I'm not overestimating anything. It's clear to anyone that capital makes or breaks almost everything in govt. I mean, even Paul-fans complain of that fact. I'm not seeking a simple answer (which you seem to be so keen on giving), I'm seeking an answer to the question I've posed since the beginning. If there's anything clear here is your inability to answer the question without misrepresenting it or saying that limited government limits.
Report this comment
Like or Dislike: 0 0
I've read your replies and none of them have answered the question I've been asking since the beginning. The closest you got was 16 hours ago and even then you ignored a key component.
You can continue to act as if I'm being vague and as if you've proven something, but our conversation is there for anyone to see.
"i've answered your vague question in almost every possible way..."
Every possible way except the one that is clearest, i.e. the way which I've asked it. The first time you addressed my question (1 day), you did so with irrelevant empty rhetoric about how, "limited government" limits people. Then (17 hours ago) you strawmanned me saying I was claiming corporations shouldn't have a say in govt; 16 hours ago you asked if I meant corp. would control government (ignoring the role of capital).
on the other hand, you continue to overestimate the power of lobbying, while underestimating/ignoring the power of the democratic process
by now its obvious that you seek a simple answer, a president that would magically solve corp/govt corruption on his/her own, and all i am saying is that there is no such thing as a simple solution to government no matter how appealing it might be
"Precisely, it was simple, which is why I said you danced around the issue."
i've answered your vague question in almost every possible way in which you could mean it to be, so if you still fail to understand/ignore my answer then i cant really help you with that.
"You can choose to ignore its effects if you like."
i never denied the role of money in politics, which is obvious if you actually read my reply
P. 2 of 2
"...you greatly exaggerate its role".
No, I haven't. We see everyday. Money makes or breaks causes, legislation, elections, etc. You can choose to ignore its effects if you like.
"...it is the responsibility..."
Yes, but that does not mean that the deck should be stacked against them to begin with, which is what I'm trying to establish with asking. Once more: How would Paul keep corporations from controlling govt, given that they have most of the capital?
Like or Dislike: 1 0
P.1 of 2
"i gave you a simple yes or no..."
Precisely, it was simple, which is why I said you danced around the issue.
"...your argument is based on the assumption..."
It's not an assumption that capital influences government to a greater extent that votes do. It's happens every day. I don't accuse his administration of being worse or better than others on this point, I ask to establish if there'd be a qualitative difference between his and the status-quo (when it comes to this point).
im not denying the fact that money can influence govt, this is an obvious fact, but at the same time you greatly exaggerate its role. Ultimately, we live in a democratic-republic, where policies are determined by demo-elected representatives, and at the end of the day there is a responsibility for the public to vote out those that only act in their interests. this would act as a "natural" counterweight to the capital of the "few"
i gave you a simple yes or no answer along with an explanation, yet you accuse me of "dancing around the issue"
also you accuse me of using "empty rhetoric," yet your argument is based on the assumption that corporations would for some reason have more influence with their money on govt in a paul administration than in anyone else's.
You continue to ignore the role of capital in government. If you limit government generally, corporations are not (quantitatively) equally affected by the limitations as would be individual citizens given that at any point the former has more capital than the latter.
"...there is no...way of keeping corporations from using their money to influence govt..."
Again, you're dancing around the issue. My question wasn't, "how will he keep them from using their money?", but, "how would he keep them from controlling (as in dominating) govt. given that they posses most of the capital?".
"...limit the scope of govt so that 'corporations' are limited..."
Again, empty rhetoric. This presupposes corporations are equally affected by limitations as are individuals.
that said, the libertarian solution to excessive capital influence is to limit the scope of govt so that "corporations" are limited to the extent by which they can use money to have "control" over others via govt, since govt is the only entity permitted to exercise force in a capitalist society
"With control via the influence of their capital."
in this case the simple answer is no, there is no realistic way of keeping corporations from using their money to influence govt since lobbying has always been a legitimate part of the political process. certainly no one is saying paul is some sort of messiah out to fix all political problems in america, but it isnt like this would be a problem particular to the paul administration
"...will end up with complete control over the government..."
With control via the influence of their capital.
its all a song and dance to make us believe we have choice...and we live in a republic not a democracy this is true look up the definition.
you should understand when you use vague terms and assumptions it makes it difficult to understand your question, but i think i understand your question now. so basically youre worried that a single (or a partnership of) corporation/s will end up with complete control over the government under a paul administration, and that they will create and enforce laws bypassing the elected government?
i just wanna make sure this is what you meant to ask before i waste any more time
"...that people that work for corporations shouldn't have a say in government?" [sic]
You know for someone who accused me of strawmanning Paul's position earlier, you sure love to strawman me. I've said no such thing. The only thing I ask is how his government would be able to keep corporations (call them CEO's, board of trustees, whatever you like) from controlling government, given that they have most of the capital? This is the 4th time I've asked this and you've yet to provide a response.
More propaganda to make people think that if things change from the norm (not obama's change) the parties wont work. All GOP and DEM need to open their eyes.
so exactly what are you trying to say then? that people that work for corporations shouldnt have a say in government? it seems that you're using the word "corporations" as a loose term to mean some sort of vampires that are out to suck the public dry. in reality corporations, big or small, are made up of people, rich or poor, and are an integral part of the economy.
try to make your points more coherent by refraining from using blanket statements like "corporations" to refer to "the bad guys"
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Please enter an answer in digits:
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Yes, send me email updates and action alerts from RonPaul.com
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
RonPaul.com is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his staff.