Libertarian Ideas Are Unreasonable (ref: Ron Paul)

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.

wanting to completely do away with public education (a seemingly big halmark of the Ru Paulians) means what exactly?

Nobody wants to do away with public education, just federal control of it. You do have a state government, you know, probably full of able people, and with much more accessible representation for you. CA has got a mess its hands, for sure. They have many messes, and good luck to that socialist paradise. Let them wallow in their own crap like the Palestinians, until they wake up and fix it.

em>Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the vote in 1992 and Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary in 1996 (and Buchanan still would have been a better candidate than Bob Dole). That hardly falls to the level many here use of "no chance whatsoever."

Sure it does. Ask former Presidents Perot and Buchanan.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

LOL!!!!

As "racist" as they'd like this to be and it does smack of being at the least politically incorrect... it's also true... ask anyone running the NFL or the NBA

My kid got into an excellent school (avoiding private details here) with a good, but not outstanding SAT (about 1250 as I recall). What counted was his community service and social activities, and very strong application essays and interviews.

US, that is the most rational thing I have heard from “your side” yet.

I want a smaller government. There are somethings like the FAA and such that need a national standard. Hell Privatize it with supporting rules.

If we get the Federal government out of the business of governing I am all for it.

I could see private entities doing some of this. There would need to be the force of law and an enforcement agency at the federal level, say the FBI after some work. If there is a failure at one of the national entities or gross neglaincenc by a state, say again like a failure in education, there would need to be accountability. Too much room for corruption. What happens in one state will impact national interest. But hell education regulation could be privatized, again backed with the force of law and standards that keep us globally competitive (sorry, I used globally, I guess I am now a globalist to some, sheesh...)

There is going to have to be something to fill the void. If it was unneeded it would never have exited, the growth past the original intent was and is the big issue. Something inspired the need for these departments and such. But some of these actions would still do away with over half the Fed.

Yeah, I guess they had Computer Science at the school in Walnut grove, must have missed that episode... I agree with you on failed policies, as I have stated time and time again. But that does not mean that we just dismiss everything out of hand...

I don't get the Walnut Grove reference, sorry. I missed something.

I agree we can't wake up in January 2009 with our federal government mostly dismantled. It would have to be a transition with much co-ordination. Kinda nice to talk about "our" federal government rather than "the" federal government. Just caught myself doing it.

Congrats. As a former educator I wish every child had a parent as talented and concerned as you.

Trust me, it is a rare thing...

Therefore the problem...

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

Ummm, surging popularity where? La La land? Ron Paul is the Emperor of the Internet, but in the real world, his polling has dropped from his all time high of 3%, back down to 1%. The only places Paul is "surging" are Libertarian Party meetings and MoveOn.com net meetups.

Oh, yeah, all this stuff was created for purposes that need to be re-examined. BTW, I do not think RP would be a loose cannon in this regard.

You, however, are starting to sound like a fellow "moonbat". LOL

Little house ref. 1870s, no Computer Science...

Education has changed since the 3rs...

But we do agree it has to be done slowly.

I don't get the feeling many of your brethren do...

That scares me, hitting the monster all at once will get us in BIG trouble...

Also there will still be a few things that, despite not being in the Constitution, will need a national hand. Highways, FAA and the like. I still feel there is need for a national education standard for teachers and curriculum, a much improved one of course.

If need be we need to amend the Constitution to add that to appease the "need" some have then so be it (Such an amendment could be a dangerous thing IMHO, Pandora's box)

“That hardly falls to the level many here use of “no chance whatsoever.””

Umm, in the math classes I took in school, getting 20% in a two (or even three) man race = not even being close to winning.

Congrats. As a former educator I wish every child had a parent as talented and concerned as you. Trust me, it is a rare thing... Therefore the problem...

I got a better education in PS than my kids did in HS. However, these days it's not the same. Oops, I guess some things DO change.

Hope you got the intended humor of my moonbat remark.

Just a varying approach. You guys come at it from the concepts end, I am interested in implementation. Just a curse of my trade.

I have always stated that to get back to conservatism will take very slow turns. It took 200 years to get to a lot of this, and the last 50 have been the worst as far as intent and the like. It will take at least 50 years to get back, with the caveat that some allowances have to be made for the changing world.

Little house ref. 1870s, no Computer Science... Education has changed since the 3rs... But we do agree it has to be done slowly. I don't get the feeling many of your brethren do... That scares me, hitting the monster all at once will get us in BIG trouble... Also there will still be a few things that, despite not being in the Constitution, will need a national hand. Highways, FAA and the like. I still feel there is need for a national education standard for teachers and curriculum, a much improved one of course. If need be we need to amend the Constitution to add that to appease the "need" some have then so be it (Such an amendment could be a dangerous thing IMHO, Pandora's box)

Re: computers, etc., the states can handle. I think making EVERYONE learn CS is sort of stupid. Kids take to comps like ducks to water anyway..

Yeah, the FAA is a toughie. Eventual goal would be industry standards.

I know it's painful to think of certain states having deficient systems, but you know most won't. It will be tough love, IMO.

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.

Well said.

the808bass, your concern seems to be about the lack of knowledge available to drug consumers. That's a valid concern, but I think it can be addressed by a government (or private) entity that is empowered only to regulate labeling or advertising of drugs.

Why not permit the sale of "non-approved" drugs as long as the consumer is given proper warning through labeling and advertising restrictions (and possibly explanation from the pharmacist)? If I am faced with a condition that could seriously affect the quality of my life - or even end it - shouldn't I be able to make the informed choice to take an available non-approved drug?

[I will grant that drugs dealing with communicable diseases may be a different matter, since ineffective treatment could lead to a substantial risk to the public.]

We have nobody else going in the right direction in a big way.

My wife was watching a DVD about the Constitutional Convention yesterday, sort of fired up about these ideas. It showed how James Madison, while brilliant, was stymied until George Washington arrived. GW was like a rock star in those days, the only world-wide celebrity. When he took over as pres. of the convention, people were able to get down to work.

RP's no GW, but he's drawing attention to the philosophy, no question about it, and getting support. So in that way there's a similarity.

Dude, it says Post office and Post roads right there. According to the Constitution those are for mail...

You carry the mail?

So either you are violating the Constitution because you are riding on an unconstitutional highway or if it is a post road and you are not a mail carrier you are breaking the law...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.