Toggle Content Toggle Content

Donate

 0%

Social Bookmarking


Quote

"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker."

- Mikhail Bakunin

Menu

• Home

• Blogs
• Calender
• Contact Us
• Downloads
• Link to Us
• Multimedia
• Personal Pages
• Store
• Surveys
• Tell a Friend
• Wiki

• News

• News
• Stories Archive
• Submit News
• Topics

• Community

• Photo Gallery
• Groups

• Members options

• Friends
• My Account

• Forums

• Forums

• Search

• Search
• Forums
• Coppermine

• Web

• Statistics
• Top 25

Links

Main Tuesday, July 24, 2007 (19:06:00)

The Ron Paul-blem

by personman - 2732 reads

Why are so many leftists and radicals so interested in this free-market capitalist, right-wing pseudo-libertarian?

Ron Paul is not an anarchist of any sort or anything remotely close. He is an extremist, right-wing, "laissez-faire" capitalist. The ONLY thing they have in common is some degree of anti-government sentiment. Capitalists oppose government because they want to be in control, NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE YOUR FRIENDS. Think about what your life might look like if no one could tell Walmart, or Halliburton, or Microsoft, "No."... It should be obvious that this would probably lead to a sort of wage-slavery that would leave us reflecting back on today's capitalism as "the good ole days."

Ron Paul, like most politicians, is good at speaking out on issues that his position is popular on, and avoiding others...Despite his "Rage Against the Machine" talk and his frequently misleading "anti-big-government" sounding rhetoric, his policies would be the wet dream of the true elite owners of this country.

Probably the most troubling things about him are his economic policies. Libertarians are free market capitalists. These guys are pro-economic globalization, generally in favor of throwing out government regulation of corporations. Things that prevent corporations from dumping poison into our water and air to save a buck, for example. They are opposed to any form of socialism, including universal health care. According to wikipedia his health care proposal is to leave it in the hands of the free market... Horrifying. He opposes undocumented immigration, he opposes gay marriage, he opposes a woman's right to choose, and he waffles on separation of church and state...

His economic policies are basically everything anarchists are against. He is no friend of the people.

Most anarcho-capitalist critiques apply as well, such as:

"There are self-styled "anarcho-capitalists" (not to be confused with anarchists of any persuasion), who want the state abolished as a regulator of capitalism, and government handed over to capitalists."

- Donald Rooum in What is Anarchism

and:

5. Many "anarcho-capitalists" claim that anarchism means the freedom to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with others. Is capitalism in any way compatible with anarchism as you see it?

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their profound moral failings.

-Noam Chomsky

Who we should be pushing for, if anyone (save this for another time), is a progressive leftist who seizes the reigns back from the massive global corporatocracy. This is precisely the opposite of Ron Paul's economic policy.

Kucinich or Gravel would be the least shitty candidates in my opinion, and according to the Political Compass, closest to the libertarian-left views of classic anarchism.

It would probably be in our best interest to limit corporate power, or even abolish corporations as we know them altogether, before we think about doing away with the state, unless we want wage-slavery and corporate dominance on a scale we may have never seen before.

Anyway, it IS probably a moot point because he probably won't get the nomination.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_paul

Find out where you fall on the Political Compass...

Compare your score to the other candidates, and see where they are in relation to each other, Here.

Anyway, I'd implore anyone who is seriously considering voting for Ron Paul, who isn't a billionaire, who doesn't fancy the idea of being slave labor for Nike or McDonald's, to spend some time researching Ron Paul and his ideological predecessors like Milton Friedman, and Murray Rothbard. Both extremist-capitalists, the later of which he has a picture of on his wall.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

So what is "The Ron Paul-blem?" The use of working-class rhetoric and misleading framing to suggest he is a friend of the people.

-personman

Comments (4) | personman's Profile