Will this filth grow under Paul if elected?

[Steve Hunt]

I think this stuff will grow and grow and grow if Paul wins. Have a look and decide for yourself....

http://www.alloymarketing.com/

[nullvalu]

Am i missing something here?

[Kregener]

Mucho jumble parachute tango.

[Steve Hunt]

Rotten, cruel corporate entities doing more stuff like they do with the deregulation of everything and voucher systems as a norm...have a look at their site and what they do and think bout it...


Am i missing something here?

[axiomata]

I think you are at the wrong forum.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think this stuff will grow and grow and grow if Paul wins. Have a look and decide for yourself....

http://www.alloymarketing.com/

no

you need to understand a free market. There are no corporations in a true, free market.

[Marshall]

no

you need to understand a free market. There are no corporations in a true, free market.

Could you or someone else elaborate on that? I'm not great with economics, so I'm curious how a free market would affect mega-corporations like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc etc.

[Steve Hunt]

Could you or someone else elaborate on that? I'm not great with economics, so I'm curious how a free market would affect mega-corporations like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc etc.

I second that and honestly anxiously await your explanation.

[FunkBuddha]

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0592c.asp


1) Regulations are like a regressive tax on small businesses. They usually costs small businesses nearly as much to comply with regulations as larger ones, meaning they pay much more relative to their revenue. The result is that big business often likes regulation.

2) Big business isn't necessarily bad. Some industries can serve their customers better with larger firms (e.g. Intel and AMD's oligopoly), while smaller firms work better for others (e.g., barber shops and salons). The important thing is that the number of firms is determined by consumers in the marketplace, and not government bureaucrats. That way if consumers prefer big business, they get big business. In such a scenario, anti-trust laws are rarely necissary.

3) Laissez faire and free markets do not imply caveat emptor (or "buyer beware") polices that would allow dangerous or fraudulent products to be sold. Selling toys marketed towards kids which are made with poisonous materials (lead paint, or whatever) would always be an act punishable by civil tort or criminal negligence. A true free market exists when consumers get what they pay for, and the government punishes fraudulent practices. A good example of this are the lawsuits against Mattel and that company's massive recall which will cost it huge sums of money and even more in reputation.

4) The most heavily regulated and socialized major industries in the USA are probably education and health care and banking. I don't think its any coincidence that those industries are the ones with the largest numbers of problems. The United State's Postal Service's monopoly on local mail is not so bad because the USPS isn't supported by tax money (its more like a business), and it does have some competition.

5) A free market and laissez faire are, contrary to what is often taught in history textbooks, not what America had in the 19th century. In some ways (such as regulation) we were closer to a free market back then, but in other ways we were not (such as the disregard for property rights and industrial pollution, the rights of non-whites, and institutionalized banking systems which caused bank runs and recessions).

From user Gee, several days ago.

[katao]

"One absolutely inescapable prerequisite of a libertarian society is people who are willing to accept responsibility for themselves and their actions. The fundamental raison d'etre of incorporation is to avoid responsibility. A corporation shields its owners (stockholders) from responsibility (vis., liability) for the corporation's actions by means of a legal fiction imposed and enforced by Leviathan. It is so contrary to libertarian purpose and principles as to assure that no libertarian society can emerge from a corporate culture." - Jim Russell

[Steve Hunt]

Can someone please just tell me something for once in their own damn words and not copy and paste something from some damn ELITIST foundation??!?!?!??!

[Bryan]

no

you need to understand a free market. There are no corporations in a true, free market.


Could you or someone else elaborate on that? I'm not great with economics, so I'm curious how a free market would affect mega-corporations like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc etc.
It's really a matter of semantics IMO. In a free market there are no legal advantages to being what is now called a "corporation" over your everyday citizen (today there is)- however, there is nothing stopping people from organize together and calling themselves a "corporation".

But Joseph can add in for himself.

[hard@work]

Could you or someone else elaborate on that? I'm not great with economics, so I'm curious how a free market would affect mega-corporations like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc etc.


Could you or someone else elaborate on that? I'm not great with economics, so I'm curious how a free market would affect mega-corporations like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc etc.

First you need to understand what we have now and what we are moving further and further into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism


A common cry of fear from un-indoctrinated individuals when presented with the conservative libertarian or classical liberal ideology of a free and open market is the fear of rampant corporatism. What is terribly unfortunate about these concerns is that they are being used by the corporate system to perpetuate the very situation the individual fears could arise through deregulation of the markets. Through government regulation, subsidization, and ultimately the rule of the lobby (see Fred Thompson) a small group of corporate bodies are able to control and manipulate the economy creating a microcosm of monopolies.

With the removal of government intervention aside from the prevention of fraud against individuals the corporatist bodies are unable to prevent individual trade amongst the people. To put it simply, because of corporatism the majority of product you wish to purchase is systemically distributed by a select group. Rarer and rarer are the small locally or regionally produced goods and services that the middle class relies upon to support itself.

The free market is just that: free. It means we are allowed to trade goods and services directly and with each other without restriction or intervention from government. Government regulation while often seen as necessary is actually detrimental to freedom of the individual. It is the prevention of fraud against another that is essential in a free market, not the regulation on the trade by a government entity which can be manipulated by special interests.

It is in the special interests interest to prevent you from understanding this. As long as the government prevents smaller groups of individuals from trading the larger corporate bodies maintain control and near monopoly over market segments.

To put it into layman's: they are preventing us from trading directly so they can control the flow of money.


Or something like that.

[hard@work]

Can someone please just tell me something for once in their own damn words and not copy and paste something from some damn ELITIST foundation??!?!?!??!


We have many nice hats available for you here.

[axiomata]

Can someone please just tell me something for once in their own damn words and not copy and paste something from some damn ELITIST foundation??!?!?!??!
Could you refute it? (With your words or someone else's, I don't care.)

[Steve Hunt]

I think all this talk is forgetting the tremendous advantages these guys already have (their massive capital) over the little guys....especially w/ regards to media conglomerates. They will expand beyond belief. How long will it take for the playing field to level out?

[hard@work]

I put it into my own words. I eagerly wait your reply.

[1000-points-of-fright]

I think this stuff will grow and grow and grow if Paul wins. Have a look and decide for yourself....

http://www.alloymarketing.com/

What is your objection? Marketing companies or the "evil corporations" who hire them?

[Steve Hunt]

And btw, the only regulations I am interested in are the ones that protect workers..and the ones that keep media conglomerates from wildly expanding and taking over the radio,tv, newspaper, broadband, phone, etc....

thats where paul seems very very weak....

[hard@work]

I think all this talk is forgetting the tremendous advantages these guys already have (their massive capital) over the little guys....especially w/ regards to media conglomerates. They will expand beyond belief. How long will it take for the playing field to level out?

Actually what is occurring in this movement is the very recognition of this. That is why we are focusing on freeing the populace from the income tax which is a direct tax on their personal labor, removing the federal reserve which controls a fictitious monetary unit backed only by the belief in it as a valid unit, and freeing the individuals right to trade and innovate amongst each other. It is in removing the monetary unit from the control of a small group that will truly free the marketplace.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

And btw, the only regulations I am interested in are the ones that protect workers..and the ones that keep media conglomerates from wildly expanding and taking over the radio,tv, newspaper, broadband, phone, etc....

thats where paul seems very very weak....

In a free market natural unions would formulate on their own, and workers would be protected for two reasons: libertarianism opposes abuse and coercion, and there would be the ability for individuals to make contractual agreements with each other. btw, businesses would be merely viewed as a name, the owners of a company would be liable for their actions in a free society, there's no hiding behind the corporation, so therein lays the deterrent for these companies. Want to dump waste in the river? They could be sued if people swim in that lake, or if they pollute someone else's property. Same concept with workers, employers ought not abuse or coerce employees

[hard@work]

And btw, the only regulations I am interested in are the ones that protect workers..and the ones that keep media conglomerates from wildly expanding and taking over the radio,tv, newspaper, broadband, phone, etc....

thats where paul seems very very weak....

Point this out. This isn't your normal run of the mill commentary area. You need to know your stuff here and you need to be able to write in specifics. Generalizations will be trounced easily. If you have a concern that is more than assumption or speculation, please outline it so we may discuss it.

:)

edit:

Ok I can work with this then.


And btw, the only regulations I am interested in are the ones that protect workers..and the ones that keep media conglomerates from wildly expanding and taking over the radio,tv, newspaper, broadband, phone, etc....

thats where paul seems very very weak....

What you are saying here is what has already happened. My point to you is that you are concerned about an occurrence already in place. And our solution is in freeing enterprise to replace corporatist domination. There is no other way to make this happen, otherwise we wouldn't be here now. It was in the destruction of the free market that has brought us to controlled markets over the media. Government regulation and policies were written by the American lobbyists in favor of the existing corporate entities running these markets.

So your solution here will be either a governmental solution or a market solution. A government solution under my theories here has already lead us to corporatism. A market solution would enable individuals such as you and I to compete directly with these groups. The internet itself has enabled this movement along with many other groups to compete in commerce and the marketplace of ideas. If it is regulated, the same groups running the show on the news networks will gain dominance over the internet networks. If we keep it deregulated, then we can continue the free spread of trade in commercial products, services, and ideas.

[Steve Hunt]

Have a look at the stuff Michael Powell was trying to do, completely at the suggestion of the big media guys (disney, newscorp, nyt corp, viacom) which was to allow for an unlimited number of stations in a market, cross ownership of the things I mentioned, elimination of taxes on cable companies which provide internet for schools and public access ... take a look at some of the work free press has done, or a look at my lecture (panel discussion) I recently put on regarding the new york times selling a couple of our local stations to an investment firm...these are the types of things that need to be stopped and absolutely can not be w/o some kind of regulations....

just look at what happened after 1996 when the Telecom act was passed....newscorp and clear channel went bonkers and media is a huge joke now across the board....they are just dying for someone like Paul to come in and allow them to do whatever the hell they want!

And w/ regards to labor issues, surely you heard Paul blaming black-white differences in unemployment on the government imposing a minimum wage? If he's going to say stuff like that, surely he wont inforce any kind of laws regarding work week and vacations and all that jive....and no, the markets wont force out the mean companies that treat their workers poorly..it does not work like that.







Point this out. This isn't your normal run of the mill commentary area. You need to know your stuff here and you need to be able to write in specifics. Generalizations will be trounced easily. If you have a concern that is more than assumption or speculation, please outline it so we may discuss it.

:)

[hard@work]

Have a look at the stuff Michael Powell was trying to do, completely at the suggestion of the big media guys (disney, newscorp, nyt corp, viacom) which was to allow for an unlimited number of stations in a market, cross ownership of the things I mentioned, elimination of taxes on cable companies which provide internet for schools and public access ... take a look at some of the work free press has done, or a look at my lecture (panel discussion) I recently put on regarding the new york times selling a couple of our local stations to an investment firm...these are the types of things that need to be stopped and absolutely can not be w/o some kind of regulations....

I already provided solutions for this using the free market which you have yet to address. I'll address these concerns after you've done so.


just look at what happened after 1996 when the Telecom act was passed....newscorp and clear channel went bonkers and media is a huge joke now across the board....they are just dying for someone like Paul to come in and allow them to do whatever the hell they want!

Paul would prevent these companies from gaining control over the new medium of communication which you are presently reading on. We no longer have need for clear channel, their business model will die if the internet continues to grow in capability and delivery of information. Again you can witness this in our movement. Even though they have tried to marginalize us and keep the message down, we are growing and an avalanche of support has begun. This is because we found a competitive free area to trade ideas in. Government regulation which is what you believe in will destroy this, as the very entities you are trying to stop will abuse their lobbying powers to control this new market segment. Basically, they will get control if government is allowed to write the laws.


And w/ regards to labor issues, surely you heard Paul blaming black-white differences in unemployment on the government imposing a minimum wage? If he's going to say stuff like that, surely he wont inforce any kind of laws regarding work week and vacations and all that jive....and no, the markets wont force out the mean companies that treat their workers poorly..it does not work like that.

You misunderstand the position of the executive branch. All these issues can be solved at the local and private level between individuals. If corporate control is allowed to continue through the election of any other candidate sans Gravel, the situation will worsen.

[hard@work]

Hmmm I have to go, but wanted to say I respect your ideas Steve. I believe you are wrong however in that you do not understand the core issues created by corporatism, and how we got to corporatism in the first place. I am sure we can agree at least on this area: corporatism sucks and we need to stop it.

Therefore I believe there is common ground.

:)

cya.

[Bryan]

And btw, the only regulations I am interested in are the ones that protect workers..and the ones that keep media conglomerates from wildly expanding and taking over the radio,tv, newspaper, broadband, phone, etc....

thats where paul seems very very weak....

The problems in our country run deep. Adding regulations to protect workers and the media are at best only band-aide to the real problem and at worst can actually extend the problem.

The problem is that corporations have strategic legal advantages that a citizen does not, remove these advantages and there is no reason that the worker needs to be protected. An example of one of these advantages is that shareholders (owners) of companies can't get sued but a small business owner can. Why is this? How is the ethical? It's not- it's a legal advantage to favor corporations.

In worst cases regulation to do something such as prevent media conglomerated can actually end up being twisted to do the opposite by suppression low budget competition with regulation they can't afford.

[Bryan]

I am sure we can agree at least on this area: corporatism sucks and we need to stop it.
No, it's the artificial strategic legal advantages that they have that is the problem- get ride of that and the corporation problem goes away.

[MicroBalrog]

I think this stuff will grow and grow and grow if Paul wins. Have a look and decide for yourself....

http://www.alloymarketing.com/

Why is this a problem?

[Steve Hunt]

Why is hard core marketing to children a problem? Did you look at this company??!?!?!? They do all sorts of crappy marketing things...putting up "buy these products" posters in schools in exchange for stuff that's worthless to begin with...put on merchandise fairs at colleges under one subsidiary name while setting up tables and tables of credit card sign up deals nearby so the kids can pay for them and be in debt for ever....they market worthless garbage to the military, on and on and on....read Benjamin Barber's "Consumed" for more on this stuff, although he dosen't discuss these guys specifically.

Here is how these predators work..and they especially thrive in "free market" situations....Chile', Bolivia, Argentina....it'd just be more surreal here

http://www.myemospace.com/12.html




Why is this a problem?

[RP4ME]

Can someone please just tell me something for once in their own damn words and not copy and paste something from some damn ELITIST foundation??!?!?!??!

hahahaha - THATS AWESOME !

[steph3n]

Steve,

This is happening already today, big businesss are the MAIN profiteer with the "regulations" as they are today.
With a free market you'd see a huge return of the small businesses as well, as the regulations that have been imposed in the last 10 years would cease to be in force.
Many small businesses were forced out of business by this exact regulation, make the regulation requirements so high the small guys can't stay in business and have t take the best offer they can get(if any at all!) to be bought out.

I am not any expert on economics but as an owner of a small business in the last 10 years I was severely limited by regulations and requirements that pushed me out.

[Steve Hunt]

What examples can you give me....regulation that have been imposed that forced small business out and gave big business an advantage?

[steph3n]

What examples can you give me....regulation that have been imposed that forced small business out and gave big business an advantage?
one is in the phone arena, there used to be a huge market for local providers of mobile phones, FCC starting mandating this and that, and it became near impossible to compete meaning they had to bow out.

[Steve Hunt]

one is in the phone arena, there used to be a huge market for local providers of mobile phones, FCC starting mandating this and that, and it became near impossible to compete meaning they had to bow out.

Hasn't recent deregulation allowed AT&T to gobble up tons of cellular markets as well as broadband markets?

[steph3n]

Hasn't recent deregulation allowed AT&T to gobble up tons of cellular markets as well as broadband markets?

No REGULATION allowed that, because of said limits imposed on small carriers.

[axiomata]

They do all sorts of crappy marketing things...putting up "buy these products" posters in schools in exchange for stuff that's worthless to begin with...
Yes, the best fix for this is the federal government. Not school administrations, schoolboards, parent associations etc.


put on merchandise fairs at colleges under one subsidiary name while setting up tables and tables of credit card sign up deals nearby so the kids can pay for them and be in debt for ever....

Nope, definitely the federal government's job. University administrators and student senates should have no say. And there's no way we can trust college edcated young adults to make smart choices as consumers.


they market worthless garbage to the military

Yes, it should be the federal government's job to fix a sector of the federal governments tendency to purchase useless junk.


and on and on and on.

and on and on

[Steve Hunt]

Blame the government for everything...everything is black and white....

good grief man!!!! I am not saying leave everything up to the government. It has been proven over and over that when you totally let the "markets decide!" that then the most brutal of instincts come out of people and then these sorts of things come up.

[axiomata]

Blame the government for everything...everything is black and white....

I hold neither of these positions.


good grief man!!!! I am not saying leave everything up to the government.

No, you said regulating corporations should be the government's job. I said I thought there were better options.


It has been proven over and over that when you totally let the "markets decide!" that then the most brutal of instincts come out of people and then these sorts of things come up.

No, you have stated this over and over again. You have never proved it.

[nexalacer]

Blame the government for everything...everything is black and white....

good grief man!!!! I am not saying leave everything up to the government. It has been proven over and over that when you totally let the "markets decide!" that then the most brutal of instincts come out of people and then these sorts of things come up.

Dude, no. The entire existence of the government is BASED on brutality. And the brutalities of the current corporatist system can ALWAYS be traced back to government intervention.

Do you really think people are that brutal by nature? Do you use brutality in your daily life to accomplish your life goals? Do you know a lot of people that do? Do you know ANY people that do?

People become brutal when there are incentives to draw that forward because people respond to incentives. If the incentive is there to abuse governmental regulation in order to gain more profit at the expense of normal people, then companies will take it. If the incentive is there for governments to gain more power through the expansion of regulation and social services, they will do so, at the expense of their citizens through loss of liberty and loss of personal property (taxes).

The problem IS the government, plain and simple. If you don't want to see that, we can't force you, but it's been repeated numerous times in this thread and you refuse to listen.

[hard@work]

The problem IS the government, plain and simple. If you don't want to see that, we can't force you, but it's been repeated numerous times in this thread and you refuse to listen.

It's not that he refuses to listen. He refuses to respond. Instead of addressing our concerns he only repeats his own. This is a common trait amongst anyone embedded deeply in their beliefs without understanding. His belief is that the man of business is inherently evil and must be regulated by laws imposed on them from government. Our beliefs is that government is inherently evil, and must be regulated by laws instituted by the people (which we do have but have been subverted). But he cannot communicate the foundation of his beliefs because they are irrational. If he could we could have a point by point discussion. Citing examples of the same abuses we wish to prevent does not have anything to do with debating the best solution.

There is truth in what he says. And we all know this. But he does not even understand that we do know this already. He also does not understand the system we are fighting and why. Just think about how complex the details surrounding the federal reserve bank and the income tax are. So many of the issues that individuals dependent on government for a solution can be solved by rebuilding our monetary exchange system. This is an excellent example of someone that we need to reach out to but have a very hard time in doing so. I think I need to work on some 30 second sound bites ...

:)

But I have to add I do respect him and what he's trying to say. He sees the same things we do. Just doesn't understand that a free market literally means free.

[Steve Hunt]

What about the examples of oh so, free market lassiez-fairre reform in Chile'??!?!

[Steve Hunt]

Here is a little video I put together about this stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDLVwO9xZdI

[hard@work]

Blame the government for everything...everything is black and white....

good grief man!!!! I am not saying leave everything up to the government. It has been proven over and over that when you totally let the "markets decide!" that then the most brutal of instincts come out of people and then these sorts of things come up.


The brutal instincts you mention here are more prevalent in the use of government than they are in the spirit of entreprenuers. Evil men use power wherever they find it. Restricting power and preventing fraud, theft, or murder is the only legitimate object of good government. Letting markets decide is a philosophy based on the ideal that human creativity is best produced through the gratification of achievement. History has shown that man through exchange produces more health, wealth, and happiness for all than government through theft and authority. Authority that must be enforced through government upon the people.

What would you propose in place of this philosophy? Can you recommend or explain to me how in your ideal situation our society would function? I have yet to see anything but tragedy I am against as well from you. Citing examples I agree with you on does not convince me that you have a grasp on a better solution. And your silence in this matter convinces me that you have none as well.

[Steve Hunt]

yah I'll reply in the morning...naptime!

[hard@work]

yah I'll reply in the morning...naptime!

Well I'd like to see something in your own words. Not some audio copied and uploaded to youtube from some elitest.

;-)

[steph3n]

I couldn't even hear that guy on youtube, what did he say, I heard only "big business" other than that it was mumbling and stumbling, couldn't understand a word.

[hard@work]

I couldn't even hear that guy on youtube, what did he say, I heard only "big business" other than that it was mumbling and stumbling, couldn't understand a word.

After the first 20 seconds of mumbling or so Noam Chomsky comes on to make a point that corporations deflect angst by having blame pushed on the government. Again a point we're all aware of but apparently not understood.

[a_european]

Ok here is something to think about:

Why does Obama gets so much money from corporations and banks and Ron Paul doesn't? Even if Dr. Paul would be willing to take that money, would he get as much if any?
The question is: Who of them is the biggest supporter of corporations?

[noxagol]

Big business controls Washington. You want Washington to regulate business. You want big business to regulate business.

[Steve Hunt]

Well I'd like to see something in your own words. Not some audio copied and uploaded to youtube from some elitest.

;-)



Ok here I am discussing RP's take on net neutrality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKD4Fz4TYcc)

[Steve Hunt]

I think it's a matter of him already planning to do what they want. Set up a system where they can do whatever they please, which is what all this "let the markets decide" business is...same reason you don't buy a whore flowers before trying to get her to bed I reckon'...




Ok here is something to think about:

Why does Obama gets so much money from corporations and banks and Ron Paul doesn't? Even if Dr. Paul would be willing to take that money, would he get as much if any?
The question is: Who of them is the biggest supporter of corporations?

[steph3n]

Ok here I am discussing RP's take on net neutrality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKD4Fz4TYcc)

Steve,

Net Neutrality is not exactly what you think it is, it is the first step to controlling the internet and its content.

The facts are now that AT&T via regulation requirements has been able to buy up most of the market, this is a very bad thing. You may say this is due to deregulation, but in fact this happened due to REGULATION with private companies being denied access to markets where they wanted to build out by getting sued from the AT&T and Verizon giants.
They have a monopoly now only BECAUSE of regulation. Shoudl the market become free this regulation will end and allow free markets to decide.

In some sense I agree AT&T is to a point now that they are the behemoth in the market and since we have regulations some of these mergers should have been stopped under the regulations in place now, however bush and co are so big business they would never stop this.
it is a sad day when you have regulations putting the free market out of business and letting the big businesses gulp everyone down, and then the transition to a truly free market becomes very hard.
I am sure AT&T had thought of this when they started all this merging, that should we go to a free market they need t be as big as possible to slam the fist down on them.

i personally know a provider that tried to go into a market with plenty money, to setup service for internet, phone, and tv. this company was immediately hit by a Verizon lawsuit costing them over 1.5 years delay before they got the K to continue, had they not had the millions required to fight this they would have been gone. They only won it because they are not putting any copper in, had they put in copper the FCC would have disallowed it as verizon is THE provider in the market.

[Daveforliberty]

Okay Steve, so you're a Chomsky-ite, and you're here on the Ron Paul forums to try to convince us to vote for Noam Chomsky rather than Ron Paul. Your videos are blatantly anti-Paul.

I listen to Air America quite frequently. Somehow I can stomach it much more than the Hannity/O'Reilly/Medved bunch. I asked myself why is it so, why is much easier to listen to left-wing radio than right-wing radio, even though I disagree with both?

I have come to the conclusion that although I am not a Democrat and I'd probably never vote for one (in their present form), I can agree with their complaints. I just can't agree with their solutions. With Hannity, I can't even agree with his complaints. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say maybe that's why you're here, rather than you're just a troll.

All the problems you are talking about (complaints), we agree with almost completely. Although you really haven't offered up much in terms of solutions, you seem to feel that you have to educate us that our solutions are wrong. I suppose I could spend my time on the phone with Air America, but I haven't done so. I don't think I'd get much love there.

Here's a test to see if your premise (that Ron Paul is the friend of corporatists) is correct: Look at who the corporatists are supporting (e.g. Murdoch-Hillary). Since Hillary is a big-government regulator, it would seem that regulation is what they want. Ask yourself this. Why are the corporatists supporting, and the corporatist media featuring, candidates who would regulate them? Why are they not supporting the one candidate who would remove regulations? Wouldn't they want to throw all their weight behind Ron Paul, so they could commence their corporate orgy on election day?

Your premise that Ron Paul is the corporatists best friend does not stand up to this empirical test. Again, why?

[lucius]

Here is a little video I put together about this stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDLVwO9xZdI

Welcome! Here is why I am here; I believe that Gurudas said it best in his 'Treason: The New World Order',

“All these people say there are powerful groups threatening our way of life. Some sources identify the bankers and corporate elite as the source of our problems, while others feel the national security state is the threat. The power of Wall Street is now obvious to many. So much is happening today that it is increasingly clear a police state is no longer some distant event to fear. The American people must awaken and join together to restore constitutional government and diminish the power of the large corporations and their agent, the federal government, so that we can again be a free people.”

I was once a fan of Chomsky; my view now is that he is divide et imperium controlled opposition.

[Steve Hunt]

Why do you bring up Air America? Not a fan. Democracy Now is the only thing I listen to along those lines, and Robert McChesney's "media matters" show which is excellent.

"Let the Market's decide!" is a much of a cop-out as what you are saying I am by merely stating what is wrong and not offering SPECIFIC solutions.

[Daveforliberty]

Steve, I was no way implying you were a fan of Air America. I was using it as an example of why a Chomsky-ite might be a member of the Ron Paul forums. But I'm starting to think I was too kind...

[Steve Hunt]

...and w/ regards to Chomsky, I met him at MIT 6 years ago and spent a lot of time talking with him, and still correspond via email...so I am not a random Chomsky-ite. I didnt know anythig about him before meeting him personally.

Here is my latest email correspondence with him, can you argue any of this!?!?!? And does this seem like the writing of an elitist co-conspirator with big government or whatever Alex Jones says he is?!?!?!?

Being the delusional optimist that I am, I spoke with Samantha Power at length regarding Finkelstein recently at The University of Oklahoma. I tried to explain to her that her love of Raphael Lemkin was good, but to ignore Finkelstein was silly in that I truly believe a lot about the two are quite similar. Obviously, I was doing this just to try and help out with his whole sad mess he is being put through, it would mean so much for me to be able to do anything to help this great guy out.

Of course I knew her non-sensical criticisms of you, as Professor Finkelstein said "... It was strange hearing her lecture Chomsky on East Timor. Chomsky was the first Western intellectual to write about East Timor, perhaps before Powers had entered grade school"

Basically she listened, asked a few questions and then of course went on to quote the stupid Times article on the "spat between Dershowitz and..." (Which Finkelstein predicted would happen on McChesney's show a couple years back, the nature of the article they would write that is...) Then she said she'd look into the matter and stupid me I emailed her a few times and have never heard back. So no delusions of Power coming to his defense, all she will do is say that "Dershowitz is very sloppy".

So basically I just wanted to relay this, its kind of interesting and also wonder if there is anything less delusional than trying to get her to come to bat for him to sort out the grade school insanity that is being propegated....


Thanks for everything,
Steve H

I scarcely know Power personally, but had the impression that she is a nice person, who is terribly naive, and probably doesn't know a lot beyond what one can find out in places like the Kennedy School.

Her book does mention East Timor. It says that the US looked away. That's a bit like saying that the Nazis looked away from the Holocaust. The US looked right there, and instantly made the decision to escalate the atrocities, as it continued to do for 25 years, until Clinton finally came under such intense international and domestic pressure (not from the Kennedy school, but from the Church and influential right-wing Catholics) that he told the Indonesian generals that the game was over, and they instantly withdrew -- demonstrating, to anyone with a functioning brain, that the US could have ended the near-genocidal massacre with a word at any point, but very consciously chose not to, just as Power's friends and associates chose to pretend they knew nothing about it so that the slaughter could continue, and still lie about it. I doubt, however, that she knows any of this.

I doubt very much that she'd be willing to be involved in Dershowitz's disgusting antics. Or anyone else connected with Harvard, or American liberalism generally. It would be unpleasant. You might not get invited to the right elegant dinner parties. You would be subject to criticism rather than awe for having the courage to condemn someone else's crimes. I think speaking to her is a waste of time, from what I know.

But I still think she is probably quite a decent person. It's just hard to break out of that comfortable liberal intellectual cocoon.

Noam

[Daveforliberty]

By the way, the specific solution is to return to constitutional government and restrict the executive/legislative/judicial branches to their enumerated powers.

[Steve Hunt]

Protecting the population against a plan where states compete to suppress workers the most, so that Corporations will want to locate in said states, definitely falls under the "general welfare" bit which a lot of RP people despise so greatly, don't you think?


By the way, the specific solution is to return to constitutional government and restrict the executive/legislative/judicial branches to their enumerated powers.

[Daveforliberty]

:eek:

I give up. You must be much smarter than me because I can't decipher your logic. Since I'm here because I support Ron Paul, pressing the "ignore" button now.

[lucius]

...and w/ regards to Chomsky, I met him at MIT 6 years ago and spent a lot of time talking with him, and still correspond via email...so I am not a random Chomsky-ite. I didnt know anythig about him before meeting him personally.

Here is my latest email correspondence with him, can you argue any of this!?!?!? And does this seem like the writing of an elitist co-conspirator with big government or whatever Alex Jones says he is?!?!?!?

Being the delusional optimist that I am, I spoke with Samantha Power at length regarding Finkelstein recently at The University of Oklahoma. I tried to explain to her that her love of Raphael Lemkin was good, but to ignore Finkelstein was silly in that I truly believe a lot about the two are quite similar. Obviously, I was doing this just to try and help out with his whole sad mess he is being put through, it would mean so much for me to be able to do anything to help this great guy out.

Of course I knew her non-sensical criticisms of you, as Professor Finkelstein said "... It was strange hearing her lecture Chomsky on East Timor. Chomsky was the first Western intellectual to write about East Timor, perhaps before Powers had entered grade school"

Basically she listened, asked a few questions and then of course went on to quote the stupid Times article on the "spat between Dershowitz and..." (Which Finkelstein predicted would happen on McChesney's show a couple years back, the nature of the article they would write that is...) Then she said she'd look into the matter and stupid me I emailed her a few times and have never heard back. So no delusions of Power coming to his defense, all she will do is say that "Dershowitz is very sloppy".

So basically I just wanted to relay this, its kind of interesting and also wonder if there is anything less delusional than trying to get her to come to bat for him to sort out the grade school insanity that is being propegated....


Thanks for everything,
Steve H

I scarcely know Power personally, but had the impression that she is a nice person, who is terribly naive, and probably doesn't know a lot beyond what one can find out in places like the Kennedy School.

Her book does mention East Timor. It says that the US looked away. That's a bit like saying that the Nazis looked away from the Holocaust. The US looked right there, and instantly made the decision to escalate the atrocities, as it continued to do for 25 years, until Clinton finally came under such intense international and domestic pressure (not from the Kennedy school, but from the Church and influential right-wing Catholics) that he told the Indonesian generals that the game was over, and they instantly withdrew -- demonstrating, to anyone with a functioning brain, that the US could have ended the near-genocidal massacre with a word at any point, but very consciously chose not to, just as Power's friends and associates chose to pretend they knew nothing about it so that the slaughter could continue, and still lie about it. I doubt, however, that she knows any of this.

I doubt very much that she'd be willing to be involved in Dershowitz's disgusting antics. Or anyone else connected with Harvard, or American liberalism generally. It would be unpleasant. You might not get invited to the right elegant dinner parties. You would be subject to criticism rather than awe for having the courage to condemn someone else's crimes. I think speaking to her is a waste of time, from what I know.

But I still think she is probably quite a decent person. It's just hard to break out of that comfortable liberal intellectual cocoon.

Noam

It is good to have heroes Steve; Dr. Paul is mine. IMO, Chomsky is comfortable with what he has done and yes we do own him a debt for his great work, but he now stagnates, turns a blind eye, another 'Utopian Dreamer' from academia, small wonder, like AJ, never quite makes it to root-cause as Gurudas.

[a_european]

Steve, i appreciate your braveness :D (and i like Chomsky too)

1.Like you said yourself, its a competition of states, so somehow politics and regulations seem to play a part in it (just look at worldwide "money politics" to keep resource prices from third world countrys low).
If production is cheaper in foreign lands, then they should be produced foreign. I consider it "real foreign aid". Just look at indonesia and china, the wages are rising.
You think the status quo is a free market, what i consider worldwide socialism or mercantilism.

2. Obama in my opinion gets that money because corporations want him to win, not because they need to bribe him.

[cujothekitten]

And btw, the only regulations I am interested in are the ones that protect workers..and the ones that keep media conglomerates from wildly expanding and taking over the radio,tv, newspaper, broadband, phone, etc....

thats where paul seems very very weak....

Libertarian philosophy allows for protection against force or fraud. Subsidies are also a large problem when it comes to large business. Many of these companies wouldn't be able to exist without help from the government. In a sense the government has created these large corporations and continues to aid them.

Take a look at the internet for example. Youtube, yahoo, google... these are HUGE companies yet there is still competition because there is no real regulation of the web. If you don't like youtube you have the choice of going to another company. The same would hold true in the real world... no one can take over all the radio waves, if a cable company decides to shut you out then you can go to another cable company that will include you, no one can stop you from printing your own paper...

When government gets in the way it makes it difficult to compete. It was government that handed over the radio, paper and TV waves to a select few companies, and then they supported those large companies with subsidies and FCC regulations. You had to be a schooled businessman/lawyer to figure out how the system worked.

*edit* Ron Paul is talking about ending subsidies and ending regulation of the internet. Everyone else is talking about privatizing and/or regulating.

[hard@work]

Ok here I am discussing RP's take on net neutrality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKD4Fz4TYcc)


This is babble. Do you have anything intellectual to add? Can you reference, can you source, can you do anything aside from generalize with your opinion? I was looking forward to a discussion but after reviewing the thread I've seen nothing but rantings from a self assured id. I could easily refute your claims in this video. However instead of wasting my time laying out positions in the hopes that you can counterpoint them only to have you completely ignore them, why don't you say something - anything - that has substance.

[winston_blade]

What examples can you give me....regulation that have been imposed that forced small business out and gave big business an advantage?

The Auto industry, FTW.

[DJ RP]

Steve seems like a troll to me so I wouldn't feed him.

Your replies didn't go to waste though, I've found many of them fascinating and insightful. Especially some of the talk about how the Internet IS the new medium and we are seeing how well it works WITH competition and how the best sites win.

Witness how Google has done so well being an ethical company with great services. How communities like these thrive.

Witness how most young people barely watch television anymore and get their information from the Internet.

The Internet is the PROOF that the free market handles everything better than the biased goverment interventionism in old media.

[hard@work]

Steve seems like a troll to me so I wouldn't feed him.

Your replies didn't go to waste though, I've found many of them fascinating and insightful. Especially some of the talk about how the Internet IS the new medium and we are seeing how well it works WITH competition and how the best sites win.

Witness how Google has done so well being an ethical company with great services. How communities like these thrive.

Witness how most young people barely watch television anymore and get their information from the Internet.

The Internet is the PROOF that the free market handles everything better than the biased goverment interventionism in old media.

He's not a troll. He genuinely believes what he's saying.

[Corydoras]

The Internet is the PROOF that the free market handles everything better than the biased goverment interventionism in old media.

It's fun to go onto sites like Epinions and Traveladvisor and find out that, for example, no matter how well "Cat's Pajamas Hotel" promotes itself in the old media, it's still horrible.

[DJ RP]

He's not a troll. He genuinely believes what he's saying.

Well he might as well be a troll in that he doesn't respond to arguments you guys are making in a logical manner, he either ignores them or says flippant stupid things not based on facts. Troll behaviour 101.

Put it this way, if I was a troll who was amused by attention and riling people up, that's how I'd act.

[hard@work]

Well he might as well be a troll in that he doesn't respond to arguments you guys are making in a logical manner, he either ignores them or says flippant stupid things not based on facts. Troll behaviour 101.

Put it this way, if I was a troll who was amused by attention and riling people up, that's how I'd act.

Nahh, I'm a nasty flame warrior when I want to be. I know trolls very well. He just really really believes what he's saying but doesn't have substance behind it. For him it's "can't you see? can't you see?!? CAN'T YOU SEE?!?!". When for us it's "yes we see, this is how we see it. Yes... we see... this is how we see it. YES! We see already ... ".

That analogy is commonplace amongst every flippin forum on every corner of the intertubes.

[RobotJaxxon]

The brutal instincts you mention here are more prevalent in the use of government than they are in the spirit of entreprenuers. Evil men use power wherever they find it. Restricting power and preventing fraud, theft, or murder is the only legitimate object of good government. Letting markets decide is a philosophy based on the ideal that human creativity is best produced through the gratification of achievement. History has shown that man through exchange produces more health, wealth, and happiness for all than government through theft and authority. Authority that must be enforced through government upon the people.

Beautifully said.


On the flip side, I have found many left liberals and socialists have the tendency to argue that government is run by corrupt individuals, and in nearly the same breath try to argue that the government should have more control over society. Can someone explain to me how this isn't deeply flawed logic?

For example, in Sicko (I will admit that I have only seen a few scenes), Michael Moore points out that many members of congress are corrupt and were bought by special interests. He then later makes the claim that government should run health care. WHAT??!??

It seems like a lot of people on the left deify government, and want to believe it can have this altruistic nature that is not subject to the weaknesses of mere mortals (ie, power, money, sex..).

But there is a missing step in their socialist plans that is NEVER spoken:

1) More government power
2) ???
3) Problem solved!

Step number 2 is finding incorruptible people to run the government (or administer the programs) and who individually have the strength to fight off whatever evil you're trying to prevent. We have thousands of years of human history as evidence of the corruptible nature of men in power; I doubt your little plan for government-administered health care will spark some new age of enlightenment.

[constituent]

^that's why it is our duty to prove through our actions
that private charities provide much better, more efficient
services than do government programs.

it is our duty to be as charitable as possible, whenever
possible. some folks just feel like they're doomed to be
poor (right wrong or otherwise), and there is nothing
they can do to alleviate the suffering of others, without
some enforcement arm to make sure that those with
money are doing their part too (via forced taxation).

like i said, right wrong or otherwise, that is how many
people feel.

[Steve Hunt]

-The brutal instincts you mention here are more prevalent in the use of government than they are in the spirit of entreprenuers. Evil men use power wherever they find it. Restricting power and preventing fraud, theft, or murder is the only legitimate object of good government. Letting markets decide is a philosophy based on the ideal that human creativity is best produced through the gratification of achievement. History has shown that man through exchange produces more health, wealth, and happiness for all than government through theft and authority. Authority that must be enforced through government upon the people.


As in the cases of Chile', China, Russia, Bolivia, Argentina...Markets have only been able to decide with brutal intervention and suppression. Where are the examples of free markets "working successfully" minus all of this?

[Steve Hunt]

...and no I am not a troll. Still making up my mind on what I want to do re: Paul


I tend to focus my efforts locally. Very involved with a Senate candidate in my district as well as a couple who will run for state house in 08. Those are the things I can control. I am concerned in that the handful of Paul supporters I know locally, none are interested in these things, yet claim how important it is to hand government over to local folks....its all I care about!!!! Yet I am the idiot and the troll and the etc....

[Corydoras]

...and no I am not a troll. Still making up my mind on what I want to do re: Paul

Well, do an inventory of Paul's positions and find something you CAN support, and see what you can do to support efforts to win over people who also care about the same issues and show them that Paul is the best candidate for their concerns.

What positions of his do you like enough to do that for?

[Steve Hunt]

Well, do an inventory of Paul's positions and find something you CAN support, and see what you can do to support efforts to win over people who also care about the same issues and show them that Paul is the best candidate for their concerns.

What positions of his do you like enough to do that for?


Obviously all the foreign policy stuff, which is fantastic. Probably why I am so concerned about the stuff I don't like...which I reeealy do not like.

[steph3n]

Dont let Net Neutrality be an issue, as it is a BAD thing for the govt to regulate the internet, it will be manipulated more than the CLECs are now


Obviously all the foreign policy stuff, which is fantastic. Probably why I am so concerned about the stuff I don't like...which I reeealy do not like.

[hard@work]

As in the cases of Chile', China, Russia, Bolivia, Argentina...Markets have only been able to decide with brutal intervention and suppression. Where are the examples of free markets "working successfully" minus all of this?

You're not citing anything. You're mentioning third world and communist countries with seperate and lenghty histories. Each one full of abusive governments and corruption. We're offering solutions to these problems. What are yours? You're ignoring everything and continuing to rant. It looks like you're a bit bonkers to be quite honest. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but it would be nice if you at least could have some summation of your ideology to present.

Anytime you're ready please.

edit: I wanted to continue on with this thought. It's not just that you are not citing anything, you are not saying anything. I'm not attacking your positions here. But it's not because I do not want to attack your positions. It's just that you're not really putting any out. You're saying that there are terrible and evil things going on, here's one ... here's one... here's one... etc. Of course there are. And even though I've presented a name for this you blissfully ignored it as you did numerous points brought to be discussed. So if you refuse to do more than ignore what points are given, and you refuse to present your own logical disagreement to our beliefs ... what good is any of this but a waste of time?

[hard@work]

Obviously all the foreign policy stuff, which is fantastic. Probably why I am so concerned about the stuff I don't like...which I reeealy do not like.

All of it? So removing our nation from the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the UN along with withdrawing all of our troops from the 120 occupied nations they are in is good? What about the foreign policy of trade and diplomacy he supports? That is a cornerstone free market idea.

[axiomata]

I'd be interested in hearing his take on the Chicago Boys in Chile.

[Steve Hunt]

I'd be interested in hearing his take on the Chicago Boys in Chile.

animals.

[axiomata]

animals.
Precisely why it is futile to try and debate with you. I'm unsubscribing from this thread.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Steve Hunt, you have videos of yourself sneaking into the Super Bowl in your sig. You have defrauded a business. If you are so against filth, take a good long look in the mirror.

You are a fraudulent scumbag. Ron Paul doesnt need support from filth of your kind.

You are a punk, a cheat, a fraud, and a criminal.

[nullvalu]

pdnftt

[Steve Hunt]

hah! funny stuff.



Steve Hunt, you have videos of yourself sneaking into the Super Bowl in your sig. You have defrauded a business. If you are so against filth, take a good long look in the mirror.

You are a fraudulent scumbag. Ron Paul doesnt need support from filth of your kind.

You are a punk, a cheat, a fraud, and a criminal.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

hah! funny stuff.

Criminal

[Steve Hunt]

We asked the people at the gate if we could enter and they said "yes"

Very similar to what Paul is doing hiding the realities of the whole "let the markets decide" speak.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

We asked the people at the gate if we could enter and they said "yes"

Very similar to what Paul is doing hiding the realities of the whole "let the markets decide" speak.

Dont try to compare free markets to your own criminal actions. Free markets are about the free exchange of goods. They lead to a more prosperous and liberated society. Pick up a copy of Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" and learn a thing or two.

The great thing about free market, is that real criminals like yourself would be behind bars, rather than the people currently in there for silly drug laws.

[hard@work]

We asked the people at the gate if we could enter and they said "yes"

Very similar to what Paul is doing hiding the realities of the whole "let the markets decide" speak.

Congratulations, you've now been demoted to "Troll" status. While you're sitting there fapping away at your own self gratification I'd like to submit to you that you are misguided. And in answer to your question on whether or not "this filth" will "grow":

http://www.adbusters.org

No, because we will fight them. And we will not be slaves to anyone, especially people like you.

[Steve Hunt]

Congratulations, you've now been demoted to "Troll" status. While you're sitting there fapping away at your own self gratification I'd like to submit to you that you are misguided. And in answer to your question on whether or not "this filth" will "grow":

http://www.adbusters.org

No, because we will fight them. And we will not be slaves to anyone, especially people like you.


You write for AdbusterS? The people Ive met that do DONT support this kind of stuff

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I support freedom and prosperity.

What do you support?

I'll tell you what you support. You support petty criminality. Defrauding people. I know your kind. You want whatever will help your own selfish desires. You want to exploit whatever you can from society's left hand, while stealing from society's right hand.

You want the government to protect you from fraud and criminality and dishonesty. Then you do what you can to get away with fraud and criminality and dishonesty.

[nexalacer]

-The brutal instincts you mention here are more prevalent in the use of government than they are in the spirit of entreprenuers. Evil men use power wherever they find it. Restricting power and preventing fraud, theft, or murder is the only legitimate object of good government. Letting markets decide is a philosophy based on the ideal that human creativity is best produced through the gratification of achievement. History has shown that man through exchange produces more health, wealth, and happiness for all than government through theft and authority. Authority that must be enforced through government upon the people.


As in the cases of Chile', China, Russia, Bolivia, Argentina...Markets have only been able to decide with brutal intervention and suppression. Where are the examples of free markets "working successfully" minus all of this?

Every country you cited is an example of Governmental force being used to dictate the market. What's your point? That's what everyone has been trying to tell you.

[hard@work]

You write for AdbusterS? The people Ive met that do DONT support this kind of stuff

Your credibility in regards to any kind of "stuff" is pretty much gone now. We have enough to worry about without psuedo-intellectuals comming here to pick fights.

Take care.


@