Re: Ron Paul, Alex Jones and the politics of selfishness

Replying to: http://nicholasmead.com/2009/11/02/ron-paul-alex-jones-and-the-politics-of-selfishness/#comments

@”I think you’ve simplified Paul’s economic policies to a ridiculous degree”. It seems to me that Paul is only concerned with dismantling the tyranny of the state but not that of corporations. It’s unbelievably naive to believe that a society that’s bereft of any kind of control over corporations will lead to a just and human society. I don’t think I’ve oversimplified the basis of Paul’s economic theory but if you have evidence to the contrary, please let me know.

Reread your post:

Paul’s solution is that the world is run by private tyrannies accountable to no-one but themselves which would be a dream for corporate America. He’s saying that hundreds of years of popular struggle to secure working rights, civil rights and some modicum of democracy should be thrown out of the window. If he is really advocating this, then they he is as bad, if not worse, than the current system he so tirelessly criticizes.

It’s the tiresome argument of the Free Market flip-floppers.

Like the man for supporting the Free Market but hate the man for…supporting the Free Market.

The Free Market is far from perfect but it’s a constant loop for people who like the good parts of it but hate the bad parts of it.

They can’t seem to grasp that for some people the Free Market cannot be applied if you don’t apply the Free Market.

That’s how you come off as over-simplifying his economic policies.

Again, the Free Market is far from perfect but if you try to soften the concept, don’t be surprised that you get today’s corporatist system which pretends that the Free Market exists when it doesn’t.

If you want to legitimately criticize the man’s economic policies, criticize the Free Market and create alternative solutions to what the Free Market provides. Don’t over-simplify it by praising the man for aspects of the Free Market that supports your beliefs and then turn it around and criticize the man for the same aspects because the Free Market system also disagree with parts of your beliefs.

 

Advertisements

2 responses to this post.

  1. Thanks for your comments on my post. I’ll try to address the points you’ve made if I understand you correctly:

    @”Like the man for supporting the Free Market but hate the man for…supporting the Free Market.”. I’m not sure where you got the impression I liked him for his free market ideas. As long as profit remains the overriding objective of business, I don’t believe free markets of any kind – either the fake “free” markets we have today or a “100% pure” free market of the kind Ron Paul advocates – would lead to a just and humane society. I don’t like or support his free market philosophy full stop.

    @”Again, the Free Market is far from perfect but if you try to soften the concept, don’t be surprised that you get today’s corporatist system which pretends that the Free Market exists when it doesn’t.” Todays “corporatist system” has not been created by government trying to “soften” it through regulation which is what I presume you are referring to when you say “soften”. The problem is that government has perverted it by constantly bailing-out corporate America with no strings attached and completely dismantling regulation that protected people from the ravages of capital.

    @”If you want to legitimately criticize the man’s economic policies, criticize the Free Market and create alternative solutions to what the Free Market provides.” I think the dangers of a purely free market with no regulation are obvious. With no protection from huge corporations in pursuit of profit and power, the general population would be even more vulnerable than they already are. As regards alternatives, it would be require a different blog post entirely, but one simple way would be to re-establish measures such as the Gold Standard and restore some of the financial regulation which has been dismantled by neo-conservatives over the past 20 years.

    Reply

  2. Thanks for taking the time to address the points separately.

    I think had you presented your article this way, you wouldn’t have been criticized as over-simplifying his economic policies.

    Then again, I don’t know your audience.

    What makes your comment more valid than your original post though is your usage of the words “pure” Free Market.

    By stating this term, you create a situation where you admit that you and Paul have different views on what you consider a Free Market is. (and hence different variations on what the solution is)

    Your original post though simply criticized Paul as if you didn’t know he was for a pure Free Market.

    Notice your hyperbole:

    “If he is really advocating this, then they he is as bad, if not worse, than the current system he so tirelessly criticizes.”

    This is typical of many Free Market flip-floppers where if the pro-Free Market person becomes too extreme to be aligned with your beliefs, they’re more demonic than those who corrupt the system. (or at the very least, the rebuttal is often written this way)

    You could say my usage of Free Market flip-floppers is synonymous with any pro-Free Market people that aren’t pro-pure Free Market.

    Don’t get me wrong.

    I’m not totally convinced that a pure Free Market system is the solution either. I just think these kinds of “softening” the concept is what has led to this modern situation of “fake” free markets but ultimately that is more of my opinion vs. yours.

    The main theme of my reply is just about pointing out why someone could see your post as over-simplifying Paul’s economic policies.

    With regards to the softening of the Free Market, it really goes beyond the bail-outs.

    The bail-outs are just representative of a system that has been softened enough.

    Before that you had (as you stated) the lost of the Gold Standard, the lost of the knowledge of why the Gold Standard is necessary, Keynesian economics, The Federal Reserve, the biased one-sided perspective of the reason for the Great Depression, the acceptance of globalist wars… alot of that is what I would consider the softening of the Free Market system.

    Of course it’s not intentionally designed to specifically target and weaken the concept of a Free Market but the pattern for weakening it is very much the same pattern anti-pure Free Market people generally say.

    So and so needs this and that. The Free Market alone cannot work. Defense through Offense. Subtraction through Addition. More programs over less.

    The key difference being that you don’t see the Free Market as being practiced today while the pro-fake free market people see today’s practice as the real-world implementation of the free market.

    The similarity though is that both you and those people see Free Markets as government-manipulated rather than government-maintained. (Which kind of defeats the point of including the word “Free” in the word.)

    But again, this is my opinion only.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: