Thread: Jon Stewart on the Ron "13th Floor in a Hotel" Paul Media Blackout

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well what does Ron Paul utilize to promote freedom: The Constitution. Where in the Constitution is the power to create and maintain NASA? *Crickets*



Ok you are just agreeing with the effects, not the cause. The cause is freedom. The ability to live in a non-coercive environment. Government is founded on and sustained by coercion through theft, kidnapping and murder. This is why I do a little head shake when I hear Ron Paul supporters. I once was one but there is a great inconsistency in the philosophy of Constitutionalism. Why is it ok for government to have monopolies on services like roads/transportation, defense, court systems but not in non-"public" goods sectors? Look at Article 1 Section 8, all the things that Congress can make/maintain and tell me how you are going to make such things without taxation. Why is the income tax bad but other corporate taxes ok? Corporations aren't people. Ron Paul said this. They are made up of people. So why it is ok to tax those people who operate under the title of corporation but people who don't aren't? Why is the income tax theft and the corporate tax necessary? Why is Federal tyranny wrong but state tyranny through the 10th amendment justified?

Did I not just say I do not support 100% of what Ron Paul says? Look what happened to NASA under a DEMOCRAT: It's gone. Obama proposes the budget, and NASA is being phased out anyways. Regardless of who you support, NASA will still go away. None of the current candidates support it, so I'll deal with that.

The Income Tax was OK... when it was proposed in 1913, because the people who elected their representatives generally supported it. It was never supposed to be on the middle class, only the upper class, or so said Congress. However, according to the 16th Amendment the taxes are NOT to be apportioned among the states. That is why I disagree with it.

Transportation is not monopolized by the FEDERAL government, that is why there are different types of roads, interstates, State Routes, County Roads, and Township Roads. Corporations directly obtain and use capital, which is why taxation on them is acceptable. Capital and natural resources do not belong to any one person until obtained. Once they are obtained through mining, farming, etc, there can be taxes on those who consume capital to produce. Where is capital, primarily? US soil, or land. If property taxes are legal, then taking the fruits of property and taxing that can also be legal.

Income tax, on the other hand, is taking money in a transaction between a private employer and private citizen. There is no physical capital being moved, only paper money/digital money.

The States are more accountable to the people. Many of our state laws and all of our local taxes on the township level are levied through direct elections. YOUR representative is not MY representative. That is why many Congressional laws created are not representative of me. (It's also why my state law on Marijuana is more likely representative of me than a national law on marijuana.)

The States have lost so much of their power that 4-8 years of State power gains will be beneficial.



Just because Ron Paul is not 100% "correct" in my opinion, he is HONEST, he BELIEVES WHAT HE SAYS. He will bring our troops home, he will never sign a renewal of the PATRIOT Act, he will ACTUALLY close Gitmo, and switch Marijuana laws to the state level, as well as Gay Marriage. NO other politicians (aside from maybe Gary Johnson) would ever do any of these things without a special interest paying them. Sure, he may not be all correct, but what's better... another Bush, another Obama, another person who does absolutely nothing different? Or maybe someone who actually cares about how insanely powerful the Federal government is growing?

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Did I not just say I do not support 100% of what Ron Paul says?

Well I don't understand how you can like effects without accepting the cause behind it.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

The Income Tax was OK... when it was proposed in 1913, because the people who elected their representatives generally supported it. It was never supposed to be on the middle class, only the upper class, or so said Congress. However, according to the 16th Amendment the taxes are NOT to be apportioned among the states. That is why I disagree with it.

So, taxing rich people is ok? But taxing anyone else isn't?

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Transportation is not monopolized by the FEDERAL government, that is why there are different types of roads, interstates, State Routes, County Roads, and Township Roads.

And they are all owned by the U.S. government. Just because there is a difference between interstates and streets doesn't infer that there is a different owner.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Corporations directly obtain and use capital, which is why taxation on them is acceptable.

So do people. In fact corporations are people. So you've completely avoided my question as to why it is ok to tax people who work under the title of corporation but it isn't ok to tax people who don't work under such a title.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Income tax, on the other hand, is taking money in a transaction between a private employer and private citizen. There is no physical capital being moved, only paper money/digital money.

Labor is a capital.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

The States are more accountable to the people. Many of our state laws and all of our local taxes on the township level are levied through direct elections. YOUR representative is not MY representative. That is why many Congressional laws created are not representative of me. (It's also why my state law on Marijuana is more likely representative of me than a national law on marijuana.)

The States have lost so much of their power that 4-8 years of State power gains will be beneficial.

This completely avoids my question on why federal tyranny is bad but state tyranny through the 10th amendment is ok.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Just because Ron Paul is not 100% "correct" in my opinion, he is HONEST, he BELIEVES WHAT HE SAYS. He will bring our troops home, he will never sign a renewal of the PATRIOT Act, he will ACTUALLY close Gitmo, and switch Marijuana laws to the state level, as well as Gay Marriage. NO other politicians (aside from maybe Gary Johnson) would ever do any of these things without a special interest paying them. Sure, he may not be all correct, but what's better... another Bush, another Obama, another person who does absolutely nothing different? Or maybe someone who actually cares about how insanely powerful the Federal government is growing?

Let us say Ron Paul does win, which is entirely possible. Apart from the executive foreign power, do you really think he will get these things passed in a congress that is almost entirely stacked against him? I would love to see troops come home, GITMO shut down and a veto on the PATRIOT act (if it comes up for renewal) but elimination of the income tax, removal of drugs from the Federal Ban list and other things require legislation by Congress which let's be honest, not everyone follows Ron Paul's voting record.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well I don't understand how you can like effects without accepting the cause behind it.

What "effects" here are you talking about that I do not accept the causes of? You keep saying I like the effects but not the causes... but you aren't saying WHAT effects or causes these are. Specify please?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So, taxing rich people is ok? But taxing anyone else isn't?

According to the Congress in session back when it was passed, yes. I was not alive then, so I didn't have an opinion on it. No, I don't believe the income tax should exist at all.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And they are all owned by the U.S. government. Just because there is a difference between interstates and streets doesn't infer that there is a different owner.

Yes, but the States and local governments are more representative of the people; (and if you've ever driven on a state toll road, say the one in Kansas, or even a long stretch of the Ohio turnpike, they are much more drivable than nationally-owned interstates.)

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So do people. In fact corporations are people. So you've completely avoided my question as to why it is ok to tax people who work under the title of corporation but it isn't ok to tax people who don't work under such a title.

You didn't read my part about corporations using capital (specifically land capital)? It is not taxing the people, it is taxing the transfer of goods.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Labor is a capital.

Labor is not OWNED by the government, or cannot be considered to be owned by the government. The government was designed to serve the people, not the other way around. Land is often accepted as "owned" by the government, which is why they can tax both land and physical capital.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

This completely avoids my question on why federal tyranny is bad but state tyranny through the 10th amendment is ok.

Actually I did answer the question; states are more accountable. It wouldn't be tyranny because the Federal government HAS the predominance of power, currently. Also, states cannot start foreign wars that the people do not want, nor can they impose international doctrines that are harmful to our nation's economy and putting us in debt.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Let us say Ron Paul does win, which is entirely possible. Apart from the executive foreign power, do you really think he will get these things passed in a congress that is almost entirely stacked against him? I would love to see troops come home, GITMO shut down and a veto on the PATRIOT act (if it comes up for renewal) but elimination of the income tax, removal of drugs from the Federal Ban list and other things require legislation by Congress which let's be honest, not everyone follows Ron Paul's voting record.

Yes, let's say he DOES win. He could easily bring the troops home, you are correct, he can obviously shut down GITMO since it was established through the Executive Branch. He will veto the PATRIOT Act, too. He would have trouble dealing with the income tax, and he will also have trouble with Marijuana, but THINK about it for a second... What President, in recent history, has been a non-interventionist who supports private rights? Sure, he can't fix everything. But ending our wars will decrease our deficit tremendously. The PATRIOT Act being repealed will be a victory for privacy rights, and GITMO being shut down will be a human rights victory as well.

Even those three things will be far more than any other President has done for the benefits of our nation in a loooong long time. Let's not forget how many people have started jumping on the Audit the Fed bandwagon in even the last couple months. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, both very influential candidates, agree with what Ron Paul has been saying for years. If it catches on, Congress could regularly audit the Fed (that seems like a very sensical, non-radical idea. Some people think ending the Fed would be "horrible" for our monetary system, but an audit just makes SENSE. If the gov't can audit us, why can't we audit the part of the gov't that's responsible for our current economic situation (partially)? The government is by the people for the people, or it is supposed to be. They should be held accountable to US, not US to them.)

Back on topic...today I flipped to CNN and I saw a talking head mention Ron Paul and referred to him as a major driver of republican politics.

Originally Posted by cmind

Back on topic...today I flipped to CNN and I saw a talking head mention Ron Paul and referred to him as a major driver of republican politics.

Was it Cafferty? He's the only known supporter of Ron Paul on CNN. If it wasn't Cafferty, I'd be very impressed. Although starting next week, Ron Paul will be in a debate on Monday (in South Carolina), Wednesday on MSNBC, the following Monday on CNN, and the 22nd on Fox News. A good time to get his message out? He will sound a lot different than the Same Ol' Party I'm sure!

I don't see how someone who opposes unnecessary war, supports decriminalization, and dislikes the PATRIOT Act would continue to vote for more of the same Republicrats.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Was it Cafferty? He's the only known supporter of Ron Paul on CNN. If it wasn't Cafferty, I'd be very impressed. Although starting next week, Ron Paul will be in a debate on Monday (in South Carolina), Wednesday on MSNBC, the following Monday on CNN, and the 22nd on Fox News. A good time to get his message out? He will sound a lot different than the Same Ol' Party I'm sure!

I don't see how someone who opposes unnecessary war, supports decriminalization, and dislikes the PATRIOT Act would continue to vote for more of the same Republicrats.

Probably because they also don't want abortion to be illegal or separation of church and state to be taken away. Or the many absurd things he believes.
Personally I think doing something beats not doing something almost every time. And it would be a good thing if he became your president, because his goods outweigh his bads. As long as you all stopped him from bringing his religious beliefs in to parliament (or whatever you call that there).

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Was it Cafferty? He's the only known supporter of Ron Paul on CNN.

No, it was a young-ish guy. Still, the other people on set with him basically ignored his comment completely, like they literally didn't hear him say it.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

It's not just right-wing media outlets. It's all of them, because the other media outlets support more liberal candidates, and Ron Paul could honestly beat them, because they are all foreign-nation-building war mongers.

I would say "the other media outlets" have let themselves be cowed by the Right's constant allegations of "liberal bias" and the inordinate amount of noise they make whenever an instance of that "liberal bias" (i.e. the absence of a conservative bias) is pointed out by a prominent talk radio host or blogger. As an Obama supporter, I am 100% behind letting Ron Paul rend the GOP asunder. Of all the current GOP candidates, the only one who isn't outright terrifying to consider actually taking office is Romney, who is merely revolting. None of the others, Ron Paul included, have even a pinky toe rooted in reality.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

I would say "the other media outlets" have let themselves be cowed by the Right's constant allegations of "liberal bias" and the inordinate amount of noise they make whenever an instance of that "liberal bias" (i.e. the absence of a conservative bias) is pointed out by a prominent talk radio host or blogger. As an Obama supporter, I am 100% behind letting Ron Paul rend the GOP asunder. Of all the current GOP candidates, the only one who isn't outright terrifying to consider actually taking office is Romney, who is merely revolting. None of the others, Ron Paul included, have even a pinky toe rooted in reality.

MSNBC publicly admitted to being biased, along with a slogan change "Lean Forward." They aren't so much of a "news" outlet as they are a "political" outlet. I suggest reading "The Revolution: A Manifesto" by Ron Paul (A short book, only about 130 pages or so, and not large pages either.) to see if you can agree with at least one of the chapters. I used to disagree with him on many points that I did not fully understand his position on. It's worth the time to get to know the candidates.

The problem I have with Obama is the three extra wars he created (Libya, Yemen, Pakistan [Syria has military action, but it's only on the borders with Iraq]), and the failure to withdraw troops from Iraq. He has also done nothing to address "transparency". He had one really moving speech where he said "All bills would be online for a week before I sign them, so people KNOW what is being signed." He said that he would help pass more sunshine and transparency laws in government so it would be made as public as possible. NONE of that happened. I cannot support that rhetoric.

Romney gets only 6% of his donations from supporters who pay under 200 dollars. His top supporters work for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Credit Suisse (A Swiss investment firm that profited off of our recession by picking up devalued assets). Top Contributors to Mitt Romney | OpenSecrets

MSNBC's business model since roughly 2006 has been "Fox News, but opposite," and unlike "Fair and Balanced" Fox News, they're perfectly open about it. There's a quite appreciable difference between MSNBC or CurrentTV, actual Left-leaning news outlets, and the broadcast networks and CNN, who are biased toward maximizing sensationalism while avoiding controversy that will impact their sponsors, which sometimes happens to coincide with either a slight-Right or slight-Left stance.

Obama is by no means perfect; he's simply sane, which distinguishes him from most of the GOP field, and certainly from Ron "let's name the boy Rand" Paul.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

MSNBC's business model since roughly 2006 has been "Fox News, but opposite," and unlike "Fair and Balanced" Fox News, they're perfectly open about it. There's a quite appreciable difference between MSNBC or CurrentTV, actual Left-leaning news outlets, and the broadcast networks and CNN, who are biased toward maximizing sensationalism while avoiding controversy that will impact their sponsors, which sometimes happens to coincide with either a slight-Right or slight-Left stance.

Obama is by no means perfect; he's simply sane, which distinguishes him from most of the GOP field, and certainly from Ron "let's name the boy Rand" Paul.

What does the name "Randall" have to do with Ron Paul's character?

Anyways, Obama, you're right, is not perfect. He is not what I consider "sane." He has done virtually nothing different than Bush or Clinton when it comes to actual efforts to guide the nation. He is merely mimicking failed policies that have been proven ineffectual. Fox News is one of the stations that I dislike due to their biased nature. Being "open" about a bias does not make MSNBC any better. The "news" is supposed to be an unbiased report. We are supposed to form our own opinions, but they form them for us.

Ron Paul is distinguished by the GOP field based on his voting record, political stances, and actual understanding of economic policy, monetary policy, and Constitutional history.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Obama is by no means perfect; he's simply sane, which distinguishes him from most of the GOP field, and certainly from Ron "let's name the boy Rand" Paul.

As Preserver pointed out, his full name is Randall, meaning Rand is just a nickname. I believe Ron stated that it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

As Preserver pointed out, his full name is Randall, meaning Rand is just a nickname. I believe Ron stated that it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

Fair enough

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

As Preserver pointed out, his full name is Randall, meaning Rand is just a nickname. I believe Ron stated that it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

His wife started calling him "Rand"... and Rand himself said he never noticed the relation to Ayn Rand until supporters started ASKING them about it I, too was curious, so I googled it, and that's how I found out!

Seems to me that having the view that marijuana should be illegal and that money should be fiat is much more insane than naming your kid after an author you might like. Ron Paul may not be perfect, but he's probably the only candidate that won't continue to make things worse(meaning more debt, less civil liberties, etc.).

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Seems to me that having the view that marijuana should be illegal and that money should be fiat is much more insane than naming your kid after an author you might like. Ron Paul may not be perfect, but he's probably the only candidate that won't continue to make things worse(meaning more debt, less civil liberties, etc.).

You'd think so... we tried prohibition before with alcohol... and that was a disaster. Fiat money IS ILLEGAL according to the highest law in the United States, the Constitution. Only gold/silver-backed currency is legal, and it must be minted by the Congress, not this "Central Banking Agency." Without an amendment establishing any of this, it is all violation of our highest laws.

Also, I think this article is no longer relevant on the topic of "no media attention." The lack of media attention gave him a good amount of attention. They still exclude him from many major "Top-Tier" lists, but thankfully he will be at the next 4 debates. Nothing like hearing Ron Paul give it to them straight!

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Also, I think this article is no longer relevant on the topic of "no media attention." The lack of media attention gave him a good amount of attention. They still exclude him from many major "Top-Tier" lists, but thankfully he will be at the next 4 debates. Nothing like hearing Ron Paul give it to them straight!

Yep, he makes a lot of good talk. So does Obama. Doesn't mean he won't bow under pressure if he gets elected.

Also, how is continuing Clinton and Bush's policies "insane"? It's just predictable. The GOP candidates, on the other hand, are actually insane.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Yep, he makes a lot of good talk. So does Obama. Doesn't mean he won't bow under pressure if he gets elected.

Also, how is continuing Clinton and Bush's policies "insane"? It's just predictable. The GOP candidates, on the other hand, are actually insane.

It's insane if you listen to everything Obama SAID he would do.

He doesn't just make good talk. His voting record completely reinforces everything he says (unlike about 99% of candidates) and his bill-sponsorship record does the same. Ron Paul walks the walk... even though the rest of Congress hates him for it sometimes. But I'm OK with that

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

It's insane if you listen to everything Obama SAID he would do.

Welcome to politics, ThePreserver.

He doesn't just make good talk. His voting record completely reinforces everything he says (unlike about 99% of candidates) and his bill-sponsorship record does the same. Ron Paul walks the walk... even though the rest of Congress hates him for it sometimes. But I'm OK with that

Obama voted against the war in Iraq as senator and also voted on green policies (which are more reasons I voted for him). His voting record also reinforced his talk. The point is, don't have amnesia and hypocrisy and worship the ground Ron Paul walks on just because he's technically a different person than Obama. He probably won't act any different once he's president.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Welcome to politics, ThePreserver.



Obama voted against the war in Iraq as senator and also voted on green policies (which are more reasons I voted for him). His voting record also reinforced his talk. The point is, don't have amnesia and hypocrisy and worship the ground Ron Paul walks on just because he's technically a different person than Obama. He probably won't act any different once he's president.

However, he sent an increased troop surge in the Middle East, began an unauthorized war in Libya and Yemen, and signed the re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act. I don't have amnesia. Obama must, since he isn't doing what he pledged to do; bring the troops home. He is continuing a failed policy of Keynesian economics by not taking accountability measures (which he promised) on the Federal Reserve. And I don't worship the ground he walks on... (especially not because he's "different than Obama.") I supported Ron Paul in 2007 when he ran for President, before we even knew who was going to be the Democratic nominee. The difference b/w Paul and Obama (and everyone else running aside from Gary Johnson) is where they get their money; Obama, Romney, Pawlenty, all received their highest donations from Goldman Sachs employees, Morgan Stanley employees, Credit Suisse employees, Comcast (owners of NBC/MSNBC) employees. Ron Paul's highest donations come from military servicemen and women, and technology affiliates (IBM, Google). OpenSecrets.org: Money in Politics -- See Who's Giving & Who's Getting has the money trail information. I almost forgot... Obama didn't "end" torture or Gitmo, either, and he supported the TARP bailout programs.

Obama sounded like an OK candidate when he ran, I'll give you that. It was a pretty obvious choice in 2008, when compared with Bush's failings beforehand. However, the only thing he did fulfill was his promise to deal with healthcare... (Which most people don't know wasn't caused by capitalism; it was caused when Congress passed regulations decades ago, supporting the very HMOs that created the problems we have today.)

Ron Paul also predicted the real estate collapse... back in 2002. He warned Congress to take action or else something "catastrophic" would happen to the housing market. People said it was "unpredictable." He had the intelligence to predict it, why wouldn't that make a good President?

I know I can't really convince anyone that Ron Paul won't be the "same", I know that he won't. If you look at what organizations are ardent "un-supporters" and supporters of each candidate, you can see where loyalties lie. By removing certain regulations and VASTLY reducing the budget (with major cuts in defense and military spending) he would be harming special interest groups supporting the likes of Morgan-Stanley or Goldman Sachs. That is why they fund Obama and Romney; they know they will "have their backs" in the wake of another financial crisis. Ron Paul will not have their backs. (nor would Gary Johnson... who is truly a good guy, a Republican who balanced his budget, had a surplus, and supports gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization.)

I know I can't convince you otherwise myself. An Obama supporter couldn't convince me otherwise, nor could a Romney supporter. We all have our reasons to support candidates, but I, a person who does not believe politicians are good people, truly believe that Ron Paul (who, even though he ran in 2008, was not invited to speak at the RNC) will do what he says he will do. He has been for the past 30 years, like when he first ran for President as a Libertarian. No one who doesn't truly believe in liberty runs as a Libertarian.

TL;DR version: I don't 100% support Ron Paul, but I support him 100% more than the other candidates.

Wait, you guys think the Libyan action was a bad thing?

Originally Posted by Xei

Wait, you guys think the Libyan action was a bad thing?

I don't think the action was a bad thing... but the way Obama went about with it was. We could have easily passed a resolution in Congress in one day... but he made it an unconstitutional military action since it lasted as long as it did.

If you've ever seen Congress... it's not difficult to pass a war resolution that can be in ANY way justified... there was evidence STACKED against Iraq, but somehow that passed. Should have just done it the old-fashioned way.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

What "effects" here are you talking about that I do not accept the causes of? You keep saying I like the effects but not the causes... but you aren't saying WHAT effects or causes these are. Specify please?

Things like closing the Fed (effect), why would you want this? What is the cause for it?

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

According to the Congress in session back when it was passed, yes. I was not alive then, so I didn't have an opinion on it. No, I don't believe the income tax should exist at all.

Why shouldn't it exist?

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Yes, but the States and local governments are more representative of the people; (and if you've ever driven on a state toll road, say the one in Kansas, or even a long stretch of the Ohio turnpike, they are much more drivable than nationally-owned interstates.)

You said that roads aren't monopolized by the U.S. government. What does representation have to do with the argument about whether roads are monopolized by the government?

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

You didn't read my part about corporations using capital (specifically land capital)? It is not taxing the people, it is taxing the transfer of goods.

And you are dodging the fact that corporations are people. If taxing transfer of goods is something you promote then why aren't you propounding the taxation of all people who transfer goods instead of those who work under the title of "corporation?"

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Labor is not OWNED by the government, or cannot be considered to be owned by the government. The government was designed to serve the people, not the other way around. Land is often accepted as "owned" by the government, which is why they can tax both land and physical capital.

Nor are "corporations." Labor is capital and you said that you wanted to tax corporations because of their transfer of capital. This goes back to my previous comment about you saying we should tax corporations because of this action.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Actually I did answer the question; states are more accountable. It wouldn't be tyranny because the Federal government HAS the predominance of power, currently. Also, states cannot start foreign wars that the people do not want, nor can they impose international doctrines that are harmful to our nation's economy and putting us in debt.

Any why can't they do that? Where in the constitution does it say that they cannot do such things? Those powers not expressed in the constitution are RETAINED BY THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. I really don't get this naivety about states that you have.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Yes, let's say he DOES win. He could easily bring the troops home, you are correct, he can obviously shut down GITMO since it was established through the Executive Branch. He will veto the PATRIOT Act, too. He would have trouble dealing with the income tax, and he will also have trouble with Marijuana, but THINK about it for a second... What President, in recent history, has been a non-interventionist who supports private rights? Sure, he can't fix everything. But ending our wars will decrease our deficit tremendously. The PATRIOT Act being repealed will be a victory for privacy rights, and GITMO being shut down will be a human rights victory as well.

I've never said these would be bad things but you seem to be propounding the idea that once Ron Paul does his presidential term, then everyone will become more liberty-orientated. After Ron Paul is done, if he wins, nothing is stopping these problems from producing themselves once again. That is what I don't think Constitutionalists get. They would have to retain a pertulate government aimed at keeping itself small and that requires a majority if not super majority of the population to agree on the size and scope of government for an extended period of time. I guess that is why they always romanicize the Colonial period as a golden age of republican government. What a farce that is but they keep perpetuating it as something to aim for.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Even those three things will be far more than any other President has done for the benefits of our nation in a loooong long time. Let's not forget how many people have started jumping on the Audit the Fed bandwagon in even the last couple months. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, both very influential candidates, agree with what Ron Paul has been saying for years. If it catches on, Congress could regularly audit the Fed (that seems like a very sensical, non-radical idea. Some people think ending the Fed would be "horrible" for our monetary system, but an audit just makes SENSE. If the gov't can audit us, why can't we audit the part of the gov't that's responsible for our current economic situation (partially)? The government is by the people for the people, or it is supposed to be. They should be held accountable to US, not US to them.)

They jumped on the bandwagon because they are looking to get elected, not because they actually believe in auditing the Fed and they show such by having such a base understanding of Austrian economics. The government is not by and for the people because of people like you, thinking you can delegate power to strangers who you naively think will never use such power for themselves or friends. Disinterest among politicians in politics for personal gain is a republican dream.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Things like closing the Fed (effect), why would you want this? What is the cause for it?

I believe that currency is more stable when money isn't printed in the trillions. Over 16 trillion was created out of thin air in "emergency loans" to banks and investment funds globally from 2007 to 2010. That's more than our ENTIRE money supply, 9 trillion. So the amount of US Dollars that now exist are over doubled from the last 5 years. That's not good for someone who hasn't had inflation-adjusted raises (practically everyone in the middle and lower class).

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Why shouldn't it exist?

It shouldn't exist in the manner in which it is currently. It's acceptable in a very minor form, but it's 100% unaccountable. There are no annual audits, no easy ways to remove the chair or board, and no measures to "veto" actions they take.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

You said that roads aren't monopolized by the U.S. government. What does representation have to do with the argument about whether roads are monopolized by the government?

I said "FEDERAL" in caps. They are not monopolized by the FEDERAL government.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

And you are dodging the fact that corporations are people. If taxing transfer of goods is something you promote then why aren't you propounding the taxation of all people who transfer goods instead of those who work under the title of "corporation?"

That's why I support the Fair Tax. Since it's placed on sales at every level, it's a flat 9% (or some number) for purchases made by corporations, purchases made by individuals, and any middle-man transactions that involve the exchange of physical capital. It would generate approximately the same amount of income as the income tax once the income tax is phased out, if this proposal were made law.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Nor are "corporations." Labor is capital and you said that you wanted to tax corporations because of their transfer of capital. This goes back to my previous comment about you saying we should tax corporations because of this action.

Labor is one form of capital, but land and physical capital are acceptably taxed under the Fair Tax. Instead of directly taxing the income of an individual, they would be taxed based on how much they SPEND, not how much they MAKE.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Any why can't they do that? Where in the constitution does it say that they cannot do such things? Those powers not expressed in the constitution are RETAINED BY THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES. I really don't get this naivety about states that you have.

Why can't they declare war? Congress has the power to declare war. I believe that is a part of the Constitution, is it not?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

I've never said these would be bad things but you seem to be propounding the idea that once Ron Paul does his presidential term, then everyone will become more liberty-orientated. After Ron Paul is done, if he wins, nothing is stopping these problems from producing themselves once again. That is what I don't think Constitutionalists get. They would have to retain a pertulate government aimed at keeping itself small and that requires a majority if not super majority of the population to agree on the size and scope of government for an extended period of time. I guess that is why they always romanicize the Colonial period as a golden age of republican government. What a farce that is but they keep perpetuating it as something to aim for.

The proposal by Ron Paul (and Gary Johnson) is to establish a balanced-budget amendment, or at least propose one. They both promised balanced budgets (And they have track records to prove it, GJ had a balanced budget for New Mexico, and ended with a 1 billion dollar surplus.) It would prevent many outrageous expenditures. Also, taxes would not be allowed to be raised over a certain threshold mentioned in the proposed amendment.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

They jumped on the bandwagon because they are looking to get elected, not because they actually believe in auditing the Fed and they show such by having such a base understanding of Austrian economics. The government is not by and for the people because of people like you, thinking you can delegate power to strangers who you naively think will never use such power for themselves or friends. Disinterest among politicians in politics for personal gain is a republican dream.

I could agree with that, yes they did jump on the bandwagon. Although I hope (optimist that I am) that the TRUE original(s) in the Libertarian movement will be recognized as the proposers of the End the Fed movement.

And I can say with a very high certainty that Ron Paul wouldn't take the power to his own ends, (although his goals ARE to minimize the authority of the federal government... so perhaps he would do that.) Nor would Gary Johnson. One can review their voting records and veto records. They actually did everything they say they support.

Long story short? I'm a Libertarian. Not everything about libertarianism is totally correct, but just as many, perhaps more, things about government failures are incorrect measures as well. It's not a perfect system, but it's about time the government worried about important things like our national debt which they CAN diminish by cutting our military spending (which is coming close to 7 times that of China) and repairing the tax code to close corporate AND individualistic loopholes. (General Electric MADE money last year through corporate subsidies and tax deductible loopholes... and they are a multi-billion dollar company.)