By Manila Ryce
Published Wednesday, May 16th, 2007, 4:38 pm
Filed under: Videos: Debate, War, World Issues, Videos, US Politics

16 Responses to “Second Republican Debate - Ganging up on Ron Paul”

1. “However, unlike Kucinich, Ron Paul is a capitalist. The idea that we ought to go back to the good ol’ days of the Industrial Revolution is perhaps too major a flaw to overlook.”

   Where the heck did you get this idea? He is in favor of limited government, bound down by the constitution.

   brody
   05/16/07 at 4:56 pm
   

2. Dream on, dude.

   Roddy
   05/16/07 at 5:26 pm
   
3. 

   @brody
   Paul’s philosophy on the role of government is that it should not intervene with the market. The Declaration of Independence gives us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but does not gaurantee the economic means to obtain them.

   Manila Ryce
   05/16/07 at 6:09 pm
   

4. The Capitalist thing could be a problem, right now our governmnet is bouught and sold by big business and big money, big religion. Ron Paul did not say we should never have attacked Iraq which would have been a better point than saying the people over there hate us for this and that. He should have stressed the point that “Iraq was never a threat to us”
   What about Mike Gravel?

   Lee
   05/16/07 at 8:55 pm
   

5. “Are they actually cheering for a presidential candidate who doesn’t believe in habeas corpus? Um, do they know that means he doesn’t believe in the bill of rights?”

   Habeas Corpus for the entire world? Non-US citizens are now get these entitlements at our tax dollar expense?

   So now our Bill of Rights is now also extended to all citizens of the world? Might as well through in education, health care, and three square ethnic meals a day to boot. Sure why not, we can afford that for the entire world also.

   Sheesh, this is some far-out liberalism going on here.

   c
   05/16/07 at 10:46 pm
   
6. 

   @c
   I assume you’re unfamiliar with the fact that US citizens have been denied habeas corpus, and that you’re as equally unfamiliar with the Geneva Conventions. More importantly, I assume you’re simply a troll and so I won’t go into much greater detail than that. Should you prove otherwise and reply I’d be more than happy to debate the matter with you.

   Manila Ryce
   05/17/07 at 6:56 am
   

7. And yes, @c, non Americans do deserve habeas corpus. Rights enumerated in the US Constitution are examples of (and not an exhaustive list of) universal human rights. They are rights that all human beings deserve, no matter where they are born. They are in our Constitution to codify our own government’s responsibility to acknowledge and protect those rights.

   Willingly violating human rights is destructive to the subject as well as the perpetrator of the violation.

   Nathan
   05/17/07 at 11:36 am
   
8. 

   I gotta say, I don’t think simply being a capitalist automatically disqualifies anyone from anything, no more that simply being a socialist or a communist should. There are much more important issues, at least to me, that would make me think twice about voting for Senator Paul, his stance on abortion, for example.
   That being said, I’ve noticed that the candidates that seem to appeal to me, regardless of party lines, are the Constitutionalists. And as far as the Republicans are concerned, I think Ron Paul has one of the most rational, reasoned voices in the group. Ron Paul seems to have a very empathic perspective of our role in the world, as well as the role government should take in our lives. He is one of the few politicians, for example, who knows the unconstitutionality of the Income Tax, and how the Constitution itself had to be amended Twice in order to impose it on the working class. He has spoken out about this on many occasions, and it is the driving factor behind his policy of “the less taxes the better.”

   Not bad for a Capitalist.

   In the end though, I am only saddened, for Paul, just like Kucinich with the Democrats, seems like he’s being strung up by his own party. There’s a reason why the Constitution starts with We The People, and guys like these two seem to know it. Perhaps it’s merely the condition of the system or the prevalence of ignorance, but it’s only a matter of time before the media will convince the majority that these guys are wackjobs.
   Where these guys can be called crazy and people like Bush and Cheney can be called great leaders…it’s a sad state indeed!

   PapaFigue
   05/17/07 at 12:45 pm
   

9. Kucinich doesn’t care about our Constitution he is currently drafting legislation to take all handguns from all Americans.

   Read it for yourself here is a link to download H3440 Congressional Record in which he admits as much
   http://abuse-of-power.org/modules/wfdownloads/singlefile.php?cid=1&lid=61

   Nathan Fluet
   06/4/07 at 2:56 pm
   

10. Capitlism is Not Evil!

    It is time to end this myth. Capitalism, and I mean true capitalism, not the over regulated near fascist capitalism that we have now, is a brilliant system which deliberately causes the betterment of a society as a whole. In laissez faire capitalism, the ‘invisible hand’ forces the self-interest (yes, greed) of individual people to work towards improving the life’s of everyone. Capitalism provides only one way for a person to improve oneself, to satisfy ones greed, and that is the accumulation of wealth by convincing other people to give it to you of their own free will. To do this, a person must produce a product or service which is valuable to the person they want to sell it too. Assuming the the person is interested in their own well being or happiness, they will only buy products or services that either a) improve their life or b) make them happy. In this way, Capitalism improves the quality of individual life in a country by utilizing a force which can be counted on to be always present and completely non-buyist (i.e. unaffected personal or public ideals)- Greed. For if their one thing that you can expect from every person you know, is it not their own thoughtless self-interest?

    At the same time, it is necessary for any capitalist system to be completely lassiez faire (unregulated). The government should do no more than prevent monopolies and enforce truth in advertising. If the customer knows exactly what they are buying and at the same time has a choice between several different products or service all proposing to provide the same benefits, they will naturally choose the one which is best for their well being (cheap/good), thereby rewarding the person who provides the best service and forcing the other providers of that P or S to attempt to find an EVEN BETTER version of that product or service or go out of business.

    In essence, greed can provide a better quality of life to a society than the goodwill of a government. Greed, when used as the propellant for a capitalist system, is never ending and unchanging, as opposed to the selfless rule of the government, because in any and all governments, no matter how democratic, it always turn to pure self interest sooner or later.

    If you have any problems with this, or would like to help me spread the the truth about capitalism in order to change our current corrupt version of it, please email me at GarrisonSeeber@gmail.com.

    Garrison Seeber
    06/13/07 at 4:32 pm
    
11. 

    @Garrison:
    While you make valid points regarding Capitalist Theory, I must call attention to the difference between theory and realization. Afterall, in theory, Communism and Socialism are by far the most utopian social systems, and yet not once have these in many ways great ideas ever manifested in their true forms. We have no disagreement in the potential for corruption in human society, and Capitalism is just as vulnerable to it as any, perhaps even moreso. It might have something to do with the idea of celebrating greed, as it seems you inadvertently did in your statement.
    There is a subtle, but critical difference between Greed and Self Interest. Greed is merely the desire to accumulate regardless of actual need or benefit. Self Interest, on the other hand, by its very nature, would discourage this type of “gorging” simply because one would recognize that an exorbitant accumulation of things ultimately leads to exorbitant Maintenence of those things. This is the law of diminishing returns, and is typified by sayings like “That which you own, ends up owning you.” Anyone who’s income, no matter how large, is almost completely consumed by the maintenence, upkeep, debts, and/or security of their possessions should be very familiar with this concept.
    Now in theory, this idea of Self Interest would take care of a lot of society’s problems within the private sector alone! The environment, workers rights, and universal healthcare would take care of itself because businesses would realize the benefits of a healthy workforce as well as positive PR and low medical costs of their employees are all in their best interests! Unions would be unnecessary, as would most outsourcing because the benefits of a strong, healthy, and proud workforce would be of obvious interests to these companies. However, these utopian visions are nowhere near the reality because corperations more readily act out of greed instead of self interest. Greed looks for the short term, the quick buck. Greed looks to reward the few at the expense, and exploitation, of the many. And despite the large, short term gains, this kind of Greedy, Unethical Business ultimately does nothing but harm society.

    This is reality. Are there strong ethical businesses out there that strive for win-win with its people and still turn profit? Yes, absolutely. But the vast majority of big business is motivated not by Self Interest, but by Greed. These companies have no national identity, no pride, and few scruples. They are Machiavellian in their approach, striving to merely Appear benevolent rather than actually Being benevolent.

    So I agree with you. Capitalism in and of itself doesn’t have to be evil. If motivated by true Self Interest, which focuses on the long term as well as the relationship within a society, as opposed to Greed, which focuses on short term gain regardless of cost or harm, it can be a great system. Indeed, it is the only system in which there can be great mobility in economic classes. One can start with nothing, and through hard work, ambition, and drive, one can achieve a higher economic status than when one started. Unfortunately, as we both agree, that is not the state of Capitalism in this day, and that is what keeps me from taking a full Libertarian viewpoint. Despite the capability of the private sector and free market to deliver superior goods and services, neither are accountable nor obligated to do so. And while I don’t really trust in the Government to be able to deliver on some of these things, such as healthcare, environmental protection, and worker’s rights, I trust the Private Sector and the Free Market infinitely less.

    And that my friend is a sad state! It’s as bad as turning to the Democrats for refuge against Republican rule. Talk about double fucked!

    PapaFigue
    06/13/07 at 9:50 pm
    

12. @PapaFigue:

    I see what you are saying about the difference between Greed and Self-Interest. If we accept that a Capitalist system can only truly work when driven by self-interest and not greed, the question becomes: “How can we force greed to be one and the same as self-interest?” I.e., how can we make it so the only way to make any profit, or to accumulate a significant amount of wealth, is through pure self-interest?

    I think, once again, the answer is complete capitalism. If we take away the excessive regulation and taxation that is imposed on our current system, the competition and the viciousness of the competition will increase exponentially. This competition will make greed-driven short term gain irrelevant. Long term gain, driven by self-interest, will be more profitable. Therefore, people driven by greed, which I believe I can safely say is almost everyone who can afford to be, will be forced to use self-interest to satisfy.

    I will openly admit that there is a serious problem with this theory. It relies on the idea some entrepreneur will sacrifice large short term gain in order to be more profitable over a long period. It is questionable whether this would be done. If you assume that all people will be driven by greed as soon as they are able to, then you must assume that no one will sacrifice their short term gain in order to gain a long term advantage. It therefore does not matter how much competition you allow in the marketplace, because every new competitor will be driven by greed as soon as he makes enough money to support their self.

    So, again, how do make self-interest the only way to satisfy greed?

    Garrison Seeber
    06/14/07 at 4:12 pm
    
13. 

    @Garrison
    I honestly don’t think there’s an answer to that. The best thing I can think of as far as the role of government and the free market is giving Incentive. Right now, our government has a system of penalizing and subsidizing. As a business, if you break an EPA law, there are stiff penalties, or if you’re an oil company, you get free gov’t money to research oil. Now I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have penalties nor subsidies, but I think smart Incentives could be more effective than either.
    Look, Money is the lifeblood of the business world, right? What if, in the case of the EPA example, instead of, or coupled with, any penalties that would be incurred in breaking environmental law, the gov gave a sizable tax credit to any business that proves it’s policy of protecting the environment. Whether investing in green energy, or refitting and replacing old and/or wasteful equipment and processes, or whatever, if it means saving tens of thousands, or even millions of dollars in taxes, what business wouldn’t Want to go this route?
    I know this would work because we do it right now. In California, one of the reasons why the consumers went for the gas guzzling Hummers instead of the ass kicking Electric Cars was because our Federal Government gave a $100,000 tax credit to any one who bought the HumVee! By contrast, whoever bought an electric car only got a $2,000 credit and the ability to ride in the carpool lane. If such a bone headed consumer decision can be persuaded in such a way, (and with a free 6 figure tax credit, it’s perfectly understandable!) imagine the impact a policy like this could have in a positive way!
    If businesses and individuals are given incentives such as these for things like investing in green energy, retrofitting their cars into electric or bio-diesel, solarizing their homes, recycling, etc., then not only will it benefit themselves as well as society in the long run, but they’ll save a shitload of money in the short term. It’s a win-win!
    And that, my friend, is the closest I can get to simultaneous appeal to Greed and Self Interest. It’s so crazy, it could just work!

    PapaFigue
    06/14/07 at 7:58 pm
    

14. @PapaFigue

    I think your proposal of an incentive system could very well work to force business to work in a fashion resembling self-interest, but I also think that by involving government, you negate the otherwise excellant effects of such a self-interest. Self-Interest can only have a beneficial effect within an atmosphere of extreme competition. By giving incentives for certain things, no matter what they are, the government forces people to stick to a sole way of doing things and thereby prevent innovations. Without innovation, there is no possibility for competition- Whichever companies which are already established will continue to hold a either a monopoly or a relatively consistent market-share balance with their ‘competitors’. That is basically what our economy is at now- except, as you pointed out, our current incentives are holding the market at a state which not at all beneficial to the environment.

    So, in the short term, it is probably is a great idea to give individuals and business incentives for doing things like you mentioned, because if we are going to settle for a stagnant economy, we might as well have one that is good for the world in general. But, in the long run, I think we need to find away to answer my question that does not involve the government. We cannot sacrifice competition to encourage pure self-interest, because without competition self-interest does us no good. It can cause an economy which might be good for the health of the planet but which does not improve society, ie it doesn’t improve the standard of living. It doesn’t make the standard of living worse, but because of the lack of innovation, there can be no competition-driven improvement, only artificially driven improvement, which is unreliable and slow.

    And yes, before you say it, I think that almost all, if not all, involvement of the government stifles competition in some way.

    Garrison Seeber
    06/15/07 at 11:38 am
    
15. 

    @Garrison:
    And that’s the rub, isn’t it? How much government involvement is too much or too little? I think the idea behind encouraging competition is a sound one, but as little as I trust the government to do a bang up job in this area, I trust businesses even less! Even with our Federal Anti-Trust laws, corperations who should be competing in a free market and allowing the consumers to determine their success are instead buying up, and thusly eliminating, much of their competition! If the spirit of Capitalism is competition, then how is this in anyone’s best interest? It’s a classic example of Greed vs. Self Interest, where Greed too often wins out.
    I wish the conditions existed where Government involvement in the market wasn’t necessary, but I think you’ll agree that, sadly, this isn’t the case.

    PapaFigue
    06/15/07 at 7:22 pm
    

16. @PapaFigue

    I suppose we must chalk this debate up to inconclusive, although you have helped me see several important points (and I hope I have done the same for you).

    I would like to point out that in your last statement, you say that competition is not in anyones self-interest, and I must disagree. Although every business would make more money if they forgo competition in favor of monopoly or trust, the idea of capitalism is that if this was done, another competitor from inside or outside their organization would (in their personal greed) sell them out and undercut their price. This is a good theory, but as the age of Standard Oil and friends proved, it is not always true in application.

    I will see you in other threads!

    Garrison Seeber
    06/15/07 at 10:52 pm
    

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>