The birth of the very concept of the free (society driven) market came about throughout the 16th and 17th centuries.....yet as early as 1300, merchants were going into the countryside, buying up commodities and hording them...then colluding with other merchants to drive up the price.
European governments started regulating this kind of collusion before the 'black death'...free market on a large scale is a myth, it has never been a reality, never
@liOVERLOADil Free Market is an ideology. As such it has no need for evidence, experiment, measurement, any of that SEE FOR YOURSELF ridiculousness. Get a fucking load of who is calling who BLIND.
I appreciated your video on 'why you are not a libertarian' and I AM A LIBERTARIAN, so we dont agree eye to eye there, but I understood the problems you brought up, but this video was a discrace to label it 'I do not love Ron Paul' because you haven't proven anything wrong w/ Ron Paul, he is fighting gov. polices and for a freer market, but the ideal of a corp being considered a ind. I dont see how he is for at all (another tool of Corporatism grabbing gov.) I want a response
i UNDERSTAND THE GOVERMENT AND BUSINESS STUFF. BUT I WANT MY CONSTITUTION RESTORED.I WNAT SOUND MONEY THATS THE GOVERMENTS RESPONSIBILTY.I DIDNT SEE OBAHMA GET RID OF THE PATIOT ACT,LIKE HE SAID HE WOULD.HE LIKE TO GIVE CORPORATE WELFARE TO THE RICHIES PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. I DONT THIK THAT WE HAVENT MISSED A BEAT FROM WHAT GW BUSH WAS DOING...WHERES THE CHANGE.....I KNOW ITS WHAT I HAVE LEFT IN MY POCKET AFTER I BAILED OUT THE WALL STREET WELFARE QUEENS..AND CORPORATE FAILURES. CHINA OWNS US
what??? are you talking about? do you have common sense ? yeah your right your not blind your deaf thats why you do understand freedom you my friend are not American because you do believe in the Constitution your not blind you cant read can you? I LOVE RON PAUL
Again you make the business sound like a person. A business is not a person and has volition of its own. A business must be populated with people who share the environment. The economy is a closed system the people who produce must also be the people who consume. There is no economy otherwise. If a company through it's selfish greed decides to move elsewhere . . . fuck em. Start a new company to replace them. Good riddance.
"If a company through it's selfish greed decides to move elsewhere . . . fuck em"
Business is about making a profit. Jobs go to the lowest bidder always. Someone would be stupid to pay more for a service when they could pay less for one right??? And if gains from the improved efficiency of the business come back to the origin of the business how is that bad??? Isn't that good for us??? Taking advantage of cheap labor overseas and bringing back the gains to our country is bad???
How dare you speak out against the principles put fourth by the infallible Dr. Paul? What gives you the right to express your opinion and not fall in line with his views? Dr. Paul is the only one who can save us, hopefully you will come to your senses and praise him. ALL HAIL DR. PAUL!
Thank goodness people are starting to see Ron Paul for the hypocrite he is. He is just a sad old man who bitches about the constitution ALL the time. GET A LIFE RON!!!!
. . . and by corporations we include those overpowered christian organisations that actually pull the strings in your country.
Its ok, I'll say it :-)
Youll never have freedom in your country while being controlled by the church. Religious leaders arent interested in personal freedoms, they believe we are all sinners and cant be trusted to think for ourselves. Thinking for yourself is certainly not something that is taught or supported by these people.
Churches are extremely vulnerable to corruption. That statement should come as no surprise to anyone who has studied the history of the catholic church.
If you want to know what goes on in their board room, then why doesn't the federal reserve bother you? why don't we have any knowledge of what they base their decisions on and why aren't we briefed on exactly what authorities the federal reserve has?MCCAIN, CLINTON, AND OBAMA ALL VOTED FOR THE PATRIOT ACT AND THE WAR ON IRAQ. ALL THREE OF THEM WILL START A WAR WITH IRAN IF ELECTED. I SAY WE VOTE FOR LIBERTY IN 2008. FREEDOM IN 2008. SMALLER GOVERNMENT IN 2008. RON PAUL IN 2008. PEACE IN 2008.
The federal reserve DOES bother me. That does NOT mean I want to go back to a gold standard or any other commodity backed currency. I rather like the aspect of money as a promise for future work. I don't like the interest treadmill.
I think it VERY unlikely that Obama will start a war with Iran, in fact, he was one of the few nominees who favors direct talk with them. More likely Cheney will convince Bush to strike just before leaving office to hand off a mess to the incoming Democrats.
obama is supported by the CFR. i take that to mean that the reason he voted to fund the war on iraq was because in order to do so the U.S. would need to borrow money from the federal reserve bank, which would mean profit for them. and every time the fed prints more money to fund our special interest wars the money in your pocket and my pocket becomes less valuable. and did you hear me when i said OBAMA VOTED FOR THE PATRIOT ACT?
A significantly reigned in version of the patriot act in 2006. The first one gave sweeping powers without oversight. We do want to stop terrorists. What we don't want is a rogue government taking liberties with privacy without oversight or without a paper trail.
Listen to liars and you can easily be swayed by the lies until the lies build up and become a reality, RON pAUL is a What?... Republican. He has no Votes because No delegate in the right-wing would ever think of laying a vote for him, because not only does he go against the political goals of his party, His publicity is mostly to gain a leftist sway which as we can see now in the polls he has no chance. So the Final decision Rests with the illuminati elite: Clinton, Obama, and McCain.
McCain is still a market fundamentalist, which is what I have against Paul. I like his stance on the war. I like his sstance on corruption. However, I think market fundamentalism is as dangerous as marxism.
LOL mccain is not a market fundamentalist, he's a war profiteer! mccain will never get rid of the federal reserve because the war profiteers can't make a cent off of these wars if they don't have the ability to print up as much money as they need. sad thing is most americans don't realize that by printing more money the value of the dollars IN OUR POCKETS AND IN OUR BANK ACCOUNTS IS UNDERMINED. they're taking the money out of our pockets. and because of their WAR PROPAGANDA NO ONE NOTICES
Once again, a liberal proves that his isn't really liberal: he only wants certain individuals to have freedom. I'm not necessarily on the side of big business, but the law wasn't written to protect only the righteous...it was to protect everyone's FREEDOM. AND I think what happens in the "bedroom" indicates character. I wouldn't trust the man or woman that cheats on their spouse with my business or my money or my children or with anything else of value to me.
You are not in the position to judge an individual's actions in regards to relationships. Try cultivating your own if you are worried about your wife's fidelity.
I think individuals need rights to protect their liberty, and that liberty if not protected will be taken away by powerful organizations like governments and corporations.
you better care what goes on in the bedroom,,,that's where you'll find your favorite "Socialist/Liberal Politicians" all "balled up and goin at it" with the "Capitalists" from the "boardroom"
Cheap labor is very detrimental to society, very true. That is why unions are so important. As long as government does not side with business or the unions then these unions are a much better representation of the workers than reps in Washington. Just because government is not involved does not mean the people cannot stand up against abusive corporations because they have and will again. Business is corruptible but so is government. A merger of these corruptible organizations is unsettling to me
I don't get that. The workers have run to reform parties multiple time in the history of America because they wanted these reformers to tell business, and in effect the people of the nation, what is right and wrong in relation to labor practices. That itself is not all that bad but it is arrogant to assume one group of workers knows how business should be run. The problem comes when these ideas are extended to other parts of society. One can see how it plays into fascism, slowly but surely.
Progressives want to take the lessons of history and turn them into institutional memory by having some degree of regulation to limit how much trouble they allow the economy to get into. The republicans are busy erasing that institutional memory because they make a killing off of screwing the economy. They literally steal from the poor to give to the rich.
I'm not concerned with Republican versus Democrat. I'm concerned with government versus the people. Institutionalized anything becomes hard to change and stubborn whether it is for the people or against them. History fluctuates and provisions appropriate at one time may not be later. By writing them into the government these provision become difficult to change if or when they become detrimental. Social Security was great during the Depression but is one gov program bankrupting the country now.
Bad example. Social security is not bankrupting the country. Health care costs are and that is because of the institutionalized provisioning of the PRIVATE health care system. The one where drug companies write their own laws to prevent collective bargaining. The one where insurance companies waste 25% on bureaucratic red tape to make collection on claims more difficult. One one where CEOs rake in obscene profits. For profit health care is a fucking disaster.
Heath care has been managed by the government for thirty years! The government subsidizes it to the hilt and more intervention is better. That is a hard argument to make.
Heath care has been government managed since the 70s. It is subsidized to the hilt and that is the reason cost is so high. Companies have no need to insure more people or find cheaper ways to do it because their bottom line is guaranteed by the government. More intervention is a hard argument to take seriously.
Now people resist privatization and opting out because it is institutionalized. A once beneficial program became detrimental but because of its institutionalized status everyone dances around the fact it is unsustainable pretending their are ways to fix it instead of figuring out a better way.
There are simple ways to fix Social Security. The republicans are trying to make a crisis out of it because Wall Street wants to get its greedy hands on your money.
So it is easy to sustain with more retired than working, more claiming benefits than paying into it? Yeah you could hike taxes a ridiculous amount but then people really would want to get rid of it.
The fund has been overpaid to account for that. There is some shortfall, but nothing that can't be made up with a modest increase. A huge chunk of the funds are in federal bonds, so I suppose the only way for the bastards to cheat us out of our social security is to declare bankrupcy, like United Airlines.
What if I do not want a modest increase. What if I'd rather be responsible and save my own money. I'm 20 years old an by all accounts their will not be anything left for me. I'd rather opt out and save MY money for MYSELF.
The republicans want you to believe it is going to go bust. It is a single payer insurance program. We lived in a world without it before and old people were mostly condemned to a life of poverty. It has been very successful in providing a safety net for people who have trouble saving or have their life savings swindled by a crook or a market crash.
I do not disagree with its success. You seem to blame republicans for all problems but democrats are in the pockets of special interest as well. Clinton's health plan makes everyone a customer of insurance companies without addressing cost which is the problem. People now buy into FDR and LBJ like policies of financial security instead of the idea that you make it on your own as Jefferson and Adams had established. Most people would be more comfortable is a socialist country not America
Jefferson and Adams were polar opposites and bitter enemies. Jefferson believed in public education and freedom of information. Adams believed in a strong federal government and the suppression of free speech. Democrats have problems, but republicans are just shameless criminals.
They both wrote the foundations of this country and would disagree with your partisans finger-pointing. You must now both of them were not fans of the two party system though it has you by the short hairs. Stop pretending like Democrats are better when both parties are corrupt and lying. It would seem you are suspicious of free markets but would love a politicians to sweep in and used the government to solve all problems. I would be more suspicious of the government.
Have you ever heard of the alien and sedition act? Jefferson and Adams were a little more civil, but it lead to the duel between Burr and Hamilton.
I would prefer a multiparty system with instant runoff voting. Republicans are worse probably becuase they are the ones in power. It is not the markets I hold suspect but the participants.
How does this have anything to do with Ron Paul. Paul has been named SMALL business's best friend by NFIB. You are right that corporations should not have the rights given by a court decision handed down in the 1890s when gov and business was colluding as it is today. Paul does not defend nor take money from big corporations. These criticisms seem better leveled at other republicans not Paul. Libertarians do understand the flaws in free markets but managed markets can be as bad.
Oh, other republicans are worse, I will grant you that. My views are closer to Thom Hartmann's. Cheap labor comes at a high cost to society. Regulation is necessary because the market is both short sighted and selfish.
People are short sighted and selfish the market is simply the sum of the transactions. It reflects the lack of compassion and irresponsibility of people. People will never learn to be responsible until they are forced to. Otherwise people will run to the government and beg for the politicians to tell us what is right and wrong and that is the start of a REAL problem.
and yes there are not good things about them all but. notice how this thing is only 2:35 minutes long. uhh. check the other videos hating on the other ones. they are all about 6 to 8 minutes long. showing. they suck more ANYWAYS.
and also wondering while you will vote based on party affiliation? cause i saw you said you were supporting kucinich but didn't care cause you were voting democrat in the end anyway.
do you not think the two party dictatorship is something to be dealt with?
CFR has a pretty diverse membership. If I were to complain it would be that their deliberations are not made public under the guise that theories are "tested" out there, same excuse Cheney gives for hiding EVERYTHING from the public. It does make me nervous that such an influential organization operates in secret. Not all the members strike me as war mongers, though.
I like two party better than one party which could happen one day if the Delays of the world succeed in their "permanent republican majority". The dynamics of the market with few participants shifts to one where it is more efficient for the participants to try to eliminate the competition than to improve the product. The political system would have more competition if elections were not winner take all.
Stick with the CONSTITUTION and the advice of the founders. They wrote it because the central banks and taxes in Europe had been screwing the people for centuries, yet our government still works the same way, through a history of ignoring the constitution. We've become what the founders had most feared. Liberty takes work and responsibility.
Stop using the imperative in debate, it is fucking annoying. I read plenty about the founding fathers but there is additional history that has transpired and I conspire to ignore NONE of it. I agree that the federal reserve is a problem, but it is not the only problem.
You quoted Adam Smith, and are trying to make libertarians look stupid.
Here's what i found about Adam Smith:
Smith's work helped to create the modern academic discipline of economics and provided one of the best-known intellectual rationales for free trade, capitalism, and libertarianism.
Don't quote people for your arguement then go against it lol.
Adam Smith would likely have agreed with me, not Milton Friedman. Just a conjecture on my part, but at least Smith was aware of the hazards. Libertarians throw caution to the wind in the faith that the free market is their savior.
I dare say Adam Smith would agree with me and disagree with Milton Friedman. At least Smith had an appreciation of the hazards that inhabit markets. Milton Friedman throws caution to the wind.
Up until recently I supported Kucinich. I will support the democratic candidate whoever it may be now. At least people are coming to the understanding that the way the economy has been running is SICK.
If ONLY it were more obvious to Libertarians that the "free" market does not always work. The chicago school of economics under Milton Friedman is a religious cult. Incomplete observations lead to incorrect conclusions.
Note Ron has put himself on the Giuliani Gang Bang Wagon. and the american hopefuls as their suckers. The Media is Banging the drum.
Corporations are taking citizens rights and sovereignty away. Now they want to privatize the military bases. with machine guns pointed outside the main gate.
I saw that and agree with many of the observations. However, INCOMPLETE observations yield INCORRECT conclusions. I have seen too many cases where the "free" market breaks economies.
It's not an observation. It was a documentary based completely on FACTS. Name one case where FREE market breaks economies. I think you must like BIG government controlling everything...one step at a time...they'll be in your business...personal and otherwise.
I don't want big government in everything, only in the places where they are needed and only where they can be relatively low maintenance. I am not in favor of government interfering in every aspect of your life. I think social organizations like corporations, churches, and unions need far more transparency, as well as the government. As far as free markets are concerned, if it works in a particular circumstance I say don't break it. If it is broken then it needs to be fixed.
California had a rash of blackouts caused by manipulation of the energy market by Enron. The recent financial crash was due to a lot of factors, but principally the under-assessment of risk and the over-insurance of liabilities. It's not like there is only one mechanism where markets fail, there are many. Resources can become critical and prone to failure. Market participants can synchronize causing systemic failure. All this before mentioning any fraud or corruption.
I couldn't help but respond to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. While I agree with you on Blackwater and also with your claim that we'll never be as well armed as the military, that's not really the point. The 2nd amendment's wording is very plain. The citizens right to bear arms is every bit as important as our 1st amend. rights. It is the one right that guarantees the others. Without the deterrent of an armed populace, they can axe whichever rights they want
The Constitution was meant to be a document free of contradiction. (I know this is debatable) The government could not ban weapons without acknowledging that its own existence was attributed to the public ownership of firearms. This (banning of firearms)would have been a blatent contradiction to the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore could not exist within this document.
Any interpretation beyond this contradiction, is our unique interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment.
Thats great. but do you value that right more than the position you take on privatization? Do you trust the freedom of the individual and the free market more than you trust a candidate who is against privatization?
What you call the "free" market is actually a system where there is a justice system for settling disputes, a law enforcement system for protecting property rights, A monetary system for circulating currency, among other things. No one has advocated privatizing these things because they are natural monopolies. The fire departments were private until people smartened up about letting buildings burn.
I think one of the problems with evaluating someones ideology is, it's very easy to find fault if we do not understand or misconstrue the intent. If we follow a strict adherence to the intent, I believe your criticisms would have been different.
Ron P. is an easy person to misinterpret because he requires a macro-level of knowledge that goes beyond the micro-perspective of most individuals.
Ron Paul offers a capitalist paradise. The problem is that I am not so gung ho with unfettered capitalism. I think the profit motive too easily pollutes the social value of institutions especially when those institutions represent natural monopolies.
I think this is perception that most people have towards Ron Paul, that he is anti-government. This is not the case. He is for limited government for specific roles that protect the intent of the Constitution. For example, unfettered capatilism would undoubtably turn into monopolies, so the role of government is to create anti-trust laws to facilitate a free-market society. Again, if we stick to the intent, the role of government is better understood.
I've seen it. There are some aspects of it that are misleading, especially the part about income tax. OK, so I don't buy the whole movie. It makes some good points, but I can agree with observations without agreeing on conclusions. Most of the collusion between corporations and government occuring is de facto deregulation.
This guy is progressive, I mean all the cool music and not a word about Ron Paul... Just blew my mind. I am so glad to have someone so informed in the baby boomer generation such as he...
Someone with my skills has no trouble finding gainful employment. If people are weak in America, and that is a problem, what do you propose to do about that?
If you stop giving them money, they will help themselves. Also, the few that don't, can be helped by charity. Or starve to death, who the hell cares. This is the point, if you are a nice person, people help you. If i lost everything, i have plenty of friends who will take me in until i get back on my feet. The people who need help are the idiots who aren't nice to people. The scum of the earth.
Think about it. If you don't have the right friends, then what type of a person are you?
Doctor Ron Paul has the right prescription for America. Bring the troops home and balance the budget. Ron Paul has the experience, he has the right agenda.
I agree having Paul as the republican candidate would make things much more interesting. Unfortunately for you the GOP seems to be converging on a theocrat.
I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's policies including a completely free market and privatization of certain things, but he is still the best presidential candidate today. His foreign policy, limited government intervention, and opposition to the private Federal Reserve and IRS is what we need the most. As president, the most influential thing as commander in chief is to bring troops home from all over the world reducing our foreign intervention and spending immensely.
Corporations by themselves are not necessarily "evil". I simply think they have too much power and influence. Money does buy an awful lot of power in terms of propaganda, marketing and advertising. I think granting them the same rights as individuals grants them dominion over us all. What they re doing now is voting with THEIR dollars, and the result is very undemocratic.
Let me give you an example of how deceptive corporations are. Dell makes about $2.5B a year, yet their stock price hasn't changed in 5 years, and their stockholder's equity is about the same as 5 years ago, and they paid no dividends. What happened? All the earnings were sucked out through stock buybacks to support stock option exercises by the executives. You'd be a fool to invest in corporations.
It is deceptive if they are not giving any indication of what stock options are outstanding. If the stock price stays put for a long time, then stock options will be worth nothing. Certainly Dell should be transitioning from a growth company to a commodity company and start giving out dividends. First they have to pay off their options.
We could have another discussion about excessive option grants to executives, but I am not against options in general.
I can't agree. I realize there are corrupt boards of corporations, but no one ever required me to invest in a corporation. Vote with your dollars, but don't have governments control corporations - it would just change the chair from which the corruption was conducted.
Voting with your dollars: Isn't that the very definition of oligarchy? Wouldn't that mean that a very small minority (1%) would have a very large control (80%) of the country?
The problem is no matter who you vote for, when they take the office, they don't work for you. They work for corporations. No matter Republican or Democrat, they are agents of corporations. This is not democracy. By definition, it is "Facism".
Ron Paul seems to be different from the others. I am a democrat but will vote for Ron Paul.
A really BAD example is what happened to the California Electricity market. Enron was running a spot commodities market from inside their corporate headquarters. They colluded with the private suppliers to take critical generators offline to create shortages and create ridiculous spikes in the price. No one should have to watch their electricity meter 24/7 to monitor the price.
When they privatized the water supply in Bolivia, they signed a contract with Bechtel. The price jumped 200%. People who tried to collect rain discovered that Bechtel also had rights to the rain that fell in that country. They actually charged people for the rain they collected from their roofs.
and there is always the example of the broke, federally controlled post office continuously subsidized by tax payers for their excessive waste and inefficiencies.
The question I always ask is why is a private business/institution always scrutinized and used against freedom but failing gov't institutions are continuously ignored for their failures and never used as a critique against more gov't?
Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.
I can't believe you're railing against the post office. It has plenty of competition for urgent packages and first class mail is headed for obsolescence. It is a public utility and as such needs to be protected.
Always count on the ideologues to bring up something insignificant. No one else is clamoring for postal service reform, dummy.
Sometimes I think that Amtrak should be privatized, but who wants it? It is a legacy from companies that could not run by their own. And now Amtrak is doing a very beautiful job.
Please let us know.
I am from Brazil, and the communist reporters don't let us know what happens in America. Brazil is about 100 years old back in time in terms of mentality.
That thought never occurred to me. I know you are trying to be humorous with the hyperbole, but I would never advise anyone to take my word for anything. I tend to be more of a mathematician, and so, I am more interested in seeing how you got to a conclusion than the conclusion itself.
It's because I care about my kids. I like his stance in regards to the constitution and foreign policy. I happen to think that privatizing everything is not such a good idea.
still trying to figure out what your beef with Ron Paul is. I'm starting to think that there are just people out there who want to be "different" so they bitch about RP. so tell me who is good for our country? Who DOES have a plan to fix our failing economy? who does have a plan to stop the NAU? who WILL bring our troops home? Why the heck cant these whiny neo-libs see the bigger picture? if you want to bash RP, why not explain who you intend to support and WHY--otherwise, stfu.
I am supporting Kucinich because he is as much of a staunch defender of the constitution as Paul is without being such a damned ideologue when it comes to public investment and keeping the playing field honest. Paul wants to privatize everything and I think that would be a monumental mistake.
oh yea, he's all for the constitution--all accept for that pesky right to bear arms. Also what exactly is his position on the NAU, economy, taxation, etc. All Kucinich is running on is a desire to end the war in Iraq, he offers no real change for the direction of this country, and anyone who supports gun control doesn't defend the constitution. Sorry, you ARE blind.
If you understood the intent of the 2nd amendment, it is to make sure a paramilitary force does not exist on US territory. Posse comitatus prohibits the military from acting within national borders. Blackwater is such a paramilitary force and as such represents a very real threat to our civil rights. Sorry, you are not going to be as well armed as these fuckers.
I think you got your facts information.. Ron Paul wants to take the power away from the FEDERAL level, and throw it back to the local/state where it belongs.. the only place we as Americans can vote directly..
Which simply means each state/local entity should be able to make most issues legal/illegal.. available or not.. At the Federal level, Government (by the Constitution) really has a small role.. Not to be all things to all people and/or a crutch
It is very difficult to remove economic borders unless you first get rid of political borders. How else do you expect to be able to keep standards for the environment and working conditions? How do you expect to reign in corporations when they will happily go to the state that lets them get away with the most shit?
Corporations are entities created by government and given special privileges, such as limited liability, corporate personhood, etc. Ron Paul is aware that a large part of the problems in this country arise from privileges afforded corporations, and I think he would support genuine reform of their legal status.
Is that the sound of you guessing? You don't sound too sure here. Every time I hear him speak he talks about eliminating government programs and privatizing pretty much everything. I can't say that that evens shows up on the radar.
corporations are exploiting everyone because they are GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED. Privatizing everything ensures a good economy, a fair and truly free market, and it means that less of our tax dollars line the pockets of rich CEO's.
That theory is not born out by evidence, which is that privatizing everything gets government out of the business of abuse and exploitation but simply hands that job over to powerful corporations.
John, I appreciate the video and the differing view. In all honesty though, he did vote to send the impeachment bill to committee. In the limited knowledge of what goes on in impeachment proceedings, this is a step forward.
In all honesty, my dream choice in 2008 would be Paul or Kucinich. But, the reality is that Ron Paul is quite possibly the only Republican, albeit... only person able to defeat the Billary juggernaut.
Well, the Judiciary Committee is the proper place to begin the base research of the charges. Part of the reason the Clinton impeachment was such a circus, was the fact that it was not sent to committee before the trials were begun.
There's plenty to look at.
Long story short, a Judiciary Committee review is better than heading straight into impeachment proceedings.
Seeing as they're both CFR members, I wouldn't be surprised about him advising her. It's not a far stretch to think about. She's taking similar stances with the president on all issues except possibly health care. That plus, Rove coming out in Newsweek and practically echoing her main platform as what he believes will be the main points of the 2008 election.
I will have to hold my nose if I am forced to vote for her over, let's say, Giuliani, who is a bigger corrupt fascist, and more incompetent than Bush.
That would be an election made in hell... I'd end up writing-in Ron Paul.
Also, as for the 60M blowjob lie. That's exactly my point. When the Impeachment bypassed the committee, that's what we got. A special investigator grasping at every wrong straw under the sun. Whereas, if an Impeachment is to be seriously considered... it will be reviewed by committee first.
As a nearly-rabid Bush/Cheney critic, I'm happy it went to committee.
I have not one IOTA of an idea of what this has to do with RON PAUL!~ Did you just say such to get the MOVEMENT's ATTENTION on you? I have no idea. SO what goes on in my BOARDROOM you worry about? WHATS that got to do with RON PAUL?
DUDE, your mind has got you messed up with someone that actually knows what the hell he is talking about!
Ron Paul is all for dismantling checks against corporations. He is all for getting rid of antitrust. Libertarians in general do not want government interfering with business in any way, shape, or form. If you think this has nothing to do with Ron Paul, it is you who is confused.
OK, lets say thats correct, so why not RON PAUL? He has never voted or bowed to a corportaions intrest! NEVER ONCE! ALL OTHERS BOW to them like a chinesse servant who is afraid of thier masters switch, BOW BOW BOW!
But its ok my friend, HATE RON all ya want, when it boils down to it, YOU HAVE NO REASON that makes sense!
I did not say I hated him. I specifically said that I do not love him. Tell me why he is not pushing for impeachment like Kucinich, being the staunch defender of the constitution as you say he is?
Kucinich has my hopes and prayers with him, but why not Kuninich? Simply, A day late and a dollar short! FEB is only 80 das away, WHY NOW? IT WOULD TAKE EFFECTIVELY THE REST OF THESE 2's TERM to GET EM OUT! Dont get me wrong, I did sign the petition to get em out, JUST really tho, TOO DAMN LATE~
Firstly, impeaching Bush means Cheney becomes president, impeaching Cheney means Bush picks the new VP (I somehow doubt he'll follow the 1947 law and place Pelosi in), which is a bad thing for all concerned.
Yeah, If Ron Paul has a chance, it'll be a good showing in the NH primary. If all the pro-war votes are spread out (Romney and Huckabee are strong there) Paul may only need 30% to win. Given it's the first primary, if he wins, the media will have to take him seriously. plus he wants to overturn roe v wade, and the religious don't have someone worth support yet.
Johnwilliams, I have to go buy a soup-chicken to start my chicken soup. I hope to continue this and other discussions with you. I live in Germany so I'm 6-9 hours ahead - that is if you're not living Europe.
I agree with your assessment of Libertarian philosophies and when Dr. Paul ran in 1988 I pointed out the obvious faults in Libertarian beliefs to my libertarian friends. I would prefer Kucinich in an ideal America but I'm not quite sure he has the draw that Dr. Paul does - and you are right, I am thus willing to sacrifice the baby in hopes of creating a better bathtub and cleaner water.
Anyone who brings rationality to the debate deserves a seat at the table. I am so disgusted with the fear mongering on the right and the political maneuvering on the left. While I don't entirely excuse the waffling that occurs on the left, the right just lies ALL the time. Kucinich is my guy. If the race boils down to Hillary and Rudy I will hold my nose and do the right thing.
Our society, and especially our world has changed since the writing of the US Constitution. I don't even believe we should have the right to bear arms - the year is 2007 and not 1776. People kill eachother over toys and not food in todays world. Guns have no place.
Free markets are impossible, dolt.
The birth of the very concept of the free (society driven) market came about throughout the 16th and 17th centuries.....yet as early as 1300, merchants were going into the countryside, buying up commodities and hording them...then colluding with other merchants to drive up the price.
European governments started regulating this kind of collusion before the 'black death'...free market on a large scale is a myth, it has never been a reality, never
Joseph565112 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul for 2012 election
krewman11 4 months ago
You don't love him because you're blind.
liOVERLOADil 5 months ago 3
@liOVERLOADil Free Market is an ideology. As such it has no need for evidence, experiment, measurement, any of that SEE FOR YOURSELF ridiculousness. Get a fucking load of who is calling who BLIND.
j0hnwi11iams 5 months ago
@j0hnwi11iams Whats funny is that Ron Paul supports free markets, you support free markets, but you don't support Ron Paul. Who's blind?
liOVERLOADil 5 months ago
I appreciated your video on 'why you are not a libertarian' and I AM A LIBERTARIAN, so we dont agree eye to eye there, but I understood the problems you brought up, but this video was a discrace to label it 'I do not love Ron Paul' because you haven't proven anything wrong w/ Ron Paul, he is fighting gov. polices and for a freer market, but the ideal of a corp being considered a ind. I dont see how he is for at all (another tool of Corporatism grabbing gov.) I want a response
jakobeckert 8 months ago
nobody caaaaares what you think, you old fuck
katiewntrs 1 year ago
i UNDERSTAND THE GOVERMENT AND BUSINESS STUFF. BUT I WANT MY CONSTITUTION RESTORED.I WNAT SOUND MONEY THATS THE GOVERMENTS RESPONSIBILTY.I DIDNT SEE OBAHMA GET RID OF THE PATIOT ACT,LIKE HE SAID HE WOULD.HE LIKE TO GIVE CORPORATE WELFARE TO THE RICHIES PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. I DONT THIK THAT WE HAVENT MISSED A BEAT FROM WHAT GW BUSH WAS DOING...WHERES THE CHANGE.....I KNOW ITS WHAT I HAVE LEFT IN MY POCKET AFTER I BAILED OUT THE WALL STREET WELFARE QUEENS..AND CORPORATE FAILURES. CHINA OWNS US
texas9085 1 year ago
what??? are you talking about? do you have common sense ? yeah your right your not blind your deaf thats why you do understand freedom you my friend are not American because you do believe in the Constitution your not blind you cant read can you? I LOVE RON PAUL
skywalkerbuds420 1 year ago
A business that has no rights simply moves to a country where it does....meanwhile we all starve because our jobs disappear.
Utopia sure sounds nice, but welcome to the real world.
bucjason 2 years ago
Again you make the business sound like a person. A business is not a person and has volition of its own. A business must be populated with people who share the environment. The economy is a closed system the people who produce must also be the people who consume. There is no economy otherwise. If a company through it's selfish greed decides to move elsewhere . . . fuck em. Start a new company to replace them. Good riddance.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
"If a company through it's selfish greed decides to move elsewhere . . . fuck em"
Business is about making a profit. Jobs go to the lowest bidder always. Someone would be stupid to pay more for a service when they could pay less for one right??? And if gains from the improved efficiency of the business come back to the origin of the business how is that bad??? Isn't that good for us??? Taking advantage of cheap labor overseas and bringing back the gains to our country is bad???
66chevyo 2 years ago
It is bad because they are collectively undermining the market for whatever product they hope to sell. EXACTLY what has happened.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
@j0hnwi11iams you better change your mind by 2012. Ron paul 2012
Ddstairclimber 7 months ago 2
How dare you speak out against the principles put fourth by the infallible Dr. Paul? What gives you the right to express your opinion and not fall in line with his views? Dr. Paul is the only one who can save us, hopefully you will come to your senses and praise him. ALL HAIL DR. PAUL!
CultOfRonPaul 2 years ago
Laughing Out Loud.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Thank goodness people are starting to see Ron Paul for the hypocrite he is. He is just a sad old man who bitches about the constitution ALL the time. GET A LIFE RON!!!!
dartaddict 3 years ago
well...you are fucking stupid!
nikolapornik 3 years ago
How many arguments do you win that way?
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
. . . and by corporations we include those overpowered christian organisations that actually pull the strings in your country.
Its ok, I'll say it :-)
Youll never have freedom in your country while being controlled by the church. Religious leaders arent interested in personal freedoms, they believe we are all sinners and cant be trusted to think for ourselves. Thinking for yourself is certainly not something that is taught or supported by these people.
"Keep them dumb and scared"
TwoOpposableThumbsUp 3 years ago
Churches are extremely vulnerable to corruption. That statement should come as no surprise to anyone who has studied the history of the catholic church.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
If you want to know what goes on in their board room, then why doesn't the federal reserve bother you? why don't we have any knowledge of what they base their decisions on and why aren't we briefed on exactly what authorities the federal reserve has?MCCAIN, CLINTON, AND OBAMA ALL VOTED FOR THE PATRIOT ACT AND THE WAR ON IRAQ. ALL THREE OF THEM WILL START A WAR WITH IRAN IF ELECTED. I SAY WE VOTE FOR LIBERTY IN 2008. FREEDOM IN 2008. SMALLER GOVERNMENT IN 2008. RON PAUL IN 2008. PEACE IN 2008.
sanchosteve 3 years ago
The federal reserve DOES bother me. That does NOT mean I want to go back to a gold standard or any other commodity backed currency. I rather like the aspect of money as a promise for future work. I don't like the interest treadmill.
I think it VERY unlikely that Obama will start a war with Iran, in fact, he was one of the few nominees who favors direct talk with them. More likely Cheney will convince Bush to strike just before leaving office to hand off a mess to the incoming Democrats.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
obama is supported by the CFR. i take that to mean that the reason he voted to fund the war on iraq was because in order to do so the U.S. would need to borrow money from the federal reserve bank, which would mean profit for them. and every time the fed prints more money to fund our special interest wars the money in your pocket and my pocket becomes less valuable. and did you hear me when i said OBAMA VOTED FOR THE PATRIOT ACT?
sanchosteve 3 years ago
A significantly reigned in version of the patriot act in 2006. The first one gave sweeping powers without oversight. We do want to stop terrorists. What we don't want is a rogue government taking liberties with privacy without oversight or without a paper trail.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Listen to liars and you can easily be swayed by the lies until the lies build up and become a reality, RON pAUL is a What?... Republican. He has no Votes because No delegate in the right-wing would ever think of laying a vote for him, because not only does he go against the political goals of his party, His publicity is mostly to gain a leftist sway which as we can see now in the polls he has no chance. So the Final decision Rests with the illuminati elite: Clinton, Obama, and McCain.
Zaedeath 3 years ago
McCain is still a market fundamentalist, which is what I have against Paul. I like his stance on the war. I like his sstance on corruption. However, I think market fundamentalism is as dangerous as marxism.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
LOL mccain is not a market fundamentalist, he's a war profiteer! mccain will never get rid of the federal reserve because the war profiteers can't make a cent off of these wars if they don't have the ability to print up as much money as they need. sad thing is most americans don't realize that by printing more money the value of the dollars IN OUR POCKETS AND IN OUR BANK ACCOUNTS IS UNDERMINED. they're taking the money out of our pockets. and because of their WAR PROPAGANDA NO ONE NOTICES
sanchosteve 3 years ago
McCain doesn't understand economics by his own accounts. His advisor is Phil Gramm, a former Senator from Texas now a Lobbyist for a swiss bank.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Once again, a liberal proves that his isn't really liberal: he only wants certain individuals to have freedom. I'm not necessarily on the side of big business, but the law wasn't written to protect only the righteous...it was to protect everyone's FREEDOM. AND I think what happens in the "bedroom" indicates character. I wouldn't trust the man or woman that cheats on their spouse with my business or my money or my children or with anything else of value to me.
BOTTOLOTTO 3 years ago
You are not in the position to judge an individual's actions in regards to relationships. Try cultivating your own if you are worried about your wife's fidelity.
I think individuals need rights to protect their liberty, and that liberty if not protected will be taken away by powerful organizations like governments and corporations.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
you better care what goes on in the bedroom,,,that's where you'll find your favorite "Socialist/Liberal Politicians" all "balled up and goin at it" with the "Capitalists" from the "boardroom"
...You Big Dummy!!!!!!!!!!!!
TravisBickle8 3 years ago
Did you major in incoherency?
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
You may have to explain the meaning of the words "major" and "incoherency" to TravisBickle there.
Oh! and you might also need to explain how each definition relates to the overall point...
Good Luck!
pwg357 3 years ago
Cheap labor is very detrimental to society, very true. That is why unions are so important. As long as government does not side with business or the unions then these unions are a much better representation of the workers than reps in Washington. Just because government is not involved does not mean the people cannot stand up against abusive corporations because they have and will again. Business is corruptible but so is government. A merger of these corruptible organizations is unsettling to me
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
I don't get that. The workers have run to reform parties multiple time in the history of America because they wanted these reformers to tell business, and in effect the people of the nation, what is right and wrong in relation to labor practices. That itself is not all that bad but it is arrogant to assume one group of workers knows how business should be run. The problem comes when these ideas are extended to other parts of society. One can see how it plays into fascism, slowly but surely.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Progressives want to take the lessons of history and turn them into institutional memory by having some degree of regulation to limit how much trouble they allow the economy to get into. The republicans are busy erasing that institutional memory because they make a killing off of screwing the economy. They literally steal from the poor to give to the rich.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
I'm not concerned with Republican versus Democrat. I'm concerned with government versus the people. Institutionalized anything becomes hard to change and stubborn whether it is for the people or against them. History fluctuates and provisions appropriate at one time may not be later. By writing them into the government these provision become difficult to change if or when they become detrimental. Social Security was great during the Depression but is one gov program bankrupting the country now.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Bad example. Social security is not bankrupting the country. Health care costs are and that is because of the institutionalized provisioning of the PRIVATE health care system. The one where drug companies write their own laws to prevent collective bargaining. The one where insurance companies waste 25% on bureaucratic red tape to make collection on claims more difficult. One one where CEOs rake in obscene profits. For profit health care is a fucking disaster.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Heath care has been managed by the government for thirty years! The government subsidizes it to the hilt and more intervention is better. That is a hard argument to make.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Heath care has been government managed since the 70s. It is subsidized to the hilt and that is the reason cost is so high. Companies have no need to insure more people or find cheaper ways to do it because their bottom line is guaranteed by the government. More intervention is a hard argument to take seriously.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Now people resist privatization and opting out because it is institutionalized. A once beneficial program became detrimental but because of its institutionalized status everyone dances around the fact it is unsustainable pretending their are ways to fix it instead of figuring out a better way.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
There are simple ways to fix Social Security. The republicans are trying to make a crisis out of it because Wall Street wants to get its greedy hands on your money.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
Bury your head deeper in the sand. That is plain untrue.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Take a long fucking look at what they did to pensions and tell me I'm crazy.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
So it is easy to sustain with more retired than working, more claiming benefits than paying into it? Yeah you could hike taxes a ridiculous amount but then people really would want to get rid of it.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The fund has been overpaid to account for that. There is some shortfall, but nothing that can't be made up with a modest increase. A huge chunk of the funds are in federal bonds, so I suppose the only way for the bastards to cheat us out of our social security is to declare bankrupcy, like United Airlines.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
What if I do not want a modest increase. What if I'd rather be responsible and save my own money. I'm 20 years old an by all accounts their will not be anything left for me. I'd rather opt out and save MY money for MYSELF.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
The republicans want you to believe it is going to go bust. It is a single payer insurance program. We lived in a world without it before and old people were mostly condemned to a life of poverty. It has been very successful in providing a safety net for people who have trouble saving or have their life savings swindled by a crook or a market crash.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
I do not disagree with its success. You seem to blame republicans for all problems but democrats are in the pockets of special interest as well. Clinton's health plan makes everyone a customer of insurance companies without addressing cost which is the problem. People now buy into FDR and LBJ like policies of financial security instead of the idea that you make it on your own as Jefferson and Adams had established. Most people would be more comfortable is a socialist country not America
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Jefferson and Adams were polar opposites and bitter enemies. Jefferson believed in public education and freedom of information. Adams believed in a strong federal government and the suppression of free speech. Democrats have problems, but republicans are just shameless criminals.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
They both wrote the foundations of this country and would disagree with your partisans finger-pointing. You must now both of them were not fans of the two party system though it has you by the short hairs. Stop pretending like Democrats are better when both parties are corrupt and lying. It would seem you are suspicious of free markets but would love a politicians to sweep in and used the government to solve all problems. I would be more suspicious of the government.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Have you ever heard of the alien and sedition act? Jefferson and Adams were a little more civil, but it lead to the duel between Burr and Hamilton.
I would prefer a multiparty system with instant runoff voting. Republicans are worse probably becuase they are the ones in power. It is not the markets I hold suspect but the participants.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
How does this have anything to do with Ron Paul. Paul has been named SMALL business's best friend by NFIB. You are right that corporations should not have the rights given by a court decision handed down in the 1890s when gov and business was colluding as it is today. Paul does not defend nor take money from big corporations. These criticisms seem better leveled at other republicans not Paul. Libertarians do understand the flaws in free markets but managed markets can be as bad.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
Oh, other republicans are worse, I will grant you that. My views are closer to Thom Hartmann's. Cheap labor comes at a high cost to society. Regulation is necessary because the market is both short sighted and selfish.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
People are short sighted and selfish the market is simply the sum of the transactions. It reflects the lack of compassion and irresponsibility of people. People will never learn to be responsible until they are forced to. Otherwise people will run to the government and beg for the politicians to tell us what is right and wrong and that is the start of a REAL problem.
SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR 3 years ago
well you suck then. and yes. your blind.
plus. your ugly. so that doesn't help either.
and yes there are not good things about them all but. notice how this thing is only 2:35 minutes long. uhh. check the other videos hating on the other ones. they are all about 6 to 8 minutes long. showing. they suck more ANYWAYS.
skaterboywonders 3 years ago
I couldn't give a fuck about hate. Piss off.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
oh your cool.
take your views and your thoughts and put the back up your ass.
skaterboywonders 3 years ago
just curious what you think about the CFR?
and also wondering while you will vote based on party affiliation? cause i saw you said you were supporting kucinich but didn't care cause you were voting democrat in the end anyway.
do you not think the two party dictatorship is something to be dealt with?
johnnywaitt 4 years ago
CFR has a pretty diverse membership. If I were to complain it would be that their deliberations are not made public under the guise that theories are "tested" out there, same excuse Cheney gives for hiding EVERYTHING from the public. It does make me nervous that such an influential organization operates in secret. Not all the members strike me as war mongers, though.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
I like two party better than one party which could happen one day if the Delays of the world succeed in their "permanent republican majority". The dynamics of the market with few participants shifts to one where it is more efficient for the participants to try to eliminate the competition than to improve the product. The political system would have more competition if elections were not winner take all.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
you have a good point.
skaterboywonders 3 years ago
give your head a shake, VOTE RON PAUL
rich232399 4 years ago
I will not vote for faith based anything, and that includes faith in free markets.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Stick with the CONSTITUTION and the advice of the founders. They wrote it because the central banks and taxes in Europe had been screwing the people for centuries, yet our government still works the same way, through a history of ignoring the constitution. We've become what the founders had most feared. Liberty takes work and responsibility.
jitterzs 4 years ago
Stop using the imperative in debate, it is fucking annoying. I read plenty about the founding fathers but there is additional history that has transpired and I conspire to ignore NONE of it. I agree that the federal reserve is a problem, but it is not the only problem.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
You quoted Adam Smith, and are trying to make libertarians look stupid.
Here's what i found about Adam Smith:
Smith's work helped to create the modern academic discipline of economics and provided one of the best-known intellectual rationales for free trade, capitalism, and libertarianism.
Don't quote people for your arguement then go against it lol.
swanseaboy 4 years ago
Adam Smith would likely have agreed with me, not Milton Friedman. Just a conjecture on my part, but at least Smith was aware of the hazards. Libertarians throw caution to the wind in the faith that the free market is their savior.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
I dare say Adam Smith would agree with me and disagree with Milton Friedman. At least Smith had an appreciation of the hazards that inhabit markets. Milton Friedman throws caution to the wind.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
just curious as to who you support?
Labellyy 4 years ago
Up until recently I supported Kucinich. I will support the democratic candidate whoever it may be now. At least people are coming to the understanding that the way the economy has been running is SICK.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
goofy/master of the obvious award right here for this video
danspeaks 4 years ago
If ONLY it were more obvious to Libertarians that the "free" market does not always work. The chicago school of economics under Milton Friedman is a religious cult. Incomplete observations lead to incorrect conclusions.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Note Ron has put himself on the Giuliani Gang Bang Wagon. and the american hopefuls as their suckers. The Media is Banging the drum.
Corporations are taking citizens rights and sovereignty away. Now they want to privatize the military bases. with machine guns pointed outside the main gate.
SCOOTERBALLUSA 4 years ago
Watch Aaron Russo's "Freedom for Fascism" OPEN your eyes.
Go to whitehouseforsale dot org
You will find a list of frontrunners with their list CORPORATE MASTERS.
kiddwee 4 years ago 2
I saw that and agree with many of the observations. However, INCOMPLETE observations yield INCORRECT conclusions. I have seen too many cases where the "free" market breaks economies.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
It's not an observation. It was a documentary based completely on FACTS. Name one case where FREE market breaks economies. I think you must like BIG government controlling everything...one step at a time...they'll be in your business...personal and otherwise.
kiddwee 4 years ago 3
I don't want big government in everything, only in the places where they are needed and only where they can be relatively low maintenance. I am not in favor of government interfering in every aspect of your life. I think social organizations like corporations, churches, and unions need far more transparency, as well as the government. As far as free markets are concerned, if it works in a particular circumstance I say don't break it. If it is broken then it needs to be fixed.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
I have seen too many cases where the "free" market breaks economies.
What were those cases?
ladymagnoliaa 2 years ago
California had a rash of blackouts caused by manipulation of the energy market by Enron. The recent financial crash was due to a lot of factors, but principally the under-assessment of risk and the over-insurance of liabilities. It's not like there is only one mechanism where markets fail, there are many. Resources can become critical and prone to failure. Market participants can synchronize causing systemic failure. All this before mentioning any fraud or corruption.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
I couldn't help but respond to your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. While I agree with you on Blackwater and also with your claim that we'll never be as well armed as the military, that's not really the point. The 2nd amendment's wording is very plain. The citizens right to bear arms is every bit as important as our 1st amend. rights. It is the one right that guarantees the others. Without the deterrent of an armed populace, they can axe whichever rights they want
midnightjones 4 years ago
The Constitution was meant to be a document free of contradiction. (I know this is debatable) The government could not ban weapons without acknowledging that its own existence was attributed to the public ownership of firearms. This (banning of firearms)would have been a blatent contradiction to the Framers of the Constitution, and therefore could not exist within this document.
Any interpretation beyond this contradiction, is our unique interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
Just so we're clear, I am in favor of ALL the amendments in the bill of rights. In fact, I own a handgun.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Thats great. but do you value that right more than the position you take on privatization? Do you trust the freedom of the individual and the free market more than you trust a candidate who is against privatization?
midnightjones 4 years ago
What you call the "free" market is actually a system where there is a justice system for settling disputes, a law enforcement system for protecting property rights, A monetary system for circulating currency, among other things. No one has advocated privatizing these things because they are natural monopolies. The fire departments were private until people smartened up about letting buildings burn.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Ron Paul has spoken out against corporatism.
He has also spoken out in favor of people's rights to form unions.
I don't think that he is the corporatist that you might think he is.
JohnNoZ35 4 years ago
I know what he thinks he's doing ( at least I think I do ) I just don't think it will work. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
First off, very intelligent video.
I think one of the problems with evaluating someones ideology is, it's very easy to find fault if we do not understand or misconstrue the intent. If we follow a strict adherence to the intent, I believe your criticisms would have been different.
Ron P. is an easy person to misinterpret because he requires a macro-level of knowledge that goes beyond the micro-perspective of most individuals.
Spectre11B 4 years ago
Ron Paul offers a capitalist paradise. The problem is that I am not so gung ho with unfettered capitalism. I think the profit motive too easily pollutes the social value of institutions especially when those institutions represent natural monopolies.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
I think this is perception that most people have towards Ron Paul, that he is anti-government. This is not the case. He is for limited government for specific roles that protect the intent of the Constitution. For example, unfettered capatilism would undoubtably turn into monopolies, so the role of government is to create anti-trust laws to facilitate a free-market society. Again, if we stick to the intent, the role of government is better understood.
Spectre11B 4 years ago 3
what does this have to do with ron paul
danedouard 4 years ago
I am not in favor of reactionary privatization.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
whatch the movie on here called "america from freedom to facist"
i think the only hope we have is ron paul. i dont like him but were fucked if we vote hillary clinton or Obama in
mcraigor 4 years ago
I've seen it. There are some aspects of it that are misleading, especially the part about income tax. OK, so I don't buy the whole movie. It makes some good points, but I can agree with observations without agreeing on conclusions. Most of the collusion between corporations and government occuring is de facto deregulation.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
did you compose the musical score for "Jaws" & "e.t." ??!!
idiotwind75 4 years ago
That name is more popular than anonymous.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
u sound like dylan on crack ...no offense.
idiotwind75 4 years ago
Crack might help, who knows?
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Oh and he's not blind
mtbartist 4 years ago
This guy is progressive, I mean all the cool music and not a word about Ron Paul... Just blew my mind. I am so glad to have someone so informed in the baby boomer generation such as he...
mtbartist 4 years ago
Sarcasm is Hyperbole. Go ahead and vote with your wallets so you see just what that will get you.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
This douche just couldn't make it in a free society. He's scared of freedom. The main problem in America, people are Just too weak.
nothingtoliveupto 4 years ago
Someone with my skills has no trouble finding gainful employment. If people are weak in America, and that is a problem, what do you propose to do about that?
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
If you stop giving them money, they will help themselves. Also, the few that don't, can be helped by charity. Or starve to death, who the hell cares. This is the point, if you are a nice person, people help you. If i lost everything, i have plenty of friends who will take me in until i get back on my feet. The people who need help are the idiots who aren't nice to people. The scum of the earth.
Think about it. If you don't have the right friends, then what type of a person are you?
nothingtoliveupto 4 years ago
Liberals care about the content of other people's wallets...they can't stand it if someone has a dollar more than they do.
jscottupton 4 years ago
I can't take a person like you who engages in such obvious hyperbole seriously. You can't produce even one person who fits that description.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Pointless.
shadow461 4 years ago
Sentenceless.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Doctor Ron Paul has the right prescription for America. Bring the troops home and balance the budget. Ron Paul has the experience, he has the right agenda.
Elect Ron Paul in 2008!!
AcePilot101 4 years ago 2
I agree having Paul as the republican candidate would make things much more interesting. Unfortunately for you the GOP seems to be converging on a theocrat.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's policies including a completely free market and privatization of certain things, but he is still the best presidential candidate today. His foreign policy, limited government intervention, and opposition to the private Federal Reserve and IRS is what we need the most. As president, the most influential thing as commander in chief is to bring troops home from all over the world reducing our foreign intervention and spending immensely.
kirstpo 4 years ago
Yes; that is what we have now. I mean voting with your dollars as a figure of speech. Don't invest in corporations; they will steal your money.
ItsFazsha 4 years ago
Corporations by themselves are not necessarily "evil". I simply think they have too much power and influence. Money does buy an awful lot of power in terms of propaganda, marketing and advertising. I think granting them the same rights as individuals grants them dominion over us all. What they re doing now is voting with THEIR dollars, and the result is very undemocratic.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Let me give you an example of how deceptive corporations are. Dell makes about $2.5B a year, yet their stock price hasn't changed in 5 years, and their stockholder's equity is about the same as 5 years ago, and they paid no dividends. What happened? All the earnings were sucked out through stock buybacks to support stock option exercises by the executives. You'd be a fool to invest in corporations.
ItsFazsha 4 years ago
It is deceptive if they are not giving any indication of what stock options are outstanding. If the stock price stays put for a long time, then stock options will be worth nothing. Certainly Dell should be transitioning from a growth company to a commodity company and start giving out dividends. First they have to pay off their options.
We could have another discussion about excessive option grants to executives, but I am not against options in general.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Certainly Dell should transition to giving out dividends as their stock options are paid off.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
I can't agree. I realize there are corrupt boards of corporations, but no one ever required me to invest in a corporation. Vote with your dollars, but don't have governments control corporations - it would just change the chair from which the corruption was conducted.
ItsFazsha 4 years ago
Voting with your dollars: Isn't that the very definition of oligarchy? Wouldn't that mean that a very small minority (1%) would have a very large control (80%) of the country?
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Ron Paul will turn fascism into oligarchy. In all honesty I don't know which is worse.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
The problem is no matter who you vote for, when they take the office, they don't work for you. They work for corporations. No matter Republican or Democrat, they are agents of corporations. This is not democracy. By definition, it is "Facism".
Ron Paul seems to be different from the others. I am a democrat but will vote for Ron Paul.
AlborzZagros 4 years ago
A really BAD example is what happened to the California Electricity market. Enron was running a spot commodities market from inside their corporate headquarters. They colluded with the private suppliers to take critical generators offline to create shortages and create ridiculous spikes in the price. No one should have to watch their electricity meter 24/7 to monitor the price.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
can u give an example of privatizing gone awry?
thisisbunk 4 years ago
When they privatized the water supply in Bolivia, they signed a contract with Bechtel. The price jumped 200%. People who tried to collect rain discovered that Bechtel also had rights to the rain that fell in that country. They actually charged people for the rain they collected from their roofs.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
ok, i thought we were talking about america.
besides, ron pauls platform basically consists of recognizing private property and enforcing contracts.
thisisbunk 3 years ago
There is always the Enron example of how the energy market in California was manipulated once it was privatized.
j0hnwi11iams 3 years ago
and there is always the example of the broke, federally controlled post office continuously subsidized by tax payers for their excessive waste and inefficiencies.
The question I always ask is why is a private business/institution always scrutinized and used against freedom but failing gov't institutions are continuously ignored for their failures and never used as a critique against more gov't?
Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.
1Natecore 2 years ago
I can't believe you're railing against the post office. It has plenty of competition for urgent packages and first class mail is headed for obsolescence. It is a public utility and as such needs to be protected.
Always count on the ideologues to bring up something insignificant. No one else is clamoring for postal service reform, dummy.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
wasted government programs are not ignored. You just keep using them as a red herring to distract from your own failing arguments.
the post office? The place that delivers my mail really well? what a stupid, borish, wrong cliche.
onlyAerik 2 years ago
Ron Paul wants pretty much everything privatized. The only exception is that the government should enforce laws which are basically property rights.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
What does Ron Paul want to privatize more?
Sometimes I think that Amtrak should be privatized, but who wants it? It is a legacy from companies that could not run by their own. And now Amtrak is doing a very beautiful job.
Please let us know.
I am from Brazil, and the communist reporters don't let us know what happens in America. Brazil is about 100 years old back in time in terms of mentality.
A Língua!
ALingua 4 years ago
Groovy intro, Johnny! You may not be blind, you're just not looking.
DaRRazoRR 4 years ago
I've seen (and read) enough to know.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Oh, sorry.
What I meant was: Mission accomplished! You know enough about everything, so whenever something is to be judged, it has to be you! My bad.
DaRRazoRR 4 years ago
That thought never occurred to me. I know you are trying to be humorous with the hyperbole, but I would never advise anyone to take my word for anything. I tend to be more of a mathematician, and so, I am more interested in seeing how you got to a conclusion than the conclusion itself.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Then why don't you not marry him!
Sepero1 4 years ago
You're just like my parents. You have all the reasons to love Ron Paul but for some strange reason you just dont.
mwcheffer 4 years ago
It's because I care about my kids. I like his stance in regards to the constitution and foreign policy. I happen to think that privatizing everything is not such a good idea.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
still trying to figure out what your beef with Ron Paul is. I'm starting to think that there are just people out there who want to be "different" so they bitch about RP. so tell me who is good for our country? Who DOES have a plan to fix our failing economy? who does have a plan to stop the NAU? who WILL bring our troops home? Why the heck cant these whiny neo-libs see the bigger picture? if you want to bash RP, why not explain who you intend to support and WHY--otherwise, stfu.
ihatethisarrgh 4 years ago
I am supporting Kucinich because he is as much of a staunch defender of the constitution as Paul is without being such a damned ideologue when it comes to public investment and keeping the playing field honest. Paul wants to privatize everything and I think that would be a monumental mistake.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
oh yea, he's all for the constitution--all accept for that pesky right to bear arms. Also what exactly is his position on the NAU, economy, taxation, etc. All Kucinich is running on is a desire to end the war in Iraq, he offers no real change for the direction of this country, and anyone who supports gun control doesn't defend the constitution. Sorry, you ARE blind.
ihatethisarrgh 4 years ago
If you understood the intent of the 2nd amendment, it is to make sure a paramilitary force does not exist on US territory. Posse comitatus prohibits the military from acting within national borders. Blackwater is such a paramilitary force and as such represents a very real threat to our civil rights. Sorry, you are not going to be as well armed as these fuckers.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
I think you got your facts information.. Ron Paul wants to take the power away from the FEDERAL level, and throw it back to the local/state where it belongs.. the only place we as Americans can vote directly..
Which simply means each state/local entity should be able to make most issues legal/illegal.. available or not.. At the Federal level, Government (by the Constitution) really has a small role.. Not to be all things to all people and/or a crutch
hoosierweb 4 years ago
It is very difficult to remove economic borders unless you first get rid of political borders. How else do you expect to be able to keep standards for the environment and working conditions? How do you expect to reign in corporations when they will happily go to the state that lets them get away with the most shit?
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Corporations are entities created by government and given special privileges, such as limited liability, corporate personhood, etc. Ron Paul is aware that a large part of the problems in this country arise from privileges afforded corporations, and I think he would support genuine reform of their legal status.
jeremy6d 4 years ago
Is that the sound of you guessing? You don't sound too sure here. Every time I hear him speak he talks about eliminating government programs and privatizing pretty much everything. I can't say that that evens shows up on the radar.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
corporations are exploiting everyone because they are GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZED. Privatizing everything ensures a good economy, a fair and truly free market, and it means that less of our tax dollars line the pockets of rich CEO's.
ihatethisarrgh 4 years ago
That theory is not born out by evidence, which is that privatizing everything gets government out of the business of abuse and exploitation but simply hands that job over to powerful corporations.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
John, I appreciate the video and the differing view. In all honesty though, he did vote to send the impeachment bill to committee. In the limited knowledge of what goes on in impeachment proceedings, this is a step forward.
In all honesty, my dream choice in 2008 would be Paul or Kucinich. But, the reality is that Ron Paul is quite possibly the only Republican, albeit... only person able to defeat the Billary juggernaut.
WNxShisno 4 years ago
As opposed to open debate on the floor, that is. What is a committee going to look at?
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Well, the Judiciary Committee is the proper place to begin the base research of the charges. Part of the reason the Clinton impeachment was such a circus, was the fact that it was not sent to committee before the trials were begun.
There's plenty to look at.
Long story short, a Judiciary Committee review is better than heading straight into impeachment proceedings.
(damn 500 character limit)
WNxShisno 4 years ago
We spent $60M and all we got was a lie about a blowjob. Give me a fucking break.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
BTW, My distaste of Hillary is growing with every story of planted supporters. I think she is stealing from Rove's playbook.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Seeing as they're both CFR members, I wouldn't be surprised about him advising her. It's not a far stretch to think about. She's taking similar stances with the president on all issues except possibly health care. That plus, Rove coming out in Newsweek and practically echoing her main platform as what he believes will be the main points of the 2008 election.
WNxShisno 4 years ago
I will have to hold my nose if I am forced to vote for her over, let's say, Giuliani, who is a bigger corrupt fascist, and more incompetent than Bush.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
That would be an election made in hell... I'd end up writing-in Ron Paul.
Also, as for the 60M blowjob lie. That's exactly my point. When the Impeachment bypassed the committee, that's what we got. A special investigator grasping at every wrong straw under the sun. Whereas, if an Impeachment is to be seriously considered... it will be reviewed by committee first.
As a nearly-rabid Bush/Cheney critic, I'm happy it went to committee.
WNxShisno 4 years ago
VOTE RON PAUL 2008
sakinehbs 4 years ago
I have not one IOTA of an idea of what this has to do with RON PAUL!~ Did you just say such to get the MOVEMENT's ATTENTION on you? I have no idea. SO what goes on in my BOARDROOM you worry about? WHATS that got to do with RON PAUL?
DUDE, your mind has got you messed up with someone that actually knows what the hell he is talking about!
kansanchief 4 years ago
Ron Paul is all for dismantling checks against corporations. He is all for getting rid of antitrust. Libertarians in general do not want government interfering with business in any way, shape, or form. If you think this has nothing to do with Ron Paul, it is you who is confused.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
ok,lets see, You dont want ron paul cuz corporations wont have checks? anti trust?
LMAO
how bout the WAR
TAXES
STATES RIGHTS
MY RIGHT
THE CONSTITUTION
but yeah ya right, that ONE LIL THING of corporations and antitrust, YEAH, ya rigght!
THATS PLAIN PITTIFULL!
kansanchief 4 years ago
I hope you will understand this:
That corporations have corrupted the government, not the other way around.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
OK, lets say thats correct, so why not RON PAUL? He has never voted or bowed to a corportaions intrest! NEVER ONCE! ALL OTHERS BOW to them like a chinesse servant who is afraid of thier masters switch, BOW BOW BOW!
But its ok my friend, HATE RON all ya want, when it boils down to it, YOU HAVE NO REASON that makes sense!
kansanchief 4 years ago
I did not say I hated him. I specifically said that I do not love him. Tell me why he is not pushing for impeachment like Kucinich, being the staunch defender of the constitution as you say he is?
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Kucinich has my hopes and prayers with him, but why not Kuninich? Simply, A day late and a dollar short! FEB is only 80 das away, WHY NOW? IT WOULD TAKE EFFECTIVELY THE REST OF THESE 2's TERM to GET EM OUT! Dont get me wrong, I did sign the petition to get em out, JUST really tho, TOO DAMN LATE~
kansanchief 4 years ago
Paul has got to beat Giuliani first, and the vast majority of republicans are like little children.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Firstly, impeaching Bush means Cheney becomes president, impeaching Cheney means Bush picks the new VP (I somehow doubt he'll follow the 1947 law and place Pelosi in), which is a bad thing for all concerned.
DeathPendant 4 years ago
Impeachment should only be the beginning of legal proceedings for Dick Cheney. Mr fourth branch of government needs to be struck down.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Yeah, If Ron Paul has a chance, it'll be a good showing in the NH primary. If all the pro-war votes are spread out (Romney and Huckabee are strong there) Paul may only need 30% to win. Given it's the first primary, if he wins, the media will have to take him seriously. plus he wants to overturn roe v wade, and the religious don't have someone worth support yet.
DeathPendant 4 years ago
huh?
caroltrainor 4 years ago
Johnwilliams, I have to go buy a soup-chicken to start my chicken soup. I hope to continue this and other discussions with you. I live in Germany so I'm 6-9 hours ahead - that is if you're not living Europe.
kingbtd 4 years ago
I agree with your assessment of Libertarian philosophies and when Dr. Paul ran in 1988 I pointed out the obvious faults in Libertarian beliefs to my libertarian friends. I would prefer Kucinich in an ideal America but I'm not quite sure he has the draw that Dr. Paul does - and you are right, I am thus willing to sacrifice the baby in hopes of creating a better bathtub and cleaner water.
kingbtd 4 years ago
Anyone who brings rationality to the debate deserves a seat at the table. I am so disgusted with the fear mongering on the right and the political maneuvering on the left. While I don't entirely excuse the waffling that occurs on the left, the right just lies ALL the time. Kucinich is my guy. If the race boils down to Hillary and Rudy I will hold my nose and do the right thing.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago
Our society, and especially our world has changed since the writing of the US Constitution. I don't even believe we should have the right to bear arms - the year is 2007 and not 1776. People kill eachother over toys and not food in todays world. Guns have no place.
kingbtd 4 years ago
Well, I own a handgun mostly because I wanted to learn how to fire one. They say "god" didn't make men equal, Samuel Colt did.
j0hnwi11iams 4 years ago