# Ron Paul



## rhen (7 October 2008)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

I think it is time this man received his own thread here.
Much has been said about him in ASF.
The above link from 12 months ago shows what potential was available to the people of the USA (and globally). What did happen to his chances probably says it all about where they are today.


“It is better to listen in order to understand than to listen in order to reply”


----------



## Macquack (7 October 2008)

rhen said:


> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA
> 
> I think it is time this man received his own thread here.




Should more people be listening to Ron Paul? YES.

Love this statement by the interviewer speaking to Ron Paul.

"Congressman Ron Paul. You appear to have *consistentent, principled integrity* - *American's dont usually go for that*!"


----------



## rhen (8 October 2008)

Will American voters accept the Republican team for Presidential election or will they demand better for running for this already denigrated position?
We should hope there is recourse for the latter...but know this is not "the American way"...the way that has got them to this dreadful situation.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=qiC4z1WY5jI
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=pkINEzrlsOQ

just my opinion.


----------



## rhen (14 October 2008)

To whom do you go for advice in the U.S. market?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RYX1AgEV0vo


----------



## Ageo (14 October 2008)

Just watched a documentary "fiat empire" which has Ron Paul throughout it, he seems to be the only polictician with brains! 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


----------



## namrog (14 October 2008)

Ageo said:


> Just watched a documentary "fiat empire" which has Ron Paul throughout it, he seems to be the only polictician with brains!
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0




Yep, and thats something the average man in the american street can't understand, and something the american mass media fear !!


----------



## MrMarcus (14 October 2008)

If you want to be taken seriously on anything, it's probably not a great idea to spout 9/11 conspiracy rants. He makes alot of sense on economics, but alot of people are turned off by the crackpot stuff....


----------



## Uncle Festivus (14 October 2008)

MrMarcus said:


> If you want to be taken seriously on anything, it's probably not a great idea to spout 9/11 conspiracy rants. He makes alot of sense on economics, but alot of people are turned off by the crackpot stuff....




True, but what if he's correct on both counts? The tentacles of power reach far and usually use proxies for their dirty work?


----------



## Ageo (14 October 2008)

MrMarcus said:


> If you want to be taken seriously on anything, it's probably not a great idea to spout 9/11 conspiracy rants. He makes alot of sense on economics, but alot of people are turned off by the crackpot stuff....




crackpot? why because the media told you so? lol


----------



## DJZ (15 October 2008)

CrackPot? 

I think not, he has never aligned himself with any of the radical truth movements, and he doesn't believe the government were behind it (Although, I think that idea is far from being a tinfoil hat theory, I wouldn't put it past them, at the very least they may have ignored the threat as they did with pearl harbor, in order to further there agenda. They were warned by other countries that something was happening, and they had previously over many years, predicted that the twin towers would be a target for attack by commercial airplanes, yet when it occurred they told everyone, "No-one could have seen this coming" I mean C'mon, we're not that stupid, they were probably saving face, but even still).

He has simply stated that the reason for 911 is because of Blowback. We have been attacking the middle east for a long time now in the name of securing energy resources for profit, and it is this act of aggression that has created the radical Muslims and their hatred for America, that along with the hypocritical actions that the US does, Ie swapping sides when it benefits them, only to leave the locals to be slaughtered, and selling arms to, well, everyone!

On that theory he is 100% correct in my opinion.

And on economics he is 200% correct  :

Ron Paul is one of the smartest men alive today!


----------



## Temjin (15 October 2008)

DJZ said:


> CrackPot?
> 
> I think not, he has never aligned himself with any of the radical truth movements, and he doesn't believe the government were behind it (Although, I think that idea is far from being a tinfoil hat theory, I wouldn't put it past them, at the very least they may have ignored the threat as they did with pearl harbor, in order to further there agenda. They were warned by other countries that something was happening, and they had previously over many years, predicted that the twin towers would be a target for attack by commercial airplanes, yet when it occurred they told everyone, "No-one could have seen this coming" I mean C'mon, we're not that stupid, they were probably saving face, but even still).
> 
> ...




He definitely is. One of the most "sane" politican around.

However, I will be blunt and practical. The real chance of him getting widespread acceptance and persuade the congress to adopt his policies is almost next to 0% chance. Why? Because those in power, especially those with the ability to create and control fiat money, will NEVER ALLOW him to raise in power.

Ron Paul has specifically said he is very well aware of assassination attempts and have had received threats, but as a brave bloke, he doesn't care and is prepared to risk his life for it. Good luck to him because a revolution is needed to make all this to come true.


----------



## DJZ (15 October 2008)

Temjin said:


> He definitely is. One of the most "sane" politican around.
> 
> However, I will be blunt and practical. The real chance of him getting widespread acceptance and persuade the congress to adopt his policies is almost next to 0% chance. Why? Because those in power, especially those with the ability to create and control fiat money, will NEVER ALLOW him to raise in power.
> 
> Ron Paul has specifically said he is very well aware of assassination attempts and have had received threats, but as a brave bloke, he doesn't care and is prepared to risk his life for it. Good luck to him because a revolution is needed to make all this to come true.




Yeah, Exactly right Temjin, but the message is resonating through the world, and it is the message that needs to be taught, it is his message that America was build upon and what made it the beacon of freedom back in the day. Things wont change today, or in a year or even in 10 years, but hopefully one day it will, and the seeds need to be sown now. Its his principled stance that inspires so many, if all people stood by principles instead of blindly following, then the world would be a better place. 

And remember this quote

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." 
  --  Margaret Mead


----------



## rhen (18 October 2008)

What hope have they got?

I quote:
http://www.pafoa.org/forum/national-11/35365-awesome-interview-ron-paul-very-depth.html
_PR.com: Was President Bush correct in saying that we would have indeed gone into a depression?

Ron Paul: He was, but not because if we didn’t spend the bill. It might not be too radical of a statement to say that we are destined to go into a depression. So, that’s not all that radical to say that. But, he used that as a scare tactic by saying that if you don’t vote for this we’re going go into a depression. It’s like saying, “If you don’t invade Iraq they might bomb us with a nuclear weapon.” I mean, they are just not telling us the truth.

PR.com: Do you think that either Barack Obama or John McCain has what it takes to get us back into the black, financially?

Ron Paul: I don’t think they even have a desire to do that, because people now don’t think you should ever balance your budget in times like this. They don’t even pretend to do that. Republicans are sort of like, what Dick Cheney said not too many years ago. He said, “Well, we don’t have to worry about deficits. Ronald Reagan taught us to live with a deficit.” Conservative supply-siders think the deficits don’t matter all that much and liberals never care. So, no, neither one of them has a desire to, nor would they know how to do it, because they both endorse this empire we are operating around the world. It’s the empire that’s bringing us to our knees and if we don’t address that there’s no way we can solve our problems.

PR.com: You’ve clearly outlined your political principles on many occasions as being that of a Libertarian. I’m curious as to why you ran in the Presidential primary race last year as a Republican candidate?

Ron Paul: Because the system is so biased against alternative parties. There’s a monopoly control over our system. Republicans and Democrats are actually alike on economic policy, monetary policy, foreign policy… everything. They pretend they are a little bit different, but just look at how McCain and Obama came out strongly for the bailout package. So, there’s no difference, they’re both for sending more troops to Afghanistan, they’re both for all these laws to address the subject of terrorism and the Patriot Act. There’s really no difference between them, so in order to get any attention you can’t do it as an outside party. Do you think they would allow anybody in the debates other than the two candidates now? And yet, in Canada they have four or five of their candidates in debates up there; but, not in America. You have to have the monopoly exclusion of anybody who has a different opinion who might attack the status quo. They won’t allow it, so I got a lot more attention in the Republican Primary than I would have in a third party. And besides, the Republican Party brags about a big tent. Here I am, I was the most conservative, strict constitutionalist, protection of liberties, right to life and all these things. And they say they don’t want you in the party. It was a little bit bizarre when you think about it._


----------



## rhen (26 October 2008)

'Will turn into a Depression if we don't WAKE UP!'

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=7h-qC5-Efw8

This market is not driven by fear and panic.
I suggest it is *driven* by fact (and the effective communication of same).


----------



## rhen (5 November 2008)

Australian investors still do not know this man?
Perhaps he should be ignored?...at one's peril, I feel.
Here he is on election day with his consistent message.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=pUH7WxaYqFw
and his adviser
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=SC23UYRT9uw

_Knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be._
Albert Einstein


----------



## Ageo (6 November 2008)

Fantastic video's Ron Paul Is a fkn legend and should be in power. Peter Schiff also has a brain on him (thats where all the gold is going from the perth mint!)

That last video the fat pig in the middle should be shot, basically he reckons the U.S will never allow its country to become truly free.


----------



## rhen (9 November 2008)

Ron Paul of the Financial Crisis 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=CekHwI0N0R8

$2 billion campaign

taking care of the corporate elite

nov 15

beginning of the end of national sovereignty (U.S.)

the dollar is doomed

the new world order

world government

obama the pied piper

getting us prepared

21st 22nd (Jan 2009)

just tax you!

(and that's just part one.)


----------



## noirua (9 November 2008)

Ron Paul at 73, had age against him and is considered an extreme conservative.  Factors like opposing Federal Law on drugs and so many other matters, made him virtually unelectable to the office of President.


----------



## rhen (9 November 2008)

_Make no mistake, Ron Paul lit the flames of liberty under a small but active percentage of the American populace about one year ago. At this point last year the Ron Paul faithful were drunk on hope after the first highly successful money bomb brought in millions of dollars in a single day. Now that Barack Obama is our President-Elect and Ron Paul is focused on continuing his freedom education and liberty activism effort through the Campaign For Liberty, talk of a 2012 Ron Paul Republican Presidential candidate has begun in earnest._ November 8th, 2008 1:53 pm  |  by Marc Gallagher   |  Published in Activism, Big Government, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Drugs, Economics, Election, Free Market, Libertarianism, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Politics, Ron Paul, Taxes, campaign for liberty  | 

http://libertymaven.com/2008/11/08/ron-paul-liberty-torch-to-be-handed-to-gary-johnson/3121/


----------



## noirua (9 November 2008)

rhen said:


> _Make no mistake, Ron Paul lit the flames of liberty under a small but active percentage of the American populace about one year ago. At this point last year the Ron Paul faithful were drunk on hope after the first highly successful money bomb brought in millions of dollars in a single day. Now that Barack Obama is our President-Elect and Ron Paul is focused on continuing his freedom education and liberty activism effort through the Campaign For Liberty, talk of a 2012 Ron Paul Republican Presidential candidate has begun in earnest._ November 8th, 2008 1:53 pm  |  by Marc Gallagher   |  Published in Activism, Big Government, Civil Liberties, Constitution, Drugs, Economics, Election, Free Market, Libertarianism, Liberty, Maven Commentary, Politics, Ron Paul, Taxes, campaign for liberty  |
> 
> http://libertymaven.com/2008/11/08/ron-paul-liberty-torch-to-be-handed-to-gary-johnson/3121/




Ron Paul will be 77 in 2012 and 85 after 8 years as President.  Enough said really.


----------



## Flip (9 November 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McNo62gpw6M&eurl=http://freedomainradio.com/videos.html


----------



## Ageo (9 November 2008)

Wow some scary insights indeed, i always thought Obama would be a great puppet, but lets hope this isnt true and what RP was saying doesnt eventuate.


----------



## rhen (9 November 2008)

noirua said:


> Ron Paul will be 77 in 2012 and 85 after 8 years as President.  Enough said really.




Please go to the link included in the message and you will get the *complete* message.


----------



## Ageo (9 November 2008)

Flip said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McNo62gpw6M&eurl=http://freedomainradio.com/videos.html




Flip just listening to him made me fall asleep.

Sounds to me he needs something worthy to do


----------



## rhen (13 December 2008)

Ron Paul on the Auto Bailout

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/


----------



## rhen (31 December 2008)

http://libertymaven.com/2008/12/29/ron-pauls-manifesto-best-of-2008/3830/  :-

_Ron Paul’s excellent book “The Revolution: A Manifesto” was recognized by Amazon.com as the book with the most positive reviews of 2008. Once again we Ron Paulians are left to wonder what could have been had he somehow won the GOP nomination.

Of course, the critics will say that we spammed the reviews on Amazon. “Spam” may not be the correct word though. It is more the online “know how” that represented much of Ron Paul’s 2008 grassroots presidential campaign. The critics like most are merely envious.

I hope Ron Paul makes a single resolution to bring in the new year. I hope he resolves to run again in 2012 if the political climate suggests it. By then we may be begging for a President like Ron Paul.

That being said, I’ll likely be begging regardless of the political climate.
_


http://blogs.reuters.com/shop-talk/2008/12/29/check-out-line-the-year-of-the-vampire/  :-
_the top products on Amazon.com. 

Amazon.com just came out with its “best of” lists for 2008.  Since Amazon is best known for selling books (even though it offers everything from groceries to jewelry these days), we thought you might want to know which titles were the hottest this year.

USA/No surprise to tween girls or their parents, the best-selling book was “Breaking Dawn,” also known as the fourth book in Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight saga.

The book that got the most positive reviews was “The Revolution: A Manifesto” by Ron Paul. Meyer’s “Twilight” got the most positive reviews for a Kindle book. Of course, Amazon’s Kindle was the best-selling electronic item on its 2008 list._


----------



## Conza88 (11 March 2009)

noirua said:


> Ron Paul will be 77 in 2012 and 85 after 8 years as President.  Enough said really.




Well Reagan was 76 in office. 

But part of it is just about Spreading the Message.

What gives me hope is that currently (from wiki)

_"As of January 24, 2009, 1 Senator is in his 90s, 3 are in their 80s, 19 are in their 70s, 36 are in their 60s." _

Also Mike Gravel was 78 when he ran in 2008.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 August 2011)

From Mish today- as per usual "unbiased Fox" i.e. Rupert is a main culprit


*Media Ignores Ron Paul So Blatantly, Even Time Magazine Recognizes It; "Why?" is Easy to Explain *


The mainstream media continues to ignore Republican candidate Ron Paul to the point of absurdity, favoring candidates that no one has even heard of, such as John Huntman. 

For an incredibly humorous take, please watch Jon Stewart give a well-deserved slap in the face to Fox News, and media in general. 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier     It won't work from Australia.

Time Magazine Chimes In 

Time Magazine chimes in with their take in The Morning After: Jon Stewart Sticks Up for Invisible Man Ron Paul 


In a way, criticizing the political media for imbalanced coverage of the Iowa Straw Poll is like criticizing the sports media for imbalanced coverage of the Lingerie Bowl. It's a nonbinding, festival-like event in which candidates essentially buy votes (or at least buy entrance, food and entertainment for their voters), so arguably the most misleading thing the media does in covering it is, well, covering it at all. Still, if one is going to pay rapt attention to an unpredictive electoral stunt, shouldn't you at least pay attention to the leading candidates whose success the stunt unpredicts? 

That didn't happen for Ron Paul​, who came within a percentage point of beating Michele Bachmann in Iowa, and yet, as this Daily Show segment lays out, was ignored even after the fact in listings of "top-tier candidates," being put behind peers who he beat or who didn't compete. 

The sheer, smug dismissiveness with which the political press treat the libertarian Congressman in these clips is really something. And it's yet another example of political media winnowing the pack in advance by deciding who is a "serious" candidate and who isn't—in this case, seemingly, by deciding that Paul's beliefs are too far out there or, maybe more likely, simply don't easily fit the left-right narrative. 

I'm not, by the way, making the argument that Paul would have a serious shot at the GOP nomination in any case. That hardly matters, though; a candidate with obvious significant support can still have a serious effect on the race, and its ideas, and that's news. Or it should be, if the horserace handicappers didn't insist on deciding their news angles in advance.
Time Magazine missed one critical aspect in its coverage of the straw poll: It was Michele Bachmann who bought her way to the top, not Ron Paul. 

Paul a Significant Factor 

Regardless of what one thinks of Ron Paul's chances, Time Magazine hits the nail on the head with analysis worth repeating: "A candidate with obvious significant support can still have a serious effect on the race, and its ideas, and that's news. Or it should be, if the horserace handicappers didn't insist on deciding their news angles in advance." 

The media, especially Fox News is biased against Ron Paul. 

Why? 

Fox news like warmongers. Ron Paul wants to end wars and cut the defense budget. Republican hypocrites want military spending far in excess of what is needed, and they don't want to raise taxes for it. 

Yes, we need to cut entitlements. We also need to cut military spending, not by a little, by a lot. Finally, we need structural Republicans should be sounding the horn on, but mysteriously are not.


----------



## Glen48 (17 August 2011)

Ron Paul problem is does not look like Palin' or the other one Michelle? USA voters go on looks and not interested in the economics  slight change this time they might because they see where USA is heading , he did come close to wining the straw poll. Just the same same OZ.


----------



## Timmy (17 August 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> For an incredibly humorous take, please watch Jon Stewart give a well-deserved slap in the face to Fox News, and media in general.
> 
> http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/m...corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier     It won't work from Australia.




That is a very funny segment, well worth a view. There is a really poor quality version of it on YouTube, but watchable, for those unable to access the clip on The Daily Show site.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (17 August 2011)

Ron Paul is the greatest 

Unfortunately News Ltd and others do their best to diminish him. Most recently Fox specifically reported polls which he lost and not ones which he won. Assholes.


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Ron Paul is the greatest .




 A socialist likes Ron Paul?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (17 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> A socialist likes Ron Paul?




I am not a socialist. Furthermore, there are no real good socialists in the US congress at the moment. In fact there are maybe 4 or 5 politicians there in total who are not corrupt, and were I an American, I would take Ron Paul as my president any day of the week.


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I am not a socialist. Furthermore, there are no real good socialists in the US congress at the moment. In fact there are maybe 4 or 5 politicians there in total who are not corrupt, and were I an American, I would take Ron Paul as my president any day of the week.




This is at odds with your support of The Greens, Ron Paul being a proponent of Austrian Economic Theory amongst other things.

Also you keep saying things I agree with. You will have to desist this if you want to be a Bob Brown acolyte.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (17 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> This is at odds with your support of The Greens, Ron Paul being a proponent of Austrian Economic Theory amongst other things.




Well firstly, as I have said in the past, I have never, do not, and will never give blanket support to any party on all policies. The Greens are simply a party which have the most policies I agree with our of all the majors.

I am also a supporter of the Austrian school of economics. I don't know why you mentioned this either way.


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well firstly, as I have said in the past, I have never, do not, and will never give blanket support to any party on all policies. The Greens are simply a party which have the most policies I agree with our of all the majors.
> 
> I am also a supporter of the Austrian school of economics. I don't know why you mentioned this either way.




Austrian economics is the antithesis of The Greens economic policy.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 August 2011)

Timmy said:


> That is a very funny segment, well worth a view. There is a really poor quality version of it on YouTube, but watchable, for those unable to access the clip on The Daily Show site.




Thanks
Here's one that works. Fox are Unbelievable! 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlhFZFrR8DQ


----------



## bandicoot76 (18 August 2011)

ron paul is perhaps the US's last shot at a decent president methinks! 

the media ignoring him & pretending he doesnt exist may just backfire on them big time, as his reputation spreads ppl wanting to hear what ron is on about will turn to the internet & alternative media sources to fill the void left by them, the MSM may find itself becoming redundant!

reading posts on this thread i am amazed that rons words are getting out there and exposing the fraud that is the 'left Vs right' paradigm...

hearing ppl such as knobby & SCM (who from their previous postings i had kinda written off as being brainwashed socialist 'lefties') offer support for rons libertarian ideals actually gives me hope that libertarianism & austrian economics might actually be gaining some momentum, and in the future become a mechanism to tear down the fantasy (well nightmare) that is the stagnant LvR status quo! lets hope so!


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2011)

bandicoot76 said:


> ron paul is perhaps the US's last shot at a decent president methinks!
> 
> the media ignoring him & pretending he doesnt exist may just backfire on them big time, as his reputation spreads ppl wanting to hear what ron is on about will turn to the internet & alternative media sources to fill the void left by them, the MSM may find itself becoming redundant!
> 
> ...




We need more than Ron Paul for that to become a reality. He is virtually a lone voice.


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2011)

bandicoot76 said:


> hearing ppl such as knobby & SCM (who from their previous postings i had kinda written off as being brainwashed socialist 'lefties') offer support for rons libertarian ideals ...




This is what is confusing to me, both have implicitly spoken out against libertarian/Austrian fundamental tenets in the past and explicitly spoken in favour of some socialist ideals.

I don't think either would enjoy such a new reality,


----------



## bandicoot76 (18 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> We need more than Ron Paul for that to become a reality. He is virtually a lone voice.




hopefully his son, rand paul, will carry on his fathers legacy, he seems to be a decent candidate... perhaps the only one capable of bearing the libertarian torch into the future?...


----------



## wayneL (18 August 2011)

bandicoot76 said:


> hopefully his son, rand paul, will carry on his fathers legacy, he seems to be a decent candidate... perhaps the only one capable of bearing the libertarian torch into the future?...




bandicoot,

I am a libertarian with a few grudging concessions to social liberalism in current democracies as they are.

But my observation is that people are not interested in classical liberalism/libertarianism and often implicitly doff their cap to the authoritarian left or right by their stated social beliefs.

IOW I believe we are in a small minority of people who have not forgotten exactly what it is our fathers and grandfathers fought and died for. Unfortunately the vast majority seem not to be able to comprehend the words of Ben Franklin regarding liberty and security.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 August 2011)

bandicoot76 said:


> hearing ppl such as knobby & SCM (who from their previous postings i had kinda written off as being brainwashed socialist 'lefties') offer support for rons libertarian ideals actually gives me hope that libertarianism & austrian economics might actually be gaining some momentum, and in the future become a mechanism to tear down the fantasy (well nightmare) that is the stagnant LvR status quo! lets hope so!




I don't agree with everything he says!
You say I am "left" amd implicitly doff my cap the the authoritan left but that is not how I see things either. Even Austrian economics and modern Keynsians are closer than you think than the present controlling Neo classical economists. 

With regard to Liberty, we should be free to do what we want and not suffer the nanny state but then we should not be able to sue the State for our actions when wrong and the State should act for our interests which is necessary in huge populations in the modern very complex society. Needs such as roads and public transport.

I can't see for instance why we can't have a medical system that looks after pregnant women be they rich or poor. I can't see why we would want to create an underclass ruining our own safety in the process. I can't see why we would make constrictive laws to stop people acting together to protect them from the powerful.  It is a matter of balance for me, not extremes.

Also compared the bozos the Repubicans are offering at present, Ron Paul is like a breath of fresh air. If America wants to follow the Libertarian ideal to its end then do it. Anything is better than the present arrangement which is killing the country which we Australians need!

Bad luck Murdoch is against him. Maybe Murdoch is worried that he may break up his power.


----------



## Julia (18 August 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> With regard to Liberty, we should be free to do what we want and not suffer the nanny state but then we should not be able to sue the State for our actions when wrong



This sounds oh so reasonable, and no one detests the nanny state more than I do, but even apart from suing anyone, aren't you going to have to draw some lines somewhere?

e.g. taken to the eventual logical conclusion, with your philosophy wouldn't you have to say that medical treatment for smoking related diseases should be denied to smokers, or obesity related disorders for obese people?
If a cyclist not wearing a helmet ends up with his brains all over the road, should he not be eligible for treatment?
I'm completely sympathetic to the philosophy you're putting forward but can't see how any variation of it would work in reality.



> I can't see for instance why we can't have a medical system that looks after pregnant women be they rich or poor.



Doesn't this happen now?  In almost 19 years of living here, I've never seen or heard of a single pregnant woman who could not access obstetric care.



> I can't see why we would want to create an underclass ruining our own safety in the process. I can't see why we would make constrictive laws to stop people acting together to protect them from the powerful.  It is a matter of balance for me, not extremes.



Agree about the balance rather than extremes but am not sure what you're actually addressing here.  Could you give a couple of examples?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (18 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> Austrian economics is the antithesis of The Greens economic policy.




There is something which needs to be said. There are many ways of running an economy, and in my view the extremes will always do best. What is bad is to have some sort of a wishy washy in the middle system.

I can't comment further without knowing about specific policy, and once again although I support Austrian against Keynesian, I rarely support anything without exception.

Ron Paul would definitely provide a very efficient extreme.



wayneL said:


> This is what is confusing to me, both have implicitly spoken out against libertarian/Austrian fundamental tenets in the past and explicitly spoken in favour of some socialist ideals.
> 
> I don't think either would enjoy such a new reality,




The best way I can think about it is that the world is very different from what it was around the time a lot of these economic series came to fruition, and so although they can provide a good ideological basis, it does not mean that it is still possible to run an economy optimally the exact same was as it was a century ago.

You can't say there should be no regulation and allow industries to pollute every last square metre of our country to give an extreme example.


----------



## wayneL (19 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> The best way I can think about it is that the world is very different from what it was around the time a lot of these economic series came to fruition, and so although they can provide a good ideological basis, it does not mean that it is still possible to run an economy optimally the exact same was as it was a century ago.
> 
> You can't say there should be no regulation and allow industries to pollute every last square metre of our country to give an extreme example...
> 
> ...What is bad is to have some sort of a wishy washy in the middle system.




I agree with you, hence my concessions to social liberalism mentioned above. But then of course every concession moves a system towards wishy washy.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 August 2011)

Julia said:


> This sounds oh so reasonable, and no one detests the nanny state more than I do, but even apart from suing anyone, aren't you going to have to draw some lines somewhere?
> 
> e.g. taken to the eventual logical conclusion, with your philosophy wouldn't you have to say that medical treatment for smoking related diseases should be denied to smokers, or obesity related disorders for obese people?
> If a cyclist not wearing a helmet ends up with his brains all over the road, should he not be eligible for treatment?
> I'm completely sympathetic to the philosophy you're putting forward but can't see how any variation of it would work in reality.





That is true, the Libertian ideal almost equates to the wild west. I am for Liberty with relevant government intervention.

I am for heathcare despite cause but an example I would use is the City of Melbourne The City provides bikes in the Streets for travel and say on a sign you have to bring your own helmet. Sooner or later someone will have an accident without a helmet on and will sue the City of Melbourne for not supplying them.



Julia said:


> Doesn't this happen now?  In almost 19 years of living here, I've never seen or heard of a single pregnant woman who could not access obstetric care.






Julia said:


> In Australia it does, but not the US where the death rate of women and babies is very much higher. I think Australia has it pretty right on healthcare.
> 
> 
> Agree about the balance rather than extremes but am not sure what you're actually addressing here.  Could you give a couple of examples?




If you are poor you should still be able to get access to good education and opportunity.

You should not have a situation like what occurs in developing countries where it is better to be a maid than pull a standard job. 

If you get injured and can't work or get cancer, you should have some support from the government so you don't live in the street and starve. 

The new proposal in Australia which I believe operates in New Zealand of a National no fault insurance scheme seems a great idea. Some people say this is nanny state stuff but I would argue it is the opposite as it cuts out all the government agencies, courts and lawyers we have now.


----------



## wayneL (20 August 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> That is true, the Libertian ideal almost equates to the wild west.



I don't agree. The practice of liberty requires resposibility, it is not the law of the jungle. The correct practice of liberty requires that one does not impinge on the liberty of other, hence....



> I am for Liberty with relevant government intervention.




...umm yes, but I'm not comfortable with the word intervention in the first instance. Yes intervention via the application of common law when necessary, i.e. when someone's liberty has been compromised, but otherwise stay out of people's affairs.

Perhaps a pedantic distinction, but an important one IMO.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> I don't agree. The practice of liberty requires resposibility, it is not the law of the jungle. The correct practice of liberty requires that one does not impinge on the liberty of other, hence....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So I guess you would be against compulsory super?
And would you be against public heath care for pregnant women?


----------



## wayneL (20 August 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> So I guess you would be against compulsory super?
> And would you be against public heath care for pregnant women?




Dragging in two points in the context of the current socio-political system does not serve the wider debate.

In the current system (a welfare state), both are desirable/necessary.


----------



## Julia (20 August 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> And would you be against public heath care for pregnant women?




This is the second time you've raised this, so I'll question it again.  What do you mean?   There is already public health care for pregnant women?
You seem to be suggesting they either go to a private obstetrician or are forced to deliver the child unassisted at home.

Or are you suggesting in a libertarian society, no obstetric services would be available?
Why limit it to obstetrics?   What about the broad provision of general health care?

I just don't get what you're about here.


----------



## bandicoot76 (20 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> I don't agree. The practice of liberty requires resposibility, it is not the law of the jungle. The correct practice of liberty requires that one does not impinge on the liberty of others.




my thoughts exactly. some ppl just cant get their head around the fact that hand-in-hand with our 'rights' comes 'responsibility'!... 

libertarian govt, if practised in the manner put forward by ron paul, may not be a 'utopia' but is probably the best form of practical govt we can hope for!


----------



## Knobby22 (21 August 2011)

Julia said:


> This is the second time you've raised this, so I'll question it again.  What do you mean?   There is already public health care for pregnant women?
> You seem to be suggesting they either go to a private obstetrician or are forced to deliver the child unassisted at home.
> 
> Or are you suggesting in a libertarian society, no obstetric services would be available?
> ...




Its just a real life example. In the USA the death rate of babies and women at childberth is much greater than Australia.

If you read the American Coservative Partys stance, the are completely Libertian and against healthcare suppled by the government full stop.
I was trying to understand how Wayne and bandicoot think on this issue. 

I think bandicoot and Wayne are saying under our present thinking that under a true Libertian Society then people would have responsibility for their community? Help me out here guys. You have to remember I am Australian so this is a big step. Please explain how you think it would work. 
I think the answers were "no" to the above questions in a Libertian ideal because society does not meet this ideal then as we are in a welfare state then Yes both are desirable. 

Am I right guys? Or am I completly wrong?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 August 2011)

Ron's birthday was yesterday. Does anyone know if it's possible for non-US citizens to donate?
https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/#


----------



## Julia (21 August 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Its just a real life example. In the USA the death rate of babies and women at childberth is much greater than Australia.
> 
> If you read the American Coservative Partys stance, the are completely Libertian and against healthcare suppled by the government full stop.
> I was trying to understand how Wayne and bandicoot think on this issue.



OK, thanks for explaining.  I'm unfamiliar with the healthcare situation in the US.



> I think bandicoot and Wayne are saying under our present thinking that under a true Libertian Society then people would have responsibility for their community? Help me out here guys. You have to remember I am Australian so this is a big step. Please explain how you think it would work.
> I think the answers were "no" to the above questions in a Libertian ideal because society does not meet this ideal then as we are in a welfare state then Yes both are desirable.
> 
> Am I right guys? Or am I completely wrong?



It's a really interesting discussion to have so I hope we can pursue it.
Bandicoot?  Wayne?


----------



## wayneL (21 August 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Its just a real life example. In the USA the death rate of babies and women at childberth is much greater than Australia.
> 
> If you read the American Coservative Partys stance, the are completely Libertian and against healthcare suppled by the government full stop.
> I was trying to understand how Wayne and bandicoot think on this issue.
> ...




Under a truly libertarian system (The US and the GOP are not libertarian), tax rates would be radically lower. 

It would be the responsibility of people to insure or otherwise provide for their healthcare, theoretically affordable for the masses.

However I am not comfortable with people being turned away from healthcare if uninsured and admit to some cognitive dissonance in such matters.


----------



## bandicoot76 (21 August 2011)

as a starting point first let me first say that the republican party has strayed a long way from its libertarian roots, even some of the tea party 'front-runners' are just politically savvy stooges riding the independant grassroots 'small govt, no taxation without representation etc' sentiment.

for example michelle bachman, who says she is tea-party & libertarian but then goes and votes for the continuation of the repugnant 'patriot act' the very anti-thesis of liberty. so firstly get it into your head that there are  lying devious pollies out there who are wolves in sheeps clothes riding on the grassroots support for libertarian style reform while not actually believing in them.

as for healthcare, again you cant look at the modern US  system for the libertarian perspective as their system is a horrible mish-mash of failed attempts from both democratic & republican policies. the following quote from the cato institute probably sums up the libertarian health care position better than me ramling on tho! 

"research demonstrates that consumers are better off when they, and not the government, are in charge of how their money is spent. This applies to health care, Social Security, and other areas where the government currently controls the dispersal of our tax dollars. deregulating the health care industry so that consumers can afford their health care and can receive the treatment of their choice"


----------



## bandicoot76 (21 August 2011)

...having said that, it is still my belief that there should some sort of safety net for ppl who slip through the cracks & are unable to look after themselves. but for the main part i still believe that ppl should be encouraged to take responsibility for, and manage, their own affairs.


----------



## Julia (21 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> It would be the responsibility of people to insure or otherwise provide for their healthcare, theoretically affordable for the masses.
> 
> However I am not comfortable with people being turned away from healthcare if uninsured and admit to some cognitive dissonance in such matters.



+1.



bandicoot76 said:


> "research demonstrates that consumers are better off when they, and not the government, are in charge of how their money is spent. This applies to health care, Social Security, and other areas where the government currently controls the dispersal of our tax dollars. deregulating the health care industry so that consumers can afford their health care and can receive the treatment of their choice"



As bandicoot alludes to below, the above is assuming all citizens are going to be capable of and willing to sufficiently plan and organise their lives in order to pay for their own health care.
Ditto, presumably, their own education and retirement?



bandicoot76 said:


> ...having said that, it is still my belief that there should some sort of safety net for ppl who slip through the cracks & are unable to look after themselves. but for the main part i still believe that ppl should be encouraged to take responsibility for, and manage, their own affairs.



It's the group who should be 'encouraged' that most concerns me.  Let's assume we will always have that safety net for people who are genuinely disabled, ill, or otherwise proven unable to manage their lives.  

Then with the rest, are we going to assume that the fear of being quite unable to access any healthcare, unemployment benefits, retirement pension etc will ipso facto turn them into completely responsible citizens who will duly make provision for themselves?

I came across an example today:  a woman of 60, teacher, who has no home of her own and no savings.  She moves from house sit to house sit.  All the money she earns goes to travel.

When she retires she will be able to access full government pension, concession rate health benefits, reduced rego etc.
Compare this with the person who has taken responsibility always to provide for private health cover, and eventually self funded retirement, and in the process done without the travel that the above person enjoys.

How would you 'encourage' this person to, say, provide even just for her own healthcare instead of the travel?  I can think of many people who would say "Oh, I'll worry about that if it happens.  Meantime, I just want to enjoy myself".


----------



## Calliope (22 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Ron's birthday was yesterday. Does anyone know if it's possible for non-US citizens to donate?
> https://secure.ronpaul2012.com/#




Something here doesn't add up .  "Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937." (Wiki)

Starcrafty's posting record is extremely leftist.


----------



## bandicoot76 (22 August 2011)

Calliope said:


> Something here doesn't add up .  "Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937." (Wiki)
> 
> Starcrafty's posting record is extremely leftist.




hehe your not the first one to notice that! how can one claim to support both  leftist/socialist green policy and  libertarian/austrian-economics? 

abit of a contradiction, but its good to see SCM doesnt believe in the left/right paradigm!


----------



## Starcraftmazter (23 August 2011)

Calliope said:


> Something here doesn't add up .  "Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress since 1937." (Wiki)
> 
> Starcrafty's posting record is extremely leftist.




You'd be surprised how many similarities there are between the Greens and Paul. For instance, Paul is committed to neutrality and diplomacy, he wants to bring all US troops back home and shut down US military bases. He wants to take down the central banking cartel that grips USA. This guy really gets it.


----------



## wayneL (23 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> You'd be surprised how many similarities there are between the Greens and Paul. For instance, Paul is committed to neutrality and diplomacy, he wants to bring all US troops back home and shut down US military bases. He wants to take down the central banking cartel that grips USA. This guy really gets it.




Yeah, but the end game is different.

Ron Paul wants these for libertarian purposes, The Greens for totalitarian purposes.


----------



## Knobby22 (23 August 2011)

A good example of something that is not Libertarian.

"The chief of Standard & Poor's (S&P) will step down next month to be replaced by a senior Citibank executive just weeks after the credit rating agency downgraded the US government debt." 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-...-chief-stepping-down/2852182?section=business

I think it is an example of abuse of power by Congress and the Treasury.


----------



## Julia (23 August 2011)

Julia said:


> +1.
> 
> 
> As bandicoot alludes to below, the above is assuming all citizens are going to be capable of and willing to sufficiently plan and organise their lives in order to pay for their own health care.
> ...




Could I politely ask for some response to my above question from those who promote a completely libertarian society, i.e. how will you manage the quite capable person who nonetheless declines to take responsibility for their own healthcare/retirement etc?


----------



## breaker (24 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Could I politely ask for some response to my above question from those who promote a completely libertarian society, i.e. how will you manage the quite capable person who nonetheless declines to take responsibility for their own healthcare/retirement etc?




Totally out of my depth, but the traveler should get bugger all,maybe government controlled nursing homes.perrish the thought


----------



## wayneL (24 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Could I politely ask for some response to my above question from those who promote a completely libertarian society, i.e. how will you manage the quite capable person who nonetheless declines to take responsibility for their own healthcare/retirement etc?




Moral hazard springs to mind.

In days of old it was said that if you sow to the wind, you reap a whirlwind.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> Moral hazard springs to mind.
> 
> In days of old it was said that if you sow to the wind, you reap a whirlwind.




The fault of all these theories is human nature.

The good thing about a libertarian society is that knowing the government won't save you- will encourage you to look after yourself. So there will be more people who do!  Generally to the betterment of society.

....but not everyone. Humans aren't that logical.  (If only we were Vulcan).


----------



## Julia (24 August 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> The fault of all these theories is human nature.



 Zackly.  That's what I was getting at.
e.g. if we were to have small government with almost no welfare, low taxes and the expectation that it's up to each individual to take responsibility for themselves, what would we actually do with those who simply refuse?  If they are ill or injured and have no health insurance, do we just leave them to expire without intervention?

Or is there such a prevalence of not taking responsibility *because* the welfare state has bred into people the notion that they will always be taken care of, ergo, the individual need not bother?  Thus the moral hazard.

Noel Pearson repeatedly makes this point about how passive welfare has ruined the aboriginal people.


----------



## gav (25 August 2011)

bandicoot76 said:


> ...having said that, it is still my belief that there should some sort of safety net for ppl who slip through the cracks & are unable to look after themselves. but for the main part i still believe that ppl should be encouraged to take responsibility for, and manage, their own affairs.




As soon as you add that safety net, it encourages people to fall back on the system - and they will.  And as soon as one person can use the safety net, there will be cries from others who are slightly less disadvantaged as to why they shouldn't have access to it too.  And once they are granted access, the next group expect it, and so on.  Everyone lays claim to the "need" of those who are one rung on the ladder above them, whilst the people one rung below lay claim on them.

Ending the welfare state is the only way.


----------



## NewTrade (25 August 2011)

gav said:


> As soon as you add that safety net, it encourages people to fall back on the system - and they will.  And as soon as one person can use the safety net, there will be cries from others who are slightly less disadvantaged as to why they shouldn't have access to it too.  And once they are granted access, the next group expect it, and so on.
> 
> Ending the welfare state is the only way.




The issue is that there _are_ genuine cases, and for the sake of those cases they allow such programs.

If you decide to employ heavy regulation, this will constrict the lives of those who are genuinely in need.

There is no easy solution to welfare rorting - but the systems are in place for those who actually require assistance.


----------



## gav (25 August 2011)

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the *voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury*, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Sir Alex Fraser Tytler

This is exactly why we need a small/limited government.


----------



## NewTrade (25 August 2011)

gav said:


> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the *voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury*, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." - Sir Alex Fraser Tytler
> 
> This is exactly why we need a small/limited government.




That is beyond the point and largely blown up.

In the case of people who cannot contribute, it is the compassionate duty to those who lead to help those who cannot live.

Such a theory of voters only voting in to Reps that will keep their _benifits_ in mind is not a bad thing. If the Government were to abolish welfare systems, those Governments would be scorned. Such benifits may be fiscal, others social. If you ask that those who _have_ must pay a higher tax rate to help those who do not _have_, you will effectively lose the votes of those who _have_. So in reality those treaury benifits do not always come in the form of free money to those who are lazy and unemployed.

The human race is not yet at the stage where one can take responsibility for ones own actions and own up to their misdeeds. If it were, then it would be a Utopia that cannot be sustained. At some point, we will ask people to lead, and those leaders will do what they can to benifit their followrs.

Such a situation of small/large Gov't is not a binary thing - there are several variables. In the end, there is no such thing as a Utopia, there is always going to be issues. Such systems in place at the moment stop the strong from preying on the weak, and help the weak. Such is our compassion for our fellow man - and unfortunately that sentiment is _not_ Universal.


----------



## gav (25 August 2011)

NewTrade said:


> The issue is that there _are_ genuine cases, and for the sake of those cases they allow such programs.
> 
> If you decide to employ heavy regulation, this will constrict the lives of those who are genuinely in need.
> 
> There is no easy solution to welfare rorting - but the systems are in place for those who actually require assistance.




Who decides who is "genuinely in need"?  The governments who will promise anything to a majority to get themselves re-elected?

And why should I be forced to support them, whilst I have my own struggles? (which, according to those in power, aren't as important as those with "genuine needs").  Why can't I decide what I do with what I have rightly earned, whether that be keeping it for myself, or donating to those who *I choose* to support?


----------



## NewTrade (25 August 2011)

gav said:


> Who decides who is "genuinely in need"?  The governments who will promise anything to a majority to get themselves re-elected?
> 
> And why should I be forced to support them, whilst I have my own struggles? (which, according to those in power, aren't as important as those with "genuine needs").  Why can't I decide what I do with what I have rightly earned, whether that be keeping it for myself, or donating to those who *I choose* to support?




Typical response from a perfectly abled person who's financials are stable. What about the poor bloke who worked for the last 10 years, was rendered disabled due to accident? Let him rot? That is not what Humanity is supposed to be about - and such comments are the utmost selfishness.

Edit: You are not forced into anything - such funding is taken from tax. I hope this is not just another "I hate tax" conversation....


----------



## gav (25 August 2011)

NewTrade said:


> If you ask that those who _have_ must pay a higher tax rate to help those who do not _have_, you will effectively lose the votes of those who _have_. So in reality those treasury benifits do not always come in the form of free money to those who are lazy and unemployed.




And when half the country is a tax liability or neutral (like the US), then it doesn't matter if the government decides to steal more from those who earn the most.  Double to tax rates for the top 10% of people?  The only votes you will lose will be anyone in the top 10% who voted for you.  But you will have the approval of at least half the country (and probably those in the top 50% who do not fall into the top 10%).



NewTrade said:


> The human race is not yet at the stage where one can take responsibility for ones own actions and own up to their misdeeds.




Nonsense.  Your welfare state tells people they do not need to take responsibility for their own actions, and is nursing them from cradle to the grave - on the backs of the hard work of others.  

To say this is to say that people do not have the ability to think.


----------



## NewTrade (25 August 2011)

gav said:


> And when half the country is a tax liability or neutral (like the US), then it doesn't matter if the government decides to steal more from those who earn the most.  Double to tax rates for the top 10% of people?  The only votes you will lose will be anyone in the top 10% who voted for you.  But you will have the approval of at least half the country (and probably those in the top 50% who do not fall into the top 10%).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Perhaps you are forgetting the influence of those 10% who actually earn such profits.

I am not talking about a "welfare state", as has been thrown around so many times it has become a buzz-word. My ideal is that if you cannot take care of yourself, but wish to still have a right to life, clean living, and serenity of sorts then you will be helped.

It seems this subject is covered by extremities of both angles, with no reason or compromise. Your comments would drastically change if it were your mother or father who was struck ill. If you didn't have the money to support them, you would advise they lean on a system that provides them with the right to live in a free society, and be able to eat and shelter themselves. Only the _have's_ scorn the _have-nots_ and such ranting about responsibility is purely ego driven, nothing more.

Your stance can be likened to that of a Hermit Crab - all is well in my shell, and I will always have my shell. Until one day, disaster strikes.

We (my family) tried our best to rely on insurence - but they are a scam. A family member was diagnosed with a genuine disorder, and they didn't pay. It seems we cannot rely on the private sector - as their false outreach of compassion is a cloak for their resentment to those they must now support, as per their own agreement. Things are better now - but thank God for the system, that got us out of dispair, and gave us our lives back.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (25 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> Yeah, but the end game is different.
> 
> Ron Paul wants these for libertarian purposes, The Greens for totalitarian purposes.




Either way is fine; because the outcome in my view is a better life for people.


----------



## Julia (25 August 2011)

Gav, maybe create in your mind the scenario where you have a catastrophic accident, rendering you quite unable to care for yourself in the most basic way, let alone work and earn a living.

Would you be able to totally fund all the care you would need for the rest of your life?

There's very little in life that we are able to get completely right (or completely wrong for that matter).  Inevitably, we accept compromise, which in this case is probably reluctantly accepting some overuse/misuse of welfare in order to ensure the truly needy are cared for.

That said, I strongly believe there needs to be much less of the vote buying middle class welfare which is just a carrot to vote, rather than any actual need on the part of the recipients.


----------



## wayneL (25 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Either way is fine; because the outcome in my view is a better life for people.





Eh?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (25 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> Eh?




The American people wouldn't have to pay for imperial occupation of the world, wouldn't have to get taxed with inflation...


----------



## NewTrade (25 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Gav, maybe create in your mind the scenario where you have a catastrophic accident, rendering you quite unable to care for yourself in the most basic way, let alone work and earn a living.
> 
> Would you be able to totally fund all the care you would need for the rest of your life?
> 
> ...




Very nicely put, Julia.


----------



## gav (25 August 2011)

NewTrade said:


> Typical response from a perfectly abled person who's financials are stable. What about the poor bloke who worked for the last 10 years, was rendered disabled due to accident? Let him rot? That is not what Humanity is supposed to be about - and such comments are the utmost selfishness.




Typical response from someone on your side, that anyone who apposes big government and the welfare state is a rich, greedy, Gordon Gekko.  Have you seen my bank account?  

I earn less than the average Australian wage and have a mortgage for a small modest home way out in the burbs.   My father was in a car accident 4 years ago and is virtually a cripple.  My parents lost their business, my mother is my fathers carer and cleans hotels to try and get by.  They had to re-mortgage their house for much of Dad's medical costs  and legal costs whilst they fight TAC in court.  The welfare system is a joke, so much tax payer money wasted whilst those who you would consider "genuinely in need" struggle.   

I give money to my parents each week to help them get by, and it is *my choice* to give that money to them.  If I didn't, they probably would have lost their house by now.  But guess what?  My parents didn't have life insurance or income protection insurance, or any other measures to protect themselves.  If they did, they would not be in the situation they are in now.

By your standards, you think I'd be crying for a bigger government and welfare system.  If anything, my personal situation makes me despise it even more.



NewTrade said:


> Edit: You are not forced into anything - such funding is taken from tax. I hope this is not just another "I hate tax" conversation....




Not forced?  Am I not forced to pay tax?  (which is how the welfare state is funded)  I will not debate about "hating tax", but when you are forced to pay it and see how the government wastes it... frustrating is an understatement.


----------



## gav (25 August 2011)

Interesting responses whilst I was typing out my above post.

Julia, I do not need to "imagine" such scenario at all.  

NewTrade, read my post above.  As for your own situation: I don't know all the details, so I won't comment as I personally know how difficult these times can be.  But unlike you, I won't make insulting, misguided assumptions about someone else's circumstances.

I now remember why I took a few months off posting here and decided to lurk instead.


----------



## NewTrade (25 August 2011)

gav said:


> Interesting responses whilst I was typing out my above post.
> 
> Julia, I do not need to "imagine" such scenario at all.
> 
> ...





I'm only a newbie here so no need to "take off"...

I hear you; your situation is a tough one - I myself am a carer, thanks to a system that supported people like me. There was no one to give us money, or a home, or food. And since that is your situation, I find it perplexing that one would continue such an egotistical persuit of an argument that completley opposes your reality...

I won't shower you with sympathy, but you definitely have my respect. You are good to elect to help your parents - such an act is compassionate; but to persue such sentiments as that your argument portrays, is rather confusing...


----------



## Julia (25 August 2011)

Gav, given your family situation, your views are totally understandable.

Don't you think, though, that a much more equitable solution would be to withdraw all the middle class vote buying 'welfare' and direct this to people like your parents?

There's widespread agreement that the disability and aged care sectors are woefully underfunded.  The advocates for these areas need to make a lot more noise.
Look at all the additional funding that is now forthcoming for mental health, simply because the advocates of this cause were articulate and persistent.

Just to be clear, are you actually suggesting we should abolish all welfare?
If so, in your ideal world, would people who fail to provide for themselves and then get sick/become unemployed, just be ignored?  

If not, what level of welfare would you want and how would you suggest it be targeted?

Would it include the current free public health system which presumably your father has accessed to some degree?

Further, you say that your parents had no income protection or life insurance and that if they had, then they'd not be in the situation they are.  True enough.
Would you therefore want mandated income protection and life insurance?

Partly the point I'm trying to make is that it's very easy to make generalised comments about big or small government, the gross abuse of welfare etc., but when it comes down to nutting out the details, it starts to get pretty difficult.


----------



## bandicoot76 (26 August 2011)

gav said:


> As soon as you add that safety net, it encourages people to fall back on the system - and they will.  And as soon as one person can use the safety net, there will be cries from others who are slightly less disadvantaged as to why they shouldn't have access to it too.  And once they are granted access, the next group expect it, and so on.  Everyone lays claim to the "need" of those who are one rung on the ladder above them, whilst the people one rung below lay claim on them.
> 
> Ending the welfare state is the only way.




while i agree to a large degree with your post, i must point out that there are ppl in the community who are incapable of looking after themselves. physically & mentally impaired ppl for an example, ppl who need high care (which is extremely expensive) etc should, no must actually, have govt assistance of some sort, as to leave them to fend for themselves is inhumane.

i totally agree that all able-bodied/minded ppl should be responsible for their own welfare, but having said that there definately is also a social responsibilty to care for those ppl who cant fend for themselves imo!

ps. total repect for you for supporting your parents mate! i see where your coming from and agree, the welfare system needs to be totally restructured to be as cost effective as possible so it targets the people who require it and not just fund bludgers!


----------



## NewTrade (26 August 2011)

bandicoot76 said:


> while i agree to a large degree with your post, i must point out that there are ppl in the community who are incapable of looking after themselves. physically & mentally impaired ppl for an example, ppl who need high care (which is extremely expensive) etc should, no must actually, have govt assistance of some sort, as to leave them to fend for themselves is inhumane.
> 
> i totally agree that all able-bodied/minded ppl should be responsible for their own welfare, but having said that there definately is also a social responsibilty to care for those ppl who cant fend for themselves imo!
> 
> ps. total repect for you for supporting your parents mate! i see where your coming from and agree, the welfare system needs to be totally restructured to be as cost effective as possible so it targets the people who require it and not just fund bludgers!




There was something that Julia mentioned which seemed to stand out a great deal, and it has crossed my mind before - shouldn't there be some sort of mandatory insurance that one must take out when exceeding threshold X? I don't mean a regular policy - I mean a propper "fail safe" under a watchdogs eye, to prevent companies skimping out on payouts. It has happened before, it will surely happen again.

Basically I think the idea of a mandatory insurance package compiled with Governments and acts as a true fail-safe, is a beautiful idea. Though who knows how companys may react to such a thing.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 August 2011)

NewTrade said:


> There was something that Julia mentioned which seemed to stand out a great deal, and it has crossed my mind before - shouldn't there be some sort of mandatory insurance that one must take out when exceeding threshold X? I don't mean a regular policy - I mean a propper "fail safe" under a watchdogs eye, to prevent companies skimping out on payouts. It has happened before, it will surely happen again.
> 
> Basically I think the idea of a mandatory insurance package compiled with Governments and acts as a true fail-safe, is a beautiful idea. Though who knows how companys may react to such a thing.




Doesn't New Zealand already have one?


----------



## NewTrade (28 August 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Doesn't New Zealand already have one?




I honestly don't know, I'd have to look it up.


----------



## Julia (28 August 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Doesn't New Zealand already have one?




I've been away from NZ for too long to know, but I've not heard of this.
Are you perhaps thinking of the Accident Compensation Commission to which everyone pays a levy, plus the government contributes funding?

This covers treatment and compensation for all accidents regardless of their origin.
A condition of the introduction of the scheme was that it would eliminate the capacity of anyone to sue.

Imo it's a great idea and afaik it works very well.

The proposed Disability Insurance scheme recently put up by the Productivity Commission (I think) for Australia sounds like a good idea.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 August 2011)

Julia said:


> I've been away from NZ for too long to know, but I've not heard of this.
> Are you perhaps thinking of the Accident Compensation Commission to which everyone pays a levy, plus the government contributes funding?
> 
> This covers treatment and compensation for all accidents regardless of their origin.
> ...




Yes, I think that's right Julia.
In some ways those guys across the ditch are ahead of Australia. They gave women the vote first also.


----------



## gav (29 August 2011)

An interview with Ron Paul, talks about FEMA, Libya, the military, govt intervention and the depression of 1921.  His views on the military are quite interesting, considering he served for 5 years.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (29 August 2011)

It's about damn time they mentioned him on MSM in 'merica, jesus christ...


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2011)

Ron Paul is coming second now in the Republican race to Newt Gingrich.

Maybe he will get there. He will have a lot of people against him among the defence establishment.

I don't agree with some of his policies but he would be a fresh of breath air if he got up and he is not hopelessly corrupted like some of the Republicans.


----------



## gav (8 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Maybe he will get there. He will have a lot of people against him among the defence establishment.




Maybe not so popular amongst the defence "establishment", however check out the support (in donations) from the troops: 
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/07/20/ron-paul-campaign-raises-most-donations-from-military/

Although I think for Q3 Obama passed him, but he still received far more than any other Republican candidate.  

As much as I would love for it to happen, I don't think he will get there.  The "establishment" hates him too much.
http://www.infowars.com/cnbc-cans-debate-poll-because-ron-paul-was-leading/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-be-honest-cnbc-you-are-biased-against-ron-paul

This clip sums it up pretty well...


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Ron Paul is coming second now in the Republican race to Newt Gingrich.
> 
> Maybe he will get there. He will have a lot of people against him among the defence establishment.




USA is by far the most corrupt country on Earth. He is not just against the military industrial complex - he is against everyone and everything.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Ron Paul is coming second now in the Republican race to Newt Gingrich.
> 
> Maybe he will get there. He will have a lot of people against him among the defence establishment.
> 
> I don't agree with some of his policies but he would be a fresh of breath air if he got up and he is not hopelessly corrupted like some of the Republicans.




I would agree.

I'd still prefer Newt, but would change to being a Ron Paul supporter with little provocation.

I'm just not sure if he will get going after he wins Iowa, with the left media, Hollywood and mad feminists ranged against him.

gg


----------



## Knobby22 (31 December 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I would agree.
> 
> I'd still prefer Newt, but would change to being a Ron Paul supporter with little provocation.
> 
> ...




As have all the other Republican's.

He also has the "paid" right wing media against him especially the Murdoch organisation as he hasn't done a "deal" with them. They mock him and push their guys. (Refer start of thread and gav's a few up).

Rudd for instance obviously did the deal to give Murdoch "Australia TV" when he visited him. Bush gave him satellite control over the USA against their own monopoly laws. You can expect the Murdoch press to be vehement againt this guy.

The USA has a great history of reinventing themselves, Ron Paul could do this.

Obama has become a centrist and isn't going to change much imo. His heathcare policy came from a right wing thinktank for instance and his financial advisors are all the same hacks that the Republicans had.


----------



## Julia (31 December 2011)

My main impression of the Republican candidates, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, is that they will be the saving of Obama, so completely unimpressive are they.


----------



## gav (28 August 2012)

I came across this today, and found myself wishing Australia had a Ron Paul...

Congressman Ron Paul's Weekly Column for Monday August 27th

Meaningless Words in Politics 

As we enter the fall political season, we will hear a great deal of rhetoric from both major political parties and their many candidates for office. It’s important for us to remember, however, that words can be made meaningless by misuse or overuse. And when we as citizens allow politicians to obscure the truth by distorting words, we diminish ourselves and our nation.
For example, we’ve all heard politicians use the words “democracy” and “freedom” countless times. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different. They have become what George Orwell termed “meaningless words”. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused for so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, such words were “often used in a consciously dishonest way.” 

Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As just one example, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom. Thus we are conditioned to believe that democracy is always and everywhere benevolent.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with freedom. While our Constitution certainly features certain democratic mechanisms, it also features inherently undemocratic mechanisms like the First Amendment and the Electoral College. American is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Yet we’ve been bombarded with the meaningless word “democracy” for so long that few Americans understand the difference. 

If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom or liberty--regardless of the issue being discussed-- ask yourself whether he is advocating more government force or less.

The words “liberal” and “conservative” have also been abused. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government. Liberalism has been redefined to mean liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. 

“Conservatism,” meanwhile, once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government. But in recent decades conservatism has been redefined as support for big-government grandiosity via military adventurism, corporatism, and inflationary monetary policy. The modern political right has redefined conservatism into support for an all-powerful central state, provided that the state furthers supposedly conservative goals.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. Our task, therefore, is to reclaim our language and reclaim our liberties. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.


----------



## noirua (20 November 2021)

Rising prices are amongst the many problems that the Biden Administration has created for the American people. 

But is Biden solely responsible for it? No. 

Previous Republican and Democrat administrations made their contributions with record government spending & the debts that they accrued. 

But the source of the inflation problem is always The Federal Reserve. For it is the unconstitutional counterfeiter that enables the politicians to destroy the economy.


----------

