portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

corporate dominance | political theory

The trojan horse of Ron Paul-style libertarianism

Sweeping away government means that the "market" will determine all outcomes. The "market" would mean concentrated corporate power would decide all outcomes, especially economic outcomes. That is what libertarians, Ron Paul included, would deliver if they actually were handed power.
The Occupy movement has brought together people from a variety of places along the political spectrum, generally somewhere on the Left. The main exception are Ron Paul followers.

But what is it that attracts Ron Paul followers who, in whatever disjointed fashion, align themselves with the Occupy movement and articulate what is perhaps the most basic Occupy critique: Corporations have far too much power.

Let's start with the basic libertarian philosophy, which boils down to "government is always bad." (Ron Paul followers thus would seem to be more at home among tea partiers or the business wing of the Republican Party, where indeed many gravitate.) To put a bit of flesh on the bones, libertarianism can be described as a belief in complete freedom of commerce, of minimal government involvement in the economy or social affairs, and of allowing the "market" to determine economic and social outcomes. An intellectually honest libertarian, then, would be against government laws interfering in adults' personal lives.

The typical conservative opposes government regulations, but only when it comes to commerce; such beliefs suddenly vanish when it comes to social issues, and thus we have the towering hypocrisy of Republicans thundering against government simultaneous with demands that government control women's bodies, regulate what happens in the bedroom and decide who can or can't have a full legal partnership with the person they love.

Representative Paul is not consistent, either — he, too, believes that women are not capable of making decisions about their own bodies and thus opposes abortion. And his belief in ending military adventures overseas is based on old-fashioned isolationism, not on any notion of solidarity or of a common humanity.

It pays to check under the hood.

To read the full article, please go to  http://wp.me/p2cpPS-q

homepage: homepage: http://systemicdisorder.wordpress.com/

Teaf@gs = Pault@rds 30.May.2012 22:13


(Ron Paul followers thus would seem to be more at home among tea partiers or the business wing of the Republican Party, where indeed many gravitate.)

Pretty much THIS.

Google Ron Paul Racist Newsletters

Paulists act like cultists and will defend their man and swallow the most absurd dissembling from him, no matter how contradictory. It's problematic in OWS where in theory everyone is welcome. It's sad; many Paulists have legitimate gripes but are easily manipulated by the charismatic right and lack critical thinking skills. Still, OWS organizers need to be clear while they are physically welcome, OWS is NOT a platform for Ron Paul or his brand of "libertarian" snake oil.

insults are for stupid people 31.May.2012 16:25


Ron Paul is often cited as being the intellectual founder of the Tea Party movement - it was his ideas of limited government that maintained an antiauthoritarian/libertarian principle in the Republican party for so long. So, you're welcome for me clarifying your wide speculation on the matter, @anon. The Tea Party since moved on from their roots, and now resembles an arm of the Birch Society.

Also, not all Libertarians are Ron Paul supporters, when you write "That is what libertarians, Ron Paul included, would deliver..." you're making a pretty broad generalization about a 400 year old philosophy that includes things like Anarchism and Minimalism (and that in fact libertarian and individualism philosophies go back much farther).

Paul and some supporters are also able to intellectually separate what is called "corporatism" and the ability of free people to make a free choice of where they spend their resources (what others call the "free market"). In this entire article, the word Corporation is used 18 times, but never is the word "Corporatism". It's like the entire criticism of Libertarians and Paul supporters is based off the interactions with only a few people, and where the author was unable to comprehend a single genuine libertarian critique of the modern economic system. At least, no reasonable critiques offered by the Libertarians is offered in this article. The reality is that many Libertarians advocate for alternative economic systems: some resembling "capitalism" others resembling other systems, it seems the author failed to pay attention. I think this author hasn't spent much time around Paul supporters, it reads like a Klansmen critique on the black population: totally off base, deliberately insulting and inflammatory, and without any intellectual merit.

Finally, the author seems to be missing the single most important aspect of Ron Paul's presidential campaign (which should be entirely considered) - and that is that Paul is *the only anti-war candidate*. Now, I'm not a voter - I think voting is a sham - but still, I respect and support Paul's campaign *exclusively* on the grounds that he's trying to prevent the unnecessary slaughter of thousands of innocent people. To end the wars we as citizens essentially have two options: outright violent insurrection against the government, or to elect a President who wants to end the war.

So, this author must then be in favor of killing innocent children, sending innocent people off to torture facilities, unchecked surveillance by the government, and justice-free assassinations, in order to prevent the possible damage a Ron Paul presidency could do to the reproductive rights of women, and because of some possible racist perspectives. It sounds like the author is supportive of murdering innocent people, as Paul's campaign represented the only other option.

Critical Thinking Indeed__(*Actions and Words*). 31.May.2012 18:07

“Other” who is “Different”.

Agree with your thoughts, insights and reflections toward Ron Paul and his cult-like "followers" and most of what you said "anon"— — —> but keep in mind that WORDS have power and influence people's perceptions of "others" who are "different". Derogatory words are used as 'weapons' to hurt, offend, insult and *DISEMPOWER* people and relegate others to a "second-class" marginalized, inferior status. Words can make it so people view negatively... others who are born "different" from the "norm"/|\"majority"... these inflammatory words make it so people look down on these people (others who are different) as "inferior" and these negative words are a direct cause of and continue the *Cycle of Hate & Intolerance* that ends up circling the Earth in a 'Spiral of Ignorance'.

+++++++++++++++HATE KILLS+++++++++++++++

Directing negative words towards people__ such as the words—>)*{f@gs = t@rds}*(< is disparaging towards others who are born different from the "majority". Just because you are born into a 'minority group' that doesn't mean it is acceptable for people to use you as a "punching bag" for them to vent their frustrations in life. These words, used out of ignorance, make it so the actions of discrimination, intolerance and hate are perpetuated unjustly against lots of innocent people and oftentimes has the 'end result' of violence being directed towards them. Actions and WORDS have consequences. No one should be "excluded from justice & respect", and no one should be "denied their dignity" as a human being... no matter how they are born (or how they "just are"). No more "Superiority Complex" over others who are different from the so-called "acceptable norm". It's time to stop unjustly and discriminatorily judging and "labeling people". Labels disable and disempower people.

—>>> ALL people are EQUAL Worldwide and ALL people deserve JUSTICE and RESPECT. <<<—

"We navigate our whole lives using words. Change and improve the words and I believe we can change and improve life." — Martin Firrell (artist)

People become "desensitized to words". Sometimes it is a good thing to *RE-THINK* and 'check ourselves' with the words we spew out, words that are at times, sadly, a regular part of our "accepted vocabulary" because it seems "everyone else is using these words" so that makes it "okay" for us to throw these words around haphazardly without thought to the harm that they might cause... but it's NOT okay. Not when the end result is that it *hurts other people*.

Sometimes, even though when words hurt others (in the 'minority') we dismiss/disregard it as 'irrelevant and invalid' and of little importance because we see it as "not affecting the majority negatively" so therefore it's "alright" for us to use these derogatory/offensive words. However, in doing so, we end up ***LABELING OTHER PEOPLE AS INVALID AND INFERIOR***.

Again for emphasis—>>> ALL people are EQUAL Worldwide and ALL people deserve JUSTICE and RESPECT.

What we do to others we do to ourselves. It's time we stop "judging others who are different as inferior". What goes around comes around. The *thought energy* we put out into the ether of the Earth circles the globe and affects the planet—> both 'positively and negatively' (everything is 'cause & effect'). Ultimately, the choice is ours how we want to affect it because we have FREEWILL.



R/evolution and Resistance Always~~~<3
*~Solidarity & Peace>>>

Really? This critique of Paul is like Klan views on Blacks? 01.Jun.2012 00:53


Seriously. Woah. Come again.

Let's get a few things right. Anarchism is not a subset of libertarianism, even as I agree that Ron Paul does not represent all libertarians or that not all of his positions are libertarian. Secondly, Ron Paul is the anti-war candidate??? Ron Paul is avidly pro-capitalist. If you understand anything about this world, you must understand that capitalism inevitably must result in imperialism in one form or another, often several. Endless growth and accumulation of wealth necessitates exploitation, and exploitation requires force of arms to maintain. Paul may oppose Bush and Obama's wars in particular, but his ideology cannot avoid war in the long run. If he genuinely doesn't believe that, then it is a sign of his stupidity.


Isn't there a better way? 01.Jun.2012 09:40

Jody Paulson

re: "To end the wars we as citizens essentially have two options: outright violent insurrection against the government, or to elect a President who wants to end the war."

As I recall Obama said he wanted to end the war, too. And shut down Guantanamo. Now, I will say this for Obama ... if we had elected McCain we'd probably be neck deep in WWIII by now. But Obama actually scaled UP the war in Afghanistan, even though there's no longer any reason to be there, the occupation in Iraq continues under contractors, and drone strikes actually increased 5-fold since the time of G.W. Bush. So just because someone says they're against war, doesn't mean they are actually going to stop it.

Personally, I think the system's rigged and there is no way Paul will "be allowed" to be president, anyway. But is violent insurrection the only other option? Didn't India throw off the chains of British Imperialism using non-violent methods? Is it possible through non-violent strikes and boycotts and maybe a constitutional convention to drive big money power out of our government and our airwaves?

I wonder ...

@“Other” who is “Different”. 01.Jun.2012 13:00

making good, but flawed points

the single most terrifying force the right has had to contend with is the anonymous collective which has done more to expose nazis and help stop their organizing than any fussing over mean words ever did



the website is down but the knowledge is free

jamie kelso of american third position is not only a racist organizing racists, but he's an ex scientologist with ron paul connections:

 link to newsone.com

" "Anonymous" Reveals Close Ties Between Ron Paul And Neo-Nazis
Feb 1, 2012
By Casey Gane-McCalla

The group of hackers known as "Anonymous" has shut down several neo-Nazi websites owned by Jamie Kelso, a former John Birch Society member, assistant to David Duke and moderator for the white supremacist website, Stormfront."

the reason "anonymous" is relevant, is the anon culture is full of rude, mean, and offensive language. yet no anon has been connected to hate crimes. on the contrary anon has exposed some of the worst criminals and fraud when the government has failed.

common sense tells you words by themselves don't hurt anyone. the words have to be in CONTEXT of POWER ADVOCATING VIOLENCE. that is not happening, ergo your post is irreverent.

fyi f@ggot> f@ggotry in this context doesn't mean what you think. it has nothing to do with homophobia. anon and channers(4chan regulars) call themselves "f@gs" all the time, it's part of the culture: britf@gs, trollf@gs, stormf@gs, moralf@gs, lulzf@gs, etc. no one dies. do the research before you get on your next high horse.

 http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/f ag-suffix

Comparing words like f*gs or ret*rds to the N word is just stupid. 04.Jun.2012 19:43


To do so just makes yuo stupid. To do so makes you a ret*rd or a f*ggot yourself.

Or you are just a idiot and no nothing.