Ron Paul 2008, For and Against |
|
|
Playlist: NEO-Conned Ron Paul
Ron
Paul clearly explains what Neo-Conservatism is about, in front of
Congress. Stunning
speech and clarification for
all.
transcript: http://www.bigeye.com/neoconned.htm Unfortunately, I cannot unreservedly endorse Ron
Paul for President in 2008, for several reasons.
Paul Craig Roberts' essay on the destruction of the "City on the Hill", the "free market", the US and World economy points to many of the things I say here. 1. Ron Paul's association with Dominionists and
Reconstructionists, such as Rushdoony and Gary North, John Birch Society favorites, who promote the
takeover of government and replacement of our Liberal Constitutional
Govt of 1776 with a "Christian" Theocratic govt, which follows the OLD
Testament legal prescriptions, such as STONING TO DEATH of people
deemed guilty of various sins. (I am pretty sure that Jesus overrode
such old barbaric Laws with his new vision, such as "Love thy Neighbor
as Thyself ...".)
2. These Reconstructionists, members of the "Council for National Policy" and the "John Birch
Society" (google these) actually comprise an extreme
right wing and fascist front
associated with CIA anti-communist death
squads, and a history of (privatized) domestic spying for FBI and
NSA and CIA under a subsidiary of JBS called Western Goals.
Reconstructionism, an offshoot of extremist Calvinism, could be
considered a cult, which like many other cults, was created or at least
influenced by CIA/Cold War psychological warfare. Why
doesn't grandfatherly Ron Paul know this?
3. Ron Paul's association with discredited Austrian economics.
The Mont Pelerin institute, the mothership of the Mises Institute, like
the CNP above, have very real ties to American fascists and the
original German Nazi movement which even used a Red, White, and Blue Swastika to highlight
their "love for America", sans American values. People disagree,
but given that our economic system of capitalism and the business owner
class requires certain levels of
unemployment to ward off wage inflation, mass poverty (especially
minorities) is not merely a failure
of the individual to seek meaningful and liveable work, but also
a built-in operation of the
system. There is much more to say about the shortcomings
of Austrian economics, it's basis in theory over data and modern
computerized analysis, etc. Google "Liberalism Resurgent". Even
if you feel antagonistic about such a viewpoint, please at least
familiarize yourself about what I feel are cogent counter-arguments.
America launched "modern" Liberalism over classical Liberalism for specific reasons, as capitalism grew long in the tooth, as wildcat and organized Labor (albeit it became corrupted by organized crime, and in bed with the Fed Gov and business interests) rose up as a force out of necessity to combat dire economic situations of workers, such as forced wage reductions and poverty. An early criticism of Labor was that it tried to prevent business capitalists from hiring "the most humble worker", i.e. the most desperate. The Labor movement, although bastardized, and the resulting partial concessions from govt were created to mitigate violent Labor Wars, where State and Federal Police and Militias and private "Detective Agencies" like the Pinkertons would blackball, beat, selectively assassinate, or even massacre Labor activists and strikers, and strikers (coal miners, lumberjacks, and later industrial factory workers) picked up guns and fought back against their attackers en masse, creating a domestic civil war between citizens vs.govt. Liberalism was not merely compassion on the part of Roosevelt, but a practical response to mitigate the war, pacify a large constituency, and to get business back on track. Ron Paul's ideology ignores the historical fact that Wage Labor alone was in fact insufficient to redistribute wages to the working class, as idealized by Adam Smith, and resulted in a highly stratified society and much misery. The theory of Trickle-down economics, where profits result in productivity which is returned by higher wages and new hiring, has been proven wrong, as profits have simply gone to fuel unprecedented prosperity for investors and CEO stock options, and the offshoring of jobs and offshoring of income on paper to tax havens in Third World countries which have low or non-existent tax rates. Myth: The
Austrian School of Economics is "apart and above" mainstream economics.
Fact: The Austrian School is a classic example of crank science. http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm Summary The Austrian School of Economics is a tiny group of libertarians at war with mainstream economics. They reject even the scientific method that mainstream economists use, preferring to use instead a pre-scientific approach that shuns real-world data and is based purely on logical assumptions. But this is the very method that thousands of religions use when they argue their opposing beliefs, and the fact that the world has thousands of religions proves the fallibility of this approach. Academia has generally ignored the Austrian School, and the only reason it continues to exist is because it is financed by wealthy business donors on the far right. The movement does not exist on its own scholarly merits. 4. Some of Ron Paul's other conservative
viewpoints, which though laudible for their reliance on
Constitutionality, ignore changes in society unforeseen by the Founding
Fathers. The Founders could not foresee the rise of Global
Corporatism (some like Jefferson and Patrick Henry feared that),
computers, nor many other modern issues. Ron Paul is not known to
have addressed the monster of "Corporate Personhood", a product of
Judicial Activism which hijacked the 14th Amendment to guarantee "civil
rights" for corporations. At very least, Ron Paul, though
pro-business, should challenge unconstitutional and
fictitious corporate personhood, and the right of the Public to punish
and/or break up and/or regulate these quasi-governmental monstrosities
called (multi-national) corporations, for the General Welfare, as
needed. If making those changes is unconstitutional, then Ron
Paul should look for ways to make Amending the Constitution easier for
the public, now that "We the Rabble" is capable of reading and being
more informed on many issues than perhaps many "farmers"
and sharecroppers were in 1776. The idea of a
"gentleman-diplomat" class of "benevolent statesmen" tending over
government, with restricted input from the general public, has failed,
because self-interested politicians and lobbyists and big money have
taken over Washington and the entire economy, and have taken it away
from the People.
|
