Ron Paul

[burgerkingdiamond]

I just want to say that Ron Paul is the man.

[Acid King]

In before "RACIST!!!!"

I like him but the racist stuff is troubling, to say the least. I would rather have seen him put his support behind Gary Johnson, who has executive experience and no bullshit baggage. He's been a valuable voice in the race though, challenging the Republicans on their foreign policy and shitty record on civil liberties, and his line about the racism of the drug war and the criminal justice system is probably the best thing I've heard out of a presidential contender, even though it was used to deflect criticism re: his newsletters. It's a shame he's not going to make it to the general election. An Obama/Paul general election would be far more interesting than what we're going to be stuck with.

[antron]

gold is for suckers.

he thinks the answer to America's health insurance problem is benevolent physicians.

racist. (or panders to racists, and lies about it)

[DEL]

Yes Ron Paul IS the Man.

[burgerkingdiamond]

I don't care about the racism shit. The thing that bothers me about RP is his stance on abortion. I think that late term abortions are wrong, but overall I think it's none of the president's or anyone elses business.

But, on almost anything else he is right on. He's so honest, and doesn't whore himself out to individual groups to try and get into office. He actually seems to understand and defend the constitution and freedom, whereas everyone else, including Obama, is racing to turn the US into Airstrip One.

And all this stuff about too bad he's not going to make it to the election. Well maybe not, but that attitude is partly to blame (along with the two party sytem in the first place). The media ignores and talks down to him like he's the crazy old uncle at Thanksgiving that you just have to tolerate, but he's actually the only one making any sense.

[Mischief Maker]

I wouldn't vote for him, but he'd definitely make for a more interesting debate opponent vs Obama than Newt or Romney.

I've heard people surmise that the ultimate puppetmasters behind the Republican party want Obama to win the reelection because he's proven himself to be weak over the last 4 years and they can use his (democratic) presidency to effectively kill the New Deal. Kinda like "Only Nixon could go to China" in reverse.

In the meantime they're faffing around with joke candidates to draw media attention away from the Occupy movement, the Ohio referendum, the Wisconsin recall, etc.

As for the candidates themselves, the better they do in the elections, the more they can cash in their political notoriety in speaking fees and news pundit salaries once the election's over.

[antron]

I've heard people surmise that the ultimate puppetmasters behind the Republican party want Obama to win the reelection because he's proven himself to be weak over the last 4 years and they can use his (democratic) presidency to effectively kill the New Deal. Kinda like "Only Nixon could go to China" in reverse.

If the supream court OK's the new healthcare law (PPACA), and Obama wins, it's here to stay. You can't take back insurance once people have it. It's just like Social Security and Medicare, touching them is political suicide.

One day Republicans will actually attack opponents by accusing them of wanting to gut the PPACA. Sounds crazy right? But that's what happened with Social Security and Medicare. They hated it, until they were married to it.

[Moniker]

I don't care about the racism shit. The thing that bothers me about RP is his stance on abortion. I think that late term abortions are wrong, but overall I think it's none of the president's or anyone elses business.

But, on almost anything else he is right on. He's so honest, and doesn't whore himself out to individual groups to try and get into office. He actually seems to understand and defend the constitution and freedom, whereas everyone else, including Obama, is racing to turn the US into Airstrip One.

And all this stuff about too bad he's not going to make it to the election. Well maybe not, but that attitude is partly to blame (along with the two party sytem in the first place). The media ignores and talks down to him like he's the crazy old uncle at Thanksgiving that you just have to tolerate, but he's actually the only one making any sense.

I approve this message. I guess I wish only that he were more libertarian and less constitutionalist. He doesn't view the separation of church & state as a necessary, since it isn't explicitly constitutional. One thing people do seem to get wrong is that they say he's anti-gay marriage, when he's actually against federal involvement in marriage period. Which I agree with, but I'd extend it to the states, which he doesn't.

[A_Civilian]

Probable headline:
Ron Paul becomes Republican nominee while Gingrich and Romney are preoccupied with slinging Your Mom insults at each other.

No, seriously. The guy's actually trying to give an argument on why he would make a good president, while everybody else in the party seems more focused on giving reasons for why everyone else would make a shitty one.

[antron]

He doesn't view the separation of church & state as a necessary, since it isn't explicitly constitutional.

it's the first clause, of the first sentence, of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

If it is prohibited from making any laws for or against any religion, how is government not seperate from them?

[Moniker]

He doesn't view the separation of church & state as a necessary, since it isn't explicitly constitutional.

it's the first clause, of the first sentence, of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

If it is prohibited from making any laws for or against any religion, how is government not seperate from them?

Don't need legal justification to put the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse. Or a statue of Mary on the White House lawn, for that matter. You need laws to prohibit those things, not to permit them.

[antron]

Don't need legal justification to put the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse. Or a statue of Mary on the White House lawn, for that matter. You need laws to prohibit those things, not to permit them.

those things ARE already prohibited. in some cases these symbols have been interpreted by the supream court to not be an "establishment" because they are vague, or serve other non-religious purposes. Like, "In God We Trust". Which God? Any they say. But these opinions are not likely to last, because they are clearly based on the judges' desires to mirror society. Any law, however carefully written, is susceptible to this.

http://articles.cnn.com/2005-06-27/just ... ?_s=PM:LAW

I actually did not know Ron Paul was against the seperation of church and state. And he claims to be on the side of liberty? Yeah, HIS liberty.

[Moniker]

Don't need legal justification to put the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse. Or a statue of Mary on the White House lawn, for that matter. You need laws to prohibit those things, not to permit them.

those things ARE already prohibited. in some cases these symbols have been interpreted by the supream court to not be an "establishment" because they are vague, or serve other non-religious purposes. Like, "In God We Trust". Which God? Any they say. But these opinions are not likely to last, because they are clearly based on the judges' desires to mirror society. Any law, however carefully written, is susceptible to this.

http://articles.cnn.com/2005-06-27/just ... ?_s=PM:LAW

I actually did not know Ron Paul was against the seperation of church and state. And he claims to be on the side of liberty? Yeah, HIS liberty.

Yeah, then we're in agreement. I agree with Paul that the Founding Fathers probably meant the Establishment clause as the prevention of a state religion and a moratorium on the compulsion or prohibition of any particular worship, and not to mean that state institutions need necessarily be strictly secular. But they should be. Strict constitutionalism doesn't always get you there. E.g. The "any god" justification "In God We Trust" and "Under God" excludes atheists, and therefore atheists cannot in good conscience make the pledge of allegiance.

[antron]

And most of the arguments against us don't even pass a smell test. The worst offender is Scalia.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... seyed.html

"The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" Scalia asks, stunned.

"A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.

"It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia. "I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead."

Eliasberg dares to correct him: "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."

"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead," thunders Scalia. "I think that's an outrageous conclusion!"

Wow, just wow. But in the end, I do not believe history will be very kind to Scalia.

[Blackbird]

I hate all the candidates running in this election. Yes, Obama is included - he's done nothing to curtail the debt, expanded our costly foreign wars into yet more countries, and allowed corporate encroachment on our civil rights and privacies to reach an all time high. Meanwhile, Romney and Newt are bucking scumbags. I want nothing to do with them. I feel like it's going to be another election where, once again, I hate everyone and vote only for the candidate that I feel will do the least damage. I'm not sure who that is yet.

2004 called, it wants to troll for copyright infringement against 2012 election for having a "lesser of two evils" election without fair use.

[Ed Oscuro]

The debt is an important topic, and poorly understood, so here's a few views on it:

- There is a school of economics (Modern Monetary Theory) which essentially states that, in a fiat money system (such as the U.S., i.e. the money is decreed into existence), money only is created when the government buys something. In the U.S., the government sells money to the banks in exchange for assets (this isn't the same as a giveaway) and then that liquidity starts moving through the system. A lot of results can follow from this observation - some safe bets, some seemingly risky or possibly untenable. There is a good overview of this movement here, in an interview with one of its founders, Prof. Bill Mitchell. (He isn't a Donkey Kong record-holder.)

- While mainstream economics generally pays some debt to John Maynard Keynes, there is another school known as the "Austrian" school (Hayek and von Mises are usually held up as progenitors, though much of the work of this school was done by neoliberals in the 1970s and on). I don't want to be too harsh on this school, but you often see self-declared Austrians making claims about the world that are absolute nonsense, such as "inflation is about to skyrocket!" (Krugman loves that one and riffs on it often) or "the government can't spend, it will crowd out private investment" (we are so far from full employment that it makes no sense during high unemployment - think of it as if somebody was saying "we only have one barrel of apples, if we eat just one apple we are in danger of eating them all!"). This is not to say that Austrian economics is purely bad or unreasonable, but I am hard-pressed to find much about it I like, including the slogan "markets fail - use markets."

There's also a point in Austrian economists about their world view. Austrian economists tend to be libertarians, which informs some of the debate. Libertarians who take a consequentialist position generally are saying "we want more liberty, and we prefer liberty to other goods if there is an apparent conflict." That is fine. Deontologically-minded libertarians are saying "it doesn't matter what's happening, push for liberty even to the exclusion of other values." This is the libertarianism familiar to most of us from the Internet, from Ayn Rand generally, and so on. Libertarians do not have a failed sense of ethics; I think the failure comes in when you take that extreme deontological position and assume, contrary to evidence, that liberty and "free markets" always bring about the best outcome, without needing to make use of any other balancing. I like that libertarianism focuses on ethics and that it pushes for liberty; I do not like that many libertarians ignore the need to have other yardsticks for success or that liberty alone is not the only concern of people. As a result, we see that many libertarians confuse ethics with practical systems. Ethics and a practical system need not be at cross-purposes, but libertarianism seems to require that men be angels - like the classic communist state. As a ruling theory, strong deontological libertarianism is a dead end.

- The question of the moment (since before the debt limit debate) is: Why did debt hawks only come to the fore of the debate during a period when governmental spending throughout the Western world was in question (the U.S. and Europe)? I smell a skunk. The bigger problem, as Paul Krugman and others (including myself) see it, is the fact of high levels of unemployment. Debt can be a problem (even if you're not an Austrian economist) but it is not the biggest problem at the moment. Unfortunately, while it is known that government spending will stimulate the economy, to do it requires the issuance of more debt.

Overall I feel that it is wise to try to reduce (not eliminate) our debt, but it is secondary to the bigger problem of jobs at this time.

I should also mention that I am very worried about the push for austerity in Europe - not only because (to paraphrase Paul Krugman) it is a myth to suppose that austerity measures expand the economy, but also because it has been non-democratic. Some of the people mad in Greece will never be placated absent an overthrow of the entire system (i.e. the Greek anarchists I've mentioned in years past) but there has been a push to put things through without consulting the people, and to replace elected officials (even if they are Silvio Berlusconi) with unelected technocrats (like current PM "Super" Mario Monti, although I note his appointment was legitimate within the system, and Berlusconi's time was up in any case).

The reason that business pushes so hard against government spending may be stated as business is jealous of any government intervention that reduces confidence in the ability of business to be the only force of note in the economy - even in a situation when business demand (i.e. for employees) is flat or declining and when that reduced confidence is very well-deserved.

On Ron Paul, Dr. Paul: I just saw that Ron Paul apparently edited all the newsletters during at least part of the period in question. I know he vigorously promoted them to people who wanted them.

If you wanted any proof he's just another politician, consider what he said on the subject of recruiting racists. It was something along the lines of "If there's anybody who I think I can convert to my cause, I will." Sounds good except that he wasn't doing anything to still those issues. One of his former staff, a Jew, says that Paul repeatedly (apropos of what I don't know) expressed his unhappiness with Israel and some other views you'd expect to make a Jew uncomfortable. The guy did defend Ron Paul on the whole, though.

[BulletMagnet]

The question of the moment (since before the debt limit debate) is: Why did debt hawks only come to the fore of the debate during a period when governmental spending throughout the Western world was in question (the U.S. and Europe)?

I can't speak for Europe, but here in the USA ridiculous deficits never seem to matter (at least since 1980, anyway) unless a liberal (such as it is, in Obama's case) can be blamed for them at the moment. The Bushes pretty much got a free pass on that front (may I once again remind everyone that letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule would have almost single-handedly solved our current annual deficit problem), though even their whitewashing on this front is nothing compared to Reagan's (whose early tax cuts were such an enormous drag on the budget that he was forced to raise them back up, though not enough to undo the damage he'd done).

[xbl0x180]

I'd vote for Ron Paul

[Drum]

Rad post in general, I want to quote this bit as I feel it's something I can actually contribute to:

Deontologically-minded libertarians are saying "it doesn't matter what's happening, push for liberty even to the exclusion of other values." This is the libertarianism familiar to most of us from the Internet, from Ayn Rand generally, and so on. Libertarians do not have a failed sense of ethics; I think the failure comes in when you take that extreme deontological position and assume, contrary to evidence, that liberty and "free markets" always bring about the best outcome, without needing to make use of any other balancing. I like that libertarianism focuses on ethics and that it pushes for liberty; I do not like that many libertarians ignore the need to have other yardsticks for success or that liberty alone is not the only concern of people. As a result, we see that many libertarians confuse ethics with practical systems. Ethics and a practical system need not be at cross-purposes, but libertarianism seems to require that men be angels - like the classic communist state. As a ruling theory, strong deontological libertarianism is a dead end.

Deontological ethics is an incoherent mess and always lapses out of deontology somewhere along the line in order for it to even be recognisable as an ethical system (and not, say, a cake recipe). Rand is not a distinguished philosopher at all, but as she is so important to Paul and generally to Paulians it seems relevant to pick her apart: she screwed up very, very early on in her chain of reasoning by conflating what is logical with what is personally expedient and then proceeded to cover up the cracks by smothering everything with a lot of romantic rhetoric about heroism. Paul is a die-hard Rand fan and, oddly for Randians, a committed Christian.
One of Ron Paul's creepiest aspects is something that you didn't address: States rights. He is aok with any manner of liberty-crushing injustice at the state level so long as it doesn't go against the constitution as filtered through his originalist reading. Of course, there is no chance that states would go back to allowing slavery or anything like that as a result of Paul's policies, but there are many similarly shitty possibilities. But as long as you have an unhealthy ability to master cognitive dissonance and a 'got mine' attitude - two things in plentiful supply in the Paul camp - it's very easy to accept this stuff.

Also:
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

[Ed Oscuro]

Yes, it's an interesting point that so many Ron Paulistas seem to be purely jealous of the success of others.

That's not a critique of Ron Paul per se, but it does show that Ron Paul, and libertarianism in general, has done a poor job "converting" people to love liberty and equality. This may have something to do with pandering to racists and gold bugs without challenging them on these beliefs (perhaps because Ron Paul shares them).

So I know people who are libertarians say "that's constructing a straw man out of libertarianism, this isn't fair, etc." To that I say - we've heard this before from the Marxists. And even that's not a logical argument against libertarianism, either, but it does illuminate the real problem that libertarianism (of the deontological, and popular, variety) is utopian.

To be clear, libertarians raise some challenging and interesting points when they ask how Ron Paul is terrible compared to other candidates if his foreign policy is less warmongering (true; it's isolationist, though, and doesn't allow for legitimate police actions; Libya in general is a sore point amongst Republicans who are just hoping that it turns into an Islamofascist nightmare soon) and if his domestic policies are more in line with the Constitution and liberty (debatable; his drugs policy seems iffy on implementation and you don't need to latch onto his specific policies to oppose current drugs policy). As it turns out, I think that he has some good ethical proposals, little in the way of practical policy, and a history of being a shrewd but seemingly immoral politician. On the whole, he doesn't seem very ethical or practical. I would love to be proved wrong, but then again I also wish Bush hadn't turned out more or less exactly as we feared he would back in '99/'00. You know that old saying - fool me once, shame on you...

About deontological ethics in general - I think that ethics, in general, is complicated. I have been trying to grasp the Catholic debate on lying the last couple weeks, and I am certainly not ready to say "this is too hard, let's ignore it." There are real benefits to a deontological worldview - if it is tenable; it may be based on false belief, so I am also not ready to say we should jump at it with no concerns.

[evil_ash_xero]

If I hear any more about this little fuck, I'm moving to Canada.

[burgerkingdiamond]

Ok. all this shit is getting way over my head. I'm a math person and this philosophical/idealogicalism shit is way too fuzzy for me. All I know is the that Ron Paul seems less full of shit than anybody else running. by a lot. As in everyone else seems so full of shit that they're about to fucking burst.

That fact that he's a Christian bugs the shit out of me seeing as I'm as atheist as they come. The abortion thing too. But you have to take what you can get.

I voted for Obama because like many others I was so sick of George W. Bush that even thinking of voting Republican was just not gonna happen. Not to mention the fact that I would stick my hand in a blender before I voted for someone on the same ticket as Sarah Palin. But Obama doesn't seem to have followed through on any of his promises. I can't even stand the sound of his voice when he makes a speech. I think he's just as full of shit as anyone else.

[BulletMagnet]

But Obama doesn't seem to have followed through on any of his promises.

As a liberal I'm certainly not thrilled with a hunk of the decisions he's made (seriously, why in heaven's name is Guantanamo still open?), but I think that's a tad too harsh...the economy is (slowly) recovering, gays are (gradually) being allowed to openly serve in the military, near-universal health care is (kinda) being worked on, and the offending banks that gave rise to the financial crisis will (hopefully) be investigated in earnest soon.

Hardly miracles, but if nothing else, as you say it's rather frightening to imagine where a victorious McCain/Palin ticket (or, if you ask me, Ron Paul) might have led us by now.

[Ed Oscuro]

(seriously, why in heaven's name is Guantanamo still open?)

because Republicans in Congress did not allow him to do anything else with the people interned there!

Seriously, people need to understand that the President is not a god (or God). He doesn't even hear messages from God (at least it's not a specific perk of the office).

Ron Paul being less full of shit only makes sense if you haven't twigged that a lot of his spiel depends upon believing things that may actually be false, i.e. that we can have what is essentially a utopian society. It is a sad thing that many of the areas of economics and policy that he has chosen to talk about may appear to be a certain way to the layman, while in fact they are quite different.

A simple example is the constant drumbeat you hear from many Republicans and others that "we need to balance our budget because households balance their budgets." Yes, a household does need to balance their budget, but a household is not a government. Households are not fiscally sovereign (they do not issue their own currency) and they do not have to balance nearly as many goals as a government does for it to represent the democratic will of the people. More simply put, micro- and macroeconomics are totally different. People intuitively understand a lot of microeconomics. Many tend not to get that government has to be a government for everybody, not just a government that works in some idealized version of the 1890s we want to believe in.

I understand why a math person would not follow a lot of the philosophical jargon (trust me - most philosophers hate that, including the top experts - they especially hate terms that are poorly chosen but survive because they are familiar) but you should follow the point that a lot of his arguments depend upon believing premises that are not true, and provably not true. Whether you believe the evidence supports him or not is up to you, but experience has shown that a lot of it simply is not true. I would not underestimate the capacity of some libertarians (the deontological kind I mentioned before) to simply allege that things "must" be so, in the face of evidence, because they believe it must be true. Circular reasoning.

I apologize for recklessly using the terms deontological and consequential - there is an easy way to understand them. Deontological thinkers would say that you do something because it is Right - Kant, Aquinas, and many others of the greats. It refers to "duty." It's not a sloppy philosophy, in my opinion. Consequential thinkers ask about outcomes. There is, as should be obvious, a lot of disagreement about whether deontology means that you can't think originally, or whether consequentialism means you should sacrifice people according to some happiness-maximizing goals. All I would say is that there are many newer additional rules you can use to judge whether you are doing something correctly or not (I like Pareto efficiency - the idea of making more improvements without causing harms, which rubs out one of the usual critiques of utilitarians being willing to sacrifice good in order for a "greater" good, i.e. murdering people if it causes "more" happiness for more people).

Unfortunately, in the field of economics and philosophy (and in all others) there is no clear proof of how much we can learn from pure reason (deduce intuitively, "a priori"), and how much we need to study empirical evidence for ("a posteriori"). In practical terms, that means that if the form of a Ron Paul (or any other) structure looks good, you should still see if the history and facts they allege to be true are actually true.

[CMoon]

Just two things:

I love the shit out of what Ron Paul says, but I honestly doubt any of it would work in real life. Do you see any developed nations operating under the principals of libertarinism? (say that word 10 times fast!) No, you don't, and I suspect that's because when allowed to play out, it doesn't actually work. Socialism is a dirty word in the US, and yet, on some level we all recognize that at least a certain degree of socialism is necessary unless you're morally cool with watching abandoned infants starving on the street (well actually, you'd see racoons eat them before they starve to death.) That's one extreme, but even not taken so far, libertarianism also demands the average citizen is actually educated enough to know what to do with their liberty, where by in large I think most people are fucking near-retarded and need to be looked after by a semi-benevolent government. I have no problem letting the US be a testing ground, but don't be surprised to learn that McDonald's has to print that hot coffee is hot on their hot coffee because dumb americans are really dumb. I will enjoy the ensuing comedy.

My second thing: Ron Paul isn't just anti-choice, he's anti-environment. Sure, he wants to kill a lot of departments like the department of education which I'm just as terrified to keep as I am to see gone, but RP's stance on the environment isn't just anti-EPA, it's more anti-earth. He couches a lot of this shit behind phrases like 'let the states decide', which is another way of saying that if the few white people who actually live in alaska want to frack the fuck out of their state (or whatever environmentally irresponsible actions are available), RP will have no problem with it. So what's weird is how I like a lot of the ideas RP talks about, but if you actually look up what he personally believes in, I'd never consider voting for him in a million years.

[Moniker]

I presume that in your argument that Paul's proposed system is utopian, you're chiefly referring to the replacement of gov't programs with charities and the like. I personally can't make up my mind on the issue. On the one hand, I believe that if citizens would not voluntarily pay for what those programs provide, then the gov't doesn't have the mandate to use tax dollars to pay for it. On the other hand, I don't believe that they would, given the choice, and many necessary public services would disappear, never to be seen again. Which leaves me in the uncomfortable position that part of the gov't's role is to force the people to do things they don't want to do, in the name of the greater good. I don't really know where to go with that, except to suggest that federal programs be tested by trial and error to see if they can be viably privatized.

As for the other, more popular, aspect of libertarianism - the notion that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want unless it demonstrably causes harm to someone else - well, I don't really see the controversy there. Of course, that leaves a lot of work to be done on the details: an adult should be allowed to use heroin... as long as they don't have children, etc.

[Ed Oscuro]

There is a pretty simple answer to the question of whether government should provide what individuals wouldn't buy: Something without obvious benefits is pork. Otherwise, it becomes a democratic issue - if enough people benefit from it, there's an argument to be made that it is useful. Obviously there are constraints on how far the "will of the voters" is right, but there is a built-in guard in the political system against overt wealth transfers as the people losing the money to taxation have been pretty good (especially in the period of our lives) at influencing and determining the laws.

Libertarians like to talk about "coercive government," and maybe it's a useful concept.

So you could have a government that is hands-off on many matters, but not others. Some Western nations have become increasingly so over the years (i.e. gay rights, and the repeal of many other laws related to sex), and some seem to be backsliding on some (France banning the headscarf, while Turkey is moving to legalize it again). Interestingly enough, the reaction in France to headscarves, a facet of secular government, is a direct response to what many apparently see as an inherently repressive order. So for some libertarians, any government is inherently repressive; for some Frenchmen, any headscarf is inherently repressive. You see that this is why I insist on looking at the actual facts of an issue - not to mention consider the rights involved - instead of just saying "this is bad because we have a duty to fight it."

Of course, the flip side is that there are many cases through history where even individuals have used their might or other nefarious means to coerce other people into going along with them. So coercion is not something just to fear from a government; the Federalist Papers should reflect an awareness of this (huh...guess I have some more reading to do).

Libertarians tend to have a tough time with the concept of externalities - the idea that costs exist when doing some activity that are not accounted for in a contract. Aside from the polluting factory example, there are positive externalities as well - like spending money to lay down a road. I'll note that the railroads are mainly privately owned.

The problem, as I see it, with the Ron Paul view is that it is advocating a "night watchman" state which does not permit enough of the legitimate functions of government, or recognize areas the government should regulate to help maximize freedom and stability (along with other good ends). I don't want to misinterpret what he's about; he's not entirely an either-or kind of guy, but far too close.

What is especially troubling is that, when people back Romney (for example) for his supposed leadership skills (aka baiting and switching company owners to get a better deal than they would have otherwise - a dirty trick employed by the firm he worked at under his leadership), people are signing on to the idea that a leader finds what sort of policies are useful and uses those, and gets rid of those that aren't useful. When Obama does this - he spoke in his State of the Union address about getting rid of a regulation on milk farmers that classified milk as an "oil" in the case of a spill - too many people don't consider it legitimate, even when he is working to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses by billions. It looks like a double standard.

Yet when we focus on it just this way, as the Republicans seem to want, it sucks all the air out of the room for considering another discussion, just as important: Why do we have regulations and government in the first place? Could it be that some people are putting a small level of profits above a very high level of damage to other people in the nation (the attacks on the Obama Administration's mercury emissions regulation is an example of this)? The answer is yes, obviously. So far, I've only seen one side make a good effort to understand and come to grips with the legitimate goals of the other - and yet this is considered Obama's weakness. On the other hand, if he had not taken time to consult with Republicans to get their concerns (assuming they were legitimate and not intended to push him into honoring untenable demands), they would have complained louder of socialism. I say this is a "win" for the Republicans only if we play along with it. You don't see the Democrats saying things calculated to make people ignore their positions and try to make the opposition seem like some kind of devil - well, I suppose they don't have to because the cynical, careless Republican method we've been seeing so often is enough to push back against.

A good example of a recent Republican "concession" (which was actually class warfare in disguise) was introducing a bill to block millionaire access to food stamps and jobless aid. As Paul Krugman said: "Also, no sleeping under bridges [allowed]." The subtext of the Republican bill, however, was that there is a hidden class of millionaires who are not "real," legitimate millionaires, and that they are the obvious result of having food stamps. Instead of it being a simple, but rare, issue of fraud for the criminal justice system (which it is), apparently we're supposed to believe in a food stamp addiction that even millions of dollars can't fix. Otherwise, dang it, wouldn't those millionaires have made their money the old-fashioned way?

[ED-057]

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who stands for something other than the status quo. On the surface, I consider this a good thing.

One of the criticisms that I have seen frequently is regarding his favoring of states' rights in favor of federal power. I`m not clear on why so many people are against this (unless they happen to hate the state that they live in).

One of Ron Paul's creepiest aspects is something that you didn't address: States rights. He is aok with any manner of liberty-crushing injustice at the state level

So what if Ron Paul was OK with it? Or even the entire federal government? The point is that, the feds don`t control state governments, the people who live in those states do (in theory). Why should that lead to liberty-crushing injustice any worse than what we already have?

[burgerkingdiamond]

But Obama doesn't seem to have followed through on any of his promises.

As a liberal I'm certainly not thrilled with a hunk of the decisions he's made (seriously, why in heaven's name is Guantanamo still open?), but I think that's a tad too harsh...the economy is (slowly) recovering, gays are (gradually) being allowed to openly serve in the military, near-universal health care is (kinda) being worked on, and the offending banks that gave rise to the financial crisis will (hopefully) be investigated in earnest soon.

Hardly miracles, but if nothing else, as you say it's rather frightening to imagine where a victorious McCain/Palin ticket (or, if you ask me, Ron Paul) might have led us by now.

I'm not prepared to read Ed's posts yet this morning. but I will after I drink my morning coffee .

but as for Obama. Didn't he just sign a bill into law that the government can detain ANYONE even US citizens indefinitely and without trial if they are linked to terrorism (I forget the exact language of the bill)? WTF? that shit is scary. I think that any of the other candidates (besides Ron Paul) would probably do the same shit.

And if gays want to serve in the military then fine. I don't care, and I also don't care if they get married. But that's just the point. I don't care. And if that's one of Obama's great accomplishments then great, but again, I don't particularly care. I know it's self serving, but there are way bigger things at stake.

[louisg]

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who stands for something other than the status quo. On the surface, I consider this a good thing.

One of the criticisms that I have seen frequently is regarding his favoring of states' rights in favor of federal power. I`m not clear on why so many people are against this (unless they happen to hate the state that they live in).

One of Ron Paul's creepiest aspects is something that you didn't address: States rights. He is aok with any manner of liberty-crushing injustice at the state level

So what if Ron Paul was OK with it? Or even the entire federal government? The point is that, the feds don`t control state governments, the people who live in those states do (in theory). Why should that lead to liberty-crushing injustice any worse than what we already have?

The roots of states-rights sentiment has to do with the opposition of the civil rights movement (since states differed the most on social topics). Seeing the kinds of crap Paul published, it's not a very big shocker:

"The articles included racial, anti-Semitic and anti-gay content. They claimed, for example, that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. “seduced underage girls and boys’’; they ridiculed black activists by suggesting that New York be named “Zooville” or “Lazyopolis”; and they said the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended “when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’’ "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... ory_2.html

It's amazing to me the number of people who think that racism is "no big deal". It's probably the same people who think racism has been solved in America and no longer exists.

he thinks the answer to America's health insurance problem is benevolent physicians.

Oh god, that was hilarious. "YOU COULD GO TO A CHURCH AND THEY'D HELP YOU". Haha. I'd forgotten about that. Sometimes I think the only reason he wants to legalize weed is so you'd be stoned enough to vote for him.

As for Obama and Guantanamo, seeing as he happily signed the NDAA, I'm a little doubtful that the Republican party was the *only* thing stopping him, which isn't to say there was a lot he could do about it anyway.