Ron Paul Rises

[Kuya]

What was confusing me about that is that, when you look at that UN video, RP sounds like an ultra nationalist looking to defend a nation's sovereignty from international powers. Yet i assumed they would support free trade, but the very same thing would, quite exactly, mean stripping away a nation's sovereighty in terms of the control it has over its domestic economy and handing over its fate to the supposed forces of supply and demand, or more specifically, to comparative advantage. But the problem with that is, trade is the farthest you can get from a free market, since trade necessarily happens between and across States, so governments are intrisincally involved in these transactions. And telling a country it should rely on market forces to dominate trade, is no different than telling that country it should expect that no other country will act to gain or reduce its losses, because comparative advantage doesn't benefit everyone, nor does it benefit everyone equally. Not to mention that truly interntional trade doesn't just happen, you have to promote it, since most trade in practice is actually regional.

And i'm not saying all of this because i think you don't know it; you more than likely do, but i wanted to be specific so no one would misunderstand, but looking back at what i just wrote, it seems like a little bit too much nuance for libertarianism that is a philosophy (that attempts to be all encompasing) and not a solution to specific real world problems.

[Kuya]

It's like they have two completely different set of rules. One for the economy, and one for governments or organizations (that aren't companies) that are so disconnected from eachother. At least that's my explanation for how you get Ron Paul the nationalist guardian from the forces like the UN, and Ron Paul the neoliberal free trade fairy.

[Plow]

it's a pretty simple philosophy, really: nothing matters aside from money, nobody is allowed to fuck with said money, and there's literally a magic invisible force that will make everything ok based on said philosophy

[Kuya]

Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?

It's funny because it's true.

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

[guartz]

It's like they have two completely different set of rules. One for the economy, and one for governments or organizations (that aren't companies) that are so disconnected from eachother. At least that's my explanation for how you get Ron Paul the nationalist guardian from the forces like the UN, and Ron Paul the neoliberal free trade fairy.

I've been saying this for years!

[test123]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9m47Ut3StU...torumsurge.jpg

Happy 2012!

[Rhinox]

This is just getting sad.

[Kerberoz]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9m47Ut3StU...torumsurge.jpg

Happy 2012!

Like dunking on a quadriplegic.

[Elrina]

Paul scrambles the comfortable ideological and partisan categories and forces progressives to confront and account for the policies they are working to protect. His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate (which is why some neocons are expressly arguing they’d vote for Obama over Paul). Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?

It's funny because it's true.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/prog...ies/singleton/

Quoting for emphasis. This is good, and only one really small snippet of a larger article. I'm tempted to copy/paste more of it, but I'm going to refrain (at least for now) since I don't have a lot of time. People should read this.

(Stupid picture)

Happy 2012!

You are a troll, and you are useless. I have no issue with you supporting Ron Paul, or you advocating for him, but you never really post anything of value and a lot of what you post is deliberately antagonizing. If anything, you make Paul look worse, and you would support him better by not posting.

[Churchill]

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

This guy is dumb doesn't he know that no matter what Libertarians are the devil and that stuff doesn't matter anyway because America is number one?

[Churchill]

Also, make that a "Vote for Obama" bumper sticker

[Talint]

It's funny because it's true.

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/

...I submit that Greenwald makes a good point.

[archibaldcrane]

That Glenn Greenwald article basically nails it.

[Cadsuane]

What was confusing me about that is that, when you look at that UN video, RP sounds like an ultra nationalist looking to defend a nation's sovereignty from international powers. Yet i assumed they would support free trade, but the very same thing would, quite exactly, mean stripping away a nation's sovereighty in terms of the control it has over its domestic economy and handing over its fate to the supposed forces of supply and demand, or more specifically, to comparative advantage. But the problem with that is, trade is the farthest you can get from a free market, since trade necessarily happens between and across States, so governments are intrisincally involved in these transactions. And telling a country it should rely on market forces to dominate trade, is no different than telling that country it should expect that no other country will act to gain or reduce its losses, because comparative advantage doesn't benefit everyone, nor does it benefit everyone equally. Not to mention that truly interntional trade doesn't just happen, you have to promote it, since most trade in practice is actually regional.

And i'm not saying all of this because i think you don't know it; you more than likely do, but i wanted to be specific so no one would misunderstand, but looking back at what i just wrote, it seems like a little bit too much nuance for libertarianism that is a philosophy (that attempts to be all encompasing) and not a solution to specific real world problems.

Pretty sure I don't agree. If international trade is unrestricted then firms pick up where governments leave off (and straddle borders themselves), and the theory of comparitive advantage does actually say that since every state will have one or more comparitive advantages, every state's labour force will be employed and since this is consequently the most efficient use of labour, every state will be better off as a result.

But yeah absolutely international trade is really a euphemism for regional trade organized by regional supranational blocs and because of this and other reasons comparitive advantage is an introductory concept that leaks sawdust at the seams.

[djzombie]

It's like they have two completely different set of rules.

Yeah its very simple to see how its broken down. Privatize the profits, and then of course socialize the losses(ie bailouts that taxpayers foot the bill for)

[Ragnus]

Yeah its very simple to see how its broken down. Privatize the profits, and then of course socialize the losses(ie bailouts that taxpayers foot the bill for)

Never heard it put better.

[test123]

It is now or never:

[Mazmaz]

So my dad's views last night made me realise why Ron Paul is the perfect candidate for people who aren't American. It's because his foreign policy would work out so well for so many other countries. There's many out there that would benefit from an isolated America that stops meddling in their business.

[Churchill]

including america

[Mazmaz]

Yea but that would probably be offset by all the terrible things he'll do to the economy, the middle class and the poor, and the environment lol.