Ron Paul campaign Press Release: Ron Paul WINNING the Battle for Delegates.

reply to post by Still


Not patriots!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by SurrealisticPillow


More Chomsky on US Libertarianism and specifically Ron Paul:

Q: At times, you've been outspoken against the Libertarian Party and its ideals. Recently, libertarians such as Ron Paul have courted marijuana users on the basis that they oppose the Drug War. Why do you oppose them?

A: What's called libertarianism in the United States is a significant deviation from traditional libertarian thought. Traditionally, say in Europe, "libertarian" meant the anti-state wing of the socialist party. In the United States, "libertarian" means ultra-capitalist; it means permitting capitalist institutions to function essentially without constraint, or virtually with no constraint. That's a recipe for one of the worst kinds of tyranny that exists: unaccountable corporate tyranny. Take a look at individual libertarians -- say Ron Paul. He may be perfectly sincere, but as I read his programs and other programs of the Libertarian Party or the Cato Institute and so on, they essentially would give free rein to unaccountable concentrations of private power. And that's about the worst kind of tyranny you can imagine. Whatever government is -- say our government -- it's to some extent accountable to the public, and the public can compel it to be fairly accountable, at least in principle. That's why we have things like New Deal reforms and so on: It's public pressure. On the other hand, you and I can say nothing about the policies of Goldman Sachs or General Electric. In principle, our only relationship to those institutions is to consume what they produce or to serve them as an obedient work force. We can maybe own some shares, but that's meaningless given the concentration of shareholding. So they're essentially unaccountable to the public except through a regulatory apparatus that can be developed through the state in our society, which can somewhat tame the excesses and destructive capacities of these institutions.

www.chomsky.info...

If you think Chomsky is part of 'the system' go read the rest of the interview.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Chomsky seems a strange fellow to be trying to define 'libertarianism', he focuses on 'ultra-capitalism' and taking away *all the restraints*, I'm sure it probably seems that way to him, and their are likely registered Libertarian's with that view.

But there are also many people in what I sense is a growing *Liberty* movement, it may *lean* Libertarian on some issues but lean away on others. I would personally like to see a Liberty Party, split off taking taking the best *Liberty*- leaning ideas from the other two or three parties and rejecting their stands on others.

reply to post by Tecumte


I'm not sure why you'd find it strange that Chomsky would be discussing this. He's NOT trying to define it, btw., simply relating long standing definitions of it.

As for moderate Libertarians, I think they're a myth. There's some that identify themselves as such that don't know what their party du jour stands for, and try and claim it's more moderate than it is, but the US version of libertarianism is NOT moderate. It's actually an extreme ideology, which is my whole point (and Chomsky's).

Shockingly, hard core Republicans are MUCH more moderate than libertarians. It's like the difference between liberals and socialists.

The US definition of what a "liberal" is (i.e. Democrat) is much closer to what the rest of the world calls centre-RIGHT.

On that spectrum US Libertarianism is much closer to fascism, that is the complete integration of government and business, than to say, conservative.

It's not me saying this, btw, it's political scientists and people like Noam Chomsky, who actually ignore the rhetoric and look at the actually policies proposed. For instance, the complete commercialisation of education would be a very very very unAmerican (and anti-Liberty) position, but it's a tenet of Libertarianism. As is the complete removal of all government regulations.

It would pit the average American against multi-national corporations, with no protection. That's like Gorilla vs infant. There's no way the baby wins that.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


It seems to me we already have nearly complete integration of government and business, a constant revolving door between the two, I don't see that Libertarian's have contributed to this. It's been the work of Dems and Reps.

The tenents of Libertarianism seem to me to want to get corrupt government OUT of the lives of citizens.

Perhaps we need a thread here on ATS specifically looking at Libertarianism.

But again I'm not a Libertarian, I belong to NO party. Also I think Ron Paul is a Republican isn't he?

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

I have shown you the evidence and AGAIN you dodge it.

I'm not a troll; I am used to you guys justifying these Paul's behaviour and beliefs, no matter how ridiculous, so I'm careful to get people on the record... thus me holding back the link... but hey, if you're cool promoting a hypocrite and a liar, knock yourself out.

I'll choose to NOT do that, but sure.. whatever gets you through the night.

oh please, do tell ... who in this bunch of miscreants running for POTUS is not a hypocrite & a liar?

if one does it more than another, does that change his worthiness?
if one does it less than another, does that change the ability to do the job?
please note, i do not currently "promote" any of them but i am curious which of them fits your ideals?
so, for the record, please answer.

btw, the last politician to "battle" for delegates was Obama, a Democrat.

reply to post by Honor93


I think you're raging against the wrong machine. I don't claim any is perfect, in fact I claim the opposite.

reply to post by Tecumte


Paul is no Republican, he makes that clear in every debate... he just clings to the party for political expediency, as has been pointed out by many many many of his ATS followers.

Libertarianism isn't about getting rid of corrupt government, it's about replacing government with business, which is wholly unaccountable. Wholly.

This is why I keep saying, fix government, which has the capacity for being representative, don't replace it with business, which will never represent ANY interests accept it's profit margin.

The differences are stark.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Honor93

 

I think you're raging against the wrong machine. I don't claim any is perfect, in fact I claim the opposite.

first, i'm certainly not raging.
second, i asked valid questions.
third, why are you avoiding answering my direct questions?
and lastly, i really don't have a horse in this race as i'd vote to can the whole bunch and start over ... but that's not listed on any ballot i've seen.

i never asked about "perfect" or are you telling me that is your level of "ideals" ??
besides, i didn't ask who you dis, you've made that quite clear, i asked whom or which fits your "ideals"?
is it really that tough of a question?

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by Honor93

 

I think you're raging against the wrong machine. I don't claim any is perfect, in fact I claim the opposite.

first, i'm certainly not raging.
second, i asked valid questions.
third, why are you avoiding answering my direct questions?
and lastly, i really don't have a horse in this race as i'd vote to can the whole bunch and start over ... but that's not listed on any ballot i've seen.

i never asked about "perfect" or are you telling me that is your level of "ideals" ??
besides, i didn't ask who you dis, you've made that quite clear, i asked whom or which fits your "ideals"?
is it really that tough of a question?

You're question didn't relate to me.

I never claimed any of them WERE not hypocrites or liars. In fact my contention is that Ron Paul is no different in that he IS a hypocrite/liar. No, if you want an abstract, like, if a magical perfect human ran for president would it make a difference, then the answer is obviously yes, yes it would. Would they be "better"? Who knows... it's not a scenario we'll ever see,

I'll just quote you again for context, to make sure I've answered all your questions

oh please, do tell ... who in this bunch of miscreants running for POTUS is not a hypocrite & a liar?

None

if one does it more than another, does that change his worthiness?

First you said, "not" as in binary: yes/no. Then you want to talk shades of grey.

OK, so, if one does it 2% more or less then that alone isn't really a differentiating factor, in and of itself; if they do it 5000% more than it is.

if one does it less than another, does that change the ability to do the job?

Well, obviously yes it does. If you lie to people endlessly they will eventually stop trusting you. They will affect your ability to get things done. Obviously.

please note, i do not currently "promote" any of them but i am curious which of them fits your ideals?

None of them are ideal. It's a sliding scale of garbage.

so, for the record, please answer.

Answered. For the record they were very silly questions.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


So do you think the US is going in a good direction now? If Obama is elected again is highly likely that over half of the US will be on some sort of government welfare by the end of his term. The only way to support that financially would be to print a lot more money, increase the debt. Right now the US is run as a failing business that stays afloat because they keep finding someone to loan them more money. It cannot sustain itself for much longer on the path that Obama, Mitt, and the two part system wants to take us.

Capitalism is not nearly as evil as the corporate oligarchy that the US has become.

reply to post by Honor93

Is it really that tough of a question?

You may find that a demagog doesn't really answer direct questions.

reply to post by SurrealisticPillow


[rolls eyes]

You realise I did directly answer all his silliness.

You may find Ron Paul supporters no nothing abut libertarianism and think it's only been around since the 1970s.

Originally posted by jrod
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

So do you think the US is going in a good direction now? If Obama is elected again is highly likely that over half of the US will be on some sort of government welfare by the end of his term. The only way to support that financially would be to print a lot more money, increase the debt. Right now the US is run as a failing business that stays afloat because they keep finding someone to loan them more money. It cannot sustain itself for much longer on the path that Obama, Mitt, and the two part system wants to take us.

Capitalism is not nearly as evil as the corporate oligarchy that the US has become.

Removing all regulations on government and privatising all of government's vital services INCREASES the control business has on our government. Only a Paul supporter would think that giving over ever vital service to a for-profit industry would protect people from business or weaken business' grip on government. Very silly.

As for the direction of America. America has become LESS democratic BECAUSE of business interference, primarily. Libertarianism, by very definition, would choose to allow MORE business interference.