Ron Paul’s phony populism
- Thread starter ColdBlooded
- Start date
In short, the problem of this country (and the world as a whole) is the reliance of the socioeconomic system on perpetual exponential economic growth which clashes head on with the very real limitations imposed by the laws of physics on a finite planet. The current crisis is the ultimate consequence of the world reaching the peak of conventional oil production in 2006.
Ron Paul is compeltely clueless when it comes to this and his positions on issues relevant to it are only going to make it worse.
That's the major reason why Ron Paul should be dimissed as the village idiot type of figure he is, he is not much better than Perry, Bachman, Gingrich and the rest. He has principles and they don't, you have to admit that and even admire it to an extent, but this does not change the reality that he is completely ignorant of the real issues that need to be tackled.
BTW, there isn't really a single mainstream politician anywhere in the world right now that shows signs of being much better. But, again, this is hardly a reason to be a Ron Paul supporter, it can only be a reason to feel very depressed about the future of the world.
In addition to that, even if we didn't face the collapse of civiliation due to overshooting the carrying capacity of the planet at some point in this century, libertarianism is still a political ideology that can only result in disaster if implemented. Because just as the the fact that the laws of physics do not allow for infinite economic growth is completely ignored by libertarians (not just by them, but htey do it too), the biological nature and biobehavioral characteristics of the human species are completely ignored too, and if you build your ideology on a misguided understanding of human behavior, nothing good can come out of that.
Ron Paul is compeltely clueless when it comes to this and his positions on issues relevant to it are only going to make it worse.
That's the major reason why Ron Paul should be dimissed as the village idiot type of figure he is, he is not much better than Perry, Bachman, Gingrich and the rest. He has principles and they don't, you have to admit that and even admire it to an extent, but this does not change the reality that he is completely ignorant of the real issues that need to be tackled.
BTW, there isn't really a single mainstream politician anywhere in the world right now that shows signs of being much better. But, again, this is hardly a reason to be a Ron Paul supporter, it can only be a reason to feel very depressed about the future of the world.
In addition to that, even if we didn't face the collapse of civiliation due to overshooting the carrying capacity of the planet at some point in this century, libertarianism is still a political ideology that can only result in disaster if implemented. Because just as the the fact that the laws of physics do not allow for infinite economic growth is completely ignored by libertarians (not just by them, but htey do it too), the biological nature and biobehavioral characteristics of the human species are completely ignored too, and if you build your ideology on a misguided understanding of human behavior, nothing good can come out of that.
I appreciate you laying out point of view but the bottom line is you believe in much more (government) regulation than I do and I attribute that to the fact your not from this country. Your suggesting that human consumption if not regulated will be the downfall of all civilization and whether thats true or not who are you to create the timeline for it?
I'm glad that you agree Ron Paul is the greatest politician on Earth, I had a feeling that's what you were getting at.
Libertarianism is the only shot we have at self-imposed Libertarian Socialism, which at the very least, puts finding and implementing solutions into our hands w/o the control of politicians. Under the current paradigm, we do what they say...and if it challenges the status quo too much, then we're crushed by their economic and legal instruments. When people have control of their own education, they can CHOOSE to teach their children about sustainability...about humanity as a biological entity, etc. Right now, education is financed through extraction and mandated by government for the benefit of and at the behest of special interests. We're driven to consumerism. I agree with most of your assertions about the inevitability of over-consumption. However, I think Ron Paul's political ideals are actually the first step to true self determination for those of us who understand the implications of rampant consumerism and waste.
The information age and the global consciousness go hand in hand. Sprinkle a little Ron Paul on that thang, mayne.
Libertarianism is the only shot we have at self-imposed Libertarian Socialism, which at the very least, puts finding and implementing solutions into our hands w/o the control of politicians. Under the current paradigm, we do what they say...and if it challenges the status quo too much, then we're crushed by their economic and legal instruments. When people have control of their own education, they can CHOOSE to teach their children about sustainability...about humanity as a biological entity, etc. Right now, education is financed through extraction and mandated by government for the benefit of and at the behest of special interests. We're driven to consumerism. I agree with most of your assertions about the inevitability of over-consumption. However, I think Ron Paul's political ideals are actually the first step to true self determination for those of us who understand the implications of rampant consumerism and waste.
The information age and the global consciousness go hand in hand. Sprinkle a little Ron Paul on that thang, mayne.
Huh, so just because you are from this country, you are correct? Great logic...
Human consumption can not be regulated - the only way to prevent humans from destroying their environment is to make them aware of the dependence of their continued existence on the health of that environment. For the vast majoirty of people alive today, it is too late to do that and as a result humanity will self destroy. In an imagined society in which it wasn't too late to turn things, it would not have involved the government regulating consumption, it would have evolved raising kids to be ecologically literate from a very early age.
I don't agree with anything of the sort
You don't want decision-making to be in the hands of "us".
Decisions need not satisfy the demands of the majority, decisions need to be correct in order to serve the common good. It is a common assumption that what the majority wants is what is good for it, but that's not at all the case - people want all sorts of things that are bad for them, we would not have any problems with obesity, smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, and ultimately, sustainability, if people were good at decision-making. But they're not.
In addition to that, the world we live in is extremely complex and it is impossible for a single person to understand it all. That's why we have thousands of scientific subdisciplines. In pretty much all cases, there will be a small group of people that has deep knowledge of the subject and is more qualified to do the decision-making than the majority, which has not studied it in such depth and does not have that information. Accordingly, the wise thing is to let those people do the decision-making and not the majority.
This is a fundamental weakness of democracy - it may have worked in the conditions of ancient city-states in Greece, where it was a few tens to hundreds of people, who mostly had the same information and if they didn't. they could gather together in the city square and exchange it. It does not work in today's world
You don't want decision-making to be in the hands of "us".
Decisions need not satisfy the demands of the majority, decisions need to be correct in order to serve the common good. It is a common assumption that what the majority wants is what is good for it, but that's not at all the case - people want all sorts of things that are bad for them, we would not have any problems with obesity, smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, and ultimately, sustainability, if people were good at decision-making. But they're not.
In addition to that, the world we live in is extremely complex and it is impossible for a single person to understand it all. That's why we have thousands of scientific subdisciplines. In pretty much all cases, there will be a small group of people that has deep knowledge of the subject and is more qualified to do the decision-making than the majority, which has not studied it in such depth and does not have that information. Accordingly, the wise thing is to let those people do the decision-making and not the majority.
This is a fundamental weakness of democracy - it may have worked in the conditions of ancient city-states in Greece, where it was a few tens to hundreds of people, who mostly had the same information and if they didn't. they could gather together in the city square and exchange it. It does not work in today's world
I didn't say that and you know I didnt say that, Im just mentioning that America has personal and civil liberties that are not traditional to other countries giving Americans and many other citizens of the world a different view of the role of government in society, bottom line we are not living in a world where kids are ecologically literate so whats the point of lamenting about it? In fact I will argue to you that human consumption is the saving hope for America in the 21st century because we feed the world we are the worlds breadbasket and if we can get manufacturing to come back we will have a solid economy structure on that, health care, the high tech industry and as the developing world's middle class will reach almost 2 billion people in the next 30 years we can provide goods and services that keeps our GNP strong and sustain the highest standard of living in the world
I will admit Im not read up on the ecological economic view of our society but as resource depletion continues I honestly dont think that will end economic growth, it may hinder it but the free market will play out and companies will control resources and create price wars that will change how people live and probably start wars, but intellectual capital is as much of a geopolitical asset as oil and the idea that the tech sector wont grow create jobs and prosperity doesnt make sense to me and our economy is so dominated by service industries Im failing to see the end of days in the near future. I think you need to have more faith in society because the solutions to the ecological problems and biophyiscal limits of growth are going to make some people amazingly wealthy and humans will do anything for money so just sit back tell your American friends to Vote Ron Paul and let the free market cook
nah Im just being honest I havent read about that shit at all but I all Im sayin is that human capital can replace natural capital or at least to ratio where its not doomsday u need to stop hating on the free market and at the end of the day it doesnt even matter because your view is so far from realistic in todays world you make Ron Paul sound like Bill O Reilly and if you think your so god damm vindicated by it whats stopping you from going and living with the panda bears?
You have accepted the current paradigm as the infinite and ultimate paradigm. When progress and change come, they almost always happen very abruptly and advance mankind greatly. Simple things like tools and math have literally decided the fate of entire species. It's only a matter of time before our collective consciousness evolves yet again, with the advancement of technology and certain realities about our condition become common points of view for the majority of people here. A simultaneous cultural shift and technological shift could vastly improve our situation in a matter of decades, or even years.
You wouldn't happen to be French would you? Seems like you've already given up on us. And despite your assertion that you didn't say Ron Paul was the greatest mainstream politician on Earth...you actually did kinda say that. Even as the lesser of 3 evils, or a matter of principle...a vote for Ron Paul is very prudent. At the very least, he wishes to return much of our lives back to us...so we can find the answers our leaders have failed to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_technology
http://www.fellowgeek.com/a-Researchers-Teach-Things-Subliminally-Matrix-Learning-not-Far-Away.html
You wouldn't happen to be French would you? Seems like you've already given up on us. And despite your assertion that you didn't say Ron Paul was the greatest mainstream politician on Earth...you actually did kinda say that. Even as the lesser of 3 evils, or a matter of principle...a vote for Ron Paul is very prudent. At the very least, he wishes to return much of our lives back to us...so we can find the answers our leaders have failed to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_technology
http://www.fellowgeek.com/a-Researchers-Teach-Things-Subliminally-Matrix-Learning-not-Far-Away.html
No, I'm not French, Yes, I have given up all hopes that the human species will ever have the collective wisdom to not destroy itself
Finally, you have a lot of completely unfounded optimism that things will sort themselves out. If that was the case, we wouldn't be digging the remains of dozens of collapsed civilizationa out of the ground today. Collapse is the rule when it comes to civilizations and it is usually because they became too complex and/ overshot the ability of their environment to sustain them. The difference this time is that civilization is global and the means for destruction are also global
Finally, you have a lot of completely unfounded optimism that things will sort themselves out. If that was the case, we wouldn't be digging the remains of dozens of collapsed civilizationa out of the ground today. Collapse is the rule when it comes to civilizations and it is usually because they became too complex and/ overshot the ability of their environment to sustain them. The difference this time is that civilization is global and the means for destruction are also global
You're just as delusional, if not more delusional, than those who are ignorant or apathetic to our current condition. You have disqualified your input by discouraging others from engaging in society. All of your walls of condescending text really should be in a separate thread, titled "ThaG's theory on why we should all kill ourselves." At least there, it would make a little more sense and be in context.
