Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

[krmont22]

I see your point MissileDog. It's pretty difficult to fix for sure. If people were honest and incorruptible, obviously the world would be very different, but that is fantasy land. I am not sure what the best solution is. Something that prevents those in power from handing out benefits directly and unapportioned to those who donate, but I am not sure whether stopping the donations or stopping the subsidies, bailouts, or biased laws would be better.

[General Tsao]

Originally Posted by FlyWf

Yeah libertarians just have to side with Republicans. I mean, the Republicans are all awful on various things, but then Democrats sometimes compromise with Republicans!

if RP were running as a democrat i'd support him just as much.

libertarians don't side with republicans, they side with basically ron paul.

[AlexM]

Originally Posted by ILOVEPOKER929

Trading voluntarily existed long before capitalism. To even imply that capitalism = trade is EXTREMELY dishonest. It washes away the core of capitalism: a special class owns the means of life while others are forced to rent themselves TO that special class in order to gain access to those means of life so that they can survive.

No, as soon as trade existed, that was capitalism and capitalism existed. That's what capitalism is. I know you anarcho-slaverists love to make up your own definitons for words and pretend like that's how everyone else uses them, but no one else uses the word "capitalism" here like you do, so every single time you read that word you're wildly misinterpreting what the other person is saying.

Capitalism = trade is especially the definition that ACists use. They certainly do not in any way shape or form support "a special class owns the means of life while others are forced to rent themselves TO that special class in order to gain access to those means of life so that they can survive". I guess you think they should rename themselves anarcho-tradists?

[jungle survivor]

Originally Posted by ILOVEPOKER929

It washes away the core of capitalism: a special class owns the means of life while others are forced to rent themselves TO that special class in order to gain access to those means of life so that they can survive.

Originally Posted by AlexM

no one else uses the word "capitalism" here like you do

That is a very common, critical definition of capitalism though?

[General Tsao]

yeah pretty sure i've seen 'special class, means of life, humans for rent" in many economic textbooks

[Huehuecoyotl]

Originally Posted by AlexM

I know you anarcho-slaverists love to make up your own definitons for words and pretend like that's how everyone else uses them

lolz.

[SL__72]

Originally Posted by jungle survivor

That is a very common, critical definition of capitalism though?

lol

That is "capitalism as defined by anarcho-syndicalists." For everyone else capitalism is just "voluntary exchange + private ownership." You're trying to infuse "what I think capitalism leads to" into it's definition.

It is essentially equivalent to me defining anarcho-syndicalisism as "a system that leads to technological decay and mass starvation."

I'd bet you can trace that definition directly back to Marx.

[ohaithar]

Thoughts?

[Fear Itself]

rigged

[TomCollins]

Originally Posted by General Tsao

if RP were running as a democrat i'd support him just as much.

libertarians don't side with republicans, they side with basically ron paul.

The reason why they traditionally are former Republicans is the Republicans (at least used to) preach "small government", "limited government", etc... The Democrats are honest in wanting bigger government and more intervention. The Republicans want the same thing (but for different reasons), but basically lie about it. But Democrats are the same liars when it comes to civil liberties. They talk a good game, throw an occasional bone, but really are just as bad.

But I do support the "two-pronged-attack" in appealing to both groups. You need left-friendly libertarians and you need right-friendly ones. They just market themselves in different ways. It's like Lexus and Toyota. They are the same company, just marketing themselves toward different groups.

Libertarians have been poor at attracting the support of left-leaning individuals who might otherwise be receptive. But Ron Paul's anti-war efforts and pro-civil liberties approach does reach some of them, but many would not consider him due to being a Republican. We need to hold Democrats to their promises just as much by supporting a pro-liberty candidate on the left-side of the aisle.

[SL__72]

Originally Posted by ohaithar

Thoughts?

WXIX, Ron Paul TV

[MissileDog]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Capitalism is an economic system that became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism... There is general agreement that elements of capitalism include private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit or income, the accumulation of capital...

Originally Posted by Wikipedia: Talk Page

This article is blatantly written from a Marxist perspective. The phrase "means of production" has strong Marxist undertones, as is the use of the word "capitalists" to refer to investors. The article's first sentence fails to point out capitalism's most important and recognizable feature - the limited power of the State. It needs a complete overhaul by someone who isn't a leftist. I'm not debating the virtues and vices of capitalism here - I'm saying that the terminology and tone of this article is very clearly derived from the Communist Manifesto. Falconclaw5000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

The terminology is prior to Marx. It comes from Turgot, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, etc. Its rather standard, and been used pretty conventionally across the board. The only word that comes from Marx himself is "Capitalism". And that's to his credit, since nobody else really identified it as a distinctive system before. It's not about being right or left. I can sympathize slightly with what you're saying, in the sense that the terminology has a slightly archaic feel. But all 19th C. Classical terminology feels archaic. And maybe it is true Marxists have been more prone to stick with older terminology - but that is because they rely on 19th C. models of analysis, and thus continue to use its terms. But then again, "Capitalism" - the title of the article itself - is old terminology. And few, beyond Marxists and their opponents, actually use the term. Walrasiad (talk) 03:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dudes, I know words are hard for youz guyz, but shiz. You libertarians really have made up your own "special" little patois. Everyone who is not a pro-capitalist, all the capitalists, and all the pro-capitalists who is not libertarians, use the definition from Wikipedia above. Only libertarians, who make up only about 1-2% of the pro-capitalists have their own "special" little definition.

And once again, you don't change reality by changing words. A person is the same person even if they change their name. The word "capitalism" is used by non-libertarians as a name to identify a certain set of economic relationships. If you want to use the word "capitalism" to mean something else entirely, that's your prerogative. But that certain set of economic relationships remains the unchanged. And that certain set of economic relationships is what everyone else in the world are talking about when they use the name "capitalism".

Originally Posted by AlexM

...I know you anarcho-slaverists love to make up your own definitons for words and pretend like that's how everyone else uses them, but no one else uses the word "capitalism" here like you do, so every single time you read that word you're wildly misinterpreting what the other person is saying.

This is just packed full of LOLZ. First of all "Anarcho-Slaverists" is a term made up by General Tsao, so you need to chat with him about his new "ideal". I cannot read our General's mind, and he is the only person in the whole world who self-identifies as an "Anarcho-Slaverist". So WTF, BBQ?

And secondly its you dudes who wildly misinterpret half of the English language with your "special" little patois. And that includes the other 98-99% of pro-capitalists who are not libertarians. None of them use your "special" little patois either.

Originally Posted by SL__72

lol...That is "capitalism as defined by anarcho-syndicalists."...It is essentially equivalent to me defining anarcho-syndicalisism as "a system that leads to technological decay and mass starvation."...

Dude, the term "Anarcho-Syndicalist" wasn't coined until about 1920, about 100 years after the term "capitalism" was coined.

And once again this is full of LOLZ. Changing your personal definition of something doesn't change reality. The four legged piece of furniture that we eat our dinner on remains the same, regardless of whether it is called a "table", a "mesa", or a "race car". That's what is so LOLZ about youz guyz always playing your LOLtarded dictionary thinking game. When people are using the word "capitalism" they are using it as a name to identify a set of economic relationships. They are interested in chatting about those relationships. It doesn't matter what name is used to identify that set of economic relations. Any more than it matters what name is used to identify that four legged piece of furniture.

Originally Posted by LirvA

...I want some bananas, you have some. You want some water, I have some. Let's trade voluntarily, and we are both happy.

Originally Posted by AlexM

No, as soon as trade existed, that was capitalism and capitalism existed. That's what capitalism is... Capitalism = trade is especially the definition that ACists use....

Well trade existed before proto-humans evolved into humans. Even some animal species trade. And every human society has traded... Communists, anarchists, monarchists, hunter-gatherers, caste based societies, theocracies, fascists... every single one. So if that's your definition the word "capitalist" just means human. And Communists are capitalists, anarchists are capitalists, fascists are capitalists, ants are capitalists, Home-Erectus were capitalists, etc, etc. This is what I mean by a "special" definition, not just that it is idiosyncratic, but it in this case completely vacuous. This "special" definition defines the every human that has lived as a capitalist.And it leads to this kinda retardency...

Originally Posted by LirvA

Sorry, we do not have capitalism in this country...

So what LirvA is saying, using youz guyz special definition of "capitalist"==human is this... there are no humans in this country. And that's why ILYG;;DEC!

[Regret$]

MD, we agree taking one leg off of the chair would be good, or no?

[MissileDog]

Originally Posted by krmont22

I see your point MissileDog. It's pretty difficult to fix for sure. If people were honest and incorruptible, obviously the world would be very different, but that is fantasy land. I am not sure what the best solution is. Something that prevents those in power from handing out benefits directly and unapportioned to those who donate, but I am not sure whether stopping the donations or stopping the subsidies, bailouts, or biased laws would be better.

Well let's tie this back into Dr.Paul's campaign. What does he champion, a constitutional amendment implementing campaign finance reform... or a constitutional amendment outlawing subsidies and bailouts?

Originally Posted by Regret$

MD, we agree taking one leg off of the chair would be good, or no?

Yes. So would taking one pierna off of a silla.

Can we agree that redefining the name "chair" to mean "a mallet used in the game of cricket" doesn't change the dis-utility of a silla which is missing a pierna?

[Regret$]

Originally Posted by MissileDog

Can we agree that redefining the name "chair" to mean "a mallet used in the game of cricket" doesn't change the dis-utility of a silla which is missing a pierna?

I agree, but how are we to split up the historical injustice? It's hard to say. We certainly shouldn't just set up another rigged game in the current ones place. I guess that ending the current rigged game is close enough for me.