Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (74716)	7/3/2008 7:27:23 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 543351

I'd say he's more of a libertarian than a conservative, but he defiantly is conservative in some important ways (and is a member of the Republican party, so he's also a Republican). My main disagreements with him are about foreign policy (esp. the military and war end), and his very strong support for a gold standard (I'm not necessarily 100% against it, but I'm not so sure its a good idea, and I'm definitely not a supporter of it at this time.) Moving from the general disagreements to the specific web page you linked to - Well I am also concerned about moves against human liberty, and (to a much smaller extent than he apparently is) I'm also concerned about the economy. But I don't see a pending disaster, massive world wide chaos, etc. And I disagree with him when he implies that globalization and modern technology have on the net worked against "the ideas of liberty, free markets, sound money and trade". I think the US has been less arrogant and aggressive than just about any nation or empire with the relative power that the US has against the rest of the world. Paul seems to disagree with that concept. I think "The central banks of the world secretly collude to centrally plan the world economy", is at the least an overally strong statement. He says "Some argue that giving dictatorial powers to the President, just as we have allowed him to run the American empire, is what we should do.", but just about no one is making such a proposal. Real fear of economic collapse could prompt central planners to act to such a degree that the New Deal of the 30’s might look like Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. Again he probably uses too strong of terms, but he does have a real point to be concerned about here. Fear of economic and other types of problems could lead to a large expansion of government, and to a certain extent already has. And I agree with him that its not a good thing. Still even something like the New Deal (broadly defined, to include all the types of economic regulation and very high marginal tax rates that FDR enacted) is not in the cards at the moment or for the near term future (longer term future is almost always unpredictable, so it could happen), let alone something that would go massively beyond that. The whole blog post displays much more fear of disaster in general than I have. Getting back to the general issues with Ron Paul, I was interested in him at first, but it seems the more I hear from him, the further I am from supporting him. He's a bit over the top, and strongly supports some ideas that I oppose. His more general theme (supporting individual liberty) is something I'd like to see a lot more of, but ideally I'd like to see it from a candidate other than him. I'd like to see him keep his seat in congress for a long time. There aren't many (or perhaps not any) in the congress as concerned about personal liberty as he is. But I would not want him to be president.