Bitcoin Forum

Other => Politics & Society => Topic started by: niemivh on July 09, 2012, 10:13:59 PM



Title: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 09, 2012, 10:13:59 PM
Just checking a barometer about Ron Paul.  Is the Libertarian community still fooled by Ron Paul?  Have they moved on to other demagogues to worship?  Maybe I shouldn't word the question like that.  Is Ron Paul still popular with Libertarians?

Who here as read "End the Fed" or "The Revolution: A Manifesto"?  The title of every book that Ron Paul writes should be entitled "<Title Here>: A Manifesto" because that is all that he writes.

For those who care about what I have to say about Ron Paul's latest book "End the Fed: (A Manifesto)" (parenthetically added) here is the link to my book review of "End the Fed".  Under the pen-name "John Anon".


http://www.amazon.com/End-Fed-Ron-Paul/product-reviews/0446549193/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar


Maybe it'll be the starting point for an interesting discussion.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: TheButterZone on July 09, 2012, 11:59:37 PM
http://kcgould.net/temp/PancakeRabbit.jpg


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: myrkul on July 10, 2012, 12:04:11 AM

Stolen!


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 12:08:44 AM
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120213055636/uncyclopedia/images/5/52/Double-facepalm.jpg


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: myrkul on July 10, 2012, 12:17:20 AM
https://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvjbv63th61qagyvoo1_500.jpg


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: cryptoanarchist on July 10, 2012, 12:23:46 AM
I think Ron Paul is a false hope, but that review was so long winded before it got to anything resembling a point, that I quit reading.



Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: BoardGameCoin on July 10, 2012, 12:24:43 AM
that review was so long winded before it got to anything resembling a point, that I quit reading.

+100



Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: MoonShadow on July 10, 2012, 12:32:01 AM
I think Ron Paul is a false hope,

There never was much hope, only a fool's hope.

Unfortunately, Nobody didn't run.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: MoonShadow on July 10, 2012, 12:39:37 AM
Just checking a barometer about Ron Paul.  Is the Libertarian community still fooled by Ron Paul?  Have they moved on to other demagogues to worship?  Maybe I shouldn't word the question like that.  Is Ron Paul still popular with Libertarians?

Who here as read "End the Fed" or "The Revolution: A Manifesto"?  The title of every book that Ron Paul writes should be entitled "<Title Here>: A Manifesto" because that is all that he writes.

For those who care about what I have to say about Ron Paul's latest book "End the Fed: (A Manifesto)" (parenthetically added) here is the link to my book review of "End the Fed".  Under the pen-name "John Anon".


Sorry, but I didn't see any point of reading past this sentence considering that it just bleeds your bias, just like most of your posts here do...

Quote
In order to explain the fallacy of this book and its fly-by-night ideology

The only reason that someone with your worldview bothers to read an entire book written by Ron Paul is to deconstruct it.  I'd wager it was real work for you to get through it, considering the massive aount of cognative dissonance that it must have caused you.  Even Paul Krugman hasn't actually read an entire book by Ron Paul.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: sadpandatech on July 10, 2012, 12:46:02 AM
Do you ever read or review on any books that you like?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A12M1WWAGSH35S/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev/191-4890888-8095714?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: myrkul on July 10, 2012, 12:56:17 AM
Do you ever read or review on any books that you like?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A12M1WWAGSH35S/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev/191-4890888-8095714?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

He gave 5 stars to Roads to Reaction, by Herman Finer.
and 5 to The Biosphere: Complete Annotated Edition, by V. I. Vernadski

Of course, the reviews on the books he liked are short and concise, the reviews on the books he disliked are tirades.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: cryptoanarchist on July 10, 2012, 01:17:36 AM
I think niemivh's a madman. Completely lost his marbles. 


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: sadpandatech on July 10, 2012, 01:32:30 AM
Do you ever read or review on any books that you like?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A12M1WWAGSH35S/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev/191-4890888-8095714?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

He gave 5 stars to Roads to Reaction, by Herman Finer.
and 5 to The Biosphere: Complete Annotated Edition, by V. I. Vernadski

Of course, the reviews on the books he liked are short and concise, the reviews on the books he disliked are tirades.

aye, missed those scrolling through the first time because I was scanning for large volumes of text. ;p He had no choice but to 5 star Roads to Reaction because it proves his review of Roads to Serfdom.


@OP  I'd be happy to debate and converse with you but sadly I am not capable of communicating at the level of extreme cynicism that would be necessary.

I did read atleast a few paragraphs of your posted review. I was having a hard time getting past your perceived disdain for Ron Paul sopporters to find the true nuggets of insight against the Libertarian ideals that Pual has supported for the majority of his career. Not being familiar with the book, maybe it came off sounding like some loud mouth teen, high on angst and low in capacity for self indentification. But a read of the book would probably be needed to make such a distinction. You did read this book, right?


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: myrkul on July 10, 2012, 01:36:22 AM
I think niemivh's a madman. Completely lost his marbles. 

Well, he's stated that what happened to move him away from libertarianism is that he read some old books... And we all know what happens when you read the books...

http://www.ghostwoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/The_necronomicon_by_MarcSimonetti.jpg


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: TheButterZone on July 10, 2012, 01:57:09 AM

Stolen!


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 07:50:48 PM

Cynicism?  How avant garde of you.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 07:53:20 PM
that review was so long winded before it got to anything resembling a point, that I quit reading.

+100



Sorry, I forgot that Libertarians typically have the attention spans of gnats and that's why they are suckered into destroying themselves with their chintzy ideological crackpotisms.  They can't be bothered with reading anything that isn't 2-dimensionally simple, by someone like Ron Paul, that speaks down to them and degrades their intelligence.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 07:57:09 PM
Just checking a barometer about Ron Paul.  Is the Libertarian community still fooled by Ron Paul?  Have they moved on to other demagogues to worship?  Maybe I shouldn't word the question like that.  Is Ron Paul still popular with Libertarians?

Who here as read "End the Fed" or "The Revolution: A Manifesto"?  The title of every book that Ron Paul writes should be entitled "<Title Here>: A Manifesto" because that is all that he writes.

For those who care about what I have to say about Ron Paul's latest book "End the Fed: (A Manifesto)" (parenthetically added) here is the link to my book review of "End the Fed".  Under the pen-name "John Anon".


Sorry, but I didn't see any point of reading past this sentence considering that it just bleeds your bias, just like most of your posts here do...

Quote
In order to explain the fallacy of this book and its fly-by-night ideology

The only reason that someone with your worldview bothers to read an entire book written by Ron Paul is to deconstruct it.  I'd wager it was real work for you to get through it, considering the massive aount of cognative dissonance that it must have caused you.  Even Paul Krugman hasn't actually read an entire book by Ron Paul.


Psychoanalysis?  Really?  As the first thing out of the gate?  You move awful fast.  I only resort to psychoanalysis as a last resort.  It's always telling for someone to result to this first, because they have nothing to say and no understanding of the subject matter.  Perhaps after Ron Paul's ideology is sufficiently discussed then you could have something remotely approximating a psychoanalysis, but give it a minute, hold your horses if you'd like to have a patina of creditability.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 07:57:33 PM
Do you ever read or review on any books that you like?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A12M1WWAGSH35S/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev/191-4890888-8095714?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

It's rare.

 :D

It's the books that really get under my skin that I feel I must review.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 07:59:50 PM
Do you ever read or review on any books that you like?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A12M1WWAGSH35S/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev/191-4890888-8095714?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

He gave 5 stars to Roads to Reaction, by Herman Finer.
and 5 to The Biosphere: Complete Annotated Edition, by V. I. Vernadski

Of course, the reviews on the books he liked are short and concise, the reviews on the books he disliked are tirades.

If I like a book, what about it needs to be said?  It's the pointing out of the fallacies and lies of books that need greater attention.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: myrkul on July 10, 2012, 08:02:46 PM
Do you ever read or review on any books that you like?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A12M1WWAGSH35S/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev/191-4890888-8095714?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

He gave 5 stars to Roads to Reaction, by Herman Finer.
and 5 to The Biosphere: Complete Annotated Edition, by V. I. Vernadski

Of course, the reviews on the books he liked are short and concise, the reviews on the books he disliked are tirades.

If I like a book, what about it needs to be said?  It's the pointing out of the fallacies and lies of books that need greater attention.

But rather than acting like an honest scholar and putting out a rebuttal writing, you just comment on the book's Amazon page.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 08:05:39 PM
Do you ever read or review on any books that you like?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A12M1WWAGSH35S/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev/191-4890888-8095714?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

He gave 5 stars to Roads to Reaction, by Herman Finer.
and 5 to The Biosphere: Complete Annotated Edition, by V. I. Vernadski

Of course, the reviews on the books he liked are short and concise, the reviews on the books he disliked are tirades.

aye, missed those scrolling through the first time because I was scanning for large volumes of text. ;p He had no choice but to 5 star Roads to Reaction because it proves his review of Roads to Serfdom.


@OP  I'd be happy to debate and converse with you but sadly I am not capable of communicating at the level of extreme cynicism that would be necessary.

I did read atleast a few paragraphs of your posted review. I was having a hard time getting past your perceived disdain for Ron Paul sopporters to find the true nuggets of insight against the Libertarian ideals that Pual has supported for the majority of his career. Not being familiar with the book, maybe it came off sounding like some loud mouth teen, high on angst and low in capacity for self indentification. But a read of the book would probably be needed to make such a distinction. You did read this book, right?

If I was cynical I wouldn't be here, I'd be off doing drugs somewhere or burying myself in a virtual reality video-game universe as the majority of people on this forum do one or either of, probably on a daily basis.

There is much difference between being a cynic (seeing everything through a negative perception) and seeing things that are degenerate and evil as what they are and being able to clearly define that evil and degeneracy.  I believe they called it "being literate".

But, yet again, the Libertarians start with their psychoanalysis and trying to hone in a target for ad-hominems because they are (typically) very ignorant and actually can't discuss policy or any of these ideas at any length whatsoever.

Keep proving me right Libertarians.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 08:08:37 PM
Do you ever read or review on any books that you like?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A12M1WWAGSH35S/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev/191-4890888-8095714?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview

He gave 5 stars to Roads to Reaction, by Herman Finer.
and 5 to The Biosphere: Complete Annotated Edition, by V. I. Vernadski

Of course, the reviews on the books he liked are short and concise, the reviews on the books he disliked are tirades.

If I like a book, what about it needs to be said?  It's the pointing out of the fallacies and lies of books that need greater attention.

But rather than acting like an honest scholar and putting out a rebuttal writing, you just comment on the book's Amazon page.

Umm.. what?

Should I write a full rebuttal paper and then print it out and file it away in my file cabinet?  The point of reviewing the book and rebuffing it is for those counter-arguments to be read.  It's to dispel false memes floating around the society, where else am I to take my 'rebuttal'?



Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: myrkul on July 10, 2012, 08:11:14 PM

Cynicism? Not at all. That's the perfect candidate!

Should I write a full rebuttal paper and then print it out and file it away in my file cabinet?  The point of reviewing the book and rebuffing it is for those counter-arguments to be read.  It's to dispel false memes floating around the society, where else am I to take my 'rebuttal'?

Here's a crazy thought... Publish it. Nobody is going to read a five page review.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 08:14:05 PM

Cynicism? Not at all. That's the perfect candidate!

Should I write a full rebuttal paper and then print it out and file it away in my file cabinet?  The point of reviewing the book and rebuffing it is for those counter-arguments to be read.  It's to dispel false memes floating around the society, where else am I to take my 'rebuttal'?

Here's a crazy thought... Publish it. Nobody is going to read a five page review.

Audience for that would come from where?

Plus that review was only 8000 words, not enough to publish.  That's what the Debunking Libertarianism book is going to be about.

 ;D


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: myrkul on July 10, 2012, 08:17:19 PM

Cynicism? Not at all. That's the perfect candidate!

Should I write a full rebuttal paper and then print it out and file it away in my file cabinet?  The point of reviewing the book and rebuffing it is for those counter-arguments to be read.  It's to dispel false memes floating around the society, where else am I to take my 'rebuttal'?

Here's a crazy thought... Publish it. Nobody is going to read a five page review.

Audience for that would come from where?

Plus that review was only 8000 words, not enough to publish.  That's what the Debunking Libertarianism book is going to be about.

 ;D

Well, why write an 8000 word "review", when you're writing a book already? That's a lot of words to spray out into the internet where nobody is going to click on the "see more..." link when you've already annoyed them with the paragraph it shows. Save those words for your book.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 08:25:27 PM

Cynicism? Not at all. That's the perfect candidate!

Should I write a full rebuttal paper and then print it out and file it away in my file cabinet?  The point of reviewing the book and rebuffing it is for those counter-arguments to be read.  It's to dispel false memes floating around the society, where else am I to take my 'rebuttal'?

Here's a crazy thought... Publish it. Nobody is going to read a five page review.

Audience for that would come from where?

Plus that review was only 8000 words, not enough to publish.  That's what the Debunking Libertarianism book is going to be about.

 ;D

Well, why write an 8000 word "review", when you're writing a book already? That's a lot of words to spray out into the internet where nobody is going to click on the "see more..." link when you've already annoyed them with the paragraph it shows. Save those words for your book.

Practice makes perfect.  It's fun to write, if given the time I could write all day.

Editing is my arch-nemesis however.  I actually edit a lot of what I write, as I write, but as for macro-editing, that's something I'm going to need help with.

I write words like I write music, I'll go to the computer or (or to my guitar) and try to write 1 thing but accidentally write a dozen things, it took me about as long to write that as it took me to type it, so it's not like it was an incredible investment of time or anything.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: myrkul on July 10, 2012, 08:32:16 PM
Editing is my arch-nemesis however.  I actually edit a lot of what I write, as I write, but as for macro-editing, that's something I'm going to need help with.

Don't. The one piece of advice I continuously hear from published authors is that if you edit while you write, you'll never finish your book. Write, then edit. Helps to get another pair of eyes on it, too.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: BoardGameCoin on July 10, 2012, 08:35:21 PM
that review was so long winded before it got to anything resembling a point, that I quit reading.

+100



Sorry, I forgot that Libertarians typically have the attention spans of gnats and that's why they are suckered into destroying themselves with their chintzy ideological crackpotisms.  They can't be bothered with reading anything that isn't 2-dimensionally simple, by someone like Ron Paul, that speaks down to them and degrades their intelligence.

You could just work on your wordiness and level of assumptions. The first time through I made it about 7 paragraphs in and then felt like you were really repeating yourself. You can capture the gist of your argument in one of your comments on the review:

Quote
Well almost every problem in Paul's mind is due to money printing. That might be good fodder to feed the masses, but actual reality is much more complex than that. "Money printing" is such a primitively crude level of comprehension with regard to our problems. The nature of the crisis is based, fundamentally in derivatives and banks that are too big to fail, and that money printed or loaned-into-existence doesn't actually reflect anything real and concrete in the economy, that our markets are so deregulated that they constitute a gambling operation where any actual worthwhile and productive investment is just a side-effect, among many other things I could list. Oh yeah, that Wall St. pays basically no taxes is another huge part of the problem. I'm not arguing that between what we have now and some form of silver or gold standard wouldn't be better, but that wholly depends on the details of the system and from the Ron Paul camp I never hear details - just windstorms of heated rhetoric and undefined faux-populace jargon. Paul effectively says: "Problem: Money printing. Solution: Gold standard." Yeah, I require a little more information than that, information that is always lacking. What price would gold be set at? How would you create a settlement mechanism for trade with foreign countries? Would the currency be fully convertible, if so, how? How would short term gold flows be reflected in domestic credit policy? (Fun fact: Britain tried to have a 'strict standard' in which all gold outflows corresponded with reduced credit availability in the country in the mid 1800s and it was a unmitigated disaster.) If you have any details of this stuff from the Ron Paul or present, main-stream Libertarian point of view, I'm glad to hear it.

I'm more a regulation needed to keep the market free type than a strict libertarian.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 08:46:29 PM
Editing is my arch-nemesis however.  I actually edit a lot of what I write, as I write, but as for macro-editing, that's something I'm going to need help with.

Don't. The one piece of advice I continuously hear from published authors is that if you edit while you write, you'll never finish your book. Write, then edit. Helps to get another pair of eyes on it, too.

Well I've got what they might call "shotgun creativity", that when I go to write, I could follow the argument in as many directions as I have pairs of hands to type with; same with everything else, it all comes out like a waterfall and I've got to catch as much of it as possible.

So what I mean by editing is that I'm simply parking, or not following, or deleting (if not germane enough) things that could be followed.


Title: Re: Ron Paul (2012) A Discussion
Post by: niemivh on July 10, 2012, 08:50:28 PM
that review was so long winded before it got to anything resembling a point, that I quit reading.

+100



Sorry, I forgot that Libertarians typically have the attention spans of gnats and that's why they are suckered into destroying themselves with their chintzy ideological crackpotisms.  They can't be bothered with reading anything that isn't 2-dimensionally simple, by someone like Ron Paul, that speaks down to them and degrades their intelligence.

You could just work on your wordiness and level of assumptions. The first time through I made it about 7 paragraphs in and then felt like you were really repeating yourself. You can capture the gist of your argument in one of your comments on the review:

Quote
Well almost every problem in Paul's mind is due to money printing. That might be good fodder to feed the masses, but actual reality is much more complex than that. "Money printing" is such a primitively crude level of comprehension with regard to our problems. The nature of the crisis is based, fundamentally in derivatives and banks that are too big to fail, and that money printed or loaned-into-existence doesn't actually reflect anything real and concrete in the economy, that our markets are so deregulated that they constitute a gambling operation where any actual worthwhile and productive investment is just a side-effect, among many other things I could list. Oh yeah, that Wall St. pays basically no taxes is another huge part of the problem. I'm not arguing that between what we have now and some form of silver or gold standard wouldn't be better, but that wholly depends on the details of the system and from the Ron Paul camp I never hear details - just windstorms of heated rhetoric and undefined faux-populace jargon. Paul effectively says: "Problem: Money printing. Solution: Gold standard." Yeah, I require a little more information than that, information that is always lacking. What price would gold be set at? How would you create a settlement mechanism for trade with foreign countries? Would the currency be fully convertible, if so, how? How would short term gold flows be reflected in domestic credit policy? (Fun fact: Britain tried to have a 'strict standard' in which all gold outflows corresponded with reduced credit availability in the country in the mid 1800s and it was a unmitigated disaster.) If you have any details of this stuff from the Ron Paul or present, main-stream Libertarian point of view, I'm glad to hear it.

I'm more a regulation needed to keep the market free type than a strict libertarian.

Well, I feel I have to give some sufficient background because of the fallacy of the sliding scale between Classical Liberalism and Communism that exists in nearly everyone's mind, soley because the Classical Liberals (and now Libertarians) frame the entire world in such a fashion.  The history of the destruction of the National System (that I try and represent) is an actually fascinating topic of discussion and why this false dichotomy exists.

But yes, that review could be shorter, for sure.  It's practically as long as the book, (LOL) but it gives multiple arguments against the book so the reader of the review can identify with whatever might resonate most with them.