Ron Paul: CIA runs the U.S. government

[23]

To argue that people should vote for him simply because he's the only person who identifies that objective as a worthy one is therefore the logical equivalent of arguing that people should look for the car-keys they lost on the street at night on the corner where the streetlamp is rather than in the middle of the block where they heard them drop.

Since I never argued that... that someone should vote for him simply because he identifies that objective as a worthy one... nor have I read anyone else make that argument here... why are you making this point?

Just curious.

Because that was the only recommendation of Ron Paul you offered in the post to which I was responding. Offer another and I'll respond to that on its merits, too. Even though we might both be repeating ourselves in doing so, it can't hurt to get one nice, clean linear point-counterpoint up there for the record.

The fact that I spoke about one good reason to support Dr. Paul... does not mean that it's the only reason. As your "simply because" infers.

You're always free to infer as you wish, of course. It just wouldn't be an accurate inference, in this case.

[compared2what?]

Do we have a truly Democratic form of government?

Do we have a truly Replubican form of government?

Are we really likely to have a truly Libertarian form of government?

Me thinks not on all 3 counts.

So what's with the extremist view that it's all or nothing?

Fine. Let's bring them all home and let the rest of the world go to hell its own way. What will all those troops be doing for a living once they're back where we want them, between sea and shining sea?

And what will the five million people currently working largely in their chosen fields in the mostly well-paid jobs created by government defense spending be doing for a living now, for that matter? And how about whatever percentage of the people who are currently keeping body and soul together in the service and support sectors that would no longer have jobs once the people whose military-industrial high-paying salaries create the demand for their services and support are gone, along with their disposable incomes?

Because, sadly, those are the occupations at which the largest percentage of the population is currently employed. See:

What natural advantages will come their way on the winds of the unregulated free market economic change? Who will hire them and to do what? Or, alternately, how will they become self-employed and by doing what?

Likewise, all the elementary school teachers who'd be out of a job if libertarian economic policies got rid of public education, as Ron Paul believes ought to be done?

There now being, by libertarian definition, no government assistance for those people, how, realistically, do you picture them staying clothed, fed, and housed?

How?

It's not an either or question.

I agree that it shouldn't be and that it doesn't have to be.

Go for BALANCE and the EXCLUDED MIDDLE for crikey's sake.

Fine. Excellent. Let's do that. BUT HOW????

Just because some of us are Ron Paul supporters doesn't mean we expect or want all of his political philosophies to be implemented.

Again, there are a lot of Libertarians who don't agree with his stance on the border. They don't want to see borders as they are an interruption of human free will and the right to travel.

Right. How do you plan to realize those ideals? HOW?

[compared2what?]

The fact that I spoke about one good reason to support Dr. Paul... does not mean that it's the only reason. As your "simply because" infers.

You're always free to infer as you wish, of course. It just wouldn't be an accurate inference, in this case.

I did not infer (and neither does that "simply because" imply) nor am I under the impression that you've offered only one reason to support Ron Paul.

That particular post was dedicated to positing that the reason offered in the post to which I was responding was not a good reason, followed by the citation of facts and evidence that support and expand upon that position.

If you feel that there are any other good reasons to support Ron Paul that I've overlooked, please bring them to my attention. Because I would not want to overlook any.

edited for grammar.

[compared2what?]

And 23, since I notice you haven't commented on the issue at all yet:

Do you think that Dr. Paul's investments are ethically defensible?

[compared2what?]

Or that they paint a different picture of his judgment and priorities than his campaign-trail rhetoric does?

And if so, which picture do you think more accurately reflects the truth about his judgment and his priorities? And why?
________________

Because I don't really see why directly addressing challenges to a stated position should be reserved just for one side of the debate.

[compared2what?]

Here's another.

What say you about our well-intentioned military meddling overseas?

I say it's not well-intentioned. But I also say that the policy proposals of Ron Paul cannot realistically put an end to genocidal overseas meddling for profit. They can only make it technically non-military. It's sleight of hand on his part and a pipe dream on his follower's part to suggest or believe otherwise. I mean, how do you suppose he intends to stop the free and unregulated market forces from pursuing their interests in countries with a powerless, expendable labor force that has no constitutional protections and is only nominally not a slave-labor force? The economy is global, it has been since the 17th century at least. You cannot wish that away. It has always paid dividends to the few by using state or private military power to subjugate and enslave people "overseas," depending on where you sit. Always. How does taking that out of the realm of public oversight put a stop to it, exactly? What libertarian policy proposal addresses it?

And I mean policy. Not rhetorical principle. How do you imagine the obstacles to realizing those principles will be overcome, in short?

[compared2what?]

Sorry. I noticed another unaddressed previously asked question.

What will all those troops be doing for a living once they're back where we want them, between sea and shining sea?
____________
And another:

And what will the five million people currently working largely in their chosen fields in the mostly well-paid jobs created by government defense spending be doing for a living now, for that matter? And how about whatever percentage of the people who are currently keeping body and soul together in the service and support sectors that would no longer have jobs once the people whose military-industrial high-paying salaries create the demand for their services and support are gone, along with their disposable incomes?

Because, sadly, those are the occupations at which the largest percentage of the population is currently employed. See:


_____________________

Plus a few more:

What natural advantages will come their way on the winds of the unregulated free market economic change? Who will hire them and to do what? Or, alternately, how will they become self-employed and by doing what?

Likewise, all the elementary school teachers who'd be out of a job if libertarian economic policies got rid of public education, as Ron Paul believes ought to be done?

There now being, by libertarian definition, no government assistance for those people, how, realistically, do you picture them staying clothed, fed, and housed?

How?
______________________________

Anybody?

[23]

The fact that I spoke about one good reason to support Dr. Paul... does not mean that it's the only reason. As your "simply because" infers.

You're always free to infer as you wish, of course. It just wouldn't be an accurate inference, in this case.

I did not infer (and neither does that "simply because" imply) that I'm under the impression that you've offered only one reason to support Ron Paul.

That particular post was dedicated to positing that the reason offered in the post to which I was responding was not a good reason, followed by the citation of facts and evidence that support and expand upon that position.

If you feel that there are any other good reasons to support Ron Paul that I've overlooked, please bring them to my attention. Because I would not want to overlook any.

Sure. Be happy to.

The beginning of the process to drastically scale down our imperialist military, and use the huge savings towards more humane purposes, is definitely Reason No. 1 for me.

Reason No. 2 is the restoration of our civil liberties.

President Paul can accomplish the former via executive mandate as Commander in Chief. He can accomplish the latter as the top boss of all the federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA, DEA, et al.

If, in the 4 years that his term would last, he accomplished the initialization of the demilitarization of our foreign policy (to include the huge savings that that would incur) and restore our civil liberties... I'd be a little more hopeful for my daughter's future.

Not to mention our jails will be significantly less filled too, because the racist and unjust "war on drugs" will be made impotent. 22 billion dollars were spent last year on this racist agenda. Think we could find more humane purposes for that much money?

4 short years... 3 significant accomplishments, at the very least... not a bad beginning for a much better future.

[Joe Hillshoist]

And I mean policy. Not rhetorical principle. How do you imagine the obstacles to realizing those principles will be overcome, in short?

OMG teh NWO & 1-WURLD GUBBMINT

Huh? And also: Heh?

What do you mean, darling? Your post went over my head.

I think he's referring to the fact that at some level some sort of "world government" will be required if the world wants to solve its collective problems effectively. It doesn't have to be the fanatsies of the teh ante NWO crowd, and one of the most effective ways of stopping those fantasies from coming true would be if teh ante NWO crowd came on board with the process and took a substantial ownership of the US role in it.

In theory anyway...

Believing the NWO is the only form of worldwide cooperation and organisation is a trap... its one of those "reality tunnels" that limit the way you can percieve the world. If you think the NWO is by definition evil, then there's no way your participation in it can do any good, by definition. You disempower yourself from any control over the situation.

That seems to be a trap that many US Libertarians fall into, tho I don't actually know any cept through their writing on the net, so they could be different in person. I dunno if that applies the US liberts on this site either. I wasn't actually referring to you guys here, but to other things I've read.

[elfismiles]

Retrain for helping rather than hurting/killing.

Put them to work digging ditches. Fixing infrastructure, that sort of thing.

Get them to train people in the proper and safe use of guns so that their military duties can roll back to a well regulated militia.

"What will all those loggers do if we stop using so much paper?

Umm ... get a different job?"

FREE REEDUCATION FOR ALL.

I know, simplistic but ...

Sorry. I noticed another unaddressed previously asked question.

What will all those troops be doing for a living once they're back where we want them, between sea and shining sea?
____________
And another:

And what will the five million people currently working largely in their chosen fields in the mostly well-paid jobs created by government defense spending be doing for a living now, for that matter? And how about whatever percentage of the people who are currently keeping body and soul together in the service and support sectors that would no longer have jobs once the people whose military-industrial high-paying salaries create the demand for their services and support are gone, along with their disposable incomes?

Because, sadly, those are the occupations at which the largest percentage of the population is currently employed. See:
_____________________

Plus a few more:

What natural advantages will come their way on the winds of the unregulated free market economic change? Who will hire them and to do what? Or, alternately, how will they become self-employed and by doing what?

Likewise, all the elementary school teachers who'd be out of a job if libertarian economic policies got rid of public education, as Ron Paul believes ought to be done?

There now being, by libertarian definition, no government assistance for those people, how, realistically, do you picture them staying clothed, fed, and housed?

How?
______________________________

Anybody?

[Nordic]

Sorry. I noticed another unaddressed previously asked question.

What will all those troops be doing for a living once they're back where we want them, between sea and shining sea?
____________

I addressed the question for you, but you threw it off by saying "it's not something Ron Paul talks about".

Now you don't seem to care if it's about what Ron Paul talks about, you seem to want to know what specific posters want to do, other than myself, which leads me to think that you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

Taking the money we're now wasting on "military" and the corporate welfare that goes with it, which is, actually, a very perverse and evil form of what everybody calls "socialism" (I grew up in the military, and it's pure socialism), and using it to invest and create new industries, new economies, and completely change the face of the developed world would answer your question as to "HOW".

[elfismiles]

I think he's referring to the fact that at some level some sort of "world government" will be required if the world wants to solve its collective problems effectively. It doesn't have to be the fanatsies of the teh ante NWO crowd, and one of the most effective ways of stopping those fantasies from coming true would be if teh ante NWO crowd came on board with the process and took a substantial ownership of the US role in it.

In theory anyway...

Believing the NWO is the only form of worldwide cooperation and organisation is a trap... its one of those "reality tunnels" that limit the way you can percieve the world. If you think the NWO is by definition evil, then there's no way your participation in it can do any good, by definition. You disempower yourself from any control over the situation.

That seems to be a trap that many US Libertarians fall into, tho I don't actually know any cept through their writing on the net, so they could be different in person. I dunno if that applies the US liberts on this site either. I wasn't actually referring to you guys here, but to other things I've read.

Agree, I've always felt, growing up on scifi, that such is the logical inevitable evolutionary tack for humanity. We just gotta make damn sure the PTB don't continue the reign of terror, status quo.

So while I rant and rave about the troubles of the elites long-campaign towards global governance I accept that it can and will happen so we best make the best government, at all levels, that we can.

Which reminds me, anyone here ever read Danah Zohar's QUANTUM SOCIETY? It is the sequel to her QUANTUM PSYCHOLOGY.

- SMiles

[Joe Hillshoist]

C2W, why can't we at least start with ending the military occupations and bases around the world?

And regarding Ron Paul's investments... your helpful info-trawl has gotten me thinkin.

Now I wanna see Cynthia McKinney's, Mr. Kucinich's and Mike Gravel's money trails as they were the Dems I favored.

What say you about our well-intentioned military meddling overseas?

By all means stop the US' meddling overseas. But focusing on Ron Paul won't do that.

Focusing on actually stopping the deployments will.



I must say finding out about Paul mining investments wasn't really a surprise, so I wasn't really disappointed. I don't trust Libertarianism, mainly cos of some discussions I had on this site. And Christian republican politicians from the US... well you know.

I'd probably be a little more surprised to find McKinney and Kucinich holding similarly unethical investments in mining companies. Tho ... its not as cut and dried as it appears. It doesn't mean Paul is evil, for example, but it does mean he is either careless of what his money does, or he doesn't care what his money does. They are nearly the same thing, but to me there's a slight difference, and to be honest I don't know anyone who has ever used money who has avoided that trap completely.

And I 'd be less surprised to find Kucinich and McKinney investing in non mining options that on examination had highly unethical aspects.

Its almost impossible to avoid if you invest money.



I just noticed your post elfi, and Nordic. (I love that little warning it gives me that someone else has posted while I was typing...)

I agree Nordic. Thats the obvious solution. I don't know if Ron paul is the answer tho. Unions might be helpful tho. Unions often get more traction as economic conditions go to shit, among working people. While they are often irrelevent during the so called "good times" its times like now when they can become a useful political force in places like the US (imo, if its done right.)

So while I rant and rave about the troubles of the elites long-campaign towards global governance I accept that it can and will happen so we best make the best government, at all levels, that we can.

Which reminds me, anyone here ever read Danah Zohar's QUANTUM SOCIETY? It is the sequel to her QUANTUM PSYCHOLOGY.

No, but (if its relevent) I'm hoping to back to uni and try to get a degree again. (3rd time lucky?) This time I have the whole course mapped out, where I want it to take me and I haven't really done that seriously before. I'm doing an art degree, and one major is gonna be history and politics, which is kind of ironic from my pov.

Anyway i used to be an anarchist, but I'm thinking that at the moment we humans need a state, so how best to manage it.

I don't think consensus reality actually understands what the state is, but its an agregore.

So thats the best way to approach it. If we have to invoke evil demons (the state) to manage the world, then we should do it properly - the situation today is analogous to a 15 year old fucking about with dmt and serious rituals and losing the plot...

So metaphorically, but also in reality, the state is a powerful demon we cannot banish. So we (the people) must control it.

Obviously at uni I'm gonna have to treat it metaphorically, but anyway its a good metaphor.

Democratic processes are set up like magic rituals that are designed to control a powerful entity, and the only reason they don't work is that the people who are sposed to do the rituals (the entire population of the place governed by a state) don't give a fuck.

Its as good a model of the process as any.

Thats if the accept my application.

[Joe Hillshoist]

And I spose thats the answer to all the questions about "how to fix the system".

get everyone involved.

but then you need an educated passionate populace that has a reasonably united vision of what it wants, where it is and where it wants to go ...

Yet all our discussions on the subject (even this one) seem to focus on the divisions between us.

They give them the importance, instead of perhaps looking at the things that unite all of us, even me and dick cheney.

Its a hell of a conundrum and I wouldn't what "the answer" is.

[Sweejak]

Too big to fail. Moral hazard. When the government eliminates 'moral hazard' aren't you left with "too big to fail"? Hey, I guess you can delay moral hazard until the printing presses stop running. So here's an idea for the military, put them to work doing repair and reparations for fighting wars based on lies. Hey, you guys volunteered, sometimes it just works out differently.

Here's an article that is full of libertarian boilerplate, so excuse for that, but it's interesting nonetheless, about health care. I'm not sure such a scheme is possible today especially with medical procedures going into millions of dollars, but it's worthy of some thought. And I've got a query out to a Memphis friend who had some detail about a Black health organization and hospital that was deconstructed by the government but I don't have that link yet and can't remember it on my own, but it was a very interesting story. Maybe somebody knows of it.
http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html

AFAK Paul's ideas don't make any collective initiatives illegal, they just don't make them mandatory. About taking down some of the big Federal programs Paul has said, IIRC, that taking the military down would free up enormous sums to help the the economy at home, indicating that he wouldn't just shut things down and would use the current system to incrementally encourage a restoration. http://ur1.ca/koa9

On another level I want to throw this out about taking care of people who fall thru the cracks. The devil is in the details of course, but I'd bet that if we were able to designate where our tax money was spent that the wars would stop, health care wouldn't be such an issue, and nobody would be on the streets. Lastly it would put a big hole in all the ideological crap because don't think anyone wants to see his neighbor homeless, sick and in misery regardless of whether your a lib, dem, anarchist or whatever.