The Paul File

[The Esotericist]

My biggest concern with a Ron Paul POTUS is the economic collapse BillyT and others are predicting is inevitable. I do NOT want the collapse to occur on a Libertarian's watch - - as that would set back the cause for freedom from tyranny and individual liberty. However, if a Republican/Democrat is in office, then I also worry about just how many more individual freedom's they will erode? How much more power will be invested in the POTUS? I'm lucky in the sense that I have about four other countries I can move to and good employment while the shit splatters all over the American psyche.

So, that's really my biggest dilemma. It'd probably be best to let the whole house of cards fall on an Obama presidency and look towards forming a new centrist political party based on Libertarianism over the next 10-15 years. But I can't help but hold out some hope that a Paul presidency might actually usher in the much needed change and once the banks go bust and the debt liquified maybe we will steer our way through this storm! We won WWII in <7 years, less time than two terms - which goes to show you what can be accomplished in a short amount of time.

I would rather have it happen under Dr. Paul's watch than under a Statists watch. You see, under Paul's watch, freedom would reign. There would be no Police state in an attempt to control the situation. There would be no attempt to seize weapons, control the press, curtail the internet, institute socialism, etc.

If the system collapses while a "big government" type is in office, I GUARANTEE they will institute emergency protocols. This is a whole set of executive orders they have laid out going back to the Nixon Administration, which have been seamlessly integrated into FEMA. It includes the suspension of elections, and the nationalization of several key industries. If the government can't do shit right now to get things recovering, how much better do you think they will get things going when everything DOES collapse and they decide to replace the old currency with a new global fiat currency?

If Dr. Paul is in office when all this happens? An ENTIRELY different set of things will happen that will make all the difference in the world.

He cares more about the country than about the power of the government. THIS is what the difference is.

 

[spidergoat]

The Esotericist,
I'm aware the twitter is not coming from Paul directly, it's a work of political theater, and as such, it is brilliant.

 

[The Esotericist]

The Esotericist,
I'm aware the twitter is not coming from Paul directly, it's a work of political theater, and as such, it is brilliant.

yes. . . I'm sure. It's brilliant theater if your into this sort of theater.
Statler & Waldorf Short Clips

 

[spidergoat]

Why yes I am sir!

 

[Billy T]

My biggest concern with a Ron Paul POTUS is the economic collapse BillyT and others are predicting is inevitable. I do NOT want the collapse to occur on a Libertarian's watch - - as that would set back the cause for freedom from tyranny and individual liberty. ...

I can relate to that. I put a lot of personal effort into ending segregation and did not want the "inevitable" GWB depression to occur on a black POTUS's watch, so I did not vote for him.*

At election time, I did not realize** either that Obama was so smart or that like all other politicians - was willing to damage the US if need be to avoid being blamed for bad things. (Spend greatly with little effect other than some years delay of the inevitable with a great debt increase which will make recovery slower.)

I soon, however, realized he (with Ben's help) will very likely be able to delay the depression until after his first term ends, so I could have voted for him. When I realized this and still believed he was very smart, I predicted (wrongly it seems) that he would not run for a second term. He may have more ego, and self confidence in his delaying skills and power gone to his head than I thought possible as he is running again. In my book, that makes him a very smart fool.

* I did not vote for McCain either as he is a nice guy and has suffered enough - did not deserve to go down in history with world's worst depression hung on him. It is GWB's depression. Historians will eventually get that right. GWB's many errors are what made it possible for me to predict an inevitable depression was coming while he still had about two years left as POTUS. His worst error was to favor the rich and hurt the little guy with tax policies, in an economy that depended on Joe American for 2/3 of the buying. Joe is still "de-leveraging" trying to find a good pay job like he had pre-GWB's tax reductions that built the modern factories in China etc. (Republicans are correct - tax reductions for the already rich do create jobs BUT fail to tell you the jobs are in China or wherever the returns on investment are greatest. China has a very serious labor shortage now even with REAL salaries rising by double digits every year in the coastal cities!)

** I also did not realize that the Euro would be in such a mess. If it were not then I probably would have the timing wrong about when the depression would happen as Obama & Ben are delaying the inevitable. But my second lack of foresight is compensating for the first. I.e. Obama and Ben are making delay and "team MerKozie" plus a "fiscal responsible" ECB etc. are advancing the collapse date (bringing it closer to the present) so we are still on schedule for dollar run by Halloween 2014 with depressions in first half of 2015 just as I forecast nearly 6 years ago!

 

[spidergoat]

yes. . . I'm sure. It's brilliant theater if your into this sort of theater.
Statler & Waldorf Short Clips

But if you notice, they are tweeting actual statements from the Ron Paul newsletters. I'm not saying he is an overt racist, that would be too simplistic. Rather, that he places ideological concerns (the purity of his libertarianism) over compassion. He says AIDS is the victim's fault, that sexual harassment in the workplace is merely a personal moral failing on the part of the harasser, not a legal matter, and that there should be no special consideration by the government for certain groups like minorities or the homeless. It doesn't even matter that much if this policy is a product of hate, it might as well be because the effect is the same.

 

[Michael]

The thing here is you are taking a very superficial view of the problem. Think of it like this: Do you think Black Americans lives have improved over the last 40 years? Are the inner cities better or worse?

Think of this example: Suppose a restaurant owner wants to restrict Black Americans from entering his shop. The knee jerk reaction is to pass a law forcing the restaurant owner to allow Black Americans to enter his shop. Now, suppose that another person opens a shop up across the road, this person allows anyone to patron his shop. One would think that IF society really does value equality then people would be just as inclined to visit this shop. Because he has both white AND black customers he'll make a little more money than his bigoted rival across the street AND (if he's smart) be able to offer slightly better service, slightly cheaper prices and expand his business at the expense of his rival. Over time his rival WILL either change the way he thinks AND appreciate those black costumers and alter his behavior VOLUNTARILY OR he will go out of business. Cut off his nose to spite his face, as they say.

Scenario #1: Violence of the State
Happens very quickly. Which is why most people desire its use - regardless of how morally repugnant violence is. The only lesson learned is that State sponsored violence can be used to force a shop own to act in a way he otherwise wouldn't want to. He'll probably harbor resentment towards both the State and the blacks he's forced to service. Not to mention it must stick in the crawl for a black to have to patron a shop never really knowing if he is a welcomed consumer or an unwelcomed customer. AND, if I were the black American, I'd personally take affront. I'm not a baby, I don't need the State fighting my battles. I'll go open my own Gawd damn store!

Scenario #2: Bigots go Broke
Yeah, I think you get the picture. Takes longer but people actually learn something about themselves and the society in which they live. Is non-violent.


It's usually pretty obvious you cannot use violence to modify long-term behavior and when you do try to do so, it often backfires and causes exactly what you didn't want to have happen - MORE bigotry in this case. Take a look at how the State in Iran uses violence to enforce moral behavior. It doesn't work. Year after year the State needs to use more and more violence against it's "immoral" citizenry. Soon people start disappearing for moral "decadence". People are beaten for not covering up. Society turns into a complete shit-hole; JUST LIKE the inner cities of the USA where Liberal Violence has did everything EXCEPT help Black Americans live a more prosperous and equitable life in the USA.


Ron Paul has a battle in front of him because his way of doing things is logical and logic requires contemplation and deep thought - something Americans just don't like to do anymore. Which is why they're (we're) suckered by slogans like "Change We Can Believe In" and then shocked there's no change. Or conned by the "Gods will rain down wrath on the infidel" and then shocked when Gods really couldn't give two shits. It's why Demagogues rise to power while Philosophers live life somewhere locked away in a tower.

 

[superluminal]

Ok. Couldn't find any other place to vent my wrath. Here's just an example from Paul:

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Just what the FUUUUUCCCCKKKK is wrong with these individualist/libertarian maniacs? Sociopaths? That's an understatement. WE ARE INDIVIDUALS AND SHOULD HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF HELPING ANYONE ELSE IN OUR SOCIETY!!!

Wait... Did I just say "society" ? Why, yes I did. We live in a society. We are SOCIAL primates. We are driven by genetic heritage and plain fucking common sense to pool at least some of our resources for the good of the SOCIETY. And now, since we no longer live in intuitive societal groups of 30 to 150 people, we need to enforce some level of common resource pool to support our 300M+ people.

This Paul idiot thinks that individuals have no right to and should have no expectation of help from the society (government) at large. Well, fuck him, I say. I would be more than happy to welcome him back to real civilization from his individualistic/self-centered/libertarian "paradise" after it turns into what any sane non-randian person knows it would - a frontier-type, feudalistic set of poverty and disease ridden little sociopathic kingdoms.

This unlimited and unregulated individual rights and liberty bullshit is something my 8 year old laughs at. It's such a naive and childish vision that its amazing anyone takes it seriously.

Rights are those things that, as a society (there's that word again), we grant and can claim legal protection for.

If you want a "society" in which you are at the mercy of totally free markets and the whim of other "individuals" (like Ron Paul) for basic support in times of need, whatever they may be, then you are welcome to it. Fuck you, I'm moving to Norway. And I won't shed a tear for this pathetic excuse for a country.

Hopefully this RP thing is just a glitch, pandering to the fringe idiots, and will fade back to where it belongs - the dark imaginations of disturbed children.

 

[superluminal]

The thing here is you are taking a very superficial view of the problem.

Oh boy.

Think of this example: Suppose a restaurant owner wants to restrict Black Americans from entering his shop. The knee jerk reaction is to pass a law forcing the restaurant owner to allow Black Americans to enter his shop. Now, suppose that another person opens a shop up across the road, this person allows anyone to patron his shop. One would think that IF society really does value equality then people would be just as inclined to visit this shop. Because he has both white AND black costumers he's make a little more money and able to offer slightly better service, cheaper prices and expand at the expense of his rival. Over time his rival WILL either change the way he thinks AND appreciate those black costumers OR he will go out of business.

Are you fucking stupid? In what world will anyone open another store across the street that allows blacks? Just go back several little decades to a world before the civil rights movement. When denying blacks entry to eating establishments was all the rage and showed no signs of changing.

Do you not see that people, especially in large ignorant groups, will tyrannize any group that they feel warrants it - economic concerns not withstanding?

Is this the level of thinking we have to suffer?

Oh, and you're "not a baby". You don't need big govt fighting your battles. Really? I guess that's what you think. I've talked to enough of these deluded fools enough to know the answer to any scenario I propose like "what if you and a million people get cancer from a large, unregulated corporation, blah, blah". Your answer? Well, I guess if I can't take care of myself, then I'll die.

Real tough guy. All stoic and staunch.

Right.

Oh, and "knee-jerk reaction" to a fundamental issue of basic human decency. I love it. I rest my case. QED, etc.

 

[superluminal]

Originally Posted by Michael
I do NOT want the collapse to occur on a Libertarian's watch - - as that would set back the cause for freedom from tyranny and individual liberty.

Since the issues themselves re libertardism vs an actual functioning society have been discussed ad nauseum, I will just say again, that if I could give you and your ilk your own country, I would. And for no other reason than the entertainment value of watching it devolve into something that approximates modern-day Somalia.

 

[superluminal]

Oh, one other thing.

Since I have a fully functioning Reality Module with the latest Empathy, Social-awareness, and Ethics service pack, I could point you to some good download sites for those.



I wish.

 

[Michael]

Ok. Couldn't find any other place to vent my wrath. Here's just an example from Paul:

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Just what the FUUUUUCCCCKKKK is wrong with these individualist/libertarian maniacs? Sociopaths? That's an understatement. WE ARE INDIVIDUALS AND SHOULD HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF HELPING ANYONE ELSE IN OUR SOCIETY!!!

Again, you are taking the superficial view of the harassing employer and again relying on State sponsored Violence to enforce a moral code.

If society really does value female equality then the female employee can simply quit her job, taking away her expertise, and go to work at a business that will value her qualities, treat her fairly and take with her an intimate knowledge of the business she left. She can also start her own competitive business. She can let it be known that the reason she left was due to the immoral violence that was being used against her in an attempt to force her into sexual activities against her will. Lets see how many women would want to work in such an environment. Maybe none. Bye Bye business.

Also, a moral society will have some level of boycott against this business person and he'll be fired or loose business if he's the owner. Not to mention all the time and money he looses training a new employee.


Do you think sexual harassment has stopped happening in the workplace because of fear of being sued? IS the lesson we want society to learn that State Violence is an ethically acceptable way of changing moral behavior? That what prevents men from harassing women is State Violence? Wouldn't it be much better if the lesson learned was: Using violence is (such as sexual harassing women) is morally repugnant?


Again, I'll look towards the Middle East and places like KSA where State Sponsored Morality Police use violence every day of the year against the "immoral" actions of it's Citizenry.

 

[Michael]

Since the issues themselves re libertardism vs an actual functioning society have been discussed ad nauseum, I will just say again, that if I could give you and your ilk your own country, I would. And for no other reason than the entertainment value of watching it devolve into something that approximates modern-day Somalia.

I grew up on welfare in the inner city of Flint I know how broken the system of liberal compassion is. It doesn't work.

It should be you and your ilk that moves into the city and is forced to live in what you create. You probably live as far from possible from the inner city slums - I was in the thick of them. I mean, right in where you can hear bullets fly by. Where you have homeless freezing to death right there on the street. I've seen a person have his head blow right off in plain day light. The wild west was more civil.

So? What are you going to do with your State violence. How are you fixing my city superluminal? You going to pass some more laws? Hire more police? Well, let's hear your solution. I put forward my solution - all you've put forward is slur and ridicule.


And, for the record, there's no such thing as a "Libertarian" in the real world. Everyone has some libertarian ideals - I'm sure you're not in favor of a CCTV camera recording you in your home so the State can monitor your moral behavior because if every citizen isn't kept under constant surveillance then there will be more children abused.


I commend Dr. Paul, but, I think he's fighting a loosing battle. People are literally too brainwashed to even realize what they're supporting is violence. Just like in KSA, they think morality police forcing little girls back into a burning school are acting ethically as well. I don't, but, I wasn't brainwashed to think State violence is acceptable :shrug:

 

[superluminal]

Oh, and even another thing.

The statement I hear constantly from libertarians is "You have no right to compel me to help others" or some variant thereof. This can be debated forever, and has been. I don't really care about the statement semantically. I'm more interested in the blatantly transparent psychology behind it.

You don't WANT to help anyone else. Just admit it. And when push comes to shove, in the most serious of circumstances, you would be begging for help for yourself, your wife, or your children. And if you think relying on the "kindness of strangers" is a good strategy, then you're welcome to it.

If it's the loan of a hand-saw you need, maybe. If it's a hundred-thousand dollar+ surgery you need (driven by your precious unregulated free market, that forces the best surgeons to service only the elite), again, you can keep it, because you're most likely going to die. But that's OK, right?

 

[Michael]

Are you fucking stupid? In what world will anyone open another store across the street that allows blacks?

Am I fucking stupid? So, that's the way you open your dialogue? I'm going to assume that the rest of your post is a rant.

I put forward my idea, which is non-violence. Yours is violence of the State. Two diametrically opposed views of the way the world should work. I only wish you were forced to live in KSA so you could feel the full weight of your way of doing things.

How many people will open shops up? In a free world I think there'd be plenty of people who would open up a shop to compete with the bigots' shop. If there's money to be made, I can't imagine some NOT opening up a shop.

I've supervised female as well as minority employee's. I could have easily abused my position. If anything I probably go the other way and subconsciously promote female employee's over male. Usually because they seem much more dedicated and serious while male's seem more easy going and mate-like, but not as seriously minded. That could be my upbringing though. I grew up with my mother. The point is, I never act immorally or harassed people - not because I'm worried about the State (obviously pinching an arse is not the only way to harass and make a sexual harassing position quite clear) but because I was raised to treat people as I would want to be treated, fairly. I think most people are like me, if not society would probably be complete hell.

 

[superluminal]

Again, you are taking the superficial view of the harassing employer and again relying on State sponsored Violence to enforce a moral code.

What the hell is this state sponsored violence you keep jibbering about?

If society really does value female equality then the female employee can simply quit her job, taking away her expertise, and go to work at a business that will value her qualities, treat her fairly and take with her an intimate knowledge of the business she left. She can also start her own competitive business. She can let it be known that the reason she left was due to the immoral violence that was being used against her in an attempt to force her into sexual activities against her will. Lets see how many women would want to work in such an environment. Maybe none. Bye Bye business.

Also, a moral society will have some level of boycott against this business person and he'll be fired or loose business if he's the owner. Not to mention all the time and money he looses training a new employee.

This is incredibly naive and uninformed regarding basic human behavior. Please read my example of the black civil rights movement and why it was required. The same goes for womens rights. Pleas respond to that critique.

Do you think sexual harassment has stopped happening in the workplace because of fear of being sued?

Stopped? Of course not. Massively reduced? Of course. Don't play word games.

IS the lesson we want society to learn that State Violence is an ethically acceptable way of changing moral behavior? That what prevents men from harassing women is State Violence? Wouldn't it be much better if the lesson learned was: Using violence is (such as sexual harassing women) is morally repugnant?

Really? Do you think society is a four-year-old child exhibiting testing behavior? Society exhibits the traits of the basic makeup of it's individuals.

Again, I'll look towards the Middle East and places like KSA where State Sponsored Morality Police use violence every day of the year against the "immoral" actions of it's Citizenry.

You sir, are setting up one gigantic strawman and attacking it admirably. Also applying moral equivalence between the "violence" of the state (which in a democracy represents the will of the people) in protecting a womans right to not be harrassed, to the real violence of a totalitarian state RESTRICTING the human rights of citizens.

You have a faulty Reality Module sir.

 

[Michael]

You don't WANT to help anyone else. Just admit it.

OH, this is just complete bullshit. I personally tutored the ONLY aboriginal in the Medical School I worked at during my Christmas break in 2007. As in I did NOT go on break, I stayed in the city and made time 3 days a week for 6-8 hours of tutoring. She eventually passed and got her MD. I didn't get paid. Other than profuse thanks and hugs, I didn't get anything other than the satisfaction of having this nearly 40 year old aboriginal woman practice medicine in her inner city community.

Two things to note:
1. Her husband was every bit as sterotype aboriginal man as you could expect. Drunk, lazy, demanding she return and cook him dinner, and on the dole.
2. The University got 10 MILLION dollars to support aboriginal studies at the university. Every single cent went into administration. As in ALL OF IT. I know because I was the ONLY person working in the school tutoring the only aboriginal student and I didn't get 1 cent.


Lastly, TTYTT the Libertarian view is probably too difficult for most people to appreciate. I can appreciate that. Having lived in the inner city I know how hard it is for people to change the way they think as well as how environment and memes have such profound effect on thought.

 

[spidergoat]

The thing here is you are taking a very superficial view of the problem. Think of it like this: Do you think Black Americans lives have improved over the last 40 years? Are the inner cities better or worse?

Think of this example: Suppose a restaurant owner wants to restrict Black Americans from entering his shop. The knee jerk reaction is to pass a law forcing the restaurant owner to allow Black Americans to enter his shop. Now, suppose that another person opens a shop up across the road, this person allows anyone to patron his shop. One would think that IF society really does value equality then people would be just as inclined to visit this shop. Because he has both white AND black customers he'll make a little more money than his bigoted rival across the street AND (if he's smart) be able to offer slightly better service, slightly cheaper prices and expand his business at the expense of his rival. Over time his rival WILL either change the way he thinks AND appreciate those black costumers and alter his behavior VOLUNTARILY OR he will go out of business. Cut off his nose to spite his face, as they say.

Scenario #1: Violence of the State
Happens very quickly. Which is why most people desire its use - regardless of how morally repugnant violence is. The only lesson learned is that State sponsored violence can be used to force a shop own to act in a way he otherwise wouldn't want to. He'll probably harbor resentment towards both the State and the blacks he's forced to service. Not to mention it must stick in the crawl for a black to have to patron a shop never really knowing if he is a welcomed consumer or an unwelcomed customer. AND, if I were the black American, I'd personally take affront. I'm not a baby, I don't need the State fighting my battles. I'll go open my own Gawd damn store!

Scenario #2: Bigots go Broke
Yeah, I think you get the picture. Takes longer but people actually learn something about themselves and the society in which they live. Is non-violent.


It's usually pretty obvious you cannot use violence to modify long-term behavior and when you do try to do so, it often backfires and causes exactly what you didn't want to have happen - MORE bigotry in this case. Take a look at how the State in Iran uses violence to enforce moral behavior. It doesn't work. Year after year the State needs to use more and more violence against it's "immoral" citizenry. Soon people start disappearing for moral "decadence". People are beaten for not covering up. Society turns into a complete shit-hole; JUST LIKE the inner cities of the USA where Liberal Violence has did everything EXCEPT help Black Americans live a more prosperous and equitable life in the USA.


Ron Paul has a battle in front of him because his way of doing things is logical and logic requires contemplation and deep thought - something Americans just don't like to do anymore. Which is why they're (we're) suckered by slogans like "Change We Can Believe In" and then shocked there's no change. Or conned by the "Gods will rain down wrath on the infidel" and then shocked when Gods really couldn't give two shits. It's why Demagogues rise to power while Philosophers live life somewhere locked away in a tower.

I think Paul's view is the superficial one, he simply throws his hands in the air and says the government shouldn't do anything about it. For decades, segregation was the norm, and it took non-violent confrontation of the problem to change the laws. Yes, boycotts were used to bring economic pressure to bear on the problem, but that alone wouldn't have worked as a permanent solution. To say people are being threatened with violence is a distraction from the issue, since there are many reasonable laws out there which if violated will attract the attention of law enforcement. Much violence and racial tension has been eliminated due to civil rights legislation, things are much, much better then they were in the 50s and 60s, not perfect, but far improved.

JUST LIKE the inner cities of the USA where Liberal Violence has did everything EXCEPT help Black Americans live a more prosperous and equitable life in the USA.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Michael]

What the hell is this state sponsored violence you keep jibbering about?


This is incredibly naive and uninformed regarding basic human behavior. Please read my example of the black civil rights movement and why it was required. The same goes for womens rights. Pleas respond to that critique.



Stopped? Of course not. Massively reduced? Of course. Don't play word games.


Really? Do you think society is a four-year-old child exhibiting testing behavior? Society exhibits the traits of the basic makeup of it's individuals.



You sir, are setting up one gigantic strawman and attacking it admirably. Also applying moral equivalence between the "violence" of the state (which in a democracy represents the will of the people) in protecting a womans right to not be harrassed, to the real violence of a totalitarian state RESTRICTING the human rights of citizens.

You have a faulty Reality Module sir.

In KSA State sponsored Morality Police are overwhelming supported by the public. It's still violence when they force women to cover their whole head.

That's violence. I only use it as an example because it's one you probably recognize as violence.


Anyway, it's obvious we're on two sides of a coin here. Which is fine. You don't seem to want to understand Libertarianism anyway.

 

[spidergoat]

Am I fucking stupid? So, that's the way you open your dialogue? I'm going to assume that the rest of your post is a rant.

I put forward my idea, which is non-violence. Yours is violence of the State. Two diametrically opposed views of the way the world should work. I only wish you were forced to live in KSA so you could feel the full weight of your way of doing things.

How many people will open shops up? In a free world I think there'd be plenty of people who would open up a shop to compete with the bigots' shop. If there's money to be made, I can't imagine some NOT opening up a shop.

I've supervised female as well as minority employee's. I could have easily abused my position. If anything I probably go the other way and subconsciously promote female employee's over male. Usually because they seem much more dedicated and serious while male's seem more easy going and mate-like, but not as seriously minded. That could be my upbringing though. I grew up with my mother. The point is, I never act immorally or harassed people - not because I'm worried about the State (obviously pinching an arse is not the only way to harass and make a sexual harassing position quite clear) but because I was raised to treat people as I would want to be treated, fairly. I think most people are like me, if not society would probably be complete hell.

What you and Paul fail to understand is that both the government and the private or corporate sector are capable of oppressing you. In advocating an allegedly "non-violent" (meaning impotent) government, you invite private oppression.

To equate liberal domestic policy with the theocratic monarchy of Saudi Arabia is beyond absurd. The Saudi form is the wet dream of conservatives, where business thrives in almost complete freedom as long as you pay off the correct official, and private freedom is highly controlled.