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.”

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

  1. Pingback: The Constitution, Nullification, And The Evolving Democratic And Republican Parties « keimh3regpeh2umeg

  2. Pingback: Do The People, The States, Or The Courts Interpret The Constitution? Or All Of The Above At Different Levels? « keimh3regpeh2umeg

  3. Pingback: Ron Paul Hater Barry Germanksy’s Comment « keimh3regpeh2umeg

  4. Pingback: Ron Paul Hater Barry Germansky’s Comment « 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.

  6. Pingback: An Open Challenge to Barry Germansky « Propagating the Philosophy of Liberty

  7. WHOA! WHAT! LOL! Is this guy actually a respected political commentator?! They don’t want you to read the Constitution? LOLOLOLOL WHAT!!! Ron Paul’s the reason I ever even opened mine!

    Economics are definitely important to the Pauls but I would hardly call it a one and only interest. Is that why Rand is the one and only floor contestor of the NDAA now, because of its -economic- impact? Their issues are with overstep of Federal government, abuse of power, violation of State’s rights, violation of individual liberty. They may attack it from the point of view of economics but saying a window-cleaner who uses 409 is just a 409 salesman misses the elbow grease and motivation to see clearly.

    Man I wouldn’t even bother your prowess on that guy, whoever he is. I seriously have yet to see any successful anti-Paulian arguments, is this the best they’ve got? :P

    • As far as ever engaging him, I think its a waste. I mean the guy blocks people on youtube for saying his videos suck (the one’s I’ve seen certainly do), he takes down videos he posted that come to embarrass him, etc.

      But as far as refuting his arguments, which are nothing if not common across the anti-Paul left and right, I feel it is worthwhile.

      Besides, he requested that I post something of his, which I did, and I also promised that I would address his arguments. I must be true to my word. It doesn’t hurt that its is fun smashing his arguments to oblivion.

      But cut him some slack. Being a Canadian (I love Canadians, so nothing to see here), he’s not as attuned to American politics as you and I are.

  8. Pingback: One Year Later at PTPOL « Propagating the Philosophy of Liberty

Any thoughts?

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s