Ron Paul: CIA runs the U.S. government

[compared2what?]

Ultimately it doesn't matter if Paul was/is elected president, if there isn't a committed, active and involved electorate, across the whole population, things won't be much better.

And if there was a committed, active and involved electorate across the whole population, regardless of their actual political views, it wouldn't matter who was president, things would be much better.

I agree wholeheartedly.

[compared2what?]

(on edit - which is true, some involve one fatality and no injuries, some kill whole families.)

The above: That is true. And it's true both for car crashes and for public policy. But it's a truth that has very different implications for car crashes than it does for public policy when it's in context and in reality. Because you don't have to think car crashes through to understand them, or know what part of them represents which of your values, or decide what to do about them. They're finite events that are more or less the right size for human comprehension to sustain without becoming overtaxed and erratic in its functioning.

Whereas public policy has a conceptual dimension that will always take a lot of individual effort for anybody even to come close to perceiving clearly in the first place. And even more effort than that to keep in view over the long haul. And it's way too big for the equivalent outcome of one fatality and no injuries ever to be a minor or insignificant loss from a populist perspective. Even if that outcome is literally one fatality and no injuries. I mean, obviously, you win some and you lose some. But if your basic resting stance isn't a non-negotiable and global: "Absolute opposition to any and every specific increase in fatalities and injuries in one part of the polity as a consequence of actions by the state, even if it's in exchange for a reduction in fatalities and injuries in another part," you'll never even win some.

I don't know. There's never too much fresh thinking, I guess. I mean, to me, state's rights just isn't the solution, even though, to me, the ill it seeks to address is very definitely the problem. (Basically: This country is much too fucking big for liberty and justice for all to be achievable at a federal level in the present, and it's never ever going to be again.)

Because the only really clear strength that state's rights have as a solution to that particular problem is that there's an extant precedent for them that's closer to a solution than anything else that happens to be already lying around conveniently close to hand. So they're clearly perceptible. And, you know, compared to the vast empty dark nothingness that's your only other option absent effortful fresh thinking, I can see how they might look good.

But we all, all deserve better than that, imo.

For one thing, it almost certainly can't really be autonomy, just out of the gate, when it's been part of the story power's been telling the people for the last 200 or so years. Because it's never that easy. Never has been. Never will be. We all, all have to work harder, I think or guess or hope.

Apart from which, I got no solution either. Of course.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I dunno about the US but the states issue is a bit redundant here, and our constitution is only 100 years old...

To me the states rights argument seems like a squabble over power, tho the only thing in its favour is that it decentralises power to a certain extent.

the scale issue is the thing tho ...

I dunno if you know the Simpsons episode where they come to Australia and we try to boot bart in the backside, but sometimes Australian politics feels that accessible. I can give you an example if you want, but ultimately, its irrelevent cept that it relied on me being motivated enough to make the effort.

[stefano]

Ron Paul's principles with regards to political economy are really, really lacking...

In what way? Do you disagree with anything I posted on Friday, and why?

It seems to me that the billionaires would rule as much or more then they do now

They would not. Again, what don't you understand about what I said on Friday? The current corporate dictatorship runs on favours from a corrupt government. Without bailouts and subsidies and no-bid contracts and pork, and without an aggressive military used as argument of last resort for America's mercantilist expansion, the corporations would have less power.

This bullshit frustrates me endlessly. Ron Paul is against war and against subsidies. A USA that doesn't invade and whose market is fairly accessible for exports (especially food) would change the world, I'm not exaggerating, to the benefit of the worst off. But people like you don't want to understand this, because you actually believe that American meddling is or can be well-intentioned, if the imperialists that you are personally fond of are elected. 'The liberal defence of murder', Richard Seymour calls it.

that still wouldn't really take care of the kind of notable silence about what kind of foreign policy his economic policy would really entail, were America to have any hope of staying economically competitive in a totally free market.

Because what's good for General Motors is good for America, you mean? Plenty of US companies would be able to compete in a free market - the Silicon Valley ones, for starters, and some older engineering companies. Switzerland and Finland don't even have a foreign policy to speak of, and some of their companies are world leaders because they're better at what they do than their competitors.

I don't see much difference between western economic and military imperialism

Well, no company has yet racked up the four million-plus notches that the US military's put on its gun since Korea. And, again, one of the most pernicious forms of economic imperialism is distorting the agricultural produce market through subsidies and tariffs. Someone who's against those is worth supporting.

[exojuridik]

Ron Paul's principles with regards to political economy are really, really lacking...

In what way? Do you disagree with anything I posted on Friday, and why?

It seems to me that the billionaires would rule as much or more then they do now

They would not. Again, what don't you understand about what I said on Friday? The current corporate dictatorship runs on favours from a corrupt government. Without bailouts and subsidies and no-bid contracts and pork, and without an aggressive military used as argument of last resort for America's mercantilist expansion, the corporations would have less power.

This bullshit frustrates me endlessly. Ron Paul is against war and against subsidies. A USA that doesn't invade and whose market is fairly accessible for exports (especially food) would change the world, I'm not exaggerating, to the benefit of the worst off. But people like you don't want to understand this, because you actually believe that American meddling is or can be well-intentioned, if the imperialists that you are personally fond of are elected. 'The liberal defence of murder', Richard Seymour calls it.

that still wouldn't really take care of the kind of notable silence about what kind of foreign policy his economic policy would really entail, were America to have any hope of staying economically competitive in a totally free market.

Because what's good for General Motors is good for America, you mean? Plenty of US companies would be able to compete in a free market - the Silicon Valley ones, for starters, and some older engineering companies. Switzerland and Finland don't even have a foreign policy to speak of, and some of their companies are world leaders because they're better at what they do than their competitors.

I don't see much difference between western economic and military imperialism

Well, no company has yet racked up the four million-plus notches that the US military's put on its gun since Korea. And, again, one of the most pernicious forms of economic imperialism is distorting the agricultural produce market through subsidies and tariffs. Someone who's against those is worth supporting.

My question is who would enforce the homeostatsis of this post-state world. Elementary game theory demonstrates that in a world of uncertainty, players will always go for the short-term advantage at the expensive of some hypothetical outcome demanding cooperative behavior from the other players. So, would the billionaires and MNC's in this post-state sudddenly decide to play fair to give us all a shot at winning. Or would it be like entering a monopoly game where all the hot properties already have hotels and you would be stuck with yer measely $200 a round pittance? What prevents collusion among certain parties and acts of sabotage of others? and how will already critically compromised biosphere fare during this whole experiment of self-regulation? (RE: Goldbugs - most mining techniques are not really environmentally friendly and when you get down to it the gold-based economy is as absurd as any other capitalist ponzi-scheme.)

Any rational actor faced with the uncertainty of a chaotic playing field will act in whatever way feasible to maintain relative power and control. If there is no enforcement mechanism to keep players in check, it is an almost certainty that some alliance of interests will emege to establish oligarchical control of the situation - and they will have a ready retinue of henchmen to enforce their order as most individuals (save perhaps silicon valley entrepeneurs) value knowing where their next paycheck is coming from with more assurance than a free-market is willing to provide i.e better the bastards ya know etc . . .

So my question to libertarians is two-fold: 1) what equalizes the very considerable market advantage that the game-building plutocrats already possess; and 2) what mechanism prevents an incipient oligarchical power dynamic from dominating and then ending the game? And, DOW 36,000 is not an acceptable answer

[Joe Hillshoist]

I don't see much difference between western economic and military imperialism

Well, no company has yet racked up the four million-plus notches that the US military's put on its gun since Korea. And, again, one of the most pernicious forms of economic imperialism is distorting the agricultural produce market through subsidies and tariffs. Someone who's against those is worth supporting.

I wonder how much profit has come to the 3 mining companies c2w named with the support of the US military? If there's any it becomes difficult to separate Ron Paul's wealth from US economic imperialism that is dependent on its military imperialism. Now to me thats an actual issue with his philosophy itself, not necessarily some hypocrisy in him. I wonder how much of his objection is the dollar cost now that things are going to shit.

I wonder what he thinks of this, (after all it seems he has invested in this company):
[url]
http://www.indonesiamatters.com/901/ric ... f-newmont/[/url]

I wonder if people remember how sympathetically Ness' "plight was reported (here, anyway) at the time? I wonder how Ron Paul feels about the Freeport mine, or employing someone who worked there during Suharto's worst years...

Well I don't really cos I live In Australia and have my own opinions on shit.

His money contributes to some pretty nasty enterprises, and in return he profits from them, and they are dependent on the military imperialism he claims to oppose. yet he appears far better than most American federal politicians.

[23]

And if there was a committed, active and involved electorate across the whole population, regardless of their actual political views, it wouldn't matter who was president, things would be much better.

Dr. Paul (along with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich) could only be elected via a coalition effort among the nonduopoly elements (i.e. libertarians, Greens, independents, etc.)

That (a coalition effort) qualifies as a committed, active and involved electorate to me.

You will always have an element (the sheep) who will cast their vote for the duopoly.

And you will always have a segment of voters whose support is triggerable by platitudes and hypnotic suggestions.

I don't have a problem with that. I only have a problem when they constitute the majority of voters, which is the case today.

They can become a minority by forming a coalition of nonduopoly elements.

Which, to me, would represent a committed, active and involved electorate

[23]

Ron Paul's principles with regards to political economy are really, really lacking...

I don't see much difference between western economic and military imperialism

This is an article that AD posted, recently, in another thread.

It is exactly what Dr. Paul can and will remove, as Commanding Chief .


http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9066&p=315187#p315187
STANDING ARMY

A forthcoming Italian documentary journey into the world of U.S. military bases,
one of the most defining - and less-talked about - realities of our time (2010)

http://standingarmy.jimdo.com
http://www.wix.com/enricox/Standing-Army


*** YOUTUBE TRAILER (4 minutes) ***
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtB7B8Kare8


STANDING ARMY: A Journey into the World of U.S. Military Bases

SYNOPSIS:

"Military bases are the empire, they’re the point of projection of power and expansion of power." - Noam Chomsky

"....until 1947 we had a War Department in this country and we gave it up in favor of something called Department of Defense, the old War Department used to be a Department of Defense , and the new Department of Defense is a War Department, we just reversed the old names." - Chalmers Johnson

"What a Worldwide network of military bases means, that you a have at your finger tips the means of perpetual war." - Gore Vidal

Over the course of the last century, the US has silently encircled the world with a web of military bases unlike any other in history. Today, they amount to more than 700, in at least 100 countries. No continent is spared. They are one the most powerful forces at play in the world today, yet one of the less talked-about. They have shaped the lives of millions, yet remain a mystery to most.

Why do countries like Germany, Italy and Japan – more than 60 years after the end of World War II and almost 20 years after the end of the Cold War – still host hundreds of US military bases and tens of thousands of US soldiers?

What role do the bases play in maintaining US hegemony in the world?

How will they shape our future?

Is a global military presence the last resource of an economically-, politically- and culturally-declining empire?

How do the bases impact the lives of local populations and how do these interact with their uniformed neighbours?

We will answer these and other crucial questions both through the words of prominent intellectuals, experts on the subject, political and military leaders, ex-government and CIA officials, philosophers and political activists – some of whom we have already interviewed: Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, Chalmers Johnson and others – and through the shocking but often inspiring stories of those directly affected by US bases:

* The citizens of Vicenza, Italy, struggling to stop the construction of yet another military base in their hometown;
* The Diego Garcia islanders, violently expelled from their island in the Indian Ocean to make space for a US military base, and who have been fighting for years to return to their birthplace;
* The many Japanese women brutalized by US soldiers in Okinawa;
* The various grassroots movements in Europe and Asia struggling for a base-free world; as well as those living inside the bases: the men and women who are often sent to faraway lands with little or no preparation for what they’ll find there.

[American Dream]

I very much agree with the points that exojuridik made above. It is incredibly important to recognize the contradictions inherent in championing economic "freedom" when abstracted from other equally important important concerns.

Unbridled market forces will not fix the world. Privatization, especially as it relates to basic human needs, is no panacea. Social entitlements do meet basic needs, do save human lives.

Audit the Fed? Sure. End U.S. military interventions? Great.

That said, Ron Paul's focus on central banks, dollars etc, though valid to a point, does not nearly go far enough (the same holds true for Zeitgeist and its vision of economics also). His Libertarian/Right program misses a lot of essential points. There is indeed a 700 pound gorilla in the room- actually quite a few- and all talk of "freedom" must take this into account, or else run the risk of doing the opposite of what it claims to.

[Joe Hillshoist]

... across the whole population, regardless of their actual political views...

Writing people off because they "support the duopoly" or are "hypnotised by platitudes" seems a bit ... well its a bit too elitist for me, but I know what you mean, all those pointless consumers ....

Either everyone gets involved across the whole population or else the whole thing goes to shit.

And as c2w pointed out the size of the US and the scale of the whole enterprise makes avoiding it all going to shit very difficult in the US.

[Uncle $cam]

Joe Hillshoist wrote:
And if there was a committed, active and involved electorate across the whole population, regardless of their actual political views, it wouldn't matter who was president, things would be much better.

23 wrote:

Dr. Paul (along with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich) could only be elected via a coalition effort among the nonduopoly elements (i.e. libertarians, Greens, independents, etc.)

That (a coalition effort) qualifies as a committed, active and involved electorate to me.

You will always have an element (the sheep) who will cast their vote for the duopoly.

And you will always have a segment of voters whose support is triggerable by platitudes and hypnotic suggestions.

I don't have a problem with that. I only have a problem when they constitute the majority of voters, which is the case today.

They can become a minority by forming a coalition of nonduopoly elements.

Which, to me, would represent a committed, active and involved electorate

Great exchange dialogue and...
Flawless Ouroboros-esque logic there 23... then I noticed your avatar...lol

[23]

And I, in turn, agree with stefano when he says:

"The current corporate dictatorship runs on favours from a corrupt government. Without bailouts and subsidies and no-bid contracts and pork, and without an aggressive military used as argument of last resort for America's mercantilist expansion, the corporations would have less power.

This bullshit frustrates me endlessly. Ron Paul is against war and against subsidies. A USA that doesn't invade and whose market is fairly accessible for exports (especially food) would change the world, I'm not exaggerating, to the benefit of the worst off. But people like you don't want to understand this, because you actually believe that American meddling is or can be well-intentioned, if the imperialists that you are personally fond of are elected. 'The liberal defence of murder', Richard Seymour calls it."

Old ways of looking at things sure have their adhesive power, don't they.

[23]

Joe Hillshoist wrote:
And if there was a committed, active and involved electorate across the whole population, regardless of their actual political views, it wouldn't matter who was president, things would be much better.

23 wrote:

Dr. Paul (along with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich) could only be elected via a coalition effort among the nonduopoly elements (i.e. libertarians, Greens, independents, etc.)

That (a coalition effort) qualifies as a committed, active and involved electorate to me.

You will always have an element (the sheep) who will cast their vote for the duopoly.

And you will always have a segment of voters whose support is triggerable by platitudes and hypnotic suggestions.

I don't have a problem with that. I only have a problem when they constitute the majority of voters, which is the case today.

They can become a minority by forming a coalition of nonduopoly elements.

Which, to me, would represent a committed, active and involved electorate

Great exchange dialogue and...
Flawless Ouroboros-esque logic there 23... then I noticed your avatar...lol

Then you would probably find our evolution into economic stray dogs... viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26808 ... Ouroboros-esque as well. I do. Intolerance, materialism, and territorialism... being swallowed up by their counterparts.

[stefano]

would the billionaires and MNC's in this post-state sudddenly decide to play fair

No, of course they wouldn't. Who's talking about asking nicely? They'd have to be forced to, by politicans passing and executing sane legislation.

If there is no enforcement mechanism to keep players in check, it is an almost certainty that some alliance of interests will emege to establish oligarchical control of the situation

I don't understand why you're phrasing this in the conditional; what you're describing is the current state of affairs. What I'm calling for is precisely an enforcement mechanism: laws aimed at establishing a free international market in goods and services, enacted by governments that are accountable to their citizens, who will also benefit from this market.

1) what equalizes the very considerable market advantage that the game-building plutocrats already possess;

The market will tend to do away with the advantage. More slowly than in theory, mainly because labour can't move around, but if the most blatant advantages to the big operators are eliminated the economy will be a lot more level. The plutocrats only build the game because they own the referees.

2) what mechanism prevents an incipient oligarchical power dynamic from dominating and then ending the game?

What do you mean, "ending the game", Fukuyama? This game never ends. You have to watch the fuckers constantly.

it becomes difficult to separate Ron Paul's wealth from US economic imperialism that is dependent on its military imperialism

This is true of probably 8/10 rich Americans, definitely anyone who's made money investing in oil, engineering, air transport or cars, and the financial services that have leeched off those industries. I think it's pretty clear Paul invested in those companies that you're discussing because they produce gold. All those libertarian types are gold-crazy. I'm not supporting Paul because I think he's a nice guy; I don't think he is. But someone who's prepared to put his own savings at risk to achieve a healthy economy is surely more ethical than someone who isn't?

Social entitlements do meet basic needs, do save human lives.

I agree. But they're only needed because the economy is so insanely unequal and exploitative. As Joe pointed out upthread, those entitlements in the US were only implemented to protect the rich from the rage of the poor. As I said last week, I vote socialist and I think those entitlements should be the last things to go, only when they're no longer needed. But hanging on to the corporatist death system for the sake of social security is sort of analogous to arguing that slavery isn't great, but at least slaves get housed and fed. It's refusing to operate the wound because the little bit of sticky plaster is stopping some of the bleeding.

[American Dream]

stefano wrote:

But hanging on to the corporatist death system for the sake of social security is sort of analogous to arguing that slavery isn't great, but at least slaves get housed and fed. It's refusing to operate the wound because the little bit of sticky plaster is stopping some of the bleeding.

Maybe I'm not understanding: How is giving market forces more or less free reign going to lead to a world where everyone has decent food, shelter, energy, medical care, education, work, and everything else?