A facebook chat about politics and my response. Your input?
1
Since I respect the input of this forum more than or equal to pretty much anywhere else (and doesn't that say something about hentai?) I would like your input and consideration on the following.
If you don't want to read about Ron Paul then scroll down to my response, please.
Editted: Bold words represent the names of those posting, I have added the word "end" to the end of each post. Should be easier to read.
I apologize for the length but I felt I should include some the preceding comments so people knew what I was responding to and because I thought the things that were said are interesting.
---END-----------------------BEGIN POSTS----------------------------------------
Can this John Lennon get more fans than Jesus? OK, so you like Paul because he doesn't want to go to war.
But the reason we've been stuck with such corrupt fear mongers for so long is because too many people are voting based on the faith of themselves and the Pols, instead of taking the time to learn what they're actually voting for.
Paul wants to tear down the separation of church and state. Wont that just lead to even more war mongering and bad politics down the road? Wont that just undo all the progress we have made as a -thinking- secular nation?
-
Can this John Lennon get more fans than Jesus? Referring to things like this quote:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
Ron Paul, December 2003
----------------------
And these bills that he tried to pass, doing things leaving it up to states to have school led prayer and so on:
http://hdl.loc.gov/†‹loc.uscongress/†‹legislation.105hjres78
http://hdl.loc.gov/†‹loc.uscongress/†‹legislation.109hamdt278
http://en.wikipedia.org/†‹wiki/†‹Legislation_sponsored_by_Ro†‹n_Paul#We_the_People_Act
-END-
Shayne Felberg Ron Paul is so caught up with the way America used to be that he completely disregards the changes that have gradually taken place the last 200+ years.
Ron Paul wants to abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, public education, the post office, public parks, public streets 7 HIGHWAYS, the EPA, OSHA, USDA, FDA, etc. He wants the government to ONLY do the military. He wants all else privatized, so it would all cost you more, and deregulation of all industries.. He is against government regulation of any kind. Paul has said more than once he believes the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. The USA would quickly become a third world country if he had his way.
Paul has built a loyal following of people attracted to the politician’s libertarian stance on constitutional rights and opposition to the war in Iraq. [...] During Paul’s rally, he proposed getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, Selective Service, income tax and the Federal Reserve, and withdrawing from the United Nations.
[...] The two biggest issues facing America at this time are the Iraq War and the illegal alien problem. Ron Paul has called for an end to “birth-right citizenship” also known as “anchor babies.” Ron Paul has also called for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Of all the candidates, Paul is the only one who is “two for two” on these key issues.
It is a laundry list of the "serious" policy discussions of the craziest far-far right militia movements. Abolishing the Federal Reserve? Abandoning the U.N.? Eliminating the income tax?Anchor babies?
For a bit more depth, let's go to a commenter on the "white nationalist" website Stormfront(again, no link but it can easily be found by doing a search):
[Ron Paul] is the least toxic candidate by leaps and bounds. On issues particularly important to White Nationalists or the Pro-White in general, of all of the mainstream candidates:
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of "Hate Crime" Laws.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Amnesty and "open border" movements.
-- Ron Paul wants to end birth-right citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of welfare programs that among other things, would redistribute the income of White families into the hands of lazy non-Whites.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Globalism and all attempts to create a North American Union.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of military support and foreign aid to countries like Israel.
-- Ron Paul is the least likely to support government crackdowns on Pro-White organizations, and the most likely to veto such measures.
That's why, as a "libertarian", has the support of so many people decent folks wouldn't be caught dead with. Because he is, in the wink-wink nod-nod rhetoric of the far-far right, thatkind of libertarian. The isolationist, tribal, to hell with the rest of you kind of libertarian. The kind that is diametrically opposed to equality, to progress, to social responsibility, to national responsibility, and to the very notion of the shared common good.
And this is the figure that can garner support from many otherwise supposedly moderate libertarians? For what reason? Is Ron Paul simply the Sanjaya of the Republican campaign season, or are people so invested in a single Republican politician that recognizes the Iraq War as boondoggle that they are resigned to tolerate the advocacy of anything -- the proposed destruction of social progress in all other areas -- in order to reward the politician for that single stance?
Paul is a colorful figure, fine. But it is high time for the national discourse to overtake him. When batshit crazy people have passed up an entire basket of admirably batshit crazy politicians in order to lend their batshit crazy support to him, I think what you can take from that is that Ron Paul is the chosen King of the Batshit Crazy. Objecting to the Iraq War does not him worthy of celebration, it merely makes him consistent.
-END-
Kurt Riley I am an ardent atheist, libertarian, and supporter of equal rights for all.
Ron Paul is getting my vote. I may not agree with him on some of his moral stances, but he is the ONLY candidate who will shut down the Federal Reserve, repeal the Patriot Act, end the "War on Terror" and the War on Drugs. His 30-year Congressional record is solid. And he is the only hope for many people like me - 20-somethings who are watching corporate fascism continue to trample the Constitution.
-END-
Alex Summers I've had a problem with every election and all the candidates since I was knee high to a grasshopper. It's not so much that I don't trust the nominees.. It's that I don't trust the "system" they are going into, and I absolutely don't trust the brainwashing that happens before their first state of the union speech. :P
-END-
Brad Bullock My two cents for the moment (quoted): "It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:
--- 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.---
Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?)."
about an hour ago · Like.
---END---BEGIN WOLFGANG RESPONSE---
Wolfgang Mclain In response to the above quote by Brad Bullock I would like to point one of my favorite actions taken by a president.
When President Obama first came into office his advisors on the war came to him with the same bullshit, albeit slightly altered for the situation, they had been giving the other administration. He sent them back with a rebuke to re work it. When they came back again it was different bullshit, but still bullshit. He sent themn back with a kick in the ass. Finally they came back to them with less bullshit and more tactical options and strategic fact. He gave them a pat on the head and a cookie.
The point is that we should not be afraid of our governement, our government should be shitting bricks over what we might think and knowing that when they fuck up we will know about it so they might as well hold themselves accountable in the first place. But they aren't. Because thousands of people are willing to think of their government as inevitable in their lives. The lesser of two evils rationale is the rationale that says I am hopeless in the face of my compatriots and in the face of any authority, even that authority that is given by myself.
27 minutes ago · Like.
-END-
Wolfgang Mclain Personally, I think we would all be better off if some nutjob vigilantes started a cult to shoot (but not kill) any senator (not any congressman, judical authority, or president; just the senators) who broke the constitution, lied to their constituents, or showed ignorance of what the hell has actually happened in the last 200 years regarding this government (ie they have not read the Federalist or Wealth of Nations or the Consitution or the Bill of Rights, or the Ammendments, or the accurate history of the Civil Rights movement, or ANYTHING ELSE THEY ARE FUCKING WITH)
I would feel so much safer with rationale vigiliantes then I would an unchecked legislation. AT LEAST ITS A STEP UP.
21 minutes ago · Like.
-END
Wolfgang Mclain Honestly, I care less about the individuals and more about the system itself. Whatever fuck ups they make are going to be covered up with another set of fuck ups when the political shift reciprocates because we realize what a terrible idea that was. That is the way it has been. Unforunately that system has left us with convolution, inefficiency, an intolerable length of time before we settle into something people agree on (even though they were willing to kill eachother over it before), and numerous laws and policies that have been fucking us up for nigh on a century because of (if we ignore the morality of them) the conflicting overlap and complications they cause.
So who gives a fuck about Ron Paul? Yea, he is a nutter! But fuck me if that is the primary problem we are faced with! Every one of the radicals would be willing to strip away everything america stands for with something or another and moderates can hardly get anything done because of radicals stonewalling them or a general lack of direction.
I am not saying there is no reason to vote, I am saying almost every facor of this system is fucked up and we don't need an electorate body we need a vast body of whistle blowers and cell organized reformist citizens who stop any more laws being passed before figure out what the hell we wanted to do in the past!
I am not saying we need a charismatic leader or two to reform America, I am saying we need less of them and more rationale citizens (say thousands of them) taking an organized approach to a concerted effort to figure out what is wrong and how we can fix it for the next two years before we do any other radical bits.
Special attention being payed to the professors who have spent their entire lives working on this stuff with nobody paying them any bloody mind. Also, attention to the people who actually have to work with it like, and notice I am not including congressmen, teachers and doctors. Plumbers, bloody entrepeneurs and advocate lawyers.
If you don't want to read about Ron Paul then scroll down to my response, please.
Editted: Bold words represent the names of those posting, I have added the word "end" to the end of each post. Should be easier to read.
I apologize for the length but I felt I should include some the preceding comments so people knew what I was responding to and because I thought the things that were said are interesting.
---END-----------------------BEGIN POSTS----------------------------------------
Can this John Lennon get more fans than Jesus? OK, so you like Paul because he doesn't want to go to war.
But the reason we've been stuck with such corrupt fear mongers for so long is because too many people are voting based on the faith of themselves and the Pols, instead of taking the time to learn what they're actually voting for.
Paul wants to tear down the separation of church and state. Wont that just lead to even more war mongering and bad politics down the road? Wont that just undo all the progress we have made as a -thinking- secular nation?
-
Can this John Lennon get more fans than Jesus? Referring to things like this quote:
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
Ron Paul, December 2003
----------------------
And these bills that he tried to pass, doing things leaving it up to states to have school led prayer and so on:
http://hdl.loc.gov/†‹loc.uscongress/†‹legislation.105hjres78
http://hdl.loc.gov/†‹loc.uscongress/†‹legislation.109hamdt278
http://en.wikipedia.org/†‹wiki/†‹Legislation_sponsored_by_Ro†‹n_Paul#We_the_People_Act
-END-
Shayne Felberg Ron Paul is so caught up with the way America used to be that he completely disregards the changes that have gradually taken place the last 200+ years.
Ron Paul wants to abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, public education, the post office, public parks, public streets 7 HIGHWAYS, the EPA, OSHA, USDA, FDA, etc. He wants the government to ONLY do the military. He wants all else privatized, so it would all cost you more, and deregulation of all industries.. He is against government regulation of any kind. Paul has said more than once he believes the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional. The USA would quickly become a third world country if he had his way.
Paul has built a loyal following of people attracted to the politician’s libertarian stance on constitutional rights and opposition to the war in Iraq. [...] During Paul’s rally, he proposed getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, Selective Service, income tax and the Federal Reserve, and withdrawing from the United Nations.
[...] The two biggest issues facing America at this time are the Iraq War and the illegal alien problem. Ron Paul has called for an end to “birth-right citizenship” also known as “anchor babies.” Ron Paul has also called for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Of all the candidates, Paul is the only one who is “two for two” on these key issues.
It is a laundry list of the "serious" policy discussions of the craziest far-far right militia movements. Abolishing the Federal Reserve? Abandoning the U.N.? Eliminating the income tax?Anchor babies?
For a bit more depth, let's go to a commenter on the "white nationalist" website Stormfront(again, no link but it can easily be found by doing a search):
[Ron Paul] is the least toxic candidate by leaps and bounds. On issues particularly important to White Nationalists or the Pro-White in general, of all of the mainstream candidates:
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of "Hate Crime" Laws.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Amnesty and "open border" movements.
-- Ron Paul wants to end birth-right citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of welfare programs that among other things, would redistribute the income of White families into the hands of lazy non-Whites.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Globalism and all attempts to create a North American Union.
-- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of military support and foreign aid to countries like Israel.
-- Ron Paul is the least likely to support government crackdowns on Pro-White organizations, and the most likely to veto such measures.
That's why, as a "libertarian", has the support of so many people decent folks wouldn't be caught dead with. Because he is, in the wink-wink nod-nod rhetoric of the far-far right, thatkind of libertarian. The isolationist, tribal, to hell with the rest of you kind of libertarian. The kind that is diametrically opposed to equality, to progress, to social responsibility, to national responsibility, and to the very notion of the shared common good.
And this is the figure that can garner support from many otherwise supposedly moderate libertarians? For what reason? Is Ron Paul simply the Sanjaya of the Republican campaign season, or are people so invested in a single Republican politician that recognizes the Iraq War as boondoggle that they are resigned to tolerate the advocacy of anything -- the proposed destruction of social progress in all other areas -- in order to reward the politician for that single stance?
Paul is a colorful figure, fine. But it is high time for the national discourse to overtake him. When batshit crazy people have passed up an entire basket of admirably batshit crazy politicians in order to lend their batshit crazy support to him, I think what you can take from that is that Ron Paul is the chosen King of the Batshit Crazy. Objecting to the Iraq War does not him worthy of celebration, it merely makes him consistent.
-END-
Kurt Riley I am an ardent atheist, libertarian, and supporter of equal rights for all.
Ron Paul is getting my vote. I may not agree with him on some of his moral stances, but he is the ONLY candidate who will shut down the Federal Reserve, repeal the Patriot Act, end the "War on Terror" and the War on Drugs. His 30-year Congressional record is solid. And he is the only hope for many people like me - 20-somethings who are watching corporate fascism continue to trample the Constitution.
-END-
Alex Summers I've had a problem with every election and all the candidates since I was knee high to a grasshopper. It's not so much that I don't trust the nominees.. It's that I don't trust the "system" they are going into, and I absolutely don't trust the brainwashing that happens before their first state of the union speech. :P
-END-
Brad Bullock My two cents for the moment (quoted): "It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:
--- 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.---
Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?)."
about an hour ago · Like.
---END---BEGIN WOLFGANG RESPONSE---
Wolfgang Mclain In response to the above quote by Brad Bullock I would like to point one of my favorite actions taken by a president.
When President Obama first came into office his advisors on the war came to him with the same bullshit, albeit slightly altered for the situation, they had been giving the other administration. He sent them back with a rebuke to re work it. When they came back again it was different bullshit, but still bullshit. He sent themn back with a kick in the ass. Finally they came back to them with less bullshit and more tactical options and strategic fact. He gave them a pat on the head and a cookie.
The point is that we should not be afraid of our governement, our government should be shitting bricks over what we might think and knowing that when they fuck up we will know about it so they might as well hold themselves accountable in the first place. But they aren't. Because thousands of people are willing to think of their government as inevitable in their lives. The lesser of two evils rationale is the rationale that says I am hopeless in the face of my compatriots and in the face of any authority, even that authority that is given by myself.
27 minutes ago · Like.
-END-
Wolfgang Mclain Personally, I think we would all be better off if some nutjob vigilantes started a cult to shoot (but not kill) any senator (not any congressman, judical authority, or president; just the senators) who broke the constitution, lied to their constituents, or showed ignorance of what the hell has actually happened in the last 200 years regarding this government (ie they have not read the Federalist or Wealth of Nations or the Consitution or the Bill of Rights, or the Ammendments, or the accurate history of the Civil Rights movement, or ANYTHING ELSE THEY ARE FUCKING WITH)
I would feel so much safer with rationale vigiliantes then I would an unchecked legislation. AT LEAST ITS A STEP UP.
21 minutes ago · Like.
-END
Wolfgang Mclain Honestly, I care less about the individuals and more about the system itself. Whatever fuck ups they make are going to be covered up with another set of fuck ups when the political shift reciprocates because we realize what a terrible idea that was. That is the way it has been. Unforunately that system has left us with convolution, inefficiency, an intolerable length of time before we settle into something people agree on (even though they were willing to kill eachother over it before), and numerous laws and policies that have been fucking us up for nigh on a century because of (if we ignore the morality of them) the conflicting overlap and complications they cause.
So who gives a fuck about Ron Paul? Yea, he is a nutter! But fuck me if that is the primary problem we are faced with! Every one of the radicals would be willing to strip away everything america stands for with something or another and moderates can hardly get anything done because of radicals stonewalling them or a general lack of direction.
I am not saying there is no reason to vote, I am saying almost every facor of this system is fucked up and we don't need an electorate body we need a vast body of whistle blowers and cell organized reformist citizens who stop any more laws being passed before figure out what the hell we wanted to do in the past!
I am not saying we need a charismatic leader or two to reform America, I am saying we need less of them and more rationale citizens (say thousands of them) taking an organized approach to a concerted effort to figure out what is wrong and how we can fix it for the next two years before we do any other radical bits.
Special attention being payed to the professors who have spent their entire lives working on this stuff with nobody paying them any bloody mind. Also, attention to the people who actually have to work with it like, and notice I am not including congressmen, teachers and doctors. Plumbers, bloody entrepeneurs and advocate lawyers.
0
Dear OP,
Have you ever heard the word "succinct?" Your post was so long, it killed
part of my soul. However, I read it, and I have some thoughts.
America's secularist influences are improving the country by taking religion out of the picture for cases wherein religious bias can lead to problems. Although a majority of America is some form of Christian, Christianity has no right to be placed on a pedestal; if anything, it should be demoted to the low levels of legislative power and respect others religions, such as Islam, and the law should treat it no differently as a source of authority or morality.
Have you ever heard the word "succinct?" Your post was so long, it killed
part of my soul. However, I read it, and I have some thoughts.
America's secularist influences are improving the country by taking religion out of the picture for cases wherein religious bias can lead to problems. Although a majority of America is some form of Christian, Christianity has no right to be placed on a pedestal; if anything, it should be demoted to the low levels of legislative power and respect others religions, such as Islam, and the law should treat it no differently as a source of authority or morality.
0
I have my own reasons and personal experience to believe that the separation of church and state prevents a lot of awful, zealous individuals from doing a lot of awful, zealous things. Many public schools already have this issue of conservative values vs. legitimate education. I firmly feel that the mere technicality keeps a lot of people from crossing a certain line. It's a line I'd like to keep, thankyouverymuch.
Let me tell you.. christian schools aren't fun. Being forced to bow your head and utter insincere words because someone else believes differently than you do.. is not fun. It sucks. And I'm sorry.. but I'll leave the second my country becomes a hypocritical contradiction. We're supposed to be the home of the free, goddamnit.. And I want it in writing.
This all being said.. I sincerely thank you for bringing this to my attention. I didn't know any of this information before today, so thank you for enlightening me.
[size=8]
P.S.
We're fucked in terms of presidential candidates.. is what I took away from this.[/h]
Let me tell you.. christian schools aren't fun. Being forced to bow your head and utter insincere words because someone else believes differently than you do.. is not fun. It sucks. And I'm sorry.. but I'll leave the second my country becomes a hypocritical contradiction. We're supposed to be the home of the free, goddamnit.. And I want it in writing.
This all being said.. I sincerely thank you for bringing this to my attention. I didn't know any of this information before today, so thank you for enlightening me.
[size=8]
P.S.
We're fucked in terms of presidential candidates.. is what I took away from this.[/h]
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
First:I have to agree with Randumb's and Lollikittie's remarks about separation of church and state: it's there for a reason and removing it would pave the way for the very tyranny of the majority that has sent the Puritans fleeing from Europe in the first place.
Second: Ron Paul is every bit as bad as he's made out to be. The current political system is seriously fucked up, especially since it's being controlled by big business.
His solution? Smash the machines and hope everything turns out all right... Do I need to go into detail why this is the worst thing that could happen?
Government is not just some bureaucracy that "interferes" with our lives. It's the embodiment of the people's will, and the it is the government that enforces that will.
Without it, the public will be at the "tender" mercies of corporations and all figures of authority as there won't be a system in place to keep them in check.
The States can't be that check, as they are already miles deep in the pockets of corporations through debt and are just as much corrupt as federal government.
Third: The proposed "expert" government is a *very* bad idea. Why? Because "experts" have already taken over the government as is. They don't make decisions. They frame the very context of decisions... which is a lot greater power.
Most citizens like to believe that the push and pull of political processes will filter out bad, extreme, and untested ideas. But economists have become the only social scientists with a seat at the policy table, and their expert status is above challenge. This is a peculiar, and not sufficiently recognized, aggrandizement of the economist’s role at the expense of democratic processes or even input from other disciplines. That in and of itself distorts policy formation.
Economists have shaped the assumptions of what the goals of policy are, namely maximum growth consistent with moderate inflation and unemployment. And “growth” means rising output, most commonly measured by gross domestic product, or GDP, which measures all the goods and services produced in an economy in a given year.
GDP was never meant to serve as a proxy for social welfare. Indeed, the Nobel laureate who was one of its main creators, Simon Kuznets, warned, “The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income.” Yet it has become an article of faith, particularly among politicians, that growth in output is tantamount to improving standards of living.
Simple income or output measures mean that anything that leads to more spending looks like a boon, whether it really is or not. For instance, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, with its sizable remediation costs, litigation, and expenses incurred by the media in covering the disaster, boosted Alaska’s GDP more than if the shipment had arrived in port safely. Similarly, if someone were to discover a cheap cure for cancer, it would probably lower GDP due to the loss of income to doctors, hospitals, and drug companies. Another failing is that GDP fails to capture non-income based measures of progress, such as social stability. As Robert F. Kennedy said, “It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
In addition, many economists would support programs that led to higher GDP, and not trouble themselves too deeply if the result was that Bill Gates became richer and everyone else was less well off. While that example may seem extreme, rising income inequality has been rationalized as an inevitable and acceptable outcome of lower trade barriers and the application of technology that promotes overall growth. It is, of course, impossible to know whether other policy mixes might have produced the same or higher levels of overall growth, while simultaneously ensuring more equitable distributions of results.
My Conclusion: The only cure for the various ails of the system is direct participation in democracy by the *whole* population. Not just voting, but discussion of political choice in daily life, simultaneous participation in politics at the local and federal levels.
We already have the technology that makes this possible: The Internet. You could directly express your views on various laws and policies and could contribute your own ideas to the mix. Why do we still insist on rule by an elected minority - who are elected in a fraudulent manner! - when we could rule ourselves directly?
Second: Ron Paul is every bit as bad as he's made out to be. The current political system is seriously fucked up, especially since it's being controlled by big business.
His solution? Smash the machines and hope everything turns out all right... Do I need to go into detail why this is the worst thing that could happen?
Government is not just some bureaucracy that "interferes" with our lives. It's the embodiment of the people's will, and the it is the government that enforces that will.
Without it, the public will be at the "tender" mercies of corporations and all figures of authority as there won't be a system in place to keep them in check.
The States can't be that check, as they are already miles deep in the pockets of corporations through debt and are just as much corrupt as federal government.
Third: The proposed "expert" government is a *very* bad idea. Why? Because "experts" have already taken over the government as is. They don't make decisions. They frame the very context of decisions... which is a lot greater power.
Yves Smith - Econned wrote...
Most citizens like to believe that the push and pull of political processes will filter out bad, extreme, and untested ideas. But economists have become the only social scientists with a seat at the policy table, and their expert status is above challenge. This is a peculiar, and not sufficiently recognized, aggrandizement of the economist’s role at the expense of democratic processes or even input from other disciplines. That in and of itself distorts policy formation.
Economists have shaped the assumptions of what the goals of policy are, namely maximum growth consistent with moderate inflation and unemployment. And “growth” means rising output, most commonly measured by gross domestic product, or GDP, which measures all the goods and services produced in an economy in a given year.
GDP was never meant to serve as a proxy for social welfare. Indeed, the Nobel laureate who was one of its main creators, Simon Kuznets, warned, “The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income.” Yet it has become an article of faith, particularly among politicians, that growth in output is tantamount to improving standards of living.
Simple income or output measures mean that anything that leads to more spending looks like a boon, whether it really is or not. For instance, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, with its sizable remediation costs, litigation, and expenses incurred by the media in covering the disaster, boosted Alaska’s GDP more than if the shipment had arrived in port safely. Similarly, if someone were to discover a cheap cure for cancer, it would probably lower GDP due to the loss of income to doctors, hospitals, and drug companies. Another failing is that GDP fails to capture non-income based measures of progress, such as social stability. As Robert F. Kennedy said, “It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”
In addition, many economists would support programs that led to higher GDP, and not trouble themselves too deeply if the result was that Bill Gates became richer and everyone else was less well off. While that example may seem extreme, rising income inequality has been rationalized as an inevitable and acceptable outcome of lower trade barriers and the application of technology that promotes overall growth. It is, of course, impossible to know whether other policy mixes might have produced the same or higher levels of overall growth, while simultaneously ensuring more equitable distributions of results.
My Conclusion: The only cure for the various ails of the system is direct participation in democracy by the *whole* population. Not just voting, but discussion of political choice in daily life, simultaneous participation in politics at the local and federal levels.
We already have the technology that makes this possible: The Internet. You could directly express your views on various laws and policies and could contribute your own ideas to the mix. Why do we still insist on rule by an elected minority - who are elected in a fraudulent manner! - when we could rule ourselves directly?
0
Wordmangler2000 wrote...
Hi Wolfgang.As noted above, your post was difficult to read. I wasn't certain which words were yours and which were those of your FB correspondents.
I apologize for the misunderstandings regarding what I was saying, I have editted it so it is easier to tell.
In response to concerns about Ron Paul's actual postion, for the purposes of this conversation I am forced to respond to their statements. If you would like to clarify about Ron Paul please feel free to do so. The purpose of this post was not actually to bash on Ron Paul but rather to investigate the concerns expressed by everyone.
Specifically from my postings was the idea that the system we are using is flawed and how we might address this.
Randumb wrote...
Dear OP,Have you ever heard the word "succinct?" Your post was so long, it killed
part of my soul. However, I read it, and I have some thoughts.
I keep reading that as over powered, followed by operator.
In response to the idea of being succint here is a highlight of what I was saying, can't help you on summarizing the rest though. Again, the following quotes are all things I have said.
"The point is that we should not be afraid of our governement, our government should be shitting bricks over what we might think and knowing that when they fuck up we will know about it so they might as well hold themselves accountable in the first place. But they aren't. Because thousands of people are willing to think of their government as inevitable in their lives. The lesser of two evils rationale is the rationale that says I am hopeless in the face of my compatriots and in the face of any authority, even that authority that is given by myself." [No changing that paragraph really, sorry]
"Honestly, I care less about the individuals and more about the system itself. Whatever fuck ups they make are going to be covered up with another set of fuck ups when the political shift reciprocates because we realize what a terrible idea that was. [This has left us with...] numerous laws and policies that have been fucking us up for nigh on a century because of (if we ignore the morality of them) the conflicting overlap and complications they cause."
"I am not saying there is no reason to vote, I am saying almost every facor of this system is fucked up and we don't need an electorate body we need a vast body of whistle blowers and cell organized reformist citizens who stop any more laws being passed before figure out what the hell we wanted to do in the past!"
"we need [...] more rationale citizens (say thousands of them) taking an organized approach to a concerted effort to figure out what is wrong and how we can fix it for the next two years before we do any other radical bits"
Flaser wrote...
We already have the technology that makes this possible: The Internet. You could directly express your views on various laws and policies and could contribute your own ideas to the mix. Why do we still insist on rule by an elected minority - who are elected in a fraudulent manner! - when we could rule ourselves directly?The main problems I see with that are mob rule, spam, and decentralization. There are ways to make it work better, but this is true for the current system as well. I do not discount the use of communication and input, though. I actually think that it is vital to provide an easy and effective means of communication and critique for voters and something the government has failed to provide.
It is not even as though it would be hard to make something like this. In fact, a few years ago I drafted an outline of what a website like this would look like.