Transcript Of What Ron Paul Hater Barry Germansky Said – Refuted

Transcript Of What Ron Paul Hater Barry Germansky Said – Refuted.

Barry Germansky is one of those young “liberals” who has an idea, an original one, no less, of how society should be ordered. He will deny it, probably because he has no ideas what these terms describe, but he is a technocrat, a legal positivist, a utopian, a totalitarian, a nihilist, a Canadian, and a socialist. I do not make these charges lightly, as I have had many conversations with him and am familiar with the terms. He is also a self-appointed film critic and philosopher. He posted a video on youtube that was some fifteen or twenty minutes long. I only transcribed and refuted the first three or four minutes, which, in addition to other information, are below. In my next, hopefully, nine posts, I will press my refutations of the transcriptions.

The title of the video:

“Ron and Rand Paul are Wrong.”

The description of the video:

“The Pauls use free market libertarianism in totalitarian fashion.”

What he said in the first three minutes and forty-four seconds of the video:

“Ron and Rand Paul are dangerous because they subscribe to free market libertarianism, which essentially allows them to look at every single aspect of human nature and the tangible world around them through the narrow minded paradigm of economics.

“Now the problem is that not all realms of human thought or the tangible world rely or require economics to be implemented or to be governed or navigated through.

“They need to be navigated using their own rhetoric and their own sector specific terminology.

“The Pauls don’t understand this because simply put: anything that’s not economics doesn’t interest them.

“And this is dangerous because its gonna add up to a huge disconnect between abstract wealth and tangible wealth. And it will all thanks to libertarians like the Pauls who are radical in their economics thinking. Now lets look at their first claim, which in my opinion is a complete myth. They claim that the Federal Government shouldn’t have programs or services or regulatory bodies like for example the FDA or the Department of Education because its unconstitutional. The problem with this claim is that the Constitution never specifies whether or not we should have such programs, but rather it should be up to the people to decide what they want and the government has the right to take tax from the people and then appropriate the funds as it sees fit for the betterment of the people.

“Thats what the Constitution says.That obviously leaves a lot of room and it was wise for the founding fathers to do this, it leaves a lot of room for the people to implement new programs as they’re needed in future years. Obviously, how could they know the future? They couldn’t.

“So, this claim that the Pauls are making that these programs are unconstitutional is completely false. If the people want it and its implemented, through the government, then its 100% fine. What is very interesting though is that the Pauls are hypocrites based on their own twisted logic because they seem to pride themselves on being strict Constitutionalists. But they then make these misreadings where free markets, and capitalism, and money, and all kinds of other economics-related terms are featured as mandatory requirements in the Constitution, when they’re not. “Free Market” and “Capitalism” aren’t mentioned in the Constitution.

“And, nothing of course of any magnitude would have been suggested to be implemented, as they are advocating. It’s not in the Constitution. And whenever they use this rebuttal they are hoping that you will not have read the Constitution so you will be unable to counter them. They want you to be afraid and to sort of be embarrassed, not want to make a fool out of yourself, so they go uncontested because not many people have read the Constitution.

“So the Pauls are really getting away with murder here because they’re stuck on their own distorted view of the Constitution that they claim says that um Free Market and Capitalism is Constitutional, but education departments and food regulatory bodies are not Constitutional, is just made up. Its their own paradigm. Its warped and its crazy so they’re rightfully called crazy by many more liberal minded media outlets and by anyone that is sane.”


11 thoughts on “Transcript Of What Ron Paul Hater Barry Germansky Said – Refuted

    • I suppose you could say that I am, in a sense.

      Free market libertarianism, voluntaryism, whatever you want to call it, allows for the most competitive players in each sector, within the private sector, to rise to the top and become the recognized leader of that industry. Hence, Apple and Microsoft dominate the computer industry. But unlike a statist variant of technocracy, libertarianism allows the little guy to rise to the top if he is innovative enough. So when I bash technocracy, it is not technocracy itself that is the problem, but rather state imposition of any system, be it technocracy, oligarchy, democracy, or, etc.

      • Yes I understand, I guess the only real thing I take from technocracy is the influence of experts and negation of tribalism, in my system it would still be at least right-leaning economically. If not a free market.

        Will be good following you, Paul seemed to me to be the best candidate for the Republicans. Although I am British, so don’t really know the workings of American politics.

  1. This is Barry Germansky writing. Since my video is no longer on YouTube, perhaps you’d consider posting my op-ed on your site instead.

    P.S. I’m not a “self-appointed” film critic or philosopher. I’m the Arts Editor of MACMEDIA, a magazine published through York University in Toronto.

    Tea Party Heroes Ron and Rand Paul Make for a Bitter Brew

    By Barry Germansky

    Ron and Ran Paul advocate a form of free market libertarianism that is not only highly contradictory in nature, but is falsely appropriated by this father-son duo in an attempt to hail their extremist ideology as a fixture of the United States Constitution. Far from representing the individual as they pride themselves in doing, the Pauls endorse big businesses and neglect every other facet of human thought other than economics. It is through their reliance on the free market as an umbrella paradigm that their views on different societal sectors become distorted. The Pauls cater to naïve utopian ideals, in which all humans are as perfect and bland as numbers on a page. Since economics is the language of the free market, economics becomes their only lens on society as a whole. These Tea Party poster boys have a giant kettle of political poison and are spewing it across the American landscape.

    The primary flaw in the Pauls’ mandate to implement a free market libertarian society is that they claim it is the constitutional way to manage federal government. Furthermore, they argue that most federal programs – from the department of education to the FDA – are unconstitutional for the sole reason that they are not mentioned in the Constitution. The Pauls are empirically incorrect on both fronts. First, the Constitution does not once mention the words “free market” or “capitalism” or “libertarianism”. Second, it does not specify what the people can decide to implement through the appropriation of tax dollars. Therefore, the Pauls have either misread the Constitution or purposely distorted it to suit their personal ideology. They also seem to use the “reference the Constitution” rebuttal whenever they are questioned by the media for wanting to dismantle federal departments. The Pauls do this because they know most Americans have no knowledge of the document, and will be unable to counter their fundamentalist interpretations. This allows their grotesque and highly contradictory misreading of the Constitution to go uncontested. But, now that this dishonest manoeuvre has been revealed, it alone discredits their free market libertarian mandate.

    Essentially, Ron and Rand Paul’s brand of free market libertarianism equates to radical totalitarianism. They impose a societal yardstick of free market economics on every sector. This explains, for example, why the Pauls do not differentiate between property rights and any other kind of human freedoms. Under the umbrella paradigm of the free market, every entity is considered “property”. They dismiss the factors inherent in specific societal issues, from health care to education, and gun control to global warming. They claim that all rights are the same as the right to property. Therefore, the Pauls sidestep the individual matters at hand, resorting to their magic wand term of “property” to solve any unrelated issue. Even when they say people also have the right to “life”, they are treating life as a property.

    The Pauls’ mandate of applying economic terms – demonstrated in microcosm by their free market beliefs – to all societal sectors creates an enormous disconnect between their personal ideology and the individual matters pertinent to humanity, society, and government at large. The Paul’s free market gospel would be appropriate for a CEO who deals with money all day long, but not for the leader of a nation comprised of so much more than money. In fact, by examining the free market libertarians who seek to put money ahead of all other human considerations in government, the importance of a democratic government in preserving equality and social justice is revealed. For example, contrary to what the Pauls will have you believe, property rights are not the most effective methods of combating global warming. This is an environmental issue and should be explored using science before any other school of thought. But, the Pauls stubbornly resort to an economic solution. It is through their free market brand of ideological tyranny that economics becomes their sole societal lens.

    Of course, nothing about the free market is “voluntary”. It functions by its own set of rules. The Pauls treat the free market as truly “free”, but are simply ignoring the fact that it is nothing more than another restrictive ideological construct. They happen to prefer it to other theories, but that does not make the free market a universal fact of life. But just watch how the Pauls, in their unique brand of economic collectivism, dismiss all non-economic concerns and aspects of human existence. One swipe of their wrists makes the public’s multi-faceted social concerns disappear from the political agenda.

    Naturally, the Pauls’ preference for putting economic values first – by believing in free market libertarianism, which uses economics in totalitarian fashion to run society – caters to big businesses far more than the average citizen. Perhaps this is best demonstrated by Ron and Rand’s constant support for the abolition of government-issued money in favor of currency minted by private banks. As is commonplace with the Pauls, they choose to ignore history or simply distort it. Their plan to abolish the Federal Reserve has already been tried to varying degrees, and does not lead to utopian freedom. Instead, it creates an influx of fraud and currency debasement, followed by the concentration of financial power in the few banks that survive the ensuing “big fish versus little fish gladiatorial match”. Without government regulation to protect the country, individual autonomy among the masses becomes victimized by those with greater influence. The rich and powerful, who account for a small percentage of the country’s total population, have more wealth than the majority. In a free market, some unfortunate people – for example, those who are physically disabled or grew up in poverty – will automatically be disadvantaged and have no assistance from society to overcome these factors (which the current system tries its best to accommodate). For these simple reasons, corporate monopolies would be even more widespread without government intervention. The little fish would have no chance.

    The Pauls’ default stance of misrepresenting the historical record also helps them peddle the absurd Austrian School idea to deregulate all private businesses and subsequently create a utopian free market. The Pauls refuse to believe that deregulation caused the Great Depression and the 2008 recession, despite vast quantities of evidence to the contrary. Following the Great Depression, when FDR introduced strict, compartmentalized regulation of the marketplace, the United States enjoyed a forty-year period of virtually uninterrupted growth, transforming the country into a superpower. Then, when Reagan took office in the 1980s, he was aided by Alan Greenspan and company to remove the historically-proven regulations. This helped big businesses make more profits while sending the rest of America into the gutter. This culminated in the 2008 recession. The Pauls are able to ignore all of these historical events because they treat their personal ideology as more credible than primary evidence. This is a big no-no for any serious historian.

    Furthermore, without government regulation of societal sectors like the economy, there would be no way for the public to investigate or discover institutional wrongdoings. The people have no control over private enterprises, but they do have control over their government. Government regulation allows all citizens to have a say in the governance of society. By contrast, a free market favors the rich by its very nature of treating money on a higher pantheon than any other sociological construct. Similarly, the Pauls’ stance that the free market will regulate itself by forcing companies to offer higher quality products and services to drown out the hyper-capitalist competition is absurd. History has shown us that companies cut corners in terms of quality and safety to generate ever-greater profits. The last thing on their minds is to increase quality, as this would cost them more money.

    The BP oil spill helped discredit the Pauls on their stance that companies will have to take responsibility for their failures in order to stay in business under a free market system. Predictably, BP did not rush to do anything to clean up the spill, nor did it provide financial compensation for the families of the deceased oil rig workers and the local businesses on the Gulf Coast. In a display of his unhealthy and deluded devotion to big businesses over people, Senator Rand Paul shifted the criticism not to BP’s brass, but to Obama for threatening to put his “boot heel on the throat of BP” in metaphorical terms. Obama did this to pressure the company to live up to its responsibility for the disaster it alone created. Even more disturbing was Rand Paul’s assertion that BP should be cut some slack because “accidents happen”. Of course, it is widespread knowledge that BP knew its rig was unsafe and failed to make the necessary repairs. Rand Paul decided to ignore the human and environmental tragedies in favour of his abstract free market views.

    The Pauls will have you believe that the federal government is unnecessary for regulating most societal sectors because such decisions can be made at a state level. In this regard, the federal government was wrong to intervene in the BP crisis because it should have been the responsibility of the individual states whose shores were being polluted from the monstrous result of a private enterprise’s greed. But there is a blatant disregard for common sense in this argument. The reason the “United States” became a country is because individual states realized that pooling their resources together helped out everyone in the long run. Simply put, some states have resources that others do not have, and no one state has all of the resources it requires. The Pauls ignore this factor and not only become isolationists, but isolationists of the fundamentalist variety. Forget about foreign policy; the Pauls do not want to help the states who are members of the same country. According to this gospel, the United States should disband.

    Far from being folk heroes or sensible leaders, Ron and Rand Paul are emblematic of all that is wrong about capitalistic greed. They unfairly treat abstract economic terms higher than any other equally abstract ideas. They also prioritize these ideals to a greater degree than the tangible realities they are supposed to theoretically represent, thereby contradicting the existence of their beloved free market terms in the first place. There is no need for an ideology when it becomes more important than the real world it was designed to defend. It is a mistake to apply capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society, but the Pauls are content with marching down their self-satisfied parade of ideological tyranny. The Pauls must stop being taken seriously in order for personal autonomy to survive in America. The time has come to pour out all of the lies from their Tea Party-endorsed kettle, exposing these marketplace fundamentalists for who they really are.

    • I am glad you found this (I did use your name, your blog, your philosophical theory, and your youtube username as tags after all). I will introduce you properly, post what you said, and attempt to counter it. Not immediately, as I currently have other things under way.

  2. Here is the introduction to my theory of “pseudo-practicality”. It was published in the print version of MACMEDIA in March 2012, and will soon be uploaded to the MACMEDIA site. I have written a book on this theory which will be serialized both in print and online.

    An Introduction to the Theory of Pseudo-Practicality

    By Barry Germansky

    Curiosity is an insatiable parasite of the human mind. The process of conjuring theories to explain the tangible world has been an enduring staple of humanity, often succumbing to the blinding audacity of this speculative act. More thoughts have been generated on more facets of the universe around us than can ever be recounted in a single writing. However, the nature of thoughts themselves and what they mean in relation to the humans that manifest them and the tangible realities upon which they are based has never been a popular point of consideration. This is an unfortunate state of affairs, as understanding the properties of thoughts should be a prerequisite before one can formulate subsequent ideas on other aspects of existence.

    My theory of pseudo-practicality, which I have outlined below, attempts to be “self-aware” as a theoretical concept, while simultaneously setting new limits to human reasoning and functioning as a litmus test of sorts for all other thoughts henceforth.

    Pseudo-practicality is the acknowledgement that all thoughts are inherently contradictory because they are abstract representations of tangible realities to differing degrees, and therefore can never serve as “practical” applications to these entities. The aim of all subsequent thoughts is to be as “pseudo-practical” as possible. Thoughts that are less contradictory than others – not counting their inherent contradiction, which is why I refer to their application to tangible realities as “pseudo-practical” and not “practical” – should be implemented in terms of theoretical use by one’s imagination, as there will be a lessened disconnect between said thoughts and tangible realties. That way, when we navigate through the tangible world, we will have a higher likelihood of keeping track of our place in relation to the realities.

    The theory of pseudo-practicality is itself contradictory, as it relies on pre-existing words that have been designated to metaphorically categorize aspects of reality and theoretical concepts. After all, words are metaphors agreed upon by an imaginary social contract. But, pseudo-practicality is less contradictory than other philosophies and ideologies because it has a higher degree of “self-awareness” (unlike existentialism, for example, which side-steps the reality and importance of memory). This self-awareness comes from the acknowledgment that all thoughts are abstractions, including the theory that supports this claim. Thoughts are therefore impossible to implement in a “practical” sense.

    Pseudo-practicality describes this inherent paradox of the mind, and consequently attempts to serve as the precursor to all other thoughts, including theories on thoughts. All thoughts are abstractions in and of themselves. There can be no practical application of thoughts toward tangible realities that can be experienced using the senses. Pseudo-practicality is the final contradiction, meaning it is the least contradictory theory yet known. Therefore, pseudo-practicality can be used to decide the implementation of subject-specific ideologies based on degrees of contradiction. It is the necessary, paradoxical describer of the contradiction inherent in all thought.

    Pseudo-practicality dismantles every other theory on the nature of thoughts that is currently known because it proves the abstract nature of all thoughts while maintaining its own self-awareness. On the pantheon of theories that attempt to explain the limits of human reasoning, pseudo-practicality comes before solipsism, for example, which is an epistemological position that knowledge of anything outside one’s own mind is unjustified. Why? Because the theory of solipsism uses other abstract thoughts to construct its theory. Every word of solipsism – and every other thought and theory – is abstract. So, to use one of the abstractions used in solipsism to discredit solipsism, how can we discover the nature of “knowledge” when “knowledge” itself is an abstraction?

    Humans do not have the reasoning power to form practical thoughts. Our ideas are false descriptions of anything other than the thoughts themselves. Therefore, there is no such thing as “practicality” in relation to the usage of thoughts. Rather, according to my theory, there is only “pseudo-practicality”. I can, for example, label the tangible entity known as a human to be a “human” for convenience purposes, but the label of “human” is still a fantasy. All thoughts are nothing more than thoughts.

    When I say pseudo-practicality dismantles all other thoughts and theories, I mean that other thoughts and theories can no longer represent the limits of human reasoning. Pseudo-practicality has simplified the limits down to the narrowest margin currently possible using the thinking process. For another example (of which we have every other human thought and theory currently known to choose from), let us examine Descartes’ “I think therefore I am.” How can this claim be made? “I” is an abstraction. “Think” is an abstraction. And so on and so on. Therefore, the theory is completely abstract and can only exist as an exercise of imagination.

    Our thoughts stem from our imaginations, which is a natural phenomenon. This means that thoughts are a natural by-product of humans and cannot be suppressed. We will always think, and must therefore learn to cope with our imaginations and not treat our thoughts as separate realities (although, pattern recognition – commonly known as “science” – can describe tangible realities without explaining them and allow us to interact with them). We have imaginations and thoughts by extension. Our thoughts feed off of the world around us, but remain separate from it. Our emotions then give a feeling to our thoughts. This “mystical” experience allows us to navigate through tangible realities.

    Of course, we can still experience realties using our senses and emotions. We cannot, however, assign our senses or emotions empirically correct classifications, as they will always exist separately. For instance, if someone dies they did not really “die” because this is an abstract view of the event that took place. But, we can agree that the vitality of the person in question is physically no longer present using our senses.

    I have set up a spectrum of the contradictions that manifest from thoughts. There are single, double, etc. abstractions. A “tree” is a single abstraction because it directly provides a metaphor for a tangible object. Therefore, “tree” has a higher “degree” of pseudo-practicality than the number “5”, for example, which is a double abstraction because it exists as a pure idea (which serves as the first thought) that must be in aid of another abstraction (which serves as the second thought like “tree”, for example).

    This does not mean we cannot use double abstractions – or any degree of abstractions – when describing tangible realities. It is just important to realize that we are not “explaining” the tangible realities, and that we become further separated from them with each subsequent abstract degree. Thoughts are nothing more than thoughts. Therefore, this incapability of assigning value to anything about existence should prevent other theories from being treated in a precious manner based on abstractions alone. The least degree of abstractions makes for the least contradictory label we can assign. And, when it comes to theories relating to societal governance, the least contradictory theories should be chosen. To have fewer contradictions is to have fewer problems down the road.

    To use an example pertaining to an increasingly popular form of economic policy, pseudo-practicality can be used to discredit free market libertarianism as more contradictory than current or previous forms of societal governance. The libertarian solution to late capitalism, which involves the formation of a free, unregulated market, should not come to pass. This would allow the abstract economy and its currency to serve as a societal yardstick, effectively prioritizing every other societal sector and field of human thought lower on an equally abstract sociological pantheon. A free market is a more contradictory option than treating every societal sector equally because it puts the abstraction of the “marketplace” before all other arrangements of thoughts. Both are contradictory methods of governance, but the latter is simply less so.

    The importance of pseudo-practicality is to dispel the notion that thoughts have “practical” applications toward tangible realities, thereby changing the focus of decision making to what is “pseudo-practical” instead. This will shorten the gap between what is tangible versus the unrelated thoughts in our heads that are natural-occurring and cannot and should not be suppressed.

    Thoughts are abstractions in and of themselves. Thoughts cannot be used practicality when navigating the tangible world, but thoughts can be used pseudo-practically to remember how to interact with tangible realities when our senses or emotions are not currently experiencing the tangible realities in question. By extension, pseudo-practicality will help limit societal problems by reducing the amount of contradictions that humans attempt to implement in the tangible world.

    With this theory and a little luck, the unquenchable parasite that is curiosity will designate itself as a blessing more often than a curse.

    • I do believe you are simply confusing human nature, which is arguably flawed, misapplying the thoughts it sees as practical, with the thoughts themselves.

      You are attacking these thoughts translated into rules, created by admittedly imperfect, but still rational minds, rather than attacking human nature misapplying these thoughts and rules.

      I, like you, don’t believe there is a perfect society. But where we differ is that I hold that it is not the society set up that is to blame for its imperfections, but the people in those societies. It is not the structures. It is not the hierarchies. It is not the thoughts of its long-gone founding generation. It is not the way the sectors are categorized. It is the people themselves. You could hand mankind the least contradictory (accepting your premise) way to do things in the world, and it could still, or it inevitably would, lead to the same basic problems, you are blaming on society having been run the ways you decry.

  3. Pingback: Joseph Schumpeter’s Anti-Utopian Quotation « keimh3regpeh2umeg

  4. Pingback: When It Is Noticed, It Is Usually Because It Is One, When It Is Not, It Is Usually Because It Is Not One† « keimh3regpeh2umeg

  5. An Open Challenge to Barry Germansky

    “He is a technocrat, a legal positivist, a utopian, a totalitarian, a nihilist, a Canadian, and a socialist.”

    I stand by those words.

    He’s denied the label technocrat already, and I suppose that’s not what he “is”, its just a likely outcome of some of his ideas. It is worth noting that experts should certainly govern their own fields and fields have their own terminology and their own rules. It does not follow, however that their is a strict separation from the other sectors, spheres, and fields, nor that the rules and terminologies by which they are governed are wholly, or even mostly unrelated to those that govern other sectors, spheres, and fields.

    Legal Positivism is the best description and the easiest to prove besides Canadian.

    Utopianism and Totalitarianism are not really a subjective terms, but I suppose there are nuances.

    Nihilism is the hardest charge to make stick, so I am willing to modify it to moral relativism, but that aspect of things is not my primary focus.

    Canadian was sort of a nationalistic dig on my part, but I don’t harbor any ill-will towards my brethren to the North, I just like to give them a hard time.

    And Socialist, much like technocrat, is not necessarily what he portends to be, but just another outcome of his political philosophy.

    I’ve noticed an uptick in the hits on this piece, as well as related posts, and have been paying attention to the search terms. I really hope Barry drops by one of these days and attempts to refute an attempted refutation. I do always enjoy picking his brain and honing my skills. Barry has been one of my better whetstones. It’s nothing personal of course, he has just been one of the most willing to engage and I welcome and encourage that. So if it Barry himself stopping by, I ask him to stay a while and unload his thoughts. Or if it is someone who knows Barry, I ask you to pass this challenge along. We could discuss a few things. It doesn’t have to be Ron Paul, the election is over.

    Regardless of whether he accepts this challenge or not, and I won’t judge his actions one way or the other, I want him to know I still have a few more things to say to him, as promised. Look for them in the coming days and weeks.

Any thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s