Ron Paul: CIA runs the U.S. government

[Sweejak]

Sweejak wrote:

I've come to believe that there isn't a political ideology that will save us...

What happened to all the self identified anarchists on RI? Last time I took that Libertarian vs Authoritarian political quiz I ended up pretty centrist compared to the others.

As much as I endorsed two "anarchist" theorists upthread, I am also deeply ambivalent about American Anarchism. Too much of it is not very strategic, not very thoughtful. So yes- I think we should move beyond just finding some banner, any banner to march behind, but I do think Anarcho/Left voices offer an important counterpoint to Right-wing Libertarianism.

Yeah I'm very deeply ambivalent about a lot of American versions of thought. I don't think most know how different things like western religion can be in Europe as opposed to the US.

A couple of things are standing out for me with a quick reading. No comments, just things I would highlight for further thinking:

"... at what point organization stops empowering people and starts squelching individual freedom..."

"Freedom only exists in the moment of revolution."

"... prefigurative politics (i.e. modes of organization that consciously resemble the world you want to create."

"... the idea of consensus itself was borrowed from the Quakers, who again, claim to have been inspired by the Six Nations and other Native American practices."

The Indians, according to some scholars had a whole lot to do with the US Constitution. Most assume it was all about French and English thinkers but I don't think so. John Judge has a section on his site about it.

Here is one that still works from my files. FYI because I can't remember it.

Lessons on Peacemaking from the Iroquois Confederacy
The Warriors Who Turned to Peace
http://www.counterpunch.org/mohawk05192008.html

And this is also worth reading, it's about the Acadians.
A unique hybrid people, the Acadians offered a wiser, kinder vision of settling the continent. Instead, they became the victims of North America's first ethnic cleansing campaign.

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/20 ... index.html

[23]

I gotta admit, I never looked at it that way.

Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great were actually doing their people a good economic turn.

But keeping their invading armies fully employed, instead of disbanding 'em and dealing with the unemployment issues that that would create.

I'll have to give that some thought.

Fine. Let's bring them all home and let the rest of the world go to hell its own way. What will all those troops be doing for a living once they're back where we want them, between sea and shining sea?

And what will the five million people currently working largely in their chosen fields in the mostly well-paid jobs created by government defense spending be doing for a living now, for that matter? And how about whatever percentage of the people who are currently keeping body and soul together in the service and support sectors that would no longer have jobs once the people whose military-industrial high-paying salaries create the demand for their services and support are gone, along with their disposable incomes?

Because, sadly, those are the occupations at which the largest percentage of the population is currently employed. See:



What natural advantages will come their way on the winds of the unregulated free market economic change? Who will hire them and to do what? Or, alternately, how will they become self-employed and by doing what?

Likewise, all the elementary school teachers who'd be out of a job if libertarian economic policies got rid of public education, as Ron Paul believes ought to be done?

There now being, by libertarian definition, no government assistance for those people, how, realistically, do you picture them staying clothed, fed, and housed?

How?

[compared2what?]

I know..its not reasonable to expect our government to close all those bases..but for the love of Buddha..where are our priorities? I am tired of friends dying for lack of basic healthcare..really..I am.

Dude, I could make a reasonable argument that I'm dying due to lack of basic healthcare right this fucking moment, if I chose to. Although I prefer neither to argue nor believe that I am, and I don't fucking plan on doing so. And I have access to what passes for top-of-the-line basic health care in this country, at least for now. I haven't always. But I usually have. But the hell with me, my point is: I'm in no position to complain and I'm not complaining.

Rather I am saying that I sure hear that. But how do you envision the closing of military bases translating into more basic health care? Via what procedure? Through what method of production and distribution? The safety and equitability of which would be insured by what or whom?

And btw, it is absolutely not unreasonable to expect our government to close all those bases.

It's just unreasonable to expect our government to close all those bases immediately without making any plans for -- or giving any serious thought to -- what problems would be created by the expeditious removal of that particular problem, which is not discrete from all others. And certainly not discrete from the objective conditions that presently support the ostensibly free market economy. And/or the objective conditions that would putatively make it possible to support the Austrian-school, Mises-Institute free market economy of Ron Paul's dreams.

The refusal to acknowledge that is exactly, precisely and primarily what makes it an unreasonable expectation, in fact. Well, that and the unreasonable demand for immediate results. But do you see my point? Am I making any sense to you?

Because you can get what you want. You just can't get it in the way that you want without losing as much or more than you'd gain.

[elfismiles]

Sweejak wrote:

I've come to believe that there isn't a political ideology that will save us...

What happened to all the self identified anarchists on RI? Last time I took that Libertarian vs Authoritarian political quiz I ended up pretty centrist compared to the others.

As much as I endorsed two "anarchist" theorists upthread, I am also deeply ambivalent about American Anarchism. Too much of it is not very strategic, not very thoughtful. So yes- I think we should move beyond just finding some banner, any banner to march behind, but I do think Anarcho/Left voices offer an important counterpoint to Right-wing Libertarianism.

Heh, that's why I like my friends Scott Horton and Angela Keaton of Antiwar.com so much.

[elfismiles]

C2W, why can't we at least start with ending the military occupations and bases around the world?

And regarding Ron Paul's investments... your helpful info-trawl has gotten me thinkin.

Now I wanna see Cynthia McKinney's, Mr. Kucinich's and Mike Gravel's money trails as they were the Dems I favored.

What say you about our well-intentioned military meddling overseas?

I say it's not well-intentioned. But I also say that the policy proposals of Ron Paul cannot realistically put an end to genocidal overseas meddling for profit. They can only make it technically non-military. It's sleight of hand on his part and a pipe dream on his follower's part to suggest or believe otherwise. I mean, how do you suppose he intends to stop the free and unregulated market forces from pursuing their interests in countries with a powerless, expendable labor force that has no constitutional protections and is only nominally not a slave-labor force? The economy is global, it has been since the 17th century at least. You cannot wish that away. It has always paid dividends to the few by using state or private military power to subjugate and enslave people "overseas," depending on where you sit. Always. How does taking that out of the realm of public oversight put a stop to it, exactly? What libertarian policy proposal addresses it?

And I mean policy. Not rhetorical principle. How do you imagine the obstacles to realizing those principles will be overcome, in short?

[compared2what?]

Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great were actually doing their people a good economic turn.

But keeping their invading armies fully employed, instead of disbanding 'em and dealing with the unemployment issues that that would create.

I'm afraid that I can't say that I agree with you on that one. Indeed, nothing I wrote suggested that I did. However, Attila the Hun, Ghengis Khan and Alexander the Great did what they did, and it had an economic impact. That is, unfortunately, how it went down in reality, and in a way that theory and principle are powerless to change retroactively into something fairer or more peaceful than it was.

Not much has changed since their time. Same MO. Different configuration. It's time for it to stop, imo.

That said, and reality being what it is, my question was:

How do you plan on dealing with the unemployment issues that would create? How?

[23]

I know..its not reasonable to expect our government to close all those bases..but for the love of Buddha..where are our priorities? I am tired of friends dying for lack of basic healthcare..really..I am.

Dude, I could make a reasonable argument that I'm dying due to lack of basic healthcare right this fucking moment, if I chose to. Although I prefer neither to argue nor believe that I am, and I don't fucking plan on doing so. And I have access to what passes for top-of-the-line basic health care in this country, at least for now. I haven't always. But I usually have. But the hell with me, my point is: I'm in no position to complain and I'm not complaining.

Rather I am saying that I sure hear that. But how do you envision the closing of military bases translating into more basic health care? Via what procedure? Through what method of production and distribution? The safety and equitability of which would be insured by what or whom?

And btw, it is absolutely not unreasonable to expect our government to close all those bases.

It's just unreasonable to expect our government to close all those bases immediately without making any plans for -- or giving any serious thought to -- what problems would be created by the expeditious removal of that particular problem, which is not discrete from all others. And certainly not discrete from the objective conditions that presently support the ostensibly free market economy. And/or the objective conditions that would putatively make it possible to support the Austrian-school, Mises-Institute free market economy of Ron Paul's dreams.

The refusal to acknowledge that is exactly, precisely and primarily what makes it an unreasonable expectation, in fact. Well, that and the unreasonable demand for immediate results. But do you see my point? Am I making any sense to you?

Because you can get what you want. You just can't get it in the way that you want without losing as much or more than you'd gain.

Dudette, when and where did I ever say close the bases immediately or post haste?

The objective must first be identified as an objective worthy of our collective efforts, then programmatically effected.

A mission to transform our country from a militarist one to a nonmilitarist one will take years to implement.

But I see no one in the political arena, other than Dr. Paul, who is identifying this objective as a worthy one. Do you?

[elfismiles]

Do we have a truly Democratic form of government?

Do we have a truly Replubican form of government?

Are we really likely to have a truly Libertarian form of government?

Me thinks not on all 3 counts.

So what's with the extremist view that it's all or nothing?

Fine. Let's bring them all home and let the rest of the world go to hell its own way. What will all those troops be doing for a living once they're back where we want them, between sea and shining sea?

And what will the five million people currently working largely in their chosen fields in the mostly well-paid jobs created by government defense spending be doing for a living now, for that matter? And how about whatever percentage of the people who are currently keeping body and soul together in the service and support sectors that would no longer have jobs once the people whose military-industrial high-paying salaries create the demand for their services and support are gone, along with their disposable incomes?

Because, sadly, those are the occupations at which the largest percentage of the population is currently employed. See:

What natural advantages will come their way on the winds of the unregulated free market economic change? Who will hire them and to do what? Or, alternately, how will they become self-employed and by doing what?

Likewise, all the elementary school teachers who'd be out of a job if libertarian economic policies got rid of public education, as Ron Paul believes ought to be done?

There now being, by libertarian definition, no government assistance for those people, how, realistically, do you picture them staying clothed, fed, and housed?

How?

It's not an either or question. Go for BALANCE and the EXCLUDED MIDDLE for crikey's sake.

Just because some of us are Ron Paul supporters doesn't mean we expect or want all of his political philosophies to be implemented.

Again, there are a lot of Libertarians who don't agree with his stance on the border. They don't want to see borders as they are an interruption of human free will and the right to travel.

[Nordic]

Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great were actually doing their people a good economic turn.

But keeping their invading armies fully employed, instead of disbanding 'em and dealing with the unemployment issues that that would create.

I'm afraid that I can't say that I agree with you on that one. Indeed, nothing I wrote suggested that I did. However, Attila the Hun, Ghengis Khan and Alexander the Great did what they did, and it had an economic impact. That is, unfortunately, how it went down in reality, and in a way that theory and principle are powerless to change retroactively into something fairer or more peaceful than it was.

Not much has changed since their time. Same MO. Different configuration. It's time for it to stop, imo.

That said, and reality being what it is, my question was:

How do you plan on dealing with the unemployment issues that would create? How?

Hey, we have massive unemployment RIGHT NOW and nobody's dealing with it.

Yes, such things would, if done alone, cause big unemployment, but so what?

I'm sure Hitler's soldiers were quite worried about that, too. And the guards at the camps! "Gosh, what are we gonna do for a living when we run out of Jews and Gypsies to burn in these ovens?"

That's hardly the point!

And if anyone had half a brain who was running things, they would set up a massive massive program, at the same time they brought the empire home, to completely change this country and bring solar power and other forms of non-petroleum power to the entire nation, and the world, which would completely transform this economy, put everybody to work, and revitalize the entire face of the American economy. For good, instead of evil.

[compared2what?]

Dudette, when and where did I ever say close the bases immediately or post haste?

The objective must first be identified as an objective worthy of our collective efforts, then programmatically effected.

A mission to transform our country from a militarist one to a nonmilitarist one will take years to implement.

But I see no one in the political arena, other than Dr. Paul, who is identifying this objective as a worthy one. Do you?

No. I do not. But his identification of that worthy objective is a purely rhetorical virtue, given that his proposed method of attaining it is fused at its root with economic policies that have never done anything in practice except spread violence and pestilence all over the world at a pro rata comparable cost in blood and treasure to the price we now pay for state-sanctioned military actions.

To argue that people should vote for him simply because he's the only person who identifies that objective as a worthy one is therefore the logical equivalent of arguing that people should look for the car-keys they lost on the street at night on the corner where the streetlamp is rather than in the middle of the block where they heard them drop.

IOW: Sure. He makes the problem visible. But that's not worth much if it's worth anything. Because he does not advocate for a solution to it. He advocates for the perpetuation of the same problem by other means. Practically speaking. As opposed to rhetorically speaking.

[23]

To argue that people should vote for him simply because he's the only person who identifies that objective as a worthy one is therefore the logical equivalent of arguing that people should look for the car-keys they lost on the street at night on the corner where the streetlamp is rather than in the middle of the block where they heard them drop.

Since I never argued that... that someone should vote for him simply because he identifies that objective as a worthy one... nor have I read anyone else make that argument here... why are you making this point?

Just curious.

[Hammer of Los]

Fine. Let's bring them all home and let the rest of the world go to hell its own way. What will all those troops be doing for a living once they're back where we want them, between sea and shining sea?

Did you actually stop for a moment to consider whether your argument makes sense?

Yes, but killing millions of dark skinned peoples around the globe gives people jobs.

And whether "the rest of the world would go to hell its own way," absent massive US military bases, is certainly a moot point, by the way.

[compared2what?]

Hey, we have massive unemployment RIGHT NOW and nobody's dealing with it.

Yes, such things would, if done alone, cause big unemployment, but so what?

So the massive unemployment we have RIGHT NOW would quickly rise to proportions so large that large parts of the population would be living at the same levels of deprivation nine thousand points below the poverty level as they do RIGHT NOW AS WELL AS FOR MANY DECADES BEFORE RIGHT NOW in most of Africa, most of Asia, most of South America, and regionally and/or ethno-racially defined pockets of Canada, the United States and Western Europe. (on edit And Australia and New Zealand.end edit.)

The concomitant loss of pretty much everything that it takes to organize and carry out any form of politically effective popular dissent short of wide-spread indiscriminate acts of violence for short-term gain would then make it impossible for anybody to deal with it.

At the moment, that's still not impossible in this country. RIGHT NOW.

IOW, it's true that nobody's dealing with it. But it could still be dealt with. Because we're not yet at the point where nobody has a choice.

I'm sure Hitler's soldiers were quite worried about that, too. And the guards at the camps! "Gosh, what are we gonna do for a living when we run out of Jews and Gypsies to burn in these ovens?"

I'm not sure who the above analogy is pointing to as the contemporary American equivalent of Nazi soldiers and camp guards. So I don't know how to respond. Could you elaborate, please?

That's hardly the point!

Not by itself, no. But neither is it so beside the point that you can afford to overlook it entirely.

And if anyone had half a brain who was running things, they would set up a massive massive program, at the same time they brought the empire home, to completely change this country and bring solar power and other forms of non-petroleum power to the entire nation, and the world, which would completely transform this economy, put everybody to work, and revitalize the entire face of the American economy. For good, instead of evil.

I agree. But Ron Paul doesn't. Unless you think that unregulated market forces would voluntarily opt to expend real capital doing that here or anywhere, rather than continuing to acquire it at the greatest rate and with the fewest expenditures possible as they do RIGHT NOW in, for example, Tanzania. As well as every other place in which robust regulations don't prohibit it.

So that's hardly the point. Although it should be. I'm with you there.

[compared2what?]

Fine. Let's bring them all home and let the rest of the world go to hell its own way. What will all those troops be doing for a living once they're back where we want them, between sea and shining sea?

Did you actually stop for a moment to consider whether your argument makes sense?

On edit for clarity: Yes, I did. I'm not making the argument you're putting in my mouth, is the thing.

Yes, but killing millions of dark skinned peoples around the globe gives people jobs.

Yes. It does. However reprehensibly. That's a very large part of the foundation for what's left of the above-ground economies in which white-skinned people in a few part of the globe have lived in safety and comfort for the last seventy years or so. Have you never noticed that? Try taking a vacation in Mexico.

It's not an acceptable deal, imo. That's why I seek to make it visible.

And whether "the rest of the world would go to hell its own way," absent massive US military bases, is certainly a moot point, by the way.

Agreed. For present purposes, at least.

[compared2what?]

To argue that people should vote for him simply because he's the only person who identifies that objective as a worthy one is therefore the logical equivalent of arguing that people should look for the car-keys they lost on the street at night on the corner where the streetlamp is rather than in the middle of the block where they heard them drop.

Since I never argued that... that someone should vote for him simply because he identifies that objective as a worthy one... nor have I read anyone else make that argument here... why are you making this point?

Just curious.

Because that was the only recommendation of Ron Paul you offered in the post to which I was responding. Offer another and I'll respond to that on its merits, too. Even though we might both be repeating ourselves in doing so, it can't hurt to get one nice, clean linear point-counterpoint up there for the record.