Ron Paul Extreme Libertarian Philosophies?

As of yet I have not received a reply, in a reasonable amount of time, to the question.  What is so extreme about the desire for a sound currency, ending corporate welfare, structuring environmental issues around private property rights (the right to clean air and water).  

 End farm subsidies, oh my gosh, that might mean other farmers begin to farm in sustainable fashions which are profitable.  

 The department of education, not in control of what we learn, for shame.

 Gosh, looking at the issues, with an open mind (the reason behind a LIBERAL ARTS degree).   

by john w (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 12:06:49 PM
 

Sure, but...

I agree that some of his positions make sense, but the libertarian idea of obliterating much of government functions, leaving us to fend for ourselves rather than be protected by regulation and investment in our communities, is extreme in my view.

by Amy Fried (39 articles, 106 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 207 comments) on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM
 

Regulation

Protecting us with regulation.  I believe he agrees that regulation needs to occur.  

However, at this point in time the government is trying to make me track all movements/births/deaths of livestock.   This is extreme, There needs to be regulation, but that regulation should not be burdensome, especially how most regulations favor large corporations over small family business'.  Which is all I see.

by john w (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 1:45:44 PM
 

Regualtion

The department of energy, hmm.....

If we protected private property rights, as Paul would like to do,  traditional power sources would become more expensive.  This would allow for true competition to develop in the energy markets.  

In reading the hydrogen economy, a must read IMO, you learn that energy has been the controlling factor in our economy.  Energy has helped to concentrate wealth into a few people hands, along with those pesky governmental regulations allowing one to deduct interest on their mortgage and then the encouraged saving in the financial sector. 

by john w (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 2:18:20 PM
 

I don't think it's about property rights

I don't see the key issue as property rights. I'm much more concerned with investment in what Thom Hartmann calls "the commons"

by Amy Fried (39 articles, 106 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 207 comments) on Friday, February 1, 2008 at 5:35:39 PM
 

Tom Hartmann

Yes there is a beacon of getting to both sides of the issue.  I tried to speak with him about government tracking of our food supply.  As an organic farmer who primarily sells direct to the consumer. 

 He hung up on me and went on a tirade about how the program was designed for my benefit and the consumer.  Heck if the USDA would allow for the testing of Mad Cow disease, there would be no need.

 I quit listening to him as I feel he is the lefts version of Rush Limbaugh.

If you can not explain the commons, and simply bob your head like the old Limbaugh fans did, then you have no right in bringing up the point of "the Commons".   It can be explained in private property rights.  I have the right to clean air and water, and one who pollutes the air and water must pay a fee for doing so.  Much like carbon credits except the fee goes to the government, and it is not a corrupt system like exists in carbon credits today.  I went to a talk on them in the past two weeks, and at this point in time there is no accurate way of measuring carbon stored in the ground, via agriculture.  

 I would not mind the carbon payment I will receive, but without the payment I would not be doing anything differently as it is more ecologically sound farm in a fashion that rebuilds the top soil as opposed to our petro chemical row crop farming methods.

 Peace 

by john w (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 8:04:56 AM
 

"The Commons"

"The Commons" are things that make a society a civilized one. The infrastructure, health care system set up with health care as a right not a privilege, keeping our food & drugs safe, keeping our environment clean, etc. Property rights implies individual ownership, while the commons is more collective. As Hartmann says, this does not mean he's a socialist, but the "free market" must exist within certain rules which are set by the government. Otherwise, it's "buyer beware" and robber barons.

by Amy Fried (39 articles, 106 quicklinks, 60 diaries, 207 comments) on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM
 

"The Commons" are things that make a society a civilized one

{{The infrastructure}}  

Yes, we need infrastructure, and government should help to facilitate it.  However, by centralizing power in Washington as is currently happening, we may not be making the wisest choices. $223 million to build a bridge to serve 9000 people.  

Might it not be better to make a holistic decision as to how to spend $223 Million.  That could have been spent to pay the costs of building greenhouses near cities.  Then allow individuals to lease them at next to nothing creating a job and happiness for that individual?

{{health care system set up with health care as a right not a privilege,}}

I agree, but then how do you reward people for actually, initiating the process of eating nutrient dense food, being physically fit, etc..  The next question is how do you propose we pay for it.  We already have obligations of close to 50 TRILLION.  No candidate has a plan other than Paul, to get us out of the mess we are in.  We could institute a brief period of hyperinflation and rob those who are trying to save for retirement.

{{keeping our food & drugs safe,}}

Yep, keeping our food and Drugs safe.  Thom, spelled it out pretty well, that he has no desire to listen to one else on the issue the FDA/USDA are right.  Heck eliminating the Ag subsidies, increasing the tax on energy to pay for unemployment as opposed to taxing employers for those they employ (not taxing companies who shift jobs overseas), would help to bring food production and consumption closer together.  As opposed to the highly energy intensive system we currently have.

 As far as making sure that our drugs are safe.  The FDA and pharmacuetical companies seem to have a revolving door.  As such the FDA, really does not want competition with their drug companies.  Also the managed trade agreement called CAFTA, wants to force all, to obtain a prescription to obtain vitamins.  

<< keeping our environment clean, etc. Property rights implies individual ownership>>

 Not having individual ownership to clean air or water, implies that the government controls how much a company can pollute.  I believe, I am sorry if I misquote, that if we actually charge for the pollution of a power plant produces, that would raise their cost of production and make other sources of energy much more competitive.  

Unless we maintain an individuals right to own property.  There is no point in claiming to support a "free market" as everyone would own everything.  In this case no one would put in the extra effort to try and invent anything.  No one would work very hard as what they produce would be shared.

{{Otherwise, it's "buyer beware" and robber barons.}}

 robber barrons are currently afforded the ability to take from you, by a currency which "the Robber Barons" now control, a retirement system which is not controlled by the individual, but held and invested by the collective.  As you know absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Robber Barons are alive and well and stealing from you every day that they print more money to lend to the US.  

The rule of law needs to exist and people need to be held accountable.  I do not believe that Dr. Paul believes any differently. 

by john w (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM
 

"The Commons" are things that make a society a civilized one

I would argue that the rule of law is what makes society a civilized one.  The US constitution, is the basis for that and it has served us well.

by john w (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 12:51:46 PM
 

As I suspected, Just rhetoric

You are simply a ditto head of a different sort.  Who repeats what you have heard.  The US Constitution is the most important document we have.  Without it we are subject to the government telling us what we need to do.  

I can assure you my tax revenue will go down, if the government begins taking more.  As I do not feel the urge to work harder so that another can sit back and collect welfare at my expense.

At what point do we get fed up.  Yes standing up for what is right needs to happen.  But the government, is simply a leach and reduces wealth in society.  We need to come together to design solutions at the local level to make things better. 

by john w (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 1:17:21 PM