Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty

flywallyfly wrote:

Stop lying? What in my statement is a lie? What has Nader organized politically inbetween elections to grow into a viable alternative to the two party system? What is the lie or is he keeping it a big secret? I never said he doesnt do anything between his "runs" -- but fighting against corporate rule (why investing in them..huuum) is not organizing an alternative now is it???

Perhaps she can tell me what I lied about instead of channeling through you.

Oh I thought you guys didn't like it when we posted at the same time...just trying to make it easier for ya.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5541086&postcount=13

Nader does plenty like battle ballot access and actually sue the DNC for keeping him off the ballot in 04(a case which he won)....so yeah, he does plenty of activist work year in and year about to combat the problems we have in this country with our electoral process. I already mentioned this in my first reply to you in this thread and you decided to gloss right over that and flip out instead.

Not to mention all the other things Nader works hard on every year in an effort to make this country a better place. He may not do it exactly how you'd like it done but hell, at least he's out there making a damn difference and doing it the way he thinks is best. If you feel a strong third party needs to be built then why don't you take up the cause? You can't force people to do what you think is best for them or us. I don't even think Nader has a whole lot of faith in political parties, myself. Once they gain the majority and power, they always corrupt...name one that hasn't. I share this view with Nader and it's one of the biggest reasons I'm a registered independent. I was asked why I didn't register Green back in 04 and I said because I view that as being part of the problem not a solution to it. People like Nader believe in the individual power of citizens who can use their voice and their rights to change things long before a political party ever will. I feel we should do away with them altogether and that all starts with allowing ballot access to independents without having to go through such an impossible ordeal.

Ron Paul isn't building a viable third party, either...neither is Jesse Ventura. So
I don't get your praise in this thread for one and continued contempt for the other.

dmitry wrote:

Take away the power from the politician and there is no reason to pay him off. A free market wouldn't have rent-seeking political entrepreneurs.

Do you have any clue what taking away political leaders in exchange for the free market would do? Ronald Reagan called this trickle-down economics...that the rich would actually share their money, wealth, and power. You know what has happened in America as a result? CEO's make 350 times what one average worker makes. Take away those restrictions and it moves into a number that is even more ridiculous. With the rise of an untaxed free market system, we would collapse as a country...something we are already doing as it stands.

Once again though you blame politicians as if they are the only bad people out there. They are for sure, but it's your heroes that are funding them, that are telling them what to do, etc. Take away the politicians and rules, and now the very powerful have no one to stop them from being fucks. Call me back when this happens and your kids are sewing soccer balls for Nike...it's a real brilliant idea let me tell you.

pjl44 wrote:

Nothing wrong with a little racism while making a point...

Check the Forbes 500 list...or better yet, in the context of America check out the 400 richest people in this country. Of the richest 400 people in america over 380 are WHITE, about 15-18 would identify as some sort of Asian descent, and 1 black person (Oprah Winfrey) is on the list...no other ethnicities are represented on the list.

You really think this is going to change if we move to a system that privileges the free market? You have to be kidding me if you actually think that moving to a system that is built in the vision of predominantly White people would benefit the many? What I mean is that if White people have a 380+ to 1 head start on owning EVERYTHING is this country how could that possibly be a good thing to do if we are looking for a better system for all?

Secondly, if you want to call counting numbers and putting it into context as racism then I think you vastly undervalue what that term means. Racism would be using a belief that we are genetically different because of the difference in melanin in our skin (which as ludicrous as arguing people with blue eyes are better at basketball and those with brown have the brains) to create an elaborate system of power and privilege....in other words if we actually implemented a system which privileges the free market (that, as I have demonstrated, white people predominantly benefit from) then THAT would be a form of racism.

The best part is libertarians would overlook the context from which their free market system would come from and blame the individual for not making it. It's one of the most vicious and ludicrous ideas in modern economic times, yet somehow it resonates with the people despite the fact that it's fucking a majority of us over...as Toby Miller once wrote "The American People Cannot be Trusted".

P.S. You also left out sexist, and sexualist as well since I pointed out that white, straight, men were the very rich. I could also demonstrate why those two arguments would be equally ludicrous but it would be redundant given my above argument.

Ok so politicians do help empower them...how else do you explain why Seattle is being held hostage by the Sonics, when their schools need funding, same with D.C., Baltimore, etc.

HOWEVER, what you are conveniently leaving out is the fact that in a free market system none of this happens. Yes rich people will have to buy their own stadiums and so on, but poor people (oh my goodness there are tons more of these) will be going to schools that are put for sale on the free market. So they would be going to the University of Maryland - College Park, sponsored by Comcast. Do you really think that those schools would provide any valuable critique of how Comcast works if their very funding depends on Comcast giving them money? Do you really thing that public schools in urban centers would even get funded if they don't turn a profit for corporations? Would you be fine with the repercussions of a free market system that allows child prostitution (we have to let everything go on the market right)?

Like I said this is a vicious system that only benefits the privileged few which are overwhelmingly white, male, and heterosexual. If you are one of those people then I could understand why you think it's a good idea. If you aren't then you have been hijacked.

jeffbr wrote:

Since we have no untaxed free market system here, your example makes no sense. The system we have is far from free market thanks to the government enabling those large corporations and those large corporations owning the 2 major party politicians. Getting us away from the government toward a truely free market is what will keep us from collapsing. For some reason your trust in the nanny state isn't reassuring.

And how will you insure that we have more non-whites on that rich list? Will you use government coersion to put them on the list? Will you punish success and add token representation? It seems to be hard for you to leave people to their own devices, so you must have some mechanism of force to create your vision.

Check any country that has taken on neoliberal ideologies...it's a mixture of your free market fantasies, with corrupt governments. They have either failed (Argentina (which was once your dream country), Chile, etc.) or are in the process of failure (America, Great Britain, etc.)...yet libertarians keep blaming the governments. Have you ever stopped to think that a market system just doesn't work?

ryan198 wrote:

Have you ever stopped to think that a market system just doesn't work?

Before I took the time to really try to understand it, yes. I used to think government was the answer. Now I'm convinced it's not.

pjl44 wrote:

You obviously have a problem with certain policies. What does a person's sex, race, or sexual orientation have to do with anything? For every person on that Forbes list who fits your description, you will find 500,000 who have wildly varied degrees of socio-economic status, influence, and ideology. Your statement is just flat-out bigoted.

I would suggest you focus your anger on what policies you would like to see changed in your country and community and support leaders who agree. That was the original point of this thread. Creating a face in your mind to blame things on is massively unproductive.

While a libertarian would choose to believe that race, sex, sexual orientation, or class has nothing to do with an individual's achievement it definitely has a HUGE impact on opportunity...absolutely HUGE. I used the Forbes list as a key indicator of the results of a system that is quickly taking up libertarian free market policies.

Please demonstrate to me how using an example and simply counting their "race" (which is an entirely social construct) and then pointing out that there is a massive preponderance of one "race" on the list when taken into comparison with other "races" is racist? Clearly there have to be socio-economic reasons why one "race" can thrive in this system, and no others can, right? Or are you suggesting that white people are just unbelievably good at working the free market system, and that all the other "races' in America are idiots?

I'm not creating a face to blame, but rather pointing to the fact that a particular social identity seems to always come out on top in this country. Yes there are as many ways of being and thinking in this society as there are people, but when you live in a society that privileges money, don't you think that the people with the money have the most power? Moreover, if those people are overwhelmingly white, won't we be living in a society dominated by their values, principles, and ways of being? Everything that we buy, sell, watch, eat, build, use as energy, listen to as music, is very likely to be owned by a white person. As such, do we not have a society then drastically a/effected by rich white people's values, needs, and ideologies?

Wouldn't this then provide a better reason than genetics for why white people dominate the Forbes list? Is there any reason to believe it would change if we further fell onto the free market sword? Like I said before racism would be creating a system of power and privilege that overwhelmingly allows one "race" to dominate society, like free market capitalism in conjunction with a devastating social history, simply pointing this out is not racism...it's just not.

ryan198 wrote:

But, like communism, free market capitalism has never worked (again see: Argentina). Libertarian's often claim that communism never works because government is corrupt, but fail to see that free market capitalism is necessarily corrupts as well. Not b/c of government but because the people who have the power (corporate CEOs) are overwhelmingly assholes. Moreover, free market capitalism always has an endgame. If you must always strive for profit, which necessarily means exploiting labor, doesn't profit have to stop at one point if no taxes on the rich do not exist? On top of that when you suggest that people with money are being punished for being successful, aren't you making a huge assumption that they earned where they got in the first place?

Market reforms are not the same as free markets. Also it seems to me that you may be confusing corporatism in the US with free market capitalism.

El_Kabong wrote:

^^^^^^


also, are there ANY examples of where the 'free market' caused actual competition much less a drop in prices for the consumer?? seems like things end up monopolized w/ huge price increases

Still looking...

ryan198 wrote:

While a libertarian would choose to believe that race, sex, sexual orientation, or class has nothing to do with an individual's achievement it definitely has a HUGE impact on opportunity...absolutely HUGE. I used the Forbes list as a key indicator of the results of a system that is quickly taking up libertarian free market policies.

Please demonstrate to me how using an example and simply counting their "race" (which is an entirely social construct) and then pointing out that there is a massive preponderance of one "race" on the list when taken into comparison with other "races" is racist? Clearly there have to be socio-economic reasons why one "race" can thrive in this system, and no others can, right? Or are you suggesting that white people are just unbelievably good at working the free market system, and that all the other "races' in America are idiots?

I'm not creating a face to blame, but rather pointing to the fact that a particular social identity seems to always come out on top in this country. Yes there are as many ways of being and thinking in this society as there are people, but when you live in a society that privileges money, don't you think that the people with the money have the most power? Moreover, if those people are overwhelmingly white, won't we be living in a society dominated by their values, principles, and ways of being? Everything that we buy, sell, watch, eat, build, use as energy, listen to as music, is very likely to be owned by a white person. As such, do we not have a society then drastically a/effected by rich white people's values, needs, and ideologies?

Wouldn't this then provide a better reason than genetics for why white people dominate the Forbes list? Is there any reason to believe it would change if we further fell onto the free market sword? Like I said before racism would be creating a system of power and privilege that overwhelmingly allows one "race" to dominate society, like free market capitalism in conjunction with a devastating social history, simply pointing this out is not racism...it's just not.

The one thing that you're not taking into account is how recently we still had brutal race relations. We're only 50 years out from Brown v. Board of Ed. Each year we make progress, but change doesn't happen overnight. I guarantee you that your beloved list looks more representative than it did 20 years ago and will more so 20 years from now. Unless we want to be cynical for the sake of being cynical.

You just complained for four paragraphs. What about solutions? Again, just bitching about straight white guys comes across as bigoted. Tell me about leaders and ideologies you support and why. It's a much more civil and productive conversation.