Excerpt: "Libertarian views of government regulation are very similar to how a 6-year-old views the authority exerted by their parents. Ron Paul's every-individual-for-themselves rhetoric appeals to young, radical libertarians with simplistic views of authority, and an ignorance of why government exists in the first place."
Texas Congressman Ron Paul speaks during his announcement of an exploratory committee in Des Moines, Iowa, 04/26/11. (photo: Reuters)
Grow Up, Ron Paul
09 January 12
Reader Supported News | Perspective
ike most other little kids, all I wanted to do was eat junk food, play video games, and goof around with my friends. I didn't like being made to go to school, going to bed at 9 PM, eating vegetables, doing homework after school, or taking out the garbage. And like most other little kids who don't like abiding by the rules of their parents, I sometimes fantasized about what it would be like to run away from home. But when I packed my backpack full of clothes and individually-wrapped packs of peanut butter crackers from the pantry, I could never go through with my plan. I knew if I ran away I'd be hungry, cold, lost, and eventually, found by the police and returned home.
Libertarian views of government regulation are very similar to how a 6-year-old views the authority exerted by their parents. Ron Paul's every-individual-for-themselves rhetoric appeals to young, radical libertarians with simplistic views of authority, and an ignorance of why government exists in the first place.
In Ron Paul's ideal America, safety regulations imposed on employers by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration would be a thing of the past. Clean air and water regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency would be no more. Taxpayers would save money, since Ron Paul would abolish the Department of Education and cut the Food and Drug Administration's budget by 40%. Employers would save money by paying workers as little as they wish, since Ron Paul would abolish the Davis-Bacon Act. Corporate giants would be free to monopolize markets, since Ron Paul opposes federal anti-trust legislation. And employees would no longer be required to pay into Social Security.
So what would this libertarian utopia look like, if Ron Paul were elected and followed through on his campaign promises?
- Families grieving for loved ones lost due to Massey Energy's negligence in the Upper Big Branch coal mine explosion would have to accept that their relatives were casualties of the invisible hand of the unfettered free market. And Massey would get off scot-free for polluting Martin County, Kentucky's drinking water supply with 300 million gallons of coal slurry.
- Millions of college students dependent on Pell grants would be forced to move back home and work minimum-wage jobs, no longer financially able to further their education. Oh wait - what minimum wage?
- Food recalls would be a regular occurrence when tainted meat and vegetables hit supermarket shelves and caused record outbreaks of e-coli. And risky new drugs would avoid FDA tests and hit the express lane to the pharmacy, endangering the health of millions.
- Too-big-to-fail banks like Wells Fargo, Citi, Chase and Bank of America would be allowed to merge and/or buy out their competitors, as would oil giants like ExxonMobil and Chevron, and cellphone service-providers like AT&T and Verizon.
- The Social Security trust fund would become insolvent, making retirement that much harder for those who paid into it all their lives.
Ron Paul and his right-libertarian ideology does espouse a new kind of freedom, just as rebellious children who fantasize about running away from home dream of a new kind of freedom. But, as much as we may have rebelled against our parents as little kids, we eventually matured and realized that the rules and regulations our parents imposed on us were meant so we'd grow up to be responsible, functioning adults in society.
An unregulated little kid free to eat junk food and play video games all day won't ever learn the responsibilities of adulthood. And an unregulated society where every individual is out for themselves will quickly collapse.
Carl Gibson, 24, of Lexington, Kentucky, is a spokesman and organizer for US Uncut, a nonviolent, creative direct-action movement to stop budget cuts by getting corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. He graduated from Morehead State University in 2009 with a B.A. in Journalism before starting the first US Uncut group in Jackson, Mississippi, in February of 2011. Since then, over 20,000 US Uncut activists have carried out more than 300 actions in over 100 cities nationwide. You may contact Carl at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 17 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 18 June 2013
|
 18 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 17 June 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
And the truth that those of us in Progressive side forget to do is express sympathy, understanding, and then the solution to the unfairnerss. Often we provide the solution without the sympathy or just fail to acknowledge the unfairness and stupidity inherent in many of the regulations.
The regulations are often not what people complain about. It is the redundant paperwork, archaic forms, and apathetic clerks.
Both Obama and Clinton have way outpaced their Republican contemporary President Bushes as well as the one named Reagan in the area of reducing some of the paperwork and duplication. Of course, these savings that generally do not actually cut services are ignored by EVERYONE.
Yes, Ron Paul does appeal to the child in all of us. The solutions can not must come not from simplistic childish action reaction, but by a mature examination of facts and repercussions. Then explaining the solution so that those that don't have the time to do that examination can understand it.
A solution that can be explained Simply is often the best solution to a complex problem.
The solution is Simple,
Besides how libertarian is it to want to eliminate all government interference in everything except your personal little causes and beliefs--- so that Ron Paul, aside from his connections to the John Birch Society and their various racist beliefs, also thinks it's ok for the govt.to interfere in WOMEN'S self-determinat ion and decisions about their OWN bodies?
The 'libertarian' aspect of such 'logic' escapes me.
Maybe you should listen TO the man him self rather then the people who talk About him .. If the truth means anything.
After being asked if he'd be against the Voting Rights Act of 1964 (which ended JIm Crow):
"Yes... I think we would be better off if we had freedom, and not government control of our lives, our personal lives, and our — and policing the world."
------
“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers"
------
Concerning gay marriage rights: “Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.”
-------
“You don’t have a right to a house, you don’t have a right to a job, you don’t have a right to medical care.”
------
about his idea to get rid of the minimum wage:
“It would help the poor people who need jobs. Minimum wage is a mandate. We’re against mandates so why should we have it? It would be very beneficial.”
APPARENTLY, HE'S NOT OPPOSED TO RACISM AT ALL, OR GOVERNMENT SPONSORED BIGOTRY IN ANY FORM.
To quote a guy I once argued with on RSN:
"Maybe you should listen TO the man him self rather then the people who talk About him .. If the truth means anything"
He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."
This surfaced in 1996 and was published in the Dallas Morning News - his home state.
"I have a bill in Congress ["Sanctity of Life Act of 2007"] which I certainly would promote and push as president...and what it would do is establish the principle that life begins at conception."
"I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."
OCCUPY PEACE,LIBERTY and JUSTICE FOR ALL
There wouldn't be any recalls because there'd be no threat of lawsuit for criminal negligence. If you die of botulism - buyer beware.
We wouldn't need to repare our roads, bridges or nuclear facilities either. Roads and bridges would eventually be a thing of the past as every man pulls himself up by his bootstraps and builds his own private roads. No one would be responsible for nuclear clean up, so your deformed children could thank you for the bootstraps you couldn't afford to buy them.
You'd still be safe from terrorists getting on a plane. Just don't expect any safety in the air from the plane itself. I know, I know. Every time a plane crashed, killing hundreds, the airline would have fewer customers, but what would entice them to spend the millions on safety without big brother breathing down their necks for you?
You wouldn't have to wear seat belts anymore. Come to think of it, cars wouldn't be required to include them either.
I'm sure libertarians wouldn't mind sending their parents to unregulated nursing homes where they can be beaten to death a few years earlier than they would have died of natural causes, saving the corporation hundreds of dollars in pig feed.
I'm sure libertarians also wouldn't mind giving unregulated medicine to their children.
A question that might be asked by a minority member turned away from a business or restricted neighborhood in this brave new libertarian world is: OK, Dr. Paul, how marvellous for you and your liberties; but what happened to mine?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul
You don't suppose he's lying do you?
No, he is not lying. Rand Paul was not named after Ayn Rand. He grew up using the name Randy until his mother shortened it for convenience.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Well, how about the Rand Corporation?
Its not hard for most of us to see through the smoke and mirrors but for some that aren't critical thinkers they needed you to explain it to them.
I say Stay the course!! Full Steam Ahead - Yes Sir Captain Smith - As we All Know the USS Titanic is TOO big to fail!
What if paul is lying about his "stop the war machine message"? What then?
He already has a history in Texas of selling pseudo-liberal lies to get elected as an extremist conservative with absolutely no intention on making good on all that good will he got from naîve liberals.
When these YOUNG (uninformed, immature?, unread?) so-called 'progressives' on the left are so easily fooled by Paul's position on a single issue (which may or may not be a ruse)
then we have a situation where their sad ignorance of things like the John Birchers, the history of labor's hard-won rights, in this country and the Nazis' ability to lure enthusiastic youngsters into their milieu with fiery slogans, makes them vulnerable dupes indeed.
Think about it. Again, we can't work on all the problems, we have to budget our resources. And I think the first problems we need to work on is getting the money out of politics to end the legalized bribery in DC, or do you deny that's what it is?
And do you want to re-elect more of the same? That's what Obama represents (as do most of the idiots running as Republicans.
If you really don't see any difference between the Repubs and the Dems after these disgraceful Republican debates, you aren't listening. Please pull your nose out of the Paulbot sites and do some READING and WATCHING. And my sense is that most Paulbots are being agitated by and funded on some level by right-wing Republicans as a means of pulling support away from Obama and the Dems so that the Repubs are elected. There is a good chance you are being used as a pawn of the Republican right-wing.
It has been my opinion that persons who claim things like "they are all the same/crooks". They also claim to be independents but nearly always vote for Republicans. No matter how much Barbara K gently tells them not to.
Last of all they are the ones insisting that both sides are right and both sides are wrong. They just don't have the time because they have to work so many hours, because their insurance company has outsourced the paperwork to the insureds, because they are too tired to read, because their brain is numbed by Dancing with Stars, The Kardashians, Survivor, Desperate Housewives, CSI Everywhere, and "America Bets" aka the NFL.
So they go with what sounds good, Fox TV who has all the answers (for the wrong questions) or Ron Paul. Just leave me alone!
All these wrong answers and leave me alone thinking is sending a message that the Progressives running for answer must heed and somehow find a way to counter.
You're also right that thinking is boring and often time consuming. Luckily fox has all the pre-thought-out answers for these people so they can just say, "ditto".
I'm not willing to comprimise on all of the progress since the Depression just to take paul's word he'll get us out of Afghanistan - AFTER HE VOTED FOR IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
He did vote for a bill authorizing George Bush to pursue the perpetrators of 9/11 on the grounds that those perpetrators had committed an act of aggression and the US was thus entitled to defend itself.
He did not vote for a full scale invasion and reconstruction of Afghanistan and he was among the few in Congress to vote against the invasion of Iraq. I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of his non-interventio nist foreign policy since he has held this position for about four decades and has voted consistently against wars and interventions.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
He's a politician. He alters his views every time one of them pushes the wrong buttons. It's part of his m.o.
The whole idea of dog-whistle politics is to sort of say something horrible, then deny it. By saying these things, paul ensures he's got the vote of all the white supremicists. By later denying it, he can pretend the "liberal media bias" "mischaracteriz ed" him, so closetted racists can pretend their own motivations are less sleezy. This way, he gets twice the bang for the buck.
No, he ain't stupid. In fact, he's pulling a very sophisticated trick and getting away with it because of deniability.
and what will happen to their gravy train If Ron Paul becomes president and clips the wings of the Federal reserve bank...
Think about it - but don't spend too much time before getting busy. The mega bankers have a lot of money to print to prop up their candidates like Obama and Romney.
GREAT analysis! And great perspective on people I know all too well also. Either these people have a lot in common or we have the same acquaintences.
I'm sorry you've placed your hope for journalism in this guy.
We are falling apart as a nation because of onerous government requirements on the citizen. Why don´t you write again after about twenty years. By then you may have survived the consequences of your youthful ignorance.
By the way, have you checked out Rocky Anderson? Is he not repuglican enough for ya?
Oh, and there is a model in the world for Ron Paul's America--it's called Afghanistan.
Ron Paul is not for anarchy, but for limiting the extent to which government can be used to compel certain behaviors. Granted, he may be naive as to the intentions and operations of corporate entities. Given his strict Constitutionali st view of the presidency, I don't think he would move unilaterally to destroy existing regulatory agencies.
Not to be contentious, really, but a "philosophy" can only be whatever 'people' think it is.
If the federal government sticks up for the rights of individuals against the right of a state to impose unconstitutiona l laws against them, paul complains about "too much government". It's a phony argument.
As for the utopianism of anarchy, on this planet, anarchy works out just like it did in the Dark Ages, and does now in many 3rd world countries.
I have no idea where you get your "facts". Ron Paul is scrupulous in voting in accordance with constitutional restrictions and has been so for about the last 40 years.
How do you know his intentions? Do you have ESP?
And while some libertarians are more-or-less anarchists, Ron Paul is solidly on the "limited state" side of that debate in libertarian circles.
What law are you referring to where the government stuck up for the rights of individuals and Paul complained about it? I'm pretty familiar with his voting record and I know of no instance where anything like that happened.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
The VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 which paul openly states he would have opposed, because of "property rights".
hmmm...
"Property rights"...
Where have I heard that argument against the civil rights of a minority before?
A) the parts of the civil rights act that ended government discrimination (17 out of 18 parts as I understand it)Paul is for.
When Rosa Parks (one Of Dr Pauls Heros) refused to move - she was violating a bad LAW.
B) when property rights are not respected by government it creates the perfect tool for bigots to get what they cant do them selves via government force.
Slavery was the total violation of civil rights - the blacks had no right to their own life, or the property of their mind their own body or their own effort - they WERE property of another.
What Paul opposes in the 64 act was the 1/18th part where individuals were to be blocked from discrimination with their private property. reality is no one can make a successful law against stupidity.
and there are unintended consequences:
What happens when government turns around from Bad laws - Like Jim Crowe and swings the other way and makes different bad laws? Can they force catholic church to hire some one who is atheist?
Can they force a pro gay organization to hire Rick Santorum?
B) The "property rights" you're refering to are the rights of businesses to descriminate based on racism. Let's be clear about that before moving on to pontifications about "property rights". As you remember, much of the Southern argument against slavery had to do with "property rights" as well.
C?) Actually, we make laws against stupidity all of the time. We make it illegal to drive on closed roads during snowstorms. After people are rescued from the related stupidity, in some states like Minnesota, they're tacked with a bill for the related costs of rescue. Since Minnesota is a state, I assume you have no problem with that bit of anti-stupidity law, right?
D?) Speaking of "state's rights", the "bad Jim Crow laws" were STATE laws that had to be overruled by federal laws, much to the lethal hatred of "state's rights" lovers from the South.
E?) Equating atheism and santorumism with being an African American is one of the stupidest comments you've made yet.
2.Civil Rights.
Madison wrote, in Federalist #51:
"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? *If men were angels, no government would be necessary.* If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
He also said, in the Virginia Ratification debates: "What is the meaning of government? An institution to make people do their duty. A government leaving it to a man to do his duty or not, as he pleases, would be a new species of government, or rather no government at all." (3 Elliot's Debates 413)
The notion that Government shall make no law ...is totally antithetical to both.
Neither will protect individual freedoms as Dr Paul says and as the US Constitution says.
Quoting Billy Bob:
you have no idea what your talking about
However, Paul, like many of the governments that followed these revolutions, would not put in place rules that would protect civil, expecting people to BE CIVIL. Well take a look. Are they when you leave them to their own devices? When it is not in their own best interest? Yes they fought together, side by side, spilled blood together. But the revolution is over and fighting between factions that once were in solidarity against the regime are not cooperating. Women are being raped by men they aided, Suni is against Shiite, etc. The ensuing Civil war is as anarchistic and as splintered as any in history but I suppose none of it counts. I remember, all Paulite define and redefine Anarchy to fit the moment. Paul better decide what kind of a Libertarian or Ultraconservati ve he or his followers think he is. He'll lose that sterling reputation of never waivering although his minions will never see it.
Rawls was no slouch and did a masterful job of justifying socialistic government interventions. But Nozick's rebuttal should give anyone pause before mindlessly following Rawls' advice.
Instead of painting all Paul's supporters as young, ignorant, emotionally-ant i-authoritarian s, Gibson should consider that some of us are old, well-read, and thoughtful.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
-Perhaps you could enlighten us about Paul's views on the environment that are NOT libertarian, or the "justification for government"
You'll note that paul is not at all against invasive government intervention, as long as it's at the state level.
Paul's views on the environment are completely libertarian: libertarians believe that no person or entity has the right to pollute the property of other people. Libertarians actually have a more stringent view on air and water pollution than most environmentalists.
The reason that we had so much air and water pollution before the EPA stepped in was that the federal government repeatedly in court cases refused to acknowledge the property rights of the victims of pollution -- the courts said that the "greater good" of the community, the economic benefits and jobs, were more important than the individual rights of the landowners who suffered the pollution. The EPA has started to correct that judicial position but they have still not made the principled stand that Paul (and other libertarians) make that pollution is a form of trespass and a violation of individual rights as surely as murder, rape and theft are.
The "justification for government" argument is too lengthy for a post. I do recommend you read both books which would provide you with a balanced view, statist and libertarian, of the subject.
Finally, Paul would allow states greater freedom to behave badly as long as they did not violate the federal constitution. Libertarians believe that bad behavior by a state would be naturally self-correcting : talented and able people would move to states that didn't indulge in bad behavior.
Lee Nason
Now, personally, I wish they HAD seceded.
Instead, when the Democratic Party adopted civil rights as a goal, the Dixiecrats fled to the Republican Party. The 2000 election was Southern politics on steroids. Terrifying to anyone who lived in the South before, say, 1965.
Obama needs to wake up and realize there are things within his administrative power to simply ease the suffering that is all around us. He must quit listening to Chicago economists and find a way to listen to the public. He goes back to trying to do good, because it is simply the honorable thing to do.
When he stops trying to win, he WILL win.
And we must fight for every senate and house seat. They're going to.
Heaven help us if Obama loses and Republicans control Congress. I just read the latest mass email floating around the South about the African coup of the U.S. that will take place in Obama's second term.
We do not want these people to have any more power than they do. The level of mean spiritedness out there is palpable.
Do you think we could talkmthem into seceding again?
When the Democrats FINALLY came to the table set by the republicans 100 years before and patiently waited on for 10 decades..
It amuses me to see how hard the dems try to evade their past.
Oh yeah, he switched parties immediately afterward. You're right about one thing. Conservative Southerners hated civil rights, as many still do. Is the fact that most of them changed party affiliation news to you?
This is exactly why the veil of ignorance beats out Dr. Nozic (and this is coming from someone who loved both A Theory of Justice and A,S,U). What you just described isn't a libertarian society, but a sort of bastardized hybrid of a plutocracy and a technocracy. The only people who would matter, ever, are the talented and able. Anyone not meeting both of those descriptions would be stuck in a bad state, with a bad government, with little or no recourse to fix it. They would become a permanent underclass.
And it is exactly that conclusion which shows you fail to understand Dr. Nozic. Anarchy, State, and Utopia was not designed to describe a governing philosophy, but rather a foundational philosophy. It describes how societies ought to be formed out of the state of nature. And the key assumption of the state of nature, which makes Dr. Nozic's conclusions valid in the first place, is a sort of natural equality: ie, the state of nature sucks terribly for EVERYONE, equally. Thus, all are assumed to have equal motivation to gather together and improve things, as well as roughly equal ability.
The society you described is the anthesis of that. Those with ability and means are, by definition, not equal to those without. They have no such motivation to band with them for mutual defense or improvement. It is why you cannot look at Dr. Nozic and find advice for how to modify a society like the one we already have. If you want the ASU society, you must start from square one. And if you don't, you are left with what you described: a class of those with talent and ability (and means) who would essentially be able to lord that over a permanent underclass. And any student of history can tell you that permanent underclasses have a very bad habit of fixing their problems at the point of a sword, the barrel of a gun, or the blade of a guillotine.
It is for that reason that Rawls is the much better choice for the modification of an existing society. The veil of ignorance forces you to ask the critical question: What if I am not talented and able? A society that embraces justice and equality continually asks that question, because it is the only question that leads to better outcomes for everyone, not just the lucky few.
Your point is well-made. I should have described the entire process.
When talented and able people move to a less punitive state, the less punitive state government benefits as well as its general population and the more punitive state government and its citizens are harmed. This should lead to less punitive governments getting political credit and re-election while more punitive governments get criticisms and start to lose elections. Eventually, people figure it out and less punitive laws are enacted in the authoritarian state. It is the very competition between states for citizen support that eventually brings the blessings of good government to all including the poor and disenfranchised.
I discussed libertarian ideas with Bob Nozick over beers in various Cambridge dives for years and attended political gatherings with him all through that time and remained a friend with him until his breakdown and death. I assure you that he believed that reform toward a less heavy-handed government was worth fighting for. He used the "de novo" scenario in ASU only for the sake of determining what a morally justified "utopia" might look like and for making his ideas clearer to readers.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
I like to remind people that we need to keep an essential perspective in mind when discussing politics and economics. At this point in the history of our planet, any such discussion is essentially meaningless unless measured by the oncoming problems of Climate Change. If we do not change our energy system to sources other than fossil carbon, we will be in such vast trouble that the entirety of Human "Civilization" may collapse. The planet is heading for ever more rapid heating and ocean level rise. Two giant and related tipping points are looming, the disappearance of Arctic Sea Ice, and the release of massive amounts of Methane from the Clathrate deposits in the Arctic and other oceans. Methane is about 25 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and will cause a spike in warming that will make previous disasters look like a picnic. My favorite book to recommend for those who doubt or do not understand Global Warming is "Storms of My Grandchildren" by Dr. James E. Hansen, eminent climate scientist with NASA.
2. I'm aware of paul's views on the "justification for government". I disagree with them, as do the founding fathers. I wanted to hear you defend them.
3. State government is no different from federal government. What we are talking about is the Constitution. He considers Jim Crow laws Constitutional apparently. He certainly has no problem with them. He has a HUGE problem, however, with the idea that the FEDERAL government would step in and tell Mississippi to get rid of its Jim Crowe laws.
It's pure hypocricy, and it comes from a place of self-interest, racism and dishonesty.
The "problem" with air and water pollution is precisely that "no one owns them". Because they have traditionally been held "in common" they must suffer from the tragedy of the commons.
Libertarians espouse an expansion of property rights that allows people ownership of air and water over and in their properly owned land. This gives them the right to sue for pollution harm. And expensive losing law suits would result in pollution being largely eliminated.
It is certainly not OK with Paul or any libertarian to allow your drinking water or the oceans to be polluted.
Just this weekend in the debate he castigated Jim Crow Laws and pointed out how they were unconstitutiona l. I know of no libertarian who takes a contrary view. He not only did not have a HUGE problem with the feds telling Mississippi to get rid of discriminatory laws, he actually supported it.
State government is very different from federal government. If I don't like Massachusetts laws and taxes, I can move a couple of miles to New Hampshire or Rhode Island. Emigration from the US is not feasible for most people.
And your final statement again shows your amazing ESP. Too bad your talent is unable to discern Dr. Paul's actual intent.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
State government is GOVERNMENT. Either you want less government regulation or you don't. What difference does it make (unless you're pro-slavery) WHO gets to do the regulating?
Regarding moving from state to state, isn't that exactly what polluters will do for the same reason? If one state has too many restrictions, just move to another. We ALL breathe the same air and drink the same water, inevitably.
Without GOVERNMENT REGULATION corporations will be able to do anything they want, just as they did before those regulations were first enacted.
I think you need to present evidence rather than make generalized assertions.
Lee Nason
That said, his notion of an unregulated libertarian government would be a disaster. As stated on his web site, "Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes. And he will be proud to be the one who finally turns off the lights at the IRS for good. Capital gains taxes should also be immediately repealed." He also endorses a flat tax, or a "so-called Fair (sales) tax" in place of income tax. All of these would be terrible for the majority of the US public, destroying all safety nets and environmental responsibilitie s.
I'm curious about what view of human nature brings you to endorsing Paul's libertarian philosophy. I'n no expert on your sources, but I will say this much: Nozick's notion that distribution of wealth should be avoided (except voluntarily, which is likely ineffective) seems very shortsighted. (As Elizabeth Warren said, "no one ever got rich entirely alone.") Rawls' "veil of ignorance," seems impractical, since I doubt we form our principles in isolation. Televangelists and other molders of public ethics might like it, though.
This is what he is saying: Reduce taxes, reduce spending, get rid of most programs. He implies we don't need them. In fact he knows perfectly well that the programs are needed. What he is not saying is that once abolished they will be privatized and put in the hands of corporate America and with minimum oversight. Unfortunately these privatized services have been tried out before. They were inefficient and bureaucratic. So Republicans and Democrats together established Federal programs like Social Security and the NIH. Beware the siren song of low taxes and no spending. Proof? Call your private medical insurance company.
You are correct in stating that Paul would privatize many charitable functions. But you are wrong in citing the evidence you use: So-called "private medical insurance" is a government-appr oved oligopoly chartered by state governments and charged with limiting their offerings by those same state governments.
Prior to the last few decades, when the responsibility for medical care has been increasingly assumed by state and federal governments, people did not die on the streets. Poor people were treated for free or on sliding scales by benevolent hospitals and doctors.
If you cannot see the direct correlation between an increasingly bureaucratic and inept medical system and the increasing role of government in the system, I think you are not noticing an important connection.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Obamacare is a nightmare largely due to the inclusion of insurance companies, the lack of pharmaceutical price controls, and sensible tort reform. But it may allow Sanders to introduce single-payer to the entire state of Vermont. Here's hoping.
To address your other silliness, only you and Rip Van Winkle failed to notice Obomber's bail out of the banks and insurance industry with money stolen from us tax payers. Did you receive your $2 million bonus for crashing your bank?
So what about the good things about Paul like the country stopping putting people in jail for drug possession and stopping the torture and the wars of choice? Getting our liberties back is a first step toward making this country what it should be. Have you not noticed the attacks on the Occupy protesters? We are no longer free folks. The first amendment is nearly dead, the writ is gone if the military decides to excercise its new found powers. Oh and if they pass the anti-piracy bill this website itself will be in danger.
WAKE UP FOLKS!
I am using Exxon as well - it is Win-Win
We trade money for services.
I also put a half years earnings into Exxon because They provide a return on investment, at least I wont be totally dependent upon the government when I retire because of that decision.
Good thing for all of those subsidies, including global wars to help with all of that foreign "research and development". Otherwise, your retirement plan of betting on the future of one of the world's leading polluters would be a bit more risky.
Thanks for the honesty to finally admit where your loyalties lie.
I'll keep my loyalties with the UNITED STATES of AMERICA. You can keep yours with a global corporation with absolutely no interest in the fate of my country.
1. Is that what's called "puting your mouth where your money already is"? No wonder you're so defensive about Exxon.
2. Do you plan on living on that investment some day? If so, you've put so much into that stock that you obviously have no idea how the other 99.9% of us live down here on Earth.
Social Security is in fact near bankruptcy. Obama said publicly that if the debt ceiling weren't raised, social security checks might have to be withheld. The reason that the system is bankrupt is because both Republican and Democratic administrations have been taking money from the trust fund, spending it, and leaving IOUs in the trust fund. But even if they had not been doing that, the system is not sustainable without serious reforms due to simple demographics.
Several folks have talked about food safety. The government already claims to oversee food safety and they are simply not doing the job. Most food is delivered to consumers without ever getting an inspection. The question one needs to ask is "why is so much of our food safe?" And the answer is that it is not in the interests of farmers, food processors, or food transportation companies to kill their customers -- free markets do a fine job of delivering safe food without government oversight. And for those with fussier tastes, eating only Halal or Kosher foods guarantees increased safety.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
I get SO tired of the pervasive lies - which, if repeated often enough, become the truth - of the republicans regarding Social Security.
This oft-repeated lie is not so much about the money involved, as it is about reducing the average American to serfdom.
Small problem with that statement - It is half true. True IF and Only If you PRETEND that the special securities (assets according to SSA) are fully funded - but they are not. The government already spent that money and those 'assets' are IOU's - Go to the SSA web page and actually look it up.
This isn't a very good argument for its inefficiency. This is more evidence, provided by you yourself, that it's SO successful that conservative politicians felt the need to destroy and undermine it since it disproves their entire philosophy.
Ironic that, after 25 years of repugs trying to destroy it, it's STILL funded at 100% through 2036.
Whereas your personal retirement plan requires you to die before Exxon runs out of oil to drill.
I personally favor the long term solution of taxing ALL income for social security, including capital gains and corporate profits. How about you?
The 6-year-old analogy works both ways. Under the American system as it's 'evolved' people expect daddy to make sure that the food is safe to eat, the water safe to drink, the drugs safe to ingest, but the regulatory agencies, rather than work as they're theoretically designed, are instead filled with lobbyists and corporate shills who do not protect us.
It's a nice fantasy for the system to work but it may be too big, too corrupt, and too far-removed from the lives of real people to function as it was ideally designed.
I don't agree with Paul on many things –– Social Security is one; OSHA is another –– but I doubt that he would actually be able to end these. I am much more interested in things he would have some ability to change: ending wars of empire on behalf of corporations, sweetheart deals with banks, and the further destruction of the Bill of Rights.
And, by the way, he is not a supporter of the big banks, as you suggest. Paul would not bail out these 'too big to fail' crooks but let them fail, which is what we should have done. On the bank issue, Paul is right and the rest of these pols are wrong.
Paul certainly does not want to abolish commercial banking! What a thought.
He sees that most of our commercial banks are corrupt (they serve the needs of their regulators rather than the needs of their customers) but he would never actively dismantle them or outlaw their existence. He would not bail them out. And banks that failed to be responsible in the lending markets would have to go bankrupt leaving the banking market to more responsible lenders.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
At present, that is not an issue since the federal government insures all deposits.
If we were to move to a less federally regulated banking system, I would expect private insurance would develop to protect depositors assets.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Why should I contribute to someone's private profit, just to ensure I can keep MY OWN MONEY?
All in all, the FDIC sounds like a pretty good system, huh?
But tax funded insurance, like medicare, is infinitely more efficient than privatized insurance, which exists only because the insurance industry has funds sufficient to bribe our rulers and advertising-fun ded media to ignore the will of the people.
I agree that tax funded PUBLIC insurance is more efficient, because it doesn't require an additional margin for profit.
Of course my taxes help fund the FDIC. Then again, so do everyone's. The cost is split up among everyone in the country and the weight of the federal government of OUR country stands behind them.
Thanks for not quoting the canard about how "private insurance would be more efficient because it needs to make a profit", when it's this very profit driven desire that destroys its efficiency to me.
What happens to your life savings when the government and its magical printing press can double the money supply at the flick of some computer bits?
One politician - who was justifying getting us off the Gold standard (because the viet Nam War had bankrupted us and we could no longer pay our debts)
promised us that the US dollar was still as good as Gold (even though Nixon explicitly ended gold backing) - what he failed to mention was it was fools gold.
Back then Gold was $35/oz .. think we will ever see that price again .. and why not?
What is the intrinsic value of gold? Can you eat it? You're going to need an aweful lot of it if you want to use it to build your fortress against the unruly masses you fear.
No, gold has exactly the same intrinsic value as paper -
NOTHING.
Unless your monetary standard is based on chickens, ALL money has ONLY the value we, as a society assign to it.
The great thing about paper, is that there's more of it and fits nicely in your pocket.
Going back to the gold standard makes as much sense as going back to whale oil lanterns and stone chisseled books.
No! Please don't change the banking system!!
No! Please don’t change the banking system!!!
I'd like to let the nation slow down catch a breath - dig out of the debt and let the people solve their own problems cause big brother government keeps making more problems.
Of course they voted for it in the voting booths. We all know about your aversion to democracy.
If we keep electing repugs we can make sure to cause the "insolvency" of Social Security. Otherwise, it's just fine. What if we actually paid back the over 2 trillion dollars that have been "borrowed" from it over the past few decades?
I think the military is insolvent. It represents over 50% of the federal budget. The problem with all of those multi-trillion dollar global wars we fund, is that they're fought to ensure the PROFIT of all of those libertarian big oil corporations who'd like nothing more than for "big government" to stop regulating or taxing them altogether.
It's no coincidence paul is from Texas.
While I respect the writer's need/desire to have parents and agree with the activist spirit of US Uncut (to influence the parental body), I disagree with both the writer's and organization's actions to dictate WHO my "parents" [guidance, morals, ethics, et cetera] should be.
I no longer trust the government at a local, state & national level. I have little faith that I & 20,000 similarly minded individuals can consistently monitor & prevent my "parents" from allowing [McDonald's, Monsanto] as a lunch program-I prefer to brownbag it.
I don't trust Mommy & Daddy determine the quality & content of my education, even as a foundation or direction for a better understanding, appreciation & relationship to the world. I believe my interests ( and subsequent efforts) are best defined by me, the person who has them.
I doubt the parental oversight advocated is interested & active when preventing the pollution of my air & water. Rather than Mommy & Daddy getting 401(k) & IRA contributions or better jobs, I would like to sue those that willingly endanger/damage my environment.
There are other reasons that I don't trust Mommy & Daddy, especially YOUR Mommy & Daddy, but I have to get some new big boy pants & I believe I have a responsibility to regularly demonstrate my personal willingness to respectfully occupy & share the playground with some measure of empathy & humility.
Replace the words "Mommy and Daddy" with legally agreed on laws supported by American voters and you'll understand the disingenuousnes s of paul and his son rant's argument.
You have a badly mangled view of what libertarians actually believe in. Libertarians do very strongly believe in the right to bring suits against those who infringe on our rights. This includes suits against polluters. I know of NO libertarian thinker who believes otherwise.
And in case your view was informed by Ayn Rand (who did praise dirty air and dirty water), Ms. Rand would have been horrified to hear herself referred to as a libertarian -- she hated libertarians and she said so in many different settings. Ms. Rand was a full-blown conservative.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
I've said it before: PAUL'S BIGGEST POLITICAL OPPONENT IS YOUTUBE.
What's this "REAL libertarian" remark? I am a real libertarian and have been one since 1972. I have worked with and socialized with virtually every libertarian thinker in the US. I know of not one who believes that we shouldn't have the right to sue for pollution violations. Even the anarchistic edge of the movement believes that one should have the right to sue in the private courts that they espouse.
Please tell me who this REAL libertarian you are talking about is?
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
Case in point: paul is against federal regulation ensuring voting rights, but claims he's against the Jim Crow laws enacted by STATE governments to prevent people from voting.
He can't have it both ways, but he manages to get by with it. This is where libertarianism in practice clashes with all of the phony rhetoric.
I've never seen you so engaged in the debate. Usually, you just make your comments and make no attempt to defend them. Tonight, however, you've been on the defensive...
...that is, about everything except my assertion that, even though you're NOT a professor, you use the "professorial" name to SOUND LIKE ONE, to lend more weight to your arguments, even though you haven't earned it.
If I'm wrong about your seemingly transparent intentions, might I ask, why are you doing that?
No, rather than complaining about a government that works against us, it's better to take it over through the democratic process and take ownership of it.
Libertarians believe in a government limited to protecting person and property.
For Pollution, theft and other 'economic' crimes we have the courts and they are a legitimate place to get resolution - Personally I would suggest private arbitration first then the courts.
She is a FIRM believer to the contrary.
Perhaps he's been mischaracterize d by many of his self-professed libertarian apostles.
Stop beating them up! Its not fair man. Why don't you tie up a bunch of your brain cells to even the battlefield. I suggest Eagle Rare bourbon. Very nice way to tie up a few brain cells.
I was thinking of jumping in, but damn you are doing great on your own!
Besides, I hate trolls. I feel like I'm giving them a taste of their own medicine.
I'm really not a bad guy in person though. Honest!
"Under libertarian philosophy you don't have the right to sue."... I have never seen a more ignorant statement than this. Where did you think this up? I'm honestly curious how you make this stuff up... it's priceless!
I guess that's what happens when you read garbage like this article, which presents absolutely no facts.
Come on, I know you guys can to better than that... Even the neocon Rick Santorum comes up with better arguments against libertarianism than you guys!
While your comments are great for entertainment, I would encourage you to read up on a subject before you start making such erroneous comments.
Why did you waste the rest of those words?
While you're at it, could you actually explain why I'm wrong? If you can, it'll probably take less time than it took manage all of that empty snark.
Okay, why are you wrong?
I'll keep it short... Under libertarian philosophy you have the right to sue.
Your philosophy of the absence of regulation equating to the absence of justice is flawed. There has never existed a libertarian who did not believe in a justice system. 100% guaranteed.
Your philosophy would take away the "restrictions" and "regulations" - i.e. laws that polluters could be held accountable, and replace them with the idea that judges and jurrors can just make up laws because something doesn't appear "just".
If you want the ability to sue, you must FIRST have the ability to legislate rules, regulations, laws, or whatever you want to call them.
I can sue you for wearing a yellow shirt, but as long as it's legal, my lawsuit would be frivolous.
The judicial branch can determine whether the actions of one have infringed upon the rights of another. You cannot make laws against everything, but you can protect basic human rights and basic property rights. Thus, if the coal factory down the street is polluting the water and air of the townsfolk, they can sue and obtain restraints, forcing the factory to change it's ways, move it's location, or be shut down (and be compensated for damages).
Now, please admit that you were wrong in saying that libertarians do not believe in the right to sue. I would gain some respect for you if you can admit a mistake.
You're ABSOLUTELY WRONG however, concerning the rights of individuals to sue against polluters, when the pollution itself is not illegal.
Now please grow up and stop repeating the exact same garbage in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.
And by the way, I don't need your respect. You obviously don't have any to give, and I'm not arguing with you to "win you over".
This isn't YouTube. You won't win arguments here by wearing people out with your snarky attitude.
You admonish him to grow up... but I think he's too old to grow up! He's also flown over the cuckoo's nest and he ain't comin' back any time soon.
The main reason we are seeing this flood of anti-Paul rhetoric (including numerous misstatements of his views) is that it threatens Obama's re-election. But Obama's re-election would not be threatened if he were not a phony, had he not extended the Bush tax cuts he promised to let expire, had he not increased America's bombing campaigns, had he not backed increased domestic surveillance and other police state activities.
It's pretty pathetic to go after Ron Paul because the incumbent Democrat betrayed his supporters and now wants us to vote for him again anyhow. But he's lost me, and millions of others.
Ron Paul would be most likely to become President if the dollar first becomes worthless, and all Paul's warnings become I told you so. But I don't think under those circumstances an old man without any insider contacts would be best for what is left of the job.
Maby I wrong as the US tries to quickly leave the Afghan War, because the soldiers aren't being paid, Al Qaeda might try to seize them as hostages demanding good in exchange not worthless dollars, except if Paul was in charge of the collapsing country. The unpaid soldiers would be listening instead of mutinying because they all like Ron Paul.
Meanwhile during the campaign season the more votes Ron Paul gets the less likely there will be war with Iran, more likely to end the embargo on Cuba and if it's one to one with Obama, Americans even before election day with be retiring to sunny Cuba for their health care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zGDisyWkIBM
He also predicted the housing bubble and financial crisis of 2008.
Ron Paul's campaign is aimed chiefly at challenging the ongoing stupidity and lack of ethics in American foreign policy. I think he has stated on many occasions that he would not put much effort into overturning existing safety nets.
In my opinion, the current president has much to answer for and needs a challenger that will force him to articulate his positions vis-a-vis Constitutional rights of citizens and the misuse of military power. So I'm for Ron Paul until and unless Mr. Obama has some second thoughts on his actions and policies.
The amusing necessary moral reversal is the most greedy of the greedy are the anti-individual collectivist.
They are damning their victims for daring to be self responsible and productive in a voluntary order - as if those are shameful traits and before those words leave their selfish greedy collectivist mouths it is followed by a demand to enslave those 'greedy people' so the kind caring progressives can selflessly redistribute the goods and services created by and for others.
The real cult is the one of greed and lust for what others have accomplished and created as if another's productivity automatically grants every one else a claim upon their life and production.
The real cult is the cult of
From each slave according to his ability to each master according to their need.
Are you refering to the greed and lust for more and more profit by the global corporations with a "libertarian" agenda? Are you refering to the fact that the productivitiy of American workers goes into a black hole of unregulated and untaxed personal profit for people who's only income comes from investing money they already have, and have never actually WORKED for any of it?
If not, go back to the 19th century where you belong.
And get your twist of Marx's slogan correct: From each worker slave according to his ability to each capitalist master according to their needs.
You are incorrect. And religion is irrelevant to the discussion. Paul's commitment is to Enlightenment principles informed by Austrian economics and individualist thinkers over the past couple of centuries. Rand was a romantic, largely unschooled in the niceties of economics and philosophy, but with a fervent anti-authoritar ian streak stoked by a communist childhood.
Paul and Rand do share some ideas in common but they also have/had many ideas that are diametrically opposed to one another.
Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
I am NOT a libertarian, and Ayn Rand can go to hell as far as I'm concerned, but even a broken watch is right twice a day. We need less intrusive federal government: Homeland Security/TSA, MIC and Endless Wars, Drug Wars, etc...
I don't think we should get rid of social security either, especially since we already PAID FOR IT.
But under Obama we get sold the IDEA of stopping war, and Main St. before Wall St., but we are given Bush III.
The author is really just doing a hit piece on RP. e.g. he says that RP would be helping the banks, when I believe RP's ideology would allow them to fail.
Also, RP is for bringing ALL the troops home now. Why don't we hear about that from the MIC dominated media?
I'm not a Libertarian, but I definitely can get behind eliminating drug laws, stopping wars, and cutting out wasteful FEDERAL government.
Actually as an Austrian economist he is quite aware - and if you started listening TO Dr Paul rather then the people who falsely talk About Dr Paul you would know that.
Regulatory capture is inevitable consequence of government agencies created to control an industry becomes a natural target for those industries to control - often the regulations end-up protecting the entrenched and strangling start-ups and when these industries fail - then they run to government (we the tax payers) with their hat in their hands begging for bail outs
(with our newly distributed tax dollars as lobbying contributions keeping the good politicians they bought)
Obama and Romney are such politicians
I disagree that regulatory capture is inevitable. Better laws could prevent this. e.g. remove the option of the revolving door and punish bribery more heavily.
The Libertarian view is shortsighted because it doesn't recognize a proper place for government. I don't believe that "free markets" can exist without some level of intervention. Monopolies are bad for business, but these are the natural result of markets left to run themselves.
I've listened to Ron Paul. I would easily vote for Paul over Obama. I think that is why TPTB don't want Paul to run against Obama.
Ron Paul says things that sound good. His public persona can be appealing, as it was in his speech following the NH primary last night. His view on ending the wars is enticing.
None of this changes the truth of your observations. There are several good comments describing the dangerous consequences of Ron Paul's philosophy of government. I couldn't find them as I scrolled back through this thread, but yours says it as concisely as any.
"The powers delegated…to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite… The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people."
I, as a libertarian, do not believe in anarchism (although there are radical libertarians who do believe this... they are by far the minority)... I believe in following the constitution and getting the FEDERAL government out of our lives except in the very few functions of which the constitution allows it to take charge.
Please make an argument in favor of the position that Madison wanted the federal government involved in education, medical care, etc etc etc...
I'm just curious why you love one quote from Madison, which on the surface backs up your views... but you dislike another quote from Madison which further explains to which "government" he was referring.
We are seeking after truth here, correct?
The Department of Education never did a thing to make my job as a high school instructor more effective. I submit to you that Dr. Paul is correct in wanting to shut down this useless bureaucracy. Education should be a matter for the states, not something run by a quasi-soviet centralized national system.
Ron Paul opposed the bail outs.
Ron Paul opposes the FED that gives away literally TRILLIONS to low friends in high places.
//What is this guy arguing? Okay... if the free market had been regulating things the big banks would have failed, their assets would have been liquidated and bought by small solvent banks, and the recovery could begin.//
Yes - Ron Paul has been arguing for liquidation of bad assets - allowing the market to recover.
He was predicting the market collapse years before it happened and pointing his finger at government meddling for creating the market bubble...reward ing the failing bankers with tax payer monies is an expensive insult added to injury.
I submit you personally became aware during Reagan's Era or your just parroting a democrat talking point.
Actually That game is much older.
Earlier (then when I was Born) Ike was warning us of the Military industrial Complex - He saw First Hand fascism at work - and centuries before that Adam Smith in the "Wealth of Nations"talked about Merchantilism - today we would call that corporatism.
Paul will never be the "lesser" of two evils, unless he's running against Santorum. I have no problem with liberals voting for Anderson. You're not throwing away your vote, if you wouldn't have voted otherwise. Just don't be sucker punched by the manipulations of ron paul and his internet army.
I don't have an answer. I do wish, however, that those getting hysterical about Paul because they think Obama's so good would take an honest look at his terrible presidency.
Now that's completely false.
The GOP candidate will DEFINITELY be a lunatic, unless it's huntsman, and what are the odds of that happening?
I think huntsman's slogan should be "at least he's sane". That could turn things around for him when compared to his opponents.
Come on people, time to wake up and realize that the Republicans and Democrats are both in it to win it with the banks.
I'd really enjoy seeing comments on this from Todd Williams and kelly.
Thank you for imparting your knowledge about elections not being won on a single issue... I hope your message gets out to the world before it's too late!
Do me a favor... look up the year the Dept. of Ed. was created... then look at a trend line of education costs until now, and a trend line of how our education compares with the rest of the world. Costs shoot up, quality tanks, and we are poorer and less educated. Sounds like an exceptional institution! And so it is with most government programs.
... and to which secretary of of the Treasury are you referring? Surely not Hank Paulsen... he worked for Goldman Sachs just like half the people in Obama's cabinet. Maybe you were confused because Paul O'Neill worked for the Rand Corporation? Let's hope you are more intelligent than that. His other Secretary of Treasury was John W. Snow, who was far from libertarian.
Thanks for giving more proof of your lack of any credibility.
How about you and Billy Bob respond to my point about Obama and his banker pals? I dislike Bush as much as you do and I think he's one of the worst Presidents in history. By the way, I think one of the best Presidents was Grover Cleveland, a democrat. So please spare me the Bush vs. Obama nonsense... we are under Bush's 3rd term as far as I'm concerned.
OBAMA IS FAR TOO CONSERVATIVE.
Now, how will MORE conservatism solve that?
Unfortunately for me, I'm unwilling to vote for a single issue at the cost of all others.
I'm unwilling to make a comprimise with ron paul on everything I believe in, just in the hopes that, THIS TIME, he's telling the truth with his seductive and selective language about foreign wars.
Personally, I think he'd need those troops back home to police the streets of HIS new brand of America. If people hate fascism, they'll be BLINDSIDED under president paul!
Dr Paul wont just kick them off the government gravy train - he will scrap the government gravy train and stop forcing the little guy to foot the bill.
End the FED!
If there were no other countries left to take over for personal profit, the right would still claim we cannot afford ONE DOLLAR for public schools, Social Security, Medicare, environmental oversite, or anything else that threatens their possibility of gaining obscene profits at the cost to American citizens.
The cuts to these programs are part of an endless struggle that began as soon as the philosophy behind those programs was first enacted. Benjamin Franklin created the first PUBLIC libraries and the right-wing STILL considers him unAmerican for having done that.
If he's the only other choice, I would possibly vote for him over Romney and Obama as a protest vote. However, Gary Johnson may be running libertarian, so he'll get my vote in that scenario.
So will you vote for Rocky over Obama in November? Just curious...
If my choice in the end is between Obama, romney, Anderson and paul, my choice would depend on the polls. If it's close between Obama and romney or paul, I'd vote for Obama. If Anderson is polling near the top I'd vote for Anderson. If paul is polling near the top, I'd vote for ANYONE available who I believe could keep him out of office - even if that meant voting for romney.
If we had a multi-party electoral process I'd vote for Anderson. Since we don't, in the end, I'll probably vote for Obama.
What if paul isn't on the ticket in November? What then? What if your choice is between Anderson, Obama, romney, and whoever represents the nazi party? Since that's a VERY REAL possibility, what do you plan to do in that contingency? Will you throw away your vote writing in "paul", even if that helps Obama win?
Anderson, Obama, Romney... I'd have to look into Anderson, who I know very little about. I don't think I'd waste the time writing anyone in. I don't trust Romney or Obama.
"Ron Paul defends Romney, lashes out at critics"
Do I smell a vice-presidenti al bid in the making? Do you still plan to hate romney as much with paul as his running mate?
You are clearly anti-Paul for the sake of being anti-Paul.
I dislike Obama a lot, but if he does something good, like pull out of Iraq, I can give him credit. Again, that is why you're having problems with the truth... you search for any possible argument against anything I bring up.
Let's try a pretty simple one... Did Ron Paul call the housing bubble before most people were even talking about it? (google "Ron Paul predicts housing bubble in 2003"). Let's see if you can give an honest answer.
Here's another one... Did Obama and Biden brag about using Jon Corzine to help come up with their economic recovery plan? I guess that one will be a little too easy since you have your beefs with Obama.
Just curious to see how you answer (or if you avoid the questions completely).
Do you want to be able to choose your insurance company? Or your dentist? That is all Romney was saying, and his enemies took it completely out of context to portray him as ruthless. Ron Paul, despite being an opponent of Romney, saw this and told the truth.
Thank you for being the messenger of Paul's honesty and integrity! I'm glad you are finally coming around.
His "honesty and integrity" have allowed him to go from a sworn enemy of romney and all he stands for, to a collaborator. I find that pretty interesting.
By the way, the stupidity of romney's comment was in the fact that you don't "choose" your insurance company. They choose you, and if they don't want you, you're screwed.
I know you're trying to make a point... but let's lose the straw-man distractions. If you don't like your dentist can you fire him and choose someone else. Listen to Romney's quote that is what he was talking about.
How is telling the truth now considered collaboration? Paul also said that Obama was wise to pull out of Iraq and ease sanctions on Iran. Is he conspiring to become Obama's VP?
I enjoy debate with honest liberals. Can we practice some honesty here?
Hey Carl, ever read the definition of libel? Your entire article is right on the border of it.
libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative image.
You routinely make a statement of FACT, when it is actually your opinion.
"Too-big-to-fail banks like Wells Fargo, Citi, Chase and Bank of America would be allowed to merge"
And here is crystal clear proof that you know nothing about Ron Paul. They would have been allowed to FAIL! It's called bankruptcy! It used to be part of "capitalism." Today, no one even knows what that is.
Perhaps in 5-10,000 years - if we make it - humans will evolve to a state of consciousness where we will all play nice with each other, where rules won't be needed because we all share everything and people won't steal and cheat. And major corporations won't care as much about maximizing short term profits as much as they care about making their employees happy and being good citizens.
But that's easily 5000 years off. In the meantime, get rid if Ron and Rand Paul - they are dangerous lunatics.
Jeff Daiell
Suggested reading: Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, by Max Eastman; When Money Dies, by Adam Fergusson.
You are correct, however we live under that system. Ever heard of the Federal Reserve... that's where it "trickles" down from. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who wants to fix this...
You're first point basically makes no sense since the branch of government that deals with these problems isn't even the executive branch, it's the judicial branch.
Your second point does make sense. College students dependent on the pell grants would be forced to make sacrifices. No argument there, but the key word you use is DEPENDENT. The reason students are dependent on grants is because COLLEGE IS TOO EXPENSIVE! Why is college too expensive? Too understand this you need to know a little bit of economics. Grants create demand. More demand means the price goes up, when the price goes up, more students will need grants, and you're stuck in a never ending inflation spiral. If you want to know more on this subject check out the video "college conspiracy" at inflation.us
Your third really hits home to me because the effects of pestisides used by companies approved by the FDA have caused my Dad to be diagnosed with parkinsons. To this day he wishes he only ate local food grown by people he knew, instead of putting his trust in the FDA.
Your fourth point is so stupid because banks are aloud to merge and did so after the 2008 financial crisis.
Your fifth point... Social security is insolvent already...
Jeff Daiell
on Iran - wish there were more Ron Pauls - can ANY of the PRESENT (Obama) power elite produce such powerful recording against Iraq/Iran WAR?
Just replace Condoleezza with Hillary - is there a difference? - Hillary is NEOCON.
For instance," Ron Paul's every-individua l-for-themselve s rhetoric appeals to young, radical libertarians with simplistic views of authority, and an ignorance of why government exists in the first place."
1. I would more accurately describe Paul's stance not as "every-individua l-for-themselve s" as allows for every individual to stand by themselves. Difference is that it ALLOWS it, it doesn't FORCE it. Paul's stance ALSO ALLOWS for the freedom of assembly and freedom to organize within their own communities, and (the biggest threat) create and form their own parties that stand for THEIR wants, needs, and beliefs when one doesn't already exist.
2. Paul wants a limited government, not a lack of government. Huge difference this author is conveniently ignoring.
Mind, Ron Paul has no interest in personal liberty unless you are one of "his kind of people". He would deregulate various areas that are "no skin off his". But in any area of significance or which offended his belief system, he'd be ruthless.
To those who warn of "going back to the 19th Century" and "nobody gets rich on their own any more", perhaps they should look at the most recent basic advances in technology: computers and telecommunicati ons, the light bulb and airplane of the modern era, all privately invented and developed. If one wishes to poo-poo the 19th Century, one ought to look closely at the standard of living that preceded the industrial revolution, not the numerous problems created by industrial society and which continue to be corrected, for the most part by private individuals and organizations (e.g. labor unions).
Have none of you heard of an abusive parent? Or government? Who's to say the child/Libertari an is wrong when they want to disown either? While a child rarely has the opportunity to voice her/his opinion, the world is rife with political ideologist who frequently do.
Not only is this article weak for the above stated reasons, you don't even consider what IS wrong with our current government, like torture,corrupt ion, illegal wars of imperialism, state sponsored terrorism (yes!) and on and on...and I'm not just railing on the current POTUS, but all of congress and state, local too!
I have consistently voted Democrat since 2004 (2000 I voted independent) because I couldn't stand what the Bush regime had done. I have no regrets in my past voting record. Yet this year I have my doubts about continuing the Democratic path, after witnessing their performance in receiving the house in 2004 and the presidency AND the house in 2008.
It's stories like this one that seals that fate.
Environment - Paul has stated * repeatedly* that the Fed Govt has a role to play in protecting the environment. The fact is, the EPA has become a self-serving agency that is not needed in it's current form. Libertarians like Paul advocate the use of *property rights* to protect the environment because if the court's upheld property rights (another valid function of the Fed Govt) then you could enforce even MORE strict environmental protections.
Min. Wage - minimum wage discriminates against low skilled workers. If a business owner has to pay you $7.50/hr but all you can contribute is $6/hr to the business, then he/she is not going to hire you. Instead, if there was no minimum wage, low-skilled laborers would be far likely to be employed and would "get their foot in the door" starting to learn skills that will help them move up the ladder. Minimum wage is tool that was originally advocated mostly by labor unions to protect them against competition by minority, low-skilled labors. The disastrous effects of minimum wage are probably the LEAST understand economic phenomenon in today's society.
"Massey would get off scot-free for polluting Martin County" --> simply not true. Property rights are the cornerstone of libertarian philosophy and if you pollute the property of someone else then the govt would have an obligation to settle the matter in court.
"Millions of college students dependent on Pell grants" --> Why is that? The fact that college tuition keeps going up is because the Fed Govt has got involved in it! When the Govt gives a university X amount of money, most of that money is spent on superfluous items that have nothing to do with increasing the level of education that students are receiving. Then, when the Govt encounters hard times, they cut back the aid to the university and the students eat the difference in cost. Repeat ad infinitum.
"Too-big-to-fail banks....would be allowed to merge and/or buy out their competitors, as would oil giants like ExxonMobil and Chevron, and cellphone service-provide rs like AT&T and Verizon." I don't know where they're getting this from? In a libertarian society, you don't bail out banks, so they don't get to the point where they can buy up other banks so easily. Here are the five steps of corporatism:
1. LargeCorp can't compete for customers, so it lobbies the government to regulate its industry.
2. Federal regulations impose expensive rules LargeCorp lobbied for, planned for, and can afford. But some LargeCorp's competitors can't.
3. With fewer competitors, LargeCorp grows into MegaCorp. It can now afford to buy out other competitors.
4. The people get suspicious of MegaCorps's size and industry consolidation. They demand more government regulation.
5. Repeat steps 2, 3, and 4 indefinitely.
I guess the author feels that we are all children that need Big Brother to help us through life... yuck.
- end the wars. stop being the world's policeman.
- stop the drone attacks on other countries because the blowback is making us less safe.
- get the Fed Govt out of the bedroom - it is none of the Fed Govt's business who can/can't get married
- end the War on Drugs - people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies (Portugal de-criminalized drugs ten years ago and has had a steady decrease in drug usage)
- stop bailing out corporations
- end the ridiculous subsidies to oil, corn, wool, etc, etc, etc.
- don't try to regulate the internet
- don't enact things like the Patriot Act or NDAA, we are supposed to be protected by the 4th Amendment.
- don't hold people indefinitely in Gitmo
- stop allowing the Federal Reserve to ruin our money and bail out the banks and Europe (FYI: the TARP and stimulus were a little over $1trillion, but the Federal Reserve loaned out over $16 trillion to US and European banks at practically zero percent interest....tha t is not capitalism)
The one legitimate and essential function of government, according to the founders, Ron Paul, and Ayn Rand's "objectivism" is to protect individual rights.
The author has not read their writings, obviously, making erroneous judgements on the subject of regulation (among other topics.) I am a Libertarian, and agree that some regulation is necessary - environmental regulations for example.
When a corporation pollutes my water, my rights are violated. Ron Paul (and the constitution) place that power "to the states, or to the people" as it is not an enumerated federal power.
The author confuses Libertarianism (just enough government to keep you most free) with anarchism (no government). Ron would simply relegate many of those functions to the states, or to the people (locally). Not with some despotic neo-king in Washington, Be it a Democrat or Republican crown.
"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." -Lysander Spooner
RSS feed for comments to this post