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.

[mylife]

Paul wants to bring the troops home, disengage the world, deconstruct the FBI and CIA.

Let it be known that I believe in limited Gov and think that US citizens should be active at local gov ie civil air patrol and border patrol and local education.

But, if you think the country is War weary now, just wait until it IS on our shores and it truly is everyman bearing the burden.

On Defense the gov really does serve a purpose. Part of defense is engaging the world.

[burzum]

There is no small government conservative in the race at the moment that has any credibility compared to Ron Paul. The other candidates might talk about balancing the budget in 5 or 10 years and then reducing $100 billion in spending. Wow, that is sure impressive considering that we are talking about an almost $3 trillion budget! The other so-called small government conservatives have fallen down the slippery slope that the Democrats and statists have laid and are now themselves big government conservatives and statists. They won’t even debate these economic points that were so often discussed in the past. I am sick of it.

I stand by to be criticized by somebody for not supporting big government conservatism or not realizing that it is impossible to take apart this unwieldy government machine that we have built. I also look forward to somebody criticizing me by noting that we have $60 trillion in responsibility for welfare policies that people have paid into the government so it is only logical that we continue our programs until it becomes $100 trillion or more.

[burzum]

Your naivete is almost mind-boggling. How many experimental drugs do not make it through FDA approval? Thousands and thousands. Why, you axe? Oh, that's right, because some of them have nasty side effects (like death and other pesky things like liver failure and heart attacks). I suppose you want hundreds of people to die trying out medicines-not-yet-ready-for-primetime. And surely no companies would try to profit from people desperate to have any sort of hope and offer an "experimental" compound to treat autism that is made of horse manure and owl feathers.

One of the foundational truths of capitalism is that the buyer must have perfect information. That simply is not the case in the complicated world of pharmaceutical compounds and medical conditions. Your argument has a number of holes in it, each big enough to drive a double-wide through.

This is a remarkable statement to read on a conservative forum. You are saying that we must be regulated because it is for the better good of the people. Are you sure you didn't copy your statement from a socialist forum? Nowhere in your little tirade did I see one statement about personal responsibility? Am I confused or did that used to be a conservative tenet? Are you going to substitute firearms instead of prescription drugs in the next tirade?

[burzum]

And if anybody thinks our Big Government programs haven't gotten insane, look at this graph:

Note that what cost $1 in 1967 would cost $6.00 in 2006. Even with an 6-fold division and a population that has increased by one third the numbers make you want to cry.

[ejonesie22]

YOU DARE AWAKE THE PAULINATI FROM THEIR EARTHLY SLUMBER!

Fool!

Oh, sorry sir, can I get you a latte...

No sir I was not yelling at a customer...

[ejonesie22]

No, it’s not the idea of limited government, it’s the method.

Paul’s is a bit too radical, however having DC turned into a gaping hole via a terrorist bomb would reduce the size of the government...

[ejonesie22]

Abolish the IRS and replace the revenue stream with what pray tell.

Don’t give me “by cutting everything” because 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.

Cut the IRS before that is done or not replace it and then what.

It is a simple thing to desire change and talk about, a whole other ball game actually doing it. Where is his plan of execution.

All I see are promises to cut this and that, no hows.

[ejonesie22]

Yeah, I like your idea better. Just bring out the drugs, the drug companies test ‘em real good, right? They are honest at least.

If a few die here or there no big deal, we will find out about it down the road, and if we are lucky before we take that same drug.

Picking out drugs is no different than buying groceries...

[burzum]

Yeah, I like your idea better. Just bring out the drugs, the drug companies test ‘em real good, right? They are honest at least.

If a few die here or there no big deal, we will find out about it down the road, and if we are lucky before we take that same drug.

Picking out drugs is no different than buying groceries...

You are a typical big government conservative. All you do is give lip service to the idea of free markets. There is nothing--absolutely nothing--that you could not regulate with your logic. You remind me of liberals. Always talking about how they need to correct the free market to protect the people.

If drugs weren't regulated then the responsibility for protecting an individual from dangerous effects of drugs would fall on the company selling the drug and the individual buying the drug. If an individual was injured, he or she could sue for damages so the company has a strong incentive to making safe drugs. And consumer interest groups would form to advise consumers.

And if an individual wanted to take a dangerous drug in the small chance it could help them or for any other reason, why should the government care? Protecting people from themselves is a liberal issue, not a conservative one. Conservatives care about the rights of individuals to decide any issue for themselves. You could have posted all of your tirades on DU and nobody would have objected.

[DugwayDuke]

Brought a smile to my face this morning.

[fortheDeclaration]

Amen to your post!

[George W. Bush]

Actually, I have have personally met Ron Paul and he most definitely IS NOT a nut. He's a loyal American, who is consistently elected by his constituents, and almost all of his policies would not only be good for America, they are in line with what the founders intended, and what led to the strongetst, freest, most prosperous, an most giving nation on earth. He and I, however, have a major disagreement and it deals with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fair enough, Jeff. It's good to see a few of the old-time conservative elements still here at FR.

Too many debates here have been reduced to which flavor of big-government Republicans prefer and how quickly we wish to surrender to the Left.

Strategizing your surrender to socialism may be a Republican trait but it's not particularly conservative.

I think it's unfortunate that we have no other small-government candidates in the race. For many like you with conservative instincts, Ron Paul's position on Iraq spoils him for being their candidate. I wish our party would return to the Reagan-Gingrich ideals. At the very least, whittling at government by eliminating some agencies and reducing the size of government by attrition and by reducing the rate of growth. Such policies over a period of even ten years could turn back the creeping bipartisan socialist tide for a generation.

[Notary Sojac]

The problem with your statement is that the “method” the GOP has employed for the last twenty years has been to grow the government, but just slightly less than the amount the Democrats want to grow it.

[Notary Sojac]

Ron Paul's position on Iraq spoils him for being their candidate.

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 made enough of a military effort not to lose, but not enough to win...the DOD lawyers and the Care Bears rules of engagement have guaranteed that four years into the war, the Iranians, Syrians and their proxies are laughing at us.

I'm not unsympathetic to anyone who concludes that if we can't fight a war to total victory, we should not be fighting at all.

I wish that President Bush had the benefit of my grandfather's wisdom. He often used to say, "If you step on a rattlesnake, you better be sure to kill it".

[Notary Sojac]

It makes sense to have an independent agency that would test drugs for safety.

However this does not have to be a government agency. Underwriter's Laboratories is a great template for this.

But the agency should never have the power to force drugs off the market.

Those drugs which are tested would have the "UL seal" or equivalent prominently on display. Those which are not, would not. The buyer has the right to choose.

[George W. Bush]

Coupled with his preference for organizing meet-ups via Democratic Underground? Try spinning how conservative that is to this "crusader," while you're at it.

Let's look at San Antonio Meetups and their sizes.

---

• Green Party Meetup Alerts
• Hip Hop Convention Meetup Alerts
• Ron Paul Meet Up Organizers' Meet Up (11 members)
• The Northeast Bexar County Democrats Meetup Group (26 members)
• The San Antonio Democracy for America Meetup Group (440 members)
• The San Antonio Democratic Party Meetup Group (21 members)
• The San Antonio Liberals Meetup Group (3 members)
• The San Antonio Townhall Meetup Group (11 members)
• The San Antonio Young Republicans Meetup Group (23 members)
• The San AntonioProgressive Democrats Meetup Group (12 members)
• back to top

---

And how many in DU's Meetups nationwide?

---

Democratic Underground

856 Members in 6 Meetup Groups, 2,583 waiting for a Meetup Group

---

How about FreeRepublic Meetups nationwide?

---

Free Republic

33 Members in 3 Meetup Groups, 164 waiting for a Meetup Group

---

1. Eastern Suffolk County Ron Paul 2008 Meetup
   30 Members

2. The Goshen Constitutionalist Meetup Group
   2 Members

3. Americans for Prosperity
   1 Members

---

---

Now, how about Ron Paul's Meetups nationwide:

---

39,311 Ron Paul Supporters in 894 Groups from 725 Cities …and 5,246 more waiting to hear when a new Meetup starts!

---

And Ron Paul's Meetup group for San Antonio? Here's a couple:

---

Independents for Ron Paul (24 members)
The San Antonio Ron Paul 2008 Meetup Group (151 members)

---

---

In short, your ravings about D.U. being behind Ron Paul's Meetup groups or any significant factor is just nuts. The DUmmies are pygmies, late to organize, weak in any showing of organized strength for any candidate, let alone for a Republican candidate like Ron Paul.

Note that for all practical purposes, FreeRepublic has only one Meetup group of 30 members in a single county in the entire country. Now, of course, that doesn't count FR's own efforts to organize via the website but it is a reduced online presence overall for FReepers nationwide.

Since you seem to indicate by your phony numbers about DUmmies organizing for Ron Paul that Meetups are or may be important overall, maybe you should concentrate on building up some Meetups for FR or for your own candidate. But it's probably more fun for you to sit around bitching about candidates who do have popular appeal and organized grassroots than to actually do something concrete for your own candidate or for this website.

[the808bass]

Nowhere in your little tirade did I see one statement about personal responsibility?

I don't think "personal responsibility" is the answer to every question even though I'm a conservative. I'm sure there's a lot of pork in the FDA and I'm sure that there's ways we could trim their budget and have it run more efficiently and smoothly. It could most likely benefit from a narrowing of its mission. I don't think abolishing every federal agency is the answer to the country's ills.

And why would I substitute firearms in the next post? Is there any analogous argument there? No, of course not. Average everday people are perfectly capable of educating themselves about firearms and safety. It is a non-starter. The average person is not able to educate themselves on a novel compound for the treatment of Parkinson's based on nothing other than its name.

You are saying that we must be regulated because it is for the better good of the people.

Conservatives are for limited government. That does not preclude the establishment of necessary government agencies for the welfare of the public.

[.cnI redruM]

I think its unfair to tar Libertarianism with an association with RuPaul or with his pedantic cheerleaders at Reason Magazine.

[Katya]

Thanks for your post...I get pretty tired of people calling him a nut because they disagree with his foreign policy. I’m glad that he’s running and presenting ideas that normally don’t get heard.

[the808bass]

But the agency should never have the power to force drugs off the market.

Yeah, because an antihistamine might work really, really well and it might kill a few people by prolonging their Qt interval, but hey, it's a good antihistamine. Let the people decide.