In all the discussions across the internet about Ron Paul and his views it seems there still remains a lot of confusion.
Here is just one example:
“He’s a straight shooter, yes, but his economic ideas are nigh-on retarded…He opposes free trade deals and he wants to get rid of the Fed. So he clearly does not believe in sound money, and his commitment to free trade is only rhetorical.”
If we can reference LewRockwell.com, Mises.org, the works of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard etc., we can steer the debate towards a more meaningful understanding of economic and foreign policy.
So from Digg, to Reddit, to Fark, to the mainstream news sites, to the blogs on the right and left, I would encourage everyone to be calm, concise and lead the masses to the fountain of wisdom that has been assembled on these sites and to the lacunae in the literature.
{ 15 comments }
Whoa!
Which font of wisdom made that declaration?
Of course Ron has opposed “free trade” “deals”; they’ve remotely anything to do with free trade and everything to do with trade state-managed beyond borders. Speaking of rhetorical commitment…
Noam Chomsky points out in “Free Market Fantasies”, ‘… who are these free marketeers? I’ve never met one.’. Of course, Chomsky’s being a tad more than slightly disingenuous, but within the political realm he’s got a point. Ron Paul is that rare genuine article on the Beltway.
Where did you get that quote, from a spokesman for the Cato Institute?
Seriously, your proposed education campaign is a great idea. It would be useful too if Paul’s campaign site (ronpaul2008.com) would elaborate a bit more on the “issues” section, with links to supporting articles.
I think the campaign needs to be contacted and made aware of some of the perceptions of Ron that are out there. I’ve seen many, many gross inaccuracies out there about him. I’ve been trying to correct them as I can. I’m e-mailing them right now about this problem.
Well, if you aren’t for the government’s food stamps program, you are against people eating, right?
So, logically, if you are opposed to the creation of continent-wide (or even hemisphere-wide) governmental bodies, which purportedly facilitate “free trade” (see the history of the European Union), then you are against free trade!
I’ve been reading some of Congressman Paul’s speeches and my conclusion is that he’s so far above the rest of the pack in Washington, it’s not even funny.
I always try to refute some people who have some crazy economic ideas on digg. Though, I’ve been thinking, when I’ve been in a bad mood I have tended to bury Obama (etc) articles on digg, though I have made a conscious effort not to do that. Now I think any article that is critical of Ron Paul or anything free trade-y should be argued against, not buried. Why? 1) We have the upper hand because we have the truth on our side and 2) I go to their low levels by burying it.
Its rather amusing to see people complain of some libertarian conspiracy on digg, and some of the same people actually belong to a “bury brigade.” Hypocritical morons.
Like one site for example, supporting Giuliani after that time his plan backfired. I had to digg that, it was sooo moronic.
I have been try to and advising others to be forceful yet respectful on this issue. I even thanked a group of republicans for “allowing me to have this dialogue with your goodselves”.
I have been try to and advising others to be forceful yet respectful on this issue. I even thanked a group of republicans for “allowing me to have this dialogue with your goodselves”.
I don’t understand why Ron Paul opposes free trade agreements. Of course, the best thing would be complete trade liberalization and I hate that the government tries to tell individuals who they can trade with and who they can’t but absent complete liberalization FTA’s are the best tools we have to advance free trade.
Here’s what a friend had to say when I told him about Ron Paul (I *’d out the bad words);
That’s a… colorful… proof that even the rent seekers are participating in Ron Paul’s campaign!
Fed = Sound Money. That’s a gasser.
Anyone spouting this should be directed to http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl where they can see for themselves the 95% debasement of the dollar under the Fed. And this is a *government* web site.
Having not been exactly shy in attacking Dr Paul over what he said about the Middle East, I must be one of the many people who defend him against these absurd charges on money and trade.
It is the people who support the Federal Reserve System (not those who oppose it) who are against “sound money” (whether they know it or not).
To defend the Federal Reserve System one must be ignorant of both economic theory (sadly the study of economics at most universities will no longer give a person a sound knowledge of the subject) and ignorant of the history of the system.
As for free trade deals.
It is true that there is a difference between “free trade areas” (such as the old European Free Trade Association – E.F.T.A.) and “customs unions” (such as the E.E.C. – E.U., especially since the vast tide of “single market” regulations that have come since the 1986 treaty).
However, even establishment publications such as the “Economist” (which, contrary to its reputation, is actually quite an establishment statist publication) were shocked at the cave in by President Bush to the Democrats over future trade deals.
One can argue over such things as N.A.F.T.A. and the Central American trade deal (there are arguments for and against), but all future trade deals will include the other country accepting a vast tide of regulations in their domestic economy.
Furture trade deals created under the rules that President Bush has agreed with the Democrats should not be supported by any pro free market person.
It is no longer a question of “we would prefer simple free trade to all these thousands of pages”, it is a matter of future deals (if there are any) actually making things worse in that they will impose vast amounts of extra regulations that do not presently exist.
The quotation in question might be a sly but purposeful piece of expensive NY ad agency lobbyist PR.
It stinks, but remember they always draw the line between being honest and being effective.
Be on the lookout for this to come out again.
The quote is just a little too slick to drool out of the mouth of a candidate or voter.
Besides it obeys precisely the cardinal rules of ad agency copy and PR. Deny the truth. Repudiate the objection. Twist the facts. Reverse the labels. Use aggressive offensive tactics. In politics, use it to confuse the public and attack the enemy.
Remember, these guys have made a living for years off promoting the increased sales of overpriced junk. They know the lie.
Rephrase the attack to destroy the sender.
I am afraid many of his “supporters” are aiding the distortion.
I joined a yahoo group, RonPaulforPresident. I was about to take issue with many posts from protectionists concerning the WSJ article from Blinder. Then I realized this is in their description for the group…
Rep. Ron Paul has been highly critical of the NAFTA Superhighway, and has co-sponsored legislation to end its construction. Although previously in favor of free trade, Ron Paul has more recently become skeptical of it. (Historically, conservatives have opposed free trade, and they should. It is destroying our economy and eroding away our national sovereignty.)
Comments on this entry are closed.