I have been reluctant to criticize presidential aspirant Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on this blog due to his refreshing anti-war stance and overall views on individual liberty. Indeed, it seems the blogosphere is abuzz about this plain-spoken, anti-establishment candidate.
Instead of allowing my personal partisan leanings to automatically kick in (Republican=Elitist asshole) I decided to take off my tin-foil hat, roll up my sleeves, and truly spelunk some of Mr. Paul's extensive writings.
On some issues I like where Ron Paul is coming from. On a great majority, however, I find myself in stark disagreement, and for the same reasons I have detested the Norquist-style Republicans that have flourished during Bush's unsteady presidency. It's the same ideas we've all been hearing from the Bush administration and its cronies in Congress; government cannot be effective, and free markets can cure cancer.
I am going to to select a few choice positions in the coming months of electoral frenzy and analyze what Representative Paul has to say. This first is...
Government Subsidies
Most Americans are completely acclimated to a government that subsidizes certain industries and programs. I'm sure everyone who reads this post can remember seeing the logo for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting preceding "Sesame Street" in the dim prehistory of childhood.
Ron Paul would do away with all such government-sponsored community services and subsidies. From "Texas Straight Talk," Paul's weekly column on the House website (emph. mine);
It is especially immoral to force Americans who oppose cloning and stem cell research to fund those activities with their tax dollars. Apparently Congress has not learned from the abortion debate that forcing taxpayers to fund very controversial programs creates tremendous resentment and dissension. In a free society, citizens are not forced to support practices that they abhor. Congress should remain neutral by following a strict policy of not subsidizing research, which encourages private funding while respecting the rights of those who do not want to pay for practices that offend their moral or religious sensibilities.
While the moral question he mentions surrounding the abortion and stem cell issues does raise a good point, it is not convincing enough to back up the argument for no federal research spending whatsoever.
Jared Berstein wrote a great piece for the Economic Policy Institute which perfectly illustrates why I think Ron Paul is dead wrong on this issue;
Such investments by governments to private firms are not only useful but also can be critically important to our welfare. New industries often need seed capital that is not forthcoming from financial markets, especially when large infrastructure needs mean steep start-up costs: Think of the Internet, which began as a Department of Defense project.
Because firms can't recoup all the benefits of their R&D investments, they tend to under-invest. If government took a pure hands-off approach, there would be less money put into medicine, technology, aviation and most other cutting-edge fields.
For a more concrete example, take aspirin as a case study;
The highest payoff to government spending on research may come from funding research in areas where it is prohibitively expensive to establish the system of property rights that makes private profit possible.
A prominent example of this phenomenon, mentioned above, is the discovery that aspirin can prevent heart attacks and death from heart attacks. It is difficult to conceive of realistic circumstances in which a producer of aspirin could gain exclusive rights to sell aspirin for this indication, and it is unlikely that the discovery that aspirin had such beneficial effects markedly increased the profits of its producers. Moreover, since aspirin is produced by many firms, no one of them had much to gain by financing this kind of research.
While some may consider Ron Paul's ultra-conservative policy positions exciting, I see as much room for disaster as I did when first hearing George Bush's small-government ideals. Consider a few of the things we all take for granted that government-funded research has provided;
Computers (ENIAC, the world's first all-electronic computer, funded by the DoD in 1946)
The Internet (DARPA, 1969)
Global Positioning Systems (DoD, 1973)
Chemotherapy (NIH, 50's and 60's)
Just to name a few.
Before voters decide to hand the reins to a true free-marketer like Paul (as opposed to the pseudo-conservative, big-budget Bush administration) they should take a moment to reflect on all the good done by government-funded research, and the possibilities that await us if we continue to properly subsidize research and development.
http://indigentahole.blogspot.com
Mike Kuykendall is a progressive, patriotic veteran of the U.S. Air Force, fighting hard to save our democracy.
While I agree that such drastic changes to the normal governmental apparatus as advocated by Dr. Paul would be very disruptive, if you listen to him, he clearly understands this and answers those questions. His main point is that these issues should be decided by the people through their elected representatives. Like so many well intended folk, you have committed the error of once again looking only to the presidential candidates as your solution and way forward. That is why we have such a dictatorial executive branch, with the (no exaggeration) fascism-like problems we face today.
by
wch (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 1:20:36 PM
It is precisely BECAUSE of the dictatorial administration in power that I look to solid, smart presidential candidates. The executive branch is indeed powerful, and like a car, it's controls are located on the inside. If you want that car to drive in a new direction, you have to wait for the driver to leave (or forcibly remove him) and get the best possible person to steer you through to your goal.
Third parties and independent runs are all lots of fun to speculate about, but barring some SERIOUS footwork and funding there is no way a 3rd party candidate will probably even make it on the ballot, at this point.
Thus far on OpEd News I have forcibly advocated for using the Democratic party and the existing system to try and make things better. With the rise of the netroots (Lamont's victory over Lieberman is NOTHING compared to the influence to come, I mean come on- all the Dems showed up for YearlyKos!) the Democrats have not only changed positions, they seem to have realised that the people are truly the bosses. If some haven't yet, they will by November, trust me.
Dems get a black eye nowadays because of a carefully constructed plan to thwart all legislation not approved of by President Chene- I mean, Bush. McConnell sits smugly in the Senate, forcing more cloture votes than ever before in American history (somehow completely ignored by the media and the public at large) driving polls numbers into the teens and easily blocking all attempts to end the war.
The truth is it's really hard to govern the Senate with an effective 49 seat majority, especially with cloture rules in place. One guy, Joe Lieberman, has placed himself neatly in the middle of both parties, and so far has been partial to GOP warmongering, so he votes with the President.
I say come on over to the big tent, and to complete the analogy, grab a shovel and start scooping up the elephant poop :) Put in your effort, force the party where YOU want it to go.
In other words, lead, follow, or get out of the way.
by
Mike Kuykendall (31 articles, 55 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 84 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 1:48:18 PM
The issue that needs to be injected here is the tools for human organizing that are not for profit business or government. America grew great on the solutions created by associations and community based cooperative efforts that let people maintain control of their own communities. When you are raising the money you do it for less and ensure the money is well used.
That 'system' was well and growing when government saw that they could provide services and raise taxes on all of us. At the same time they saw their exciting possibilities with the FED for corporate profit.
The first Veteran's Hospital came from one check written by the Elks in 1918.
If you have a population of 20,000 people you can pretty much provide any kind of insurance needed - if you can minimize the impact of the grasping profit grubbers.
Ron Paul is running to put back into our hands the power to innovate, creating better alternatives for ourselves.
Government used our money for the projects cited; they create nothing. This goes to the classical 'broken window fallacy,' where in you see a window broken by a hoodlum as a plus because the glazier receives a job instead of noting that the shop owner or homeowner lacks the money to spend on something he or she would rather have had.
The underlying assumption here is that people are too dumb to have vision enough to think into the future but somehow government is.
It will always be the least ethical who manipulate their way into these positions of power because the least ethical have the fewest scruples and the most to gain.
Some ideas, like using government for this kind of human organizing, should be flushed. We could afford to give everyone who really needs help housing, health care, food, transportation, and a stipend on what the Federal government eats every year.
Instead of talking about the tools that have not worked and therefore are flawed think about what has been proven to work. Then apply it at the local level and see how it scales up.
I, for one, am tired of being a Guinea Pig for ideas never even beta tested.
by
Melinda Pillsbury-Foster (138 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 121 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 3:20:14 PM
I have to agree as the research I have done says that with current technology for online organization that we are no longer needing any central authority to provide services.
We can finance them far more effectivly by organization of people and funds on a more local level and use technology for communication and organization.
What does government provide except for management? All the funds come from the people so if we can automate management we do not need the people in the organization nearly as much thus reducing cost.
by
John David (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 11:17:27 PM
I think Linda makes a good point above. One problem with having the Federal Government fund research is the same as for every other program. The people who are forcibly donating their money to a cause they know nothing about or may care nothing about have absolutely no input as to how their money is spent. I spend a slice of my own life that I can never retrieve again for every dollar that I must give up, and the more say I have in how it is spent, the better I feel about it. Having somebody thousands of miles away taking my money from me at gunpoint to spend on some pet project of theirs that I have no interest in is not my idea of fun.
If I steal money from my neighbor for a project that I feel is an excellent cause, does he not have a right to gripe? If HE feels my cause is just, can he not just donate the money on his own? Taxation is, after all, just a way to get people to pay for things that they wouldn't pay for voluntarily. If they WOULD, then you wouldn't need to force them to do it.
In the case of me stealing from my neighbor for my pet project, he may have some input into that. Even locally at the city level he might. But the farther away the forces get, the less input people have on how their money is spent. And the less input people have, the more corruption ensues.
The giant federal pot of research money attracts people from all over wanting a piece of it, and somebody has to decide who gets what. So in order to help the folks decide, with the high stakes involved, professional people are hired to convince them the money should go to THEIR place instead of elsewhere. But those of us who are actually paying have no say. Maybe we'd rather have a loaf of bread or an Ipod than to donate to somebody thousands of miles away's pet research project.
The entire idea of federal research grants operates under the assumption that somebody who has stolen our money from us is in a better position to decide how to spend it than we are ourselves, isn't that true? But even if they ARE better able to decide than us, what gives them the right?
Certainly not the U.S. Constitution, which is Ron Paul's point.
by
p henson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 3:54:22 PM
I've never been a Republican, and there are other points about Ron Paul that bother me. But I'm an R&D program manager in the Federal government; and I can tell you without hesitation that 80-90% of the Federal investment in R&D is nothing but a corporate subsidy. Yes, there are some good investments, and these should be continued. But the vast majority of the Federal R&D funding today benefits large corporations. It's disgusting.
by
Bob Fireovid (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 5:02:23 PM
Ron Paul would eliminate entrenched waste fraud and abuse
I'm grateful for the R&D that has come from the government, but most of these pork barrel pet projects lead nowhere and should be axed. There are plenty of research facilities all around the country that don't rely on government money who would "fill the vacuum" left by the loss of the programs that deserve to exist. Universities would be an obvious example of an institution that would pick up the slack.
That being said, President Paul wouldn't be able to just flip a switch to end these programs overnight anyway. Truly successful establishments would find a way to survive somewhere in a limited budget with the persuasion of Congress.
Most importantly in a Ron Paul Presidencey-- and the biggest point to consider-- is the massive waste fraud and abuse entrenched today would come to an abrupt and fitting end.
by
tom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 8:16:57 PM
Aspirin in its modern form was discovered by Bayer in 1897. It was not a result of government subsidy. New uses for aspirin like th eone you mentioned will no doubt continue to be discovered without having to take from one person to give to another.
However, we can throw anecdotes at each other all day and you will probably not convince me of the merits of socialism and I will not convince you of utopian ideal of a true freemarket.
Yet, I implore you. Consider the opportunity Ron Paul presents for the progressive. He is honest and consistent. You can agree with him on his most important points such as the war, corporate welfare, and civil liberties. On these issues he can deliver. At the very least you will never doubt his sincerity.
Given the momentum of the "Ron Paul Revolution" and his ability to attract from the Left and the Right, he presents an opportunity Nader or any other honest candidate ever could.
If given the choice between the discovery of a link between decreased heart attacks & the consumption of aspirin and habeus corpus. Wouldn't you rather have a right to a trial and assurance that your indefinite detention was not possible?
No establishment candidate of either can give you this assurance. You can not truly say you know the motivations or can predict the decisions of any of these candidates.
If the corporate, ,military industrial establishment can ever be successfully challenged by a presidential candidate it will be through a candidate who is based on the Constitution. That is the document and set of terms the libertarian, conservative, progressive, and liberal can agree on.
Eugene Debs the socialist presidential candidate from the early part of last century is one of my greatest heroes. I do not believe in a one of his governmental solutions to societies economic and social welfare problems.
However, I do believe he spoke truth in identifying that certain problems needed to be addressed. I admire his fight for civil liberties. I also trust his sincerity. He would have earned my vote.
My point is this:
After we restore our basic rights, we can argue about sesame street.
Let's support Ron Paul - Hope for America.
by
Letma Peoplego (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 9:14:54 PM
Mike made a good effort with his essay but he has failed to consider a couple of points.
First, no change suggested by Dr. Paul would be implemented overnight: government doesn't work that way. President Paul would face stiff opposition in Congress for just about every program he has mentioned. He does have a tremendous groundswell of support from the citizens and they, no doubt, would let their representatives know what they think about various issues.
Research in medicine and other areas was funded by private organizations long before the government began getting involved. The difficulty with involving the Federal government is that there is oversight, control and (often) direction. Much ground-breaking research is being done by the pharmaceutical industry who pay for their own projects. (I know, there's a problem with the FDA, but I think Dr. Paul would address that as he has in HR 2117).
To think that the Federal government exists to fund all sorts of good ideas is to miss the point. It is a more of a referee than a coach or a sponsor; it estabilishes the rules of conduct, but does not take sides. This would be far better than the current system, where the government meddles in everything.
by
zenpiper (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 9:15:36 PM
ron paul is awesome. sorry you want the government to hold your hand, along with larger corporations' hands. why don't you move to Norway, where socialism thrives, instead of trying to ruin the good name of the United States of America? Freedom will prevail. People will educate their children with Seasame Street, without the Government's help. The only difference is it will be done more efficiently, faster and with better results. Government is the People's adversary. The founding fathers knew that, why else would they work so hard to limit it?
by
tom hip (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, September 8, 2007 at 10:23:56 PM
My wife is Norwegian, I was married in Norway, I lived there for 6 years and had a son there, I got my Masters at the University of Oslo and have a brother (a doctor) who's lived there for the last 24 years...I'm also a self-employed business person in the US and have a real world understanding of the system. Norway is part of the "Scandinavian Experiment" (together with Denmark and Sweden) where massive social programs were introduced after WW2 and continue to expand in scope each day. America is slowly edging toward a system like this and it simply won't sustain itself! It's easy to find statistics of how great Norway is, but from my experience, here's the real deal:
1. Norway is anti-business. The regulation and tax burdeons for self emplyed people are absolutely choking. For example they just passed a law in Norway where employers can't ask female job applicants if they're pregnant. If you get a job in Norway then the employer has to pay full benefits for maternity leave irregardless of how long you worked there (my wife's niece just had a baby after working for 4 months and took a year off, then quit her job!) This is just one example of dozens of reasons Norway has the highest tax rate in the world.
2. Despite being one of the largest OPEC suppliers in the world (the only one in Europe), Norway's gas prices are among the highest in the world. Why?
3. The hospitals, health care and managed care for the elderly are in shambles. People often go overseas to get medical treatment because they'd likely die while waiting on a waiting list (just like in Canada). Conversely, doctors get paid squat and their equipment is archaic (no competition...)
4. Can you name even one successful company from Norway? Why?
5. More than half the able bodied employable people in Norway work for the government in some capacity or another. This as not sustainable.
6. The presonal debt for the average Norwegian is incredible. Average cars in America cost over $50k (equivalent) and some nicer cars cost over $100k. Norwwya calls itself the Saudi Arabia of Europe.
7. If you loose you job for any reason the government pays for everything. My wife's sister has been unemployed for the last 4 years and just bought a vacation home in southern Spain! This is not sustainable.
8. If it weren't for the oil money, Norway would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. Ergo, the ecomomies of Sweden and Denmark (without oil funds) have been teetering on financial disaster for decades...
9. There is absolutely no incentive for Norwegians to aspire to anything with the tax structure the way it is. High wage earnrs get taxed at 80% or more. Why?
10. There are toll roads into every major norwegian city, toll roads to cross bridges and go under tunnels, and toll roads out in the middle of nowhere. Why?
Whe the oil money is gone, this system will be unsustainable.
by
tom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 9:18:04 PM
"While the moral question he mentions surrounding the abortion and stem cell issues does raise a good point, it is not convincing enough to back up the argument for no federal research spending whatsoever."
If you aren't willing to adhere to the constitution on matters such as these, then how could you be trusted to protect rights enumerated there?
You can't find authorization for funding scientific research in the constitution. Dr. Paul just explains why it is also immoral to fund research such as the research he mentions.
If there is a cure in said research then let Merck or Pfiser or whatever pharmacuetical pay for it themselves.
by
Rick Fisk (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 12:11:20 AM
They use words like 'constitution' and 'liberty' as a rhetorical device as if their interpretation of thoses words holds the only possible meanings.
When they say "alternatives" a chill runs up my spine as I see the other meanings drained from this... as if the word 'privatization' was just standing in the wings for the precise moment when its presence will become acceptable and welcomed.
"Stealing money from others"....odd, ...we push for higher wages and always see any amount of taxation on those wages as theft. We live in a society by a social contract that we hopefully benefit from... but reciprocation in some manner is seen as robbery.
Travel enough and you'll encounter societies that don't always view the taxation and social safety net as unnecessary, evil or an act of theft. Their populace take great pride in low numbers of homelessness, malnutrition and infant mortality...as well as their accessibility to quality medical care.
What good is leaving R&D to the big pharma's when there's no regulation that would make the benefits they get from that research to result in affordable medicines and treatments?
Some of cite the poor and wasteful job the US gov't has done on research and healthcare. Don't forget that we've already had more than a decade of GOP dominated gov't ....who, with this administration have had nothing other in mind all along than the failure of gov't run services and their eventual privatization. Yet you continue to stump for a republican as though no is keeping the books.
It's been that sort of 'free market' rhetoric which has been at play all along undermining the process of gov't. I'm told to let go of the right/left paradigm when it's the 'old ' right who's been nonstop in their castigation of the left and of every measure that has ever benefitted the workforce since the industrial revolution. The 8hour work day, minimum wage, job safety regulation, the enviroment, product safety.... all these are anathema to those who like throwing the word 'socialism' around as if to frighten small children into behaving. Yet these are things that so often get taken for granted. Rights and protections that benefit the workforce.
No... Ron Paul isn't the 'saviour of the Constitution'.....not if he creates a gov't that only benefits the business class.
by
chariotdrvr14 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 125 comments)
on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 11:49:51 AM
The Libertarians just love to lie about America's Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers were federalists who wanted a strong central government not limited small government. They were not for individual freedom either as they opposed a Bill Of Rights. They only accepted the Bill Of Rights as a compromise so they could get the Constitution ratified. The Federalist Founding Fathers also killed a proposed amendment that would have prevented private monopolies from forming. They also wrote slavery into the Constitution. Why you criticizing Norway? Norway is a better place to live. Norway doesn't start wars against other countries. Norway is a free country unlike America which is a totalitarian police state.
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 821 comments)
on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 1:29:55 PM
I oppose Ron Paul but I disagree with your support for corporate welfare. Corporations should never receive welfare. We need to end corporate government. That means no more corporate welfare, no more privatization of public assets, strict regulation of corporations, high taxes on corporate profits of big business, and most importantly no more "corporate personhood."
by
Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 821 comments)
on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 1:46:22 PM
Funny you mention Norway. I was about to answer chariotdvr with "yeah some socialist countries like Norway seem like a success but they have a small, monoculture country whose social system is supported by enormous oil revenues."
However, there is a darker side to this utopia.
I have a friend in Norway whose aunt paid $10,000 cash for a blackmarket openheart surgery because she would have died on the waiting list.
This same friend owns a private theatre company who has been underseige by the public theatre schools trying to outlaw his school. Their argument is that he is creating too many actors.
Chariotdrvr, realize that CORPORATISM IS NOT LIBERTARIANISM. "Privatisation" movements by the Republicans have always been about rewarding big business monopolies. Please do not paint Ron Paul with that brush.
If you examine the culture of libertarianism you will not find too many rich people. Why is that? Because liberty is inherently a threat to elitism and the wealthy.
(To that end, kudos Ty about ending corporate personhood.)
For the life of me, I do not understand how a discussion of economic liberty sends a "chill" down one's spine--yet, the loss of habeus corpus, indefinite war, and loss of privacy does not bother this same individual.
Don't worry, libertarians hate the man just as much as you...but don't let that hatred cloud your judgement or perspective about what is truly important.
We can continue to talk past each other: We'll drone on about how government schools are wrecking our children and how tax on labor is inherently evil; and you'll drone on about how evil corporations and the rich must be shackeled at every turn and healthcare is a human right etc.
In the meantime, the oligarchy will tip toe away with our birthright--basic individual liberty.
"The founders" were a motely crew filled with racists, idealists, elitists, egalitarians, theocrats, and anarchists. They couldn't agree on much, so they drafted a document which was designed to ensure that collectively they could not dominate one another. Ty, you are right, the bill of rights was a key to the compromise.
So, here we are in a United States going on its third century and in real danger of losing the most important elements of that compromise. In most ways (legally and institutionally) they are already gone. They now exist only in our culture and in the people.
The people are divided as this commentary chain illustrates. We cannot come together on everything. However, we can come together on the most important things.
Ron Paul said the other candidate he would probably vote for is Dennis Kucinich.
Chariot and Ty think about that.
Come join us. Have no fear. Liberty will not hurt you.
The alternative however...
by
Letma Peoplego (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Sunday, September 9, 2007 at 3:35:08 PM
You assume that I've no interest in issues of freedom
I assure the issue of personal liberty has been foremost on my mind since I was a teen in the 70's.
And perhaps this really does come under the heading of points where my own beliefs tend to criss cross with those of RP's.
While I of course applaud his stance against government intrusiveness on the right of privacy and his willingness to support the legalization of marijuana there are other areas where I find serious disagreement if not even self contradictory policies on his part.
On talking about letting the states decide about important issues there's been a simplification of a complex issue. He's written extensively about issues such as 'civil rights' and 'diversity'. According to him both the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act need never have been penned.
<blockquote>the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.</blockquote>
And what of the "liberty" and "personal freedom" of millions of non european-americans whose right to employment or to sit where they want in a cafeteria or on a bus was infringed upon?
While a debate of the efficacies of programs like affirmative action could take whole long threads (and often tends to draw out the racists or atleast racially insensitive instincts of many) ....point is... what determined what the racial make up of a workforce should often had to do with the dictates of the local population. Before affirmative action I lived in an area that was predominately black and hispanic where there was a large shipyard where no one from the community were ever hired ...its workers commuted and the management lived far outside of the area. The area was rife with unemployment and the community economically entrenched. What about their liberty?
While you can't mandate away racism... you can atleast ensure that the rights of others aren't being abrogated like the right to live where you wish, to see that your kids get a decent education. 'Separate but equal' didn't work as a philosophy....and maybe busing as a operational plan was flawed as well.... but the liberty of many was being denied.
Okay, I won't dwell on this....onward.
Ron Paul opposes gay adoptions on religious grounds which denies many americans of their right to their personal liberty.; to his credit he voted against a Constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage as well a law that would have banned the transportation of minors for the purpose of procuring an abortion. But he did vote for the banning of partial abortions which still interferes with the rights of women to determine what they do with their own bodies.
Again, more arguments that each in their own right could go on ad infinitum.
And I've pointed out before his essay ('The War on Religion')citing how he sees the respecting of other traditions as an 'attack upon christianity ' and pens his view that he didn't believe that there necessarily should be a 'separation of church & state'. Thereby infringing upon the personal liberties of those us who are other than christian by couching his argument in a manner that denotes that christianity enjoys some exclusivity or that any attempt to assert our right not to be proselytized is somehow and act of anti christian bigotry.
These are a few inconsistencies that I find with the applied use of the words personal freedom and liberty.
by
chariotdrvr14 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 125 comments)
on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 8:15:45 AM
OK then freedom is important to you. Good. Then let's continue with our 'parsing paul' analysis. Given that this a presidential race, let's compare him to your other choices.
How does he do in liberty issues compared to the other candidates with legs in the race?
I am right there with you on partial birth abortion. He said that his decision was based on his medical perspective about the necessity of that procedure. I am not a PHD. and do not have time to research it so, I will just take his word for it. I do not understand his Constitutional grounds for the decision so my eyebrow raises along with yours. But this is only a feeling. I do not have enough information to make an informed opinion.
Likewise regarding Gay adoption he opposes them on religious grounds but I do not see where he would wish the state to oppose them. (Correct me if I am wrong) Here we differ in religion but not policy or governance.
When I pit partial birth abortion and a personal dislike of gay adoption against the fundamental rights found in the Bill of Rights, Ron Paul is still earns my vote. In this context no other candidate comes close. (Still curious if you have one that does.)
Now, let's discuss civil rights. I can't do this conversation justice in this post, however, I can make a few observations.
While in law school, I struggled with the fact that Brown v. Boar47d was so poorly decided from a legal formalistic view but yet I still prefer./red its practical results to any alternative. My working question was "How can you have true Constitutional Jurisprudence and Brown" or "What good is Constitutional Jurisprudence if it can support the society which Brown revolutionized?"
What I finally figured out was that Brown was the second wrong in an attempt to make a right. Plessy's reasoning went outside of the bounds of Constitutional Jurisprudence.
The Civil Rights Act's efficacy is much more debatable than Brown's.
I can only tell you that legislation is generally reactionary and behind the culture. It compells behavior no doubt about it but I think it is likely that if Plessy was decided properly then the Civil Rights Act would never have been necessary.This like Ron Paul's reasoning is just guesswork and "what if's" based on an economic, philosophical, and socialogical understanding.
The civil rights era in the context of the federalism debate illustrate that diversity of power is a good thing. Perhaps it would have been nice if the majority of states sought a Constitutional amendment to take care of Jim Crow instead of cheating or being lazy.
However, today we find ourselves in a situation where the pendulum has swung. States are not able to provide marijuana liberalization because of the federal government just to name one example. Power is becoming more centralized and less diversified.
Who then will work to bring back this diversity?
by
Letma Peoplego (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Monday, September 10, 2007 at 4:46:29 PM
You can ascertain very quickly that the right wing pro-Ron Paul people are very well organized on this site. One must ask such questions as where does Ron Paul stand on five or ten key issues:
1. Labor Unions vs, Management.
2. Free National Health Insurance for every citizen doing away for healthy only for profit the way it now exists.
3. A graduated income tax where the richer pay a higher percentage of income tax than the poorer over against the "flat tax" which knocks poorer people flat.
4. Where does Ron Paul stand on Social Security-- spelled out understandably to ramifications?
5. Where does Ron Paul stand on National free public education even through college, but especially through High School? What is his stand on priva
