Andrew Napolitano - What Is The Establishment?

[MrFreeLibertarian]

Remember when everybody thought that invading Iraq to look for WMDs was a GOOD thing? Of course they weren't there so now we can say it was a lot of wasted money, but Bush didn't have the benefit of hindsight. How many people would be blaming him if he didn't invade Iraq and Saddam had a nuke that was given to Al Quaeda and eventually used on us? Also TARP as administered by BUSH has been repaid. The slush fund from TARP used by Obama is the problem. The judge is a little loose with his facts.

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian RP, Kucinich opposed the invasion before we went in, just like the opposition today against the same propaganda being applied to Iran..Bush didnt need hindsight as he knew exactly what he was doing.. The only reactor Iraq had was destroyed by Israel in a 1981 unilateral attack, Bin Laden opposed the baath party rule of Iraq as well as the 1990 invasion of Kuwait Bin Laden was headed to Kuwait to fight Saddam, We support all these characters... Loose facts Huh, Do the Research

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian /watch?v=HgMXUZJvLYo

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo I didn't hear anything in the vid about the number of terrorists, but I did see evidence for why Ron Paul should not be president. Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban used to be our friends so this means they cannot be enemies now? Really? The British used to be our enemies so they must be enemies now right? Conditions can never change that would cause an ally to be an enemy and vice versa? Was Ron Paul really suggesting at the time of this video that Osama Bin Laden was our friend?

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian your post says "Remember when everybody thought that invading Iraq to look for WMDs was a GOOD thing?"..etc... The video was offered to you so that you can see not everyone agrees with flawed policies.. more specifically Ron Paul doesn't agree with the Bush/Obama policies both foreign & domestic they are two wings of the same vulture.. I understand the truth is sometimes hard to swallow... Unfortunately, I'm not sure your can handle the truth my friend

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo OK I didn't mean literally every last person on the planet. Yes there were people who were against the Iraq war, but Ron Paul was against us getting into WWII so forgive me if I don't count Ron Paul as being very astute about when or when not to get into war. But regardless of your position on Iraq, don't you agree the video is laughable? Did he really imply in it that we should consider Osama Bin Laden to be a lifelong friend simply because we funded him to fight the Russians?

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian No my friend that wasnt the implication rather he stats that we always think we are doing good & the unintended consequences get us every time.. You have to keep things like this in context to understand them one could also say Ron Paul was against the civil war but in context he knew that if the objective was to give people their freedoms that were never not their own it could have been accomplished without war..same for WW2..cherry picked liberality isnt libertarian

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian Ron Paul is saying that we always go into these "freindships" with stated intentions for others benefits.. for example we aided the freedom fighters of Afghanistan to drive back the foreign occupation by the Soviets.. then we're thanked by their harboring Bin Laden.. we fund Pakistan who thanks us by harboring Bin Laden.. Its time we fund and support ourselves.. you cant help others when you cant help yourself

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo I don't think so and that's where RP fails at domstic policy. We rarely do anythng or other countries unless it's in our interest to do so. We helped Osama kick the Russians out for strategic purposes, not because we're an ally of Afghanistan. We wanted to weaken them and they wanted land for an oil pipeline. We fund Pakistan and Israel so we have allies in that part of the world and we protected Kuwait all for oil, but again oil is our interest. We're not doing it for charity.

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian thats not liberty my friend there are names for that type of rationale.. further more if that position is legitimate then why isnt it ever described as such.. Lets say that our government came to you and said we are going to under your flag arm,fund, & support a government whom are oppressive to their people, stoning women, killing peaceful protesters, etc.. in return for oil..I hope your positions havnt already answered.. why do we fund this with afghan & iraqi "freedom" acts

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo Trying to make sure that we have a free flow of oil is not liberty? You Ron Paul supporters throw around the word "liberty" like you own it, but in reality you simply use it to justify things you like that are totally unrelated to liberty. Specifically I'm referring to hatred toward Israel and Jews. A lot of Ron Paul's foreign policy is wrapped around that and liberty and the Constitution having nothing to do with it. In that sense he is more charlatan than libertarian.

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian Goodness guy you now say I like hatred towards Israel & Jews.. do you need a hug.. I think in fact your positions do great harm to the Jewish people.. I would explain that to you although I dont think the capacity to comprehend exists.. I feel sorry for you.. you should watch Kingdom of Heaven, it might help you.. your views are part of the problem.. you're hampering the solution my friend..

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo I didn't mean necessarily you, but most, and I'm not exaggerating, most of the Ron Paul supporters I've met on You Yube believe that Jews are taking over the world; they were behind 9/11, they own all the banks, etc. Ron Paul's former staffer has said clearly that Ron Paul is anti-Israel. Surely you understand what's going on in the Ron Paul community. Don't tell me you are not aware of it. It's all over the internet. Are you trying to pretend this is the first you heard of this?

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian so should I believe that all people on social media cites support ron paul since thats almost all I see... should I believe that Israel wants to eradicate Palestinians because a lot of people say that.. should I believe that Americans are stupid because euro media by enlarge imply so.. ya gotta be skeptical when someone tells you a doctor who provided free medical care to an interracial couple in an area and time where racism was extremely prevalent is a racist..

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo You're ducking the question. Do you deny that all lot of Ron Paul supporters think the Jews are taking over the world? You think Ron Paul's opinion that Iran should have a nuke is a coincidence and has nothing to do with that? His opposition to U.S. involvement in WWII where Jews were being exterminated is a coincidence? His former staffer said that RP wished Israel would not exist. Coincidence? Ron Paul: Racist? No. Anti-Israel? Obviously yes. Anti-Jew? Jury's still out on that.

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian dont need to duck something so far off the mark.. I will simplify.. i dont believe someone reporting on what someone said that someone else heard someone say.. way to loose and would be the only thing if were true..that could make yur case..Ron Paul policy position you state is fact however your opinion of why is just opinion.. do you think Israel cant defend itself.. they can defend themselves better than we can defend ourselves Netanyahu & Ron Paul agree on that..

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo Well in your defense, you may just not speak about Israel in depth with other Ron paul supporters, but I have and it's kind of scary, the number of Ron Paul supporters who believe this stuff. But of course, it's not the first thing out of their mouths, you have to have an in depth discussion about Israel and eventually the conspiracies comes out. It starts with "Israel can defend itself" and ends up that Jews are trying to control the world and Israel is committing genocide, etc.

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian there extrimist views all over the place is it ingorant yes..is it a threat to Israel i dont think so..during the Netanyahu speech protesters made there voices heard & he acknowledge it as democracy.. our two nations are more alike than different.. lets say that the Rothschild nwo thing is true that would be to the Jewish peoples benefit i.e. money & power backing.. the real issue is our inherent desire to control.. as a species I fear it will lead to our demise.. all of us

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo BY the way, see the post from Allanlegacy43 below. Believe me now?

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian Allanlegacy43 responded to your allegation, the closet argument youve got is the Netanyahu ~ Rothchild one but in context it says Rothchild is powerful & connected(fact)..read them in detail & youll see that it says that the jews & the jewish state are the same as us an elite controlled nation..you've got to read it through..I watched Netanyahu speak my perspective is different but irrelevant to the topic, Jews & Palestinians can coexist if the powers that be would allow it..

[Allanlegacy43]

@MrFreeLibertarian Wow, wow there. See this is what ignorance breeds when it comes to Ron Paul and his supporters. We do not believe the "Jews" as a race or people are taking over the world. The vast majority of Jews are just like us, they have no power and have no idea who the hell is running their country behind close doors. We believe that the Israel globalist illuminati Jews have infiltrated themselves into and with the western illuminati globalist and are usurping cont.

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@Allanlegacy43 You are right on cue. Perfect timing!

[Allanlegacy43]

@MrFreeLibertarian vast amounts of power and influence to control the US congress and senate through AIPAC and the Federal reserve, which is a Rothschild Owned global bank. Just look at the Fed and the names of the chairman and directors over the years, they are all Jews, you think that is a coincidence. Look at AIPAC and the power it has over Congress, did you see them bowing before Netanyahu at little while back, over 20 standing ovations. You need to think before you speak!

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@Allanlegacy43 You need to tell this to ciapillo, a Ron paul supporter who is not on board with your conspiracies! I'm being told by ciapillo that you Ron Paul supporters don't believe this stuff, so please go set ciapillo straight on this and tell him/her that was right (as usual).

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian Take a listen to Jesse Ventura on some of this Navy Seal & Patriot

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo Gimme a break! Jesse Ventura is an absolute moron.

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian thats interesting since you've agreed we dont invade countries, prop up brutal dictators, tear them down & star over again to "liberate" the people like our "leaders" tell us.. you've agreed that in fact we're trying to control resources i.e. oil.. you actually support Jesse Venturas view.. which means if you call him a moron... you are actually calling yourself...

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo Depends on what you mean by control. We don't want Russians to control the oil; we didn't want Saddam to either, so we stop them. Problem? Yes we prop up brutal dictators, but do you think the people who would be in power otherwise would NOT be brutal? Saddam? The Muslim Brotherhood? Iranian Mullahs? Chavez? Castro? Gadhafi? The Taliban? Where did we prop up a dictator where the alternative would have been better for the people? See what I mean about the America bashing?

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian depends on the context.. We supported Saddam for a time, intending to push back Iran, Northern Iraq/Kurdistan Saddam deployed his chems.. on the Kurds those people would tell you they would have been better off without our support of Saddam considering he committed genocide against them.. theyre still trying to beat back the Turks & Iran to this day...

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo Kurds fought Turks + Iraqis well before Saddam. Who would have been the alternative to Saddam and would they have been less brutal toward the Kurds? This is not a case of the U.S. propping up a brutal dictator where the alternative would have been an Iraqi ruler at peace with the Kurds. Also we did not support Saddam knowing he would do this; it was not long after that gas attack that the U.S turned against Saddam; and now we support the Kurds, so I fail to see how we are to blame.

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian Your explanation of how this doesn't prove my point precisely proves it.. you've agree we supported him..The support Saddam received from us put him in a stronger position than he was prior to our supporting him(thats why we did) as we supported him he indiscriminately used chems killing innocent women & children in the many thousands.. we did subsequently turn on Saddam..(using your implication) we turned on him in part for what he did to them proving what we did was wrong..

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo No it doesn't prove your point. If we didn't support Saddam or if there was somebody else in his place who we also didn't support, this kind of killing could have happened anyway. My point was that we haven't supported a dictator where if we had not been supporting him, there would have been a peaceful leader in his place. This is the middle east, these people have been fighting and killing each other for centuries and it's our problem that it keeps happening? Don't think so.

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian now youre changing the parameters of the initial position you said "Where did we prop up a dictator where the alternative would have been better for the people" my answer Saddam without our support would have been better for the people than Saddam with our support.. do you think Iran would have the nuclear fusion technology it has now.. or would have achieved it as fast if not for Communist support..Should I assume you hate middle easterners because you imply theyre barbaric

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo You haven't made the case that Saddam without our support would have been better. And Iran getting a nuclear weapon is a good thing? Hello? They are our enemy. They have been fighting us. Haven't you heard? And what's this that I'm implying middle easterners are barbaric? Really? By saying they've been fighting with each other forever? Do you deny that? Is this political correctness run amok? What I said in no way implies barbarism. That came out of your head, not mine.

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian Not better..rather he'd be less worse..kurdish support this..you want to nix irans nuclear program..why if it wont make Ahmadinejad better..RP says Iran with a nuke is bad, all nukes are bad..reality is everyone telling iran we have nukes but you cant is hypocritical..saying "this is the middle east.."in reply to my explanation of our complicity with Saddams action..may not imply theyr barbaric..but implying the kids who he murdered would have been murdered anyway is barbaric

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian

lion of panjshir

Benazir Bhutto

Learn about them and you may learn something about liberty

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo NIce stories

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian they fought the taliban&extremism,had a huge following not necessarily pro-west not against either..they were trying to liberate people long before our"interests" in the area..both assassinated by the people we support..none the less they led their people tword liberty,I could argue they wouldve been better than those we prop up..and again to the "this is the middle east"the west been killing each other for centuries, wouldnt make it ok for china to occupy us as we do so many

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo I am leaving tomorrow for 10 days, so I will respond to any posts when I get back.

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian safe travels my friend

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian I agree we didnt know he would do this..(unintended consequence) although we did know he was a dick..tator, brutal, evil, that may have been a prerequisite for our support he was there before us & if not he perhaps someone else of equal.. I give you that.. but without our support they are less powerful.. ergo less able to deliver brutality & evil..there are good leaders over there we often dont support them because..???

my friend denial isnt innocence, truth can hurt

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo becuase it's not in our self interest! Remember?  We had this discussion where you claimed we were doing all this charity around the world and I said that we don't do charity, we only do things that are in our interest. Go back a few posts.

[ciapillo]

@MrFreeLibertarian I remember that being about the time when you implied that publicly stating we are militarily occupying a sovereign nation without its approval &/or aiding brutal evil powers as an effort to help the local peoples whilst behind the scenes we strip them of their natural resources is Libertarian... if we go there for our interests why do we use names like the Iraqi Freedom Act & Operation Iraqi Freedom...

[MrFreeLibertarian]

@ciapillo There you go blaming America again! And with unsubstantiated allegations no less. Who did we strip of their resources? Have we gotten any oil from Iraq or even discounted oil from Kuwait? I don't see where we stripped them of anything other than a dictator who was bad for both countries. Libertarianism does not exclude intervention with regard to foreign policy. Even having said that, any stripping would have been done by private companies, not the government.

[nicodemous52]

Here is the deal folks, if the government can force your morality upon other, it can turn around and impose others morality upon you...Just some fat to chew upon...

[HamsterFueledRocket]

@nicodemous52 No, I'm sure our benevolent leaders will do what is best for us. After all, they aren't tempted by money and power like those greedy capitalists.

[Itugen88]

Judge Napolitano is a national gem. Let's get him in a Paul administration or in the Supreme Court. :)

[1955Checkers]

@Itugen88 VP

[wccrispy]

Judge Napolitano is the man.

[giancarlo3000]

I do agree with making the government smaller, and dismantle it if the conditions allow it. But is it convinient to reduce the power of government without reducing the power of corporations? That would be transfering much more power to much less people, and would be disastrous and suicidal. What would be a good way to dsitribute power? I think the ownership of the means of production should be granted to the workers, not to the state, and then it is safe to abolish the state. Anarco-syndicalism

[Ronok888]

@giancarlo3000 The free market is a better regulatory force than any government agency. Corporations would be forced to compete for their consumers and employees and not just be handed everything from their government sugar daddies.

[giancarlo3000]

@Ronok888 How can you be shure of that. A totally free market is only theoretical because it has never existed, so there is no way to ensure that it would regulate the supply and demand with maximum effiency. There are many issues, how do yo protect the environment? how do you prevent oligopolies? how do you prevent disloyal competition? How can a small govt have the strenght to protect the peoples rights? (life, liberty and property according to the libertarian principles).

[Ronok888]

@giancarlo3000 It pretty much existed in the Industrial Revolution, and look at all the innovation that gave us. Basically, the consumer gets to decide who they support. Do they want to support the big, douchey corporation? Well, odds are in about 10 years that corporation will meet the end of it's lifetime. That's one thing that the free market does well. Bury the old businesses and create new ones. So there'd be no Mega-Lo Mart for long. It'd stagnate and a new guy would come.

[Ronok888]

@giancarlo3000 But that's the brilliant thing about the innovation that no one ever remembers; things get better! And when the free market takes effect for workers, they get to freely associate (unionize) and choose whether to support (work for) the employers. So if they think they're being wronged, they can join together and effectively boycott working for them. And then what happens is another employer says "Hey, we don't do that" and the workers go there. Also, that's good PR.

[Ronok888]

@giancarlo3000 @giancarlo3000 No, I'm not arguing for Anarcho-syndicalism, although I don't necessarily disagree with it. What I'm saying is that Laissez-faire and free market capitalism can be implemented without workers being mistreated. The workers would be using their own free market power and weight to decide who to work for, and therefore who to be successful in the business, just as the consumer does when purchasing goods from a producer. They all need each other.

[giancarlo3000]

@Ronok888 My humble opinion is that there is always going to be more offer of labor that there is demand. Actually, in the industrial revolution, the capitalists promoted over population amongst their employees in order to have an enormous offer of cheap labor. That was achived because people were ignorant, and in a free-market keeping people dumb would be easly acheived thru division of labor and rising the prices of the PRIVATE education, so no one could afford it. RBE is the answer.

[Ronok888]

@giancarlo3000 But people can't be fooled like that now. We have the most educated populace we've ever had in history, and it'll only keep increasing.

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 You do not understand supply and demand. There is never 'more' supply than demand, there is simply an equilibrium point where supply and demand meet, a point that defines the price. The only way you can wind up with an excess of supply is if some outside agency has messed with basic market mechanisms, such as legislating a wage higher than the clearing price. The government does in fact do just that with monopoly union laws, minimum wage laws, etc..

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 Most emphatically there was a huge sudden influx of labor and the huge supply did indeed cause the wage rate to drop like a rock. But the solution to that is to leave it alone till everyone is working, whereupon any new business has to offer better wages or working conditions in order to bid away the needed labor. Legislating higher wages creates unemployment and actually serves to prevent the rise in wages that would come after full employment.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper Look, you're making a lot of very valid points, they might be accurate speaking inside the monetary-market context. But, there is only one reason we talk about markets, money, laissez-faire, cummunism, socialism, capitalism, etc. it's SCARCITY. We have to realize that we already have the necessary technology and production capabilities to create a world of abundance for everyone, and any economic/political system we have ever known just keeps that from happening.

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 You have to eliminate scarcity before you can talk about eliminating the means for rationing the scarcity (money). If you eliminate money and the market 'before' eliminating scarcity, you will not suddenly create abundance, you will do the opposite. If the technology exists to create the abundance you think it can, then you are sitting on a wealth machine. Do it yourself. Take that wealth machine and make so much of it, that you can afford to give it away.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper Let me tell you something first, nothing costs money, everything costs resources. So do we have the resources to produce abundance? Yes. First, free energy is possible now, there are so many renewable sources of energy that are not exploited because they are not profitable. Second, we do not have production defficiencies, that's proven, we have a problem with the distribution. The resources are there, people just dont have access to them because of lack of accuisitive power.

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 Lack of acquisitive power? You mean they don't have the 'money' to acquire the resources? Surely you don't think that simply printing and giving everyone a million dollars is the path to abundance. Or is it that cabals of diabolically evil men are sitting on resources so they can revel in the misery they are causing?

The "lack of acquisitive power" is the result of there NOT being infinite wealth. If I am wrong, prove it yourself by creating infinite wealth.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper What do you actually need to live well... certainly not money. First you need, clean air, water, food and shelter, second you need relevant education, health and recreation. For me, having all those is being wealthy. We could all be wealthy if we used our technology to give everyone what they need. I know it sounds crazy, but try to look at it from a different point of view, outside the monetary-market paradigm. Our way of living is so unefficient right now.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper We have totally eliminated scarcity already, we have an enormous amount of goods... but the way they're distributed is the problem. A systmen that allows one continent (north america) to have an epidemic of obesity and another continent (africa) massive hunger and malnutrition is inherently flawed. I'm not trying to convience you of anything, you will just see... we will stop using money eventually, because it doesn't represent resurces, and resources are not infinite.

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 The distribution system we have, the one you find fault with, is one essentially in which people are able to consume to the degree that they produce. Africa is hungry because Africa does not produce much. What you would propose is to take from those who produce in order to give it to those who do not.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Sound familiar? It also does not work.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper Ok, I don't think that is entirely true. In our system it is not the smartest, the strongest, the most productive, the hard worker the one who has the most money. The system we live in rewards the one who knows to manipualte it. Do you think the bankers actually produce anything for humanity? I dont think so, but theyre the ones who make the biggest wealths because they know how to take advantage of the system. My humble opinion is that Ayn Rand had that wrong.

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 "Our system" is NOT the libertarian ideal. We live in a Fascist system of cronyism where the government and huge moneyed interests collude to rape the rest of us. Ayn Rand would have no sympathy for the bankers getting bailed out. When we libertarians defend the free market, we are NOT defending the existing system.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper Ok, but you do understad that the current system we live in, is a deviation of the ideal system you wish to implement (laissez-faire). If the system you advocate for has not existed completely through out history, maybe it's because it doesn't function, just like socialism and communism. I think you and I have a very different defintion of what wealth is. Our actual value system is so corrupted that we cannot se beyond it. And what are the fallacies behind Jacque Frescos's vision?

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 Pure laissez-faire has existed for brief period before men with guns (government) moved in, the 'wild west; gold rush for instance. Much of the US was fairly laissez-faire for most of the 18th and 19th centuries, the period of time that had insane growth in wealth.

And I understand perfectly well what wealth is. Wealth is, among other things, the ability to eat healthily, to have access to medical care, education, peaceful streets, etc.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper The USA didn't get it's wealth because of laissez-faire, it was because of slavery in the first half ot the 19th century, and after it's abolition was because of the enormous offer of cheap labor. For you to enjoy the USA as you know it today, many people had to suffer lives of deprivation, hunger, exploitation and indignity.

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 Ok, there was just SO much outright falsehood in this last that I am done with you. You could not possibly be more wrong. And I haven't the first clue as to how to even start to educate such a profound depth of ignorance.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper Ok you are entitled to your opinion. I just hope that you'll be alive by the time we all live in a resource based economy, wether it is by or own will, or because we deplete the resoruces of our planey so much that money will simply not be an effective tool of exchange. I'm done too. Peace and be well.

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 The fundamental fallacy behind Fresco's vision is his belief that it is our existing system that is what creates scarcity. The reality is that it is scarcity that creates our existing system. Scarcity must be addressed 'before' ideas such as Fresco's can see fruition. You cannot do away with the rationing system and 'then' address the scarcity the rationing system was dealing with. Try that and you will achieve nothing but catastrophe.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper I think you and I understood Jacque Fresco very diferently. Both Fuller and Fresco clearly stated that all the economic systems we have ever known since the existance of the human life on this earth, are a byproduct of SCARCITY, not the other way. Scarcity exists sinve the very moment life exists in this planet, and is a condition that ALL the species on this earth share. I recommend you read again what Fuller and Fresco had to say about scarcity.

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 Proposing the elimination of money, the rationing system, 'without' first eliminating the scarcity it serves to ration, is not just an utopian pipe dream, it is irresponsible to the point of war crimes. An island run by Fresco would find itself literally starving to death rapidly. Similar experiments in utopia have been tried many times, inevitably resulting in millions of deaths. Address the scarcity first. I say it again, address the scarcity, first.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper Look, I'm not gonna convice you and youre not gonna convince me. I can tell you that I have read and understood the principles that John Locke wrote in Two Treaties of Government, Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations and Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged. I just do not agree with the right-libertarian ideals. What I can do, is recommend you some literature if you are interested in seeing things from a different Perspective. Buckminster Fuller, Jacque Fresco, Gustave Le Bon.

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 I've read all those people (not Gustave Le Bon). I was building Fresco's moneyless utopia myself (on paper) 37 years ago. However I have learned a lot since then and have learned to see the fallacies behind that vision. You cannot 'wish' wealth into existence. We do not suddenly have infinite wealth just by changing our attitudes. If you could create infinite wealth, then you would do so. Your protestations about not having resources should tell you something.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper And of course infinite wealth cannot be created in a planet with finite resources, thats nonsense. What a RBE stands for, is creating a sustainable system in consideration with the earths capabilities. That could never be achieved in a monetary system, because ciclical consumption doesnt take in consideration the limited resources of earth, the economy just functions for making money and acquiring property.

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 You are incorrect. You can indeed have infinite growth if the growth is the result of doing more with less. It just so happens that doing more with less is a perfect formula in business for making a profit. Food for thought.

As for RBE, if it does 'not' have infinite wealth, and you are still getting rid of money as a rationing system, then just who is to decide who gets what? You? Fresco? The central committee? Colossus? Money is VASTLY preferable.

[giancarlo3000]

@Panpiper Ok infinite growth in a finite planet is the most ilogical thing one could ever think about. First, do more with less (the moto of Buckminster Fuller) is applied to resources, not to money. Money is unreal, is just a contract between people, it doesnt represent resources. If we lost all the arable land, money would be worthless. I don't mean to disrespect you, but change is not going to happen with people with an outdated system of values. We the young are the agents of change.

[Panpiper]

@giancarlo3000 You know, only people raised in the last 40 years, since money has been entirely fiat, could ever state something as preposterous as "money does not represent resources". Money is a share of the world's resources, both labor and other resources, physical resources. You spending money is you deciding what share of the world's resources you will use and how. Money DOES represent resources. And it is a far smarter system than any computer program you could devise.

[giancarlo3000]

@giancarlo3000 Look, I'm still young, I'm only 25 years old and I still have a lot to learn. I might not be right about many things I say, but at least I don't shut myself to new ideas. I've studied the communist, anarchist, libertarian, neo-liberal ideas, as well as the RBE. My knoledge tell me that the most viable way to preserve human life is to be rational with the exploitation of the earths resources.

[zalida100]

@giancarlo3000 "..reduce the power of government without reducing the power of corporations?.." Corporations derive their power from the gov. i.e. If gov power reduced, so must corporate power. If there was no gov, then corporations would be at the mercy of the consumer. They'd have to compete with other companies in the market without the gov to grant them favours etc.

[giancarlo3000]

@zalida100 That would be ideal. What if the corporation was in charge of an essential product? for example oil. And what stops corporations from making an oligopoly? In a free enterprise system, how could consumer combat the prize fixing of an oligopoly (oil is actually an oligopoly) if they don't have the strenght of the state? The consumer would be (as it is today) at mercy of the corporations. The Anarco-capitalism has so many flaws, and Ayn Rand does not give a solution for them.

[zalida100]

@giancarlo3000 "..what stops corporations from making an oligopoly?.." In a freer market, a cartel is likely to be very unstable, due to the fact that the very reason it is formed is the same reason that one or more members would break the cartel. i.e. One member could win market share by slightly lowering his price and so "cheating" the cartel.

"..consumer combat the prize fixing .." If price is too high, it is an opportunity for a new entrepreneur to enter the oil market.

[TicoNicaX4]

@giancarlo3000

My solution would be abolish corporations entirely, or change it to what it once was. Corporations 200 yrs ago were not consider persons and had limited life (7 to 10 yrs). Once the project was done, the corporation or charter would be dismantled. I personally prefer sole proprietorship, partnerships and co-ops only and to raise money, just sell bonds instead of stocks.

[giancarlo3000]

@TicoNicaX4 In my humble opinion, that wouldn't make a dramatic change. I think that the incentive that the capitalism has (acquiring property, wealth and power) is intrinsicly flawed, because it makes the people think that the we have infinite alternatives in a world of limited resources.

[nagasnharpes]

Ron Paul doesn't bring up how our business incites violence against us. Its true that we need to cut back on military spending and involvement in the world, but even if we pull back all our military, extremist will still want to kill us because of our businesses being in there homeland.

[gmillerguy]

Domestically, I could get behind Paul, but his foreign policy stance—actually just the rhetoric—will, like the killing fields of cambodia after abrupt US regional abandon, lead to genocide and democide. I will not have the blood of millions on my hands because Paul bribed with sounder money. If he believes that we should not be all over the world, then lets have no expansion and attrition as conflicts end, but his "bring the troops home, now!" stance will result in a power vacuum, millions dead.

[fzqlcs]

@gmillerguy if you think our foreign policy is saving millions of lives, you probably also think Obama created millions of jobs or that homeland security is saving millions of Americans by treating citizens like criminals.

[gmillerguy]

@fzqlcs Here we go… You are trapped in this false dichotomy. The US foreign influence is like a piece of road debris that is now lodged in the body of a disaster victim. The first inclination of the non-sergeon would be to pull the debris out of the wound, but as you may know from an episode of "House", the victim will bleed to death. The surgeon will more delicately remove the object. Paul may be a surgeon for real, but not on the foreign stage. He wants to just yank the debris out.

[gmillerguy]

@fzqlcs You have this idea of what you prejudge I must think. Your judgement is incorrect. I don't like the patriot act, homeland security, or the prospect of war. Ron Paul, however, has rhetoric like Obama's that signals to enemies that we will be leaving soon. It would be great if it were that easy, but we created a wound channel by being there and just pulling out leaves the wound channel to be filled by worse.

[fzqlcs]

@gmillerguy what is wrong with getting a declaration of war if an action is justified? why do you insist on a state of perpetual war as America's default mode? terror cannot be defeated as it is a tactic not an enemy. To fight it means perpetual war with no possibility of victory. And they have you believing Ron Paul is the one who is nuts?

[WintersAscension]

@gmillerguy Too much military intervention gave the 9/11 attackers incentive to attack us in the first place. We've been playing power politics for far too long and look where it has gotten us; murdered civilians. There's no reason to be afraid of Paul's foreign policy positions because he wants to try something new that would actually no longer give terrorist incentives to kill American citizens on American soil.

[regelemihai]

@WintersAscension

A fascistic-like religious dogma gave us 9/11. Intervening to stop the East Timor genocide gave us the Bali bombings in 2002. I don't see it how considering the hurt feelings of some is in any way relevant to how we should plan our foreign policy.

[WintersAscension]

@regelemihai But why would they consider us a target in the first place? It's not like America was just minding its own business and BAM 9/11 happened. Bin Laden and other terrorist leaders have said countless times why they did what they did and that has to do with too much foreign intervention and taking sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

It's really not rocket science to understand this domino effect. American policy makers fueled the fire of these extremists.

[gmillerguy]

@WintersAscension We have been playing power politics for longer than 911, but how long? Stop acting like life began with Bush or Clinton. When the British empire and French colonies collapsed it was us or worse. All of the south east asian conflicts were an effect of the collapse of the French. With that collapse, new powers wanted influence. Taking the stance that we can just sit out, leads to millions dead, cuz others don't sit it out.

[gmillerguy]

@WintersAscension Ron Paul's foreign policy is a false dichotomy of 'being there in the first place' and 'minding our own business'. Those aren't the choices. We are and have been everywhere 'in the first place' for many, many years (some places for over 100 years). The choice of being 'there' was already made long ago. Now you have to choose to eat the sandwich or the buffet. Steady unannounced surgical withdrawal (less death), rapid withdrawal (more death), or stay there forever (more enemies)

[SeppLainer]

@gmillerguy

Hahahhahahaha. All I can do is laugh. I'm not even mad...

[DaddyRTO]

@gmillerguy Right, so we'll just have the blood of millions on our hands by staying. Much better. Not to mention the blood of Americans. The government of the US has an obligation to its own people, not to the people of the rest of the world. If your conscience is truly bothered by the evil around the world, then YOU do something about it. Stop assuming that we in the military want to or should do it.

[ParrhesiaJoe]

@gmillerguy But... your example... we caused that... we funded that. Then, we turned a blind eye. Cambodia is what we are begging... and it's not like we didn't already do that to the Iranians once.

They had a democracy. We overthrew it. They won back their independence, finally, after 20 years... they're finally just about back on their feet, even though we gave Sadam chemical weapons to attack start a proxy war for us...

And you're afriad of THEM?

[im1greatman]

The judge would sue Fox news into bankruptcy if they fired him wrongly. That's why they don't test him.

[otacon451]

interesting lew rockwell article on libertarians, traditionalist conservatives lewrockwell dot com/orig/feser2.html

[Wesker1982]

how does the judge stay on TV? lol.

[VegasBilgeRat]

@Wesker1982 no kidding...i think the same thing every time I hear him speak of Paul. Fox does a good job of marginalizing him, you'd think they would fire Judge for speaking his mind.

[666or999]

@bweazei Judge Judy? Doesn't she hate politics?

[bweazel]

LP.... It's nice that you put Napolitano on here, he says some good things, but I'm sure you're aware who he works for. Does he not seem a bit out of place with the rest of your posts? Perhaps some Judge Judy to even it out?

[UtubeMyAccountName]

That was nice editing.

..but this seems more like the judge endorsing Ron Paul, than an answer to the question, 'What is The Establishment'? I would have liked a less implied, more explicit definition. Not to beat a dead horse but this is libertarians continue to fall short.

The establishment is all the fundamental elements in society that champion, defend, and maintain state power.

[optionsupdate]

Reagan was a bolshevik

[KEVLANEW80]

OUR BEHAVIOUR SHALL NOT BE CRUEL/UNUSUAL.

[ezra106]

Just curious, does anyone think RP would run for Texas Governor if he doesn't get the nominee? He could rock the feds establishment if he was State Govenor

[se7ensnakes]

"The establishment" gain its power by creating money out of thin air using the fractional reserve scheme. The bankers control the economy using credit, because money is mostly created by credit. If there is no credit there is no money, and no jobs. Therefore, unless you vote for Ron Paul, the only candidate who can begin to end this type of system, we will continue to be Debt Slave. This means foreclosures and bankruptisies.

[davenetdog]

Why is Rush Limbaugh so against Ron Paul? He seems to have a grudge against Ron Paul always refering to him as a whacky tin foil-hat lunatic! The more I here Rush try to marginalize Ron Paul the more I think people turn away from Rush.

[megadrummer2]

@davenetdog Good point, i agree. I heard Rush yesterday talking about Newt Grinch and it sounded like he was championing the little chameleon like waddler in grand fashion. Newt is and always was an establishment flip flopper, he's just saying the things people want to hear just like all the rest. We truely have no choice whatsoever. In reality it is up to YOU and I to become politicians and scrub the scum from the deck of this titanic.

[gmillerguy]

@megadrummer2 Rush has not endorsed Newt and has criticized him a lot. Only someone who only rarely listens to Rush could prejudice that he supports Newt's bid.

[megadrummer2]

@gmillerguy Excuse me? Are you going to tell me what I heard on the radio yesterday? You have me confused with a liberal moron that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. I was turned off by what he was saying since Ive been listening for about 15 yrs. and how the hell would you know? Don't come here acting like a liberal thinking you will push me around.

[ezra106]

@LibertyPen you do good work! Thanks all the way from Switzerland