Why Ron Paul is misrepresented among students
With the presidential elections only months away the debates are heating up about which presidential candidate is most eligible. Ron Paul is a very popular candidate among college students but there are many students who strongly dislike him as well. A major problem I have with these people is that they are often uninformed or misinformed when it comes to Ron Paul and his policies.
Many misconceptions about Ron Paul include the statements that he does not support many important things such as minimum wage. Ron Paul simply does not support a federal government mandated minimum wage but if a specific state wants to set a lower limit, they can. However, what many people do not understand is that minimum wage does not necessarily need to be mandated by the government at all. If a company could pay workers less, the could produce cheaper goods. If they pay too little, workers will find jobs elsewhere but if they pay their workers too much they will fail.
What people do not realize is that even with out government intervention, the economy will regulate itself. It is when regulations get put in to place to, for example, save a company from failing, then workers get paid less because the company is not doing well on its own.
At this point, another regulation must be added to protect the workers. This trend continues until you have a bureaucracy in place that resembles America’s. The only rational, unbiased fix to this problem is to remove the regulations and allow the people to make their own decisions, which Paul strongly supports. These maneuvers would protect our individual liberties, a central theme of Paul’s platform.
Another misconception the establishment populous has is that he is racist. As we all know, many things that politicians say can be twisted to sound either good or bad. What Paul was stating when he said he did not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was that private businesses should not be forced by the government to do anything. Never does he state that businesses shouldn’t serve minorities, just that it’s not the governments place to force it upon them to do so. Basically the big controversy comes down to whether or not you think the government should be able to control what you do.
For his own moral reasons, Ron Paul does not support gay marriage, like many other Americans. However, he states that it should be up to the states to decide whether they will allow gay marriage. To dislike him because of his personal views, which in no way affects his running of the country, would be the same thing as anti-homosexuality: hatred of a personal viewpoint. People have different opinions and if states were able to make their own laws you could potentially move to the state whose views were most similar to yours. With millions people living in this country it is impossible to expect everyone to abide by the same set of rules.
You may not agree with Ron Paul’s policies but that’s what makes him different from other politicians; he welcomes other options. He realizes people are not all going to agree with him and that is perfectly okay. With Ron Paul, it is not about what he believes but what the people vote and agree upon that matter. He sticks with what he says although many people criticize him for it.
If you are a proponent of making your own decisions and leading your own life, Ron Paul is the only viable option. Otherwise, you get a corrupt politician trying to strip more of our rights away. It is up to you, though, just do your research before formulating an erroneous conclusion.
Category: Niner Times, Opinion
About the Author (Author Profile)
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Loading ...
RON PAUL is the ONLY ~ELIGIBLE~ candidate re/ Article 2 Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Obama.Romney.Rubio.Santorum…..NOT ELIGIBLE!
@msbetz - I’m a Ron Paul supporter, but can you explain how none of them are not eligible based on our Constitution? Because, uh, they are.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who isn’t an authoritarian. Authoritarians are running this country into the ground bickering over who gets to “control” the American people. The Left leaning Authoritarians want to make us into dolists, the right leaning Authoritarians want to make us into peasants.
Why would you choose either, when you could choose Ron Paul, who wants Americans to be permitted to develop their God-given talents and succeed on their own merits? What do you want for yourself? What do you want for your children?
Can your dreams be achieved in a nation controlled by Authoritarian lunatics? Can anyone’s?
This has got to be one of the most poorly informed Ron Paul supporter articles I have ever read. Dye your skin brown, hop in a time machine and drop into Alabama or Mississippi ca. 1963 for a few weeks, then tell me that “private businesses shouldn’t be forced by the government to do anything.” Pick up and read “The Grapes of Wrath” or “The Jungle,” or study the labor struggles (including child labor horrors) of the late 19th and early-to-mid-20th century and then tell me you trust “businesses” to set a living wage and provide a safe work environment for employees. Visit the Cuyahoga River in 1969 and watch it burn or talk to the folks still living whose lives were destroyed by Hooker Chemical at Love Canal, NY and tell me Nixon was wrong to establish the EPA. I grow weary of people who point to the relatively safe, clean and fair nation we live in thanks to regulation as proof that regulation need not exist. Lots of people suffered and many died to give you the life you want to decimate. To drop our well-being completely into the hands of those whose primary compulsion is personal profit is naive at best. We tried that for our first 150 years, and the results were not pretty.
Learn some history, then let’s talk.
@Revkeyes
Private property rights can take the place of the EPA, the government had the first wrong by making the jim crow laws, and if the businesses were boycotted, they would have had to change thier policies anyway. You are very uneducated in free market economics sir, you should read Human action by Ludwig von Mises before you spew out propaganda media drivel.
@thebillygoatkid @Revkeyes
Please explain how private property rights will ensure clean air, water, food, etc. also, who has the resources to confront large corporations in the US judial system to enforce said private property rights?
@FU @thebillygoatkid @Revkeyes ‘Please explain how private property rights will ensure clean air, water, food, etc’
If someone pollutes your air/water/food – they are liable in law. Some history: the EPA was formed as a result of industry lobbying government. Industry was sick of losing in court and having to pay out, so it lobbied the government to make (it’s own chosen) levels of pollution ‘legal’. That is what you have today. Industry decides how much pollution it can’t be bothered to deal with. EPA approves it. You are stuck with it. Get it?
@thebillygoatkid ”Propaganda media drivel?” Sorry, l’il kid, the plight of black Americans in 19th and 20th century America, the anti-competitive, price-fixing collusion of the mega-industrialists prior to Teddy Roosevelt’s trust busting, the lethality of working in mines and mills prior to federal standards, the poisoning of the environment prior to late 20th century regulation and so much more are FACT, not propaganda. I am so sorry that reality is infringing on your free-market utopian pipe dream. It appears you place complete trust in the Enrons, Solyndras, AIGs, Bernie Madoffs, Lehman Brothers, BPs, Hooker Chemicals, Exxons, Massey Energies, Monsantos, etc. of the world. Go ahead. Dream of returning to the snake oil days of scant regulation and powerless workers. Enjoy recreating that hell-hole and then stewing in it!
There are elements of Ron Paul’s platform that I agree with, but others scare me half to death.
Thank you for supporting my argument and under-cutting Ron Paul’s by bringing up Jim Crow laws. Those were STATE and LOCAL laws that interfered with the most basic rights of citizenship. Thankfully, after much pressure, the FEDERAL government stepped in to fight that illegal disenfranchisement.
Oh, and business boycotts were a major strategy of the Civil Rights movement. But what happens when little girls are blown up in churches and young men are murdered and buried in shallow graves while the police look the other way? How about when state police officers savagely beat and maim innocent people? Somehow “you killed my daughter and turned attack dogs on my son, so I won’t be entering the back door to buy an egg salad sandwich from you anymore” seems a little too tepid a response to me.
@Revkeyes @thebillygoatkid Unfortunately I don’t have time right now to address your whole post, but come on – are you serious with this bit?
‘ut what happens when little girls are blown up in churches and young men are murdered and buried in shallow graves while the police look the other way? How about when state police officers savagely beat and maim innocent people? Somehow “you killed my daughter and turned attack dogs on my son, so I won’t be entering the back door to buy an egg salad sandwich from you anymore” seems a little too tepid a response to me.’
Firstly, what you are angry about is the at times disgusting state of human nature. I couldn’t agree more, but suggest that the government can legislate morality is deluded. People will always retain their prejudices, whatever the law. You do not educate people by authoritarianism, which is preciselyt why the ‘war on drugs’ (which would be more accurately described as a war on the minorities you are concerned about) has been such a massive failure.
Second – the response to murder/any physical assault advocated by Ron Paul and anyone who supports him is not to boycott them as you claim, but to hit them with the full force of the law and try and imprison them as appropriate. Your comment then is utter fallacy, and irrelevant to the point your trying to make.
@Revkeyes @thebillygoatkid As for ‘powerless workers’ – there is absolutely no reason why labour unions cannot function without government attachment.
@_Zero30_ @thebillygoatkid I respectfully disagree, Zero30, as long as we limit government attachment to safeguarding the workers’ right to organize.
@_Zero30_ @thebillygoatkid I realize that my example is extreme. I was using hyperbole to show that there are times when the Federal government must step in. State and local law enforcement were corrupt before and during the Civil Rights movement. Federal intervention was the only solution.
As to the war on drugs and anti-authoritarianism, we’re basically on the same page, Zero30.
Ok, gotcha
But it begs the question…what if the FEDERAL government had been corrupt at that time too? It was not the existence of the system then that was the solution, but the people working within it, whose motivations were honourable. If they had not been honourable, the system you claim is the solution, would in fact have compounded the problem.
@Revkeyes @thebillygoatkid Fair enough, I would agree with that, although in that case I’m not sure what you mean by ‘powerless workers’. I’m always interested when people say ‘I likeX about Ron Paul, but Y scares me to death’. I used to think this, and the more economic history I read, the more I agree with Ron.
@Revkeyes
Murder is murder. those people that were terrorizing others back then were obviously wrong and should be prosecuted, but we didn’t need to take away the rights of private business owners to do it. Read up on Ron Paul, a good book would be end the fed.
@thebillygoatkid and Zero30 — I apologize for being so strident in my first posts. That wasn’t helpful. I agree whole-heartedly with Ron Paul’s stance on the military and the supposed war on drugs. I also agree, Zero30, that it was the people in other states who finally kicked LBJ into action on Civil Rights. The whole system WAS corrupt, but the threat of a growing number of discontented voters nationally forced action in states and localities. Had it not been for the media showing what was happening to peaceful protestors, it wouldn’t have happened at all.
But you see, this is why I am so jumpy about deregulation of industry. Corporate America is very powerful. I, personally, would go so far as to say it already owns our government at most levels. Others on this thread have already asserted how weak are our current regulations, but I believe them to be far more effective than would be local law (want to see the profit motive at work, tell a land owner he can put anything he wants on his property and see what happens), and I suspect a too heavy reliance on state regulation would lead to an unhealthy race to the bottom among states to give non-resident corporate interests free reign.
Small business owners, on the other hand, live in the communities where their enterprises exist. They are far more likely to respect the land, air and community. Past and current experience suggest that they are the ones to trust and protect from the big guys. I do this first through my personal choices: all my meat and most of my produce is grown locally by people I know and trust. I do not shop at big box stores, going so far as to have the local shop special order for me items I need that are not on their shelves. This causes a definite economic pinch for me, but I have finally realized I must not put myself up for sale to the lowest bidder. What works for me personally I believe could work for an entire nation if we woke up and lived our principals to the fullest extent possible.
And this I wll say for Ron Paul: I believe his supporters, in general, come closer to doing exactly that than do the crowds thronging around the establishment candidates.
So, we disagree on some fundamental issues, but agree on others. Peace?
@Revkeyes I agree with you 100%. Some elements of Paul,s platform I agree with,some are ..well..terrible.At this time though,I will accept Ron Paul for what I agree with.
@Revkeyes @thebillygoatkid Peace indeed – I can appreciate your position. And apologies for being strident too – sometimes it’s difficult to sort the reasoned arguments from the drivel posters on the net huh?
I think you’re spot on that corporate America runs the government. Check this site out for some damning info on the supposedly ‘lesser of two evils’ in this respect Dems: http://geke.us/VennDiagrams.html
I also share your apprehension about cutting regulation – the trouble with attempting to cut regs is that we have a constant hegelian dialectic going on with capitalism v socialism giving us corporatism, which gives us the worst of both ideologies.
Where I differ from your opinion is in my perception of the damage that regulation does in terms of unintended consequences. Take the housing bubble crash for instance: It was manufactured by the Federal government through Fannie and Freddie’s line of credit to the treasury. They led the whole industry down the path of risky lending by buying all the banks junk mortgages that, without the government, there was literally no market for. I just published a blog post (4 years late, ha!) if you’re interested that outlines what actually happened: http://bit.ly/IsqtxO
Such unintended consequences of government intervention are inevitable as government central planners do not have all the information. Hayek called this ‘pretence of knowledge’ a ‘fatal conceit’ The housing crash put literally millions of people on the streets, who would not have been on the streets in an open, unregulated market. This effect happens everywhere, because of this law of unintended consequences.
Thus for me any benefit of regulation (and there must be some good ones!) is always outweighed by the negative. Good debate Revkeyes – you should read ‘the road to serfdom’ or ‘Economics in one lesson’ if you haven’t already. http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L19
Peace
@Revkeyes - This is legitimately the DUMBEST post I have ever read by anyone in my entire life.
You do realize that NATIONAL LAWS still affect businesses, right? Or are you just that tremendously stupid? Dr. Paul wants to lower the business-related restrictions so that our economy can be replenished.
Ron Paul does NOT want to revoke the minimum wage laws, he wants them to be the STATES’ decision. And, guess what, STATES already make their own decisions on minimum wage and almost every state INCREASES the minimum wage.
It’s up to STATES to determine stuff like this. Why? BECAUSE IT’S IN OUR CONSTITUTION, YOU BUFFOON!
@AnthonyPittoreIII Take a deep breath, sir. I disagree with Dr. Paul in his EPA stance. Or are you telling me that rivers and winds respect state borders? I disagree with Dr. Paul regarding his views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At times it is necessary for the federal government to step in. I am no buffoon, and you do not bolster your argument by attacking me. Do what Dr. Paul would do: answer me with well-stated principles and facts.
Our constitution is a vital governing document. But consider the amendment process and realize that it’s framers never intended to force us to remain in the 18th century, just as James Madison never dreamed of an automatic weapon capable of firing 6000 rounds/minute (AO-63 in two-round burst mode), John Adams didn’t envision factory pig farms with thousands upon thousands of defecating swine stacked wall-to-wall, and Thomas Jefferson refused to recognize and help usher in the day when no human being would be assigned 3/5ths status, we must realize that some federal regulation unanticipated by 18th century minds must exist. I will not argue for illegal war, but I will argue against corporate “personhood.” There are necessarily shades and degrees in the implementation of governance.
Answering the problems of the extreme left and right with extremes of our own will not solve our many serious issues in this country.
@Revkeyes @AnthonyPittoreIII I agree with your thinking here up to a point. The issue I have with the ‘times have changed’ approach is that it opens the door to law becoming a ‘living document’. This to me seems to be a major contributing factor to much of the current mess we find ourselves in. This leads me to reduce things to first principles – either I believe in a free society, with all the inevitable problems that entails, or I do not.
Revkeyes
Also, and I think more pertinently to me – the fact that the Constitution is, as you say, a ‘vital governing document’ makes Ron Paul the only candidate worth having. Because all of the others are completely ignoring the constitution, and will continue to do so. A Paul presidency will not achieve many of the things that people argue about, but it CAN address the biggest, most urgent issues that everyone educated seems to agree on. End the wars, end the fed, end bailouts, restore privacy and due legal process. These are the fundamentals to me, and Dr Paul is the only one who cares about them. Must dash…enjoyed the posts
@Revkeyes You might find this enlightening on the effects of the minimum wage laws you champion: http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L19
Here’s the lazy version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQj1qlsjVoM
The examples you cite are all very well, but what you fail to cite is how they are enormously outweighed by the consequences of what so called ‘regulation’ allows to happen legally. This leaves people no legal route to recompense whatsoever. Monsanto is an excellent case in point. The history of its evil doing is unprecedented, but it would more than likely not exist at all without the protection it has received from the Federal government. The market would have put it out of business after the PCB scandal. Instead it has never been bigger and continues to poison the populace and crush its honest competitors. Fluoride in your water. Aspartame in your soda. Do you really want to argue regulation is effective?
@_Zero30_ I’ll argue that imperfect regulation is more effective than no regulation at all.
@Revkeyes But this is rather a straw man when our position is not ‘no regulation at all’, but the enforcement of private property rights under a fixed Rule of Law, that does not favour special interests.
@_Zero30_ And who will enforce the fixed Rule of Law?
@Revkeyes Indeed. Anarchist yet? I get closer every day haha.
@Revkeyes - YOU should learn some history. It was GOVERNMENT that passed and enforced the Jim Crow laws, not business. As always, government is the root of all evil.
@KaphenDePriest Please re-read my post and see the vital core of my argument. Jim Crow laws were passed and enforced by state and local entities until federal intervention removed them. The Jim Crow example therefore bolsters the argument for Federal intervention unless you support Jim Crow laws.
@Revkeyes
You suggested people learn some history. One of the primary jobs of the Federal Government is to protect the rights and liberty of American citizens. This includes preventing the state governments from trampling on our rights.Jim Crow laws were bad. These laws should have been overturned. However, they should have been overturned in a constitutional manner by the courts.The Civil Rights Act, overturned the Jim Crow laws by taking rights away from one group of people in order to provide them to other people.The Jim Crow laws took away rights from black people and from white people. Black people could not shop in my store and as a white businessman, I could not serve black people. I am not rying to equate the two situations, but I am trying to point out that anytime the government gets involved in resticting the rights of the people, we all suffer.Just because we support Liberty, does NOT mean we endorse bad behavior.
@Revkeyes @KaphenDePriest
@Revkeyes @KaphenDePriest
Hey Rev, thanks for debating respectfully… Once the hyperbole was toned down. Sorry for the name calling of others (fellow RP supporters… I know it’s hard, but take the high road… Win with debate, not name calling).
Couple points… We (RP) has no problem with government at all
Levels insuring institutional discrimination is not allowed. “States Rights” is not an argument for states to enact racist, discriminatory, or Jim Crow laws. Those are all unconstitutional and should have been struck down had the federal government followed its constitutional roll. Also, keep in mind that Plessy v. Ferguson was a federal ruling, among others, so Jim Crow was part of the Federal government too.
The issue is when we grant the Fed gov the rights to enter private property and private business to enforce morality. That has many unintended consequences, including sweeping racism under the rug, instead of forcing disinfecting sunlight on it where it can be challenged and defeated.
You are right to fear big business… But your fear should come from the corporate cronyism stemming from the “regulation” you praise. Look at every major “regulation” passed in recent memory. From “obamacare” to “Dodd frank” to most of what the FCC or EPA does… The biggest businesses in those affected fields almost always approve of, and often times even wrote, the regulations that often cement them as “industry leaders” while making starting new businesses more challenging if not impossible.
I own my own business…. I see this constantly first hand at fed, state, and local levels. Most of the evils of big business you point to was only made possible with governments blessing.
Finally, with regards to pollution, just look at any graph of pollution (air, water, etc,) and you will see that it has been in decline for many decades, and that the inception of the EPA had no effect on that decline.
@Revkeyes Private businesses shouldn’t be forced by the government to do anything. This is not a negotiable position. The fact that the world has been less than perfect doesn’t render basic principles invalid.
@Parley Okay, Parley, but government must function in that less than perfect world. So, I say that private business should be forced by the government to: properly label their products, ensure the safety of their products, provide a safe working environment, not make fraudulent claims, etc. This is common sense, Parley. I am not a fan of so-called “big government,” and I agree that regulation at times gets out of hand, but, to me, the statement “Private business shouldn’t be forced by the government to do anything” is so broad as to leave me incredulous that you would suggest it as a hard and fast position with no room for negotiation or nuance. Am I misreading your position?
@Revkeyes @Parley
The MARKET should be the regulation on business with very few exceptions. If you want products that are properly labled, then buy those products and the market will make more. Do you think the government currently prevents fraudulent claims by business? Look at any weigh loss product and tell me if you still believe it.
The government should protect me from people who want to use force to control my non-violent and non-criminal behavior.
What you claim to be “common sense” is anything but. In fact it is tyranny.
@KaphenDePriest @Parley I’m sorry, Kaphen, but I don’t think we can have a fruitful conversation around this. I respect your right to your opinions. I’m afraid trying to convince me to share your confidence in free market self-regulation to that degree will be for you like trying to teach a pig to dance.
I think I understand your view. Now I’d like to see responses from other Ron Paul supporters regarding it. Does KaphenDePriest’s statement above fairly represent the view of Ron Paul and a majority of his supporters?
@Revkeyes Kaphen hit it right on the head.I completely understand what you’re saying Rev, and it does take a leap of faith, but once you look at the economics (for me, it took opening my own business to see all of the connections) you can start to see that allowing government to monopolize regulation (federal regulation usually destroys any of the free market’s natural protections, and no one can compete with government) especially through prior restraint creates so many unintended consequences. The biggest problem is that they are so hard to see, and the media rarely, if ever points them out.The best examples are the internet and technology… both loosely regulated industries… and industries that we, for the most part, continue to lead in. Now is it perfect? No… then internet has plenty of junk, plenty of fraud, and plenty of stuff many people think should not be allowed to exist. But if we tried to clamp down on it (we’re watching you CISPA!), the amount of advancement, innovation, and job creation that would be lost would be immense.
@Revkeyes @Parley
I am sorry we are unable to have a fruitful conversation about this as I am usually very convincing in my arguments. In your analogy about the pig, are you that hard to convince because you think I lack skill, or because you refuse to listen to and consider the opinions of others?I think you understand the “what” of my view, but I doubt you understand the “why” of my view. Otherwise you would agree with my view completely and more… you would be lifted to a new height in intellectual thought. You would literally be freed.People who follow Ron Paul’s ideas are not fanatics, they are people who have had their eyes opened by the truth.The only way that the government can accomplish what it does is by force and the threat of force. Their principle is, “Do what I say or I will hurt you.”As an example, you said earlier that you wanted the government to force companies to properly label their products. Your premise is properly labeled products will only occur if the government uses the force of regulations to accomplish it.
This premise is nonsense. The market would accomplish the same thing without the gigantic increased cost inccurred by the government. However, the key question to me, is should you be able to force your desires on other people who do NOT desire the same things you do. To me, everything else is secondary. Food labels are NOT free. My customers do NOT care about labels. Should they be forced to pay extra for their food just because you think it is a good idea? You already have the “market” option of buying food that is labeled to suit you. If more people want labels, and are willing to pay for labels, then I will begin to label my products.When “you” use the government to force me to do what you want, just remember… I may become politically active and use the government to force “You” to do what I want. Frankly, from your picture, I think you could stand to lose a little weight. Maybe we should have the government force you to exercise and eat less. After all, why should I pay more for the cost of Obamacare because you refuse to get yourself into good shape.
@RevkeyesWhy is it that you would trust government to regulate these things, while you don’t trust businesses or the market? Of course, when government controls these things it does it in its own interest and in the interest of those in government. Government is the biggest, most corrupt, and most obscenely profitable business of all. Businesses may not be perfect, but how can entrusting everything to an all-powerful Mafia make things better? KapenDePriest’s answer below makes sense.Revkeyes, you are a government-worshipper and are not rational about this.
@RevkeyesRevkeyes.Why is it that you would trust government to regulate these things, while you don’t trust businesses or the market? Of course, when government controls these things it does it in its own interest and in the interest of those in government. Government is the biggest, most corrupt, and most obscenely profitable business of all. Businesses may not be perfect, but how can entrusting everything to an all-powerful Mafia make things better? KapenDePriest’s answer below makes sense.Revkeyes, you are a government-worshipper and are not rational about this.
@KaphenDePriest @Parley Now you’ve both lost me. I am no government worshipper. I am not fat. I am not intellectually inferior to either of you, nor am I being irrational. We differ in opinion on some basic premises. You have great faith in the Free Market and deeply distrust government regulation. I trust neither enough to abandon the other.
So goes America. I wish you and your candidate well, Kaphen and Parley. Posters like PatrickRichard and Zero30 have inspired me to dig deeper into Dr. Paul’s platform and its underlying principles. But I see this exchange with you two degenerating rapidly, and will talk to local RP supporters instead, as they know and respect me.
If your sole goal was to further convince yourselves how wise, bold, erudite and superior you are, congratulations.
@Revkeyes I honestly don’t understand your insulting attitude. I have been polite in all my discourse with you. On the otherhand, you have been dismissive of my opinions with zero intellectual reasoning. You do this by throwing out an opinion and then claiming that opinion is “common sense”.
You seem to be intent on missing my point everytime.It doesn’t matter if you are fat or not. My point is if someone thinks you are, then the government can force you to do something about it.
You want to be a slave to the government and I do not. You may just get your way as there are a large number of people like you who want security over liberty.
If your sole goal was to further convince yourself how much of a smartass you can be, congratulations.
@KaphenDePriest @Revkeyes It doesn’t matter that your right Kaphen (which I know you are), but it’s that you come off a bit dickish and like you’re lecturing. When people feel like they are being condescended to, they will get defensive and be less likely to take in the full breadth of what you are saying.My read is that Rev is genuinely open to hearing our arguments… and you and I know how complex they can be… so we must show patience when debating and try to win them over. How logical your argument is can be irrelevant… you must speak to the audience.Being right isn’t victory. Bringing others over to our side is. Keep up the good fight though.
@PatrickRichard @Revkeyes
Patrick, I’m sorry you feel I am coming off a bit dickish. Perhaps I do come off that way. However, I get sick of guys like him who spout off crap and them claim their statements are “common sense”, which implies that the other guy has none.
I believe I was simply responding to the “Dickish behavior” exhibited by Revkeyes.
Go back and read the hyper tensive wording in his comments. His comments are almost entirely without basis in fact. He is insulting and condescending.He is wrong and he is a dick.
By the way, I am not trying to win Revkeyes over. I don’t think that is possible. I am trying to present an alternative to his drivel.
@KaphenDePriest @PatrickRichard @Revkeyes
You don’t have to apologize to me. I understand. It’s frustrating dealing with people, especially when you need to re-teach them everything.
I lived in darkness before saw the light. But somebody had to take the time to show me that light.
If we want this movement to go anywhere, we have to try to win people over by educating them.
I’m not defending him. But what is the purpose of debate if not to win converts to
Your position?
@Revkeyes I didn’t say you were fat. I called you a government-worshipper because your faith in government is just that: a religious faith, without reason, and impervious to reason. You distrust businesses because they are run by people, and people can be selfish (all rational enough, so far). But you trust government absolutely, because government is quite different, run not by humans but by God’s Angels from Heaven, who can do no wrong. At any rate I can’t imagine any rational argument for trust in government. Most people absorb it from the public school system (i.e. state indoctrination system) and never question it, never subject the idea to a rational check.
@PatrickRichard
The main reason I respond to posts from guys like Revkeyes is to present the other side of the argument for other people who are reading the comments. Revkeyes will not be persuaded, but many other people will take the time to embrace the fruits and responsibilities of Liberty.
@KaphenDePriest @PatrickRichard I want to try this again. First, because I begrudgingly see your point about my “dickishness” when I look back at the exchanges above with an honest eye. Second, because what does resonate with me in Dr. Paul’s candidacy resonates to my very core (in particular, his military and “drug war” stances), and he is the only candidate with a legitimate shot who is speaking these truths. Third, because we all see the need for dramatic, fundamental change in our nation and world and none of us see that change coming from the existing Democratic/Republican power structure. And, fourth, because I’ve talked a bit to some local RP supporters who have cause to be a lot more patient and forgiving with me.
So, Kaphen and Parley, I will re-read your points without prejudice as best I can manage. You have each acknowledged that corruption is a basic human trait, which is my main objection to market deregulation of the breadth and scope for which you are calling. Now, having set aside my dickishness and doing my best to truly give a fair hearing to your thoughts, I recognize your simple, valid point that corrupt government regulators have both magnifying and domino effects, becoming, in the hire of corrupt multi-national corporate thugs, waaay too powerful an anti-competitive weapon. Regulation thus discourages competition, innovation and a natural righting of markets toward progressive improvements in products and services. (The examples of high tech and internet really helped me accept this.)
The decimation of our governments regulatory role requires a Kierkegaardian leap of faith for me and for most Americans. Even with the high tech and internet proofs, even with the obvious obstructionism and ineptitude of the FDA and the Fed, I have a really hard time accepting that our environment would be better off in the hands of energy companies, manufacturers and consumers than it is with our federal “nature cops,” or that American workers would fair better without OSHA. I really don’t mean to be dickish, but there were some very real corporate and market abuses that spawned these regulatory bodies in the first place. Again, I recognize how twisted these governing bodies have become, but I’m not sure the people have the will or power to bend a Massey Energy into safer mining procedures (not that the Federal Government has done all that hot a job, either), or that global conglomerates which are already so monstrously powerful can be brought to heal. I guess my problem is not that I trust government and distrust big business. Perhaps it is that I don’t have faith that we the people are strong enough to right a ship listing to such a degree.
I infer from your posts that you believe my options are either to make the change to a dramatically different world view and strategy now or sink in my own stinking entropy and delusion, taking our country and possibly the whole planet with me. That’s a lot to take in, made harder by the understandable anger and frustration in your communications to those of us who will not see as you see without a fight.
Now, obviously, we cannot in time of recession cut government spending without simultaneously unfettering private spending. I get that removing whole agencies and their reams of regulations would do both quite efficiently. I also understand that giving up our self-appointed role as world cop would save lives, energy and trillions of dollars, and, personally, I believe it would go far to remove our hands from each other’s throats in this world.
I’ve always claimed to have faith in humanity. You’ve waved my own words in my face and called the question.
Damn. I need to go sit down and have a long think…
@Revkeyes @KaphenDePriest Nice. I could tell you might be open to these ideas.If you really want to understand everything better… read anything by Hayek. He’ll show you how economics connects everything. Or the easy way is to watch YOUTUBE videos of Dr. Paul. The best ones are the in depth interviews… the shorter ones where he’s just being interviewed on Cable news always have the same basic questions, but these answers and issues are complex.When he was running in 2008, GOOGLE did an hour plus interview of him that’s pretty good. Also, John Stossel interviewed him back then for about an hour… it was supposed to run on 20/20, but they shelved it to the internet cause the media tends not to like RP/us.Now my views are not always 100% in line with RP… but it gets pretty close.
@PatrickRichard @Revkeyes
Here is my position on war.
@KaphenDePriest @PatrickRichard Thank you for sharing this, Kaphen.
@KaphenDePriest @Revkeyes
Damn Kaphen. Good stuff.
Thank you for your service.
@Revkeyes @KaphenDePriest @Parley I think there is another important point about government regulaton, which is the disproportionate effect that it has on smaller businesses. The large corporations can afford teams of lawyers and employees to help them meet regulation. Small businesses cannot do so. Much of what is called ‘regulation’ is lobbied for by big corporations with the express purpose of forcing small competitors out of business. For example – Walmart is a big lobbier for higher minimum wage. Why? Because Walmart can afford to pay higher wages! The loss to Walmart is more than offset by the gain in the number of small competitors who are put out of business/have to pass on costs to customers, thus losing business to….Walmart. This is prevalent in every industry in which government gets involved. It is the big corporations that write the regulation, and without a corrupt/ignorant government to enforce the regs, they couldn’t not use them to destroy small business. The fact that these big corporations engage in what George Stigler calls ‘regulatory capture’ shows they are well aware of power of regulation to destroy their competitors, and that they are afraid of honest (free market) competition.
I also think this is well evidenced through just following the money in terms of campaign contributions. There are no massive corporations funding Ron Paul with millions of dollars, unlike ALL the other candidates whose top contributers consist of a who’s who of U.S. banking and corporate interests. If his position is a boon to big business – why does not a single one of them fund him? Why have fake libertarians like the Koch brothers consistently funded anyone BUT Ron Paul? It just doesn’t make any sense.
@_Zero30_ @Revkeyes @KaphenDePriest You are quite right, and this is a major factor in why regulation seems to invariably grow along with big government – because BIG businesses want it!
You are quite right, and this is a major factor in why regulation seems to invariably grow along with big government – because BIG businesses want it!
@Parley @_Zero30_ @Revkeyes
In my career, I have served in upper management of some very large technology companies. Frankly, I most ignored government regulations to the extent that I was able by shuffling them off onto various support organizations, HR, Safety, Legal, etc.
Now I own and manage my own much smaller business in the same industry and I directly feel the impact of government regulation. I would like to tell you about a recent example:
We were selected by the Department of the Census to fill out some reports. When I say selected, I mean ordered under htreat of jail time. The Census people wanted me to fill out forms on a quarterly basis to fully describe ALL shipment of any kind from my facility for a specific week.
They sent me a 50 page book with instruction on how to classify various kinds of items. I am to tell them every item shipped, how it was shipped, who it was shipped to, how much did it weigh, air, boat, truck,etc.
The report takes about 8 manhours to complete, once per quarter. This equates to about 1.5% of a standard manyear of working. I am a slave for the government. They can order me to do anything they want and I must obey or go to jail.
This regulation was not written by any of our elected officials, it was determined by functionaries in the Census department.
Yep, I am now more slave than free. My tax burden, sales tax, income tax, property tax, excise taxes, personal business property taxes, franchise fees, etc. Now account for more than half of my annual income.
Now, they don’t just demand my money… they are directly taking my time… or else!
@KaphenDePriest @Parley @_Zero30_ @Revkeyes I own a restaurant that I opened 2.5 years ago. Regulation and taxes are ridiculous. I paid almost $100,000 in taxes on $300,000 in revenue and -$24,000 profit my first year. The list of taxes is ludicrous. Thankfully my state (Michigan) eliminated is insane MBT (michigan business tax) which taxes any business with over $350,000 in sales 4.5%, regardless of whether or not they made money. I had to up my donations and move some other numbers to keep my last year sales barely under the threshold, or there was a good chance I would have gone under. Even Payroll taxes most people don’t understand. Sure, you see on your pay stub the taxes you pay… but did you know your business matches most of those taxes? So let’s say one of my employees earns $8 an hour (they’ll take home about $6.75ish), but it costs me almost $12 per hour because of all the taxes and required insurances.Another example or regs with unintended consequences is Obamacare. My understanding is that I will be forced to provide insurance for all of my full time employess (other huge chains… McDonald’s… have already received exemptions). There is no way I would be able to afford insurance on all of my employees (I offer it to my managers). The end result will be that I won’t allow any employees to work past the Full Time threshold.I could also get into health inspections and what a joke they are. Or my OSHA requirements (which literally make NO ONE in my restaurant safer).Or that I’m about to have to rent a storage unit to save all of my CC receipts since I’m required to keep them for several years. Or the constant stream of paperwork from the IRS, Michigan’s Tax services, or the UIA! And the constant stress that I could be making mistakes and open myself up to an audit!Or I could talk about my college town (East Lansing… go Spartans!). When I was there, it was tons of independent shops and mom ‘n pop stores… now it’s all chains. They are the only ones with deep enough pockets, the connections, and large enough legal teams to take on the regulations that have been piled on down town businesses in just the 11 years since I first stepped on campus.The free market will always provide the best regulations. You may be able to get by screwing some one over or harming them in the short term, but it will never last. Free people making their own choices with their own money will ALWAYS lead to the best results.
@PatrickRichard @Parley @_Zero30_ @Revkeyes
LOL Patrick… sorry to laugh, but I really feel your pain. When I was reading your comment, I felt like I had written it myself.
In Texas, we have a constitutional admendment the prohibits an income tax… so what do they do? The pass a law implementing a Franchise Fee on every business… They have fiddled with it, but basically it is 1% of revenue… even if you lose money!
Now, they say it is NOT an income tax, even though it is based on business income.
My next door neighbor works for a large corporation and he pays zero tax on his income, but because I own my own business and provide jobs for 10 families in North Texas… by the way, our lowest paid employee earn more than $50k per year, and I pay 100% of their health insurance premiums out of my own pocket… I have to give the government 1% of my revenue and in addition, I have to pay personal property taxes on business assets that amount to 3% of the value of my inventory and assets every year.
Recently we needed to expand our warehouse space so I rented space and started through the process of getting a certificate of occupancy that is required by the county. That was in January… it is now May and I still don’t have the CO. I turns out the county doesn’t have a person on staff to do the inspections that they require me to have. Sigh… I have been down to the county offices 5 times and pay nearly $400 in fees, but still no CO.
Last year, the US Department of Labor wanted to check my records to make sure I wasn’t trying to avoid payroll taxes by hiring people under the table. They actually sent me a form 2 pages long with all of the documents that I would be required to show them, including every check I have ever written. Preparation for the audit took 2 days and the audit took 1 day. Again, even though they had no suspicion that I had done anything wrong, they said they just wanted to check to be sure.
Whatever happened to the 4th amendment? No search warrant needed, and if I refused… jail time baby!
Hello
When Mitt Ran fot the senate aganist Kennedy The folloeing Info sank his ship Here it is.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31153.htm America’s Parasite .This is quite an eye opener.
Peace to all
Stephen Schweter
What about the fact the RP talks about big government and spending problems and proposes to spend $510 BILLION on the US war machine if elected POTUS. Is that an adequate reason to dislike the hypocrite?
@FU Excuse me? Where has Ron Paul EVER said he’d spend $510 billion on the “war machine”? Ron Paul would be LOWERING the international military spending and using that mony for defense of our land.
Are you insane?
@AnthonyPittoreIII
Yes he is insane. His initials explain this. F U. The “U” stands for up. You can guess what the “F” stands for.
@FU Yeah that Ron Paul, he only wants to cut $1 trillion in his first year, balance the budget in three, and shut all 700 U.S. military bases around the world. What a warmonger.
The unfortunate fact is that, while Ron Paul stands for smaller government, most students – and most Americans, want big and ever bigger government. So the solutions they support (more legislation, more regulation, more welfare…) are not his. And they’ve been trained in government schools to view anything but their big-state solutions as uncaring and/or racist. I’m a Paul supporter but this is simply the reality we face.
I should add that Paul has made some wonderful progress in starting to change how people think, but it’s a long long slog ahead, and it may just be too late already.
@Parley Perhaps, but the numbers that are awake now can influence people. There’s a fair bit of psychological research of group behaviour that indicates that 10% with a passionately held view converts a majority. (Of course, it doesn’t account for a lying, suppressing mainstream media.) We probably need 20%
The unfortunate fact is that, while Ron Paul stands for smaller government, most students – and most Americans, want big and ever bigger government. So the solutions they support (more legislation, more regulation, more welfare…) are not his. And they’ve been trained in government schools to view anything but their big-state solutions as uncaring and/or racist. I’m a Paul supporter but this is simply the reality we face. Ron Paul has made some progress but we have a long long slog to change the way people think, and it may just be too late already.
Tell me when, in the past, small government and states rights have accomplished anything? And don’t mention gun rights. Ironically, Romney’s Massachusetts universal healthcare plan which is similar to Obama’s plan, which Repubs despise, is the only good recent example I can come up with at the moment.
Let’s look at where we are today, as a result of the Neo-cons under Bush administration, and the continuation of those same distasteful neo-con polices under Obama, who was supposed to offer us “hope and change”:
14 trillion and counting national debt. Government getting bigger with government employees now representing a new class of “haves” over the rest of us “Have nots” who support them with our taxes.
US military still in Afghanistan as well as in 130 countries worldwide. Plus the US aircraft carriers roaming as they please.
Warrantless searches and wiretapping.
Daily groping of American citizens at airports (and soon other transportation centers) by the TSA
CIA performing drone kills without congressional overview or restraint by the President.
President having the power to use military intervention without approval from Congress.
US declared a “battlefield” permitting US citizens to be incarcerated without due process.
Failed “War on Drugs” filling up our prisons with addicts instead of helping them.
Local farmers raided and hassled over organic food and raw milk.
The Federal Reserve devaluating our dollar by running the printing presses 24/7 for “quantitative easing” to bail out banks and big business.
There’s more, but you get the idea. Ron Paul is the only candidate from either party willing to tackle those issues head on. Both parties have either started or continued the above practices.
Vote for Romney or Obama, and all you’ll get is more of the same.
Very well said. I was working for Taco Bell when Clinton and my governor, Davis, both raised the minimum wage. I didn’t receive the raises I was going to be given because they said my rate was already going up, which is not a raise because with the minimum wage going up the rate of everything goes up and I was of course essentially making the same. I really think inflation cranked up a lot during those years. It’s just a ploy to convince the poor that you have their best interest, but really just screw everyone.
This article reads like it was written for a middle-school English class.
Watch Paul’s 1988 interview with william F. Buckley. He wants to dismantle the SPA, FBI and CIA. Watch his recent interview with Chris Matthews. He says he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to private property provisions. He was also in charge of a racist newsletter for some time. He may not have written the articles but he approved of them.
*EPA