PDA

View Full Version : Grass Roots success proof that free markets better than bureaucracy?




GoIrish
12-17-2007, 02:07 PM
Subject basically says it all...but i was thinking about this today...The HUGE success of the two money bomb days, the blimp, all the ideas flowing out of the local meetup groups, etc was all done from the grass roots...there is no way the official campaign could have possibly coordinated all of these efforts by itself.

Its ironic that the grass roots are so strong for Paul's campaign because he is the biggest advocate of the power of free markets over government bureaucracy out of any candidate. I think when Paul discusses his grass roots support over the next weeks when discussing the tea party....he should point out this fact. Thoughts?

snaFU
12-17-2007, 02:08 PM
We don't need any more proof that Bureaucracy is a failure. :)

torchbearer
12-17-2007, 02:08 PM
We are a holographic structure, that is why we succeed.
This video explains in detail how we are going to win this election:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

torchbearer
12-17-2007, 02:14 PM
//

S3eker
12-17-2007, 02:16 PM
I think you have a point. But not every grassroots effort can really pull this off.

examine: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=58034

tsopranos
12-17-2007, 02:20 PM
Subject basically says it all...but i was thinking about this today...The HUGE success of the two money bomb days, the blimp, all the ideas flowing out of the local meetup groups, etc was all done from the grass roots...there is no way the official campaign could have possibly coordinated all of these efforts by itself.

Its ironic that the grass roots are so strong for Paul's campaign because he is the biggest advocate of the power of free markets over government bureaucracy out of any candidate. I think when Paul discusses his grass roots support over the next weeks when discussing the tea party....he should point out this fact. Thoughts?

I couldn't have said it better than Wayne Dyer, in his "Letter to Politicians: From a Spiritual Working Stiff"...

To Our Politicians From a Spiritual Working Stiff:

I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Frankly, I still have difficulty with the labels, conservative and liberal. Those who know me have never been able to pigeonhole me. I relate to Kierkegaard's observation: "Once you label me, you negate me." In truth, I am a working stiff.

I grew up on the east side of Detroit and spent several years in foster homes. I had a father who spent some time in prison, abused alcohol and five wives, and died of cirrhosis of the liver at age 49, never having known his three boys, after walking out on my mother.

I attended the Detroit public schools, entered the Navy at 18, spent four years on board ships and overseas. I worked my way through three degree programs as a stock boy and cashier at a large supermarket chain, graduating with a Ph.D. in Educational Counseling. I have been a schoolteacher, counselor, and college professor. As of this date, I work as a lecturer and writer, also producing video and audiotape programs on motivation, spirituality, and higher consciousness.

I have worked all my life, paid my taxes, supported my family, and continue to "chop wood and carry water," while being totally perplexed by what I hear coming out of the mouths of our politicians. As a working stiff who has earned enough to be in that top 1 percent income bracket, here is what I would like you, the politicians, to hear as you go about the business of government. These are views shared by most of the people I speak to every day, in all income brackets.

YOU ARE NOT OUR LEADERS. No one that I know goes to sleep at night saying, "My leaders are in Washington, D.C." I fume when you refer to yourselves as our leaders. You may pass laws while sitting in committees and having Rose Garden ceremonies, but the laws come after the real leadership has been implemented.

No politician was responsible for leading us in the struggle for civil rights. Rosa Parks was a leader. Those who marched and ignored the racist laws passed by lawmakers were the leaders of the civil rights movement.

Who were the leaders of the Renaissance? The office holders? The politicians? No! The leaders were those who brought the world a new consciousness through their writing, art, music, and through challenging the entrenched ideologies of the office holders. These were the leaders.

When I hear you refer to yourselves as our leaders, I am always amused by such arrogance. We go to work and send up to 50 percent of our earnings to you. You use our earnings to make yourselves more privileged than we are, with unlimited medical care, overly generous retirement guarantees, and perks galore! All that you really do is write the rules using our funds to do so. This might be hard to accept, but try it on for size. We are not sheep who need to be led. We need servants who care. We are perfectly capable of leading ourselves; in fact, we do it every day.

YOU DO NOT CREATE JOBS. I have written 20 books, produced hundred of tapes, and given several thousand lectures over the past 25 years. When I sit down and create a book, I send it to an editor who I pay to edit the manuscript. The way I see it, I just created a job. My editor receives payment, sends in her taxes, and now two are working. The editing process involves a computer. A third job is created. The publisher copy-edits the manuscript, and a fourth job is created. This process continues through many levels, with job after job being created all because I decided to write a book. The printers, inspectors, typesetters, delivery people, booksellers, accountants, stock boys, and cashiers all have jobs that were created because working stiffs have the ingenuity, gumption, and desire to create and produce.

The woman who loves flowers and decides to open a floral shop creates jobs. Without her desire and sweat, we wouldn't need floral coolers, delivery trucks, or growers. Nor would we need people to grow food to feed those workers or design garments to clothe them. The money you use to fund job-producing legislation originates from those who produce. It is really quite simple. Politicians do not create jobs.

As I see it, through the eyes of a working stiff, politicians can pass laws that will ultimately determine whether anyone finds being productive worth the effort any longer. If you decide to punish me with tax rules, over-regulate me, or constantly make my life miserable with forms, rules, and regulations, I may decide that writing another book is no longer worth the effort. If I decide that, and you multiply me by the millions of us who produce wealth and jobs, you will see that you do not produce jobs or wealth with our policies.

You print money. You regulate. You pass laws. But we produce jobs. We create wealth by working and producing, not by sitting in committees and talking up our self-importance.

ACT ON THE BASIS OF WHAT IS MORAL AND FAIR, NOT ON HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE AFFECTED. I heard over and over in the election debate that the inheritance tax should remain because only 2 percent of the population is affected by this tax. I have paid all of the taxes I owe to my government. What is left is mine to do with as I please. My death ought not trigger another tax on my remaining savings that have been already taxed. It does not matter if the tax affects one person or a million people. It is simply wrong. When our ancestors moved to abolish slavery they didn't say, "Only 2 percent of the populations is enslaved, so let's keep this practice lawful." They finally realized that slavery was morally wrong.

Let those who aspire to greater abundance in their lives do so knowing that politicians are not going to confiscate it at the moment of their death. Do what's right and what's moral, even when it affects only a small percentage of the population.

STOP MIXING PERCENTAGES AND DOLLAR AMOUNTS AS A RATIONALE FOR YOUR PHILOSOPHY. If there is a surplus in tax revenues, it is an overpayment and belongs to those who sent it in. It ought to be returned in the same lawful proportion that it went in.

If I paid one million dollars in taxes, it is not so outrageous that I should have returned to me a higher dollar amount than someone who sent in $2,000 in taxes. To say that the wealthy will receive $18,000 each while the poor will only get an $1,800 tax cut is a spurious argument. If you paid no tax, you don't get a tax cut. You can't cut zero and get something back. If you paid $200,000 in taxes and you get a $40,000 refund, that's a 20 percent tax cut. If you paid $500,000 in taxes and you get back $20,000, that is only a 4 percent tax cut.

It stands to reason that if you are going to ask the top 10 percent of income earners to foot over 50 percent of the tax bills, then when it comes time to cut the taxes and return the surpluses, it ought to go back to the taxpayers in the same proportion. Similarly, if the bottom 40 percent of wage earners pay no taxes, then they get no refund. It may not appeal to most voters, but it makes sense to this working stiff who has been in all of those tax brackets at one time or another in his life.

WE DON'T NEED YOU TO FIGHT FOR US. "I'll fight for you" seems to be the mantra of the modern politician. Just who are you fighting anyway? Aren't you all there in Washington to serve us? Don't you realize that fighting weakens you and rarely accomplishes anything?

I would like for you to work for me, not fight. Tell me what you are for, rather than what you oppose. I don't need to see any more debates. You are not running against anyone. You have no opponents. The person who is on the ballot with you is not someone you need to fight. Just tell me what you support and how you intend to make it happen, and let the other candidates do the same. I don't need you to fight. I need you to state your vision clearly and commit to bringing it about.

In 1967, Mother Teresa was asked to march against the war in Vietnam, and she refused, saying, "I won't march against anything. But when you have a march for peace, I'll be there." Let this spirit infuse your intentions.

*YOU DON'T EMPOWER US. WE ARE ALREADY POWERFUL. My most disconcerting moments in the election season were hearing, "We're for the people, they're for the powerful," and then seeing this slogan as a USA Today headline the next day. It became a mantra for the last six weeks of the campaign.

Inherent in such a phrase is the idea that the people are not powerful, only those who are well off are empowered. Generation after generation of people in America have come to believe this line of thinking: "You have no power, but we, your leaders in Washington, will do it for you." It is just this kind of thinking that leads people to assume they are powerless to advance, to create their own greatness, to attract abundance and health into their lives, to transcend the ordinary levels of disempowerment.

I want to hear you say, "You are powerful; you are connected to the divine, and with God you can accomplish anything you make up your mind to do. If you see others who appear to be more powerful than you, then associate with them and emulate their strengths. Create a powerful vision for yourself. Don't find fault with those who have elevated themselves. Learn from them, find your own serenity and grace, and know that you are powerful. I'll support such a vision in all legislation. Keep your hopes high."

In Wisdom of the Ages, I wrote an essay based upon Michelangelo's observation: "The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." I want to hear you speak of high hopes, of the power of our spirit, a spirit that knows no favorites and is in each and every one of us.

DON'T GIVE YOURSELF WHAT YOU DENY TO THOSE WHO PAY FOR WHAT YOU HAVE! If we send a portion of our income to you, don't use that money to vote yourself benefits that we are denied. If you get universal medical coverage paid for by those of us who created wealth, then be sure to grant it by law to all of us. If you get to retire with 90 percent of your paycheck, then be sure that we who pay for it get the same perk.

Be ever mindful of your role. You have elected to be a servant of the people. The people own the house. They built it. But they can't run it every day nor can they protect it, and build roads leading up to it. The people can't educate the children and regulate the economy because they are too busy working. So they hire servants to handle these duties, and they pay those servants to protect, regulate, and handle the affairs of housekeeping. But the house is still owned by the people. The servants don't get to make demands. The people do. The servants don't own the funds they receive for protecting, regulating, and delegating. The people do. It's our house. We the powerful working stiffs of America own it.

We lead ourselves every day, and if you want to speak to us, do it from your heart, without a Teleprompter or a spin doctor at your side. We are honest, hardworking, and straightforward. We are generous and kind to those in need. We don't need to be coddled or lied to. We can smell insincerity and BS a mile away. We pay the freight and keep it moving across America every day. Not because you are leading us. We are not following you or anyone else.

There is a spirit in all of us. A spirit that urges us upward to a greater connection to that which is just, moral, and honest. We expect no less from those who have chosen to serve.

- Wayne Dyer

QuesoPantera
12-17-2007, 02:30 PM
No, the drug war proves that. They're not regulated at all and business is booming.

NoVALady
12-17-2007, 08:21 PM
I just listened to "An Idea Whose Time Has Come" by G. Edward Griffin. Thank you for sharing this information. I'll pass it on.

torchbearer
12-17-2007, 08:24 PM
I just listened to "An Idea Whose Time Has Come" by G. Edward Griffin. Thank you for sharing this information. I'll pass it on.

Everyone in the grassroots effort needs to see that video.. it will blow your mind and at the same time give you clarity of purpose.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6015291679758430958

G. Edward Griffon should be on Ron Paul Radio on wednesday to discuss the video. At least that's the latest info i have.

murrayrothbard
12-17-2007, 08:28 PM
No example of bureaucratic ineffectiveness can "prove" that free associations of individuals (i.e a free market) work better. All the examples simply demonstrate the fundamental laws of human action that have been proved by argument over and over again. There can be no such thing as an efficient bureaucracy given what a bureaucracy is. A bureaucracy is an institution of aggression. Aggressive violence ALWAYS benefits some at the expense of others. Voluntary cooperation ALWAYS benefits the parties involved.

torchbearer
12-17-2007, 08:32 PM
No example of bureaucratic ineffectiveness can "prove" that free associations of individuals (i.e a free market) work better. All the examples simply demonstrate the fundamental laws of human action that have been proved by argument over and over again. There can be no such thing as an efficient bureaucracy given what a bureaucracy is. A bureaucracy is an institution of aggression. Aggressive violence ALWAYS benefits some at the expense of others. Voluntary cooperation ALWAYS benefits the parties involved.

In sociological terms... what Max Weber created was a structure by which industry could thrive...and helped spark the industrial revolution...

The bureaucratic structure is not always the optimum structure.
What is explained in the video I keep posting is the idea of the 'holographic structure'.

Bureaucracy is about one over a few in a management structure...not about aggression. Aggression is not inherit in bureaucracy.

murrayrothbard
12-17-2007, 08:36 PM
In sociological terms... what Max Weber created was a structure by which industry could thrive...and helped spark the industrial revolution...

The bureaucratic structure is not always the optimum structure.
What is explained in the video I keep posting is the idea of the 'holographic structure'.

Bureaucracy is about one over a few in a management structure...not about aggression. Aggression is not inherit in bureaucracy.

Ok sorry, I always think of "bureaucracy" as in "state agency". A voluntary bureaucracy (e.g. a corporate structure) is not necessarily aggressive.