Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[the.crooked]

After the Iowa primary, me and the.crooked were talking about the concept of corporations entering into social contracts with the populace. We never continued the conversation, but I'd be interested in what the neo-libertarians have to say about that.

 

Like it or not, corporations are causing a lot of the problems in the US by way of lobbyists. You guys advocate smaller government and free markets, but who do you think is going to step in? That's right, the people with the money. Do you think that they're going to do any better of a job than a central government?

 

I'm not being a devil's advocate...well, okay, maybe I am. But it's a legitimate question, and one that I'm posing from a third point of view to the Ron Paul supporters and to the.crooked.

 

Crooked, I like the idea of social contracts, but I feel that I'd like it a lot more if we could discuss the details.

 

See, here is the thing to me,

 

 

Paul will accomplish none of the tasks he would set out to do because of the structures in which he would try to enact this change.

 

 

And beyond that, I agree that were many of his plans implemented it would only quicker put us into the corporate/governmental question than what you and I were even talking about. I was talking about fundamentally changing the definition of a corporation such that moral viewpoint and societal progression are built into the way we interact with said institutions.

 

I think that the best way of conceptualizing this change would be through a recognition and acceptance that through many complex pathways our governmental structure is tied to a certain economic structure which necessarily creates a correlation between the entities of the economic domain and the governmental one. In this day in age, it comes as an interaction between policy maker and lobbyist. And the two will never separate again. We may limit the amount and type of interaction that the two entities may have (corporate and governmental) but we are deluding ourselves to think they are logically independent of one another.

 

And Paul's push for an archaic laissez faire model of economics and governance would only increase the speed with which the line between economic and governmental structure is lost. And without the oversight that could be maintained through the larger surface area of having more federal programs.

 

Basically, like Russel has said, and as I have said, time and time again. Dude is just straight up old. Libertarianism of his type is dead in so much as it can no longer adequately be a model of societal democratization and liberalism.

 

As far as a potential model between corporate governance and the will of the people, I will again refer to google. Not in the usual fan boy sense I do, but very specifically.

 

Look at their business model. They do not generate much profit of beta programs it produces. It still maintains most of its revenue through ad brokerage and acquiring space within which to advertise online. Yet they have tons of beta start ups that are incorporated into its overall structure.

 

How can Google afford to maintain all these small projects while never turning much of a profit off of them other than the space the pages they are contained in is created? In two ways, through public approval of their actions as reflected in their stock values, and by turning themselves into infrastructure.

 

When you become access to information what type of entity are you? Something integral at this point to the social lives of the technological world, yet something beyond just a corporation selling a product. Google is selling the progression of society through the integration and development of technological innovation and policy to reflect the ever changing status of technology in society. Their perfect execution of influencing the FCC policy through the spectrum bid is a perfect example. Google opened up the proprietary paradigm that contemporary wireless providers have been working under. By entering what might as well have been a false bid in the auction they forced not only other providers to pay a higher price to even agree to the policy changes, but also to assure that Google would not enter into a new market as a provider and cause unwanted competition. The providers are already getting fucked right now by people who are defaulting on their bills just like the mortgage creditors across the world. So you know for damn sure they did not want a company like Google to enter into an already transitional and faltering technological market with the type of development capitol that Google has.

 

So what is Google I ask you?

 

Yes they are a Corporation in the classical sense, but in another way they are redefining the very relationship between corporation and society. By making their livelihood dependent on society's continued appreciation of its innovative developments, they have resituated themselves as necessary to the continued effective functioning of the technologically advanced world.

 

 

I'm just saying, Google didn't get me into an uncalled for war, nor tried to seriously restrict the conceptual and active freedoms of my life.

 

 

I am also not so stupid as to delude myself into an inherent conception of freedom to human existence. Like anything else that is the product of our cognition it is a logic imposed on a random world.

 

At least I can see some neat shit with things like Google. What does Ron Paul get me? The even faster fucking of the American public by divorcing it from whatever conception of democratic representation it knows? PPLLLLeeeassse.

 

 

When casek and all them cats say your takin america back, ya'll are right. You are takin it back, to over 250+ years ago only to forget the very principles we abandoned in the Articles of Confederation in favor of a faith that they will some how magically work to fix a world inconceivable by the architects of the doctrines ya'll work under.

[the.crooked]

One could easily trace, in different ways, how government is formally (mathematically) tied to any given economic entity.

[thinksmall]

I don't think you guys have studied laissez-faire enough. I feel like what you both have said is almost what a pr agent would have you guys believe - on the surface. Though I'm not gonna risk arguing with you guys and making the system appear completely false. So you should read at mises.org. Fyi, Ludwig von Mises was a classical liberal. There's also been a lot of manipulation of the parties.. whatever that may mean to you.

 

I think you bended Paul's words too. Paul doesn't want to separate the economy and the government. Also, with your logic, wouldn't more government activity in economy lead to a completely different system of government and economy?

 

Also, Google is an interesting thing. A Wired magazine article wrote about how Google and how, in the future, there may be only one computer with millions of monitors. Which is kinda cool and kinda scary.

[Guest shai_hulud]

I know PLENTY about laissez faire economy. Way too much about it, in fact.

 

The only two people who I think have a firm grasp on what Ron Paul represents are casek and AOD. The rest of you are repeating what Ron Paul tells you, and THAT'S what makes me think you don't really understand what he's proposing...much as you claim that I'm repeating what a PR person has told me.

 

I don't mind getting rid of government agencies such as the Fed (I know, it's a private bank, but it's goddamn close to being a federal institution), but there has to be some kind of logical, effective replacement. Telling me that the market is going to fill the vacuum does NOT reassure me...in fact, it terrifies me.

 

BIG BUSINESS DOESN'T CARE ABOUT PEOPLE. It's that simple. Laissez faire would probably work in the 1800's when it was a agricultural/artisan/small industry economy, but if you remove the checks and balances from the equation at this point in history, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

 

All I'm saying is that you've proposed HALF of the equation. Saying that the rest is going to take care of itself is the height of blind, arrogant optimism.

 

It's like all the kids I used to see coming to my old squat. We grew vegetables, had a grey water system, did food banks, dumpstering, composting...we tried to be as self sustaining and off-the-grid as practicable within an urban enviroment.

 

So, these kids would come in, and be talking about "Anarchy this, fuck the system that, kill cops, smash the state.." But, they would sit around all day and get drunk and complain that there was no TV for them to watch. We'd say, "Exactly! Here's a shovel, go dig some beds for the radishes and then turn the compost with the pitchfork," and they'd say, "I don't want to do any stupid hippie farm work...this place sucks, there's no TV and all you guys do is read and talk about politics."

 

So, when all these kids that ramble on about Austrian economics and laissez faire and gold standards, I start to hear all the so called "anarchists" that used to show up and not understand what anarchy actually meant. It means taking responsibility for your own life and your own destiny, so you don't need cops or government. It means being self sustainable.

 

Judging by the number of kids that I saw sitting around like a bunch of retarded bums when there was plenty to do, I really, really doubt that this country is prepared for the kind of personal responsibility Ron Paul advocates.

[lord_casek]

you left out several people, shai.

 

some1, 10sicz, iloveboxcars, and a few more.

 

no matter, though. i think AOD is the most informed, though.

[Guest shai_hulud]

What I'm trying to say is that what Ron Paul is proposing is a cure of sorts, but it's also an enormous shock to the system.

[lord_casek]

What I'm trying to say is that what Ron Paul is proposing is a cure of sorts, but it's also an enormous shock to the system.

 

yeah. i know.

 

i gave my neighbor, who was somewhat into paul, a nice dvd produced for the election.

he came back to me and said that he had watched it, and loved ron paul's ideas, but it was scary.

 

his ideas do scare people. in a good way, mostly. but thta's because our system has been left to its own devices for so long that people don't know what to do when confronted with real liberty.

[Guest shai_hulud]

Also, I'm not going to be the guy who sits there and calls Ron Paul names. I think he's incredibly smart, and I definitely agree with him on certain points. My concern is based on whether people of my generation (20-40) who are gung-ho for this guy are willing to sacrifice some of the things laissez-faire culture doesn't allow for.

 

As I said, there's a few people on this board who are more than prepared to live a self-sustaining lifestyle. The vast majority would probably be fucked, and some of the people in the Ron Paul camp fall into that group. I just want them to carefully consider whether they're in for a penny (end the war, free the weed!), or a pound (getting rid of a great deal of social services they take for granted).

 

It's important stuff to consider.

[the.crooked]

ahhh, cmon guys. i wrote some great stuff up there.

 

 

 

no one's even gonna respond?

[Guest shai_hulud]

Im tired, and I need some time to digest it. So far, I agree with what I read.

 

I'm not all that up to date on Google, but most of their code for the online applications is open source/GPL, correct?

 

As far as thinksmall's comment-

 

Also, Google is an interesting thing. A Wired magazine article wrote about how Google and how, in the future, there may be only one computer with millions of monitors. Which is kinda cool and kinda scary.

 

That's more or less what the internet and the new generation of web-capable cellphones is preparing us for. It's called Grid computing. It's kind of like going back to the past of computing...think mainframes and terminals, but instead of paying for processor time on a mainframe and storage in a tape archive, you pay for bandwidth from a local server cluster, and store files locally. Processors are at a point where they're not going to get much more powerful unless they're used in a cluster fashion...think dual/quad cores, but on a much, much larger scale. Check out some of the larger SGI machines for examples of this concept in practice. Computers are eventually going to turn into very small client/type appliances in the not too distant future. There's always going to be the option to have high-performance towers for the geeks and gamers, but for most everyone else the appliance of choice is probably going to be a laptop or tablet of similar size, and a smartphone for mobile use...eventually smartphones are going to catch up to the point where they will be virtually interchangeable with home computing appliances. Google is working with a lot of developers to make this possible...the idea is that your computer will always be where you are. There's some mobile/remote desktops being developed based on the KDE desktop platform that are the first wave of this. It will be interesting to see whether Microsoft sees open source platforms like KDE as the future or as the enemy...because whether Microsoft likes it or not, KDE is here to stay, and the sooner that Microsoft realizes it's better to cooperate and assimilate as opposed to try to compete with and confound open source, the better it will be for developers and standardization.

 

Before you start saying how this is Big Brother's wet dream, consider that the internet was originally funded and developed by DARPA.

 

Okay, back to the Ron Paulness.

[the.crooked]

Shai, when we are less tired you should dig on my new thesis stuff.

 

Casek too.

 

 

perhaps a lil three way intarnet talk action.

[Guest shai_hulud]

I'm on AIM a lot of the time, but casek....well, he's a little hard to reach on the old AIM phone.

 

Most of the AIM conversations me and casek have seem to end up being about graffiti for some reason. If you can deal with that, then you might find it interesting.

[the.crooked]

I've talked to him about all this business before.

 

 

But I have come clearer thoughts at this point.

 

 

you should check the new attachments in the general philosophy thread.

 

a 1.5 and a 2 page document. quick reads at some points dense, but whatevs.

[the.crooked]

oh, and it is gonna be titled;

 

"oh hai. im n ur intarnetz, makn senz uf ur contnt."

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

I can't tell who has who's dick in there mouth at this point.

[lord_casek]

I can't tell who has who's dick in there mouth at this point.

 

 

what's that all about?

[Qawee]

I can't tell who has who's dick in there mouth at this point.

 

*their

[Guest shai_hulud]

I can't tell who has who's dick in there mouth at this point.

 

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

 

If that's directed at anything that I said, this is why some of Ron Paul's supporters make me wonder what's really going on. Whenever someone points out something they disagree with in his platform, they get really defensive and call people unpatriotic, or fascist, or stupid.

 

Well, I'm none of the above. What I AM is capable of is objective thought. Maybe some of you should try it once in a while.

 

If you're concerned about where this country is headed, look at this site-

 

http://www.campaignmoney.com/

 

There's listings for all the major candidates and campaign contributors in there...how much they donated, to who, and in what years. It may take a little research, but the information is there.

 

Next, find out what bills and proposals were on the table when the most money was changing hands. Might surprise you.

 

Then, write some letters. To congress, to the candidates, and to the CEOs or PACs that were donating the money, and tell them that you noticed a pattern in the funding based on proposed legislation, and you would like to hear their side of the story. Tell them you believe in representative government where every single vote counts, and that it's high time that we ended the reign of "the best government money can buy." There's not a lot you can do to legislators outside of your area, but tell corporations that if your vote doesn't count, then your dollar certainly does...and that you'll take your business elsewhere.

 

Then, watch the spin. They'll tell you anything BUT the truth. I guarantee it.

 

We have an open government of sorts, but it takes some work (read- PATRIOTISM) to actually put it into practice.

 

Expecting Ron Paul to waltz into the White House and changing the way our current system works from the top down is a pipe dream. It's going to take some work from the people, as well.

[the.crooked]

If you all are interested in the relationship between lobbying parties and congressional voting patters, I suggest you all take a look at my stepdad's book.

 

It takes a few congresspeople and their voting histories, and compares it to where they take jobs at after they finish their terms.

 

 

If you all are interested, let me know and I will pm you the info. Not gonna put the step-pops on blast here.

[Guest shai_hulud]

Like Dick Cheney and Halliburton?

 

Oh, wait...that was preemptive.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

what's that all about?

 

I don't know. Just saying how I feel after reading the last page or so.

 

*their

 

Thanks my dude. As Ja Rule would say "Where would I be without you".

 

Feel free to correct any mistakes I've made thus far as well. :lol:

 

 

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

 

If that's directed at anything that I said, this is why some of Ron Paul's supporters make me wonder what's really going on. Whenever someone points out something they disagree with in his platform, they get really defensive and call people unpatriotic, or fascist, or stupid.

 

Well, I'm none of the above. What I AM is capable of is objective thought. Maybe some of you should try it once in a while.

 

I didn't call anyone anything you've just claimed I had said. It wasn't solely directed at you. It was directed at all the patting on the back that was going on here, tis all. As far as being "unpatriotic", or "fascist", or "stupid". I wouldn't put myself in any of those categories either, but that's my opinion. Just as I am sure you wouldn't throw yourself into any of those categories, it's all a matter of perspective I suppose.

 

If you're concerned about where this country is headed, look at this site-

 

http://www.campaignmoney.com/

 

There's listings for all the major candidates and campaign contributors in there...how much they donated, to who, and in what years. It may take a little research, but the information is there.

 

Next, find out what bills and proposals were on the table when the most money was changing hands. Might surprise you.

 

Thank you. I did not know such a site existed. I'm bookmarking this right now and will be using it in the future.

 

 

Expecting Ron Paul to waltz into the White House and changing the way our current system works from the top down is a pipe dream. It's going to take some work from the people, as well.

 

I highly doubt that anyone that supports Ron Paul thinks that everything Ron Paul wants to implement will surely happen. I know I don't. However the idea that he is against such agencies that are extremely shady and are probably responsible for terrorism at home as well as abroad (ie: CIA, Federal Reserve). Alone gives me confidence in him over every other candidate.

 

I could go on and on about the things that I approve of Ron Paul and why I approve of them, but it is pointless, all of it has been said before, and all of it will be said somewhere else, most specifically here.

 

As far as doubting that this world could work the way Ron Paul wants it too is beyond me. He's heavily devoted to the medical field due to his past, so I'd bet money on the fact that he has a better grasp on health care and how to improve the current system then let's say.... Hilary Clinton. His foreign policy is far beyond any other Republican nominee that is left, and he clearly isn't manipulated by his faith, or he doesn't use his faith to manipulate people into voting for or against him or someone else. Last but not least as far as economics are concerned, it may not be my strong point, but I just find myself saying "that's a good idea" almost everytime he speaks on the issue.

 

I won't lie though, I'm one biased motherfucker.

 

EDIT****

I just had seen crooked's post after I had posted this and I'd like to read the book, send a PM my way puhleeez.

[Guest shai_hulud]

Well, this is good. What I wanted was to get people to actually talk about what Ron Paul is saying. I rarely get this kind of reaction from most of the Ron Paul folks I talk to in person, ha ha. At the risk of offending some people, I'll try to make a comparison.

 

It's like a white guy who has dated white girls his whole life, suddenly meeting a black girl who he falls in love with and has incredible sex with and so forth. You look at it as, well, good for him...glad to see that he is happy. You like her, but after talking to her you realize there's a few things you don't see eye to eye with her on, but overall, it's your friend's girl, and he's dated a few real losers in the past. At least she seems to mean well, in spite of the differences.

 

But, your friend's stuck on this girl, in a big way. She's so different from anyone he's ever met and so in tune with some of the things he thinks but never says, that when he sits there and gushes, "Isn't she great?" to you over and over, you say, "Yeah, she's cool...good for you."

 

He says, "Dude, she's the best thing since sliced bread! Everything she says is so intelligent, and she wants to help people...I know she seems a little old fashioned, but that's the way she was raised..." and so on. You think, "Man, this guy used to really be critical of the people he dated, what the hell?"

 

So you say, "Well, overall I think she's cool. Some of the things she says make me wonder about her a bit, but no one's perfect..."

 

Of course, he presses you to tell you what she said, so you quote her on a couple things, and say, "Look. It's really all about you and your happiness, but this is how I feel. I've been around the block, I've heard this before, and it makes me wonder. That's all."

 

He then says, "Oh, that. Yeah. Whatever, that was taken out of context, and besides, that's just some shit her friends were saying. She can't be responsible for what her friends say, right?"

 

"No, but she can decide who she wants to hang out with. Look, at the end of the day, what really matters is that you're happy, and that you're getting a lot out of the relationship, and she's teaching you new things. I just don't want you to get hurt."

 

That's where things get ugly. He accuses you of salting his game, and not liking his girl, and being racist, and being close-minded, and so on when all you really said was that you didn't agree with her chapter and verse.

 

Change the girl to Ron Paul, black to Republican, and the guy to the Berkeley liberals who support him, and you pretty much get the idea.

[El Mamerro]

That was fucking spot on.

[angelofdeath]

damn, step away from the forum for a couple days....

 

i gotta agree with one of shai's main points on this thread. i dont buy the corporate stuff that he is saying, but i do agree with his point about some of ron paul supporters. in fact tucker carlson said the very same thing all the time when the debates were going on. that he isnt quite sure that all of the lefties and more statist types that are saying good things about paul really support him. after all if he had his way he would dismantle alot of things that the lefties hold dear.

 

but to be honest, i cant get mad if a certain type of person likes ron paul. one of my pet peeves has always been the stoner 'libertarian' or more properly, libertine. well all know them... the guy who is like...'legalize drugs? WTF? where do i check? whats his name again?' or the people who are like... 'you gotta support drug legalization or prostitution legalization, but you also have to do drugs and pick up prostitutes!'

 

i never have much cared for those types. but whatever. i think honestly ron paul got as much support as he did because of his real deal anti aggressive war/non interventionist stance. he allied people like me and kucinich supporters. or pat buchanan types with san fran hippy types. i think its neat really, because the ideas of liberty do cross boundaries. that being said, there are few that really really believe in liberty. that is quite obvious by ron pauls' low national poll numbers. alot of people have just made it a point to say that the other candidates arent anti war, ron paul is, so lets elect him and end the war, then we can start bickering about other stuff. whatever, thats cool, but i personally dont think the war is the end all issues going on today. its definately in the top 3, but its tied with some others.

 

i've always been realistic about his chances, but that doesnt stop me from defending him and supporting the guy. i have a long line of lost causes running through my blood. revolutionary war and confederate soldiers. (eh, liberty won the first time) even an anti leninist from russia. i know deep down the american public does not want liberty. that they do not value freedom. and that they want more wealth redistribution, abridging of civil liberty in the name of safety, more intervention overseas, more oppression of the free market and more inflation. that is quite obvious as they keep voting in socialists and neo cons. i think the this is just the beginning of the ron paul revolution and just might start spreading the seeds of liberty throughout the country. there are literally dozens of candidates running for office on ron paul's platform now. the grass roots effort is amazing. it would be nice to see an old right form in congress again. to block the advancement of the state. but in the end, i know the only answer to this countries problem is governments reset button, the second amendment.

[lord_casek]

i'll be right alongside

[Guest shai_hulud]

I would never challenge AOD or casek for two good reasons-

 

1. I think they really DO believe that this is the best path for the country to take at this point in history. I don't, but I respect them for doing their homework and being pretty consistent over the years. Actually, I think you could set your watch by AOD. He's that reliable. casek seems to have shifted a bit more to the right, but he's always been willing to listen to what I have to say.

 

2. They have guns.

 

If anything, I want to try to find out who's really for Ron Paul and who's in it for a minute, and why people are so starstruck by him. I have to admit, he looks really refreshing in contrast to the status quo.

[thinksmall]

LOL!

[lord_casek]

I would never challenge AOD or casek for two good reasons-

 

1. I think they really DO believe that this is the best path for the country to take at this point in history. I don't, but I respect them for doing their homework and being pretty consistent over the years. Actually, I think you could set your watch by AOD. He's that reliable. casek seems to have shifted a bit more to the right, but he's always been willing to listen to what I have to say.

 

2. They have guns.

 

If anything, I want to try to find out who's really for Ron Paul and who's in it for a minute, and why people are so starstruck by him. I have to admit, he looks really refreshing in contrast to the status quo.

 

what made me a ron paul follower is watching his speech titled "neo-conned"

you can watch the vid on google video or find the text if you feel like it.

[Guest shai_hulud]

CHUNKA CHUNKA CHUNKA to the gun.

 

Also, I haven't see casek blinding people with science as much lately. The dude is a monster with the facts and figures, but lately he's been telling people to just read for themselves.

 

I don't mind doing that, but what I want to know is what he thinks and what informs that opinion. I can usually take a pretty educated guess, but sometimes I just want to hear the point summed up so I don't have to do a lot of reading between the lines.

 

*edit- Thanks, I'll check out the speech.

[lord_casek]

what i've been reading for the past several years has made my viewpoint change.

 

i used to be uneducated about such things as to what a real conservative was, way of thinking, etc. i used to hate guns because all i saw was dipshit kids (wiggers) running around acting afool.

i used to think money meant something and my vote actually counted. i started reading and watching what was going on.

 

started lifting the veil off of my eyes for myself.

 

number one is 9/11: when i saw that shit go down while watching the news that morning, i knew that what i had heard alex jones predict a couple of months earlier was real. i had dismissed him as crazy in july of '01 when i heard him say it.

 

number two: i was watching fox news after 9/11. i didn't know any better. about 6 months after i started watching it, i realized that we were being lied to by them because of what i was reading in papers from abroad and govt. documents. then i learned about media deception and intelligence plants in media (operation mockingbird)

 

number three: i kept reading and reading. ran into machiavelli. understood so much more of the neo con agenda and tactics.

 

number four: ron paul and real republicans (like AOD). they changed me forever. i'll never be the same. ever. i don't have all of the answers, but i have a more of an understanding of it than your common citizen.

 

 

there's more, but that was a good summary.