Ron Paul - A Tale of Two Speeches

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

@orion
If you want to believe that : [quote]
Religious conservatives outspend “liberals” by a fair amount when it comes to charity and those who think that it is not governments job to “redistribute wealth” outspend liberals 4 to 1. [/quote]
feel free, it’s ok by me. Could be true, could be false (probably some serious half truth)
But that is not the point.
We’re not discussing which system is “more humane” from a factual point of view.
Feel free to open another dicussion.

@“Victorian England and America pre 1866”
not good enough
First: close is not close enough. Communism wins again: When the khmer rouge depopulated WHOLE CITIES, THAT WAS the spirit of transforming an idea into reality. They say even Mao himself was envious (some nice aphorism followed).
Also, the commies can at least proclaim, “100th time’s the charm.” You were only “close”. And apparently, the world population wants to see a time tested failure again , again and again before, I don’t know, risking a nervous breakdown with a new system?

Second: if this is the best, then I’m sorry for you guys.
The old examples of England and America aren’t good at all, especially for our age and time.
The decising criteria are completely different.
The land (America) was barely developed, some remote lands were barely discovered, England was an empire and had whole continents by their balls, the age of technology and it’s lowest hanging fruits were in reach, pollution and ecological disasters were not a problem or better: could be ignored, industrialization was gaining momentum as was education, sanitation … I could go on and on.
Every single one of these factors won’t work today. Some work(ed) for China, right now. Not for us, sorry.
The world has changed.

@civil society
Personally, I believe that private charity is probably the way to go. But again, this a different issue.
Especially this dead horse:[quote]
… more guns in the civilian population very likely means less violent crime and never leads to more violence and I can also back that up with studies[/quote]
Again, open up another discussion thread. And I call BS on your studies. The people of Waziristan have lots of rifles, are they and their fabulous society included? If it’s just some western pretty boy countries we’re talking about, how come Austria is in the great gathering of socialists (EU?) You know the answer.
No, talking rifles is a nice dodge, and can be completely disconnected from the original question.

@Lifticus
At least Orion takes the rifle.
Talk about delusions! Of course you’d take up the rifle as well!
Same with organized power. (See Austra and the EU, above)

142

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@orion
If you want to believe that : [quote]
Religious conservatives outspend “liberals” by a fair amount when it comes to charity and those who think that it is not governments job to “redistribute wealth” outspend liberals 4 to 1. [/quote]
feel free, it’s ok by me. Could be true, could be false (probably some serious half truth)
But that is not the point.
We’re not discussing which system is “more humane” from a factual point of view.
Feel free to open another dicussion.

@“Victorian England and America pre 1866”
not good enough
First: close is not close enough. Communism wins again: When the khmer rouge depopulated WHOLE CITIES, THAT WAS the spirit of transforming an idea into reality. They say even Mao himself was envious (some nice aphorism followed).
Also, the commies can at least proclaim, “100th time’s the charm.” You were only “close”. And apparently, the world population wants to see a time tested failure again , again and again before, I don’t know, risking a nervous breakdown with a new system?

Second: if this is the best, then I’m sorry for you guys.
The old examples of England and America aren’t good at all, especially for our age and time.
The decising criteria are completely different.
The land (America) was barely developed, some remote lands were barely discovered, England was an empire and had whole continents by their balls, the age of technology and it’s lowest hanging fruits were in reach, pollution and ecological disasters were not a problem or better: could be ignored, industrialization was gaining momentum as was education, sanitation … I could go on and on.
Every single one of these factors won’t work today. Some work(ed) for China, right now. Not for us, sorry.
The world has changed.

@civil society
Personally, I believe that private charity is probably the way to go. But again, this a different issue.
Especially this dead horse:[quote]
… more guns in the civilian population very likely means less violent crime and never leads to more violence and I can also back that up with studies[/quote]
Again, open up another discussion thread. And I call BS on your studies. The people of Waziristan have lots of rifles, are they and their fabulous society included? If it’s just some western pretty boy countries we’re talking about, how come Austria is in the great gathering of socialists (EU?) You know the answer.
No, talking rifles is a nice dodge, and can be completely disconnected from the original question.

@Lifticus
At least Orion takes the rifle.
Talk about delusions! Of course you’d take up the rifle as well!
Same with organized power. (See Austra and the EU, above)[/quote]

Is this a joke or what?

you say communismen is superior to liberalisme, I agree. but you judge a ideology after how macho and badass it is, well I would say that USA is badass, you have a massive army and in my opinion usa is capitalist.

I am a communist from a humaniterian point of view. and I believe you have no clue what communismen is. communismen is a society with out classes ( sovjet, china etc had classes, the people and the party leaders ).

china, sovjet, cuba etc was socialist states who became statecapitalist after a very short time. What you want its called totaliterianismen or despoti. its maybe badass for the despot, but its sucks for the people, I take socialliberalismen every day over a despot even do I am not a socialliberalist.

ps. socialliberalismen is in europa what americans and english calls liberals.

143

[quote]Is this a joke or what?

you say communismen is superior to liberalisme, I agree. but you judge a ideology after how macho and badass it is, well I would say that USA is badass, you have a massive army and in my opinion usa is capitalist. I am a communist from a humaniterian point of view. and I believe you have no clue what communismen is.

communismen is a society with out classes ( sovjet, china etc had classes, the people and the party leaders ). china, sovjet, cuba etc was socialist states who became statecapitalist after a very short time. What you want its called totaliterianismen or despoti. its maybe badass for the despot, but its sucks for the people, I take socialliberalismen every day over a despot even do I am not a socialliberalist.

ps. socialliberalismen is in europa what americans and english calls liberals. [/quote]

Dude… spell check. I can’t understand most of this.

144

Actually, I have a pretty good grip on communism, biography wise (I hope you have).
And I’m sorry for you if you cannot understand my post.

It’s not about the biggest macho factor, but about what can work.
Basically it’s about why libertariansm is pretty close to communism in terms of unrealistic expectations.

If you’re a communist from a humanitarian point of view, I feel even more sorry for you.
The mysterious reason why, the “communisms” around the world always fell short (actually some came so close you CAN call them early communism, that’s why I wrote about the khmer rouge)is because it’s bound to fail.
There can be no pure communism. At least not with humans.

[again: Why not study FABULOREGNOCRACY instead, it’s as realistic, but more awesome!? You can watch “300” and say: “hey that’s my Hayek right there!”]

145

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@orion
If you want to believe that : [quote]
Religious conservatives outspend “liberals” by a fair amount when it comes to charity and those who think that it is not governments job to “redistribute wealth” outspend liberals 4 to 1. [/quote]
feel free, it’s ok by me. Could be true, could be false (probably some serious half truth)
But that is not the point.
We’re not discussing which system is “more humane” from a factual point of view.
Feel free to open another dicussion.

@“Victorian England and America pre 1866”
not good enough
First: close is not close enough. Communism wins again: When the khmer rouge depopulated WHOLE CITIES, THAT WAS the spirit of transforming an idea into reality. They say even Mao himself was envious (some nice aphorism followed).
Also, the commies can at least proclaim, “100th time’s the charm.” You were only “close”. And apparently, the world population wants to see a time tested failure again , again and again before, I don’t know, risking a nervous breakdown with a new system?

Second: if this is the best, then I’m sorry for you guys.
The old examples of England and America aren’t good at all, especially for our age and time.
The decising criteria are completely different.
The land (America) was barely developed, some remote lands were barely discovered, England was an empire and had whole continents by their balls, the age of technology and it’s lowest hanging fruits were in reach, pollution and ecological disasters were not a problem or better: could be ignored, industrialization was gaining momentum as was education, sanitation … I could go on and on.
Every single one of these factors won’t work today. Some work(ed) for China, right now. Not for us, sorry.
The world has changed.

@civil society
Personally, I believe that private charity is probably the way to go. But again, this a different issue.
Especially this dead horse:[quote]
… more guns in the civilian population very likely means less violent crime and never leads to more violence and I can also back that up with studies[/quote]
Again, open up another discussion thread. And I call BS on your studies. The people of Waziristan have lots of rifles, are they and their fabulous society included? If it’s just some western pretty boy countries we’re talking about, how come Austria is in the great gathering of socialists (EU?) You know the answer.
No, talking rifles is a nice dodge, and can be completely disconnected from the original question.

@Lifticus
At least Orion takes the rifle.
Talk about delusions! Of course you’d take up the rifle as well!
Same with organized power. (See Austra and the EU, above)[/quote]

Well first of all it does not matter whether you believe that conservatives give more, that is well documented. You can find it a few pages back.

Then, it does not matter either whether you think guns most likely make a society safer, the fact that more guns do not lead to more crime is also well documented, see the meta study of the CDC.

Also, no matter how socialist Austria might or might not be you can get a gun here at the age of 18, a semi automatic one even. Austria as well as Switzerland are two of the safest countries on this planet, fuck Waziristan.

Furthermore, if you measure the “success” of the implementation of an idea in terms of killed people, well yes, libertarianism cannot compete with all kinds of socialism, like communism, fascism, Khmer Rouge, Juche system in North Korea, you name it. Interestingly enough, most libertarians believe that to be a good thing.

Then the last point, yes, life has become more complicated since the 19th century. However the enormous increase of state power is not due to an increased complexity but due to redistribution. That however creates a more complex system and not a less complex one. If governments would only try to prevent involuntary exposure to toxic substances and regulate pollution it would still be well below 10% of teh GDP and we would not have this discussion.

146

Talk about a complete dodge!

Weapon issue - Weapons do not make a peaceful society!
you say fuck waziristan, I say fuck the swiss. Great way to make a point. On the world map, the riflebound countries are mostly shit holes. Try another way.

Libertarian ZakÄ?t - completely of the point. What do I care about some american study? We’re talking about the world here! Are german conservatives more inclined to give bread to the poor then FDP salarymen? Do brazil hardcore catholics treat the poor better then the chilean chicago boys? So many questions…
And I already told you, I’m not really a fan of state welfare.

to the real issue: [quote]
if you measure the “success” of the implementation of an idea in terms of killed people, well yes, libertarianism cannot compete with all kinds of [/quote]
Yes, we’ve both established who killed more.
the issue is

[quote]the implementation of an idea [/quote] itself
Libertarianism has failed here.
Maybe communism has the better PR (hardly), but Libertarianism fails TO EVEN START for a reason.
It’s a fantasy to ignore the power issue.
And just proclaiming some sort of “civil society” will emerge and fix everything won’t do the trick.
Then why is my fantasy worse? The king would fix things, too, only in a decisively more awesome way.
Seems to me people always long more for some king then for an amorphous concept they instinctivly distrust.

your last paragraph is nice:

The main argument is not about complexity per se, but that certain criteria worked for the rise of 19th century America and Britain (and also Hong Kong) that aren’t there anymore.
And
Does a complex gov. follow complex, modern societies?
Or does a complex government merely react with increased complexity?
Yes, and yes, I’d say. Both are right and you are making this way too simple.
What is it, for example, with military budgets? In the US, tt’s approaching one fourth. You cannot simply wish that away (aka, there is no power vacuum).

FABULOREGNOCRACY ftw…
(at least it’s awesome)

147

I heard that Ron Paul was on the Jamaican water polo team from age 13 to 21

148

anyway I love his songs…

great thread guys…

keep up the good work!!!

149

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Actually, I have a pretty good grip on communism, biography wise (I hope you have).
And I’m sorry for you if you cannot understand my post.

It’s not about the biggest macho factor, but about what can work.
Basically it’s about why libertariansm is pretty close to communism in terms of unrealistic expectations.

If you’re a communist from a humanitarian point of view, I feel even more sorry for you.
The mysterious reason why, the “communisms” around the world always fell short (actually some came so close you CAN call them early communism, that’s why I wrote about the khmer rouge)is because it’s bound to fail.
There can be no pure communism. At least not with humans.

[again: Why not study FABULOREGNOCRACY instead, it’s as realistic, but more awesome!? You can watch “300” and say: “hey that’s my Hayek right there!”]

[/quote]

biography wise does not cut it, you must read books of marx and books of other marxist to understand what they believe in, not what some other author thinks of them and there teories.

the question about power: I see what you meen, this is why marxist believe that you need a socialist phase, a phase with a state who can protect the revolution because, the upper class is not going to give a way there power and kapital without defences. this is the difference between marxists and anarcist, the anarcist wants the communist phase to start right a way.

about the former “communist” states: they failed because they made a socialist revolution in feudal countries. marx is very clear on the fact that you need the capitalist phase before you can take the next step into socialisme.

150

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
@Lifticus
At least Orion takes the rifle.
Talk about delusions! Of course you’d take up the rifle as well!
Same with organized power. (See Austra and the EU, above)[/quote]

I have no problem extinguishing a thug’s life.

Just because I would choose not to take up arms at the whim of a government to kill people on the other side of the world does not make me a pacifist.

151

Right, you need that capitalist phase, why? Oh because it creates wealth and prosperity so you can Hijack it?

I am not saying capitalism is perfect, but what is perfect is the flexibility of market participants in which to enhance welfare. I noted in your previous post that you trumpeted “communism is without classes”… so I will address this in two lights. A) Being that you are on this site, you presumably lift weights. So no matter how much you lift, how strict your diet is, you are never allowed to surpass mister squat rack curler. Though a rudimentary analogy, I think it perfectly apt.

B) Communism cannot be without classes, as there is the beaurocracy. History has proved, that there are indeed classes in every communist society. This is true of all stages of development in said society, for example Mao’ist China and Hu’s China, both have an exclusive beaurocratic class. This government class carries more power, and more benefits than the corresponding proletariat. The wealth is not only material…

Ryan mentioned large industries in a previous post as barriers to entry. How about the supporting industries? How about the type of competition?

You must take into account economies of scale, and type of competition. Is it perfectly competitive? This would have low barriers to entry but also strict market pricing. Farms are an example of this. Does it require large economies of scale and a large bit of capital expenditure to get in, thus high barrier to entry? Then your auto/machining plants are examples of this. Thus people get together as investors and become incorporated. This is really the flexibility of capitalism, as opposed to statism.

I also wonder, what the majority of posters on this forum would do if Ryan wasnt here?

152

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Right, you need that capitalist phase, why? Oh because it creates wealth and prosperity so you can Hijack it?

I am not saying capitalism is perfect, but what is perfect is the flexibility of market participants in which to enhance welfare. I noted in your previous post that you trumpeted “communism is without classes”… so I will address this in two lights. A) Being that you are on this site, you presumably lift weights. So no matter how much you lift, how strict your diet is, you are never allowed to surpass mister squat rack curler. Though a rudimentary analogy, I think it perfectly apt.

B) Communism cannot be without classes, as there is the beaurocracy. History has proved, that there are indeed classes in every communist society. This is true of all stages of development in said society, for example Mao’ist China and Hu’s China, both have an exclusive beaurocratic class. This government class carries more power, and more benefits than the corresponding proletariat. The wealth is not only material…

Ryan mentioned large industries in a previous post as barriers to entry. How about the supporting industries? How about the type of competition?

You must take into account economies of scale, and type of competition. Is it perfectly competitive? This would have low barriers to entry but also strict market pricing. Farms are an example of this. Does it require large economies of scale and a large bit of capital expenditure to get in, thus high barrier to entry? Then your auto/machining plants are examples of this. Thus people get together as investors and become incorporated. This is really the flexibility of capitalism, as opposed to statism.

I also wonder, what the majority of posters on this forum would do if Ryan wasnt here?[/quote]

In fact, any time there is organized aggression there are two classes automatically being created:

Those that benefit from the organized aggression and those that inevitably must suffer from it.

153

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Ryan mentioned large industries in a previous post as barriers to entry. How about the supporting industries? How about the type of competition?
[/quote]

Ryan misses the obvious fact that the largest consumer of goods and services are other businesses. I think people that argue for a centrally planned state do not really understand the structure of production.

Most businesses do not have many competitors and that is because the market rids the excessive and badly run ones out first. Those that last end up becoming the Wal-Marts, etc.

Most small businesses fail precisely because if a market for their good or service already exists there is already stiff competition in the market for it. They have to figure out how to either produce a much better quality product or figure out how to produce more at cheaper cost.

That is no small feat and precisely why I would never trust a bureaucrat to figure this stuff out.

154

[quote]666Rich wrote:
… Communism cannot be without classes, as there is the beaurocracy. History has proved, that there are indeed classes in every communist society. This is true of all stages of development in said society, for example Mao’ist China and Hu’s China, both have an exclusive beaurocratic class. This government class carries more power, and more benefits than the corresponding proletariat. The wealth is not only material…
[/quote]

In China’s case, this will be a permanent condition. Because the Communist party is placed above the Chinese constitution.

155

[quote]666Rich wrote:
Right, you need that capitalist phase, why? Oh because it creates wealth and prosperity so you can Hijack it?

I am not saying capitalism is perfect, but what is perfect is the flexibility of market participants in which to enhance welfare. I noted in your previous post that you trumpeted “communism is without classes”… so I will address this in two lights. A) Being that you are on this site, you presumably lift weights. So no matter how much you lift, how strict your diet is, you are never allowed to surpass mister squat rack curler. Though a rudimentary analogy, I think it perfectly apt.

B) Communism cannot be without classes, as there is the beaurocracy. History has proved, that there are indeed classes in every communist society. This is true of all stages of development in said society, for example Mao’ist China and Hu’s China, both have an exclusive beaurocratic class. This government class carries more power, and more benefits than the corresponding proletariat. The wealth is not only material…
[/quote]

china, russia etc was not communist but socialist. yes in SOCIALIST china there was classes, the partyleaders ruled the people. communisme was never reached in these countries. again because they where feudal to begin with, not capitalist.

Its not about hijacking, its aboute taking whats yours. the workers has produced all the material wealth, but som parasite take it, so under a socialist revolution they take it back.

156

I could easily say “where are your communist beacons” but that is redundant and has been covered before.

So really, its about taking what is yours? Might I ask you, for example in a ford plant. Is it the factory workers who produce the wealth? Or is it the engineers that designed the product which they put together? Or is it the C.O.O, C.F.O, and C.E.O who allocate the resources for the production of wealth to occur? Or is it the venture capitalists who provide the liquidity to these people in order to create wealth? Who does it belong to? Who is “a worker”. I would really like you to answer this question as concretely as possible. The minute you think wealth is simply produced by laborers, you resort back to feudalism and abscond “thought” as a measure of capital.

It is funny that despite abhorring religion, communism and socialism both create straw men out of industry in order to facilitate their goals. Who is the enemy in capitalism? Their is none, as the focus is on trade and productivity. Give the people a false evil to rally against and they easily forget the lack of leadership and shortcomings of leadership. See, Cuba, Soviet Russia, the war on terror, the war on drugs etc.

157

[quote]666Rich wrote:
I could easily say “where are your communist beacons” but that is redundant and has been covered before.

So really, its about taking what is yours? Might I ask you, for example in a ford plant. Is it the factory workers who produce the wealth? Or is it the engineers that designed the product which they put together? Or is it the C.O.O, C.F.O, and C.E.O who allocate the resources for the production of wealth to occur? Or is it the venture capitalists who provide the liquidity to these people in order to create wealth? Who does it belong to? Who is “a worker”. I would really like you to answer this question as concretely as possible. The minute you think wealth is simply produced by laborers, you resort back to feudalism and abscond “thought” as a measure of capital.

It is funny that despite abhorring religion, communism and socialism both create straw men out of industry in order to facilitate their goals. Who is the enemy in capitalism? Their is none, as the focus is on trade and productivity. Give the people a false evil to rally against and they easily forget the lack of leadership and shortcomings of leadership. See, Cuba, Soviet Russia, the war on terror, the war on drugs etc. [/quote]

ok I will try to answer your question.

a worker/proletarian is a person who doesnt own productiv property exept for he`s labour, so the only thing he can offer to the market is himself/herself. this is most people of the world to day, and they are a class because they share a common interrest, the interrest of the workers. the opposit of this class is the upperclass ( the capitalists). In between this classes are people of power but who doesnt have any property. they are similar to the workers but at the same they are similar to the capitalist. hope this answered your question
the engineer are also a worker. he sels his labour for money.

158

[quote]florelius wrote:
Its not about hijacking, its aboute taking whats yours. the workers has produced all the material wealth, but som parasite take it, so under a socialist revolution they take it back.
[/quote]

Wrong. You’re problem is you don’t see the massive value management brings to a company. Until you’ve actually managed a company, or awoken from your hilarious naivete, you will continue to love “communism” because it rewards those who you think do all the work.

In reality, labor does relatively less “work,” so long as you define “work” not as physical labor, but as any and all factors that go into the mass scale production of any good or service for a profit.

159

There are plenty of people who are “upper class” that do not own property in the idea that you mean. How about employee stock ownership plans that are common to many companies. Thus many workers are part owners of the company. Or is it those who own the commercial property the company sits on. This could be a commercial brokerage or the firm itself… are they really seeing all the benefits? Or do you mean those who own the equipment, somtimes it is leased, sometimes it is owned.

Furthermore, many of these “workers” may not own the property of their place of employment but CAN own property. Furthermore many of the industrious ones can eventually quit being “workers” and join the property owning class with relative ease and make money out of it that way.

Thus your argument is really nebulous and does not answer my question other than in a very rudimentary non real world example.

160

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Its not about hijacking, its aboute taking whats yours. the workers has produced all the material wealth, but som parasite take it, so under a socialist revolution they take it back.
[/quote]

Wrong. You’re problem is you don’t see the massive value management brings to a company. Until you’ve actually managed a company, or awoken from your hilarious naivete, you will continue to love “communism” because it rewards those who you think do all the work.

In reality, labor does relatively less “work,” so long as you define “work” not as physical labor, but as any and all factors that go into the mass scale production of any good or service for a profit.[/quote]

if all labour its importent, why doesnt all get the same pay?