The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Oppose Fascism of the Right and the Left
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Following the recent clashes between the alt-right and the group antifa, some libertarians have debated which group they should support. The answer is simple: neither. The alt-right and its leftist opponents are two sides of the same authoritarian coin.

The alt-right elevates racial identity over individual identity. The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system. Some prominent alt-right leaders even support abortion as a way of limiting the minority population. No one who sincerely supports individual liberty, property rights, or the right to life can have any sympathy for this type of racial collectivism.

Antifa, like all Marxists, elevates class identity over individual identity. Antifa supporters believe government must run the economy because otherwise workers will be exploited by greedy capitalists. This faith in central planning ignores economic reality, as well as the reality that in a free market employers and workers voluntarily work together for their mutual benefit. It is only when government intervenes in the economy that crony capitalists have the opportunity to exploit workers, consumers, and taxpayers. Sadly, many on the left confuse the results of the “mixed economy” with free markets.

Ironically, the failure of the Keynesian model of economic authoritarianism, promoted by establishment economists like Paul Krugman, is responsible for the rise of the alt-right and antifa. Despite a recent (and likely short-lived) upturn in some sectors of the economy, many Americans continue to struggle with unemployment and a Federal Reserve-caused eroding standard of living. History shows that economic hardship causes many to follow demagogues offering easy solutions and convenient scapegoats.

Left-wing demagogues scapegoat businesses and the “one percent,” ignoring the distinction between those who made their fortunes serving consumers and those who enriched themselves by manipulating the political process. Right-wing demagogues scapegoat immigrants and minorities, ignoring how these groups suffer under the current system and how they are disproportionally impacted by policies like the war on drugs and police militarization.

As the Keynesian-Krugman empire of big government and fiat currency collapses, more people will be attracted to authoritarianism, leading to an increase in violence. The only way to ensure the current system is not replaced with something even worse is for those of us who know the truth to work harder to spread the ideas of liberty.

While we should be willing to form coalitions with individuals of good will across the political spectrum, we must never align with anyone promoting violence as a solution to social and economic problems. We must also oppose any attempts to use the violence committed by extremists as a justification for expanding the police state or infringing on free speech. Laws against hate speech set a dangerous precedent for censorship of speech unpopular with the ruling elite and the deep state.

Libertarians have several advantages in the ideological battle over what we will replace the Keynesian welfare model with. First, we do not need to resort to scapegoating and demagoguing, as we have the truth about the welfare-warfare state and the Federal Reserve on our side. We also offer a realistic way to restore prosperity. But our greatest advantage is that, while authoritarianism divides people by race, class, religion, or other differences, the cause of liberty unites all who seek peace and prosperity.

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Antifa, Charlottesville 
Hide 43 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I enjoy reading PCR. But, and it’s a big but, he’s always crapping on socialists and mistakenly, in my view, claiming we want government to own everything. It is true that this is the generally excepted idea of socialism and communism. But, that is not, again in my opinion, what socialism/communism really is. In my view, socialism/communism means no more privately owned banks. I’d like PCR to one day write about an economic system in which all banks are publicly owned. He never addresses this issue, although I believe he cited Ellen Brown once or twice. But real communism is actually no more privately owned banks. Am I wrong?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    PCR = Paul Craig Roberts, I assume. Comments can't be made on his articles published here.

    Did you mean to comment on this Ron Paul article?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /rpaul/oppose-fascism-of-the-right-and-the-left/#comment-1977871
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    I enjoy reading PCR. But, and it's a big but, he's always crapping on socialists and mistakenly, in my view, claiming we want government to own everything. It is true that this is the generally excepted idea of socialism and communism. But, that is not, again in my opinion, what socialism/communism really is. In my view, socialism/communism means no more privately owned banks. I'd like PCR to one day write about an economic system in which all banks are publicly owned. He never addresses this issue, although I believe he cited Ellen Brown once or twice. But real communism is actually no more privately owned banks. Am I wrong?

    PCR = Paul Craig Roberts, I assume. Comments can’t be made on his articles published here.

    Did you mean to comment on this Ron Paul article?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system.

    That’s a blatant mischaracterization of alt-right positions by Ron Paul.

    I’ve never heard alt-right members call for massive interference by the government to benefit white people. For the most part, alt-right members view the federal government as irreparably corrupt and against their interests. They’d rather obliterate the federal government than to co-opt it for their sole benefit. Besides, they believe that if the federal government which favors non-whites stopped playing racial favorites which handicap whites then whites would prosper to a greater extent than they are today.

    Similarly, I haven’t seen the alt-right call for massive welfare and entitlement spending. They’d rather restrict the welfare that acts as a magnet for people to immigrate to the United States.

    Ron Paul has a peculiar view of the alt-right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thank you.

    I'm a longstanding admirer of Dr. Paul, but that passage struck me as baseless (and odd), too. It reads as though it were added to convey "balance," or whatever better word might describe an effort to attract as many people as possible to libertarianism. Nor does it sound like something Ron Paul would think, much less say.

    Anyone care to defend the quoted assertions?
    , @lavoisier
    Good point. RP must feel that you cannot condemn violent leftists who want to shut down free speech without making the obligatory attack on the Alt Right.

    I do not know exactly what the Alt Right stands for, nor am I sure it is just one thing, but I support any organization that has respect for Western Civilization and its accomplishments and believes that civilization deserves respect and wants to defend that civilization and the people who created it.

    The racial angle troubles me coming from any group, and not because I believe we are all equal. But it was inevitable with all the demonization of white people that white groups would form to start defending the interests of white people.

    There is no moral equivalence between a group that wants to defend its interests, and a group that wants to destroy that group, its people, and its civilization.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Frank, though I agree with you* that Dr. Paul was full of it in stating that both groups want more government in general, there are some alt-righters on this board (unz in general) that are just clueless on the major problem with health care. They are just A-OK with big Feral Gov't running ruining, oh about 1/6 of the economy (and rising with a bullet). I never understand why people could be very aware in one area, yet completely stupid in another.

    I wonder if that was what Dr. Paul was thinking of, but probably not. He just wanted to malign the two sides at Charlottesville (just as an example) as 2 sides of the same stupidity. It is definitely not like that.

    In fact, from my Peak Stupidity article (just looked to check the link):

    Even if they don't care about free markets in principle, what the alt-right especially should think about is this: What's going on in government-controlled health care is more re-distribution of mostly white working people's money to others, just as is done with most government programs. This health care business is BIG money, though. As much as the white male gets screwed in job prospects, education, and welfare scams, do you alt-right conservatives just want to bend over even farther? If we had constitutional government, NONE of this screwing over of the white man in particular could take place. Work with us constitutionalists a little bit, conservatives!
     
    That's very close to what you wrote, come to read it later!



    * and your 2 repliers, anonymous and lavoisier also.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Frank DeScushin

    The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system.
     
    That's a blatant mischaracterization of alt-right positions by Ron Paul.

    I've never heard alt-right members call for massive interference by the government to benefit white people. For the most part, alt-right members view the federal government as irreparably corrupt and against their interests. They'd rather obliterate the federal government than to co-opt it for their sole benefit. Besides, they believe that if the federal government which favors non-whites stopped playing racial favorites which handicap whites then whites would prosper to a greater extent than they are today.

    Similarly, I haven't seen the alt-right call for massive welfare and entitlement spending. They'd rather restrict the welfare that acts as a magnet for people to immigrate to the United States.

    Ron Paul has a peculiar view of the alt-right.

    Thank you.

    I’m a longstanding admirer of Dr. Paul, but that passage struck me as baseless (and odd), too. It reads as though it were added to convey “balance,” or whatever better word might describe an effort to attract as many people as possible to libertarianism. Nor does it sound like something Ron Paul would think, much less say.

    Anyone care to defend the quoted assertions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    The alt-right opposes free trade, for example. They want to protect American producers through tariffs, while RP sees that as a tax on all American consumers to benefit a few.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. KenH says:

    Ron Paul buys in to the media’s fake narrative about the Unite the Right rally. The rightist rally goers weren’t demanding that America adopt National Socialism. They were demanding an end to the war on white history, monuments and symbols and replacement level immigration that is sure to make us a minority.

    Antifa, like all Marxists, elevates class identity over individual identity.

    There’s an anti-white racial hate component to the antifags and all contemporary (((leftist))) and (((Marxist groups))). To most garden variety leftists, whites are the villains of history and should be completely dispossessed if not exterminated outright. This was on display in Charlottesville.

    Right-wing demagogues scapegoat immigrants and minorities, ignoring how these groups suffer under the current system and how they are disproportionally impacted by policies like the war on drugs and police militarization.

    No, blacks and non-white immigrants tend to be more violent, unable to abstain from drug use and unable/unwilling to assimilate. That is why they disproportionately get caught up in the justice system meat grinder. And as a result they greatly diminish the quality of life wherever their population reaches critical mass and this is why they’re resented. Not because of blind racial hatred.

    It’s not like whites have the life of Riley and are flying high in 2017. Since the early 90′s the white working classes have had their jobs destroyed by free trade policies that libertarians worship as an article of faith and increasingly college educated whites, specifically white males, are having their life prospects dimmed by affirmative action in university admissions, employment, and insourcing of labor via H1B visas. Even when they manage to get admitted to universities they are subjected to nonstop psychological warfare by being told that they have unearned privilege and are the source of every colored person’s misery and misfortune.

    Ron Paul pretends to be a race atheist but has hypocritically taken up the cause of non-whites at various times over the years. Perhaps he can find it within himself to see things from the point of view of his own people one of these days.

    Read More
    • Agree: advancedatheist
    • Replies: @KenH

    It’s not like whites have the life of Riley and are flying high in 2017.
     
    Whites also have the highest suicide rates second to American Indians and have a 50% chance of their marriages ending in divorce thanks largely to (((feminism))). Every time a nationwide study is conducted on optimism for the future whites trail behind blacks and Latinos who are much more optimistic about the future than whites, who see the demographic writing on the wall.

    Whites are told to check their privilege, but most haven't had any "privilege" for several decades and working class and poor whites never had any to begin with.
    , @jtgw
    Isn't there a heroin epidemic going on among lower-class whites? I assume you'll argue that the whites are the victims in that case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. This is the most confused and confusing thing that I have ever seen here at Unz Review, and here it is published under “Ron Paul – Revolutionary Republican”. Maybe that is a reflection of just how confused and confusing the GOP has become during the opening years of this millennium!

    First, “anonymous” #1 confuses Ron Paul with Paul Craig Roberts, as is pointed out by “anonymous” #2. Then “anonymous” #3 actually questions whether this article can be believed to have been written by Ron Paul!

    Be all that as it may, there are two comments that present excellent critiques of the article – by “Frank DeScushin” and by “KenH”.

    I would add more criticism, different criticism,concerning the sentence, as follows:

    ” … failure of the Keynesian model of economic authoritarianism … is responsible for the rise of the alt-right and antifa.”

    First, the idea of the “Keynesian model” as “economic authoritarianism” originates with Henry C. Simons in Simons’ criticism of the New Deal, back in the 1930s. However, the constructive part of Simons’ criticism has been roundly decried and denigrated in publications of Ron Paul’s economic gurus – the Mises Institute of Alabama. The Mises Institute – which is tied to a corporatist-globalist philosophy, albeit idealistically without the militarist trimmings – presumes to dictate to all libertarian folk what “libertarian economics” is and must be. But if you go back into it, you will find something very different – something that the essentially corporatist-globalist Mises Institute would like to kill and bury, and that is the economic and philosophical thinking of the “classical liberals” such as Adam Smith and J. S. Mill. Following Smith and Mill, you would discover the work of Henry C. Simons (difficult to find these days) and finally, in today’s world, the work of Michael Hudson and the “modern” monetarists (U. of Missouri at Kansas City).

    Be all that as it may, I am puzzled how Dr. Paul has decided that John Maynard Keynes is responsible both for the alt-right and for “anti-fa”? I thought that such a broadly cast guilt was generally reserved for … you know … for Karl Marx … or maybe for Lucifer himself!

    I mean, WTF is that? Oh, that’s right, we do know WTF it is. It’s the Mises Institute speaking through Dr. Paul, as though Dr. Paul were their puppet. Confused and confusing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Hey Grandpa Charlie. Yeah, I saw the bit of confusion at the top too. I can't speak directly for Ron Paul, but I just assumed he meant that the economic misery that resulted from basically following a socialist path and John Keynes prescription for Feral Gov't spending to solve our ills during bad times caused these factions to grow. I don't know if that's exactly what he meant, but that wouldn't be really true either.

    The alt-right has formed because white men are sick of being screwed over in every aspect of life from all big institutions: big corporations, governments, universities, and so on. I think people have had about enough. I could see where the bad economic times (now and worse coming) would leave many people with not much to lose, so they wouldn't be so hesitant to fight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Binyamin says:

    Well doneRon ! We Reaganite conservatives have been horrified by white supremacists and Neo Nazis attempting to highjack the noble conservative and libertarian heritage. These morons believe in white racial identity politics, the narrative of white victim hood, including the myth of white genocide. These mostly ill educated louts don’t see the irony of simultaneously believing that whites are superior. Take for example white nationalism. Can anyone tell me when in history were whites ever a nation? How do you define ‘white’ in contemporary America?
    Genuine conservatives believe in free market, minimum state, low taxes, low regulation, equality of opportunity, private property, religious freedom and a globalisation which is inclusive and welcoming. Genuine conservatives also recognise that it was adventurous, risk taking immigrants of all backgrounds who made America great over the centuries. It is probably too much to hope that Americans will finally transcend their historic race obsession. Perhaps they should learn from Ireland, an overwhelmingly white and catholic country which recently elected as its prime minister the son of an Indian immigrant born in Mumbai and no one raised an eyebrow. Some hope!

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    Cut back on the whiskey!

    Americans have been the least race obsessed nation in the history of the world. We have welcomed people from all over the world to our country. We just ask for respect in return.

    Ireland is having all kinds of problems now with integration as the push for the multicultural utopia stalls.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Frank DeScushin

    The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system.
     
    That's a blatant mischaracterization of alt-right positions by Ron Paul.

    I've never heard alt-right members call for massive interference by the government to benefit white people. For the most part, alt-right members view the federal government as irreparably corrupt and against their interests. They'd rather obliterate the federal government than to co-opt it for their sole benefit. Besides, they believe that if the federal government which favors non-whites stopped playing racial favorites which handicap whites then whites would prosper to a greater extent than they are today.

    Similarly, I haven't seen the alt-right call for massive welfare and entitlement spending. They'd rather restrict the welfare that acts as a magnet for people to immigrate to the United States.

    Ron Paul has a peculiar view of the alt-right.

    Good point. RP must feel that you cannot condemn violent leftists who want to shut down free speech without making the obligatory attack on the Alt Right.

    I do not know exactly what the Alt Right stands for, nor am I sure it is just one thing, but I support any organization that has respect for Western Civilization and its accomplishments and believes that civilization deserves respect and wants to defend that civilization and the people who created it.

    The racial angle troubles me coming from any group, and not because I believe we are all equal. But it was inevitable with all the demonization of white people that white groups would form to start defending the interests of white people.

    There is no moral equivalence between a group that wants to defend its interests, and a group that wants to destroy that group, its people, and its civilization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. lavoisier says: • Website
    @Binyamin
    Well doneRon ! We Reaganite conservatives have been horrified by white supremacists and Neo Nazis attempting to highjack the noble conservative and libertarian heritage. These morons believe in white racial identity politics, the narrative of white victim hood, including the myth of white genocide. These mostly ill educated louts don't see the irony of simultaneously believing that whites are superior. Take for example white nationalism. Can anyone tell me when in history were whites ever a nation? How do you define 'white' in contemporary America?
    Genuine conservatives believe in free market, minimum state, low taxes, low regulation, equality of opportunity, private property, religious freedom and a globalisation which is inclusive and welcoming. Genuine conservatives also recognise that it was adventurous, risk taking immigrants of all backgrounds who made America great over the centuries. It is probably too much to hope that Americans will finally transcend their historic race obsession. Perhaps they should learn from Ireland, an overwhelmingly white and catholic country which recently elected as its prime minister the son of an Indian immigrant born in Mumbai and no one raised an eyebrow. Some hope!

    Cut back on the whiskey!

    Americans have been the least race obsessed nation in the history of the world. We have welcomed people from all over the world to our country. We just ask for respect in return.

    Ireland is having all kinds of problems now with integration as the push for the multicultural utopia stalls.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Whiskey?! I wish that's all it were. That'd be easy to fix.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Genuine conservatives believe in free market, minimum state, low taxes, low regulation, equality of opportunity, private property, religious freedom and a globalisation which is inclusive and welcoming.

    Well, then “genuisim conservatism” will fail.

    The unfettered Third World mass immigration into Western First World nations that is apparently part and parcel with globalisation per the globalist architects will never be fully inclusive and welcoming because humans are naturally tribal. As we see is all multiracial ad multicultural societies people prioritize their group interests over the interests of the other groups or the country on the whole. Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of multicultural Singapore, spoke on this dynamic.

    Further, different groups have different average abilities. Those different average abilities lead to natural outcome differences. In order to ensure that those outcome differences do not cause social unrest and instability governments in multicultural states have to implement policies that try to better balance outcomes. Policies such as Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, wealth redistribution, etc. Those policies fly in the face of equality of opportunity.

    You can’t have a highly function “global society” void of unrest without compromising equality of opportunity. More simply, you can’t have a highly function “global society” void of unrest — period. There’s a reason why nations formed around common biological, language, and religious bonds in the first place; and there’s a reason why most people continue to self-segregate around those tribal bonds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Yes, Frank, that is what Binyamin, Dr. Paul and Paul's gurus at the Mises Institute preach: globalization. It all started with Henry C. Simons (my hero!) advocating (back in the years after World War II) the reduction of tariffs because any (mercantilist) tariff regime is a tax that involves government in every economic decision that can be made within a free enterprise (laissez-faire) political economy. But Simons would never have combined a tariff-reduction/elimination regime with a global regime of monopoly state capitalism! Simons' libertarian economics was based on asking one main question: what is the best economic system from the point of view of liberty? He didn't assume or pretend that as long as private capital was accumulating right along, liberty would automatically follow! That's the thinking of the Mises Institute, which has mesmerized Dr. Paul.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Frank DeScushin

    Genuine conservatives believe in free market, minimum state, low taxes, low regulation, equality of opportunity, private property, religious freedom and a globalisation which is inclusive and welcoming.
     
    Well, then "genuisim conservatism" will fail.

    The unfettered Third World mass immigration into Western First World nations that is apparently part and parcel with globalisation per the globalist architects will never be fully inclusive and welcoming because humans are naturally tribal. As we see is all multiracial ad multicultural societies people prioritize their group interests over the interests of the other groups or the country on the whole. Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of multicultural Singapore, spoke on this dynamic.

    Further, different groups have different average abilities. Those different average abilities lead to natural outcome differences. In order to ensure that those outcome differences do not cause social unrest and instability governments in multicultural states have to implement policies that try to better balance outcomes. Policies such as Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, wealth redistribution, etc. Those policies fly in the face of equality of opportunity.

    You can't have a highly function "global society" void of unrest without compromising equality of opportunity. More simply, you can't have a highly function "global society" void of unrest -- period. There's a reason why nations formed around common biological, language, and religious bonds in the first place; and there's a reason why most people continue to self-segregate around those tribal bonds.

    Yes, Frank, that is what Binyamin, Dr. Paul and Paul’s gurus at the Mises Institute preach: globalization. It all started with Henry C. Simons (my hero!) advocating (back in the years after World War II) the reduction of tariffs because any (mercantilist) tariff regime is a tax that involves government in every economic decision that can be made within a free enterprise (laissez-faire) political economy. But Simons would never have combined a tariff-reduction/elimination regime with a global regime of monopoly state capitalism! Simons’ libertarian economics was based on asking one main question: what is the best economic system from the point of view of liberty? He didn’t assume or pretend that as long as private capital was accumulating right along, liberty would automatically follow! That’s the thinking of the Mises Institute, which has mesmerized Dr. Paul.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. HBM says:

    All these Libertarians accomplish nothing. They’re a bunch of impotent masturbators endlessly congratulating themselves on their ideological purity. Clown show.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. @Grandpa Charlie
    This is the most confused and confusing thing that I have ever seen here at Unz Review, and here it is published under "Ron Paul - Revolutionary Republican". Maybe that is a reflection of just how confused and confusing the GOP has become during the opening years of this millennium!

    First, "anonymous" #1 confuses Ron Paul with Paul Craig Roberts, as is pointed out by "anonymous" #2. Then "anonymous" #3 actually questions whether this article can be believed to have been written by Ron Paul!

    Be all that as it may, there are two comments that present excellent critiques of the article - by "Frank DeScushin" and by "KenH".

    I would add more criticism, different criticism,concerning the sentence, as follows:

    " ... failure of the Keynesian model of economic authoritarianism ... is responsible for the rise of the alt-right and antifa."

    First, the idea of the "Keynesian model" as "economic authoritarianism" originates with Henry C. Simons in Simons' criticism of the New Deal, back in the 1930s. However, the constructive part of Simons' criticism has been roundly decried and denigrated in publications of Ron Paul's economic gurus - the Mises Institute of Alabama. The Mises Institute - which is tied to a corporatist-globalist philosophy, albeit idealistically without the militarist trimmings - presumes to dictate to all libertarian folk what "libertarian economics" is and must be. But if you go back into it, you will find something very different - something that the essentially corporatist-globalist Mises Institute would like to kill and bury, and that is the economic and philosophical thinking of the "classical liberals" such as Adam Smith and J. S. Mill. Following Smith and Mill, you would discover the work of Henry C. Simons (difficult to find these days) and finally, in today's world, the work of Michael Hudson and the "modern" monetarists (U. of Missouri at Kansas City).

    Be all that as it may, I am puzzled how Dr. Paul has decided that John Maynard Keynes is responsible both for the alt-right and for "anti-fa"? I thought that such a broadly cast guilt was generally reserved for ... you know ... for Karl Marx ... or maybe for Lucifer himself!

    I mean, WTF is that? Oh, that's right, we do know WTF it is. It's the Mises Institute speaking through Dr. Paul, as though Dr. Paul were their puppet. Confused and confusing.

    Hey Grandpa Charlie. Yeah, I saw the bit of confusion at the top too. I can’t speak directly for Ron Paul, but I just assumed he meant that the economic misery that resulted from basically following a socialist path and John Keynes prescription for Feral Gov’t spending to solve our ills during bad times caused these factions to grow. I don’t know if that’s exactly what he meant, but that wouldn’t be really true either.

    The alt-right has formed because white men are sick of being screwed over in every aspect of life from all big institutions: big corporations, governments, universities, and so on. I think people have had about enough. I could see where the bad economic times (now and worse coming) would leave many people with not much to lose, so they wouldn’t be so hesitant to fight.

    Read More
    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @Frank DeScushin

    The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system.
     
    That's a blatant mischaracterization of alt-right positions by Ron Paul.

    I've never heard alt-right members call for massive interference by the government to benefit white people. For the most part, alt-right members view the federal government as irreparably corrupt and against their interests. They'd rather obliterate the federal government than to co-opt it for their sole benefit. Besides, they believe that if the federal government which favors non-whites stopped playing racial favorites which handicap whites then whites would prosper to a greater extent than they are today.

    Similarly, I haven't seen the alt-right call for massive welfare and entitlement spending. They'd rather restrict the welfare that acts as a magnet for people to immigrate to the United States.

    Ron Paul has a peculiar view of the alt-right.

    Frank, though I agree with you* that Dr. Paul was full of it in stating that both groups want more government in general, there are some alt-righters on this board (unz in general) that are just clueless on the major problem with health care. They are just A-OK with big Feral Gov’t running ruining, oh about 1/6 of the economy (and rising with a bullet). I never understand why people could be very aware in one area, yet completely stupid in another.

    I wonder if that was what Dr. Paul was thinking of, but probably not. He just wanted to malign the two sides at Charlottesville (just as an example) as 2 sides of the same stupidity. It is definitely not like that.

    In fact, from my Peak Stupidity article (just looked to check the link):

    Even if they don’t care about free markets in principle, what the alt-right especially should think about is this: What’s going on in government-controlled health care is more re-distribution of mostly white working people’s money to others, just as is done with most government programs. This health care business is BIG money, though. As much as the white male gets screwed in job prospects, education, and welfare scams, do you alt-right conservatives just want to bend over even farther? If we had constitutional government, NONE of this screwing over of the white man in particular could take place. Work with us constitutionalists a little bit, conservatives!

    That’s very close to what you wrote, come to read it later!

    * and your 2 repliers, anonymous and lavoisier also.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Franklin
    Health care insurance was hijacked by democrats and neocons so that they might better patronize their voting constituency, aka the victim culture of diversity.

    If you recall, Obama stated that his Obama Care invention was necessary to help the people with pre-existing medical conditions who could not afford regular insurance.

    People with pre-existing medical conditions is an alternative label for disabled people.

    Disabled people are integral to the diversity scheme, and they are recognized by the federal government as yet another federal protected class group.

    As long as federal protected class groups exist, there is no equal justice under the law per the US constitution.


    http://www.unk.edu/about/compliance/aaeo/hiring_guidelines/identification_of_protected.php


    Identification of Protected Class Groups

    The following five groups are considered "Protected Classes" under various federal laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires reporting employment information on the first two groups, females and minorities, which are traditionally underutilized.

    1.FEMALES

    2.INDIGENOUS MINORITIES. Groups for whom established patterns of discrimination have been determined to exist (based on self-identification):

    •Black: (not Hispanic origin): All persons having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

    •Hispanic: All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

    •American Indian or Alaskan Native: All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

    •Asian or Pacific Islander: All persons having their origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent or the Pacific Islands. For example: China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands and Samoa.


    3.INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES: Defined as an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that constitutes a substantial limitation on a major life activity, a person with record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived as having such an impairment. The law also protects those who are in a relationship or associated with someone with a disability.

    4.VETERANS AND DISABLED VETERANS

    5.PERSONS AGE 40 OR OVER.

     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @lavoisier
    Cut back on the whiskey!

    Americans have been the least race obsessed nation in the history of the world. We have welcomed people from all over the world to our country. We just ask for respect in return.

    Ireland is having all kinds of problems now with integration as the push for the multicultural utopia stalls.

    Whiskey?! I wish that’s all it were. That’d be easy to fix.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Gg Mo says:

    ……..”The (left) elevates racial identity over individual identity. The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system. Some prominent (left) leaders even support abortion as a way of limiting the (* sex-selection, eugenics , convenience, bio-commerce) population. No one who sincerely supports individual liberty, property rights, or the right to life can have any sympathy for this type of racial collectivism.”…….

    Corrected by an Orthodox Christian, American, Scottish/Peruvian !

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gg Mo
    I DO recognize that there are a very small minority of "alt" right , and that this very tiny minority is feeling so overwhelmed by the Deep-State productions of hatred against White men and women that they spout of Totalitarian/Communist Fabian Eugenicist ideas, but what they don't realize is that the tactic is already being used , against them . Phyto-estrogens in their beers, Xeno-estrogens in many other products etc etc etc (Homework is what they need.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Gg Mo says:
    @Gg Mo
    ........"The (left) elevates racial identity over individual identity. The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system. Some prominent (left) leaders even support abortion as a way of limiting the (* sex-selection, eugenics , convenience, bio-commerce) population. No one who sincerely supports individual liberty, property rights, or the right to life can have any sympathy for this type of racial collectivism.".......

    Corrected by an Orthodox Christian, American, Scottish/Peruvian !

    I DO recognize that there are a very small minority of “alt” right , and that this very tiny minority is feeling so overwhelmed by the Deep-State productions of hatred against White men and women that they spout of Totalitarian/Communist Fabian Eugenicist ideas, but what they don’t realize is that the tactic is already being used , against them . Phyto-estrogens in their beers, Xeno-estrogens in many other products etc etc etc (Homework is what they need.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. CalDre says:

    It is only when government intervenes in the economy that crony capitalists have the opportunity to exploit workers, consumers, and taxpayers.

    One of the inherent problems with “libertarians” is their adamant refusal to recognize that “property rights” are an extension of government. It is the government that uses force to enforce social stratification and perpetuates the “nobility” through inheritance. And I’m not speaking of personal property like one’s home or car, but “the means of production”.

    Property laws are inherently unjust. In micro economics, the standard model is that of the “coconut island”, a primitive island inhabited by a few whose sole resource is coconuts. So let’s use the “libertarian model” of “private property” and analyze how things develop on our “coconut island”. Let’s assume we start with a “primitive society” with two “families” where nobody has property rights – i.e., everyone is free to harvest and consume coconuts and live his life as he pleases. One day one family (the Servant Family) has a tragedy, one of their members falls ill in a manner which requires both families to save him, and the other family (the Master Family) says: “we will help you but the island will belong to us” (I’m making this example a bit unrealistic since in general the rich gain their power through corruption, crime and conquest, in this case I am positing a “voluntary” re-allocation of resources). The stricken family agrees.

    Five generations later, the Master Family still owns the entire island, spending its days playing in the water and enjoying the land. The Servant Family is consigned to a small, undesirable spot on the island, and must spend all day cooking, cleaning and caring for the Master Family – they have little leisure time and own nothing and must work all day long to support the Master Family or not have any food, as their little plot of land (which they rent from the Masters) has no coconut trees.

    Of course, on this coconut island, this type of injustice and oppression would never last. The Servant Family would just start taking coconuts that belong to them as much as to the Master Family. And that is where the government violence comes in. The Master Family has the resources to hire “security guards” to protect its inherited position of superiority. These security guards are the “state” – armed gangs that protect the privilege and wealth of the elite against the people.

    The funny thing about the whole “white privilege” nonsense is that the true privilege rests with the global oligarchs, that own the mass media making these ridiculous “white privilege” claims. Why don’t the global oligarchs distribute their wealth to the people to eliminate their “privilege”? Obviously it is because they are entirely satisfied with actual and massive inherited privilege, but only for themselves.

    The real enemy, now and always, are the elite oligarchs. And the elite keep trying to deflect from this fact by having the Servant Families fight each other for scraps. And the pathetic servants dutifully comply.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. KenH says:
    @KenH
    Ron Paul buys in to the media's fake narrative about the Unite the Right rally. The rightist rally goers weren't demanding that America adopt National Socialism. They were demanding an end to the war on white history, monuments and symbols and replacement level immigration that is sure to make us a minority.

    Antifa, like all Marxists, elevates class identity over individual identity.
     
    There's an anti-white racial hate component to the antifags and all contemporary (((leftist))) and (((Marxist groups))). To most garden variety leftists, whites are the villains of history and should be completely dispossessed if not exterminated outright. This was on display in Charlottesville.

    Right-wing demagogues scapegoat immigrants and minorities, ignoring how these groups suffer under the current system and how they are disproportionally impacted by policies like the war on drugs and police militarization.
     
    No, blacks and non-white immigrants tend to be more violent, unable to abstain from drug use and unable/unwilling to assimilate. That is why they disproportionately get caught up in the justice system meat grinder. And as a result they greatly diminish the quality of life wherever their population reaches critical mass and this is why they're resented. Not because of blind racial hatred.

    It's not like whites have the life of Riley and are flying high in 2017. Since the early 90's the white working classes have had their jobs destroyed by free trade policies that libertarians worship as an article of faith and increasingly college educated whites, specifically white males, are having their life prospects dimmed by affirmative action in university admissions, employment, and insourcing of labor via H1B visas. Even when they manage to get admitted to universities they are subjected to nonstop psychological warfare by being told that they have unearned privilege and are the source of every colored person's misery and misfortune.

    Ron Paul pretends to be a race atheist but has hypocritically taken up the cause of non-whites at various times over the years. Perhaps he can find it within himself to see things from the point of view of his own people one of these days.

    It’s not like whites have the life of Riley and are flying high in 2017.

    Whites also have the highest suicide rates second to American Indians and have a 50% chance of their marriages ending in divorce thanks largely to (((feminism))). Every time a nationwide study is conducted on optimism for the future whites trail behind blacks and Latinos who are much more optimistic about the future than whites, who see the demographic writing on the wall.

    Whites are told to check their privilege, but most haven’t had any “privilege” for several decades and working class and poor whites never had any to begin with.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. heymrguda says:

    Like others here I’ve long been an admirer of Dr. Paul and, probably also like others here, I once considered myself a libertarian. But apparently he (and they) consider the attack on free speech, the campaign against caucasians (esp. males), the systematic removal of our history etc., the hollowing out of the middle and working class thru globalization and immigration, and other issues to be completely irrelevant, as his gross oversimplification of the Charlottesville affair would indicate.

    Somehow when laissez-faire is restored (even though there is virtually no support for it, whether you agree with the concept or not) all will somehow be in balance. This seems to me like naivete in the extreme.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. jtgw says:
    @anonymous
    Thank you.

    I'm a longstanding admirer of Dr. Paul, but that passage struck me as baseless (and odd), too. It reads as though it were added to convey "balance," or whatever better word might describe an effort to attract as many people as possible to libertarianism. Nor does it sound like something Ron Paul would think, much less say.

    Anyone care to defend the quoted assertions?

    The alt-right opposes free trade, for example. They want to protect American producers through tariffs, while RP sees that as a tax on all American consumers to benefit a few.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thanks for responding. But none of that goes to the particular assertions that were called out in comment #3 above, where protectionism and welfare are alleged (without evidence or explanation) to be supported on the ground that they favor one race (presumably white) over others. Are you aware of any proposed race-based tariff?

    I have read a great deal of what Ron Paul has said over the years, and I recall nothing else along that line. The passage comes across to me as gibberish thrown together by a summer intern who won't be invited back.

    , @Grandpa Charlie
    What we have now, in USA, is a trade regime where domestic producers pay for the infrastructure (which is what accounts for the marginal increase in the value of any product when it crosses the border into USA), while producers from "most-favored nations" (e.g., the People's Republic of China) are not taxed when their products enter into USA. So domestic producers (producers within USA) pay for foreign producers to get free ride. Ron Paul, who is excellent on so many topics, really just follows his "gurus" at the Mises Institute on all economic issues - and the Mises types cannot or refuse to see what's happening in terms of national borders, and that's why I label them (and Paul, since he follows them) as corporatist globalists. (All globalists are corporatists, since the rulers of the globalized world rule it all through the WTO, especially through the notorious standard and obligatory 'Financial Services' provisions in every WTO trade "agreement"). It's a shame.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jtgw
    The alt-right opposes free trade, for example. They want to protect American producers through tariffs, while RP sees that as a tax on all American consumers to benefit a few.

    Thanks for responding. But none of that goes to the particular assertions that were called out in comment #3 above, where protectionism and welfare are alleged (without evidence or explanation) to be supported on the ground that they favor one race (presumably white) over others. Are you aware of any proposed race-based tariff?

    I have read a great deal of what Ron Paul has said over the years, and I recall nothing else along that line. The passage comes across to me as gibberish thrown together by a summer intern who won’t be invited back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. jtgw says:
    @KenH
    Ron Paul buys in to the media's fake narrative about the Unite the Right rally. The rightist rally goers weren't demanding that America adopt National Socialism. They were demanding an end to the war on white history, monuments and symbols and replacement level immigration that is sure to make us a minority.

    Antifa, like all Marxists, elevates class identity over individual identity.
     
    There's an anti-white racial hate component to the antifags and all contemporary (((leftist))) and (((Marxist groups))). To most garden variety leftists, whites are the villains of history and should be completely dispossessed if not exterminated outright. This was on display in Charlottesville.

    Right-wing demagogues scapegoat immigrants and minorities, ignoring how these groups suffer under the current system and how they are disproportionally impacted by policies like the war on drugs and police militarization.
     
    No, blacks and non-white immigrants tend to be more violent, unable to abstain from drug use and unable/unwilling to assimilate. That is why they disproportionately get caught up in the justice system meat grinder. And as a result they greatly diminish the quality of life wherever their population reaches critical mass and this is why they're resented. Not because of blind racial hatred.

    It's not like whites have the life of Riley and are flying high in 2017. Since the early 90's the white working classes have had their jobs destroyed by free trade policies that libertarians worship as an article of faith and increasingly college educated whites, specifically white males, are having their life prospects dimmed by affirmative action in university admissions, employment, and insourcing of labor via H1B visas. Even when they manage to get admitted to universities they are subjected to nonstop psychological warfare by being told that they have unearned privilege and are the source of every colored person's misery and misfortune.

    Ron Paul pretends to be a race atheist but has hypocritically taken up the cause of non-whites at various times over the years. Perhaps he can find it within himself to see things from the point of view of his own people one of these days.

    Isn’t there a heroin epidemic going on among lower-class whites? I assume you’ll argue that the whites are the victims in that case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    Isn’t there a heroin epidemic going on among lower-class whites?
     
    You mean methamphetamine? Some are victims and others are not. Some lived in once thriving farm communities or smaller communities with a factory or two that have been destroyed through our trade and domestic policies and have turned to meth use and distribution. These people don't get affirmative action and set asides like blacks and Latinos.

    But I get it, according to libertarians, whites can never be victims of the system but every other racial group can and libertarian policy is the solution to their woes. Then you'll tell us with a straight face that race doesn't matter.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. KenH says:
    @jtgw
    Isn't there a heroin epidemic going on among lower-class whites? I assume you'll argue that the whites are the victims in that case.

    Isn’t there a heroin epidemic going on among lower-class whites?

    You mean methamphetamine? Some are victims and others are not. Some lived in once thriving farm communities or smaller communities with a factory or two that have been destroyed through our trade and domestic policies and have turned to meth use and distribution. These people don’t get affirmative action and set asides like blacks and Latinos.

    But I get it, according to libertarians, whites can never be victims of the system but every other racial group can and libertarian policy is the solution to their woes. Then you’ll tell us with a straight face that race doesn’t matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    There is also a heroin epidemic. https://www.google.com/search?q=heroin+epidemic+white&oq=heroin+epidemic+wh&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0l3j0i22i30k1.6126.8433.0.9506.3.3.0.0.0.0.75.217.3.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.216...0i20k1j0i67k1.ZEAepTLHzAM

    I'm not saying whites can't be victims; I'm saying you are not being consistent by blaming all blacks for their own problems but not holding whites to the same standards. I think in both cases there are systemic elements. I don't think it's trade causing the problem, but taxation, regulation and inflation. I think imposing tariffs will just make things worse. But even if you think it's the fault of trade and immigration, you can't deny that whatever ill effects it has on whites, it will have similar effects on blacks and Latinos. We're talking about economic pressures on those with few marketable skills. How do you think such pressures affect working-class blacks? Don't you think it's possible the same bad things that happen to poor whites will also happen to poor blacks?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. jtgw says:
    @KenH

    Isn’t there a heroin epidemic going on among lower-class whites?
     
    You mean methamphetamine? Some are victims and others are not. Some lived in once thriving farm communities or smaller communities with a factory or two that have been destroyed through our trade and domestic policies and have turned to meth use and distribution. These people don't get affirmative action and set asides like blacks and Latinos.

    But I get it, according to libertarians, whites can never be victims of the system but every other racial group can and libertarian policy is the solution to their woes. Then you'll tell us with a straight face that race doesn't matter.

    There is also a heroin epidemic. https://www.google.com/search?q=heroin+epidemic+white&oq=heroin+epidemic+wh&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0l3j0i22i30k1.6126.8433.0.9506.3.3.0.0.0.0.75.217.3.3.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.216…0i20k1j0i67k1.ZEAepTLHzAM

    I’m not saying whites can’t be victims; I’m saying you are not being consistent by blaming all blacks for their own problems but not holding whites to the same standards. I think in both cases there are systemic elements. I don’t think it’s trade causing the problem, but taxation, regulation and inflation. I think imposing tariffs will just make things worse. But even if you think it’s the fault of trade and immigration, you can’t deny that whatever ill effects it has on whites, it will have similar effects on blacks and Latinos. We’re talking about economic pressures on those with few marketable skills. How do you think such pressures affect working-class blacks? Don’t you think it’s possible the same bad things that happen to poor whites will also happen to poor blacks?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    As you've time to hit KenH's hanging curveballs, please get back to me (#22) on the two sentences in the Paul piece. He's a hero of mine, too, but no one is above criticism or entitled to devotion.

    Here to learn, but ready to call bulls**t.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jtgw
    There is also a heroin epidemic. https://www.google.com/search?q=heroin+epidemic+white&oq=heroin+epidemic+wh&gs_l=psy-ab.3.0.0l3j0i22i30k1.6126.8433.0.9506.3.3.0.0.0.0.75.217.3.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.3.216...0i20k1j0i67k1.ZEAepTLHzAM

    I'm not saying whites can't be victims; I'm saying you are not being consistent by blaming all blacks for their own problems but not holding whites to the same standards. I think in both cases there are systemic elements. I don't think it's trade causing the problem, but taxation, regulation and inflation. I think imposing tariffs will just make things worse. But even if you think it's the fault of trade and immigration, you can't deny that whatever ill effects it has on whites, it will have similar effects on blacks and Latinos. We're talking about economic pressures on those with few marketable skills. How do you think such pressures affect working-class blacks? Don't you think it's possible the same bad things that happen to poor whites will also happen to poor blacks?

    As you’ve time to hit KenH’s hanging curveballs, please get back to me (#22) on the two sentences in the Paul piece. He’s a hero of mine, too, but no one is above criticism or entitled to devotion.

    Here to learn, but ready to call bulls**t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Doesn't the alt-right want to ban non-Euro immigration? That sounds like privileging one race over another.

    Also, no one here is entitled to a response. If I want to, I can answer KenH and ignore you and you just have to deal with it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. jtgw says:
    @anonymous
    As you've time to hit KenH's hanging curveballs, please get back to me (#22) on the two sentences in the Paul piece. He's a hero of mine, too, but no one is above criticism or entitled to devotion.

    Here to learn, but ready to call bulls**t.

    Doesn’t the alt-right want to ban non-Euro immigration? That sounds like privileging one race over another.

    Also, no one here is entitled to a response. If I want to, I can answer KenH and ignore you and you just have to deal with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Aw, quit dissembling - you're a smart person and know that immigration has nothing to do with the two sentences, which to save you the upward scroll to #3 are:

    "The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system."

    Dr. Paul cited no evidence for this, and you have failed to fill in. I can't even imagine an example of such race-based policies or programs would be. Nor can you, apparently.

    So, I now do call bulls**t.

    And yes, I can deal with your ignoring me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @jtgw
    The alt-right opposes free trade, for example. They want to protect American producers through tariffs, while RP sees that as a tax on all American consumers to benefit a few.

    What we have now, in USA, is a trade regime where domestic producers pay for the infrastructure (which is what accounts for the marginal increase in the value of any product when it crosses the border into USA), while producers from “most-favored nations” (e.g., the People’s Republic of China) are not taxed when their products enter into USA. So domestic producers (producers within USA) pay for foreign producers to get free ride. Ron Paul, who is excellent on so many topics, really just follows his “gurus” at the Mises Institute on all economic issues – and the Mises types cannot or refuse to see what’s happening in terms of national borders, and that’s why I label them (and Paul, since he follows them) as corporatist globalists. (All globalists are corporatists, since the rulers of the globalized world rule it all through the WTO, especially through the notorious standard and obligatory ‘Financial Services’ provisions in every WTO trade “agreement”). It’s a shame.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    So what you're saying is that the problem is that domestic producers are taxed too heavily? Don't you see how the problem is with our onerous tax regime and not with trade? By the way, Ron Paul opposes official "free trade" agreements and the WTO precisely because of the way they protect special interests. For him, free trade means no tariffs and no special protections.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. jtgw says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    What we have now, in USA, is a trade regime where domestic producers pay for the infrastructure (which is what accounts for the marginal increase in the value of any product when it crosses the border into USA), while producers from "most-favored nations" (e.g., the People's Republic of China) are not taxed when their products enter into USA. So domestic producers (producers within USA) pay for foreign producers to get free ride. Ron Paul, who is excellent on so many topics, really just follows his "gurus" at the Mises Institute on all economic issues - and the Mises types cannot or refuse to see what's happening in terms of national borders, and that's why I label them (and Paul, since he follows them) as corporatist globalists. (All globalists are corporatists, since the rulers of the globalized world rule it all through the WTO, especially through the notorious standard and obligatory 'Financial Services' provisions in every WTO trade "agreement"). It's a shame.

    So what you’re saying is that the problem is that domestic producers are taxed too heavily? Don’t you see how the problem is with our onerous tax regime and not with trade? By the way, Ron Paul opposes official “free trade” agreements and the WTO precisely because of the way they protect special interests. For him, free trade means no tariffs and no special protections.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie

    "So what you’re saying is that the problem is that domestic producers are taxed too heavily? Don’t you see how the problem is with our onerous tax regime and not with trade? By the way, Ron Paul opposes official “free trade” agreements and the WTO precisely because of the way they protect special interests. For him, free trade means no tariffs and no special protections." - jtgw
     
    First off, I'm saying that if we talk about trade, we need to pay attention to the fact that USA's domestic producers are forced to subsidize their foreign competition. When you say, "the problem is that domestic producers are taxed too heavily ... the problem is with our onerous tax regime and not with trade," I disagree. The reality is that corporate income tax in USA is effectively among the lowest in the world. You are decades out of touch with economic reality.

    As for Ron Paul, he has called for the USA to pull out of the WTO, and that could be a good thing, imo., but the devil is in the details. And then Paul advocates unilateral removal of all USA's tariffs on imports. That's like Paul's call for returning to a gold standard. These are - if taken as more than popularist rhetoric - prescriptions for disaster for the bulk of the American people. Really, these are examples of why I consider Ron Paul's view on economics to be nothing other than the faulty economic theories of the Mises Institute.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. KenH says:

    There is also a heroin epidemic

    Heroin is a depressant and it seems from the google hits the increase among whites is mostly among those who were previously on opioids for various kinds of physical pain and discomfort. Opioids are a gateway drug to heroin.

    If the medical profession is over prescribing opioids to whites who then get addicted and later gravitate to heroin because they can no longer obtain opioids or because heroin is more effective then I’d say a strong case could be made that whites have some personal responsibility but are not completely responsible for this trend based on the facts.

    This is totally different from the cocaine and crack epidemics which has fueled a lot of crime in black communities. And cocaine is a stimulant so you don’t take it for physical pain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. KenH says:

    I’m not saying whites can’t be victims; I’m saying you are not being consistent by blaming all blacks for their own problems but not holding whites to the same standards.

    Well, when blacks have an untold number special programs and set asides to help catapult them into the middle class and still fail why aren’t they responsible for their plight? That’s why they comprise 25% of the federal workforce while only being 13% of the population. This discussion also segues into I.Q. and blacks, with an 85 average I.Q., just can’t succeed in a first world nation on the level of say, whites and North Asians without assistance which they have in spades.

    And again, whites do have some responsibility for their current plight, primarily that upper class/elite whites have abandoned working and lower class whites. We also face de jure discrimination in university admission and employment as I already mentioned. Jewish control of the media and raw political power keeps this out of the mainstream political discourse and keeps white politicians fearful to address it lest they be branded “white supremacist” and lose donations of Jewish billionaires.

    I believe an unassailable case can be made that white plight of the 21st century is a direct result of government economic, immigration and social policy especially since we didn’t have these social pathologies in the 1960′s or even 1970′s. Charles Murray addresses some of these issues in his book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010as has Paul Craig Roberts in some of his columns.

    So the alt-right and white nationalists aren’t rent seekers in need of handouts but we do want a government that doesn’t work against our interests, handicap us and ignore our concerns and legitimate grievances. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I actually agree with a lot of what you say. But I don't think blacks are the only ones to get benefits. Whites don't get racial entitlement programs these days, but there are still entitlement programs aimed at the poor that the poor among them take advantage of. In both cases, welfare doesn't really make people better off, since welfare is paid for by taxes that depress legitimate business activity that could have provided jobs instead of handouts.

    I think the race baiting is just another tool the elite uses to keep average people divided so they don't go after the real culprits. A few token entitlement programs for blacks does not mean blacks don't suffer from policies that make it hard to work your way out of poverty. There's plenty of evidence that blacks were doing better up until they got derailed by welfare in the 1960s. Instead of seeing blacks everywhere as the main enemy, we should see them as fellow victims of the government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jtgw
    Doesn't the alt-right want to ban non-Euro immigration? That sounds like privileging one race over another.

    Also, no one here is entitled to a response. If I want to, I can answer KenH and ignore you and you just have to deal with it.

    Aw, quit dissembling – you’re a smart person and know that immigration has nothing to do with the two sentences, which to save you the upward scroll to #3 are:

    “The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system.”

    Dr. Paul cited no evidence for this, and you have failed to fill in. I can’t even imagine an example of such race-based policies or programs would be. Nor can you, apparently.

    So, I now do call bulls**t.

    And yes, I can deal with your ignoring me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I've seen plenty of support among alt-righters for things like national healthcare. I take your point that I don't see evidence for redistributing wealth from non-whites to whites directly, but there is definitely widespread support for welfare programs of one type or another.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. jtgw says:
    @KenH

    I’m not saying whites can’t be victims; I’m saying you are not being consistent by blaming all blacks for their own problems but not holding whites to the same standards.
     
    Well, when blacks have an untold number special programs and set asides to help catapult them into the middle class and still fail why aren’t they responsible for their plight? That’s why they comprise 25% of the federal workforce while only being 13% of the population. This discussion also segues into I.Q. and blacks, with an 85 average I.Q., just can’t succeed in a first world nation on the level of say, whites and North Asians without assistance which they have in spades.

    And again, whites do have some responsibility for their current plight, primarily that upper class/elite whites have abandoned working and lower class whites. We also face de jure discrimination in university admission and employment as I already mentioned. Jewish control of the media and raw political power keeps this out of the mainstream political discourse and keeps white politicians fearful to address it lest they be branded “white supremacist” and lose donations of Jewish billionaires.

    I believe an unassailable case can be made that white plight of the 21st century is a direct result of government economic, immigration and social policy especially since we didn’t have these social pathologies in the 1960′s or even 1970′s. Charles Murray addresses some of these issues in his book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010as has Paul Craig Roberts in some of his columns.

    So the alt-right and white nationalists aren’t rent seekers in need of handouts but we do want a government that doesn’t work against our interests, handicap us and ignore our concerns and legitimate grievances. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

    I actually agree with a lot of what you say. But I don’t think blacks are the only ones to get benefits. Whites don’t get racial entitlement programs these days, but there are still entitlement programs aimed at the poor that the poor among them take advantage of. In both cases, welfare doesn’t really make people better off, since welfare is paid for by taxes that depress legitimate business activity that could have provided jobs instead of handouts.

    I think the race baiting is just another tool the elite uses to keep average people divided so they don’t go after the real culprits. A few token entitlement programs for blacks does not mean blacks don’t suffer from policies that make it hard to work your way out of poverty. There’s plenty of evidence that blacks were doing better up until they got derailed by welfare in the 1960s. Instead of seeing blacks everywhere as the main enemy, we should see them as fellow victims of the government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    I don't think race relations would be as toxic if the (((media))) and government didn't work so hard to pour gasoline on the simmering fires and enable non-white race baiters. But we'll never live in a perfect world and as long as you force so many racially, culturally and religiously discordant peoples into the same living space the potential for trouble and conflict will always be ever present. Racial strife can't be overcome by the economic determinism of the leftist, libertarian or establishment conservative platforms.

    By most metrics blacks were better off pre-1965 and before the advent of the welfare state under LBJ's "Great Society". So were whites.

    But that ship has sailed and Al Sharpton, the NAACP, other professional negroes and the Democrat party always oppose and decry any talk of rolling back the welfare state and even make veiled and not so veiled threats of unrest and violence if it is. It's framed as hatred of blacks and Latinos even though in absolute numbers more whites are receiving welfare and food stamps.

    So we're probably stuck with the welfare state until America finally collapses of its own dead weight.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. jtgw says:
    @anonymous
    Aw, quit dissembling - you're a smart person and know that immigration has nothing to do with the two sentences, which to save you the upward scroll to #3 are:

    "The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system."

    Dr. Paul cited no evidence for this, and you have failed to fill in. I can't even imagine an example of such race-based policies or programs would be. Nor can you, apparently.

    So, I now do call bulls**t.

    And yes, I can deal with your ignoring me.

    I’ve seen plenty of support among alt-righters for things like national healthcare. I take your point that I don’t see evidence for redistributing wealth from non-whites to whites directly, but there is definitely widespread support for welfare programs of one type or another.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thanks for finally addressing the point I have tried to raise.

    The baseless insertion of race into seemingly every argument has even infected Dr. Paul, at least this once. That's what the Establishment wants to keep us divided & conquered, and that's what the Establishment gets from an increasingly infantilized country.

    The rest of us need to call it out every time, including when we see it being used by those with whom we're generally in agreement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @Achmed E. Newman
    Frank, though I agree with you* that Dr. Paul was full of it in stating that both groups want more government in general, there are some alt-righters on this board (unz in general) that are just clueless on the major problem with health care. They are just A-OK with big Feral Gov't running ruining, oh about 1/6 of the economy (and rising with a bullet). I never understand why people could be very aware in one area, yet completely stupid in another.

    I wonder if that was what Dr. Paul was thinking of, but probably not. He just wanted to malign the two sides at Charlottesville (just as an example) as 2 sides of the same stupidity. It is definitely not like that.

    In fact, from my Peak Stupidity article (just looked to check the link):

    Even if they don't care about free markets in principle, what the alt-right especially should think about is this: What's going on in government-controlled health care is more re-distribution of mostly white working people's money to others, just as is done with most government programs. This health care business is BIG money, though. As much as the white male gets screwed in job prospects, education, and welfare scams, do you alt-right conservatives just want to bend over even farther? If we had constitutional government, NONE of this screwing over of the white man in particular could take place. Work with us constitutionalists a little bit, conservatives!
     
    That's very close to what you wrote, come to read it later!



    * and your 2 repliers, anonymous and lavoisier also.

    Health care insurance was hijacked by democrats and neocons so that they might better patronize their voting constituency, aka the victim culture of diversity.

    If you recall, Obama stated that his Obama Care invention was necessary to help the people with pre-existing medical conditions who could not afford regular insurance.

    People with pre-existing medical conditions is an alternative label for disabled people.

    Disabled people are integral to the diversity scheme, and they are recognized by the federal government as yet another federal protected class group.

    As long as federal protected class groups exist, there is no equal justice under the law per the US constitution.

    http://www.unk.edu/about/compliance/aaeo/hiring_guidelines/identification_of_protected.php

    [MORE]

    Identification of Protected Class Groups

    The following five groups are considered “Protected Classes” under various federal laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) requires reporting employment information on the first two groups, females and minorities, which are traditionally underutilized.

    1.FEMALES

    2.INDIGENOUS MINORITIES. Groups for whom established patterns of discrimination have been determined to exist (based on self-identification):

    •Black: (not Hispanic origin): All persons having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

    •Hispanic: All persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

    •American Indian or Alaskan Native: All persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

    •Asian or Pacific Islander: All persons having their origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent or the Pacific Islands. For example: China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands and Samoa.

    3.INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES: Defined as an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that constitutes a substantial limitation on a major life activity, a person with record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived as having such an impairment. The law also protects those who are in a relationship or associated with someone with a disability.

    4.VETERANS AND DISABLED VETERANS

    5.PERSONS AGE 40 OR OVER.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @jtgw
    I've seen plenty of support among alt-righters for things like national healthcare. I take your point that I don't see evidence for redistributing wealth from non-whites to whites directly, but there is definitely widespread support for welfare programs of one type or another.

    Thanks for finally addressing the point I have tried to raise.

    The baseless insertion of race into seemingly every argument has even infected Dr. Paul, at least this once. That’s what the Establishment wants to keep us divided & conquered, and that’s what the Establishment gets from an increasingly infantilized country.

    The rest of us need to call it out every time, including when we see it being used by those with whom we’re generally in agreement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @jtgw
    So what you're saying is that the problem is that domestic producers are taxed too heavily? Don't you see how the problem is with our onerous tax regime and not with trade? By the way, Ron Paul opposes official "free trade" agreements and the WTO precisely because of the way they protect special interests. For him, free trade means no tariffs and no special protections.

    “So what you’re saying is that the problem is that domestic producers are taxed too heavily? Don’t you see how the problem is with our onerous tax regime and not with trade? By the way, Ron Paul opposes official “free trade” agreements and the WTO precisely because of the way they protect special interests. For him, free trade means no tariffs and no special protections.” – jtgw

    First off, I’m saying that if we talk about trade, we need to pay attention to the fact that USA’s domestic producers are forced to subsidize their foreign competition. When you say, “the problem is that domestic producers are taxed too heavily … the problem is with our onerous tax regime and not with trade,” I disagree. The reality is that corporate income tax in USA is effectively among the lowest in the world. You are decades out of touch with economic reality.

    As for Ron Paul, he has called for the USA to pull out of the WTO, and that could be a good thing, imo., but the devil is in the details. And then Paul advocates unilateral removal of all USA’s tariffs on imports. That’s like Paul’s call for returning to a gold standard. These are – if taken as more than popularist rhetoric – prescriptions for disaster for the bulk of the American people. Really, these are examples of why I consider Ron Paul’s view on economics to be nothing other than the faulty economic theories of the Mises Institute.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I'm not sure what you mean about US corporate tax being low. Isn't it the highest in the developed world? Doesn't that discourage companies from basing their operations in the US? In any case, when you say domestic companies are being forced to subsidized foreign competition, you're saying it's a problem of tax and subsidy, of wealth redistribution. It's not a problem of trade. If you focus on trade and punish imports, you end up punishing consumers, many of whom are the same struggling working class and middle class people you want to protect. Interventions always beget a new set of problems.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. KenH says:
    @jtgw
    I actually agree with a lot of what you say. But I don't think blacks are the only ones to get benefits. Whites don't get racial entitlement programs these days, but there are still entitlement programs aimed at the poor that the poor among them take advantage of. In both cases, welfare doesn't really make people better off, since welfare is paid for by taxes that depress legitimate business activity that could have provided jobs instead of handouts.

    I think the race baiting is just another tool the elite uses to keep average people divided so they don't go after the real culprits. A few token entitlement programs for blacks does not mean blacks don't suffer from policies that make it hard to work your way out of poverty. There's plenty of evidence that blacks were doing better up until they got derailed by welfare in the 1960s. Instead of seeing blacks everywhere as the main enemy, we should see them as fellow victims of the government.

    I don’t think race relations would be as toxic if the (((media))) and government didn’t work so hard to pour gasoline on the simmering fires and enable non-white race baiters. But we’ll never live in a perfect world and as long as you force so many racially, culturally and religiously discordant peoples into the same living space the potential for trouble and conflict will always be ever present. Racial strife can’t be overcome by the economic determinism of the leftist, libertarian or establishment conservative platforms.

    By most metrics blacks were better off pre-1965 and before the advent of the welfare state under LBJ’s “Great Society”. So were whites.

    But that ship has sailed and Al Sharpton, the NAACP, other professional negroes and the Democrat party always oppose and decry any talk of rolling back the welfare state and even make veiled and not so veiled threats of unrest and violence if it is. It’s framed as hatred of blacks and Latinos even though in absolute numbers more whites are receiving welfare and food stamps.

    So we’re probably stuck with the welfare state until America finally collapses of its own dead weight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I'm afraid you might be right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. jtgw says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    "So what you’re saying is that the problem is that domestic producers are taxed too heavily? Don’t you see how the problem is with our onerous tax regime and not with trade? By the way, Ron Paul opposes official “free trade” agreements and the WTO precisely because of the way they protect special interests. For him, free trade means no tariffs and no special protections." - jtgw
     
    First off, I'm saying that if we talk about trade, we need to pay attention to the fact that USA's domestic producers are forced to subsidize their foreign competition. When you say, "the problem is that domestic producers are taxed too heavily ... the problem is with our onerous tax regime and not with trade," I disagree. The reality is that corporate income tax in USA is effectively among the lowest in the world. You are decades out of touch with economic reality.

    As for Ron Paul, he has called for the USA to pull out of the WTO, and that could be a good thing, imo., but the devil is in the details. And then Paul advocates unilateral removal of all USA's tariffs on imports. That's like Paul's call for returning to a gold standard. These are - if taken as more than popularist rhetoric - prescriptions for disaster for the bulk of the American people. Really, these are examples of why I consider Ron Paul's view on economics to be nothing other than the faulty economic theories of the Mises Institute.

    I’m not sure what you mean about US corporate tax being low. Isn’t it the highest in the developed world? Doesn’t that discourage companies from basing their operations in the US? In any case, when you say domestic companies are being forced to subsidized foreign competition, you’re saying it’s a problem of tax and subsidy, of wealth redistribution. It’s not a problem of trade. If you focus on trade and punish imports, you end up punishing consumers, many of whom are the same struggling working class and middle class people you want to protect. Interventions always beget a new set of problems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    It would help if you would quote me accurately. When you say,"I’m not sure what you mean about US corporate tax being low," I think you are being disingenuous; in any case, you either did not read or do not understand the"effective."

    Do you even know that tax rates mean very little? It's the effective tax that makes the difference.

    Government Accountability Office study found that, from 1998 to 2005, 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied. A review in 2011 by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy of companies in the injust 500 profitable every year from 2008 through 2010 stated these companies paid an average tax rate of 18.5% and that 30 of these companies actually had a negative income tax due.

    For one thing, you cannot possibly understand the politics (graft) of Congress without knowing something of the numerous unfair loopholes that Congress has passed over the years. You want to talk about government intervention in commerce? Please, do so. But you won't get anywhere by starting out with citing tax rates from the USTC.

    Suggest you start your education by reading the work of David Cay Johnston, beginning with:

    'Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else'

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. jtgw says:
    @KenH
    I don't think race relations would be as toxic if the (((media))) and government didn't work so hard to pour gasoline on the simmering fires and enable non-white race baiters. But we'll never live in a perfect world and as long as you force so many racially, culturally and religiously discordant peoples into the same living space the potential for trouble and conflict will always be ever present. Racial strife can't be overcome by the economic determinism of the leftist, libertarian or establishment conservative platforms.

    By most metrics blacks were better off pre-1965 and before the advent of the welfare state under LBJ's "Great Society". So were whites.

    But that ship has sailed and Al Sharpton, the NAACP, other professional negroes and the Democrat party always oppose and decry any talk of rolling back the welfare state and even make veiled and not so veiled threats of unrest and violence if it is. It's framed as hatred of blacks and Latinos even though in absolute numbers more whites are receiving welfare and food stamps.

    So we're probably stuck with the welfare state until America finally collapses of its own dead weight.

    I’m afraid you might be right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @jtgw
    I'm not sure what you mean about US corporate tax being low. Isn't it the highest in the developed world? Doesn't that discourage companies from basing their operations in the US? In any case, when you say domestic companies are being forced to subsidized foreign competition, you're saying it's a problem of tax and subsidy, of wealth redistribution. It's not a problem of trade. If you focus on trade and punish imports, you end up punishing consumers, many of whom are the same struggling working class and middle class people you want to protect. Interventions always beget a new set of problems.

    It would help if you would quote me accurately. When you say,”I’m not sure what you mean about US corporate tax being low,” I think you are being disingenuous; in any case, you either did not read or do not understand the”effective.”

    Do you even know that tax rates mean very little? It’s the effective tax that makes the difference.

    Government Accountability Office study found that, from 1998 to 2005, 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied. A review in 2011 by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy of companies in the injust 500 profitable every year from 2008 through 2010 stated these companies paid an average tax rate of 18.5% and that 30 of these companies actually had a negative income tax due.

    For one thing, you cannot possibly understand the politics (graft) of Congress without knowing something of the numerous unfair loopholes that Congress has passed over the years. You want to talk about government intervention in commerce? Please, do so. But you won’t get anywhere by starting out with citing tax rates from the USTC.

    Suggest you start your education by reading the work of David Cay Johnston, beginning with:

    ‘Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich – and Cheat Everybody Else’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    Oooops! My fingers slipped on the keyboard: in the middle of my third paragraph, it should read "companies in the Fortune 500 " ... of course. (I was going to say something about how effective low or zero income taxes through unjust loopholes distort competition, reinforcing mercantilist-globalist oligarchic tendencies- such being egregious examples of what we do not want to see in any free enterprise (laissez faire) economy.)
    , @jtgw
    Think this through. What is the problem exactly? Is it the loopholes or is it the high taxes that force companies to seek these loopholes in order to lower their tax burden? You say that loopholes are against laissez-faire, but the truth is the opposite. It's the taxes that are against laissez-faire. So lower the statutory tax rate and more companies are likely to find it easier to pay the expected taxes rather than seek out loopholes.

    Then I wonder how you square what you said about US companies paying little or no tax with your claim that they are subsidizing foreign imports through their taxes. Which companies end up having to subsidize their foreign competitors in this way? What makes you think closing loopholes and forcing US companies to pay more in taxes is going to encourage more production in the US?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Grandpa Charlie
    It would help if you would quote me accurately. When you say,"I’m not sure what you mean about US corporate tax being low," I think you are being disingenuous; in any case, you either did not read or do not understand the"effective."

    Do you even know that tax rates mean very little? It's the effective tax that makes the difference.

    Government Accountability Office study found that, from 1998 to 2005, 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied. A review in 2011 by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy of companies in the injust 500 profitable every year from 2008 through 2010 stated these companies paid an average tax rate of 18.5% and that 30 of these companies actually had a negative income tax due.

    For one thing, you cannot possibly understand the politics (graft) of Congress without knowing something of the numerous unfair loopholes that Congress has passed over the years. You want to talk about government intervention in commerce? Please, do so. But you won't get anywhere by starting out with citing tax rates from the USTC.

    Suggest you start your education by reading the work of David Cay Johnston, beginning with:

    'Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else'

    Oooops! My fingers slipped on the keyboard: in the middle of my third paragraph, it should read “companies in the Fortune 500 ” … of course. (I was going to say something about how effective low or zero income taxes through unjust loopholes distort competition, reinforcing mercantilist-globalist oligarchic tendencies- such being egregious examples of what we do not want to see in any free enterprise (laissez faire) economy.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. jtgw says:
    @Grandpa Charlie
    It would help if you would quote me accurately. When you say,"I’m not sure what you mean about US corporate tax being low," I think you are being disingenuous; in any case, you either did not read or do not understand the"effective."

    Do you even know that tax rates mean very little? It's the effective tax that makes the difference.

    Government Accountability Office study found that, from 1998 to 2005, 55 percent of United States companies paid no federal income taxes during at least one year in a seven-year period it studied. A review in 2011 by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy of companies in the injust 500 profitable every year from 2008 through 2010 stated these companies paid an average tax rate of 18.5% and that 30 of these companies actually had a negative income tax due.

    For one thing, you cannot possibly understand the politics (graft) of Congress without knowing something of the numerous unfair loopholes that Congress has passed over the years. You want to talk about government intervention in commerce? Please, do so. But you won't get anywhere by starting out with citing tax rates from the USTC.

    Suggest you start your education by reading the work of David Cay Johnston, beginning with:

    'Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else'

    Think this through. What is the problem exactly? Is it the loopholes or is it the high taxes that force companies to seek these loopholes in order to lower their tax burden? You say that loopholes are against laissez-faire, but the truth is the opposite. It’s the taxes that are against laissez-faire. So lower the statutory tax rate and more companies are likely to find it easier to pay the expected taxes rather than seek out loopholes.

    Then I wonder how you square what you said about US companies paying little or no tax with your claim that they are subsidizing foreign imports through their taxes. Which companies end up having to subsidize their foreign competitors in this way? What makes you think closing loopholes and forcing US companies to pay more in taxes is going to encourage more production in the US?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS