sockparade

ron paul revisited

I’ll start with an apology first. My previous Ron Paul post was poorly titled. For regular readers, you would have known that I always write hideously ridiculous titles to my posts such as “i dry clean my clothes at popeye’s.” What I expected from writing that post was that it would provoke some people to start thinking more deeply about their views on politics.

What I did NOT expect was that there would be an online libertarian task force scouring the internet for posts about Ron Paul who then respond with such a resounding force! While the manner in which some of the comments were written was condescending and downright rude, I hold no contempt because I was ugly first in my post titling and I applaud your effort in speaking up when you disagree. I think progress is contingent on this kind of dialogue. It’s ironic that in this country we fight so hard to protect our freedom of speech and then we waste it by only talking and befriending people who agree with us and dismissing people who disagree as foolish and unworthy of our time.

I would like to clarify a few things before I restate my position on Ron Paul and libertarianism.

• I quoted the extremely leftist article because I believed I was speaking to a left-ish audience. I went as far as to say ‘If you are voting for a Republican government, there is no need to read this post.” Stating my reasons on why I believe in big government will be another post all together.
• Having assumed a leftist audience, I expected the reader to be able to pick through rhetoric and extract meaningful points. I also disclaimed that I had not checked the authenticity of the quotes and was not basing my opinion on those quotes.
• I regret making the distinction between Republican and Democrat in my previous post. I think those political parties are confused as far as ideologies go. I don’t think a woman should have the right to have an abortion but I do think that the wealthy should be taxed and the poor should be assisted. Where does that leave me? Because I do not think the government has the abilities to change the nation’s mind about abortion, I am left to focus on what else the government can do. And that is why I am hoping a Democrat will win the presidential election this year. I promise to write another post on this.
• If you are a passionate libertarian, I have no silly notions of being able to change your mind with one post. If you are well versed in political ideas and theories, you will not be hearing anything new from me. I write this post for the benefit of those who perhaps have always sided with one idea or another by default and not through careful thinking and introspection. I welcome your comments but please know that I do not write this to change your opinions and beliefs.

To avoid misquoting and referencing false information, I will quote directly from Ron Paul’s website and comment solely based on his website.

“Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.”

For face value, this statement seems to make sense. It definitely applies to my life. If my income taxes were cut, I would definitely have more money to spend, save and invest. If I was only concerned about my own well-being, I would support tax cuts. The problem I have with the statement is that he claims that reducing taxes would help “all of us.” I appreciate that the person who wrote the content of the website attempted to use the perspective of a single mother. But what about the single mother who depends on government assistance to feed her children? What about the disabled man who worked hard for 25 years and was injured on the job and no longer can support himself? What about the child who was abused by her parents and is CPS custody? What about the teacher in an inner-city school who barely has enough supplies in her classroom to teach her students? Do tax cuts benefit them? Tax cuts benefit those who have the luxury to spend, save and invest. They don’t benefit everyone. Let’s not kid ourselves.

“In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to ‘we the people.’”

I agree with this criticism!  The Fed needs to stop dropping the interest rate.  It scares us more than it helps us.

“The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted. Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration. Many Canadians, fed up with socialized medicine, come to the U.S. in order to obtain care. Socialized medicine will not magically work here.”

I agree with this criticism as well!  But I do not think that the idea of universal healthcare should be completely shelved.  I’ll say this right now, I will not support a universal healthcare plan if it is not well planned and efficient.

I believe Ron Paul’s six point plan about immigration is flawed.

“Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.”

No fence will be high enough or strong enough if we continue to ignore the poverty that surrounds us.  There’s a reason why people are leaving their home country.

“No amnesty.  Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.”

This statement implies that immigrants who enter the U.S. undocumented all do so because they are criminal-minded and scheming to break laws.  While there may be those who do just that, there is the vast majority that are simply in search of a better life for their children.

“No welfare for illegal aliens.  Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules.  But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.”

While it is not obligation or “shoulds” that drive compassion, I understand that not all are compassionate for those in need.  However, logistically, do you know what kind of a disaster refusing these services would be?  Hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services do not have the kind of manpower or infrastructure to perform citizenship or green card verification on the job.  Imagine the communicable diseases that would spread and the amount of illiterate, uneducated children that would roam the streets.  I think the humanitarian aspect of this proposition does not need to be explored because I am simply at a loss for how this would actually be implemented.

“End birthright citizenship.  As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.”

The ideology behind this proposition would also assert then, that the only true Americans are the Native Americans.  Or is 2008 a magic year when birthright citizenship should no longer be counted?

“The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.”

I don’t care much for privacy if it means an increase in safety.  As long as we don’t have to install TVs in our living rooms that monitor our thoughts, I’m okay with wiretaps and my financial and medical history being examined.

“Many politicians talk about honoring our veterans and their sacrifices. Yet so often the rhetoric obscures the reality that the federal government treats veterans badly. Congress wastes billions of dollars on countless unconstitutional programs, but fails to provide adequately for the men and women who carry out the most important constitutional function: national defense.”

I agree wholeheartedly.  However, I’m afraid better assistance for veterans will mean the use of taxpayer dollars.  Which I’m supportive of, but I thought Ron Paul was against?

And as for those who defended Ron Paul and said he wasn’t racist, let me say this.  I think everyone is racist.  Everyone.  I am, you are, Ron Paul is, and even your grandmother is.  That’s the world we live in.  I think it’s delusional to believe otherwise.  It’s only a matter of how hard you are trying to fight your racism.

“Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.”

If desegregation and the busing of students to other schools did not occur and we waited for people to change their hearts, I don’t know how far along our country would be now on the fight against racism.  I don’t think people become less racist by willing themselves to be less racist.  I think racism is fought best with increasing positive interactions with people of diverse ethnicities (thank you Malcolm Gladwell for this idea).  Unfortunately, sometimes these interactions will only occur if the government passes more laws and regulations.

“The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence – not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.”

This would be true if we did not already have a heritage of racism.  But since we are not a colorblind world, the liberty this statement speaks of would only allow the existing racism to go unchecked.

I think Ron Paul is misclassified.  I don’t know why he’s running as a Republican.  And I don’t know if I would really call him a Libertarian either.  I think what’s happening to a lot of people is that they’ve been blindly following the Republican party and only listening to Republican debates because they are so sure they aren’t Democrats.  And this year, when Ron Paul started introducing new ideas into a stale political party, it seemed so revolutionary and different that a lot of people were attracted to it.  That’s understandable.  I just want to make sure that all Ron Paul supporters are truly Ron Paul supporters and not people who are just following the next new, shiny thing.

For those of you who believe every man and woman should pull themselves up by the bootstraps, it makes perfect sense that you support Ron Paul.  I won’t go as far as to say that you do not have a heart, but I do think that you are less compassionate than I wish you would be.

IN a truly free country gov’t would not be doing half the things you suggest they should. And when it comes to immigration, another country’s ‘poor’ is NONE of our business.

Give them all your money if you want, but you HAVE NO RIGHT TO STEAL IT FROM ME AND GIVE IT!!!!!!

DANG. You regressives are thick headed.

barack obama mike huckabee vs machine

huckabee obama:
we understand your disgust.
subversion of democracy.

know this:
gravel kucinich paul nader
will fight any ticket
with clinton or mccain on it.

your eyes & ears are open…

Mike Gravel Dennis Kucinich Dr Ron Paul Ralph Nader
united by truth elicit fear smear blacklist.

Too many lies,
democracy rising democracy now.
Rage against the machine.

Honesty compassion intelligence guts.

No more extortion blackmail bribery division.
Divided we fall.

I suggest making the funding for all Government programs based on “Liberty”. You have the liberty to sign-up for the tax or you don’t. This would be the only fair way to implement any social program or tax for that matter. We all know what would happen, very few would sign up. The only way to get these programs is to force those that don’t share the same values to submit, which is no different then what the “Neo-Con” Republicans are doing, not the Ron Paul Republicans.

If this is such an important issue for you on the socialist side then you should be first in line to sign up for the tax. I on the other hand would rather Red Cross, my Church or any other independent organization to use my money to help people in need. I support minimal regulation for safety of the people with maximum public over site and enforcement. If that is not given in any bill proposed by congress then I don’t support it.

I support a government that gives me a choice, that gives me the liberty to decide where my money goes and what i want to do with it. Anything less is not America.

I think that you have committed a common error when evaluating Ron Paul’s positions, which is to fail to take into account that all his stances flow from one overarching principle, which is maximising individual freedom. Under this principle, one person may not coerce another person into participating in an activity which he/she opposes or prioritizes differently.

For instance, you think it of utmost importance that those among us who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances should have access to a pool of money dedicated to staving off the most dire effects of poverty. For this, you propose that I should contribute some portion of my income.

I, however, hold as my most important priority individual liberty. Thus, I object to having whatever amount of my income forcibly removed from me in order to fund your priority (although I would consider doing so voluntarily, provided I believed your fund was administered efficiently and fairly, otherwise I might select a better fund for my contributions).

You say, fine, I will assemble together a coalition of my countrymen large enough that the number of those who agree with me will overwhelm those who share your priority and we will then create bureaucracies and police forces which will enforce the will of my majority. We will then forcibly extract from you the amounts of your wealth which we decide are adequate to fund our project. If you do not submit, by our greater numbers we will crush you and send you to jails manned by our law enforcement agents and forcibly extract from your assets the amounts we have decreed you should contribute to our poverty amelioration fund.

So, you perhaps can see how your poverty elimination coalition may be viewed as frighteningly unfair and leading to a loss of the liberty which is my priority. Therefore, unless you can find a way to voluntarily fund your poverty safety net, we must be in opposition due to our clashing principles.

In the end, our opposition boils down to your promotion of restraint, coercion, and loss of liberty vs. my promotion of individual liberty and voluntary cooperation which I believe are my unalienable rights. You, on the other hand believe that your poverty fund is so important that my rights are of little concern and may be violated in pursuit of what you perceive as a higher good.

I am on the side of Ron Paul, who promotes liberty and voluntary cooperation as the highest priority. Until you understand our principles, you will not understand Ron Paul.

“I don’t care much for privacy if it means an increase in safety. As long as we don’t have to install TVs in our living rooms that monitor our thoughts, I’m okay with wiretaps and my financial and medical history being examined.”
Wow. At least you draw the line at thought monitoring TV’s, but un-warranted wiretaps? I am assuming you are referring to the governments new programs regarding un-warranted wiretaps, because nobody is arguing about wiretaps warrants obtained through proper constitutional channels. Do you have any idea what this could lead to? Let’s start with politicians tapping their opponents. Hey, I could legitimately argue that somebody who does not take my position on national defense is a threat to this country and therefore required to be monitored. Why would I even need to make a defense; they are warrantless! Even if they were found to be improper, it would take a while, and their damage would have been achieved. This would be one of many reasons why warrantless wiretapping is and always has been a bad idea. You just handed anyone with an authoritarian position the right to listen to any conversation you have based on your safety. This is why I can never understand people like you. Despite all the corruption scandals, all the abuse of power throughout history, you want to take away our system of checks and balances for your safety, with complete confidence that it won’t be abused by the same people that seem to have a consistent track record of abusing power. What do you think politicians will do with your medical records? I know this maybe far fetched for you, but suppose a medical insurance company contributes heavily to a party/candidate, and now that candidate starts giving them your medical records. Then one day, you can’t get coverage. From anyone! They shared your history, and your family history, and the company decided that you were too much of a risk to insure. Your financial history is already being traded between everybody and their aunt. This way CC companies can figure out when you are in a hole, and jack up your interest rates. They know you can’t pay it off, and they have you by the nuts. They do it now. How is this keeping me safe? These are just the immediate ideas that come to mind, but if you give a few politicians and corporations a little time, I am sure they can come up with dozens of ways to misuse this info that will have nothing to do with our security. Kind of like giving one idiot the ability to make up lies and send a nation to war.
It’s amazing how willing people are to give up their personal liberties for ’safety’. However, if you even mention border security they are quick to defend the rights of illegal aliens. How is it you can so easily sell yourself out? Just give it away. For safety? I’ll bet your one of those idiots who feels secure when you see police armed like soldiers in an airport. Next time ask yourself two questions: When was the last time a terrorist group tried a frontal ground assault on an airport? And if that doesn’t disturb you, this will: The last time the police surrounded a few unarmed ’suspects’ (hey, they fit the profile) and unloaded (a few probably reloaded) their semi-automatic hand guns, how many times did they miss? Now they have automated rifles shooting high volocity rounds. GREAT!! It’s not about your safety. It’s about power. Reminds me of the war on drugs. Same brainwashed morons falling for the same idea, that building more prisons and unleashing more police with more expanded powers will ‘win the war’. Don’t mention to these people that 80% of the drugs come over the Mexican border though. That would be racist. How is the war on drugs going by the way? Have we won yet?