General Question

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

Is it time to listen to Ron Paul?

Asked by SquirrelEStuff (9171points) March 26th, 2008

An article from Fox Business, yes Fox Business, that I think raises some good questions. You will not find the drama that you are finding in the rest of the race. This is straight issues that you will never hear Hitlary or Barrack talk about. What do ya guys think?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

13 Answers

trainerboy's avatar

I asked a question earlier and I was moderated because this is not a political forum nor a place to give political opinions. So to answer your question, yes it is and all Libertarians. This is not a political opinion on my part. I am answerig a question about time and listening.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar

I think fluther is the best place to get political opinions, mostly because it is so diverse and noone here has a political agenda. I have stirred up my fair share of controversy on this site. I have been somewhat quiet lately, but I just figured now would be a good time to ask, since 6 months ago when I asked these types of questions, the media wasn’t telling people there was a problem with the economy, so no one thought about it. Sorry if I p*ss anyone off. =)

paulc's avatar

Granted, this is a movement that is rooted in a place far from where I live but I’m entitled to an opinion too right?

I think libertarianism is the direct result of “me” culture. Everyone is in it for themselves and can’t possibly fathom how those less fortunate have allowed themselves to fall so low. I think the ideology is suited only to upper-middle class white folk (in North America anyway) since they’ve rarely been in a situation where the odds did not favour them (there’s a reason why the majority of Paul supporters are white males). Ron Paul is just the figurehead for this movement and so, no, I don’t believe its time to listen to him.

Having said that, I also don’t think that there is a politician worth listening to anymore.

trainerboy's avatar

I actually feel that Libertarianism is the greatest form of “we” ism there is. It is the people who actually decide to take on challenges and obstacles rather than waiting for the government breast to rescue them and perpetuate a cycle of dependency and believing that “we can’t” without government intervention.
To me, for someone to expect others to take care of them because they have decided they are “less fortunate” (what does that mean anyway, they are fortunate only less so and it is all a matter of luck?) and someone else should produce and “give” (confiscate by government force) to them is wanting something for nothing.
Just my opinion. I know that the prevalent idea that people are where they are based on how fortunate they are, and that they have nothing to do with it, gets a lot of votes, to me it does nothing to promote self reliance and growth.

SquirrelEStuff's avatar


He also received more money from active duty military personnel, than all other candidates combined. What are you saying about the troops?

paulc's avatar

@trainerboy, I’ve never known of libertarianism to be a collectivist ideology beyond people advocating for it. When people get together to forward mutual goals they usually form a body to oversee the matter and that is precisely what a government is. Further, if you do not wish to have any government intervention then who will protect you if someone decides to trample on your rights as an individual? Basically, I just don’t see it as being feasible to have a non-existent government. As to the issue of fortunate vs. less fortunate (its just the term I used, its not a function of luck and I’m sure you know what I mean) you are seeing things from a directly “me” view. You are assuming that people expect to be helped. Could the inverse not be possible? That those with the means to help others should be expected to do so? Some of the most successful economies and societies right now are built on a model that works that way for various functions of society. Finally, I think you misunderstood what I meant by a person’s position being favourable. I’m not saying that someone’s position in life is the end-all-be-all of their opportunities. What I’m saying is that those with greater resources tend to have vastly greater opportunities in life and its a cycle that perpetuates itself.

Not trying to start a fight here (though this kind of topic always seems to illicit one), just answering the question honestly.

trainerboy's avatar

@ paulc,
You might want to check out Libertarianism.They believe in limited government, not anarchy.

Poser's avatar

@paulc—I take offense to your statement, “That those with the means to help others should be expected to do so?”

Who decides who has the means to help the “less fortunate”? You? The government?

I guess that means that everyone in America who makes at least minimum wage ought to be sending 30% of their income to those in Darfur, or Ethiopia, or Afghanistan or any of a thousand other countries where people are “less fortunate” than even the “least fortunate” in America. What gives you the right to decide who’s too wealthy to think for themselves? What makes you more noble and altruistic than the next guy?

Like it or not, America’s wealth and power on the world stage is a result of Libertarian ideals. Those who work harder are rewarded. It has nothing to do with their station in life. Your last post indicated that you believe people do expect to be taken care of—provided they can prove that they truly are “less fortunate.”

paulc's avatar

@Poser, I didn’t mean to offend, its simply an opinion. I do, though, think a healthy society is one that helps everyone who is part of it by providing the same opportunities to all. I also think that there needs to be some sort of common way of handling that function in a society. Your example (this 30% of wage thing) is a completely unrealistic one so I can’t even really address it. I also think you misread my last post; I was saying that trainerboy believed that “less fortunate” people expected to be taken care of. I didn’t say anywhere that there was a burden of proof for that either.

Poser's avatar

@paulc—But what you are proposing has been tried many times before and proven to be an inefficient system—one that makes individuals slaves to the collective. You are advocating socialism, which says that people aren’t benevolent enough on their own—they must be compelled. This country, like it or not, wasn’t founded on any illusions of fairness. It was founded on the ideals of freedom and liberty. People will be rewarded, not by the depth of their need, but by their willingness to create their own reward. Try as it might, government has never been able to artificially create a fair society. Any one that has tried had the opposite effect. Life isn’t fair. It sucks, but it’s true.

breedmitch's avatar

Time to listen to Ron Paul? Sure.
Time to vote for Ron Paul? No.

Poser's avatar

Yeah. He’s all about the Constitution and other outdated crap. /sarcasm

master_mind413's avatar

To be really honest here every thing that is happening now has been in it for a long time coming while non of the recent presidents are at fault that includes Bush and Obama while i don’t disagree they have done there share of damage the majority of it has come from further back

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther