" That's a small part of the puzzle that isn't worth the kind of blanket condemnation it is getting from the goldbugs. "

You are certainly right that they don't harbor all of the blame. But in my eyes, they were a significant factor and certainly a failure. Not only did they allow it to happen, but they encouraged it to happen with lower than what should have been allowed interest rates.

"Tell me how the economy functions when people can't afford to buy things and where is the capital for investment going to come from when the government pulls out. Private sector is just going to fill the gap entirely eh? Even if they don't think it's profitable?"

Well the government can't pull out with no other measures. Obviously spending is what drives the market and the economy. Lower protectionist measures and curtailing inefficient spending with more efficient government spending could improve the economy while spending less.

"WHY should I vote for this extremist?"

Because everyone else is an Israeli suck up.
Everyone else is status quo...more war, more spending, more debt
Everyone else is standing in line to suck corporate dick
Everyone else is for NDAA
Everyone else is Obama...the same....the same policies

So sure, he's extremist in the sense that he's against what everyone else is for. But what everyone is for is the same shit we've been force fed for years. I suppose when you are so used to these bullshit policies that do nothing but drive the US deeper into debt and war, the Constitution seems extreme.

The question for YOU, obi, isn't why you should vote for RP, but why you shouldn't vote for more of the SAME. Look around and tell me how far its gotten us.

The US is on the brink of collapse. And all you can do is point to something RP didn't even write and bash is Constitutional views.

You are fucked in the head obi. Seriously.

I forgot to mention, that info above is from a great but sad and infuriating book, The New Jim Crow.

1. This comment was probably offhand, and might be from his newsletters, so it might not even be him talking, but in general Paul worries about the United States giving up power to the United Nations in any manner, and this reflects his dislike of political centralization. He writes frequently about how UN "Resolutions" have been used by presidents to avoid declaring an act of war (Korea, Libya, Somalia, maybe the Balkans).

2. First off, I don't understand the Bryan and silver comparison at all. Paul does not support a strict gold standard anymore, but he does believe that the U.S. should eliminate legal tender laws so the market could decide its own currency--he calls it a "free basket" of currencies. He supports gold as a currency because it cannot be manipulated by the Federal Reserve through inflation, which he believes is a "hidden tax" on (particularly lower income) consumers.

3. Foreign aid only started in 1941, and that was to Great Britain in World War Two. This idea that money from Americans should (in many cases) be redistributed to wealthy, corrupt rulers in third-world countries is insane. Oftentimes, foreign aid actually keeps an oppressive regime in place and slows down market innovation due to the inherently interventionist role the govt then plays in "public works" and the like. Many countries with foreign aid only instituted market reforms after aid was about to be cut off. Furthermore, the geopolitical implications of giving money to opposing regimes makes the "Great Satan" even more likely to be accused off hypocrisy; I think terrorists arguing for attacking the US because it didn't provide aid money wouldn't be a great message.

4. If the founders believed in non-interventionism in their day, they would likely believe in it now. We have by far the most powerful military in the world, and we have a huge batch of nuclear weapons; what country in their right mind would ever possibly want to initiate an attack, even through a proxy, which could be traced back to them. In all the military interventions of the US of the last century, with the definite exception of Pearl Harbor and the probable exception of Afghanistan, we were never attacked, and yet we wasted blood and treasure to intervene. This massive precedence we've built up is idiotic, and we cannot sustain our global military presence fiscally; we make more enemies intervening overseas than it is even worth, (Iranian coup, arming the Afghans during the Soviet invasion, base on Saudi soil, countless examples). Paul's foreign policy would improve our reputation incredibly.

5. Yes we will allow the states to do what they want, just like the Founders intended. he wants to abolish Dep. of Commerce, which basically is just used for corporate welfare now, Energy, which was intended to remove or dependence on foreign oil (that went well), Education, which was only created in Jimmy Carter's presidency and institutes the top-down, centralized approach which has made American less educated, Interior, which I guess is necessary because states can't take care of their own parks (come on...), and HUD, which subsidizes housing construction (is a federal department really necessary for that?). States have shown that they are actually able to balance their budgets and achieve results (some exceptions like California) while the federal government cannot function at all. Move the power to the states, away from the nat'l bureaucrats. And one last thing: none of those departments are constitutional.

6. Paul regards the sovereign debt as the foremost problem, as well as the current corporatist economy of the United States. Paul would abolish a large amount of regulations, work to lower taxes for everyone, and would probably work to abolish the minimum wage. He would work for less government intervention to create a more free market economy. And yes, Paul would cut one trillion dollars in year one, it's true. The U.S. government is set to become Greece in five years or so, and the fiscal house really needs to get in order. The economy possibly suffering in the short term is better than the entire economy being destroyed in five or ten years.

@Tom and ckroberts:

1A. "He has said he feels the US Dollar could be controlled by the United Nations"

Do you have a citation for that? Ron Paul says some crazy stuff, so he easily could have said that, but I'm not sure what the specific context was."

Yes:

"The man who might win the Republican Party's first presidential nominating contest fears that the United Nations may take control of the U.S. money supply."

Taken from:

http://news.yahoo.com/paul-builds-campaign-doomsday-scenarios-161301486.html

So, I guess you can tell me if the context fits...as you say, though, it seems like something he might say, so I'm inclined to believe there's at least a seed of truth there.

1B. "This is just him being a supporter of free trade. Honestly, what is the difference between the UN controlling the money supply compared the the Fed controlling the money supply? Besides, this would never happen and in my eyes; its just hyperbole to get his free trade points across."

First--HOW does a conspiracy theory about...the United Nations taking control of the Dollar...true or not--HOW does his conspiracy stand as support for free trade?

What's the difference between the UN and Federal Reserve?

Well...one is part of our government...and thus should regulate or at least have some control over the dollar...and one is not...

How is this a question, unless I misunderstand you? Or are you seriously asking what the difference, is, because, if you are--well, if that;s your stance, what's the difference between the US Federal Reserve controlling the Euro and the EU controlling it? ...May we agree there's a tangible difference there? One should control it, one should not?

This still doesn't account for HOW Mr. Paul thinks the UN will control the US Dollar, or why, or to what effect, but still--we may agree there IS a difference?

And, again, I ask--WHAT is his point on free trade, that he is trying to make with a conspiracy theory about the UN taking over the US Dollar? That the US should control the dollar? Well...yes...I agree...but that rather goes without saying, that's sort of like saying the US President should command the US Military and not the UN Secretary General, it sort of goes without saying and isn't a serious point of contention for anyone, so...

What's the point on free trade being made here, with a flawed analogy at best, and a conspiracy theory--because that's who we want in the White House, a conspiracy theorist--at worst, and as mr. ckroberts has already said, he believes this is something he might believe Paul to have said, or could at least believe it of him, so...

Are you both OK voting for a conspiracy theorist, then? There's more where that came from, in that article, and newsletters, and interviews, and so on and so forth.

Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist, or else the worst wordsmith and crafter of plausible analogies and hyperboles I have ever seen.

2A. "Because rapid inflation, and the devaluation of our currency is looking much more promising..."

The deflation of our currency is promising? O.o

I'm honestly confused...if you meant likely...well, there's nothing there to say why we should return to the Gold standard and be subject to that standard--which we do not and would not control--rather than the oil standard that's more modern.

So, why? Why gold? Why an antiquated system? ("Antiquated," along with "Conspiracy theorist" and "extremist," both being terms I would isntantly associate with RP, so this is surely not the last time that word will pop up here.)

I made the William Jennings Bryan analogy for a reason, ie, a man going on and on for decades about Silver, FAR past the time when it was relevant or the mainstream of America cared...America had PROGRESSED.

Ron Paul, for keeping his bid for the White House going for so long now with such a devoted-yet-remote base, a base that's trying to seize the opportunity of an average-at-best Democratic ticket and a wide open GOP field where two front-runners (Cain and Gingrich) have already fallen...

Ron Paul=William Jennings Bryan.

And guess how successful or relevant HE was, in the end, in gaining the White House?

But historical comparisons aside, again, I ask--why Gold, what is special about Gold that would make it inherently better than oil or any other form that is more modern, and, I might add, how will inflation hit if Gold SPECIFICALLY is not implemented (NOT just "Why will inflation hit?" but "Why will inflation hit unless we pick this SPECIFIC form, Gold, and nothing else, ANY other standard would fail, why?")

2B. "Lots of people would like a currency system less beholden to the current economic elite. I'm not an economist, but I don't think the gold standard is a totally insane idea. It's just a minority one."

OK, at least that is a reason...although, I must say, I don't see Gold as not being elitist in an economic sense...so I'd ask why he/you feel that is so, as that seems counter-intuitive to me, I don't see Gold as being non-elitist, and, to be honest, the bigger point:

Why should I care?

I LIKE elitism, as I've repeated over and over...I'm not elitist enough for Fasces, but then, stopping short of Fascism is perfectly acceptable, I think, in being a moderate elitist. ;)

I'm not an economist, either, so please don't take it as me picking on you with this:

If you're NOT an economist, how can you say Gold will be better, that RP's radical--and it is radical, from oil to Gold--economic move will be better?

Gold may sound nice...but on what basis do you derive the idea that it actually will be so, aside from RP being the one to suggest it?

(Again, I'm no economist either, so please don't take this as my attacking you or your economic understanding personally, just asking--if you confess to not knowing how it might help...why support it and say it might help when it's a departure from a more widely-used and modern system?)

3A. " I disagree with Paul on this one, but its not a deal breaker for me. I think we should give foreign aid, but certainly need to do a better job of how we give aid. Most of it is political and I doubt it is very efficient. If you want to give aid, donate to the Red Cross."

OK, I'll agree with the bulk of that...ironically, the first part I agree with you here is over something you disagree with RP over, but anyway...

3B. "I reject this premise. Example of the Middle East: We give lots of foreign aid to both Arabs and Jews. Does that win of the affection of either side? No, that's not human nature. Instead, each side takes their aid for granted while resenting the money that goes to their enemies."

Well, first, you haven't granted my premise in proper, so you can't fully reject it, technically speaking, as my premise was that aid given strategically pacifies, builds alliances, and guards against attacks--as we have an ally in Israel as a result, and we give military aid there, and, more to the point, we have a LACK of aid going to places like Lebanon, and THERE is where Hezbollah gives the aid INSTEAD and, lo and behold, that is where they have their foothold...aid to Israel=ally, no aid to Lebanon =enemy was a general representative of my premise, which you have not acknowledged in full, and an example that seems fully valid.

In any case, however, leaving aside the "human nature" portion of this, lest we devolve into 10 pages of my debating that, the fact that the two sides resent one another is NOT the point of the aid, not as I gave it. I said the aid was given to foster peace and allies on OUR behalf...NOT peace for the region and between the region's powers in general. I agree--Israel and Lebanon may very well take their aid and use it to quarrel with one another...but as long as AMERICA is kept in their good graces, strictly speaking, the aid has done it's job for US.

"Second, where is the evidence that foreign aid is doing that much good?"

I just gave two examples, Israel as a positive and Lebanon as a negative:

We gave/give Israel aid, and as a result, the nation has stood (if we had not acknowledged it and given it weapons way back when, it never would have survived, and today, but for the threat of US military intervention, the Arab nations do not and have not launched a full-scale attack on Israel, so, we've kept a nation we hold to be an ally stable via aid... positive example...)

Negative example, we DON'T give to Lebanon, not like Israel, not more than Hezbollah, and as a result, more Lebanese people--out of the very sort of "human nature," I believe, as you yourself suggested" flock to a terror organization that chants "Death to America!" than not, and this feeds said terror organization's manpower and resources...how is this helping ourselves? How is this helping America? OR the Free World, for that matter? To dig up the old, tired term, how is this "winning" the "War on Terror" the GOP is so fond of touting around election time?

"It seems that far too often, the beneficiaries are dictators and military budgets, not the average person in any given country."

That's a granted and legitimate quarrel with the system, but this arises more due to a mistake in how to give aid and what kind of aid to give than in the act itself--give food, give energy, give resources...

DO NOT give Weapons of War, as we gave Saddam...and as we gave the Iranians...and Contras...and WHICH party was in office when all three received their weapons?

"Besides, taking this out of context hurts -- there's no amount of foreign aid that can fix the bad image of drone strikes killing innocent people, and that's part of what Ron Paul wants to end."

Admirable hat RP wants to end war, and in most respects, I will agree there...

However, ending wars does not mean an end to a need to give foreign aid...how do such wars START, after all?

For lack of resources, often, and so, we can either act preemptively and aid these regions and NOT go to war, or withhold aid, let these regions fall into disrepair, let dictators and terror cells that DO and WILL give aid in exchange for "Death to America!" drones...

And then OUR military drone airplanes will have to fight once more...and we'll be wondering, how DO we seem to keep landing ourselves in wars?

4A. "Not sure what you are saying here."

On Jeffersonian politics being outdated and unfeasible for a 21st century nuclear superpower? I'll defer to 4B and answer the two as one here...

4B. "We'll have to disagree here. Not everyone wants empire."

NOW, let me clarify this a bit.

First, one might argue we are ALREADY an empire, 50 states worth of essentially-settled/conquered territory, and military bases around the world, with the biggest military in the world.
*I* am all for cutting the military size and budget some, we ARE spending too much there--I'll again point out we have the GOP and Reagan to thank for that, though, and as RP is running for the GOP ticket, and the GOP is inexorably connected with the military and military-industrial complex...well, we're at an impasse there--if RP slashes the military size, he sticks to his guns, but good luck winning over the GOP base and military contractors he'll be alienating (to add to the oil companies he's already alienated by advocating for Gold over oil...so that;'s TWO major GOP constituents alienated now), OR RP Will leave the military as, is, in which case, we cannot complain about not wishing to be an empire...quite frankly, in terms of territorial and military size, WE ARE an empire in status.

NOW.

To be philosophical for just a moment, and this is a bit of a digression from the practicalities we have been discussing for the first portion here, but as RP's professed himself time and again as a strict Constitutionalist and an advocate of Jeffersonian political philosophy and ideals, we need to take a look at that quickly.

Jefferson--and when I say "Jefferson," I'm including John Locke here, as Locke and Jefferson are really two sides of the same coin separated by a century, by "property" vs. "pursuit of happiness" after "life" and "liberty" in their written works, and the Atlantic, but essentially, they ARE, for these purposes the same, so I'm going to utilize both of their ideals here, but keep it under the umbrella of "Jefferson" to simplify--was born in a different age.

The 1700s are NOT the 2000s.

Why?

Reason #1--We are no longer an agrarian-based economy, or society, for that matter, and such an idea and people are at the CORE of the Jeffersonian philosophy.

There's a reason there are so many allusions to rural and farm settings and like analogies in Jeffersonian philosophy.

This is no longer the philosophy or world we live in.
Our world is mechanized.
Our world is computerized.
Our world i nuclear.

In the 1700s, the MOST a government could do was conquer large swaths of land and pillage it.
In the 2000s, the most we can do is destroy all biological life on Earth.
In the 1700s, the worst sort of economic collapse possible would be the loss of a colony or land or else a famine or something of that ilk.
In the 2000s, we have a global economy, and this cannot be disengaged from if growth is to be maintained, and we're all connected--a collapse in Greece affects NYC, affects London, affects Tokyo...we have not just resources but MARKETS.

As a result of this huge amount of trade, we need a large amount of standardization and regulation, as these are a lot of diverse markets coming into play all at once.

IN ADDITION, in the 1700s, it could take months for cross-Atlantic communication.
It now takes seconds.
We are a fully connected world--meaning more freedom and more freedom to ATTACK all at once.

NOW.

Pause over JUST those three things, the proliferation of WMDs, globalized trade, and a fully-connected world in which happenings in Beijing can instantaneously affect Munich and Moscow and D.C. and so on, all at once.

What am I getting at?

The centerpiece of Jefferson's ideal government is a limited republic, ie, a SMALL government, a government that can work off of a drafted Constitution to the "T" because of it's relatively small size, isolationist state, self-sufficient state, agrarian nature, and so in and so forth.

Jefferson's ideal state is agrarian, allowing people to live off of natural resources, ie farm.
Most in Jefferson's time were farmers, or close to it.
Jefferson's ideal state is one separated by an ocean where an enemy attack would take weeks or months to arrive.
Jefferson's ideal state is one that is not dependent on alliances with other nations.

THESE ARE ANTIQUATED IDEAS AND NO LONGER APPLY FEASIBLY.

Most now do NOT farm--most now work in blue collar or white collar jobs that are often specialized or technology based...a MINORITY are farmers, NOT a majority, thus...
We are NOT all independent, as an ideal Jeffersonian society would have its citizens be, of one another to a large extent, but rather, are largely dependent; unless you personally made the computer you are reading these words on now or personally farmed, shot, and made the food you eat, or made the home you live i with your won two hands, you are NOT independent.
FURTHER, we are not merely dependent on one another as Americans, as we are in, not a localized, agrarian economy, but a GLOBAL economy...your computer could very well have been "Made in China," and your food has likely come fro miles away as well, and the building material for your homes...we have to trade with foreign nations to get the oil that fuels your cars or the bus you take...we are NOT independent of other nations, as the Jeffersonian ideal would have it be preferred, including...
It does NOT take months or weeks to attack our soil now--it can be hit in a manner of hours or minutes, and if we include the possibility of a cyber attack, as the Internet continues to grown and connect us all and become both a great tool and weapon, possibly SECONDS.

What does this all mean?

A SMALL, AGRARIAN-BASED, ISOLATIONIST GOVERNMENT IS *NOT* UP TO THE TASK OF RUNNING A 3,000+ MILE-LONG, 50-STATE, 15 TRILLION DOLLAR GOVERNMENT THAT IS A NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER AND NO LONGER EITHER SELF-SUFFICIENT IN ITS RESOURCES--SEE: OIL, MANUAL LABOR--AND CAN NO LONGER ISOLATE ITSELF VIA TWO VAST OCEANS IN A WORLD WITH BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

THE TASK IS TOO LARGE FOR A SMALL-LOCALIZED GOVERNMENT SYSTEM SUCH AS LOCKE AND JEFFERSON PROPOSE.

A LARGE, FEDERALIZED, GLOBALIZED GOVERNMENT IS NEEDED.

Hence one of my deepest core problems with Ron Paul--

His ideas are, as I said, antiquated--there's the word, see, told you it'd be back--and no longer feasible in this day and age with this nation at this point in time.

To be clear:

The ideas of life, liberty, and the protection of property/pursuit of happiness...the advocating for a 2/3-branch system of government with checks and balances, for arguing for a separation between church and state, and for private property...

THESE are all still fine, noble ideas--it's why we still idealize Jefferson and Locke, those ideas are timeless, situation-less, they can and should always apply.

But we are no longer isolated/protected by the Atlantic and Pacific.
Our largest source of trade is no longer with ourselves.
Most people are no longer farmers or builders and thus no longer, strictly-speaking, self-sufficient in the Jeffersonian sense.

The world has changed--and the United States and the ideals of Democratic Rule have changed with it, adapted, grown accordingly.

Ron Paul seeks a past time that is gone, and cannot return.

His appeal is largely one of nostalgia in some circles, but it is misguided...ballistic missiles can hit us from above. We can be bombed from above. Hit by terrorists on our own soil in minutes--with the Internet, again, possibly seconds, if a large, catastrophic hack were someday to occur.

Jeffersonian/Lockian ideals begin with agrarian and isolationist governments when put into practice...these governments no longer apply to the USA.

Ron Paul is a relic of a past age--let his ideas be confined to that age.

A final note:

Strict Constitutionalist government--fine in 1801...

When blacks were still counted as 3/5ths of a person, and when women couldn't vote...?

Even if we allow that RP means he's a strict Constitutionalist and, by that, means he accepts the amendments that have been made as well, this then defeats his position:

IF the US Constitution HAS been amended before, it seems folly to read it strictly, as if it should never need amending or adding onto or subtracting from or altering in any way.

OK, then...

5A. "Big government is bad."

...

If it's alright with everyone, I'm going to assume my answer to 4A/B was more than sufficient for a response--good or bad--to THAT point...moving on.. ;)

"Paul is all about letting the states do their own thing."

And I IMMEDIATELY point to the "Free State/Slave State" example to prove why this attitude was, again, OK for a small, agrarian government that didn't mind major moral and societal differences, but no longer acceptable, unless, again, we want to leave open the possibility of some states being completely anti-gay, or barring Mexican immigrants (or using racial profiling against those here legally), or teaching Creation Science in school and banning evolution...seems unattractive to me...I think most would find that unattractive as well...hence the reason state rights need SOME reigning in, otherwise, we're not so much a Union as a Confederacy, so to speak...

"And you statement is so rash with a stereotype of the south it makes you look like an ass."

Well, I didn't just name them in my bit immediately above, but cat's out of the bag--but ass or not, I WOULD point out that it is, like it or not, the Southern states that ARE most fiercely pro-Creationist, anti-gay, and, indeed, if we want to take this a step further, we can point out once more that it was the South--not all SOUTHERNERS, mind you, I'm painting with a broad brush, I know, so not EVERYONE, but enough to make the point stick here--that needed FEDERAL assistance and urging to help integrate and cool Mississippi Burning and Atlanta and all the rest in the 1960s...it WAS two Southern States (TEN and ARK) that have filed infamous Supreme Court Cases against teaching evolution in science classes...

Stylized or no, I think my point sticks--and the facts and history back me up here.

"The states can still have their own energy and education departments."

I've already made my point about the importance of standardizing education to a degree, I think, with Evolution--I HOPE you're not going to contest THAT--so, to energy...

What oil we DO produce here--guess what? Not ever state has it. We supply one another. Ditto with coal. The Midwest is the breadbasket. Here in California, we have some of the largest fruit farms in the Western world.

So, guess where many of your oranges come from? And your oil? And bread?

Different states, again, we're NOT in a state of Jeffersonian independence anymore where anyone could simply get a patch of land, an acre or two in size, and that was enough to sustain a family, locally, with no outside resources or aid needed.

This is EXCLUDING the aid that's constantly needed for earthquakes (like the Northridge one that hit right near where I live when I was a wee lad) and hurricanes (Ike, Katrina, Andrew) and tornadoes (like that one which destroyed an entire town this past year or last year or so) and floods, and so on.

Again, nice idea, Jeffersonian independence--no longer viable.

"What makes them worse at handling those things compared to the federal government?"

For one...the federal government has more resources and a greater supply of manpower.

For another, the federal government can be objective in a way localized government cannot always be; I point to their stepping in during the 1960s movements and the standardization of teaching to a degree--so our students are taught science in science class and NOT Adam and Eve, and the other way around, so science is kept out of the Church and that vital separation is kept intact--and so on.

Again, for starters.

Should the federal government handle EVERYTHING at a state level?
Of course not.
But who does the Constitution RP reveres so much say has priority power?
The Federal govt. over the State, EXCEPTING Amendment 10 accordingly.

5B. "People teach stupid things with the Department of Education in place."

Granted, but they also provide an important stabilizing function, ie, again, science for science classes and not religion...if you have a problem what they teach, THAT is another matter, and one I might in cases sympathize with--but that doesn't mean you junk the dept., it means you move to get mew material taught is all.

"The DoE doesn't have the kind of enforcement power you're giving it. I haven't seen much connection between the DoE and the educational attainment of Americans."

I'm using Evolution here until someone blocks me, because--apologies to the South once more for picking on you--a good few Southern states WOULD be teaching Intelligent Design and its religious underpinnings and NOT Evolution and proper science if not for federal mandates...

"The beneficial things that the Departments of Interior and Energy do could be done more cheaply in other ways -- we don't need cabinet level positions to protect them."

Energy is...a pretty important thing for a functioning govt...you don't think that's worthy of a cabinent post?

Ditto Interior?

And anyway, cabinet-level positions are appointed and not too great a source of federal congestion; more problematic is the legislative gridlock.

6A. "See Keynes vs. Hayek debate. I'm sure there are many economists who would support Paul's general economic stances. And until you give me some proof of the "experts" not finding his plans feasible, I will just assume you are talking out of your ass."

I believe there are links to dissenting economists on Paul's economic strategy in the link I posted way back in 1A...let me know if not.

6B. "Maybe -- I'm not an economist.

You might be right about all this about Ron Paul's economic ideas. They might indeed be strikes against him that would make it impossible for you to vote for him. But in that case, you've got to vote third party, because every other major candidate's positions on the drug war, bailouts and protection of the wealthy, and America's imperial adventures should strike them out as well."

OK, to point something out:

Tom, you objected to foreign aid...now ckroberts, you admit his economic policy may not be sound or, at the very least, might be a liability.

So, international relations and economic aid, both potential liabilities, IGNORING the alleged racism and the faulty philosohpy and all that...

WHAT is do remarkable about this man and his ideas? I just see to find more and more fault lines, even among his supporters--two issues, and you each objected to one and supported one. Tom objected to foreign aid but was OK with the economic side, and vice versa with ckroberts, I believe...

Even fault lines within his own supporters?

At the end of all THAT, I'm still left asking, more than ever...

WHY?

Why should I view this man as anything but a possibly-bigoted relic with antiquated ideas and faulty premises?

WHEW!

OK, that took 2 HOURS to type...

So as much as you might disagree with me...

NO ONE can say I didn't give ample attention to views this time! :)

Will respond in a bit obi.

The comparison with WJ Bryan would make Bryan roll over in his grave. Paul represents the very essence of the Cross of Gold tyranny that Bryan made his political career opposing. Paul wants a deflationary currency, the whole point of Bryan's bimetallism was that farmers were being squeezed by the reduced money supply of gold.

I wish I had time to make a thorough, thought-out statement on the economic policies, but I just want to chime in here. Inflation is indeed a hidden tax, uniform to everyone in society. But, it is not bad so long as investments and income increase at an equal or greater amount. The reason why people are bitching about it is because income and investments aren't earning as much as inflation. There's also artificial inflation being done by retailers, but that's another issue. I disagree with the whole way they measure inflation. But I digress....

Inflation also isn't a bad thing because the devaluation of our currency will stimulate foreign demand for our goods. This is why so many European tourists come to America. Everything is on discount to them! The more our currency devaluates, the "cheaper" our stuff becomes to foreigners, and the more they will demand our goods, stimulating our economy. China's been playing this game for decades, and their success is largely a result of it. Now that they're allowing things to appreciate and adjust to market equilibrium, jobs are leaving China's coastal provinces and heading into the interior or to other countries.

And finally, John Huntsman 2012! He's a candidate I'm sure obi could get behind

I had to 'page down' 16 fuckin times to get through all that crap. What the FUCK?!?!?

Really?

It only took me 14 page downs to get through my post... :p

(Hey, I said I'd respond...and I wanted to be thorough.)

Man, this might get confusing and we might be at the agree to disagree point here, but let's give it a go. But before I respond to specifics, the reason that I think people should vote for Ron Paul doesn't have to do with his conspiracy theories or economic view. I know a lot of RP supporters are big on the gold bug stuff, and that's fine. That's not why I would vote for him -- it's because he's the only candidate who doesn't hold the terrible ideas about imperial foreign policy, the war on drugs, civil liberties, and so on. Maybe his economic views would make him a disastrous president, fine, he'll be less disastrous than what we've got now or would we would get with the other Republican candidates.

So!

1. That's not a ton of context, but, sure, Ron Paul could easily edge over into conspiratorialism. I think scare-mongering might be a better description, which may or may not be more appealing.

2. Others, I'm sure, know more about than I do, but I think part of the appeal of the gold standard is that it is or it at least feels a bit more objective. It's an alternative to a financial system controlled by and created for a tiny, tiny portion of the super-wealthy and politically influential.

You need to not be so critical of Williams Jennings Bryan! We'd be much better off as a nation had he won office in at least his first couple of attempts. You're looking too much at the money issue and not enough at anti-imperialism (for both Paul and Bryan).

We might be defining "elite" differently -- I'm referring to the hugely wealthy and powerful who, generally speaking, decide policy. I don't think that the financial and political elite should decide policy; perhaps you do. That is, I think, the appeal for the goldbugs -- you say "widely used and modern system" as though that, in itself, made it an equitable or desirable system. I think gold just feels more democratic, or at least more meritocratic, than what we've got. In other words, lots of people don't like the system we've got now, for perfectly valid reasons. I might not agree with their solutions, but I agree with the need for solutions.

3. I reject the premise that aid necessarily improves things, either for humanitarian or realpolitik purposes. We gave lots of aid to Egypt. They don't seem too happy with us, and rightly so -- we aided a terrible, evil man. We gave lots of aid to Iran, until the authoritarian we were propping up was replaced by a different kind of authoritarian, which is part of why we're in the bad shape we're in. The same thing will happen in Saudi Arabia someday, and then we'll really be dicked. Not just us America, but us the whole civilized world.

We give lots of money to places where people don't like us. We give enormous sums to Pakistan, and we're about to go to war with them or parts of them. I don't think that the amount of aid we give to people really determines how the rank-and-file citizens feel about the USA.

You may be right about the 1940s, but I think the situation is reversed w/r/t who is protecting who. If America weren't over there, Israel would be lording over an empire bigger than anything Solomon ever had. We hold Israel back as much as we protect them. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not. I certainly don't see how it's worth it from our end.

Getting back to Ron Paul, which do you think would do better for America's image in the Middle East: our current policy, or cutting off all aid but also all invasions, drone strikes, assassinations, and so on? It's not "lack of resources" that makes Middle Easterners hate the US. It's that we're mucking around in their countries.

Again, you can disagree with Ron Paul on ending aid, but I don't think it's some far out lunacy. It's all a part of his larger purpose, to reduce American intervention in foreign affairs. That ideology has a long and noble American history.

4. Yes, we are an empire! That's a bad thing. I think Jefferson's notions of independence had more to do with the yeomen farmers, which is admittedly long gone, and less to do with trade among nations.

None-interventionism is not the same thing as isolationism. Paul (like Jefferson!) would be, I think, more than happy with plenty of trade all around the world. That stuff generally takes care of itself. We need some sort of system to ensure that dangerous things don't come into the USA (a system we already have too much), but people will trade with each other.

You mention markets that need regulations, as if living without them is somehow an illusory ideal. But to me, it seems the other way around. When we have too many regulations, the economy suffers, but more importantly, the politically weak and isolated are the ones who suffer. The regulation-makers are almost always beholden to the most influential and powerful.

You mention missiles -- who is firing them? We have plenty of nuclear missiles to fire back at people. I suppose terrorists could get a suitcase nuke or biological weapon, but there's no government short of a 1984-style omnidictatorship capable of entirely stopping those kinds of threats. In fact, most of what we do makes things worse; the Iranians want nukes because we made Ghaddafi give up his, and then watch him get deposed, after we forced Saddam to give up nukes and then deposed him ourselves.

Regarding strict constitutionalism: The constitution isn't a religious document. But it is very important because it keeps the government limited, protecting our civil liberties.

5. Kansas isn't southern! But yeah, southerners can be dumb. But so can everyone else. I don't see a lot of evidence that the Department of Education is nobly standing in the way of a tide of ignorance. And, I'm not trying to convince you that Ron Paul is right, as I am not entirely certain that this is the right approach. I just want you to see that it's not insane, and that this isn't in and of itself the mark of a candidate beyond the pale for any reasonable voter.

An entirely serious question: what do you mean that energy is important for a functioning government? The USA is not a petrostate like Saudi Arabia or Alaska, where money from energy sources pays for government. I think the government can still, I don't know, pay for its electric bills without an Energy Secretary flipping the switch.

And you're right, the talk about ending departments is more for show than anything else. It's proving one's small bonafides.

6. I disagree that Ron Paul's foreign policy is a problem. I agree that his economic policy might be a problem, but it's also better than what we've got -- regressive tax policy for the benefit of big finance and big business. The alleged racism is not a reflection that Ron Paul is racist (he's clearly not) but that he has made really bad decisions in his subordinates and his politicking (serious flaws, to be sure). I also deny that his philosophy is antiquated, as explained above.

---

Here is what's so remarkable about Ron Paul: We live in a militarized culture with a political and economic mindset of Big. We War on Drugs, War on Terror, secret wars across Africa and Asia. We tax the poor and the young to fund military adventurism around the world. We warp our political and economic policies in favor of huge businesses and financial institutions. We casually disregard the lives and liberties of foreigners and citizens alike. Government officials and economic elites commit crimes or change the rules at whim and get away with it most of the time. The president can have American citizens assassinated without trial or declaration of war, with no oversight, and the political class just shrugs. Distant, unaccountable institutions, whether government or private business (a distinction increasingly without difference as you get to the top), have greater and greater influence over our lives.

We live, in other words, with a sick and broken system. Ron Paul is the only major candidate to recognize this. You can disagree with what he wants to do about it (I certainly do), but that very recognition that there's something monstrously wrong with America puts him head and shoulders above any current presidential candidate.

Dear obi and company,

1. You all post to much. It took me almost three hours to read through all of that.
2. Ron Paul is, as you put it, "a racist loon." No one should try to defend him, and no one should support him. He is the bad kind of Conservative.
3. Also, you should understand that Ron Paul would probably be consumed by assassination attempts if he became president...there are enough people who dislike his policies that someone might even get him.

Sincerely, A Bachmann supporter.

OBI - "2A. "Because rapid inflation, and the devaluation of our currency is looking much more promising..."

The deflation of our currency is promising? O.o

I'm honestly confused...if you meant likely...well, there's nothing there to say why we should return to the Gold standard and be subject to that standard--which we do not and would not control--rather than the oil standard that's more modern."

Yes, the quote did mean that rapid inflation is likely. Also, the entire point of being on a fixed standard such as gold is that we don't control and therefore can't manipulate the supply, at least to the same extent as our current system. (An oil standard would be catastrophic for the US as it would be a standard that could be easily manipulated by oil producing nations to their benefit) The easy money policy and currency manipulation exercised by the FED under administrations from both parties has played a large role in the volitile boom and bust cycles that our economy has endured for decades. I do not support Ron Paul, however I do believe that he has a lot right when it comes to economic policy. He just has a viewpoint is that outside of the mainstream, he does a horrible job of verbalizing his views in easy to understand terms, and the media has a field day taking selective bits and pieces of the convoluted mess he spews. Having said that, the content is actually quite resonable when decoded. I would suggest reading "End The Fed" to gain a better understanding of his economic philosophy. It is a very quick read, it will probably take about as much time to read as writing your post would, and is very clear and concise. The problem is smoothly transitioning from our current mess to something more stable without causing it all to come down.

@obiwan, in that case this is /not/ why you wouldn't vote for Ron Paul. You don't vote for Ron Paul because he supports things you do not support, which is a much fairer reason.

If you are interested in his viewpoint on the dollar, banking and economics in general, look at mises.org, it has an enormous supply of literature on the Austrian school of economics (also disproving the view that all experts disagree with him).

To me RP can be summed up with one quote. "Some men aren't looking for anything logical. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn."

You know, the last time we were on the gold standard, France kind of fucked up our whole economy by buying up US currency and trading it for gold. Going back on it kind of invites that whole kind of dicking around by governments that aren't on a strict gold standard.

Also, as far as energy and different states doing the same thing to their own standards as a federal department...thinking that would work shows a gross misunderstanding of how energy works. Networks don't really honor state lines at all, they're done on a national scale. For instance, remember the East Coast Blackout? It plunged New York, Philly, and many other cities into total darkness for about a day. Heck, it even went international, screwing up Toronto. And what caused it? One provider in Ohio using antiquated systems that weren't up to the task.

Energy created or provided in a state goes to/comes from other states in almost every instance. It's not a phenomenon that stops at state lines. Therefore, it's not sane to treat it as something each state can regulate on its own.

Rp has passed one law in 25 years. He gets a govt paycheck to do nothing. He appeals to the insticts of many who are cynical and apocalyptic in mentality. The idea that bankrupt states will perform better than the fed with greater responsibilities is a fantasy.

@Putin - If he shows up and votes as his constituency desires, then he is earning his paycheck for doing his job. It's irrelevant whether his votes are in the majority or minority. His job is to represent the people who elected him in the manner they wish to be represented.

It looks like you have more than enough words and explanations here so i will only leave here with this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4 It is the story of ron paul helping a black man. He is not racist. Believe what you will.

@Putin - Our country would be far better off if our elected officials did less. The big government can solve every problem and will take care of you mentalitly is a load of crap that results in unintended consequences and dependancy. A large reason that many states are bankrupt is because they know the Feds will bail them out, same as all the financial institutions that made bad bets, you don't need to be responsible for yourself if there is always somebody there save your butt. The fantasy is that states/entities will act responsibly when they just continue to push any consequences off to a later date.

@josh:
The big government can solve every problem:
No, it can't.
will take care of you mentality
Government never said it wanted to do that.
A large reason that many states are bankrupt is because they know the Feds will bail them out
No, it's because politicians did not spend what they have wisely and therefore resorted to cheating their balanced-budget constitutions.

@Gobble - Not every state has a balanced budget amendment and the feds with their "you will spend this money" edicts don't help the budgets. The dept of education is unconstitutional yet puts a massive burden on the states with the "no child left behind" bullshit.

@Gobble - I'm glad we agree that big government can't solve everything. Unfortunately many politicians do try to solve every little thing, some do it to buy votes and others because they are elitists who need to take care of all of the helpless masses.

Here is an article that gets at the original question of this post, why should anyone take Ron Paul seriously. It almost seems written in direct response to the original question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/opinion/sunday/douthat-Pariahs-and-Prophets.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Well you anti govt types got your wish, govt paralyzed by teaparty zealots. Hows that working out? You people are the reason why we continue to have high unemployment and high poverty. You market cultists blame the govt for themarkets failures andtake credit whenever the economy is running well.so much for personal responsibility.

" His job is to represent the people who elected him in the manner they wish to be represented."

He hasn't succeeded in getting any of his barmy agenda passed. He rails against "status quo politicians", he's the biggest status quo politician of them. He literally gets nothing done. But nice spin.

" It is the story of ron paul helping a black man"

And David Duke has black supporters. Your point?