When recently confronted on how I can support first and foremost Ron Paul for the presidential ticket and then Obama, since that is absolute political philosophy schizophrenia, I had to give it some thought...
Paul extreme right, and Obama extreme left? Maybe. Although that would mean Paul is a Nazi and Obama a Commi. Am I sorely confused in my political philosophy if I can see myself supporting both at times? Some might say so, but I don't see any contradiction. Where I stand on the pidgeon-holing spectrum is not the issue.
I look in terms of goals. My goal is to have a society that is more egalitarian. Where every person is given similar opportunities despite his financial background. Where meritocracy still stands. Where the difference between rich and poor is not increasing day by day. Where hard work is enough to guarantee a good life. Where dreams can be pursued. Very idealistic and I like it that way.
So far free market capitalism is the best system humans have devised for this end. But just like communism in its ideal form could not be practiced due to the corrupt nature of people, the fanciful free market we have today is anything but free. It is designed, engineered, regulated for the benefit of the rich. It is designed by then rich to ensure they will stay at the top. Just like the international monetary system was designed by America to guarantee its prolonged hegemony. This is human nature.
So when in theory free market capitalism should guarantee prosperity to the highest amount of people, we are instead seeing differences in living standards growing daily. Why? Because this invisible wealth transfer is built into the structure of our fiat monetary system. The systems of debt and interest ensure the rich their premier position, whether we are looking at this nationally or globally.This is a dictatorship masking itself as the freeiest and fairest system of self-governing.
Paul wants a return to monetary ideals. He would like a system that is based on physical wealth, a currency that is underpinned by something of real value. So free market capitalism can truly flourish for the benefit everyone. He sees the Federal Reserve, the international bankers, as the root of evil, the root of all that is unjust. The reason for the war in Iraq. Find the cheerleader, save the world.
Obama sees that as not being possible. At least not under the current power structure. Getting rid of the Fed, attacking the source of wealth for the world's decision-makers, going against the most powerful people in the world might not be the wisest strategy if he ever wants to change anything. If we can't change the system, lets regulated it to make it work for us. Let's redistribute wealth overtly to counterbalance the built-in skew.
Btw...
Far right: less government controlling you fiscally, but more government controlling you socially.
Far left: more government controlling you fiscally and less government controlling you socially.
...and simplified, yes Ron Paul is a libertarian, pretty far right, and Obama is a socialist, pretty far left, but at least they way I see it... their end-goals are a lot closer to each other than the their place on the spectrum. In terms of their goals, the spectrum has come full circle.
There is nothing antithetical about preferring first and foremost a radical change proposed by Ron, but if seen as unreachable, then a compromised but maybe workeable position espoused by Obama. They're a lot closer to eachother than many think. Lets not let the labels fool us. Besides, do we really know whether the left or the right is a better road to prosperity and egalitarianism? If we did, the world wouldn't be as divided as it is now. What we have, doesn't work, so lets try something else...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
reponses:
ReplyDelete1.) "Although that would mean Paul is a Nazi and Obama a Commi" - and? calling ron paul a nazi and obama a commie, is probably more accurate than calling them a republican and democrat. look up "ron Paul newsletters" on google. people think he's pretty racist based on what is in the newsletters
2.) "So far free market capitalism is the best system humans have devised for this end." - I agree. Ron Paul bases his philosophies on free market capatitalism, and obama doesnt see whats wrong with sharing and wonders when selfishness became a virtue, meaning you should give what you have to the government so the government can give it to the deserving people(communism)
3.) "Btw...
Far right: less government controlling you fiscally, but more government controlling you socially.
Far left: more government controlling you fiscally and less government controlling you socially." - I think you're wrong there. that is the way the republicans and democrats have perverted it, but it's original definitions that i learned in governent class a long time ago was
Far right : less government fiscally and socially
Far left: more government fiscally and socially
republicans aren't far right, they are considered moderate and slightly on the right of the spectrum since they have so many left social views
democrats aren't far left(till lately), they are consider ed moderate and slightly on the left of the spectrum since they have many right wing social views.
I might believe your view of it though, IF obama repeals the patriot act, cancels the FCC, legalizes drugs, makes sure to let us have our guns, etc.
BUT he doesnt fit into your definition of Far left socially(far right socially in my book) so he wont want us to be any more free than the republicans, in fact he's just going to add to it by implemetning the fairness doctrine and probably more stupid laws along the lines of the "hate crime" law. The democrats make sure i cant even tell a girl she's cute at work without risking sexual harassment charges. so much for social freedom.
and i think thats part of the problem, people dont even know what far right and far left means anymore and where conservitives, liberals, republicans, and democrats fit in on the graph. thats why we got people who are fans of ron paul and obama and you got swartzenegger claiming to be a republican and supporting john mccain when he's really a liberal married to the kennedy's who runs the state the same way liberals did.
see here's how you can tell. Leiberman is an old school democrat who knows what it really means to be a democrat. he wants to be in iraq. Ron paul is an old school republican who knows what it really means to be a republican. he wants out of iraq immediately. those 2 guys are actually NOT confused about what party they are in.
4.)"...and simplified, yes Ron Paul is a libertarian, pretty far right, and Obama is a socialist, pretty far left" - you get it, why are we even debating? i guess you think either extreme might work out for us, but i feel only the right extreme can work since history has proven it over and over again.
5.) my bottom line. Obama is going to put tons of our money into tons of programs that he thinks are genious ideas that will help us. But what it will really do is grow government. Ron Paul would shrink government to only having the responsibilities that the constitutuion intended. Conservatives like Ron Paul argue whether it's even constitutional to have any income tax and would only tax for necessary things like the military, transit, minor regulation, etc..
I think Ron Paul would make a good president untill he starts putting jews and blacks in concentration camps. (i dont know if he really is like that, but check the newsletters, it makes you wonder).
added later:
also check the libertarian website. they want to legalize drugs because making drugs illegal is a very left idea, even though republicans perverted threir own philosophies by being too christian and trying to control us socially with drug laws. thats why they are republicans and no libertarians, they arent that far right. libertarians are far right extremists, so look at how they dont try to control you socially or fiscally. And Nader is far left. never once heard him talk about giving us our social freedoms. only saving the enviroment and sharing money and getting rid of big buisiness so our economy looks more like afganistans
First: Steve you economic manifesto was near perfect in being concise, coherent and espousing the economic goals we should pursue (it would have taken me twice the space to make that argument). I too believe that the system needs to be reworked closer to what you stated. I supported Obama but I am realistic as to what he can do and what he is willing to do. Too shake up the system too much will cause the entrenched financial interests to panic and send the economy into a death spiral before the reforms would allow it to stabilize. The same goes for Paul's policies. Imagine what would happen if a President Paul put us back on the gold standard? Panic and financial collapse would occur immediately.
ReplyDeleteAlso Kevin about issues Obama and Paul agree besides the war: Strengthening the dollar. And that puts both of them at odds with Fed and Bush administration policies.
And you said "And Nader is far left. never once heard him talk about giving us our social freedoms."
Well from Nader's web site:
Mr. Nader supports the restoration of civil liberties and the repeal of the Patriot Act. He also supports an end to secret detentions, arrests without charges, restricting access to attorneys, the use of secret "evidence," military tribunals for civilians, misuse of non-combatant status, and the shredding of "probable cause" determinations.
And:
The Nader campaign calls for the decriminalization of marijuana, the legalization of industrial hemp, and an end to the war on drugs.
And throwing out labels like socialist or liberal without definition or context doesn't help enlighten or inform what the Obama administration should or will do. As Steve said the system is so unequal now that we need correct the balance. If Comrade Palin can raise taxes on oil companies to give every Alaskan a $3269 check we can use that kind of "redistribution" in the lower 48. Only a conservative can want tax cuts during 2 unending wars (3 if you count the over all War On Terror). We should have a War Tax so Americans can actually see and feel the cost of war instead of expecting free wars. And if they don't want to pay then they can end them (and close hundreds of our overseas bases too).
Obama is not a socalist by a long shot. Public radio debate over socialism in Obama/Mccain campgain:
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp081024socialism_and_cold_w
Higher taxes grow the economy while lower taxes cause boom and bust cycles:
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106979/why_the_economy_grows_like_crazy_amid_high_taxes/?page=1
i stand corrected. i shouldnt have talked about nader since i really dont know much about him, just seen him make a few appearances on TV and a debate a long time ago. kudos to his website though for proclaiming that stuff. Nader probably would make a better president than mccain or obama, it would be nice to see weed actually legalized thats for damn sure! and i think obama wants to strengthen the dollar just like he didn't want to take private campaign finance money. if his actions ever matched his words, i'd be a lot more accepting of him as president.
ReplyDeleteevery candidate would say "i want to strengthen the dollar", thats not even an issue or position. So.. i still submit ron paul and obama dont have one issue in common besides the war, and even that is questionable since obama has switched his position so many times on the subject.
and the last link seems to be disproved by the fact that everytime the capital gains tax is lowered, the government's revenues increase. makes no sense, but it happens every time(and actually does make sense if you find out why). the reason you want taxes higher i think, is because you believe that of course the government will take in more revenue that way, but it just doesnt happen.
IQ:
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you on the tax issue... well almost...
while George, i cant totally support the notion that the government can redistribute money better than the free market..
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106979/why_the_economy_grows_like_crazy_amid_high_taxes/?page=1
Concerning the above article, while I see the reasoning behind the author's arguments, he doesn't see that what he is pushing for is just trying to regulate the symptoms of a much deeper malaise in economic/social behavior.
In short the author argues the following: If we have high taxes, money won't be taken out of a company for profit (short-term gain) and instead would be reinvested into long-term growth. High taxes therefore create the incentive to think long-term by forcing investment into productive capacity. It is due to this long-term focus on wealth creation that the government has sustainable increased tax revenue and not necessarily through the increased short-term cash-flow it might have due to the tax increases. On the other hand, if taxes are low, profits are taken out of companies and this cash will be spent on products we don't need purely for consumption purposes.
The author's premise and thus conclusion are so obviously flawed I wont even try to tackle the whole issue...
1) The articles argument rests only on capital gains tax but he applies its conclusions to across-the-board tax rises.
2) The government doesn't necessarily invest its tax revenues into long-term productive capacity or infrastructure development either.
3) The desire for immediate gratification is the usually the deciding factor in any purchase/spending decision, whether this is made by the government or an individual.
Lets focus just on the third point. Until this short-term, materialistic, "this is the only way to live my life" human spirit corrupting philosophy is overcome, any tax policy resting on the above premises will be useless.
Raising taxes does not try to change long-term thinking on such a flawed society. Governments claims that its altruistic goals will enable it to redistribute wealth in a more just way than free markets, and that its extra revenue will help it pay off its debt is both misleading and doesn't address the underlying problem. Rarely has such a scheme worked, but generally this is siphoning money away from the individual consumers and handing it over to the the rich politicians who will not necessarily spend it any better. Businesses investing their saved money might be a side-effect of such a policy, but the ultimate issue will always be overcoming people's desire to spend on materialistic consumption.
Until all our attitudes and economic philosophies change, we will forever be stuck in a spend/save viscous recession causing cycle. Our approach to life needs to reform and no amount of restrictive policy decisions will help that. People need to approach debt responsibly, consciously save and stick there money in long-term production building investments. We need to have a mentality shift for society as a whole in order for politicians to start behaving any differently than us. They are a mirror of us and vice-versa.