Ron Paul: the test to end various claims

Social Program Lobbyists outnumber corporate lobbyists 20 to 1.

 

ummm.. just one problem with that.

The Constitutional limits to Congressional power cannot be exceeded, even to solve an intractable social problem.

You are talking about tyranny of the worst sort and even though you may think of these people as "criminals" or whatever. They broke no written laws, and therefore you would be depriving American citizens of due process. You start down that road, where does it stop?

 

　
　
　
And they still cause most of the corruption within our government. NO lobbyist should have private meeting with a politician. If they want to address the congress it should be on the open floor, not in back rooms, with suit cases full of cash (figuratively, off shore accounts and the promise of lucrative jobs for doing their bidding is the same thing).
　
　

　
　
This is exactly the way organized criminals are dealt with and it is legal. My comments of shooting on sight, or banishing them, may sound a bit harsh, but bribing public officials, election fraud, disregarding or unethically dismissing the oath of office for personal gain, etc... are acts of treason and all participants should be treated accordingly. I think rather than take a bullet or life in prison in solitary confinement, most would prefer the banishment.
　
　
　
It just amazes me that forfeiture of all assets for mafia types or drug dealers is perfectly acceptable but when a rich guy or their sock puppet politician are identified, it's cruel and unusual punishment. White collar criminals do more to destroy the lives of average every day working individuals than all the little black kids on street corners selling doobies combined can or will ever cause. Some day you people are going to have to get your priorities straight and stand up for the unethical criminal behavior of bought and paid for politicians.

 

They would also eliminate corporate personhood and limited liability.

So you haven't read up on libertarian philosophy, you've just made assumptions based on half-notions. The philosophy is centered around self-ownership, from which stems unalienable rights. Unalienable means cannot be aliened, or contracted away. Whether that be to government (which I'm sure you support when it restricts rights) or business or individuals.

Ron Paul, like most witha knowledge of monetary history, knows that no fiat currency has survived indefinitely. There will be a collapse in the dollar at some point. The purpose of fiat currencies is so that governments can run deficits and stealthily tax workers and pensioners through inflation.

What a terrible though, that workers and pensioners and others would gain purchasing power rather than lose it.

Fear of deflation is like fear of voodoo. People hear the word and quiver in irrational fear. There are problems with deflation in a fiat environment, but it's worth pointing out that the period of 1850-1900 was a deflationary one yet also one greatest growth periods for the US.

There's going to come a reckoning day when the world grows tired of sending us all of its wealth and savings and getting back green paper and military threats in return. Your argument is that Ron Paul would do something to carefully end dollar hegemony.

China has a long history with fiat currencies, having gone through them at least 6 times and every time a collapse. What makes them think they will get it right this time?

Liberty is a terrible thing. Monetary freedom? We can't be trusted. Freedom to ingest substances? Can't be trusted. Progressives such as yourself would make us go without pants if they thought it were for our own good, and would advocate dire punishments for those who rejects such idiotic notions; Ron Paul and libertarians, on the other hand, let people choose to follow their own consciouses even if the result is not always desirable.

 

That's because you don't understand how wealth is created. You look at the current system of corporate cronyism, propped up by conservative and progressive alike, and think that is the status quo that libertarians support. The transfer of wealth by a central banking system into the hands of the wealthiest, and the creation of selective barriers through regulation that prevent small businesses from competing with large is what we have now and what you tacitly support by voting in a puppet of one of the two major parties.

Libertarianism would benefit the wealth creators. They are frequently the small business entrepreneurs with new ideas on how to do old things better, more efficiently, and to greater customer satisfaction.

 

Good post. I believe Ron Paul alone could not do anything, he would have both democrats and republicans blocking everything he tries. electing Ron Paul alone would be meaningless, although he is the only candidate I would vote for in 2012. His policies could not fail, but he would fail to enact his policies if elected alone without the backing of congress/senate. I believe I have it well explained in my site, but for some reason even this board's moderators fear what I have written and took it off. because it hits the bulls eye.

 

Right and if the tea party is a serious movement (for tax reform and against government abuse) this should be their number 1 guy, as well as anyone who is a true conservative. None of the other top republican darlings pass the smell test especially Romney, Bachman, or Perry.

They are part of the problem not any where near any solutions. Any one of them will be right back to the Bush days and GOP agendas.