PDA

View Full Version : The Logic of Ron Paul


ebacon
08-23-2012, 04:06 PM
Ron Paul, IMO, is one of the clearest thinkers in Washington.

Here is an article he wrote in 2003 regarding the background of neoconservatism and why they don't shrink government like they promise.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

What interested me was Ron Paul describes neoconservatives as having roots in the far-left. It makes sense. It's the only thing that logicly satisfies their position of anarcho-capitalism.

Apparently there is also a book called Neo-Conned! that expands on the subject. I might have to read that.

The closest I've gotten to neocon thought is reading Francis Fukuyama's "End of History and the Last Man" and "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy ". The first book argues in favor of liberal capitalism. The second book is basically a formal resignation from the neocon movement and descriptions of how the neocon classmen failed. For those that don't know, Fukuyama was an original member of the Project for a New American Century -- the guys at the core of the 9-11 conspiracy.

finnbow
08-23-2012, 04:58 PM
Between the Neo-Cons and Tea Party, the GOP has now become the perfect storm of incompetent, yet ideologically incompatible ideologues. In effect, the Neo-Cons were, in large measure, responsible for the mess we're in and somehow their partners in the GOP think they're the solution. Maybe an internecine battle will get rid of both of them in favor of the (now non-existent) Republican moderates. I ain't holding my breath though.

ebacon
08-23-2012, 05:14 PM
Agreed. Somehow the message needs to get to the Republican electorate.

It's hard to bust through News Corp's propaganda though. The Republican electorate believes unless info comes from Fox News its a lie. On the bright side they also have deep respect for Ron Paul.

It would behoove them to step back from the anti-Obama kitty memes for a moment and give this writing from Ron Paul the deep reflection that it deserves.

wgrr
08-23-2012, 07:14 PM
Ron Paul, IMO, is one of the clearest thinkers in Washington.

Here is an article he wrote in 2003 regarding the background of neoconservatism and why they don't shrink government like they promise.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

What interested me was Ron Paul describes neoconservatives as having roots in the far-left. It makes sense. It's the only thing that logicly satisfies their position of anarcho-capitalism.

Apparently there is also a book called Neo-Conned! that expands on the subject. I might have to read that.

The closest I've gotten to neocon thought is reading Francis Fukuyama's "End of History and the Last Man" and "America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy ". The first book argues in favor of liberal capitalism. The second book is basically a formal resignation from the neocon movement and descriptions of how the neocon classmen failed. For those that don't know, Fukuyama was an original member of the Project for a New American Century -- the guys at the core of the 9-11 conspiracy.

Learn all you need to know from the horses mouth.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Their web site is still up.

It is not a Liberal movement at all. It was the model for the Bush administrations policies. Notice Jeb was the chosen one to lead the charge until he lost Florida and W won the Texas governorship. That made him the puppet President and Cheney installed himself as VP to run the Neocon show.

You need to do a little more research about PNAC.

A list of members:

Bill (never right) Kristol ran the show.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

All the members of the now defunct PNAC.

I don't know who Fukuyama is, perhaps I should read his writings, but the Neocon's had nothing to do with Liberalism, and are not at the core of the 911 conspiracy, other than the fact that they may have allowed it to happen.

wgrr
08-23-2012, 07:28 PM
Agreed. Somehow the message needs to get to the Republican electorate.

It's hard to bust through News Corp's propaganda though. The Republican electorate believes unless info comes from Fox News its a lie. On the bright side they also have deep respect for Ron Paul.

It would behoove them to step back from the anti-Obama kitty memes for a moment and give this writing from Ron Paul the deep reflection that it deserves.

Ron Paul can be very convincing until you really dig into his beliefs. He is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian. I agree with a lot of what he says until he starts spouting hardcore Libertarian platform policy.

ebacon
08-23-2012, 07:28 PM
I don't know who Fukuyama is . . .

Understandable. You are eight years behind me in reading about neocons.

ebacon
08-23-2012, 07:37 PM
Ron Paul can be very convincing until you really dig into his beliefs. He is not a Republican. He is a Libertarian. I agree with a lot of what he says until he starts spouting hardcore Libertarian platform policy.

This is where the rubber hits the road. What do you disagree with in Ron Paul's policies and why?

One of the things I have repeatedly run into are Republicans that love Ron Paul and Ayn Rand simultaneously. They dismiss their philosophical differences as insignificant. That's fine for discussion purposes, but on the other hand the differences become significant when they get codified as the law of the land.

finnbow
08-23-2012, 08:04 PM
Bill's Kristol's father, Irving, was considered the "godfather of neconservatism," which indeed was founded by disillusioned Democrats. It's been BS from the get-go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

I think Ron Paul may have an interesting message, but he's an imperfect messenger. He's everybody's crazy uncle in the attack.

ebacon
08-23-2012, 08:11 PM
Ron Paul is the poster child of deep thinking everywhere. The message is brilliant but the sales pitch sucks.

Fox News beats him with slit skirts and thigh shots. That's all it takes.

ebacon
08-23-2012, 08:22 PM
finn,

Thanks for the link to Irving Kristol by the way. Without being pushed I start to believe that no one cares.

Until now my interest in neocons has been in the context of current affairs. I didn't really care where they came from until I arrived at the independent conclusion that Ayn Rand was bad and professor Shlapentokh called me a conspiracy theorist. I clearly hit a nerve. This battle goes back a long time and is still going.

Being an Army brat and getting called a conspiracy theorist by a communist social scientist gets the juices flowing.

merrylander
08-24-2012, 06:37 AM
Why do you think Ron Paul christened his son Rand? Crazy uncle in the attic indeed.

d-ray657
08-24-2012, 08:36 AM
I take issue with Ron Paul with respect to his reverence for the goodness of the unfettered free market and his belief in states rights even with respect to institutionalized racism.

Regards,

D-Ray

piece-itpete
08-24-2012, 09:04 AM
Ron Paul's a little whacked. He looks more Presidential than Romney though, and guess what counts? ;)

Dems and Neocons do have this in common: they both believe the government should be the final arbitrator of society. In other words it's up to THEM to decide what's best for us. Very convenient I would say :)

Pete

d-ray657
08-24-2012, 09:17 AM
What does presidential look like?

Regards,

D-Ray

bobabode
08-24-2012, 09:35 AM
Here you go.;):D

piece-itpete
08-24-2012, 09:55 AM
...............

BlueStreak
08-24-2012, 04:15 PM
It's the "Political Ring"* theory that I proposed and no one ever commented on.

*Rather than a "Spectrum" as represented by a straight line, politics are represented by a ring, with left and right set east and west, then anarchy and totalitarianism set opposite each other, north and south.

Consider that the stated, ultimate goal of Communism is purportedly-----anarchy, no government at all. Thus covering the entire arc from tyranny to liberty on the left side. (Assuming that it actually runs it's course as advertized.)

Modern day conservatism purports to seek ever less government, with the extreme right apparently suggesting anarchy. (While espousing ideas that stink of government invasive to even the most private aspects of our lives, interestingly enough.) Thus covering the arc on the right.

I know this is not a perfect example, but do you see what I'm getting at?

A "Ring"---Not a straight line.

Dave

BlueStreak
08-24-2012, 04:19 PM
BTW, I would consider Ron Paul before I'd even think of voting for Romney.

At least Ron Paul, for the most part, is genuine. To my mind, Romney embodies precisely what this country doesn't need any more of.

Dave

piece-itpete
08-27-2012, 09:37 AM
Ambiguous non-talkers? Could be any politician on the national stage now - including our current fearless leader.

Pete