0 votes

Ron Paul is Wrong Paul (How One Democrat Sees Us)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ron-Paul-is-Wrong-Paul-by-S...

If there is one thing that is clear in the great debate about ObamaCare, it is that the Libertarians are now as strong a force as the recently discredited NeoCons. The Campaign for Liberty, and libertarians generically, are all enjoying a boon based on the fear of government.

It is worth noting an important difference between the NeoCons and the Libertarians. The NeoCons had a blind faith in the power of the American military and industry, whereas the libertarians have a blind faith in the free market. NeoCons did not really trust a free market. For them, the government was a tool of personal power by creating privileges for the oligarchy of banks, insurance companies and munitions manufacturers. It was a gravy train with a lot of boxcars.

Libertarians, in contrast, tend to be free-thinking individuals who are sensitive to the hypocrisy of both Democrats and Republicans. They do not trust any government program or statist control of their personal lives. What they do believe in is the old Adam Smith straw that the economy somehow magically ‘self-regulates.'

It is important that Progressives understand the differences between NeoCons and Libertarians. The NeoCons collapsed on their failures. Progressives did not win the political battle; cause and effect simply caught up with NeoCon idiocy. Progressives again seem to be losing the political battle, as the recent vote that excluded single-payer demonstrates. Progressives have been unable to draw a distinction between what the government can do well, and what the government should not do. The Libertarian position, fed by fear, principles, a general distrust of government incompetence, and a faith in free enterprise is where the policy debate is centered. Standing in the center of this debate is the unlikely hero, Ron Paul.

Compared to the NeoCons, Ron Paul appears to be a reasonable Republican. He has long made the Federal Reserve a target of his scorn. He sees the Fed as a power unto themselves with an unregulated monopoly on the creation of money. Ron Paul is a fiscal conservative. Attacks on the national bank have a long American tradition, going back at least until the days of Andrew Jackson. Jackson also attacked the aristocracy the the NeoCons represent in modern times. It is no surprise then, that libertarians refer to themselves as ‘patriots.' They believe they are fighting huge intrusive government in the likes of Sam Adams, Thomas Paine and other American revolutionaries. They want their guns, their money, their land, and they do not trust lawyers who disrupt the sanctity of the free marketplace.

If Progressives are to make any advances, then they need to make a better rebuttal against both the conservative Republican ideology (shared by many Democrats) and the Libertarians.

continue reading at the link
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Ron-Paul-is-Wrong-Paul-by-S...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Haha

We should get the progressives to ally with us on the foreign policy issues
and the neocons to ally with us on the federal reserve

Then we can control the battlefield

Is the 'ponzi' analogy for insurance...

a good one? While both take in money that they can't pay back to everybody, insurance does not pretend that the money you pay (and maybe even some profit) is always yours and you're entitled to get it back as the ponzi scheme does.

Insurance companies ARE much of the problem and need reform, but are they really ponzi schemes?

--------
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose

'Cause there's a monster on the loose

Paul and Schiff

both contend that if not subsidized the cost of health care would naturally come down to a competetive level. this would mean the reduction of BOTH private and government subsidization... They also make a distinction between 'insurance' and 'medical coverage'...

I would trust their economic expertise over that of the author of this article any day!

The Writer Is Wrong !

He basis his whole argument on insurance paying for medical expenses.

Whereas, Ron Paul wants to let the people decide how to pay for medical expenses.
Yes, they can decide on an insurance carrier, but they can also negotiate their medical bills with the person or institution that provided the medical care, before hand or how they're going to pay.

I myself have a dentist that accepts Gold coins for dental work with no insurance carrier involved. Dentists, Doctors, and medical facilities, are private enterprises, and the way "Doctor" Ron Paul talks they, as a group, resent government or insurance companies dictating how to run their private businesses.

beesting

could someone please define

a "progressive"... who are examples?

I heard Gerald Celente use this word recently... how do 'progressives' like to distinguish themselves?

Reading wiki, sounds like Kucinich...

Here's a list I found... http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0630-20.htm...

Michael Moore seems to be topping the list

why don't they agree

that a 'social' elite class, deciding the fate of the masses, is just as bad as a corporate elite class, deciding the fate of the masses?

The term "progressive"

comes from the root word "progress"(verb), meaning to move in some direction.
In the case of the communist/socialist paradigm, the word "progressive" is a code word they use, because it's relatively uncomfortable to acknowledge what they really are, so they use a euphemism.

It implies a "vector" of movement.
In this case, a "progressive" is someone who is moving away from the founding Constitutional principles of America, and toward a form of national or international communism.
That's the vector of movement.

Of course, they won't admit that, and will offer all sorts of obfuscating definitions, because if they could admit what they are, they wouldn't be using a euphemism for it to begin with.

I heard Chomsky and Kucinich use that term

progressive...but here in Canada the ruling party is PC Progressive Conservative lol
________________________________________
Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.
-- Ron Paul

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

lol...

now THAT requires some thought...

It is a pretty fair piece

It is a pretty fair piece considering the ideological position he's taking. I feel a lot better about this guy than a lot of neocons I've debated thru the years.

"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that." — Alan Greenspan

I posted

I posted the following comment under the article:

Nobody has attacked the entire insurance paradigm more than libertarians. This is a fact, If you had payed any attention to us at all, you would have seen articles again and again attacking the entire insurance paradigm, and pointing out how Lasik, Cosmetic, and all other procedures not typically covered by insurnace has plummeted in price, increased in quality, standardization and safety over the years.

Since this entire article is a hit piece against Ron Paul specifically, I'l point out just a single recent article (though of things he's literally been saying for years).

"Insurance providers seem to have successfully equated health insurance with health care but this is a relatively new concept. There were doctors and medicine long before there was health insurance. Health insurance is not the only conceivable way to get health care. Instead, we seem to still rely on the creativity and competence of politicians to solve problems, which always somehow seem to be tied in with which lobby is the strongest in Washington.

It is sad to think of the many creative, free market solutions that government prohibits with all its interference. What if instead of joining a health insurance plan, you could buy a membership directly from a hospital or doctor? What if a doctor wanted to have a cash-only practice, or make house calls, or determine his or her own patient load, or otherwise practice medicine outside the constraints of the current bureaucratic system? Alternative healthcare delivery models will be at an even stronger competitive disadvantage if families are forced to buy into the insurance model. And yet, the reforms are sold to us as increasing competition."

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=218

Also, he has repeatedly said he does not believe we are moving towards socialism, but rather more corporatism: click here

Though other writers have significantly more elaborated on what these would be (health insurance savings or allowance accounts, ect). Because frankly, Ron Paul is'nt a busy man, and is frankly not a demigod.

"Libertarians contradict themselves. They want to be free of contracts, but they also expect for the government to protect whatever contracts they make."

A contract exists between two parties. A jury of peers, not corrupt, unelected government bureaucrats, exists for solving disputes. The unequal power of insurance companies exists because of "Too Big to Fail" regulatory policies written by the insurance companies that have led to the existence of only a very small number of mega-insurance companies. (Reminder: over 80% of the insurance industry is owned by the banks).

I understand this is a piece trying to inform progressives on how to attack us. Too bad you're not going to help them because you're so fatally misinformed to begin with.

Wow, what a great reply.

Thanks, for taking the time to post it.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Awesome comment *))

That IS a great response!!
Thank you patriot - we need more informative comments like yours under that article...many dems will read it.
________________________________________
Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.
-- Ron Paul

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

This author makes me laugh.

While some of his statements seem to have foundation, and some even are accurate, his vision of "what libertarians are" is completely off-target.

As a result of his lack of understanding of what libertarians are, or what libertarians want, he cannot come to a viable conclusion, and that's why the article fails.

I do think that he tries to be objective and realistic in certain ways, but he just doesn't see.

could we contact him - educate him?

The reason I posted it is because we need people like him on our side understanding our ideas in a proper manner...besides when I did google Ron Paul news today I got his article at the very top.

Thanks for a bump BigT.
________________________________________
Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.
-- Ron Paul

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15