It may be easy to reject Ron Paul at first because you don’t understand him or his policies.
You can probably look at the other candidates’ names or faces and make a quick decision that way.
But if you spend any time making a thoughtful decision, and if you get past the learning curve, you’ll love Ron Paul.
—
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds the principle of individual liberty. Libertarians maintain that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty.
It is also one of the only political philosophies backed up by modern economics and psychology instead of pure dogma.
The opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism; meaning you submit to authority simply because “you should”. Giuliani is a prime example of an authoritarian. Giuliani wants to tell you what to do even though he is no expert and even though he has no logical or rational explanation. Of course, Giuliani would never say that he doesn’t have a rational explanation. He’ll simply say something that sounds good like ‘9.11′.
An example of authoritarianism is Hillary Clinton’s assertion that we should ban mature video games. A libertarian would leave such decisions to the parents of a child. Another example of authoritarianism is the move to ban trans fats in NY. Sure, trans fats are unhealthy and undesirable. A libertarian would let people make the decision themselves.
In other words, libertarianism maximizes your ability to make your own choices. Authoritarianism maximizes Giuliani and Hillary’s ability to make choices for you, even when you disagree with them.
And what happens when Giuliani and Hillary make a bad decisions for you and you choose not to comply? Tough. If you disobey you get punished.
Next thing you know, you won’t be allowed to eat at your favorite restaurant.
—
A free market describes a theoretical, idealized market where the prices of goods and services is arranged completely by the mutual non-coerced consent of sellers and buyers, determined generally by the supply and demand law with no government interference in the regulation of costs, supply and demand. In theory, a free market will affect the price of goods such that the price reflects the real value of the goods.
An example of a society with free market society is Hong Kong. Hong Kong is ranked #1 when it comes to economic freedom. Hong Kong enjoys an employment rate nearly identical to that of the United States and there are no minimum wage laws. This keeps inflation at bay, which means residents can afford more with their money. The lack of artificial manipulation of the market means an umbrella costs more when it’s raining than when it’s not. And why shouldn’t it? An umbrella is worth more when it’s raining.
It also means there is more competition, and thus prices stay competitive. People will buy your umbrella if it is better or cheaper. In turn people make and sell better, cheaper umbrellas.
An opposing concept is the idea of nationalized healthcare systems, such as Hillary and Edwards’ proposals. These programs are wasteful because they raise taxes to pay people that have no incentive to provide good healthcare. They also raise the price of healthcare because people go to the doctor even when they don’t need one. They order expensive tests when they don’t need any. The patient (consumer) has no idea what their medication or their doctor visit costs, so there is no feedback that pushes prices back or indicates which services are more efficient. The end result is worse healthcare, longer waiting lines, and higher taxes.
Studies involving psychology of ownership show that people place more value on goods they own than on public goods. This means private property gets taken care of better than public property. This is great news for the environment. In true free market conditions (that is, with no corporate welfare) an oil company has a real incentive to minimize its effect on the environment for two reasons: (1) It can resell the land it has bought at a better price and (2) If they pollute the surrounding private property they are liable for damages to private property.
Better news for the environment: If the oil companies do not get subsidies to drill for oil, and they must pay for the plot of land they will drill on, the price of the plot of land will increase. This means oil companies better do what they can to resell the plot of land once it has been drilled; and more importantly, it provides a real incentive for the oil companies to invest in other technologies - both to drill more carefully, and to avoid oil dependency.
This also explains why our government (and in particular the military branch) is the biggest polluter in the United States. What incentive does the military have to keep its easily-acquired land clean?
References
Jeffrey J. Rachlinski and Forest Jourden. “Remedies and the Psychology of Ownership”, 51 Vanderbilt Law Review 1541-82 (1998).
Teach your friends and family to use the internet.
Show them a clip of their favorite TV show, or music video on YouTube.
Help them look up a Ron Paul video and ask them what they think.
If they can use the internet, they have complete access to Ron Paul. The rest is up to Ron Paul, and he sells himself remarkably well.
Try a video with Tucker, Chris Matthews, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, or if they have a decent attention span, this video:
If you understand the nuances of true conservatism, or classical liberalism, strike up a conversation with a friend who is undecided. Someone who thinks for himself/herself, dislikes the war, or dislikes dogmatic infringement of personal liberty will respond quite nicely. Others will too.* Everybody likes freedom.**
These are good places to brush up on liberty as it pertains to government:
Bring the internet to the older generation, and Ron Paul will do the rest.
* Some older people dislike paying for expensive medication (courtesy of the FDA) when it is cheaper abroad; or being restricted to picking up their medications every month, instead of once every 3 months (which is more convenient). Young parents may be concerned that they can’t afford to move to a wealthy area with good schools, (easily resolved with school vouchers or other privatization), and being told they cannot send children to the school of their choice. A small business owner may want the government to ease up on time-consuming and inconvenient regulations. A smart college student who has done his/her research may want to choose his own anti-depressant, instead of requiring a prescription from a general practitioner (who will simply select the medication via trial and error, anyway). A lot of people may not want heavy surveillance, REAL ID, or any more of the Patriot Act (a real misnomer). More politically inclined people may simply want government transparency. Ron Paul means all these things.
Tucker, a self-professed fan of Ron Paul discusses liberty with former stripper, and current libertarian county chairman, Michelle Shingal. They regard Hillary Clinton as the candidate of big-government intervention, and Ron Paul gets contrasted as the “candidate of freedom.”
His colleague asks, “Why wouldn’t I vote for Ron Paul”, to which Tucker responds, “That’s the question I think millions of Americans are beginning to ask themselves.”
“I have received more emails than I can count from people around the world who write to say that they wish they could be American citizens in order to have the privilege of voting for Ron Paul.” -Thomas E. Woods, Jr. from Having Fun Doing Good
Blogs in the international community are spreading Ron Paul’s message of freedom and giving tutorials on libertarianism, hoping to inform their fellow compatriots and to rally U.S. citizens in support of Ron Paul. The phenomenon is becoming widespread and growing as meet-up groups form around the world as far as Australia, Belgium, and Baghdad to discuss Ron Paul and create inspiring videos. This is what the world is saying about Ron Paul:
Can you imagine the the effect these kinds of politics would have on our [Latin American] countries, eternally paralyzed in the notion that everything that happens to us is the fault of the gringos? Chavez’s tantrums and his assassination paranoia would fall on completely deaf ears. One less tool in the recruitment arsenal of the [Venezuelan] left.
We want to be a bridge between Belgium and the Ron Paul campaign. Mainly to inform Belgium about Ron Paul—we think Belgium has more to learn from Ron Paul than Ron Paul from Belgium—but also to show to Ron Paul that when he becomes president and visits Belgium, there well be cheering crowds, not demonstrations!
Undoubtedly, Ron Paul is an exemplary model for libertarians around the entire world and Europe in particular. Since the Second World War, Europe got stuck with an increasingly sweeping welfare state which cost more and more money to European states. Reagan and Thatcher also had their influence in Belgium, for example, think of the nickname of the then still young Guy Verhofstadt who was called ‘Baby Thatcher’. When both Thatcher and Reagan disappeared from the picture, Verhofstadt had also went with the European flow. He could, as it turns out, not pursue liberalism alone.
Regardless of of how weak the dollar is currently, the United States is still the leading monetary power. In the case, and I realize that this approaches utopia, that Ron Paul succeeds in eliminating the power of the inflationary Federal Reserve, this undoubtedly will have consequences on the European central bank (ECB).
People who want to seize liberty in their country must for this reason look across the borders. This opportunity is undoubtedly available to those in the US themselves. There is an extremely large chance that the Democrats will win the elections, as people there do not understand the disadvantages of the welfare state the Democrats are enamored with.
He is a principled libertarian/classical liberal by political and economic philosophy. That is enough for him to have many new friends in India and Pakistan — both enormously large countries which are sorely in need of libertarian/classical liberal political and economic philosophy to develop themselves. Moreover, Dr Paul advocates a non-interventionist American foreign policy in the world, and he was a principled opponent of the Iraq war from long before it started. That too is something that people in India and Pakistan appreciate. […]
There are rich Indian-Americans paying big bucks to get close to people like Hillary Clinton. They need to stop being so opportunistic and instead look to what is truly in their adopted country’s and the world’s best interests: that is a Ron Paul Presidency.
[Translation: People in other countries wish they had what we have: Ron Paul.]
America launching aggressive wars in the world is not the way to earn the world’s respect or its leadership. Ron Paul, alone among the likely contenders, knows that.
Maybe this will give people in the United States a sense that there are other people out there who care about what we are doing in the world and who would respect us if we had a leader like Ron Paul and a respective foreign policy.
Ron Paul has become the third most searched name in Google and his videos have transformed into the most watched on YouTube. Nobody has probably heard him mentioned, or ultimately, you have heard his name in passing. It’s about a congressman for the U.S. Republican party who wants to be president in the United States in 2008.
Now, one could ask, what makes a Republican politician so special?
The answer lies in his history and his proposals, since Ron Paul seeks to return liberty to the citizens of the U.S. embodying the original principles of the revolution that gave the country its opportunities. An example we should attentively look at from Chile.
[…]
Ron Paul thus embodies the spirit of the North American “founding fathers”, who drew up the Constitution with the idea of protecting the citizenry from the abuse of the State. In this sense, Ron Paul embodies, the original North American idealist, largely devoting himself to libertarian ideals more so than the conservative ideals.
His discourse and relevance are causing him to win all the debates for the Republican primaries. […]
From now on, [he is] my favorite candidate for the U.S. elections in 2008.
Because Britain is suffering the EXACT same symptoms as the USA. We are being ruled, instead of having real representative democracy. Like us, the USA are being deceived too. Britain has almost being totaly swallowed up by a corrupt, undemocratic European Union. The USA are starting to go down the route of North American Union.
[…]
The USA has managed to do what we haven’t so far and got itself a champion of freedom. The Americans aren’t quite as docile and ready to accept a police state as we seem to be, so they have rallied behind the one politician they have with integrity. Maybe Britain doesn’t have such a person and thus why we are floundering.
Ron Paul winning in the States will send shockwaves of freedom around the world. Maybe the British will rediscover our spines if he does?
Public Polish Television (TVA), supported by our taxes, reported on the online presidential campaign in the United States on August 5, 2007. Peter Krazko informed Poles that the most popular candidate among online users is Barack Obama, an obvious lie. In the course of several minutes, not once is Ron Paul’s name mentioned, who definitively leads on YouTube, the biggest online portal in which users can upload videos, also political in nature. The Polish Television propanda is exposed here.
If I were an American I would vote for this guy, no doubt. I had been having this theory that it was the American foreign policy that was so messed up and it was the reason why America was so hated throughout the world and Ron Paul honestly supported my idea during the second GOP Presidential Debate in South Carolina. During the debate Ron Paul, a congressman from the state of Texas, courageously pointed his finger at American foreign policy of making terrible blowbacks in foreign nations. Ron Paul said that America should listen to the the people who attacked America about the reason why they did it. Ron Paul suggested that the only reason why America was attacked was because America had been messing around in other countries. A statement that resulted a hot debate with Rudy Rudy Giuliani. But I have to say, Ron Paul beat him. He said, “They don’t come here to attack us because we’re rich and we’re free, they attack us because we’re over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?” […]
Untuk Tasa Nugraza Barley: Aku akan memilih Ron Paul untuk kepentingan kamu dan siapa saja yang tidak dari Amerika Serikat. Terima Kasih untuk artikel kamu yang mendangkan ilham; dan salam Indonesia!
Some people ask us, why we care about an old Congressman from Texas. They ask us, what it has to do with Europe.
Well, it`s pretty simple: we support the only honest politician around. We support the only politician who addresses the REAL problems, who stands up against the lies we are being told.
It`s not our fault we don’t have any of those in Europe.
This is not about the USA. This is not about national entities. And, by the way, this is not about being “Anti-European“. The politics of the EU are “anti-european” as they breed conflict among us.
Thanks for the post. We must secure our own Ron Pauls here in Europe - it is extremely necessarily. And we will do it! The European r3volution will come, it will be so memorable we will tell our children about it :-))) heartfelt greetings, Tuur (RP Belgium)
Ron Paul’s grassroots campaign is especially interesting for functioning with an unknown degree of spontaneity and decentralization. It compels one to imagine a similar occurrence here in Brazil, right?
Ron Paul’s position on the Iraq war deserves special clarification - not only because this is one the more controversial aspects of the campaign, but mainly because it has great chance of being misunderstood by the majority of the Brazilian public.
Ron Paul, like the majority of Brazilian journalists, is against the Iraq war; however, his reasons for it are very different from that of our journalists. […]
[He is] against the war, but not against the United States […] He can be against the war and at the same time defend American values […]
Military force does not generate democracy: the futility of artificially creating new social orders […] The idea of spreading democracy through military intervention, therefore, is strictly anti-conservative, therefore a true conservative would know that each social order has deep roots in the culture of a people, and could not easily be modified through an external influence - less so if the external influence is military force, which tends to only disorganize effective institutions, without provoking changes in respect to values and ideas.
Therefore, Ron Paul contends that the only role the American government must have in relation to the internal affairs of the other countries is “to give a good example”. That is, the American government must show to the world the benefits of a free society, without involving itself directly in the decision of whether other countries imitate the American model or not. […]
The media has put out the idea that somehow Ron Paul isn’t right for our national security. Really? I wonder how much these critics know about Al Qaeda, our real interests, strategy or world politics.
Students and schools in Belgium and around the world outdo their counterparts in the United States; but it’s not about lack of money, it’s lack of competition and a surplus of bad teachers who have no incentive to teach well. But guess what? Independent schools that spend less money per student, but more per teacher in the United States outdo our public schools as well. How do we fix the problem? Increase competition. Does it still sound strange when Ron Paul says he wants to do away with the Department of Education? Don’t miss the following video:
Stupid in America
Do you want to learn more about Ron Paul? Visit RonPaul2008.com and watch the following video:
One consequence of Ron Paul’s sound foreign policy, is that people around the world will stop hating us - what will that do for terrorism?
Request: Please inform me about any translation errors, particularly in Dutch and Polish. If you come across any notable website supporting Ron Paul, particularly in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia, please send us a link, or post it under comments!
As a follow up on military service people being “heroes” and all…
These are some reasons to join the military:
for honor
for country
for money
free tuition
travel abroad
“blow shit up”
because you hate brown people
because you hate Muslims
because you think you are going to do something good for our country
because you are politically illiterate
because you want to kill people
for the adventure (good one)
for the hookers near military bases, esp. coastal cities
because you are not disciplined enough to do things on your own and you want somebody else to tell you what to do
because you can’t get a job in the real world
because your buddies “did it”
because you parents did it
because your brothers did it
because it was expected of you
“Taking a stand against terrorism” Yeah right…
for the experience (this is a good one)
to learn new things (good one too)
to protect your country (another good one, if you are not starting wars with random countries and your commander in chief is not an idiot)
for potential prestige (not bad)
work experience (decent, too)
to say you did it
so you won’t be called a chicken-hawk
because it makes you look brave
because people will blindly see you as a hero, even if you don’t deserve the title
because you want to know what a bullet feels like
because you want to play with guns or tanks
because it’s easier to follow orders than to think for yourself
health care benefits
dental benefits
military discounts
free flights between bases
pay back your expensive college loans
get to tell people what to do (at some point)
advanced and technical training (nice choice)
because you think God wants you to (lol)
pension
get to yell at foreign strangers
you enjoy pain
you enjoy inflicting pain
because your recruiter lied to you (ouch)
to get citizenship
to be freed (if you were previously a slave)
to get away from your parents
you lost a bet
to meet exotic women abroad
you don’t care for your right leg (you are hoping you’ll be shot and compensated for it)
you think you owe tribute to fallen soldiers
to take revenge
because you want to kill japs
because you want to kill towelheads
because you want to kill Nazis
to find Osama Bin Laden and kick his ass (probably the greatest reason of all)
to kill real terrorists (not Iraqi civilians)
to kill Iraqi civilians
because you think you can force people to be free, even when their idea of freedom is radically different from yours.
to destroy Al Qaeda (another great reason)
for a good career (maybe)
to take out Saddam Hussein (no longer applicable)
to prepare for a career with the CIA
no more job hunting or resumes
pride
false pride
because you liked the boy scouts or girl scouts
you enjoy fighting
you enjoy martial arts
your parents or the politician near you won’t let you carry guns
you want to learn new languages
you are preparing to work for blackwater
to protect Israel (even though they don’t need or deserve our protection anymore than their neighbors)
because you think it’s your duty (…why?)
you are preparing for a criminal career
because you adore Hitler
because you want to be a skilled, high-profile terrorist
because you think you won’t be in the front lines
because you were drafted
because you were shafted
because your parents made you
because your family is way poor
because you got your high school sweetheart pregnant (need money)
because your girlfriend/boyfriend thinks men/women in uniforms are hot
because you think men/women in uniforms are hot
because you are gay (in the homosexual sense)
to freak your parents out
because your parents asked you not to
because you hate yourself
for the adrenaline rush
you like to go camping/hiking/hunting
to put your parents through hell
because you are not worried about brain damage
because you think you are invincible / indestructible
because you are not worried about amputation / blindness (extremities are redundant anyway)
because you look forward to begging for money on the streets as a war veteran
because you were told you would never see combat
because “more people get killed in NY than in Iraq” every day
because you can “choose any job you want” (hahahaha)
because you are not worried about blatant discrimination
because you detest freedom (your own)
because you didn’t realize there are many other ways to get all of the above
to take part in history (not too bad)
to become an officer (power)
to learn 100 ways to kill someone
to learn to defend yourself
to learn to defend yourself if you ever lead a revolution
because you thought you could quit anytime
because you thought it would be easy
because you want to learn to use nuclear weapons
to fly a jet
to learn to command a helicopter
because it might be funner than Halo
because you want to join a special operations team (even though you probably won’t make it due to competition)
to learn to be a sniper (could be neat)
because you enjoy war movies
because you are not smart enough to do something else
because you’ve always wondered what food in the military tastes like
to march around in funny suits
to join a band and wear funny suits
to clean toilets with only toothbrushes and spit
because it’s cool to get promoted
to challenge yourself (another good one)
to get strong
to get lean
to get in shape
to be prepared in the event of a terrorist attack
because you were abused as a child and want revenge (the training)
to get a free nosejob
free liposuction
free breast enlargement
breast augmentation
facelift
cosmetic surgery (courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld)
your girlfriend/boyfriend wants you to get plastic surgery
because you think you are patriotic
because you don’t realize that the military is making things worse for the United States and the world.
because you think you’ll be defending your country
EDIT: because you worship Bush (one of the worst reasons, probably)
EDIT 2: No, because you worship Giuliani, lol
P.S. Joining the military doesn’t make you a hero; all it takes is a signature.
EDIT 3: I’m not insulting the troops. If you don’t understand satire, don’t bother posting a comment.
Myth Number 1:
“My friends and sons and daughters are dying for your satire and your freedoms.”
No. They are probably in Iraq fighting people who have nothing to do with 9/11.
Myth Number 2:
“By making personal attacks on the author of this article and telling the author how he/she couldn’t write this if it wasn’t for the soldiers he/she is criticizing, I’ll show him/her.”
Wrong. Since I never in this article insult the military, it goes to show just how retarded you are. You continue to validate the list by showing me that people are too stupid to understand politics and satire. When soldiers go to Iraq, they are in NO WAY defending my right to write any of this. Iraqis have NOT threatened my freedom, so there is no need to kill them.
“Libertarianism is a political philosophy maintaining that all persons are the absolute owners of their own lives, and should be free to do whatever they wish with their persons or property, provided they allow others the same liberty and avoid abusing their liberty.”
“The philosophical concept of negative liberty refers to an individual’s liberty from being subjected to the authority of others. In this negative sense, one is considered free to the extent to which no person interferes with his or her activity.”
Department of Eating Out and majority rule vs unanimous consent.
Whenever the government creates a new organization like the Department of Homeland Security or raises taxes, it interferes with your liberty. We wouldn’t make our neighbors pay for our haircut or our next meal. So why does the government do it? The answer is that the government does it because we accept the tyranny of the majority at the expense of the minority.
Think about it this way: You are with your friends and you want to order a pizza. Well, eight of your friends do. Your last two friends have been eating pizza for the last week and will absolutely not pay for your pizza. In most situations you wouldn’t force them to pay for your pizza; if you did you might not have very many friends, soon. So your two friends abstain and instead choose to go separately to a Chinese restaurant. The rest of your eight friends are divided between Papa John’s and Domino’s, most don’t really care, because they just want pizza. So you flip a coin and Domino’s it is. Six of you want pepperoni and three of you want anchovies. You could force the three to eat your pepperoni pizza, but that’s not a fair solution. Instead, you order two large pepperoni pizzas and one large anchovy pizza. Furthermore, three of you want onions and mushrooms and the other three don’t care. So you end up with one large pepperoni, one large anchovy pizza, and one large pepperoni pizza with mushrooms and onions. And Chinese take out.
Seems like a very good solution. But what if we created a fictitious U.S. Department of Eating Out? What would the order look like? Well, they’d ask you for each individual’s social security number, look through their records, and determine that they will send you two medium anchovy pizzas for everyone in your eleven-person party. You argue with them on the phone and you tell them that most of you don’t like anchovies, but it turns out that three of your friends didn’t register with the the department of Eating Out. That’s why you are only getting two medium pizzas. And that’s why they made them with anchovies. But don’t worry… Your pizzas will arrive in 40-70 minutes and they are free. That is until you look at how much the government is paying for your two pizzas: each pizza is costs 15 dollars, but the total isn’t 30 dollars. The total is 570 dollars because the government pays minimum wage and it was just raised to 13.00. The person who made your pizza dropped a bucket of tomato sauce on the floor and his friend slipped and had to be sent to the emergency room.
But who cares right? If it wasn’t for the goverment, we wouldn’t have pizzas. Everyone would have to buy their own pizza, and who would deliver it? Does anybody outside the government even know how to make a pizza? No thanks. We’ll eat our cold and tiny anchovy pizzas and pay 570 dollars for them. We are scared of the consequences of abolishing the Department of Eating Out.
As you can see, the only happy people in your party are the three anchovy aficionados. Eight of you are completely unsatisfied. This is an example where the tyranny of the “majority” affects the “minority”. Except it wasn’t the majority because the government had incomplete records and no incentive to please you.
Now apply this scenario to Health Care or the Department of Education, or Homeland Security. These organizations are inefficient and have no incentive to please you. On the other hand, Papa John’s and Domino’s Pizza make money by pleasing you. Their greed is an incentive to make your pizza better, faster, and keep you coming back for more. When you were ordering the pizzas from Domino’s your friends figured out exactly how to order without government interference. Your friends who didn’t want to eat pizza got their Chinese food and were happy. Everyone else got a share of the pizza they wanted and were happy as well. And it was done through unanimous consent, not majority rule. This is the way libertarians envision an ideal society.
But if the government doesn’t make our pizza who will?
If Papa John’s and Domino’s didn’t exist, someone would learn to make it and make a living off it. The first company to sell pizzas might sell at relatively high prices. But if this is the case, someone else will take advantage of those high prices to sell pizza at lower ones. As long as the government stays out of the pizza industry, pizza will get better and cheaper. So there is no need for the government to make our pizzas. As long as there is demand for pizza, the free-market will provide it.
But what about the poor people? They can’t all afford pizza.
No. Pizza isn’t free. Someone has to make it. To give pizza away for free would be to devalue the work of Someone. When we start giving free pizza away or raise minimum wage, we trigger a domino effect that reduces the value of our currency and the value of our work. Then other people can’t afford pizza either. But it’s free right? So they don’t need to be able to afford pizza… Well, wrong. Because nothing is free. In order to make pizzas, the government has to raise taxes.
But the rich can have all the pizza they want. It’s wrong for them not to share. What have they done for us anyway?
Well, the rich create jobs. When you raise their taxes and raise minimum wage they can’t afford to hire as many people. That means next time they need to reduce spending, they might have to fire you, because maybe you are not worth the new minimum wage.
But in an ideal world everyone would have pizza.
Not everybody likes pizza. If your neighbor doesn’t like pizza why should they pay for it? Think back to the example at your party. Everyone got what they wanted and nobody paid for anything they didn’t want, through unanimous consent.
Health care is different. Health care is a necessity.
And that’s why it is more compassionate to let the free-market take care of it. When you use a medical coupon you are entitled to all kinds of evaluations and free tests. And the hospital or clinic gets a free pass, so they can order as many tests as they want. What happens then? The price of health care increases and the price of taxes goes up. Furthermore, because everyone is expected to afford health care the price goes up.
So, in reality, government subsidized health care increases the price of medical services. That means the poverty line will gradually increase until people who might have once been able to afford health care no longer can.
What about the war on drugs?
If we stopped fighting war on drugs, we would spend less tax money on a problem we created. By fighting a war on drugs, we increase the market value of drugs. This means drug dealers earn more money from selling drugs. So in reality the war on drugs is relatively good for drug cartels and dealers. It’s not so good for people who get caught in the cross-fire. One would think it would be preferable that someone who wants a drug simply got it and left everyone alone than for our government to kill that person during a drug raid.
Furthermore, our jails are filled with people whose crime was victimless. They would be more productive and less costly out in the real world.
So if the government stays out of everything, who takes care of the environment?
You wouldn’t trash your neighbors house, so why should you be allowed to trash a privately owned park? It has been shown in experiments that people protect and value things they own more than those they don’t. When people own private property, they take care of it. By privatizing all land, we can protect the environment.
So if the free-market works so well, how come Ron Paul isn’t doing well at the polls?
On the contrary. Ron Paul does very well on all post-debate internet polls
But those aren’t scientific. I get the impression that the internet is filled with Ron Paul spammers.
The internet is definitely filled with Ron Paul supporters. The reason for that is that there is a great demand for Ron Paul and the main stream media is ignoring him. The internet is very much unregulated, and it allows people who are interested in him to follow his progress. Thus the internet is saturated with Ron Paul. A way to solve this “problem” is to ask the mainstream media to cover Ron Paul a little more often.
Ron Paul Blames America for 9/11.
False. Ron Paul blames our foreign policy. He was baited at the SC debate, but he didn’t bring up 9/11. It was brought up as a loaded follow-up question by the moderator and Giuliani.
Ron Paul is an isolationist.
No. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. He favors global trade and diplomacy with all nations. He wants to pursue terrorists and wants to defend our country. However, he is against nation-building.
Ron Paul’s fiscal policies will help the oil industry and other monopolies.
Ron Paul favors a true free-market and is against subsidies, special interest groups, and corporate welfare. He would not subsidize the oil industry or any corporation. In a true free-market society true “monopolies” do not arise because the government does not hold back the competition through ineffective regulation.
You don’t have to agree with Ron Paul on specific issues to benefit from his principles and presidency.
Ron Paul wants to restore your freedoms. Other candidates want to impose an arbitrary and inconsistent belief system - Thus, I cannot bring myself to vote for just anybody else.
Is Romney for or against abortion?
Is Rudy going to implement a Real ID and embedded RF-ID chips in humans?
What are Obama’s positions on the war? How are they consistent?
What about Fred Thompson? If these candidates are consistent in their positions, why are they hiding them? If they simply want to follow popular public opinion why don’t they come out and say it?
Because it would cost them the presidency. Because they know there is wide opposition to their inconsistent views and if you really knew what they stand for, given an informed choice, you’d choose to avoid them.
I don’t have to agree with Ron Paul’s positions to know that my political positions and freedoms will be respected as long as I don’t hurt anybody else.
Ron Paul has been the most transparent candidate. Everyone else is putting on a facade. Why vote for someone who is going to change their mind when an interest group sponsors them? Why vote for someone who isn’t led by consistent principles, and who can’t explain to you, reasonably and justifiably, why they support a particular issue?
We don’t need a cryptic president. We need transparency and consistency.
8. Rudy: War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
8. Rudy: When God won’t even let you talk at the debates, you know you’re right!”
9. Rudy: Who cares about freedom anyway?”
10. Rudy: Strong where it counts! Just ask his cousin
11. Rudy: *Godfather music playing in background* “you wouldn’t want nothin’ bad to happen to your city, now would ya?
12. Rudy: Is Rudy going to have to divorce a bitch?
13. Rudy: America’s mayor, because NY hates him
14. Rudy: He’ll marry the war on terror so it will be over in 2 years!
15. Rudy: Because Bush didn’t go far enough
16. Rudy: Because he’ll TRIPLE Guantanamo. Doubling is for pussies.
17. Rudy: “It’s about time law enforcement got as organized as organized crime.”
18. Rudy: Because if it doesn’t start with a 9 and end with an 11, its not important
19. Rudy: “Thank God George Bush is our President!”
20. Rudy: Because the dress does fit.
21. Rudy: Because taking shits on the constitution is fun.
22. Rudy: Give me your freedoms. I’ll keep them safe for you.
23. Rudy: Because we look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
24. Rudy: because the constitution now comes in two-ply
25. Rudy: 9/11
26. Rudy: We have nukes!
27. Rudy: They have nukes!
28. Rudy: On to Iran! We will be greeted as liberators!
35. Rudy: Because Polygamy isn’t reserved for Mitt and the Mormons.
36. Rudy: “There is something deranged about you. … The excessive concern you have for ferrets is something you should examine with a therapist. … There is something really, really very sad about you. … This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness. … You should go consult a psychologist. … Your compulsion about—your excessive concern with it is a sign that there is something wrong in your personality. … You have a sickness, and I know it’s hard for you to accept that. … You need help.”
37. Rudy: You need help.
38. Rudy: Freedom is about authority.
Sex is about rape.
Childhood is about patricide.
39. Rudy: Because America needs to rule the world.
40. Rudy: Because I said so.
41. Rudy: Because free speech is overrated.
42. Rudy: “I have you wife and child here with me. If you want to ever see them alive again, you’ll vote for me! Got it?!”
43. Rudy: Because they hate us for our freedom. Get rid of our freedoms, get rid of the hate.
Compiled by Matt Estlund from facebook users.
Vote damnit. Rudy really needs your input.
Is this thread really necessary? - facebook user
Yes, Rudy asked me to help him figure out what really draws the younger crowd into his campaign. - Matt Estlund
