PDA

View Full Version : How to lose a Ron Paul vote!!!




fedup100
08-30-2007, 08:45 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html

I couldn't believe this piece on Lew Rockwell. I can tell you this, if # 10 on his list is supported by Ron Paul, I will not vote for him.

Neither will thousands of patriots in this country that understand that no government is going to put a gps system on them, control where they travel and then send them a monthly bill.

This will hurt Mr. Paul beyond measure if he does not reject this openly and swiftly.

The GOD of glory has made me a free person and that includes the right to travel freely, all else is to exchange one Big Brother for another.

ZackM
08-30-2007, 08:52 PM
I think you misread it.

DAY TEN: The interstate highways reopen as private businesses. Road entrepreneurs price travel according to consumer demand. Using modern technology, drivers get bills once a month. Credit risks – and drunks and dangerous drivers – aren't allowed on the road. Non-drivers no longer subsidize car owners.

Notice the roads are owned by private business. There was absolutely no suggestion of government involvement whatsoever.

FluffyUnbound
08-30-2007, 08:53 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html

I couldn't believe this piece on Lew Rockwell. I can tell you this, if # 10 on his list is supported by Ron Paul, I will not vote for him.

Neither will thousands of patriots in this country that understand that no government is going to put a gps system on them, control where they travel and then send them a monthly bill.

This will hurt Mr. Paul beyond measure if he does not reject this openly and swiftly.

The GOD of glory has made me a free person and that includes the right to travel freely, all else is to exchange one Big Brother for another.

If the highways were privatized, you wouldn't HAVE to use EZpass. You could just wait in line to pay a toll if you insisted. I think the inclusion of a "fast and easy" sounding technological billing system is meant to make privatizing roadways sound simple, and not intended to mark you with the number of the beast or anything.

MsDoodahs
08-30-2007, 08:54 PM
Reread it.

Interstates would not be handled by the gov't, they'd be handled by private entities.

1000-points-of-fright
08-30-2007, 08:56 PM
The GOD of glory has made me a free person and that includes the right to travel freely, all else is to exchange one Big Brother for another.

Y'know I hear this all the time. "I have the God given right to travel freely". Yes, you do but that right does not entitle you to any and every mode of transportation. You have the right to walk. You have the right to buy a car, but that doesn't mean you can drive it on my property without my permission.

This really has nothing to do with the OP. The prevalent interpretation of the right to travel just bugs me.

constituent
08-30-2007, 08:56 PM
then what's the problem with the TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR?

Green Mountain Boy
08-30-2007, 08:58 PM
That's actually what's beginning to happen now at a greater and greater rate. Big foreign (and domestic) companies are buying pieces of infrastructure like highways, turnpikes and bridges.

constituent
08-30-2007, 08:59 PM
I love that credit risks wouldn't be allowed...

uh yea, so all you piss ants that can't pay your bills can just f* off. here, suck on my exhaust pipe.


i do say, good form mr. rockwell. would you like another crumpet?

im_a_pepper
08-30-2007, 08:59 PM
That piece is cited from another article published 16 years ago and is not necessarily Ron's plan at all. It should have been something we started back then. I'm sure most of this plan has to be adjusted to fit our current situations, social and technical, that have changed. I'm pretty sure it was meant to sound "radical".

BuddyRey
08-30-2007, 09:17 PM
The most important tenet of my personal, political philosophy is that corporatism is just as dangerous as Statism. If private interests can take over public works like roads/tolls, etc. and leby unfair taxes, then it's no better than state or local government levying unfair taxes against its citizenry. I urge all patriots to say no to Fascism, just as you would say no to Socialism.

hard@work
08-30-2007, 09:17 PM
I don't see how I could tolerate privitized roads, I already disagree heavily with EZ Pass.

SewrRatt
08-30-2007, 09:28 PM
I don't see how I could tolerate privitized roads, I already disagree heavily with EZ Pass.

It's helpful to remember that any private entity would have an incentive to make their roads tolerable, if not pleasant. Without government protection, they could and would be replaced if they were providing a bad service. Government has no such incentive.

Oddball
08-30-2007, 09:30 PM
I don't see how I could tolerate privitized roads, I already disagree heavily with EZ Pass.EZ Pass and other such toll schemes aren't private roads. They're a new way for gubmint to make peeps pay for not being PC by car pooling.

Spike Kojima
08-30-2007, 09:39 PM
The GOD of glory has made me a free person and that includes the right to travel freely, all else is to exchange one Big Brother for another.

Jeez are you guys so eager to throw Ron under the bus for one article that doesn't even mention his name once.
I think he has earned a bit more than that.

recess
08-30-2007, 10:00 PM
If you go to Lewrockwell.com and look under the "Ron Paul File" and under "Articles about Ron Paul on LRC" I think it links Ron Paul to those Ideas in the article which i think could hurt him in the long run.When Ron Paul starts rocking the primaries the MSM will try to smear him as an extremist with some of the views that are expressed in this artcle. I mean they have already tried to do it with the racism and earmark shit. I think stuff like this could be a future liability to Ron Paul.

I think most americans would be very turned off by selling all public lands to the highest bidder and talk of privatizing all roads.

Slugg
08-30-2007, 11:05 PM
then what's the problem with the TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR?

The problem with the TTC (and the NAFTA super highway) is the fact that government is taking people's land to give it to private business. If it was 100% privatized, the companies would have to buy the land, and the people could say no if they wanted. Now, people can't say no. They can just take it.

Slugg
08-30-2007, 11:18 PM
The most important tenet of my personal, political philosophy is that corporatism is just as dangerous as Statism. If private interests can take over public works like roads/tolls, etc. and leby unfair taxes, then it's no better than state or local government levying unfair taxes against its citizenry. I urge all patriots to say no to Fascism, just as you would say no to Socialism.

If all interstate roads were privatized, what you would see is two things:
1) No eminent domain cases. Land used for roads would have to be purchased; and the land owner could say NO (this in my opinion is the biggest reason for getting the government out of interstate building)
2) Your interstates would be more useful. Instead of Government choosing the path of the interstate, companies could use cost analysis to decide the direction of a road. This will divert private roads to more useful areas (so you use them more). It will be more efficient and will only be paid by those who use it.



Corporatism cannot exist in a free market. Corporatism only exists if government protects the interest of corporations. Just imagine if we didn't bail out any big business. All the bad one's would be left by the wayside while the honest one's would continue. More importantly, with out government involvement, small/medium companies could provide true competition, this will undercut the corporations and prevent them from gaining too much power.

If our goal is to squash government and prevent an Oligarchy, then free market is the only option. Sometimes it sounds extreme, but it really works. There are literally MILLIONS of entrepreneurs who are not evil people, who want to provide honest goods and services, and who will contribute to society. These good people get squeezed out by over-regulation. So, only the dirty crummy entrepreneurs end up making it to the top. Shit floats.

If everyone had to compete at an equal level, only the honest would survive over the long haul.

drednot
08-30-2007, 11:19 PM
The most important tenet of my personal, political philosophy is that corporatism is just as dangerous as Statism. If private interests can take over public works like roads/tolls, etc. and leby unfair taxes, then it's no better than state or local government levying unfair taxes against its citizenry. I urge all patriots to say no to Fascism, just as you would say no to Socialism.

If you think private roads would be expensive, think about what you pay now:

Over 40 cents on every gallon of gas is taken by government! That's over ten times the profit margins of the oil companies per gallon! And in this case, you can't just switch to a cheaper route to work, there's no avoiding it.

All that gas tax is supposed to go toward road upkeep, but if you believe that you are beyond gullible.

Existing public roads shouldn't be turned over to big corporations (local community organizations should own them), but private firms should be allowed to build their own toll roads. I doubt that even the sleaziest corporations will be able to maneuver you into paying even 5 cents a gallon worth of tolls for road use.

If collections of nearby municipalities want to work together and require a shared EZ pass-like system for cheap, fast usage of their roads, I have no problem with that.

born2drv
08-30-2007, 11:23 PM
I love that credit risks wouldn't be allowed...

uh yea, so all you piss ants that can't pay your bills can just f* off. here, suck on my exhaust pipe.


i do say, good form mr. rockwell. would you like another crumpet?

uuuuh... no.... some other private entity will see a need for 40% of the population to use the road as well... and they'll just make a business of paying your bills for you and sending people to your house to break your legs if you don't pay and so forth ;)

Anti Federalist
08-30-2007, 11:36 PM
If nothing else, RP follows the Constitution, that should be clear.

Section 8 of the Constitution delegates the power to Congress to establish post roads.

The maintence of roads, waterways and such, to my mind, falls under the limited authority of Congress.

To sell off said roads to the highest foriegn bidder would be/is a, travesty.

I'd be pretty sure RP agrees.

libertarian4321
08-30-2007, 11:45 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html


[SIZE="4"]This will hurt Mr. Paul beyond measure if he does not reject this openly and swiftly.


I hate to keep saying this kind of thing, but some of you folks need to stop, breathe deep, and THINK before working yourselves into a frenzy over silly stuff like this.

(I was going to say "settle down, Beavis", but I was afraid that was too obscure a reference)

Just because "lew rockwell" posts something (a blog which, btw, is read by very few people outside the libertarian community- trust me, soccer moms and Joe Sixpack aren't running to the computer every day to see what "lew rockwell" has posted) it doesn't mean its Ron Paul's opinion.

Lew Rockwell is no more associated with the campaign than you or I are- therefore, Ron Paul no more needs to "disavow" lew rockwell's comments than he needs to disavow some of the goofy stuff on these forums.

Relax, breathe, focus on something that matters...

BrazilLuLa
08-31-2007, 12:00 AM
It's so easy to get carried away isn't it.

Your philosophy of taking a deep breath and recollecting is how wars are stopped before they start.

libertarianguy
08-31-2007, 01:05 AM
test

Pizza God
08-31-2007, 01:35 AM
That is a libertarian view, not exactly a Ron Paul view.

However, I could agree with almost all of it.

Roads should be paid for by gas taxes.

The Trans Texas road is using eminent domain to steal land from property owner who don't want to sell and then giving it to a Spanish company, who is represented by the Evil Rudy's law firm.

Blowback
08-31-2007, 01:42 AM
Does anyone really think that private industry (yes, even foriegners) could not maintain roads and bridges better than the government?

Bridges are falling down. I repeat, our bridges are freaking falling down with people on them. Our levees are shit. We don't have enough roads (traffic). The roads we do have are falling apart. Every government project costs 2x as much and takes 2x longer than private projects. I know this because I do construction consulting for governemnt entities.

Foriengers being able to buy our roads is just the result of the American government (who we elect or let get elected due to our apathy) letting them be our bankers to fund this war.

The funny thing is, they would probably run them just fine. At least better than the government. And if they don't, well, you have the freedom to use a different road owned by a competitor or go build your own road.. so go do that please cause there is a lot of freaking traffic here in Seattle and one of our main N-S arteries is about to fall down. Also, one of our E-W bridges needs to be replaced. And our monorail (lol), underground bus system, and light rail projects are all a boondoggle. Thanks government, for that.

ladyliberty
08-31-2007, 04:17 AM
If all interstate roads were privatized, what you would see is two things:
1) No eminent domain cases. Land used for roads would have to be purchased; and the land owner could say NO (this in my opinion is the biggest reason for getting the government out of interstate building)
2) Your interstates would be more useful. Instead of Government choosing the path of the interstate, companies could use cost analysis to decide the direction of a road. This will divert private roads to more useful areas (so you use them more). It will be more efficient and will only be paid by those who use it.

Corporatism cannot exist in a free market. Corporatism only exists if government protects the interest of corporations. Just imagine if we didn't bail out any big business. All the bad one's would be left by the wayside while the honest one's would continue. More importantly, with out government involvement, small/medium companies could provide true competition, this will undercut the corporations and prevent them from gaining too much power.

If our goal is to squash government and prevent an Oligarchy, then free market is the only option. Sometimes it sounds extreme, but it really works. There are literally MILLIONS of entrepreneurs who are not evil people, who want to provide honest goods and services, and who will contribute to society. These good people get squeezed out by over-regulation. So, only the dirty crummy entrepreneurs end up making it to the top. Shit floats.

If everyone had to compete at an equal level, only the honest would survive over the long haul.

This exactly how I understand the situation too. The end of emminent domain is a GOOD thing! People all over the state of Florida who have lived here ALL of their lives are being forced out of their homes through the illegal use of emminent domain - just because some fat cat politician has made a deal with some fat cat construction company they oust everyone from their very nice well kept homes just so they can put in a new highway that no onne wants or needs - and it is happening all over the state!

I think the highways would be better off if they were owned and maintained by contruction companies directly themselves. Then if there is a problem we know who to file the lawsuits against. If a bridge falls down and people are killed, we know somebody is going to go to jail!

The good construction companies would benefit from their labors and the corrupt ones would be shut out if the quality is not there. Presently roads are subcontracted to private construction companies, which have to bid on the project - it is rife with corruption at all stages. Construction companies would have to hire LEGAL employees and if they build a good road they get paid, and if they don't build a good road then they won't get paid for it.

Nefertiti
08-31-2007, 04:58 AM
Publicly owned roads make privately owned property possible. If I own a house in one place and a business in another, and the only way to get between those two points is on a privately owned road, owned by someone who can prevent me from driving on his road at any time, my rights are being violated. My customers may be subject to the same problems getting to my business. My suppliers the same. Everyone suffers.

This is taking policy to the level of extreme ideology. Privatizing roads is nonsensical.

I don't own a car, but I depend on those that do-I depend on the public buses being able to access public roads, I depend on delivery trucks being able to get to the local supermarket. Last winter during the extremely cold weather while walking between my home and the supermarket, I noticed lots of cracks appear in the roads and within two weeks they were suddenly in extremely poor condition. Yesterday I saw them repaving the streets in my neighborhood. Now, tell me is that not for my and everyone else's benefit?

I would rather see less toll roads-whether they are government owned or not, and taxes being used wisely to maintain existing roads. This is exactly what Ron Paul stands for. He pointed out how we are spending money bombing bridges in Iraq but we should bring that money home and spend it on bridges here.

Nefertiti
08-31-2007, 04:59 AM
I think the highways would be better off if they were owned and maintained by contruction companies directly themselves. Then if there is a problem we know who to file the lawsuits against. If a bridge falls down and people are killed, we know somebody is going to go to jail!

The good construction companies would benefit from their labors and the corrupt ones would be shut out if the quality is not there.

You could still put a clause in the contract that they sign to be able to build the bridge that the government could collect from them the money in any lawsuit where the construction was the cause of the problem. It doesn't require private ownership.

FluffyUnbound
08-31-2007, 06:34 AM
Publicly owned roads make privately owned property possible. If I own a house in one place and a business in another, and the only way to get between those two points is on a privately owned road, owned by someone who can prevent me from driving on his road at any time, my rights are being violated. My customers may be subject to the same problems getting to my business. My suppliers the same. Everyone suffers.

This is taking policy to the level of extreme ideology. Privatizing roads is nonsensical.



Well, you're basing your analysis of your needs - and of the nonsensicality of private roads - on land use arrangements that were built up over a century of the state building roads to support the automobile.

If it weren't for that century of statist engineering, arrangements would be much different.

One common criticism directed at capitalism in the past was that it was bad at providing roads, because many roads to remote areas would not pay for themselves under a market system. So the state was called upon to intervene to pave over the United States. Now we have a situation where the continued support of the automobile culture that produced is extremely environmentally destructive [this is true whether you believe in global warming or not]. And so now people criticize capitalism because "capitalism is destroying the environment, capitalism is creating sprawl, etc.". Well, no. Statism is destroying the environment, because the automobile culture that is to blame would not exist had the state not massively intervened.

Of course, now that the roads are there, and the population has been distributed in a market-distorting way, we don't really have a choice but to muddle through somehow. I think this would be like the income tax abolition thing, where as Paul has said, we'd have to change the system before we could make any progress on changing how we deal with roads.

By the way, regarding your specific objection about restricted access, there are already plenty of private roads in the US, particularly in large housing developments. Those roads are typically not owned by a single owner, but are built by the developer and then owned jointly by the property owners served by the road. Any of those property owners can allow access to the road. If the supermarket was one of those owners, no one driving to the supermarket could be blocked from the road. Private road maintenance agreements aren't designed to allow your neighbor to put up a roadblock to keep people from driving to your house. If someone tried to build a road system where one neighbor COULD block off the street to people he didn't like, no one would buy property along that road.

MsDoodahs
08-31-2007, 06:42 AM
The problem with the TTC (and the NAFTA super highway) is the fact that government is taking people's land to give it to private business. If it was 100% privatized, the companies would have to buy the land, and the people could say no if they wanted. Now, people can't say no. They can just take it.

:)

Mastiff
08-31-2007, 06:47 AM
Why do you folks think private road owners would have any incentive to do anything good? There is no competition in "road from my house". The owner would have every economic incentive to extort the maximum amount of money possible from me such that I would even bother to live here at all. In the extreme he could starve me out if he wanted everything I currently own.

If I tried to get a pre-promise not to do something like that, what would it say? That he'd let me to the next private road in line? I think that providing a public easement so people can get around is absolutely core to a country being a country. Privatizing the roads is fun talk for anarchist theorists, but even hinting at it in connection to a real life campaign for president is ludicrous.

Dustancostine
08-31-2007, 07:04 AM
The problem with privatizing our road system is that, it was built with public money and with eminent domain. To give this system over to private companies would be creating a government backed monopoly. This is worse than the government. It is fascism and is dangerous. Look at what happened in the late 1800's when the federal government stopped letting the railroads build private track and started selling them govt'. land and creating monopolies. It got to be a big mess and help lead up to the early 1900's and socialism.

--Dustan