There have been a lot of posts recently about unfairness in the media toward Ron Paul, so I'll shed some light since it seems a lot of people don't understand what Ron Paul stands for and what Libertarianism is.
The original US constitution and Bill of Rights is the probably the closest any society has come to the Libertarian ideal. Libertarianism is about negative rights, meaning that nobody can stop you from doing something that does not infringe upon the rights of someone else. Most of the bill of rights are examples of negative rights, freedom of speech and religion, gun rights, etc. There are no positive rights in Libertarianism, which are entitlements, such as the right to education, healthcare, basic needs (welfare, unemployment), equal opportunity, etc.
Libertarianism believes that the morals of people and the free market will fill those positive rights, that private schools and healthcare will be better than public, that the wealthy will take care of people who fall on hard times, that the magic of the free market will prevent monopoly from controlling it.
Well, after 250 years the American political landscape has come far from it's Libertarian ancestor. Social programs, anti-trust laws, public education and utilities have have given entitlements to the people. Ron Paul and other Libertarians believe that the US needs to go BACK to strict constitutionalism, BACK to the way things were in America 250 years ago. So you need to ask yourself, are we worse off now then we were 250 years ago? If libertarianism and the free market work then why was there a civil war? Why where the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts passed? Why did FDR create the New Deal? America has spent 250 years tweaking its politics to make it better and to keep it current, why would you destroy all that work? Only if you think that America was truely a better society 250 years ago.
Finally, I'll say again that a Libertarian would be completely opposed to the government forcing a TV or radio station to give a candidate equal air time. Ron Paul himself would say that he has no positive right to equal air time, and that the station has the right, without intervention, to pursue their best profit by talking about only the candidates that will draw the most ratings. Any supporter of Ron Paul who complains about his media coverage does not understand what he stands for.
Discuss
Denys Artasevych on February 7, 2008, 12:13 AM
I maby geting my concepts wrong here. But i think of true liberetarianism as basicly anarchism, the lack of any constriction upon not only the individual.
The system you speak of sounds like J.S Mill’s liberalism. Which basically leves laws that protect the rights of individuals with reguards to themselves, but abolishes any control the government can exersise over individuals.
When it comes to practicality, weather its libertarinism as you described it or anarchy is is simplly not functional. It is probably the most morally correct system (kant, kant, kant) but the fact is that people are basically selfish, the first concern is always for one self and only later do we consider the good of others if at all. A completly free market wil lead to a small number of monopoly firms owning everything (we are not to far from this now) because competition eventually becomes imposible if there are no anti monopoly laws. The rich will be rich and the poor will be poor.
When it comes to functionality i would say that a system that would work best, would be a conservative socialism, with hight taxation, a strong social safety net, a free market with some basic laws ensuring competition, and low or no imigration.
James Imnotgonnatellyou on February 7, 2008, 7:46 PM
The reason the anti-trust laws needed to be passed was because America was in the throes (maybe this is supposed to be “throws;” either way, you know what I mean) of the industrial revolution. Those that monopolized during this time period were simply quick on the uptake. When a certain market or business model becomes old news (no longer a novelty), competition is going to happen since people will become familiar with it. Okay, this would not necessarily happen on its own, so for this time period in which novelties spring up anti-trust laws are probably the way to go, but would probably no longer be needed after things have time to settle.
At this point in time, if a new industry came about – for instance, civilian space travel, why not – existing companies would jump on the bandwagon. Also, it seems as though there aren’t going to be any new innovations in terms of business models (unless that book I read, Wikinomics, has a profound effect upon the heads of major corporations), so for now….
/*Anti-trust laws
James Imnotgonnatellyou on February 7, 2008, 7:49 PM
Hey, it took out the second half of my last line! Oh well, just ignore it. It didn’t really make sense anyway.
Catherine Tyler on February 7, 2008, 7:56 PM
I agree that it seems the internet Paulites seem to miss the point that the media does have the right, without Fed intervention, to favor one candidate over another in pursuit of better ratings.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t fair and that we the people shouldn’t complain to the media directly and demand more air time, accurate reporting, and inclusion of all candidates.
Josh Friedman on February 7, 2008, 7:58 PM
I Am-
I understand what your are saying, but Industry is constantly changing.
And BTW, we are currently in the midst of a MONUMENTAL change in business model. I highly suggest reading “The Long Tail” by Chris Anderson, or if you just want an intro, wiki “the long tail”. It’s a fascinating subject about how the internet is changing the established business model
James Imnotgonnatellyou on February 7, 2008, 9:12 PM
Okay, thanks for the suggestion Absurdist, I’ll do that.
James Imnotgonnatellyou on February 7, 2008, 9:32 PM
Very interesting. I’m going to have to read Anderson’s book, because I’m not sure I fully understand this yet. More people use websites like Netflix than I thought, it seems.
Josh Friedman on February 8, 2008, 10:11 AM
I’ll try to describe it…
It’s about a shift from scarcity to abundance. For example, wal-mart only has shelf space for 100 music CDs. If they want to maximize their profit, it would make sense to stock those shelves with the 100 CDs that think will make the most sales. In business this is called the 80/20 rule, that most often, approximately 80 percent of your sales come from only 20 percent of your products. In this way, media is very controlled because when you go to wal-mart you are limited to their selection. It would also be near impossible to search through 100,000 CDs at a store. This is the short tail, it’s small percentage of products that will sell the most, and it’s been the basis of our economy for a very long time.
With the internet, suddenly companies are able offer vast amounts of different and less popular products because they have huge warehouses or essentially infinite electronic space in the case of digital music, movies, and e-books. The internet also offers search and rating opportunities that allow people to easily find less popular items that fit their tastes. This means that they are able to offer products from the long tail, the 80% of products that typically would account for only 20% of sales, and would not be offered in stores.
While it wouldn’t make economic sense for wal-mart to sell those products, because store shelf space is expensive, it really does not cost Amazon or iTunes any more to offer those less popular items. What those companies have found, is that there is just as much demand for short tail products as long tail, though the long tail demand is distributed among a much greater number of products. This is leading to a kind of “niche economy” where people are looking for specific products, rather than having to chose between limited offerings. If you want to know why the music industry is failing, this is why. Pop music is dying, people can now easily find new music that suits them.
Jen Something on February 9, 2008, 6:15 PM
The Seed of Truth Has Been Sown.
Casey Lee Cobb |
Josh Friedman on February 10, 2008, 9:55 AM
Wow, if you think America is a tyranny, then you have a seriously warped view of the world. America is one of the most free countries on Earth. We have far less taxation than most civilized nations in the world. Read up on Stalin, Mao, and Hitler if you want to know what tyranny is. I can’t believe you would even compare America to such regimes.
AND, if anything, America is controlled by money and corporations, not by government. A Ron Paul government would only increase the power of corporations. If you want tyranny, Ron Paul is the path. We can all be slaves to the almighty dollar. I for one (and seemingly 90% of America) would rather not take the path
Jen Something on February 17, 2008, 6:45 PM
Free fradulent voting? www.blackboxvoting.org
Free markets? www.businessjive.com, www.thesanitycheck.com
Free? The media is manipulated and the truth is fraudulently conveyed. Everyone in the world knows it, your doublespeaking days are over.
Only the truth will set us free.
Why don’t you debate one of those links? Then we can talk of your ‘freedom’.
Jen Something on February 17, 2008, 7:13 PM
Free to watch Fox? Free to be taxed? Free to eat aspartame and drink fluroidated water?
Who is the CFR? Who owns the media?
Lets see some truth, who invested in whom…Follow the money and find the truth… But first watch this!!!
www.businessjive.com
Top supporters of Ron Paul
Google Inc
US Army
US Navy
Microsoft Corp
Huffines Communities
US Air Force
Top supporters of John McCain
Blank Rome LLP
Citigroup Inc
Greenberg Traurig LLP
Merrill Lynch
Goldman Sachs
Univision Communications
IDT Corp
Bank of New York Mellon
Top Supporters of Barak Obama
Goldman Sachs
Lehman Brothers
National Amusements Inc
JP Morgan Chase & Co
Sidley Austin LLP
Exelon Corp
Citigroup Inc
Citadel Investment Group
Top Supporters of Mitt Romney
Goldman Sachs
Merrill Lynch
Marriott International
Bain Capital
Morgan Stanley
Bain & Co
The Villages
Citigroup Inc
Top Supporters of Hillary Clinton
DLA Piper
Goldman Sachs
Morgan Stanley
Citigroup Inc
EMILY’s List
National Amusements Inc
JP Morgan Chase & Co
Top Supporters of John Edwards
Act Blue
Fortress Investment Group
Stearns, Weaver et al
Lerach, Coughlin et al
Goldman Sachs
Whitten, Nelson et al
Do you see what I see?? More info on all the candidates and their finances at:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08
Josh Friedman on February 18, 2008, 7:31 PM
Warrior-
I’m really confused as to what you are trying to say. Are you saying we are not free because we are controlled by big business? And if so, how could you possibly support Ron Paul, who believes that we should not only allow big business to continue on this path, but to remove any existing restrictions that keep the problem from being even worse?
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register