How will obama help the economy. - Page 2

On April 27 2009 12:02 Jibba wrote:

As opposed to voting for Ron Paul, which is just moronic.

I don't understand why people think it's individuals who are causing good/bad things to happen in government. It's the structures of our institutions that shape most of what goes on. Putting Ron Paul in office isn't going to change the interest group penetration in Congress or remove us from Iraq. If for some reason he actually won, he would get very little done.

On April 27 2009 11:19 Mindcrime wrote:


If more government equals less freedom "every time" then why are you shouting your support for a small federal government guy rather than an anarchist?

On April 27 2009 13:43 only_human89 wrote:


yeah thats the lazy response. lets just let government take over the country and do nothing about it, there's nothing we can do!. it's like saying "i don't like government involvement either, but they are involved so w/e." but i agree its the people that need to take back the country not one man alone.

On April 27 2009 14:42 Jibba wrote:

It's not lazy, it's accurate. I understand the problems of a significant federal government and I think they're still outweighed by the problems of a weak central government. I know I'm not going to change your mind about that since you've probably already read everything Ron Paul (and probably none of Hayek, interestingly) has ever written, but you should at least understand what is feasible and what isn't. You have to play by the rules of the organization or you don't get shit done, and those rules dictate the change you're looking for isn't possible.

Even Ron Paul plays by those rules to some extent (hint: check his voting record, he's a Republican, not an independent.) And what happens when he doesn't follow the rules, when he mouths off as if he's an expert? He gets 0 chair positions. And he gets put on House Financial Service instead of Ways and Means or Budget. And he gets put on House Foreign Services instead of Armed Services or Homeland Security. Nancy Pelosi owns his ass, and she's nice enough to let him enter the Capital Building.

Ron Paul is a nobody, except on the internet, where people don't bother to study actual economics or politics before they write about it. What you're proposing does not require him to win, it requires two or three consecutive Congressional elections where similar candidates also win, in order to make a truly anti-Federalist platform possible.

If you truly want to support the libertarian cause, you'd find and support other congressional candidates with similar view, rather than putting all your faith behind a single, insignificant figurehead.

EDIT: And yes, I believe Pelosi could actually have him physically prevented from entering the chambers if she wanted to.

On April 27 2009 13:45 only_human89 wrote:


why would i be anarchist?

i just want the federal government out of the picture and for the states to have more freedom to decide what's best for them. not everybody has the same beliefs. to have the fed's say "this is how it's going to be done for everyone rather you like it or not" is bull shit.

On April 27 2009 12:02 Jibba wrote:

As opposed to voting for Ron Paul, which is just moronic.