C-Pac

[wkmac]

I've already mentioned, the Ron Paul Ravers are the originaters of the Tea Party Movement, but whether you agree or not, like the White House Democrats in charge now, the original crafters of movement have a "marketability problem" of getting the truth out as well. The Neo-Cons, Evangelicals, war mongers, wireless cheerleaders, the right wing extreme machine are champions of marketing their idealogy, and are experts in hi-jacking opinions with myths, and mis-information thru media, money, power, and fear. My criticizism of the Ron Paul-ers are them embracing the right wing fringe at their brainchild events. Yet their's such an extreme rift of views between the Indp/Libertarians/ Traditional Rep's vs "Today's"Republicans the whole movement is replicating a farce.....Throughout History, as Rep's are out of power, they go thru this "Born Again" phase...Is half of America that dumb to buy this time and time again ??

Anyway, great paragraph in the Greenwald Article.... "This is what Republicans always do. When in power, they massively expand the power of the state in every realm. Deficit spending and the national debt skyrocket. The National Security State is bloated beyond description through wars and occupations, while no limits are tolerated on the Surveillance State. Then, when out of power, they suddenly pretend to re-discover their "small government principles."

D,

As for having a "PR" problem, no arguement in many respects and some of the things you say are at the heart of it. As for embracing the "right-wing fringe" it is also equally true that some "left wing fringe" was attracted to Paul as well. In fact, between Bush's 8 years and Paul 08' run a bridge between the so-called "non Statist left" and "non Statist right" has been building and although they have their arguements, they agree in varying non state solutions going forward. Even supporting and voting for Ron Paul is a big debate topic among so-called libertarians as more and more libertarians via Murray Rothbard are discovering folks like Proudhon, Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner who in some cases like Proudhon had a big influence on Marx (as did John Locke and Adam Smith) and let's not forget, perfect Marxism dissolves the State as well so the endgame of libertarian/anarchists, libertarian/left, libertarian/socialist and the libertarian Anarcho/capitialist all want to dissolve the state. Why then should we work in any way to support a repair to the State when the whole idea is to completely dissolve it? Also if you take the non-aggression axiom (see wikipedia Non-aggression principle) to it's conclusion, elective politics is a violation to that belief.

Lew Rockwell was just recently interviewed by The Daily Bell and I won't pretend you'll agree with his comments in this broad Q&A but I do think you'll get a perspective across a broad spectrum and specifically about Ron Paul and what his political effort is about. I think his goal in this case was achieved in 2008' and therefore a run in 2012' IMO is not the right way to go unless the true motive has now become something else. I therefore oppose such efforts going forward. The afterthoughts at the end are also interesting too so give them some consideration.

 

[av8torntn]

big influence on Marx (as did John Locke and Adam Smith) .

Labor theory of value or something else?

 

[wkmac]

Labor theory of value or something else?

Labor Theory of Valve.

 

[av8torntn]

Labor Theory of Valve.

I meant in a general term as in all economists have been influenced by Smith or one of his specific theories.

 

[wkmac]

I meant in a general term as in all economists have been influenced by Smith or one of his specific theories.

My bad. I thought you were asking me for what reason I stated Locke and Smith inflluenced Marx. No argument Smith has influenced many economist across the spectrum. While influencing Marx on the one hand, his concept of the "invisible hand" in relation to the free market has also equally had influence. His ideas in opposing the concentration of economics because it distorts the markets natural ability to regulate itself IMO have proven itself over the last several decades if not the last century as we've resorted to central planning type economics, Hamiltonian mercantilism if you will (a type americanized Elizabethan system) and the culmination over time is the results we are now observing. If the great Austrian economists like Mises, Hayek, Rothbard predicted where we are now, Smith it can be said predicted it first. Again, to your point, from Marx to Mises, there was Smith.

I find Smith of interest in that in his day he was known as a teacher of Moral Philosophy and held high teaching positions in that dicipline. Smith himself always felt his greatest work was not Wealth of Nations but rather his Theory of Moral Sentiments was his greatest work. As I've gotten deeper and deeper into the study of political and econoimic freedom always there staring back at you in the face is the philosophy of moral and ethics and it's clear to me now you can not have individual freedom and liberty without first having individuals that are moral and ethical. Although our own founders had their obvious shortcomings as we do, they none the less seem to always stress this most important point. There too again might we find the influence of Smith as well.

In reading about Smith I also found it of interest that after traveling to Geneva and meeting with Voltaire, he traveled to Paris and hungout with Ben Franklin and more importantly, Quesnay, the head of the french Physiocrat school. Physiocrat in greek means rule by nature and these were economists who rejected the mercantilist way of wealth creation in which wealth came from the accumulation of gold and maintaining a balance of trade in the goal of maintaining the ruler's wealth. Physiocrats believed wealth came from the land and agriculture. Slavery aside, if you look at this country's founding, you'll see an obvious conflict between the engish mercantilist school and the french Physiocrats manifested in the great Hamiltonian/Jeffersonian conflict. 100 years later these 2 schools would take a nation to war against itself and the war was continued to some degree into our day in the political arena where we find a republican party held strong to a Hamiltionian/Lincoln thought and the democrat party who holds to a Jefersonian tradition put truth be told, both parties pretty much now hold to a mercantilist theory but all told throughout, you'll still find Adam Smith if only for use in name only to grant some form to itself of legit standing in historical connection. I'd assert this contention by both political schools of our day is only illusionary to maintain an ignorance among the masses.

Good point on your part as to the larger Smith influence even though I assert they do so for propaganda reason rather than actually holding to his true ideals.

 

[wkmac]

At CPAC, who were those Ron Paul People?

 

[wkmac]

I don't know. I have a hard time seeing myself voting for either of the major party candidates even without knowing who the republican will be.

Jones,

Didn't know if you saw the pdf file on the CPAC Straw Poles results breakdown. As somewhat to your point above, on page 12, 53% of polees stated they wanted a better choice of candidates to choose from on the republican list.