American Republican Candidate Ron Paul

[magister]

Originally Posted by Marulus

He is the only decent American politician I know of. He appears to be combining a somehow conservative (in the American sense of word) social worldview with the anti-war stance, a phenomenon of extraordinary rare occurrence in the modern American policy. In fact, maybe there are other politicians like him as well, but I am not that well acquainted with their political scene.
.

Another political figure who is both anti-war and conservative is Patrick Buchanan. Pat Buchanan has fought against out of control immigration, NAFTA, free trade, and interventionism for decades, has run for president several times, and has written numerous books. I consider him to be the true intellectual leader of the conservative movement, more so then the late William F. Buckley and his magazine the National Review.

[Marcus Marulus]

Living by the Sword - by Ron Paul

[Marcus Marulus]

May 2, 2008

Paul: Not ready to endorse McCain, likes Obama's foreign policy


Paul on his presidential run: 'The race is still on'.


(CNN) — Even though Rep. Ron Paul has never officially ended his long shot presidential bid, he’s ready to weigh in on the three remaining major candidates for the White House.

In an interview on The Situation Room, Paul told Wolf Blitzer that endorsing Sen. John McCain, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, “would really confuse” his supporters “because they know we have a precise program and we have to defend that program.”

Having a Republican win the upcoming presidential election is “secondary” for Paul who is more interested in defending the Constitution, having the country go in what he considers the right direction, having a sound currency, and achieving balanced budgets. Paul parts ways with McCain over McCain’s support for the Iraq war, his approach to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and his willingness to spend federal dollars to support military operations in Iraq.

Instead, Paul favors Sen. Barack Obama because of positions on foreign policy. “But that’s doesn’t mean that’s an endorsement,” Paul quickly added.

Paul recently released a new book titled “The Revolution: a Manifesto.” “Unfortunately, it is revolutionary to talk about obeying the Constitution,” Paul said of the book’s title.

From:CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

[source]

[orieleye]

Another aspect worth mentioning about Ron Paul is his indebtedness to the Austrian School of Ludwig von Mises, Stenholz, and Friedrich Hayek (The Road to Serfdom). They were against bureaucracy and all versions of socialism. Ron Paul would do a good job on the Brussels entity if he put his mind to it.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by orieleye

Another aspect worth mentioning about Ron Paul is his indebtedness to the Austrian School of Ludwig von Mises, Stenholz, and Friedrich Hayek (The Road to Serfdom). They were against bureaucracy and all versions of socialism. Ron Paul would do a good job on the Brussels entity if he put his mind to it.

That kind of philosophy of economics is maybe good for America, because it is deeply engrained in its mindset, since the founding of that country, but definitely it would NOT be good for Europe.

The problem with Brussels entity is its very existence and not following tenets of this or that school of economics.

[orieleye]

Originally Posted by Marulus

That kind of philosophy of economics is maybe good for America, because it is deeply engrained in its mindset, since the founding of that country, but definitely it would NOT be good for Europe.

The problem with Brussels entity is its very existence and not following tenets of this or that school of economics.

I'm not so sure. They were Europeans after all and they did a good job showing the similarities between both totalitarian socialist models in Europe. What libertarianism says today rings true moreso in Europe, eg. government involvement in the economy harms the private economy, pushes up prices, and interferes with the market mechanism. Since state involvement is more evident in Europe this message is more relevant here. Paying farmers not to produce - what's that all about? Standardization is the mantra of the Brussels entity. That's big government and it can't be criticized by socialists because they are for it. I find Ron Paul's message provocative as an idea. Watch this video on anti-trust and you'll see what I mean. No one questions stuff like this in Europe.

YouTube - Anti-Trust and Monopoly (with Ron Paul)

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by orieleye

I'm not so sure. They were Europeans after all and they did a good job showing the similarities between both totalitarian socialist models in Europe.

They were right in some of their criticism, however, they exaggerated on some points. I mean, Hayek was even against public health care and public building of highways. Do not forget that the mega-capitalism, advocated by Hayek and his ilk, leads to some kind of socialism. Owners of large and very powerful corporations sooner or later become intertwined with the political power, whereon they exert tremendous influence. Small firms go bankrupt and in the end you only have exponents of state power, influenced by the big business (they tend to become one) and the large masses of proletariate, people who own nothing (ownership of real estate is on the steep decline), work for the large firms or for the state beaurocracy and you have government which is bent (in agreement with the exponents of the big business) on alleviating horrible consequences of such a system. Masses of unemployed are to be cared for somehow. Ultimately mega-capitalism and socialism converge.

So I think there should be some check on the free market and on the large corporations.

On the other hand, socialism does no good. It foments gross egalitarianism and consequently cultural impoverishment and moral barbarization of a nation where its principles are being enforced.

As for "free market", it is an abstraction which does not exist anywhere (not even in the USA) in its pure form, nor ever will.

Originally Posted by orieleye

What libertarianism says today rings true more so in Europe, eg. government involvement in the economy harms the private economy, pushes up prices, and interferes with the market mechanism.

That is very true. Some of the libertarians, as I said, may be right in some of their criticism. I think especially Llewelyn Rockwell has a point.

Originally Posted by orieleye

Since state involvement is more evident in Europe this message is more relevant here.

There must be some state involvment and there will always be. The question is how and to what extent. We may both agree that it happens to a too big extent in Europe.

Originally Posted by orieleye

Paying farmers not to produce - what's that all about?

That is about artificially maintaining the system of prices and of speculation, as well as of the worthless piece of paper called euro.

Another disgusting thing is putting quotas to agricultural production. I am convinced that one of the aims of this hideous practice is to make people eternally dependent on the international System. No country should be allowed to produce enough food to feed itself on its own, because that means independence. Internationalist socialists/liberals form Brussels hate self-sufficient communities and small farming families, so they are trying to prevent them from coming into existence. Not only by muzzling them with quotas, but also with - as you said - paying them not to produce.

Originally Posted by orieleye

Standardization is the mantra of the Brussels entity. That's big government and it can't be criticized by socialists because they are for it.

The Brussels entity is a problem in itself. It cannot function on different principles, their very philosophy of existence and handling of matters being beaurocratic. They should be dismantled and not reformed.

Originally Posted by orieleye

I find Ron Paul's message provocative as an idea. Watch this video on anti-trust and you'll see what I mean. No one questions stuff like this in Europe.

Ron Paul has many interesting ideas, but not everything he says is applicable to Europe. And why should it be? He was running for the US presidency and is concerned primarily with US matters. He is interesting and relevant for Europe primarily in as much he advocates an entirely different - non-interventionist - foreign policy.

[orieleye]

Non-intervention is the big one, I agree.

[Señor Malo]

I do not hear from This candidate since a long time ago; is he still in the Presidential race?

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Truth-Finder

I do not hear from This candidate since a long time ago; is he still in the Presidential race?

Technically yes. But he lost the official nomination as candidate of the Republican Party, their candidate is now McCain. He will be able to participate in the elections, among many almost anonymous candidates, but not any more backed by his party.

Some candidates who lost nomination of their party dropped their presidential race alltogether, but not Ron Paul who is technically still runnig for the presidency and is continuing his campaign.

[Almost a Christian]

I used to think Paul might fall within some of the traditions of guild socialism..

But his emphasis would go beyond even decentralised communities, the onus being put on the charitable inclinations of the individual to dispose his income as he sees fit, seeing any government or state intervention to distribute being tantamount to theft..

YouTube - Ron Paul publicly names neoconservatives

NeoConservatives.

[Marcus Marulus]

+ YouTube Video

Ron Paul declines to back McCain

At least he stands by his principles.

[M.R.]

He's another American loser for me, I mean even Stormfront used him for their own promotion. He doesn't have a chance to win anything so his big talk about non-interventionism has no meaning to me.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by M.R.

He's another American loser for me, I mean even Stormfront used him for their own promotion. He doesn't have a chance to win anything so his big talk about non-interventionism has no meaning to me.

Well, I disagree here.

Someone could in the same manner cast an eye on this forum and contemptuously remark: "They're just a bunch of losers, so their blathering on nationalism has no meaning to me..." It is important to have firm convictions on relevant things in society and politics - if you truly believe these convictions are right -, even if they in a given moment appear not to have any chance of gaining the approval of the majority.

Besides, it is not his fault that Stormfront put him on its home-page, while his campaign was still running. In fact, it did him more harm than good (the "guilty by association" thing).

[Phlegethon]

At least his campaign garnered some media (especially Internet) attention. That may put him into a much better position for the 2012 elections, when the U.S. have hit the ground badly and the former leaders are totally discredited.

On the other hand I do not have any confidence in the intelligence of the American voter (or Americans in general) to draw the right conclusions.
There also isn't anything to learn from Ron Paul for Europeans either. The libertarian tradition, although it originated in Germany and Austria, has been totally cut off long ago and there is only one small German publication eigentümlich frei which upholds this tradition jounalistically but without a political wing. But for them even Ron Paul is far too hardcore and American.