Skip to comments.Paul: Country is moving toward fascism
Posted on 12/23/2007 6:44:53 PM PST by AmericanMade1776
White House hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Sunday that the U.S. is moving toward fascism, stating that corporations are increasingly running the show and citizens are being deprived of their liberties.
Paul clarified that he did not refer to the type of fascism that Adolf Hitler practiced in Germany. Were not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but were moving toward a softer fascism, Paul said on NBCs Meet the Press. Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business.
The lawmaker said the U.S. is moving toward corporatism. He also lashed out at a system in which those are criticized as unpatriotic who do not support the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Paul hasn't suggested that as an option. Quite the contrary.
Ah, the good old days!
Santa's just hooking up his sleigh now. Merry Christmas.
interesting he played the left wing martyr card here, where he could have talked about so many suppressions of freedom of expression on the right side of the political spectrum, especially regarding abortion and religion in the public square.
Exactly...My question is, who let all these people into the Republican Party??? Or, what is the Republican Party???
It's not the party of conservatives...It's not the party of Pro-American Patriots...
The Republican Party appears to be the party of liberal pro-lifers...It's the party of 'money is my God' globalists, etc...
What can be more comical than to watch Republicans fighting over which liberal to support for the Republican nominee for President???
I got news for 'em...It don't matter...None of them can beat Hillery...
So what??? I wish he'd give a couple hundred mil to Hunter...
How much of the donations for the Rinos comes indirectly from China and Mexico???
At this point, I don't care if it comes from the Klingons, if it will put a conserative Patriot in the #1 slot...
I don’t think the LP, then or now, would cotton to Ron Paul’s anti-business rhetoric. To couch his opposition to encroaching fascism in terms of corporate evil rather than government corruption, has more than a whiff of liberal batshit to me. (No offense there, Battman.)
For sure, not back in the day...when my parents were entertaining libertarian activists and discussing such issues while I was bouncing on some now-arthritic libertarian knee. :)
Maybe now they have some new generation that knows not Hospers and Rothbard; but I can’t believe they are now intermingling with anti-business or neo-luddite greens.
(Though one can almost hear Rand saying “You asked for it!”)
There are some things that Paul espouses with which I agree. However there are a number of issues where I’m so diametricly opposed to his views, I’ve been thinking about reclassifying myself from “small ‘l’ libertarian.”
One thing with which I will agree, is that the title of this thread is correct, but in economic terms only... In economics, fascism is defined government control of privately owned businesses. We’ve been seeing this more and more, with more government regulations. This is certainly the case. The rest, not so much...
Corporations have sold their souls and the soul of America. They HAVE taken over and every decision the gov’t makes is about corporate profits.
We have plenty of nothing in this country anymore - quality sucks, service sucks, and you can’t find well made products because they are made in China - cheap labor. We are a debtor nation and the world owns us.
No matter who is in the oval office makes no difference - taxes go up, prices go up, and things will continue as they have been. I do believe that there is an invisible controlling force, a few people controlling the finances on a global scale and we (America) are just one of the pawns. The housing debacle was by design by greedy corporations. You think 401k is a good deal? That was a cop out by corporations so they wouldn’t have to foot the bill paying retirement plans. Oh, and who works for corporations for longer than a few years? Many 401k’s don’t vest until after 5 years; they know this and that is why by design, people change jobs frequently.
The signal-to-noise ratio on this thread is quite low, but you are one of the few voices of reason.
Yeah, I noticed. The MSM is soundbites: “America GOING Fascist”. There’s no explanation of what is meant by that. In my book, Big Government IS fascism. So, any movement toward Big Government is moving toward fascism. I don’t think there is much disagreement around Free Republic that Big Government is getting bigger and more intrusive. Look at this “Energy Bill”, orders car companies how they are going to build their cars and what kind of cars they’re going to build. It outlaws incandescent light bulbs (I understand). If this isn’t movement toward fascism, what is?
Full disclosure, I voted for Ron Paul in ‘88. This time, I’m voting for Hunter or Thompson.
I can guarantee to you that Ron Paul has read Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom”.
The hyperbole of this statement is dangerous in that it blinds us to the real and genuine dangers we face, which are creeping socialism.
First, thanks for your post, lots of good info.
I'll just disagree to the extent that big corporations do more than cheerlead. Let's take the recent NBC Networks "Green Week". NBC gave global warming and other eco-nonsense millions and millions of dollars of free publicity. Was it cheerleading? Was it ideology? Was it an attempt to propagandize the American People? Was it a corporate scam for more money and profits?
The answer is YES, all of the above. NBC is owned by GE. GE is making a huge push to get governments, including the US government, to impose environmental regulations that can only be met through the purchase of GE products. GE is promoting fascism in order to increase its own profits. Of course, this can only be successful in the short term and will lead to demands for higher taxes on corporations, including GE, but that's the successor's problems.
I was in the drug industry and heard high level executives brag about how they were pushing the Prescription Drug Act, which would force taxpayers to buy Rx drugs and give them to other people. Many corporations are in the business of living off taxpayers. They don't produce for the market, they produce according to governmental dictates.
That my friend is fascism. It is easier to influence (control) a few government employees than it is to produce for millions of consumers, making their individual decisions. Corporations don't 'control' this system, but they sure as hell have tremendous influence. And they are more than reluctantly cheerleading, they are leading the way into this future.
But if you look at the Declaration of Independence, you could argue that it makes a conspiracy theory:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The Declaration goes on to make a case that George III was the head conspirator. They had evidence and they made their case. Conspiracies do exist after all, but you have to have evidence and make your case. Conspiracy theories of the type that the 'jews run the media' or 'free masons control the government' are nonsensical and pernicious.
What is extremely sad is that if Ron Paul had the “right” stance on Iraq he would be the one FR is championing.
But since he’s not “right” on Iraq, and I guess American hegemony in general, any method must be used to neutralize him and his supporters.
Someone mentioned above that elections are no longer about Demvs Repub. They are about globalists/collectivists vs nationalists/individualists.
1) Giuliani - globalist/collectivist
2) Romney - globalist collectivist
3) Huckabee - globalist/collectivist
4) Clinton - globalist/collectivist
5) Obama - globalist/collectivist
6) Edwards - globalist/collectivist
7) Paul - nationalist/individualist
8) Thompson - nationalist/individualist
9) Hunter - nationalist/individualist
I put Thompson under the nationalist/individualist label becuase I think he leans more in that direction than the other. But clearly the only candidates in the race who would truly be in America’s best interests are Hunter and Paul with Thompson coming in at third.
I have spoken to a number of people who find Paul’s views attractive, which surprised me given how little coverage he gets of his actual opinions.
The media’s effort to demonize him says to me there is some desire/bias to make sure that one little voice openly criticizing almost every aspect of the system has their name become synonymous with crazy, nutty, whatever.
Re NBC/GE, you always have to follow the money, especially with this conglomo in particular given that they produce or sell almost everything you could want. Occasionally they do put their foot in their mouth (the GM side fuel tanks pickup issue) in a way the parent company doesn’t seem to benefit from....
“It outlaws incandescent light bulbs (I understand).”
I looked this up, and apparently it does, by a certain year. No idea when they will actually vanish from shelves though.
Somehow, I don't think Jeff Skilling and Andy Fastow would agree with that statement.
Paul and Huck continue to be fed enough rope from which to hang themselves.
For the record, I am a Fredhead. It is my opinion that the fight for the nomination will go to the convention.
Took 34 posts to state the obvious.
" Capitalism is where the government's role in the economy is as a judge to interpret and enforce contracts made between free people. Communism is where the government owns the means of production, think the post office or public schools. Fascism is the original third way, where government doesn't own the means of production, but where the government regulates the means of production."
Since the above does not fit on a bumper sticker, it is not allowed to be a part of the political discussion.
I would rank them as you did, if trancredo was still in I’d have put him ahead of Thompson.
I have a dear friend who worked at a fairly high level in the last Administration. She says, "People who don't believe in conspiracy theories have never worked in government!"
So, the idea the libertarians won't take ideas from Lefties is wrong. The standard has to be, whether the concept is correct, not where it came from. I do know Kolko or Williams repudiated the use that libertarians made of their work. They didn't like the Free Market types using their analysis for their own purposes.
Yes, good flick.
And I agree with you that any conspiracy needs to be proven to be taken seriously.
But anyone who has worked in government to get anything done, needs to understand that when you're the one doing it, you don't call it "a conspiracy", you call it "a coalition" or "a consensus" or something else seemingly innocuous. Only others are guilty of conspiracies, never you!
I think that many candidates have tried to wrap themselves in the (nationalist) flag to get elected, but they are really globalists, too.
To my mind, the political spectrum is really "a circle", not "a flat line".
In this circular model, at one point in the circle is complete "Totalitarianism" and 180% away is complete "Libertarianism". If you were to put "Totalitarian" at the very top of the circle and "Libertarian" at the very bottom, you could say that Democrats occupy the 180% of the Left and Republicans occupy the 180% of the Right.
Our Founding Fathers were closer to the complete Libertarian model when this was a smaller country, but a country the size the US is now cannot have the complete Libertarian standard, so some accommodations need to be made -- the question is how much and what kind of compromise is necessary -- and this is the essence of every political question and argument.
Both the Democrats and many of the Republicans over the years have moved --from either side-- too close to the Totalitarian top of the circle so that many of them are closer to each other than they are to other members of their Party. Neither Party is completely at Totalitarian, but both have become more Authoritarian than many Americans are comfortable with. Some Americans are dissatisfied with the Authoritarianism (in whatever form) at home and some are dissatisfied with the Authoritarianism in our militarism abroad. Authoritarianism is de facto "Globalism", because the business interests that benefit from both forms of Authoritarianism are globalists. Some recognize that you can't have Authoritarianism in one place of any kind (here or abroad) without the other, and don't care how they get back to a more Libertarian model as long as we get there.
Ron Paul wants to move the Republican Party back toward the Libertarian bottom of the circle, where it traditionally came from. This is why Ron Paul's message has become so attractive to so many Americans, but it is also why he appears to be so out of step with his own Party -- because Ron Paul is not an Authoritarian and many Republicans today and virtually all Democrats today are.
This Authoritarianism is what Ron Paul was talking about when he said that "America is moving toward fascism". "Fear of losing our jobs, homes and healthcare" has driven Americans toward the Democrats' Authoritarian Socialism and "fear of terrorists" has driven the Authoritarian militarist ideal. It still means that both sides are trying to move our government toward more Authoritarianism.
In short, based on the propaganda we are being fed, we are allowing ourselves to be ruled by fear of everything and everyone inside and outside our country, and this is no way to live -- we all know it, we just disagree as to how to get out of this mess we've created.
I think that a move back toward Republican libertarianism is the only answer, and the only one with that agenda is Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate, I wish that there were more candidates out there with his message, but there aren't. Frankly, I am proud that this message came out of a Republican and despite the detractors, there are many with whom Ron Paul's message resonates.
“I haven’t finished reading the rest of the thread, but I had to stop here to say thank you for your posts! I was beginning to wonder if I was on FR or a government cheerleading site. I honestly am amazed at the reaction here, when conservatives typically (unlike lefties) have some skepticism of government, and understand how important it is to be vigilant in regard to our freedom and individual rights. To me this thread is sad, very very sad.”
Same here. Seeing these incendiary threads the last few weeks, reading the comments, and looking up the actual entire quote myself, I’ve come to take a 2nd look at Paul and what he actually says, vs what others have sometimes misrepresented him as saying.
He made a good point - I work in the IT industry and I worry about the power that things like credit records, other databases, etc have over people. With personal privacy goes individual liberty. Personal financial information about you is owned by a company. They make money by reporting information about you that you might contest to another entity that pays them for it.
Digital communications like cell phones provide location information base on tower triangulation. Etc etc. How can conservatives not question the impact these technologies have on our liberty?
Ronald Reagan in his famous "Free to Choose" speech in support of Goldwater in '64, said there was no left and right, only down and up. Down toward the darkness of tyranny or up toward the light of liberty. That's the scale I'd use. How much is the candidate for the use of coercion and how much against.
Hillary is closing the circle with the religious right, she now supports going after the manufacturers of violent video games. Hmmm, what's she going to do with Risk, where the goal is to conquer the world.
Actually, this is one strong reason, why I support medical savings accounts, patients should be making these cost/benefit/risk tradeoffs for themselves, not third parties. Well, that's off the topic, but it's a pet peeve.
Right about the fascism, wrong about the corporations.
unlike his MOVEON.org allies...huh?
You say Neo-Con , like it is something bad, it is something to be proud of. Besides... Ron Paul doesn't even like the first republican Abraham Lincoln.. and all the other republicans inbetween. You are backing a LOSER.
Don’t mind me. I’m just sitting here enjoying your meltdown.
Well, I’m not supporting him...but he’s basically right. We are losing civil liberties at an alarming pace. It’s mostly Democrats pushing the laws that are infringing on individual rights, but the Republicans are often along for the ride, especially lately.
No small wonder the author choses to no longer be associated with this place.
Hmm, I don't like Lincoln either. He invaded the South and increased the power of the federal government immensely. Lincoln established dangerous precedents.
I'm not backing a loser, I'm backing my convictions. Fred Thompson (whom I like, but don't support) also will not win -- soooooooooo, are you backing that LOSER?
Tell me why the border is still open if it isnt because the shrub is in bed with corporate America.
Both parties have their reasons for keeping the borders open:
R - for big business
D - for potential voters
Ron Paul, hasn’t a Snowballs chance in Hell of becoming President, he is a spoiler and a loser, and you support the loser spoiler. As for me, I support Fred Thompson over Ron Paul anyday, at least Fred Thompson is not a NUT, supported by looney tunes.