Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO LIBERTARIAN ACTIVISTS

First, I'd like to mention a lot of Ron Paul supporters seem to like Kucinich. He's obviously principled, and seems honest, which is what draws a lot of people to Ron Paul in the first place.

...he is not a Libertarian in political philosophy, that is, he does not worship individualism at the expense of the commonwealth

Many libertarians do not worship individualism at the expense of the commonwealth. Libertarians just believe that individuals, through their own choices, tend to create more beneficial organizations than organizations which are created by government force. Many, including myself, reject the idea that elected leaders can even know what is best for the commonwealth on many levels.

In a libertarian society, there is nothing preventing a socialist society from arising from free choice. A libertarian society cannot, however, exist within a socialist society. Since our federal government system was rather libertarian, I've always wondered why some states didn't try more socialism. Of course thats hard now, with the federal government having usurped so many powers from the states.

With all due respect, what is libertarianism if not an anarchic, passionately ahistorical form of laissez-faire capitalism?

Rand more or less derived it from a moral philosophy, while others claim to have taken it from the classical liberalism of Locke and Jefferson (where governments serve to protect the rights to life, liberty, property, and little else). Still others (Friedman, Mises, etc) found it in economics, and the benefits of a free market over central-planning.

With no Democratic strings attached to control the destructive power of markets and monopolies, a libertarian regime, just as its older sibling, the Victorian-style capitalist regime, would drive wages into the ground worse than they are doing now, eviscerate workers’ protection, make the workday longer to boost profits, while busy destroying what’s left of the environment—all in the name of sacred property rights.

Hong Kong seems to do alright with it, given the numbers of people from socialist societies who immigrate there. In any case, destruction of the environment is not something at all libertarian, or even capitalistic. Big businesses scoffed at environmental damage for obvious reasons - it was in their self-interest to do so. Unfortunately, it took our government a while to react to it and start punishing people for polluting people's bodies and property (and public property as well). The influence of big business on government - one of the highest evils to libertarians - didn't help this. Holding polluters to the Rule of Law is very important, regardless of whether or not the polluter is a corporation, a individual or the government itself.

I haven't seen many libertarians comment on how to handle coercive monopolies of vital goods. I would handle them the same was as other forms of coercion, and stop them with government force.

I'm not sure what other "destructive" forces of the market you are talking about, so I cannot comment on that.

Even if you despise the politicians that want to win your affection by instituting universal healthcare, or “Medicare for All”, which would guarantee yourselves, children, and grandchildren full coverage, it is necessary that you focus your attention off of the mystical wonders of the market, which, as stated above, prove inadequate in nearly every tested category of social crisis.

Given medicare, medicade, and social security have present-worth liabilities in the range of 50 trillion dollars and rising, I'm not so sure its a good idea to be socializing 15% of our economy. In any case, you need to look at the underlying reasons medical care is so expensive. Some of them are obvious. Regulatory bodies like the FDA drive up the cost of approving new drugs, and we pay more for prescription drugs. The result is that the FDA moves the drug industry more towards a monopoly. I certainly don't think we need to get rid of organizations like the FDA who help to protect us against harmful drugs, but making them the sole (monopoly) regulatory agency is a mistake, in my opinion. Its in the self-interest of politicians and the FDA not to approve a questionable drug, because 100 lives lost due to a poisonous drug catches them far more flak than 100 lives saved. This is the same with non-government agencies as well, but a non-government agency wouldn't have a monopoly backed up by force. Fortunately, regulatory bodies in other countries seem to be doing a pretty good job, unfortunately we don't let them "compete" with the FDA, so we are stuck with a monopoly. Joy. At least the FDA is semi-accountable to the voters, but it seems to take undue effort to get much done (medical marijuana is bad, mmmkay?).

Tax breaks on employer-provided health insurance after WW2 caused everyone to want to get health insurance through their employer, and to take out policies with very low deductibles. The result? People started to use this insurance as much as possible. And if you have insurance, why not use it? Its not your money, so why not get antibiotics for that soar throat, or some oxycontin for that sore back? Doctors felt the same way, and so charged insurance companies as much as they could. Insurance companies didn't like this, and so gave the doctors more paperwork to fill out in order to prevent abuse of their money. Naturally, this all led to an explosion of bureaucracy and thus costs. This is a problem with any 3rd-party payer system, socialistic or not. People just don't spend other people's money with any sort of responsibility. They never have, and I can't see that they ever will. With the overcharging of insurance-paid health care and all the bureaucracy, doctors could no longer afford to lower or eliminate pay for the needy or those without insurance. In fact, they don't even want to treat anyone without insurance, since they can't gouge them enough on the costs.

Then there is regulation on medical practices... I'm glad we have doctors who have been in school for 10 years, but I don't need them treating me for a soar throat. I won't go to a nurse for brain surgery, but I don't need to pay the extra coin for a M.D. to get a shot of penicillin, thanks. I don't want to think about the number of suffering people who are denied health care because laws mandate they can only get the care they need at a doctor they can't afford to go to.

I'm not sure what exactly you are referring to  when you talk about abuses in the name of free enterprise, so I cannot comment on that. I do know that many people have used "free enterprise" as a shield to hide behind corporatism, just as big labor unions use arguments of fairness in order to pass laws which secure their jobs and power. Neither approach is remotely libertarian, or constitutional for that matter.

...may we ask again what is your opinion on child Labor? After all, a true Libertarian would argue that it is a child’s right to work and that’s that.

A child should be able to work if he or she wishes. No one should be able to force him to work, and naturally he or she would receive the same protection under the law as anyone else.

Isn’t this the logic and morality of the Darwinist jungle? And what kind of “civilization” are you espousing that regards the “morality” of wild beasts as appropriate to humans? In reality, the uninhibited civil liberties you advocate translated into reality, as the right of employers to do whatever they like, whenever they like, to whomever they like, make for a very lopsided game…of course, in the mythicak world of perfect markets, if the workers don’t like it, they can simply go work somewhere else. If this is the best your imagination can conjure up, a “let’em eat cake” approach to enormous social injustice and distress, all in the name of a sustainable future for humankind, then I urgently suggest a different approach to the problem.

Beasts harm each other, libertarians do not exert any sort of force of one another. Employers may do whatever they like, and so can employees and customers. Many a labor union has brought a corporation to its knees, though not nearly as many as customers have. No corporation (unless state-sponsored, evil corporatism) can exist without customers who not only do business with the corporation, but perceive some net gain in their well-being in doing so. Unless, that is, the corporation is a coercive monopoly, in which case I say it deserves the same treatment as any who apply coercion to get what they want - the state should smite it. Note of course that coercive cartels should be treated in the same manner as coercive monopolies. One should also note the prime creator of coercive monopolies: the state itself.

What could be more democratic than customers supporting a company they enjoy doing business with, and keeping their patronage from those they do not?

The reason we still have even a little bit of democracy left in this country

I'd say we have far more democracy. The government is far more powerful than it was, so more can be done with a vote. Also, communication is far better, so corruption and whatnot can be more easily put into the limelight. Yes, the rich and powerful have undue influence on government policy, but under what system in the history of the world have they not? In a constitutional or libertarian federal government they would have far, far less room to do harm, but one can never get away from the powerful pulling their strings. Our country's founders, in their genius, designed a government which could be nearly run by devils, if only they would obey the Rule of Law. Sadly, we have lost that rule, and so find ourselves ruled by devils who do quite a bit of harm. We also find ourselves with much more of the democracy our founders feared so much, with the federal government free to rule over the lives of citizens in ways they never wished.

All the safety nets we enjoy in this country have been provided—reluctantly and after much struggle—by the small bits of socialism that the masses have built into this capitalist nightmare.

I'm not familiar with the state of the economy and the poor prior to the New Deal programs. I do know the gini index (a measurement of income inequality) was lower in 1913 than it is today, but we don't have any data before that that I've seen. I can say I'm very in favor of safety nets. I like the idea of ones who fail in a free market being able to get up, dust themselves off, and get back into the fray, without undue hardship. You may think "well thats not libertarian!", but in fact it IS. Libertarianism is FREEDOM, and that includes the freedom to join socialist societies, if desired. Its freedom to do nearly anything, even try out whatever it is Noam Chomsky always raves about (and I admit, I've not been able to decipher what it is he is really saying). I am an adamant Libertarian, and I believe there are benefits of socialism - just not at the federal level. The other countries you've mentioned have the benefit of having a much more homogeneous culture, and thus less need for a federalist system (and many of them are, I might add, more indebted than the United States at the moment).

In this regard, do you really think the American people, without years of active organizing, without a media capable of transmitting truth and not lies and confusion, stand a chance [of] overthrowing this vastly militarized de facto police state with simply a militant solution alone, or “by pulling the guns off the racks”????

I don't think for a moment our military could truly put down a revolt by the American people. We can't even afford to occupy Baghdad, and I'm not sure how many of our soldiers would fire on their (ex) countrymen. Of course, I also don't think any sort of violent revolt will be necessary, and I certainly wouldn't want any to take place.

In order for this difficult politico-economic transformation to take place, in a country as complex as the United States, you need to support every progressive advance, especially when total disaster seems to be on the horizon.

There is an assumption here - and indeed behind most all socialist philosophies -  that we can somehow choose the correct advances will rejecting the incorrect ones. If we could accomplish that feat, the argument would be sound, and we would not need markets or capitalism. Indeed, we'd know which alternative fuel to go with, or how to structure our universal health care. Unfortunately, we cannot know these things. And unfortunately, we have never had the right people in charge, for any length of time, who could set us on the right path. I believe it is high time we stopped trying to get the right people in Washington, and realized the problem is a systemic one: Central planning simply does not work. We cannot count on having the "right" people in charge, and we need a system that "could be run by devils, an do no harm". As the world grows more complex, I believe this will only get more and more true. A few hundred policy makers in Washington can simply only know so much. The market provides trial-and-error processes which can approximate the value of anything (be it a commodity, idea, futures prediction, whatever) with more accuracy than a group of experts putting it to a vote. This is why futures markets are gaining in popularity (DARPA, the clever chaps, wanted to have people "bet" on middle eastern terrorism as a means of prediction; sadly the politicians wouldn't have anything to do with it), see www.intrade.com (though its still rather small), and why the only way to accurately predict the "value" of a commodity is through market processes. Mises got it right with his idea of the economic calculation problem, and I think people have yet to really appreciate it. At any rate, I'll stop my rambling and say this: The market is just as much of a decision-making process as anything else. Its the best way we know of of keeping the good ideas, and rejecting the bad.

Our country's founders had direct experience with the absurdities of being ruled by a far-away central government, and knew such a thing could never make proper decisions for a large majority of the people. So they created the constitution to directly limit the powers of the federal government.

But let me re-iterate: Freedom and libertarianism is not something which rejects possibilities, including those of socialism. Indeed, it allows them all, provided they do not inflict harm or fraud on others. It does not, however, allow itself to impose those possibilities (like socialism) on anyone. Under a federalist system, the states and local governments should be free to try various possibilities and in some ways compete with one-another. No, it isn't fair to be stuck with an unwanted government due to an accident of being born in certain state or county, but no system is perfect. Given that our system was written in 1787, I'd say its pretty damn good.

by gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 3:20:54 AM
 

Re: AN OPEN LETTER TO LIBERTARIAN ACTIVISTS

Whoops, missed a point/paragraph:

So, to restate: Your anger is directed at some of the right people, but your ideology is pointing in the wrong direction. You must open your eyes to the fact that you can’t have a moral capitalism. It’s an oxymoron. The unparalleled power of the politico-corporate entity, and its organic desire to control markets for new exploitable land, cheap labor, and resources to pillage is too strong and tempting to control. That is why, among other things, the people cannot control outsourcing, and why we are losing our essential jobs. At this juncture a Libertarian may argue that borders should be knocked down so capital can flow freely without the myriad of damaging effects inflicted on it by protectionist policies, yet you seem to omit skewed trade agreements which only benefit the most highly industrialized countries, all wrapped up on a pseudo-benevolent package, and sold to the public as a plan to help the less fortunate of the world, which now encompasses nearly the entire Southern Hemisphere sucked dry by colonialism, imperialism, and parasitic globalization.

Here, at least, we agree. The powerful will always pull their strings for the favors of government, and it needs to be lessened. The libertarian says the only way to stop it is to prevent the government from being able to rule on these issues at all, via constitutional limits. Of course constitutional limits can be ignored, as ours often are. But that is why the libertarians like their guns. No form of government is immune to corruption, even a direct democracy can oppress 49% of the population.

 The socialist - well I'm not exactly sure what the socialist says, but I'll guess - says that we can lessen the problem by removing the temptation (profit motive) and of course lessening the difference in wealth and power between rich and poor? If so, I believe this is based on the false assumption that power always follows, or seeks, money. There have been plenty of powerful people who were not at all capitalists nor rich, and plenty who did great harm with good intentions. And certainly many don't seem to seek monitary gains, prefering instead political power. In fact, I would not say there is any human "greed" for money at all. I would say it is a simple greed for power, which manifests itself as money in a capitalist society. In other societies I think it would appear as other, equally harmful, desires. The political structure can of course help prevent this, but even in a system of direct democracy, there can emerge charismatic leaders who lead a nation astray.

Though I really believe the emergence of the internet will help fix a lot of this. For the libertarians, it can educate them on how our government abuses the constitutional limits on its power. For everyone, it offers many facts which show have utterly insane many of these Neoconservatives are, and how most democrats have been virtually complacent in their acts.

by gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 3:51:40 AM
 

The problem is pure ignorance.

Today's libertarians don't understand libertarianism any more than today's liberals understand liberalism. For example, I just sat through two longish posts about libertarianism and neither poster so much as mentioned John Locke OR (and especially) Locke's Proviso.

Until today's libertarians get a handle on Locke's Proviso and understand its implications in depth, none of them needs to talk to me about libertarianism because, in fact, they don't know what they're talking about. Neither do liberals know what they talk about when they advocate an evil totalitarian system that includes hate-speech legislation, no-knock searches, and gun control. NOBODY is a liberal who walks around preaching that it would be good for Americans if we'd give up or dilute some of our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.

Just as the so-called libertarians overlook Locke's Proviso, so do the so-called liberals overlook the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The founders' idea that people of the future would discover NEW rights is therein expressed for any who care to read deeply. NOWHERE did the founders express a belief that liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights would some day be rendered passe and dispensible.

by Jimmy Montague (3 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 11:07:56 AM
 

Brilliant

Thanks.

by David N-V (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 1:07:27 PM
 

Brilliant was in reply to Mr. Montague

Too many people use the terms Libertarian and Liberal without understanding the foundations of either.

by David N-V (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 1:09:34 PM
 

Re: The problem is pure ignorance.

I disagree. A lot of libertarians do not even trace their believes to Locke or the like. Friedman's arguments certainly did not seem to come from him, nor did Rand's as far as I know (though I admit I haven't read much of what she wrote).

Of course, some libertarians due claim to trace their philosophy from Locke (I don't), and shouldn't be ignorant as to his proviso, like you say. I personally think his proviso presents a philosophically similar problem to coercive monopolies (whether they be over labor, goods, or land) which I mentioned in my overly-long rant.

The problem with his proviso is that it requirets a value judgement on the transfer of private property. Someone must, somehow, know the monopoly to be created will make people better or worse off. Monopolies or near-monopolies can increase effeciencies and reduce costs, after all. In today's world, I guess it might need to be altered a bit, maybe simply allowing public oversight of monopolies.

by gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 3:59:02 PM
 

Of course they don't publicly trace their beliefs to Locke.

If they touted Locke, they'd have to acknowledge Locke's Proviso. Instead of doing that, they wave the rest of libertarian doctrine around as though it were some kind of holy writ -- "the law of nature . . . the will of God" (to quote Locke himself) -- which makes anyone who objects to their bullshit irrational at least and some kind of godless commie at most. Greed, rapine and piracty, they'd have us believe, are the God-given right of everyone who is clever enough to make the law of God work for them and Devil take the hindmost.

Today's so-called libertarians -- hypocrite know-nothings who sleep in that Procrustean bed, who drink the water without going to the well -- nod their ignorant heads and agree with all that seems so obvious to them. But the fact remains that Locke's Proviso mandates a government regulated economy within a purely Lockean system.

The chance that such an idea might achieve widespread understanding and acceptance is the nightmare of every economic pirate and is sneeringly derided by every one of their free-market dupes, the yahoos who run around today thinking themselves libertarians. 

by Jimmy Montague (3 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 6:40:53 PM
 

Re: Re: The problem is pure ignorance.

I'm not sure I was clear enough on this in my original post, but in my opinion, with enough competition, capitalism in fact enforces Locke's proviso in more effecient ways than centralized decision making. This is because capitalism simply is simply a better way of deciding the worth of a particular venture, and rewards the people who utilize their resources more fully. Of course with less competition this isn't true, so you still have to deal with the problem of a coercive monopoly. I did not mean to ignore the proviso, but just discuss it in a modern light.

by gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 4:53:02 PM
 

Who are you trying to kid?

You've never read Locke's Proviso or, if you have read it, you utterly fail to understand it. Locke's Proviso, simply stated, says that it's OK for the individual to take from the common as long as there's "enough and as good" left in the common for everyone else.

I wrote: "Greed, rapine and piracty, [capitalists would] have us believe, are the God-given right of everyone who is clever enough to make the law of God work for them." And you wrote "capitalism . . . is simply a better way of deciding the worth of a particular venture, and rewards the people who utilize their resources more fully." Your statement illustrates my point nicely.

You say you do not "mean to ignore the proviso, but just discuss it in a modern light," and so you may mean in fact. But in the glare of your "modern light" the terms "worth" (as in "worthy") and "value" (as in "valuable") are conflated. The two terms are NOT interchangeable, which is why we joke that a cynic is a person who knows the value of everything and the worth of nothing. Capitalism knows and asserts that everything has its price. The libertarian knows and asserts that some things are priceless.

by Jimmy Montague (3 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Friday, June 8, 2007 at 5:53:23 AM
 

Re: Who are you trying to kid?

The proviso applied to owning a piece of nature, such as a plot of land. It did not apply in the exchange of private property between two individuals, to my knowledge. So the modern light I was attempting to look at this under was one where so much of the world is owned by man, it is possible for an entity to acquire enough of a resource to create a coercive monopoly without ever taking from nature, but instead simply purchasing from other people. In other words, a private transaction which reduces the worth of the resources to the public.

Capitalism knows and asserts that everything has its price. The libertarian knows and asserts that some things are priceless.

Capitalism is based off of voluntary exchange, meaning each individual sets his own price for the transfer of private property. It could be infinite, or it could be zero. The libertarian and the economist know this, and so rejects force-backed price controls. Since the rejection of the labor theory of value, the market happens to be the best way we know of to estimate the price most people are willing to pay. Its not 100% efficient, of course, but it usually out-performs pundits or central-planners who don't operate on information denied to the rest of the market.

In a capitalist society, acquisitions of property for business use are done with the expectation of profits. Profits are generated from transactions in which each party believes they benefit, and so profits serve the public good. Following that, if one person purchases a piece of land from another at the "true" market price (whatever that is), he will do it, generally speaking, with the expectation of greater profits (and thus more public good) than the original owner. So Locke's proviso is, in the general sense, upheld (baring coercive monopolies), if we extend it to private transactions in a capalistic society.

Locke ment his proviso to be used only in the acquisition of unowned resources, of course. He reasoned, with historical backing, that private-property ownership created more incentive to produce and use the land than anything else. As an example, if a corporation were granted the rights to a resource such as all of the tuna in a section of the pacific ocean, it would seek to preserve the tuna population at some level which maximized profits over time. Left unallocated, this resource might be over or (less likely) under fished. The "commons", as Locke writes, cannot be expected to be managed as well, since there is no profit motive and no ownership (I somehow doubt polititians would be any more thrifty with public resources as they are with wealth removed from the public through taxation).

by gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Friday, June 8, 2007 at 5:00:12 PM
 

You ignore the fact that all wealth is taken from the common

What do you suppose "private property" was before it got to be private property?

by Jimmy Montague (3 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Saturday, June 9, 2007 at 11:29:35 PM
 

Re: You ignore the fact that all wealth is taken from the co

I mentioned it in my first and last paragraphs. In modern times, of course, we have fewer and fewer "commons" left.

by gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 at 2:29:20 AM
 

Politcal jargon aside

With all the political jargon of theories aside. If Ron Paul whom the Libertarians claim and he seems to claim them is elected, what would happen to the following programs in our society.

1. The Graduated Income Tax of Roosevelt over against a flat rate tax which the super wealthy demands.

2. Social Security.

3. Medicare and Medicaid if a single pay national health insurance policy is not enacted. Where do the Libertarians stand? They have historically opposed them on grounds of being a Federal programs interfering with individual rights.

4. Public Education through high school if not college over against the Libertarian program of vouchers which the super wealthy love. Where do the Liberatarians stand?

5. The Anti-monopoly laws and Anti-trust laws enacted by Theodore Roosevelt to keep a few wealthy from owning everything. They have become meaningless in the US. Where do the Libertairins stand  in regards to these two sets of laws with real teeth in them?

6. Libertarians in the United States have historically stood against Labor Unions. Where do they and and Ron Paul claim to stand today? Right to work is the right to starve and prohibits Labor Unions.

7. Where does the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul stand on a single pay insurance program for every American citizen?

8. As regards to a universal draft of every individual as Israel has, what is the position of the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul?

9. As to states rights being predominant over federal rights, where do Libertarians stand? I would hate to think were civil rights would be if Mississipi, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina were able to decide for themselves.

10. As to abortion and anti-abortion; the right of a woman against the right of a fetus; right to choose and right to life; where does the Libertarian Party Stand and where does Ron Paul stand?

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 940 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 1:44:16 PM
 

Prairie Populism is the common denominator

Prairie Populism is the Common Denominator, not Libertarianism

Excellent, thought-provoking op-ed, thank you.  I was pleased to see that I'm not the only one who sees huge overlap between Kucinich and Paul. I'm an independent, but I have some libertarian leanings.  I do not, however, see either candidate as libertarian, although both have some libertarian leanings too.  Paul is an old school conservative, which has its drawbacks, but does mean CONSERVATION:  He is a fiscal conservative, he is interested in protecting the environment, he is interested in protecting our system, which means ridding it of corporate money, and, most importantly, he wants to protect our Constitution.  Dennis shares these values, of course, values that are actually very much part of the tradition of Prairie Populism as well as overlapping with Libertarian values.  Best of all, neither wraps himself in the paternalistic flag this adminstration uses to keep us fearful of terrorism.

They differ on social priorities (both in priority placement and in how they are managed), but their emphasis on economic and foreign policy is very similar.  Their approaches may differ, but the fundamentals are all there:  Replace NAFTA and other "free" trade agreements with fair-trade agreements, encourage business to create jobs at home rather than abroad (assuming the business is a good corporate citizen - and those that aren't can expect a crackdown), support small business (the engine of our economy), work with Congress to roll back all legislation of the last seven years that contavenes the Constitution, evict K Street tenants, and most importantly, engage in NON-INTERVENTIONIST foreign policy that seeks to interact as a good global citizen rather react to conflict like bullies who don't mind starting a fight but then are too cowardly to work through the conflict by discussing their differences.

After a century of heart-rending destructive imperial foreign policy, I would be thrilled to have a president who really did this.  I support Kucinich, but I'm a fan of Ron Paul's too, and have been for years.  Anyone who has submitted legislation every year to shut down the Fed, the IMF, and the World Bank is okay in my book.  He also wants to shut off most of the black budget and set strict rules for the rest, a position I have wanted a politician to take for years.  He would need some encouragement and awareness building to reconsider his positions on the UN, foreign aid, and on domestic policy, maintainance that would be unnecessary for Kucinich (which is why I support Kucinich), but I'll take a true conservative and a fiscal conservative over a neo-con, Republican or Democrat, any day.  (And yes, you can infer from that statement that I do NOT support Hillary Clinton.)  And he has said that he would be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It goes to show that even though Congress remains in Monkey Mode (see no evil, hear no evil...), and the DC press corps is of course following suit, they have taken notice of both Kucinich and Paul, who are getting much more attention than Kucinich got in 04.  I chalk it up to the Jon Stewart syndrome.  Jon has these guys on as guests and the audience goes wild.  So then Bill Maher invites them on and the audience goes wild.  Even corporate executives have to see where their bread is buttered.  TPTB had dreams of taking over the world economy, and for a while there I thought they would be successful.  The irony is they've only served to mobilize the people against them in ways I've never seen before in my life, even to the point of possibly nominating a dark horse run to for president from one or both parties (actually distinguishing the parties for a change by ignoring the big-money candidates and setting the stage for putting campaign money to GOOD use in the future:  Scholarship funds, health care, research foundations, etc.  Now I'm seeing little glimmers of hope that the people are waking up and realizing that we are in the midst of a Constitutional Crisis of unheard of proportions and looking for candidates who see that and want to correct it - starting of course with a sensible exit strategy for Iraq and disengagement from (and restitution for) other imperial activities.

In any event, regardless of where these candidates stand when all is said and done, that they are getting a platform and people are listening (forcing the media to give them attention), will only raise the level of debate above the din of the Mad Hatter's Tea Party that has been our excuse for political discourse for too long.

by ear (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 2:09:46 PM
 

Re: Politcal jargon aside

1. Ron Paul said he'll sign any bill that comes to him to get rid of the IRS. The wealthy would probably prefer a flat tax over the Fair Tax proposal, but remember they currently try to sneak as much income as they can through our incredibly complex tax codes.

2. He says he wants to let the young "opt out" of it, since he thinks it could be hopelessly bankrupt. Of course, he'd like to cut spending and actually pay off its obligations, but I don't know if thats really realistic at this point. He's stated is not his goal to get rid of welfare or social security.

3. Ron Paul mostly takes the position I mentioned in my comment, on how government regulation is resposible for the costs of healthcare, and this "mixed" system we have (which in some ways could be the worst of both worlds).

4. Vouchers, all the way. Libertarians believe parents should have the choice on where and how to education their children.

5. I don't know. The commerce clause seems to authorize them when they cross state boundaries, so I suppose they'd stay. It looks like Friedman thought antitrust laws were usually used to do more harm than good, though. Of course, the constitution is hardly a pure libertarian document.

6. Well, they are against giving special privileges to labor unions, just like they are against giving special privileges to corporations. Naturally we'll always have unions, they are an importat part of how the market works.

7. He's likely against it. 3rd-party payment leads to the waste that drove our insurance costs so high, after all.

8. Libertarians and Ron Paul are absolutely opposed to the draft.

9. They would follow the constitution, which rather planely spells out what the federal government can do. Thankfully, we have the 14th amendment with guarantees everyone equal treatment under the law.

10. Most all libertarians agree the federal government is not granted the authority to rule on abortion by the constitution, and that Roe v. Wade was highly contrived. So it goes to the states. But most also believe a fetus is not a human life, and so support abortion. Ron Paul believes it IS a human life, and is against abortion, but does not want to rule on it at the federal level.

by gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 4:26:52 PM
 

Re: The problem is pure ignorance.

Friedman talks about antitrust laws here: http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html

He seems to think they are good in theory, but not practice, "because they tended, like so many government activities, to be taken over by the people they were supposed to regulate and control".

That would probably be a difficult thing to keep from happening with any implementation of Locke's proviso.

by gg (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 4:39:03 PM
 

thanks...

to gg for providing incredibly intelligent responses to a post that is essentially flamebait. It's very much appreciated!

by theoretical (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Thursday, June 7, 2007 at 8:25:54 PM