Perry already selling soul to business

  1. Evan G Rogers profile image75
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Hey all,

    Here's a news bit that pretty much sums it all up: Perry is already courting business to help run his campaign.

    Now, why would a company want to help a politician, you ask. Is it because these companies love their country so much?

    NO. They want hand outs when their guy is elected. … /id/408862

    Vote em out! Ron Paul respects the 10th amendment. He voted against every bailout.

    1. Paul Wingert profile image78
      Paul Wingertposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Don't worry, I wouldn't vote for Perry if you paid me! I'm not a Ron Paul fan either.

  2. Tom Koecke profile image61
    Tom Koeckeposted 6 years ago

    You post this as if it is news, Evan.

    There are those who support Ron Paul, myself included, who think that limiting government involvement in our daily lives and foreign policy would make America a stronger nation. However, jumping up and down and pounding one's chest is more akin to how apes attract harems than to how intelligent people persuade others to a viewpoint.

    I see it happening in other venues, also, and it is mostly young people who read some books who think they have all the answers now. I would tell those people the same as I told my nephew years ago: there is a type of wisdom that a 70 year-old homeless drunk has that is impossible for an educated young person to have - the wisdom of experience.

    I have pretty much voted Libertarian since 1988. The exception was writing in Dr. Paul in 2008. Though they represent my attitude about life better than either of the two major parties, I question whether Libertarian economics could (a) ever come to fruition, and (b) whether it could last if it did come to fruition.

    It seems that any pure system of economics would require the dissolution of democracy. Just as communism required suppression of alternate ideas, so, too, would free market economics. If not the dissolution of democracy, it would, at a minimum, require people to live on a "conscience" rather than a "conscious" level. This defies human nature, and, as far as I can tell from history, nature always defeats principles.

    The second problem is making it last. Those who offer free market economy as THE answer often will not expound on how it would survive based on Marx's prophecy. Marx's economy is severely flawed without a doubt. However, his prediction that events would occur when the gravity of thought was weighted too heavily with those who felt that survival meant revolution has pretty much held true.

    As such, wouldn't the result be heavily taxing the rich to employ security forces against the poor, some of whom may be more sympathetic with the poor than the rich? If so, isn't it less expensive to keep the poor in line with the promise of a small stipend that can be suspended for misbehavior?

    These are questions that require more than the "yes" or "no" answers so often affiliated with those who believe in free market economics as THE answer. It is also not sufficient to suggest that we return to the good old days of interpreting the Constitution as our forefathers intended. The battles over interpretation of the Constitution began before its ratification, and was waged between people who signed it.

    In the end, I guess my hope is that those at the polar ends of the argument will start creeping toward the middle making those at the polar ends appear to be radical rather than massive forces prepared to clash with one another despite a common heritage.