Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate

[masked_marsoe]

I suspect that you meant "anarchy", as bolshevism falls under communism which is on the extreme opposite wing of libertarianism. You do not trust man enough to be capable of taking care of himself or do things to himself which harms no one else, but you feel the government, operated by man, to be capable of running an effective system.

I'm much more interested in social cohesion here.

It's an underlying theme across many political theories - from generic conservatism, to fascism, to socialism, to anarchism. But it's not a part of liberalism and libertarianism. Here social cohesion is replaced with individualism.

Social cohesion is far more of a influence on crime than guns. Traditionally, the government and political-moral correctness has been used to maintain social cohesion - especially the concept of "community", and on a grand scale "nation". When social cohesion drops, crime (especially violent crime, domestic abuse etc) increases. The economy suffers as a result. Social and ethnic/religious tensions increase.

In Russia in 1905 and 1917, social cohesion was eroded by failures at war. We know what happened there - three revolutions. In Iraq over the past 30 years, social cohesion at a national level was built quite successfully by the Ba'athist regime until 1979, when the revolution in Iran threatened to shift the balance of power. Saddam Hussein destroyed social cohesion in order to stay in power, and the results are being reaped today. In post-colonial Africa, social cohesion has never been properly built on a national level (though some nations like Kenya have come close) - in colonial Africa it was never attempted - and its pretty clear what modern Africa is like.

In these cases, and generally throughout history, the breakdown of social cohesion has been brought about by outside influences. In some cases, such as New Zealand, it has been brought about by rapid internal change. Now, I'm going to use NZ because I know it best, but it's also a good example.

From the 1930's till the 1980's, New Zealand had a cradle-to-grave welfare system. The government would provide you with everything - a home, income, job, healthcare. The conservatives maintained the system, and held power for 2/3rds of that time. Social cohesion was very high.

But by the early 1980s, things hit a crossroads. The economy was faltering after several years of poor decisions from a conservative government. The Labour Party was elected on the grounds of fixing the system. Instead, it went for some of the largest liberalisations the world has ever seen. In the years 1984-1994, New Zealand went through one of the biggest economic reforms, driven by several fanatic free-marketeers. Wages plummeted, national and personal debt skyrocketed. State assets were sold, state-owned enterprises cut loose. NZ hit the top of the list of the most free-market nations.

But the sudden change damaged social cohesion severely. It was a massive shift in public opinion than turned things around by the mid-1990s, but the effects are still very strongly felt. Literacy rates have dropped, crime is higher than ever, and rising. Child abuse and domestic violence are extremely high, something that would be unheard of thirty years ago. The concept of "community" has suffered immensely, and the price is much higher than one might have expected.

Now, to the comment about bolshevism, I still think it stands. If you break down social cohesion enough, then it weakens every individual. (This is in fact also an underlying part of neo-conservatist political philosophy). In Russia, Germany, and Hungary, bolshevist and similar forces tried to take over in the years 1917-1919, when social cohesion was at its lowest. In Weimar Germany, social cohesion never recovered enough to withstand the Nazis, and in fact is a vital part of the rise of fascism across Europe in the 1920s and 30s that they all promised to improve social cohesion. All these cases were brought about by failure in war and economic depression. What libertarianism promises to do is to break down social cohesion by itself.

Libertarianism doesn't see social cohesion as valuable - in fact quite the opposite. You could certainly try to cover by talking about charity and personal responsibility, but the truth is that in a self-centred world, social cohesion isn't going to miraculously occur. Without it, there's no way to predict exactly what will happen, but in all cases so far, it has brought crime, violence, and destruction.

[Crazy Wolf]

My main reason for not liking Libertarians is that they tend to not have ever needed the services they are then so easily able to dismiss as unnecessary. Sure, many Democrats haven't had to use those programs, but they understand that others might need them.

[Relander]

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

That's the catch-22 of living in D.C.; it's not a state so it does not have state power. It would be somewhat conflicting to give electorate power in a voting province with career politicians.

"It's not a state" is an excuse, it's all about the political will which currently doesn't exist due to partisan opposition. There's nothing impermeable in emerging D.C. into Maryland, turn D.C. into new state or pass exception law about giving it EC vote and a representative with voting rights. It's essential in democratic system (which the US republic in theory is) that people have equal voice & representation in politics, there's no argument strong enough debunking this in free, democratic society.

According to Freakonomics, money contributions to campaigns does not significantly change the outcome of elections between canidates. Lobbying in congress is more of a problem than election campaigns. All of the legislation to stop this does not make a difference if the same people are constantly elected.

Money has very significant role in general the US elections to give much needed visibility for a candidate, fend off criticism and criticize the opponent(s). Money doesn't have significant effect if a candidate has slightly more money than his opponent but when a candidate has only little money in the first place, people don't know him or especially his policies that well as still most of the voters get their information outside the internet. The Democrats and Republicans effectively control the flow of money so independents and third party candidates can't match them unless these are rich individuals. I agree that lobbying is a major problem as well which should be dealt with, but Ron Paul is the last guy for fixing this.

"Pro-environment" regulation only hurts U.S. Businesses and workers.

There's a middle-ground between being anti-environmentalist and pro-environmentalist and Ron Paul is on the other extreme here. Some US businesses get hurt from pro-environmental legislation but with right policies this can be minimized and on the contrary, environmental responsibility of a company is a significant asset in the eyes of many consumers and this asset will just get stronger as the time goes by. Besides we only have one Earth to "spend" and I don't want our grandchildren to heavily suffer from greed & indifference of today's generation.

Workers will only suffer when greedy corporate CEO's will cut from expenses instead of their hefty profits. Still the funny thing is when the government increases taxes this is automaticly transferred to prices but when the government decreases taxes this isn't always the case.

We cannot effect the major polluters in the world because they happen to be over in India and China.

Geographical location isn't a major issue here. By taking responsible stance on the environment the US political influence would increase significantly in environmental issues towards other countries, and China & India can be helped to cut down their emissions by providing them know-how, technology and low-interest loans for improving energy efficiency and conservation.

It can also be asked, can we deny India and China from most of the economic growth and welfare that western countries have enjoyed from for a long time? I don't think we can, the main responsibility in fighting against global warming belongs to developed western nations, the fact which the Kyoto Treaty rightfully emphasized.

It is pointless to pass many environmentally friendly regulations (such as the hybrid car carpool lane access, mandatory light bulbs)

I can't see how strenghtening energy independency & conservation while decreasing pollution is "pointless" as it's not.

I have shown you this to be wrong many times. Gun Facts - Your guide for debunking gun control myth

One pro-gun file hardly represents the whole picture. Even in most pro-gun states there are some gun regulations and this is my point: Ron Paul as a libertarian promotes virtually non-existent gun regulations which I don't see as a healthy thing. I don't think it's OK if every Average Joe can own a gatling gun.

The reason why gun control haven't worked in the USA is because it has never been heavily enforced throughout the country nor given enough time to see it through or adequate resources provided for authorities to get off illegal guns from the streets, and I think the same largely applies to Australia and Great Britain as well. I don't say this would be easy and cheap because it isn't, right on the contrary. But it's possible with enough political will.

However guns is just one part in crime and reasons for it, other points being about overall welfare of people, employment situation etc. social domestic issues. I bet that a society with very few guns would be a society of less crime, fear & violence with more security, stability and overall well-being of the people. There are other ways to emphasize personal liberty & limited government than having pro-gun legislation which in the end benefits just criminals, gun fans and hunters.

The World Bank is an extremely corrupt organization.

Sure the organization needs reforms but it shouldn't be abolished. If the wheel is broken, there's no use for re-inventing it but fixing it.

The U.N. is worthless as it pushes sensational political agendas down its members throats.

"Sensational agendas" such as peacekeeping missions, humanitarian & development aid, protection of cultural & environmental locations, promotion of human rights while trying to bring the world together and ensure peace? The UN is as strong as its most powerful members (USA, China, Russia, France, Great Britain) want it to be and that isn't much, worst example being the Veto-right of permanent members of the Security Council.

History has repeatedly shown that less government in the market is a good thing.

Economical success doesn't mean much if only small elite minority truly benefits from it. Market economy needs some restrictions.

BUT "wants" has always been a driving factor behind why capitalism produces greater results than ones that are nearly completely run by the government.

As we all here are touting socialism, complete government control of the economy, right? I repeat this once again, there's a thing called "golden middle-road" and just because a person opposes X doesn't mean he supports Z. I thought we would have already got rid of this black & white thinking here.

The Constitution must be followed at all times.

However nothing should stop reforming & updating when this is necessary. We don't get practical results by blindly sticking to ideological considerations, ideology is largely worthless if it doesn't lead to actions in practice.

Howard Dean was a crackpot. That played a major role in him not getting elected.

I think Howard Dean's infamous roaring and "yeeeehaa" shout after Iowa Caucus in television and passivity of younger voters are essentially the reasons what brought him down, not him having crackpot history. The same passivity and hollow hype will bring Ron Paul down as well.

There are many conspiracy theorists out there who support Ron Paul, but you cannot blame him for that.

What I pointed out was the blind Ron Paul hype by some of his fans, I didn't blame Ron Paul for this.

Where do you work?

This isn't relevant for the discussion and if you have paid even little attention to my posts here in the Pub, my views on the economy should be quite clear.

This discussion is getting to massive multi-debate with very long replies & various subjects and as I know that my points will hardly affect on your views (nor that many people actually bother to read these long replies), I won't continue debating about gun, environment, UN, economy etc. points but stick to Ron Paul's chances and a couple of selected political issues.

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by Afterburner

Yeah, you basically hit all the bases. I don't believe in forced charity, simple as that. I don't think the government should forcibly remove money from me to pay for someone else's bills. I'll gladly do it on my own, willingly. But don't try to force it on me. If you want to pay into the system the go ahead and do it, but you have no right to force me to.

Freedom before equality is my motto.

So I shouldn't be obligated to pay for a national police force or an army to take care of someone else? The outcome of that would just be widescale lawlessness and private armies eventually taking control because of a lack of state power. Freedom and security would exist only for those who could afford to enforce their will on everyone else.
It's the same with education, without an education you're basically fucked, stuck in whatever job someone happens to throw to you - if you're lucky. How is that freedom? Born into a lifetime of economic servitude because you had the bad luck not to be born into a rich family that valued an education and could pay for you to have one.

While what you're talking about sounds very nice it is in effect just a formula to allow companies and the absurdly rich to rule everyone else without any real restrain from government. Far from allowing freedom it would destroy any concept of freedom for most people.

There are certain base essentials that are necessary to ensure freedom exists. People cannot be free without justice, people cannot be free without protection, and people cannot be free without an education. If these things are not available then what you have is just a descent into anarchy at various speeds, a state of complete freedom for an incredibly short amount of time until someone takes control for you.

[Chemix2]

Most people today are born into bondage as cogs in a corporate machine, only being able to stop doing what they are obligated, but don't want, to do, when they no longer have the capability to truly enjoy it. By their efforts, someone else prospers and everything keeps turning, but what happens when one gear decides it wants to turn the other way? It causes a jam and is removed and replaced, but with laws in place, it is at least assured that only so many can be replaced, thus allowing a measure of "free will", but still people are trapped in the machine.

Escaping the machine and avoiding the junk heap is the way to freedom, but one of course needs to build a world to live in outside the machine, and that is difficult without creating new machines that use people just as their predecessors did.

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Nemmerle

So I shouldn't be obligated to pay for a national police force or an army to take care of someone else? The outcome of that would just be widescale lawlessness and private armies eventually taking control because of a lack of state power. Freedom and security would exist only for those who could afford to enforce their will on everyone else.
It's the same with education, without an education you're basically fucked, stuck in whatever job someone happens to throw to you - if you're lucky. How is that freedom? Born into a lifetime of economic servitude because you had the bad luck not to be born into a rich family that valued an education and could pay for you to have one.

Nope, you pay money into the police system for them to protect YOU as well. And for education you could do loans. Allow someone to go to school, and they just have to pay it off later.

While what you're talking about sounds very nice it is in effect just a formula to allow companies and the absurdly rich to rule everyone else without any real restrain from government. Far from allowing freedom it would destroy any concept of freedom for most people.

There are certain base essentials that are necessary to ensure freedom exists. People cannot be free without justice, people cannot be free without protection, and people cannot be free without an education. If these things are not available then what you have is just a descent into anarchy at various speeds, a state of complete freedom for an incredibly short amount of time until someone takes control for you.

Hence why building a state of unity is important. Once people understand that working together is better then fighting each other such a system would be possible. And again, why I'm saying only some Libertarian policies should be put into effect now, and then gradually introduced over a very long period of time.

And by now you will have found the major flaw in libertarian thinking. Giving people free access to weapons and drugs, while destroying their quality of life and incomes will turn people to crime and gangs, and any semblance of social cohesion will be destroyed. Libertarianism is the fast track to Bolshevism.

This coming from an anarchist?

[Red Menace]

Originally Posted by Crazy Wolf

My main reason for not liking Libertarians is that they tend to not have ever needed the services they are then so easily able to dismiss as unnecessary. Sure, many Democrats haven't had to use those programs, but they understand that others might need them.

And since many have never needed those programs they don't see how mediocre they are and just continute to pump money into them.

As for Ron Paul, I’ve never been interested in him. His views on foreign policy, or his lack of are laughable, isolationism didn’t save us in 1917, nor 1941, nor will it save us in 2008. The worlds problems have a nasty habit of becoming, well, world problems.

[WiseBobo]

Response is in bold.

Originally Posted by masked_marsoe

It's an underlying theme across many political theories - from generic conservatism, to fascism, to socialism, to anarchism. But it's not a part of liberalism and libertarianism. Here social cohesion is replaced with individualism.

Your concept of social cohesion is inherently flawed; forced social cohesion is not cohesion at all.

Social cohesion is far more of a influence on crime than guns. Traditionally, the government and political-moral correctness has been used to maintain social cohesion - especially the concept of "community", and on a grand scale "nation". When social cohesion drops, crime (especially violent crime, domestic abuse etc) increases. The economy suffers as a result. Social and ethnic/religious tensions increase.

Overall, this a correct sentiment. However, social cohesion should not be forced upon the citizens of a country. Doing so effectively removes their individual free will. A group is composed of individuals. People already do have an inherent strong sense of community and there are many factors that play into. Overall, no government action will be able to replace the social cohesion developed between people on their own terms.


In these cases, and generally throughout history, the breakdown of social cohesion has been brought about by outside influences. In some cases, such as New Zealand, it has been brought about by rapid internal change. Now, I'm going to use NZ because I know it best, but it's also a good example.

From the 1930's till the 1980's, New Zealand had a cradle-to-grave welfare system. The government would provide you with everything - a home, income, job, healthcare. The conservatives maintained the system, and held power for 2/3rds of that time. Social cohesion was very high.

But by the early 1980s, things hit a crossroads. The economy was faltering after several years of poor decisions from a conservative government. The Labour Party was elected on the grounds of fixing the system. Instead, it went for some of the largest liberalisations the world has ever seen. In the years 1984-1994, New Zealand went through one of the biggest economic reforms, driven by several fanatic free-marketeers. Wages plummeted, national and personal debt skyrocketed. State assets were sold, state-owned enterprises cut loose. NZ hit the top of the list of the most free-market nations.

Your history of your country is incorrect. Prior to the more 'free-market' basis of your government in 1984, your so-called "social cohesion" was at a standstill thanks to your government playing as a nanny in the economy. Here's what wikipedia has to say on the matter (with it's references cited):

But the sudden change damaged social cohesion severely. It was a massive shift in public opinion than turned things around by the mid-1990s, but the effects are still very strongly felt. Literacy rates have dropped, crime is higher than ever, and rising. Child abuse and domestic violence are extremely high, something that would be unheard of thirty years ago. The concept of "community" has suffered immensely, and the price is much higher than one might have expected.

Your views again on social cohesion and community have faultered again. Thanks to the free-market systems implemented between 1984 and onward, your country has a higher standard of living than when your government had it's hand in the economic cookie jar.

Now, to the comment about bolshevism, I still think it stands. If you break down social cohesion enough, then it weakens every individual. (This is in fact also an underlying part of neo-conservatist political philosophy). In Russia, Germany, and Hungary, bolshevist and similar forces tried to take over in the years 1917-1919, when social cohesion was at its lowest. In Weimar Germany, social cohesion never recovered enough to withstand the Nazis, and in fact is a vital part of the rise of fascism across Europe in the 1920s and 30s that they all promised to improve social cohesion. All these cases were brought about by failure in war and economic depression. What libertarianism promises to do is to break down social cohesion by itself.

This is not a matter of bolshevism, this is a matter of civil strife and unrest. Your use of it here is not appropriate in any sense.

Libertarianism doesn't see social cohesion as valuable - in fact quite the opposite. You could certainly try to cover by talking about charity and personal responsibility, but the truth is that in a self-centred world, social cohesion isn't going to miraculously occur. Without it, there's no way to predict exactly what will happen, but in all cases so far, it has brought crime, violence, and destruction.

This is complete rhetoric and also simulatenously complete garbage. Libertarianism is all about letting people do what they want to do as long as they do not hurt others. You give all this talk about a sense of 'community' and 'social cohesion' not being able to exist in a libertarian society, yet you don't even feel people should have a sense of self.

[WiseBobo]

Response in bold.

Wow, I was logged out while I typed this. Good thing I copied and pasted, or else I would have been throwing this monitor out the window.

Originally Posted by Relander

"It's not a state" is an excuse, it's all about the political will which currently doesn't exist due to partisan opposition. There's nothing impermeable in emerging D.C. into Maryland, turn D.C. into new state or pass exception law about giving it EC vote and a representative with voting rights. It's essential in democratic system (which the US republic in theory is) that people have equal voice & representation in politics, there's no argument strong enough debunking this in free, democratic society.

There is a conflict of interest when you allow the area that holds the entire governing body of the United States the ability to vote on things that change the United States. It is not a state er go it is not subject to state rights (for the most part). Incorporating it into a state or giving certain represenation in congress is best left for a much larger discussion.

I agree that lobbying is a major problem as well which should be dealt with, but Ron Paul is the last guy for fixing this.

Not every canidate is going to be able to fix and solve every single issue, hence the need for choice and hence the reason why things have remained the same. That being said, Ron Pauls track record is much better than any of the other canidates in this election. The only similar canidate I can think of is Thompson.

There's a middle-ground between being anti-environmentalist and pro-environmentalist and Ron Paul is on the other extreme here. Some US businesses get hurt from pro-environmental legislation but with right policies this can be minimized and on the contrary, environmental responsibility of a company is a significant asset in the eyes of many consumers and this asset will just get stronger as the time goes by. Besides we only have one Earth to "spend" and I don't want our grandchildren to heavily suffer from greed & indifference of today's generation.

If you want to talk about being anti-environmentalist, look no further than the Democratic party. I understand about being responsible and helping maintain a healthier environment; that's not really the issue ehre. Rational people such as you and I understand the importance; what it boils down to is people limiting choices of what can or cannot buy while being hypocritical.

For instance, in my state of California, Hybrid car owners are allowed carpool access (fast lane on the highway) even though they may be the only ones in the vehicle. At first glance, that appears it might be a good idea, however it is nothing more than favoritism. It is favoritism because certain cannot even own those cars thanks to their cost and on top of how the Hybrid operates.

The hybrid cars feature 'rechargable' batteries manufactured in plants that are powered by the dirtiest and foulest process on Earth. Right of the top of your head you can probably guess it, and yes that's right, coal power. One of the biggest pollutants in the world are coal power processing plants. Why do they still exist? Because the government feels that the clean and much more efficient energy source, nuclear power, is too "scary" and enviromentally 'harmful'. It's a load of shit. It's the same reasons why gas prices go up and and the gas companies make billions; the government does not want more refineries to be built and the corporations reap the benefits as they can sit back and watch the supply lines become choked because of an increase in demand.

Thanks government regs.


Workers will only suffer when greedy corporate CEO's will cut from expenses instead of their hefty profits. Still the funny thing is when the government increases taxes this is automaticly transferred to prices but when the government decreases taxes this isn't always the case.

Either way when taxes are cut, more money is placed back into the hands of the worker. The CEO is already making enough money as it is by not increasing wage earnings and taking a smaller profit. Why do you feel that taxes should take even more away from the worker? In the end, the CEO is providing the worker a job. If the worker is unsatisfied, he can leave elsewhere.

Geographical location isn't a major issue here. By taking responsible stance on the environment the US political influence would increase significantly in environmental issues towards other countries, and China & India can be helped to cut down their emissions by providing them know-how, technology and low-interest loans for improving energy efficiency and conservation.

Geographical location is a major issue. You want my country to take a huge hit economically while China and India flourish by lack of regulations? I don't know where you have been, but China plays a beat to it's own drum.

It can also be asked, can we deny India and China from most of the economic growth and welfare that western countries have enjoyed from for a long time? I don't think we can, the main responsibility in fighting against global warming belongs to developed western nations, the fact which the Kyoto Treaty rightfully emphasized.

The Kyoto Protocol makes absolutely no regulations necessary for China, which will be the world's top polluter in a matter of years. Sorry, that's just plain bullshit, Relander. Not to mention the fact that if the Kyoto Protocol was fully implemented and 100% working tomorrow (not that 100% efficiency is even possible. Multiple countries are taking huge economic hits without even hitting anything close to to that) the amount of degrees it would change in 100 years as opposed to not being implement is a maximum of TWO DEGREES FAHRENHEIT.

I can't see how strenghtening energy independency & conservation while decreasing pollution is "pointless" as it's not.

Pointless the way you want it through Kyoto, as I have shown above.

One pro-gun file hardly represents the whole picture. Even in most pro-gun states there are some gun regulations and this is my point: Ron Paul as a libertarian promotes virtually non-existent gun regulations which I don't see as a healthy thing. I don't think it's OK if every Average Joe can own a gatling gun.

The reason why gun control haven't worked in the USA is because it has never been heavily enforced throughout the country nor given enough time to see it through or adequate resources provided for authorities to get off illegal guns from the streets, and I think the same largely applies to Australia and Great Britain as well. I don't say this would be easy and cheap because it isn't, right on the contrary. But it's possible with enough political will.

However guns is just one part in crime and reasons for it, other points being about overall welfare of people, employment situation etc. social domestic issues. I bet that a society with very few guns would be a society of less crime, fear & violence with more security, stability and overall well-being of the people. There are other ways to emphasize personal liberty & limited government than having pro-gun legislation which in the end benefits just criminals, gun fans and hunters.

From your response it appears that you did not even bother to read the report because of your own views on the matter. It's a report taken from multiple studies both with my government and independent researchers that proves that more lawfully abiding citizens have guns significantly lowers crime rates.

You don't need to have gun regulations when the people who should not be allowed access to guns are locked up. It's a pretty simple system when you think about it. People who commit violent acts are not allowed back into the populace, effectively removing nearly 80% of the people who cause gun crime here in my country in the first place. Gun crime, or just crime in general, is a problem here in the U.S. because the offenders keep repeating what they do after they get out. Once you remove that element from society, gun regulations hardly make sense. This goes for anything from the violent individuals to those who are mentally insane/unstable. If they have the capacity to harm others, they should not be on the streets.

That's suggesting a huge change in the system and I doubt such a thing will be implemented, however to be more on track, I digress. There are over 25,000 gun laws in this country and removing a few of them is not going to cause a huge surge in killings done by criminals who don't even follow the law in the first place.

You are flat-out wrong when you say that gun control has not worked in the U.S. since it has 'never been fully implemented'. The fact is, gun control as a system is bork. The U.K. has in the past decade passed more and more stringent gun laws. As a result, their crime rate is sky rocketing thanks to the criminals having all of the weapons and the citizens obeying the law. Gun Control only favors criminals who do not follow them in the first place. It creates an unlevel playing field where the crooks have guns and other people do not. That's not liberty, that's socialist rhetoric.

Switzerland is one of the safest countries in the world...and that's a country where military servicemen are required to take an assault rifle home with them after they are discharged!


Sure the organization needs reforms but it shouldn't be abolished. If the wheel is broken, there's no use for re-inventing it but fixing it.

The World Bank has a long track record of being corrupt and exploiting countries and showing corporate favoritism. You are more than welcome to try to fix it.

"Sensational agendas" such as peacekeeping missions, humanitarian & development aid, protection of cultural & environmental locations, promotion of human rights while trying to bring the world together and ensure peace? The UN is as strong as its most powerful members (USA, China, Russia, France, Great Britain) want it to be and that isn't much, worst example being the Veto-right of permanent members of the Security Council.

Isn't much? How much is getting done about the violence and murder in Africa and the Middle East thanks to the U.N., Relander? Not a whole lot, considering the security council can veto everything that goes against their interest. It's a bunch of crap and that is not a 'small issue' by any means at all.

Economical success doesn't mean much if only small elite minority truly benefits from it. Market economy needs some restrictions.

I agree with this.

As we all here are touting socialism, complete government control of the economy, right? I repeat this once again, there's a thing called "golden middle-road" and just because a person opposes X doesn't mean he supports Z. I thought we would have already got rid of this black & white thinking here.

It's not a matter of black and white thinking, it's a matter of historical results. Workers are much more satisfied achieving their own wants, not others needs. Government meddling typically refers to the latter, and as is the case with New Zealand, is bad juju.

However nothing should stop reforming & updating when this is necessary. We don't get practical results by blindly sticking to ideological considerations, ideology is largely worthless if it doesn't lead to actions in practice.

Rules are rules for a reason. When you don't follow certain inalienable principles, you're doing something quite wrong. If you have a problem with the things outlined in the Constitution (which for the most part are based on individual liberty and self-destiny) you have a major problem with your fellow man and how he chooses to operate when he does no harm to anyone else.

The same passivity and hollow hype will bring Ron Paul down as well.

Lack of voter prowess will be his failing, not anything on his own accord that I have yet to see.

What I pointed out was the blind Ron Paul hype by some of his fans, I didn't blame Ron Paul for this.

Understood.

This isn't relevant for the discussion and if you have paid even little attention to my posts here in the Pub, my views on the economy should be quite clear.

This discussion is getting to massive multi-debate with very long replies & various subjects and as I know that my points will hardly affect on your views (nor that many people actually bother to read these long replies), I won't continue debating about gun, environment, UN, economy etc. points but stick to Ron Paul's chances and a couple of selected political issues.

Whatever is your cup of tea, Relander. I don't have the time here to sit around and keep up to date on the status of other members here on this board or participate in very long discussions to know every single little bit about there lives. I don't have that kind of time because I don't work "Nightwatch". Thanks for giving back such a warm response.

[Relander]

Originally Posted by WiseBobo

There is a conflict of interest when you allow the area that holds the entire governing body of the United States the ability to vote on things that change the United States.

Nearly all politicians continue to officially live in their home states and I dare to say most of the people living in Washington D.C. aren't politicians or civil servants. However that doesn't matter as every person should be guaranteed equal voice on political issues, it doesn't matter a squat if they're politicians or not. Current system is simply flat-out undemocratic and wrong, not to mention that one EC vote and reprepsentative with voting rights will hardly have that profound impact.

Not every canidate is going to be able to fix and solve every single issue, hence the need for choice and hence the reason why things have remained the same. That being said, Ron Pauls track record is much better than any of the other canidates in this election. The only similar canidate I can think of is Thompson.

Ron Paul's track record in fighting against lobbying is propably the worst from all the candidates where as McCain & Obama has proven records in this. Fred Thompson having a history of lobbyist himself doesn't convince me, especially when he worked for pro-abortion group but personally opposes abortion.

Rules are rules for a reason. When you don't follow certain inalienable principles, you're doing something quite wrong.

And rules can be changed and should be changed when they don't fit anymore. What gives the Founding Fathers superior, unquestionable and god-like authority to make "inalienable principles" that no-one could change even a tiny bit? What if slavery would have been allowed in the Constitution, should this be kept the same too? We don't have to turn the Constitution upside down here but reform it to fit today's USA, not what it was like over 200 years ago. I can't see how giving EC vote and Congressman with voting rights for D.C. residents goes against anyone's personal liberty or abolishment of the whole Electoral College, right on the contrary.

Lack of voter prowess will be his failing, not anything on his own accord that I have yet to see.

I don't believe Paul's isolationistic stances, will to cease most federal programs and strong pro-free market policies could win him the presidency. He scares most of the moderates and independents off with his agenda.

I don't have the time here to sit around and keep up to date on the status of other members here on this board or participate in very long discussions to know every single little bit about there lives. I don't have that kind of time because I don't work "Nightwatch". Thanks for giving back such a warm response.

As it's mandatory to know every little bit of everyone's lives here and it takes so much time to check out few threads once in a day or two. Right, nice exaggeration & simplification there once again "Wise"Bobo. I don't think you're in any position to judge other people's way of conducting discussion here.