Ron Paul Supports Occupy Wall Street

Ron Paul spoke tonight at Keene State College, and as is being reported nationally, was “mic checked” by Occupy Keene at the end of his speech. The occupiers said:

“We are the 99%! We will be heard! There are criminals on Wall Street who walk free, there are protesters in jail…There’s something wrong with this system. We are the 99%! We will be heard!”

He handled it graciously by smiling throughout and then by asking them if they feel better. He was also sure to point out his agreement with the Occupy Wall St. movement, saying,

“I’m very much involved with the 99. I’ve been condemning the 1%…the people on Wall street got the bailouts and you guys got stuck with the bill and I think that’s where the problem is.”

Here’s video of the Mic Check and Ron’s response, courtesy of Nick Ryder:

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


69 Comments

  1. Idiot protesters. They condemn the bailouts, but want to give more power to the same entities that provide bailouts and pick winners and losers in the economy.

    Reply
  2. Well, that about ends whats left of my support of "Occupy Keene"

    Reply
  3. whys that steve

    Reply
  4. What Ron Paul doesn't seem to understand is that the reason the government is so "big" is because businesses want it to be that way. Oh wait, you will say, RP and Lew Rockwell and Stefan Molyneux all tell me that businesses absolutely love the free market and want to do everything they can to make sure the market is 100% free! Totally wrong. A lot of businesses have an incentive to keep the state as it is and would put up with a little bit of taxes and regulations if they had a state to ensure protection of property, patents, and whatnot. He doesn't realize (or won't realize) that even if he became president and were to strip the size of government down to its constitutional minimum the big businesses would just re-create it. This has happened in the past and will happen in the future. So as long as you have capitalism there will be an incentive by businesspeople to have statism.

    RP just seems like he's playing to the crowd. Obama and others on the mainstream left have come out in support of OWS all while continuing their pro-capitalist polices.

    Reply
  5. Like I tried to *TELL* you guys, "Craig" – the guy in the red jacket, who was leading the "occupy mic check" – is a FUCKING *F.B.I.*/ HOMELAND*SECURITY agent provocateur…

    I thought it was RUDE, DISRESPECTFUL, INAPPROPRIATE, and just plain wrong…

    Ron Paul is about the ONLY candidate who is *AUDIT*THE*FED*…

    He's the only REAL*FRIEND "occupy" has, and they want to piss on his brief time in Keene…I bet you *FREEWEENIES* *LOVE* "Craig", doncha???…

    Yes, he's from *TEXAS*….

    Will you finally *GET*IT*, if I actually shove it up your asses???…

    :(

    Ron Paul looks as good in person, as he does online… :)

    Reply
  6. I'm not really a fan of the title. I don't think Ron Paul supports all or what Occupy Wall Street is about. I don' think he supports crapping on police cars, taking food from homeless people, taking showers meant for homeless people, killing people, raping people, unions shutting down street, forcing fruit to rot and so on.

    He does understand that the bailouts were designed to punish the vast majority of folks for the mistakes of a tiny minority of folks though. I understand that you want to sensationalize and all, though. This is blogging, after all :)

    Reply
  7. anybody knows this quote "I don’ think he supports crapping on police cars, taking food from homeless people, taking showers meant for homeless people, killing people, raping people, unions shutting down street, forcing fruit to rot and so on."

    Is not what occupy is "about" and much of that quote is anomalies, that get perpetrated or perpetuated,or both, by those that are agents of the one percent ,who may or may not know they are agents of the 1%.

    imo

    Reply
  8. "RP and Lew Rockwell and Stefan Molyneux all tell me that businesses absolutely love the free market and want to do everything they can to make sure the market is 100% free!"

    This is totally untrue. Can you prove this Julia?

    Reply
  9. Well Talley, they certainly imply it.

    If not, why would they imply that the free market is such a wonderful thing if they knew how unpopular it would be if it could ever exist?

    Reply
  10. Ron Paul supports occupy? Just stupidity on a larger scale. Hence we will never be POTUS. Neo-libertarianism = anarchy in the textbook definition. FSP good job at splitting the Conservative vote, get ready for 4 more years Obama. Well done!

    Off to troll land, hows that new policy working for ya?

    Reply
  11. Julia, at the speech today, Ron Paul spoke about some of the problems of freedom. He explain there are problems with freedom and everything is perfect.

    Reply
  12. Keith, what kinds of things did he say exactly?

    Reply
  13. Julia likes to get people answering her questions. Here is a question for Julia; How will you get rid of capitalism, violence or the state, but then I repeat myself.

    Reply
  14. Tom, you have to use some kind of violence to end the state. There's no way people in power are going to step down voluntarily. Even if you manage to sell off the power of the state to private companies, a monopoly on violence and social hierarchy will still exist.

    Did you read my recent blog post? An ex-keeniac told me why he thinks FK are the epitome of white privilege, simply because if they were as oppressed as others are in the system (blacks, immigrants, the working poor, etc.) there's no way they'd take up a "non-aggression principle" and condemn anyone who desires to truly resist.

    Reply
  15. "An ex-keeniac told me why he thinks FK are the epitome of white privilege, simply because if they were as oppressed as others are in the system (blacks, immigrants, the working poor, etc.) there’s no way they’d take up a “non-aggression principle” and condemn anyone who desires to truly resist."

    Only a neo-Marxist would make such a statement. That is such a tired comment, straight out of sixties. You'd be better off inventing a time machine and joining the SDS.

    Live Free or Die. Marxists be gone.

    Reply
  16. "Only a neo-Marxist would make such a statement. That is such a tired comment, straight out of sixties. You’d be better off inventing a time machine and joining the SDS.

    Live Free or Die. Marxists be gone."

    I'm an anarchist, dude, and a pro-market one (mutualist) at that.

    I can't imagine what *would* end up happening if FK was mostly made up of people of color. Chances are, there's no way they'd be given month-long jail sentences for sitting on a police car; they would have been shot by the cops like Oscar Grant.

    Reply
  17. "I can’t imagine what *would* end up happening if FK was mostly made up of people of color. Chances are, there’s no way they’d be given month-long jail sentences for sitting on a police car; they would have been shot by the cops like Oscar Grant."

    Yeah, because blacks get shot for sitting on cop cars all the time.

    They;re so oppressed by "the system". The same system that hires them at disproportionally higher rates than whites, awards them state privileges based on the color of their skin, the same system that that awards them with graft, handouts, and do-nothing jobs because they are loyal Democratic machine voters.

    Talk of "white privilege" and "oppressed peoples" and "the system" and racial and class consciousness, and violence as a means to an end is Neo-Marxist talk. You can mask your labels and claim otherwise, but you are a Red.

    Reply
  18. I still don’t understand why Free Staters would want to align themselves with a group which is fighting to break down the very neo-capitalist/free market/tax free utopia the FSM supports…

    Can anyone explain?

    Reply
  19. "They;re so oppressed by “the system”. The same system that hires them at disproportionally higher rates than whites, awards them state privileges based on the color of their skin, the same system that that awards them with graft, handouts, and do-nothing jobs because they are loyal Democratic machine voters."

    Which is why black poverty rates are much higher, etc. etc. I take it "Anarcho Jesse" was right when he pointed out the elements of racism in the FSP.

    "… but you are a Red."

    Anarchists have always been socialists. Always. Even Spooner opposed the wage system.

    Reply
  20. "Anarchists have always been socialists. Always. Even Spooner opposed the wage system."

    No. That is ridiculous. Reds are good at exploiting language and using double speak. But you cant invent new definitions for words as you will.

    Anarchy is a fools errand. But it is distinct from socialism. Reds use anarchists to tear down the existing order, then toss them aside like a used tampon.

    Their end like the end of the OWS is a statist society. Socialists are the ultimate statists. Anarchists who aid them are dupes.

    Reply
  21. "Which is why black poverty rates are much higher, etc. etc. I take it “Anarcho Jesse” was right when he pointed out the elements of racism in the FSP."

    Spoken like a true red liberal. Maybe their poverty rates are higher because they were born and raised on the government plantation. As a culture, they've become a dependent class. People born into a culture of welfare are more likely to likely to live a culture of dependency.

    Growing up in the welfare system and looking at the government as your main protector and benefactor, like the socialists want, is no blessing. Go look into a Boston housing project, that's the result.Individual initiative, resiliency, resolve, responsibility and accountability wither. They just go from their mother's tit to the government. You ever see someone collect a check for doing nothing for years. They are not adults, they are man-children. The welfare culture is a blight on the human spirit.

    Liberals have also taught them they are victims. They assume a victims psychology and that creates a debilitating excuse mechanism.

    Whatever problems with "the system" were rectified long ago. There is nothing left for the law to do, except give them more special privileges, which perpetuates their dependency and victimololgy.

    Reply
  22. …anyone?

    Reply
  23. "People born into a culture of welfare are more likely to likely to live a culture of dependency."

    I'd also say that about the children of the uber-wealthy, like 95% of the people living in Windham.

    Reply
  24. “People born into a culture of welfare are more likely to likely to live a culture of dependency.”

    I’d also say that about the children of the uber-wealthy, like 95% of the people living in Windham.

    What parents give their kids is not my problem. What the state steals from me to give to others because they deemed them members of a privileged class, so those people can grow up wards of the state is my problem.

    Reply
  25. SY or Julia,

    Do you have any insight regarding my question?

    Reply
  26. "What Ron Paul doesn’t seem to understand is that the reason the government is so “big” is because businesses want it to be that way." Um, ever ask WHY lobbyists & corporatists FLOCK to DC? A bit kindergarteny, but if you're gonna raise issues founded on childish logic, it deserves an equally simple, though nevertheless true reality: because that's where power to redistribute stolen money lies.

    What did Willie Sutton say when asked why he robbed banks for a living? "Because that's where they keep the money!"

    Oh Julia, Julia, Julia.

    "Oh wait, you will say, RP and Lew Rockwell and Stefan Molyneux all tell me…" these kinda statements only matter to delusional liberals & confused murderous socialist who confuse regurgitating opinions of their favorite authors as their own. See, libertarians, paleoconservatives, minarchists, anarcho-capitalists ACTUALLY READ, RESEARCH & DISCERN on our own to figure sh*t out. Why? Because we're actually curious about how things work, & NOT gullible enough to just believe everything 'someone on our side says.'

    What you may really want to ask is, why fundamentally a typical Ron Paul supporter truly not only respects but damn near adores Dr. Paul, like one's own grandpa. Because people universally recognize a rare quality, when they see one: an HONEST MAN who figured out a way to LIVE HONESTLY ALL THROUGHOUT his very public life.

    IF he really were "playing the crowd" as you suggest, him speaking in equally cynical manner would have been caught in his FORTY yrs in PUBLIC life.

    It's because we recognize that there are so few in public life that actually walk the talk, who truly figured out a way to live out his philosophical worldview that actually coincides with the original intent of the Constitution, in which he actually took an oath, MADE A PROMISE to KEEP, and KEPT IT, who for over 40yrs tirelessly, with class spoke of the same principled issues that actually require a listener to 'catch up' to him on issues one when honestly examined, do not understand without actually doing some real research on one's own time to verify.

    NAME ANYONE else in public life who even remotely shares a similar distinction. You can't. Why? Because THERE AREN'T ANY.

    Frankly, let's face it. Whether you're a liberal Krugman/Franks/Dowd/Friedman/Brown dittohead, or you're a run of the mill Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity/O'Reilly/Levin dittohead, your worldview, let alone your understanding of history, has NOT evolved since high school. The best you can do to come off SOUNDING smart is, to quote one or two lines from books of the openly funded dutiful CIA lackey Chomsky, or regretfully unrepentant on oBUSHma even near his death Howard Zinn.

    "A lot of businesses have an incentive to keep the state as it is and would put up with a little bit of taxes and regulations if they had a state to ensure protection of property, patents, and whatnot. He doesn’t realize (or won’t realize) that even if he became president and were to strip the size of government down to its constitutional minimum the big businesses would just re-create it. This has happened in the past and will happen in the future. So as long as you have capitalism there will be an incentive by businesspeople to have statism."

    Sure as long as we have a State, there will always be statism. But a corporation who doesn't have a govt structure that allows it to be hijacked, cannot have a Blackwater or Halliburton. Truth is unless we have someone like Ron Paul as POTUS, none of your keyboard philosopher talk matters, when the DHS policestate becomes utterly ubiquitous. Darling, we're down to midnight on the last breath of the American Constitutional Republic.

    Without first ENSURING our rights & freedoms, and at the least have a bully pulpit to STOP a runaway aberrant govt in its tracks, you haven't seen hell, yet. Suppose corporatism continues. Does Apple have a SWAT team on speed dial that can FORCE me to buy their products? NO. That is one component that most liberals and frankly even some erroneously self-identifying statist/supposed libertarians forget to realize: govt is ALWAYS FORCE, it only exists to continue itself, it arrogantly assume it has monopoly of force to do its will. How can one know? "Violate" or "resist" ANY ONE of gvt's arbitrary, even utterly UNConstitutional dictates, there are ONLY TWO ways in which it deal with its citizenry: 1. a lawsuit 2. SWAT-raid.

    The mere fact that you ALWAYS RISK DYING if you resist govt should be the simplest CLUE that you cannot use it to mold it to your will for 'good,' no matter how well intended or no matter how well intended that those you think is good will be in power. You ask what makes RP different? Because as much as acute observer of human behavior can tell about someone without personally being in their friends/family nucleus, which makes up ALL public servants anyway, he has demonstrated that his words mean something over a 40yr life in public, who in the most corrupt society in the world, still figured out an internal fortitude to forge out such life amongst sewers that his Congressional colleagues regularly willfully take daily dips in.

    That's why.

    "RP just seems like he’s playing to the crowd." yeah, by talking EXACTLY THE SAME w/VERY PUBLICLY DOCUMENTED Congressional VOTING RECORD to match for over 23yrs in Congress & FORTY YEARS in PUBLIC LIFE.

    Really Jules, one has to wonder if you're not an easy target by a douche looking for easy lay at a bar.

    "Obama and others on the mainstream left have come out in support of OWS all while continuing their pro-capitalist polices." What planet have you been living on, for the last decade? You know WHO IS "playing the crowd?" oBUSHma & Dems, just in time for 2012 election. WhyTF do you think 18 mayors could have a conference call dictated BY oBUSHma's DHS? Are you friggin kidding me? Who the HELL do you think actually VOTED TO BAIL OUT WALL ST BANKS? You do realize that oBUSHma has to sign a bill, before it becomes a 'law,' right?

    Whose militant gear were used in G20 Pittburgh? Oh that's right, Dept of "Justice" & the literally Nazi-named Dept of Homeland Stupidity' grant for military gear.

    Got Stockholm Syndrome much?

    So much cognitive dissonance so little time.

    Reply
  27. "So much cognitive dissonance so little time."

    Wouldn't you consider it cognitively dissonant to align yourself with a cause which is trying to break down the very system you promote, as many Free Staters/libertarians seem to be doing by joining the OWS movement?

    Reply
  28. Wall Street has been hijacked by socialists.

    Move along here.

    Reply
  29. Julia wrote:

    "What Ron Paul doesn’t seem to understand is that the reason the government is so “big” is because businesses want it to be that way."

    I agree with your concept that businesses want a big government that will grant them privileges.

    Where I disagree is your comment that Ron Paul doesn't understand.

    Don't you agree that most large corporations would like to continue the current status quo, as opposed to a Ron Paul presidency which would have zero subsidies, and less regulations.

    At first glance, less regulations sound bad. If you actually look at most regulations, you will find they are written to make it easy for the large corporations to operate, and hard for small or start up businesses.

    Examples of this are the regulations concerning food. Government makes it so hard to buy home grown, local food. They drive you to buy from the large conglomerates.

    Tim

    Reply
  30. Nelson, I see you haven't responded to my overall argument about businesses wanting to keep a state. If the FSP were to do away with the state tomorrow in NH, businesses (both larger and smaller) would just bring it back, because they'd have every incentive to.

    Having a state enables you to secure monopolies, which in turn results in large amounts of profit for you. Since we live in a profit-driven system, grabbing hold of these monopolies is extremely desirable. You can only manipulate the market for so long.

    Reply
  31. "How will you get rid of capitalism, violence or the state, but then I repeat myself." – Tom Sawyer.

    Great quote Tom. A lot of people don't realize that the state is violence. It is absurd that OWS would support a state that pepper sprays their faces and steals their money through the federal reserve and then they go and say that state needs more of our money.

    Reply
  32. Were the Occupy folks supporting or rejecting Paul? Did they agree or disagree with any of his policies?

    I think this is why Occupy must fizzle: they have made it clear that they are mad, and that they have enough numbers to be heard, but they almost purposefully refuse to take any positive stances. They spew distrust and hatred for certain groups, and think "group strength" is important. They ignore Human Action – both the economics of the Austrians, but also the recognition that the human actions of stealing, forcing, and taxing are the evils in society, not groups and wealth and greed.

    I'm not disparaging the members of Occupy, but they really need to transform their movement if they expect to either remain relevant or to affect any real change.

    Reply
  33. So Julia, your former Keeniac example is Anarcho Jesse, or Corey or whatever other alias he's using… hahaha

    As to using violence to defeat the most powerful country in the history of man… hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Violence grows the state. The only successes in the last 50 years have been non-violent.

    People advocating violence are a threat to the effort. Both in a tactical sense, they are often agents provocateurs… and in a strategic sense, the destruction of everyone's efforts to this point.

    REVOLUTION, Ya Say Ya Want A
    http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=82

    Reply
  34. Julia on Tue, 22nd Nov 2011 8:51 am

    Nelson, I see you haven’t responded to my overall argument about businesses wanting to keep a state. If the FSP were to do away with the state tomorrow in NH, businesses (both larger and smaller) would just bring it back, because they’d have every incentive to.

    Having a state enables you to secure monopolies, which in turn results in large amounts of profit for you. Since we live in a profit-driven system, grabbing hold of these monopolies is extremely desirable. You can only manipulate the market for so long.

    (1) The FSP doesn't advocate voluntarism – merely a nightwatchman state.

    (2) Voluntarists recognize that they must change culture a bit before violent methods of wealth creation become obsolete, you're not introducing anything by saying "the state would come back".

    (3) Even if the state disappeared tomorrow, you haven't PROVED a new state will develop. You've merely conjectured that will happen. I conjecture that certainly new cartels will develop, but without the legitimacy of a single state amongst the people, the cartel will not be able to eliminate non-cartel competition. There will be a market test of firm size, and number of firms, and cooperation between firms. Maybe there will be "monopolies" in some services, but YOU WILL ALWAYS BE FREE TO START A COMPETITOR.

    (4) "Having a state enables you to secure monopolies, which in turn results in large amounts of profit for you. Since we live in a profit-driven system, grabbing hold of these monopolies is extremely desirable. You can only manipulate the market for so long."

    So what are we arguing about?

    Reply
  35. "The only successes in the last 50 years have been non-violent."

    Complete bullshit. Ever read Peter Gelderloos' book "How Nonviolence Protects the State"? He debunks the notion that the revolutions in India, the civil rights movements, etc. etc. succeeded because of non-violence. On the contrary, the only reason why you had a Gandhi or MLK was due to all the violence (like riots) which came before.

    Reply
  36. Julia: In reply to your earlier post (I dont have time to read it all, sorry); AnCap is actually anti-business. Businesses want to quell competition, and use state violence to achieve this. To associate Libertarianism, classical liberalism, or anCap with "pro-business" because it rejects state intervention and regulation as immoral, is a false dichotomy, and does not give enough credit to the millions of man-hours spent developing their core principles. Those philosophies are actually pro-consumer more than anything else, which is diametrically opposed to the concept of "pro-business". Anyone with a working knowledge of those philosophies will be able to confirm this.

    Reply
  37. "Voluntarists recognize that they must change culture a bit before violent methods of wealth creation become obsolete, you’re not introducing anything by saying “the state would come back”."

    How exactly do voluntaryists plan on changing the culture?

    Reply
  38. Andy: so why then would anyone in business *want* an "an"-cap system to begin with, especially when such heavy competition in the society would entail that a lot of people would lose out?

    Reply
  39. Corporatism =/= Capitalism.

    People bashing capitalism because of government bailouts and crap are showing their ignorance (but hey, the whole Occupy movement is based on ignorance). That's corporatism. Capitalism doesn't bail people out. If you screw up, you fail, and someone else comes to take your place. That's the way it works. Without the government safety net, companies would have to make smarter investments, which would lead to a more stable economy. That's what a truly free market would bring.

    But go on, keep preaching your hate for all businesses and capitalism, while whining that you don't have a job. Once we destroy capitalism for good and make full-time socialism and corporatism, we'll have no economy and very few jobs. But at least the Occupiers will already have a head start on living on the streets…

    Reply
  40. Of course many major banks and corporations love the state — precisely because it does enforce monopolies for them, subsidize them, etc.

    Some businesses would like the free market — your local mom&pop store, that can't afford an army of lawyers and lobbyists would do better.

    Julia, if you think folks in the liberty movement think Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, etc, want a free market, you're not hearing.

    Here's Tom Woods and Molyneux talking about just this issue, starting at 4:12 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXNOxnn7_uA

    Woods quotes alfred j nock, pointing out that actual free competition and trade is the very last thing most of these major corporations want. What they want is government to protect them from competition, and to hand them taxpayer money.

    Here's Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwwXgPiySto
    and: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul665.html

    Here's Rothbard, published by Lew Rockwell:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard99.ht

    I can go on and on if you like. The idea that most major corporations and banks are victims, rather than participants and perpetrators of government abuse, is a republican notion (e.g. Herman Cain), not a libertarian one.

    Reply
  41. Now, if you want to take the property of business owners, which you've indicated on occasion, I absolutely oppose that, Julia, and I would help fund their protection.

    The corporatist subsidies, protection of monopolies, bailouts, regulatory protection, IP abuse (e.g. Monsanto), free money from the federal reserve, corporate personhood, CEO protection from shareholders, etc, all need to go — and you're completely right that this is the last thing most major corporations and banks want.

    Reply
  42. Julie, Ron Paul does indeed recognize that big business colludes with big government, to their mutual advantage. You seriously need to do some reading of his books such as "Liberty Defined", "End the Fed", and "Revolution: A Manifesto" – or just take my word for it, as I have read all three.

    When Ron Paul speaks of smaller government, he doesn't propose tiny cuts in the increases in future spending; he proposes a $1 trillion cut the first year, and that's just for starters. He and Gary Johnson are the only candidates (to my knowledge) to propose deep cuts in the military-industrial complex, and to propose ending the bailouts to Wall Street.

    Reply
  43. Julia, you ask, "How exactly do voluntaryists plan on changing the culture?"

    I plan to talk to my neighbors, and try to convince them that more freedom, and less agression/coersion is the answer.

    You ask, "why then would anyone in business *want* an “an”-cap system to begin with, especially when such heavy competition in the society would entail that a lot of people would lose out?"

    Most small businesses would do just fine — or even better. Not all businesses are the same. Most state intervention is an enormous net harm to almost everyone — only a small percentage (including the Monsantos and Goldman Sachs of the world) enjoy a net benefit. Furthermore, even many of those people will be able to act based on moral principle, rather than their own narrow self interest — many now in the liberty movement used to work for military contractors, etc.

    The number of people who would benefit from freedom far outweighs the beneficiaries of corporatism. I am very optimistic about the future, actually — I think we see positive signs already.

    Reply
  44. "Of course many major banks and corporations love the state — precisely because it does enforce monopolies for them, subsidize them, etc.

    Some businesses would like the free market — your local mom&pop store, that can’t afford an army of lawyers and lobbyists would do better.

    Julia, if you think folks in the liberty movement think Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, etc, want a free market, you’re not hearing."

    Sorry, but the whole self-employed artisan thing is long dead. You sound like you're insisting on going back to a 1776-style economic model which just can't work with our 2011 economy. How would a self-employed person be able to produce a cell phone all by him/herself? Or a car? Or a laptop?

    I never said that big business wants a free market. In fact, I implied the exact opposite. For one thing, I couldn't imagine most businesses ever wanting a truly free market in this day and age simply due to the fact that the amount of competition would be nuts and very few people would have a lot of money to spare. Plus, combine that with the fact that all goodies (like roads, schooling, health care) would be private and paid for out-of-pocket and would thus become way to expensive to have to keep paying for again and again.

    It really sounds like you guys aren't giving people a real reason to *want* a transition to your kind of society. How are you going to convince others to join you in your fight?

    Reply
  45. "I plan to talk to my neighbors, and try to convince them that more freedom, and less agression/coersion is the answer."

    Okay, good start. But there's a ton of people who – as I've been saying – have financial motives to keep society unfree. How would you convince someone who makes loads of $$$ off a state-enforced patent monopoly to join you in creating a stateless society?

    Reply
  46. You ask, "Sorry, but the whole self-employed artisan thing is long dead. You sound like you’re insisting on going back to a 1776-style economic model which just can’t work with our 2011 economy. How would a self-employed person be able to produce a cell phone all by him/herself? Or a car? Or a laptop?"

    There is a place for larger business — economics of scale is necessary in some cases. What I was trying to say is that most businesses, especially small businesses, do not benefit from the corruption, as certain large corporations like Goldman Sachs and Monsanto do.

    Personally, I do prefer local business, and choose to avoid chains when I can, even if it means paying a bit more.

    You said, "I never said that big business wants a free market. In fact, I implied the exact opposite."

    Right, you were saying that that folks in the liberty movement (e.g. Ron Paul, etc), do think that big business wants a free market. I'm saying we recognize that a truly free market is the last thing many of these well connected corporations and banks want.

    "the amount of competition would be nuts and very few people would have a lot of money to spare"

    I think it's a good idea in some cases to ignore the movement of little green pieces of paper, and consider the production of useful things that improve people's quality of life — which is really the definition of wealth (at least from a material standpoint). I think a freer society would be far, far more prosperous, because of competition, among other reasons. Waste and corruption are more frequent when there is little competition/accountability.

    The government diverts massive amounts of human resources into areas that provide no or almost no benefit to average people's quality of life — and in some cases, areas that destroy it.

    "Plus, combine that with the fact that all goodies (like roads, schooling, health care) would be private and paid for out-of-pocket and would thus become way to expensive to have to keep paying for again and again."

    No, they'd get cheaper and better, because of free choice and competition. Entrenched monopolies make things more expensive, and of poorer quality.

    "How are you going to convince others to join you in your fight?"

    Show them the enormous harm that the actions of the state have on them and other average people, both here and around the world, as well as the benefits of free choice, and the moral component as well: acting through the proxy of the state does not eliminate our obligation to behave decently to each other.

    "But there’s a ton of people who – as I’ve been saying – have financial motives to keep society unfree. How would you convince someone who makes loads of $$$ off a state-enforced patent monopoly to join you in creating a stateless society?"

    I don't know if OWS has it right regarding the 1% figure, but those who make loads of $$$ off of the state are certainly a small minority.

    Reply
  47. @Julia

    Ron Paul does understand that corporations want big government. He understands and explains crony capitalism better than anyone I've seen. You have some research to do.

    Reply
  48. Did Paul or Obama respond better?

    Here is Obama being Mic Checked

    Reply

Care to comment?

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!