millennium | Hard Questions for Ron Paul

A Weblog by Ben Goodger

July 19, 2007

Hard Questions for Ron Paul

Republican candidate Ron Paul spoke at Google last week. I wasn’t able to go because I had a meeting conflict. However watching the Q&A in the video I was disappointed and wished I had been able to go so that I could ask questions. I’m not a US citizen so can’t vote, but I feel like people can’t get past the fact that Ron Paul makes sense on one issue: that the Iraq war has been a disastrous waste of life, money and opportunity and ask some perhaps more interesting questions.

For example, as a self proclaimed “champion of the constitution,” why is he not seeking President Bush’s impeachment? Is he, but we just haven’t heard about it?

Also, many of his actual policies sound frightening, at least initially. As he goes on to explain his positions in more detail, the libertarian part of your brain realizes that what he’s saying actually makes a bit of sense, but you realize that for his ideas to reach fruition a series of unlikely steps would need to take place. Many of his policies are built on the notion everyone in communities across the country thinks about every issue logically, and will take care of the details of supporting that community, and as such the federal government should step back. In many places that’s true, especially on social issues that I feel the federal government only gets involved in for purely theatrical purposes. But in infrastructural areas, such as public works, education, healthcare etc, it’s been proven that given the opportunity, companies will squander public trust. Basically I’m saying that the government shouldn’t necessarily meddle in setting the school curriculum (other than to set some basic standards), but it should provide funding to operate them.

I have some thoughts here since even though I can’t vote, I do pay taxes in the United States. I like low taxes. I like the government staying out of my affairs. But I feel like much of the politics in this country are theatrical and a waste of time. If the government would stop wasting money on foolish adventures overseas and spend it at home, maybe people living here could have a decent healthcare system like everywhere else in the western world. Just a thought.

Posted by Ben at 1:18 AM Comments / 9

« Safari on Windows will not fail | Main | Awesome »

Comments

9 Responses to “Hard Questions for Ron Paul”

Peter Kasting says:

Contrary to initial appearance, libertarian ideas tend to rely _less_ on people helping each other, not more. Libertarians expect that people generally act in their self-interest and respond to incentives. An example of this would be libertarian opposition to anti-price-gouging laws: economically, it turns out that allowing prices to spike after disasters brings in goods faster and ends up being cheaper and better overall than artificially restricting prices, and thereby supply. People wind up better off not because other people are selflessly wanting to help but because they’re acting in their own self-interest.

Of course not everything works this way; market failure exists and there are times when the government should step in. Public infrastructural goods like you mention are a tricky area for libertarians because of the free rider principle, among other things. In these cases the hard-core “pure freedom at all costs” libertarians and the utilitarian libertarians butt heads. I’m not familiar enough with all Paul’s policies to know which side of the line he falls on, although to non-libertarians (or non-economists) both sides appear to be wackos at first.

Realistically, the impact of having Paul as a president would be that he would veto much of what Congress passes. The executive has little direct power to overhaul the nation’s entire legal framework, so people who support Ron Paul are sometimes simply people who wish to push the government to be _more_ libertarian than it is, or even just people who’d rather cause gridlock. In my view both of these are perfectly fine goals.

In any case, if you’re really interested in more detail on why libertarian ideas don’t, in fact, require people to join hands and help their neighbors in order to succeed, I suggest David Friedman’s “The Machinery Of Freedom”, a series of economic essays that make strongly libertarian arguments from a utilitarian perspective. Whether or not you end up agreeing with Friedman’s arguments, he takes a look at what the actual consequences of policies like Paul’s might be.
Ben says:

His answer to many questions was of the form “consumers will band together in ad hoc ways and provide help to other consumers” which lead me to make the statements I made.

I think Paul is a decent candidate as candidates go, but I’m ready to hear more substance from him about how he plans to actually achieve his vision.
badmedia says:

What you need to understand about Ron Paul, and why all sides are supporting him is not because of what he wants to do, it’s more to do with the fact of HOW you are supposed to do it.

The constitution is the law of the land, if politicans don’t follow it, then bad things happen.

For example, healthcare should be an amendment, not just a program they setup to serve who they want.

You can read more about this at a blog I recently started.

http://ilovetheconstitution.blogspot.com/
Brandon says:

These are very valid questions. The idea that people can’t or aren’t smart enough to take care of themselves should be insulting to Americans. Unfortunatly we perscribe to this because we have never had to take care of ourselves. If you put people on the hot seat, sink or swim, you’d be surprised how many people can swim.

On the issue of impeachment, my thoughts. We have had president Bush in office for 6 years and now in the last months of his election we’re going to apply for impeachment? All these righteous people who are screaming impeachment should have been doing this years ago. Ron Paul didn’t support it because it’s a long and expensive process. The benefit of impeaching Bush within the last months of office are outweighed.

I would say the main agenda Ron Paul has is controlling the spending in the United States and securing the value of our dollar. A lot of issues he flat out claims, this is not a federal issue, and is not an issue I would place highly on my agenda. For example the pro-hemp groups love him because he says it’s not a federal issue. But I think people lose track and instantly says he supports it. It’s not a black and white issue, we have many layers to our government. The states would have the ability to legalize or not. The Federal government should be more interested in preserving the rights laid out in the Constitution.

People are afraid of the unknown, and complete individual freedom is scary to people. The man is truly respectable because if you listen to his presentations, he will dismiss the idea that all his ideas are perfect. He is willing to learn, adapt, and ask for help. We should look at all the candidates and be as critical. Ron Paul to me is the most considerate candidate, he doesn’t want to war to continue, he doesn’t want the United States influencing foreign governments, he really wants the constitution to be iron clad, which opposes NAFTA, NATA, and ideas like the Amero. There are far more extreme “mainstream candidates.”
Bryan says:

Dr. Paul is running for a federal position, there is no Constitutional power that authorized the federal government to meddle in education, healthcare and more. The states can deal with these issues fine and in a free society the states would take no power on these issues either.

I agree that companies can’t be given the public trust- they are entities with a goal of making money, Dr. Paul certainly does no corporate involvement.

You are correct, if we stopped stealing money from people (forced taxes = theft) then individuals would have more freedom and could afford better healthcare. It would also be beneficial to remove government regulations that impose unnecessary restrictions on healthcare services between two adults agreeing to a contract.
Ben says:

So the rationale against impeachment is purely based on cost?

That makes it sound like Dr. Paul is the champion of the constitution except where it costs too much.

Why have a capitol at all when all voting can be done electronically and debates done over the internet? This would save money too.

Interesting questions.
goldenequity says:

Do your OWN homework.

NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
Scott McDonnell says:

Ben,

Interesting you pick one half of the answer regarding the impeachment issue and form a complete opinion. It shows who gave you your opinion.

As much as I would like Bush to get impeached (not true, I would like to see him indicted and imprisoned,) if it started now it would not be over before his term ends. I was calling for it years and years ago, but it’s too late now. Anyone supporting it at this point is doing it purely for political reasons (ie. liberals.) It would simply give people a false sense of justice and encourage the myth that things will change with a democrat in office.

Also, impeaching Bush would leave the real monster in charge, hardly a good thing. It should have started with him first, then Bush.

Impeachment is not something that takes one week. Look how long it took to finish the Valarie Plame deal? Is the U.S. Attorney firing deals over yet? Has Gonzales been stripped of his position, yet?

Clinton was impeached at the end of his 8 year reign for purely political reasons (deserved or not - personally, I believe it was deserved, but not for his sexual trangressions) and in the end, he still got to finish his term. What it did do was give the false hope that ‘by voting Republican this time, we could clean up this mess.’ How’d that work out?

If our representatives were serious about impeaching Bush for his crimes, they would have done it long ago. This smacks of the republicans only just now taking issue with Bush after supporting this traitor for all these years. Sure, they want to distance themselves NOW…

It would be presumptious of me to infer which candidates you support, but it definitely isn’t difficult from your accepted viewpoint on this issue.

The real problem is that corporate elites, special interest groups, globalists, and warmongers really could care less which ‘top-tier’ candidates win, regardless of party. They have both already been bought and paid for. It is obvious they are pushing for a democrat this time simply because they have been so successful with the strategy of putting the opposing parties in power after each two terms to fool the people into thinking they have issued some sort of mandate and things will get ‘cleaned up.’ Honestly, when has this happened? We just keep getting more of the same, because the candidates are paid for by the same people. You have to look no further than 2006 to see proof of this. A vote for any of the top-tier candidates for either party as a ‘protest’ vote is still a vote for the globalists. So have fun with your make-believe democracy, if this guides your vote.

Me? I’ll be writing Ron Paul in whether he can win or not. I don’t care. My vote is my conscience and I will not compromise it. I will not play the ‘lesser of two evils’ game ever again, because there really isn’t a lesser evil.

If you want to protest this illusion of democracy, either vote independent or any of the ’second tier’ candidates. I can assure you that they have NOT been bought.
NH says:

Who cares about Bush? Impeaching Bush won’t do a damned thing and is a waste of time. Bush is but a pimple on the vast blemished landscape that is now our government, poisoned by the control of the elitists.

millennium | ten

July 19, 2007

Hard Questions for Ron Paul

Comments

9 Responses to “Hard Questions for Ron Paul”

Comments are Closed