By Manila Ryce
Published Thursday, June 14th, 2007, 6:24 am
Filed under: Videos: Debate, Videos: Political, World Issues, Videos, US Politics

30 Responses to “Stephen Colbert Interviews Ron Paul”

1. “Libertarians such as Paul cite government as the enemy of freedom rather than the true cause of tyranny in a democratic society - capitalism”

   That’s not exactly true. LIbertarians recognize a need for small government, but they think that big government comes at an unacceptable cost of individual freedoms.

   As for the “workers owning the means of production” theory….that’s wonderful! You should go out and start a company and run it just that way. You have the freedom to do that, because this is America. People aren’t verboten from running their private business the way they choose.

   Ever read Ibsen’s “Enemy Of The People?” He uses a timeless example to illustrate that liberalism is as self-serving as conservatism, and to show that the majority isn’t always right.

   What Chomsky fails to recognize that there is always an autocratic elite class, and that socializng the means of production will not change that. It will just hand private property from one group (the stockholders) to another.

   A libertarian will never advocate the use of force to achieve a social agenda,and that absolutely includes taking property from one group to hand it to another group.

   We’ve never had true capitalism i this country, so it’s unfair to judge the economy of today using that phrase. What we have now is the exacr scenario that true conservatives have been predicting since the ’50’s - corporatism.

   AngelaTC
   06/14/07 at 7:10 am
   
2. 

   @AngelaTC
   “As for the ‘workers owning the means of production’ theory�.that�s wonderful! You should go out and start a company and run it just that way.”

   Thank you for the suggestion, but I already have and it’s working out great. You’ve helped by adding your own intangible goods with your comment. On a side note, we also engage in participatory management amongst our staff.

   “…socializng the means of production will not change that. It will just hand private property from one group (the stockholders) to another.”

   Again, there are more options to choose from than State Capitalism or State Socialism.

   “A libertarian will never advocate the use of force to achieve a social agenda,and that absolutely includes taking property from one group to hand it to another group.”

   Are we assuming that this property is rightfully yours to begin with?

   Manila Ryce
   06/14/07 at 7:41 am
   

3. Yes, Paul has some skeletons in the closet that are damned scary.

   Ron
   06/14/07 at 9:31 am
   
4. 

   The hand-raising exercise at the end of the interview was brilliant, and if it shook up some of Paul’s more progressive allies, good. I like Paul as a politician and I think we need more people who will boldly state new ideas — but he’s too much of an extremist for my tastes.

   On the topic of capitalism, socialism, and the libertarian ideal:

   I’m just not sure what the “true cause of tyranny” is. It seems to have a lot to do with wealth and ownership, but how do we separate the influence of corporate capitalism from the influence of government? The powerful economic actors and the government have always been intertwined and, in many cases, one in the same. We also know people are corrupted by power even when it has nothing to do with wealth or capitalism — just look at what happens when those who feel powerless get hold of an automatic weapon.

   As for Chomsky, I’d say he’s well-aware of the resiliency of an elite class who controls power and wealth, and I don’t think he advocates “socializing the means of production” as a panacea for this. But come to think of it, I’m not exactly sure what he advocates as an alternative political-economic system — he’s a prolific interpreter of problems, but short on solutions.

   Solutions are hard. One guy who is at least trying, and coming from an unquestionably good and positive place, is Gar Alperovitz.

   evmonk
   06/14/07 at 11:10 am
   
5. 

   I’ve said this before, Ron Paul’s ideology is indeed pretty extreme, and some of the things he believes in are the same things that keep me from identifying myself as a Libertarian. But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some fantastic ideas! I would be thrilled if we got rid of FEMA, Homeland Security, The Federal Reserve, NAFTA, and NATO! This collection of banks and bureaucracies have done nothing but drain our nation’s money and resources while destroying the public trust with their incompetence. Hurricane Katrina, a predicted and easily tracked desaster, proved the ineffectiveness of Homeland Security and FEMA. The Federal Reserve is not even a government institution, it is run by the nation’s 4 largest private banks to impose a tax on the labor of working men and women of this country. This is one of the most unconstitutional travesties imposed by our government, which is why the Constitution had to be amended TWICE in order for the income tax to be legitimate. You think your income tax goes to paying for government services? It doesn’t. It goes strictly to pay the interest on the multi-billion dollar loans the government takes out in order to wage their wars. The INTEREST! It’s the same as getting a credit card bill and only making the minimum payment. It sucks!!
   NAFTA and NATO, well, there are videos on this website of Dennis Kucinich talking about the shortfalls of those very organizations. He’s on the money as usual, so check him out.

   The only real ideology that I disagree with Ron Paul about is the idea that government should have no role in the free market. While the tenets of Self Interest would theoretically keep businesses on the up and up, Self Interest is too often overshadowed by Greed. Consequently, that leaves the government as our only chance to hold big business accountable for anything. Now that’s a pretty slim chance, and lately, a nonexistant one, but it’s the only option we really have. That pretty much sucks, it’s like turning to the Democrats for help against the Republicans. Just like in Team America, pussies can’t fuck assholes, so it leaves all of us kinda screwed.
   *sigh*
   I thought I had a point, but…fuck it. Just fuck it.

   PapaFigue
   06/14/07 at 12:37 pm
   
6. 

   @PapaFigue

   Good points all. I think that the Bush administration’s influence on FEMA had as much to do with the response to Katrina than anything else though. I’ve heard that under Clinton it was a surprisingly well-organized and effective bureaucracy, but I honestly don’t know much about it. Homeland Security, NAFTA, NATO, etc. are different beasts, but I think there may be SOME way that government can provide these economic and security services. Clearly Paul has thought about all of this quite deeply, but I don’t like how he dismisses government influence absolutely. It worries me. Also I hear he hates black people.

   Can you recommend any articles on the income tax and how it’s distributed; I’d like to learn more. Even if our income tax goes mostly to total BS right now, if it was eliminated entirely how would government support those crucial services like roads, schools, etc.?

   evmonk
   06/14/07 at 2:25 pm
   
7. 

   @evmonk
   Here’s what Chomsky personally believes in, and the point I was trying to summarize in this post. You can read the full article here.

   “”My personal visions are fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism…

   When I speak of classical liberalism, I mean the ideas that were swept away, in considerable measure, by the rising tide of state capitalist autocracy. These ideas survived (or were re-invented) in various forms in the culture of resistance to new forms of oppression, serving as an animating vision for popular struggles that have considerably expanded the scope of freedom, justice, and rights. They were also taken up, adapted, and developed within libertarian left currents. According to this anarchist vision, any structure of hierarchy and authority carries a heavy burden of justification, whether it involves personal relations or a larger social order. If it cannot bear that burden — and it sometimes can — then it is illegitimate and should be dismantled. When honestly posed and squarely faced, that challenge can rarely be sustained. Genuine libertarians have their work cut out for them.

   … In particular, the anarchist vision, in almost every variety, has looked forward to the dismantling of state power. Personally, I share that vision, though it seems to run counter to my goals. Hence the tension to which I referred.

   My short-term goals are to defend and even strengthen elements of state authority which, though illegitimate in fundamental ways, are critically necessary right now to impede the dedicated efforts to “roll back” the progress that has been achieved in extending democracy and human rights. State authority is now under severe attack in the more democratic societies, but not because it conflicts with the libertarian vision. Rather the opposite: because it offers (weak) protection to some aspects of that vision.”

   Manila Ryce
   06/14/07 at 3:47 pm
   

8. Ron Paul is not a racist!
   http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron%20Paul
   http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

   “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
   The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.”

   night and day
   06/14/07 at 4:30 pm
   

9. Ron Paul is not an extremist. He has no desires to simply walk into office and axe government. If you ask him what his ideal government is, then yes, it is very different from what we have today. Most people’s ideal government is - Paul is just honest about it. His ideal government would adhere to the constitution of the United States. Much of the power would then be decentralized amung the states, and less would reside in the federal government.

   However, given the huge indebtedness of our entitlement programs (50 trillion, net present worth), I think we may need someone MORE extreme than Paul. Spending cuts are needed in more areas than just the Iraq war. Of course, much of that is medicare, which could become much cheaper if we stop the government subsidization of employer-provided insurance, and move to a freer system.

   Manila, I liked the article, but I think you may have one misconception. Paul (and most libertarians) do not advocate state capitalism. Most believe capitalism (similar to how we think of it today) will arise naturally as an effecient means of production, but it is not required. It should be noted that the first target of Ron Paul’s wrath is not welfare or eduction, but corporatism. If freedom reigns, the superior ideology should become apparent.

   If Chomsky thinks most corporations autocratic, then, well, thats just wrong. Most corporations are beholden to their customers for wealth and their workers for labor. The few that aren’t are usually monopolies created or aided by government force. Of course, those who own coporations are sometimes wealthy and powerful, and so have a lot of sway with congress. But this is going to be a problem with ANY system - powerful and/or charismatic people will always try to gain more power than they should have. So due to state interference, the balance of power tips from the consumer and the worker to the corporation (this is nothing new in the history of the world). Paul’s view on this is pretty pragmatic, that we should look to the constitution to safeguard us from such abuses.

   G
   06/14/07 at 6:09 pm
   

10. This article doesn’t make any valid points. It’s foundation is so weak. Friend of a who? What are you talking about? I thought Colbert highlighted differences in a very complimentary way- one that allowed Ron Paul to make his points shine clear. Ron Paul was eloquent, intelligent and consistent with his message. What a great appearance!!

    Totally opposite
    06/14/07 at 7:53 pm
    

11. I see, so let me take this to a root level, “in which industry is democratically owned and controlled by the workers, aims to bring democracy not only to the community, but to the workplace as well.”

    My question to you: Do I OWN myself? Is my body my property? If so then it naturally
    follows that everything I make, think or do is also mine. Now if I make something and
    trade it for something you have, that is capitalism at its basest form. Don’t like your job? Quit. Start a business. That is capitalism and liberty. How would democracy in the workforce you talk about change that? If my preference is outvoted I am still left with either living with it or quitting. (assuming you don’t vote that away) It’s just an assumption that the majority is always right.

    The part that amuses me about alot of the left is the assumption that corporate power is bad (i.e. wal-mart) which I will grant. it destroys local communities by its method of centralization. But the part that makes NO sense is these very same people who are against corporate concentration of power then seek to increase the concentration of government power power to fix the problem.

    It is the CONCENTRATION of power that is the problem regardless of what the structure is that holds it. That is why Paul WILL not get corporate donations UNLIKE hillary,obama,mccain,or ghouliani. He is promoting the decentralization of all power structures whether governmental or government subsidized corporatism. Really if Hillary
    can get millions from corporate donors do you really think she is a true threat to corporations?

    John Q
    06/14/07 at 9:43 pm
    

12. I think eventually when the government retreats from propping up unions and large corporations, the workers, the entrepreneurs, and the capitalists will come to a better agreement about how to divide the fruits of everybody’s labors. There have been very promising signs that a cooperative company where the workers share heavily in the profits of the company and have a great deal of influence over company policy is both workable and competitive. Such a company enjoyed both high morale and high productivity in its workers, and the workers were amply rewarded for it.

    In most studies of companies that were astounding long term successes, they took on characteristics of a cooperative. Although there are plenty of capitalists who will be willing to make a quick buck and rip off both workers and entrepreneurs, the organization of the future will be the cooperative.

    As John Q says, the concentration of power is a problem. Highly concentrated economic power in corporations are extremely dangerous, but highly concentrated coercive government power is even more dangerous. The progressive desire to use the concentrate coercive government to keep the corporations in check, but when they legitimize the concentrated coercive government power, they cannot prevent the corporations from influencing the directions of that coercive force. And when it comes to find ways to game the system and government bureaucracy, corporations often figure out ways to manipulate the government far more quickly and can stay one step ahead of the public in abusing and creating loopholes. At the state level, I have seen many special interest group attempt to use the government to eliminate competition and then charge consumers a higher price after they have eliminated the competitors.

    However, not all government is bad. When there is enough oversight and all participants are highly engaged, government power usually cannot be abused and policy enacted are usually equitable. Take for example local government responses to large corporations such as Walmart. Holding Walmart responsible at the local level means that Walmart needs to demonstrate that its stores actually benefit the local interests and impacted parties.

    At the federal level, if we can keep the regulations simple and very transparent, federal power should be used to keep corporate power in check. However, our current system is far from simple and opaque, and that’s when corporations can manipulate the system to their own benefit.

    I really think that many liberals and libertarians are natural allies. We only disagree on the means to our common goals.

    TanGeng
    06/15/07 at 12:07 am
    

13. Good points, TanGeng and John Q.

    Progressives seem to think they can use empowered leaders to seperate the good from the bad. However, people have been trying that for centuries, and as far as I know its never worked with any consistancy. I would love to have the “right person” in charge, but we’ve never had that as far as I know, not even Jefferson or Washington. A system which counts on having the right people in place is not a good system at all. We need a government that can be run by devils and can do no harm, which was the system the founders devised. Sadly thats been eroded continually over the years.

    I think liberals have the right ideas, they just haven’t thought through the consequences of everything. I think most would benifit from some study of praxeology (i.e., Austrian Economics), especially how it applies to political power structures (hint: the invisible hand of self-interest doesn’t drive politicians to serve the public good like it does entrepreneurs).

    G
    06/15/07 at 12:41 am
    

14. once again, it’s very simple:

    libertarianism leaves room for socialism. if you want to start a business and/or a cooperative and have the workers own the means of production, fine. if you want to pay into a universal health care pool, fine. you are free to do so.

    if you want to start a business and own the means of production yourself and hire employees to work for you in exchange for wages and turn a profit that you can invest to grow your business–under state-sponsored socialism, you are not free to do so (or you are heavily impeded from doing so under a system of “progressive” taxation and redistribution).

    in other words, socialism leaves little room for liberty.

    so, once again, i fail to see why one would choose socialism over libertarianism when there are clearly more options on the one side rather than the other.

    it’s called coercion, folks. that’s the difference. “charity” forced out of you at the point of a gun.

    -b-

    Bon
    06/15/07 at 1:54 am
    

15. I saw the interview as well. I agree with what one of the posters above said - it is good see candidates speaking boldly about these issues. Of course the crowd cheers when anyone, right or left, speaks boldly against the war, the Patriot Act, etc. But people cheer just as loudly for Bernie Sanders when he makes similar arguments. There is no “Ron Paul Revolution” going on - there is mass anger and discontent at the status quo being sopped up by anyone who breaks decorum even a little bit and tells part of the truth.

    I notice a lot of libertarians that post here go on about “coercion” and “force” - but what exactly is Paul doing with his candidacy? If he is playing to win, then he is playing to put himself and his agenda in the seat of state power. Theoretically all of the institutions of “force” will be under his control. He may wish to dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, and he may even be successful, but let’s leave that aside for them moment. How exactly will his decrees abolishing this, that and the other governmental institution be put into practice? A Democratic controlled Congress would never allow Paul to wantonly destroy the Department of Education and dismantle the public school system, or enviornmental programs, etc. And even if they did, every decision he made would be premised on the monopoly of violence of the state that he is the titular head of. What would happen to people who resisted?

    At any rate, I’m no Chomskyite but I do agree with his vision of a worker-owned and controlled economy. Libertarians need to learn lessons from history - concentrated wealth always leads to concentrated power. There is enough wealth concentrated in the top 1% of the American ruling elite right now to begin seriously address a lot of the pressing economic issues of our time, from disasters on the scale of Katrina to immigration and healthcare and beyond. Yet we are always hearing two different stories from the libertarians - on the one hand, corporations are bad, because they have help from the government; on the other hand, massive concentrations of individual wealth are ok, because supposedly it was earned (in the same way I “earned” 500 dollars at the blackjack table in Vegas). I’m still waiting to hear exactly which of the wealthiest people in America do not owe their wealth corporations and “government largesse”. Ron Paul on the Daily Show actually citied Bill Gates and said he had no problem with his massive wealth. But isn’t Microsoft a big bad corporation? Does the fact that the government trust-busted it suddenly make it a good and positive entity? What about all of the other billionares out there who made their fortunes in a similar manner? When it comes down to it, libertarians want us to have faith that governmental power is just the result of bad ideas, not the result of concentrated wealth. The two are so intertwined that is hard to see from first hand observation which gives rise to the other. But it is obvious enough to me that the so-called era of “big government”, initiated by the New Deal, was a crusade against massive concentrations of wealth, not an offshot of it. Otherwise why did the American industrial leaders try to overthrow FDR and install General Smedely Butler as the American Furher? Google the Business Plot to find out more about that.

    The libertarian ideas about property that animated our founding fathers were premised on one thing - land onwership. That is why Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, to put into motion the idea of the agrarian republic. The idea was that every citizen could be a property owner. But this vision was inconsistent with the realities of industrial capitalism, which necessitates a class of propertyless wage workers, people who must sell their labor in order to live. Why would anyone who had their own property want to slave away to make profits for someone else? Now there is no more land for the grabbing, or at least not enough to make a serious difference. There are however massive groupings of machines which can only be operated through the collective efforts of dozens, if not hundreds of thousands of individuals. This means that in our time, the true republican (small r republican) vision can only be fufilled through each individual owing a share of society - not because it was doled out to them in tiny amounts by the reluctant ruling elite through the so-called profit-sharing schemes of today, but because human, social, and civil rights only have meaning when they are supported by economic rights.

    Joe
    06/15/07 at 7:40 am
    

16. Erm, Paul does not want to dismantle the public school system. Public schools are run by the states, the DoE is more of a central bureaucracy for them. The states really do most everything thats useful in the USA.

    Libertarians see a distinction between making money using force (i.e., government) and making money using a series of voluntary transactions. Of course there will always be concentrations of power, in ANY system, though they may not always be economic power. Libertarians then see the need for clear constitutional limits on what the government can and cannot do, just like what was written into our constitution (though not clearly enough). I really don’t know if the wealthiest people in America got so wealthy with government help or not, if not libertarians would be fine with them.

    The removal of coercion does not require coercion itself. De-funding the war in Iraq, for example, requires no force, even if some might respond to that with force.

    G
    06/15/07 at 7:56 am
    

17. “Are we assuming that this property is rightfully yours to begin with?”

    If it is earned through your work, then yes, the property is rightfully yours.

    Garrison Seeber
    06/15/07 at 10:42 am
    

18. I think Ron Paul gets a bad rap sometimes because people don’t understand why he wants to abolish most of the federal government. It isn’t that so many of the functions they provide are unnecessary or bad, it’s that they should be done at the state level. There isn’t any reason why welfare or education funding has to be federal rather than state. There isn’t any reason why we need federal prohibitions on this thing or that, when the states can do it just as well. And doing it at the state level allows people to have more control over their governments. If the people of California want to have socialized medicine and the people of Wyoming want to have free market capitalism with no government involvement, there isn’t any reason why they shouldn’t. Yet if the federal government steps in and makes those decisions on behalf of everyone, it destroys diversity of choice.

    Montana
    06/16/07 at 6:16 pm
    

19. It is WE, the people, who give the top 1% their power by taking jobs at their factories and buying their products, as well as fighting their wars for them or submitting to other forms of enslavement. But, it is always WE who have the power. The lofty goals of socialism would be better served by a truly free market. Forcing people to share is not co-operation. It is not peaceful. According to the constitution and common sense, its not the job of the federal government. People can choose to unite and form cooperatives and share their wealth in a truly free market. There will never be a substitution for participation in your own life. If you don’t like microsoft, don’t buy those products. Some people believe there is only so much pie, and they think everyone deserves an equal slice. I think we live in a world of unlimited and boundless wealth, (energy), and that if someone really wants more pie, they can manifest it. I personally believe that giving and receiving are two sides of the same coin, and are equally important in life, but the govt. should have nothing to do with regulating this.

    keef
    06/17/07 at 10:50 pm
    

20. Revolutionary Socialism is much too narrow an idea to effectively deal with the problems Ron Paul wants to eliminate. I can’t even imagine how you could enforce it across the U.S. without re-attempting communism. If it works for you, great, but don’t you see what will happen if you try to force it on everyone? I don’t see any reason why you can’t apply your principles and by succeeding, encourage others to follow your lead.

    It is so discouraging that left and right both have a vision of organizing a better way of life by force. “Ah, if only WE had the power!” I gave up on all that. It is self-delusion.

    And I cannot grok your comment that “captialism is the true cause of tyranny in a democratic society”. “Capitalism” is a loaded word and should be tossed out. You must be talking about something different than I understand, but using the same word.

    Brian
    06/21/07 at 1:18 pm
    

21. Holy Crap! I’m amazed to see so many articulate Libertarians post here. :) I’m also shocked by some of the other comments. How can some people still believe in this socialist rhetoric? Oh well…

    That’s all. Everything worth saying has already been said. I just wanted to put in my two cents.

    I know it probably won’t help much but…GO RON PAUL!!!

    Ivy
    06/21/07 at 9:47 pm
    
22. 

    @evmonk:
    I haven’t been ignoring your question, I’ve just been very busy. I don’t have any articles for you to peruse at this time, though when I have a breath, I’ll be sure to post some links.

    The short version goes like this, (break out the Pocket Constitution!):

    Up until 1913, there was no such thing as a tax on the wages of labor for working men and women of this country. There was also no such thing as the Federal Reserve. There was, however, an Income Tax, with the term “Income” meaning basically the Revenue generated by Business and Trade. So at this time, all Income Tax was generated by Corperations and collected by the Department of Treasury. And even then, according to Article 1 Section 8, these taxes couldn’t be collected unless they were apportioned, that is, spent evenly for the benefit of all states according to their respective populations, (excluding of course all Native Americans and 2/5ths of Blacks.)

    The Federal Reserve was founded by the four most powerful Private Banks, with the blessing of Woodrow Wilson, in order to take the burdon of collecting taxes from the Congress. The idea was simple. In the past, if the Government wanted to do something, like start a war, a lot of times they had to go out and basically raise the funds, using things like donations and government bonds. That turned out to be too much work for the poor Congress. The creation of the Federal Reserve was to ease this kind of fund raising. Now, with it’s own Bank, all the Congress had to do was take out loans! However, the businesses and corperations cried foul, stating it unfair to be the sole bearers of the Government’s financial burdons. It could’ve ended there, but instead, the Congress and the Pres along with the 4 Banking Giants advocated and passed the 16th Amendment, which gave Congress the power to collect taxes from ANYWHERE, and without apportionment! Now the wages of the labor of every working man and woman in the nation were up for grabs, and the once free country was no longer free.
    The States could have stopped this, had they voted not to ratify the Amendment, but I guess they were run by Democrats cuz the Amendment was ratified Feb 3. 1913 by 3/4 majority. So basically we, the working men and women of this country, were fucked by everyone. (Do some digging though, you may live in a state that has never ratified it, which means that you might legally not have to pay taxes!)

    I know I meant to be short, and this wasn’t without commentary, but this is the basic history, with just a bit of opinionated slant, off my memory and without actually looking anything up. Please feel free to confirm or disprove my comment with your own research.

    As far as your question of “where the money for roads, schools, etc.” comes from, all these are pretty much handled by the States. (You don’t really believe that these essential services didn’t exist before 1913, do you?) Let’s see, off the top of my head, and again please feel free to corroborate with your own research at your leisure, Schools are paid from Property Taxes, as well as permits and licensing fees, as are Police and Fire Departments. Sales Taxes take care of the regulatory functions of the State governments, as well as adding funds to the afore mentioned services. Gasoline Taxes take care of funding Road Maintenence. What else is there…? Oh yeah, the revenues from Duties and Tariffs also go toward security and Police and stuff….

    Again, all these goods and services existed before the Income Tax, and a lot of goods and services today come also from the private sector. This is why Constitutionalists like Ron Paul, and I would like to think Dennis Kucinich, are opposed to the IRS and the Federal Reserve. I think they have different ideas on where these essential services should come from, but they share the same idea that a tax on wages derived from the labor of working men and women is against our Constitutional Rights as citizens of this nation! And for those of us who are pissed off at the nearly constant state of war that this system has enabled, funded by loans written against OUR paychecks, I would think we would see the light by now. These guys sure seem to!

    Kucinich/Paul 2008!!

    PapaFigue
    06/22/07 at 9:32 pm
    

23. Papa, I have to correct a little mistake you made.

    I think you left the impression that the income tax is responsible for all federal revenue. It accounts for about 30-35% of all federal revenue. (Imagine, 35% going to pay the interest on the debt to the Fed.)

    There are many Federal services, like interstates, and even FEMA that are worthy of funding. But things like the DHS, ATF, DEA, and on and on, are not. They are just money funnels, mainly.

    Anyway, I think the Federal government could get by on 30% less revenue. It did in 2000 (as compared to 2007). And think how the economy would do if everyone had their entire income tax in their pockets!

    Alejandro
    06/24/07 at 6:21 pm
    
24. 

    @Alejandro:
    I think you may have missed the part where I mentioned the other sources of government revenue, such as sales and property taxes, and duties and tariffs. As far as FEMA, I’ll have to disagree with it’s “fund-worthiness” after it’s abyssmal performance last year.

    But as far as the government getting by on 30% less, you and I are in total agreement. The problem is that the government is so incompetent at managing its debts that now it NEEDS that extra 30% just to cover the interest on the multi-billion loans it owes to the Federal Reserve, not to mention the numerous foreign countries.

    Last time I calculated my income, It turned out that anywhere from 15-22% is taken every year. So yeah, goddamn right I think about what I could do with that money in my pocket!

    PapaFigue
    06/25/07 at 5:10 am
    

25. This is exactly what I expected to find out after reading the title hen Colbert Interviews Ron Paul - The Largest Minority. Thanks for informative article

    Jakob
    07/2/07 at 9:38 am
    

26. […] such as the Republican Debates. The ideological labels can get confusing. The point is made at The Largest Majority that while libertarians, such as Paul, and “the left” may agree on withdrawal from Iraq […]

    TO SEE CLEARLY « DUCKPOND
    09/6/07 at 7:23 pm
    

27. You know, I didn’t read every comment in this section. The first few, then I skimmed down to here and thought “I should respond to this.”.

    I am a Libertarian registered as a Republican (was before the Paul movement, your voice isn’t heard unless you are in the main stream parties though Bush almost convinced me to jump ship), so that pretty much decrees what I think of Ron Paul, and this election, and your ideals. I don’t think I could add or say anything to particularly change your mind HOWEVER, I would like to say thanks for being fair about this, especially when other of like mind to me started to counter your arguments.

    We Paulites (or Paul-tards as our detractors often like to say) can be pretty vicious at times, and I apologize for that. It reflects poorly on us, and on our candidate, and unless provoked through hostility I do not endorse that sort of behavior. Granted, when main stream media has done everything to try to tone down and smear your candidate from stuffing words in his mouth, to calling him an isolationist- heck, some liberal democrats have even tried to call him a fundie Christian who is against gay rights (that’s a lie) we tend to get a bit sore and our choler can get out of hand.

    You took in the views of others with an open mind, showed respect, and was very courteous. More than I can say about the main stream GOP, who won’t even let the man speak on the Iowa forum (we have to win in New Hampshire if we are going to do anything).

    Thanks.

    Slightly unhinged lesbian in Oklahoma
    01/2/08 at 2:45 am
    

28. Excellent Blog!Very well designed and focused.

    Robert Eckert
    01/27/08 at 11:30 am
    

29. wahah capitalism is our enemy? Since when? Government has been causing more issues than most would care to address in the recent 10 or so years. It’s time something is done to reduce their freaking power.

    Bob X
    02/5/08 at 10:18 am
    

30. oh and I forgot to mention. You state that libertarianism is freedom for those who can afford it. Technically, I’ll quote Neil Boortz. “There are no such things as poor people in America. They are simply America’s underachievers.” This is 100% true, think about it. If everyone is given the same chances at education (which they are, it just happens some states children are more motivated than otehrs, which can’t be solved by more strenuous school work additions.) then everyone has teh chance to get a career and therefore make money. Immigrants do it, why can’t America’s poor do it? Because they are lazy bums who just feed off the social welfare checks they receive monthly. All the democratic party wants to do is take money from the barely hanging on middle class people, who are trying to better their lives and give it to the unemployed joe schmo who is going to turn around and buy crack with it.
    Clearly you need to get a grasp on reality on this topic. Capitalism isn’t anyone’s enemy, because it is usualy comprised of hard working people. I will repeat, AMERICA HAS NO POOR, rather it gives a chance to not become poor. If the welfare system in the U.S. is done away with, you would see a lot more people getting off their asses and actually doing something to stimulate teh economy and help out the nation, rather than leeching from it.

    Bob X
    02/5/08 at 10:29 am
    

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>