Conspiriocracy

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

What does that have to do with freedom? Ron Paul is against almost any kind of restrictions on freedom, isn't he?

Well, he isn't wild about your or my right to be a citizen without his approval (he wants to eliminate clause 1 of amendment XIV).

He also isn't happy with many other parts of the constitution (article I & article II) that deal with the creation and funding of departments in the executive branch (specifics upon request).

Bearing in mind that the constitution is a check on government that acts as an idirect - and only - guarantor of your rights, and here's a man who claims to be a "constitutionalist", but attacks the constitution in every speech, I think I can live without the good doctor as anything more than a hick representative from Texas.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by Zhuge Liang

Oh dear. I'm going to have to burst a bubble here. I hate doing this.

Ron Paul is not for freedom, unless your definition of freedom is narrowly defined and has nothing to do with any definition of freedom anyone else uses. Or you are a corporation.

Here is an extensive list of Ron Paul's record in Congress http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11...-congress.html

His ideological and personal links with the far right militia movement and Christian Reconstructionism can be found here http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06...rld-order.html

He's against abortion, against the right to take discrimination claims to court (presumably the free market fairy will do away with racism), wants to remove the minimum wage, wants to undermine labour unions to the point of ineffectiveness, wants to repeal antitrust laws, hates Iranian students (for some bizarre reason), hates the 14th Ammendment, wants to gut environmental protections even more than Bush did, promotes the pointless offshore drilling plan, wants to withdraw from the ABM treaty, wants a little imperial war to seize the Panama Canal again and wants to forbid Federal funding to any organization showing a level of tolerance towards homosexuality.

What he said.

[Flint]

Update on Google search for the term Conspiriocracy: now leads off with two hits from The cellar.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Zhuge Liang

Oh dear. I'm going to have to burst a bubble here. I hate doing this.

Ron Paul is not for freedom, unless your definition of freedom is narrowly defined and has nothing to do with any definition of freedom anyone else uses. Or you are a corporation.

Here is an extensive list of Ron Paul's record in Congress http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11...-congress.html

His ideological and personal links with the far right militia movement and Christian Reconstructionism can be found here http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06...rld-order.html

He's against abortion, against the right to take discrimination claims to court (presumably the free market fairy will do away with racism), wants to remove the minimum wage, wants to undermine labour unions to the point of ineffectiveness, wants to repeal antitrust laws, hates Iranian students (for some bizarre reason), hates the 14th Ammendment, wants to gut environmental protections even more than Bush did, promotes the pointless offshore drilling plan, wants to withdraw from the ABM treaty, wants a little imperial war to seize the Panama Canal again and wants to forbid Federal funding to any organization showing a level of tolerance towards homosexuality.

Well, I don't agree with his positions on any of those things, but he IS a Libertarian, and Libertarians (the ones on the conservative end of the spectrum, like him) are all about not restricting freedoms, especially corporate freedom. They tend to believe less in personal freedom though. Although, he does talk about repealing drug laws and getting rid of the IRS. And I've heard him say we should get out of other countries and stop our imperialist tendencies around the world. I knew he was against abortion, but I didn't know he was against freedom for gays. I kinda thought he would be more about personal freedom as well, from the interviews I've seen with him. Like I said though, I don't know a lot about him. Thanks for the links. I will educate myself more.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Well, I don't agree with his positions on any of those things, but he IS a Libertarian, and Libertarians (the ones on the conservative end of the spectrum, like him) are all about not restricting freedoms, especially corporate freedom.

There is no such thing as corporate freedom.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TGRR

There is no such thing as corporate freedom.

OK. No rules for corporations. No regulations. No government interference. Better?

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

OK. No rules for corporations. No regulations. No government interference. Better?

1. Other way around.

2. There ain't no such thing as government interference. This is a provable fact.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TGRR

1. Other way around.

2. There ain't no such thing as government interference. This is a provable fact.

Not according to republicans...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TGRR

There ain't no such thing as government interference. This is a provable fact.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Not according to republicans...

Yeah, but they still believe that rich people get that way through hard work and perseverance, that the military is defending America in Iraq, and that supply-side economics works.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It's true, and even more obvious today, what with the government buying up all these banks.

Interference means to disrupt a system from the outside. The government is, and always has been, an intrinsic part of the market, to some degree. The government regulates and taxes, and the market basically owns the government (again, just look at a recent newspaper, and tell me I'm wrong. I dare ya). Therefore it cannot interfere with the market any more than you can interfere with yourself.

[DanaC]

But merc interferes with himself a lot...

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by TGRR

It's true, and even more obvious today, what with the government buying up all these banks.

Interference means to disrupt a system from the outside. The government is, and always has been, an intrinsic part of the market, to some degree. The government regulates and taxes, and the market basically owns the government (again, just look at a recent newspaper, and tell me I'm wrong. I dare ya). Therefore it cannot interfere with the market any more than you can interfere with yourself.

Looking at the newspaper....

You are wrong. Being and intrisic part of a process and regulation does not equate into control. Our government has moved into the area of control in the last 2 months.

[Kaliayev]

Markets don't work without states providing requisites. Laws, courts, monopolies on the use of force, stable mediums of exchange and various non-market goods, though of course people disagree about what they precisely are.

All of that strikes me as interference. The only way to have a truly free market is with anarchy, and, well....given the vast range of difference between Actually Existing Anarchy (Somalia, Afghanistan) and Anarchy as Imagined by 19th Century Philosophers, that does not seem an especially enticing idea.

[Kaliayev]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Well, I don't agree with his positions on any of those things, but he IS a Libertarian, and Libertarians (the ones on the conservative end of the spectrum, like him) are all about not restricting freedoms, especially corporate freedom. They tend to believe less in personal freedom though. Although, he does talk about repealing drug laws and getting rid of the IRS. And I've heard him say we should get out of other countries and stop our imperialist tendencies around the world. I knew he was against abortion, but I didn't know he was against freedom for gays. I kinda thought he would be more about personal freedom as well, from the interviews I've seen with him. Like I said though, I don't know a lot about him. Thanks for the links. I will educate myself more.

The thing is, if you are for corporate freedom, then you are de facto against personal freedom, due to the vast power disparities between the two. The relationship between corporate and individual interests is a zero-sum game and it is my opinion that the Vulgar Libertarianism of Ron Paul swings that relationship even further in favour of the already powerful corporate elements.

Ron Paul is actually somewhat creepier than the people who were in charge during the Bush admin. Sure, Cheney was an evil fuck...but he was pretty indiscriminate in who he is was being an evil fuck to. Ron Paul's associations with the militia movement is...disturbing, given the prevalence of fundamentalist Christian, sexist and racist sentiment amongst those organizations. He is close friends with Gary North, for example, who thinks America should be under Biblical law (such as stoning adulterers to death and barring public office from anyone insufficiently Christian - which amusingly includes most mainstream Christian groups). And there are disturbing themes in the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he either knew about or was too incompetent to check on, neither of which looks good.