Who is for Ron Paul and Why?
POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Friday, February 8, 2008 16:08
VIEWED: 6511
PAGE 2 of 5
Wow. a political discussion that is even-handed and informative. I had begun to believe it impossible. Hats off to you all.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I intend to vote for him even if I have to write him in, and imma Anarchist.
A - He believes in Constitutional Compliance.
Meanin the Gov needs to actually OBEY the Constitution instead of distorting it's meaning or ignoring it to justify almost anything...
Being as that is my MINIMUM level of tolerance for Government, he's prettymuch it, as far as potential candidates go.
B - He does what he says.
Ron puts his vote where his mouth is, none of this mealy-mouthed doubletalk, he votes in strict accordance with the US Constitution 98.5% of the time, and he will vote "NO" on anything that isn't Constitutional even if he is the ONLY one on the hill voting that way.
In fact, they call him "Doctor No." up on the hill for that very reason.
When the man says he'll do something, he'll damn well TRY - and since most of what he wants to do is in absolute accord with what *I* want, he has my support.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
Heyo Frem!
I'm new here, and I've never posted on the RWED, and didn't really expect to be doing so, or atleast not this soon.
I only say this because I don't know the dynamics of discussion here, or everyone's comfort level with being put on the spot.
That said, your post post sparked my interest, and I was curious about a few things.
First, I noticed your "anarchist propaganda minister" title, then I noticed your the proud exclamation of being an anarchist.
It being established that you are an anarchist, I can't help but wonder how you can support Ron Paul.
I'm gonna slide right over the denied racism and homophobia right off the bat, I'll just give him the benefit of the doubt for discussion sake. The thing that shocked me the most, and I was a bit disturbed to see it, was how you are using the platform of being an anarchist to influence other people's vote.
Voting establishes the relationship of power a democracy has over its people. A democratic election is no different than any other form of government control.
Whether it be a dictatorship, monarchy, republic, or any other form of government, the result is the same. We as a people are, once again, offering up the control of our lives to be controlled by a few, instead of fighting to get that control back.
The reason why most anarchists choose not to vote is because voting is the ceremony in which that atrocity takes place.
That is why I found it difficult to understand using your anarchist label toward encouraging others to vote for anyone, let alone Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a double-edged blade.
He is very seductive to those who are desperate to see revolution in their lifetime, those that believe someone FROM the government will save us from the mistakes OF the government, and those who prefer to take a step back a couple hundred years in terms of policy.
Ron Paul also is a strong supporter in free trade. In fact libertarian economics is one of the most irresponsible, and heartless, when it comes to offering the worker fair compensation for the contribution to nation and economy.
As for ending the war in Iraq, that's all great, however, with free trade, and minimal government regulation on corporations, including multi-national ones, I highly doubt that we wouldn't be driven to another economic war shortly thereafter.
That may be a bit of a stretch for most to make, so even if you won't consider that, consider this.
Not only will the companies here be exploiting third world nations as they always have done, they will have all the opportunity in the world to exploit its domestic workers. How would you like to be working under the same terms as those who farm for border foods or mc donalds overseas do currently? A worker makes $50 for every 2 tons of tomatoes he or she picks. Not only that, but unions will be a thing of the past. All the struggles the labor and fair trade movements have made will be gone with one oath over a bible.
While Ron Paul may end the war ove
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Molotov:
The point Frem has made repeatedly is that despite the fact that he is an anarchist he intends to vote for Ron Paul because Paul is just that awesome. In short he's willing to buy into the system (even if just for a moment) in order to vote for Paul.
As for the generalized anarchist vs. government points, my take on it is this, if you don't think that we should have a government (i.e. you are an anarchist) then you should be voting more zealously then regular people for every candidate or law that reduces the size or impact of the government. Refusing to vote because it's part of the existing system merely ensures that your opinion on the matter won't count (though it probably won't count for much even if you do vote).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Republicans were asked at the first debate who did not believe in evolution and Ron Paul did not raise his hand.
Anyway, he's a good guy that truly wants to help the country, not just his business friends and political contributors. He's been in DC for years but is hardly a Washington insider. And finally he actually votes the way he says he will. Honesty is a rare thing in a politician.
As far as abortion is concerned, why shouldn't it be a state issue? The beauty of the federal system is that you can move to a state that supports your views without leaving the protection and comfort of your home country and its Constitution. The more local the government the more intune with the wishes of the people. As the medical marijuana issue has demonstrated, politicians in DC do not understand what the people in California want. But at the same time certain protections, such as those in the Constitution, are universal to prevent the states from oppressing the people. The system is wonderful when actually used correctly, but unfortunately we don't.
www.RonPaul2008.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Welcome, Molotov. You should definitely post here more.
Quote:
Originally posted by Molotov:
I don't know the dynamics of discussion here, or everyone's comfort level with being put on the spot.
Around here, you're pretty much on the spot as soon as you dare to post.
I don't call myself an 'anarchist', but my sympathies are in that direction. I'd love to see a society that can live that way. But I think it would take a long time, likely many centuries, to develop the communal values that would sustain it. Until that happens, the biggest bullies on the block, and their friends, will be forming governments.
I can't speak for Frem, but I suspect he acknowledges that sad reality at some level. Libertarian society, on the other hand, isn't such a stretch. It's possible, though unlikely, that our nation will grow tired of mob rule and return to a constitutionally limited government. It might not be ideal, but it'd be a hell of a lot better than the free-for-all that we're currently slogging through.
Quote:
...minimal government regulation on corporations, including multi-national ones, I highly doubt that we wouldn't be driven to another economic war shortly thereafter.
I'll suggest that you're missing the point of 'free' markets. Corporate capitalism, especially as it currently operates, is an anathema to free trade. It establishes, through government decree, privileged entities that then use government regulation to further their own aims at our expense. The government and its military are the tools they use to dominate us.
It really doesn't matter whether it's the corporate world, or organized religion, or whatever - when you focus enough power in government there will be those who seek to manipulate it and use it to control others. It's the goal of libertarianism to make government as weak possible, and thus a less likely tool for corruption and greed.
Quote:
Not only will the companies here be exploiting third world nations as they always have done, they will have all the opportunity in the world to exploit its domestic workers.
Those companies don't have armies to enforce their will. You might point to token 'security forces', but the fact is, our own government and military are what make the kind of abuses you're concerned about possible. It's why we went to war in Iraq and has been the driving force behind most of the wars we've been involved in.
Ron Paul wants to dismantle the support system for the multinationals and return our troops to a mission of protecting our nation, not our corporation's overseas interests. He wants to dismantle the bureaucratic morass of government agencies that are inevitably overrun and controlled by corporate lobbyists. He wants to end the dependency established and encouraged by those who would control us.
Quote:
All the struggles the labor and fair trade movements have made will be gone with one oath over a bible.
These movements are inevitably unwitting support for the very thing that presume to be fighting. Look closely at every attempt to 'level the playing field' and you'll see wealthy, powerful people who are reaping its benefits - at the direct expense of the people they claim to protect.
Quote:
While Ron Paul may end the war over seas for America, there will be plenty of wars over seas for American corporations, as well as the war at home.
That's likely, but with a truly libertarian government, they'll be on their own. If they find benefit in taking advantage of poverty in third world countries, they'll be subject to the will of those nations. And when their factories get nationalized and they get run out of town, they will be wasting their time whining to our government about their 'unfair' treatment.
Quote:
As an anarchist I stand in solidarity with the working class, and would never trade them off for any type of revolution.
You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here. You're saying you're against reducing government power bec
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Molotov,
I'm confused. You're an anarchist who wants government regulation? Did I read that wrong? Please explain.
www.RonPaul2008.com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:Quote:
The anarchists will be on the people's side of the barricades come the Republican National Convention on September 1 at St. Paul, and I guarantee you, there will be no anarchists with Ron Paul at the RNC, all the anarchists are gonna be on the streets, shutting it down.
Except that they won't. Be shutting anything down, that is. Likely they'll just be getting beat up.
I've never really understood this, so many anarchists seem to think that the key to making changes in society is to be a mild annoyance, in my experience being a mild annoyance merely makes people want to ignore you rather then listen to your opinions.
Quote:
That's why I prefer trying to undermine them from the inside. Ron Paul's approach seems more likely to make real progress toward changing the direction of things. Although we're all in for an uphill battle in that regard.
Indeed, if you want to impose change from the outside you are in for a long bloody fight, and to be quite honest the people arrayed against you are better organized, better armed and probably more numerous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Heh, Molotov...
It would depend on your perception of anarchy, and whether people in their hearts are generally good or bad - to understand my position.
I am a Kropotkinist-Anarchist, I believe that removing coercive government structures would not in any way destroy the social bonds that hold us together, it would simply be removing a middleman who has forced his way into our lives at gunpoint and intervenes in every way, skimming his own cut off of everything and pretending he's helping you, when he's actually harming and exploiting you for his own benefit.
I am also a realist, no, I don't believe in Government - however, since the american people at this time are too damn gutless and mentally co-dependant on their abuser, I have to work with what is available, and of all the potential candidates, Ron Paul is the only one wishing and willing to cut back Government intervention into our lives... eliminating it would be ideal, but cutting back on it is at least progress.
Manipulating a corrupt system you have not the current ability to destroy does not legitimize it, one is just using the tools available, even the other guys.
I play "rough" but I also play SMART - and I am willing to both vote for the man, AND push barricades over at the RNC to make a point if I have to, bend the ear or arm of politicians, and raise holy hell among the people when something unacceptably out of line is done.
(See Also: Genarlow Wilson)
Bob Jackson down at STR wrote two columns relative before I got to it, and he did a better job of it, so here.
When Voting Is Defensible
http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/jackson/jackson1.html
The Reality of Self-Defense Voting
http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/jackson/jackson2.html
It's like Judo, using the states own apparatus to befoul it - FremGirl actually votes tactically for candidates in a willful attempt to CAUSE gridlock and jam the gears.
The first logical step in moving towards an Anarchist or MinArchic society is improving the mental health and stability of the people in it by not demolishing their humanity, empathy and reason starting at the cradle - people as a whole are NOT mentally "ready" for such a sea change of things, it would be a total fregmekkin disaster.
Second step is CONSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE - start ramming the bloated monster back into it's own bounds and lock the damn doors.
Then perhaps taking the Anti-Federalists wise advice (being that they were almost universally correct in their assessment of the US Constitution as offered) and transition to a Confederation of Voluntary States, and so forth and so on.
I realize that is a process which will take decades, at least, but barring an all out total social and economic implosion and civil war which would be just as ruinous to all we mean to save as it would be to anything else, no other viable option currently presents itself.
As far as worker unity and solidarity, I am fully aware of our noble history dating back to the earliest age of industry here in america, and have commented and expounded on it here to a great degree, as well as being a member of the only union that isn't a corporate control system to better stifle and sabotage the working grunts.
http://www.iww.org/
Yes, I carry the red card - and yes, it scares the piss out of those bastard corpies.
(Heeeyyyy STARBUCKS!! 
)
I understand where yer comin from, but sometimes you need to take the long view, survey the big picture, and do things that pay off heavy down the road even if you don't like the taste of em at the time.
And if you plan to aggressively assert your right to free assembly and free speech at the RNC - be damned well willing and prepared to ante your life and freedom and DO IT, instead of talking a good game and then running like a pansy when the riot clubs come out, reinforcing the message that oppression works for all to see like those morons did in Florida.
If yer gonna do that, just stay home.
-Frem
It ca
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Heh!
Great to see a wobbly Brown Coat(Yay, IWW)!
I've been doing some work recently with the MN chapter of IWW, and they are getting ready to march on the RNC this year as well. I'm excited to see a large worker march this year, and optimistic of the outcome (Minnesotans have been planning the RNC protest for the past 2 and a half years).
Thank you for explaining your post.
I understand your reasoning a bit better.
Though, being an Anti-Capitalist, and Anti-Fascist, I obviously disagree with the Ron Paul's free trade over fair trade stance.
I'm glad to hear your reasons, and it was refreshing to hear them.
Although I would expect you to be as critical of any candidate, as you are of the current power structure.
Now to address some other things I heard.
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I've never really understood this, so many anarchists seem to think that the key to making changes in society is to be a mild annoyance, in my experience being a mild annoyance merely makes people want to ignore you rather then listen to your opinions.
You mean as in "VOTE RON PAUL 2008!!!11" spammed on any youtube video, news story comments, or just the internet in general?
I can not be responsible for your perception of anarchists.
Especially when it's clear the only perception you have on them as a whole is the one the profit run media has given you.
I encourage you to look in your city, I'm sure if you look hard enough you will find some excellent anarchist fueled institutions somewhere near you.
Maybe it's sustainable education, maybe it's a food not bombs (free food sharing), maybe it's a worker run co-op business. Anarchy isn't only about protesting.
Protests are just where we all get together.
Shut things down to open things up.
Quote:
Originally posted by Early:
Molotov,
I'm confused. You're an anarchist who wants government regulation? Did I read that wrong? Please explain.
I don't want government, period.
If I'm going to have to put up with a government that protects companies, corporations, and they're property more than the people themselves, I would expect to see the people that are in the working force of America to stand up, and fight back to ensure the progress in labor, and fair trade, is upheld, and constantly reassessed.
That is what I'm trying to say.
SeargentX,
I notice you tend to have represented very libertarian views, and I encourage the discussion between anarchists and libertarians.
However Ron Paul isn't just a Libertarian, he's a conservative, capitalist, libertarian. There is a big difference, and a distinct danger when combining those three standings.
As for undermining from the inside, that's great, however doing it from the inside only gives you so many options. Plus I would hardly call voting for Ron Paul, undermining american government.
I encourage everyone to fight from the inside if that is the only level of resistance they are comfortable in doing. However that's exactly what fighting from the inside is. Comfortable. I don't doubt that you'd have a lot to lose if you were to be arrested and put on trial for direct action against the state, however some of us don't have as much to lose, or we empathize with them to the point where fighting from the inside becomes irresponsible.
The truth of the matter is, we are all in the same fight. We are fighting for the right to control our own lives. While you may have some control of it now, know that there are more and more that find themselves having less and less control of their destinies. Don't be surprised if one day you find yourself there, and if you ever do, I'll see you in the streets.
Rock on Brothers!
Speaking of brothers, where are all the sisters at?
Yin Yang brought up some great points that were pretty much just ignored. How do other women feel about Ron Paul? Most of the supporters I see are either conservative men fed up with the republican party, or male college "bros" and internet types that have gotten bonerific over this years election.
Or maybe this
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Molotov:Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I've never really understood this, so many anarchists seem to think that the key to making changes in society is to be a mild annoyance, in my experience being a mild annoyance merely makes people want to ignore you rather then listen to your opinions.
You mean as in "VOTE RON PAUL 2008!!!11" spammed on any youtube video, news story comments, or just the internet in general?
Actually, yes. But the more egregious examples are for instance your planned attempt to shut down the RNC, what will that accomplish? Nothing. Even if you manage to shut it down all you've done is deprived the Republicans of a night of mutual masturbation over how great they are, the party will still make the same decisions they would have made otherwise. The most you will do is mildly annoy the would-be attendees, get some cops some overtime pay and probably end up with a few thousand dollars worth of property destruction and a bunch of people spending the night in jail. You will not convince anyone of the value of your opinion and in fact will likely alienate the people whose support you need to see your goals realized.
Quote:
Anarchy isn't only about protesting.
Of course not, but the protests are what make the news and the protests are the most likely part to affect me and most of the population.
Quote:
Protests are just where we all get together.
Shut things down to open things up.
Shut things down to mildly annoy people and alienate them from your point of view you mean.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME