<p>I personally think he's a libertarian running under the republican ticket. And you can call him a nut and all you want but it doesn't change the fact that there actually are people that agree with his views. He won't win, but I;m glad he got his views out since i agree with many of them. While I am firmly against gay marriage, abortion, and other things he wants to refer to the states, I prefer that, rather than the especially liberal positions of other candidates.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I personally think he's a libertarian running under the republican ticket.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>"Personally"? He's outwardly shown that he's a libertarian.</p>
<p>Ron</a> Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>
[quote]
there actually are people that agree with his views.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, I know. The overwhelming majority don't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While I am firmly against gay marriage, abortion, and other things he wants to refer to the states, I prefer that, rather than the especially liberal positions of other candidates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, if you get into Stanford, Chicago, etc. I'm sure you'll feel right at home. (Ha, pun.) =)</p>
<p>hahahaaaa......nice one :D</p>
<p>
[quote]
And you can call him a nut and all you want but it doesn't change the fact that there actually are people that agree with his views.
[/quote]
Since when does popular opinion determine if something is nutty or not? A large percentage (hah) of people in mental asylums are insane... but their own popular opinion would say that they're not, in most cases - so does that mean they're not?</p>
<p>The fact is, just because he has supporters doesn't mean a lot of his views haven't been shown to have negative consequences (gold standard, laissez faire, etc.).</p>
<p>why is laissez faire bad?</p>
<p>
[quote]
why is laissez faire bad?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, hmm... lemme think. It's the cause of a wide gap between the rich and the poor and it engenders poverty. Oh yeah, and it was a large cause of the Great Depression. The government needs to intervene in the economy, or it'll fall apart -- runaway inflation, widespread unemployment, high debt, etc. -- because humans are greedy. You can't expect them to regulate themselves. Laissez-faire economics is for capitalists.</p>
<p>Pure laissez-faire economics goes even beyond capitalism into lunacy. Laissez-faire economics was, as already stated, the cause of the Great Depression. It is also what caused the late 1800s to get their name (from Mark Twain) of the Gilded Age. On the surface, everything looked great - there were a lot of rich people. But underneath... it was bad. Corruption, poverty, etc. And laissez-faire economics and the gold standard together are what caused the strong cycle of boom-and-bust that was so prevalent until about the 1930s, with the advent of the New Deal.</p>
<p>Exactly -- corruption galore. Imagine that insider trading was okay. And that trusts were okay, too. And that monopolies were just dandy. It disadvantages not only the poor, but the middle class too (the largest part of the American economy). And all the while, the rich are capitalizing. Utopia, right? (Dystopia, more like.)</p>
<p>Laissez-faire is economic anarchy.</p>
<p>grrrrrrr... :D</p>
<p>@Jarn
"Pure laissez-faire economics goes even beyond capitalism into lunacy. Laissez-faire economics was, as already stated, the cause of the Great Depression. It is also what caused the late 1800s to get their name (from Mark Twain) of the Gilded Age. On the surface, everything looked great - there were a lot of rich people. But underneath... it was bad. Corruption, poverty, etc. And laissez-faire economics and the gold standard together are what caused the strong cycle of boom-and-bust that was so prevalent until about the 1930s, with the advent of the New Deal."</p>
<p>Wow, there is so much misinformation here.</p>
<ol>
<li>There has never been a period of laissez-faire economics ANYWHERE at ANYTIME. So long as governments are funded by force, laissez-faire is unachievable.</li>
<li>Monetary expansion followed by a market correction caused the Great Depression. This monetary expansion is a tool of the Federal reserve, a private entity which only survives since the government does not allow competing currencies.</li>
</ol>
<p>There are tons of books on the causes of the Great Depression from an Austrian perspective. I would just suggest reading the Austrian explanation at Wikipedia:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression#Austrian_School_explanations%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression#Austrian_School_explanations</a>
3. Mark Twain was a socialist. This factoid doesn't really disprove anything you said, but it shows some motive for the origination of the term "gilded age".
4. The "gilded age" is not representative of laissez-faire. Once again, governments were involved in mercantilstic corporatist practices favoring certain corporations. Anti-trust suits actually drove the price of oil up. Who won in that case? Not the consumer.
5. Hoover, who is credited as the do-nothing president, actually had price controls in place. If he had gotten rid of them, then the depression would have ended much earlier.
<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard108.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard108.html</a>
<a href="http://www.quebecoislibre.org/07/070916-4.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.quebecoislibre.org/07/070916-4.htm</a>
6. The New Deal actually prolonged the depression.
<a href="http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409%5B/url%5D">http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx?RelNum=5409</a></p>
<p>"Exactly -- corruption galore. Imagine that insider trading was okay. And that trusts were okay, too. And that monopolies were just dandy. It disadvantages not only the poor, but the middle class too (the largest part of the American economy). And all the while, the rich are capitalizing. Utopia, right? (Dystopia, more like.)</p>
<p>Laissez-faire is economic anarchy."</p>
<p>Just one problem: the government is a monopoly, it is a trust, it is corruption galore, and it disadvantages the poor with its inflation tax by using violence on those who try to create competing currencies, forcing people to use fiat currencies.</p>
<p>I just thought it was funny that Romney, Ron Paul, and Huckabee all beat McCain in Alaska even after it was so obvious that McCain was going to gain the republican nomination. I see more Ron Paul bumper stickers than any other (except for Obama). I guess its because he actually has an office here, hahaha</p>
<p>
[quote]
Laissez-faire is economic anarchy.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>are you joking </p>
<p>free markets are often the most stable and efficient way to do things possible, and they self-regulate by making greed compete rather than having an "impartial" government **** everything up with bloated, non-competitive bureaucratic nonsense</p>
<p>
[quote]
runaway inflation, widespread unemployment, high debt,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>excessive governmental controls cause all that, too, we figured that out like 40 years ago buddy</p>
<p>"Laissez-faire is economic anarchy."</p>
<p>That's actually a compliment. Anarchy is a system without a predefined authority. Anarchy's response to the need of order is spontaneous order which free markets provide.</p>
<p>Capitalism never fails, socialism on the other hand always fails. It never survives.</p>
<p>As for Capitalism being the cause of the Great Dpression, I doubt that and there has never been a valid report from any economist even Keynesian economists that have stated this.</p>
<p>The real reason as accepted by most economists, is the higher taxed implemented by Hoover. caused a great constriction of money and thus markets went dry. When you put a $.02 cent tax on every check, rich people will not pay it and will constrict there money from the capital markets. </p>
<p>Higher taxes that are just more regulations are what always leads to economic crashes. Free markets work fine and are self-maintaining and altering.</p>
<p>"The government needs to intervene in the economy, or it'll fall apart -- runaway inflation, widespread unemployment, high debt, etc. -- because humans are greedy. You can't expect them to regulate themselves. Laissez-faire economics is for capitalists."</p>
<p>And who do you propose to regulate the government? The laws of supply and demand regulate a free market society. As history has shown, socialist governments know no regulations and inevitably manipulate the economy for personal gain. As you correctly point out, "humans are greedy." Greedy capitalists start businesses that supply goods and services to people who need them and provide jobs for the unemployed. Greedy bureaucrats turn to graft. Which do you prefer?</p>
<p>Ran Paul is a good guy,but unfortunately,he won't win finally.</p>
<p>Ron Paul needs to tone down the crazy.</p>
<p>And this is coming from a fellow libertarian.</p>