RSN April 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

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)
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

Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

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.

 

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

 
+33 # BradFromSalem 2012-01-09 08:16
People are smart enough to realize that they really do need regulations and rules. Every child has at one time or another made the "Not fair!" complaint. In reality, that is just what most Americans from the Ron Paul supporters to the Tea Party are saying.

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,
 
 
+39 # Cassandra2012 2012-01-09 16:15
'Simplistic' is not '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.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:38
Maybe it's hypocrit-arian.
 
 
-15 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 18:25
Cassandra - Ron Paul wants to end the racist war on Drugs.

Maybe you should listen TO the man him self rather then the people who talk About him .. If the truth means anything.
 
 
+28 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:02
Here's a few quotes "from the man him self":

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"
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 21:17
He also said that 95% of all black men in D.C. are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

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.
 
 
+15 # maveet 2012-01-10 14:20
And then there are his views on women and their rights concerning their own bodies:

"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."
 
 
+4 # Remedy 2012-01-10 22:46
At the sametime doing away with the civil rights bill, so while they are free from jail they can go back to being kept from businesses. If you think for one second hes doing this to be fair to blacks then i need to drink some of your koolaid. Only reason he wants this done is to save some money on the taxes required to run prisons. Stop the war on drugs for everyone is a good idea and a good economic move. Traveling back in time to the 60s and before will do nothing to improve the American condition.
 
 
+9 # Rita Walpole Ague 2012-01-11 05:48
PAUL'S NO PAL to any and all of us OWSers, civil rights supporters, women with hearts and brains, all of us who want to undo the coup and.....

OCCUPY PEACE,LIBERTY and JUSTICE FOR ALL
 
 
+84 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 08:43
"Food recalls would be a regular occurrence when tainted meat and vegetables hit supermarket shelves and caused record outbreaks of e-coli"

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.
 
 
+68 # Larry 2012-01-09 09:09
Libertarianism is the perfect philosophy for the clusless, narcissistic "it's all about me" generation. However, the function of any decent civilized society depends on cooperation, a sense of social responsibility, and recognition that the liberties and rights of others may impinge on our freedom to do whatever we want. The Rand Pauls of the world would grant business owners, apartment managers, housing developers, and others providing essential goods and services the right to discriminate against anyone they chose; effectively turning baack the civil rights clock 60 years.

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?
 
 
+37 # Todd Williams 2012-01-09 10:50
Did Ron Paul name his son, Rand, after Ayn Rand? What a perfect storm these three make, Ron, Rand, and Ayn
 
 
+7 # BradFromSalem 2012-01-09 11:22
Yes
 
 
-8 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 12:22
No Todd and liberalLibertar ian, Dr Paul did not name his son "Rand" after Ayn Rand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul
 
 
+26 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 14:33
In the most remarkable coincidence of all time.

You don't suppose he's lying do you?
 
 
-4 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 18:53
Billy Bob:

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
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:24
It's pretty convenient that the shortened version happens to be the last name of his prophet, isn't it?
 
 
+7 # goodsensecynic 2012-01-10 04:04
Not Ayn Rand?

Well, how about the Rand Corporation?
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 08:48
You're right! That's probably it.
 
 
+39 # Linda 2012-01-09 09:09
Thank you Carl Gibson for breaking down Ron Paul's disasterous agenda so that these Paulites might understand the outcome that would befall us if Ron Pauls so called Libertarian utopia of every man for himself were inacted as the rule of the land .
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.
 
 
-19 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 18:29
Disastrous agenda - Yea - cutting massive spending before we go bankrupt that is nuts. Having government actually constrained to respecting the rights of citizens -- totally wacky.

I say Stay the course!! Full Steam Ahead - Yes Sir Captain Smith - As we All Know the USS Titanic is TOO big to fail!
 
 
+22 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:05
If you want to cause economic devastation in this country follow Captain Paul's economic outline for no minimum wage, no unemployment insurance, no Medicare, no Social Security, and no oversite over private industry.
 
 
+19 # James38 2012-01-09 22:57
We have an excellent example of just how that works. Apple products and those of many other electronic equipment companies are made in a gigantic Taiwanese owned factory in China, Foxconn. Poisoning from industrial chemicals, injuries from unregulated machinery, and worker suicides inspired by awful conditions and low wages are common. Many factories in China are run in this way - and also remember the addition of lethal chemicals to milk products for human infants and to pet foods, both of which caused much death and injury. Perhaps candidate Paul could be confronted with these abuses, and asked what he thinks would or could or even should be done about them? This sort of abuse is inevitable in an unregulated society. Unfortunately the development of responsibility and respect for one's fellow human has not kept pace with the "modern" world. I suppose that candidate Paul would prefer to leave climate change to the care of the market as well? We can already see what that brings - more drilling, fracking, coal mines and disasters, and lots of denial of the worst problem the Earth faces. And China is in direct cahoots with Canada's current World destroying government. Burn the Tar Sands oil, who cares if it hastens the onset of major destruction, we want our profits NOW. Just Sign Here, Mr Paul, and we will contribute lots of TarSand money to your campaign. Ron Paul, the best world (destroying) candidate money can buy!!
 
 
+26 # rsnfan 2012-01-09 09:14
But his stop the war machine message is so enticing.
 
 
+47 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 11:00
So enticing, in fact, that many on the left are willing to sacrifice every other thing our country claims to care about.

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.
 
 
+31 # Cassandra2012 2012-01-09 16:21
[quote name="Billy Bob"]So enticing, in fact, that many on the left are willing to sacrifice every other thing our country claims to care about....]

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.
 
 
+38 # Middle Molly 2012-01-09 20:00
I can't tell you how many times I've replied to Paulbots with comments such as "Did you sleep through American history class?" The reason that we enacted most of these laws and set up most of these agencies was because of the kinds of situations and the kinds of abuse that were prevalent before the EPA, Department of Labor, EEOC, etc. Why are so many happy to let this country go backwards?
 
 
+11 # Munx1987 2012-01-10 14:02
You should read "The people history of the United States" then you can talk about American history.
 
 
+33 # allie 2012-01-09 09:29
Ron Paul won't ever become the flavor of the week. Each republican candidate has been there and done that and still Romney will prevail to run against Obama. For me, it is most important that the Dems retain a Senate majority and pick up every possible seat in the House. Otherwise there is not much Obama will accomplish in his second term.
 
 
-1 # Munx1987 2012-01-10 14:02
Maybe he can add another 5 trillion in debt again.
 
 
-8 # paulkinzelman 2012-01-09 09:44
While I find many of Ron Paul's views troubling, I find even more of Obama's views even more troubling - and I speak as somebody who spent a huge amount of time helping to get Obama elected. We need to triage the repair of our political system, and to me, the most important things are ending corporate personhood and removing the money from politics - what is becoming the main goal of many of us in OWS. Once we do that, we can work on the huge number of other problems. I think Ron Paul is more aligned with these first-level problem solutions than Obama is.
 
 
+20 # Todd Williams 2012-01-09 10:54
[quote name="paulkinze lman"]While I find many of Ron Paul's views troubling, I find even more of Obama's views even more troubling." Have you lost your mind. Obama's views more troubling? In my wildest imagination I don't see it. Please rethink this ignorant take on these two men. I think you'll see the error of your comments.
 
 
-7 # paulkinzelman 2012-01-09 13:47
No, I don't agree. If you look at how many promises Obama has broken, perhaps you'll understand that Obama is just another corporate shill. Ron Paul has been consistent for decades. In fact, I challenge you to come up with any major policies that are different between bush and Obama: they're both in wars, both threw money at Wall Street with nothing for Wall Street, etc.

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.
 
 
+21 # Middle Molly 2012-01-09 20:07
Actually, if you look at Politifact or Factcheck, which keep track of such things, you will see that Obama is doing pretty well in terms of promises kept. Do you have any idea as to how the governing process works in this country?

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.
 
 
+14 # BradFromSalem 2012-01-10 06:06
MM,

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.
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 08:56
You're right. An overwhelming number of the "independents" I hear do seem to be repugs who just can't come to terms with all that entails. Either that, or they're just pretending to be moderate.

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".
 
 
+4 # BradFromSalem 2012-01-10 13:03
BB, love that ditto comment. Forgot to mention his contributions.
 
 
-7 # Munx1987 2012-01-10 14:08
Wait Molly... did he get the lobbyists out of washington like he said he would. Oh wait no they have MORE power now...
 
 
+2 # Pickwicky 2012-01-11 14:07
Munx--do you think US Presidents wield the same powers as kings?
 
 
+2 # X Dane 2012-01-11 14:39
We don't have a HERCULES yet. That's what we need, for the lobbyists are too entrenched. You and paulkinzelman are incredibly negative.
 
 
-10 # Munx1987 2012-01-10 14:07
You are correct paulkinzelman
 
 
-3 # Munx1987 2012-01-10 14:06
Todd if you don't find Obama's views troubling I'm afraid. Do you even know about the new detention law Obama signed into law. Go read it and then tell me Ron Paul is troubling to you...
 
 
+48 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 10:58
This isn't a triage situation. This is a situation where every piece of the puzzle is important. It's amazing how much people are willing to voluntarily just give up, to go along with someone promising them ONE thing they want.

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.
 
 
+12 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 18:57
Billy Bob:

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
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:30
Is paul telling the truth about the newsletters that surfaced, which he himself claims he "contributed to", but had no idea their purpose was racist?

He's a politician. He alters his views every time one of them pushes the wrong buttons. It's part of his m.o.
 
 
+5 # Pickwicky 2012-01-11 14:15
Hi Billy--you may remember that when Paul ran in 2008, those racist columns published under his name came up for scrutiny. Paul made the same claim he's making now--I didn't do it. Tra-La. It worked so well then, he's using it again. He ain't stupid! But his supporters are for allowing him to get away with it twice.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-11 16:16
I think many of his supporters are the same people they were 4 years ago. It's not that they're letting him get away with anything. It's dog whistle politics. One of the primary motivations for all conservative philosophy in this country (including so-called "libertarianism ") is still racism. If the truth be told, the thing that really irks them about anything that smacks of "welfare" is the idea that some of the recipients of that aid would have a skin color conservatives consider inferior.

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.
 
 
+41 # DanuMaidu 2012-01-09 13:55
Citizen's United and Corporate Personhood are why I became in my local Occupy movement. I agree that we cannot fix our political system without addressing money in politics and the rights of corporations,bu t voting for Ron Paul simply because you think he'll be the easiest means of accomplishing those goals is like throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water. We have *huge* social justice issues to address in this country, and Ron Paul runs completely contrary to any of those goals.
 
 
-6 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 18:32
Dude - who do you thinks funds the 1%...

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.
 
 
+19 # James38 2012-01-10 07:00
Martin, Dude, the 1% doesn't GET funded, they have the funds. It is essentially what they are, and they defend their "right" to control everything because they think having the power they have makes every little thing they think absolutely correct. I work for a rich guy who has that attitude. It causes him a lot of trouble, because the people he looks down on, and hires as cheaply as possible, have no respect for him because they are nowhere near as stupid as he thinks they are. He gets screwed constantly for his lack of humanity and respect. Obama has made lots of mistakes, but it is because of a different kind of short-sightedne ss, and he is not one of them. The Cordray appointment may indicate he is waking up, and I think we can hope he will start acting more the way a lot of us expected him to act from the beginning. In any case, he is WAY better than any of the ridiculous Repug candidates, and we better get to work making sure he is re-elected. Also, vote in Warren and a Congress he can work with.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 08:53
At this point I don't care what Obama's motivations are to do the right thing, so long as he does. He's starting to. I don't care about the fact that he's cynically attempting to gain back votes. The fact is, at least he wants those votes.

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.
 
 
+15 # Middle Molly 2012-01-09 20:04
Where is your source that Obama is not also for ending corporate personhood, getting money out of politics, etc.? And, as Paul is a libertarian, why in the world do you think he would support a law to limit the influence of money, corporate or otherwise, in politics? He himself may not take that much corporate money, but it is unlikely, based on what he believes, that he would ever support the kind of Constitutional amendment that we need. So, again: Where is your source that Obama is against getting money out of politics and where is your source that Paul would support such a movement?
 
 
+30 # Todd Williams 2012-01-09 09:47
Carl, you obviously are not one of those young, radical libertarians to whom Paul appeals. Writing like this buoys my hope in young journalists. Good job, Carl, and right on track. Your musings on Paul mirror that of the New Hampshire newspaper who calls him one of the most dangerous people in America. Neither this man nor his son must never be allowed near the front door of the White House.
 
 
-26 # JacksonMM 2012-01-09 12:51
Todd... Your buddy Carl just spews a lot of nonsense and backs it up with more nonsense. His article doesn't give one piece of historic evidence, and he doesn't even back up his speculation with rational logic. He didn't even bother to study Ron Paul's stances on many issues, nor does he give solutions the problems he brings up (many of these problems were created by the government in the first place).

I'm sorry you've placed your hope for journalism in this guy.
 
 
-11 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 18:33
I see JacksonMM you got whacked a lot of points because you want the author and other folks to use facts and not idiot name calling .. that is way too rational for American politics.
 
 
-67 # winson 2012-01-09 09:47
Somehow, I think you are the 6 year old. Ron Paul has dealth with life and death issues for over fifty years. He served in the military and has studied economics intensely. Government regulation is killing America. Too many rules, too much force.
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.
 
 
+34 # Todd Williams 2012-01-09 10:56
Wrong. Wrong. And dead wrong. Your dangerous views of Paul's philosophy are the product of an obviously mininformed mind. You and your ilk are as dangerous and Paul.
 
 
+29 # GeeRob 2012-01-09 11:23
Give us an example or 2 of what you consider "onerous government requirements." And those requirements are on which citizens, Citizens United?
 
 
+47 # kelly 2012-01-09 12:20
Oh, oh, can I answer that? I heard Ron Paul yesterday on the Sunday talk show when they asked him about property rights and regulations. It was asked of Paul if he believed that the Civil Rights Act which forced business owners to open their doors to serve customers, despite their race and to provide them not with separate but equal facilities but the same facilities was unconstitutiona l. It was an unnecessary law because people are "beyond that now. It should be a matter of common sense." However he never answered the question. Why? I thought, we have laws against murder, it is a comon sense thing, we all know it shouldn't be done, but there is always a fringe element that will go against the rule. I feel like more people are more inclined to break the racist rule than the murder law which is why we need it. It is more often broken. The penalty is not the same but it should be on the books and be enforced. He is a bigot and like all bigots, he is outwardly in denial to all but his inner circle. If I asked anyone else do you think separate but equal as a law is good for business and/or society? would it be a one word answer or a qualification? Come clean, you dirty little man.
 
 
+14 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:25
BEAUTIFULLY CONSTRUCTED ARGUMENT. THANK YOU FOR ADDING TO THIS CONVERSATION!
 
 
-17 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 18:35
Kelly - name one candidate beside Dr Ron Paul who wants to end the racist war on Drugs?
 
 
+23 # kelly 2012-01-09 20:22
Name one candidate other than Paul who was a speaker at the Birch Society. Name one who called MLK day Hatey Whitey Day. Name another one who called Barbara Jordan the Texas Representative on the Committee that was investigating Watergate a whiner. And tell me if he voted for McGovern in 1972; I worked on his campaign. McGovern was anti-war and he wanted to decriminalize.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:31
Are you saying this election is all about legalizing pot to you?

By the way, have you checked out Rocky Anderson? Is he not repuglican enough for ya?
 
 
0 # dorianb@fuse.net 2012-01-13 13:30
BB:Good Point!
 
 
+36 # artful 2012-01-09 09:57
Everyone needs to think, libertarians are basically anarchists by a fancier name. So, if you can conjure up anarchy in America, you'll love Ron Paul.
Oh, and there is a model in the world for Ron Paul's America--it's called Afghanistan.
 
 
-21 # futhark 2012-01-09 11:28
Anarchy is commonly misconstrued as being synonymous with chaos. Actually, it is the antithesis of chaos. A truly anarchical society would be one in which everyone would exercise extreme caution not to offend or infringe upon the rights of others. This is unlikely to happen with a grab-while-the- grabbing-is-pos sible culture that we have in America.

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.
 
 
+11 # PGreen 2012-01-09 12:43
When you refer to Anarchism as a political form, note that there are many forms of it: anarchist-commu nists, libertarian socialists, etc. Many of these philosophies are not what most people might think.
 
 
-7 # William Bjornson 2012-01-09 16:35
PGreen - "Many of these philosophies are not what most people might think."

Not to be contentious, really, but a "philosophy" can only be whatever 'people' think it is.
 
 
+3 # PGreen 2012-01-09 18:30
WB-- Though I meant Philosophies in the formal sense, as in philosophical doctrine, I bow to your masterful syntax! (Perhaps I should have capitalized it Hopefully you understood what I meant to say.)
 
 
+2 # James38 2012-01-10 07:15
"Many of these philosophies are not what most people might think." Are we supposed to think we know what this means? This kind of "meaning by innuendo" sets my teeth on edge. I do not know what you mean, and I would appreciate you telling us, instead of stuffing your implication that we agree with some obscure implication down our throats. It shouldn't satisfy you either, since you sound as if you probably do have some information, or at least opinions.
 
 
-2 # PGreen 2012-01-10 08:48
Easy guy. I simply agreed that the doctrine of anarchism is not synonymous with chaos, and suggested a way to make that clearer. If you want to understand the variations, I suggest you look them up. Sorry to hear about your teeth.
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:07
Paul has absolutely no intention to "limit the extent STATE government can be used to compel certain behaviors" - even when the means states use to compel citizens are unconstitutiona l.

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.
 
 
-9 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 19:03
Billy Bob:

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
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:34
"What law are you referring to where the government stuck up for the rights of individuals and Paul complained about it?"

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?
 
 
-12 # Martintfre 2012-01-10 11:59
BB - as usual you get it wrong.
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?
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 13:09
A) "Rosa Parks" is one of paul's personal heroes! Yeah! Now we can move on past all of the racist remarks he's on record for saying! (note: sarcasm)

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.
 
 
+7 # kelly 2012-01-10 18:18
Spot on, Mr. BB!
 
 
+4 # ABen 2012-01-11 08:10
Well said Billy!
 
 
+10 # kelly 2012-01-09 20:23
1.Right to choose.
2.Civil Rights.
 
 
-3 # William Bjornson 2012-01-09 16:28
futhark - The last time anarchy actually worked for Homo sp. was among the Neandertals who had craniums ~300 cc larger than our own and held us off for thousands of years. Even after our own brains had shrunk to current size indicating the maturity of our inherent hierarchical army ant universal social structure, they were able to hold us off. Anarchy has power but requires a larger brain to sustain it. Our own structure becomes unstable if average intelligence becomes too high as you might imagine a Homo sap society composed of only individuals from the high end of our own distribution. Our trick is unthinking obedience and inability to escape initial programming which gives us the mass commitment to do whatever we are 'ordered' to do, invariably to try to wipe out the guy next door and take his stuff. Rome was the perfect demonstration of this in recorded history in its ability to overcome the maybe more powerful but less organized peoples it prayed upon. Humanzees are not collectively intelligent enough to support anarchy. Again, our species specific trick is 'organization', that is, mindless obedience. It's worked for 60 million years for Formicidae and it's working for Homo. The higher end of the Humanzee distribution is maintained only for adaptability. Sorry.
 
 
+5 # Pickwicky 2012-01-11 14:42
William Bjornson--If 'the Neandertals (sic) held us off for thousands of years,' then the Neanderthals, for whom you claim anarchy 'worked, were in fact organized, disciplined, committed, took orders--in short, obedient. Sorry, William, but your theory swallows itself by the tail.
 
 
+8 # Ken Hall 2012-01-09 18:00
I think it was Madison who wrote, and I hope I am not mangling his words. "If all men were angels, government would not be necessary."
 
 
+11 # Krulick 2012-01-10 07:40
Good Call!
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)
 
 
+21 # elmont 2012-01-09 11:33
You are too kind. The place is not called Afghanistan--it 's called Somalia.
 
 
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 14:37
Afghanistan under Taliban control would work too. The point is that anarchy leads to local feifdoms run by warlords. Our country is doing business with those war lords in Afghanistan right now. Somalia may be a more perfect example, but Afghanistan is what happens when conservativism has its way exclusively - first Muslim conservatism, then oil-based conservatism.
 
 
-14 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 20:55
BB your clueless -- anarchy is not rule by theocracy any more then fascism is anarchy .. the only commonality to both is they despise individual freedom -
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:
Afghanistan under Taliban control would work too. The point is that anarchy leads to local feifdoms run by warlords. Our country is doing business with those war lords in Afghanistan right now. Somalia may be a more perfect example, but Afghanistan is what happens when conservativism has its way exclusively - first Muslim conservatism, then oil-based conservatism.



you have no idea what your talking about
 
 
+3 # kelly 2012-01-10 07:08
No. But either are usually the direct result of Anarchy or anarchy followed by one or the other. Take a look at Hitler's rise, WWI, what is happening under the new rulers in Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya. Depending on if they get their acts together in Egypt...
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.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 09:00
My clueless what?
 
 
-28 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 09:59
Aside from misrepresenting Paul's views on the environment and other issues, this insulting article also misunderstands the philosophical "justification for government" arguments. One suspects that the author is too young to have read the critical books: John Rawls' Theory of Justice and Bob Nozick's Anarchy State and Utopia.

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
 
 
+14 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 10:49
"Aside from misrepresenting Paul's views on the environment and other issues, this insulting article also misunderstands the philosophical "justification for government" arguments"

-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.
 
 
-9 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 12:21
Billy Bob:

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
 
 
+29 # Doc Mary 2012-01-09 14:07
That actually happened. States developed extremely different political cultures and societies after the 1790s, depending on whether slavery was legal or not. The result? The slave states got paranoid enough about their diminishing power in the Senate to secede, resulting in the War between the States.

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?
 
 
-12 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 20:59
//Instead, when the Democratic Party adopted civil rights as a goal //

When the Democrats FINALLY came to the table set by the republicans 100 years before and patiently waited on for 10 decades..
 
 
+8 # kelly 2012-01-10 07:13
Yeah. Funny how when the democrats did embrace the civil rights, all the dixie crats ran headlong for the republican party.
 
 
-13 # Martintfre 2012-01-10 12:03
Yea Like Robert KKK Byrd - who in 2008 Bill Clinton rationalized Byrds Klan activities as ok because he was doing what was necessary to get ahead.


It amuses me to see how hard the dems try to evade their past.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 09:03
Democcrats like Strom Thurman...

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?
 
 
+20 # doubledownrob 2012-01-09 15:26
Quoting lnason@umassd.edu:

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


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.
 
 
+20 # doubledownrob 2012-01-09 15:32
in continuation of my prior comment:

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.
 
 
+5 # PGreen 2012-01-09 17:04
Nice summary, and quite interesting. Unfortunately, few in the elite 1% ask that question now. There may be some selective blindness in people that prevents us from fairly applying the same logic and standards to those we disassociate with (Chomsky calls the concept "unpeople," probably taken from Orwell)-- as we do to ourselves. The veil of ignorance is an interesting conceptual trick, but very many people believe that they embrace justice and equality even as their actions completely contradict that belief. Regardless of whether they ask such noble questions, many are unwilling to identify with those who suffer. This may be partly because we have a national narrative that strongly reinforces the division between "us and them." (In war, only American deaths matter, and such.)
 
 
-4 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 18:46
doubledown rob

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
 
 
+11 # James38 2012-01-10 08:03
@2Xdwnrob - "a sort of bastardized hybrid of a plutocracy and a technocracy." Great turn of phrase. I have not yet read the two books referenced, but I will do so. I can see it will be useful. The best I could do reading Nason's posts was to get a feeling of something awry, although interesting, and your comment clarified it just fine. Sometimes when I see an "edu" in a posters address, I find that some part of the concept "Ivory Tower" applies.

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.
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:24
1. The reason for federal environmental regulations is to protect people's property from being polluted. Is my own body considered my property to paul? If so, why would paul not mind large corporations polluting my drinking water? Am I correct to assume it's ok with paul to polute the oceans because no one owns them? Or the air we breathe because no one owns that either?

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.
 
 
-3 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 19:15
Billy Bob:

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
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:39
Concerning the Jim Crow laws, why does he oppose the ACTUAL legislation that ended them? While we're at it, why does he have a history of contributing to racist newsletters?

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.
 
 
-4 # William Bjornson 2012-01-09 16:52
Kewl. I always wondered why it was nixon that started the EPA. "Economic benefits and jobs" = corporate freedom! OSHA as an arm of corporate insurance... Keep talking Prof. Nason. I like it. But your last paragraph conflicts with texas...
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 19:51
Lee Nason is not a professor. She's a maintenence engineer at the college. If they need new plumbing, she's the expert.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:59
Here would be a good place to respond to me Lee...
 
 
+12 # Todd Williams 2012-01-09 10:58
Drival again, Nason. Pure drivel. Paul is a dangerous anarchist and should be roundly chastised for his myopic views of American government.
 
 
-10 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 12:22
Todd:

I think you need to present evidence rather than make generalized assertions.

Lee Nason
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:28
You need to present evidence that paul would act differently than his own words would suggest.
 
 
+18 # PGreen 2012-01-09 12:35
Ron Paul has raised some issues in the debate that Republicans don't want to answer; he knows and has stated that the US interventionist policies in the Mid-East is fueling terrorism. (As he said, "Who are we fooling, pretending that we aren't responsible?) For raising such issues, and similar ones, I am glad he is in the race.
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.
 
 
+44 # Fraenkel.1 2012-01-09 09:59
Ron Paul knows exactly what he is doing.
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.
 
 
+10 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 10:51
Exactly! His agenda is no different than that of every libertarian: take away from the public good for personal avarice.
 
 
-16 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 12:31
Fraenkel.1

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
 
 
+25 # PGreen 2012-01-09 13:10
Actually Medicare and Medicaid have a far better track record then the private system, the bureaucracy alone of which is a nightmare. The greater efficiency of public healthcare is so far above the private sector that it isn't even close. People "dieing on the streets" is in large part due to the institutional doors housing the mentally ill being thrown open in the 1980's under Reagan. It lead to a huge increase in the homeless, as no corresponding program addressed this population. Reagan also introduced huge cutbacks to hospitals (thus fewer charity cases), clinics and housing subsidies for the poor, which meant more people on the street. Credit where credit is due.
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.
 
 
+14 # susienoodle 2012-01-09 10:04
Go Carl!!
 
 
-29 # Johnny 2012-01-09 10:05
True that Ron Paul has no understanding of economics, but his opposition to regulation is no worse than that of Obomber and the current "leaders" whose deregulation of banking and insurance, together with wasting our tax money on endless wars for Israel, have destroyed the US economy. At least Paul addresses one of the evils that are destroying the United States and provide a pretext for fascist usurpation of our civil liberties. Obomber addresses none of them at all.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 10:51
It's a question of degrees. Obama is about 75% as bad as paul. I'm unwilling to go that extra 25%.
 
 
+22 # Todd Williams 2012-01-09 11:02
Hate to break your bubble Johnny Boy, but Obama did NOT deregulate banking and insurance nor has he wasted our tax dollars on "endless wars for Israel." I suggest you develop a better grasp on current events before advancing such ignorant comments.
 
 
-6 # JacksonMM 2012-01-09 14:25
Obama spends much more on militarism than Bush ever did.
 
 
+3 # JacksonMM 2012-01-09 16:24
Direct quote from Obama's AIPAC speech in May 2011... "It’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels."
 
 
-1 # Johnny 2012-01-10 23:22
Sorry to disturb your sweet slumbers, Toddy Poo, but Obomber has wasted our tax dollars in endless wars for Israel as even the capitalist media from which you copy your neoconservative view of the world admit. It is a matter of public record, even in the Washington Post and Nazi Public Radio, which now are beating the drums for aggression against Iran, that your beloved Fuehrer escalated the war against Afghanistan, increased aggression against Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Syria, bombed Libya back to the stone age, and as a puppet dangling on AIOPAC's string is about to attack Iran. I understand that the Holocaust means nothing to you because you are not one of its victims. Yet. Give NDAA a while.
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?
 
 
-4 # JacksonMM 2012-01-11 09:27
How dare you bring up legitimate facts and cogent arguments! If you want to be liked in this forum you'd better stick to sophomoric arguments and baseless claims, with a pinch of cluelessness!
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-11 12:12
I like the touch of accusing the rest of "sophomoric arguments" AND calling us "clueless" IN THE SAME COMMENT! That's pretty funny!
 
 
+6 # MsAnnaNOLA 2012-01-09 10:11
Yeah. Except we are almost all the way there with these things you are warning about! The Democrats have already accepted the fallacy that Social Security is bankrupt and they are colluding with the Republicans to steal the social security trust fund. They have already spent it on wars of choice and bank bailouts. We are having recalls every day because food safety is a joke. Corporations are now people so they can do whatever they want to and hide behind a corporate shield. The too big to fail banks are bankrupting our country with the bailouts they demand and get from both parties.

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!
 
 
+10 # Todd Williams 2012-01-09 11:06
You have obviously been lulled by Paul's promise of no more wars and plenty of good dope to smoke. And his opiate-like promise of no government regulations and total freedom. This is a call for anarchy and will not suceed. GOT IT?
 
 
-11 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 14:21
Todd - Big brother loves you ;)
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:44
Martin - Exxon is using you ;)
 
 
-12 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 21:04
BB

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.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 09:10
Exxon is totally dependent on our government, though, isn't it?

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.
 
 
+3 # kelly 2012-01-10 10:25
You know, that might not be such a good idea right now. I hate to bring bad news, but it looks like Exxon and the four other companies it went in on with in their big venture...I think it was the Cerro Negro project might not get a bloody dime after the nationalization process that took place. It was on the news along with tales of joint adventures they'd had with Statoil and the like involving shale oil and off-shore drilling in Angola and the like. I'm glad you're glad. Maybe you feel that financially you won't be dependent on them, but ecologicaly you'll wish you had been(maybe you'll learn what it like for the Indians after Monsanto). And as for health care, let's see how long that holds out, when the carcinogens from the toxic air provided by the unregulated oil companies you place your money into gets blown around the world.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 10:41
I just thought of a few other points:

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.
 
 
-7 # Johnny 2012-01-10 23:23
More to the point, Toddypoo loves Big Brother.
 
 
-26 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 12:10
MsAnnaNOLA:

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
 
 
+25 # PGreen 2012-01-09 13:23
As Dean Baker, chief economist at CEPR, predictor of the housing bubble collapse, Fannie Mae bankruptcy, and subsequent financial disaster, has widely stated, a social security problem doesn't really exist. "According to the Social Security trustees' report, if we did absolutely nothing the program could pay every penny of scheduled benefits through the year 2036." Cutting the contributions (as has been proposed) would be disaster, though. The best solution (if we want a long-term approach) would be to tax all income for social security, not merely the 1rst $100,000.00, which unfairly singles out the working and middle class.
 
 
+15 # jon 2012-01-09 17:10
PGreen, Thank-you for that.

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.
 
 
-10 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 21:07
//According to the Social Security trustees' report, if we did absolutely nothing the program could pay every penny of scheduled benefits through the year 2036."//


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.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 09:18
So you're finally admitting the fact that the only thing wrong with Social Security is that conservatives can't keep their greedy hands out of the jar?

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.
 
 
+2 # PGreen 2012-01-10 09:48
What you say applies to the accumulated surplus known as the Social Security Trust Fund. SS itself is funded through a currently stable payroll tax. "During 2009, total benefits of $686 billion were paid out versus income (taxes and interest) of $807 billion, a $121 billion annual surplus." (Wiki) Problems may arise after 2036, and that is what we need the surplus for. (It is a good argument for not being involved in more wars which siphon off our money to the Mil Ind Com.)
I personally favor the long term solution of taxing ALL income for social security, including capital gains and corporate profits. How about you?
 
 
+23 # PGreen 2012-01-09 13:43
You should google, "monsanto, posilac" to learn about the use (and initial concealment) of bovine growth hormones in milk. Some food reforms only come under intense scrutiny and the threat of regulatory action. There are numerous examples of food companies cutting corners and passing on bad food, only to be caught later. Do you really think that they would stop if they didn't have to? Remember that we live in a capitalist economy, in which CEOs are required by corporate charter (hence law) to put the profit of their shareholders over the public interest. Altruism may exist on an individual level, but in the institutional role it isn't allowed. Private industry is notoriously shortsighted, as the executive is only concerned with what happens during his tenure.
 
 
+14 # Richard Raznikov 2012-01-09 16:20
Social Security is not near bankruptcy. In fact, it is completely solvent and everybody's covered, at a minimum, through 2036. But Wall Street wants it all. That's why Obama is willing to 'negotiate' giving up some of what we've worked for and earned. That's why the GOP is prepared to gut it. The so-called bankruptcy is a lie based on moving numbers around. It was George Carlin who predicted it. Check him out on YouTube. "They're coming for your Social Security," he said. "They want your retirement money so they can give it to their crooked friends on Wall Street."
 
 
+2 # William Bjornson 2012-01-09 16:59
-USD2.3 Trillion in 2007. That would have lasted for awhile. And now this new "tax-cut" which is not a tax-cut but an attack on Social Security and whose only purpose was smoke for obscuring the pipeline issue media-opaquely attached to the bill.
 
 
+4 # Remedy 2012-01-10 23:59
True the food inspections are down, but that is because theyve cut the federal gov down and theres not enough inspectors to do the job right. Its typical Republican politics scream to the high heavens how bad government is and then when in office do everything you can to make it that way..at 50 plus here ive seen this done for decades. Molly Ivins wrote of it in many of her books.
 
 
-10 # Richard Raznikov 2012-01-09 10:15
Well, Carl, maybe yes, maybe no.

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.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 10:53
Your argument wouldn't suggest de-regulation. It would suggest MORE regulation and accountability.
 
 
+10 # Todd Williams 2012-01-09 11:08
No, you are wrong about banks. Paul wants to abolish commercial banking as we know it and turn back to the 1850's. This man is indeed dangerous and somebody who has to be defeated along with his progeny, the fool, Rand.
 
 
-5 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 12:37
Todd:

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
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:30
What would he do to protect the life savings of people with money in those banks?
 
 
-9 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 19:21
Billy Bob:

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
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:41
Are you telling me that I'd have to pay for private insurance OVER AND ABOVE what I save just to ensure that my bank won't squander what I saved?

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?
 
 
-4 # Johnny 2012-01-10 23:30
You already do pay over and above your savings for insurance. Unless you don't pay taxes. Or maybe you have persuaded the feds to use your tax money for things other than the FDIC?

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.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-11 08:03
I assumed I'd get that response from "leenason...." at least in part. Oh well!

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.
 
 
-4 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 21:17
Quoting Billy Bob:
What would he do to protect the life savings of people with money in those banks?


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?
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 09:24
I was waiting for the gold standard response:

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.
 
 
+10 # JacksonMM 2012-01-09 12:58
"Abolish commercial banking as we know it"... you mean the kind of banking that led to the collapse of '08? The kind that runs to the government to be bailed out when they make stupid decisions? The kind that blew up the housing bubble, destroyed the consumer, then used the bailout money to pay their execs? The kind that created collateralized debt obligations, bundled them into exotic derivative instruments, sold them to clients, then shorted them and made money when they failed??

No! Please don't change the banking system!!
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:46
You can thank deregulation for all of that (the libertarian panacea).
 
 
+3 # JacksonMM 2012-01-09 13:47
“Abolish commercial banking as we know it”... You mean the banks that blew up the housing bubble and left the consumer out to dry? The banks that screwed their clients and got bailed out by the federal government for making stupid decisions? The banks that caused the crisis of ’08 and got off scot-free? The banks that created collateralized debt obligations and structured them into exotic derivatives to sell to their clients, meanwhile betting millions that the same securities would fail? The banks that infiltrate Obama’s (and previously Bush’s) cabinet and buy up politicians?

No! Please don’t change the banking system!!!
 
 
+2 # William Bjornson 2012-01-09 17:05
The rothschild empire owns or controls all banks in the U.S. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws", gentlefolk. OH! But that's "conspiracy talk". Anyone here able to dispute Eustace Mullins?
 
 
-2 # kelly 2012-01-09 18:30
Who can dispute anyone who got all their really juicy bits from a madman like Ezra Pound?
 
 
+2 # kelly 2012-01-09 19:48
I'm sorry, W.B., it was meant as bad sarcasm. I know Pound was held as a "political prisoner" during his time. I did not mean to dismiss him summarily.
 
 
+10 # bugbuster 2012-01-09 11:18
Paul's biggest problems, were he elected, would be credibility and clout in Washington DC. He would never get anything done beyond the routine day to day baby-kissing Presidential duties. I think if he got elected, he would be like a deer in the headlights for four years.
 
 
-13 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 14:20
Every politician who has gotten things done..has contributed to the 15 trillion dollar debt, insolvent social security and insolvent medicaid and never ending global wars.

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.
 
 
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:15
You can cut off your own parents and grandparents then. My parent's generation solved the problem of poverty among the elderly by voting for a President who came up with the idea of Social Security. It's been the most popular, and probably most successful government program in American history.

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.
 
 
-17 # LloydJ 2012-01-09 10:20
To announce myself fully, I prefer the term "Moonbat" but Paultard is also acceptable.

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.
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 10:54
If you don't trust the American people, who do you trust instead? Do you trust Exxon or Monsanto to be "Mommy and Daddy" instead of American voters?
 
 
+13 # kelly 2012-01-09 12:38
Then you shouldn't hang with Paul. Because even though the Big Brother of the Fed won't be peeking out of your closet, baby bro state will be right inside your bedroom...or your doctor's office or school or wherever. Everything you so abhor from the government now, will soon be at least partly paid for, and poorly I might add, by the states and when it runs out it's out and you will be left high and dry. I'm glad you can afford an education, you sound a little young for public school so it may not affect you, i'm glad you can afford your own insurance--I'd expect that of most Paulites, but for most, your experiences are the minority. Good thing the president gets to represent the majority or we'd all go to the un-air conditioned place in a handbasket. Consider your label earned, I congratulate you.
 
 
+1 # William Bjornson 2012-01-09 17:14
Lloyd and others - the 'government' has nothing to do with it. The government is a MACHINE and responds to whomever controls it. Our deranged, psychopathic, rapaciously greedy elite is now in control of our government. The government is the cape and the sword of he who stands hidden behind it. In theory, as you all know, WE control the government for our own good. In reality, we have not had control of our own government in generations nor will we have control ever again unless we completely remove the layer of parasites who now own it. Remove, here means REMOVE as in radical elitectomy best achieved with a guillotine-like instrument. All recovered proceeds to the debt. The restorationof our national health is just a rope pull away.
 
 
+19 # bugbuster 2012-01-09 10:22
These ideas don't come from societies who have experienced real deprivation in living memory. The glib criticisms by some Americans of European ideas on government are not thought out. They are based on petulance and childish posturing.
 
 
-10 # LloydJ 2012-01-09 10:52
CONTINUED:

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.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 11:53
Under libertarian philosophy you don't have the right to sue. You have the right to cope with the costs of any economic crime committed against you or your children. Corporations have the "liberty" to knowingly poison your children, and you have the "liberty" to cry at their funeral after losing all of your money trying to save them out of your own pocket.

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.
 
 
-5 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 12:42
Billy Bob:

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
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:12
How can you sue a polluter for not breaking any laws? If there are no federal regulations against polluters there are no basis for lawsuits.
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:33
I guess I should have said under REAL libertarian philosophy you don't have the right to sue, but in arguments with paulites, it's tough to get through, considering the fact that any logical inconsistencies in his arguments are turned around as "mischaracterizations".

I've said it before: PAUL'S BIGGEST POLITICAL OPPONENT IS YOUTUBE.
 
 
-2 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 19:27
Billy Bob

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
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:44
There's what "libertarians" claim until cornered, then there's what libertarians claim once they ARE cornered.

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.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:54
By the way, in the spirit of separating the real from the fake:

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?
 
 
-5 # Johnny 2012-01-10 23:40
Actually, there are various causes of action in the common law to remedy pollution, such as "nuisance" and "trespass," but you are right as a practical matter since few have the money to litigate or to fund "tort reform" brainwashing in the fascist media to influence juries.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-11 08:08
We will always, and especially under "property rights" libertarians, have laws against trespassers in this country. In fact, the response to OWS will get increasingly violent and iron-fisted if conservatives can't find any way to ridicule or ignore it into non-existence.

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.
 
 
-9 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 14:17
False premise: //Under libertarian philosophy you don't have the right to sue. You have the right to cope with the costs of any economic crime committed against you or your children. //

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.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:13
Again, without federal regulation, there are no laws to base a lawsuit on.
 
 
-7 # Richard Raznikov 2012-01-09 19:00
Laws and regulations are two quite different things. Regulations are the specifics designed to be enforced by, as an example, the FDA. They are not the same as laws against adulterated food. One can 'deregulate' but enforce laws. And, by the way, it is a rather curious conflation of Paul with libertarianism. He is NOT a spokesperson for a given philosophy, simply a candidate who ascribes to many, not all, of the more common principles often enunciated by people who define themselves that way. So it's not terribly honest to attack him for views he doesn't actually hold.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 21:10
If paul is not a libertarian, perhaps you should take it up with lnason@umassd.edu New Bedford, Massachusetts.

She is a FIRM believer to the contrary.

Perhaps he's been mischaracterize d by many of his self-professed libertarian apostles.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 21:23
By the way, are you telling me that ron paul and the self-professed libertarians who support him have no problem with environmental laws, just so long as there's no oversite to enforce them?
 
 
+5 # BradFromSalem 2012-01-10 18:59
Billy Bob,

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!
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 21:03
Sorry to rage on and on dominating the conversation, but the stupidity and unwillingness to listen among these fake intellectuals is mind boggling.

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!
 
 
-5 # JacksonMM 2012-01-10 07:45
Haha! Man Billy Bob, you are as bad as Kelly (when you're not praising her for "adding to the conversation")!

"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.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 09:28
I just read your entire comment and the whole thing could have been summarized in two sentences: "You're wrong, dummy! NA NA NA NA NA NA!!!

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.
 
 
-4 # JacksonMM 2012-01-10 11:24
Please excuse my long and snarky response. I was nearly blown away by your comment.

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.
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 12:49
Your idea of suing someone for not committing a crime or breaking any laws is flawed. There never has existed the right of the judicial branch to legislate law.

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.
 
 
-4 # JacksonMM 2012-01-11 08:21
Well then I guess we need laws for everything conceivable right? We need a law against putting gasoline in your mouth, walking up to someone, lighting a match, and spewing flames to ignite them. There would be a $1,000 fine for this act and no judge or jury is needed. However, if you use pure alcohol instead of gasoline, it is a $1,050 fine.

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.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-11 15:00
Actually there are ALREADY laws against suicide. There are also ALREADY laws against manslaughter. So, if you intentionally hurt yourself, there's a law against that in most states. If you intentionally hurt someone else, yes, there's a law against that as well.

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.
 
 
+1 # MnkT 2012-01-09 11:09
Grow up indeed. I do not consider my relationship to my government to be that of a child to a parent. When the left understands (or remembers) that paternalism is a form of oppression (especially towards women, people with disabilities, indigenous & racialized people, elders and yes children) we will be able to dissect libertarianism into its component parts. Unfortunate that someone with Ron Paul's fascist connections and isolationist, reactionary free market politics (actually self-contradict ory) is the one to champion health freedoms better than anybody who has gotten the label progressive.
 
 
+13 # teineitalia 2012-01-09 11:18
Carl Gibson, you are wise beyond your years. Thank you for pointing out the many,many flaws in Ron Paul's ideas. My anti-war friends from all points on the political spectrum look to Paul as someone they could vote for, not realizing the train wreck he would invite should he actually be elected. and btw, I am also very much against war, pre-emptive or any other kind, but Paul just has too many other strange notions i.e. fantasies) regarding the role of government, as you have rightly pointed out.

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.
 
 
-6 # Richard Raznikov 2012-01-09 16:16
I'm afraid that Gibson is not wise beyond his years. Paul makes an inviting target because some of his ideas are considered far outside the mainstream by the left, but the fact remains that he is right about America's wars and right about the crazy 'war on terror' which has stripped us of our civil rights. Name another candidate opposed to the misnomered 'Patriot Act' or who stood up against bailing out those Wall Street crooks. Those two things alone elevate his candidacy beyond the other clowns.
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.
 
 
-7 # RICHARDKANEpa 2012-01-09 11:20
First of all I would like to thank Carl Gibson for rational debate, people make ridiculous statements on Ron Paul in order to get comments and a bigger bite of the blog spear.

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.
 
 
-3 # JacksonMM 2012-01-11 09:49
Here are some pretty good "I told you so" predictions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zGDisyWkIBM

He also predicted the housing bubble and financial crisis of 2008.
 
 
-10 # futhark 2012-01-09 11:21
"Progressives" are working overtime to smear Ron Paul, even though he is the most articulate challenger to the Imperialist Amerika political paradigm. So, instead of Ron Paul, we get to keep the drone attack assassinating creature of Wall Street with the "D" after his name. Great!

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.
 
 
+8 # hd70642 2012-01-09 11:24
Fantastic Ron Raul has a Ricocheting rubber reality check that bounces more than a pin ball in play in THE Who' Rock Opera Tommy . It never ceases to amaze me all the folks that are the loudest about rugged Individualism either had the greatest amount of government assistance or were some silver spooned king Furkook Baby Hueys
 
 
+6 # David Starr 2012-01-09 11:49
Ideally, it would be nice if there was a Left/Progressiv e party/coalition to effectively & overwhelmingly oppose both Repubs & Dems NOW since the "two" have been ideologically the same (implementing/i mposing capitalist rule); but have differed sometimes in tactics. Whatever positives, Obama has more been the cave-in Dem-& at times a Bush clone- similar to many in his party in protecting the Republicrats', & their corporate backers', ideological interests. Thus, it pains me to say the following: There is still a sliver of difference between them, e.g., there's no evidence of a Tea Party, Christian Right & Right Libertarianism in the Dems & although few, there are Dem progressives. Imperialism? They're the same; although the Repubs have shown more ultranationalis t, even protofascist, fervor wrapped in patriotic purity. Paul's, & Right Libertarianism itself, doesn't work. It prioritizes THE individual like a cult; it's about ME, ME, ME & fuck the rest of you. In the name of freedom, it's a "freedom" of the few based on who has the wherewithal to be the most cunning & cutthroat in the climb to the top of the capitalist ladder; the survival of the fittest where one, & only one according to one's perception, is at the "center of the universe." By nature, humans are both individualist & collectivist. It's not either or. I'm doubting that Paul & his reactionary followers get this.
 
 
-21 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 12:47
//Paul's, & Right Libertarianism itself, doesn't work. It prioritizes THE individual like a cult; it's about ME, ME, ME & fuck the rest of you. //

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.
 
 
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:19
"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."

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?
 
 
+8 # David Starr 2012-01-10 13:50
As usual, you talk like you're out of the 19th cenury w/ an antiquated version of rugged individualism which is by & large a myth. NO ONE has literally done it on their own. There are, e.g., social & business connections that an individual has had to rely on; & where workers in production have contributed immensely to the wealth of a few while usually receiving a subsistence wage (Nowadays this is increasingly evident). How is it responsible & productive for one or a few to essentially leech off of the responsibility & productivity of many? It's evident that greed & lust are prioritized by Wall Street, major banks, mortgage companies, the private corporate beaucracy & their political/ideol ogical allies practicing the illusion of rugged, pure individualism. But like other Paulist, Right Libertarian zombies, you still don't get it. You still take a flight from reality in not realizing that individualism & collectivism are evident in human endeavors, many times entwining. But you keep banging your head against that Right Libertarian wall. Perhaps it may ,ironically, eventually have the opposite effect.

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.
 
 
+10 # Polimorphus 2012-01-09 11:54
Ron Paul is Ayn Rand minus the atheism.
 
 
-8 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-09 12:48
Polimorphus:

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
 
 
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:14
Sounds like you agree with Polimorphus, but decided to change the wording around.
 
 
+13 # Christopher Marlowe 2012-01-09 12:14
The author threatens that Ron Paul (RP) would do away with the EPA and the FDA, but curiously he is not aware that both of those organizations have been captured by the industries that they are supposed to regulate. I am for clean air/water and healthy food, but these federal regulators consistently favor Monsanto and big pharma over the needs of the people.Ask yourself why we don't have cannabis oil on the market when it has been PROVEN to fight cancer and is completely non-toxic! And I'm certainly glad the EPA punished BP for that spill!

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.
 
 
-9 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 13:01
//, but curiously he is not aware that both of those organizations have been captured by the industries that they are supposed to regulate. I//

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
 
 
+5 # Christopher Marlowe 2012-01-09 15:47
Maybe you should read more carefully. I was saying that the author of this article is not aware of regulatory capture. Doing away with a captured agency would not be contradictory, and so "but" does not make sense in that context.

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.
 
 
-22 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 12:16
We should ignore freedom and personal responsibility as childish and get a grip on the reality that government is a magical genie and all you need is control it and the magical government genie will make all your dreams come true.
 
 
+16 # gusselig 2012-01-09 12:43
Being relatively old and somewhat well read I would merely comment that the basic book on Paul's philosophy of government has already been written. Its title is Lord of The Flies. Moreover his slogan has already been created. It is "Everyone for Himself and God save us all said the elephant as he danced among the chickens."
 
 
+3 # mwd870 2012-01-11 07:09
Pundits can be annoying, but they have consistently said Ron Paul supporters will always be loyal, regardless of how many times he runs for President. Both the Ron Paul articles on this site have generated more comments than I would have believed possible.

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.
 
 
-8 # JacksonMM 2012-01-09 12:44
I find it quite ironic that he compares libertarians to little naive kids who cringe at the thought of responsibility. First of all, libertarians value responsibility in the highest degree and, like our founding fathers, believe that our rights our infringed upon when one person (or government) takes from the responsible to sustain the irresponsible. Gibson says libertarians are ignorant of “why government exists in the first place.” I’d like to see Mr. Gibson give some documentation from Washington, Jefferson, Madison... or even Hamilton to back up his argument that the federal government should regulate education, retirement, energy, medicine, etc. (hint: he won’t find any text backing him up). The socialists like Gibson are the ones who advocate irresponsibilit y (on the part of the people AND the government).
 
 
+4 # Krulick 2012-01-10 08:27
James Madison 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)
 
 
-8 # JacksonMM 2012-01-10 09:25
Was he referring to the FEDERAL government, Krulick? This is an important point, and I appreciate the quote. I think Madison makes it clear in Federalist No. 45...

"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.
 
 
-4 # JacksonMM 2012-01-11 08:26
To all those who dislike my direct quote from Madison, but liked Krulick's quote from Madison... Please explain.

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?
 
 
-10 # JacksonMM 2012-01-09 12:45
The conclusions that Gibson reaches are great example of fear mongering, and a poor example of reality. Was the Upper Big Branch mine disaster prevented by the federal government? No, it happened on the watch of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (who were in all likelihood receiving bribes). He warns that we should be afraid of the free market because the families would have to accept its existence as the cause for the explosion, when the explosion happened WITH federal regulation. He says under Ron Paul, Massey would get off scot-free for polluting drinking water. I’ve never heard Ron Paul argue that the whole court system should be abolished, have you? Paul argues that a proper protection of property rights in conjunction with the court system would punish abusers such as Massey very efficiently (notice that nearly all the lawsuits brought against Massey were by residents of various towns). Furthermore, if the RESPONSIBILITY for regulating the mines would have been left to the states, as Ron Paul would advocate, it would have likely been on top of things and less likely to take bribes like the federal government did, as they care more about their state’s citizenry than the feds in DC who are not affected (same with his tainted food issue). This is speculation on my part, but I’ll allow myself to venture, since Mr. Gibson article is entirely made up of loose speculation.
 
 
-5 # JacksonMM 2012-01-09 12:52
His Pell grant argument attempts to scare folks into believe that higher education would not exist for the commoner if the government didn’t provide these subsidies. Has Mr. Gibson ever asked why college students need to take out $50,000 to go to college? Or why education prices have skyrocketed under the department of education, while products offered by the free market have become cheaper? How did all those people in the 40’s and 50’s earn enough money working for a few months in the summer to pay for college (in addition to receiving a higher quality education)? Could it be that there is a moral hazard when the government starts guaranteeing student loans? Does he think universities would feel comfortable raising tuition by 15-20% per year if they weren’t assured by the fact that the government guarantees tens of thousands of dollars of loans to 18 year olds with no skills? Sure Mr. Gibson, in your world education did not exist before the department of education, and it would not exist without it.
 
 
-3 # futhark 2012-01-09 13:57
I'd like to see a lot more support for public education, especially at the university level. I pretty much paid my own way through college 40 years ago, worked 32 years as a classroom teacher, paid my daughter's tuition and living expenses at a public university and had a son who is bright enough to have earned a "free ride" academic scholarship. Student loans are a rip-off on our young people.

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.
 
 
-2 # hasapiko 2012-01-09 12:59
This article attempts to articulate what would happen if Ron Paul was elected AND had the freedom to change everything. Well, maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't, but in reality most of his DOMESTIC agenda would be stymied by Congress. Where he would have much greater freedom would be in the area of foreign policy and this is the area in which his agenda is much closer to the Left. Ron Paul is the only even semi-viable candidate with a peace agenda, the only one willing to admit that much of our war on terror is the product of our overreaching imperialist foreign policy, that much of our Middle East policy is driven by the need to secure oil and that our defense budget is way overbloated. He is the only pol I can think of who is remotely honest and not in the pocket of corporate interests. I would vote for him over toothless warmonger Obama any day of the week.
 
 
+1 # JacksonMM 2012-01-09 13:13
Let’s see... too big to fail. There were some big banks. These banks were going to fail. The federal government bailed them out. They are now bigger. The too-big-to-fail banks are now consuming the assets of the too-small-to-st ay banks by the millions. 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. Under the government system, the big banks are bigger, and now they know that the government has their backs (both Republicans and Democrats), and they can continue mistreating their clients and making speculative investments. I mean, in some cases the government FACILITATED one big bank to buy out another big bank! (Chase buys WaMu, brokered by the feds). Take a look at the economic crisis of 1920, which was just as bad as one that sparked the great depression. Why don’t we hear about his recession? Because the government didn’t do anything and the economy recovered within a year.
 
 
+2 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 14:06
//Let’s see... too big to fail. There were some big banks. These banks were going to fail. //

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.
 
 
+5 # hopespringsaturtle 2012-01-09 14:29
Wondering who will actually read this comment...Ron Paul is not a child--he has an ideology and if nothing else he should be respected for telling the truth about his philosophy of government. That aside, I think it is dangerous to be dismissive and mocking of his candidacy--rega rdless of his ideas, some of which have merit. I am not a Paul supporter but I feel swayed by his message because of his radical departure from politics-as-usu al. I am a savvy voter, informed and up-to-date in my information but I listen to his message with the frustration of a democrat who believes we see very little in the way of progress in Democracy. The coporatocracy that has pervaded our political system since Reagan has become endemic and toxic and there is NO RELIEF on the horizon--especi ally with a Paul presidency, yet his message still has appeal and scolding him like an errant child will only inflame the ardor of his loyal followers. Our political choices between 'the lesser of two evils," continues a downward slide into complete abandon of the principles of democracy and promises a shift toward more and more totalitarian government.
 
 
-7 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 21:26
//The coporatocracy that has pervaded our political system since Reagan //

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.
 
 
+4 # kelly 2012-01-10 07:48
Okay, Martin, Adam Smith said: corporatism is a political system. Like captalism is an economic theory. It is a theory based on a country's ability to amass gold and other precious metals. In this theory any country that is able to export more than it takes in is sure to be rich. This theory was debunked in Wealth of Nations which also said that mercantilism and and corporatism should NEVER be confused with one another. Try again, but this time get it right.
 
 
-4 # hopespringsaturtle 2012-01-09 14:30
Many people are finally getting to the point of just saying 'f*ck it' whatever happens, happens and its one thing to dismiss the laughable run of Herman Cain but to laugh at Dr. Paul and just keep calling him crazy is a mistake. I think I will for the first time in my voting history, vote for the guy you has the best ideas--though no chance of winning: Rocky Anderson.
 
 
+5 # Richard Raznikov 2012-01-09 15:56
I, too, expect to vote for Anderson. He has no chance, however I am done with the 'lesser-of-two- evils' rationale. The GOP candidate will likely be a lunatic, and Obama's proven that his promises were only window dressing. Both major parties are clearly owned by the bankers and multi-national corporations. If everybody stopped rewarding these liars and phonies perhaps there would be a serious alternative. Until then, they'll keep hosing us because they know we'll vote for them anyhow.
 
 
-3 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:55
I think voting for Anderson is a great idea. Atleast liberals voting for Anderson are being true to their principles and not overlooking obvious problems with a candidate.

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.
 
 
-4 # Richard Raznikov 2012-01-09 19:12
Now, now, Billy Bob, got to relax a little bit here. Probably I won't be voting for Paul, but that doesn't mean I think he's as crazy and corrupt as the rest of the GOP field (w/ Huntsman as an exception). He's quite correct, I think, about a great many things, among them the stupid, costly, illegal, inhumane wars we're waging, the civil liberties being wiped out by both parties, with Obama continuing and even accelerating Bush's scary policies, and the banks which run much of the planet and which manifestly own Obama and about 90% of Washington and both major parties. Realistically, he won't win, and I am not personally a libertarian and so don't buy some of the 'get-rid-of-gov ernment' notions they espouse. But they do have a point that the regulatory bodies supposed to protect the public have long since been taken over by the people and interests they were designed to oversee.
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.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:21
Apparently someone doesn't like Anderson?
 
 
-4 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 17:01
"The GOP candidate will likely be a lunatic"

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.
 
 
+3 # TedFred 2012-01-09 14:38
This is just terrible journalism. To say that in Ron Paul's ideal America, "... clean air regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency would be no more" is absurd. The "support" offered for this nonsense is a bill sponsored by Paul in 1979 to postpone enactment of certain provisions for one year. Similarly, his opposition to the clean water act was in 1980. Opposition to both could have had numerous justifications well short of him opposing clean air and water regulations. Liberal causes have plenty of honest support; we don't need to lie to try to gain traction.
 
 
+7 # JacksonMM 2012-01-09 15:22
Hey all you Obama worshipers out there who think he is not bought out by the banks... Did you see today who his new Chief of Staff is? Well, this new guy is of course replacing Bill Daley, who was previously a top executive at J.P. Morgan Chase. Of course you remember that Bill Daley replaced Obama's first Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who came straight from the board of Freddie Mac. Anyway, the new guy is Jack Lew. Let's see where has he been working lately? Looks like Citibank! Oh, and it looks like his division made billions of dollars betting that US homeowners would not be able to make their mortgage payments. Great pick Barack!

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.
 
 
+3 # kelly 2012-01-09 15:57
Better that than the Libertarians on Bush's staff that drove us directly into this mess...the ones who sat transfixed by Ayn Rand's message--oh I forgot, they weren't Libertarians as Lnason, the non-teacher fron umass keeps reminding us, she was an ultraconservati ve. My main discourse, as you can see throughout this line has dealt with mostly social issues although I am not averse to economic ones. Unlike most, I understand that elections are not won on single issues. And because of that I could never bring myself to vote for Paul. First of all, with his proposed cuts within depts. of Ed. the EPA and Health and Human Services I can't agree with him. His changes, with the country in such turmoil would only lead to more chaos. His stands on civil rights are hardly that, and with the labor changes he offers, our country would be rubber-banded back into the 19th century to the days of the robber baron society...not slavery but reconstruction where the industrial revolution was taking place. Capitalism could never be put on trial but if you didn't have long claws and sharp teeth you weren't going to make it. I don't want to live under Austrian economics and although the optimistic Paul wants us to believe he thinks the good American will automatically do what is morally right by his fellow man, I feel it is just an excuse for him to do away with laws that might restrict his industrialist friends. And those are my comments on the dirty little man.
 
 
-4 # JacksonMM 2012-01-09 16:35
The fact that you think Bush's staff was full of libertarians removes all credibility, Kelly. Bush's staff was full of big bankers, just like Obama's staff. Bush did absolutely nothing that Ayn Rand believed in.

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.
 
 
-3 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 16:37
I hope those aren't your last comments about this dirty little man. Your comments are a perfect addition to the discussion. And since this is a discussion that will continue until his son, rant, dies of old age, I hope you'll continue commenting.
 
 
+1 # kelly 2012-01-09 18:46
Thank you, Mr. B.B., unfortunately, Jackson has just declared that I have no credibility...m aybe I was wrong about the sec'y of the Treasury or some guy named Greenspan being friends with Bush and Rand...
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:46
Then again, maybe Jackson has an agenda that you're interrupting. Nice work.
 
 
0 # JacksonMM 2012-01-10 06:48
Greenspan completely abandoned his early Randian beliefs... he is probably the most hated figure amongst libertarians for selling our to the Keynesians. Again, there were absolutely no libertarians in Bush's cabinet.

... 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.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 09:31
If you'd ever read any of my posts before this one article you'd already know that I agree completely.

OBAMA IS FAR TOO CONSERVATIVE.

Now, how will MORE conservatism solve that?
 
 
-4 # Johnny 2012-01-10 23:52
Obomber is not merely too conservative. He is fascist on the Nazi model, with his wars of aggression against the rest of the world. We Americans have been brainwashed to pretend we do not know about the Holocaust that our government is perpetrating in our name.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-11 08:12
He's certainly following in the footsteps of his predecessor, regarding foreign policy.

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!
 
 
+2 # chessmaniac 2012-01-09 16:52
So this article's login would look something like this..."Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court." http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/
 
 
-3 # chessmaniac 2012-01-09 19:01
*login=logic
 
 
-5 # Martintfre 2012-01-09 21:30
Big Brother lovers in Both parties do not want Ron 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!
 
 
-3 # Johnny 2012-01-10 23:56
Yes, but there will be no such "exchange": Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments." On the contrary, the endless wars are the reason for "cuts to Social Security..." etc.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-11 08:16
No they arent'. You're assuming that, simply because the endless wars are bankrupting our treasury, the right is still arguing in good faith about "balancing the budget". They have no intention of doing that.

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.
 
 
+10 # noitall 2012-01-09 18:46
Ron Paul idealistically believes that privitization = efficiency and economy. Maybe in the form of skimping and skimming. I'm not an expert on that but although I am for peace, once George Bush and the fearful 'leadership' courageously marched off to war WE owned the war. WE became responsible. We @#$%ed it up for the People of those countries (and every country that we've done this without thinking it through, [like JFK did so many times]). If we follow Paul's dreams, what wart starts festering in the free-for-all situation that sets up? I think we should assist those people to do what THEY need and not push them toward something that WE want, camoflaged as theirs. Doesn't work, has never worked. The Shah, Nam, where has it ever worked? We need to take the Profit out of war, out of health care, out of education and anything that is critical to our way of life. Profiteers (carpet baggers) will always step in and @#$% it up and put it in their pocket. Campaign season stirs up all this bullshit dialog but the realities are still there. We are into a war(s) that is sucking us dry, crazies are trying to run their neighbor's lives, greedy bastards are poisoning our future on all levels, we're still forced to mainline the same amount of oil we ever have and more. The media spews our bullshit to us that suits their ends. We know what is wrong but we're helpless to fix it because those we entrusted to do it aren't. Get the money out of the elections and let it all find it's way. out
 
 
+4 # kelly 2012-01-09 20:31
It all sounds good...what do you propose?
 
 
+5 # noitall 2012-01-10 14:34
More a wish than a proposition, that progressives unite behind AN issue to use as our bottom line condition for candidate support; that Corps aren't people (and whatever censoring needs to be dealt out to the Supremes, and banks and...), money is not speech, and let all that catalyze (carpet bagger candidates will drop off the slate like water off a duck), and take its natural course. Candidates running out of love for the Republic rather than rite of passage into multi-millionai re-hood are more likely to make progressive decisions. The real solutions to our deadly (to the Republic and our youth) problems are not unknown, rocket science, or scary. Just new paradigms in thinking than the greed-incentive -based ideas these 'bought' "representative s" are inflicting on our Nation in the name of fear. Countries that we are being conditioned by the media to hate are dealing with the same leadership problems that we are. They like we, become the pawns in that pissing match and "we" being the biggest budget, give them more reason to hate than the stories that we are told by self-serving media. War is terrorism with a budget.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-01-09 20:48
Bush jr. was also the last repuglican elected, partially on a campaign promise to use less military intervention.
 
 
+1 # JacksonMM 2012-01-10 06:54
Yes, and when he was going to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, Ron Paul was the only Republican out there speaking out against him. Rick Santorum and Romney were Bush's cheerleaders. Paul agrees that Bush was a disaster.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 09:33
Repugs aren't the only ones running for president. Rocky Anderson is also against the wars. AND with him, you don't get the rest of the baggage associated with paul.
 
 
-3 # JacksonMM 2012-01-10 10:30
I like Anderson a lot better than Obama (plus his first name is awesome)! I think that is exactly what this country needs right now. We need more choices than the phonies presented to us by the Republicans and Democrats. I can't stand the thought of choosing between Obama and Romney. Although I would probably disagree with Rocky on economics and the role of the federal government (I'll admit, I haven't looked at his views too closely yet), I support his divergence from the Democrats.

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...
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 12:54
If my choice were between Anderson and paul, I'd vote for Anderson. Anderson isn't an economic elitist. Paul is.

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.
 
 
-5 # JacksonMM 2012-01-11 08:33
So in the end, you'll vote for a 4th Bush term... Hmm. Interesting.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-11 12:07
Who do you plan to vote for who will be any better? Something tells me, you have no intention of ever voting for a Democrat under any circumstances and you'll, in the end, vote for anyone you think is capable of keeping the Democratic Party out of office.

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?
 
 
0 # JacksonMM 2012-01-11 21:51
I don't vote based on party or politics, but on my principles. I'll vote for honest candidates. If they are both or all dishonest, I will not vote. If Dennis Kucinich were running against Romney, I'd vote for Dennis.

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.
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-10 18:34
I just read a yahoo headline entitled:

"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?
 
 
-4 # JacksonMM 2012-01-11 08:31
Paul has no agenda of becoming VP for Romney. He was backing him up because the others were taking a quote out of context to attack him. He's being honest instead of demagoging. He clearly explained this, and has also explained the flip flopping of Romney and his rather liberal record. There is almost zero chance of a Romney-Paul ticket.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-01-11 12:03
It's paul's only chance of becoming president and he IS an opportunist.
 
 
-1 # JacksonMM 2012-01-11 21:45
If Paul was an opportunist he would drop the anti-war and drug legalization stuff, say he wants to bomb Iran, and the Republican establishment would accept him.

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).
 
 
-2 # Billy Bob 2012-01-11 08:52
Sorry for being the messenger.
 
 
-4 # JacksonMM 2012-01-11 09:32
The messenger of what?

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.
 
 
0 # Billy Bob 2012-01-11 12:03
I hate to burst your bubble, but ron paul is a politician and not a prophet.

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.
 
 
-1 # JacksonMM 2012-01-11 21:36
Seriously Billy? You are trying to tell me that if you don't like your current insurance company you can't leave them and shop for another one?

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?
 
 
+2 # kelly 2012-01-10 10:34
Have to be careful though, when you look him up everyone, he's like the third one down. I think you get Bullwinkle and Rocky first or something...but persevere, you'll find him!
 
 
0 # CommonSense 2012-01-09 20:36
"The Social Security trust fund would become insolvent, making retirement that much harder for those who paid into it all their lives."

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.
 
 
+2 # Ellioth 2012-01-09 21:35
Can you imagine a community /society with no rules or regulations? If you think corporate dominance is a problem today, if you think Citizens United is a tragedy,you ain't seen nothin' yet. Just vote Ron Paul and let your imagination run wild. It's Ron's fantasy world. This guys is nuts!

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.
 
 
+1 # kelly 2012-01-10 09:15
I could not have put it more eloquently myself, elliot, thanks. That dirty little man and his offspring or whatever it is that might shoot forth from him(personally I believe he is something like the spore from Alien, with his son, he may try to contaminate everyone through his followers) will wreak havok upon us all until he is stopped.
 
 
0 # Kites 2012-01-10 01:13
One word - Switzerland. Libertarian principles at work. Also, the author doesn't mention the FDA's raids on private farmers and the crushing of innumerable attempts at creating local/organic food markets. He does not mention the FDA's influence on impeding alternative medicines, their creation of monopolies, as well as their hand in extremely high prescription drug prices...or the massive bubble created by the Education Dept. with pell grants. He also neglects to mention the failure known as the public school system. Libertarianism is not anarchy, period. If it were anarchy, it would be called anarchy. Dissolution of the Department of Education and allocation of the funding to the states to focus on schooling would be a step forward. Swiss states have basically complete control over education with few federal guidelines and it is a huge success by comparison. Keeping the FDA from abusing their power with SWAT raids on innocent people and reducing their power in general to basically work more as information instead of enforcement would not bring about the apocalypse. Paul also stated that Social Security would remain. Through cutting down on spending, those who depend on it will receive what they're owed while the newer generations will be able to opt out of the program. The author of this article is saying he would get rid of SS, just thought I'd clarify.
 
 
-2 # Kites 2012-01-10 01:15
He equated government to mom and dad? Mom and dad are an imperialist military-indust rial corporatocracy. ..I'd like to divorce those parents, anyways. I just don't understand the need for MACRO-managemen t of MICRO-processes . :C Also, anti-trust laws hurt competition and allow big corporations to maintain their stranglehold - big corp lawyers suing small businesses. Ludwig Von Mises, please. :)
 
 
+2 # JeffDaiell 2012-01-10 04:01
How Orwellian - Dr. Paul is being called childish for wanting to treat adults as adults!

Jeff Daiell
Suggested reading: Reflections on the Failure of Socialism, by Max Eastman; When Money Dies, by Adam Fergusson.
 
 
+2 # b_niles57 2012-01-10 10:33
It seems that Paulites and Republicans simply have failed to read and acknowledge the real, concrete results of deregulation and decentralizatio n that is so amply covered in history books. While Austrian and Trickle Down economic theories may sound pretty, EVERY piece of evidence indicates it doesn't work for anyone but the elite. Even a brief review of our pre-Great Depression and Post-Bush economies show all we need to know about what happens to the masses in a de-regulated environment. A quick survey of the events between the Am. Revolution and Civil War show the folly of de-centraizatio n. Rugulation and Centralization may have flaws, but the come in reaction to the VERY REAL issues presented by the opposite approach.
 
 
+2 # Munx1987 2012-01-10 13:49
"While Austrian and Trickle Down economic theories may sound pretty, EVERY piece of evidence indicates it doesn't work for anyone but the elite."

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...
 
 
+1 # b_niles57 2012-01-12 11:22
Hmm. I'm not an expert on the Fed, and would be willing to listen to your explanation, but it seems to me that the major arguments have to do with the carpenter, not the tool. Fed policies may not be to your liking, but I find little merit to the idea that there is no role for a centralized banking system in the U.S. (whether or not it is explicitly in the constitution). Again, Paulites miss the essential point that all of these institutions, laws and regulations arrived in RESPONSE to specific problems. While the resulting regulations and controls may not be to your liking,these tools of consumer protection are in place for a reason. Unregulated environments don't work for the average american. Never have, never will. It's only common sense. Why would they work? Businesses have their own interests in mind, not the common good. It really is that simple.
 
 
-1 # JacksonMM 2012-01-11 08:55
Correction... EVERY piece of evidence that you pay attention to and don't disregard indicates it doesn't work for anyone but the elite.
 
 
+4 # b_niles57 2012-01-11 12:13
Not sure if these are serious replies or not. If they are, they don't show much depth, and certainly don't address the massive blindspot Paulites and Republicans show to ACTUAL events in history, and to the fact that our current regulated and centralized state has been built in wise response to the well documented failures of free form, decentralized governments and economic systems. There really isn't any argument to be had here, unless you willingly deny the events of history. You can pretend the disparity of wealth in the old and new Gilded Age and civil unrest during the era of Popular Sovereignty were good for average Americans, but you would be denying reality. That, by the way, is a psychological disorder. Get checked.
 
 
+1 # Munx1987 2012-01-10 13:38
I just have a couple of comments about the "libertarian utopia" you speak of.

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...
 
 
+4 # JeffDaiell 2012-01-10 15:47
Has no one noticed that Big Business controls virtually every regulatory body, that candidates who espouse true deregulation get no Big Business support, that proposals to truly deregulate are uniformly castigated by Big Business, and that corporations are creatures of Government?

Jeff Daiell
 
 
+2 # b_niles57 2012-01-12 11:35
What I don't understand is the Libertarian response to this situation, which is to do away with the regulatory bodies instead of addressing the base problem which is unregulated influence by big business. It makes no sense. Literally it is illogical. Getting rid of regulation will simply give more power to the real source of problem, big business. How do Paulites twist this into making sense in their heads?
 
 
0 # Jon Watts 2012-01-16 12:02
Not "do away with", but relegate "to the states, or to the people" as the Constitution prescribes.
 
 
+2 # b_niles57 2012-01-12 11:40
Just re-read and realized I misinterpreted your post.Sorry. I remain confused, however, in how you twist this in your head. Wouldn't the answer here be to empower regulators more,to create more regulations on big business, not less?
 
 
0 # squinty 2012-01-10 18:44
What a great analogy: government as parent, and citizens as dependent children who can't be trusted to act as adults or make their own decisions. So, are we to spend our whole lives as children, with the government taking on the role of parent? So it can nurture and protect us and tell us how to be responsible, as though we were still six years old? Or do we want to live in a society that treats adults as adults, allowing us to take responsibility for our own lives and make our own decisions? Certainly there is a role for government to play in protecting the rights of individuals, but come on - it's APPROPRIATE for six year olds to WANT to grow up and enjoy some autonomy, and INappropriate for people to want to remain children, with a government substituting for parents, providing for all their needs and making their decisions for them. That is not a free society.
 
 
+2 # Activista 2012-01-10 20:49
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxPnZ4JIjAA&feature=related
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.
 
 
+1 # kjones 2012-01-10 22:09
To be honest, it's not just that I disagree with this author, but I despise authors that inject their negative critiques as fact from whomever they are referencing.

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.
 
 
+3 # PGreen 2012-01-11 09:16
It reminds me a little of the argument about allowing money to be pulled out of public schools by those who don't want to participate. The problem is that if too many people do it, then it destroys public education-- which those (usually more prosperous folk) who favor private education wish to do anyway. You could apply the same principle to union dues, social security, and probably other issues as well. The question remain: do we want a public system or not? I do.
 
 
0 # Jon Watts 2012-01-16 12:00
Good Points
 
 
-3 # kjones 2012-01-10 22:41
http://houstonfreethinkers.com/97-editorials/2007-a-free-thinkers-response-to-an-article-entitled-qgrow-up-ron-paulq
 
 
0 # racetoinfinity 2012-01-11 19:39
I think you're quite right that libertarianism is an adolescent fantasy of hyper-individua lism that is a rebellion against the parent and which is so undevelop3ed/de lusional that it denies the reality of community and environment as co-arising with the individual. It's quite regressed and even mad (crazy) when held onto by a person with a fully mature brain (over 25 years of age.)
 
 
-4 # DaveM 2012-01-11 22:10
I propose that the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court be abolished. Replacing them would be a "Jeopardy!" style game show in which important questions of the moment would be placed on the screen, and viewers allowed to "buzz in" with their answers to them. Bizarre? Sure, but it would be direct democracy. And it might be fascinating indeed to see how many Americans do not regard the interest of government as the protection of individual liberty.

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).
 
 
0 # b_niles57 2012-01-12 09:04
Not sure where to begin with this, but will focus on the more serious comments in your last paragraph. 1)Where do you get the idea that anyone thinks that government is curtailing invention? The computer and telecommunicati on boom took off during Clinton's era. Next 2) You confuse technological advances with the problems of unregulated economies. I see little evidence that the Industrial Revolution couldn't have happened without the abuses of the uber-rich (see Internet:Clinto n above). Maybe you can help me, but I can't think of one flaw in our system that Paul despises that can't be directly tied back to the unregulated influence of big business. The inefficiency/in effectiveness of our system are almost always due to big business sticking its nose into the machination of regulation,eith er directly or through surrogate politicians, making regulators impotent. Why do you think there was such a delay in developing electric cars while Detroit lay stagnant? 3)re-read you history. There are tons of significant laws and regulations that helped improve the welfare of average American workers. Which private individuals are you talking about? Carnegie? C'mon. Pales in comparison to the minimum wage act, child labor laws, and development of 40 hour work week. Again, a blindspot to ACTUAL events.
 
 
0 # b_niles57 2012-01-12 11:25
By the way, thanks for having the common sense to recognize the role of unions in protecting the welfare of our workers. Wish others running for Republican Candidacy had such clarity of thought. What is Paul's view? I haven't heard him speak about it.
 
 
+4 # hasnoh 2012-01-13 21:13
The basis of this article is plain silly. Without going into the basis of any of the candidates or the current POTUS, it's ridiculous to compare the mindset of a six year old to authority, and that of a politician to the status quo.

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.
 
 
+2 # Dustin Stewart 2012-01-14 12:57
OSHA - if you look at a chart showing number of work accidents since the creation of OSHA in the 1970s, you will see that the number steadily decreases. That's good right? Funny thing is, if you extend the timeline further back into history, you will find that work accidents were decreasing at the SAME rate already. It's called "the march of civilization."

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.
 
 
+3 # Dustin Stewart 2012-01-14 13:06
Dep. of Education - it is no coincidence that we have seen a century of decline in the intelligence of school kids ever since the Fed Govt got involved in education. We spend JUST as much on education as any other developed country and what do we have to show for it? Mostly more buildings and more assistant principals. We spend an average of about $10k a year on a grade school kid's education, but charter schools typically charge $6k or $7k. The free market can educate kids far better. Plus, the Fed Govt and State Govt's have put asinine restrictions on what teachers can do to enforce discipline in the classroom. The result is that all the "good" kids suffer at the expense of the "bad" kids that the teacher cannot do anything about.

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.
 
 
+2 # Dustin Stewart 2012-01-14 13:13
"Corporate giants would be free to monopolize markets, since Ron Paul opposes federal anti-trust legislation." --> then how come corporations do not support Ron Paul's candidacy? If this were true then he should be drowning in money from the big banks and big corporations... In a libertarian society, corporations would receive ZERO favors from the Govt and this would level the playing field for all (and the corporations know this).

"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.
 
 
+1 # Dustin Stewart 2012-01-14 13:22
"Food recalls would be a regular occurrence" Private companies have HUGE incentives to keep their food safe. Especially in the Information Age were bad press can spread like wildfire. Think of Consumer Reports or Underwriter Laboratories... .there are private market companies that can make a profit by providing the consumer information about goods and services. If Consumer Reports starts developing a track record of wrong advice, then they loose customers, so they have an incentive to get it right.

"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.
 
 
+4 # Dustin Stewart 2012-01-14 13:29
"The Social Security trust fund would become insolvent" --> It already is insolvent. You should not be forced to pay into a ponzi scheme that is insolvent. I personally would rather keep my money and invest it myself rather than giving it to the govt only to be repaid years later with worthless, inflated money.

I guess the author feels that we are all children that need Big Brother to help us through life... yuck.
 
 
+4 # Dustin Stewart 2012-01-14 13:31
Also, here are some things that ONLY Paul is advocating - not Obama or any of the other candidates:
- 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)
 
 
+4 # Jon Watts 2012-01-16 10:43
The central theme of this article is a false premise - that Libertarianism is anarchy.

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.
 
 
+2 # Jon Watts 2012-01-16 11:52
When I grow up, I want to have innumerable masters, just like this group of elutherophobics , for I will always be a child in need of a parent.

"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
 

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.

RSNRSN