digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at csmonitor.com

An Absolute Faith in Free Markets and Less Government

csmonitor.com — The 10-term congressman from Texas has been a strict constitutionalist since he came into public life some 30 years ago.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ArgentTrader, on 12/31/2007, -7/+47GREAT article.
  • 8secretlove, on 12/31/2007, -6/+35Thank You for this outstanding article. We are making sure each and everyone of our votes count this time, k? http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Vot ...
    • eyeseeingall, on 01/08/2008, -0/+0The most optimal service that every single Ron Paul supporter can do is join a local meet up. Go visit your local Ron Paul HQ near you. Find out your precinct number in HQ. Register to become a precinct captain! Hand out slim jims door to door. If you talk to neighbors keep it general, encourage them to find out more. Most importantly, find out at HQ how you can become a Ron Paul delegate at the caucus. All cynicism aside, if your dream is 'true' freedom for this country, then becoming a delegate is the single most powerful thing each supporter can do to ensure Dr.Paul's success in our political system! Its simple but not easy. Simple because all you do is show up. Not easy because we so often become distracted from what is a priority. Keep in mind, the 'Unconstitutional' powers that control our country's monetary and foreign policies do not want you to know how to 'use' our political system to its optimal intention. They are hoping and praying that all these masses of supporters for Ron Paul do not begin to think how to become delegates. That is the sad sad reality out here. Our education system has been dumbed down to such a horrid state that most Americans do no really know they are 'sovereign', nor do they understand the 'power' and the last great 'privilege' each of us has to exercise our vote for a Ron Paul delegate and even become a Ron Paul delegate to go to the next level in 30 days! My fellow American supporters of Ron Paul, I urge each and every one of you to exercise this last bastion of what is left of our political system. Please please go and educate yourselves at your local Ron Paul HQ. There is very little time left and sooooo much at stake. Those of us who are awake to what is happening here feel like we walk a tightrope.
  • delelles, on 12/31/2007, -4/+50Some experts say polls may be undercounting Paul's support, because so many of his backers haven't voted in the past and use cellphones rather than the landlines, which pollsters use. That's why Paul "is likely to do better on election day than polls say he might," said Fergus Cullen, chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party in an interview for C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" on Sunday.
    • Hortnon, on 01/01/2008, -8/+4What experts?
      • 14justice, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4How about the Pew Research Center: pewresearch.org/pubs/515/polling-cell-only-problem
      • ringelman5, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3OH, you know, the ones like say stuff like:
        "but after working in the industry (medical research) for the last two years, and studying the past I can tell you that is simply not the case. There are simply to many things that would be unprofitable in the short term (by short term I mean years) that no private enterprise would continually fund.
  • Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -6/+45healthy competetion is what we need- starting with the federal reserve, imo
    • RLG1111, on 01/01/2008, -0/+11I wish I could digg this comment a dozen times. We so need the principles that Dr. Paul beileves in to be implemented in this nation....again.
      • Alegoo92, on 01/01/2008, -14/+3Those principles- which worked great pre-industrialized society, were deemed obsolete after the terrible conditions of the Industrial Revolution (in america) and of course the Great Depression.
        • h00ligan, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5The great depression was directly FED by the changing of these policies - read up on farm subsidies.
        • internetsurfer, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4I doubt the Federal government was of much use in mitigating the problems during those periods. From what I've gathered, the Fed screwed up the depression by raising interest rates and tightening the money supply.

          A perfect example of competition/free-market versus a centralized, command/control system is Paul's campaign versus the "top tier" candidates such as Huck. Paul's support is growing exponentially in supporters and dollars raised. I think Huck raised $95,000 during a money bomb attempt recently. Paul's last bomb generated over $6,000,000 as you probably know.

          Go Ron Paul!
  • nlurker, on 12/31/2007, -4/+23Excellent article.
  • Berkana, on 12/31/2007, -11/+31I am a Ron Paul supporter, but I cannot agree to the idea of "absolute faith in free markets". Free markets work most of the time, but it would be plainly dishonest to overlook the times where the market has slipped into situations which are not in the best interest of the consumer, manipulated into that position by a few powerful men in dominant positions of control in powerful corporations. In cases such as that, regulation by the government is entirely justified and appropriate.

    Examples: Net Neutrality (which Ron Paul sadly voted against with the notion that the government shouldn't regulate the internet, as if government were the only threat to our freedoms, overlooking the threat from corporations). Internet access has devolved into an oligopoly by market forces; market forces are leading the dominant companies to consider tactics such as considering the content of the traffic they carry in the determination of the prices they charge. This NEEDS government regulation for the protection of our freedoms. It is naive to simply say "the market knows best; let it work it out". People can't simply stop subscribing to their net access and switch to a competitor in many cases because broadband internet is an oligopoly, and if all of the handful of the major players are violating net neutrality, there's nothing consumer choice can do to change that.

    Example 2: How Microsoft killed Netscape, among others. This is another example of a company using a dominant position to crush competition, hurting the consumer in the long run. Look at the piece of crap that is IE6 and you'll see what happens when the Market equilibrates in a bad place. The Market does not always result in fair outcomes! Not all players in a market fight fair, and sometimes regulation is necessary.

    With that said, I still think Ron Paul is a better candidate than any of the rest.
    • Corrosionx, on 12/31/2007, -10/+20More competition is the always remedy to those problems.
    • Canadarm, on 01/01/2008, -4/+32Netscape is dead and now we have Firefox, illustrating how the free market is working just fine.
      • Berkana, on 01/01/2008, -4/+2If you have to do web development and support the versions of IE out there that still suck and still constitute too much of the market to ignore, that's little comfort. FireFox still has not and probably will not displace IE, even though IE sucks balls. Ditto if you lost your job by being crushed by Microsoft's unfair practices.
        • Corrosionx, on 01/01/2008, -1/+7Microsoft's practices of creating a crappy OS that everyone has is also a great market opportunity for technical support.

          You see, the market fluctuates, some people have more influence than others, but Microsoft is losing more and more market share, because innovation and competition brings better things in the market and replaces obsolete things all the time. Vista sucks, OSX is gaining more and more market share, I'm still on XP but will switch to Linux as soon as I can run all my apps flawlessly... In the computer business it's one of the only place where you truely have a free market, and look at it, prices keep dropping, technology keeps improving!

          If you were horsing shoes for a living 100 years ago, you might have been pissed at the car too, but noone should've stepped in to protect your job either.
        • Berkana, on 01/02/2008, -3/+1You're citing examples where the market works; I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about real situations where markets settle in bad spots. Pointing out FireFox does not do a thing to refute the assertion. Mozilla's Firefox is a poor example because Mozilla is non-profit, and FireFox is open source. When real money making businesses like Netscape get their business destroyed by unfair tactics NOT because Microsoft won in the market by merit, but because they leveraged their dominant position, there needs to be a referee. Free markets presume the winners in the market win due to their merrit, but Microsoft has consistently shown that they can get away with shoddy products because they eliminated the market forces that would otherwise keep them in check using shady means and unfair practices. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Pointing out examples where the market works doesn't address the examples I brought up; I already acknowledged that free markets work best for the consumer *when they're really free and when everyone is competing based on merit.*
          • internetsurfer, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Not sure what industry or economic sectors you think are better off because of government regulation. There may be, but I'm not aware of such. Regulation of electricity maybe? I know cable's regulated monopoly (one service provider per area) really sucks. But now the market is trying to overtake this monopoly with competition from satellite providers. And very soon we'll see the great leveler, the Internet, turning video media delivery on its head!! I can't wait.

            RP08
        • bratpack8, on 01/03/2008, -1/+5Berkana, is someone forcing you to create development for IE? It sounds as if your decision is a market based one. You should ask yourself this question, can any corporation force you to buy their product, use their service or force you to work for them? The answer is of course not, except in situations where the government interferes, such as targeted tax credits, regulations, tariffs, monopoly status, etc. Without government interference in the market (i.e. free-market), a trade only occurs when both parties believe they are getting something better in return than what they are giving up, at that particular moment in time.
          A perfect example of this is the Netscape-Explorer situation. It was consumers who choose to go with the free browser instead of paying $90 for Netscape. This is a bad thing? People certainly had the right to keep using Netscape if they wanted to.
    • diffraction, on 01/01/2008, -2/+23We don't live in a free market society. We live in corporatism.
    • RobHino, on 01/01/2008, -2/+24Canadarm is right. Now we have Firefox and Apple. Free markets work.
      • Berkana, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3Okay, so maybe that wasn't a good example. Here's a better one: the main stream media. Look at their unfair coverage (or lack thereof) concerning Ron Paul, among the many failures of the MSM. Sometimes, free markets don't result in the best conditions; most of the time they do, but I can't subscribe to the idea that the market can never err; the market will go wrong if evil people in dominant positions conspire to magnify their power and influence.
        • Corrosionx, on 01/01/2008, -0/+10Again, we don't have a free market, so you don't know if it brings the best results. In the media market, the FCC decides who gets on the air.

          Look at the blogosphere, totally unregulated, and how's that for freedom of information and choice?
        • JDenigma, on 01/01/2008, -0/+12Thank you Corrosionx. This is the mistake these people are making. They're blaming the free market as the scapegoat when they don't realize that what they're blaming doesn't even have anything to do with the free market in the first place. It's a problem with misinformation from propaganda and improper education that leads to these misunderstandings and not identifying things with the correct labels. How can you solve problems when you continue to incorrectly define and label things and call a horse a dog? All the time, these problems we have that are the result of government crony capitalism, mercantlism, big business lobbyist favors and the like unfairly get associated with the free market. It's just the same when the government just rearranges the chairs on the deck of the Titanic by reregulating something and people wrongly assume it was deregulation when in fact it wasn't. The source of all these misunderstandings is the media and the education system.

          Government subsidized textbooks also perpetuate these myths, the myth of the robber barons, the myth of Standard Oil, the myth of "The Jungle" which was blown out of proportion. It's as if people expect the free market to be this perfect Utopia and if one little thing goes wrong, well then by golly let's just then throw the baby out with the bath water and allow for a mixed economy quasi-socialist system that does further harm and really does as much to protect us as the false security from the TSA. And they call US the utopians? It's Alice in Wonderland. Everything is upside down. War is peace. Slavery is freedom. People also fail to realize that the government is the source of the problem and without all this government power you wouldn't have these corporations getting away with undue power and favoritism. The government is the mothers milk of corporate abuse.
          • sensoukami, on 01/01/2008, -0/+6Well said! Nice to see there are some people with active brain cells out there.
    • sonnybobiche, on 01/01/2008, -2/+13I would never claim to be a fan of Ron Paul, but the situation is this: if all the internet companies turned to a "staggered internet" approach, wherein different plans would grant you access to different levels of internet access, there would be a tremendous amount of market pressure for one of those companies to offer the full internet at competitive prices. If no company did that, it would be because of collusion on the part of the service providers, which would constitute a trust. Trustbusting should be one of the few functions of government.
      • Corrosionx, on 01/01/2008, -2/+7The trust would be broken as soon as a competitor figures he'll make more money by breaking the trust. Cartels or trusts never last by their very nature.
        • Berkana, on 01/01/2008, -3/+6That's not true; look at the trusts that have lasted for generations, such as the European banking powers, and DeBeers diamond cartel, for example.
          • rkbabang, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4Bluenile.com

            The free market works. Every example given in this whole discussion could not have happened without government interference.
          • bratpack8, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3Banking is as far from a free-market as one can get. The government doesn't allow competing currencies and bails them out when times are bad, such as the mortgage mess, and by inflating the money supply.
            DeBeers isn't a monopoly, I believe they have about 60-70% of the market. But I don't recall them forcing me to buy their products.
        • JDenigma, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1What about cartels that are propped up and subsidized by the government such as Big Oil and Big Pharma? That's not free market. DeBeers is a rare anomaly and for that matter that monopoly like power I believe is being broken down by the marketplace anyway with the ability to manufacture diamonds in a lab.
        • internetsurfer, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Big oil is subsidized by our government. That's not open competition. Big Pharmacy is affected by goverment regulation, the FDA.
    • afruff23, on 01/01/2008, -1/+6Internet has become an oligopoly because of strict regulation and monopoly enforcement by government. For instance, it took years of court trials to get FiOS in our county.
      • Berkana, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3But with that oligopoly set up under non-free-market conditions, a hands-off approach afterwards is not always correct, because the damage has been done. I believe the government should enforce net neutrality, even if it is not a hands-off free market; going hands-off would just let the consequences of prior interference persist.
        • afruff23, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2Net neutrality is just a band-aid. It doesn't solve the problem of lack of market forces (AKA competition).

          Furthermore, the internet is one of the last places you can freely express yourself without government control. Do you really want the government to regulate and monitor the internet?
    • Brad324, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2If companies tried to enforce Net Neutrality, then new internet companies would simply open up, dominating the market due to lack of net neutrality. The net neutrality system requires that no-one is able to connect to the internet without abiding by their caps and rules. They cannot put physical filters on the cables connecting our computers together - it would be done through their mainframe. Bypass that company = problem solved. The free market clearly prevents regulation of the internet.
      • TenebrousX, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3Except that companies like AT&T privately own the backbones that the Internet runs on.
        • Brad324, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1there's still nothing they could do about it. Owning roads won't allow you to stop certain people from driving on it without the ability to set up tolls or gates. And even if they could, new roads would open up.
        • TenebrousX, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2No, they can very easily set up access restrictions however they choose, such as simply dropping packets whose source IP is a website that hasn't made a deal with the ISP.
        • janeuner, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1And that is the very argument to open the markets. AT&T owns a regional monopoly. This problem would not exist if there was direct competition between different companies. You have to break the monopoly on utilities.
    • dbrisinda, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0I think this is precisely Ron Paul's point: we don't really have free markets—only the illusion that we do. If the markets were truly free (and this is one of the few functions of a limited government—to protect and insure markets remain truly open and free) then there wouldn't be any anti-trust issues. In all of your examples, the anti-trust behaviour occurs because of the deterioration of a free market, where government officials are often bribed by corporate lobbyists to either turn a blind eye, or even actively pursue legislation that directly benefits large corporate interests.
  • Berkana, on 12/31/2007, -9/+15BTW, as another example where free markets only work when people are honest and play fair, consider the Enron fiasco, and the entire string of accounting discrepancy fiascos from a few years back, and the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Free markets work well when there is accountability, but sometimes a referee is needed to make sure people are playing fair, and to hold them accountable. I'm hoping Ron Paul will not simply overlook this need and role of the government based on his libertarian philosophies. Holding onto political doctrines tightly without considering potential counterexamples on a case by case basis is a recipe for disaster. This is true for just about any political doctrine.
    • Corrosionx, on 12/31/2007, -5/+15I agree a referee is needed, but the government is the worst possible referee, and you pointed to the perfect example: Enron.

      Subsidies and government involvement is what made Enron possible. There's no free market in energy, so it's hard to blame the free market.
      • Magnolit, on 01/01/2008, -1/+7Enron and free markets? Do you even research your stuff?
      • Corrosionx, on 01/01/2008, -2/+4Try this:
        http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traffic_Jams/FDR_27 ...
      • Berkana, on 01/01/2008, -2/+3Are you suggesting that a private corporation that can set its own standards while operating on a for-profit basis would be a fair and better referee than the government? I contend that the oversight of such things should be in the hands of government and not in the hands of a for-profit organization not accountable to anyone but its stockholders. Yes, politicians can be corrupted; they can also be voted out of office. If a system is set up to require transparency in oversight of the "referee", and enforced with the force of law, I would rather let government handle such oversight than to give such power to private corporations. Look how the private investment rating corporations got corrupted when there was a conflict of interest over sub prime mortgages; they lied and gave dishonest ratings so they could dump their mortgage bonds on foreign firms that trusted them to provide accurate information. Ditto for corrupt accounting firms that cooked the books during the accounting scandals of the late 90's.
        • Corrosionx, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2This kind of for-profit organization would be accountable to its reputation, and the possible competition that would inspect its every move.

          You're talking about having the government inspect those corporations books, something which really should be handled by a third-party, and the investors and those interested should pay for it, not the taxpayers.

          Do you think Underwriter's Laboratory is corruptible?
        • Berkana, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1"This kind of for-profit organization would be accountable to its reputation, and the possible competition that would inspect its every move. "

          Halliburton doesn't seem to care about its reputation, nor does KBR nor Blackwater.

          "Do you think Underwriter's Laboratory is corruptible?"

          Pointing out examples that work does not do a thing to refute my assertion that there are examples where the market can go wrong. That's all I'm saying. The market is right most of the time, but it is not infallible, and as such, I cannot give it my absolute faith. I hold out the possibility that the market sometimes settles in a bad situation which hurts consumers and that where self-regulation fails or gets corrupted (such as with the mortgage market rating companies selling off trash mortgage bonds with falsely optimistic ratings) it is sometimes necessary for the government to step in.
          • avengingturnip, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3What? Do you think the mortgage mess would have happened without massive government intervention in the market? Investigate something called 'Moral Hazard'.
          • Corrosionx, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1Yeah that's because Halliburton and Blackwater are government contractors. There's no free market here, so you're talking apples and oranges.

            The example you gave is just another in a long list of things government screwed up by getting involved. Saying the free market can fail is like saying nature can fail.
        • Misesean, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4"Halliburton doesn't seem to care about its reputation, nor does KBR nor Blackwater."
          They don't have to, do they? - they're not operating a /free/ market, but in a government one.
    • afruff23, on 01/01/2008, -2/+8I hardly consider a monopoly on currency fair while the government continues to inflate it at high rates. That is causing our recession (not the subprime mortgage crisis as the news likes to say since explaining fiat currency is too much for their viewers).

      Enron is an example of why the government shouldn't interfere. They shouldn't bail out the investing mistakes of people. Furthermore, government investment plans overflood the stock market with capital, which leads to a misrepresentation of stock prices and fiascos like Enron.
      • Berkana, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2True, the government shouldn't have bailed them out, but that's not how Enron got started. Deregulation without accountability and transparency is what made the Enron problem possible. Look at the mess that we're in with private contractor groups such as Titan and Blackwater involved in military affairs, and potentially being involved with intelligence gathering in the future. The problem with Libertarian political philosophy is that it has a tendency to lean towards radical privatization; when private companies start getting involved in functions that were prior done by the state, you have some massive conflict of interest, and hand disproportionate influence into the hands of corporations. Imagine if all firefighting were privatized, or if policing were privatized, and you'll get a sense of what could go wrong. Corporations have too much power in influencing the government, and that's why they need to be kept in check. Telling the government never to mind the business of corporations on the basis of a political philosophy is plainly dangerous; corporations are as much a threat to our individual and personal liberties and economic security as government is. It would be naïve to pretend this isn't so.
        • jayliewow, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2"Deregulation without accountability and transparency is what made the Enron Problem possible." Methinks you need to do some more research on Enron.

          Wasn't it the government in collusion with Enron that based some sort of energy technology on a patent Enron held the rights to? I seem to recall reading something along those lines. With the governments help, Enron FORCED other companies to pay them to use their patent because the government built their regulations around the Enron patent (with Enron's help of course). I wonder what other sort of innovative energy technology might have been developed had that not happened. I suppose we'll never know since we won't ever really have a free market so long as companies are allowed to do this sort of thing and the government backs them with guns & jail.

          I think this isn't such a good example of free markets not working. If it's regulated by the government to this extent, it's obviously NOT a free market. Check around the internet for some solid proof of what I'm saying.
        • Corrosionx, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2Enron, Titan and Blackwater don't count: they get government contracts, so it's not the free market in action. They get preferential treatment, and you don't get to associate this behavior with libertarian philosophy, it has NOTHING to do with it (the money is still extracted from the taxpayers through force).
        • Berkana, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1@CorrosionX:

          Yes they do count: whenever you have radical privatization, there are roles which will be taken over by private companies that were once held by government, so government contracts are inevitable. If you don't count anything with a government contract as being able to be held up to scrutiny of market forces, then the whole notion of radical privatization fails from the very start. You can't privatize without government contracts. If the market does not yield up competitors (which is sometimes the case) you get the same problem I pointed out. To not recognize that this sometimes happens in a free market is short sighted. Enron, Blackwater, Titain, CACI, and other examples of abuse must be taken into consideration as examples that show that the market is not infallible, and does not deserve our absolute faith on account of holding fast to libertarian political dogma.
    • Skip742, on 01/01/2008, -0/+7I think you misunderstand what a "free market" is. Even the most staunch libertarian would agree that fraud, such as that committed by Enron, is a crime, and should be addressed. Most free market supporters recognize the importance of enforcing the law. However, the question is what kind of law should be used. Should we punish wrongdoers for violating laws against fraud, or should we punish ALL businesspeople with laws like Sarbanes-Oxley that add unnecessary costs and restrictions to the honest and dishonest alike. Congressman Paul supports free markets, opposes Sarbanes-Oxley, and believes in enforcing laws against fraud.
      • jjmckay, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3Great words. They are like the dust in the wind when said against a steadfast mindset such as expressed by Berkana. They equate all corporate actions as 'free market actions' when in reality that's not true at all.
    • bratpack8, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Berkana, I have a great book for you to read. It is called 'The Big Ripoff,' and I just finished it. While it is painful to read, it is full of examples of how big business and big government are tied at the hip, and that includes both Democrats and Republicans. It has an entire chapter on Enron, and how they used the State to get regulations passed, government deals, etc for years, and how they lobbied for specific accounting changes that enabled them (because laws were passed) to do what they did. This is far from a free-market. It sounds as if you are interested in learning more, and this book is a good point of reference. You could also check out sites such as mises.org, or read 'Economics in One Lesson,' written more than 50 years ago by Henry Hazlitt, a NY Times columnist.
  • RobertELehman, on 12/31/2007, -3/+18It's nice to see the Christian Science Monitor give fair coverage on all of the candidates. Ron Paul's message speaks for itself and it has moved me to act to support him and the principles of liberty in America through the Constitution.
  • Canadarm, on 01/01/2008, -6/+11"Little to show for (his work)"? The millions of Americans who now agree with him count for nothing?
  • ShaperVision, on 01/01/2008, -3/+13Pleased to see a fair and well balanced article.
  • Kacela, on 01/01/2008, -3/+8Very good and fair article - make sure to also listen to the embedded audio clip.
  • tehbored, on 01/01/2008, -11/+7He voted against government funds for Katrina victims? What the *****?! I can understand most of his policies (though I don't necessarily agree with them), but why shouldn't the government help its own people who were harmed by a natural disaster? It is their obligation to do so, especially if no one else can.
    • Corrosionx, on 01/01/2008, -3/+15Really.... hmmm what article of the Constitution is that exactly?

      FEMA was there actually refusing help from private companies like Walmart that were offering trucks of supplies, water and ice, because of some bureaucratic nonsense. That's the Federal government helping people.
    • jeffiek, on 01/01/2008, -2/+19Where's the Constitutional authority?

      On practical terms, look what a mess they made out of it. Just another waste ridden program.

      What about the slippery slope argument? How big a disaster is big enough? If the government helps Katrina victims, why not California fire victims. Kansas tornado victims, on and on and on......

      Speaking of Katrina victims. Why are so many people living below sea level? Government ENABLES many of them to live there. The infamous levies (showing what wonderful care governments take of their property), subsidized flood insurance, welfare (not necessarily all federal level). Government caused a lot of the problem to begin with!

      "It is their obligation to do so, especially if no one else can."
      Where did they get this obligation from? Simply stating they have one is insufficient. Who said no one else can? There were lots of volunteers that went to NO (many of the STOPPED by police).

      PEOPLE should help each other, that's what makes a good society. Governments "helping" people is no more than a forced redistribution of wealth.
    • Misesean, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4tehbored: http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm
    • THEROC, on 01/01/2008, -0/+13Remember the hundrets of trucks with ice that never reached their destination, because some bureaucrats were ordering them around? Remember the thousands of trailers that were never used? The people that were trapped for days, because fema let noone in to help? Remember the wallmart trucks that were intercepted by fema? Remember the forced evacuations? Remember the gun grabbin? etc. etc.

      Seriously, the last thing anyone would want is in time of a crisis is the help of the federal government in form of homeland security and fema. Katrina is the perfect example of government ineptness.
    • keithgplayer, on 01/01/2008, -0/+15Whenever Katrina happened, I knew people who went down there with the intent on helping the people of New Orleans recover. When they arrived at the disaster they were turned away by FEMA. These people had food, toiletries, water, and many necessities of life. The people wanted to help, but the government didn't allow it. This is a prime example of "We The People" in action. Why do we need a government to take care of these disasters when the people of the United States are more than capable of handling it. I agree with Ron Paul on his stand 100%. We the people can handle any emergency that arises.
    • jayliewow, on 01/01/2008, -0/+5For an example why the government SUCKS at providing disaster relief note some of the comments above about how people where physically prevented from helping out with the rescue efforts.

      For a further example visit this website http://www.learyfirefighters.org/ and consider why it is that this foundation did in 6 months what the "government" said would take 5 years?
    • JohnFromChicago, on 01/02/2008, -0/+6NO isn't the first city in US history totally destroyed. Chicago was almost 80% destroyed by fire, and a hurricane swallowed the entire city of Galveston. There was no FEMA, no federal aid. Both cities were rebuilt relatively quickly. Individuals and businesses contributed time and money, and accomplished things a lot more quickly than NO. And they didn't even think of confiscating guns or seizing property. We don't need FEMA.
    • MeetMyBackhand, on 01/03/2008, -0/+0Government sponsored aid (ineptness) at work:
      http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/14/fema.audit/index. ...
      http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2006/12/07/fema-lost- ...
      It's awesome to think that we pay for people's divorce lawyers, vacations, and girls gone wild videos, isn't it?
  • axiomata, on 01/01/2008, -2/+9CSM shows once again why it is the best unbiased news agency out there. Great article.
  • detree, on 01/01/2008, -4/+17Old media is dead. Even Rupert Murdoch is now selling off his TV stations. Of course he can now censor people on MySpace but that will only cause people to go to Facebook or another social networking site. Putting out fraudulent polls and stories to try to stifle America's choice for president is not good for business these days.

    Ron Paul will be the next president but be prepared for fanatically desperate attempts to stop him from neocons before he takes office.
  • lightshadw, on 01/01/2008, -2/+7What a great article.
  • RobHino, on 01/01/2008, -5/+23Just sent this to the CSM.

    To the editor:

    I have little doubts that I am the first person to thank you for your fair and non-bias article on Presidential Candidate, Congressman Ron Paul. The message of freedom and peace, sound money and fiscal responsibility, smaller government and less taxes is indeed what lured my curiosity to Dr. Paul's campaign, but his principles, consistency and honesty is how he earned my vote and my financial contributions. It is a rare occasion that media coverage of Ron Paul isn't skewed to diminish his candidacy.

    Are his supporters numerous enough to upset the establishment with a victory for freedom, or will the establishment continue down the path of stripping liberty and welfare-warfare politics?

    That is a question for history to decide, not political pundits and pollsters.

    Jose Roberto Hinojosa
    An Independent Voter in Texas and un-official member of the Ron Paul R[EVOL]UTION
  • Asure, on 01/01/2008, -4/+12Liberty - Freedom - Peace - Prosperity
    If America was a smarter country, wouldn't Ron Paul be leading in the polls?
    • Berkana, on 01/01/2008, -0/+7If America weren't fed its information by corrupt media conglomerates with much to lose, maybe. I think that's why people who have weened themselves off of TV as their primary news source, who use the internet instead, form a large part of Ron Paul's base of support.
  • brokencrystal, on 01/01/2008, -3/+17https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/
  • corevette, on 01/01/2008, -3/+11PLEASE DONATE!!!! TONIGHT IS THE LAST MONEYBOMB OF THE YEAR
    ONLY 500K UNTIL 20,000,000 DOLLARS
    yes i know, all caps FTW
  • Brad324, on 01/01/2008, -3/+13187 diggs, submitted 4 hr 26 min ago, yet not on the main page. Would this same thing happen to a top 10 list about herpes?
  • ChimpFlix, on 01/01/2008, -1/+9The Christian Science Monitor has always been a fair source of reportage. Excellent job.
  • WTC7WasPulled, on 01/01/2008, -3/+11That really was an excellent article and the audio report attached was well done.

    And to think the establishment is trying to cut Ron Paul out of the debates when he's not only raised the most money but also is polling higher than Fred Thompson and others even in their controlled polls.
    • onetimer, on 01/01/2008, -10/+4"polling higher than Fred Thompson..."

      Link please? In all the national polls he is getting trounced. Which state are you referring to? Even In paul's best state, I believe he is tied at best.
  • onetimer, on 01/01/2008, -8/+6I won't be voting for a candidate that would cut all federal funding of scientific research. Now I know i'm going to receive a bunch of replies saying "but but but privatizing research is SOOO much better!!!" but after working in the industry (medical research) for the last two years, and studying the past I can tell you that is simply not the case. There are simply to many things that would be unprofitable in the short term (by short term I mean years) that no private enterprise would continually fund.

    Just look at something like the internet. Seriously, read the history of it. After years of research at ARPA, when it came time to get the RFQ for potential investors, most of them dismissed the idea as outlandish. And this is after years of leg work had already been done!

    • Brad324, on 01/01/2008, -1/+9that is a good point, and a valid argument. A libertarian society definitely has its drawbacks, but just like a libertarian society relies on people to have good nature and help eachother out, a socialist society relies on the government to do the same. I'd put my trust in my neighbors before the government.
    • tahney, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5Why should we subsidize private research if the people are not going to directly benefit from the research we subsidize? Drug companies aren't going to make medicine more inexpensive for the mass population. They are flat out concerned for their profits. This is the way corporate American and pharmaceutical industry has evolved. Why subsidize companies with taxpayer dollars when all they do is take?
      • Hortnon, on 01/01/2008, -3/+3Drug research is not the only scientific research.
    • Colten, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2Private would be better, when a company needs something they will hirer a scientist to research it. Why should we have to pay for it?
    • 14justice, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3The tenth amendment is so beautifully simple: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
      Ron Paul would say that if you want your state to fund scientific research --- which many of them do --- then go for it. Private funding is not the only possibility.
    • JohnFromChicago, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2The problem with government funding is choice. Who chooses what does and doesn't get funded? In effect, it's the govt manipulating markets and general life by funding research for things they want, and not funding things they don't. It's a part of "social engineering" and in no way does it represent liberty. Free markets will provide profits, motives, and pathways to research and develop whatever the market needs.
    • ringelman5, on 01/02/2008, -0/+1" but after working in the industry (medical research) for the last two years, and studying the past I can tell you that is simply not the case. There are simply to many things that would be unprofitable in the short term (by short term I mean years) that no private enterprise would continually fund."
      Care to document these generalizations?
      Sorry, but it's obvious that you are just raving as a very much interested benefactor of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY funding your having a job. Is why Horton is a sympathetic parasite.
      Government funds being made available just means spending to lobby for those funds in hopes of scooping a bonanza.
      What the hell ever happened to initiative? There's only so many teat s on the sow.
  • spammvp, on 01/01/2008, -1/+12ill be damned if this doesnt make it to the homepage
    it has more diggs than the first 6 stories
  • Brad324, on 01/01/2008, -4/+3looks like Fox News is censoring digg as well
    • chaosium, on 01/01/2008, -3/+6No, you're just too stupid to understand how digg works.
      • Brad324, on 01/01/2008, -3/+3I think I figured it out. "Picture of Ron Paul = every digg is only worth 5% of rest of diggs"
        • rootnik, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2It is the digg/burried ratio. Allot of digg users are sick of hearing the same story over and over again. We all know what Ron Paul stands for. We know he is for less government and free markets. Why? Because for a period of about 6 months this same message was on the front page of Digg every single day. For this reason, many Ron Paul stories get buried and will never see the front page.
      • chaosium, on 01/01/2008, -5/+4If you're being treated like a slave maybe people who give a ***** should purchase your way out of bondage.

        It's the Ron Paul Way.
  • helraizr, on 01/01/2008, -1/+9Historic. I can understand why normal politicians are scared... he's got a brain.
  • sestalker, on 01/01/2008, -2/+3I have to say that I have tried to step back to think more about this and other candidates. After review of what is important to my everyday life as an American, I offer no apology for my continual support of a candidate who has continually supported my individual liberties.
  • Jareth86, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Is turning to the free market always the best option? Look at Blackwater...
    • savagesteve13, on 01/02/2008, -0/+4Blackwater isn't free market. It exists due to cronyism and corruption and taxpayer handouts to corporations, and a large dose of christian fundamentalism included to boot (Erik Prince is a HUGE fanatic).

      The last person to be so generous with military contracts to his buddies was Adolf Hitler.
      • eyeseeingall, on 01/08/2008, -0/+0Like all cheaters who 'monopolize' within the current 'unfree' markets, this allowance of Blackwater is repulsive since it undermines our military which is under Congressional oversight. Blackwater is not under Congressional oversight and should be construed for what it is: A rogue bunch of crazed mercenaries, not unlike pirates of old. This is far from 'free market' competition, this is a travesty of the rules of engagement and international law and is blatantly Unconstitutional!
    • JohnFromChicago, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2If Blackwater had a competitor or two, and the whole operation wasn't swimming in cronyism and war profiteering, it might not be a bad idea.
      • ringelman5, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2Private armies are always a bad idea.
  • bluejeanboomer, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Will Americans stand for FREEDOM and get the News Media to report the real news. You would think we lived in a 3rd world country with the media attempting to manipulate the elections. What has happened to our country. Please someone try to get this real news out to the media. GO RON PAUL
    • scrothroath, on 01/02/2008, -0/+0dear bluejeanboomer . any time a thing like this is allowed anywhere it is what it is and that is facisist , immorale , communist ,totalitarinism , or any name you can think of other than democracy.
  • scrothroath, on 01/02/2008, -2/+2blackwater is not Free Market . balckwater is cronyism personified.
  • wesyul, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1“... libertarian critics also complain that his opposition to abortion rights for women violates libertarian principles ... ”
    I vote Ron Paul. I am a libertarian and believe that the principle of nonaggression applies for women to those who would use the force of government against her and her physician. Libertarians like Doctor Paul who are also Biblically informed, are led to ascribe rights to the unborn:
    “...I realized that another life was involved...”
    I am also a Bright and, informed by our best science, aware that life began at least 3 billion years ago, not each time a zygote ***** is formed. Our reason discovers and endows the individual with rights, attained in stages in childhood. The Biblically informed have a supernatural explanation for the natural facts. But I expect that Ron Paul would agree that our Constitution doesn't currently limit the rights of women, though he might support amendment. So for now I say “Go Ron Paul”, the rest of his positions are just too good. I encourage all Brights and Libertarians to vote Ron Paul.
  • tracyjohnson831, on 01/02/2008, -1/+0I had a lot to say and two minutes was not enough to fix the error that appeared on the screen so now you will get the short and sweet version of what I originally wrote. Look at all the candidates closely and all their views then make a careful decision to vote this November. We need everyone who is capable to take a stand for yourself, your family and your country. This election is extremely important and the outcome will play out for years to come. We cannot afford to make the wrong choice this time. We must support what we believe in and take it to the polls. I will take this stand and say I will always support those that provide protection and support for my family. Thank you Armed Forces for all the sacrifices you have made, hopefully we can bring many of you home soon! Ron Paul, if you stay the course, you have my vote for 2008!
  • brokencrystal, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165688030 ...
  • brinkerman, on 01/03/2008, -1/+0When each president takes office, they also swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate I've heard that intends to defend that oath. EVERY other candidate has publicly admitted in their campaigning that they have no intention of living up to the oath!! I wonder why anyone would vote for an admitted, self-confessed liar? I'm voting Ron Paul for president.
    • Athelwulf, on 01/05/2008, -0/+0Please give me sources that directly quote "EVERY other candidate" in question, and I want it to really be every other candidate, even the little guys. If any of them did indeed say that, I would like to know where, when, to whom, and in what context. Unless you can back your claim, I don't believe you.
  • jerzyaltyangl, on 01/04/2008, -1/+0good article for an awesome man...shame on fox for banning him to debate on jan 6th!!
  • notyourslave, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0DIGG THIS NOW >> THIS IS THE ONLY WAY FOR RON PAUL TO BECOME PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Become_a_Delegat ...
  • wasaka, on 01/05/2008, -1/+2Las Vegas -- PAUL A PALOOZA January 12th, 2008 - This is a supporter-bomb. Instead of donations, we are going to import Ron Paul supporters into Las Vegas by the thousands. Events will kick off Saturday, at around noon with the biggest Ron Paul march ever. It will be on the Las Vegas Strip. Saturday night will be an evening of fun-filled entertainment. Ron Paul will me in Las Vegas for the debate on the 14th (or 16th) and we hope he can get here a day to two early and help us win the state of Nevada and claim a large number of the 34 delegate that up for grabs! Buy you ticket now - paulapalooza2008.com
  • taualex, on 01/05/2008, -2/+1I would say US needs more government at this moment
  • omgwthlol, on 01/05/2008, -2/+1ron paul is stupid
    • bscnow, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1I guess you haven't listened to him speak. He is a very educated and informed individual from what I've heard.
  • SupportTheDream, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1There seems to be an up rising across the world. One that is much different than the past. Humanity seems to be developing a conscience. Whether its Kenya, Myanmar, Pakistan, or America people seem to be rising up against the powers that have keep them under control for too long. It seems that technology and human consciousness are evolving at the same rate. This is unnoticeable until the rate of change is increased and the numbers begin to get large. When society learns something new that enlightens them to a better understanding of how something works they evolve. Technology allows that information exchange to take place. So as this ever increasing rate of technology is evolved so to will humanity.

    Ron Paul and is supporters are signs of the same surge of evolvement happening in America. Here is a man denied access by the main stream media but is growing tremendously on line. The main stream media cannot control the online information exchange. The exciting part for those who like this trend and the scary part for the FOX fans out there is this. The statistics show the amount of people on line today will doubled by this time next year (2009). Now hang on it gets better. That 2009 number will then be doubled again in 2010 and then that number will be doubled again in 2011. Finally the 2011 numbers are predicted to double again in 2012 before showing signs of slowing down. WOW!
    So imagine what we know now, and what we may learn over the next 4 years.

    Ron Paul represents more than a presidential candidate with a strong internet following. He represents an evolution of change that is taking place at an ever increasing rate. That evolution also has a conscience that will be growing in humanity at the same rate as technology. Remember as one learns something new they evolve. As society learns that the main stream media has been altering the news to sell the wealth’s agenda, they too will evolve. Ron Paul will go down in history as being a major contributor towards the evolution of peace and humanity.

    Gad Bless America

    Shane Richardson
    President/CEO
    Support the Dream LLC
    • eyeseeingall, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1What a wonderful enlightened comment from you. It is so refreshing to be able to receive such intelligence and thoughtfulness. I too wonder about such things myself. Like you I see a huge awakening of 'consciousness' across the world. These CFR world monetary organizers who control without Congressional oversight, have tried every thing at their disposal to keep us from 'waking up', but it seems God and the Celestials think otherwise. Time is ending soon for those who continue to be 'self-serving' and refuse to work for the 'betterment' and true 'freedom' of the individual. So much of the 'collectivist' positioning of these candidates are very difficult to watch because it is so embarrassing to them. Such Racketeering on a massive scale may be reaching its final zenith now. The Emperor really has no clothes! Both the Mayan and Vedic calendars end at December 21, 2012. There really has been only one war and that is for our minds and manipulation of our thoughts to keep us from knowing just how 'sovereign' we are under the Constitution. I believe it was the visionary, Rudolf Steiner, who way back at the turn of 20th century saw a 'critical mass' forming of the common people globally at this current timing, but in particular, the United States, the likes of which the world has never seen before. The movement towards greater and greater individuality is upon us. Though ultimately this may lead to some form of strife, the 'New Renaissance' that most certainly will result, will be a welcomed change!
    • ApeInago, on 01/13/2008, -0/+1twice as many idiots on the internets?!!?!

      *groans*
  • PFMMCE, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1Ron Paul is starting a political and economic revolution. The more intelligent people get, the quicker they begin to open their eyes and accept fairness as their economic and political affiliation. Ron Paul is an amazing politician because he pushes to restore hope and prosperity to our country and world. Capitalism as an economic system creates certain conditions that can deviate from competitive free market principals. Mostly in the form of oligopolies and monopolistic tendencies; ever increasing pollution due to ever increasing natural resource usage and fiat money, money that is essentially worth nothing but a promise. The world we live in is in need of serious change or we face irreversible and possibly devastating consequences. It is now basically a race against time to fix the complex developments that have made our nation and world off the right path, or face the inevitable, destruction.

    I will vote Ron Paul in 2008 and so should you!
  • mellowcool, on 01/06/2008, -1/+1ROB PAUL 08! http://members.cox.net/mellowcool/ron-paul-08.jpg
  • whydoyouwork, on 01/06/2008, -1/+0Regarding the use of Microsoft killing off Netscape as an example of why Government needs regulation in the business sector... Look at what Microsoft has become. The way that more people have been helped than Netscape or all the other companies Microsoft "bullied " around. The free market did work. And since the Microsoft days, only GOOD products have stood a chance against Microsoft, like Firefox, like the iPhone. Innovative products are keeping Microsoft on it's toes and INTELLIGENT consumers know to keep diversity going. Yet even the Apple commercials have to use high school stereotypes to win market share in their ad campaigns as well as ripping off others. So what would the government have anything to do with it. The government just let Adobe and Macromedia MERGE. But yet Corel is now only pushed even farther to produce a better product or FOCUS in specific areas instead of spreading itself too thin, which Government regulation often does to the government itself, spreads the effectiveness too thin and creating a situation like No Child Left Behind...
  • beauley, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2I applaud you, Ron Paul and those who have stood firm in presenting Your bill H.R. 2117, The "Health Freedom Protection Act" Great to all of you and truly revo;utionary. It must be passed for all our "Freedom". It will take away the powers of the tyrannical FDA, who only do the bidding of "Big Pharma" and not the citizenry of the U.S..
  • notyourslave, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1Ron Paul NEEDS 1,191 (a majority) of 2,380 DELEGATES to WIN

    http://www3.webng.com/ronpaul/becomedelegate.html
    http://www3.webng.com/ronpaul/delegatestates.html
    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/delegate-process/
    http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/R-Alloc.phtml

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_NEEDS_Y ...

    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Become_a_Delegat ...

    A delegate is essentially a super-voter; They get to vote for the GOP nominee. Regular voters will be voting to determine the delegates in your state Primary (or caucus); Regular voters can't vote for the GOP nominee. Remember, our system of government is a republic and not a democracy
  • eyeseeingall, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2The most optimal service that every single Ron Paul supporter can do is join a local meet up. Go visit your local Ron Paul HQ near you. Find out your precinct number in HQ. Register to become a precinct captain! Hand out slim jims door to door. If you talk to neighbors keep it general, encourage them to find out more. Most importantly, find out at HQ how you can become a Ron Paul delegate at the caucus. All cynicism aside, if your dream is 'true' freedom for this country, then becoming a delegate is the single most powerful thing each supporter can do to ensure Dr.Paul's success in our political system! Its simple but not easy. Simple because all you do is show up. Not easy because we so often become distracted from what is a priority. Keep in mind, the 'Unconstitutional' powers that control our country's monetary and foreign policies do not want you to know how to 'use' our political system to its optimal intention. They are hoping and praying that all these masses of supporters for Ron Paul do not begin to think how to become delegates. That is the sad sad reality out here. Our education system has been dumbed down to such a horrid state that most Americans do no really know they are 'sovereign', nor do they understand the 'power' and the last great 'privilege' each of us has to exercise our vote for a Ron Paul delegate and even become a Ron Paul delegate to go to the next level in 30 days! My fellow American supporters of Ron Paul, I urge each and every one of you to exercise this last bastion of what is left of our political system. Please please go and educate yourselves at your local Ron Paul HQ. There is very little time left and sooooo much at stake. Those of us who are awake to what is happening here feel like we walk a tightrope.
  • Gaming4JC, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1First of all, I'd like to say I really like Ron Paul overall. He finally came clean on some of the "grey areas" he had about racism and a few other subjects. But the only thing that boggles me is this quote "Get out of Iraq, now.", you can't just yank our troops out of Iraq without causing more trouble. At least "ease us out" or else you'll liable to leave our country attacked "On Native Soil"...
  • msonelson, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0Do you thing Microsoft is acting in the best interests of the USA? Bill Gates is now a hero of the Peoples Republic. Read this article in Fortune:
    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_arc ...
  • edyboy, on 01/11/2008, -0/+0hello am in ameroon there is a place full of oil here i need u to understand with me and lets make money out of it this is a top sicreat pls let no one know this it will benefit u and i for more info. write me on unice5000_felisia i will tell u more but just be uprite with me .cach u
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.