9 votes

What Percentage of the GOP do we want?

Ron Paul argues that "war" does not beget free markets (or free trade). Because wealth is redistributed to the Supply Chain and Warmongers (the profiteers of war) and according to Mises limits the power of the consumer to rule via the point of sale (POS).

Voting and Lobbying -- Is this an act of war, or forced-redistribution?

War is a Groupist Fight (one group against another)
---Impact: Grows the Size of Government

Voting is a Groupist Fight (one group against another)
---Impact:Grows the Size of Government

Corporations Lobby for Monopoly Positions as Supply Chain Engines when War comes along
---Impact:Grows the size of Government

Corporations and PACs Lobby for Monopoly Position of Authority over their Party (are we going for 10%, 20%, 80%, or 100% control over the GOP?)
---Do we have target goal?
---How much statism do we want to leave in power?
---Impact:Grows the size of Gov't

How did RP suggest we handle Vietnam -- by what mechanism did we have the greatest impact over their gov't? Do you remember that speech? It was via "trade" -- correct? Free-Trade.

Wouldn't it make sense then that the greatest way to influence a country from within is via "consumer-sovereignty" (i.e. free trade)?

Now go back to the OP question -- Do we want all of the GOP or only some. If only some, then how much? If we say we want all of it, is that a declaration of war against those who already control it?

(Do you agree with Ron Paul that "war" does not beget free-markets, it only increases the size of gov't?)?

Put it this way -- what was the economic trade amount between Vietnam and America in the early 60's?

What is the dollar value (in terms of leverage, regulation, law generation, and cash) of the GOP -- what is it worth?

Is it more valuable or less valuable than the trade between America and Vietnam in the early 60's?

The answer to the latter questions tells you whether or not you are in a "war" with Republicans -- now go back to RP's question "war or trade -- which one begets free-markets?"



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Mises

"Government is always government of the many by the few. Power is therefore always ultimately on the side of the governed, and the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. The struggle for freedom is ultimately not resistance to autocrats but resistance to the despotism of public opinion. It is not the struggle of the many against the few but of minorities against the majority." L. Mises

American people failed, voting stations were virtually empty. It turned out, most of Blue Republicans and Alex Jones populists did not show up or we did not have the numbers to start with.

reedr3v's picture

Good quote, thanks.

And the OP is correct. Yet when a minority has its back against the wall and is the early process of securing a viable alternative economy, IMO it is ok to use the political process in self defense, as RP does by using the Republican platform to teach the principles of peace and liberty.

And no matter if one chooses the political path or not, we all must be working to build the alternatives in our daily lives.

I want to have 0% of the GOP

I want to there to be a third party.

There are 36 Third Parties

Take your pick

Should I have said

viable?

Should you have?

What is viable is getting a GOP central committee seat and powering out the neocons. This is what Ron Paul asked us to do.

After after 16 years as a Libertarian, and 17 years as a Decline to State party voter, Ron paul convinced me to join the GOp and take a Central Committee seat. The only regret I have is not doing this in 07.

I have 33 years of Third Party and Indy experience and NOTHING to show for it. I have less than a year of GOP experince, and now I'm looking at a seat on a committee on my Board of Supervisors. I am vetting candidates, issues and educating my elected officials about Ron Paul stands.

So when it comes to viable.. the GOP has many open seats on central committess and I would hope that you would join Ron Paul, Rand Paul, me and hundreds like us who are working to Restore Constitutional Government, rather than being controlled by th PTB because as a third party youre in for law suits designed to bank rupt you from the beginning.

Third partyies are not established by the wee people, they are established by the eleite who can afford the law suits, or rather, can't afford to have the issues they don't want made public.

Sounds to me like it's damned if you do

damned if you don't.

I Wish You Would RePost This

...every day Granger. Until people get it.

fonta

So the "elite" create the Ballot Box and Fund both Parties

and you think that something will happen that has never happened once in all human history will happe -- that the "elite" lose position from some "flaw" in the system they created?

This type of logic is why African-American's must point all blame for slavery on a few whites and not include the very real truth that without "other" African "sellouts" whites would of had a harder time kidnapping the slaves.

My point is this -- There are always sellouts (that's the rule not the exception).

Do you want this far more factual truth to be "reposted" until people get it?

You CANNOT end collectivism by collevist efforts.

Voting is Circumvention of Consumer Rule
---Therefore it is pereptual war.

Even if you won the GOP "somehow" (via magic) you still have to contend with the Electoral College and with the DNC or some "new" party started by disgruntled GOP members.

We're talking about a multi-billion dollar (direct) to multi-trillion dollar (indirect) organization -- who plays ping-pong with another multi-billion to multi-trillion dollar per year organization.

People like the "war of politics"

Ron Paul said that "TRADE" and not "WAR" won over the communists in Vietnam -- that trade is always better than war (for peace and consumer-sovereignty - Mises*)

Question: Is the Ballot Box and Lobbying a Free-Market Good?

War ONLY imploys non-market tools
---Nuclear Weapons
---Most Military Weaponry
---Weapons of Mass Destruction
---Tarrifs
---Embargos

None of those are market tools --- the power of those who wield those tools come from Bankers and Corporations (1st order) and from Consumers-who-Vote / Consumers-who-Lobby (2nd order).

Banks and Corporations Revenue Stream:

1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest
3) Gov't Intervention

Consumers must use the tools of consumption to strip their power (revenue) -- once this is "known" then the sellouts will have no power; you can curb voting or collective effort; but you cannot alter individual purchasing trends, it's too widespread (too many people active each day).

But, by all means, go back to what has never worked once in all human history.

OctoBox

What happens at the Central Committee level affects local ballots. It takes "magic", so to speak, for an issue to get on the ballot, that was not vetted locally. I don't like the work "magic", so let me rephrase that.

There are more of us than there are the elite. I'm sure that people on my Central Committee are instruments of the elite, being placed there to make sure things don't go too far. So I'm not expecting "magic", but what is happening, is that my being there is a voice, and a vote, that was not there before.

The issues, like plastic bags, taxes, marijuana, increases in city jobs, garbage removal and routes, GMO foods, Laura's Law, and Republican candidates are things we have recently disscussed. We can approve, endorse, decline, or not comment on these issues, and also, having a seat gives one room in the local paper with some weight, that this is how we affect our local communities and their money.

Here in Mendo, Measure G was passed, meaning, our Sheriff sells tags to people who grow medicinal cannabis, He refuses to go after people that have recommendations from their doctors for somoking cannabis, and there are jobs for people that are pro-cannabis. Measure G had to pass the Central Committees to get on the ballot.

This was done on the local level. For the State and Feds to come in and arrest anyone that is paying the Sheriff for tags, or paying a doctor for a recomendation, they have to go through the Sheriff first, and to do this, which they have done, it becomes a HUGE local issue, with headline news in all the local papers, interviews, everyone talks about it, and there is support for the victims.

Locally, we outlawed GMO foods being grown here. What has happened is the demand for our organic grapes by other counties and their wineries have climbed tremendously. We have raised fines for poaching abalone and so we have more abalone this year than in previous years. None of this would happen if it was not for people seated on central committees speaking up and voting, as this isn't so much a dictatorship, yet.

The Elite, to get back at us, built a recreation center, with olympic size heated pool, slides, fountains, "lazy river", skate park, dog park, conference center, state of the art equipment.. it's ridiculous and incredibly expensive. The place was opened as basicaly free to the public, and then the money troubles began, and then the taxes to pay for it, and we are not done with this fight, (AIG was behind building it). The goal is to make the place so expensive to live here through overtaxation, common people can't.

Our hospital is the same, overbuilt with state of the art equipment, but we have so many talented holistic healers here, that the hospital has many problems and many people would rather go someplace else, so free rides to San Francisco are offered by VA, and Cancer society and local groups. So these are examples where the money invested did not bring a return, and other options replace them.

Being on a central committee is one way we affect where we live and how well we live. The Chair and a vice chair go to State, and regional, Central Committee meetings, and I am not vetted to do that, yet.

Meanwhile, the Libertarian Party and Green Party really don't count. No one frankly gives a damn and we don't hear much from them. They can occupy or protest and it's just another road side attraction.

If you look up Central Committee on Google, you will see Soviet Union, China, Communist.. which makes me wonder, when we lost the war with Vietnam, what did we win over?

Finally, I believe both parties were infiltraited by Neocons to out the conservatives from the GOP, and Neoliberals to out the liberals in the Democratic Party, MSM protects the Neos, as a NWO is the UN Agenda 21: Sustainable Development, which actually claims the world can only sustain 500 million people.

I'm not a violent person, and war is no solution to me. I am a Catholic and my religion is under attack. Joining a Central Committee may not be a perfect way to fight, but it sure beats hoarding food and ammo while waiting for an apocolypse. Also being selected as a Ron paul delegate, even though Romney won, so I won't be going to Tamps, it was an honor to see my name on the Sec of State page under RON PAUL DELEGATES.

Local Level is great -- I'm not arguing against that

But to think the Internationalists are being defeated via local "politics" is to not understand where their revenue streams come from.

I've outlined this many times (where they come from and how we are connected to it) and that has nothing to do with "local central committes"

I Am Merely

...agreeing with Ron Paul and with Granger for doing exactly what Ron Paul has suggested after trying the 3rd Party route and surmising that it is impotent. Just a tool to divide and further knock off any branch group that thinks it can go up against the two-headed beast.

Some of us have gradually come to the awareness that the only *political* way (while we do many other things locally) is to cut off the Republican Samson's hair one lock at a time. In doing so, perhaps we are breaking out of the box of the biggest group think scam in history. We can do something. One individual at a time.
Those one individuals with similar convictions and goals do not constitute a *collectivism.* We haven't evolved much but we are beyond the law of the jungle.

And, yes we certainly have a lot to contend with. Regrettably there is no sudden victory that will turn everything around. And, yes the ballot box has been bought and paid for. Yes, sell-outs are the rule.

Perhaps it is people of principle who understand the strategy and can't be bought-off that Ron Paul is counting on. Perhaps Granger is one of them. Perhaps seeking office at the local and committee level of the one head of the beast is the best way to fuel the kind of consumer tool box you advocate; however, that too will take time. Perhaps *good people* in politics is the one thing that hasn't been tried in a very longtime.

It appears to me that you are basically against anything and everything. Read and reread what you wrote above and the OP.
What exactly are you advocating and why do you think this is a viable place to post anti-Ron Paul strategy?

fonta

The GOP has not lost any hair

They just see the "warchest" potential of the new PAC -- they will use the PAC language and pass some "near" PAC bills or regulation; but bills and regulation can only ever grow gov't it cannot curtail it.

You can't wait for people of principle -- we have to educate on the "evil-they" revenue stream and how we support it -- then people can put all their energy into trade.

Until people see Voting and Lobbying as a Side-Picking War they will not be able to understand RP's admonishion that by trade and not by non-market tools do we bring lasting peace.

What are the tools of a free-market?

Anyway....

So Are You Against Ron Paul's Strategy

...of infiltrating the "evil-they" of the Republican Party and attempting to gradually change it from the inside or do you think that is impossible? If impossible, what do you propose?

Am I just a bleeding heart or a Pollyanna to believe that people of principle (who can't be bought) within the evil system can educate about the "evil-stream" of revenue? Do you see politics as just an endless and meaningless series of bills and regulations that appear on the surface to curtail the revenue stream, but actually strengthen it?

Heard a simple line in a movie last night that stuck: Back room business men at a political gathering rubbing their hands together and saying "while politics divides us, business will unite us."
Do you believe the political parties are meaningless shells that pretend to represent the "ideals" of the masses while enabling the octopus to grow more tentacles?

I am assuming you are a Libertarian of some stripe. If so, what...if anything...does the Koch take-over of CATO imply for the Libertarian Party and aren't the Koch Bros (masters of the evil revenue stream) really all about strengthening the crony-capitalism majority in the Republican Party. Isn't that the evil under-belly of the idealistic Libertarian Party?

You say PAC language. Assuming you do mean Political Action Committees and their now unlimited war chest potential. Could you expand? I am interested.

fonta

I don't think Ron Paul ever expected to have "this movement"

He has said many times that his role in Congress is to "educate" not to change -- he's a realist; good God could imagine the heartache if he went back every year thinking he was going to change it all?

The "evil-they" will make money off of anything that has a mixed revenue bag.

1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest
3) Gov't Intervention
---Subsidies
---Bailouts
---Lending
---Tax Loopholes
---Barriers to Entry
---Price Setting

As long as the revenue is "mixed" then they will join it -- the "mix" means not dependent solely on consumers (meaning fixed -- a mixed economy is a fixed economy). In essence they want guarantees against consumer sovereignty.

Gov't Leverage and Power (above):
1) Consumers-who-Vote
2) Consumers-who-Lobby
3) Corporations-who-Vote
4) Corporations-who-Lobby
5) The Senior Politician
---Controls Warchest
---Controls Special Committee Seats
---Thus Controls Junior Politicians

The latter is why politicians must sell out -- you can't have enough RP's to fix the game in our favor because "game fixing" is what they want -- they bet on both sides (they are fully hedged) they just need the war to continue -- they need us to engage as voters-lobbiers.

It's more like a corporate takeover than a war

The GOP set up the rules, we follow them to gain control and influence.

Corporate takeovers are allowed under free trade.

A corporate takeover that is a 50 - 50 battle

let alone our 98% (establishment) to 2% (RPers), is absolutely a war.

It's only NOT a war when it's 100% -- then again if everyone agrees to take over a corporation then the "change" has already happened and there's no reason to change titles.

Is the War on Drugs a "War?"

Wars begin in the Will.

Is a False-Flag an act of war -- a false-war-starter.
---An act of Civil War really

War is not gunfire -- it is an attempt to force another to comply via non-market mechanisms -- it is a circumvention of consumer-will.

The Vietkong did not want "western imperialism" --- mostly because of their time with the French.

But France was our Ally and we didn't want communism to take hold, more importantly we didn't want the French financed opium fields to run dry -- it was a war-for-drugs (Iraq is a war-for-oil and Afghanistan is war-for-drugs, metals, supply-chain-routes).

So -- Vietkong did not want to "consume" western-imperialism -- so America used non-market coersion (meaning non-competitive coersion) to circumvent the consumptive-will of the Vietkong.

Uhhhhh -- It can be I guess

It is (if guilty) a violation of law.

Did you read all of what I wrote or followed the argument from above?

If not I was talking about Voting and Lobbying being a perpetual act of war (by definition).

War uses non-market means to circumvent consumer will or to overthrow a group of consumers within a geographic region -- usually a group of people who do not want to "consume" American Foreign Policy.

Voting and Lobbying is a non-market means to circumvent consumer will.

Is that clear, how voting and lobbying circumvents consumer-sovereignty, consumer-will, and consumer-choice?