Libertarian Ideas Are Unreasonable (ref: Ron Paul)

The Daily Campus ^ | September 11, 2007 | Brandon Nadeau

[2ndDivisionVet]

Last week the Republicans had another debate, this one on FOX News. Not much has changed in the last few months; Rudy Giuliani is still in the lead in the polls and Fred Thompson is still in second despite the fact he didn't announce his intentions to run until a few days ago. What has changed, and changed for the worse, is the surging popularity of a Texas Congressman by the name of Ron Paul. I've been running into normal, intelligent people who support Paul, and it really scares me.

The reason Paul is as popular as he is has to do largely with his sudden support from Democrats and I have to admit, when I didn't know much about him I thought he sounded like a good candidate. He wants to end the Iraq war, have tighter borders, lower taxes and decrease spending, what's not to like? The problem doesn't lie with his policies and ideas, but rather his execution of said policies. How to end the war in Iraq: immediate pullout not only from Iraq, but from the whole of the Middle East. Never mind the slaughter that will occur with our exit. Paul, by the way, denies that this will happen, as the people saying it will are the same that said it would be an easy win. It was a mistake and we never should have been there.

He has more than one unworkable policy. Who else here wants to abolish the FDA? Dr. Paul is your man. His case against the FDA is that they take taxpayer money and are supposed to regulate the food and drugs coming into the country and those produced here, but there are still cases that get by them. Obviously, he claims, we would be better off with no Federal regulation. Corporations should police themselves. Paul is a big fan of the free market and wants to see an end of just about every federal agency that does anything useful or helpful. DEA? Gone. Medicare/Medicaid? History. IRS? The government has no right to take your money.

Paul is such a fan of the free market and letting businesses do whatever they want that during a recent session of Congress he was the one dissenting vote when Congress decided to stop giving tax money to corporations profiting from the genocide in Sudan. It seems pretty cut and dry, companies are making money off of a genocide. Why would you give them money to keep doing that? Paul's answer: We shouldn't tie the hands of corporations by limiting their business dealings. That pretty much covers foreign policy for Paul.

Paul doesn't like the federal tax system and actually signed a document circulated by the National Libertarian Organization a few years ago affirming this belief. Lower taxes is one of the tried and true methods of getting people to vote for you. The problem with Paul saying he'll get lower taxes is that it's not entirely true. Yes, your income will be less taxed, but Paul wants to raise the sales tax to 23 percent at the least. Have fun being poor, because you won't be able to afford anything under Paul's administration. What would be really interesting is seeing how much price gouging we would see with no regulatory bodies, but I'd rather not think about it.

More interesting is Paul's absolute belief in the free market. He wants to see an end of public service agencies and governmental controls. Private post offices, for example, would be bought up by companies and if you're not served by the same post office as say, the people sending you bills, you might never get the bill. Or you might incur a fee when you get the bill. Imagine all roads in the country being up for sale: Paul sees a future where this has happened and thousands of toll booths are being constructed across the country.

We wouldn't have a nutcase presidential candidate without him being a racist, not these days anyways. Paul luckily fits that bill. He's made his case against the African American community known very well, starting with this comment back in 1992, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Later he would say the age to be prosecuted as an adult should be lowered to 13 because "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." It's no wonder White Supremacist Website and forum Stormfront.org has come out in support of Paul, as has former Ku Klux Klan member and politician David Duke.

Here's a list of things Paul wants to end because they have had failures in the past, or he sees them as useless: CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, FDA, IRS, Medicare, FBI, DEA, UN, NATO, NAFTA and CAFTA. That's the short list. This is my biggest problem with Ron Paul. He offers no constructive thoughts, only destructive ones. He doesn't think a single thing can be made to work if it failed even once. Bad intelligence? Cut it out completely, don't try to reform it.

Overall, Paul has no workable ideas. He wants to return to a gold standard, which would destroy the US economy. He wants to cut nearly every government department and build a giant wall (not a fence) on our border with Mexico. I honestly don't understand how people can think he would make a good president.

[George W. Bush]

Although I do not agree with Dr. Paul's position on the Iraq war, I can certainly understand how some conservatives could come around to it.

We have won the Iraq war. We did so years ago.

America alone or Israel alone is capable of defeating the combined arms of the Arab bloc, not just Iraq. This much has never been in any dispute.

As Ronald Reagan wisely recognized, we can defeat any and all Arab countries in combination. The problem is what do you do with these barbaric peoples whose entire culture and mindset is that of a ruthless and murderous seventh century totalitarian ideology. Recognizing this, Reagan wisely withdrew from Lebanon. We would be wise to follow suit and withdraw from the internal security of Iraq. Our soldiers are not suited to be Iraqi police and it is not their duty to protect and defend an irresponsible government in the Middle East.

Iraq is not and has never been a central point in the War On Terror. That we are using it as a focal point, essentially a buffer state which is a killing field for Saudi and North African jihadis, is not especially good strategy in defeating terrorism.

[George W. Bush]

Oh, yeah, and of the 33 members of the freerepublic.meetup.com grouping, it appears that 30 of them are generally Libertarian folk supporting Ron Paul in Suffolk County, NY. Two others are constitutionalists and likely Ron Paul supporters though I don't know who they are on the forum. One other is in a group by himself, candidate preference unknown.

[from occupied ga]

Paul is a big fan of the free market and wants to see an end of just about every federal agency that does anything useful or helpful. DEA? Gone. Medicare/Medicaid? History. IRS? The government has no right to take your money.

Sounds good to me.

[Designer]

useless: CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, FDA, IRS, Medicare, FBI, DEA, UN, NATO, NAFTA and CAFTA. That's the short list.

"This reads more like the conservative case FOR Ron Paul."

Exactly!

Not only are some of these agencies FAILING to do anything positive for the American people, there is a very good case that they are actually ILLEGAL, and conceived in EVIL.

There is no rationale in trying to "reform" something that is inherently wrong to begin with.

I say Ron Paul is my candidate because he is willing to do the "reform" correctly; wipe the slate clean and start over, only next time, try adhereing to the Constitution (for a change).

[Designer]

"I paid real money for my Medicare. If it’s shut down I am owed at least that much, plus interest."

Many more years of deficits, and you will be "reimbursed" with worthless paper.

[Designer]

"..this nut case.."

Still waiting for someone to tell us why you think Ron Paul is a "nut".

(waiting)

(still waiting)

(anything yet?)

(crickets)

[svcw]

Whatever. But then what is your beef.

[trisham]

Wow. Thanks, I think.

[svcw]

Maybe. But thats what I read. The fellow was unsteady and the President took his hand to steady him.

[US at Risk]

He is right that a whole raft of government agencies need to be abolished for the sole reason they are unconstitutional. A great number of our headaches come from them.

[SNIP]

The FDA? This outfit has crooned about saving ten thousand lives by releasing a drug from testing. This actually means that in the year preceding that, when the drug was available, ten thousand people died from the problem it could cure. At the very least it needs serious reform.

The Constitution provides for the regulation of interstate trade, and I imagine we would maintain some minimal federal standards, e.g., for truth in labeling. We cannot underestimate the potential for effectiveness of industry groups. The AMA, for example, could take up responsibility for reviewing drugs. I think most people in and out of the medical profession would welcome this.

[SNIP]

The IRS? We need to abolish the sixteenth and seventeenth amendment and go back to a federalist proportional representation, proportional pay system. The federal government should create a budget then each of the states should pay the portion of the budget proportional to it’s representation in congress. Returning senators to state legislature control would result in more control on government spending.

I have been a supporter of a federal Fair Tax, but I like this idea better. Let the states come up with their own Fair Taxes, if that's what they want.

[SNIP]

We do not need a government as large as we have today, further it has grown beyond the ability for one person or group of people to effectively control it. We have people that we call bureaucrats that are essentially Lords of private fiefs who have no accountability and yet tremendous authority.

A vast quantity of federal laws, rules and regulations are promulgated by bureaucrats, and routinely rubber-stamped by Congress where needed. Offhand, I recall something like 900 pages per day. I am actually frightened by the vast quantity of laws on our books which, I am sure, make every citizen a criminal to some extent and expose us to tyranny. And those who don't think that our agencies have a decided socialist tilt are blind.

Ron Paul is not wrong about all things.

I don't think people recognize what a marvelous country the US could be with more power vested in the states.

[Notary Sojac]

Every decision about every medical treatment involves balancing risks and benefits.

If I had the choice of taking a 100% effective, fast acting antihistamine against the 1 in five million chance that it might kill me, that's my choice to make and not the government's. I do riskier things than that every time I get into the bathtub.

[trisham]

Have you wondered why this hand holding happened? The guy in the head dress is over 80 years old and needed to be steadied while walking over uneven walk way. This has only been explained about a million times. Your implication that it is something else is silly silly silly.

********************

Thanks for that. I was unaware of the story behind the photo. It makes perfect sense, not that I was bothered by it. I imagined that President Bush was simply being gracious, which he was.

[jrg]

Who else here wants to abolish the FDA? DEA? Gone. Medicare/Medicaid? History. IRS? The government has no right to take your money.

hell, I wasn't really paying much attention to this mess yet, but this sounds like something I'm likin'!

[Designer]

"..doing the quickly won’t work, there would be ciaos with out a long term plan to transition the current departments to the state level or whatever."

See? Even ejonsie22 understands that changes must be done gradually, the same way they were created, BTW.

"Where is his plan of execution."

Patience, ejonsie22, patience.

Ron Paul must win the Republican nomination, first.

Then there is the general election, selecting a cabinet, the inaguration, all those confirmation hearings, and just getting up to speed in his new job.

Don't worry, ejonsie22, by the time President Ron Paul is in office afew weeks, you and I will know precisely what his plans are.

Primary season; here we come!

[MEGoody]

What has changed, and changed for the worse, is the surging popularity of a Texas Congressman by the name of Ron Paul.

"Surging popularity"? Bwahahahahaha!

[Notary Sojac]

The person whose hand the President is holding represents an ideology that wants to: kill or convert all Christians; kill or convert all Jews; and reduce women to the status of chattel.

Not all Muslims are committed to that ideology, but the Wahhabi ruling clique of Saudi Arabia certainly is.

[Designer]

"Brought a smile to my face this morning."

Yes, DugwayDuke, you are not the only Paul-bashing troll on this thread.

Take great comfort that not everyone is a Ron Paul fan here.

[Designer]

"I wish that President Bush had the benefit of my grandfather's wisdom."

Excelent post!

[trisham]

That person was also a guest of this country. President Bush was right to be gracious.

Welcome to Free Republic.

[NeoCaveman]

The problem with Paul saying he'll get lower taxes is that it's not entirely true. Yes, your income will be less taxed, but Paul wants to raise the sales tax to 23 percent at the least. Have fun being poor, because you won't be able to afford anything under Paul's administration.

I'm going to defend this one and I'm not even a "Fair Tax" guy but the poor make out well under the Fair Tax as their is a prebate on taxes paid on consumption up to the poverty level.