Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Ron Paul wants you to know he and his 31 delegates are still in the race   ( divider line
    More: PSA, Ron Paul, Super Tuesday, brokered conventions, campaign plan, Virgin Islands, Mitt Romney, TPM, delegates  
•       •       •

925 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Mar 2012 at 10:04 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-03-15 10:22:35 AM  
7 votes:
I post this in nearly every Ron Paul thread because I feel it's prescient:

There is a special valueset that Ron Paul advocates, and this valueset always seems to attract the most fearlessly individualistic: Libertarians, militia groups, Objectivists, 4channers and teenage miscreants -- in other words, people who are total shiat-bags and want to live in a system where they are permitted to be total shiat-bags without consequence.

They call it "freedom", of course, but truth be known there are more important things in society than freedom, which to these people has been wrapped into its own religious mythology so pure and exalted that it has stunted their personal growth as normal, able-bodied, well-adjusted people ("freedom", after all, isn't a reason to do things; it is a rationalization for doing them).

They also subscribe to the Austrian School of Economics, which is an economic system that consists entirely of ideological catchphrases, talking points and flowing rhetoric deliberately left open to interpretation, has no scientific basis or any practical application, and conflicts with obvious empirical data (Austrian school is in opposition to empiricism. Their papers use no math, in a subject that is all about math). One of the most distinguishing characteristics of most followers of the Austrian school is that they often display a gross misunderstanding of modern economics.

But probably the worst thing about Ron Paul, his followers and their socio-political ideological underpinnings is their inherent belief that everyone will behave themselves if we all just leave each other alone. This ideal -- the honor system -- has never been known to work in any open system, location or culture in the history of the world.

Any philosophy (whether its political, or moral, or economic) that doesn't start with the basic premise that people are flaming assholes is fundamentally flawed.
2012-03-15 10:53:12 AM  
4 votes:

DozeNutz: Have you are fundamentally against classical liberalism? I think the whole creation of America is based on it. Ya know, the whole age of enlightenment, Bastiat, Locke, and those guys.

Actually, the cynical perspective of mankind (especially Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau) is one of the core Enlightenment philosophies that the Founding Fathers used in concocting modern Democracy. It's the ONLY political system in the world that holds this conceit and that's why it works.

The founding tenet of all modern Democracies is that man can not be trusted. At all. Our system is slovenly inefficient for a reason, and it's best that way. The better the system works, the more you should be afraid of it. You can't change the wolf, but you can always make him toothless.

Perfect systems are bad. You don't want a perfect system. A perfect system is absolute, ruthless, and tyrannical. All totalitarianisms are perfect systems. Or attempts to be.

Democracy is one of the slowest, stupidest, most ill-conceived and inefficient system ever devised by man. A system of paranoia, fear and mistrust, of checks and balances, of constantly looking over your shoulder, of keeping tabs on what the other guy is doing. Everything done by consensus/committee, bogging everything down in bureaucratic paperwork so that nothing gets done. And that's what makes it the safest and best system.

Because while other systems are set up to try to win, Democracy is the only one that tries not to lose.

This is another thing that Ron Paul and his cult get habitually wrong.
2012-03-15 11:30:26 AM  
3 votes:

physt: GOLD

Oh, and speaking of gold, allow me to go on another rant for a bit here since this thread might have a few libertarian onlookers in it:

For the longest time people thought that gold was a compound, like steel. And they thought that if they discovered the right formula they could "make" gold, often using lead as a base material because lead is just as heavy as gold (and frequently used as a counterbalance to determine gold's purity). And lead was cheap and plentiful. This was the Grand Unified Field Theory of alchemy: How to turn lead into gold. Isaac Newton worked for decades trying to uncover this answer. But the important part is they thought gold was everywhere (or that it could be made) -- you just had to find it (or make it). That optimism (ie: belief in fiscal fluidity) is what kept ancient economies going.

Understand those words: "fiscal fluidity". It means the ability for money to change hands, readily and easily. It is the most important facet of economics. The purpose of money is to change hands -- it's supposed to be spent. When money is not spent, when it sits in one place and doesn't do anything (ie: when the rich hoard it), that's bad for economies.

Today, we know that gold is an element, and transmuting lead (or any other element) to gold requires a biblical amount of energy -- so much energy that the process is not worth it. So we know that there is a finite amount of gold in the world and we even know how much: About 33 cubic metres worth. It's been estimated that about 25 cubic metres of gold has already been discovered and scooped out of the ground, most of it within the last two centuries. There's hardly any gold left that we either don't know about or is inaccessible (bottom of the ocean, volcanoes, etc.). But the important thing to understand here is that we cannot get, nor make, any more gold. This is all we get. The only other place to get more gold is in the exploded cores of stars.

The Gold Standard was fine for world economies up until about 100 years ago because of a few things:

1) Belief in the fiscal fluidity of gold. If legal tender got scarce, you could always just go scoop more out of the ground to grease the engines of capitalism.

2) There were only a handful of nations with global currencies/economies. Less players in the capitalist game == less pressing need for fiscal fluidity. Economies moved relatively slow, money supply/inflation stayed the same, and all the gold in the world was enough for the major players at the time.

Today, however, there are over a hundred global currencies and 150 global economies. The dependency on a finite resource has moved from a few million bit players a century ago to most of the world's population (let's say 5+ billion), which as you might imagine, has reached a tipping point. There simply isn't enough gold to ensure fiscal fluidity (gold -- or lack of it -- frequently caused bank panics and Depressions in the 19th century for this reason).

Economists knew this as far back as the 1890s and their response was to devalue the gold supply by printing "gold certificates" (paper money representations of gold), essentially increase the amount of gold that existed by dealing in an abstract representation of gold. They needed to devalue the gold four times in the first half of the 20th century alone -- in 1921, 1934, 1938 and finally in 1944, where under the Bretton Woods agreement gold was officially worth 40% of what it was. It stayed that way until 1971 when the emergence of post-colonial economies necessitated a massive shift in global economic policy. Gold was too rigid and too structured (not fluent enough) to handle the influx of a billion more capitalist customers, so that's when they moved off gold and into the age of fiat currency (floating paper money printed by governments), backed by the US dollar.

Fiat isn't perfect. It has its problems too. There are pros and cons to every economic system, but at the time, moving to fiat may have been the most sensible choice (but maybe only a short-term one). See, that's the problem with economics -- the law of unintended consequences plays havoc with longterm planning, foresight and policy.

But technically, we've been off the gold standard since 1934.

If we move back to the Gold Standard, all that will happen is nations will hoard gold. They may even fight over it. There will be multiple runs on various national banks as individuals try to secure their portion of the gold supply (and if you're not rich, that's not you). Governments will seize gold all they can -- it will sit in various Fort Knox-like structures and it will not move. Gold will increasingly be represented by more and more gold certificates (almost indistinguishable from paper currency) as demand goes up, until we are stuck with what I call faux-fiat (the Gold Certificate Standard). Those who own gold will control the money supply.....but there won't be any noticeable difference in the way things are run or the way your life is affected.

The gold standard is not some magic bullet solution to our economic troubles. It brings some positives to the table, but it also brings some negatives. Don't pretend that things were fine before we went to fiat. Bank panics were frequent and severe with gold controlling the money supply, and it is utterly impossible to stimulate the economy during recessions/depressions under the Gold Standard (which is why many countries left the standard in the 1930s).

I don't understand why Ron Paul or his supporters think going back to Gold is such a good idea. It won't eliminate inflation or deficits, it won't encourage economic growth (may even hamper it in certain circumstances), and it won't make your life any better or the government any more honest. But of all of Ron Paul's platform points, it is the one that is the least concerning.
2012-03-15 12:22:27 PM  
2 votes:

Deftoons: If people - in your words - are flaming assholes, why put them in control of other people?

No one "puts" people in control of other people.

People seek hierarchy and control all by themselves. That's not something you can get rid of -- its simple human nature.

The best we can do is employ a system where the flaming assholes in control don't have too much control.

Deftoons: If you are so convinced that humans are inherently evil, and therefore we should set up a controlling entity to "keep us all in line,"

Uhhh.... no, that's not what I said at all. Go back and read it again. The goal isn't to set up a controlling entity to keep us all in line, the goal is to prevent controlling entities from keeping us all in line.

That's what Democracy is all about. What, you think those checks and balances were for shiats n giggles?

Deftoons: Genocides aren't caused by free people. They are caused by an act of force.

That's just silly -- of course genocides are caused by free people. They are caused by free people who are free enough to cause genocide.

You aren't truly free until you can enact force upon others. Because if you can't, then you are imprisoned -- not free -- by the imposing will of others not wanting you to impose your will on them. What kind of freedom is that?

In a free society, you have the freedom to do what you want while others have the freedom to stop you. One of you will not be permitted to exercise their freedom.

Such is the paradox of freedom, and hence why it is not a particularly useful or beneficial trait of civilized living.
2012-03-15 10:17:54 AM  
2 votes:
Its rigged. (new window)
2012-03-15 10:17:22 AM  
2 votes:
I'm no RON PAUL-ist, but I think he comes off as the most down-to-earth common sense voice of the group...
2012-03-15 10:16:38 AM  
2 votes:
It would be nice if people understood how delegates work. Very few have actually been awarded yet. Most of the caucuses and primaries so far have been nothing but straw polls. Actual delegates are picked usually by state delegates that are picked by county delegates, and Ron Paul supporters have been good at getting local delegate positions. Is he going to win? Of course not, but he will end up with a lot more than is being implied, and is angling to have some sway at the convention.
2012-03-15 08:57:04 AM  
2 votes:
I'd give real money if he and his supporters shut up.
2012-03-15 10:36:41 PM  
1 vote:
I personally like this one myself:
2012-03-15 07:43:21 PM  
1 vote:

StokeyBob: Trying to read through this thread makes me worry for some for my fellow farkers.

Please read my posts.

I explain, quite plainly, objectively and practically, exactly why and how you, Ron Paul, and libertarianism in general are completely wrong.
2012-03-15 06:42:26 PM  
1 vote:

StokeyBob: I don't think many of you fear Ron Paul because you think he is wrong so much as your scared to death because you know he is right.

I don't think you fear Ron Paul losing because he's right, you're* scared to death that both of you have been wrong all along.

* - note correct spelling, HTH
2012-03-15 04:42:22 PM  
1 vote:

StokeyBob: I don't think many of you fear Ron Paul because you think he is wrong so much as your scared to death because you know he is right.

No to the globalist shills.
Yes to...
Ron Paul

Yes to uteri living in freedom.
No to Ron Paul.
2012-03-15 04:21:32 PM  
1 vote:
Just dropping in to say that, if a thread could be won, Ishkur has most certainly won it.

That is all.
2012-03-15 01:21:16 PM  
1 vote:

Deftoons: At this point in your post, I realize that I can't take your views seriously anymore. Sorry.

Too cerebral for you? ...let me reword it another way.

See, your fallacy is in thinking that "freedom" carries some sort of moral component to it.

There's no indication that this has ever been the case. Absolute Freedom is utterly and inhumanly amoral -- it means no restrictions from anyone, either governments, corporations, rules, laws, regulations, or the moral sensitivities of others. If you want to temper your brand of freedom with a code of civil behavior, well that's fine, but then it's not freedom. You are being forced to act a certain way by the civil structures of the system you live in (let's call it the social contract) because you will not get what you want if you don't.

That, my friend, is not technically freedom.

It's a stunning illustration of the rank hypocrisy and outright selfishness of Libertarians to assert themselves in a position of moral exceptionalism while decrying the system that permits them to behave that way.
2012-03-15 01:04:45 PM  
1 vote:

Deftoons: Ishkur: That's just silly -- of course genocides are caused by free people. They are caused by free people who are free enough to cause genocide.

At this point in your post, I realize that I can't take your views seriously anymore. Sorry.

Somewhere out there, Hannah Arendt is shaking her head sadly.
2012-03-15 12:02:43 PM  
1 vote:

Just running for office he is doing more for freedom and liberty for you than all of the other candidates combined.

Ron Paul
the voice of reason

2012-03-15 11:56:12 AM  
1 vote:
Is this the thread where I take a sh*t on libertarianism?

I really have to go.
2012-03-15 11:36:19 AM  
1 vote:

Ishkur: If we move back to the Gold Standard, all that will happen is nations will hoard gold.

Nations hoard gold right now.
2012-03-15 11:32:42 AM  
1 vote:

cameroncrazy1984: That Masked Man: I support Ron Paul because I went on a deployment to Iraq, another to Afghanistan, and RP is the only Republican up there that doesn't bother paying lip service to the idea that we need to get tough on MORE Middle Eastern countries rather than less.

So you'd destroy our internal infrastructure rather than vote for a Dem who believes the same thing?

I know you probably won't remember this as vividly as I do or be nearly as personally offended by it, but Obama campaigned on getting troops out of Afghanistan immediately. As in, first thing he was going to do when in office. After that, he stuck to the Bush withdrawal timetable for Iraq and I spent 2010 stuck in RC East helping Afghan police secure polling stations for their elections.

As for the destroying infrastructure bit, 1/10.
2012-03-15 11:21:00 AM  
1 vote:
I support Ron Paul because I went on a deployment to Iraq, another to Afghanistan, and RP is the only Republican up there that doesn't bother paying lip service to the idea that we need to get tough on MORE Middle Eastern countries rather than less.

The US has been giving itself black eyes left and right, but with the prevalence of social media and the internet we're doing it faster and harder than ever before. Our foreign policy is going to poison us to death sooner or later.

I have no illusions about him (or Rand Paul) getting on the ticket, but I think everyone might like to think a little more about his "We wouldn't like it if they did it to us" foreign policy. Half the reason everyone loves Red Dawn is the 'foreign military occupation' survivalist fantasy where we imagine ourselves waging a successful guerrilla campaign against some dirty foreign invaders. Yeah well, you don't need to be patriotic to do stuff like that. You just need to be angry. It turns out people get pissed when you invade or bomb their country for spurious reasons. Even more stunningly, if you continue to and if you then continue to occupy that place you just attacked they might shoot at you.
2012-03-15 11:14:09 AM  
1 vote:
2012-03-15 11:03:16 AM  
1 vote:
We The People Act

That right there is all I need to know about this neo-confederate to determine I want him nowhere near the Executive Branch.

He can take his 31 delegates and shove them up his ass, for all I care.
2012-03-15 10:47:05 AM  
1 vote:

Serious Black: They would probably be better off getting committed to an insane asylum.

I'm generally not one for hyperbole but I can see nothing wrong with this statement.
2012-03-15 10:43:23 AM  
1 vote:
Ron Paul supporters are some of the most deluded people on the planet. They're completely convinced that he is the most popular politician in America and is going to storm to the Presidency this year with a bigger landslide than either LBJ or Reagan's second election. They would probably be better off getting committed to an insane asylum.
2012-03-15 10:15:59 AM  
1 vote:

quatchi: "We are here."

/Horton hears a Ron Paul supporter.

Rand will get on the short list for Veep in return for RON PAULs Delegates to Romney.

Rand doesn't bring anything to the ticket except more woman hatred and corporate fellating. Romney will pick Tom Ridge, who brings the swing state of PA and helps fill in Romney's foreign policy/national security void. Plus, Romney won't be short by ~50 votes. If he's short, he'll be short ~200.
2012-03-15 10:09:33 AM  
1 vote:

quatchi: "We are here."

/Horton hears a Ron Paul supporter.

Rand will get on the short list for Veep in return for RON PAULs Delegates to Romney.

And then Rand will not be chosen.

He's just not a good national choice and even the republicans know it.
2012-03-15 10:06:53 AM  
1 vote:
Just... just go away already.
2012-03-15 09:12:44 AM  
1 vote:
At this point he's simply preparing the ground for Rand.
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.