 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Does anyone else perceive a contradiction here?
Ron Paul is anti-socialism if Ron Paul is anything 'political'. How can someone describe the Ron Paul Revolution where many people are funding an increase in the power of one person as a single representative of the collective whole?
A whole lot of people are collecting power and concentrating that power toward one individual and these people expect something to be done with that power.
From another angle:
Ron Paul is not providing something that has to be sold to others in a capitalistic sense, where, a supply of something requires a capitalistic solution to distribute the 'supply'. The competition in the free market of this supply and demand situation does need to 'sell' their supply with 'clever' advertizements (a capital solution?).
Does anyone see what I mean?