Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

If Ron Paul were to win in 2012...

rated by 0 users
This post has 18 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 145
Points 3,690
FunkedUp Posted: Fri, Apr 30 2010 12:29 AM

What could we realistically expect? What do you guys think could be accomplished under a Ron Paul presidency? I think that he could really improve foreign policy, but in terms of eliminating things like the IRS, government departments, and oppressive regulations (let alone the FED), I don't think can be done. 

Also, a question for all the anarchists...would you vote for Ron Paul if he were a frontrunner to Obama? 

  • | Post Points: 110
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 358
Points 8,245

I don't live in a swing state, so I probably wouldn't vote.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,943
Points 49,130
SystemAdministrator
Conza88 replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 12:56 AM

Not going to happen.

 

Having said that... it doesn't mean he shouldn't run.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 1:35 AM

Well, I don’t live in the States (thank god!) but if I did, I would vote for Ron Paul if he was to run. Not that he can accomplish anything and I tend to agree with Molineux ion this one: if he ever wins he’ll tarnish libertarianism for generations to come.
 

But as I don’t believe that our goals can be achieved by convincing people, that would not matter and his victory would finally put the political libertarian movement to rest, or at least diverge it into much more productive local politics. So I would vote with pleasure.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 2:00 AM

What could we realistically expect?

CIA would corrupt his veep, then assassinate him. I hope RP never wins the Presidency (against all odds) because he's a lot more useful alive than dead.

What do you guys think could be accomplished under a Ron Paul presidency? I think that he could really improve foreign policy, but in terms of eliminating things like the IRS, government departments, and oppressive regulations (let alone the FED), I don't think can be done.

Roman Emperor Pertinax is the perfect example of what would happen. The police state's assassins would get him one way or the other. Dr. Paul is an obstetrician and a relatively small-time politician. He has not spent his life playing the mafia-games that are the engine of Washington politics. He would be killed as expeditiously as possible.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,289
Points 18,820
MaikU replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 7:10 AM

brix will be shat. No, seriously, I don't much care, but I hope he will not win, because

 

Merlin:
if he ever wins he’ll tarnish libertarianism for generations to come.

"Dude... Roderick Long is the most anarchisty anarchist that has ever anarchisted!" - Evilsceptic

(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 177
Points 2,860
Naevius replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 7:16 AM

Things in a few areas might get better, like foreign policy and the War on Drugs, and he'd certainly be able to "stop the bleeding" as it were for his brief tenure, but it wouldn't change the system. The best thing he could do would be to A. Act as a giant wrench in the machinery of the state and B. Get the word out about libetarianism and Austrian Economics to a lot of people. Because of that, I'd certainly vote for him.

Also, to those who think he'd tarnish libetarianism...why? I can't figure out what you mean by that.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,649
Points 28,420

Voting is so 20th century.

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,129
Points 16,635
Giant_Joe replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 7:54 AM

CIA would corrupt his veep, then assassinate him. I hope RP never wins the Presidency (against all odds) because he's a lot more useful alive than dead.

Ya, that's what I figure.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 60
Points 1,500
Mike replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 8:26 AM

ClaytonB:

What could we realistically expect?

CIA would corrupt his veep, then assassinate him. I hope RP never wins the Presidency (against all odds) because he's a lot more useful alive than dead.

What do you guys think could be accomplished under a Ron Paul presidency? I think that he could really improve foreign policy, but in terms of eliminating things like the IRS, government departments, and oppressive regulations (let alone the FED), I don't think can be done.

Roman Emperor Pertinax is the perfect example of what would happen. The police state's assassins would get him one way or the other. Dr. Paul is an obstetrician and a relatively small-time politician. He has not spent his life playing the mafia-games that are the engine of Washington politics. He would be killed as expeditiously as possible.

Clayton -

+1

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 89
Points 1,840

Voting is so 20th century.

like, totally!

 

On topic, I agree with Clayton, Ron Paul would likely be assassinated in the case of his election. As the Marxists say, the ruling class will never give up their power voluntarily.

"No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." ~ Karl Hess

"look, property is theft, right? Therefore theft is property. Therefore this ship is mine, OK?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Nielsio replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 8:41 AM

If Ron Paul, or someone similar, could win the presidency, then that means we've already had an ideological revolution. In that case state power would be crumbling in favor of freedom anyway.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 3:03 PM

"Also, to those who think he'd tarnish libetarianism...why? I can't figure out what you mean by that."

 

This is why I believe that.

 

First, we must never forget that the US is a res publica in the original sense: an impersonal government, where no man, group of men, foreign power can decide what to do on everything. It’s a monster which cannot be controlled. It’s ‘run’ only in the widest sense. I’d rather say that its kept oiled by the beurocracy, and that it runs itself. It is unpredictable and uncontrollable. Thus, no one should expect anything but unintended consequences form any action aimed at changing the status quo: its kind  of like trying to manipulate the market. You never know what you’re getting in the end.

That being said, what I think he could possibly do, and what the results of such action could possibly be (THESE ARE MY FOOLISH IDEAS, SO I’D APPRECIATE IT IF PEOPLE REFRAINED FORM GOING “THERE, YOU’RE SOME GREAT POLICY EXPERT NOW’).

Now Ron Paul can do two, and only two things if he is President.

  1. Stick to doing little stuff, generally annoying the statists. Now what would you, as a voter think of a guy who gets elected to foster nothing less than a Revolution and stick to vetoing some bills, talking all day on TV about some obscure school of thought yet never carries out any real, tangible action? You’d feel nothing less than betrayed. And keep in mind that, unlike Obama who indeed promised a revolution and is doing nothing, Paul will not have the inner sense of envy of the population to rely on. He, and Libertarianism along with him, will be swept form office as a spine-less, big mouth, do  nothing, old man. Krugman will even stop scoffing at us, he’ll just assume us away. Libertarianism as a movement will loose credibility for a decade. Fascism shall have a free field.

 

2.   Try to actually change something. But what? Bring troops back home from Iraq and Afghanistan? The Feds will pull off some other 9/11 trick and he’ll either have to lose face, submit to popular rage and invade Afghanistan anew, or he’ll refuse to commit troops and sit on a very, very hot throne. He’ll lose any shred of credibility.

 

Shall he reduce American presence in the Middle east? Israel shall be encircled and will have to turn to full fascism. “He destroyed Israeli democracy!” shall be said. (note that I find nothing wrong with these consequences; the US-drafted world in a massive ‘malinvestent’ and needs to be liquidated, but go tell that to the voters!). Saudi Arabia shall turn fundamentalist, as could Egypt and Pakistan. India could try to take advantage of that and China could feel the opportunity to defend its ally Pakistan.  What about Europe? Russia will be happy to crush Georgia and let Serbia provoke civil war in Bosnia and Kosovo. And Ukraine is a boiling pot. Turkey shall turn fascist. A Balkan war and a civil conflagration in Ukraine would be likely. Turkey could feel dteh need to reassert itself in the Caucasus. “He destroyed Europe” shall be said. Or will he retreat form the Far East? The paranoiac aussies will do something stupid fearing of being left alone against China.

 

Or will he try to privatize some big bureaucratic office, or schools? As Molineux sais, employees will sit on the street as long as it takes to get him to repeal his idea. Will Congress take it? Will the people give a sh*t about ‘freedom’ and ‘markets’ and stuff if they cannot commute to work due to streets being blocked? He’ll either have to break the strike by force (no need to even elaborate on how this will forever discredit us) or be forced by congress to repeal privatization.

 

Will he try to stop the War on Drugs? How to sustain the media barrage showing kids dying in the streets ? Even Stalin would not have dared going that far.

 

Or shall he lower taxes, being just a second Reagan and having the distinction of being the guy who bankrupted the great US of A?

 

Shall he repeal Medicare or Medicaid? Social Security? What about those who’vebeen forced to invested their whole life’s savings in these schemes? Will they be left to starve?

 

Will he cut bank strings? Many, many US banks will go down. The economy will be ruined (it already is, but the people don’t know that). This Austria School, shall be said, turned the greatest country on this earth into a pile of smoking ruins!

 

Man, Ron Paul can do nothing without setting off reaction which we can’t even imagine. And rest assure that he is nothgin like the Iron Lady, who was at least able to break unions (a minor achievement, but an achievement nonetheless), but only after having to go to war with Argentina for that. Will he choose war with some country, perhaps China, to cover his internal abysmal support? That is no longer an option, for the US can no longer win a decent conventional war with even a second-hand country.   Just costs too much.

 

We could go on forever. He's actually so likely to fail within the first year and resing in shame, or else folow route 1, that I, as some statist, woudl never harm him, as has been sugested here. Just let him loose and make life hell for him. At the and of the day, the'll resign and will have taken libertarinaims as a political alternative whith him.

  

IF Ron Paul had run in Austin there would be hope. Cities are not always res publica and a strong personality could rule them . If Thatcher had run in Birmingham I’m sure she would have made the city what she wanted it to be. Hong Kong was the personal creation of a single man. But the US? There is only a big beating to be had by the mob there. But as I said, I find nothing wrong with that.

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,943
Points 49,130
SystemAdministrator
Conza88 replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 7:26 PM

"This is why I believe that."

Do you have a link to where we previously discussed this?

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,209
Points 35,645
Merlin replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 7:37 PM

Somewhere down here, I belive

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/14545.aspx

The Regression theorem is a memetic equivalent of the Theory of Evolution. To say that the former precludes the free emergence of fiat currencies makes no more sense that to hold that the latter precludes the natural emergence of multicellular organisms.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 150
Points 3,410

Agreed. I think the 2012 timing would be bad. The problems that the current administration is producing will put all the burden on the next president. I would rather have him come in at the economy's bottom, than during the midst of the collapse. Then he would be crowned as the next FDR. Long shot though.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,050
Moderator

To the OP: He's already more or less winning in Rasmussen polls against Obama, which is historically surprising considering Obama is still in his first term.  

Google it, but don't get your hopes up.  

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 659
Points 13,990
ama gi replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 8:33 PM

Shall he reduce American presence in the Middle east? Israel shall be encircled and will have to turn to full fascism. “He destroyed Israeli democracy!” shall be said. (note that I find nothing wrong with these consequences; the US-drafted world in a massive ‘malinvestent’ and needs to be liquidated, but go tell that to the voters!). Saudi Arabia shall turn fundamentalist, as could Egypt and Pakistan. India could try to take advantage of that and China could feel the opportunity to defend its ally Pakistan.  What about Europe? Russia will be happy to crush Georgia and let Serbia provoke civil war in Bosnia and Kosovo. And Ukraine is a boiling pot. Turkey shall turn fascist. A Balkan war and a civil conflagration

LMAO!

"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 366
Points 7,345
Fephisto replied on Fri, Apr 30 2010 8:43 PM

Say a large majority of libertarian proposals were to be passed:

-All U.S. subsidies dropped.  All.  No corn subsidies.  No alternative energy subsidies.  No higher education subsidies.

-Medicaid/medicare/SS/food stamps/HUD/the entire welfare apparatus.

-A large majority of regulations were dropped.  No more minimum wage laws.  No more FDA.  No more FCC.  This includes dropping many federal mandates.  The Department of education would be no more.

-All foreign U.S. military bases were dismantled and all U.S. troops were brought home.

-Large swathes of the U.S. government were privatized and/or devolved to the states.  The U.S. federal highway system is no more.  NASA is broken into bits and what equipment it has is sold off.  Large amounts of national parks and lands still owned by the U.S. government are sold off.

-The federal income tax is eliminated.  As many other taxes are eliminated as well.

-The gold standard is re-enacted.

For the purposes of a thought experiment say the above all came about, overnight, after Ron Paul took office.  Yes, it's politically infeasible, but for the moment assume that even this much could be accomplished.   While in the long run I agree that such measures are beneficial in the short run you would see a massive increase in unemployment and economic depression.  We are talking about large swathes of economic infrastructure that is built on the pre-existing statist society and infrastructure, or that came to exist only because of the statist infrastructure before it (for example, massive layoffs from the military-industrial complex).  As such, the transition would be very harsh and quite brutal.

My argument here is not about whether this should be done or not (I would still like it to be so).  My argument is that after the crash that initially comes after implementing such a set of policies, the causes and effects will inevitably be mixed up.  That is that the crash will be blamed on laissez-faire because such policies immediately preceded it, but the recovery will not garner the praise of laissez-faire for the same reasons.

As such, I can see it entirely being the case that people will say, "You see, we have given libertarianism a fair nod, but it has proven itself inadequate."  Despite that hardly being the case in the long run.

Peace,

 

~Fepps

Latest Projects

"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (19 items) | RSS