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:

69 comments
Dave
Dave

Julia: "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?" My God you're ignorant and fact challenged. Ever hear of a guy named Steve Jobs? He invented the Apple computer in his garage in the late 1970s.

THEkingOFkeene
THEkingOFkeene

If we gave him enough money, could we make Ron Paul become RICH Paul...???... Bwa Ha Ha ha ha ho hum.... It was a damn good conversation... And Gerald said it best... If, like me, you still believe that the U.S.Constitution means *ANYTHING*, there is ONLY *AUDIT*THE*FED*, & *RON*PAUL*2012... With the NH Primary one month away, I predict 4 more for Obama... Can you imagine a "gingrich/bachmann" ticket? gag me with a spoon! :) ~TkOk.

Gerald
Gerald

Michael, you said it correct. People don't understand that we are not seeing real capitalism. We are seeing crony capitalism. If you don't understand the banksters have infultraited the government, than you can't understand that ending the fed res. and kicking the bankers out of our government is the answer. And you certainly can't see that most reps and dems including Obama are just puppets of the banks. If you don't believe that just look who he put in the white house. all bankers. But lets just say that capitalism is the real problem not the bought out politicians. If you think your gonna change the system with anybody in office but a constitutionalists. Your very mistaken. When the system is threatened the dogs will come out. thats what we are seeing right now. Look at the policy being passed at this very moment. I don't know about you, but if the system is threatened. I want someone who believes in the bill of rights and the constitution in the white house. There is only Ron Paul.

...?
...?

Michael, Can you answer my question?

Michael
Michael

I love this discussion, Free Keene! I love the cards you put under the table covers in Lindy's Diner and what you all stand for. Keep up the good work, fellow patriots! Live Free or Die!

Michael
Michael

Julia, I suggest you read some of Dr. Paul's books. Do you REALLY understand the link between big business and big government? The reason federal government is so corrupt is that it is allowed to give special favors to businesses which contribute to campaigns. Under our Crony-Capitalist system (Crony Capitalism is another term for Fascism -- look up Mussolini's government model, later adopted by Hitler), government picks winners and losers in the marketplace through regulation and letting lobbyists and "former" corporate executives (does Goldman Sachs ring a bell?) write the laws, which benefit their companies and squeeze out competition. We see this in corporate and industry subsidies, guaranteed loans to certain industries which could not be profitable on their own, and government backstopping the banks (through direct bailouts and the FDIC). A return to Constitutionalism (and the Doctrine of Nullification) would cut off the infinite flow of money to federal government, and, thus, its ability to favor businesses which could not survive without government intervention. Dr. Paul understands that this must start with exposing, then eliminating the Federal Reserve. Nobody else seems to understand this, so don't condemn free enterprise, the antithesis of Crony Capitalism, which isn't Capitalism at all. Condemn the Unconstitutional expansion of Federal Government in the name of the Commerce Clause, which quashes free competition.

...?
...?

"You find allies where you can. First you solve the problem, then you worry about the details." Okayyyy....but the FSP and OWS are not working towards the same solution at all. You can say that Free Staters should go and 'educate' the Occupiers on ideas of liberty, but saying that they should join their movement is basically just saying they should jump in with any cause that makes a big enough stir, regardless of what it's working to accomplish. I guess I just don't understand why Free Staters would choose to fight 'the state' with such vigor, but then choose to join a movement which is seeking to increase what they would define as 'statism.'

Andy
Andy

...?: You find allies where you can. First you solve the problem, then you worry about the details. Maybe there would be time to educate them and let them see that in true liberty people can associate however they wish. If a community wants to get together and become "Communist", they are absolutely free to do so, as long as they don't force it on others. Unfortunately in state socialism, communism or "abolished capitalism" as they seem to profess, people like us are not given the same courtesy. We would most likely be jailed of executed for our beliefs. Maybe we can get them to see this virtue of true liberty?

...?
...?

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?

Jake_nonphixion
Jake_nonphixion

Julia, The austro-libertarian camp which Ron Paul subscribes to is perfectly cognizant of the fact that big business is often more actively anti-free market than anyone. Big business writes the regulations. They have everything to gain from a strong centralized government; since it is their own inherent internal bureaucracy which has made them uncompetitive on fair and even grounds. Here is a book on exactly that topic, published by an organization that Lew Rockwell is the president of. https://mises.org/resources/3585/In-Restraint-of-...

Kenn Space
Kenn Space

Dear Reporter, Journalist, Editor and Reader, and you "others" also, , I feel reporting on this event coming up would be good journalism. Thanks , Kenn Dear Mr. President, There is a very large demonstration being planned for January 20th, 2012 at the Federal Courthouse at 700 Stewart street in Seattle, - and at every Federal Courthouse in the United States.. There are many groups organizing and "gearing up" for this demonstration. I will be promoting and advertising it. This "occupy movement" has only just begun. I suggest you figure out your plan of action and response; The rules of engagement; - Need a way better understanding of what is going on; - than during WTO in Seattle. Treat the people like they are the enemy, and they will become it I feel the occupy movement does have a basic underlying message; Stop letting money decide political elections; And regulate corporate lobbying (and all lobbying) making it a public forum. Right now lobbying is mostly two old white guys sitting across from each other in an office. "They" have probably worked with each other or went to the same school; And "they" have promised you a job when you get out of politics, -- tripling your present salary!. The "lobbyist" used to be a "politician", it worked for him!. Who owns who? - That's a "Person-hood". "I" was at the WTO protests in Seattle Washington, (with thousands of "other" really awesome "people", and a few "freaks") when a bunch of "anarchists" started busting windows with crowbars. We surrounded them, and they got in a circle with their crowbars. I tried to get the "Seattle police" to come arrest "these anarchists”, that were only fifty feet away and threatening violence and breaking windows… The "Seattle police" would not budge from their “police line”, making all of "us" the "enemy".... (There were thousands of "union" and "other" people sitting and standing in the street, - it was a relatively peaceful protest until the windows started breaking…). " I" am not the "enemy". January 20, 2012 – Move to Amend Occupies the Courts! Move To Amend is planning bold action to mark this date — Occupy the Courts — a one day occupation on Friday January 20, 2012, of the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States and as many of the 89 U.S. District Court Buildings as we can. (I am inspired by Doctor Martin Luther King who said; "a true revolution of values", ... "there comes a time when silence is betrayal"., "people are not gonna be silenced".). Move to Amend will lead the charge on the judiciary which created — and continues to expand — corporate personhood rights. Please Sign the petition to amend the Constitution for revoking corporate personhood at: movetoamend.org It's Time to GET MONEY OUT of politics Bailouts. War. Unemployment. Our government is bought, and we’re angry. Now, we’re turning our anger into positive action. By signing this petition, you are joining our campaign to get money out of politics. Our politicians won’t do this. But we will. We will become an unrelenting, massive organized wave advocating a Constitutional amendment to get money out of politics. Please sign the petition! http://www.getmoneyout.com/ http://open.salon.com/blog/kennspace/2011/10/28/c...

Tom Sawyer
Tom Sawyer

So the way to Julia's utopian future involves killing the rich. Creating communes and folks farming their own food. The ideas are so successful she spends her time trolling people who believe in more successful models. When cornered, that she advocates violence, her counter argument is "Bullshit", then she references some guy that didn't take his ideas all the way. Because he would be dead or in prison. Children of wealthy people that try to assuage their guilty feelings for being born into relative affluence... by dreaming of violent revolution to free the downtrodden. hahahaha Lilly white kids yearning to sing the black man's blues. My father was born in a log cabin without electricity... he went on to own a successful contracting business and living next door to lawyers and such. The class struggle that you worship is a vestige of a belief fostered in places like eastern europe where people were indeed trapped in their class. I would suggest that others recognize the classic troll tactics and her disingenuous behavior.

PabloKoh
PabloKoh

@ Julia, "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." How in the world did you come to that conclusion? @Smash, I agree the Statement of purposes is very marxist. But there are a bunch of people at the protests that are smart enough to see that government is the problem and more government, the same government that maces them in the face, can not be the solution. They are very open to new ideas about reducing the power of the state and they are also capitalists. Peter Schiff had a good video on Reason.tv with a bunch of occupiers supporting capitalism. It was refreshing to see after all the other media coverage.

Andy
Andy

Julia: "Capitalism is hardly the “free market” (which has never really existed anyway). Capitalism is a system of monopoly." I'd agree that a truly free market has never really existed, but we must clarify a "monopoly". As I understand it, the modern definition of a monopoly is "a very successful business, which uses either ethical or unethical practices, that it puts competition out of business, maintaining a hold on a high percentage of the market." The original meaning of the word (if you asked someone 100 years ago) is "a monopoly is large business with close government ties that uses state violence to eliminate competition gaining a near 100% market hold through immoral and unethical avenues or violence." The difference is in what methods business people use to grow their business. If they practice ethical methods, and people voluntarily give their money to purchase products, one can't hardly argue against this method, and can't classify the business as a monopoly, because competitors are free to compete at any time, if they feel they have a model that can out perform the giant even with a 100% market share.. If they, however, use state violence to force their competitors out of business, and it becomes impossible, or illegal to compete... This is indeed a monopoly. I would say capitalism is not synonymous with monopoly, as it is simply a definition of property rights ownership. I would however say that crony-capitalism is monopolistic in nature, perverted through the state and organized violence.

SMASH CAPITALISM
SMASH CAPITALISM

Funny how so many people here support Occupy when its supposed to be about destroying capitalism, can anybody tell me why you support it? I support it because i want to destroy capitalism and the ruling class, but if you still believe money and trade should be part of society, why are you protesting? Just to look like youre against something?

Andy
Andy

Julia; Sorry its taken me so long to reply. The true beneficiaries are the business people of the future (the Entrepreneurs), not the ones already engaged in some form of business or corporate activity. There are a lot more people trying to get a small business off the ground, than there are people who have successfully started and grown one. This majority, struggling to make ends meet and make a living, would be the ones that benefit the most. The mix up comes from the state of the market that encourages a college grad to become a cog in a corporate gear system, and not get out on their own and start something new. If you are starting your own business, an anCap system would be the most favorable to grow it. And most business out there are small and just starting. In short, anCap is not very friendly to business, so much as its very very friendly to entrepreneurs.

Julia
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." Capitalism is hardly the "free market" (which has never really existed anyway). Capitalism is a system of monopoly. http://praxeology.net/BT-SSA.htm

Julia
Julia

"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)" And I agree 100%. However, the kind of society in which you're promoting (a heavily, heavily market-driven "an"-cap one) would create conditions where a lot of people would be desiring the ability to get ahead in the market at any cost. How is an "an"-cap system supposed to change people's consciousnesses to the point where they'd prefer social relations over material objects, especially when money defines one's identity so much in market-driven societies? Ever read Erich Fromm's "To Have or to Be"? Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Mutualists and anarcho-communists want to create a society where mutuality and social relations outweigh profit motives. That's why the institutions we build emphasize cooperation. However, I see none of this from the libertarian-right; if anything, they want to further the mindset of the society we have. "No, they’d get cheaper and better, because of free choice and competition. Entrenched monopolies make things more expensive, and of poorer quality." After a while it would become extremely expensive for a mom and pop store in a very competitive system to have to pay out-of-pocket for transport all the time. Same thing with schools (even my mom who runs a home-based business out of our basement will only hire people who have had at least some kind of college education). Besides, the situation you're presenting here relies on the notion that the market would have no lop-sided competition or other factors which would drive prices up. What if I'm the only person in my community who knows how to fix the roads and as such I can charge extremely high prices? "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." That won't happen so as long as people have a profit motive to keep the state. Like I said, in a society where profit remains the bottom line, people will be doing all sorts of aggressive things to get ahead and maximize their $$$. "I don’t know if OWS has it right regarding the 1% figure, but those who make loads of $$$ off of the state are certainly a small minority." The vast majority of businesses, large and small, benefit from having a state in certain ways. Anyone who owns a patent monopoly will want to keep the state.

Keith
Keith

Did Paul or Obama respond better? Here is Obama being Mic Checked

Harry
Harry

@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.

Paul
Paul

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.

Julia
Julia

"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?

Julia
Julia

"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?

Paul
Paul

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.

terrymac
terrymac

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.

Paul
Paul

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.

Paul
Paul

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.

Erik
Erik

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...

Julia
Julia

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?

Julia
Julia

"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?

Andy
Andy

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.

Julia
Julia

"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.

iawai
iawai

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?

Tom Sawyer
Tom Sawyer

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...

iawai
iawai

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.

Gmartine
Gmartine

"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.

Julia
Julia

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.

Tim M
Tim M

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

Sam Geoghegan
Sam Geoghegan

Wall Street has been hijacked by socialists. Move along here.

...?
...?

"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?

Nelson
Nelson

"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.

...?
...?

SY or Julia, Do you have any insight regarding my question?

SY
SY

“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.

Julia
Julia

"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.

...?
...?

...anyone?

SY
SY

"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.

SY
SY

"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.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!

Powered by WordPress Popup