Ron Paul on the Role of Government (Video)

Once again, Dr. Paul espouses the values of liberty and self-determination, this time on 11/19/11 at the Thanksgiving Presidential Family Forum. It may be hard for you to agree with much of what he says, and he’ll never be elected president, and this will be his last go around as a candidate, but if you listen, you’ll be able to learn a hell of a lot from him:

, , , , ,

  • Camron Wiltshire

    The only Candidate who understands what must be done to remove the blight of war and economic slavery is Ron Paul.  Great post.  Thank you.

  • Camron Wiltshire

    The only Candidate who understands what must be done to remove the blight of war and economic slavery is Ron Paul.  Great post.  Thank you.

    • Mr Willow

      Blight of War. . . check.

      Economic Slavery. . . no.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    my recent opinion is that you cannot revere a document or patriarchs without healthy skepticism (and i take issue just with the ‘revering of patriarchs’ part generally). you cannot value something that static (or value their ‘values’) more than basic human decency, justice and democracy. You cannot codify a document based on slavery, genocide and exploitation and expect to live in a nation that values ‘freedom’ and/or ‘liberty’-  the market is not self-correcting, it is not going to value democracy. and consumer choice is NOT ‘freedom,’ neither is the ability to rampage about the environment in a Humvee (with rims of course) armed to the teeth, racist, women hating and ready to shoot an approximation of ‘liberty.’

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    my recent opinion is that you cannot revere a document or patriarchs without healthy skepticism (and i take issue just with the ‘revering of patriarchs’ part generally). you cannot value something that static (or value their ‘values’) more than basic human decency, justice and democracy. You cannot codify a document based on slavery, genocide and exploitation and expect to live in a nation that values ‘freedom’ and/or ‘liberty’-  the market is not self-correcting, it is not going to value democracy. and consumer choice is NOT ‘freedom,’ neither is the ability to rampage about the environment in a Humvee (with rims of course) armed to the teeth, racist, women hating and ready to shoot an approximation of ‘liberty.’

  • Jin The Ninja

    my recent opinion is that you cannot revere a document or patriarchs without healthy skepticism (and i take issue just with the ‘revering of patriarchs’ part generally). you cannot value something that static (or value their ‘values’) more than basic human decency, justice and democracy. You cannot codify a document based on slavery, genocide and exploitation and expect to live in a nation that values ‘freedom’ and/or ‘liberty’-  the market is not self-correcting, it is not going to value democracy. and consumer choice is NOT ‘freedom,’ neither is the ability to rampage about the environment in a Humvee (with rims of course) armed to the teeth, racist, women hating and ready to shoot an approximation of ‘liberty.’

    • seanooski

      Sometimes the market is self correcting, and sometimes government properly governs. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Sometimes democracy is a great idea, except when the majority thinks you should go to jail for smoking pot, or for selling raw milk to knowing customers, or for crossing a border to find work, or for being black (asian, jewish, sihk, christian, atheist, gay)…Free markets are only valid when all the participants appreciate the value of following the rules, and freely choose to disavow immoral advantage taking, for the sake of the integrity of the relationship. The state is merely the owned and controlled thug of the super elite. If all you want is to be the cop who gets to enforce your pet rules, then vote for your favorite hit man (or woman). The powers that be couldn’t care less who wins, as long as it ain’t Ron Paul. They’ll kill him first, if their old standby plan of disinformation doesn’t do the trick this time. So, if you hate Ron Paul and want to see him die, go out there and vote for him. A vote for anyone else is throwing your vote away, no matter what you mean by it.

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Well I don’t think Ron Paul winning an election necessitates his assassination and though we have just passed the 48th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, I do feel we have enough good people still to protect this man, and if the worse were to occur I imagine America may become even more focused on Dr. Paul’s message.  I was with you till the last line.  Pessimism has it’s place but stating that  “,if you hate Ron Paul and want to see him die, go out there and vote for him” is a catch 22 for our society and thus cancels out your previous appeals to reason in my opinion.  Yes I understand the fucks responsible for dealing death in Dealey are still at large, but that was also 48 years ago, no internet then, no social media, no alternate voice compared to what we have now.  But then again 9/11 was only 10 years ago and while most of the world has woken up to it’s sad reality some still fight for the chains of ignorance and “security”, personally I don’t think the elite would survive the blowback for such audacity.  The military overwhelmingly support Dr. Paul and many are awakened to the real state of affairs.  

        • seanooski

          Yeah, I went too far. I was just trying to make the point that Ron Paul is the only candidate of consequence in this election, as far as the puppet masters are concerned. I veered off course there toward the end. I meant by that last bit that there are compelling reasons to vote for RP even if you oppose some of his policy agenda. Misplaced sarcasm, perhaps.

          • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

            I appreciate your self-correction.  I understand your sentiment.  We’ve watched Camelot snatched from us live on tv before, the miasmic tragedy still rings like a shattered liberty bell.  Here is to our collective At One Ment or Atonement.  Ron Paul is our best chance at not ending up in the seething hell the neocons have in store for all of us.   McCain should be impeached for SB 1867.  Ron Paul is the only one in the race who cares that our government feels they have the right to extrajudicially kill and incarcerate American’s if they are deemed as part of the phony “war on terror”.  All you have to do is deal with the TRUTH America.  That is what scares them the most.  Look at the lengths they’ve gone to to hide their crimes.  Sorry that was my aside to anyone reading.  Thanks again.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      So in your mind the media’s version of the tea party and or the libertarian party are accurate portrayals, and not the seething rage of stereotypical disinformationationalists seeking to undercut through smear the growing populist revolt of the further desecration of our liberties, economy and future life potential.  Which document are you referring to by the way, the patriot act?  (I know what your real answer is, I just want to play along).  Also not sure what you mean by insinuating Dr. Paul or anyone supporting him plans on “rampaging about the environment in a Humvee”.  Again your post reads like the verbal equivalent of “reefer madness” but aimed at Libertarians and supporters of the Constitution and with it our sovereign and inalienable rights.   

      • Jin The Ninja

        i replied to your other comment on my comment (‘dancing queen’ post) which should have explicitly made clear my views, but in case further clarity is needed here it is:

        1) i am also a libertarian (left/anarcho-socialist), so i do not appreciate you characterising me as if i was some democrat/liberal trying to dissuade voters from ron paul- not my intention and not the point of my post.

        2)I do not believe in our current system of political or even social organisation. The structures seem to me, at least, decrepit and decaying and in need of rebuilding (not the same as reform). If this were a post about Barack, Palin, Harper, Layton (RIP), Nader, Cameron, Clegg or some other poltico you can damn well expect i would have even harsher words for them and their policies. I am not in favour of continuing with the status quo.

        3) i think disinfo readers, and speaking broadly here, are quite well informed, so if you meet heavy resistance or critical appraisal to/of  ‘ron paul’ or any idea perhaps it is better to deconstruct the myths and paradigms YOU may hold, to better understand what is problematic, instead of attempting to posit the readership of this site as ‘establishment.’

        4) furthermore, i even less appreciate your condescension about the ‘patriot act’ (yes, i was referring to the CONSTITUTION)- and if you fully understand (not to say AGREE with) point (1)- nationalism as an ideology is quite contrary to an anti-statist point of view.

        5) the environment, human/civil rights, “liberty” (though i am loathed to the word in practice because it’s usual connotation being tea party or conservative affiliation) are ALL of concern to me equally. I cannot see a system resultant in amenable principles from any kind of market-based economics.

        6) economics based on the free market (and NOT on democracy, nevermind that i see democracy and capitalism as antithetical) i see as even LESS agreeable- as it will UNDOUBTEDLY lead to FURTHER descent into dystopia-that will leave us further under corporate and randian totalitarian social control. It will make our current madness look like the a minor hysterical episode. This was WHY i used descriptive language and metaphor (humvee) in illustrating a world wherein everyone’s a cowboy but where the rail road barons (the corporations) are in total control.

        7) last point. the constitution for all it’s historical basis and progression of the idea of ‘rights’ is simply a piece of paper. i believe neither in patriarchy (as worship of the ‘founders’) nor that a country founded on genocide, slavery, inequality, “mercantilism run amok” (a quote from a french revolutionary of whom i have temporily forgotten the name) patriarchy, racism or republicanism can EVER allocate “sovereign and inalienable rights” to it’s citizens (and much less export that brand of ‘democracy’ elsewhere).

        Canada’s current ‘constitution’ was only implemented in 1982. In one referendum it COULD be (although as if the powers that be would ever allow it) dismantled altogether. Nothing is forever. democracy is critical dissent.

        ps: the ‘reefer madness’ was entirely unwarranted because you and i both know, my views are verifiably anti establishment, more so than yours (who back a major party candidate). I am not a shill disseminating mis information- simply giving MY opinion based on my worldview.

  • Anonymous

    Good old Ron ‘lol’ Paul

  • MrSta

    Good old Ron ‘lol’ Paul

  • DITM

    May not agree with Ron Paul on everything, but he’s the only candidate that will put US politics back on the right track.

  • DITM

    May not agree with Ron Paul on everything, but he’s the only candidate that will put US politics back on the right track.

  • DeepCough

    Hey, Mr. Paul, if you’re a Constitutionalist, then your response should have been, “Hey, Lutz, Article VI, motherfucker!”

  • DeepCough

    Hey, Mr. Paul, if you’re a Constitutionalist, then your response should have been, “Hey, Lutz, Article VI, motherfucker!”

  • Andrew

    I’m not going to vote for anyone stupid enough to think or evil enough to claim the market will protect the environment.

    • Smudgeservices

      what do you do when you find out a product you purchase is unhealthy, or encouraging slave labor, or is from a company polluting the environment? you find your product from another source, right?
      well then what happens to that company? They loose profits and get run down to the point where ether they change or go out of business. Take the BP oil spill for example.
      That is the free market at work, protecting the environment. There is nothing evil about it.

      • Mr Willow

        Unless said ‘evil company’ is so large it is either exempt from prosecution (in the spirit of ‘too big to fail’) or has such a stranglehold on the market that it either pumps money into advertising that convinces people they’re not so bad—because the majority of people rely on the media to expose things like pollution, which is difficult when the company causing pollution owns the media—or simply takes choice away by purchasing the ‘other source’ and either closes down said other source’s factories and fires all those workers or assimilates said factories into its system, turning a once low or non polluter into a heavy polluter.

        And I don’t know if anyone informed you, but BP is still in business, and as far as I know, continues to operate in much the same manner they did prior to the gulf disaster.

        • emc_0

          It’s a good thing that so many of these honest politicians have ties to these huge corporations and lobbyist and so on.. Politicians never make regulations that promote their own self interests and investments, especially when it comes to the environment.

          But seriously, what do you propose?
          More government regulation?
          Or is what we have now ok, and we’re just waiting for when we get a group of perfect politicians that will make the regulations fair and effective? (and what happens when there no longer in office?)

          • Mr Willow

            Politicians’ only self-interest is to remain in office, and in order to do so they require money. The corporations that are often at fault for pollution (among a laundry list) are the ones that provide them with enough money to squash every competitor that ‘plays by the rules’ and only takes donations from individual citizens (and I will thank you to not even attempt to argue that absolute farce of corporations being people) through things like attack ads or being able to actually appear on any of the televised debates (have you heard of Buddy Roemer? Probably not. He’s running for the Republican nomination for president, but he hasn’t had any air time aside from that afforded to him by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert because you have to buy your way onto any of the debates, and since campaign finance reform is top of his list of things to get passed, he’s ignored more than Ron Paul). 

            Recognising this, a politician cannot pass regulations upon the companies that pay them, lest they lose that money. None of them care the least bit for the environment, because they’ll all be rich enough (they hope) to construct little bubbles to protect themselves from the nuclear fallout and acid rain.

            I propose direct governance by the Public, either by consensus democracy or sortition. The role of the government is to protect the public from depravity or tyranny that often results from inflated egos and unmitigated greed; therefore, it would stand to reason the government should be composed of the public, with the goal to benefit the public, not themselves nor those they receive money from. 

            In such a system, I imagine, more strict regulations would be placed on corporations than those currently in place, along with a whole host of public programs—not to mention an abolition of lobbying—-because it is in the interest of the Public to not have forests destroyed, to not have water or air tainted, to have higher wages for more work, to have vacation time, to have healthcare, to have education, and perhaps most importantly, not have their entire political system orchestrated by Mammon worshipers.

          • DITM

            I’m not seeing how direct governance by the public would work or be good in any way. Firstly, nobody supposes that the public knows very much to have a reasonable opinion on the majority of issues. They vote instead with prejudice, and these prejudices, as outlined by Bryan Caplan, are anti-market, anti-foreign, pessimism and pro-make-work. How could this be avoided?
            Secondly, how to avoid ochlocracy? You’ll have heard the idea of democracy being two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. In your sortition proposal this would be an even bigger problem, as a minority could easily be reduced to one person, or none at all. You can imagine how horrific such a situation could easily become – votes on first generation immigrants not being allowed certain jobs, votes on automatic death sentence for rapists, votes on banning freedom of speech for outrageous or disgusting views.
            I think that by far the best system was a sort of constitutional republic, which America had for quite a long time. But failing that, what’s so wrong with simple states rights? When one talks of “do you want a capitalist government or a keynesian system or a fully socialist system” you can answer “all of the above” with states rights. So long the borders between states remain open, people can choose (from 50 options) which best suits them. They don’t have to wait 4 years and hope everyone else votes with them either; they can just move straight away to their preferred system.

          • Mr Willow

            How could this be avoided?

            By making media solely owned by the public. The only reason a majority of people are uninformed, underinformed, or outright misinformed is because the same monied aristocracy owns all the mainstream media stations (even things like PBS and NPR), and it is therefore in their best interests to keep the public ignorant of pollution, sweatshops, their collusion with government officials and all the rest. Knowing this, the public cannot help but be pessimistic and/or overzealous in their prejudices, especially when there is one certain media conglomerate (owned by a certain Australian) stoking people’s prejudices twenty four hours a day, and all the others being consistently downplayed as either ‘liberal’ or ‘shoddy’ (the latter I can most certainly get behind). 

            If people were actually informed—and not reported to; that is, not informed on the basis of ‘we report, you decide’ (the translation being ‘we tell you a bunch of information, do half our job for us and verify that information on your own)—and educated at any capacity—not being conditioned into being information receptacles—there would be a much higher support for things now demonized as ‘socialist’. 

            how to avoid ochlocracy?

            Consensus democracy is in no way mob rule, as it is an evaluation of every single member of society’s opinion. Every person has equal standing. We are not separate from politicians, except instead of peddling our personalities and families or religions as being the reason for being elected, it would be the ideas themselves on which we all vote. Do I really need to point out this method has been employed by the Occupy movement for the past few months with reasonable effectiveness? 

            I agree this would be better suited for local decision making, hence sortition—as in election through lottery—would be best (in my opinion) for a more national position (congress and the like). Every six months to two years (four years has always seemed much too long for my taste for individuals to be in office) there would be a drawing—each member of the administration drawing for their replacement (or the person sitting next to them’s replacement). Once in office, however, everything would follow a consensus basis (the consensus of the states would inform national consensus, or a national election would be held for whatever law would be passed), as they would not need to run on some platform of ‘family values’ or ‘fiscal conservatism’ or anything else. 

            Every individual idea would be evaluated based upon its own merits and faults in relation to those already in place. If a law previously passed is deemed to be in conflict with one being proposed, said law should also be put up for a vote and so on.

            Is it perfect? Probably not, but to make it so—or anywhere near—would necessitate informed discussion.

            I think that by far the best system was a sort of constitutional republic,

            Our current state of affairs should tell you that a republic is deeply flawed because the representatives are so easily corrupted. We waste time judging candidates, who all the while could be—and in most cases patently are—lying through their teeth (Change we never got), when the individual ideas they have should be the things we should be judging. 

            what’s so wrong with simple states rights?

            State governments are in no way exempt from nor immune to corruption, just ask the fine residents of Wisconsin.

      • Andrew

        Not good enough.  It’s often impossible to find a business that doesn’t pollute or use foreign labor.  Plus, the loss of my money won’t change or put any corporation out of business.

        BP’s a great example.  They’re still in business, still drilling for oil, have closed their alternative energy office in London, and Americans living along the Gulf are getting sick by the thousands.

    • JoiquimCouteau

      I’m not going to vote for anyone stupid enough to think or evil enough to claim the state will protect the environment.

      • Andrew

        Will?  No.  Should?  Yes.

        • JoiquimCouteau

          “Should” is the last resort of scoundrels

          • Andrew

            And a “scoundrel” is someone who doesn’t do what you think they should.

      • emc_0

        But Joiquim! They do such a wonderful job in every other area of our lives!

        No one cares for the environment as much as bureaucrats do. :)

  • Andrew

    I’m not going to vote for anyone stupid enough to think or evil enough to claim the market will protect the environment.

  • Anonymous_coward

    Well, I am voting for Ron Paul.  And everyone I know has been engaged in discussion with me on the issues Ron hammers home consistently.  Many have purchased campaign materials such as posters and stickers and yard signs.  This is not 2007-8 and we have not lost anything that was gained last time around, we are building on it.  

    So the old, “Ron Paul is not electable” mantra is no longer true.  I work every day on this issue and I see real advances.  Just getting folks to listen to Ron Paul goes a long way to educate them.  We shall see, come the voting.  

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Amen.  Ron Paul has my and my entire Families vote.  If you managed to survive the cringe fest that was last nights debate, the only candidate not obsessed with steering America straight into a dystopic 1984 hell is Dr. Ron Paul.  No one else represents anything other than slight mutations (arguable) from the existing status quo.  One blogger summarized it aptly here,
      “ANSWERS TO EVERY QUESTION FROM LAST NIGHT’S DEBATE.Bachmann: Let’s go to WAR! 
      Gingrich: Let’s go to BIGGER WAR!
      Perry: Let’s cut foreign aid and go to WAR! 
      Romney: We need to go to WAR!
      Santorum: We need to kill every muslim with a WAR!Huntsman: We need to go to Pakistan and start a WAR! Cain: If my handlers tell me to, I’ll go to WAR!
      RON PAUL: NO MORE WAR!!! “

      • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

        Family’s  Damn you english language!

  • Anonymous_coward

    Well, I am voting for Ron Paul.  And everyone I know has been engaged in discussion with me on the issues Ron hammers home consistently.  Many have purchased campaign materials such as posters and stickers and yard signs.  This is not 2007-8 and we have not lost anything that was gained last time around, we are building on it.  

    So the old, “Ron Paul is not electable” mantra is no longer true.  I work every day on this issue and I see real advances.  Just getting folks to listen to Ron Paul goes a long way to educate them.  We shall see, come the voting.  

  • Smudgeservices

    I’m tired of hearing people say “there no chance in hell” or “he’ll never be elected” president. It’s such a negative, un-hopeful outlook on the situation. It irritates me. If you agree with him, and see truth in his word, then believe in him and support him. Help spread his message. That’s all that it requires. It’s not an impossible feat.
    And when see this view here, on DISINFO, it really gets me fired up. I look to independent news and current events sights like this because the main stream is so corrupt and gross. The same reason all of you do too. But yet someone will post, here of all places, the views pushed by the main stream that he has no chance. To continue to spread the establishment trash of snubbing his chances is wrong, and not what this website is about.

  • Smudgeservices

    I’m tired of hearing people say “there no chance in hell” or “he’ll never be elected” president. It’s such a negative, un-hopeful outlook on the situation. It irritates me. If you agree with him, and see truth in his word, then believe in him and support him. Help spread his message. That’s all that it requires. It’s not an impossible feat.
    And when see this view here, on DISINFO, it really gets me fired up. I look to independent news and current events sights like this because the main stream is so corrupt and gross. The same reason all of you do too. But yet someone will post, here of all places, the views pushed by the main stream that he has no chance. To continue to spread the establishment trash of snubbing his chances is wrong, and not what this website is about.

  • Smudgeservices

    what do you do when you find out a product you purchase is unhealthy, or encouraging slave labor, or is from a company polluting the environment? you find your product from another source, right?
    well then what happens to that company? They loose profits and get run down to the point where ether they change or go out of business. Take the BP oil spill for example.
    That is the free market at work, protecting the environment. There is nothing evil about it.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not going to vote for anyone stupid enough to think or evil enough to claim the state will protect the environment.

  • Mr Willow

    Unless said ‘evil company’ is so large it is either exempt from prosecution, has such a stranglehold on the market that it either pumps money into advertising that convinces people their not so bad—because the majority of people rely on the media to expose things like pollution, which is difficult when the company causing pollution owns the media—or simply takes choice away by purchasing the other source and either closes down said other source’s factories and firing all those workers or assimilates said factories into its system, turning a once low or non polluter into a heavy polluter.

    And I don’t know if anyone informed you, but BP is still in business, and as far as I know, continues to operate in much the same manner they did prior to the gulf disaster. 

  • Andrew

    Not good enough.  It’s often impossible to find a business that doesn’t pollute or use foreign labor.  Plus, the loss of my money won’t change or put any corporation out of business.

    BP’s a great example.  They’re still in business, still drilling for oil, have closed their alternative energy office in London, and Americans living along the Gulf are getting sick by the thousands.

  • Mr Willow

    Blight of War. . . check.

    Economic Slavery. . . no.

  • Andrew

    Will?  No.  Should?  Yes.

  • Contra

    He only will not be elected if fools like you (Aaron Dames), continue to espouse and prop up the ideology that he is unelectable.  Free your mind, and realized that a vote is a vote, and if he represents the will of the people then he will be elected.

  • Contra

    He only will not be elected if fools like you (Aaron Dames), continue to espouse and prop up the ideology that he is unelectable.  Free your mind, and realized that a vote is a vote, and if he represents the will of the people then he will be elected.

  • Anonymous

    It’s a good thing that so many of these honest politicians have ties to these huge corporations and lobbyist and so on.. Politicians never make regulations that promote their own self interests and investments, especially when it comes to the environment.

    But seriously, what do you propose?
    More government regulation?
    Or is what we have now ok, and we’re just waiting for when we get a group of perfect politicians that will make the regulations fair and effective? (and what happens when there no longer in office?)

  • Anonymous

    But Joiquim! They do such a wonderful job in every other area of our lives!

    No one cares for the environment as much as bureaucrats do. :)

  • seanooski

    Sometimes the market is self correcting, and sometimes government properly governs. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Sometimes democracy is a great idea, except when the majority thinks you should go to jail for smoking pot, or for selling raw milk to knowing customers, or for crossing a border to find work, or for being black (asian, jewish, sihk, christian, atheist, gay)…Free markets are only valid when all the participants appreciate the value of following the rules, and freely choose to disavow immoral advantage taking, for the sake of the integrity of the relationship. The state is merely the owned and controlled thug of the super elite. If all you want is to be the cop who gets to enforce your pet rules, then vote for your favorite hit man (or woman). The powers that be couldn’t care less who wins, as long as it ain’t Ron Paul. They’ll kill him first, if their old standby plan of disinformation doesn’t do the trick this time. So, if you hate Ron Paul and want to see him die, go out there and vote for him. A vote for anyone else is throwing your vote away, no matter what you mean by it.

  • Mr Willow

    Politicians’ only self-interest is to remain in office, and in order to do so they require money. The corporations that are often at fault for pollution (among a laundry list) are the ones that provide them with enough money to squash every competitor that ‘plays by the rules’ and only takes donations from individual citizens (and I will thank you to not even attempt to argue that absolute farce of corporations being people) through things like attack ads or being able to actually appear on any of the televised debates (have you heard of Buddy Roemer? Probably not. He’s running for the Republican nomination for president, but he hasn’t had any air time aside from that afforded to him by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert because you have to buy your way onto any of the debates, and since campaign finance reform is top of his list of things to get passed, he’s ignored more than Ron Paul). 

    Recognising this, a politician cannot pass regulations upon the companies that pay them, lest they lose that money. None of them care the least bit for the environment, because they’ll all be rich enough (they hope) to construct little bubbles to protect themselves from the nuclear fallout and acid rain.

    I propose direct governance by the Public, either by consensus democracy or sortition. The role of the government is to protect the public from depravity or tyranny that often results from inflated egos and unmitigated greed; therefore, it would stand to reason the government should be composed of the public, with the goal to benefit the public, not themselves nor those they receive money from. 

    In such a system, I imagine, more strict regulations would be placed on corporations than those currently in place, along with a whole host of public programs—not to mention an abolition of lobbying—-because it is in the interest of the Public to not have forests destroyed, to not have water or air tainted, to have higher wages for more work, to have vacation time, to have healthcare, to have education, and perhaps most importantly, not have their entire political system orchestrated by Mammon worshipers.

  • Monkey

    It’s about responsibility, so if a person drives over the speed limit and get in an accident, why should the tax payer have to drive this reckless individual to the hospital? I say better to have a cat push that vehicle and driver of the road and let the responsible operators get on their way. As far as that goes, why should the tax payer pay for the policeman to track down the person who robbed another. If this citizen were responsible there would have been adequate security in place. And if you can’t feed your family, off to a Concentration camp

    forced labor camp were you will work for less than minimum wage. This guy is stating to look like a NAZI

    • WeAreChangeAtlanta

      yeah ok buddy, you just keep telling yourself that. You just humped your own strawman to death.

      • Monkey

        Whatever dude, I can see why they have not given this guy much air time, it’s because the more he talks the crazier he sounds. I used to like Ron Paul, but after listening to nearly 20 minutes of his babbling nonsense, all I see another republican nut job. I’m starting to think you have to be a mental case to make it to the top in government today.

        • WeAreChangeAtlanta

          I don’t think Monkey actually watched the video.

  • Monkey

    It’s about responsibility, so if a person drives over the speed limit and get in an accident, why should the tax payer have to drive this reckless individual to the hospital? I say better to have a cat push that vehicle and driver of the road and let the responsible operators get on their way. As far as that goes, why should the tax payer pay for the policeman to track down the person who robbed another. If this citizen were responsible there would have been adequate security in place. And if you can’t feed your family, off to a Concentration camp

    forced labor camp were you will work for less than minimum wage. This guy is stating to look like a NAZI

  • Camron Wiltshire

    Amen.  Ron Paul has my and my entire Families vote.  If you managed to survive the cringe fest that was last nights debate, the only candidate not obsessed with steering America straight into a dystopic 1984 hell is Dr. Ron Paul.  No one else represents anything other than slight mutations (arguable) from the existing status quo.  One blogger summarized it aptly here,
    “ANSWERS TO EVERY QUESTION FROM LAST NIGHT’S DEBATE.Bachmann: Let’s go to WAR! 
    Gingrich: Let’s go to BIGGER WAR!
    Perry: Let’s cut foreign aid and go to WAR! 
    Romney: We need to go to WAR!
    Santorum: We need to kill every muslim with a WAR!Huntsman: We need to go to Pakistan and start a WAR! Cain: If my handlers tell me to, I’ll go to WAR!
    RON PAUL: NO MORE WAR!!! “

  • Camron Wiltshire

    Family’s  Damn you english language!

  • Camron Wiltshire

    So in your mind the media’s version of the tea party and or the libertarian party are accurate portrayals, and not the seething rage of stereotypical disinformationationalists seeking to undercut through smear the growing populist revolt of the further desecration of our liberties, economy and future life potential.  Which document are you referring to by the way, the patriot act?  (I know what your real answer is, I just want to play along).  Also not sure what you mean by insinuating Dr. Paul or anyone supporting him plans on “rampaging about the environment in a Humvee”.  Again your post reads like the verbal equivalent of “reefer madness” but aimed at Libertarians and supporters of the Constitution and with it our sovereign and inalienable rights.   

  • Camron Wiltshire

    Well I don’t think Ron Paul winning an election necessitates his assassination and though we have just passed the 48th anniversary of JFK’s assassination, I do feel we have enough good people still to protect this man, and if the worse were to occur I imagine America may become even more focused on Dr. Paul’s message.  I was with you till the last line.  Pessimism has it’s place but stating that  “,if you hate Ron Paul and want to see him die, go out there and vote for him” is a catch 22 for our society and thus cancels out your previous appeals to reason in my opinion.  Yes I understand the fucks responsible for dealing death in Dealey are still at large, but that was also 48 years ago, no internet then, no social media, no alternate voice compared to what we have now.  But then again 9/11 was only 10 years ago and while most of the world has woken up to it’s sad reality some still fight for the chains of ignorance and “security”, personally I don’t think the elite would survive the blowback for such audacity.  The military overwhelmingly support Dr. Paul and many are awakened to the real state of affairs.  

  • WeAreChangeAtlanta

    yeah ok buddy, you just keep telling yourself that. You just humped your own strawman to death.

  • Wbromby

    It erks me when people say “he’ll never be elected”

  • Wbromby

    It erks me when people say “he’ll never be elected”

  • Wbromby

    It erks me when people say “he’ll never be elected”

  • Monkey

    Whatever dude, I can see why they have not given this guy much air time, it’s because the more he talks the crazier he sounds. I used to like Ron Paul, but after listening to nearly 20 minutes of his babbling nonsense, all I see another republican nut job. I’m starting to think you have to be a mental case to make it to the top in government today.

  • WeAreChangeAtlanta

    I don’t think Monkey actually watched the video.

  • DITM

    I’m not seeing how direct governance by the public would work or be good in any way. Firstly, nobody supposes that the public knows very much to have a reasonable opinion on the majority of issues. They vote instead with prejudice, and these prejudices, as outlined by Bryan Caplan, are anti-market, anti-foreign, pessimism and pro-make-work. How could this be avoided?
    Secondly, how to avoid ochlocracy? You’ll have heard the idea of democracy being two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. In your sortition proposal this would be an even bigger problem, as a minority could easily be reduced to one person, or none at all. You can imagine how horrific such a situation could easily become – votes on first generation immigrants not being allowed certain jobs, votes on automatic death sentence for rapists, votes on banning freedom of speech for outrageous or disgusting views.
    I think that by far the best system was a sort of constitutional republic, which America had for quite a long time. But failing that, what’s so wrong with simple states rights? When one talks of “do you want a capitalist government or a keynesian system or a fully socialist system” you can answer “all of the above” with states rights. So long the borders between states remain open, people can choose (from 50 options) which best suits them. They don’t have to wait 4 years and hope everyone else votes with them either; they can just move straight away to their preferred system.

  • Jin Onikoroshi

    i replied to your other comment on my comment (‘dancing queen’ post) which should have explicitly made clear my views, but in case further clarity is needed here it is:

    1) i am also a libertarian (left/anarcho-socialist), so i do not appreciate you characterising me as if i was some democrat/liberal trying to dissuade voters from ron paul- not my intention and not the point of my post.

    2)I do not believe in our current system of political or even social organisation. The structures seem to me, at least, decrepit and decaying and in need of rebuilding (not the same as reform). If this were a post about Barack, Palin, Harper, Layton (RIP), Nader, Cameron, Clegg or some other poltico you can damn well expect i would have even harsher words for them and their policies. I am not in favour of continuing with the status quo.

    3) i think disinfo readers, and speaking broadly here, are quite well informed, so if you meet heavy resistance or critical appraisal to/of  ‘ron paul’ or any idea perhaps it is better to deconstruct the myths and paradigms YOU may hold, to better understand what is problematic, instead of attempting to posit the readership of this site as ‘establishment.’

    4) furthermore, i even less appreciate your condescension about the ‘patriot act’ (yes, i was referring to the CONSTITUTION)- and if you fully understand (not to say AGREE with) point (1)- nationalism as an ideology is quite contrary to an anti-statist point of view.

    5) the environment, human/civil rights, “liberty” (though i am loathed to the word in practice because it’s usual connotation being tea party or conservative affiliation) are ALL of concern to me equally. I cannot see a system resultant in amenable principles from any kind of market-based economics.

    6) economics based on the free market (and NOT on democracy, nevermind that i see democracy and capitalism as antithetical) i see as even LESS agreeable- as it will UNDOUBTEDLY lead to FURTHER descent into dystopia-that will leave us further under corporate and randian totalitarian social control. It will make our current madness look like the a minor hysterical episode. This was WHY i used descriptive language and metaphor (humvee) in illustrating a world wherein everyone’s a cowboy but where the rail road barons (the corporations) are in total control.

    7) last point. the constitution for all it’s historical basis and progression of the idea of ‘rights’ is simply a piece of paper. i believe neither in patriarchy (as worship of the ‘founders’) nor that a country founded on genocide, slavery, inequality, “mercantilism run amok” (a quote from a french revolutionary of whom i have temporily forgotten the name) patriarchy, racism or republicanism can EVER allocate “sovereign and inalienable rights” to it’s citizens (and much less export that brand of ‘democracy’ elsewhere).

    Canada’s current ‘constitution’ was only implemented in 1982. In one referendum it COULD be (although as if the powers that be would ever allow it) dismantled altogether. Nothing is forever. democracy is critical dissent.

  • seanooski

    Yeah, I went too far. I was just trying to make the point that Ron Paul is the only candidate of consequence in this election, as far as the puppet masters are concerned. I veered off course there toward the end. I meant by that last bit that there are compelling reasons to vote for RP even if you oppose some of his policy agenda. Misplaced sarcasm, perhaps.

  • Mr Willow

    How could this be avoided?
    By making media solely owned by the public. The only reason a majority of people are uninformed, underinformed, or outright misinformed is because the same monied aristocracy owns all the mainstream media stations (even things like PBS and NPR), and it is therefore in their best interests to keep the public ignorant of pollution, sweatshops, their collusion with government officials and all the rest. Knowing this, the public cannot help but be pessimistic and/or overzealous in their prejudices, especially when there is one certain media conglomerate (owned by a certain Australian) stoking people’s prejudices twenty four hours a day, and all the others being consistently downplayed as either ‘liberal’ or ‘shoddy’ (the latter I can most certainly get behind). 

    If people were actually informed—and not reported to; that is, not informed on the basis of ‘we report, you decide’ (the translation being ‘we tell you a bunch of information, do half our job for us and verify that information on your own)—and educated at any capacity—not being conditioned into being information receptacles—there would be a much higher support for things now demonized as ‘socialist’. 

    how to avoid ochlocracy?

    Consensus democracy is in no way mob rule, as it is an evaluation of every single member of society’s opinion. Every person has equal standing. We are not separate from politicians, except instead of peddling our personalities and families or religions as being the reason for being elected, it would be the ideas themselves on which we all vote. Do I really need to point out this method has been employed by the Occupy movement for the past few months with reasonable effectiveness? 

    I agree this would be better suited for local decision making, hence sortition—as in election through lottery—would be best (in my opinion) for a more national position (congress and the like). Every six months to two years (four years has always seemed much too long for my taste for individuals to be in office) there would be a drawing—each member of the administration drawing for their replacement (or the person sitting next to them’s replacement). Once in office, however, everything would follow a consensus basis (the consensus of the states would inform national consensus, or a national election would be held for whatever law would be passed), as they would not need to run on some platform of ‘family values’ or ‘fiscal conservatism’ or anything else. 

    Every individual idea would be evaluated based upon its own merits and faults in relation to those already in place. If a law previously passed is deemed to be in conflict with one being proposed, said law should also be put up for a vote and so on.

    I think that by far the best system was a sort of constitutional republic,

    Our current state of affairs should tell you that a republic is deeply flawed because the representatives are so easily corrupted. We waste time judging candidates, who all the while could be—and in most cases patently are—lying through their teeth (Change we never got), when the individual ideas they have should be the things we should be judging. 

    what’s so wrong with simple states rights?

    State governments are in no way exempt from nor immune to corruption, just ask the fine residents of Wisconsin. 

  • Mr Willow

    How could this be avoided?
    By making media solely owned by the public. The only reason a majority of people are uninformed, underinformed, or outright misinformed is because the same monied aristocracy owns all the mainstream media stations (even things like PBS and NPR), and it is therefore in their best interests to keep the public ignorant of pollution, sweatshops, their collusion with government officials and all the rest. Knowing this, the public cannot help but be pessimistic and/or overzealous in their prejudices, especially when there is one certain media conglomerate (owned by a certain Australian) stoking people’s prejudices twenty four hours a day, and all the others being consistently downplayed as either ‘liberal’ or ‘shoddy’ (the latter I can most certainly get behind). 

    If people were actually informed—and not reported to; that is, not informed on the basis of ‘we report, you decide’ (the translation being ‘we tell you a bunch of information, do half our job for us and verify that information on your own)—and educated at any capacity—not being conditioned into being information receptacles—there would be a much higher support for things now demonized as ‘socialist’. 

    how to avoid ochlocracy?

    Consensus democracy is in no way mob rule, as it is an evaluation of every single member of society’s opinion. Every person has equal standing. We are not separate from politicians, except instead of peddling our personalities and families or religions as being the reason for being elected, it would be the ideas themselves on which we all vote. Do I really need to point out this method has been employed by the Occupy movement for the past few months with reasonable effectiveness? 

    I agree this would be better suited for local decision making, hence sortition—as in election through lottery—would be best (in my opinion) for a more national position (congress and the like). Every six months to two years (four years has always seemed much too long for my taste for individuals to be in office) there would be a drawing—each member of the administration drawing for their replacement (or the person sitting next to them’s replacement). Once in office, however, everything would follow a consensus basis (the consensus of the states would inform national consensus, or a national election would be held for whatever law would be passed), as they would not need to run on some platform of ‘family values’ or ‘fiscal conservatism’ or anything else. 

    Every individual idea would be evaluated based upon its own merits and faults in relation to those already in place. If a law previously passed is deemed to be in conflict with one being proposed, said law should also be put up for a vote and so on.

    I think that by far the best system was a sort of constitutional republic,

    Our current state of affairs should tell you that a republic is deeply flawed because the representatives are so easily corrupted. We waste time judging candidates, who all the while could be—and in most cases patently are—lying through their teeth (Change we never got), when the individual ideas they have should be the things we should be judging. 

    what’s so wrong with simple states rights?

    State governments are in no way exempt from nor immune to corruption, just ask the fine residents of Wisconsin. 

  • Anonymous

    “Should” is the last resort of scoundrels

  • Andrew

    And a “scoundrel” is someone who doesn’t do what you think they should.

  • Camron Wiltshire

    I appreciate your self-correction.  I understand your sentiment.  We’ve watched Camelot snatched from us live on tv before, the miasmic tragedy still rings like a shattered liberty bell.  Here is to our collective At One Ment or Atonement.  Ron Paul is our best chance at not ending up in the seething hell the neocons have in store for all of us.   McCain should be impeached for SB 1867.  Ron Paul is the only one in the race who cares that our government feels they have the right to extrajudicially kill and incarcerate American’s if they are deemed as part of the phony “war on terror”.  All you have to do is deal with the TRUTH America.  That is what scares them the most.  Look at the lengths they’ve gone to to hide their crimes.  Sorry that was my aside to anyone reading.  Thanks again.

  • Derp I dont get it

    video removed by user. ??

  • Derp I dont get it

    video removed by user. ??

21