<p>Is that your attempt at sarcasm, firewalker? I guess it would be a much better world if we were all just smug, apathetic and condescending like you are, huh?</p>
<p>I'm all for Ron Paul being president. I agree with him on most issues (but certainly not all)</p>
<p>Look, I'm extremely libertarian in a lot of ways, but Ron Paul will never be President, and I don't think he should be. Why?</p>
<p>A couple of quick things:</p>
<p>1) He's trying to juggle a pro-life personal view with his libertarian leanings... and not succeeding especially well in my opinion. I can't deal with pro-life politicians, and the fact that his libertarian tendencies don't overrule his pro-life tendencies on this issue (and they rule supreme on almost all others) makes me nervous and wary.</p>
<p>2) He wants to abolish the Fed and return to the gold standard. That's wacked out. Any economist worth anything will tell you in an instant that since we abolished the gold standard, economic growth has gone at rates unheard of under the whole commodity money system.</p>
<p>3) His environmental protection ideas, while really great on paper, would never work in real life. They just wouldn't work. Please, someone challenge me on this, because if you honestly think they would, you either haven't thought about it clearly or you're delusional.</p>
<p>Other than that, I like his ideas (especially his foreign policy). The problem is, those 3 issues are enough of a deal-breaker that I wouldn't vote for him. I know people will say something here like "yeah, but he actually wouldn't be able to change the Fed" or enact most of his other policies. I just don't want a President who's stomping around with the intent to do ridiculous crap like that. Even if he doesn't get it accomplished, the trying is a huge waste of time, and generally not at all productive.</p>
<p>Thus, no Ron Paul for me.</p>
<p>American politics:</p>
<p>You get two/three/four rich guys (sometimes women) who suck. You have to pick the person who in your media-fed opinion sucks the least. That's basically it.</p>
<p>I agree with you on points 1 and 3, but the Fed shouldn't get all the credit for the upward economic trend since its inception. Also, the Fed is a private corporation that has more power over the US currency than the federal government but has ZERO accountability.</p>
<p>eddy:</p>
<p>Don't use the standard libertarian objection to the Fed. Yes, it's a private corporation. Yes, it's unaccountable. Yes, it has tons of power.</p>
<p>But as much as that's a bad idea in most case, I don't see any alternative for the Fed. I mean, do you? Macroeconomic management is a hugely complicated thing to accomplish. Those who are tasked with doing it must be absolutely uninfluenced by things like popularity, vote-gathering, or anything like that. And as much as we all jump to distrust organizations that are complex, have opaque processes, and aren't accountable, we must provide a better accountable, but equally impartial alternative. And in an era where macroeconomic policy can hugely influence stock markets and so forth, when we have so much hot money and prospecting going on, I think that to hold deliberations privately is really the only realistic options.</p>
<p>Finally, while the Fed shouldn't get all the credit for the massive economic growth rates since its inception, a macroeconomic management tool like it is the only thing able to deal with certain economic crises, things like the Great Depression (and yes, I know it did a terrible job with that one, but it could have fixed the issue had the bankers been quicker to react).</p>
<p>One can be pro-life and be libertarian. Libertarians believe the absolute rights are life, liberty, and property, and the pro-life libertarian believes an unborn fetus has those rights. Although, the pro-choice libertarian would think that the unborn fetus has no rights yet, and the woman's right of liberty trumps that of the fetus. It depends on how you look at it.</p>
<p>Pollution almost always occurs on the commons or public property, because it is easy to tell the government to look the other way. Rarely does a company dump garbage on private property, unless the government grossly ignores private property rights, which it did in the 19th century.</p>
<p>The question is, why should there be central planning of the economy? The Fed credit boom of the 20s and the mismanagement thereafter caused the Great Depression.</p>
<p><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2354618193217305530%5B/url%5D">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2354618193217305530</a> -- Gold Standard Conference. Ron Paul vs. Charles Partee, member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. November, 1983. Approximately one hour long. Enjoy!</p>
<p>1of42</p>
<p>I didn't realize that I was using the "standard libertarian argument". Thats a pretty marginalizing way of putting it, as if to say that since this argument is common among one political party it must be wrong. (I don't consider myself a libertarian, by the way) </p>
<p>As for the actual matter at hand, the Fed or an agency like it could still exist and function as an advisory panel with regard to the issues you raised, and yet not be given the unlimited power that it is awarded in our current system, i.e the right to print money which goes against the constitution.</p>
<p>And as far as the great depression goes, well...someone a little deeper into these conspiracies than I am would surely argue that the fed benefited from the great depression and had no vested interest in reacting quickly. Perhaps theres no way to really no, but in my mind at least its a wash.</p>
<p><strong><em>no way to really KNOW</em></strong></p>
<p>"Is that your attempt at sarcasm, firewalker? I guess it would be a much better world if we were all just smug, apathetic and condescending like you are, huh?"</p>
<p>Considering we live in a country where a majority popular vote loses out to judicial fiat? And please, please never call me apathetic again, when the first time I was legally eligible to vote (in my state primary back when I was 18), I did (and again, during the subsequent general election for the US senate). Smug and condescending? Your failure to acknowledge reality. But then again the truth is sometimes hard to swallow, so I don't blame you.</p>
<p>eddyx77: The Fed doesn't print actual money. If you think it does, you are sorely misinformed about the actual functioning of the reserve system.</p>
<p>My point about the "standard libertarian argument" was not meant to marginalize it just as a flippant dismissal, but rather because the argument is meaningless. Yes, it's not subject to oversight, but does that mean it's automatically bad? That argument alone doesn't pass muster - a better alternative needs to also be provided to the Fed by someone making that argument.</p>
<p>As regards giving the Fed oversight, any body that oversees it and is accountable to the people (i.e. elected) would be disastrous. Do you understand how little the average person knows about macroeconomics? Think about that, then think about how powerful a political tool macroeconomic policy could be - a set of policies which few voters understand, affect everybody, and are often quick to change the economy. It would be absolutely terrible, in every way.</p>
<p>Thus, the controlling entity for macroeconomic policy must not be subject to democratic oversight directly. Yes, democratic officials should maybe be able to advise it, but no more. This really is something where it needs to be left to the experts, and not to politicians who would inevitably be tempted to manipulate macroeconomic policies for short-term political gain.</p>
<p>bah:</p>
<p>1) Decent point regarding pro-life, except that a fetus is undeniably part of a woman's body, or at the least intimately connected to the woman's body. Thus, to force her not to abort, while it could protect the unborn fetus's life (if you believe the fetus is independently alive) must inevitably infringe on her rights to do whatever she wants to her own body. Thus, libertarians who believe that fetuses are alive must at the least consider their infringements on the mother's liberties, while those who believe a fetus is not alive are inevitably pro-choice. Therefore, based on this, hard-line pro-life philosophy cannot truly have a place in a libertarian candidate's policies.</p>
<p>2) Pollution in the form of physical garbage, yes. But the really dangerous pollution today is air and water pollution, who affect hugely diverse stakeholders. This is not something that property rights can fix without enormous expenditure on enforcement (and I'm talking so enormous it's unimaginable), which entirely defeats the purpose of the policy. Much as we may not like to let the government regulate this issue, there is not really an alternative.</p>
<p>3) Yes, the Fed messed up during the '20s and the depression, but that doesn't mean that the system is necessarily flawed, just that that incarnation screwed up. Nothing more.</p>
<p>"A Traditional Non-Intervention Foreign Policy"</p>
<p>2008 Presidential Candidate Ron Paul at the Johns Hopkins School Advanced International Studies in Washington DC.</p>
<p>September 11, 2007</p>
<p>Firewalker-</p>
<p>The truth is hard to swallow??? What truth is that exactly- that my opinions and actions in life don't matter, that I will never make a difference, so I should just stop trying to do anything? Is that what you are implying?</p>
<p>I will call you apathetic as much as I like as long as you keep mocking people for desiring to discuss current events. And I don't care how many times you voted in your life, that doesn't amount to anything. You are sitting here complaining about the 2000 election being overturned by the supreme court and then you "prove" you're lack of apathy by stating that you always vote. HAHAHA. Why don't you actually DO SOMETHING of value in our society instead of ridiculing people who want to talk about the political situation in their own country? </p>
<p>I don't care what you think about the value of my opinion or the unimportance of an open dialog on a forum such as this. Just keep your apathetic drivel to yourself.</p>
<p>"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. And then you win."
-Ghandi</p>
<p>I like Ron Paul a lot. I am a capitalist to the extreme, but am also dissapointed with the current administration and the Republican Candidates, many of whom are willing to sacrifice the personal liberties of our people. Paul really is the asnwer.</p>
<p>ron paul is legit.</p>
<p>I'll vote for him</p>
<p>trojan8606: That's one major problem with the current Republican field. Lots of Republicans actually like none of the front runners. Personally, if I were voting for these people, even though Ron Paul's better than almost every other candidate, I still couldn't vote for him, based on the objections I listed above. Saying hat I couldn't vote for anyone is said, but true.</p>
<p>if you want the real story on the fed and our money system and not the bs spin that the media puts out, I suggest reading The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin</p>
<p>Ron Paul at the Chicago rally: 3 PM EDT 9/22/07</p>
<p><a href="http://www.justin.tv/ronpaul%5B/url%5D">http://www.justin.tv/ronpaul</a></p>
<p>Live.</p>
<p>I meant 3 PM CDT. It's still going on though.</p>
<p>He's my favorite of the Republicans, the secong being Romney. I can't find a single Democratic candidate I like, which is weird, because I'm practically a socialist. John Edwards is my favorite, followed by Hillary, but I'm a bit scared of the taxes they may impose. Once again, this is weird, because a socialist is supposed to like taxes.</p>