What is wrong with Ron Paul? - Page 18 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

liberty1776 · #**256** (**permalink**) 01-04-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conine

Everything that the government does would be done more efficiently if done by private companies assuming that competition existed. The problem is that not everything is a matter of efficiency.

What? So it does not matter if private companies can provide the same serivices but with better quality and lower prices? What else is there?

Americano · #**257** (**permalink**) 01-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberty1776

Governmnet will have no part in private security. I don't really understand what you are saying here. Maybe you can explain differently because I really don't get what you are saying. I'm sorry.

I'm saying any muni, state or federal civil service prone to regulation, LE/private security in particular, that performs that service on a scale that envelops current services funded by government will become a de facto government agency through the taxation and legislative processes and subjected to government corruption. It would be naive to believe private security replacing a city police force would be immune to civil and political control and taxation. Unless, as with Blackwater, that force is granted immunity from civil and criminal prosecution at a federal level, which just means the corruption would transpire at higher levels.

liberty1776 · #**258** (**permalink**) 01-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Americano

I'm saying any muni, state or federal civil service prone to regulation, LE/private security in particular, that performs that service on a scale that envelops current services funded by government will become a de facto government agency through the taxation and legislative processes and subjected to government corruption. It would be naive to believe private security replacing a city police force would be immune to civil and political control and taxation. Unless, as with Blackwater, that force is granted immunity from civil and criminal prosecution at a federal level, which just means the corruption would transpire at higher levels.

There wouldn't be one city-wide police force. There would be competing police forces. There would be no government to corrupt it.

Conine · #**259** (**permalink**) 01-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberty1776

What? So it does not matter if private companies can provide the same serivices but with better quality and lower prices? What else is there?

Maybe if the goal of private companies were to provide the best service at the lowest cost rather than to provide the cheapest service at the highest price to make the highest profit you'd have a point. Why would a private police force bother to police a ghetto full of poor people? It would be the most work with the lowest profit in return. Face it there are some things best left in the hands of the government.

liberty1776 · #**260** (**permalink**) 01-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conine

Maybe if the goal of private companies were to provide the best service at the lowest cost rather than to provide the cheapest service at the highest price to make the highest profit you'd have a point.

The goal of ANY company (not considering the negative effects that government has on this process) is to serve it customers at the lowest possible price. What firm tries to provide bad services at high prices? A firm that did this could not make any money because its competitors would do a better job and take its customers.

If you are correct, then please explain the falling price, yet increasing quality of computers. According to your odd little Marxist theory, computers should be getting worse and more expensive, not the other way around.

And computers, by the way, are one example of many. My mom got a can-opener as a stocking stuffer for Christmas. All you do is put it on the can and push a button, and in 20 seconds or so, the can is open, and it is opened in a much better way than the old-style. And, it only cost like $10 (if I remembe correctly.) So this, too is an argument against your naive theory. Why did companies invent these if they were not concerned with satisfying consumers? According to you, we should all be paying through the nose for those old style, manual can openers. But we are not.

Competition causes firms to innovate and lower prices. Show me a company that did not do this, but stayed in business and I will show you a company that recives government support.

Quote:

Why would a private police force bother to police a ghetto full of poor people? It would be the most work with the lowest profit in return. Face it there are some things best left in the hands of the government.

[/quote]
The very EXISTENCE of ghettos is an indictment of government control of police. If the government police departments are so good, why do these high-crime areas exist? Under private security and private propety, these ghetto-dwellers would not be allowed into the low-crime areas. In essence, they would be excluded from polite and good society. This would create a pretty big incentive to stop the criminal activities in the ghetto.

Conine · #**261** (**permalink**) 01-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberty1776

The goal of ANY company (not considering the negative effects that government has on this process) is to serve it customers at the lowest possible price. What firm tries to provide bad services at high prices? A firm that did this could not make any money because its competitors would do a better job and take its customers.

If you are correct, then please explain the falling price, yet increasing quality of computers. According to your odd little Marxist theory, computers should be getting worse and more expensive, not the other way around.

And computers, by the way, are one example of many. My mom got a can-opener as a stocking stuffer for Christmas. All you do is put it on the can and push a button, and in 20 seconds or so, the can is open, and it is opened in a much better way than the old-style. And, it only cost like $10 (if I remembe correctly.) So this, too is an argument against your naive theory. Why did companies invent these if they were not concerned with satisfying consumers? According to you, we should all be paying through the nose for those old style, manual can openers. But we are not.

Competition causes firms to innovate and lower prices. Show me a company that did not do this, but stayed in business and I will show you a company that recives government support.

The very EXISTENCE of ghettos is an indictment of government control of police. If the government police departments are so good, why do these high-crime areas exist? Under private security and private propety, these ghetto-dwellers would not be allowed into the low-crime areas. In essence, they would be excluded from polite and good society. This would create a pretty big incentive to stop the criminal activities in the ghetto.[/quote]

So according to your statement the falling prices of computers and the advances in can opening technology prove the benevolent nature of corporations. You'll have to point out though where i stated that companies wanted to provide bad service. I asserted that they want to provide services at the lowest cost to themselves which is entirely true. We've seen what happens when private companies are left to operate without government interference and it isn't pretty so to assume that corporations want whats best for the consumer is naive to an extreme degree.

Your other part about ghettos is stupid and doesn't deserve a response as it completely ignores the reality of the situation.

liberty1776 · #**262** (**permalink**) 01-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conine

So according to your statement the falling prices of computers and the advances in can opening technology prove the benevolent nature of corporations.

No, but that is what you wanted to read. I made it clear that there were many cases (namely, every product) in which quality increased while price decreased. This would seem to fly in the fact of you silly little Marxist thought that corporations only want to make the cheapest product at the lowest price.

Let me ask you a question. What company has made money by not serving it's consumers? What company has behaved in the way you describe?

Quote:

You'll have to point out though where i stated that companies wanted to provide bad service. I asserted that they want to provide services at the lowest cost to themselves which is entirely true.

This is what you said, "Maybe if the goal of private companies were to provide the best service at the lowest cost rather than to provide the cheapest service at the highest price to make the highest profit you'd have a point."

Now, apparently, you believe that corporations do not want to provide the best service at the lowest cost. Now, first, they most certainly do want to do this, and the examples I gave illustrate this. Do you have any concrete examples to support your argument? Second, you said that private companies want to provide the "cheapest service at the highest price." Now, I took cheap to mean "of bad quality." Was that wrong? And if it is, then how do you explain the fact that in the first part of the sentance, you bemoan the fact private companies do not try to provide the best service?

Quote:

We've seen what happens when private companies are left to operate without government interference and it isn't pretty so to assume that corporations want whats best for the consumer is naive to an extreme degree.

Really? When was this? Or are you just going to make these claims with out any factual support?

Quote:

Your other part about ghettos is stupid and doesn't deserve a response as it completely ignores the reality of the situation.

Wow, what an escape artist you are! What a way to dodge my argument. Just tell me it is stupid. Don't bother to point out why it ignores the reality of the situation, or what the reality of the situation is.

Why don't you take this Marxist hogwash somewhere else until you can actually come up with arguments and examples?

Conine · #**263** (**permalink**) 01-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by liberty1776

No, but that is what you wanted to read. I made it clear that there were many cases (namely, every product) in which quality increased while price decreased. This would seem to fly in the fact of you silly little Marxist thought that corporations only want to make the cheapest product at the lowest price.

Let me ask you a question. What company has made money by not serving it's consumers? What company has behaved in the way you describe?

This is what you said, "Maybe if the goal of private companies were to provide the best service at the lowest cost rather than to provide the cheapest service at the highest price to make the highest profit you'd have a point."

Now, apparently, you believe that corporations do not want to provide the best service at the lowest cost. Now, first, they most certainly do want to do this, and the examples I gave illustrate this. Do you have any concrete examples to support your argument? Second, you said that private companies want to provide the "cheapest service at the highest price." Now, I took cheap to mean "of bad quality." Was that wrong? And if it is, then how do you explain the fact that in the first part of the sentance, you bemoan the fact private companies do not try to provide the best service?

Really? When was this? Or are you just going to make these claims with out any factual support?

Wow, what an escape artist you are! What a way to dodge my argument. Just tell me it is stupid. Don't bother to point out why it ignores the reality of the situation, or what the reality of the situation is.

Why don't you take this Marxist hogwash somewhere else until you can actually come up with arguments and examples?

Corporations get caught going cheap on the consumers all the time, pick up a newspaper or periodical some time rather than hiding in happyland. To assert that corporations are there to serve the people rather than themselves is to ignore their self interest. Why would it benifit a company to provide the best service at the lowest cost thereby cutting into their profits?

Obviously you've never studied history or you wouldnt be so ignorant to ignore every corporate practice that took place prior to the 1940's. Read about the robber barons in 1920's US industry and their practices and tell me that companies left to themselves are benevolent.

Its also odd that you would call me a marxist as ive always identified myself as a fiscal conservative albeit a moderate one. The free market is capable of great things but there are lots of things that are better served by non profits and government run agencies.

Meridious · #**264** (**permalink**) 01-08-2008

Ron Paul Shock Newsletters Unearthed: Claim MLK a Gay Pedophile, Praise David Duke, Speculate 1993 WTC Bombing Was Mossad Job...

Ron Paul is a damned loon.

liberty1776 · #**265** (**permalink**) 01-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conine

Corporations get caught going cheap on the consumers all the time, pick up a newspaper or periodical some time rather than hiding in happyland. To assert that corporations are there to serve the people rather than themselves is to ignore their self interest. Why would it benifit a company to provide the best service at the lowest cost thereby cutting into their profits?

What is "going cheap?" Again, from what I see in this post, you think that firms are intent on giving bad service and selling it for a high price. But this does not answer my question: why do firms create better and less expensive goods all the time?

Quote:

Obviously you've never studied history or you wouldnt be so ignorant to ignore every corporate practice that took place prior to the 1940's. Read about the robber barons in 1920's US industry and their practices and tell me that companies left to themselves are benevolent.

Oh, you must be talking about the robber barrons like Rockefeller who produced more oil and at much lower costs than anyone else. Is this one of your "robber barons?" Or perhaps Carnegie who made steel much cheaper? Is he one? What about DuPont? James J. Hill?

What robber barons are you talking about?

You do not understand that when people work for their own self-interest, they end up benefiting the economy as a whole. This is a pretty simple lesson from Smith's Wealth of Nations that most fiscal conservatives understand.

Quote:

Its also odd that you would call me a marxist as ive always identified myself as a fiscal conservative albeit a moderate one. The free market is capable of great things but there are lots of things that are better served by non profits and government run agencies.

You are no where close to being a fiscal conservative. Nothing I have seen would lead me to believe that. Call yourself whatever you want, but you are, at best, a semi-Marxist.

Meridious · #**266** (**permalink**) 01-08-2008

Quotes from the Ron Paul Newsletters (linked in my previous post)

Anyone who didn't understand that Ron Paul is a nutjob, should have a better understanding of the wacko after reading his newsletters.

Quote:

“[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”

“I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational.”

“The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.”

“The criminals who terrorize our cities—in riots and on every non-riot day—are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to “fight the power,” and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against ‘The Man.’ And ‘The Woman.’’”

“My friend waved to the tiny [African-American] child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): “I hate you, white honkey.” And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way?” [As a matter of fact, Paul has appeared on a radio program called “The Political Cesspool,” which has featured the neo-Nazi twin pop stars Prussian Blue. –ed.]

“But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology.”

“Korean-Americans, hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive people in America (the reason for black hatred).”

“The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism.”

“We must not kowtow to the street hoodlums and their sanctimonious leaders.”

“Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots.”

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country.”

“Blacks have ‘civil rights,’ preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black TV shows, black TV anchors, black scholarships and colleges, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.”

Source: The Ron Paul Report, “Los Angeles Racial Terrorism”

“Black males age 13 that have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary, and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”

Source: The Ron Paul Political/Survival report, 1990-1994, excerpted by the Austin Chronicle

Conspiracist Pull Quotes:

“We now know that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality.”

“In San Francisco and perhaps other cities, says expert Burt Blumert, the rioting was led by red-flag carrying members of the Revolutionary Communist Party and the Workers World Party, both Trotskyite-Maoist.”

“Many people tried to buy guns to protect themselves. But, whoops, California has a 14-day waiting period. And then, just to make sure honest Californians could not get ammunition for the firearms they already owned (poor ragefilled youth might be shot), Mayor Tom Bradley ordered all gun and ammo shops closed, a great help to criminals who had stocked up earlier, or who could simply break in and loot.”

“Several days after the violence ended, we learned that there would have been blacks on the King jury—if the NAACP hadn’t engaged in jury tampering by telling potential black jurors that it was their racial duty to convict the cops. The blacks admitted this to defense lawyers, and were rightly excluded from jury. This is a serious crime, but the NAACP will not be prosecuted.”

“Two years ago, in a series of predictions for the 1990s, I said that race riots would erupt in our large cities. I’m now predicting this will be the major problem of the 1990s.” [Helter Skelter, anybody?—ed.]

Source: The Ron Paul Report, “Los Angeles Racial Terrorism”

“Last month I reported on massive, illegal spying by the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith against its perceived opponents, as revealed in California. The ADL keeps track of people and groups from left to right, and purchases illegally obtained information on Americans from its agents in police departments in order to prepare and maintain hundreds of thousands of dossiers.”

“The [Los Angeles] Times also brought to light the ADL’s work against ‘cults,’ especially interesting given the BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms]-ADL connection.”

“It was such a seminar [i.e. a cult awareness training seminar], arranged by the ADL, that targeted the Branch Davidians in the first place.”

Source: The Ron Paul Survival Report, June 15, 1993

“The intensity with which Israel lobbies in the U.S. Congress is surpassed only by its media campaigns to drown all criticism of Israel. Prominent U.S. Editors and media owners don’t even pretend to objectivity on the issue. They all follow the advice of Norman Podhoretz, editor of the influential neo-conservative magazine Commentary….” [Our emphasis –ed.]

“This bias [Martin Peretz’s] informs every opinion expressed in The New Republic. For example, it opposed Contra aid until the Sandinista government showed sympathy for the PLO.”

Source: The Ron Paul Political Report, date uncertain

“If this walking bomb had gone off, it would have demolished the House Chamber and most of the congressmen in it. Yet this attempted terrorist attack was buried by the media. Why? Because the perpetrator was an undoubtedly mad Israeli, furious over alleged slights to his country… [T]he Israeli lobby deep-sixed the story, and no one outside of Congress ever head about it.”

Source: The Ron Paul Political Report, date uncertain

“The Earth Summit is the creepiest meeting of politicos since the first gathering of Bolsheviks. Officially known as the UN Conference for Environment and Development, it will be held in Brazil in June; bad guys from all over the globe will attend.”

“[Hillary Clinton] is one of the most dangerous women in public life. Not only is she a fanatical abortion advocate, she wants parents to register with the government as a condition for having children to be able to sue and `divorce’ themselves from their parents. Maybe her daughter ought to sue her parents for attempting to raise her as a leftist. That sure qualifies as abuse to me.”

“Disgruntled taxpayer Dean Hicks fired bombs through mortars at night at buildings of the Internal Revenue Service in California. Hicks did damage federal property, but no individuals were injured… Hicks was sentenced to 20 years in prison, given a $45,000 fine, and ordered to pay $335,000 in restitution to the IRS. If he had been a serial murderer, he would not have gotten this sort of sentence.”

“There is good news after the L.A. riots. Statewide, gun sales are up 45% over the same period last year. People have been purchasing a record number. If the cops are not going to take care of the problem, the people will.”

Source: The Ron Paul Political/Survival report, 1990-1994, excerpted by the Austin Chronicle

C.H.U.D. · #**267** (**permalink**) 01-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conine

...
Obviously you've never studied history or you wouldnt be so ignorant to ignore every corporate practice that took place prior to the 1940's. Read about the robber barons in 1920's US industry and their practices and tell me that companies left to themselves are benevolent.
...

I'm a RP supporter and your paragraph provoked a thought. So I decided to google up info on 'robber barrons.' This particular paragraph found in wiki stood out;

Robber baron was a term revived in the 19th century in the United States as a pejorative reference to businessmen and bankers who dominated their respective industries and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various allegedly anti-competitive or unfair business practices. The term may now be used in relation to any businessman or banker who is perceived to have used questionable business practices in order to become powerful or wealthy.

Sounds like Wal Mart. Also sounds like Micro$oft. Both companies exist today in a land of big time government regulation. Seems one way or another these big companies/people will find a way. So big government or small government you still have similar problems. So why not have less government rather than more?

I can't speak for everybody but I'm sure most RP supporters (libertarians) support government intervention as it relates to monopolistic practices.

partofme · #**268** (**permalink**) 01-08-2008

Looks like Ron Paul is going to be in 5th place again. Maybe they haven't counted all the votes and he will pull 4th. That would be something. I don't see how he could possibly lose the nomination now.

Alex · #**269** (**permalink**) 01-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by partofme

Looks like Ron Paul is going to be in 5th place again. Maybe they haven't counted all the votes and he will pull 4th. That would be something. I don't see how he could possibly lose the nomination now.

I'm certain that one or more of the Ron Paul fanboys will be here soon enough to spin another 5th place finish (with less than 10% of the vote) into positive news! They can start with this nugget: "He beat Fred Thompson!! "

Conine · #**270** (**permalink**) 01-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by C.H.U.D.

I'm a RP supporter and your paragraph provoked a thought. So I decided to google up info on 'robber barrons.' This particular paragraph found in wiki stood out;

Robber baron was a term revived in the 19th century in the United States as a pejorative reference to businessmen and bankers who dominated their respective industries and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various allegedly anti-competitive or unfair business practices. The term may now be used in relation to any businessman or banker who is perceived to have used questionable business practices in order to become powerful or wealthy.

Sounds like Wal Mart. Also sounds like Micro$oft. Both companies exist today in a land of big time government regulation. Seems one way or another these big companies/people will find a way. So big government or small government you still have similar problems. So why not have less government rather than more?

I can't speak for everybody but I'm sure most RP supporters (libertarians) support government intervention as it relates to monopolistic practices.

Yah this is basically my sentiment. Im also a Ron Paul supporter but the douchebag above you was too busy calling me a marxist and putting words in my mouth to see my point. Of course there are also things i believe should be run by the governemnt though on a local level rather than a federal one.