What's wrong with Ron Paul?

[CyclingInvestor]

I have to say libertarianism is simple minded, narrow, and selfish. It is the propaganda of the powerful to preserve and promote their power. Ricardo showed how this would lead to a class of rentiers owning society making economics the dismal science. It replaces the tyranny of the government with a myriad of petty tyrants, more circumscribed in the extant of their power but much more powerful within their fiefdom. Democracy is the worst system of government other than all those others tried.

I don't think you understand - WE would be the rentiers - WE would be the petty tyrants with fiefdoms !

 

[Texarkandy]

Then you're contradicting your own point because the constitution protects everyone's freedom of religion and if a state makes an official religion, people in that state's constitutional rights would be taken away.

There is no contradiction - yes, this was a question in the early years of our country, but it is now well & long established that the Bill of Rights applies to State constitutions/laws

 

[bright eyed]

There is no contradiction - yes, this was a question in the early years of our country, but it is now well & long established that the Bill of Rights applies to State constitutions/laws

hmm, perhaps I thought you were responding more directly to Martha's point earlier about Clarence Thomas being an extreme supporter of states' rights -even when it contradicts the constitution...not sure if you were addressing that point...

 

[ladelfina]

Not sure about Paul, but I can never follow the Right on States' Rights.. all their carefully-crafted arguments (with all the merit in the world, even) get thrown completely out the window when it comes to their favorite bugaboos, like medical marijuana or vehicle emissions, just to use a couple of examples. Don't forget all their single-issue legislation via Constitutional amendments (flag-burning, gay marriage). One might be tempted to agree with them, or at least respect their points, if they could maintain coherency and intellectual integrity.

I think Paul is just working from the States on down, in a kind of 'devolutionary' way, on some fronts. It's a foothold.

the hypocrisy of how the State considers the unborn to be a "life" in every respect - except when it comes to abortion.

Texarkandy, I respect an anti-abortion pov, but please explain instances in which "the State" considers the unborn to have property rights, the right to enter into contracts, or any legal right whatsoever. The 'wrongful death' of a fetus in the case of a wanted pregnancy does not get the same criminal or civil penalties, as might occur in, say, a car crash or industrial accident killing an adult. At least AFAIK; maybe Martha can precise.

[We can't even decide what rights born children may have: I was reading about a US case where a divorced custodial father was in court trying to get a circumcision ordered for his adolescent son over the objections of the mother and (maybe) the son.. seeing as HE (the father) had converted to Judaism. He was presenting this as HIS right to religious freedom, since his religion necessitated the circumcision of any sons he had!]

I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread.. but consider the situation of rape or incest victims, sometimes as young as 12 or 14, who in a zero-abortion-tolerance State, might be forced against their will to be incubators by.. whom? The government. I think most of us would agree giving the government too much power can cut both ways, and is often to be avoided, without having to resort to the extremes of über-libertarians.

 

[Texarkandy]

hmm, perhaps I thought you were responding more directly to Martha's point earlier about Clarence Thomas being an extreme supporter of states' rights -even when it contradicts the constitution...not sure if you were addressing that point...

14th Amendment (privileges & immunities = Bill of Rights) & the doctrine of selective incorporation settled the issue of States rights vs consitutionally protected individual liberties long ago

I'll admit I don't know much about Justice Thomas views on that

I'll go a little way down the road of responding to some folks views on "Ron Paul" but don't want to go too far as that was not the intent of the thread. Really just wanted to get a sense of people's thinking on "Ron Paul"

Some things I just can't restrain myself on responding to though

 

[bright eyed]

Well, on the topic of Ron Paul I think he adds value to a campaign. He actually has a pretty defined ideology and sticks to it! He's not playing to win - he's playing to get his point across and he brings in ideas to the radar. I don't agree with everything (probably not much) and indeed if he has some unsavory affiliations, he should be ashamed of himself. but otherwise, he's quite entertaining in the debates...

it's also why i support proportional representation because then people would have people in congress who represented their actual views and not just a tiny bit of them and then everyone would have to work together to get stuff passed...

 

[Texarkandy]

Not sure about Paul, but I can never follow the Right on States' Rights.. all their carefully-crafted arguments (with all the merit in the world, even) get thrown completely out the window when it comes to their favorite bugaboos, like medical marijuana or vehicle emissions, just to use a couple of examples. Don't forget all their single-issue legislation via Constitutional amendments (flag-burning, gay marriage). One might be tempted to agree with them, or at least respect their points, if they could maintain coherency and intellectual integrity.

I think Paul is just working from the States on down, in a kind of 'devolutionary' way, on some fronts. It's a foothold.


Texarkandy, I respect an anti-abortion pov, but please explain instances in which "the State" considers the unborn to have property rights, the right to enter into contracts, or any legal right whatsoever. The 'wrongful death' of a fetus in the case of a wanted pregnancy does not get the same criminal or civil penalties, as might occur in, say, a car crash or industrial accident killing an adult. At least AFAIK; maybe Martha can precise.

[We can't even decide what rights born children may have: I was reading about a US case where a divorced custodial father was in court trying to get a circumcision ordered for his adolescent son over the objections of the mother and (maybe) the son.. seeing as HE (the father) had converted to Judaism. He was presenting this as HIS right to religious freedom, since his religion necessitated the circumcision of any sons he had!]

I don't want to turn this into an abortion thread.. but consider the situation of rape or incest victims, sometimes as young as 12 or 14, who in a zero-abortion-tolerance State, might be forced against their will to be incubators by.. whom? The government. I think most of us would agree giving the government too much power can cut both ways, and is often to be avoided, without having to resort to the extremes of über-libertarians.

I'll take it then that your view on "What's wrong with Ron Paul" is that:

because he is personally opposed to abortion and does not view abortion as a constitutionally protected right, he would not use federal authority to force ALL States to permit abortion - and you think the President should support Roe V Wade?

(You do understand he would also not force any State to restrict abortion either?)

 

[clifp]

I have to say libertarianism is simple minded, narrow, and selfish. It is the propaganda of the powerful to preserve and promote their power. Ricardo showed how this would lead to a class of rentiers owning society making economics the dismal science. It replaces the tyranny of the government with a myriad of petty tyrants, more circumscribed in the extant of their power but much more powerful within their fiefdom. Democracy is the worst system of government other than all those others tried.

As a ex-libertarian I pretty much agree. The personal freedoms that the libertarian argue for I still strongly agree with. I even like that Ron Paul actually brings up the 9th and 10th amendments (they seem to be completely forgotten in the last 30 years by the courts.)

However, the ugly side of libertarianism is "the I've got mind screw the rest of you." There are lots of things government can do to increase the well being of all us, besides what is enumerated in the Constitution.

What libertarian often fail to grasp, is I should pay more for cops, armed forces, courts etc. because I have a lot more to lose than poor people.

When the affluent in America start treating poor people like Marie Antoinette, we are likely to lose our heads...

 

[ladelfina]

I'll take it then that your view on "What's wrong with Ron Paul" is that:

because he is personally opposed to abortion and does not view abortion as a constitutionally protected right, he would not use federal authority to force ALL States to permit abortion - and you think the President should support Roe V Wade?

(You do understand he would also not force any State to restrict abortion either?)

Nope. I am pro-choice, but recognize that that choice MAY not be protected by the Constitution explicitly. Not by any means a crack legal scholar (or any other kind, really), but IIRC the constitutional argument stems from an implied right to privacy, as were winning arguments for 'legalizing' contraceptive devices and 'legalizing' sodomy. If I'm not mistaking them for someone else, libertarians are usually all over "privacy".

What you have to understand is that a whole range of rights are left OUT of the Constitution, and out of the States' constitutions. One of these (in my mind) IS a right to privacy. Clifp, lightning strikes twice and we agree once again! The 9th/10th amendments are woeful orphans! The people have unenumerated rights, so it's not just "states vs. feds.. choose your poison".

I am WITH the libertarians generally on the social, "right to be left alone" aspects. Where I diverge and hew progressive is on the shared services front, for which there MUST be taxation. I would like to see a balanced budget. Seems the conservatives have lost the 'conserve' part, and have spent worse than Dems. It's hard to imagine that we'd be in the situation we are if a Dem were in the WH; they may like to spend, but they didn't invent the supply-side voodoo economics illness that we currently suffer from. So given that I agree with maybe 30% of conventional R ideology and 60% of conventional Dem ideology (and 10% "other".. these are very rough proportions), and McCain promises us 10,000 years in Iraq, my hands are kind of tied, here.

I think my first post on Paul mentioned nothing negative but his racist tracts, or racist tracts put out under his imprimatur (the things were only 8 pages, so 'not reading them' is a weak excuse). If I really looked into him, I'm sure I could find more to like and more to dislike. On the impression I do have, I would hardly have switched parties, though. I was heartened that he got a lot of grass-roots support. If he'd been within striking distance of McCain, I'd have given a closer look.

AND, to agree further with clifp , it's one of my sticking points with RWS (right-wing sis) who is all worried about the Wal*Mart heirs having to relinquish 2 cents of their (almost $200 billion, is it?) inheritance.. What I try to explain is that W*M and other well-to-do families and corporations benefit HUGELY from our defense, energy policies, police, roads, the court system, the regulation of the market that allows them to float shares.. you name it; the list goes on and on. All I ask is that they PAY in proportion to those services that allow them to increase their wealth enormously. Pay to play. Instead, WE seem to be wanting to pay THEM for deigning to grace us with their presence. This is true of a lot of businesses. Sports franchises are notorious -practically criminal enterprises- in my book, and don't get me started on energy companies, another RWS sacred cow: "but if we don't give them huge tax breaks, they'll stop drilling for oil!". Yeh.

Sadly 'pay to play' is not the way the powers that be generally want the world to work. Somewhat off-topic but, in regard to this argument with RWS, somehow I got ahold of some stats from a casino site. Not a gambler, so this opened my eyes: what is right there for all to see is that, as the bet increases, the odds of winning are increasingly in the bettor's favor. A $5 slot pays out more percentage-wise than a nickel slot. And, if you compare games, the games of the "rich" are the least onerous: baccarat (the game seen in many a James Bond movie) pays out the highest.. The worst odds? KENO. There's quite a marked difference. C'est la vie!

 

[Gumby]

And same to you Liberal-Fascists!!! (as long as we are going to sink to name-calling)

(just kidding, couldn't help it)

This was copied from another site. It applies to Libertarians just as much as Republicans


A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

And, to be clear, I waver between being a Democratic Socialist and a Social Democrat. Nary a fascist in the lot.

 

[Texarkandy]

I think some of the posts thus far might illustrate exactly some of the reasons why Ron Paul never really caught on with more than 5 to 6% of the people and why no third party likely will in the near future of the United States.

Folks are so caught up in playing the Left Wing Liberal vs Right Wing Conservative game (where the middle is left little choice but to swing to one side or the other depending on the current election cycle) there's no room for third way. Kind of reminds me of the old Spy v Spy in Mad magazine.

I suspect that may be why Paul steadfastly insisted he was running as a "Republican" - because he knows (from his past Libertarian dalliances) that the best he can hope for is to try to influence change through one of the established party regimes.

 

[mb]

Not a Paul supporter but I agree with you big time on this:

I always considered myself a republican but lately cannot believe that the repubs want to try and keep us in Iraq and every other damned nation in the world. At this point I say **** it, bring all the troops home, save 1 TRILLION dollars per year, and get our fiscal house in order. All things Ron Paul said he would do. Otherwise this country is going to continue its downward spiral into debt.
.

One theme of Paul Kennedy's book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers is that a great power becomes a great power by growing its economy. A great power frewquently falls by over extending militarily.

I don't think Bush read the book

MB

 

[Texarkandy]

Your example is highly arguable and completely without references considering the propagandistic assumptions you make - just for example:

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

how about

Nixon
1969 -- National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
1970 -- Major amendments to AQA
1970 -- EPA created
1972 -- Clean Water Act (passed over veto)
1972 -- Amendments to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

Reagan
1984 -- Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
1986 --SARA Title III/Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
1986 --SDWA Amendments
1987 --Water Quality Act (CWA Amendments)
1988 -- FIFRA Amendments
1990 -- Clean Air Act Amendments (major changes)
1990 -- Federal Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)
1990 -- Oil Pollution Act

Bush 1
1992 -- Federal Facility Compliance Act

Bush 2
2002 -- Great Lakes Legacy Act

With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

Theodore Roosevelt
1906 Food and Drug Act (Wiley Act)
(paved the way for creation of the FDA - meat inspection, product labelling, etc)

I could research & go on & on - but the point is that you can find "good things" done in all of the areas mentioned in this article by people of both party's & often via bi-partisan legislation - just as you can find negligent examples by both parties. Sure the Republicans have not always been "angels", nor are they "satan's spawn" & the same goes for the Dems - (Well, OK - maybe some of the neo-cons & far-left-wingers are Satan's spawn!!! )

The article you post seems to be just so much "propaganda" and I guess that's what many folks in this country like to swallow because it's all just so much "feel good" talk (be they "neo-cons" Republicans or "femi-nazi's Democrats")

But in summary I'll have to take it that you couldn't support Ron Paul because he is the anti-thesis of a Socialist. Nuff said - I can certainly understand that rationale.

What I'm probably more curious about is the viewpoint of the more capitalistic leaning small-gov folks on here as to what's wrong with Ron Paul.

 

[Marquette]

1972 -- Clean Water Act (passed over veto)
Might want to proof-read that one a little closer if you're using it to show when republicans have done good for the environment

 

[Texarkandy]

............. What I try to explain is that W*M and other well-to-do families and corporations benefit HUGELY from our defense, energy policies, police, roads, the court system, the regulation of the market that allows them to float shares.. you name it; the list goes on and on. All I ask is that they PAY in proportion to those services that allow them to increase their wealth enormously. Pay to play. ............

Once again - not to get too far from the original intent of the thread, but... didn't they already pay taxes (probably more than once) on that money when it was earned?

 

[Texarkandy]

1972 -- Clean Water Act (passed over veto)
Might want to proof-read that one a little closer if you're using it to show when republicans have done good for the environment

Admittedly, it was a quick & dirty citation - at least I went out & found a few

 

[Gumby]

Actually, my point was not really to point the finger as between Republican/Conservative and Democrat/Liberal, but to point out that the government can and has often acted as a force for good in our society. There is a fair streak of libertarianism in today's Republican party, so I often lump them together, but my real beef is with the steely-eyed followers of Ayn Rand who have "done it all themselves" and don't need us girly-men collectivists.

P.S. - the fact that a law was passed by Congress during a particular administration does not mean that the president or his party was responsible for it. Indeed, sometimes, as with the Clean Water Act, it was passed over a veto. (And I note that the entire Congress was controlled by Democrats while Nixon was president and the House was always controlled by Democrats while Reagan was president with the last two years having the House and Senate both in Democratic hands). So your list is misleading.

 

[Texarkandy]

I don't think you understand - WE would be the rentiers - WE would be the petty tyrants with fiefdoms !

I had to go look that one up ("rentiers")

Hey, I like that - sounds like what I've been looking to be all my life!!

 

[Texarkandy]

.....steely-eyed followers of Ayn Rand who have "done it all themselves" and don't need us girly-men collectivists.

Yep, that would be me.

 

[ladelfina]

Fascinatingly a good number of "done it all themselves" critters have trust funds and are white male WASPs (nothing against them personally) with accordant societal privileges. At least this is my personal experience. I knew quite a few libertarians at my $$$$$$$$$$$ college. I used to think it was an adolescent phase; you read Rand right after you run out of Tolkien. They're equally fantastic. One is better-written.

Nixon would indeed be viewed as a wild-eyed liberal today. That's correct! That's how badly things have skewed.

Marquette is also right that you can't just go by the names. GWB gave us "Clean Skies" that programmed for them to be dirtier, and devised a very sketchy logger-friendly "Healthy Forests" plan.

didn't they already pay taxes (probably more than once) on that money when it was earned

At those levels, I'd be very, very, very surprised if they pay even half as high a percentage of their realized income in taxes as you do, Texarkandy. Here's just one way that I found in about ten seconds:
A Tax Break for the Rich Who Can Keep a Secret - New York Times
I fear not the dearth of others.

Just got off of a Right-Wing Sis discussion of how "of course" CA yacht owners should pay ZERO SALES TAX on their yachts.. because otherwise that might depress the yacht industry!!!!!!!

Try that argument the next time you buy a Ford Fiesta.

 

[samclem]

I knew quite a few libertarians at my $$$$$$$$$$$ college. I used to think it was an adolescent phase; you read Rand right after you run out of Tolkien.

[FONT=Times New Roman,Times,Serif]

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.

- Commonly attributed to Winston Churchill, though there is some doubt of it's origin.
[/FONT]
​

 

[Texarkandy]

At those levels, I'd be very, very, very surprised if they pay even half as high a percentage of their realized income in taxes as you do, Texarkandy. Here's just one way that I found in about ten seconds:
A Tax Break for the Rich Who Can Keep a Secret - New York Times
I fear not the dearth of others.

I expect the truth is the average person really has no idea how much these folks do or don't pay in taxes because it's so wrapped up in our convoluted tax code (created by our illustrious Democrat & Republican politicians) which results in just so much class warfare.

 

[cantlogin]

Your example is highly arguable and completely without references considering the propagandistic assumptions you make - just for example:



how about

Nixon
1969 -- National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
1970 -- Major amendments to AQA
1970 -- EPA created
1972 -- Clean Water Act (passed over veto)
1972 -- Amendments to Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

Reagan
1984 -- Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
1986 --SARA Title III/Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
1986 --SDWA Amendments
1987 --Water Quality Act (CWA Amendments)
1988 -- FIFRA Amendments
1990 -- Clean Air Act Amendments (major changes)
1990 -- Federal Pollution Prevention Act (PPA)
1990 -- Oil Pollution Act

Bush 1
1992 -- Federal Facility Compliance Act

Bush 2
2002 -- Great Lakes Legacy Act


Theodore Roosevelt
1906 Food and Drug Act (Wiley Act)
(paved the way for creation of the FDA - meat inspection, product labelling, etc)

I could research & go on & on - but the point is that you can find "good things" done in all of the areas mentioned in this article by people of both party's & often via bi-partisan legislation - just as you can find negligent examples by both parties. Sure the Republicans have not always been "angels", nor are they "satan's spawn" & the same goes for the Dems - (Well, OK - maybe some of the neo-cons & far-left-wingers are Satan's spawn!!! )

The article you post seems to be just so much "propaganda" and I guess that's what many folks in this country like to swallow because it's all just so much "feel good" talk (be they "neo-cons" Republicans or "femi-nazi's Democrats")

But in summary I'll have to take it that you couldn't support Ron Paul because he is the anti-thesis of a Socialist. Nuff said - I can certainly understand that rationale.

What I'm probably more curious about is the viewpoint of the more capitalistic leaning small-gov folks on here as to what's wrong with Ron Paul.

What this post says is that Nixon, Reagan,Bush 1,Bush 2 and Theodore Roosevelt had some significant liberal aspects.

 

[Rustic23]

Nixon would indeed be viewed as a wild-eyed liberal today. That's correct!

And some say Kennedy would be another nut ball right wing religious conservative.

 

[Marquette]

Marquette is also right that you can't just go by the names. GWB gave us "Clean Skies" that programmed for them to be dirtier, and devised a very sketchy logger-friendly "Healthy Forests" plan.

Actually, my point was that it's not good to post an environmental bill that was passed over the president's veto as proof that said president did something environmentally positive.

but, yes, it's worth knowing the language and impact of a bill.