Tom Morello Gives RP A Thumbs-Up! :D

[BuddyRey]

Winning!

[HigherVision]

Not bad considering that RATM are socialists. Maybe they'll be won over to our side.

[Nastynate]

Not bad considering that RATM are socialists. Maybe they'll be won over to our side.

I don't see socialist much different than libertarians. Just that they trust the government to handle it and libertarians not so much.

[sailingaway]

I don't see socialist much different than libertarians. Just that they trust the government to handle it and libertarians not so much.

the government 'handling it' means they control you and have you on an allowance.

[Adrock]

I don't see socialist much different than libertarians. Just that they trust the government to handle it and libertarians not so much.

That pretty much is THE difference. One cannot have social liberty with out economic liberty. "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek explains this in great detail, if your interested.

[fearthereaperx]

Morello doesn't endorse Ron Paul

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't see socialist much different than libertarians. Just that they trust the government to handle it and libertarians not so much.

[matt0611]

I don't see socialist much different than libertarians. Just that they trust the government to handle it and libertarians not so much.

LOL...you have much to learn grasshopppa



Cool to see that Morello likes Paul though. I've always been a fan of RATM's music, their politics - not so much.

[Barrex]

RATM managed to close wall street
They are against corporate America, cultural imperialism, government oppression, they protested against 2 party system, against Iraq war, against Guantanamo.....and many more that are just like Ron Pauls views and policies.

They said this: "...those fascist motherfuckers at the Fox News Network..."

"...this system has become so brutal and vicious and cruel that it needs to start wars and profit from the destruction around the world in order to survive as a world power..."


They are allies.
They are great musicians ("people of the sun" is my favorite)
They are one of my favorite bands.

[69360]

RATM is a great band, I've seen them several times. They would make good allies. Our concerns are much the same, they just advocate different solutions similar to the OWS people.

[The Goat]

R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]utionaries Unite! Its the only way. XD

[Adrock]

RATM is a great band, I've seen them several times. They would make good allies. Our concerns are much the same, they just advocate different solutions similar to the OWS people.

I like their music too. I agree our concerns are the same. It seems like their heart is in the right place. The big difference is that their solution is the cause problem.

[kathy88]

Love Tom Morello. One of the greatest guitarists ever.

[Johncjackson]

Socialists are probably closer to libertarian than a majority of "conservatives" ( present conservative company excluded). At least some of them get the social liberty part. Yeah, they are terrible on economic liberty, but that makes them better than liberals and conservatives who hit 0 for 2.

[king_nothing_]

I don't see socialist much different than libertarians. Just that they trust the government to handle it and libertarians not so much.

lolwat.

[Liberty74]

I don't see socialist much different than libertarians. Just that they trust the government to handle it and libertarians not so much.

Nah, they are only at the two opposite ends of the political spectrum. No difference at all.

[Adrock]

Socialists are probably closer to libertarian than a majority of "conservatives" ( present conservative company excluded). At least some of them get the social liberty part. Yeah, they are terrible on economic liberty, but that makes them better than liberals and conservatives who hit 0 for 2.

I would suggest you read "The Road to Serfdom". While socialists have always promised social liberty combined with central planning, it has never worked. He lays out the history and case on how there is no way you can have social freedom without economic freedom.

I would say that Socialists "get" the social liberty part, while Social Conservatives "get" the economic liberty part. Neither are better than the other if they want to force their other world views on society.

[ronpaulfollower999]

"They use force to make you do, what the deciders have decide you must do."

[ericthethe]

I don't see socialist much different than libertarians. Just that they trust the government to handle it and libertarians not so much.

Not necessarily. There are socialists who don't believe in the use of government to enforce it. A sort of voluntary socialism where everybody agrees to it.

Libertarian socialism, it's called. Probably sounds like an oxymoron to some people but it does exist. It was experimented with in Spain during the Spanish Revolution.

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

Nah, they are only at the two opposite ends of the political spectrum. No difference at all.

Don't be ignorant.

[cdc482]

I don't see socialist much different than libertarians. Just that they trust the government to handle it and libertarians not so much.

Same, I'm a libertarian, but I'd be willing to compromise 100% with socialists on our only important disagreement (social programs).

[misterx]

I don't see socialist much different than libertarians. Just that they trust the government to handle it and libertarians not so much.

So they want the government to force eveyone to be equal, and you want the free market to do it. And all this time I thought libertarians believed we were all unique individuals, inherently unequal, and to try and make us equal was an affront to our humanity.

Socialists believe we should all be the same. It's this core belief that puts everything they do at odds with humanity itself. If libertarians believe that too, count me out.

[nayjevin]

So they want the government to force eveyone to be equal, and you want the free market to do it.

On a small enough scale, sharing everything would not require government force. Human nature will get in the way of total justice, I believe. But in a voluntarist society communes should be allowed to exist.

[affa]

Socialism doesn't require the state. Many people mistakenly think it does because some strains of it do, and it's often conflated with communism. Socialism at it's core is simply is a different philosophy of ownership that focuses more on social ownership and cooperation. Some variants require the state, others don't - no different from variants of capitalism that get put into practice.

So they want the government to force eveyone to be equal
SNIP
Socialists believe we should all be the same.

Both of these statements are categorically false. Socialism does not require the state, and does not require everyone to be the 'same'. You can have different compensation levels based on responsibility, skill, etc. It's just a different way of structuring ownership. For a quick, basic understanding, look into employee owned cooperatives that exist today, like Full Sail Brewery. They obviously operate in a capitalistic framework/society, but in terms of ownership, decision making, etc, you'll see a different way of looking at things.

[69360]

Communes can exist in a free society, people would have the right to voluntarily associate with anyone they wish. If they wish to live together and pool resources that's fine. However communism and socialism as a form of government where the state mandates this behavior can not exist in a free society.

[fisharmor]

What? The land of the free?
Whoever told you that is your enemy.
Now something must be done
'bout victims of badge and a gun....


We have a lot of common ground, sure.

[DerailingDaTrain]

Lead singer of RATM (according to himself) is "friends" with Noam Chomsky who as you all know is a anarcho-syndicalist and has praised what is called "libertarian socialism" so they agree with us on a lot of things but disagree with us too. In my opinion their ideas that we disagree on don't sound good because it isn't about individual rights, they believe that having a job is "wage slavery" (lol says the millionaire contracted musician) and "renting yourself out to someone".

Anyway, I love RATM and I agree with them on a lot of things (not all) and I think Noam Chomsky is a really intelligent guy (who agrees with Ron Paul's foreign policy) so I'll take what I can get and a "He seems to be telling the truth" from Tom Morello is find with me.

[xFiFtyOnE]

Not bad considering that RATM are socialists. Maybe they'll be won over to our side.

That's exactly what I was about to say. I thought those guys were a bunch of socialists.

[G-Wohl]

Don't be confused here, people. Socialists, anarcho-socialists, "libertarian socialists" - they are all diametrically opposed to us philosophically. We share frustrations with respect to policy, but we do not advocate the same solutions to even the problems we agree with the most.

The fact that these figures seem to gravitate towards Ron Paul is incidental - it has nothing to do with his policies. These people, who care enough about politics and policy to have delved into the issues thoroughly, are simply more apt at seeing that Ron Paul is consistent and genuine - rare qualities to be found in a presidential candidate. It has nothing to do with philosophy or policy - it's simply appearances.

[DerailingDaTrain]

I don't think that is true at all. Who supports a candidate because he is consistent and nothing else? He could consistently support things I don't believe but I just blindly agree with him and support him because he is consistent?

I also don't believe your statement that we don't have anything in common. Hell, the only things we disagree on that are even big issues really are the amount of government and capitalism.

[affa]

Lead singer of RATM (according to himself) is "friends" with Noam Chomsky who as you all know is a anarcho-syndicalist and has praised what is called "libertarian socialism" so they agree with us on a lot of things but disagree with us too. In my opinion their ideas that we disagree on don't sound good because it isn't about individual rights, they believe that having a job is "wage slavery" (lol says the millionaire contracted musician) and "renting yourself out to someone".

This is a slight misinterpretation. It's still about individual rights, just from a different angle. As I mentioned previously, imagine a society where employee owned companies were common and prevalent. All employees owned an equal percentage of the company, and all weighed in on important decisions (though day to day operations would be much like today, assuming an employee friendly company). But because all have a say in the breakdown of responsibility and compensation, the argument would be that all shared in more 'individual liberty', not less. This is counter to the capitalistic model, where lower tier wage earners often have little say in how a company is run, and their only significant choice if they disagree with something is to quit (assuming that is even an economic possibility for them, which it may not be for the family bread winner). It's just a different way of looking at the relationship between employee and company.

As for anyone being a millionaire, striking it rich doesn't mean you have to change your beliefs. We all exist in our society, but that need not mean we have to agree with it. A prince can despise monarchy. I mean, you could say the same thing about all of us: look at all those Ron Paul supporters, still paying taxes to support the MIC they despise. But this type of hypocrisy is, to a degree, unavoidable when we exist in a society so ill (and is not the same form of hypocrisy that almost all politicians suffer from). Simply put, we can't have liberty while living in tyranny, but that doesn't take away from our message.