Ron Paul

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
nitsua's picture
nitsua
Offline
Joined: 9-02-12
Feb 24 2012 20:14
Ron Paul

Obviously everyone on here tends to dislike Ron Paul more than they like him (does that sound right?).

Can you list your likes and your dislikes on Ron Paul?

Thanks!

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Feb 24 2012 21:05

Some of the dislikes can be gleaned from this discussion.

ElusiveElla's picture
ElusiveElla
Offline
Joined: 14-02-12
Feb 24 2012 23:01

Ron Paul's ideology is the antithesis of what we're trying to accomplish.

nitsua's picture
nitsua
Offline
Joined: 9-02-12
Feb 24 2012 23:26
Khawaga wrote:
Some of the dislikes can be gleaned from this discussion.

I've looked through it... obviously I don't want a fucking nazi leading the US. As I've looked through it, I've found NO e-mails tied to Ron Paul. WASSUP WIT DAT?

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 25 2012 01:27

Nitsua, I feel like you're skirting the issue here a bit, what are your thoughts on Ron Paul?

nitsua's picture
nitsua
Offline
Joined: 9-02-12
Feb 25 2012 06:34
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Nitsua, I feel like you're skirting the issue here a bit, what are your thoughts on Ron Paul?

My thoughts? My thoughts are... I do not know what they are. I was a Ron Paul supporter in the beginning on 2011. But I am no longer a supporter. I think every politician that big is full of secrets... also, he's a conspiracy nut. I just wanted to know what libcom's thoughts are.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 25 2012 10:04

Basically that, but that he's also a racist and a arch-conservative with some liberal social views thrown in. I mean he want to privatize everything.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Feb 25 2012 11:41

Ron Paul is a libertarian that basically claims there should be no state, just a market. However the market requires force to protect the capitalists and enforce their power. So basically he will privatise all the functions of the state and the rich will drop even the pretence that they don't run things and drop any need to pretend that there are any rules other than money/

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Feb 25 2012 13:35

Do we really have to do this again? I think that last thread sums it up. But its also worth point out. We are totally against his political praxis. He is a politician looking to get elected to the the head of one of the most powerful states on earth. It is completely antithetical to anarchism in every way conceivably possible.

working class
Offline
Joined: 1-05-11
Feb 25 2012 21:40
Quote:
Obviously everyone on here tends to dislike Ron Paul more than they like him (does that sound right?).

This might help in understanding why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Rehashed neoliberal utopianism with the firm support of certain sectors of the capitalist class is not something we can support.

Dan K
Offline
Joined: 27-10-10
Feb 25 2012 23:27

As far as the "is Ron Paul racist" non-debate goes: He said that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act, he implied the South was right in the Civil War, and he wants to militarize the southern border more. There's not much reason to care whether he took money from neo-nazis.

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Feb 26 2012 00:47

Yep, under the pretense of 'state's rights.' He's also anti-abortion, and given the opportunity, he would dismantle all social programs and regulations that mitigate the impact of capitalism on the working class. Ron Paul is a Right-Wing reactionary.

Most anarchists aren't concerned with bourgeois politics Nitsua, the social transformations we want to take place aren't possible through capitalism or electoral/parliamentary 'democracy,' let alone through any prospective presidential candidates.

Ethos's picture
Ethos
Offline
Joined: 6-07-11
Feb 26 2012 01:59

^Yep.

nitsua wrote:
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Nitsua, I feel like you're skirting the issue here a bit, what are your thoughts on Ron Paul?

My thoughts? My thoughts are... I do not know what they are.

That's a pretty nebulous response. Like others have pointed out, he's a right-wing reactionary. He not only supports capitalism, as all of them do, but he promotes the most dystopian kind of capitalism there is. As far as shitty choices go, he's probably the worse. Primarily because he (more or less*) holds true to his ideas, whereas the others sell out to pressure or (more often) the biggest purse.

----------------
*An example of him not doing this is when he voted for S.J. Res. 23 the, "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists" after Sep. 11. Now days he goes around saying we shouldn't be engaging in war.

Marx-Trek's picture
Marx-Trek
Offline
Joined: 13-11-11
Feb 26 2012 13:20

Ron Paul is someone who plays on people's idealism and hopes that they don't see his politics for what it is. Soon the war, as most people would understand war, will be over and his anti-war rhetoric will fade and so to will his perceived popularity.

tastybrain's picture
tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Feb 26 2012 22:17
Ron Paul wrote:
What programs can we cut? What agencies and departments should go? A better question is: What should stay on a permanent basis? That's easy: only those functions specifically outlined in the Constitution. Is foreign aid allowed by the Constitution? No. Is public housing in the Constitution? No. Is federal involvement in education? No. Are the EPA, OSHA, and the BATF? No. Is protecting our borders? Yes.
Ron Paul wrote:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

Let's be clear, Ron Paul fucking sucks

I don't know if he is personally antisemetic, but given the obvious antisemitism of his base, I would be personally quite worried if he was elected about how emboldened fascists might be.

Marx-Trek's picture
Marx-Trek
Offline
Joined: 13-11-11
Feb 27 2012 00:06

Maybe a more interesting discussion would be, is Ron Paul a fascist? Is libertarianism some form of fascism?

I always like to refer to Guy Debord's Society of Spectacle when discussions regarding fascism and capitalist begin to pop up. Is there a difference between fascism and Debord's "the dictatorial freedom of the Market". Any thoughts?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Feb 27 2012 00:13

What wrong with Ron Paul? Everything.

What's right with him? Nothing.

Next!

jaocheu's picture
jaocheu
Offline
Joined: 30-07-07
Feb 27 2012 06:42
Marx-Trek wrote:
Maybe a more interesting discussion would be, is Ron Paul a fascist? Is libertarianism some form of fascism?

I always like to refer to Guy Debord's Society of Spectacle when discussions regarding fascism and capitalist begin to pop up. Is there a difference between fascism and Debord's "the dictatorial freedom of the Market". Any thoughts?

Plenty, a fascist state is still a state that feels an obligation to care for its people. The nazis created a health service, fed the poor, looked after the old and invalid, freely educated people, provided public works and even the leaders felt an obligation to provide publically funded arts to improve society. In a country run by coorperations that feel they only owe themselves and believe in laissez capitalism we will return to Victorian times of education and healthcare for those who can afford it and workhouses for the rest.

In a nazi regime you can still have a decent life, if you are willing to keep your head down, in laissez capitalism your screwed if you do and screwed if you don't.

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Feb 27 2012 07:28

FULL DOWN VOTE.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Feb 27 2012 07:53
Quote:
Plenty, a fascist state is still a state that feels an obligation to care for its people. The nazis created a health service, fed the poor, looked after the old and invalid, freely educated people, provided public works and even the leaders felt an obligation to provide publically funded arts to improve society. In a country run by coorperations that feel they only owe themselves and believe in laissez capitalism we will return to Victorian times of education and healthcare for those who can afford it and workhouses for the rest.

In a nazi regime you can still have a decent life, if you are willing to keep your head down, in laissez capitalism your screwed if you do and screwed if you don't.

WTF!?

Unless you were Jewish, an immigrant, gay, left wing, a trade unionist, disabled...

jaocheu's picture
jaocheu
Offline
Joined: 30-07-07
Feb 27 2012 13:01
Chilli Sauce wrote:
WTF!?

Unless you were Jewish, an immigrant, gay, left wing, a trade unionist, disabled...

Yes and the sky is blue and bears shit in the woods.

jolasmo's picture
jolasmo
Offline
Joined: 25-12-11
Feb 27 2012 14:38
Chilli Sauce wrote:
Quote:
Plenty, a fascist state is still a state that feels an obligation to care for its people. The nazis created a health service, fed the poor, looked after the old and invalid, freely educated people, provided public works and even the leaders felt an obligation to provide publically funded arts to improve society. In a country run by coorperations that feel they only owe themselves and believe in laissez capitalism we will return to Victorian times of education and healthcare for those who can afford it and workhouses for the rest.

In a nazi regime you can still have a decent life, if you are willing to keep your head down, in laissez capitalism your screwed if you do and screwed if you don't.

WTF!?

Unless you were Jewish, an immigrant, gay, left wing, a trade unionist, disabled...

Or didn't get on with your neighbours, so they informed on you regardless.

Railyon's picture
Railyon
Offline
Joined: 4-11-11
Feb 27 2012 15:23
jaocheu wrote:
Plenty, a fascist state is still a state that feels an obligation to care for its people. The nazis created a health service, fed the poor, looked after the old and invalid, freely educated people, provided public works and even the leaders felt an obligation to provide publically funded arts to improve society.

I don't know dude, I think you're onto something there regarding morality (the whole völkisch thing and stuff) but I think you're painting a bit of too harmonic a picture here. Especially looking after the old and invalid? Action T-4 comes to mind.

I think one could also make a distinction between fascism and Nazism as a special expression of that. IIRC part (or the whole?) of the nazi health and social security programme was retained in post-WWII Germany (which is something the right wing likes to taunt the left with, but I have no idea if that's true)

I kinda get the feeling that you were being sarcastic though.

nitsua's picture
nitsua
Offline
Joined: 9-02-12
Feb 27 2012 19:43

admin: no flaming

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Feb 27 2012 20:13
Railyon wrote:
jaocheu wrote:
Plenty, a fascist state is still a state that feels an obligation to care for its people. The nazis created a health service, fed the poor, looked after the old and invalid, freely educated people, provided public works and even the leaders felt an obligation to provide publically funded arts to improve society.

I don't know dude, I think you're onto something there regarding morality (the whole völkisch thing and stuff) but I think you're painting a bit of too harmonic a picture here. Especially looking after the old and invalid? Action T-4 comes to mind.

I think one could also make a distinction between fascism and Nazism as a special expression of that. IIRC part (or the whole?) of the nazi health and social security programme was retained in post-WWII Germany (which is something the right wing likes to taunt the left with, but I have no idea if that's true)

I kinda get the feeling that you were being sarcastic though.

I think the idea is that while is was brutal and murderous Nazism was still based upon an idea of community.
The whole thing about the euthanasia makes me think of the american libertarians screaming about how obamacare would lead to socialist death panels refusing you medicines, as if their credit cards being declined or healthcare providers illegally or legally denying payment didn't do that to people already.

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Feb 27 2012 20:33

Jaocheu - Differentiating fascism and laissez-faire capitalism by expounding the supposed merits of fascism is fucking bankrupt, they're both equally as bad with regards to their specific characteristics, and neither is more desirable than the other. What a clever maneuver, I commend you.

Lofl.

jaocheu's picture
jaocheu
Offline
Joined: 30-07-07
Feb 28 2012 05:33
Railyon wrote:
jaocheu wrote:
Plenty, a fascist state is still a state that feels an obligation to care for its people. The nazis created a health service, fed the poor, looked after the old and invalid, freely educated people, provided public works and even the leaders felt an obligation to provide publically funded arts to improve society.

I don't know dude, I think you're onto something there regarding morality (the whole völkisch thing and stuff) but I think you're painting a bit of too harmonic a picture here. Especially looking after the old and invalid? Action T-4 comes to mind.

I think one could also make a distinction between fascism and Nazism as a special expression of that. IIRC part (or the whole?) of the nazi health and social security programme was retained in post-WWII Germany (which is something the right wing likes to taunt the left with, but I have no idea if that's true)

I kinda get the feeling that you were being sarcastic though.

Doing it in a satirical way does let me indulge in my hobby of watching morons make twats of themselves in their responses.

I think the distinction between you make between fascism and nazism you mention is valid.

jaocheu's picture
jaocheu
Offline
Joined: 30-07-07
Feb 28 2012 05:41

admin: response to flaming deleted

jaocheu's picture
jaocheu
Offline
Joined: 30-07-07
Feb 28 2012 05:36

duplicate post

jaocheu's picture
jaocheu
Offline
Joined: 30-07-07
Feb 28 2012 05:40
jef costello wrote:
Railyon wrote:
jaocheu wrote:
Plenty, a fascist state is still a state that feels an obligation to care for its people. The nazis created a health service, fed the poor, looked after the old and invalid, freely educated people, provided public works and even the leaders felt an obligation to provide publically funded arts to improve society.

I don't know dude, I think you're onto something there regarding morality (the whole völkisch thing and stuff) but I think you're painting a bit of too harmonic a picture here. Especially looking after the old and invalid? Action T-4 comes to mind.

I think one could also make a distinction between fascism and Nazism as a special expression of that. IIRC part (or the whole?) of the nazi health and social security programme was retained in post-WWII Germany (which is something the right wing likes to taunt the left with, but I have no idea if that's true)

I kinda get the feeling that you were being sarcastic though.

I think the idea is that while is was brutal and murderous Nazism was still based upon an idea of community.
The whole thing about the euthanasia makes me think of the american libertarians screaming about how obamacare would lead to socialist death panels refusing you medicines, as if their credit cards being declined or healthcare providers illegally or legally denying payment didn't do that to people already.

Quite possibly true, though I do think a libertarian economy further down the road would possibly be even worse than the nazis. The trend for gassing actually originated in the early 20th century and people from top Fabian society members to eugenicists were suggesting gassing the poor on mass for simply being poor.

no.25's picture
no.25
Offline
Joined: 14-01-12
Feb 28 2012 05:56

Right, because the satire in the manner of which you constructed your post was so easily detectable. If it was that subtle, maybe you shouldn't post shit like that at all?

And yeah, a fascist economy is at no expense of human existence, whatsoever.

jaocheu wrote:
Doing it in a satirical way does let me indulge in my hobby of watching morons make twats of themselves in their responses.

Also, couldn't this be categorized as 'trolling'? Great hobby you have there, I feel for ya.