TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Economist Does Ron Paul
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

The Economist Does Ron Paul

This is the first mention that the Economist has had of Paul. It's not to bad a review but it highlights some of the issues where he will run into trouble. The gold standard and dismantleing the Fed will not win him any votes from economist readers.

quote:

Libertarian protests Live free or get hauled off to prison Oct 11th 2007 | AUSTIN From The Economist print edition Taxing questions THE American constitution gives Congress the power to collect taxes. The 16th amendment to it elaborates that Congress may tax incomes. That is enough to make most Americans pony up. But Ed and Elaine Brown of New Hampshire are unconvinced. In 1996 they decided to stop paying federal income taxes because, they said, they saw no law authorising such an imposition. And in January of this year, when they were convicted on charges of tax evasion, they resisted. EPA Paul wants to set you freeMr Brown retreated to his home and vowed to fight anyone who tried to arrest him. Mrs Brown, a dentist in quieter times, joined him a bit later. Their home made a good fort. It sprawls over more than 100 acres (40 hectares) of forest and was equipped with generators, weapons and booby traps. Thus holed up, the couple gave interviews. News of their stand spread over the internet. Supporters brought food and supplies. The situation was at an impasse until federal marshals had a clever idea. On October 4th, they tricked the Browns by posing as supporters. The Browns welcomed them onto the property and were arrested on the front porch. The Browns, it has to be admitted, are at the far end of the spectrum. But thousands of reasonable Americans are deeply committed to a candidate whose platform might appeal to such scofflaws. Abolishing the federal income tax is a priority for supporters of Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas who is running for the Republican presidential nomination on a libertarian platform. Mr Paul reckons it would be possible to accomplish this; fiscal rigour is central to his campaign. He also wants to dismantle the Federal Reserve and return to gold-backed currency. He has always opposed the war in Iraq. He wants America out of the UN, the WTO, and any other international arrangement. He strongly supports home-schooling and, of course, gun ownership. These stances are agreeable to people who distrust government, and political watchers have been surprised by Mr Paul's success thus far. According to an October 4th Gallup poll, he is still wallowing with around 2% of the Republican vote. However, in the third quarter of this year he raised more than $5m�quite respectable compared, say, with the $9m raised by Fred Thompson. It is probably the intensity of Mr Paul's convictions that commends him to his supporters. Republican voters are still not sure whether to believe the conservative credentials of leading candidates like Mitt Romney or Mr Thompson. Mr Paul plainly believes what he says. Perhaps the other candidates should adopt a bit of his libertarian fervour.

Home schooling? Out of the UN, WTO and any other international agreement? Dang, up to now I thought Ron Paul was a pretty good candidate, but if he is thinking of implementing any of this, it is more a step backwards for the states than forwards.

Re: The Economist Does Ron Paul

quote:

Originally posted by atbell This is the first mention that the Economist has had of Paul. It's not to bad a review but it highlights some of the issues where he will run into trouble. The gold standard and dismantleing the Fed will not win him any votes from economist readers.

Of course the Economist isn't going to paint a rosy picture in regards to the idea of dismantling the Fed

It's owners are British

http://www.answers.com/topic/the-ec...oup?cat=biz-fin

http://www.answers.com/topic/pearson-plc?cat=biz-fin

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Home schooling? Out of the UN, WTO and any other international agreement? Dang, up to now I thought Ron Paul was a pretty good candidate, but if he is thinking of implementing any of this, it is more a step backwards for the states than forwards.

He supports home schooling, but fortunately for us, schooling is left up to the individual states.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX Home schooling? Out of the UN, WTO and any other international agreement? Dang, up to now I thought Ron Paul was a pretty good candidate, but if he is thinking of implementing any of this, it is more a step backwards for the states than forwards.

THANK YOU. I've been saying this for a long time. If Paul wins, say goodbye to the World Food Programme, World Health Organization, United Nations Children Fund, United Nations Development Programme, and any attempt (even if inadequate) at peacekeeping around the world.

I think he sounds more and more like a Pat Buchanan isolationist type. Now I personally think Ron Paul seems like a much warmer person than Pat Buchanan is, but some of his rhetoric is awfully similar. I don't think these organizations are perfect, it's obvious they aren't. But pulling out of them isn't going to somehow make the UN or WTO better. It wouldn't be good for our standing in the world, and it's already not very good...leaving these organizations would be a big slap in the face to the world that the United States will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants...and now do we really want to do that?

And he always goes by "the founders said this, the founders said that..the constitution says this..." but he forgets...it's not 1776..it's 2007...a lot has changed since then. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution, but not make everything out be like "it's not in the constitution so we can't do it"...uh that's not very realistic now is it? Are computers or the internet mentioned in it?

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 I think he sounds more and more like a Pat Buchanan isolationist type. Now I personally think Ron Paul seems like a much warmer person than Pat Buchanan is, but some of his rhetoric is awfully similar. I don't think these organizations are perfect, it's obvious they aren't. But pulling out of them isn't going to somehow make the UN or WTO better. It wouldn't be good for our standing in the world, and it's already not very good...leaving these organizations would be a big slap in the face to the world that the United States will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants...and now do we really want to do that? And he always goes by "the founders said this, the founders said that..the constitution says this..." but he forgets...it's not 1776..it's 2007...a lot has changed since then. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution, but not make everything out be like "it's not in the constitution so we can't do it"...uh that's not very realistic now is it? Are computers or the internet mentioned in it?

The UN and the WTO are just two more faces of the NWO in my opinion.

Anyway, Ron Paul has made it quite clear that he's not an isolationist and that he more or less styles himself as a modern-day Taft Republican.

He elaborates a bit (in regards to a couple of your points) in this video:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8cPoCcqL3U

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X The UN and the WTO are just two more faces of the NWO in my opinion. Anyway, Ron Paul has made it quite clear that he's not an isolationist and that he more or less styles himself as a modern-day Taft Republican. He elaborates a bit (in regards to a couple of your points) in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8cPoCcqL3U

He doesn't address any of the points we raised. He only talks about the draft. I looked up Taft's policy and basically he was a non interventionist. Now I have a question for you. Do you agree then with China's non interventionist policy? There has been recent outrage of how China has not meddled in Sudan's internal affairs while still keeping their investments there and making money out of it. What is your position on this issue? Or does non interventionism include boycotting such places as Sudan when they are non compliant?

As a side note, if a country is non compliant, how do you (or Paul) suggest the situation be resolved?

I do believe that the world is noticing how interdependent we are, and that we are slowly coming to the realization that we have to share this planet and we are stuck here and we have to help each other. Withdrawing from international efforts such as the UN and the WTO among others would not help anyone in the long run, except maybe the US.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX He doesn't address any of the points we raised. He only talks about the draft. I looked up Taft's policy and basically he was a non interventionist. Now I have a question for you. Do you agree then with China's non interventionist policy? There has been recent outrage of how China has not meddled in Sudan's internal affairs while still keeping their investments there and making money out of it. What is your position on this issue? Or does non interventionism include boycotting such places as Sudan when they are non compliant? As a side note, if a country is non compliant, how do you (or Paul) suggest the situation be resolved? I do believe that the world is noticing how interdependent we are, and that we are slowly coming to the realization that we have to share this planet and we are stuck here and we have to help each other. Withdrawing from international efforts such as the UN and the WTO among others would not help anyone in the long run, except maybe the US.

You didn't hear him talk about the Constitution? I could have sworn that me mentioned that while he doesn't consider it to be perfect that it's still the rule of law.

If you want me to I can go back and dictate it for the board.

In regards to the non-interventionism, I believe that is the policy that this country was originally meant to follow.

I haven't studied China's policies enough to make any statements in those regards - but if their treatment of the Tibetan Buddhists is any indication of the help that they might offer other countries, I'd have to say that I'm glad that they seem to want to stay away.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X You didn't hear him talk about the Constitution? I could have sworn that me mentioned that while he doesn't consider it to be perfect that it's still the rule of law. If you want me to I can go back and dictate it for the board.

He did talk about that. Now, how does that relate to the UN and/or WTO?

I understand what he's saying, but I still don't see him as the force who will bring us together. I think he'll win a lot of people in the West, and perhaps some college students, but some of his ideas are not realistic in this country....not as it has been in the past 100 years or so. And certainly not realistic in this world either.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX He did talk about that. Now, how does that relate to the UN and/or WTO?

Regarding the Constitution, I was responding to Spirit5's post:

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 And he always goes by "the founders said this, the founders said that..the constitution says this..." but he forgets...it's not 1776..it's 2007...a lot has changed since then. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution, but not make everything out be like "it's not in the constitution so we can't do it"...uh that's not very realistic now is it? Are computers or the internet mentioned in it?

To what degree are we talking about non interventionism though? No political intervention? No armed intervention? Are we talking about no intervention in any sense?

Unless we are talking about the latter, leaving world organizations and treaties doesn't make any sense. And if you ask me, non interventionism is a cop out anyways. "If we turn a blind eye, everything will fix itself". Non interventionism might have worked back in 1776 (even though the US has never fully practiced it), but it certainly doesn't work now in our interconnected, interdependent world.

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 I understand what he's saying, but I still don't see him as the force who will bring us together. I think he'll win a lot of people in the West, and perhaps some college students, but some of his ideas are not realistic in this country....not as it has been in the past 100 years or so. And certainly not realistic in this world either.

So what's our best option then? Just give up and let corrupt figureheads (for the international bankers) maintain RULE OVER US while merging the US, Canada and Mexico into a North American Union or should we try to salvage what's left of our Constitutional Republic by allowing Ron Paul to LEAD our country back to a path of freedom?

quote:

Originally posted by venomX To what degree are we talking about non interventionism though? No political intervention? No armed intervention? Are we talking about no intervention in any sense? Unless we are talking about the latter, leaving world organizations and treaties doesn't make any sense. And if you ask me, non interventionism is a cop out anyways. "If we turn a blind eye, everything will fix itself". Non interventionism might have worked back in 1776 (even though the US has never fully practiced it), but it certainly doesn't work now in our interconnected, interdependent world.

I think that it really all boils down to our staying out of the entangling alliances that we were so warned about.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I think that it really all boils down to our staying out of the entangling alliances that we were so warned about.

So ignore the rest of the world because it is easier to conduct business when you only have to consider one opinion? You mind moving the US to the moon then? That way you don't have to get into 'entangling alliances' with these other meddlesome countries that also happen to be located in this planet.

I love it how he complains about the US sending 60million to UNESCO. He complains how the US is helping fund these agencies that help other people. Can you imagine the horror? Now I am not arguing to any extent that he doesn't have a point in saying that they are inefficient or corrupt, but seriously, when the US spends billions upon billions in military equipment and wars, it can't spare 60 million dollars?

Bottom line is, it is unrealistic in this world we live in to be non interventionist. Sitting it out is not an option anymore. Specially for the US. When most of the products you consume are imported, when most of your debt is own by foreigners, when most of your companies make HUGE profits around the world, not in your own home, how could you possibly justify not caring and not getting involved in situations around the world. The solution is not to completely withdraw from involvement but to change the involvement into something more productive. Is this a challenge? Yes. Will it be hard? Yes. Is it worth pursuing? Hell yes.

quote:

Originally posted by venomX So ignore the rest of the world because it is easier to conduct business when you only have to consider one opinion? You mind moving the US to the moon then? That way you don't have to get into 'entangling alliances' with these other meddlesome countries that also happen to be located in this planet. I love it how he complains about the US sending 60million to UNESCO. He complains how the US is helping fund these agencies that help other people. Can you imagine the horror? Now I am not arguing to any extent that he doesn't have a point in saying that they are inefficient or corrupt, but seriously, when the US spends billions upon billions in military equipment and wars, it can't spare 60 million dollars? Bottom line is, it is unrealistic in this world we live in to be non interventionist. Sitting it out is not an option anymore. Specially for the US. When most of the products you consume are imported, when most of your debt is own by foreigners, when most of your companies make HUGE profits around the world, not in your own home, how could you possibly justify not carrying and not getting involved in situations around the world. The solution is not to completely withdraw from involvement but to change the involvement into something more productive. Is this a challenge? Yes. Will it be hard? Yes. Is it worth pursuing? Hell yes.

Perhaps if you had a better understanding of it you wouldn't be so quick to let your emotions cloud your judgement.

As George Washington said in his farewell address:

quote:

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities." http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa...democrac/49.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...interventionism

And I don't want to have to delve into the topic of UNESCO right now but it's my opinion that they're not nearly as benevolent as they make themselves out to be. I do know for a fact that my country has been ceding valuable land (such as our National Parks, etc.) to them for quite some time now under the framework of them becoming new UNESCO "World Heritage Sites."

I just don't understand you guys. Maybe its youthful ignorance, I don't know. The guy wants to abolish the IRS! Its all a lot of wishful thinking guys.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 I just don't understand you guys. Maybe its youthful ignorance, I don't know. The guy wants to abolish the IRS! Its all a lot of wishful thinking guys.

Personally, I don't see why anyone would even try to justify keeping them around!

First off, much of what they do (taxing peoples wages) technically isn't even legal. Secondly, if our government was to go back to playing the role which our Founding Fathers had originally envisioned, we wouldn't even need them!!

People are too used to handouts and public assistance. Too many American's are in a continual state of dependence and the system as it stands right now only serves to foster that dependence.

One of the synonyms for dependent is subordinate. By it's definition alone, subordinate means "someone subject to the authority or control of another." I say f**k that! As a human being, I want to stay self-reliant and fully independent!! It's the American way!

And I know that I'm not the only one to think this because Emerson sure did know about it!

quote:

Originally posted by Spirit5 I think he sounds more and more like a Pat Buchanan isolationist type. Now I personally think Ron Paul seems like a much warmer person than Pat Buchanan is, but some of his rhetoric is awfully similar. I don't think these organizations are perfect, it's obvious they aren't. But pulling out of them isn't going to somehow make the UN or WTO better. It wouldn't be good for our standing in the world, and it's already not very good...leaving these organizations would be a big slap in the face to the world that the United States will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants...and now do we really want to do that? And he always goes by "the founders said this, the founders said that..the constitution says this..." but he forgets...it's not 1776..it's 2007...a lot has changed since then. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution, but not make everything out be like "it's not in the constitution so we can't do it"...uh that's not very realistic now is it? Are computers or the internet mentioned in it?

You really underestimate the brilliance and intuitive insight and education of the "founders". They are much more qualified even in 1776 than your average blow-joe idiot in 2007, who actually has the audacity to soil his only protections against the government and tyranny with phrases like "I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution" and excuses like "that's not very realistic".

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Perhaps if you had a better understanding of it you wouldn't be so quick to let your emotions cloud your judgement. As George Washington said in his farewell address:

It was 17-fucking-96. Just because George Washington, who was a great president in his time, said that we should stay out of alliances in a world where it took two months to cross the Atlantic Ocean means we should follow it to the letter of the law? Should we also follow the Bible to the letter? You people act like his farewell speech is some sort of religious text that should never be deviated from.

The fact of the matter is, Washington could not envision a world where it takes 5 hours - much less 5 days - to cross the Atlantic. Where China pumps $444 Billion of investment into Africa each decade, and where war impacts the economic and political security of entire regions. He didn't understand the world we live in today.

And go ahead, use UNESCO as a reason we should pull out of the UN. But I would love to hear your rationale behind WHO, WFP, UNDP, UNICEF, or UNHCR. I really would.

And while we're on the topic of Ron Paul being short-sighted and unrealistic, US isolationism goes hand in hand with protectionism, which has been proven again and again by economists as bad for the overall well-being of the economy. Maybe you don't like NAFTA. Fine. But don't withdraw from the world and raise up tariffs to shut outselves off - because the first people that will suffer are the American consumers. Free trade would necessitate the kind of interconnection (as well as bilateral trade agreements) that Washington seemed so unfond of. So don't give me the excuse that we can still have free trade with Ron Paul. The truth is, we wouldn't.

Lebez, you are aware that Ron Paul is against ALL TARIFFS OF ANY KIND correct? He would reduce or eliminate every barrier and every law on the books that prevents voluntary trade with other people/nations. He believes that we don't need bureaucracies or formal agreements to regulate commerce.

Just leave people free and trade will happen naturally.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Lebez, you are aware that Ron Paul is against ALL TARIFFS OF ANY KIND correct? He would reduce or eliminate every barrier and every law on the books that prevents voluntary trade with other people/nations. He believes that we don't need bureaucracies or formal agreements to regulate commerce. Just leave people free and trade will happen naturally.

Economically something has to give. He can profess to be open to free trade, but history has shown that free trade doesn't happen without bilateral trade agreements reducing tariffs on both sides. Otherwise one country will profit at the others' expense. And with all this talk of "entangling" international agreements, I don't see Paul reaching out to the world and seeking trade negotiations.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby You really underestimate the brilliance and intuitive insight and education of the "founders". They are much more qualified even in 1776 than your average blow-joe idiot in 2007, who actually has the audacity to soil his only protections against the government and tyranny with phrases like "I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution" and excuses like "that's not very realistic".

So you are saying that the 'founders' in 1776 should have the final word on things happening in 2007? Come on, I am sure they were smart and insightful, but in this day an age, we have even smarter and more insightful people. Sure they wrote a good basic framework, but things that don't adapt tend to die off. There is no point in trying to keep things exactly as they are if they are not working any more. Constantly referring to people that lived 200 years ago and are so unconnected to our current world situation is a bit silly.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Perhaps if you had a better understanding of it you wouldn't be so quick to let your emotions cloud your judgement. As George Washington said in his farewell address: And I don't want to have to delve into the topic of UNESCO right now but it's my opinion that they're not nearly as benevolent as they make themselves out to be. I do know for a fact that my country has been ceding valuable land (such as our National Parks, etc.) to them for quite some time now under the framework of them becoming new UNESCO "World Heritage Sites."

It simple, as Lebezniatnikov said, you can not have economic expansion into other countries with out political relationships. It doesn't happen. If you want to prove me wrong, give me an example of countries with a blossoming economic relationship that have no political connections. You can keep repeating the theoretical framework all you want. It just doesn't work. Never has, never will. Why would another country risk trading with someone that doesn't even bother to establish relationships with them? You also have to consider that the whole concept of 'trade without relationship' is extremely anglo/american. Asian, Latin Americans, Southern Europeans and other collectivist leaning cultures would NEVER trade with someone without establishing a relationship. Saying that a concept that is completely culture in nature, and is endemic to only a handful of countries (the US, Canada, the UK and Australia mostly), can work all around the world is ludicrous. Seriously, start considering thing from a world perspective. Being a proud and individualistic country is worthless in this day an age.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.