Shouldn't socialists support Ron Paul?

[surftheiop]

Shouldn't hardcore socialists support Ron Paul? Im not talking about the democrat socialists but the hardcore true socialists. Seeing as Ron Paul wants to give more rights of making decisions to the states wouldnt the socialists support him because it would be easier for them to influence state politics than national politics?

[XxGodJrxX]

No?

Why would socialist hold state politics to a higher priority than anybody that follows a different political ideology?

[surftheiop]

Because its easier for a radical group to sway stay politics than national ones?

For example
In south carolina our governor is very libertarian leaning and was propped up by alot of out of state libertarian funds i believe. If states had more power there is no reason for the socialists not being able to gain more power in certain states.

[Misfire]

They could start the Unfree State Project!

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't hardcore socialists support Ron Paul? Im not talking about the democrat socialists but the hardcore true socialists. Seeing as Ron Paul wants to give more rights of making decisions to the states wouldnt the socialists support him because it would be easier for them to influence state politics than national politics?

[/ QUOTE ]

And easier still, is individual politics. If Ron Paul had his utopia, people could form communes wherever they like. The only difference is that membership would be voluntary on both ends, so it could actually work well.

Why don't socialists see it that way? Good question. I think it's pretty clear that they care more about maintaining the perceived holiness of their beliefs than about working towards a system where people can actually share with each other effectively.

I think education is pretty important, so I don't like education rules to be centralized. I think sharing is a good thing that should be encouraged. So I sure as hell don't want centralized rules determining when and with whom I will share my resources. What socialist in his right mind would want that?

If RP were King, I'd probably join a commune of about 50-100 people where we all kept half our income and redistributed the other half. Half of the redistributed portion (25% overall) would be divided equally for every member to keep, and the other half would go towards communal expenses, such as lawn maintenance and general property repair (since I hate dealing with that stuff), garbage pickup, maybe some standard cable/utility package, neighborhood security, free flowing kegs on tap at all times (maybe vote for a "citizen of the month" and he gets to choose what kind of beer will be on tap that month), and a neighborhood smoke shop that we all own, operate (hopefully with profit), and enjoy.

That idea is all pretty specific to exactly what I want. So it seems too good to be true. But it is a mindset like Ron Paul's (and NOT a coercive mindset) that would allow me to find that place, and allow sharing to actually work. It'd be pretty good. But when you restrict certain behaviors, you just force everyone towards an inefficient middle.

[Low Key]

I'm confused. I thought Ron Paul was the only true Republican candidate. Smaller government, stronger states' rights, that whole shabang.

I guess your conspiracy theory involves tiny sects of socialists infiltrating local governments and taking over our country..?

I mean, substitute any group for socialist in your idea and is it any different? Wouldn't it be easier for environmentalists to influence local politics vs national? Or communists, or buddhists, etc.

[ALawPoker]

Also I think it's important to realize that the instinct that tells us "sharing is good" was developed in an environment where sharing was always voluntary.

We have a lot of subconscious instincts. Bus coming at us registers as "bad." Sharing registers as "good." These things are bad and good for very real, tangible reasons. Since we feel like sharing is good, it must have aided us somehow whether or not we can figure out exactly why (though in this case, since humans can see future consequence, it's pretty obvious why sharing might tend to give us a survival edge). You don't always need to reason things out before you act, because some things feel clearly right or wrong, and your instincts tend to lead you in the right direction. We become used to the fact that our gut feelings tend to have a good track record.

So the instinct that tells us that we should share gets a little convoluted when we interpret it to mean that we should also force others to share, since the instinct doesn't realize it now exists in an environment where you can easily force or restrict certain behaviors; and then the action doesn't necessarily have the same underlying tangible goodness that your warm and fuzzy instinct assumes it carries. The things that make voluntary sharing so good and effective might entirely evaporate when you change it to forced sharing. But the instinct that told us to share when we lived in caves will, I assume, tend to tell us to vote for sharing when we live in democracy (even if voting for sharing isn't good).

Subconscious "feelings" tend to trump conscious analysis in the voter's booth. So a lot of our policy is determined by outdated instinct. On one hand it's really annoying, but on the other, I guess it's the way things will always be. Your instincts can never quite catch up to your environment. You'll always have some lag, and nature will correct the mistakes and keep wiggling away.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
nature will correct the mistakes and keep wiggling away

[/ QUOTE ]

This little allele likes the free market...
This little allele doesn't care...
This little allele votes Ron Paul...
This little allele votes for no one...

And this little allele went "Wee wee wee wee" and voted all the way to extinction....

[The once and future king]

Anyone who leans even the slightest bit left should be support the abolishment of the federal reserve/privately owned central banks.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
If RP were King, I'd probably join a commune of about 50-100 people where we all kept half our income and redistributed the other half. Half of the redistributed portion (25% overall) would be divided equally for every member to keep, and the other half would go towards communal expenses, such as lawn maintenance and general property repair (since I hate dealing with that stuff), garbage pickup, maybe some standard cable/utility package, neighborhood security, free flowing kegs on tap at all times (maybe vote for a "citizen of the month" and he gets to choose what kind of beer will be on tap that month), and a neighborhood smoke shop that we all own, operate (hopefully with profit), and enjoy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I joined your little group, what would my incentive be to actually earn income? What's the incentive of people who already have a very high incomes to join?

Edit: I think Jim Jones came very close to creating a voluntary socialist community, but with the perverse incentives created, it couldn't hold together. In the end, he had to resort to guns too.