94 replies to this topic

[Link]

I was just wondering about Longecity members feelings towards Ron Paul in the upcoming US Presedential Elections. I am not an American so my opinion doesn't really mean much but it seems to me that Ron Paul's policies would be very much in the interests of the Longecity community, that being those of personal liberty and the elimination of wasteful spending on foreign wars and such.

It also seems to me that he is the only candidate, of either party, who is not simply interested in maintaining the staus quo which i think most people would agree has not worked, and the only candidate who has maintained consistency in his policies for not just years but decades.

[david ellis]

Link, on 24 December 2011 - 01:39 AM, said:

I was just wondering about Longecity members feelings towards Ron Paul in the upcoming US Presedential Elections. I am not an American so my opinion doesn't really mean much but it seems to me that Ron Paul's policies would be very much in the interests of the Longecity community, that being those of personal liberty and the elimination of wasteful spending on foreign wars and such.

It also seems to me that he is the only candidate, of either party, who is not simply interested in maintaining the staus quo which i think most people would agree has not worked, and the only candidate who has maintained consistency in his policies for not just years but decades.

There are four idiocies, communism, libertarianism, authoritarianism, and anarchy.   Extremism in all of its forms does not work.   The closer we get to the extreme the more hellish the society.

On the economic axis, pure communism or libertarianism, there has never been an example of a success.

Unfortunately on the freedom axis, authoritarianism and anarchy, we have examples where for a moment in time there is stability.  The frightening thing about the freedom axis is the living hell each example is until it collapses.

[Link]

I can see what you mean in principal, to be honest i couldn't really find any examples of any governments that were truly libertarian anywhere, successful or not. I believe Hong Kong and Singapore are the closest to a financial libertarian government, whilst Scandanavian countries tended to be the most libertarian in terms of personal freedoms.


Can you be more specific in why Ron Paul's policies would have a negative impact?

For example why would non-intervention be worse than the current foreign policy?

Also, even if you don't agree with a candidate on all policies how much weight do you put on honesty and consistency? If a candidate says one thing before a campaign and then does another once elected does that not bother you?

[niner]

Link, on 24 December 2011 - 08:21 PM, said:

Can you be more specific in why Ron Paul's policies would have a negative impact?

For example why would non-intervention be worse than the current foreign policy?

Also, even if you don't agree with a candidate on all policies how much weight do you put on honesty and consistency? If a candidate says one thing before a campaign and then does another once elected does that not bother you?

If Paul is serious about going back on the gold standard, then that would be one I'd disagree with.  That would be an economic disaster.

Non-intervention would be great.  I think we could protect "the homeland" (to use a creepy term) while spending about 10% of what we currently spend, at least for new expenditures.  We're in awfully deep for the cost of taking care of our injured soldiers.  That will exceed the cost (so far) of our misadventure in Iraq by several times.

Honesty is important.  Consistency isn't.  When the facts change, policies need to change to keep up.  One politician can rarely do anything on their own.  If a presidential candidate say's he's going to push for something if he's elected, that doesn't mean it's going to happen.  If he worked in opposition to it, or did nothing, and the facts that made it a good idea earlier are still in effect, then it's a problem.

[Sillewater]

I'm Canadian but if American would vote for him. His economic and foreign policies jive with me (however I do not know how the transition to the gold standard would work and if needed, thus I'm still iffy here). However his social policies I don't agree with (e.g. pro-life). But I'm glad Ron Paul showed up, because so much in politics today we are voting for different forms of socialism, not true differences in ideals (maybe this is the only way a democracy could work I don't know).

[Sillewater]

david ellis, on 24 December 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

There are four idiocies, communism, libertarianism, authoritarianism, and anarchy.   Extremism in all of its forms does not work.   The closer we get to the extreme the more hellish the society.

On the economic axis, pure communism or libertarianism, there has never been an example of a success.

Unfortunately on the freedom axis, authoritarianism and anarchy, we have examples where for a moment in time there is stability.  The frightening thing about the freedom axis is the living hell each example is until it collapses.

Out of interest could you give me a historical example of anarchy (and maybe even libertarianism)?

[david ellis]

Sillewater, on 25 December 2011 - 03:20 AM, said:

david ellis, on 24 December 2011 - 05:16 PM, said:

There are four idiocies, communism, libertarianism, authoritarianism, and anarchy.   Extremism in all of its forms does not work.   The closer we get to the extreme the more hellish the society.

On the economic axis, pure communism or libertarianism, there has never been an example of a success.

Unfortunately on the freedom axis, authoritarianism and anarchy, we have examples where for a moment in time there is stability.  The frightening thing about the freedom axis is the living hell each example is until it collapses.

Out of interest could you give me a historical example of anarchy (and maybe even libertarianism)?

We are very close to 100% libertarianism right now in the US, more right wing than most of the world.

Anarchy, Somalia is a good example.

[david ellis]

I based my comments on my recollection of politicalcompass.org.   My recollection missed some points.

Political compass labels the economic axis - Left/Right axis. The axis runs from communist to neo-liberal.

The freedom axis is labeled the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis. The axis runs from facism to anarchy.

I made a mistake and put Libertarianism on the Left/Right axis in my first post because I mixed up Ron Paul's libertarianism with his neo-liberal Left/Right position.

I still hold the position that there are four idiocies, they are neo-liberalism, communism, fascism, and anarchy.

Three of the idiocies are thankfully generally recognized as idiocies.  Neo-liberalism is yet to be recognized as an idiocy.  But things are changing fast because our move to extreme neo-liberalism is proving a failure.

[rwac]

david ellis, on 25 December 2011 - 07:01 AM, said:

We are very close to 100% libertarianism right now in the US, more right wing than most of the world.

That's like saying someone's well because they're not in the ICU.  Where did you get this idea anyway?

[Link]

niner, on 24 December 2011 - 10:21 PM, said:

If Paul is serious about going back on the gold standard, then that would be one I'd disagree with.  That would be an economic disaster.

As i understand it Ron Paul doesn't actually intend on moving completely to a gold standard but more restricting the Federal Reserve's ability to recklessly print money. Don't quote me on that though.

Sillewater, on 25 December 2011 - 03:18 AM, said:

However his social policies I don't agree with (e.g. pro-life).

One of the things that is different about Ron Paul from other politicians is that he is a strict constitutionalist, therefore regardless of his personal feelings on an issue, he simply follows the constitution to the letter. As i understand it he would simply leave abortion legislation to the states, the same with drug legislation, gay marriage etc.

[david ellis]

rwac, on 25 December 2011 - 09:56 AM, said:

david ellis, on 25 December 2011 - 07:01 AM, said:

We are very close to 100% libertarianism right now in the US, more right wing than most of the world.

That's like saying someone's well because they're not in the ICU.  Where did you get this idea anyway?

I don't understand the simile.   How is almost 100% libertarian, more right wing than most, anything like saying someone's well because they're not in the ICU?

I got the idea because there is just a few things left to finish off most libertarians' (& neo-liberals) bucket list.  Ron Paul will be happy when social security, medicare, and the federal reserve are gone.   All three points have been seriously proposed by republicans.   Almost all of the financial regulations put in place between Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt have been removed.   Now just a little revision of Dodd/Frank and the neo-liberals are done.   Soon there will be nothing left to do and we will join  anarchists, communists, and fascists in extremism as neo-liberals.

Name a first world country that is to the right of the United States, if you don't think the US is among the furthest to the right.   I will be pleased if you come up with a good one because that will give me hope.

[1kgcoffee]

david ellis, on 25 December 2011 - 07:01 AM, said:

We are very close to 100% libertarianism right now in the US, more right wing than most of the world.

Anarchy, Somalia is a good example.

That's a wild assertion if I've ever heard one. America is farther from it's libertarian roots then any other time in history.

I'm not American, but if I were I would not vote for Ron Paul. Why? Because it's politically impossible for him to implement the changes that are necessary to fix things. Libertarians will not succeed in America until after the shit hits the fan.

[david ellis]

1kgcoffee, on 26 December 2011 - 05:28 AM, said:

david ellis, on 25 December 2011 - 07:01 AM, said:

We are very close to 100% libertarianism right now in the US, more right wing than most of the world.

Anarchy, Somalia is a good example.

That's a wild assertion if I've ever heard one. America is farther from it's libertarian roots then any other time in history.

I'm not American, but if I were I would not vote for Ron Paul. Why? Because it's politically impossible for him to implement the changes that are necessary to fix things. Libertarians will not succeed in America until after the shit hits the fan.

Libertarianism is a strange word, the root word libertarian refers to their beliefs on the authoritarian/libertarian activity.   When used while talking about economic activity it refers to the economic beliefs of right wing libertarians.   These beliefs are the neo-liberal point of view.

I am a left wing libertarian, and I agree with you, the chances of political acceptance of libertarian values is low.   However, if you disagree with me about the neo-liberal point of view, name a country to the right of the United States.   What puts us to the extreme is that our nation is the only one seriously talking about getting rid of social security and medicare.   We have deregulated our economy.   There is little left to do to on the road to a pure neo-liberal economy.

[rwac]

david ellis, on 26 December 2011 - 05:08 AM, said:

Name a first world country that is to the right of the United States, if you don't think the US is among the furthest to the right.   I will be pleased if you come up with a good one because that will give me hope.

Just because America is relatively libertarian doesn't make America libertarian.

david ellis, on 26 December 2011 - 05:42 AM, said:

What puts us to the extreme is that our nation is the only one seriously talking about getting rid of social security and medicare.   We have deregulated our economy.   There is little left to do to on the road to a pure neo-liberal economy.

Everybody else does it by simply cutting back on funding, like for example the NHS. Greece is also trying to implement austerity like cutting pensions, raising retirement, etc.

We are simply discussing a plan to make it fairer by reducing contributions, and telling people what to expect ahead of time.

Deregulated our economy? Not a chance. It cannot be deregulated with the current tax exemptions (for instance), which gives an advantage to bigger companies. The current incarnation of the EPA is a bureaucratic nightmare which can shut down any activity without having to justify itself to anyone except the president. We have saved the banks which were engaging in risky investments.

Lets not forget the drug war, which forces another sector of economic activity into the black market.

[hivemind]

Ron Paul is religious and anti-science.

[hivemind]

US is a TWO PARTY SYSTEM. That's hardly even democracy.

Ron Paul does not have a realistic view of the world.

Edited by hivemind, 26 December 2011 - 10:57 AM.

[niner]

David's statement about the US being Libertarian was a real head-scratcher until I figured out that he was using that term to mean Neo-Liberal economics.  I had to look that one up.  It more or less means "Reaganomics", as we commonly think of it.  And yeah, we are probably deeper in that failed ideology than any other developed nation.  I'm not using the term 'failed ideology' as a cheap insult.  We have three decades of experience with it, and the facts are there, if we can wade through the bumper sticker propaganda and actually look at them.  (consider GDP growth, national debt, job creation, economic stability, wealth distribution)

[david ellis]

rwac, on 26 December 2011 - 06:15 AM, said:

Everybody else does it by simply cutting back on funding, like for example the NHS. Greece is also trying to implement austerity like cutting pensions, raising retirement, etc.

??NHS, National Health Service?  Yes, you think it is simply a cut that the tories want.  Neo-liberals hate socialism and will kill it when they get a chance.   We don't have it as good as you have it in the UK.  We have 45 million people with out health care.   And the republicans here plan to kill medicare by substituting private plans for medicare.   When the time is ripe your tories will do the same.  All neo-liberals believe the dogma that free markets are supreme and that socialism is evil.

rwac said:

Deregulated our economy? Not a chance. It cannot be deregulated with the current tax exemptions (for instance), which gives an advantage to bigger companies. The current incarnation of the EPA is a bureaucratic nightmare which can shut down any activity without having to justify itself to anyone except the president. We have saved the banks which were engaging in risky investments.

The game is almost over in the United States, do you expect Republicans to stop applying pressure so close to their goal?   Almost all of what they complain of is a sham.   EPA, yeah, 20 years ago we all agreed power plants were poisoning the country by burning coal with mercury in it.   The mercury was spread with in ashes over the east for the last 20 years and Republicans still defend their pollution,   Corporations first, then people.   Global warming denialists.   Defend this year's corporation profits at all costs.   What a bunch of extremists!

rwac said:

Lets not forget the drug war, which forces another sector of economic activity into the black market.

Maybe we both are libertarians, you a righty, and me a lefty, we know how to solve the drug war.   The same solution used after prohibition.  Legalize drugs, sell them in government owned package stores.  Hurry, because Mexico's government is crumbling and the US government's integrity is cracking from the temptations of drug profits.

[hivemind]

Neo-liberals are the biggest hypocrites. They are not for free markets. They are for big government and big business. Very controlled and unfree markets.

[rwac]

david ellis, on 26 December 2011 - 05:22 PM, said:

??NHS, National Health Service?  Yes, you think it is simply a cut that the tories want.  Neo-liberals hate socialism and will kill it when they get a chance.   We don't have it as good as you have it in the UK.  We have 45 million people with out health care.   And the republicans here plan to kill medicare by substituting private plans for medicare.   When the time is ripe your tories will do the same.  All neo-liberals believe the dogma that free markets are supreme and that socialism is evil.

I'm just saying that the US is not that far to the right of say the UK.

Quote

The game is almost over in the United States, do you expect Republicans to stop applying pressure so close to their goal?   Almost all of what they complain of is a sham.   EPA, yeah, 20 years ago we all agreed power plants were poisoning the country by burning coal with mercury in it.   The mercury was spread with in ashes over the east for the last 20 years and Republicans still defend their pollution,   Corporations first, then people.   Global warming denialists.   Defend this year's corporation profits at all costs.   What a bunch of extremists!

Well, the GOP (and all sensible people) mainly prioritize a reliable power supply. The only reliable renewable source is Hydroelectric power (as of today), and it is next to impossible to build a new dam. So we are basically dependent on coal and natural gas for the near future.

[rwac]

Also, I'm kinda confused about you calling neo-liberalism (aka corporatism) as libertarian.

[david ellis]

hivemind, on 26 December 2011 - 05:50 PM, said:

Neo-liberals are the biggest hypocrites. They are not for free markets. They are for big government and big business. Very controlled and unfree markets.

A very clear and succinct summary.  Most republicans are tools and don't know it.  The elected politicians understand clearly what the oligarchy wants.

[niner]

rwac, on 26 December 2011 - 08:00 PM, said:

Well, the GOP (and all sensible people) mainly prioritize a reliable power supply. The only reliable renewable source is Hydroelectric power (as of today), and it is next to impossible to build a new dam. So we are basically dependent on coal and natural gas for the near future.

If all they wanted was a reliable power supply, they wouldn't have such a problem with pollution controls on coal plants.  It's mature, reliable technology, but they are fighting it tooth and claw, all to preserve the profits of the coal industry regardless of the cost to society.  At every possible turn, if it's a question of the public good versus private profits, the Republicans are always on the side of private profits.

[rwac]

niner, on 27 December 2011 - 12:06 AM, said:

rwac, on 26 December 2011 - 08:00 PM, said:

Well, the GOP (and all sensible people) mainly prioritize a reliable power supply. The only reliable renewable source is Hydroelectric power (as of today), and it is next to impossible to build a new dam. So we are basically dependent on coal and natural gas for the near future.

If all they wanted was a reliable power supply, they wouldn't have such a problem with pollution controls on coal plants.  It's mature, reliable technology, but they are fighting it tooth and claw, all to preserve the profits of the coal industry regardless of the cost to society.  At every possible turn, if it's a question of the public good versus private profits, the Republicans are always on the side of private profits.

Except the pollution controls would increase the cost of coal power. And when coal plants become unprofitable, they get shut down. Some older plants can't be scrubbed, and 15% of US plants may get shut down. And there aren't enough reliable power sources to take up the slack, so it's a problem.

[david ellis]

rwac, on 26 December 2011 - 08:00 PM, said:

I'm just saying that the US is not that far to the right of say the UK.

Yes, Britain is looking at legislation to end the NHS.   However, their vote was in September and it didn't go anywhere.   Rand Paul's legislation to end Medicare passed the house of representatives in February 2011.  So we are to the right of the Brits on legislation to end socialized medicine.   We are first, and we  passed the first legislative milestone.  

And don't forget, we only have socialized medicine for the aged.   They have socialized medicine for everyone.   So, we are even further to the right of the Brits on that point.

We don't have any medicine, let alone socialized medicine for 45 million hapless people. Throwing 45 million people to the wolves puts the US so far out to the right that I don't think the Brits can even see us.

rwac said:

Well, the GOP (and all sensible people) mainly prioritize a reliable power supply. The only reliable renewable source is Hydroelectric power (as of today), and it is next to impossible to build a new dam. So we are basically dependent on coal and natural gas for the near future.

I am sure the people that died and their families from the poisoning would agree with you that the GOP is sensible.   All of this EPA stuff has to be justified in terms of lives and medical costs saved, you know that.

It will be a big surprise to the wind power and solar power people that their systems are not reliable sources of renewable energy.   Especially the people that put their own money into these unreliable systems.

Have you ever driven out highway 395 in California past Boron and seen the huge solar energy plant there?  The plant has been there more than 30 years.   Every time I drive by it is larger.  The panels are in the shape of a parabolic trough. The sun focuses on a pipe suspended above the trough. The fluid inside the pipe expands into gas and drives generators.   The parabolic troughs follow the sun during the day.   The cost is 10 cents a kilowatt hour, winter and summer.  (to see it, enter "Kramer Junction, CA 93516" into google satellite maps.  It is to the north of Kramer Junction a block or two.)   You will also notice thousands of sun drenched acres ready to be developed into solar farms.

And we have wind farms (google maps, Kellogg Road, Desert Hot Springs, CA) Those little pins sticking out of the map are 100 foot plus tall wind mills.   Yeah, people are wasting their money building these wind farms.

[rwac]

david ellis, on 27 December 2011 - 12:37 AM, said:

I am sure the people that died and their families from the poisoning would agree with you that the GOP is sensible.   All of this EPA stuff has to be justified in terms of lives and medical costs saved, you know that.

It will be a big surprise to the wind power and solar power people that their systems are not reliable sources of renewable energy.   Especially the people that put their own money into these unreliable systems.

Both wind and solar plants have to be subsidized to compete with coal or natural gas. And, there's the occasional cloudy or windless day, when it will need to be backed up with some other source of power.

For some reason, nobody makes an estimate of how many people die or suffer due to increased gas or electricity prices leading to inflation.

[niner]

rwac, on 27 December 2011 - 02:15 AM, said:

Both wind and solar plants have to be subsidized to compete with coal or natural gas. And, there's the occasional cloudy or windless day, when it will need to be backed up with some other source of power.

For some reason, nobody makes an estimate of how many people die or suffer due to increased gas or electricity prices leading to inflation.

Actually, people have run the numbers on pollution fixes at coal plants, and the savings due to reduced morbidity and mortality beat the costs by a factor of one hundred.  That's a huge windfall for society, and would overwhelm any inflationary pressure caused by a relatively small increase in production cost.  I really can't lose any sleep over the poor unfortunate coal industry.  There are plants that should have been demolished in the 70's that have been allowed to keep running all this time.  At the time of the agreement, the deal was that they'd all be gone by now, but they're hanging on because they are a windfall for their owners.  Those owners are only making money because they are imposing huge costs on others.  The possibility that we get "rebates" of 1% or so on those costs doesn't come close to compensating for them.  In a real free market, the cost of production is reflected in the price of a good.  In this case, the cost of production is being subsidized because it's being borne by others who are not compensated.  It's a classic case of economic externalities.

Are wind plants still being subsidized?  I think they are a pretty good economic proposition at this point.  Of course, nuclear plants have always been subsidized, and the power industry didn't complain about that...

[rwac]

niner, on 27 December 2011 - 04:20 AM, said:

I really can't lose any sleep over the poor unfortunate coal industry.

Maybe you should lose sleep over the people seeing larger electric bills, and the downstream costs from that. Scrubber aren't free you know. Either prices go up or the coal plants close. Perhaps you should also remember that we can afford to be clean because we are rich. Reduce that wealth by little bits, and growth will stop.

Quote

Are wind plants still being subsidized?  I think they are a pretty good economic proposition at this point.  Of course, nuclear plants have always been subsidized, and the power industry didn't complain about that...

https://www.google.c...rbine subsidies
Nuclear is another mess, hard to take into account events like Fukushima.

[niner]

rwac, on 27 December 2011 - 04:39 AM, said:

niner, on 27 December 2011 - 04:20 AM, said:

I really can't lose any sleep over the poor unfortunate coal industry.

Maybe you should lose sleep over the people seeing larger electric bills, and the downstream costs from that. Scrubber aren't free you know. Either prices go up or the coal plants close. Perhaps you should also remember that we can afford to be clean because we are rich. Reduce that wealth by little bits, and growth will stop.

That's the sort of boogieman they always raise, but how realistic is it?  Not very, imho.   There's a market for electric power, and there are other plants that compete for business.  If you took out some marginal coal plants, how do we know that gas turbines wouldn't take up some of the slack?  What if rates go up a penny a kwh?  If we have a much larger drop in health care costs, the macro effect is positive, even if a few people notice their electric bills went up a few bucks.   What about those people who notice that their dad died from particulate-aggravated CVD?  Either way, letting the plants continue to pollute or cleaning them up, there are winners and losers.  I would argue that when you clean them up, the losses are small and the wins are big, and letting them continue to pollute produces the opposite effect.  Scrubbers aren't free but neither is health care, and as it turns out, the health care is a hell of a lot more expensive than the scrubbers.

[Sillewater]

I really don't see how the US is anywhere near libertarian. With things like farm subsidies (eg making sugar from beets 5 bn dollars), subsidizing electric cars, numerous tariffs, death tax, etc... Since the 1930s the US has been becoming more and more socialized.

Coal plants are able to function because of support from the government. If the government was restricted to constitutional actions they wouldn't have the capability to prop up industries that would otherwise be replaced (not saying tha in a free market that would happen to coal plants). IMHO if Ron Paul doesnt get elected the US is gonna be doomed. While other countries have feared inflation because of post war effects it seems like the US has been more fearful of deflation due to the recessions in their history. If policies like Obamas or the other candidates do get implemented don't u think inflation could spiral out of control?

The US has been riding the coat tails be picking low hanging fruit and as a result people forget the libertarian principles that made the US the best country in the world. Personally I would not want to see them lose their place.