33 votes

Ron Paul Defines Libertarianism




Comment viewing options

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

let ron paul finish his

let ron paul finish his thoughts dammit

Lack of Regulation is the problem


This is the part where Ron Paul always loses me.

The Rothschilds are not going to "care about their customers happiness".
The Rockfellers are not going to self-regulate.
J.P. Morgan is not going to stop their financial corruption on their own.
Wall Street is not going to stop their fraudulent derivative swap schemes on their own.

So who is ever going to stop them (if not the government)?

We got into the situation that we're in, precisely because there was no clear law, and no clear regulation against crooked Bankers lobbying Congress, and bribing them (or funding their proxies) to take complete control of everything.

Banks are not "people".
Foreign Banks are not even Americans at all.
And Corporations are not "people".

Concentrations of private wealth have dictated all the terms, and have ruined the Country -- by reinventing government into just their own little private play toy (which always marches forward with their thuggish agenda).

So what we the people have to do, is take the government away from the Corporations and Banksters, and operate it ourselves. We need people power....and not Corporate power.

A stronger system of laws and regulation, would have made private bankers controlling all our money -- an illegal construct. A stronger system of laws and regulation would have made the presence of Corporate Lawyers, and Lobbyists in the halls of the U.S. Capital illegal (and subject to immediate arrest).

We got into this mess because a bunch of rich guys had the freedom to co-opt and overthrow the government using their wealth to erect and create phony institutions that have all the real power, and control everything (Central Bank, The U.S. News Media, The CFR, The CIA, Wall Street think tanks, etc.).

It was not the presence of law and regulation that made this possible. It was the absence of law and regular that permitted this corruption to flourish.

And lawlessness always assures that the powerful (rich) guys win, and everybody else is screwed.



Cyril's picture

Are you serious? So, you want even more involvement of the state

Are you serious? So, you want even more involvement of the state in education?

You want total collectivist indoctrination of the people's kids?

Woa. I wasn't expecting that.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

You're just putting words in my mouth...


I never said anything whatsoever about "indoctrination of the people's kids" (and i never even said a word about 'education' either).

Go back and read what I said.

The Robber Barons, the big Banksters, the foreign control, the big Corporations -- none of them are going to ever operate honestly, be constrained in any way, or have their tight control over our government removed .... by the absence of law (regulation).

This is what we essentially have today: either the absence of Law, or Law which Powerful factions do not have to comply with.

The result is rampant corruption.
The result is private power dictating public policy and international policy.
The result is War Profiteering, and a corrupt money system for the benefit of International Bankers.

The absence of Law will never, ever stop this.
Only direct confrontation from Government (like Andrew Jackson -- the one successful example), could possibly stop this ... and change the status quo.

Lawlessness always assures that The Powerful (rich) guys win, and everybody else is screwed.

Stop defending the robber class, and try taking away their power.

Cyril's picture

Not putting words in your mouth, no.

Not putting words in your mouth, no.

I was just recalling the factual consequences we observe regularly when following that route.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

It seems like after

six plus years you ought not still be getting lost on that point. Lack of regulation is the problem? Oh my ...

Money governs. Take a look around and I will wager you would be hard pressed to find anyone who does not want or seek money. The rule of money is guaranteed while it is in extremely high demand.

RE: "We got into the situation that we're in, precisely because there was no clear law, and no clear regulation against crooked Bankers lobbying Congress, and bribing them (or funding their proxies) to take complete control of everything."

Let's hop in a time machine and go back to the 1930's. Remember Congressman Louis T. McFadden:

""Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of constitutional privilege.

"Whereas, I charge. . .Eugene Meyer, Roy A. Young, Edmund Platt, Eugene B. Black, Adolph Casper Miller, Charles S. Hamlin, George R. James, Andrew W. Mellon, Ogden L. Mills, William H. Woo W. Poole, J.F.T. O'Connor, members of the Federal Reserve Board; F. H. Curtis, J.H. Chane, R.L. Austin, George De Camp, L.B. Williams, W.W. Hoxton, Oscar Newton, E.M. Stevens, J.S. Wood, J.N. Payton, M.L. McClure, C.C. Walsh, Isaac B. Newton, Federal Reserve Agents, jointly and severally, with violations of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and whereas I charge them with having taken funds from the U.S Treasury which were not appropriated by the Congress of the United States, and I charge them with having unlawfully taken over $80,000,000,000 from the U.S. Government in the year 1928, the said unlawful taking consisting of the unlawful creation of claims against the U.S. Treasury to the extent of over $80,000,000,000 in the year 1928; and I charge them with similar thefts committed in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, and in years previous to 1928, amounting to billions of dollars; and "

That is just the first paragraph of one speech in which the charges levied are quite extensive. So what happened to McFadden's resolution? Not a dam thing ...

RE: "It was not the presence of law and regulation that made this possible. It was the absence of law and regular that permitted this corruption to flourish."

Complete hogwash. Let us consider all of the charges McFadden laid before Congress. Theft of gold, defrauding the United States, false entries to books of account, permitting acceptance bankers and discount dealer corporations and other private bankers to violate the banking laws of the U.S, unlawful issues and advances of Fed currency on the security of artificially created evidences of debt, debts and losses of the Fed Board and the Fed Banks unlawfully transferred to the Government and the people of the U.S., obtaining money under false pretenses, unlawfully exporting U.S. coins and currency, unlawfully raised and lowered the rates of money, unlawful operations in the open discount market and by resale and repurchase agreements unsanctioned by law, unlawful manipulation of money rates and the volume of U.S. money and currency in circulation, concealing the insolvency of the Fed and with having failed to report the insolvency of the Fed to the Congress, unlawfully failing to report violations of law on the part of the Fed Banks, unlawfully allowing Great Britain to share in the profits of the Fed at the expense of the Government, entering into secret agreements and illegal transactions with Montague Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, swindling the U.S. Treasury, conspiring and acting against the peace and security of the U.S.

You don't think there were laws against any of those charges? Get real with the lawlessness nonsense.

RE: "A stronger system of laws and regulation, would have made private bankers controlling all our money -- an illegal construct"

Could we have expected the same Congress that did not act on McFadden's resolution passed to the Judiciary Committee to do anything? Could we have expected a progressive executive wholly committed to increasing the size of scope of government by executive orders to enforce anything? Could we expect anything from a judicial branch that held most new deal legislation unconstitutional and then went along with it after Roosevelt threatened to stack the Supreme Court? Any suggestion laws would have any impact is an absurd one. There has never been a shortage or absence of law in the United States. Quite the opposite is true, laws have only ever greatly increased.

I find it hard to believe one could even suggest a law would make any difference. How many of the vast laws against official wrong doing are enforced against police abuses which occur frequently?

RE: "So what we the people have to do, is take the government away from the Corporations and Banksters, and operate it ourselves"

Good luck with that. Could you imagine a roundtable of founders suggesting what we have to do is take the crown and operate it ourselves?

All limited theories of government to keep power in check have failed miserably. Who has paid the price for these terribly bad ideas? If we want to talk about justice, I say anyone who has ever espoused separation of powers or eternal vigilance can keep a strong central government in check ought to be hung for the sheer amount of misery their ideas have inflicted upon humanity. That would be justice.

The only way limited government could even possibly happen is if people believe it to be in their best interests, which a majority does not verified by any number of polls. On a personal note, since limited government or anarchy can only really work among an educated, tolerant people I have zero intention of selling failed theories or second best solutions.

RE: "We got into this mess because a bunch of rich guys had the freedom to co-opt and overthrow the government"

No, we got into this mess the same way we got into the modern right to travel fiasco. A few rich guys had automobiles and all the rest of the people said ... hey we need a law to deal with these rich automobile owners always being in a hurry and causing problems on roads dominantly used by horses and carriage. There was already plenty of law to deal with harming others or damaging property but the people wanted a new law just for automobiles and they got it.

Well guess what they forgot? All those little people using horses and carriage wanted to be rich and like the rich just like they want credit cards so they can be like the rich. They did get their laws but those laws have now been shoved up the anus of all the American people in driver licensing and vehicle registration schemes so vast they control almost every aspect of modern life.

I will tell you what I find most absurd about your post. We are going to create a gun. This gun is going to be called government. Whoever controls the gun can point it at whomever or whatever they want but we are going to set up a rule to determine who can control the gun. Here is the rule: only the most popular people elected by a majority get to control the gun.

So ... how do you think something like that happens? I will tell you how. Whoever has access to the most money to do the most advertising is going to be the odds on favorite in any popularity contest. What is offensive is that you have no problem with a system designed to benefit whoever has money but then bitch when people with money get their way.

The only historically proven check against money is competition which has been repeatedly verified by bankruptcy. I am interested in competition in justice and currency. I am not interested in giving a gun which can be pointed in any direction by whomever has access to the most money so they can win some popularity contest.

RP is right on new coalition

what has to happen to turn this ship is a coalition between progressives and libertarians. Of course we don't all agree on everything and tptb will try to divide this coalition. But, if we agree about 2 of 3 things then the ship can change direction and then we can fight over the 3rd thing. Personally I believe the 3rd thing would fix itself once the country is in better shape.

I am not convinced Rand Paul is the right person for this job but I do believe he knows what has to happen. It will be interesting to see how he handles it. On the one hand he has to win the Republican nomination and on the other hand he has to appeal to progressives. That is why all of these politicians do an about face once they get the party nomination.

The other thing is that you have to look/appear like the rest of the country. Right not the Republican party doesn't and he knows that. How and when will that change?

That was Charlie Rose

interviewing Charlie Rose!

It was a painful interview to watch. Mr Rose's disdain for Ron Paul was quite evident. But, as always, Ron Paul was such a gentleman and shined in the end as the better man!

I would like to ask Dr Paul this question when not on

statist TV and without trying to reach a larger statist audience.

He mentions this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfYBvIcAtko&feature=youtu.be&...

My question is, couldn't a true free market free of gov molestation produce a better means of protection? Does it have to be the gooberment that steps in when someone hurts another person.

I am certain in a conversation among libertarians his answer would be different and more specific regarding alternatives. He is talking to completely indoctrinated statists so I am sure he's staying clear of anything Anarchism leaning.

The most consistent

representative, whose statements from the 70s, 80s, and 90s are identical, who earned the moniker Dr. No, this man would reveal what he really believes, only if statists aren't present?

You won't find anyone closer, with this kind of credibility in public life, take what you can get. Anarchy has to win in the open marketplace of ideas, like anything else.

If you're certain of the rightness of your thinking, why does it need to agree with Dr. Paul?

Had to stop watching,

The constant interruption by that "bag warmer" was too much this morning!

NOSHEEPLE

That bothered me too

I was getting frustrated and could Ron was too. But he gave him for time to answer as the discussion went on, I think it turned out great.

Enonesoch

Inquisitivity over Indoctrination

"It's inarguable that we see a technical outperformance by the Chinese in standardized tests. But does their standardized victory communicate the creative and inquisitive mindset of our own culture?"

Of course the student here speaks of the current state of American education before planned implementation of new core standards; could he fathom a Ron Paul education that would unleash creativity and foster ingenuity?


http://youtu.be/QPlB7KGVSD8

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/06/watch-another-high-school-...

Cyril's picture

Psychology & Indoctrination for Destruction of Critical Thinking

Psychology and Indoctrination for the Destruction of Critical Thinking :


http://youtu.be/cMVMlr8LMHw

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

BUMP.

BUMP.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

SteveO24's picture

Appreciate you Cyril...song for you

Cyril's picture

:)

:)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Cyril's picture

Liberty is on the move, Charlie,

Liberty is on the move, Charlie, remember that - and they like it or not.

Because they are failing.

Big time.

FAILING.

For decades, now.

Ever more people are getting sick and tired of it.

Enough with the Supermen!

Next:

Liberty be back!

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius