Ron Paul On The Coming Depression

As much as I may disagree with what Ron Paul stands for culturally and politically, his economics is spot on as always. He speaks more sense on the current economic crisis than pretty much anyone else out there, and has been pounding home this same message for years. His predictions have now come true, much to the detriment of us all.

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand... The government doesn't like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay. [...]

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.

Read the whole thing.

Link via The Austrian Economists

Share this

Only Economically Competent Candidate

He was the only candidate who had economic competence. Unfortunately he let some bigot run his newsletter.

Ron Paul also supports

Ron Paul also supports shooting Mexican children who try to cross the border. Why on earth are allegedly "racist" comments even relevant compared to that ?

Shooting Everyone

My understanding is that we have decided on proportionate response at the borders, not shooting on sight. That's just me however.

I assume that no border

I assume that no border protection is possible without use of deadly force. I may be wrong, but I don't think so. I have long felt very clever with the idea to challenge everyone in support of immigration law to enforce them by shooting a trespasser... then I found the exact same challenge by on no-treason and I feel clever but slow.

When Did You Stop Killing the Mexicans?

"I feel clever but slow."

Well, you should feel silly and slow. The argument is ridiculous.

Do you also believe that enforcing laws against shoplifting candy is not possible without the use of deadly force? Surely the shop owner will have to call the police when little Jimmy steals a stick of bubble gum; especially if the parents are irresponsible and will not punish him. Does the fact that the police are carrying guns necessarily imply they will have to escalate to shooting Jimmy? Even if Jimmy should he prove recalcitrant they are not going to go for the guns first. They’ll probably wrestle him to the ground and handcuff him first.

Surely the implicit threat of deadly force is the same for enforcing laws against jay walking as it is for any other crime, no matter how minor. Why is that? It’s because the criminal can always escalate. If someone jaywalks and then resists arrest with a gun then, yes, there is a good chance that person will end up shot or dead.

The argument is invalid because it assumes that the policeman carrying the gun will always act disproportionately, or it assumes the criminal will always escalate to deadly force.

You might as well challenge everyone in support of gun rights to enforce them by shooting somebody who would be deterred by a gun. Like little Jimmy. That’s how silly the argument is.

The argument is also invalid in other ways. It assumes humans are not specialized. Along the lines of "Surely you can't be for draining septic tanks unless you yourself are willing to do so."

Believe me, if I chose border enforcement as a career and some illegal alien drew a gun on me in a way that threatened my life I'd have no compunction about killing him. Likewise, I'd have no problem with my day to day duties of proportional enforcement of the law against those illegal aliens that didn't escalate to deadly force. That would not involve deadly force. I balk at the idea of being a border control agent only because I did not choose that career. Given different circumstances and different interests I see no problem with the career of border guard.

Another way the argument fails is that some people couldn’t be in any kind of career that involved shooting anybody. Some people just don’t have the nerves for it. That rules out being a border guard, body guard, policeman, or even night watchman. Such people would have to honestly answer, no I couldn’t shoot the illegal immigrant, but only because they couldn’t honestly shoot anyone. That doesn’t mean that those people must by your reasoning be against the professions of body guard, policeman, or night watchman.

Another way your argument was invalid was that it assumed the children would be shoot first, or at all. Do you think children are the main perpetrators of illegal border crossings? Where exactly are their parents or guardians in your imagined scenario? Do you think children just decide to cross the border against their parents wishes? Or is more like the parent is making an illegal border crossing and endangering the child in the process?

If a parent and six year old kid are caught crossing the border then the guards are going to run down the parent first and once that’s done the child is quite literally child’s play.

This is the thoughts that most average people have about such arguments. They often can’t verbalize why such an argument is invalid but they often have gut feelings that you are pulling a fast one, and they tend to get angry about it. Why? Because this particular argument is also an implicit insult to the person you use it on.

The argument itself is invalid because it is in fact a loaded question, and an ad hominem attack, and a false dichotomy all rolled up in one. It insults the person in assuming the false premise that he is either a moral deviant willing to shoot children on sight or a coward unwilling to do the act himself. The implicit point of the argument being, “Why should anyone listen to your side since you are clearly a moral deviant”.

I find such arguments silly and distasteful.

Do you also believe that

Do you also believe that enforcing laws against shoplifting candy is not possible without the use of deadly force?

Yes, and this is obviously so. All laws are ultimately backed by lethal force, no matter how trivial. So you better have a nontrivial reason to ultimately shoot someone in the face if they resist your efforts at enforcing the laws that you support. As I said in a thread on the topic of animal rights:

You do in fact have the right to shoot a trespasser in order to make them stop, eventually. Eventually is the key part to that sentence. All rights claims are ultimately backed by lethal force. It may not be initially just to shoot a trespasser without sufficient warning, but after giving warning, if the trespasser continues to resist your efforts to protect your property claims, the trespasser has escalated the conflict to another level. Depending on how many levels you think are appropriate, the final level must end in lethal force. And I make this claim as both an explanation of the libertarian theory of justice as well as a positive description of the current legal system we live under. If you forcibly resist law enforcement, you will eventually escalate the conflict to a lethal point.

Here is Randy Barnett on this issue:

Assuming that one has identified a system of compossible rights - namely, property rights - what may properly be done if these rights are violated? Within the Liberty Approach there is no dispute that one may use force to defend one’s rights from being violated and one may enlist the aid of others in such a defense. The alternative is to have no genuinely legal rights at all. Some disagreement may exist among adherents to the Liberty Approach, however, about the amount of force that can be legitimately used in self-defense.

The best answer, I think, is that the use of force in self-defense must be proportionate, in some rough sense, to the threat posed by the rights invasion, but with a heavy presumption favoring the victim in any such calculation. Further, it would not be impermissible, in my view, for deadly force to be used to defend against even the most trivial of rights violations, provided that an escalation of self-defense was necessitated by an escalation of aggression by the rights violator. For example, if when attempting to retrieve a shoplifted package of chewing gum, the victim is met with forcible resistance by the shoplifter, then a proportionately forcible response to this resistance is legitimate. If the shoplifter further escalates and puts the victim’s life in danger, then the victim may justifiably use deadly force in self-defense. In other words, there is no obligation for a victim to back down in defense of even the smallest of his rights simply because the rights violator has raised the ante.

------------

I find such arguments silly and distasteful.

I find your arguments silly and distasteful too. Does this make us even? Unfortunately, no, since I am perfectly willing to go about my life without interfering in yours, but you apparently aren't willing to return the favor, preventing me from peacefully trading with Mexicans and forcibly recruiting me (through my tax dollars) to support your foreign adventures.

Nonsense

"Yes, and this is obviously so. All laws are ultimately backed by lethal force, no matter how trivial."

So if you are not willing to gun down a child pocketing a gummi bear than how can you possibly be for property rights? You moral degenerate.

I planned to trade a penny for that gummi bear. So now you are also preventing me from peacefully trading with children?

You see, that's another mistake in your argument. I've got no problem with you trading with Mexicans. Go to Mexico, or have them ship the goods here. They can even visit to deliver the goods once they've been checked for disease, the goods are inspected for pathogens, and the like.

You can't keep this stuff clear in your own head. You don't know the difference between immigration and trade. Don't expect me to buy your arguments.

I'm not allowed to immigrate to Mexico based purely on my own whim, and yet, I trade with Mexicans all the time.

Let me know when Mexico opens their borders to all comers with no restrictions and then I might consider the claims of a Mexican to have the same rights in the opposite direction. Mexicans aren't on some higher moral plane because they decide to violate the borders of my country. Especially the ones that belong to La Raza. They don't get more rights than me.

I know a Muslim who immigrated here who admitted that not only would I be murdered in Pakistan but that I would deserve it. He went through the proper channels to immigrate and yet I feel he has violated what should be the actual rules. He denies me a right he claims for himself. Thus his 'right' holds little value to me.

So if you are not willing to

So if you are not willing to gun down a child pocketing a gummi bear than how can you possibly be for property rights? You moral degenerate.

Of course, I am willing to gun down a child pocketing a gummi bear if it comes to that; that is the logical consequence of enforceable property rights. If someone escalates a wrongful act to the point of lethal violence, willingness to respond with proportionally lethal violence is what it means to be willing to enforce what is right. Similarly, if someone wrongfully attempts to interfere with a just act (say, immigration), one may rightfully respond with appropriate, proportional violence, up to and including lethal force. That is what having an enforceable right to something means. "The alternative is to have no genuinely legal rights at all."

I've got no problem with you trading with Mexicans. Go to Mexico, or have them ship the goods here. They can even visit to deliver the goods once they've been checked for disease, the goods are inspected for pathogens, and the like.

Say I want to trade with a Mexican friend by renting her an apartment that I own. Are you willing to let us engage in this transaction peacefully or not?

Let me know when Mexico opens their borders to all comers with no restrictions and then I might consider the claims of a Mexican to have the same rights in the opposite direction.

Rights don't work that way. You're doing it wrong.

I know a Muslim who immigrated here who admitted that not only would I be murdered in Pakistan but that I would deserve it. He went through the proper channels to immigrate and yet I feel he has violated what should be the actual rules. He denies me a right he claims for himself. Thus his 'right' holds little value to me.

The fact that you would extrapolate from this individual case to a rule you would apply to each and every Muslim and Mexican speaks volumes about your collectivist motivation, and confirms everything I've ever said about the logically necessary bigotry underlying all anti-immigration arguments.

"He was the only candidate

"He was the only candidate who had economic competence. Unfortunately he let some bigot run his newsletter."

Yeah, because otherwise he was a shoo-in?

I'm really puzzled as to why Micha would post this since he thinks people have so much reason to suspicious of Paul's politics. How is it good libertarian salesmanship to draw attention to the association of these economic views with such dangerous racism? Shouldn't people naturally be suspicious that these views are implicitly racist?

"But Egon, you said making common cause with bigots was a *bad* thing...." - Dr. Peter Venkman in Bigotbusters

I don't think Paul is a

I don't think Paul is a bigot himself, although he made some very unwise decisions picking his group of friends and ghostwriters.

How is it good libertarian salesmanship to draw attention to the association of these economic views with such dangerous racism? Shouldn't people naturally be suspicious that these views are implicitly racist?

I think this supports my point that we should highlight the areas where people like Paul are right while distancing ourselves from the areas where they are wrong. Putting our hands around our ears and pretending these associations don't exist won't do us any good in the long run. Eventually someone hostile to libertarianism will pick them up and run with them. Better to preempt them and spin it in a way conducive to salvaging the good parts.

Putting our hands around our

Putting our hands around our ears and pretending these associations don't exist won't do us any good in the long run.

How should Ron Paul's racist association inform my understanding of his economic prescriptions?

He might be biased in his

He might be biased in his economic appraisal of immigration.

Ad hominem.

That's ad hominem. And I guess that's the point of Micha's salesmanship, he thinks libertarianism must be packaged so as not to be rejected by those who accept ad hominem arguments - which is to say it must be packaged so as not to be rejected by those who reason poorly.

Good luck with that, Micha.

Yes it is ad hominem and no

Yes it is ad hominem and no it is not systematically poor logic. Analyzing logical statements is never costless.

Wouldn't it take poor logic

Wouldn't it take poor logic to conclude libertarianism is bad because some libertarians are racist?

And Micha thinks libertarianism should be packaged to be acceptable to such minds. The fact that if he's successful he'll wind up with a bunch of addled "libertarians" won't make me think any less of libertarianism as a moral philosophy. It does exemplify why I don't think much of movement libertarianism though.

Wouldn't it take poor logic

Wouldn't it take poor logic to conclude libertarianism is bad because some libertarians are racist?

On which budget?

On my very first exposure to Rothbard I stumbled on his association with Pat Buchanan and dropped it, I only came back to it a month or so after.

Lots of libertarians are turnoffs

On my very first exposure to Rothbard I stumbled on his association with Pat Buchanan and dropped it, I only came back to it a month or so after.

And if my first exposure to libertarianism were Micha with his obsession with racism and apparent delusion that we're living in the Deep South of the 1950s, or Rad Geek who goes to absurd lengths to try to justify or excuse or otherwise rehabilitate every brain fart ever emitted by a left wing thinker, I might have recoiled as well.

But I'm not advocating that they be in some fashion excommunicated from the Church of Libertarianism, as is being done on this blog and elsewhere with respect to the folks at the Mises Institute and others.

On the other hand, now that I know that in large part it is personal (e.g. Micha wanted to go to a Mises Institute party and was disinvited) I'm less inclined to take the whole conflict seriously. It's not so much about the fate of Libertarianism, at this point it's largely about personal vendettas.

So Said Adlai

And Micha thinks libertarianism should be packaged to be acceptable to such minds. The fact that if he's successful he'll wind up with a bunch of addled "libertarians" won't make me think any less of libertarianism as a moral philosophy. It does exemplify why I don't think much of movement libertarianism though.

"Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!"

"That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

I think this supports my

I think this supports my point that we should highlight the areas where people like Paul are right while distancing ourselves from the areas where they are wrong.

And you have a different policy in mind for people who are not like Paul? What would that be?

Not a different policy, just

Not a different policy, just a different focus. I have less reason to worry about the wacky things said by, say, an unrepentant Maoist coming back and biting me in the ass.

Shoo-in? More than any LP candidate for sure.

Actually, I'm also wondering why since he seems to have such a problem with Austrian economics.

"Yeah, because otherwise he was a shoo-in?"

More so than any LP candidate. That's for sure as he was running on a major ticket. He's actually held office for quite awhile also. He also really blew it when he implied we are responsible for the terrorists attacks.

I don't have a problem with

I don't have a problem with Austrian economics, just some flavors of it.

He also really blew it when he implied we are responsible for the terrorists attacks.

His implication was not that we deserved it, but that meddling foreign policy provoked it. It was his finest moment.

You're provoking me

"His implication was not that we deserved it, but that meddling foreign policy provoked it. It was his finest moment."

Now your provoking me to punch you in the nose. Since you provoked me other people will find it understandable when I punch you in the nose. See how that works? In other words, you deserved it.

Well, knowing what I know

Well, knowing what I know now, I'd have to be pretty stupid to tell you my thoughts on the factors leading up to 9/11 if we were face to face in a bar and you were drunk. I wouldn't deserve getting punched in the nose, but I'd be pretty stupid for proving you, unless I was looking for a fight.

You're still provoking me

Great so we've now established that whenever you are disagreeing with me, or going about your business in other ways I don't like that would lead me to attack you, that you are "looking for a fight".

All that is neccesary is for me to declare my irrationality on any topic and then it's you who is the trespasser looking to cause trouble.

Now my irrationality can extend not only to punching you in the mouth but all sorts of other evil deeds against others. So I could then announce that if you don't shut your pie hole I'm going to start killing up innocent civilians.

Again, in your view and Ron Paul's, if you open your mouth you are provoking the very acts that I commit and therefore are responsible for them. You were looking for a fight and got one.

In my view your reasoning is insane. It would be exactly I who would be tresspassing against you by the mere announcement that I was going to punch you in the mouth just because you disagree.

It is also the exact kind of reasoning that Islam was designed to take advantage of. The mere existance of the non-believer with equal rights to a Muslim is a provokation. That's why Israel is a such a "provokation". The idea that Jews are equals to Muslims is anti-Islam.

I don't think you even understand what the phrase "looking for a fight" entails. It means that you are in the wrong, and that you are responsible for starting the fight.

In your world are women who dress provacatively looking to get raped?
You buy into one aspect of Islamic thinking. Do you also buy into the 'uncovered meat' theory of dress advocated by Islam?

After a girl got raped by a Muslim for dressing western style, as is happening quite often now in Scandinavian countries would you be there defending Ron Paul? That is if Ron Paul said, "Well she was provoking them".

BTW, Saudi Arabia itself has a very meddling foreign policy when it comes to the US. They bribe our officials, have lobbyists, etc. Hell, I betcha at this very moment there are Saudi soldiers on US soil. Does that mean they are provoking me to blow up innocent Saudi citizens?

Where's the connection between provocation and the victim I choose? Is it on any random attribute I choose? Can it be on the basis of political, business, religious or other affiliation? Can I for instance attack anyone who buys Saudi oil or the products thereof. They are, after all, supporting the Saudi state.

What are your other criteria? Do I need to announce what is going to provoke me first? Did Bin Laden officially announce his intentions, and what was going to trigger his insane response? Even if he did why should we let that influnece us?

Generally, I don't

Generally, I don't automatically assume that disagreeing with someone puts us in an adversarial position likely to lead to fisticuffs. Once I am exposed to enough information about that person, though, I may realize that they aren't interested in a rational discussion, and I have reason to end that discussion, unless I don't mind the discussion ending in a fight. Knowing what I know about your views, I wouldn't discuss certain topics in person (with you drunk) unless I didn't mind the discussion ending that way; I would be acting irrationally if I continued the discussion thinking it would end fruitfully.

All that is neccesary is for me to declare my irrationality on any topic and then it's you who is the trespasser looking to cause trouble.

Not at all. I would be irrational if I continued trying to engage in a rational discussion with a person I knew was irrational about the topic being discussed. But that wouldn't make me a "trespasser" in the moral sense. Similarly, I would be irrational if I left my car doors unlocked in a sketchy neighborhood, with valuable electronics in plain view, hoping not to get robbed, but I wouldn't be forfeiting any property claims I had to the car or the stuff inside it, and a thief would still be in the wrong for breaking in and stealing it.

Again, in your view and Ron Paul's, if you open your mouth you are provoking the very acts that I commit and therefore are responsible for them. You were looking for a fight and got one.

This is incorrect. Neither Paul nor I believe that the U.S. was morally responsible for the attacks. The argument is a pragmatic one; non-interventionism is less likely than interventionism to attract unjust aggression from others. Interventionism is sometimes morally justified, but that doesn't make it the wisest course of action.

In your world are women who dress provacatively looking to get raped?

This is actually a really good analogy. Women who dress provocatively do not deserve to be raped, but it is unwise to dress provocatively under certain circumstances, around certain people. The moral blame lies with the rapist, but wisdom requires acting in accordance with the way the world is (taking into account the likely reactions of evil people), not just the way the world should be.

After a girl got raped by a Muslim for dressing western style, as is happening quite often now in Scandinavian countries would you be there defending Ron Paul? That is if Ron Paul said, "Well she was provoking them".

If the girl continued her policy of dressing provocatively while walking through Muslim quarters even after being raped, one should be able to advise her that her actions are unwise, even if morally justified.

provoked

If a man says, at a murdered girl's wake, "dressing provocatively provoked the attack," that is surely not his finest moment. Especially if he is known advocate of modest dress, especially if he is known to consider immodest dress to be immoral.

I agree; there is a time and

I agree; there is a time and place for everything. And those who responded too soon after 9/11 looked like fools, ignoring the emotional need for a period of mourning. But 9/11 has passed, and eventually it becomes time too look at foreign policy critically and ask if our status quo approach is promoting the goals of peace we are trying to achieve, or if it is counterproductive. Ron Paul's response in that forum was perfectly appropriate and entirely accurate - denying the obvious results of a policy of foreign interventionism for the sake of 9/11 sentimentalism is pure insanity.

Pragmatic arguments

"The argument is a pragmatic one"

Yeah, and mine was a hypothetical one. You weren't sharp enough to figure that out, and you are not sharp enough to understand the ramifications of giving in to bullying.

"non-interventionism is less likely than interventionism to attract unjust aggression from others."

Well actually no, it works the exact opposite way. Giving in to bullies leads to more bullying. Besides, one man's interventionism is another mans defense of rights. In this case we are being extorted into doing the wrong thing. Osama wasn't about right or good. It was about impurity of the infidel on Saudi lands, and Jews in the very region of their birth 2000 years prior to Islam.

If keeping the Jews in Israel from being "pushed into the sea" or if pushing Saddam out of Kuwait is "interventionism" well then let's have more of that. I've investigated the background on Israel and the muslim objectitions are truly based 95% on racism, and about 5% on any valid claims. Those valid claims pretty much evaporate when you do not even affirm the right of the other side to even exist.

Mohammed set his religion up with beliefs that will lead to endless claims of persecution and intervention. Hell, he claimed the then Jewish Holy city as one of his main religious sites. In fact, the religion claims the entire earth as its own. How does one fail to provoke believers in such a religion?

In this case we are being

In this case we are being extorted into doing the wrong thing.

We had independent reason to stop meddling in the Middle East long before 9/11, and we should have done so. It was the right thing then, and getting attacked in only more evidence that it is the right thing now. (Our failures in escalating the conflict even further is also indicative of misguided policy.)

It's sort of like sticking your hand into a bee hive. It was stupid to do in the first place. When the bees eventually sting you, refusing to remove your hand so as not to give in to the bees "extortion" is even sillier. It's what bees do. Whether the bees are justified in stinging you is irrelevant. It's not a question of who is right or wrong, it's a question of how best to avoid future bee stings. One does not need to pretend that bees are really gentle butterflies, or that bees are friendly, peaceful creatures in order to realize that building your campsite next to a beehive is probably not a good idea.

Getting stuck in the mindset of questioning who started it, or who is more righteous and who is more evil, only prolongs the conflict, as we have seen time and time again with the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Eventually, you have to realize that the only way out is to stop playing the same game.

If keeping the Jews in Israel from being "pushed into the sea" or if pushing Saddam out of Kuwait is "interventionism" well then let's have more of that.

Defending Israel and Kuwait is the proper role of the U.S. government? We've sure been doing a bang-up job on those fronts.

Of course, now I'm violating what I said earlier about the rationality of arguing with the irrational. You clearly have pretty strong emotions invested in defending a policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace, regardless of whether the results of perpetual war actually lead to anything constructive other than satiating an atavistic vengeance, so I think I'll end my participation here.

Depends on what you think the mistake is

So Osama blew up the World Trade Center in 2001 because we invaded Iraq later?

What is stupid about the Iraq invasion isn't the interventionism. It's the belief that we owe Iraq something. We don't. We could just have well bombed and destroyed all of Saddams palaces to set him straight. It would have been cheaper and quite effective.

If you show all the bullies that you are going to fight them but with one hand behind your back and plus you are going to pick up all the hospital bills then it emboldens them.

They know that even if you did give the last guy a bloody nose you can't keep it up for ever. You just can't afford to pay all those hospital bills.

Whether your objectives are met depends on what your objectives are. If your objective is to set up a fully functional democracy in Iraq, well that's pretty darn stupid.

Our military was barely scratched even with an invasion. Less war dead under Bush during the initial invasion than under Clinton due to normal operations.

We didn't stick our hand in a hornets nest. We stuck our hand in a nest of vulgar little baby birds. Now we are trying to nurse those birds to health but they keep pecking at us. We have more casualties from car accidents. Would you argue that having cars and roads is like "sticking our hands in a hornets nest".

As a matter of fact, during all this it is Al Queda that is being recognized as evil by Muslims and becoming unpopular. We were always unpopular and it has more to do with our capitalism than our interventionism.

These easily upset idiot Muslims are objecting to the Red Cross giving aid to the Tsunami victims. It provokes them. Why? Because they hate anything non-Muslim and Christian aid to Muslims is just intolerable.

"That's for sure as he was

"That's for sure as he was running on a major ticket."

He was running for a spot on a major ticket, a spot which he had no chance of getting unless all of the other candidates were exposed as members of Al Qaeda. And probably not even then.

Shut the fuck up, Arthur.

Shut the fuck up, Arthur. This man is trying to steer us in the right direction and you're still stuck on some completely fictionalized account of his border policy. What's so indecent about asking people to enter our country legally, just like we have to Canada, Mexico, anywhere in the EU, and elsewhere?

Ron Paul is trying to save what's left of his country, and the short sighted are still trying to justify his racism through petty comments like that. Every time I've ever heard him speak, he praises the civil disobedience of Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and is great friends with Cynthia McKinney.

Shame on you for being such a lying, short sighted prick. You deserve the mess that's coming. God knows it was people like you who have dug this hole.

What's so indecent about

What's so indecent about asking people to enter our country legally

Am unjust law is no law at all. Plus, there is no real option for most immigrants who want to come here legally, unless they have advanced degrees or immediate relatives who already live here legally. Telling them to wait in line is a sick joke.

Being great friends with Cynthia McKinney is hardly a plus in my book.

This man is trying to steer

This man is trying to steer us in the right direction and you're still stuck on some completely fictionalized account of his border policy.

My account on his border policy is based on his campaign website and youtube speeches, you may refer to those.

What's so indecent about asking people to enter our country legally

The law itself is indecent and Ron Paul claims he wants to make it more strict.

Ron Paul is trying to save what's left of his country, and the short sighted are still trying to justify his racism through petty comments like that.

I believe Ron Paul isn't a racist and I find the attacks based on his newsletter completely stupid. I am saying that taking issue with this is ridiculous since there are much bigger issues with his campaign.

Every time I've ever heard him speak, he praises the civil disobedience

Civil disobedience? What's wrong with asking people to dissent legally? Go think on your contradictions.

Shame on you for being such a lying

How have I lied ? Doesn't Ron Paul want to make it harder for Canadian immigrants to enter the US ?

Look, I hear this guy, he says a lot of good things, and then he says armed goons should force me out of the country and put me on a mile long waiting list. This guy is advocating my kidnapping.

You can hide in my attic

You can hide in my attic when they come for you, Arthur. Just don't eat any potato chips while you're up there.

Actually I'm on my way to

Actually I'm on my way to get a green card*, perhaps next August. It's a 50% chance now, there's a long story I'll tell when it's safe.

* which implies I had to officially renounce overthrowing the US government, it was a tough decision but it's better this way.

* which implies I had to

* which implies I had to officially renounce overthrowing the US government,

Fortunately there's no law against crossing your fingers.

(Yet.)

Sure it's not "Shoot them where you find them"?

"My account on his border policy is based on his campaign website and youtube speeches, you may refer to those."

So I can find the quotes there where he calls on shooting Mexican children at the borders, can you like, maybe, give me a quote. Then I can look it up using google.

Sure you don't also "believe" that he wants to shoot them anywhere in the interior of the country too? You see I think you deduced this belief that he's for shooting illegal immigrant children and don't see why this faulty reasoning restricted itself at the borders.

He calls for more border

He calls for more border protection. Since border protection relies on the use of deadly force, and since he has made no statement indicating he wants border protection done differently I can assume he calls for more rather than less immigrants being shot.

Seriously, why do you think border guards have guns and rifles?

Border Guards

Seriously, why do you think border guards have guns and rifles?

For the same exact reasons why the police have guns and rifles everywhere else in the country. It's not to shoot people on sight.

Who said "on sight" ? It's

Who said "on sight" ? It's to shoot people who try to exercise their rights. Most are too afraid to do it. But the reason border guards are armed is that ultimately, they will use lethal force to prevent you from peacefully walking in the country.

We have been living in freak economic conditions

The world historical economic norm is 80% or so of the population living in poverty.
Before WW1 half of all Americans lived in poverty. The small middle class population had live in servants.

WW2 ended with the US being the only industrial nation with an intact population and industrial capacity. Thanks to the Marshall Plan we did NOT have the normal post war stagflation. Thanks to the G.I. Bill we had a generation of technicians and scientists. Thanks to the new freeway system we had a building and auto boom.

The WW2 effect has worn off. Conditions are reverting to the norm. Advise your kids to get good government jobs.