You go Ron.

If Ron Paul can actually get some traction and the media gives him the respect he deserves, he could really shake things up. It’s so funny hearing everyone moan and groan and freak out about Obama. In a lot of ways he is really just business as usual in Washington. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is an entirely different beast.

Paul/Kucinich 2012?

Ron Paul is not without some good ideas. I happen to think this a bit simplistic. Certainly, propping up Israel and to a lesser extent Egypt over the years has probably been cost effective for us. Not getting entangled in others’ wars (at least the wars of these others), stable commercial ventures, keeping the Suez open. Paul also has some very nutty ideas. Frankly, I find him far less objectionable than I do many other Republicans.

And, the way his supporters chased O’Hannity down the street that glorious night and shouted down Big Dick, well, who doesn’t love that?

Ron Paul is certainly still not someone I would vote for. I would like to be out of foreign entanglements and not have the government making social decisions for us (gay marriage, drug policy, abortion, etc). At the same time, I don’t want my bank to decide it wants to charge me 49% interest on any loans. I also don’t think it’s safe to have rocket launchers for sale at Wal-Mart.

Now maybe if Dennis K could reel him in a bit……hahaha. Just a thought.

The Real Royal King said:
Ron Paul is not without some good ideas. I happen to think this a bit simplistic. Certainly, propping up Israel and to a lesser extent Egypt over the years has probably been cost effective for us. Not getting entangled in others’ wars (at least the wars of these others), stable commercial ventures, keeping the Suez open. Paul also has some very nutty ideas. Frankly, I find him far less objectionable than I do many other Republicans. And, the way his supporters chased O’Hannity down the street that glorious night and shouted down Big Dick, well, who doesn’t love that?

I agree with Ron’s position of removing ourselves from other govenments as part of my overall belief in a smaller federal footprint. But the Suez does pose an interesting/troubling dilema. I do worry about what Egypt will now become and their actions toward Isreal. If they become agressive Obama would have his hand forced.

I couldn’t help but notice which stories from CPAC Mediaite hypes and what speeches they ignore. Just an observation. One might conclude they are trying to push a certain narrative.

RP is a conspiracy nut. He is far too much on the wingnut scale for me.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
I couldn’t help but notice which stories from CPAC Mediaite hypes and what speeches they ignore. Just an observation. One might conclude they are trying to push a certain narrative.

I’m surprised they didn’t post the Palin lookalike that had everyone obsessed yesterday.

WCinWI, they’ve decided to only do stories on any perceived controversary, while ignoring great conservative speeches from the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels. That’s ok though, gone are the days when we have to rely on the liberal media for our info.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
WCinWI, they’ve decided to only do stories on any perceived controversary, while ignoring great conservative speeches from the likes of Paul Ryan and Mitch Daniels. That’s ok though, gone are the days when we have to rely on the liberal media for our info.

I can’t wait for Allen West’s speech this afternoon. So far my fave Repubs are Paul Ryan, Sarah Palin, Herman Cain and Allen West. Not sure how I feel about Daniels. He’s dry to me. Maybe in 2012, people will want dry. I have no clue how you excite a crowd though.

Paul: You just blew a lot of Beck-fans heads with the STAY OUT OF EGYPT TALK

LOL

I may not agree with everything Ron Paul touts, but i’m with him on the patriot act. I know a couple of guys who were computer science students from 2001 – 2005 and were visited by the FBI because they checked out books from the library on topics that were apparently red-flagged: cryptography and Farsi. One went to a start-up and the other went to work for the NSA. Funny thing is they did the background check on the guy that was studying Farsi and when he was asked about the FBI visit…he said “what can I say? Patriot act” and the interviewer just kind of knodded his head and said “yeeeahh…that’s happened before.”

zumpano said:
Paul: You just blew a lot of Beck-fans heads with the STAY OUT OF EGYPT TALK

LOL

Uhhh you do realize that Beck is more of a libertarian than any other ideology right?

Ahh. CPAC. A gathering of jack-booted goose-stepping goons of conformity.

im_lovin_it said:
Ron Paul is certainly still not someone I would vote for. I would like to be out of foreign entanglements and not have the government making social decisions for us (gay marriage, drug policy, abortion, etc). At the same time, I don’t want my bank to decide it wants to charge me 49% interest on any loans. I also don’t think it’s safe to have rocket launchers for sale at Wal-Mart. Now maybe if Dennis K could reel him in a bit……hahaha. Just a thought.

Your bank can NEVER charge you 49% on loans if Ron Paul had his way. In the same way the MacDonalds can never charge you $100 for a hamburger. Because neither would stay in business. No LAWS are needed to prevent that sort of overcharging.

In fact, the ONLY thing that CAN make you pay such outrageous prices IS government intervention in the market. A good example of this is what is broken in healthcare. Government ALREADY mandates you buy a bunch of things. Lots of mandates exist for mental health care, alcoholism treatment, etc. Do YOU want to buy this stuff in your healthcare insurance, or do you just want to have major medical issues covered? Well, you don’t have a choice. Because the psychiatrists and psychologists (and zillions of other lobbies) FORCE you to buy insurance for their services that you don’t want or need in order to be ALLOWED to buy coverage for the things you want.

WCinWI said:
Uhhh you do realize that Beck is more of a libertarian than any other ideology right?

A good way to describe him is that Beck has changed a lot over the past 8 years. He used to be cozied way up to the GOP establishment. Since then, love him or hate him, he’s been on a voyage of honest discovery, and his views have changed a fair amount. In that time, he has become a lot MORE libertarian than he was. He has quite a ways to go, but his approach to government gradually becomes more libertarian all the time.

A ways to go yet, though.

As much as the guy has some good points he is not electable and still represents a fringe.

The right needs to get serious and nurture a candidate that is not fringe and is serious about getting the country back on track. A lot of what he says is disruptive which scares people from voting for him and steers many voters away.

The Repubs shouldn’t elect someone who many people will look at and say the devil they know (BO) is the better alternative.

tatboy said:
I agree with Ron’s position of removing ourselves from other govenments as part of my overall belief in a smaller federal footprint. But the Suez does pose an interesting/troubling dilema. I do worry about what Egypt will now become and their actions toward Isreal. If they become agressive Obama would have his hand forced.

Agreed. Can I offer a couple of thoughts about this?

The arguments for the noninterventionist position are not just arguments about smaller government footprint, and they aren’t just principled arguments. They don’t LACK practicality, they ARE practicality.

The more liberty in a society, the better the chance that society will persist. The more repressive a society, the higher the chance it will be overthrown. Now, that is not to say that one repressive regime won’t see another. But that pattern of overthrow will continue unless and until an organic freedom replaces it. When that takes hold, it will last FAR longer. (Until it gets rich enough that, like the USA, people cease to watch over their freedom and corruption gows in government like a cancer. But I digress.)

But the important part of what I am describing is very similar to the dynamics of drug gangs. While drug gangs may rule for a while, no particular drug gang is safe. They always fall to other drug gangs. Which is why when WE back a repressive regime, it will never be safe either. The stronger it is, the larger the blowback and hatred when it is eventually toppled.

The military industrial complex LOVES to pitch ideas like “the Suez Canal is VITAL.” No it isn’t. The world(especially the USA, which is particularly unaffected) can live just fine without the Suez, if we had to.

But more important, we WON’T ever have to. The concentrated losses from closing the Suez would hit Egypt FAR harder than those losses would hit anybody else. Egypt, no matter WHO controls it, has the world’s biggest stake in keeping the Suez open and usable at market prices. The only exception to this would be some religious dictatorship that would forgo the income to tell the world to F off. And THAT regime would be overthrown from within in NO time. After all, much of the current unrest is due to economic conditions.

And again, the Suez isn’t VITAL, no matter what anyone tells you. The people who need us to believe that it is are the people who need us to keep funding their big interventionist government and all the military supplies and weapons that go with it. The costs of this are huge.

Are Suez tolls artificially low? If they are, we’re still paying the real tolls or more already, but the cost is hidden in all the excessive military spending.

So don’t worry about the Suez. No matter WHO owns it, they will have more interest in keeping it open than anyone else.

Last, consider Israel. Israel should NOT be sacred to the USA. Period. If it goes away, it goes away. You don’t see Israel petitioning to become a US State, willing to live under US law. So there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY we should be on the hook for its defense. Israel doesn’t help OUR defense one iota. It’s a huge net negative for us, regardless of how much it might ever try to be other. If Israel wants to exist, let it sink or swim on its own. But Israel has a STATE RELIGION, and splits its society based ono that religion. What the Hell should we be backing THAT for?

Israel is not vital to us. The Suez is not vital to us. In fact, virtually nothing is VITAL to us. We can do just fine, trading for what we want, without FORCING anyone to do anything other than not to INVADE us. Which no country will be willing to do if we become non-interventionist.

George Sore-ohs said:
As much as the guy has some good points he is not electable and still represents a fringe. The right needs to get serious and nurture a candidate that is not fringe and is serious about getting the country back on track. A lot of what he says is disruptive which scares people from voting for him and steers many voters away. The Repubs shouldn’t elect someone who many people will look at and say the devil they know (BO) is the better alternative.

Six years ago ‘Ron Paul” and “libertarian” had perhaps 2% name recognition in American households. Probably less than that. That number is probably somewhere from 10 to 25 times higher by now.

Some things DO change.

People said we’d never have a black President. Well, we have a half-black President already (and most think of him as being black not half-black/half-white anyway).

Ignoring someone is the first tactic of those who don’t want to fight in the arena of ideas. Calling someone “fringe” is the second tactic, resorted to when the first tactic has already failed.

I applaud your statements Ron Paul!

Nachi said:
Ahh. CPAC. A gathering of jack-booted goose-stepping goons of conformity.

Right. We have people standing up en masse, calling one of the thugs a “war criminal” to his face.

Textbook conformity.

“Conformity” is what YOU are exhibiting: Grunt..CPAC bad. CPAC bad. Grunt.

The world is, quite simply, more COMPLICATED than that. And so is CPAC.

I still don’t get the “Ron Paul is a fringe candidate” meme. The guy wins all the straw polls. He raises a ton of money. He placed 2nd and 3rd in several states the last election. And seems to have been right on all the issues. What am I missing?

George Sore-ohs said:
The right needs to get serious and nurture a candidate that is not fringe and is serious about getting the country back on track.

BTW, the only potential candidates I can think of who are SERIOUS about getting the country back on track are Ron Paul and (perhaps) Chris Christie. Look at VOTING records. There are plenty of people like Paul Ryan who talk a big talk, but VOTED for bailouts, VOTED for Medicare Part D, etc.

George Sore-ohs said:
A lot of what he says is disruptive which scares people from voting for him and steers many voters away.

The establishment NEEDS TO BE DISRUPTED. Anyone who does not disrupt the establishment IS NOT SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING THE COUNTRY BACK ON TRACK. There is no way to end year-over-year deficits of 1.4 TRILLION dollars without ruffling the feathers OF THE CROOKS.

Just_MC said:
BTW, the only potential candidates I can think of who are SERIOUS about getting the country back on track are Ron Paul and (perhaps) Chris Christie. Look at VOTING records. There are plenty of people like Paul Ryan who talk a big talk, but VOTED for bailouts, VOTED for Medicare Part D, etc. The establishment NEEDS TO BE DISRUPTED. Anyone who does not disrupt the establishment IS NOT SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING THE COUNTRY BACK ON TRACK. There is no way to end year-over-year deficits of 1.4 TRILLION dollars without ruffling the feathers OF THE CROOKS.

Excellent analysis.

CosmosDan said:
You go Ron.

Agreed!

WCinWI said:
RP is a conspiracy nut. He is far too much on the wingnut scale for me.

Examples?

Dsiscokid said:
Examples?

He’s a 9/11 truther. Or at least has truther tendencies.

Ron Paul= canned awesome

Dsiscokid said:
Examples?

I think that anybody who disagrees is labeled a wingnut. It comes in handy when avoiding a discussion based on facts. You can just call “wingnut” and dismiss anything they say. Isn’t that convenient?

CosmosDan said:
I think that anybody who disagrees is labeled a wingnut. It comes in handy when avoiding a discussion based on facts. You can just call “wingnut” and dismiss anything they say. Isn’t that convenient?

Or you can just call a conspiracy nut a conspiracy nut.

WCinWI said:
Or you can just call a conspiracy nut a conspiracy nut.

First they ignore you.

Then they laugh at you and say you’re crazy.

(Then they fight openly.)

Then you win.

Paul really messes up the GOP narrative. He doesn’t follow the GOP script and that may mean some trouble to certain candidates.

Yoda002 said:
Paul really messes up the GOP narrative. He doesn’t follow the GOP script and that may mean some trouble to certain candidates.

Indeed. Or, turning the frame of reference more properly, I would offer:

Paul really reveals how messed up the establishment GOP narrative is.

Yoda002 said:
Paul really messes up the GOP narrative. He doesn’t follow the GOP script and that may mean some trouble to certain candidates.

RP is more Independent than an R. Thank goodness.

“Foreign aid,” he argued, “is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country.”

well put

Just_MC said:
Your bank can NEVER charge you 49% on loans if Ron Paul had his way. In the same way the MacDonalds can never charge you $100 for a hamburger. Because neither would stay in business. No LAWS are needed to prevent that sort of overcharging.

In fact, the ONLY thing that CAN make you pay such outrageous prices IS government intervention in the market. A good example of this is what is broken in healthcare. Government ALREADY mandates you buy a bunch of things. Lots of mandates exist for mental health care, alcoholism treatment, etc. Do YOU want to buy this stuff in your healthcare insurance, or do you just want to have major medical issues covered? Well, you don’t have a choice. Because the psychiatrists and psychologists (and zillions of other lobbies) FORCE you to buy insurance for their services that you don’t want or need in order to be ALLOWED to buy coverage for the things you want.

How does the libertarian address the problems with monopolies and issues of price-fixing? Also, how would the the libertarian have prevented the housing market debacle, and what would they do to fix our current situation? I’m assuming you don’t think increased regulation and consumer protection are the answer.

More highlights from CPAC that Mediaite won’t report on

Video: Herman Cain’s speech to CPAC

If you watch one speech in its entirety, this may be the one to choose. Herman Cain, so far the only declared candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, stole the show yesterday with his speech in the late afternoon. People left the ballroom saying that he moved them to tears. Whether one thinks that Cain has a chance of making inroads for the nomination or not, there is no doubt at all of Cain’s value to the conservative movement. In this speech, Cain delivers a stirring stemwinder, reminding people to “stay informed, stay involved” — and ruffled some feathers by telling CPAC that “stupid people are ruining America”:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/12/video-herman-cains-speech-to-cpac/

I can’t image why Mediatite would ignore this one. Oh wait, yes I can.

I can’t stand this guy. I despise he and his son. They are the worst of America.

Armwood says:

They are the worst of America

Oh I didn’t realize you had left.

im_lovin_it said:
How does the libertarian address the problems with monopolies and issues of price-fixing? Also, how would the the libertarian have prevented the housing market debacle, and what would they do to fix our current situation? I’m assuming you don’t think increased regulation and consumer protection are the answer.

It’s a good question. You are correct, that increased regulation and “consumer protection” are not the answers. The housing debacle was caused by multiple problems, all of which come from far too much government control of markets.

1. Least important, in my viiew, many government programs, stemming all the way back to at least the communitiy reinvestment act (late ’70s?) tell “private” businesses to make loans that they would otherwise not make. Some more recent versions of these actually provided quotas such that certain percentages of loans needed to be higher risk. In order to sell the standard loans in the quantity they were demanded, companies were FORCED to take on loans they would otherwise have said were too risky.

2. More important, the Fed, as the head of the forced banking cartel, artificially sets interest rates cheaply. In a properly functioning market, interest rates are driven by the supply of money but also by the risk. As risk increases, rates should increase. When rates are held artificially low, the same market-driven monthly payment (how people assess what they can afford) comes with a HUGE increase in the SELLING PRICE. So, other things being equal, when rates are artificially low, PRICES are driven artificially high, only to crash later.

3.And probably as important or more important than the artificially low interest rates, government put all the RISK of default onto taxpayers, instead of the mortgage investors. In a free market, interest rates must reflect RISK. If 10% of loans will default instead of 2%, rates have to be higher to cover those losses. When government started pushing its social experiments to encourage more ownership of houses, the big banks got further in bed and paid off the government to transfer the risk to the taxpayers. So, if things go well, the banksters get rich. IF they go badly, the taxpayers go broke.

Now, it is important to note that the unholy cronyism between government and the banks includes big business, it is the FORCE of government that allows it.

IF government is limited properly to the Constitution:
-it would have no power to tell banks to make risky loans and lower qualifications for loan applicants.
-It would have no power to artificially push down interest rates for decades.
-And it would have no power to transfer the risks of bad loans to the taxpayers.

History has shown us that the regulators are ALWAYS co-opted by the rich who are regulated. So you can’t control the banksters by adding regulation, because the banksters will just OWN the regulators yet again. The ONLY fix is to take away the government’s power to dictate the terms of business, and instead leave government to ENFORCE the terms of private contracts.

If the banks were not able to sell off loans to Fannie and Freddie, they would be DEATHLY afraid to make bad loans. And they would set standards that ensured their investors and depositors would get their money back. And the banks that did a poor job of managing risk would go out of business. And only those who willingly put their money in those banks, and invested in those banks, would lose their money. Instead, with the bailouts, WE ALL lose our money even though we never put our money in those bad banks or invested in them.

Also, if the banks were on their own in a free market, the ones that offered uncompetitive rates would also go out of business. And again, the only people who would lose out were the investors. But the innocent bystanders would not shoulder the burden of failure.

As for price fixing, it can only go so far. Price fixing in a free market leads to new competition. If you fix prices at an artificially high rate, you will succumb to that competition.

REAL price fixing happens BECAUSE government interferes in the market, not despite government’s regulation. For instance, it is the “regulators” in healthcare who FORCE you to buy psychiatric insurance and alcoholism treatment insurance when you only want major medical. If Joe wants to sell me a cheaper policy that covers only what I want, and skips all lthat stuff, HE WILL GO TO JAIL if he tries to sell it. This drives up the price of health insurance for all.

Circling back to “how to fix the current situation”: There are two parts.

One is not doing further harm. That’s easy. Immediately end ALL subsidies for all mortgages, eliminate ALL government-prescribed qualification rules, etc. Let the banks and their depositors and investors decide how to manage risk, and live with the consequences of their business decisions. Also, end ALL TARP and FDIC and other backstops that allow business to get rich on upside potential but transfer downside risk to the taxpayer. This is pure “heads I win, tails you lose.” It is theft, nothing more.

Some other good ideas would be prosecuting the people, in business and in Congress, who got in bed together and put this risk on the taxpayer. It is criminal behavior. It should be treated as such.

The other major factor, which needs to be done but likely won’t without collapse, is elimination of the Fed and a return to sound money. Counterfeiting is theft. Every time the Fed creates more dollars out of thin air, it steals from everyone who holds dollars. Period. Theft.

Unwinding the mess in mortgages that has been made is difficult. The best answer will still HAVE TO BE VERY PAINFUL. Like any Ponzi scheme, there is no FAIR answer. The most fair answer is to PUT NOTHING ON THE TAXPAYER. Make that cardinal rule #1. So, the debate over whether a bank should be able to foreclose, or renegotiate, or whateve, should be between the bank and the borrower but NEVER involve the innocent bystander, the otherwise uninvolved taxpayer. He is purely the victim, and needs to be let out of ANY obligation.

The rest becomes a negotiation between banks and borrowers. The vast bulk of society will be a lot poorer as a result, Home prices will plummet. Interest rates will skyrocket. Banks will fail.

But if you think my prescription is CAUSING THIS, you are wrong. Items 1-3, which were government actions, CAUSED this. My prescription simply causes the piper to be paid sooner, while the cost is less than it will be later, without stealing any more from the taxpayer and the unborn generations to come. Saying my solution is causing any problem is simply blaming the messenger. The reality is that if we continue quantitative easing and bailouts, an EVEN BIGGER COLLAPSE will come, except MORE OF THE INNOCENT will have been robbed by our crooked government and its cronies.

im_lovin_it said:
Paul/Kucinich 2012?

Ron Paul/Gary Johnson- now that’s the ticket!

George Sore-ohs said:
The right needs to get serious and nurture a candidate that is not fringe and is serious about getting the country back on track.

Who would you suggest as a viable candidate?

armwood said:
I can’t stand this guy. I despise he and his son. They are the worst of America.

Armwood, I used to hate you for the rabid, race-rage-blinded nonsense you spew.

But through patient and honest consideration of what you write, it has become clear that you are simply a dog that was once beaten too much, worthy of genuine pity. While your not being very bright doesn’t help your cause, it does add to the pity I feel.

Queue the ‘troll’ comments and insults to my education…

MC,

Thanks for the analysis. I can see I’ve got some reading to do when I have some down time! Lots of people don’t know squat about the housing collapse so it’s interesting to read a well articulated take on it.

One last thought, if I may. You clearly see libertarianism as something that would be successful here and everywhere. Why are there no examples of it in our world today? Why did Iceland collapse? How does libertarianism prevent itself from sliding into anarchy?

A Ron Paul/Gary Johnson combination is a Libertarian’s dream ticket, however it is unlikely to be a Republican reality. As Chris Moody of the Daily Caller wrote today, “Often described as a “three-legged stool,” the Republican Party is generally comprised of a coalition of social conservatives, defense hawks and libertarians. A presidential ticket that represented just one of those simply wouldn’t cut it.”
I agree with him that neither Paul nor Johnson would ever win over the defense hawks, but I’m not so sure they couldn’t win over many social conservatives. I even know many liberals who agree with much of what Ron Paul has to say.
With so many people realizing that the Democrats and Republicans often offer us the same results once in power (consider the Patriot Act or the out of control government spending), maybe we are not that far away from a third party such as the Libertarians presenting a viable alternative. But, too many people are still in the mindset of allowing their political parties to set the parameters for their beliefs instead of thinking for themselves. Too bad. A Paul/Johnson Libertarian ticket might be good for this country.

im_lovin_it said:
MC, Thanks for the analysis. I can see I’ve got some reading to do when I have some down time! Lots of people don’t know squat about the housing collapse so it’s interesting to read a well articulated take on it. One last thought, if I may. You clearly see libertarianism as something that would be successful here and everywhere. Why are there no examples of it in our world today? Why did Iceland collapse? How does libertarianism prevent itself from sliding into anarchy?

Thanks. I think it is a rare and precious thing because it brings prosperity, which dulls the vigilance of the society, and then government overreach and corruption is able to grow. When people are wealthy enough, they don’t draw a hard enough line to stop those who steal from them.

As far as avoiding the slide into anarchy, the natural progression is toward more and more government control, not less. Until that parasitic government kills the host, and anarchy comes from collapse and revolt.

Regards,

MC

Sorry, missed your Iceland question. Wish I knew, but I’ve not studied that situation. I’d have to do some digging.

im_lovin_it said:
Thanks. I think it is a rare and precious thing because it brings prosperity, which dulls the vigilance of the society, and then government overreach and corruption is able to grow. When people are wealthy enough, they don’t draw a hard enough line to stop those who steal from them.
As far as avoiding the slide into anarchy, the natural progression is toward more and more government control, not less. Until that parasitic government kills the host, and anarchy comes from collapse and revolt.
Regards,
MC

Just also realize I worded my prior answer in a confusing way.

Thanks. I think it is a rare and precious thing because:

After it brings its usual prosperity, the vigilance of the society becomes dulled, and then government overreach and corruption are able to grow. And once people are wealthy enough, they don’t draw a hard enough line to stop those who steal from them. But bringing government back into check is VERY difficult.

So, it is rare because it is difficult to maintain. It can slide into corrupt systems like ours, which slide further toward police state totalitarianism and ultimately revolt.

Regards,

MC

LarryB said:
A Ron Paul/Gary Johnson combination is a Libertarian’s dream ticket, however it is unlikely to be a Republican reality. As Chris Moody of the Daily Caller wrote today, “Often described as a “three-legged stool,” the Republican Party is generally comprised of a coalition of social conservatives, defense hawks and libertarians. A presidential ticket that represented just one of those simply wouldn’t cut it.”I agree with him that neither Paul nor Johnson would ever win over the defense hawks, but I’m not so sure they couldn’t win over many social conservatives. I even know many liberals who agree with much of what Ron Paul has to say.With so many people realizing that the Democrats and Republicans often offer us the same results once in power (consider the Patriot Act or the out of control government spending), maybe we are not that far away from a third party such as the Libertarians presenting a viable alternative. But, too many people are still in the mindset of allowing their political parties to set the parameters for their beliefs instead of thinking for themselves. Too bad. A Paul/Johnson Libertarian ticket might be good for this country.

I think you have it virtually right on the nose.

There are two ways it is most likely to happen. One is a coalition of the fiscally responsible civil-liberties social liberals of the traditional left joining with some of thosee you describe from the traditional right.

The other is simply enough financial collapse that people are forced back into more self-reliance as government has no resources and both entitlements and warfare budgets vanish. This is where we are more likely headed, and with that comes great risk of other sorts of not-so-peaceful revolution.

Just_MC said:
As for price fixing, it can only go so far. Price fixing in a free market leads to new competition.

I agree with you except on the above, and maybe it’s because I don’t understand what you’re getting at when you speak of price fixing. Offhand, I see price fixing as contrary to free market capitalism, and can think of no instance where fixing prices has been a good thing. On the contrary, I cite examples where fixing prices has been very bad. Please consider the commodities markets:

Some years ago, there was an effort to fix prices on potatoes. How it came to happen is a long story that I won’t bore you with but it did happen. As a result of the artificially high prices, designed to prop up the potato farmers, I avoided buying potatoes and potato products, and apparently so did many other people; potatoes sat in the produce bins and rotted–just as they should have. The only business entities that flourished as a result were those who could make use of rotting potatoes. The potato farmers suffered from the legislation they had lobbied for in hopes of making themselves rich. I had a good laugh on hearing that news. I guess the lesson was that free market capitalism is the best of all systems.

Ron is half absolutely right and half out of his mind. Kind of like John McCain. Let’s not do that again.

Just_MC said:
As for price fixing, it can only go so far. Price fixing in a free market leads to new competition. If you fix prices at an artificially high rate, you will succumb to that competition.

X-3 said:
I agree with you except on the above, and maybe it’s because I don’t understand what you’re getting at when you speak of price fixing. Offhand, I see price fixing as contrary to free market capitalism, and can think of no instance where fixing prices has been a good thing. On the contrary, I cite examples where fixing prices has been very bad. Please consider the commodities markets:

Not sure if I understood you, but I will try to clarify what I meant. I don’t see price fixing as good in any way. All I mean is that price fixing cannot be sustained if it is large enough. The more people artificially raise the price of a good by colluding with their competition, the more incentive and opportunity that they create for someone else to get into business to undercut them. So, the more price fixing that occurs, the less sustainable it is. Does not mean there won’t be any price fixing, but it does mean that the government won’t be needed to fix it. Like most things in the free market, there are imperfections, but the more they grow, the more they are self-correcting.

I don’t see price-fixing as good, except that in some cases it MIGHT lead to innovation, if it were bad enough. Like, if all the watchmakers fixed their prices, and it led to development of digital watches as an alternative. But I see this as a RARE exception. In general, price fixing can simply happen. But the more it happens, the more the market force to correct it.

And further, non libertarian systems don’t stop price fixing either. They may force people to pay officials who claim to stop it, but most of these bureaucrats are impotent. It’s probably cheaper to pay some higher, price-fixed costs than to pay the Keystone Cops who can’t stop it, AND likely pay the higher prices too.

Does that help clarify what I was trying to say?

Regards,

MC

X-3 said:
Some years ago, there was an effort to fix prices on potatoes. How it came to happen is a long story that I won’t bore you with but it did happen. As a result of the artificially high prices, designed to prop up the potato farmers, I avoided buying potatoes and potato products, and apparently so did many other people; potatoes sat in the produce bins and rotted–just as they should have. The only business entities that flourished as a result were those who could make use of rotting potatoes. The potato farmers suffered from the legislation they had lobbied for in hopes of making themselves rich. I had a good laugh on hearing that news. I guess the lesson was that free market capitalism is the best of all systems.

Regarding the potatoes example, I take it this was a government-imposed scheme to raise prices for the potato farmers? Doesn’t matter, but it sounds like something that has typically come from government, like paying people NOT to raise crops, or cash for clunkers (paying people to waste useful resources), etc.

Pablo said:
Ron is half absolutely right and half out of his mind. Kind of like John McCain. Let’s not do that again.

I love it when people offer no rationale to go with their conclusions.

So, how is he half out of his mind, other than implicitly believing that being honest and presenting his arguments in the arena of ideas might make a difference? If anyone thinks Ron Paul is a fool or crazy, he is only so in his foolish belief that he might persuade idiots of the truth such that they vote and act upon it.

So, how do YOU see him as half crazy?

Right wing bifurcation…priceless.

armwood said:
I can’t stand this guy. I despise he and his son. They are the worst of America.

Liberal Tormentor (formerly Seeing 2012 From My Window) said:
Oh I didn’t realize you had left.

I recommend a visit to armwood’s website armwood.com. He has some interesting, thoughtful, and well-reasoned op-eds and some really cool jazz tunes. You can leave a comment while jammin’.

And to find out all you really need to know, just google armwood + bar violations.

I didn’t get to hear the speech, but looking at the summary that Mediaite has provided (and I should be VERY skeptical of their summary) I see nothing about entitlement reform. Military spending isn’t going to be what sends this country off a cliff; Social Security, Medicare, and federal subsidies of Medicaid are going to sink this country. Social security is insolvent, and Medicare and Medicaid were severely underfunded to begin with. These programs need to be terminated IMMEDIATELY. They are the greatest threat to our national security, posing imminent threats to our debt, our currency, and our wellbeing.

Tony Westover said:
I didn’t get to hear the speech, but looking at the summary that Mediaite has provided (and I should be VERY skeptical of their summary) I see nothing about entitlement reform. Military spending isn’t going to be what sends this country off a cliff; Social Security, Medicare, and federal subsidies of Medicaid are going to sink this country. Social security is insolvent, and Medicare and Medicaid were severely underfunded to begin with. These programs need to be terminated IMMEDIATELY. They are the greatest threat to our national security, posing imminent threats to our debt, our currency, and our wellbeing.

I’d say military spending is a significant chunk that needs to be radically cut, but agree, the biggest drivers are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare if it isn’t stopped.

Furthermore, we need to END the interventionism all over the world, which has us on a growing, neverending, police state war footing at home. Psychos like Peter King of New York all need to go. This guy is a complete fascist.

Just_MC said:
Regarding the potatoes example

I don’t believe it was some whack-o government idea but the result was about the same. What I’m getting at is price fixing is, at best, unethical…kind of like OPEC.