rigorousintuition.ca

.

Given that the "master class" (which Mills identified more than 50 years ago as the power elite) already have a full hold on power in all of the institutions, as he amply makes clear, why would they ever want to openly acknowledge their dictatorship? We are already there. Announcing it would only make trouble for them with the masses and afflict them with cognitive dissonance.

The illusion of choice and the ritual of elections are very important in maintaining the present system and its powerful. They are attached to it in no small part because it gives them their own sense of legitimacy. Doing away with it would be the beginning of the end.

Crimes exceeding those of most of the listed dictators, by large multiples, have already been committed in the name of this "democracy." In fact, the list of Big Man Dictatorships comes as a non-sequitur, except as a form of maintaining denial, of pretending there's been a great difference in the United States' demonstrable track record in the (third) world.

I'm also not sure what to make of someone who blithely appends Castro (or even Ho Chi Minh) to that long list of genocidaires, other than to say he's got some ideological barriers of his own to overcome. Surprising he didn't throw in Chavez.

Or who, in the midst of describing the crimes of class and money and state, provides a definition of the state's "minions" that reads as follows: "the recipients of welfare, social security, free health care, government jobs and the like, who are dependent upon the state and likely to be compliant."

I'd like to see a case that government employees and recipients of guaranteed free health care are more compliant than employees of the chattel sector, erm, I mean, "private business."

Because that is the kind of astounding counterfactual bullshit that only libertarians can bring. Apparently, on those occasions when they coax themselves into admitting what Marx already told them 150 years ago, they'll still need to invoke the fig leaf of atavistic Grizzly Adams fantasies. Is he saying the world be improved by the subtraction of social security and free health care? (Free?! Where?)

JackRiddler wrote:.
The illusion of choice and the ritual of elections are very important in maintaining the present system and its powerful. They are attached to it in no small part because it gives them their own sense of legitimacy. Doing away with it would be the beginning of the end.

Absolutely. That's why we have these "elections" and "campaigns". I have to say, they are an industry unto themselves. Hell, I just was hired last week to do a political spot for a politician here in California. Full union rate, blah blah blah. Good money.

I'm also not sure what to make of someone who blithely appends Castro (or even Ho Chi Minh) to that long list of genocidaires, other than to say he's got some ideological barriers of his own to overcome. Surprising he didn't throw in Chavez.

Yeah, but that's why this guy's diatribe is so interesting to me. He's not coming from an intellectual left-wing place, not at all, he's from Harvard Business School and was probably raised and programmed to be a Republican. Most people in this country do indeed think that Castro is an evil communist dictator. I myself was one of those people until just recently! (I did grow up in a military family, so ...)

Or who, in the midst of describing the crimes of class and money and state, provides a definition of the state's "minions" that reads as follows: "the recipients of welfare, social security, free health care, government jobs and the like, who are dependent upon the state and likely to be compliant."

I'd like to see a case that government employees and recipients of guaranteed free health care are more compliant than employees of the chattel sector, erm, I mean, "private business."

Well yeah, he's wildly off the mark there, but I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater with this guy's diatribe. The jist of what he's saying about how far we've already plunged into a dictatorship is pretty damned interesting.

I'm seeing more and more of this from people in the "money business". Not recently there was that piece from the managing director of PIMCO which was quite similar to this. People are figuring out that this isn't about politics anymore, this is pure theivery, pure corruption, pure dictatorship, etc. etc.

Then what they write about it is colored by their political perspective, but heck, everybody's is. Mine is, yours is. This guy is far more right than he is wrong.

Blue wrote: Thanks for posting that AD. Funny how the males who support Paul think his pro-life views are just wedge issue fluff. Guess what? Half the population doesn't consider autonomy over their own bodies to be a wedge issue. It's a pretty significant viewpoint which relegates women as broodmares at worst and second class citizens at best.

Wedge issue or not I have marched with my Mother and "sisters" repeatedly over the years to protect a woman's right to choose.

I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice.

But yeah, as a male, I've never been able to understand weighing the importance of Anti-Empire/Anti-War "against" Abortion.

I may not agree with everything about Dr. Paul's philosophy but I think he's been the most hard-core anti-empire anti-war politician around of late.

American Dream wrote:Sweejak wrote

if Paul were to become president what makes you think that he would be able to single handedly bring about his ideas in full?

I don't actually think "he would be able to single handedly bring about his ideas in full". That is why I believe we need critical thinking, and a coherent analysis- including especially, a class analysis, in order to analyze what a Ron Paul presidency would really mean.

It seems to me that the billionaires would rule as much or more then they do now- to the detriment of the rest of us, no matter how much legalized dope Americans had access to...

I'm not really sure of Ron Paul's estimated financial worth but I don't think he is anywhere above upper-middle-class. I don't see him as someone who actually favors the elites. Yes, you all are arguing that his economic philosophy inherently supports and props up those classes of people but I'm not convinced that, with a balance of powers keeping him from getting everything he might espouse, we'd see anything approaching the level of corporate corruption we've seen under the past regimes.

...

Ron Paul is good on certain aspects of civil liberties, but Ralph Nader has a much better position regarding corporate power in general.

[ageism] The good doctor will be nearly seventy-eight by the next election. Please let's not push for another candidacy. I personally don't want an eighty year old president, I don't care how many babies he's delivered. [/ageism]

elfismiles wrote:I may not agree with everything about Dr. Paul's philosophy but I think he's been the most hard-core anti-empire anti-war politician around of late.

As Meatloaf likes to say, elfismiles, "you took the words right out of my mouth". Feel free to include "consistent" in your descriptors as well.

I don't know any other mainstream political leader who has also come out and definitively stated that he would close most of our imperialist bases overseas.

That's how you substantively address the bloated military establishment.

I'll even hazard a guess that there are many RIers who don't like that prospect, however. They want to feel safe and secure by keeping our uniformed imperialists just where they are.

No wonder they can't warm up to Dr. Paul. They want our troops to remain just where they are. So they can sleep soundly at night.

Meatloaf today, for old times sake:

How very biting.

JackRiddler wrote:.Or who, in the midst of describing the crimes of class and money and state, provides a definition of the state's "minions" that reads as follows: "the recipients of welfare, social security, free health care, government jobs and the like, who are dependent upon the state and likely to be compliant."

I can't find the source for the words that you quoted. Care to share?

elfismiles wrote:

American Dream wrote:Sweejak wrote

if Paul were to become president what makes you think that he would be able to single handedly bring about his ideas in full?

I don't actually think "he would be able to single handedly bring about his ideas in full". That is why I believe we need critical thinking, and a coherent analysis- including especially, a class analysis, in order to analyze what a Ron Paul presidency would really mean.

It seems to me that the billionaires would rule as much or more then they do now- to the detriment of the rest of us, no matter how much legalized dope Americans had access to...

I'm not really sure of Ron Paul's estimated financial worth but I don't think he is anywhere above upper-middle-class. I don't see him as someone who actually favors the elites. Yes, you all are arguing that his economic philosophy inherently supports and props up those classes of people but I'm not convinced that, with a balance of powers keeping him from getting everything he might espouse, we'd see anything approaching the level of corporate corruption we've seen under the past regimes.

As of his last financial disclosure, per his own estimate:



Also...



...I don't know what qualifies as upper middle class nowadays. But whatever the net-worth figure is, I kind of doubt that your average citizen-of-whatever-class with $1 million-and-change in long term investments puts close to all of it in only two industries. Especially those two. And especially mining. That's pretty much only safe for players. But at a glance, it looks like BP is one of his major donors for the 2010 cycle. So I'm not too worried for him.

It looks like he might have some other interesting donors tucked away in there, too. But I really only just glanced, it might not amount to anything.

FWIW, though, those images are from here. Where they also have the PDF link to the form itself, which I haven't looked at yet. Plus some other info, too. Although not all of it, annoyingly enough. But since I don't know what else the other databases got for him, I guess I'll return with more details if they develop.

23 wrote:

JackRiddler wrote:.Or who, in the midst of describing the crimes of class and money and state, provides a definition of the state's "minions" that reads as follows: "the recipients of welfare, social security, free health care, government jobs and the like, who are dependent upon the state and likely to be compliant."

I can't find the source for the words that you quoted. Care to share?

It's from the Dougherty article quoted by Nordic at length on page 8 of this thread:
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Dougherty/jan222010.html

That's what I was responding to, in the post directly after Nordic's (and then Nordic responded to my comments). Sorry, I should have made that more clear. Ron Paul didn't say that, Dougherty did.

c2w: As usual, you are God. Leave it to you to actually answer the question.

barracuda wrote:[ageism] The good doctor will be nearly seventy-eight by the next election. Please let's not push for another candidacy. I personally don't want an eighty year old president, I don't care how many babies he's delivered. [/ageism]

Well, I'll admit I'm not yet advocating another run. That's why it hurts so much that he "got so close".

As I love to hear my friend Scott Horton angrily lament, "goddamit, it coulda been Paul!"

compared2what? wrote:

elfismiles wrote: I'm not really sure of Ron Paul's estimated financial worth but I don't think he is anywhere above upper-middle-class. I don't see him as someone who actually favors the elites. Yes, you all are arguing that his economic philosophy inherently supports and props up those classes of people but I'm not convinced that, with a balance of powers keeping him from getting everything he might espouse, we'd see anything approaching the level of corporate corruption we've seen under the past regimes.

As of his last financial disclosure, per his own estimate:

Also...

...I don't know what qualifies as upper middle class nowadays. But whatever the net-worth figure is, I kind of doubt that your average citizen-of-whatever-class with $1 million-and-change in long term investments puts close to all of it in only two industries. Especially those two. And especially mining. That's pretty much only safe for players. But at a glance, it looks like BP is one of his major donors for the 2010 cycle. So I'm not too worried for him.

It looks like he might have some other interesting donors tucked away in there, too. But I really only just glanced, it might not amount to anything.

FWIW, though, those images are from here. Where they also have the PDF link to the form itself, which I haven't looked at yet. Plus some other info, too. Although not all of it, annoyingly enough. But since I don't know what else the other databases got for him, I guess I'll return with more details if they develop.

Wow! That is definitely more than I was thinking C2W. Thanks for digging and sharing.

My guess, those mining and agri concerns are American companies. Good to know.

Yeah, I'd put that estimated worth in the low-rich category.

I haven't really gotten started with them yet. And probably won't ever be able to figure out their ownership in any meaningful way. That's kind of inherently a very difficult thing to determine, even for people who have subpoena powers that I don't, such as IRS agents and SEC investigators. I mean, you can see names up to a certain point. Although they do kind of tend to evaporate in a puff of limited liability companies eventually, when they're companies you happened to bump into on the personal financial disclosure forms of a United States representative. But the names don't really tell you that much. Because, you know, the person who signed the articles of incorporation isn't necessarily the person who enjoys the fruit of the enterprise. Only the hundreds (and maybe thousands) of hackers and spooks who are monitoring electronic banking transactions are really in a position to know for sure who that is!

But based on names alone, I'd say you're probably right. They're not, like, huge metanational conglomerates, anyway. Or at least they don't look like it. I doubt they're all 100 percent red, white and blue, though. Because they're mostly gold-mining companies. Which given where home-base is for him vaguely suggests Mexico or Central America to me. But that's just idle chatter. I don't actually know, and haven't yet looked.

FWIW, though, it looks to me more like his assets aren't presently visible. Or at least not as such. Because that Foundation for Rational Economics and Education doesn't appear to be doing a damn thing except promoting Ron Paul, investing in real estate, and having a board that's entirely composed of a few of his first degree relatives. Even their outside CPA is a member of the Paul family. That's not at all uncommon, I should add. But that doesn't make it right, you know? Anyway. They don't have huge, huge bank at the moment. But since he is 78 and he is allowed to empty his campaign coffers -- including the gazillion-and-one county-level accounts that there's really no way to track except on foot -- into its accounts when he leaves the trail, I'd say that he's probably doing pretty much exactly the same thing every other U.S. representative does, except that he's not stealing from the rich and he started late. IOW: Running for retirement. Same MO as Bill Clinton, basically. Just a different configuration.

And I suppose that I really should probably add that I'm very heavily predisposed to assume that all members of both houses of congress are, at best, thieves and tax-cheats. So you might want to adjust for confirmation bias. But, you know. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be so heavily predisposed to assume it if every single one of them who halfway fills out his or her personal financial disclosure forms didn't inevitably appear to be one or the other or both. Or....I at least I hope I wouldn't.

But anyway. Moot point. Also, long story short: If there's something unusually or exceptionally twisty in his finances, I haven't seen it yet. They look like sums of money that large always look: Infinitely opaque. And maybe a little grubby around the edges. But it wouldn't really be fair to blame that on Ron Paul. Money's not pretty, that's just life.