Ron Paul: Truthdigger of All Time

Hi, Billy the Dik,

Thank you for a thoughtful post, with no name-calling. Of course I disagree, but it nice to see that people with differing political and philosophical viewpoints can have a civil discussion.

I am not convinced that syndicalism on the “revolutionary” model you speak of would, in the final analysis, end up any different from syndicalism on the fascist model. Any time you put such tremendous power in the hands of a government/business “partnership,” you invite corruption, back-room deals, kickbacks—you name it. I have usually found that, when people speak of instituting such-and-such a system for the benefit of “the people,” it usually ends up being to the benefit of “my people,” which, in the final analysis, means, “those with connections” or “those with pull,” or “those who already own the businesses.”

Best Wishes,
Paolo

Hi, Billy the Dik,

Actually, I have read Marx, Ricardo, and Adam Smith. You can add to that von Mises and Hayek. Let me see if I can elevate the level of this discussion without engaging in personal invective.

You bring out the old complaint about “perfect” competition, which is a way of criticizing free markets by demanding of them that they do the impossible. No one, least of all me, claims the free market leads to “perfection.”

In the “perfect” competition model, all purveyors of goods have the same products, and offer them to consumers who “bid down” the price to the lowest possible level. This, I submit, is a fantasy world, and would not be desirable anyway.

You see, the free market, far from producing the same products to be “bid down” to the lowest possible price, instead offers a huge variety of products at a wide range of prices. The consumers then choose products, not on price alone, but also on criteria such as product quality, durability, suitability for their own individual needs, and so forth.

Another requirement for “perfect” competition, as explained in today’s economics textbooks, is “perfect” consumer knowledge—that is, all consumers somehow know exactly which business is offering the lowest price (the texts, to keep it simple, usually discuss price only, rather than bring in the other factors cited in the previous paragraph). Yet another requirement is that the costs of getting the product to each consumer is exactly the same, whether the consumer lives next door to the business, or across the country. 

You say we need the government—the only true monopoly—to intervene and enforce this unworkable and undesirable model of “perfect” competition. In doing so, you embrace syndicalism, which is something Mussolini also embraced wholeheartedly, even using the term.

Advocates of government control of the economy, whether it is on the fascist, “syndicalist” model, or on the communist model, do not hold up “perfection” as their standard. The more the government intervenes and controls the economy, the fewer choices consumers have, even if the price is always the same and very low.

I remember visiting East Berlin when it was still under communist “the government runs all businesses” control. The price of bread was set at a few cents per loaf. Isn’t that wonderful?

Trouble was—there was never any bread.

You also said that the government is the people. No, it isn’t. In the syndicalist model, the government works hand in glove with established corporate interests. The people pretty much have to accept whatever is offered, which tends to be poor quality products, shortages, and a narrow range of choices, if any choices are available at all.

Shenonymous said: “Those of you who want to keep the federal government out of “our” lives are delusional. You want a civilized society but are too cheap to pay for it.”

Oh dear, how distressing it is when people accept every word Ms. Pringle taught them in their government school’s 8th grade civics class. Let me express a dissenting, libertarian view. 

The premise behind this statement is that “civilization” comes from an entity we call the “federal government.”

The exact opposite is true. The federal government is a force-wielding institution. Like all governments, it only excels in two things: killing people and destroying private property.

“Civilization” results when free people, of their own accord, come together and trade property and labor to everyone’s mutual advantage. That is, the free market.

In our current system (mercantilism, also known as corporatism or fascism) larger businesses discover they can entrench their positions by squeezing out their smaller, upstart competitors by demanding “regulation” from the government.

Leftists usually understand, correctly, that corporations wield too much power because they are able to afford protection money (quaintly called “campaign contributions” or “lobbying”). The solution,however, is not to make the federal government even more powerful; this simply invites more of the same.

Big corporations LOVE big government, because big government is their ally. What they really hate and fear is small, upstart competitors who can beat them easily by offering better service, better product, or better prices.

Those of you who want to keep the federal government out of “our” lives are delusional. You want a civilized society but are too cheap to pay for it. You want to make lots of money and have pleasures on the backs and sweat of others. You want anarchy which is destructive to a social structure called a country. No form of government works unless its members cooperate for the common good. The common good takes an economy and egalitarian treatment of the members of that social structure. That kind of legitimate institution necessitates laws to insure egalitarian treatment and to avoid elitism. It is pretty simple. Marxist governments are not excluded from these governing laws, but neither are democracies and authoritarian monarchies. Governments fail because the people fail to keep their system of rules. Religions don’t fail. People fail by not keeping the basic decent premises of their religions.

Corporations have become the evil empire, and GWB represents the evil emporer but this is only because the people are seduced by their own avarice and complacency. The voracious need to “have cake,” read iPods, 100” TV screens, BMWs, Nikes, filet mignon, vacations on the French Riviera. These are just metaphors for all the excesses the selfish always seem to “need.” These in themselves are not evil. But giving up altruistic rationality for their porcine appetites to have them is. If self-centeredness, self-gratification, egocentrism is desired, then that individual needs to get out of the country. Let’s see how long that kind of person can survive.

Hi Skruff,

You said, “The British ran a number of businesses with varying degrees of success. There phone company was far more useful, but far less profitable than those which followed.”

This was in response to my observation that government ownership of businesses tends to be inefficient and riddled with corruption, as seen in the former Soviet Union.

The British also have a long history of government-owned businesses that were rife with corruption. Perhaps the most notorious was the British East India Company, which was granted an exclusive monopoly to handle trade with India. The history of ruthless exploitation of India by this pseudo “free market” company illustrates my point.

You might recall in the move “Gandhi” that natives Indians were forbidden by law to make salt from the sea, as this was the exclusive legal franchise of the English. Since salt is absolutely essential for food preservation in a hot climate like India’s, this franchise gave the Brits a terrible power over the natives. 

Established business interests in England approached the government and were granted this exclusive franchise—another example of “the invisible handshake.”

I don’t have the background to comment on the British phone company, though it would surprise me if the current phone companies over there are examples of “free markets.” More likely, they are government agencies once removed, somewhat like public utilities here the USA.

American phone companies, though hardly an example of unfettered free enterprise, have certainly made remarkable technological strides since the breakup of the government-backed Bell monopoly. As evidence, see the incredible advances in cell phone technology, along with truly dramatic drops in prices for both cell phones and air time.

I reiterate my original point: both Republicans and Democrats call for more “partnership” between government and business. That is, they call for corporatism backed by the power of the state. This is essentially the same system Mussolini advocated: fascism.

But the solution is not to have the government take over private businesses. That just leads to more of the same, in spades.

Again, I feel the “Left” has a better understanding of this than the “Right.” You cannot give any group total control of a major business (or an entire economy) and not expect corruption. This holds true for systems in which the government owns everything (Soviet Communism) as well as systems in which the government grants exclusive favors like monopoly privileges to favored businesses (Fascism, mercantilism, or corporatism).

Ron Paul looks to be the most honorable and sure footed candidate. He’s got my vote and I never thought I would vote Republican. We need someone who will actively end the war in Iraq and reinstate fiscal responsibility. My generation is about to inherit this mess, and I trust Ron Paul to start the clean up.

Ron Paul: Truthdigger of the Millennium

Allow me, as a libertarian, to clear up a few points about what is often called “the free market.”

Republicans and Democrats both oppose the free market in any meaningful sense. Instead, they support a mixed economy system in which the government doles out favors to certain businesses in exchange for political support and campaign contributions.

You may call this system “the invisible handshake.” But don’t call it the “free market.”

You can compare today’s ruling class—both Republican and Democrat—to prostitutes. That comparison, however, is insulting to the prostitutes.

Republicans and Democrats both favor a system in which the government runs a protection racket, locking out small competitors who might challenge the supremacy of established interests.

The favors dealt out by the government mafiosi class are legion. Tariffs and import quotas “protect” inefficient American companies against more efficient foreign competitors. Government “commissions” that writetheir own rules about how businesses should run themselves are staffed by—who else?—representatives from those businesses. Professional licensure laws protect many practitioners against unwanted competition (not only doctors and lawyers, but also businesses like hair styling, flower arranging, home building—you name it).

This is not a “free market.”

Those on the left seem to have some vague sense of this when they condemn the “corporate system.” True enough: the corporations of course go to the head of the line in the “favors in exchange for contributions” game. They have the most dough to ante up.

The left’s solution is to keep the same corrupt, gigantic government apparatus, but just put “their” people in charge of the system, allegedly on behalf of a vague concept called “the people.” (Which people? Their people?).

Remember, my friends on the left: absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Sometimes, the left even calls for the government to take over businesses outright. To see how well this works, take a look at the history of the Soviet Union.

My feeling is that there is much more potential growth for libertarianism from the so-called “left” side of the political spectrum, than from the so-called “right.” The left at least seems to understand (perhaps inconsistently) that foreign military interventionism results in “blowback.” The left has at least some concept that war should be avoided unless you are actually attacked (or are in imminent danger of attack). And the “left” seems to have some understanding of the corporation/government “invisible handshake” system.

The “right” (with a few commendable exceptions) generally does not understand these concepts whatsoever.

Common folk need to be very careful what piece of political bling they start following, Libertarians are zealots of another stripe, sort of like the Pied Piper story where the children disappear forever! Ron Paul sounds glitzy on Corporate Power, the Bush War in Iraw, sort of like Wolf in Sheep’s clothing???  But look at the entire agenda of both Libertarians and Republicans (I mean what other party would take a chameleon Libertarian? They are not that far apart). Sort of like that other Republican hiding under Democratic clothing, Joe Lieberman.  Come on, get a grip.  You who want to stick bumper stickers all over the place ought to peel the one that’s covering your mind.  Truth is a good many Americans are so tired of the garbage that has been coming from our government for the last six years that they are numb to reality and are willing to listen to any scheister. And what’s with Jon Stewart???  There are some on this post that have a very clear idea of what’s going on, so there is hope!

Yahoo Search Engine

I like Ron Paul and have seen him on Bill Maher. But I would not vote for him even as a third party candidate. We can’t afford another repeat of 2000. At one time (Goldwater era), his views were pre-immenent in the GOP. But when LBJ signed the Civil rights act, he created Reagan Democrats overnight. Now we have a whole group of Republicans voting against their own economic self interest in the name of pro-life. If it were up to Republican’s you would never see an increase in the minimum wage. Of course they would try to eliminate corporate income taxes, go to a regressive flat tax,eliminate the estate tax, and make another run at dimanteling the FDR social legacy which has protected the less fortunate for the last 75 years. And forget about any improvements to our health care under Republicans - They want to use the same free market forces that have been ripping us off. Notice that last night, none of the Republican candidates could give a good answer as to whey our prescription drug prices are so high compared to the rest of the world.

Ron Paul is an unabashed Libertarian.  He ran for POTUS as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988, garnering a whopping 0.47 percent of the popular vote.  Progressives need to tread lightly cozying up to people such as Paul simply because they agree on some issues.  “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a weak basis for a friendship.

“I don’t see any evidence that 9/11 was an inside job” is Ron Paul’s intelligent way of saying, ‘I know there is evidence that the Bush Administration knew about 9/11 (different from planning it) but I can’t come out and say it because I will be labeled as a “conspiracy theorist,” a “nut,” and would lose respect of many voters.’

Ron Paul is smart, he knows he has to lay low on that subject.

I like Ron Paul, but I didn’t like his stance on having corporations run Medicare and other essential government agencies. Maybe he has a plan for running them like non-profit corporations? I don’t know.

He’s absolutely correct in doing away with Homeland Security and the IRS. He’s against the Federal Reserve System as well.

His stance on stopping government from intruding in our private lives is right on.

After the nightmare we’re in now, if he got in, he’d be like a God!

See Ron Paul in this Google video:
America: Freedom to Fascism

Ron Paul has the right position in his opposition to the Iraq “War” but that’s his only correct position.  Anyone who believes, as he does, that market forces are the best thing to rely upon, is obviously blind to today’s America.  Patriotism has been replaced with profit margin as the sole criterion for progress.  With Paul, we might get out of Iraq but America would continue on its downward spiral.

Ron Paul, because of his position on the Iraq war, seems to be winning the hearts of some liberals.  It should not be forgotten, however, that he is a favorite of the John Birch Society.
People on the left, who like what he is saying against Bush and the war,  will be appalled when they learn about his domestic agenda. 
I am surprised that Jon Stewart gave him such fawning treatment.