Wow! Ron Paul Gives Blue Print to Peace Prosperity and Liberty!

Actions speak louder than words, what is Ron Paul doing with the millions upon millions the average joe donated to him & believed in him? The actions concerning that money, follow the money, will give me a perspective on what type of a person Dr. Paul is, is it all wrapped up in red tape? I don't know, but a great speech is given occasionally by Obama, great speeches are a dime a dozen, great actions are solid gold bullion, few and far between.

The sad thing is most people are gonna just ignore this speech.While the dupes on both sides will accuse RP supporters of being "domestic terrorists" and being "nuts"Just like many people discount Eisenhower's farewell speech.

reply to post by hawkiye


Wonderful sentiments in there. I wish more people were not terrified of freedom and liberty. I understand that with Liberty comes personal responsibility...which most people seem to loathe. Perhaps one day people will want to be truly free.

Originally posted by ANOK
Private property only makes wealth for the minority class of property owners, at the expense of the rest of us.

If workers owned the means of production we could produce all we need with no restrictions. That is the true and only way to peace prosperity and liberty.

This sounds like what a stock is. As workers become wealthier, they'll buy their companies' stocks. Increased wealth comes from increased efficiency. Increased efficiency comes from maximizing profit margins. This is actually how capitalism will evolve into communism. If you try to force it to happen too early, it will self-destruct via inefficiency. See every country that's tried to do so.

See also that most common people owned no stock in the 1800s. Now, everyone does. The trend is clear.

The whole reason the economy is such a mess is because of the private ownership of the means to produce, capitalism. It sucks all the wealth upwards and concentrates it in the hands of a minority class. If their profits are not large enough, they remove their contribution to our economy seeking cheaper labour elsware to ensure more profit for themselves.

How would you measure efficiency without profit? How would you reinvest the excess resources created by higher efficiency into other operations without profit?

By its very definition, a profit margin is the efficiency level of the resources used relative to the end-product.

The Capitalist economy will never be stable, it is impossible, the business cycle is a inevitable part of capitalism.

The business cycle is the periodic but irregular up-and-down movements in economic activity, measured by fluctuations in real GDP and other macroeconomic variables. Parkin and Bade, "Economics"

How can anyone think that is a good system?

Recessions are bad ideas going bust. Booms are new ideas being tried. Booms have higher absolute value than recessions. How would you get the resources to try new ideas without reallocating the resources from the bad ones?



When you don't have profit to measure efficiency and don't have bidding to determine all the information about resources conveyed in price, you get a system with no or poor checks on how well resources are used. When you don't use resources well, you get both less out of them (less investment) and less stuff (lower efficiency). When you get less stuff, you get poor.

Originally posted by ANOK
“libertarian was a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” Murray Bookchin The Ecology of Freedom p. 57

Murray Bookchin (January 14, 1921 – July 30, 2006)[5] was an American libertarian socialist author, orator, and philosopher. A pioneer in the ecology movement,[6] Bookchin was the founder of the social ecology movement within anarchist, libertarian socialist and ecological thought. He was the author of two dozen books on politics, philosophy, history, and urban affairs as well as ecology. In the late 1990s he became disenchanted with the strategy of political Anarchism and founded his own libertarian socialist ideology called Communalism.[7]

Murray Bookchin



Rons just another suit and tie.

And your point of that is???

Sure...it's a word...and seeing how we have managed to change the meanings of tens of thousands of words in the last few years alone...I see changing the meaning of Libertarian to be appropriate as well. It is the philosophy of freedom. I am a "modern" libertarian, not a libertarian socialist. I believe freedom is the key to happiness and prosperity.

Whatever you want to call it is up to you...I will call it "Libertarianism" and be happy with that. I believe in the principles of the party platform so that is good enough. You can call it mud for all I care...it's just a word.

I am again forced to remind everyone that Ron Paul was a Republican with Libertarian ideals. He was NOT a dyed in the wool Libertarian. he had to many social conservative positions to be a true Libertarian.

I am again forced to remind everyone that Ron Paul was a Republican with Libertarian ideals. He was NOT a dyed in the wool Libertarian. he had to many social conservative positions to be a true Libertarian.

edit on 11/15/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/15/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)

He ran Republican because he wouldn't get elected otherwise. What non-libertarian views does he have?

I think he actually did try to run libertarian once and lost.

reply to post by RedDragon


He is pro-life for one. The Libertarian position is that it is not the place of the government or your neighbor to tell you how to handle this decision. it is between a woman, her family, her doctor and whatever God she prays to. THAT is Libertarian.

I also think he was against same sex marriage. Not positive on that though. As a Libertarian, my view on same sex marriage is "I do not care"....you can marry your mailbox...it will not effect my life one way or another.

And yes, Ron did run as a Libertarian candidate back in the late 70's or early 80's...don't remember exactly when...lots of water under the bridge since then.

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by RedDragon

 

He is pro-life for one. The Libertarian position is that it is not the place of the government or your neighbor to tell you how to handle this decision. it is between a woman, her family, her doctor and whatever God she prays to. THAT is Libertarian.

I also think he was against same sex marriage. Not positive on that though. As a Libertarian, my view on same sex marriage is "I do not care"....you can marry your mailbox...it will not effect my life one way or another.

And yes, Ron did run as a Libertarian candidate back in the late 70's or early 80's...don't remember exactly when...lots of water under the bridge since then.

He is pro-life being a physician that delivered babies, he states though that it is not the federal governments business to decide, it's up to the states (same as marriage).... So putting your personal opinions and beliefs on the side to uphold the constitution is kind of the guy we're looking for.....

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
reply to post by RedDragon

 

He is pro-life for one. The Libertarian position is that it is not the place of the government or your neighbor to tell you how to handle this decision. it is between a woman, her family, her doctor and whatever God she prays to. THAT is Libertarian.

I also think he was against same sex marriage. Not positive on that though. As a Libertarian, my view on same sex marriage is "I do not care"....you can marry your mailbox...it will not effect my life one way or another.

And yes, Ron did run as a Libertarian candidate back in the late 70's or early 80's...don't remember exactly when...lots of water under the bridge since then.

He believes those things personally just like he's personally against marijuana use (but wants it legal). Libertarians have personal beliefs all over the map. What brings them together is the common belief in freedom/ tolerance. They won't use violent force of government to make other people comply with their personal beliefs.

reply to post by RedDragon

What brings them together is the common belief in freedom/ tolerance. They won't use violent force of government to make other people comply with their personal beliefs.

You said a mouth full there! Every strife every war from a one on one fight between individuals to a all at war between nations always boils down to one or both sides trying to force their views and will on the other...

So in the last 2 elections 2008/2012 and the mocking of a Vietnam Vet
and his believes.
I will just have to admit the Americans true feeling to war veterans.
I am not a vet, but I fear how Americans feel about Vietnam Vets.
I hear truth from the generation that was drafted.
Those of us that have the choice to volunteer,
should never ignore the words of vets that had no choice to serve
through force.

Some will claim they heard a speech, men that were drafted, hear the truth.

Great speech , love Ron, and his revolution back to the pursuit of liberty.
Unfortunately the only way that will ever happen , is to gut the government by force, because no politician is going to buck their meal/mansion ticket. isnt going to ever happen. We just elect more morons that fall prey to the machine.. oh they'll speech the floor till they're blue in the face, and have meetings to secure their raises and such, but as long as the corporations control their re-election funding, nothing of any true significance is ever going to trickle back to the little people. The entire Washington system is to protecting the wealthy and the military contractors and their share holders......have you ever noticed that Ron is the only Politician that talks straight out of his mouth in truths? and all the rest talk but you can never make heads nor tales of what the hell their saying? its because they are liars for the AGENDA

30,000 drones to be deployed over America, and we are still talking about LIBERTY

Whos Liberty?

reply to post by jheated5

For me personally, it is not even the business of the state...casting a hot topic down the line is not taking a stand. So you said it was ok...you kick it down to the states and they rule against it...that is not freedom or Liberty...that is still allowing a Government body to dictate things that they should not be empowered to do....

Just my $0.02

When ever it comes down to Ron Paul,
I get to watch people spit on Vietnam Vets again.

Originally posted by RedDragon
This sounds like what a stock is. As workers become wealthier, they'll buy their companies' stocks. Increased wealth comes from increased efficiency. Increased efficiency comes from maximizing profit margins. This is actually how capitalism will evolve into communism. If you try to force it to happen too early, it will self-destruct via inefficiency. See every country that's tried to do so.

I agree communism should not be forced.

But no, buying stocks is not really worker ownership. For worker ownership to work the whole company must bellong to the workers outright.

How does a worker become wealthier? Most working wages barely keep up with inflation.

See also that most common people owned no stock in the 1800s. Now, everyone does. The trend is clear.

Again though stocks is not worker ownership. Generally people who buy stocks are not the workers of that company, so stock holders are private owners. Also it doesn't solve the problem of equality because one person can buy more stock than another, so someone can always gain the majority ownership.

Worker ownership works on each individual worker earning from their production, as if it's their own company, the means to do that would be owned in common by all the workers. For example you work for four hours and produce X amount of goods, you will be payed for four hours and the goods you produced. In capitalism you work eight hours and get paid for four, everything you produce in that unpaid four hours goes to the private owner as their profit. What the owner takes beyond what you earn is known as surplus value.

Under worker ownership there is no surplus value, you earn the full fruits of your labour, and no one gets unproportionally wealthy from your labour allowing them to control and manipulate the system.

How would you measure efficiency without profit? How would you reinvest the excess resources created by higher efficiency into other operations without profit?

There would no issue of efficiency in that respect, we would be free to produce all we need. There is no need for investment in a economy based on needs, not profit.

Capitalism creates artificial scarcity in order to maintain high prices and high profits, there would no need for scarcity when the limitation of having to make profit are removed.

By its very definition, a profit margin is the efficiency level of the resources used relative to the end-product.

In a capitalist economy. You have to change your mindset away from profit because worker ownership is not a profit based economy, it is a needs based economy. Money is nothing but a tool for control. The problem comes when money is made from a product, but instead of a fair exchange, that money then can be used to accumilate money without any product involved. This is how capitalist make most of their wealth, 60% of it. 40% from exploiting labour.

In the barter system you exchange product for product, all is equal. No one can take advantage of the economy simply because they have more money.

Recessions are bad ideas going bust. Booms are new ideas being tried. Booms have higher absolute value than recessions. How would you get the resources to try new ideas without reallocating the resources from the bad ones?

Not exactly. No capitalist economy is never permanent. Even good economies eventually have busts. This is because capitalists have no concern for communities and will move to cheaper markets, or remove their contribution to the economy, because they are forced to make profit to survive.

Without the need to make profit, and the means of production in the hands of workers (most of us), companies can remain in communities in order to serve the community. Rather than property being used to make a few people rich, it would be used to supply our communities with what they need.

When you don't have profit to measure efficiency and don't have bidding to determine all the information about resources conveyed in price, you get a system with no or poor checks on how well resources are used. When you don't use resources well, you get both less out of them (less investment) and less stuff (lower efficiency). When you get less stuff, you get poor.

I disagree. There are many ways to determine how resources are used. You are trying to look at this from the perspective of capitalism, profit making for the minority, socialism doesn't work that way. The only thing that keeps resources scarce to the point they have to be micromanaged is artificial scarcity and the need to make profit. The only limitation on resources is the means to produce, monopolized by a minority and their use denied unless the owner can make a profit.

reply to post by Jeremiah65


That is exactly why he wants it thrown down to the States to decide. He is a liar and con artist, hell the only reason he is all about the gold standard is because he owns a crapload of gold and stock in gold mines. He is the same corporate douche bag Romney is he just dresses it up a whole lot better.

I am trying to remember which wars,
Obama and Romney were drafted in?
Oh wait,
now I remember,
Michelle Obamas,
war on obesity!

Originally posted by otherpotato
reply to post by hawkiye

 

I agree intolerance is one of the keys, but he has the first one dead wrong. It is not envy, but greed that inhibits our ability to achieve liberty and peace. Without greed there cannot be envy. Sadly greed has become the foundation of the United States.

Envy begets greed, so I will say the good doctor nailed that one. Greed does not inhibit the ability to achieve liberty and peace, but envy surely does. An envious individual is willing to go to great lengths to limit their subject of envy and reduce them to their status to satisfy the insatiable grasp of envy.

This isn't to say that greed is a white knight, but is typically an inward force upon an individual that can lead to other characteristics that aim to limit another in their liberty and peace.

I am just rambling,
I live in a world where people drive around with
I Support the Troops sticker,
and under that they have a
Veteran Ron Paul Sucks!
Bumper sticker.

Anyway someday in the future
people may understand that there is no such thing as,
Free Speech.
It takes effort and labor to express your thoughts.
So anyone that disagrees with your labor of speech
is interfering with commerce.
That is when you reach
the level with the corporations that rule you.