty job they let you go home at night and get laid if you want. Shit. Now you do not want to piss me off! ;)

[Lethal Sage]

I think he makes the valid point that democracy has produced the consensus that if government is going to enforce the property rights of capitalists, it should also enforce certain other rights for those whose lack of economic power makes them vulnerable to exploitation by those with property. Eliminating the "tyranny" of government regulation of businesses without eliminating protections for capitalist property equates to government favoring the interests of owners over the interests of workers.

History has amply demonstrated that "the market" fails to protect the interests of workers and consumers on its own. Read The Jungle.

This has to do with our culture. As much as I'd like to believe that we love freedom, our protestant ethic wins. We love our masters, and "need" them.

[fripping]

ron paul is just another perot or larouche, a passing fad who is attractive because he is honest. unfortunately he is honestly nuts. noam chomsky doesn't have a monopoly on the truth either of course, but i agree with him here. i vote. . . totally irrelevant! a vote for ron paul is a vote for the republicans etc. etc.

[rek]

ron paul is just another perot or larouche, a passing fad who is attractive because he is honest. unfortunately he is honestly nuts. noam chomsky doesn't have a monopoly on the truth either of course, but i agree with him here. i vote. . . totally irrelevant! a vote for ron paul is a vote for the republicans etc. etc.

is the last line a joke, or do you just have no idea at all what you are talking about?

Almost all of Ron Paul's supporters like his message, not just that he's honest. It is the "traditional" american message after all. It's sad that believing in our countries founding principles, the principles which once made this nation the greatest place on earth, are now considered "honestly nuts".

I don't see how we can expect much else in this situation though. We're trained by the government to rely on government and of course anytime we ask them anything their opinion will be "government should handle it". It's just stupid. We're a giant nation of sheep so reliant on government taking care of us we think it's completely impossible we could ever handle ourselves. The more they do for us the more we forget our ability to handle things for ourselves, and the further we become slaves to the system.

Their regulations cause problems? Ask them to regulate more, or regulate better! Still doesn't work? Do it more! Our education system sucks since they took over? Give them more power! Wait why's it still suck? Oh we didn't give them ENOUGH power! Give up all critical thinking, all responsiblity, and all power and trust that your government will do exactly what is in everyones best interest. That makes a whole lot of sense.

Chomsky is sort of a fool, when it comes to politics, but his ideas are still better than most peoples. "Libertarian socialism" or whatever you want to call it, at least it realizes the state isn't your friend. I don't understand how his system would ever work in a practical setting, at all, but at least it's better than 99% of the other terrible ideas people have.

[Roger Mexico]

That was summit like 100 years ago. If you worked at Google, Home Depot, the local zoo or even a modern meat plant... how the hell do you expect to fall into a meat grinder?

Just 'cause the government steps in to take action for the people doesn't mean the people necessarily need that aide. Or that corporations will need that further prodding.

The government wags its dick in my face, telling me what to do all the time. You think it's a priority interest to obey? Fuck no, I work a black market. The closest I'll get to slavery is a jail cell... by the government's word. At least working a shitty job they let you go home at night and get laid if you want. Shit. Now you do not want to piss me off! ;)

And the reason we have better working conditions now than we did a hundred years ago is that now there are laws mandating them. It wasn't some cultural shift where employers suddenly went "wait, let's start treating our employees better." They did, in fact, need the "extra prodding" back then and I don't see how things are different in that respect now. Shitty, unsafe workplaces are profitable for the people who own the business, so absent some outside force putting pressure on the owners, the market isn't going to make them change.

Ideally, of course, you wouldn't need the government to enforce such standards, but ideally you wouldn't the government to prevent people from murdering each other. I'm not a fan of the state, but a state that enforces worker- and consumer-protection laws along with corporate property rights is certainly preferable to a government that only enforces the latter.

[fresh]

And the reason we have better working conditions now than we did a hundred years ago is that now there are laws mandating them. It wasn't some cultural shift where employers suddenly went "wait, let's start treating our employees better." They did, in fact, need the "extra prodding" back then and I don't see how things are different in that respect now. Shitty, unsafe workplaces are profitable for the people who own the business, so absent some outside force putting pressure on the owners, the market isn't going to make them change.

Ideally, of course, you wouldn't need the government to enforce such standards, but ideally you wouldn't the government to prevent people from murdering each other. I'm not a fan of the state, but a state that enforces worker- and consumer-protection laws along with corporate property rights is certainly preferable to a government that only enforces the latter.

Times have changed. I guaran-fucking-tee any corporation who reverts to ruthless, employee-sacrificing tactics is going to meet uncomfortable pressure now. It doesn't matter that it wasn't a cultural shift at the time. The shift has been made and I think it's relatively permanent. An outside force won't be absent. Corporations need customers. Hmmmm... you cite The Jungle, which featured gross body parts going into food. Look at what happened recently when that crazy bitch put the finger in her Wendy's chilly. All over the national news. People stopped eating there. You mean to tell me some facilities will start getting away with this shit if the law quits threatening to ass-rape them for it?

No way, I think the people will take care of that themselves.

By the way, the government doesn't prevent people from murdering each other in most cases. They just follow it up the best they can.

[Intension]

I thought Chomsky was an anarchist.

Chomsky is an anarchist in the way Stalin was an anarchist -- perhaps in the distant future the state could go away (as suggested by Marx), but for the foreseeable future the state needs unrestrained power to act on behalf of the people. Hence Chomsky regards anyone defending individual freedom, property rights, markets as bringing about the end of civilization. "Real" freedom is only given by the state, experienced through mechanisms of the state.

[LastRailway]

Chomsky is an anarchist in the way Stalin was an anarchist

What a comparison.
I think Chomsky sympathises with anarchist theories without being exactly an anarchist. He is mostly leaning towards left-libertarianism.

[kuranes]

I think he makes the valid point that democracy has produced the consensus that if government is going to enforce the property rights of capitalists, it should also enforce certain other rights for those whose lack of economic power makes them vulnerable to exploitation by those with property. Eliminating the "tyranny" of government regulation of businesses without eliminating protections for capitalist property equates to government favoring the interests of owners over the interests of workers.

History has amply demonstrated that "the market" fails to protect the interests of workers and consumers on its own. Read The Jungle.

Tell it like it is, bro


That was summit like 100 years ago. If you worked at Google, Home Depot, the local zoo or even a modern meat plant... how the hell do you expect to fall into a meat grinder?



A person can be mistreated in ways that do not involve meat grinders, nor does the average person work at a "new mindset" place like Google.


And the reason we have better working conditions now than we did a hundred years ago is that now there are laws mandating them. It wasn't some cultural shift where employers suddenly went "wait, let's start treating our employees better." They did, in fact, need the "extra prodding" back then and I don't see how things are different in that respect now. Shitty, unsafe workplaces are profitable for the people who own the business, so absent some outside force putting pressure on the owners, the market isn't going to make them change.



Absolutely.


Times have changed. I guaran-fucking-tee any corporation who reverts to ruthless, employee-sacrificing tactics is going to meet uncomfortable pressure now.

Your "guarantee" would mean nothing if it happened that this would become commonplace. The reason the example you gave is still a scandal now is partly because of the very infrastructure you wish to do away with.

Additionally, you assume that communicating "town hall" referendums and the ability to organize community initiatives are in the hands of people who have the time to be looking into this. Many are working two jobs to stay afloat as it is.

Look at China, in some ways more purely market driven than America now. Construction workers there often have to wrestle with unsafe conditions and employers who tell them "if you don't want the job somebody else will", for example. Your solution proposes that everyone concerned operates as though a monolithic force of "worker solidarity" that can leverage a huge market force and which everyone in it could afford the luxury of simply saying "We won't work for you then"....... instead of isolated individuals trying to cope and competing with each other blindly. People attempting to organize such solidarity are not always as free as Thomas Paine to get the word out, and even if they were, they often do not have an alternative to offer, being down in the trenches as much as others.

Words from an ad I heard for unions - "From the people who brought you 'the weekend'. "

[fresh]

Tell it like it is, bro



A person can be mistreated in ways that do not involve meat grinders, nor does the average person work at a "new mindset" place like Google.



Absolutely.



Your "guarantee" would mean nothing if it happened that this would become commonplace. The reason the example you gave is still a scandal now is partly because of the very infrastructure you wish to do away with. You assume that communicating "town hall" referendums and the ability to organize community initiatives are in the hands of people who have the time to be looking into this. Many are working two jobs to stay afloat as it is.

Look at China, in some ways more purely market driven than America now. Construction workers there often have to wrestle with unsafe conditions and employers who tell them "if you don't want the job somebody else will", for example. Your solution proposes that everyone concerned operates as though a monolithic force of "worker solidarity" which could afford the luxury of simply saying "We won't work for you then" instead of isolated individuals trying to cope and competing with each other blindly. People attempting to organize such solidarity are not always as free as Thomas Paine to get the word out, and even if they were, they often do not have an alternative to offer, being down in the trenches as much as others.

Ok, as a counter-example to a "new mindset" place of employment like Google, what might be a sector that'll revert to barbarian working conditions once the law quits fucking with it?

Work is dangerous anyway. Nobody is personally responsible for my safety when I'm out all day with a chain-saw, but myself. If you work construction and hit your finger with a hammer, I'm sure it sucks. What sort of dangerous workplace conditions should exist apart from those that can be side-stepped by common sense?

Perhaps I'm too young to understand how/where work could become too unsafe here in modern-day America. Who are you worried will commit these crimes against workers? Smaller companies or giant corporations or the whole spectrum or what the fuck?

Like what, you work construction and they say "Well, we had to cut hard-hats out of the budget." That's fucking bullshit, man. Where's the union? Soundly asleep? I doubt that's gonna happen.

Personally, I'm a worthless druggie and even I have a good lawyer. Is this shit supposed to affect people isolated in ghettos, etc.? I've read of crack dealers risking being shot standing out on a corner all day peddling crack for what amounts to minimum wage pay. Should the law not also play grab-ass and protect these fruitcakes from their unsafe work conditions?

[kuranes]

Ok, as a counter-example to a "new mindset" place of employment like Google, what might be a sector that'll revert to barbarian working conditions once the law quits fucking with it?

Things can be bad for workers without threatening to mangle them, although you have just pointed out re: chain saws that there are other activities besides meat packing that could do that.


Work is dangerous anyway. Nobody is personally responsible for my safety when I'm out all day with a chain-saw, but myself.

Work doesn't have to be dangerous. If you're happy to accept it as such, that's your own lookout. Accidents can happen regardless of common sense, especially if one is driven to work extra shifts etc.


Perhaps I'm too young to understand how/where work could become too unsafe here in modern-day America. Who are you worried will commit these crimes against workers? Smaller companies or giant corporations or the whole spectrum or what the fuck?

It doesn't matter if its a big corporation or not.


Like what, you work construction and they say "Well, we had to cut hard-hats out of the budget." That's fucking bullshit, man. Where's the union? Soundly asleep? I doubt that's gonna happen.

I worked most recently for a company that makes the harnesses that catch you if you fall while working a high rise. Most companies didn't use such harnesses until they were forced to, trusting to luck or belts that would break your back when they "caught" you. "Where's the union?" indeed. Put out of commission by zealots that feel it is anti-competitive etc.


Personally, I'm a worthless druggie and even I have a good lawyer. Is this shit supposed to affect people isolated in ghettos, etc.? I've read of crack dealers risking being shot standing out on a corner all day peddling crack for what amounts to minimum wage pay. Should the law not also play grab-ass and protect these fruitcakes from their unsafe work conditions?

If you're asking if I'm advocating for a drug dealers union, no I'm not. That's a pretty far fetched example.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56653-2003Feb24?language=printer

[fresh]

Things can be bad for workers without threatening to mangle them, although you have just pointed out re: chain saws that there are other activities besides meat packing that could do that.


Work doesn't have to be dangerous. If you're happy to accept it as such, that's your own lookout. Accidents can happen regardless of common sense, especially if one is driven to work extra shifts etc.


It doesn't matter if its a big corporation or not.


I worked most recently for a company that makes the harnesses that catch you if you fall while working a high rise. Most companies didn't use such harnesses until they were forced to, trusting to luck or belts that would break your back when they "caught" you. "Where's the union?" indeed. Put out of commission by zealots that feel it is anti-competitive etc.


If you're asking if I'm advocating for a drug dealers union, no I'm not. That's a pretty far fetched example.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56653-2003Feb24?language=printer

That's really interesting to hear people working on high-rises didn't have decent harnesses. Then again, nobody forced the people working so high up to take that job.

Aren't places like China with absurd population densities more susceptible to dangerous working conditions? I don't live in the scummy bustle of a big city. But perhaps it's more dangerous there?

[Lateralus]

ron paul is just another perot or larouche, a passing fad who is attractive because he is honest. unfortunately he is honestly nuts. noam chomsky doesn't have a monopoly on the truth either of course, but i agree with him here. i vote. . . totally irrelevant! a vote for ron paul is a vote for the republicans etc. etc.
Fripping, normally I find your posts funny and sometimes insightful, but this post is crap. I don't think you even know what you're talking about.

Chomsky doesn't even refute any of Ron Paul's stances in that interview. He resorts to hyperbolic analogies and strawman tactics. Ron Paul has proposed practical solutions, something I have yet to see from Chomsky.

[kuranes]

That's really interesting to hear people working on high-rises didn't have decent harnesses. Then again, nobody forced the people working so high up to take that job.

Aren't places like China with absurd population densities more susceptible to dangerous working conditions? I don't live in the scummy bustle of a big city. But perhaps it's more dangerous there?

Well, a lot of the jobs are in the cities. It's nice to be out in the fresh country air and all, but sometimes you end up in the city. if you do, why not set up reasonably nice conditions for yourself ? It pays off in the long run.

Nobody forces my waitress to work as a waitress either, but I still tip her because I know she depends on it, unless she did a lousy job for me.

If you're advocating for union oversight, we aren't that far apart.

Also there are ways for workers and management to cooperate - including competing in the global economy. This Brazilian system co-existed with the union, until the union leaders saw that the workers were behind it.
http://www.amazon.com/Maverick-Ricardo-Semler/dp/0712678867

[fresh]

Fripping, normally I find your posts funny and sometimes insightful, but this post is crap. I don't think you even know what you're talking about.

Chomsky doesn't even refute any of Ron Paul's stances in that interview. He resorts to hyperbolic analogies and strawman tactics. Ron Paul has proposed practical solutions, something I have yet to see from Chomsky.

:highfive:

[booyalab]

History has amply demonstrated that "the market" fails to protect the interests of workers and consumers on its own. Read The Jungle.

Uh, The Jungle was meant as propaganda. It's only historically relevant in terms of it's impact, not it's factual merits.

[fresh]

Uh, The Jungle was meant as propaganda. It's only historically relevant in terms of it's impact, not it's factual merits.

Cool, another history lesson from our resident dominatrix. Fuckin' muck-rakers. I'd like to squirt them in the eye with a viscous liquid of my own design. ;)

[booyalab]

What a comparison.
I think Chomsky sympathises with anarchist theories without being exactly an anarchist. He is mostly leaning towards left-libertarianism.

He describes himself as a libertarian socialist. From wikipedia:

Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies ? a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.

The idea that his brand of libertarianism would be more feasible than Ron Paul's is ridiculous.

[Lateralus]

I'd also like to say that I don't agree with Ron Paul's stance on every single issue. However, I do believe he'd make a far better president than any of the other candidates.

[kuranes]

Uh, The Jungle was meant as propaganda. It's only historically relevant in terms of it's impact, not it's factual merits.

Sez who ?

It's not a documentary, if that's what you mean, but it is based on truth and general trends Sinclair observed. After its publication Sinclair's work was admired by Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw and Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was at first suspicious of the veracity of the book, knowing Sinclair's Socialist leanings, and so he sent out labour commissioner Charles Neill and social worker James Reynolds on surprise visits and had them report back to him.

The report concluded that the Chicago meat packing employees "worked under conditions that are entirely unnecessary and were unpardonable and which are not only a constant menace to their own health but to the health of those who use the food products prepared by them."

[booyalab]

Sez who ?

Sez Sinclair...
The book first appeared in Appeal To Reason which he acknowledged was a propaganda paper.


This is what Theodore Roosevelt wrote about him to William Allen White in July 1906 , "I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth."


edit: another thing, government meat inspections existed before The Jungle. Obviously Sinclair didn't want MORE meat inspections. He wanted socialism, which is why the main character becomes a socialist at the end of the book. What propaganda?? durr

[kuranes]

He and Roosevelt corresponded and eventually his letters got so frequent that Roosevelt was obliged to chill him out is what I read. Roosevelt still decided to send the inspectors I referenced and new regulations went into effect.

The word "Propaganda" can mean a lot of things. Sinclair probably intended it to mean that he had combined the experiences of more than one person into the actions of each character, to make a point. He was acknowledging that it wasn't a documentary, in other words, or simply referring to the average ( other ) content of the paper in question.

What personally motivated Sinclair to look into things is not what I've been referencing re: poor conditions he found.

[booyalab]

The investigations occurred before the letter, by two men who, by their own admission in a subsequent testimony, had gone to Chicago with the intention of finding fault with industry practices so they could get a new inspection law passed. Their conclusions were predetermined. Plus, neither of them knew anything about the industry...(if they did, they'd know that the big meat packer companies actually welcomed meat inspection, since the regulation was at the expense of their smaller competitors)

Anyways, if the conditions were as bad as alleged in The Jungle (which they weren't, Sinclair relied on his imagination and hearsay)...the previous meat inspectors were as guilty of neglect as the packers were guilty of abuse.
So remind me again why it's supposed to make me want to run from the evil free market into the loving open arms of government regulation?

[kuranes]

The investigations occurred before the letter, by two men who, by their own admission in a subsequent testimony, had gone to Chicago with the intention of finding fault with industry practices so they could get a new inspection law passed. Their conclusions were predetermined.

You're saying the people that I named ( who Teddy Roosevelt appointed ) were itching to pass a new law and would have done so regardless of Sinclair ? Maybe you can share some names like I did.

Them not being familiar with the industry wouldn't necessarily stop them from seeing unsafe practices going on.

I've given other ( present day ! ) examples of these priorities in this thread, besides just Upton Sinclair.



So remind me again why it's supposed to make me want to run from the evil free market into the loving open arms of government regulation?

You're saying that having no rules is better than having rules that can be disobeyed or swept under the carpet when convenient ?

If we go so far ( for the sake of argument ) as to stipulate that Sinclair did exaggerate for his own purposes, but that due to this a lot of genuine malfeasance was found, then I think the point stands anyway.

[fresh]

Off on a tangent, that novel was crappy.

[kuranes]

Off on a tangent, that novel was crappy.

I think that is a valid criticism of it. Sinclair wrote a lot of it based on things he saw, but he did it in a strident shrill sort of way that turned off a lot of people. His novel was eventually considered graceless from an aesthetics standpoint, even if generally accurate about conditions. Ultimately I admit that it did hurt smaller companies with certain profit targets in mind, that were thus unable to keep up with the new regulations, and so assisted the very big corporations/businesses that Sinclair sought to undermine.

http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2006/01/the_jungle_at_100.html

[rawr]

Chomsky is a twat.

:highfive:


I dislike people who advocate giving up personal freedoms for "government protection". Giving all the power to the state is a very dangerous idea.

John Locke > Marx

[LastRailway]

He describes himself as a libertarian socialist. From wikipedia:
The idea that his brand of libertarianism would be more feasible than Ron Paul's is ridiculous.

I am not that familiar with Ron Paul's opinions but I don't see why Chomsky's ideas are any more inconsistent or non-feasible.


I dislike people who advocate giving up personal freedoms for "government protection". Giving all the power to the state is a very dangerous idea.

Chomsky does not support giving up personal freedoms. His views are quite anti-authoritarian and he has frequently criticised USA's policies and government(s).

[C.J.Woolf]

I see it in terms of checks and balances. The US Constitution provides for checks and balances between executive, legislative, and judicial power, and that's worked pretty well. Democratic* political power checks and balances economic power.

In democratic government it's one person, one vote. In a corporation it's one share, one vote, and in the market it's one dollar, one vote (to oversimplify). Given that the majority of the dollars are owned by a small minority, and I'm guessing none of that minority are members of INTPc, we in the non-rich majority have more influence over the government through voting and organizing than we have over the economy.




*Democratic system, not party, though the Democratic Party is closer to this ideal than the Republican Party.

[rawr]

I am not that familiar with Ron Paul's opinions but I don't see why Chomsky's ideas are any more inconsistent or non-feasible.



Chomsky does not support giving up personal freedoms. His views are quite anti-authoritarian and he has frequently criticised USA's policies and government(s).

There's no way to do what Chomsky wants without state intervention, or control. Chomsky's heart is in the right place, but so were the Bolshevist.

[Hustler]

Whatever the system is, it's up to you to beat it. It doesn't matter whose ideal it is, because it won't be your ideal.

[fripping]

ok, allow me to explain myself. after that, i can be wrong or dumb or whatever if you still disagree.

is the last line a joke, or do you just have no idea at all what you are talking about?

if you live in a historically republican-dominated state and vote for ron paul, who has no chance to win whatsoever outside of the internet, you are essentially giving the republicans permission to win that state by not voting for the democratic candidate. lame as they may be, democrats are the only competitors against the republicans who have a chance, and i would generalize that they're a lesser evil.

Fripping, normally I find your posts funny and sometimes insightful, but this post is crap. I don't think you even know what you're talking about.

ron paul supports a lot of stuff i can get behind. he's anti-war, pro-immigration, pro-free-internet, pro-medical-marijuana, pro-constitution and so on. those are great.

but that is not his entire platform. ron paul wants to privatize public programs. unless i'm mistaken, practically all of them. scandinavians and canadians will mostly agree that socialist things like taxpayer, government sponsored universal healthcare and free education are very nice things which make their country better, and currently we don't even have that.

ron paul wants to take american privatization a step further when it's already at a bit of an extreme.

do you really want a corporation running the fire department? maybe it's in their best interest to do a good job if their money depends on it, but what if you're poor, or it's a day before pay-day and you're a bit short? well, your house burns down. kind of like this (http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2007/08/23/news/top_story/119026.txt), but more widespread.

and the police, too. that would essentially boil down to paying protection money. if you don't buy in, you're fair game to criminals and the police would have no obligation to protect you.

on and on and on. education (all private primary and secondary education would only be for those who could afford it, no vouchers), highways (all toll roads), the military (all blackwater or something similar in spirit), etc. etc.

private ownership has it's place, and so does socialism. ideally we would have a combination of both. total privatization completely fucks over the poor and makes middle class living a struggle.

[fresh]

Whatever the system is, it's up to you to beat it. It doesn't matter whose ideal it is, because it won't be your ideal.

Is beating it up to sumting summit 99% perspiration, 1% inspiration? Because I could hold that smoke. Tea party every day. This is spectacular.

[enjoysham]

The government isn't separate from the market, it is a natural outgrowth of it.

[Lateralus]

ron paul supports a lot of stuff i can get behind. he's anti-war, pro-immigration, pro-free-internet, pro-medical-marijuana, pro-constitution and so on. those are great.

but that is not his entire platform. ron paul wants to privatize public programs. unless i'm mistaken, practically all of them. scandinavians and canadians will mostly agree that socialist things like taxpayer, government sponsored universal healthcare and free education are very nice things which make their country better, and currently we don't even have that.

ron paul wants to take american privatization a step further when it's already at a bit of an extreme.

do you really want a corporation running the fire department? maybe it's in their best interest to do a good job if their money depends on it, but what if you're poor, or it's a day before pay-day and you're a bit short? well, your house burns down. kind of like this (http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2007/08/23/news/top_story/119026.txt), but more widespread.

and the police, too. that would essentially boil down to paying protection money. if you don't buy in, you're fair game to criminals and the police would have no obligation to protect you.

on and on and on. education (all private primary and secondary education would only be for those who could afford it, no vouchers), highways (all toll roads), the military (all blackwater or something similar in spirit), etc. etc.

private ownership has it's place, and so does socialism. ideally we would have a combination of both. total privatization completely fucks over the poor and makes middle class living a struggle.
You keep bringing up things that are handled at the local level. The feds don't run your local fire or police department. I don't see how this even applies. He's not running for county commissioner on those issues. He's running for President of the United States. He's actually for more autonomy at the local level, meaning you could make your state into a communist utopia if you so please.

[C.J.Woolf]

do you really want a corporation running the fire department?
One of Crassus's many enterprises was a private fire department in the city of Rome. They would go to a fire... and make a fire-sale offer to buy the property. If the owner accepted the offer, then they would put out the fire on Crassus's new property.

[rek]

One of Crassus's many enterprises was a private fire department in the city of Rome. They would go to a fire... and make a fire-sale offer to buy the property. If the owner accepted the offer, then they would put out the fire on Crassus's new property.

Our federal government wanted peace so they started a war in Iraq. What's your point, exactly?

Lateralus already explained this, but fire departments are handled at a more local government level. Which means the people who run it, the people who pay for it, and the people who monitor it are close to it. Because of this they are more likely to care, more likely to be efficient, and most importantly they are held more accountable for their actions by the people who pay for and rely on them.

Local government always works better and better represents the people than federal government. Ron Paul isn't running to get rid of state governments, he's running to get rid of federal government which would in most cases empower state governments.

The only reason to think the majority of issues need to be dealt with at a federal level is because you think your opinion is so much better than the rest of the country's that you have some kind of right to force all of them to follow it.

Doesn't matter if it's health care, saving money for retirement, roads, or the fire department - the less local you get the less you should expect. That's why people who pay for things themselves get the best treatment, you can't get any more local than the individual. It's also why socialized policies work better in small countries.

I hope that one day we wont have a president. The idea of having one man represent over 300 million is just stupid. Does Bush well represent you? Does it matter that he doesn't? You're not in Washington, you're opinion doesn't matter, our government is so far from us that it's no longer accountable. The founders knew it would happen, and it did. But our government, just like a religion, gets people to believe that they need them.

[kuranes]

How much latitude would the local authorities have ? Could they go back to Jim Crow laws, or execute people for "sins" like flirting with the wrong person, gambling, etc. ? Since they wouldn't be receiving a lot of the funds that the Fed often dispenses ( ? ) to local government, could they set up toll stations everywhere and little kangaroo courts to collect money from outsiders passing through their areas ? How many "local governments" would there be, and how would their authority be set up ? Would city trump state ? Or vice versa ?

[Lateralus]

How much latitude would the local authorities have ? Could they go back to Jim Crow laws, or execute people for "sins" like flirting with the wrong person, gambling, etc. ? Since they wouldn't be receiving a lot of the funds that the Fed often dispenses ( ? ) to local government, could they set up toll stations everywhere and little kangaroo courts to collect money from outsiders passing through their areas ? How many "local governments" would there be, and how would their authority be set up ? Would city trump state ? Or vice versa ?
Come on kuranes, you should know the answer to this already. The federal government's power is stated explicitly in the Constitution. Whatever powers are not explicitly granted to the feds are given to the state, as long as the state does not violate the Constitution (Bill of Rights, etc). Whether the state has power over the local government depends on that particular state's constitution. Do we need to have a civics class on INTPc?

Do you honestly believe that without the federal government's blackmail (funding) that some municipalities would resort to this? I'll admit that there are corrupt officials at the local level, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the relationship between the feds and the locals.

You mention things like kangaroo courts, but those were not stopped by the federal government out of the kindness of their hearts. No, what stops corruption is public knowledge. One of the positive effects of media proliferation is the fact that scenarios you mention are far less likely to occur now, than in the past, because everyone would hear about it. The public wouldn't stand for it and the people are where our government derives its power, or at least it's supposed to.

[Architectonic]

Whatever the system is, it's up to you to beat it. It doesn't matter whose ideal it is, because it won't be your ideal.

You've been hanging around INTPs for quite some time and you still don't get it....


How much latitude would the local authorities have ? Could they go back to Jim Crow laws, or execute people for "sins" like flirting with the wrong person, gambling, etc. ? Since they wouldn't be receiving a lot of the funds that the Fed often dispenses ( ? ) to local government, could they set up toll stations everywhere and little kangaroo courts to collect money from outsiders passing through their areas ? How many "local governments" would there be, and how would their authority be set up ? Would city trump state ? Or vice versa ?

In principle perhaps, but in reality its just a strawman argument.

[Hustler]

You've been hanging around INTPs for quite some time and you still don't get it...

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/8067/roflbotesd9br2.jpg

[kuranes]

In principle perhaps, but in reality its just a strawman argument.

I'm asking for an explanation of how it would actually work versus being content with a vague "that will all be handled locally" sort of response. No actual description of this has been given so far, that I noticed anyway, versus one being proposed which I substituted a "strawman" for.

[Lateralus]

I'm asking for an explanation of how it would actually work versus being content with a vague "that will all be handled locally" sort of response. No actual description of this has been given so far, that I noticed anyway, versus one being proposed which I substituted a "strawman" for.
Considering the fact that the Jim Crow laws were technically unconstitutional (violated the 14th amendment), I don't think we need to worry about this anymore.

I'm sure some people credit the federal government with the change in public perception. I do not. I believe the media deserves far more credit. I'll take an informed public over an all-powerful centralized government any day.

[kuranes]

Come on kuranes..... Do we need to have a civics class on INTPc?
You're still not saying how it will actually work under your new vision.


Do you honestly believe that without the federal government's blackmail (funding) that some municipalities would resort to this?


It wouldn't matter what caused it. They would be free to do these things even if the Feds continued to give them such funds, unless I misunderstand what powers you're giving and taking away from the Feds.. Who enforces these breaches of the constitution ?




One of the positive effects of media proliferation is the fact that scenarios you mention are far less likely to occur now, than in the past, because everyone would hear about it.

Who's to say that the media will continue being as open as it is now in the future, as corporations start buying up broadcasters and such ?


at least it's supposed to.
You're willing to bet the farm on that. I'm not.

[fresh]

You're willing to bet the farm on that. I'm not.

C'mon. Live on the edge. ;)

[Lateralus]

You're still not saying how it will actually work under your new vision.
Look at the pre-civil war relationship between states and the feds.


It wouldn't matter what caused it. They would be free to do these things even if the Feds continued to give them such funds, unless I misunderstand what powers you're giving and taking away from the Feds.. Who enforces these breaches of the constitution ?
You're obviously more pessimistic than me. I don't think society will revert to the Dark Ages the moment Big Brother stops controlling us.

The federal government would enforce any breach of the US Constitution. The state government would enforce any breach of the state constitution, and so on. Is this concept really that difficult for you to grasp?


Who's to say that the media will continue being as open as it is now in the future, as corporations start buying up broadcasters and such ?
This is already happening and I'm against it. I'm also against regulation of the internet. A free and unbiased media is essential to any free society.


You're willing to bet the farm on that. I'm not.
Where do you think government gets its power?

[kuranes]

C'mon. Live on the edge. ;)

I can see a lot of cool things that might come from it. Like Fripping said, no more hassles about victimless crimes. You could probably get low level medical care fairly cheaply too, if anyone could offer to do it, and you'd just trust the word of mouth advertising on that, assuming people left their little zones of comfort/safety. I also think you'd see a lot of these Blackwater type outfits - perhaps even out there creating the need for their own services. There might even be gated communities within gated communities. Nested, like a Russian doll. And outside of those? Look how the Russian Mafia and robber barons of oil expanded during the early wild years of Yeltsin. That's why some people there are not complaining too much about Putin now. A lesser of two evils.

[fresh]

Where do you think government gets its power?

Granted by me. ;)

[kuranes]

Look at the pre-civil war relationship between states and the feds.

This country was still in a formative stage then, expanding westward, and making the rules up as they went along, to some extent. They were lucky they didn't have more problems than they did. Even so, there were a lot of things that went on that were undesirable. At the high end , you had problems going back ( even earlier than the Civil War) to Andy Jackson trying to stop the bankers from writing their own rules, and at the low end people like Jackson himself, running the Indians out of their own land, including those who had helped him in battles with other Indians, on condition of being allowed to live in peace. Who was looking out for their rights ?

The golden rule. He who has the gold, rules, is what it amounts to sometimes. There's been a lot of changes since the civil war, but that rule is still the same.



The federal government would enforce any breach of the US Constitution. The state government would enforce any breach of the state constitution, and so on. Is this concept really that difficult for you to grasp?
I don't know about your state, but ours is running out of money right now. They're going to have to bring in casinos to Chicago probably, to keep public transport funded, and some other things. Of course since casinos are supposed to be evil, there is a lot of finger pointing ( and arguing over who's going to get the money) and one wonders what they would do if ( when ) this option is no longer the quick fix, assuming it is for now.

I imagine that there would be the usual game of how things are supposed to work and how things really work. I admit to not knowing all the details of Ron Paul's plans. I thought it was supposed to be a lot more "hands off, Feds !" than what you just described there.

I was watching TV the other night and there was a show on about something your buddy Fresh and I may enjoy - marijuana. The studies done on it by the government, at the time they started talking about regulating drugs, showed it to be pretty harmless. Nevertheless, because it was the drug of choice of Mexicans at the time, who were present in large numbers in the Southwest because their labour had been temporarily required, it got mixed up in Immigration issues. Politicians down there started complaining about the Mexicans. So they decided to try to come up with a penalty for it, which they could apply to these Mexicans. They were having a hard time figuring out how to make a common weed illegal, especially as it seemed to infringe on constitutional rights to say you couldn't smoke it on your own land etc. They decided that the thing to do would be to require a license or stamp that authorized only certain people to dispense it. In order to get the stamp, you had to demonstrate that you were moving a certain volume of it, but few such stamps were ever issued, and if you DID show them you had the marijuana, you were arrested for not having the stamp for it, since your application hadn't been approved yet. A nice little Catch 22. This was in the 1930's. Later the law was declared unconstitutional, or improper in the late 1960's. Shortly after that, Nixon got around that by putting schedules together for drugs that supposedly had no medicinal value, and ignored testimony of his own experts on Marijuana, so that it was placed in a forbidden schedule, along with many other drugs. This way they didn't have to make a law against individual drugs anymore, but could just move them from one schedule to another.

(Do I think that all drugs should be available to everybody, like they were once upon a time ? No. But for the same reason we were just alluding to - things have changed since the civil war days.)

I think that Chicago and many other cities have what is known as "ordinances" against citizens owning handguns, which, if I recall, is a right we are supposed to have already according to Federal law. Do you see them doing anything about it ?

So...I share your scepticism about big government, but I can't really say that I trust ( especially as the freewheeling nature of the new game starts creating new developments and amendments etc. ) state government and local governments any more . Maybe less. When there is a bust because of the city of Chicago inspectors are demanding bribes from businessmen to keep their restaurant open, it is the Feds who go after them, and only the Feds. I think of the State more as Highway Patrol.



This is already happening and I'm against it. I'm also against regulation of the internet. A free and unbiased media is essential to any free society.



Exactly. And it is big corporations being given free rein to buy up all the channels and consolidate that allows for this. When it all gets down to just a few sanctioned players, the answer suggested - that consumers exercise their veto power - loses teeth. How do consumers communicate with one another about such moves if the channels for doing such are always in the hands of people who have other interests ? Start up your own radio station ?

It doesn't matter so much where government gets its power as much as what it does with it.

[fresh]

For the record, getting rid of victimless crimes is super.

But decriminalizing drug trade effectively puts me out of my favorite job. Uh, no thanks. Let's keep that black market open.

[kuranes]

Let's keep that black market open.

Since it would be open to anybody to sell marijuana under the ideal Libertarian government, you would indeed have plenty of new competition. Unless you could persuade your local authorities to make a law against it and reserve it as a government fund raiser with you and the good ol' boys in charge! :) Are you sure you want to vote for Ron Paul ?

[fresh]

Since it would be open to anybody to sell marijuana under the ideal Libertarian government, you would indeed have plenty of new competition. Unless you could persuade your local authorities to make a law against it and reserve it as a government fund raiser with you and the good ol' boys in charge! :) Are you sure you want to vote for Ron Paul ?

Yes, I'm sure I support Paul. My first love is smoking marijuana before pushing it. I can see myself holding down a real job if I can smoke mass quantities of high-quality bud on the cheap. Either that or becoming homeless. Either way, I'll be ripped all the time. Which I am. But it's risky. ;)

[rawr]

Whatever the system is, it's up to you to beat it. It doesn't matter whose ideal it is, because it won't be your ideal.

That's pretty INTJish of you hustler:happpy:

[inspectorgadget]

ok, allow me to explain myself. after that, i can be wrong or dumb or whatever if you still disagree.

if you live in a historically republican-dominated state and vote for ron paul, who has no chance to win whatsoever outside of the internet, you are essentially giving the republicans permission to win that state by not voting for the democratic candidate. lame as they may be, democrats are the only competitors against the republicans who have a chance, and i would generalize that they're a lesser evil.

ron paul supports a lot of stuff i can get behind. he's anti-war, pro-immigration, pro-free-internet, pro-medical-marijuana, pro-constitution and so on. those are great.

but that is not his entire platform. ron paul wants to privatize public programs. unless i'm mistaken, practically all of them. scandinavians and canadians will mostly agree that socialist things like taxpayer, government sponsored universal healthcare and free education are very nice things which make their country better, and currently we don't even have that.

ron paul wants to take american privatization a step further when it's already at a bit of an extreme.

do you really want a corporation running the fire department? maybe it's in their best interest to do a good job if their money depends on it, but what if you're poor, or it's a day before pay-day and you're a bit short? well, your house burns down. kind of like this (http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2007/08/23/news/top_story/119026.txt), but more widespread.

and the police, too. that would essentially boil down to paying protection money. if you don't buy in, you're fair game to criminals and the police would have no obligation to protect you.

on and on and on. education (all private primary and secondary education would only be for those who could afford it, no vouchers), highways (all toll roads), the military (all blackwater or something similar in spirit), etc. etc.

private ownership has it's place, and so does socialism. ideally we would have a combination of both. total privatization completely fucks over the poor and makes middle class living a struggle.

I don't understand, AT ALL, how you could come to the conclusion that he thinks it's a good idea for all those things to be privatized. Just because it's unconstitutional for it to be mandated at the federal level does NOT mean that it's illegal at the state level! SERIOUSLY, YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT ENTIRELY!

:(

-ig

[inspectorgadget]

I'm asking for an explanation of how it would actually work versus being content with a vague "that will all be handled locally" sort of response. No actual description of this has been given so far, that I noticed anyway, versus one being proposed which I substituted a "strawman" for.

The constitution allows for the creation of federal courts, and ultimately the creation of a Supreme Court which, through precedence, has established judicial review.

So, let's say Arkansas decides segregation is a good thing again - well, DAMN, that's a violation of the Bill Of Rights. Send in the national guard. Problem Solved. Same if they start lynching, send in the troops - same way they handled the Whiskey Rebellion or Shay's Rebellion.

Your argument is fundamentally retarded.


I don't know about your state, but ours is running out of money right now. They're going to have to bring in casinos to Chicago probably, to keep public transport funded, and some other things. Of course since casinos are supposed to be evil, there is a lot of finger pointing ( and arguing over who's going to get the money) and one wonders what they would do if ( when ) this option is no longer the quick fix, assuming it is for now.


Maybe you guys wouldn't be so damned broke if the Government would stop taking so much of your income and then wasting it all in giant black-holes like Iraq and the Military Industrial Complex?

I would much prefer more of my tax dollars be used at the local level, where I live...

[kuranes]

The constitution allows for the creation of federal courts, and ultimately the creation of a Supreme Court which, through precedence, has established judicial review.

So, let's say Arkansas decides segregation is a good thing again - well, DAMN, that's a violation of the Bill Of Rights.

Apparently you didn't read some of the examples I've posted earlier. These things are examples of violations of rights, but they find ways around them. Why would exchanging Fed overseer for State overseer make it any less likely to happen ?


Maybe you guys wouldn't be so damned broke if the Government would stop taking so much of your income and then wasting it all in giant black-holes like Iraq and the Military Industrial Complex?
You're preaching to the choir on that issue. I despise that crap. I don't think it arises out of "Federal-ness" though, but just cronyism, which can happen with any smokey backroom decision-making.


I would much prefer more of my tax dollars be used at the local level, where I live...
I'd like more say about how they are used no matter where it is.

I've heard some Libertarian extremists talk before, and many of them seemed to want to privatize everything. The Feds were just supposed to insure property rights and do little else, according to these guys. Ron Paul may be a milder version of this. I don't know. I'm just giving you my off-the-cuff impressions of it so far. My impression of Libertarianism is a mixed one. I have voted for them locally before, many times, but people have told me that Libertarians don't believe in safety nets of any kind, for social services and such. It's the usual talk of economic Darwinism that I've seen people wish for here and elsewhere. I guess I hear more about what Libertarians DON'T want, and what they're NOT, than I do about what they ARE, and what benefits they would give me in my specific day to day challenges. I already mentioned in the thread some things I thought might be good about a Libertarian society, despite your apparent feeling that I am being totally one sided about this. But that's ME speculating on benefits, not the Libertarian exponents. I don't hear much from them in the general news except talk about freedom from taxation and general exhortations about independence. I wonder how many of these wealthy types that complain about their taxes have taken Warren Buffet up on his challenge ?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1

I'm not sure how they were going to go about prioritizing how much to spend on defense under the new regime. They would also inherit a Pentagon and foreign agenda as it is, vs. a clean slate.

Maybe the answers to all of that are tucked away somewhere in Ron Paul's literature and I confess that I haven't dug through it all to find out what that might be.

[inspectorgadget]

Apparently you didn't read some of the examples I've posted earlier. These things are examples of violations of rights, but they find ways around them. Why would exchanging Fed overseer for State overseer make it any less likely to happen ?

That's why it's important to RUN FOR OFFICE and GIVE A SHIT... I feel like Americans get the kind of government that they deserve.

Where do these politicians come from? From American homes and American schools...



You're preaching to the choir on that issue. I despise that crap. I don't think it arises out of "Federal-ness" though, but just cronyism, which can happen with any smokey backroom decision-making.

Okay, if you don't think Cronyism becomes more prevalent the bigger the size of government then you're crazy... The more 'positions' in government that these bastards can appoint their friends too the more cronyism we get. "Heck of a job, Brownie."


I'd like more say about how they are used no matter where it is.

What's the best way to have a better say as to how your money is being spent? All of it going to Washington, into a huge pot where Congressmen fight over who gets the biggest slice of the pie? There is absolutely no way the money will be allocated fairly. This is the more efficient way to be inefficient.


I've heard some Libertarian extremists talk before, and many of them seemed to want to privatize everything. The Feds were just supposed to insure property rights and do little else, according to these guys. Ron Paul may be a milder version of this. I don't know. I'm just giving you my off-the-cuff impressions of it so far. My impression of Libertarianism is a mixed one. I have voted for them locally before, many times, but people have told me that Libertarians don't believe in safety nets of any kind, for social services and such. It's the usual talk of economic Darwinism that I've seen people wish for here and elsewhere. I guess I hear more about what Libertarians DON'T want, and what they're NOT, than I do about what they ARE, and what benefits they would give me in my specific day to day challenges. I already mentioned in the thread some things I thought might be good about a Libertarian society, despite your apparent feeling that I am being totally one sided about this. But that's ME speculating on benefits, not the Libertarian exponents. I don't hear much from them in the general news except talk about freedom from taxation and general exhortations about independence. I wonder how many of these wealthy types that complain about their taxes have taken Warren Buffet up on his challenge ?
http://www.cnbc.com/id/21553857/
http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3869458&page=1

I'm not sure how they were going to go about prioritizing how much to spend on defense under the new regime. They would also inherit a Pentagon and foreign agenda as it is, vs. a clean slate.

Maybe the answers to all of that are tucked away somewhere in Ron Paul's literature and I confess that I haven't dug through it all to find out what that might be.

Personally if we aren't helping the poor, with our own money (when we are allowed to keep it) then we are being immoral. I have a moral incentive to help someone out, but I don't have the right to take money from anyone else to do it. But this is where the marketplace of ideas comes into play as well as just the economic market place... in the free-market of ideas, the best idea should always win out over the bad ones - just so long as all ideas can be freely expressed, no matter how awful or hateful a certain perspective might be (which is why hate crime legislation is detrimental). Most people will reason that it's good to help your fellow man out, and people will give generously to charities that they support. Without all the red-tape the charities could help people with a whole lot less costs.

As far as property rights go, the problem has always been government officials erring on the side of big business over the rights of the people... but this is why we have to pay attention to what our elected officials are doing, and vote them out of office if they aren't upholding contract correctly.

If I own a piece of land, and some company pollutes the air or the water on my land, then I can sue them for damages... Therefore, it will be far too costly for them to be polluting. As is, government allows those with the most amount of capital to pollute - and it's nearly impossible for small businesses to start up, because they could never pay to pollute like these big corporations can.

It's pretty ridiculous...

[inspectorgadget]

ron paul is just another perot or larouche, a passing fad who is attractive because he is honest. unfortunately he is honestly nuts. noam chomsky doesn't have a monopoly on the truth either of course, but i agree with him here. i vote. . . totally irrelevant! a vote for ron paul is a vote for the republicans etc. etc.

I'm not sure if anyone ever pointed out the clear difference between Perot and Ron Paul...

So let me make this clear - Perot was a billionaire that bought his way into the lime light. Ron Paul came into the light by his ideas alone. His biography is fundamentally different. His record lives up to his views in every way.

Ross Perot didn't have the internet. Ross Perot didn't have over a thousand meet up groups spontaneously form out of nothing all across the country. Ross Perot didn't raise 4.3 million dollars in one day via small individual contributions alone. Ross Perot didn't have hundreds of followers everywhere he went, and everywhere his political opponents went.

Ross Perot didn't have a blimp. :)

-IG

[s'box]

As far as property rights go, the problem has always been government officials erring on the side of big business over the rights of the people... but this is why we have to pay attention to what our elected officials are doing, and vote them out of office if they aren't upholding contract correctly.

If I own a piece of land, and some company pollutes the air or the water on my land, then I can sue them for damages... Therefore, it will be far too costly for them to be polluting. As is, government allows those with the most amount of capital to pollute - and it's nearly impossible for small businesses to start up, because they could never pay to pollute like these big corporations can.

It's pretty ridiculous...

and whats going to change that problem? I dont think that source originates at all in any structural places of the system, and anywhere between corporatism and libertarianism, judges, who are rich and powerful, will always side with people like them, the rich and powerful, as is the historical precedent for this. The people we elect to keep those judges in line especially in a free market system, are the rich and powerful, who seek to become at least more powerful, if not more rich. They will never do anything about those judges.
Laws need to be skewed towards a power balance to keep judges from doing it. If you could get a libertarian state with not only all restrictions from union activity and the like removed, but legal powers in their favor, then you could potentially have a power balance less awful.


ron paul is just another perot or larouche, a passing fad who is attractive because he is honest. unfortunately he is honestly nuts. noam chomsky doesn't have a monopoly on the truth either of course, but i agree with him here. i vote. . . totally irrelevant! a vote for ron paul is a vote for the republicans etc. etc.

larouche is unique and should be kept on his own scale far crazier than these two. Along with the trotskyite parties he used to run. He had his members physically attack other communist groups to try and keep them from meeting.
Seriously, democratic party cultists. FDR is their savior, LaRouche ended communism single handedly, and the democrats will save them regardless of what they say. They sing songs about impeaching bush on the street corners here.

also on chomsky - I think I attempted to hunt out his beliefs once and it seems he is deliberately vague and non commitive of any system in order to strengthen (as far as hes concerned) his critical positions. The best I think you'll find is that he somewhat likes anarchism and has praise for the spanish anarchists in the late 30s. His constant referencing to bodies like the UN, and support of gun laws sure doesnt line up in that regard.

[C.J.Woolf]

I'm not sure if anyone ever pointed out the clear difference between Perot and Ron Paul...
Ross Perot didn't get elected, but he succeeded because he got the action he wanted: reduction of the deficit.

Fringe candidates cannot win a major party nomination, and third-party candidates cannot win the general election, but they can influence the agenda of one or both major parties. Tom Tancredo, another Republican fringe candidate, knows he can't win, but he declared victory at the last debate, saying he's got the major candidates in both parties "trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo" on the issue of immigration. And he's right.

From what I've seen, a fringe candidate has the best chance of influencing the agenda if he/she pounds on a single issue and gains public support on that issue. Not the candidate, the issue. I think Perot wanted to create a cult of personality and succeeded in spite of himself, but Tancredo knows what he's doing.

[inspectorgadget]

and whats going to change that problem? I dont think that source originates at all in any structural places of the system, and anywhere between corporatism and libertarianism, judges, who are rich and powerful, will always side with people like them, the rich and powerful, as is the historical precedent for this. The people we elect to keep those judges in line especially in a free market system, are the rich and powerful, who seek to become at least more powerful, if not more rich. They will never do anything about those judges.
Laws need to be skewed towards a power balance to keep judges from doing it. If you could get a libertarian state with not only all restrictions from union activity and the like removed, but legal powers in their favor, then you could potentially have a power balance less awful.


Man, honestly, we have the ballot box. This is the ultimate check on these idiots. If a judge is making absurd rulings that you're talking about - then people ORGANIZE and have that cunt removed. If the legislators are backing them up, then you have to vote them out first - then, who you replace them with takes care of the problem.

The problem, I think, is on US. It's not them. These politicians are only able to continue doing what they do because of the nature of our society. I think this last presidential election was the first time a lil over half the population voted... but usually it's somewhere in between 48-49% of eligible voters. Congressional and local elections are much much worse as far as turn out is concerned...

We do not involve ourselves in politics! That's the issue. It's not THEM, it's US. We get the kind of government that we deserve. We need better civics education possibly.

Anyway, yeah, it's our own fault.

[scroggzen]

I'm so glad this discussion is taking place, props everybody. I'll have more to say tomorrow when I get home from my exam, but consider this a placeholder.


Fringe candidates cannot win a major party nomination, and third-party candidates cannot win the general election, but they can influence the agenda of one or both major parties.

Amen, brother. That's what I've been stressing to people. I think Ron Paul's already won in many regards in that he's caused tons of people to start asking questions. I have no doubt that he'll make more of an impact than any fringe candidate has before. This is the first election where the Internet has grown to the extreme level that it has. Unfortunately, a lot of people hear his name and instead of looking him up themselves, they rely on other people to tell them. Or they think if they haven't heard about him on the various heavily red/blue influenced news sources that he must not be a worthy candidate. When, in fact, he's curing countless people of their political apathy by the hour.

"Who is Ron Paul?" is a lot like the slang phrase "Who is John Galt?" used in Atlas Shrugged. I'm not done with it yet, but so far I've noticed that any time somebody asks, it's in response to a question that shouldn't have been asked in the first place. Basically like saying "If you had any sense of self, you would have taken the necessary steps to form your own opinion."

[inspectorgadget]

I think you guys misunderstand what a FRINGE candidate would be... No Fringe Candidate could raise the kind of money the man has raised. The only reason he's a "fringe" candidate is because that's the narrative this MSM has been pushing from the beginning, and they said at first - he isn't raising any money, therefore he's just an internet phenomenon blah blah. But now that he's raised so much, they seriously ought to re-evaluate their thinking. If they started to treat the man with some respect as opposed to maintaining their narrative it would actually make people that would otherwise not take him seriously actually LISTEN to his ideas, and then they'd realize (in many cases) they agreed with what he had to say....

So here's one interesting tid bit of information, Ron Paul is polling at 11% in South Carolina. That's two points behind John McCain. These numbers represent LIKELY REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTERS. Therefore, he's got 11% of likely republican primary voters on his side in South Carolina - and i'm sure he's hardly spent any money there so far.

The kicker is this: Ron Paul's support base is, his main support base, is not measured at all in that "likely republican primary" voter field. There will be a large number of voters who otherwise wouldn't have voted at all voting in these primaries...

In my view he may actually win a state like New Hampshire (the Live Free or Die state) and actually get great turn out in a state like South Carolina that will seem to come out of nowhere So maybe he's in 3rd in South Carolina? Maybe he's in Second? Maybe he's in First? We don't know. We'll find out after the Iowa / NH primaries how serious his support actually is.... because, you know, 50% of the country doesn't even vote usually...

Here are the numbers according to CNN for SC: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/14/s.carolina.poll/index.html#cnnSTCText

Notice the narrative? "Huckabee Sky Rockets!!"

It's all nonsense. It's all about a storyline. It's all bullshit. It's what you get when your media is profit-driven. But maybe they underestimate how well Truth can Sale.