Any Ron Paul supporters in the ITT world

[pseudomin]

I'm just curious to see what kind of demographic response I will get from this community. Have you heard of him, do you like/hate him or not care either way?

[Montag]

I think many of the things he stands for are ideals we need to return to - I agree with his stance on what the government should and shouldn't try to do, and his emphasis on servings the interests of citizens before corporations (like most politicians). He's one of the few people in politics that really thinks about issues and has a well grounded and consistent position.

[bexley]

He's just an off-the-charts ibertarians who's trying to use the only possible means of getting into office: joining the two-party system. He's causing a mini stink because he's actually intelligent and makes people believe that they can be Republicans and support a reasonable candidate at the same time.

Ignoring the unsubstantiated theories of libertarianism, he seems smart, but then I have to remind myself that he's running for the Republican party. Mind you, I don't have much respect for members of either party.

[Salt The Fries]

Ron Paul has some decent ideas, but spreads total FUD about monetary policy and wants to go back to an isolationist foreign policy that never really existed.

Paul puts forward some ideals but many of them aren't very practical or conflict with other important American priorities. Some of his supporters spam forums & blogs to no end. (This discussion is where it should be--some supporters would chime in during a discussion of mplayer or something completely unrelated if they came across it....)

[xPAKxMaster]

This country needs a change but not of just ideals!
having one man control the governmnent causes havic. The United States must accept more political ideas (socialist democrats, etc...) A parlament must be implemented in order to reach ultimate stability.

a country such as this one cannot be controlled by one voice "voice of the people my A--", Bush is a very good example of instability.

"America's" priorities currently is to police the world because mere idiots are put into office that love spreading war.

i know that a parlament will never be implemented but atleast will someone open these political deedeedee's eyes to what is actually important!!!???

the US economy is falling short of everyone else, just look at the euro as it is worth 1.49 more than the dollar--- it is all because we are only focussing on spending money on crap and war! what about education, social security(ha ha ha- i guess these guys don't know what IDs are used for), and the economy....

in conclusion Ron Paul is by far the best shot we have of reaching stability in this country, we should focuss on more important issues instead of foreign bul*****! I support this Man!

ps: if hilary becomes pres, i'm deporting my self!:mad:

[mooler]

yeah well the euro is a euro. A dollar is a dollar. BUT....A US Dollar...now thats a Greenback. People love that stuff. I know I do.

[ArnimS]

It's not 'isolationism', it's 'non-interventionism'. Learn this very important distinction!

Engaging in discussions of substance on the issues would easily go too far afield. However whether you live in the USA or not, you owe it to yourself to set aside your preconceptions and do some honest study of his positions - they are nothing more than the American ideal as expressed in the US Constitution.

Ron Paul's Writings
http://ronpaullibrary.org/
http://antiwar.com/paul
http://lewrockwell.com/paul/

Ron Paul Video
http://ronpaultv.com

Ron Paul Audio
http://ronpaulaudio.com

Ron Paul Forums
http://ronpaulforums.com

Ron Paul Daily Updates
http://dailypaul.com

Presidential Campaign Statistics
http://techpresident.com

Ron Paul Campaign site
http://ronpaul2008.com

[Benson]

Wish the poll had more options... I think he's a good candidate, and better on many issues, but my support goes to Thompson (over foreign policy disagreements). So I do support him, but he's not getting my vote in the primary.

This country needs a change but not of just ideals!
having one man control the governmnent causes havic. The United States must accept more political ideas (socialist democrats, etc...) A parlament must be implemented in order to reach ultimate stability.But democracy has it's own problems, and representative democracy with many representatives it's own as well. A hybrid system allows to take strengths from a dictatorial system (the executive branch), a representative democracy (the House of Representatives), and direct representation of the states (the Senate).
a country such as this one cannot be controlled by one voice "voice of the people my A--", Bush is a very good example of instability.
The president does not control the country; congress and the courts have power as well. Yes, the president can veto congressional acts, but they can still be passed by a 2/3 majority, and he can't veto an impeachment. And he makes judicial nominations, but the Senate must confirm them, and once they're in, they're in. So it require's the major complicity of congress to add new seats to SCOTUS and to confirm his nominees to pack the court. This has happened a couple times, but Bush didn't (and can't) pull it off.
"America's" priorities currently is to police the world because mere idiots are put into office that love spreading war.

i know that a parlament will never be implemented but atleast will someone open these political deedeedee's eyes to what is actually important!!!???

the US economy is falling short of everyone else, just look at the euro as it is worth 1.49 more than the dollar--- it is all because we are only focussing on spending money on crap and war! what about education, social security(ha ha ha- i guess these guys don't know what IDs are used for), and the economy....
Crap and war, eh?
And you say we should just spend it on... gov't education, social security, and "the economy" -- in other words, crap </snark>

Seriously, government can be counted on to waste money and time in any endeavour, because they don't have to worry about the competition eating their lunch. (The gov't has no competition, except, I guess, the Mafia.) So gov't education will be more expensive, and less effective, than private education. The facts bear it out, too.
Social Security is a problem -- it's a system that was intended as a safety net for people who would otherwise be homeless, so they can afford a place to stay, and food so they don't starve. I still don't agree with that, but it's a reasonable proposal, not a total nanny-state plan. Over time, however, those benefits have been promised to more and more people, including those who don't need it. Now the government has obligations to people who have paid their taxes, but can't pay it because the benefits promised were too much for the tax rate and base. So the government either goes back on its word, or finds some other way around. But throwing money from sources other than SS tax at it is only a temporary solution at best. Either the SS tax must be raised, or the SS benefits must be cut. The latter is preferable, taking the program back to it's original intent.If you mean money raised by taxation, you're saying we can help the economy by:
1. Pull money out of the economy
2. Take some of the money to pay gov't workers for handling the money
3. Put what's left back in the economy
4. ???
5. Profit!
If you're suggesting the gov't should simply print more money and dump it in the economy, that's called inflation. It hurts the economy. The best way the government can help the economy is to minimize taxation and inflation, which means minimizing spending. The distribution of tax burden matters, but not as much as might be supposed. (Say you think it's better to tax producers than consumers. The producers jack up prices to cover the tax, so the consumers pay anyhow. Or you tax the consumers, then they have less money to spend, so they buy less, just as if the prices were higher.)
in conclusion Ron Paul is by far the best shot we have of reaching stability in this country, we should focuss on more important issues instead of foreign bul*****! I support this Man!
Well, oddly enough, Dr. Paul seems to agree with me more than you on these domestic issues. As I understand it, he supports abolishing Federal funding for gov't education, abolishing SS (though he plans to pay the people we still have obligations to with money saved elsewhere, by cutting education and "offensive" defense spending), and a generally laissez-faire economic approach.
ps: if hilary becomes pres, i'm deporting my self!:mad:
Well, I'm with you on the prospects of Hillary! :cool:

[w14]

If you're suggesting the gov't should simply print more money and dump it in the economy, that's called inflation. It hurts the economy. The best way the government can help the economy is to minimize taxation and inflation, which means minimizing spending.

This is not quite correct.

Ron Paul has it right when he suggests going back to a gold standard, but for some reason he doesn't quite get the financial aspects of the Constitution.

A nation state issuing credit, via the banks, to private corporations for investment in, say, basic economic infrastructure such as power, water, health, transport systems, is not inflationary, because the requirement is that the amount of currency in circulation reflects the value of the assets of the nation in some way. It doesn't really matter if the asset backing the currency is a ton of gold, or a power plant, or a railway, so long as its physical, and not some stupid piece of paper. Any item of basic economic infrastructure adds value to the economy by enabling other economic activities to take place, and the cash invested in the infrastructure project is recycled into the economy as wages etc.

The problems arise when a nation's currency is controlled by private bankers, via an "independent central bank," rather than the people. In that case, as is happening now, we find ourselves in a completely deregulated financial system, with nutter bankers taking bigger stupider risks for short term gain. Any money that the government does control is spent on the wrong things, in ways mostly designed to just transefer the tax payers money into the hands of private individuals, notably themselves. And all the while allowing the basic infrastructure, the assets of the nation, crumble into nothing.

Ron Paul doesn't get this.

[JeffElkins]

Some of his supporters spam forums & blogs to no end. (This discussion is where it should be--some supporters would chime in during a discussion of mplayer or something completely unrelated if they came across it....)

As a supporter of Dr. Paul, I'd like to ask some questions about Mplayer...:)

[LordFu]

I've donated to Ron Paul's campaign several times. He has my support.

[traveller604]

I disagree with him of just about everything apart from his foreign policy which sounds fantastic to me and since I'm not an american I really shouldn't care about the other stuff to begin with. SO yeah.. I'd love to see him getting elected.

[geneven]

And how valid would a poll be of people who responded positively to a title asking for Ron Paul supporters?

I think I´ll post a message asking if there are any Democrats out there and then poll them to find out if they plan to vote Republican...

[LordFu]

It's no more biased than the "scientific" polls that the talking heads are so obsessed with. Either way, it's not like he was trying to prove anything. He was just curious. Take a deep breath.

[pseudomin]

It's no more biased than the "scientific" polls that the talking heads are so obsessed with. Either way, it's not like he was trying to prove anything. He was just curious. Take a deep breath.

Indeed, its just a voluntary response poll. So technically the only people who will respond are people who feel strongly one way or another. I suppose if you want to be really technical its wording could also be a slightly biased but i tried to keep the effect to a minimum. Anyhow, attempting to use the poll as a basis for drawing any sort of rational conclusion would be quite foolish. I just happened to like the guy's platform, values and honesty and wanted to see how other people in my community felt...

Speaking of things I like, I have not been able to install mplayer on the non-beta of 2008OS.... its quite sad really. :(

[xPAKxMaster]

The president does not control the country

Crap and war, eh?
And you say we should just spend it on... gov't education, social security, and "the economy" -- in other words, crap </snark>

Seriously, government can be counted on to waste money and time in any endeavour

1. Pull money out of the economy
2. Take some of the money to pay gov't workers for handling the money
3. Put what's left back in the economy
4. ???
5. Profit!

If you're suggesting the gov't should simply print more money and dump it in the economy, that's called inflation.




1st - i know the pres does not control the gov. it is based on three branches that balance each other out - that's great but if you "read" the fine print, the pres. has unwritten powers which pretty much includes decleration of war and passing certain bills. and he can also pardon a la carte??!! i know they use their senses when it comes to that but at this rate it wont be long before a worse idiot is elected to office and causes havic.

if this democracy is really focussed on the people why is ther still an electoral college??? so...the gov. does not trust its people?

2nd - i just gave crappy examples on that statement but you and i know there are more important issues besides war and "invisible nuclear" weapons of the middle east.

3rd - The Government can't waist money on "crap", then why are they doing it right now? why are they still funding the war??? a war which is NOT a war, it is a game against an invisible enemy! with all the spending the US is falling behind on its economy and that hurts everything we need money coming in from the outside to prevent inflation! and falling short of the competition will inflation will always be Inevitable...

4th - you just gave me the definition of Social Security, that's great but remember in the end it is very "buggy" remember, if i get my hands on your ssn, you could be screwed as i could steal your identity and benefit from it. what kind of system is this??? i have benefits but i need to worry about its safety?? i can't think of any other country that has this problem... they all use ssn that are assigned to official, national ID cards in which ss is quite safe.

ps: great discussion;)

[weatherman]

I revoke my comment. Tech enthusiast sites are no place for politics. I love you all as long as we only talk about NITs and not nitwits.

[GeneralAntilles]

I revoke my comment. Tech enthusiast sites are no place for politics. I love you all as long as we only talk about NITs and not nitwits.

It's Off Topic, so this is exactly where this belongs. :rolleyes:

[weatherman]

Yeah - I'm not criticizing the conversation, just saying I don't think I should be a part of it. At least if we're all going to get along :)

[Hedgecore]

I'm not American, but I wish I could support him. :)

Then again, I'm also a crazy Canuck: Paul/Kucinich '08!

Let the world finally sleep without one eye open.

[TenSpeed]

Sorry, can't support him - his name always makes me think of RuPaul. :)

Of course, I'm Canadian, so my vote won't be counted.

[weatherman]

heck - if you were Floridian, Michigonian, Iowan, or New Mexican your vote wouldn't be counted either...

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

[GeneralAntilles]

Paul/Kucinich '08!


Kucinich couldn't be more opposite to everythin Paul stands for. Yes, he's probably a fairly non-corrupted politician, and, yes, he probably means well, but he's in favor of big government . . . BIG government. Which Ron Paul is certainly not.

[barry99705]

I try to stay as far from politics as I can. The closest I've ever got was flying to Oman so some ***** could get a star on his shoulder. :rolleyes:

[ArnimS]

I try to stay as far from politics as I can.
Just because you don't take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you!

By and large, normal people want to be left alone. Do you want politics to take an interest in you? What you're saying to friends? Where you are spending your money? Where you travel and whom you meet? What you drink, smoke and eat? Do you want politics to take an interest in your income? Your pocketbook? The contents of your house?

If you want to be left alone by your government, Dr. Paul is the only choice.

Too often people who 'are interested in politics' see political actions as a way to solve social problems. Seldom do such people realize that the power and money they hand-over to the bureaucrats does not effect the positive changes they hope for.

Naturally politicians and bureaucrats are in the business of promising solutions. This is the first (and sometimes the only thing) people see when they 'look into' politics. Often it takes a long time on earth and an objective critical appraisal of current events and history to come to the awakening that those who hold the reigns of power do not act in your best interests. How could they?
Milton Friedman once said, "There are four ways in which you can spend money."

You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money.
Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost.
Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch!
Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Milton_FriedmanYou as an individual are most productive and happy in a free society. You as an individual get the most value out of your work if you get to keep your money and decide what you want to do with it.

If you hang out in #maemo IRC chat on freenode, the ##ronpaul channel is just a /join away. Feel free to stop by and ask questions. Learn what the r3VOLution is all about.

[Hedgecore]

Antilles: That's what makes it so great! Their common foundation (dare I say socialist tendencies in some areas) will make sure the country runs smooth, their opposing views would spice things up. Not to mention, I think a campaign consisting of two opposing party members running together would be just what America needs... aside from it being hilarious enough to bring me to tears. Goodbye 9/11 and waterboarding, hello actual issues. Believe it or not, most of the world still believes in America the good (at least all the people I've spoken to across it do.)... but we also think America the good has been taking a power nap for some time now.

[wetcoast]

Ron Paul has it right when he suggests going back to a gold standard

|sarcasm on|

Oh yeah, that'll fix everything!!!

|sarcasm remaining on|

[nosam]

Just want to add my 2 cents to this thread:

I wonder if people realize that Libertarians are ultra-conservative. Some of their ideas sound good, and some of them are good, but they are the extreme right (if you ever study politics you learn this).
According to political theory, Liberals believe we can fix problems and will try to do it, conservatives think we should not make changes to the way things are run because it might make thinks worse - they are resistent to change in policies. Libertarians fall to the right of conservatives.

Now of course these are broad statements and the parties we have do not match exactly to the liberal or conservative modes - life is more complicated - but in general it makes sense. Liberals do want change and to try to improve society and conservatives are less likely to try to address social problems. Libertarians are least likely to try to address social problems by government programs - they will actually increase poverty and levels of hunger among US children by reducing any programs that support poorer families.

The scary part to me is that Libertarians don't value taking care of the people in our society who might need it - for example children or the poor or the disabled. Think about if we did away with social security and medicare and any support for families such as food stamps. Some people are honestly trying to live and work but because of things like cancer or other sudden illnesses or disasters, it is hard for them. A libertarians idea would be "lets do nothing" - ie. let the starve, become homeless, die, have no health insurance, etc. Its ok because government spending is bad. People made homeless by Katrina for example - don't help them - government is bad - I don't want MY tax money to help some disaster victim - its MY money.
Its like a type of social darwinism - anyone who needs help its their fault and the gov. shouldn't help. So its okay if children in the us don't have enough to eat, or have health insurance.

I work with the poor in SF, USA and see that sometimes the programs that will help a family to survive and feed the children are a good thing. I am not educated on Ron Paul's platform, so I am not critcizing him, just wanted to share my undestanding of libertarians and also why I think they are too extreme even though some of there ideas may be good.

I think people get sucked into libertarianism because it sounds good on the surface, but they don't realize it is ultra-conservative and may hurt a lot of people in our society by its plan to reduce all support programs.

[LordFu]

Politics isn't a left-right scale. There are many left-libertarians. You're mislead. The opposite of libertarian is statist. You can have statists on the left or right, too.

Libertarians believe that people are better at helping each other than government. It's called charity. You should do some research.

Seriously, you're so far off, it isn't funny.

[klinglerware]

Libertarians can't easily be typed on the left-right spectrum. There are certainly a lot of left-leaning libertarians out there. That said, Paul tends towards the right on many of these issues, which is why joining the Republican party was a better fit for him (he does have ambitions to hold national office, and he has realized that he wasn't likely to do that as a third party candidate).

I am quite willing to entertain a libertarian candidate, as I am libertarian leaning on many social issues myself, but I won't support Paul. He's staunchly anti-abortion. I admire his strict adherence to his moral code, but I will strictly adhere to my moral code by not voting for him.

[bexley]

The vast majority of Americans don't know what the hell they believe and their equally clueless oligarchy is just a manifestation of that. You guys entertain the idea of a Ron Paul once in a while like you're entertained by a guest star on a show (US presidential politics is little more than an on-going TV show). Worse than Americans' delusions about a potential for change is their short attention span. A year from now: Ron Who?

but we also think America the good has been taking a power nap for some time now.

The nap is more like an irreversible coma. Never in the world's history has there been a super power that has such a weak grasp of its own position. The US has been compared to a child since its days as the New World; now, it can be described as a rich, egocentric teenager that thinks it understands everything.

[Karel Jansens]

Just want to add my 2 cents to this thread:

I wonder if people realize that Libertarians are ultra-conservative. Some of their ideas sound good, and some of them are good, but they are the extreme right (if you ever study politics you learn this).
According to political theory, Liberals believe we can fix problems and will try to do it, conservatives think we should not make changes to the way things are run because it might make thinks worse - they are resistent to change in policies. Libertarians fall to the right of conservatives.

Now of course these are broad statements and the parties we have do not match exactly to the liberal or conservative modes - life is more complicated - but in general it makes sense. Liberals do want change and to try to improve society and conservatives are less likely to try to address social problems. Libertarians are least likely to try to address social problems by government programs - they will actually increase poverty and levels of hunger among US children by reducing any programs that support poorer families.

The scary part to me is that Libertarians don't value taking care of the people in our society who might need it - for example children or the poor or the disabled. Think about if we did away with social security and medicare and any support for families such as food stamps. Some people are honestly trying to live and work but because of things like cancer or other sudden illnesses or disasters, it is hard for them. A libertarians idea would be "lets do nothing" - ie. let the starve, become homeless, die, have no health insurance, etc. Its ok because government spending is bad. People made homeless by Katrina for example - don't help them - government is bad - I don't want MY tax money to help some disaster victim - its MY money.
Its like a type of social darwinism - anyone who needs help its their fault and the gov. shouldn't help. So its okay if children in the us don't have enough to eat, or have health insurance.

I work with the poor in SF, USA and see that sometimes the programs that will help a family to survive and feed the children are a good thing. I am not educated on Ron Paul's platform, so I am not critcizing him, just wanted to share my undestanding of libertarians and also why I think they are too extreme even though some of there ideas may be good.

I think people get sucked into libertarianism because it sounds good on the surface, but they don't realize it is ultra-conservative and may hurt a lot of people in our society by its plan to reduce all support programs.

Libertarism could be summarized in just a couple of simple sentences:

1. Agression is wrong. Allways, with just one exception:

2. You can defend yourself, using violence, if you are the victim of aggression, as long as your defense is proportional to the attack.

3. Aggression is not limited to hitting someone over the head with a club.

What I find dishonest, is your claim that libertarians won't care for the needing. Just because libertarians believe that nobody should be forced into "solidarity", does not mean they don't believe in it. Forcing people is wrong, because it's aggression. Besides, who is going to determine who needs help? The gubberment? Yeah, they've been doing a stellar job at that, creating a whole class of dependants.

But I understand where you're coming from: Your whole "raison d'être" depends on the continuation of that class of dependants, so it's quite understandable that you want everyone -- especially yourself -- to believe that you're fighting the Good Fight <TM>.

[ArnimS]

What I find dishonest, is your claim that libertarians won't care for the needing. Just because libertarians believe that nobody should be forced into "solidarity", does not mean they don't believe in it. Forcing people is wrong, because it's aggression. Besides, who is going to determine who needs help? The gubberment? Yeah, they've been doing a stellar job at that, creating a whole class of dependants.

But I understand where you're coming from: Your whole "raison d'être" depends on the continuation of that class of dependants, so it's quite understandable that you want everyone -- especially yourself -- to believe that you're fighting the Good Fight <TM>.

That's very well said.

[sarah11918]

What I find dishonest, is your claim that libertarians won't care for the needing.

Agreed! I know that it's tempting to cynically say that libertarians are just anarchists who have grown up and now have money to protect, but what I like about those related philosophies is that they give me the opportunity to be the socially responsible person I believe I should of my own free will.

To me, "small-L libertarianism/individual small-A anarchism" is about optimism and belief in your fellow humans: when freed from the restraints of compulsion, or the fear that others are going to "take their stuff" (such as through taxes), people can and will do remarkable things.

Not everyone will choose to donate their time and money in exactly the same ways, but for every cause out there, there are people who care enough about it to voluntarily take action. Then, instead of bureaucrats (mis)managing public resources, we have invested individuals who really care about the initiatives they're implementing.

Think about it from the other perspective: if you truly needed help, who do you think would be a stronger advocate? Who do you want to have to turn to in your hour of need? Mr. Gov't Worker or Mr. Volunteer Devoted to the Cause? Even if the former's pockets are deeper, I suspect that you'd get better care from the latter.

That may be a naive or impractical (or both!) world view, but since there's no danger of putting a system like that into practice anytime soon, I don't have to have all the details worked out. :cool:

[Hedgecore]

"It's not my revolution if I can't dance to it"
- Emma Goldman

[neubie]

The government is us.

It kills me how many people take the attitude that it's something else- or that they're unwilling to give up an occassional latte so we can have decent schools, public safety and infrastructure.

How else do you propose we handle things that benefit the common good? Outsource to India?

United We Stand, divided, we... well, look around.

[hypermush]

I don't have the right to vote in the United States, but I currently live there so I've been following the politics with interest.

I lean libertarian on many many issues and I thought for a long time that Dr Paul would do some good in the unlikely event he was elected president.

After doing a little more research however I came across this:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

It opened my eyes a little bit. He's definitely heavily libertarian on most issues, but he doesn't seem to be able to put his own views aside and take the government out of the picture in all cases (cf. HR 392, 776, 1094, 2597).

One can see he is very economically libertarian, but gosh-darn when you get down to it, it looks like he's an old-fashioned social conservative.

And does anyone really think that this: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HR02779:@@@L&summ2=m& is a good idea?

Perhaps partial-reserve banking isn't the best way, but a return to the gold standard has problems too. Either way, HR2779 can't be the way to do it.

It is nice to have a candidate who has a consistent position and really stands for something, I just wish that position was better aligned with my own.

Cheers,

hyper

[jnack95]

The vast majority of Americans don't know what the hell they believe and their equally clueless oligarchy is just a manifestation of that. You guys entertain the idea of a Ron Paul once in a while like you're entertained by a guest star on a show (US presidential politics is little more than an on-going TV show). Worse than Americans' delusions about a potential for change is their short attention span. A year from now: Ron Who?



The nap is more like an irreversible coma. Never in the world's history has there been a super power that has such a weak grasp of its own position. The US has been compared to a child since its days as the New World; now, it can be described as a rich, egocentric teenager that thinks it understands everything.

Way to completely generalize an entire country. Where do you think we (Americans) came from? Probably quite a few came from from wherever the hell you are. True we have a lot more diversified positions than many of the previous world superpowers....but they were also built on the backs of SLAVES that were FORBIDDEN to have political positions. It's called democracy...maybe a novel concept to you?

[Hedgecore]

Democratic leaders are freely elected by a majority vote. Electoral college aside, that didn't happen the last two elections.

[geneven]

Using that definition of democracy, England flunks. There are quite a few versions of democracy. Also, in many countries the majority doesn't support anyone -- i.e., there are more than two parties and they split the votes.

[LordFu]

The government is us.

It kills me how many people take the attitude that it's something else- or that they're unwilling to give up an occassional latte so we can have decent schools, public safety and infrastructure.

How else do you propose we handle things that benefit the common good? Outsource to India?

United We Stand, divided, we... well, look around.


We are no more the government than I am you. That's a farce.

As for the common good, the individual's interests are in alignment with most practical concepts of good. Sarah's post communicates the general idea. Your arguement is a textbook cliche.

That we must surrender our free will to a centralized bureaucracy for our own protection is a view born out of fear and distrust. It's an emotional arguement that assumes such a construct would be capable of successfully filling the role. The reality is that such a state is most often the largest danger to "the common good".

[ArnimS]

We are no more the government than I am you. That's a farce.

A fallacy perhaps. Or a farcical fallacy. A flagrant fundamental fraud foisted upon us in state-run schools. It is a belief that because we live in a 'democracy' in which a few people in public office are elected, they somehow serve us all, and whatever they do is automatically 'for the common good'. This despite the fact that the vast majority of the apparatus of the state is populated by lifetime unelected bureaucrats who act in their own self-interest, not some mythical angelic creatures who get up every morning thinking 'how can I best serve the common good today?"

The truth is nearly the exact opposite of this. Because activities carried out by the government are paid for by forced taxation and because they do not compete in a market, they are remarkably poor providers of services. In many, if not most cases, government activity is a net-loss for the common good, because it takes money out of productive economic activity and out of the hands of individuals, who can no longer decide as individuals what goods or services will yield them maximal personal rewards. It's also a net loss because bureaucrats with personal agendas and limited knowledge use force to centrally plan and regulate society, creating inefficiencies, economic distortions and frequently gross injustices along the way - usually as unintended consequences.

Here is just one brief example how this cloud of assumptions leads to bad results:

Gasoline is getting more expensive. A reporter asks the presidential candidate: "What will you do to solve this problem?". Implicit in the question is that the market value for gasoline poses some kind of problem, and that the president must 'solve' it. The candidate is then expected to promise some kind of centrally planned iniative or subsidy or regulation to 'solve' the problem of high gasoline prices. The entire outlook is geared towards a statist (socialist) 'solution'.

This approach is ******ed in that it ignores historical context. Rewinding by 4 years, the question becomes "In 2003, the price of oil was under $30 per barrel. After this government invaded Iraq prices are pushing $100 per barrel. How did US government intervention in the Middle East contribute to tripling of crude oil prices? And how would your policy be different?"

As the example shows, considering first what state intervention has done to cause or contribute to a situation leads one to be considerably more wary of proposed interventionist solutions. Lacking this perspective, one falls again and again for whichever candidate's pro-intervention pro-socialist pro-state force solution sounds most appealing.

The candidates may say "oh under my government, we will use your tax dollars to subsidize this and that type of alternative energy." What has the record of such tax-and-spend programs to 'solve' energy 'problems' been? The US subsidizes corn-ethanol production, which has a zero or net-negative energy yield, driving up food prices for consumers and wasting everyone's money directly on a process that is ... a waste of energy. This is a government "solution" par excellence...

The hard truth is, we have not found some divine breed of angelic creatures of superhuman intelligence to populate our bureaucracies, legislatures, courts and executive offices, yet many of us seem to believe that blithely handing these people unchecked powers of taxation and redistribution, regulation, imprisonment, and even of life and death, is somehow a really kind and compassionate and 'progressive' idea.

As for the common good, the individual's interests are in alignment with most practical concepts of good. Sarah's post communicates the general idea. Your arguement is a textbook cliche.

That we must surrender our free will to a centralized bureaucracy for our own protection is a view born out of fear and distrust. It's an emotional arguement that assumes such a construct would be capable of successfully filling the role. The reality is that such a state is most often the largest danger to "the common good".

Yeah, man, i wish i could be so concise. But you have to lead some people by the nose through homilies and stories. Stating an abstract conclusion doesn't show them the path to reach it.