I just had to share this WTF? Ron Paul supporter moment.
I was in a store called Sacred Space in Durango, CO the other afternoon.
The proprietress is a seer/healer. Does readings. Sells crystals and tinctures/herbs and other assorted spiritual sundries.
The decor is sort of neo-fairy, if you get my drift.
In bursts a man of indeterminate age. At least 40 I'd say. Sort of street urchin charming.
He says, "Are there any registered Republicans in here?"
Speaking only for myself (and before I could stop myself) I retorted, "HELL no!"
But this being Colorado, and me not being a native, I could easily have been mistaken in my assumption that traditional "Republicans" are likely not hanging out in stores called Sacred Space. It's not exactly a "Christian" epicenter.
Turns out the man was drumming up support to attend a Ron Paul rally that evening (in about 1/2 hour). Of course my son (19) and his buddy (20) are all over Ron Paul. Neither of them is registered to vote, however.
So the thought occurred to me that here is this hippie looking guy who looked straight out of 1968 protests central casting. But instead of McGovern, the candidate he's supporting is running on the GOP ticket.
He's looking for the radical fringe element to support Ron Paul and actually looking in a radical fringe kind of gathering spot.
But there's just one problem.
The "registered Republican" part stopped me short. It just sounded all wrong to me.
Like "What's wrong with this picture?"
So my question here is would RP do better dissociating himself from the GOP?
Maybe he just told you a story when he realised there were no registered Republicans in the store, he could have had a gun and been ready to shoot any who confessed to being registered Republicans!
In that case I feel lucky to have escaped with my life -- plus a lovely book on angel numerology!
Jeezus you people just won't stop.
HE'S THE SECOND MOST POPULAR REPUBLICAN IN THE COUNTRY.
NO - HE'S NOT GOING TO BE BETTER OFF AS A THIRD PARTY.
However, if he DOES go to the Libertarian party (which might happen if the Republicans don't realize they need him to win against Obama), we'll finally have a federally funded 3rd party.
Then haters gonna hate because "blah, Romney was too much of a douche, and so Obama won".
He's the second most popular Republican in the country? By what measure? If you look at the break down of voters in New Hampshire, the majority of Ron Paul's support was not from registered Republicans.
The 2nd most popular Republican does not have to have the popularity come from Republicans.
That's absolutely right! But that's one reason why I think Paul probably won't get the nod and will have to run as a Libertarian, if at all.
Somebody might offer him the VP seat, though....
Paul can win by winning the open primary/caucus states. Luckily, the democratic states -- usually open -- have a massive number of delegates.
California and New York are worth 20% of the vote, and Paul's home state is worth another 10%.
He can win.
I can't believe the GOP has not ousted Paul from the debates--chasing him off of the stage by threatening to scan him with the TSA equipment.
Ron Paul's libertarian views are more in line with the dems--especially on civil liberties and when it comes to the Patriot Act. But even dems find Ron Paul to be over the top. He doesn't belong in either category, and he will be looking to run under a different ticket sooner or later.
Actually, they pretty much have. He gets asked the dumbest questions:
q1: "Are you SURE you're not a racist"
q2: "Why aren't you a Libertarian"
q3: "You are a Libertarian"
q4: "Are you SURE you're not a racist"?
And every pro-Republican news outlet constantly bashes him - they don't even bother to check their sources anymore.
It's gotten to the point of absurdity, and, thanks to Ron Paul, my eyes have really been open to the Media, the political process, and more importantly: liberty.
You've had your "aha" moment about the media, I see. Mine occurred between the time of September 11th and the run-up to the Iraq war.
I would definitely read the stuff that Noam Chomsky has to say about the Western press. I know, I know - he's a socialist. But if you put that aside, you will recognise that he's spot on when it comes to this particular subject.
Whoever the mainstream media serves, it certainly isn't us peons.
Chomsky ain't bad, and socialism isn't so bad as long as it's ENTIRELY voluntary.
It's the "voluntary" bit that people fail to understand time and time again, I feel.
So often you hear somebody saying "It would be great if people did this" and it's followed by "Yeah, the government should make it compulsory." Or "Wouldn't it be a good idea if we stopped doing X?" is followed by "Yeah, they should make X illegal!"
Voluntarism is MUCH more important than the label of socialism or capitalism.
Capitalism is inherently voluntary, however.
Capitalism is not voluntary!
If I want to live in this country without living off the government, I have to participate in the capitalist system.
How is that voluntary???
So you are angry that you live in an economic system where in you cannot be a parasite on your fellow citizens? Or is it the total accountability for your own decisions without the government stepping in to mitigate against stupidity that you find objectionable?
Her argument has so many insane misunderstandings it's impossible to argue with her.
Just remember that it's the people who think like this who are the ones deciding how to spend your money.
You don't have to talk behind my back like I'm not here, Evan.
You say capitalism is voluntary.
I say short of dropping completely out of society, it is not.
Capitalism is private ownership, Socialism is public ownership.
Thus, Capitalism comes before Socialism.
Thus, Capitalism is inherent to mankind.
In fact, we can see Capitalism in animal behavior.
Thus, it's 100% voluntary.
It is even simpler. All human association not required by the State are voluntary. Socialism require State imposition - capitalism does not. If one entirely withdraws from the free market one does not face imprisonment, only impoverishment and starvation.
But that is a hallmark of the free market economy - plenty. This is why the Chinese Communist are courting a, misleadingly named, mixed economy.
If one were somehow able to completely erase one's paper trail and disappear out of society, then yes, impoverishment and/or starvation could be the main concerns.
But once you've got a Social Security number the government knows you're out there. If you've paid taxes once, the IRS knows you're out there.
Better make the out-of-the-system decision carefully.
Because if you decide you want back "in" it will be hellish and expensive.
Is the IRS a private or public concern? Last I checked Sears doesn't pursue me for not using my Sears Charge(unused since 1988.) So the State will pursue you if you wish to be free - ironic.
I understand your points and arguments here, UCV.
You are right in observing that businesses must adapt to the times.
Even novel businesses like Netflix must change their business models (and sometimes even rein in their greed if they expect to survive).
Still, it's a stretch to put the blame on government for the overpopulation of Starbucks, Walmarts and McDonalds (with the requisite Burger King on the opposing corner) and Walgreens (now with the requisite CVS on the opposing corner).
They are not coming to a corner near you simply because of tax breaks or government incentives.
I agree that government is a wild beast that must be kept on a chain. I live in California. In the capital, for God's sake! Local government is wilder and more feral than federal, just on a smaller scale.
So I've agreed with you more than 50%. More like 80%. It must be 12/21/12 somewhere
My point was a simple refutation of the statement that capitalism is voluntary.
It is absolutely not voluntary.
It is the way/lay of the land.
I'm not angry about it. I would love to participate at a higher level!
Bring on the recovery!!
I have no desire to be a parasite sucking taxpayers' blood. Never have.
Nanny state is a totally separate issue.
This is strictly about being "in" the capitalist system or not.
If there is there another option, I would love to know what that is.
Why would you want to be part of a system that isn't capitalism. Capitalism punishes sloth and rewards industry. Stupidity, laziness, cheating all are punished in a capitalist system - that is if it is not meddled with by government that seeks to do anything more than punish force and fraud. There is no system in which every decision is possible and has an immediate impact.
A capitalist system is perfectly voluntary, what other system can you decide to grow your own food, build your own house and check out - entirely from the economy?
"Stupidity, laziness, cheating all are punished in a capitalist system "
Not always. Cheating is often rewarded. Laziness is not rewarded, but it's not always punished, either. Stupidity is punished everywhere.
"that is if it is not meddled with by government "
Oh, when cheaters get rich, it's not because of cronyism, it's because the government enabled them. The classic "no true Scotsman" argument.
"A capitalist system is perfectly voluntary, "
Sure, it is. Completely untainted by fraud or coercion in all cases. Right. Wanna buy a bridge?
Force and fraud - you mean like forcing consumers to buy cars they don't want because the government wills it? or the forcing of air bags, small reservoir flush toilets, compact fluorescent bulbs, etc... all forced by the State. Or how about trading on insider information by members of Congress? The government insulating itself from the laws that routinely send ordinary people like you or me to jail for fraud.
Corruption flows from the seat of power. Power in the US is government. There is no business that can muster the force the IRS can muster nor paper over the fraud that permeates the vast federal bureaucracy.
Is this really the level of daftness that has infiltrated our people? Jeezus.
Government is NOT voluntary because it gets its money through taxes; theft.
Capitalism is voluntary because you could just do nothing and starve to death. You own your property, and this is capitalism.
I'm utterly disgusted that this needs to be explained.
And you call my argument insane?
Government is not capitalism.
Your solution that you could just "starve to death" is ridiculous.
Plenty of people do not own their homes or any property but participate in capitalism daily.
The minute you buy anything -- good or service -- on the open market -- you are participating in capitalism.
The minute you accept money in exchange for a good or service (sometimes called work) you are participating in capitalism.
The fact that you need to BUY things to survive makes participating in the capitalist system mandatory, not voluntary.
You're saying the only alternative is to starve (e.g., die).
Well, I suppose that's a choice.
Taxation isn't theft, Evan. Taxation without representation is theft. There's a difference, and it's pretty big.
Capitalism can definitely be coercive. Sign, or my hired goons will do more than just flex their muscles and intimidate you.
And yes, I know that socialism can be coercive, too.
What you say about Chomsky on Iraq is true. He wasn't alone. Our great senior senator from Michigan, Carl Levin, had the good sense to vote against our foolish, costly, unnecessary adventure in Iraq.
Don't forget Ron Paul is a pro-lifer and a states rights guy - those are also at odds with Democrats.
My aunt, who is a lifelong liberal and straight Democratic voter, recently announced she is registering as a Republican so she can vote for Ron Paul.
The funny thing is that although libertarians are often thought of as "conservative," they are actually more in line with Democratic policies than Republican ones: liberal on social issues, noninterventionist on foreign policy, and conservative on fiscal and economic policy. Libertarians are liberal on 2 out of the 3 main fields of government policy.
However, they vote for Republicans because most of them are more interested in getting their taxes low than in the other stuff.
Calling them liberal on social issues is a bit of an over-generalization. Some are and some aren't. The Pauls bother me because they value civil liberties that affect themselves as straight white men, but are pretty weak on those affecting women, minorities, and the LGBT community.
I don't really see Rand Paul as a libertarian. Ron Paul is pretty liberal on social issues, such as drugs. The one notable exception is abortion that I can think of.
But anyway, I was referring to libertarianism as political ideology or philosophy, and the believers in it.
Well, you don't have to be radical to like Ron Paul:
https://www.examiner.com/conservative-i … r-ron-paul
Looking forward to the day when that's not an act of charity, but the norm.
When health care is a right guaranteed to our citizens, not the sword in the stone that only those with special powers (read: lucky enough to have jobs with benefits or independently wealthy) can access without taking a second mortgage on their home. Oops. Second mortgage? Ha ha.
Home? What home?
But you've actually proved my point, Evan. These people are exactly the demo being courted by Ron Paul. The idealists who want the world to be a simpler, happier place. How in God's name does THAT fit under the GOP banner?
There's the disconnect.
The original Republicans were Ron Paul style
I believe you.
The party has devolved dramatically, even since Reagan.
But the Dems aren't what they used to be, either.
Maybe it's the times we live in.
Actually, The Federalists (big government) were the first Political Party; then the Republicans came to limit them (they were called the Anti-Federalists by the Federalists). (The whigs existed for a while, but nothing too exciting).
Gradually the Federalists collapsed, and then the big government cronyism infiltrated the Republicans. Lincoln was the pinnacle of corruption, as small government literally fought a war for independence to escape the big government Republicans.
Then the Democrats were created to help limit government, which came crashing down during FDR's New Deal and Warfare.
Then the Republicans came back around to small government, but the Cold War ended that. Reagan promised it, and then chickened out.
And now, it seems, Ron Paul is taking the R's back to a time of limited government.
AND WE'RE LOVING IT.
Sort of. The Republicans you refer to were actually the Democratic-Republicans and were headed by Jefferson. They actually have a connection to the modern Democratic party by way of Andrew Jackson. The current Republican party was founded in 1854 by a group of Northern Whigs, some members of the No-Nothing party, Free Soilers and others.
And the Civil was about far more that Big Gov. vs Small Gov. that is a canard designed to play into the "Lost Cause" ideology that developed in the late 19th Century.
Right-o --- I was mostly trying to make the major points:
1) The Republicans (anti-federalists) were originally for decentralization and state's rights.
2) the political parties have been nothing but a fight over freedom and taxation.
It is just that you conflated today's Republicans and the Democratic-Republicans of 1800 -- mildly confusing.
That's the Know-Nothing party. The seemingly pedantic distinction is important, both in understanding why the party was called that (the serious reason) and in my joke about how of course the GOP had its roots in a party called the Know-Nothings (the silly reason).
The loud-mouth Christian crusaders united under the banner of God to defend against what they collectively imagine threatens their absurd interpretations of the Bible.
That's why registered Republicans like myself are almost ashamed to admit it. Those "good Christians" who are so organized and make so much noise make people think the GOP is a party of ignorant, crusading bigots. It's the same problem Democrats have in reverse, where unwashed dope smokers and welfare mothers with assembly line birth machines in their pants are made to represent all liberal ideas.
You don't have to have a bible in your hand and hate homosexuals to be reasonable and thoughtful.
Party disillusionment by thinking people is rampant, I think.
On both sides.
Your descriptions of the stereotypes of both extremes is apt (and quite funny).
The thing is, how many people do we really know who fit these stereotypes?
Here on HP, there is quite a bit of ideological common ground on both economic and social issues.
I can think of at least 5 people who fit this description!
Notice to all you Ron Paul Republicans. He is UN-ELECTABLE. I do like some of his ideas, but his foreign policy is unworkable. It's that simple, he can't win even if hell freezes over and it will not. The question is do you want Brack Obama, with his liberal, socialist and un-constitutional acts as president for 4 more years or are you willing to support someone who is hell lot better than Obama. I don't like any of the candiates running, but I will except Romney because he is not perfect, but 1000% better than Obama.
Good ol' Democracy! "This guy sucks, but I"m voting for him even though there's a better candidate!"
PS - Ron Paul isn't going to give the election to Obama. If anything, the Republicans will just fail to give the public what it wants.
There are SO MANY Democrats who hate Obama. Their feelings? Ron Paul is MUCH better than Obama, but Obama is better than Romney.
The only way to beat Obama this year is for Paul to be the President or VP. It will be the Republicans' fault if he isn't in one of those slots.
Paul doesn't even have to switch 3rd party to make this Happen. I'm writing Paul's name if he isn't on the ballot. Reagan lied, Bush Sr. Lied, Clinton Lied, Bush Jr. lied, Obama lied.... Ron Paul is the only one who's had a consistent record of TRUE LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
Very true that Ron Paul is unelectable, thank goodness. He's always been a Miniver Cheevy fringe character who wants to turn the clock back too far. His appeal is in his forthright and genial personality, not his policy positions which are nearly all extreme and unrealistic.
Radical Republicans .... Have Seward and Sumner risen from the dead? Sorry could not resist the historical reference....
I support a lot of Ron Paul's policies. (Rolling back the global American military empire is one of the easiest ways to bolster this country's future, for so many reasons.) But he does not have a shot. Definitely no chance in the Republican primaries, what with big government conservatives, the morality police, Islamophobia and Mitt Romney's all-American smile.
And he would have no chance in a general election because his views, though just the kind of radical thinking this country needs right now, are just too far outside the voting public's imagination.
There is only one way he could have a chance in a general election (which again is academic because he's not getting out of the Republicans). About half of eligible voters don't vote in presidential elections. Contained within that half are just the kinds of radicals, kooks, freethinkers, oddballs and assorted other motley crews that would support Paul. If he could somehow get them to turn out, he would have a shot. But of course that's not going to happen because these people just don't vote.
Much harder to do than you think. I know this because my son is attempting to do that right now. Extracting his inheritance from the system is a way bigger challenge than you would imagine. That could end up being a hub topic...
Basically, it requires money to drop out.
I did not say I didn't want to be part of the capitalist system.
Heck, even the Chinese are loving (and reveling in) capitalism. I read recently how they are the new consumers of uber luxury goods. Way more than the Middle East.
Anyway, I digress.
I disagree somewhat with your definition of what capitalism punishes and rewards. Cheating is hardly punished. The capitalist system is not self-policing. The hardest working, most industrious person does not necessarily end up rewarded. Not at all.
But that's an aside.
"I disagree somewhat with your definition of what capitalism punishes and rewards. Cheating is hardly punished. The capitalist system is not self-policing. The hardest working, most industrious person does not necessarily end up rewarded."
Very true, especially since Reagan during which time both parties have moved to the right so far as regulation of business is concerned. And there has been a huge redistribution of income and wealth from the middle class and poor to the 1%. The bursting of the housing bubble and the ensuing deep recession should be proof enough that Reaganite de-regulation has gone too far, especially in the banking industry. A certain amount of regulation is required to assure that free markets deliver honestly and fairly on their promise of efficient allocation of resources. The only argument is over which regulations are necessary and what they should be.
Excellent point, Ralph.
The oversight is only as good as the people doing it. And the teeth/hammers they have to use to enforce the rules.
I live in California.
We have a TON of government oversight "boards" under the Department of Consumer Affairs (and other) that are a complete joke. Waste of taxpayer money. Provide zero protection to anyone but the government bureaucrats who work for them.
Every time a corrupt person gets off scott-free, the government makes it possible.
Perhaps a little reading in the operation of the price regulated free market might help. Another tool useful for understanding how capitalism works is observation. McDonald's, Wendy's Burger King; your local grocery stores, K-mart, Walmart, Target; etc.... all compete and force waste and expense out of their systems as best they can.
The more government regulation, pork, money and taxation is involved in a business the more poorly price regulated free market mechanism function. Airlines, oil, automobiles, banks, stocks, etc... are all controlled, not by an organic system like capitalism, but by a halting and haphazard proto-socialist administrative state.
Liberals seek to replace the billions(maybe trillions) of economic decisions made each year with a few hundred or a few thousand made by a political elite they believe to be so much wiser and able by virtue of winning a "beauty" contest. The decision to buy or not to buy made by a hundred million consumers is a much more reliable means of determining efficiency, quality, safety, etc... than the regulations handed down by a few thousand bureaucrats.
The problem with the price regulated free market is the same problem with conservatism - it doesn't place the greatest faith in the almighty government.
No, no. I believe in a completely free free enterprise system.
Mom and pop stores are obviously competitively unworthy.
I would much rather buy everything from a single mega provider. Yessir, God bless Walmart and AT&T.
Both have proved themselves the "fittest" of the retailers out there.
J.C. Penny was the largest retail chain in the world in the 1920s, what happened? A&P was the largest grocery chain in the world until the 1950s, what happened? IBM used to make typewriters, they were the most widely used electric typewriters in the world until the 1990s, what happened? General Motors was the most successful car company in the world until the 2000s, what happened?
Business models change to fit the demands of the free market, mom and pop shops change to fit the free market(didn't you just recount a tale of visiting such a boutique shop?). Progress or lack there of undoes all kinds of businesses. Do you think Walmart or AT&T could get as big as they are without the interference, involvement or regulatory excess of the government?
How many times has local government decided that "eminent domain" means more taxes from wealthier businesses? Once government decides it must create utopia what limit is there to the abuses of property(money is property)? Walmart, The NFL, Subaru, etc... all promise more jobs, more taxes, more influence to local and state government and all the government has to do is hold the property of the citizen in contempt.
Ultimately the enemy of freedom is government itself - the great irony or the great paradox. How can an entity be both the guardian of and the greatest threat to freedom? The founders had the answer - severe limitation. These limitations are what liberals wish to strip away in the false notion that by freeing government it will behave properly. Government is a wild beast - best to be kept on the chain - but liberals have set it loose among the flocks.
How about taxation without competent representation, or promised representation, or by only self-interested representation? I agree with the view of many that 2012 is the time for Congress to be culled with judicious pink slips that teacht, as with a dog, there are certain things you don't do in the House or the Senate! Throw the rascals out, and get some fresh American blood in our legislative veins! Cronyism, nepotism, and haughty pride have walked those halls long enough!
If we, the republicans, nominate ron Paul, then we may as well all just vote for Obama.
Paul cannot take the general.
by Doodlehead 5 years ago
According to Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul has plans to lead the Liberty Caucus Republicanswhen he resigns in December. Lew says Dr. Paul has kept his typical low profileuntil he is out of Congress. What do you think he has planned?
by Bema Self 6 years ago
Why do you like or not like Ron Paul?What reasons to you like Ron Paul or not like him? Would these reasons urge you to vote for him in 2012 or push you away from voting for him?
by icountthetimes 6 years ago
Do you think there's still a chance that someone other than Romney or Gingrich will emerge and become the Republican nominee. Both Romney and Gingrich both have good, but not spectacular levels of support, and there is a sense that neither one of them quite fits the bill, in terms of what the party...
by SparklingJewel 6 years ago
this guy is giving a perspective that needs to be heard Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of...
by mio cid 6 years ago
Is Ron Paul giving birth to a movement that can develop into a full fledged political party?Maybe attracting real independents not the pseudo independents that are really just to the left of the democratic party or to the right of the republican party?
by steveamy 6 years ago
Is Ron Paul's "mission" hurting the Republican Party ....?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|