Voting Affirmatively

“If you are a believer in Ron Paul’s Libertarian ideology, then voting for him is an obvious right choice. Why would anyone else vote for Ron Paul? Because Ron Paul has been consistently opposed to America’s wars, most recently in Afghanistan (ongoing) and Iraq and Libya (both done), and because Ron Paul is against prohibitions on recreational drug use and its criminalization, many leftists and/or progressives and/or social democrats and liberal Democrats have stated they would consider voting for Ron Paul if he is a candidate for president in the November 2012 election. From a leftist perspective, this is a stupid idea because it will only set back the leftist agenda, however you choose to define it.” For more, see

Voting For Ron Paul Is Stupid For Leftists
12 February 2012 [203rd birthday of Charles Darwin]
http://www.swans.com/library/art18/mgarci40.html

Vote affirmatively, instead for the “lesser evil.” In either case you may not influence the political choices of the nation, but only with the former do you maintain your self-respect.

3 thoughts on “Voting Affirmatively

  1. I emailed the campaign of the good Dr. Paul during the 2008 election cycle. His reply left me and some other folks flat. No matter his opposition to the wars and his supposed stand on drug use, I will not vote for him.
    I’ll be looking for a third party candidate again this election.
    When I lived in southern California I usually voted for the candidates from the “Peace and Freedom” party. As a former Marine and a Vietnam veteran, I like peace and I still enjoy freedom. I found out in the mid 1970’s that they were basically socialist. I still voted for them in most elections when they had candidates running.
    If Ms. McKinney were to run again, I could support her.

  2. Mr Garcia, Today, your obscure article to “stupid leftist Ron Paul supporters” appeared on my “googlenews” front page, and immediately drew my attention. While the article recognizes the problem of corruption in our political system, your rather simple-minded syllogisms ignore the single most relevant conviction of Ron Paul: his loud and continuous cry to “END THE FED!”

    The last president who successfully shut down a “government sanctioned banking monopoly” was Andrew Jackson. Like Ron Paul, he too was ignored by the media, and was forced to take his appeal directly to the people, and won with more than 56% of the popular vote. He considered killing the bank his single most important accomplishment while in office. By suggesting that leftists’ hands are tied because a vote for Ron Paul would be “thrown away,” you completely ignore historical precedent. Not only has it been done, but it can, and must be done again!

    To ignore this critical component of Ron Paul’s platform and focus on taxes, your entire argument looks rather “stupid.” Here’s a syllogism you might consider:

    1) The “Federal Reserve Bank” controls money
    2) Money corrupts politics
    3) The “Federal Reserve Bank” corrupts politics

    “Thinking Americans” will find your “smoke and mirrors” argument about taxation false and absurd. Our Republic is an experiment with 50 individual states, each looking for unique solutions to their own problems and freely exchanging ideas on what works. Each state is free to levy whatever taxes are needed to meet the needs of their citizenry. Here’s another syllogism to answer the age old question “Why do thieves rob banks?”

    1) Thieves steal money
    2) Banks have money
    3) Thieves rob banks!

    Having all of our money in one central bank only makes it easier for the THIEVES!
    “Decentralized” is the very essence of what politics, power, and money is meant to be in America. If not Ron Paul, who? If not now, when? Please reconsider your divisive arguments and rally your followers to the cause. “Yes, we CAN change America.”

  3. To learn the source of the free market ideology behind today’s “crass worship of money,” read the essay “The Revenge of the Austrians” in chapter 3 of the book “Ill Fares the Land,” by Tony Judt. There, you will learn about the originators of the Chicago school of free market economics: Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and the other Austrian School economists of the early 20th century.

    For Ron Paul’s Libertarians it’s all about the money, for fiscal policy: no taxes; for monetary policy: an inelastic money supply set by returning to the gold standard and eliminating the Federal Reserve System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System).

    A tight money supply without a central bank is intended to eliminate inflation (both monetary and price), and so preserve the value of the financial assets of pensioners, savers, lenders and investors (people with money). Such an anti-government tight money policy prevents use of the Keynesian technique of defending society against political extremism (the rise of fascism) and economic collapse (the technique is government deficit spending and an expansion of the money supply to stimulate economic growth). The adherence of the US Federal Reserve to the gold standard and tight money during the 1930s extended the duration of the Great Depression, and maintained its severity.

    From “Gold Standard” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard):

    According to Keynesian analysis, the earliness with which a country left the gold standard reliably predicted its economic recovery from the great depression. For example, Great Britain and Scandinavia, which left the gold standard in 1931, recovered much earlier than France and Belgium, which remained on gold much longer. Countries such as China, which had a silver standard, almost avoided the depression entirely. The connection between leaving the gold standard as a strong predictor of that country’s severity of its depression and the length of time of its recovery has been shown to be consistent for dozens of countries, including developing countries. This may explain why the experience and length of the depression differed between national economies. [end quote]

    What about debtors, the unemployed and the impoverished under a Ron Paul monetary regime? As a conservative friend told me recently: “you don’t reward failure.”

    Certainly, from the point of view of service to the American public, the Federal Reserve could be better organized and run, but its complete elimination without replacement by a public central bank is simply the selfish wish of ingrates obsessed with their “crass worship of money.”

    Andrew Jackson, 7th US president, was a rich slaveowner and Indian killer (Seminole Indian War) who effected the forcible removal of most of the Southeast Indians to west of the Mississippi at Oklahoma. He succeeded in destroying the 2nd US National Bank, and his monetary policy subsequent to that resulted in the Panic of 1837, which was followed by a deep economic depression.

    I am not inspired by Libertarian dreams.

Comments are closed.