Green Party ‘Excited’ Over Paul

The latest news from the Dallas Green Party chapter, c/o a Libertarian who attended the meeting:


I went to the meetup of the Dallas area Green Party. They were very
nice people and we saw eye to eye on a lot of issues. They apparently
are good friends with libertarians. I explained Ron Paul’s positions
to them and they were very receptive and in some cases excited about
him. They will now research him more and possibly attend our
meetings.

I look forward to working with them more and plan to attend more of
their meetings in the future.

Some tips if you are talking to greens:
They are big on local government, so talk about abolishing the income
tax and reducing federal government so that local government can
regain the power to deal with local issues.

Talk about property rights and pollution, how Ron Paul says we do not
have the right to harm other people’s environments, and from that
there is reason and a moral obligation for us to not pollute. Be true
and show that he is not an alarmist on the issue of global warming. I
pointed out that RP is a skeptic whenever governments try to create an
emergency environment because they often do so to take powers and
liberties from individuals and expand the government’s reach.

Talk about the libertarian issues such as de-criminalization of drugs,
growing hemp, human rights instead of special rights, states rights on
various issues such as abortion and schooling, etc.

15 Responses to “Green Party ‘Excited’ Over Paul”

  1. Joel Says:

    This is a fantastic example of reaching out to create unlikely alliances that benefit the campaign. Keep it up!

    Joel
    http://ronpaul.typepad.com

  2. matt Says:

    Good work, Joey!

  3. G.E. Smith Says:

    There are three types of Greens, from my experience:

    1. Marxists—they don’t believe in the supposed “Green values” and have infiltrated the party as the closest thing to outright socialism.

    2. Religious leftists—and I don’t mean followers of Jim Wallace. These people are likely to reject the religions of God and replace them with the religion of far-left ideology and state worship. They do not base their convictions on reason, and thus, they are untouchable.

    3. Sincere idiots—I was among this group. These are the people who can be reached. The Paul campaign should play nice with them, but post-campaign, libertarians should reason with them to show that big-government is force; it is violence incarnate. They say to be for non-violence, but there is no non-violence in the Green platform of compulsory programs and mandatory restrictions on free actions.

  4. Jeremy Brannon Says:

    Smith, you sound like position 1 is a bad thing. I will let you know that the second largest party in Iceland is a red-green party. And the only other party that agrees with the Green’s 10 basic principles is the Socialist Party USA. Just FYI.

  5. Volunteer Voters » Unblogged Tabs Says:

    [...] Green Party ‘Excited’ Over Paul [...]

  6. Alan Augustson Says:

    Hi GE:

    Just some points, if I may:

    1. Religious leftists? Excuse me, but the reactionary Republicans are the ones who instituted flag-idolatry and corrupted words like ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ to render them more symbol than substance. American nationalism is, whether we have the courage to admit it or not, a state-sponsored religion.

    2. The Ten Key Values of the GP include decentralization, which by definition means smaller government. We just happen to differ from you on exactly which elements of government need to be reduced or eliminated.

    You see, you see unrestrained capitalism as the cure to all society’s ills; I see it as the cause. Because labor has no value in the eyes of the employer, it becomes a fungible commodity that can be obtained wherever it is cheapest. What could you possibly expect, from the total deregulation of industry, other than more of the same?

    So no, I don’t want to expand government any further. In fact, I’d like to get government the hell out of our lives wherever possible. But capitalism and the Industrial Revolution have created a permanent, and growing, underclass. Shall we abandon them to bullshit Social Darwinism that we already debunked during the Herbert Hoover Administration?

    Sounds to me like you’re the one who’s not affected by causality, dude. I feel bad about this, because I can tell you’ve got an excellent head on your shoulders. And I understand how seductive Adam Smith-style classic economics can be.

    But it was a lie while Smith was writing it. There is not work for everyone who wants it. There is not wealth for everyone willing to work hard enough. The poor are not both lazy and stupid; I know plenty of ‘em! The School of Business here at U of C graduated largely un- or under-employed—unheard of, according to everything they’d been taught!

    GE, come to the light. I don’t ask for equality of outcomes; that would be stupid. All I ask from government is that we create opportunity—and not just for the already fabulously wealthy.

  7. G.E. Smith Says:

    Dude, if you expect me to defend conservatives, you picked a fight with the wrong man. Right-wingers are more nationalist than leftists? Holy crap. Next you’ll be insisting that the pope is catholic.

    Look, Alan. I come from your cult. I’ve been where you’re at. And I know the whole catechism of the left. I can send you my 2004 platform. I’m sure you’d love it. I used to rail against capitalism, Wal-Mart, the evil corporations, the evil drug companies, the whole nine yards.

    Let me put it to you simply: Corporations are owned by individuals. I know it’s hard for a collectivist such as yourself to realize this, but only individuals may act, even in the representation of a corporation. And individuals, even corporate officers, can harm NO ONE without initiating force or committing fraud. If they initiate force or fraud, then they should be held accountable by government. Government may only legitimately initiate force in response to the initiation of force by private individuals. Why is that hard to understand?

    The Green value of “decentralization” fell by the wayside long ago. It no longer means what you’re implying it means. It doesn’t mean government at the most local level—with the ultimate locality being THE INDIVIDUAL —it means using the government’s guns to decentralize wealth BY FORCE. Wherever corporations or rich individuals have achieved their wealth in the absence of force or fraud, you have no right to seize control of the government’s guns—even electorally—and use them to confiscate the wealth earned by individuals as the result of mutually beneficial transactions. The Green Party is for decentralization the same way it’s for non-violence; i.e. NOT AT ALL. Your party supported a violent revolutionary Trotskyist for U.S. Senate in Michigan—the moral equivalent of the CP supporting a Nazi. Would the CP do it? No. Would the GP? Yes. The Green Party tolerates and embraces violent Marxists because it is essentially a violent Marxist party, if not in name, then certainly in spirit.

    It is disgusting that you hold a degree in economics when your understanding of markets is so woefully infantile. You are an imbecile if you think capitalists outsource labor where it is cheapest—they outsource it to where it can be performed at the greatest value. There is a huge distinction there. And what determines the wage of the labor? The mutual consent of the employer and the employee. Sourcing labor at the most valuable source increases the total production of goods and services and thereby lowers their price as well as cost. “Oh, but the evil corporations just charge whatever they want.” More retardation. In the absence of government preferences, corporations charge what the market will bear, and that inevitably equals a “normal profit” as competitors drive prices down via competition. Please tell me you’re falsifying your resume.

    Dude. You’re actually talking about the Industrial Revolution? That’s what capitalism is to you? Open your eyes. It’s not about turning screws, it’s about computer programming. It’s not about production, it’s about innovation. Elitists like you would place restrictions on a Bangladeshi computer programmer’s right to independently contract for $50 a day, because it is less than a “living wage”—sure beats $1 a day pulling a rickshaw.

    And your history is about as good as your economics. Hoover should be one of your favorite presidents—he raised taxes, erected barriers to trade, and caused mass poverty—all things the Greens want to do!

    There is work for everyone. How can there not be? Human wants are unlimited. There is work for people writing fantasy football analysis. There is work for people programming interactive games. There is work for people writing descriptions to dildos in online adult stores. When you outsource low-skilled manufacturing and services, the cost savings free up money to conspicuously consume. If every man produced everything he consumed, then would there not be work for each man? Of course. So how can there not be work when we increase the quantity and quality of goods and services produced through the division of labor?

    The poor are neither lazy or stupid—only leftists think that, which is why they want to take care of them like wards of the state. The poor are OPPRESSED BY GOVERNMENT. Get the hell out of the way. Let them be entrepreneurs. Let them have access to capital via loans—and scrap the B.S. Biblical usury laws. Strike down agricultural protectionism and let them export crops to the U.S. Let them work in factories to build up their nations just as the U.S. did without your phony and elitist environmental “protections.”

    I was actually considering supporting your campaign. Thanks for disabusing me of that notion. Your creed is violence, plain and simple. You wish to seize the government’s guns to perpetrate thuggery on the peaceful people of the country and coerece the people of other nations to run their lives as YOU see fit—you’re a cultural imperialist! Thankfully, your credo is outdated, out of touch, and going the way of its Marxist forebeares to the ash-heep of history.

  8. Alan Augustson Says:

    Can the visceral reactions, GE; it’s not gonna work on me. You’re the one leveling the personal attacks, not me. Advocating violence? Against whom? From what portion of what I’ve said thus far did you wildly extrapolate that?

    I’ve told you numerous times that my view of economics was a theory, that I would not think to implement without rigorous testing. If you want to conveniently forget that and accuse me of fomenting violent upheaval, well, that’s just you verbally masturbating.

    And since you insist on impugning my knowledge, I’ll put a U of C Master of Policy up against whatever it is you’re clinging to, any day. A lot of people thus far seem to think I’m right on target. Oh, but they’re all idiots because they disagree with you. Sorry; I forgot. And you call me an elitist.

    Considering support? No longer considering? (shrug) I’m dying to see who’ll kiss your ass for $20.

  9. G.E. Smith Says:

    If you fail to appreciate the implicit violence of your “proposals” then perhaps you need to consider what happens when one man decides that you are in fact NOT God and therefore not empowered to run his life or spend his money. What then?

    I don’t care how many degrees you have; you don’t know economics, you don’t know history, and you don’t even know the implications of your own moribund philosophy. You said “labor has no value in the eyes of the employer” and “it … can be obtained wherever it is cheapest.” Sure, it CAN, but why would it if it didn’t provide the best VALUE? This is a common misconception of laymen, not accredited economists. Worse yet, you think YOU are a more efficient allocator of resources than the crowd—rigorous testing? I think central planning has been tried numerous times, each ending in abject poverty.

    As for “personal attacks”—it was you who addressed me in the typical elitist and condescending manner of your party. I paid you the respect of answering each of your points, and if you perceive reality as an “attack,” then that is your cross to bear; I have committed no tort against you.

    Maybe if you understood what you preached you could hope for contributions of more than $20 from your supporters. And I don’t contribute so people will “kiss my ass”—I don’t believe in obligating people based on my freely chosen actions (hard for a collectivist like you to understand, I’m sure). I contribute for the psychic satisfaction it gives me, and that reason alone.

    Good luck to you in your campaign. I still think you’re not bad “for a Green.” But if you’re going to engage libertarians on blogs, then don’t expect them to bow down or to treat you as anything other than a misguided collectivist. Just because you’re running for president doesn’t mean I’m obligated to show you deference. Your freely chosen actions place no obligations on me.

    PEACE! And when I say it, I MEAN it.

  10. Devious David Says:

    I’d just like to take a quick swipe at the Federal Reserve, fiat currency and fractional reserve banking.

    Greens should see that as a big reason that their standards of living is going down the tubes. It’s not just big government. Our wealth is being transferred to the uber wealthy. The poor lose their purchasing power to the middle class. The middle class to the wealthy. The wealthy to the uber wealthy.

    Worldwide money supplies are growing by double digit percentages. Things are going to get a lot more expensive soon. Your standard of living will be inflated away. And maybe your job.

    Meanwhile, Greens just want another government program to solve the symptoms and hopefully make the problem worse – so that another program can be created to solve whatever symptoms that causes (ad infinitum). And of course Green’s new programs won’t be destructive or coercive and they will work, all unlike every other government program presently in existence.

    Blah.

  11. G.E. Smith Says:

    DD - E tu? Living standards are “going down the tubes”? Um, no. Living standards are rising on a global scale! Where the hell are you living that living standads are going down? We are in the midst of the greatest global economic boom in human history!

    Secondly, this “myth” that inflation transfers wealth from poor to rich is even more illogical than socialism. First of all, inflation has been at all-time lows for the past twenty-five years—even as growth has been astounding on a global scale. You Misseans hold on to theories that have long been discredited, just like Marxists. Secondly, even if there were significant inflation—which there isn’t!—it would transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, not the other way around. Inflation is good for debtors who TAKE loans and bad for people with assets or who MAKE loans. Fractional reserve banking is to thank for your ipod and your air conditioner. Please send your central banker a thank-you note.

  12. cowbot Says:

    G.E. Smith’s second post just made my day. Mr Smith, you can write!

    Like a lightsaber cutting through garbage…

    “And what determines the wage of the labor? The mutual consent of the employer and the employee.”

    This is a good segue into a pernicious economic fallacy that lies at the root of marxism, and the bizarro-world policies that result. In the sum of its’ effects worldwide, it may be one of the single most harmful idea in modern history.

    I refer to the ‘labor theory of value’. In a nutshell, it claims that the value of a product or service is a product of the materials and human labor that go into it.

    This is one of those fallacious ideas that is unquestioningly adopted due to its’ ‘feel good’ effect on the mind. Unfortunately it is hogwash in any real world system, and only applies in the special case of monopolies or central economic planning.

    To illustrate: imagine a tiny farming community. One farmer ploughs the earth by hand, generating X produce in Y amount of time. When setting his price, he sees that in Y amount of time, he needs to recoup N amount of money. He thus sets his a price proportional to X/Y and sells it on the market. The marxist will now say “aha! you see? the value of his produce is a function of the time he invested!”

    But what happens when a second farmer sets up his homestead? This one is a little more clever. He invents a plough that can be pulled by oxen, allowing him to produce 2X produce in Y amount of time. He also needs to recoup N amount of money, plus a relatively small amount for his investment in the plough and livestock. Since he has produced more with his time and capital, he can afford to undercut farmer 1, and a market is born.

    The marxist at this point will close his eyes and sing ‘mary had a little lamb’ because the value of the product in the market has gone down, despite the same amount of human labor being put into it.

    This marxist ideology of ‘labor’ being something intrinsically valuable in itself has corrupted much of european thinking—everywhere I look, people and politicians are arguing for policies that will ‘put more people to work’ even if that work is not activity that would be supported by the market. The result of this, in germany, is a real impoverishment. The average good or service one buys in the market suffers a ca. 75% tax wedge! Three out of every 4 euros I spend on goods and services gets swallowed by government, which then does things that are generally of little use to me.

    Thank you Karl Marx. May your kind be cursed for ever.

  13. G.E. Smith the Capitalist Dove (check out my new blog) Says:

    “Mr Smith, you can write! Like a lightsaber cutting through garbage…”

    Not only is that the greatest compliment I’ve ever recieved here, it probably is the FIRST one. Thanks, Mr. cowbot.

  14. Colby Peterson Says:

    Here’s a blog I did concerning Greens and Paul, since that’s what this article was about, right?

    http://www.greencommons.org/node/630
    “A Ron Paul that even a Green could love”

    It’s started an interesting conversation. Peace.

  15. monte letourneau Says:

    my my, how refreshing!
    i’m so glad we don’t discuss ideology much at Green Party meetings
    we talk about what it is we all (citizens) can agree on
    nuts and bolts things mostly, actions and proposals.

    global warming, for instance, is not a problem solved by ideology
    it is simple science and neccesary economics
    a thorny but not to debateable question of relative absolutes and verities

    i sure don’t miss political organizing before the party formed

    look at the platform on gp.org, and tell me most USians don’t agree with the vast bulk of it

Leave a Reply