WendyMcElroy.com
General Category => Current Events => Topic started by: H. Rearden on June 05, 2007, 10:04:54 PM
-
From the elephant's debate on June 5. The only reason I watched it is because of Paul. I have not bothered watching any of the jackasses debates as I don't care to watch the jackasses.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhXoHCZZXWw
-
I'm mostly disappointed with CNN, I mean, could their favoritism be anymore blatant? Lost track of how many times Rudy McRomney was asked questions compared to Ron. I think at once point it was 5 or 6 to 1. Seems that it's been decided that engaging Ron Paul isn't the best strategy for getting rid of Dr. Paul, so they've gone back to ignoring him.
I don't think this was Dr. Paul's best performance either. His first answer was great, paraphrased: 'end the war.' I don't agree with Dr. Paul's position on immigration (though that's not a push button issue for me), and but was glad he moved the discussion to the effect of welfare on illegal immigration. Gays in the military, I don't think he was clear. I took what he was saying to be let gays in the military, but sexual conduct (of any sort) is disruptive and rules against such are no problem. Wolf took that as supporting DADT. Ron Paul's best one liner: "I'm Ron Paul and I'm the champion of the Constitution."
-
Hmmm. Paul voted for the 700 mile fence? At the very end of the clip, he states that we need to stop spending $1B annually on preemptive war so that we can spend it on education and medical care?
That prompted me to examine his voting record (http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929 (http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929))
- He touts himself as a defender of the Constitution, and refers to Roe v. Wade as an example of Federal interference in issues that should be decided at the local level, however, he voted for every law regulating partial birth abortion that came down the pike. So into which domain do abortion issues fall? Even if one considers partial abortion to be the murder of a fully developed human being, which enumerated power grants the Federal government dominion over this issue?
- He voted for HR4844, which mandates government-issued photo voter id cards. Again, it is not a question of whether or not this is a good idea, but of whether such election governance is authorized by an enumerated power granted to the Federal government.
- Voted for several measures that seem to promote Federal financial aid to education and generally reinforce Federal jurisdiction over education.
- Voted for HR5092 to modernize and reform BATF. A bit sticky, as the legislation tends to roll back some discretionary powers of the bureau. However, there is no Constitutional foundation for BATF to even exist, and any such legislation tends to further legitimize it, no matter what the net present effect. A NV would have been a better defense of the Constitution.
- Voted to require Sec H&HS to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients. Again, the entire program and Department is extra-Constitutional.
- Voted for several other measures that on balance tend to reinforce Federal jurisdiction over medical care.
- Voted for the Secure Fence Act mentioned previously.
- Voted to require hospitals to provide information on care rendered to undocumented persons (presumed immigrants). An unfunded mandate and not among the enumerated powers.
- Voted for HR2028 to prohibit Federal courts from hearing cases challenging the Pledge of Allegiance and its constitutionality. Oh really?!
- Voted for two measures allowing display of the Ten Commandments: one State, one Federal. I have no problem with the first bill, it is none of the Federal government's business. However, I have some difficulty with allowing this at the Federal level on First Amendment grounds, and the second bill went on to affirm the Ten Commandments as "declaration of fundamental principles that are the cornerstones of a fair and just society". Hmmm. The first five Commandments are specifically about empowering clergy. That is an unacceptable Federal intrusion.
- Voted to extend Federal transportation funding to avoid one of the mythical "government shutdowns" pending passage of a reauthorization bill.
I will concede that I could have found much more to criticize had I examined just about any other voting record. He is no doubt the least bad of the declared candidates and may be head and shoulders above anyone else in Congress. However, I believe that his voting record puts the lie to his claim to be a "defender of the Constitution" or a libertarian (he can qualify as an upper-case "L" Libertarian these days, but so can just about anyone else) Ron Paul is nowhere near enough to persuade me to endorse the screwed-up electoral system by voting.
-Roland
-
I just received a mailing from Ron Paul's campaign yesterday. He is now calling himself a "real conservative" -- with real computer-generated handwritten underlining -- rather than a libertarian.
Parts of it are good, but the part on immigration is really awful. He says, "The very borders of our nation are under assault today." A little later he says, "That is not 'immigration.' It is an invasion!" The last sentence is underlined.
Describing travel for the purpose of earning a living as "assault" and "invasion" implies that it's an act of force, which it isn't. It also provides an excuse for force; when a wetback is found picking lettuce, he's really "assaulting" us and "invading" the country, so we need to counter his military actions with a -- purely defensive! -- military action.
It may just be that no one can stay in Congress very long and remain sane. I gave some money to Paul's campaign after a party boss tried to ban him from the debates, but maybe it would have been better given to Cato or IJ.
-
The truly depressing thing is, that despite all those extra-Constitutional things Ron Paul has voted for, he's still the closest thing that there is to a "Constitution-respecting congresscritter" in these dark days...:(
No other congresscritter except Ron Paul even bothers to pay lip service to the Constitution nowadays. The rest of the congresscritters in that feeding-frenzy-in-a-pork-barrel that is Congress all appear to share Bushnev's position: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddammed piece of paper!"...
<* grrrrrr *> >:(
-
I know this is not popular with Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, but as long as there is a welfare-warfare state, I don't see how we can continue with open borders, so voting to secure them in the interim isn't exactly a negative in my book.
The photo ID card is more disturbing and disappointing.
-
I know this is not popular with Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, but as long as there is a welfare-warfare state, I don't see how we can continue with open borders, so voting to secure them in the interim isn't exactly a negative in my book.
Which is the real problem: The "open" border, or the Welfare-Warfare state ? ? ?
If the current crop of neo-"Know Nothings" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know-Nothing_movement) REALLY cared that `Illegal' immigrants are stealing `Our' Welfare, then their solution should be to vote to stop `giving' illegal immigrants Welfare.
However, the "Illegals Are Stealing `Our' Welfare" excuse is exactly that: Just an excuse. Their real objection to `Illegals' is the some objection that every crop of American `Nativists' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativist) have always had to Immigrants: That the `Illegals' are "Not Our Kind."
American `Nativists' movements have arisen with every wave of immigrants to the U.S. `Nativist' mobs and cabals have arisen to block the immigration of Germans, to block immigration of the Irish, to block immigration of Catholics, to block immigration of Germans and Irish because they were predominantly Catholic, to block the immigration of Chinese, to block the immigration of Japanese, &c., &c., &c. In each case, the `Nativists' have raised the exact same litany of objections: These Immigrants don't share `our' culture, they don't share `our' values, they are dirty, they are violent, they are thieves, they have too many babies. But ultimately, the bottom line is simply this: They are Aliens. They are "Not Like `Us'."
The `Nativists' in EVERY generation of Americans have called for the FedGov to "Shut The Border!" to keep out those who are "Not Like Us." These calls for "Closed Borders" were always firmly and wisely voted down until 1891. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Naturalization_Service) I don't think it's any great coincidence that none of those earlier votes succeeded until the forces advocating socialist protectionism and trade-unionism began to dominate political discource in the late 1800s...
As for calls to "Secure the Border," it is no more possible to "secure" the U.S. border than it is to put a cop on every street-corner --- and for the same reason: It would take far too many cops! The FedGov is no more capable of "Securing the Border" and stopping `Illegal' immigation than it is of stopping `Illegal' drug traffic or of "Winning the War on Drugs."
The most the Feds can possibly do is to try to drive up the price of `Illegal' labor --- which will instead just drive it into a fully underground "Black Market," which will just mean that the Feds will instead lose the tax revenues they are currently getting from the `Illegals' who are currently working "above" ground but with false papers. And that is why the congrescritters are currently talking "Limited Amnesty" rather than "Border Crackdown:" The porkers in Congress don't want to lose the US$ ~100 BiIllion/yr in tax revenues that they are currently raking in from `illegals' working under false papers!
-
Comment removed.
-
Which is the real problem: The "open" border, or the Welfare-Warfare state ? ? ?
I’m not going to get sidetracked on an immigration debate in this thread, gdp, suffice to say that I don't really care one way or the other who comes here, if they come peacefully. I know American history too, and am aware that the longer a community stays here the more American they become with each generation.
What I do care about is the drain on the budget, the resultant cries for the government to do something even more asinine, expensive, and foolish about it (such as socialized medicine or pouring more money into public schools), and the taxman stealing more money from my wallet to pay for it.
And as long as we're going to be overseas spreading the Empire abroad, open borders invite the nice folks whose countries we've bombed into hellholes to walk across undetected with god knows what.
but to answer your question: the latter.
Which, however, do we have a better chance of addressing right now? The former.
I despise the welfare-warfare state, and I would love to wake up tomorrow and read the news that we're pulling the legions back to our shores, abolishing 95% of the federal government and returning to a constitutional republic.
But the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim. It will take years, if not generations of work to rollback the changes made to our government, short of a popular uprising.
-
Which is the real problem: The "open" border, or the Welfare-Warfare state ? ? ?
But the likelihood of that happening is pretty slim. It will take years, if not generations of work to rollback the changes made to our government, short of a popular uprising.
[/quote]
Do you think for a moment that the rent-seekers have not slithered from their dark burrows and found ways to make millions from illegal immigration? Now, who do you think has more political clout in this corrupt system: those who are actually losing health or wealth because of illegal immigration, or those slimy hole dwellers making money from it? I venture to say that the prospects for any real, effective immigration control and those for rollback of the Welfare-Warfare state are equally unlikely. What stupid projects like the 700 mile fence will do, no matter how ineffective they may be at their nominal purpose, is engender even more pork and entitle those very same rent-seekers (or their den-mates) to suck even more marrow from our bones.
-Roland
-
The truly depressing thing is, that despite all those extra-Constitutional things Ron Paul has voted for, he's still the closest thing that there is to a "Constitution-respecting congresscritter" in these dark days...:(
No other congresscritter except Ron Paul even bothers to pay lip service to the Constitution nowadays. The rest of the congresscritters in that feeding-frenzy-in-a-pork-barrel that is Congress all appear to share Bushnev's position: "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddammed piece of paper!"...
<* grrrrrr *> >:(
It distresses me to agree... I also should point out that in examining Paul's record, I looked only at "Yes" votes under the theory that Congress is guilty of more sins of commission than omission, and that I gave him the overwhelming benefit of the doubt where a vote for a measure could have been attributed to a desire for either fiscal restraint or social control at the Federal level, and there wasn't enough information in the bill summary to decide which was more likely. So Paul could well be less libertarian than my post painted him, but is exceedingly unlikely to be more.
-Roland
-
Roland: great link above; thanks.
But I could not see where RP voted for an ID card. Can you point me to it?
When I did a web search, I found only instance afte instance of RP being AGAINST a national ID card.
-
Roland: great link above; thanks.
But I could not see where RP voted for an ID card. Can you point me to it?
When I did a web search, I found only instance afte instance of RP being AGAINST a national ID card.
Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 - 9/20/2006 http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3901&can_id=296 (http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3901&can_id=296)
-Roland
-
The porkers in Congress don't want to lose the US$ ~100 BiIllion/yr in tax revenues that they are currently raking in from `illegals' working under false papers!
Isn't that really just an admission by them that, because of their heavy taxes and fees and regulations even down at the minimum wage level that they need people getting paid under the table to afford labor at those levels? If these immigrants were all legal they would immediately have to be paid minimum wage and then immediately taxed, regulated etc and so would be currently unemployable. This is really an issue of the massive amounts of money drained from workers by the state and the only way employers can afford to hire people is by having them not pay taxes and fees.
Its already a black market of labor. Its a way to avoid the heavy taxes at the poor level. That's why Americans won't work these jobs. it just doesn't pay for the employer or the employee to work these low paying jobs because the state cuts out so much from their pay checks that its cheaper to get on welfare, be homeless or bum off someone else.
And this is why making 20 million immigrants citizens is a bad idea. Once they are legal they MUST be paid minimum wage and will lose more cash than if they worked illegally for even less overall money. A person working under the table for $6 an hour probably keeps more than the legal min wage earner at $9 and hour. Plus the employer does not have to pay the added $3 per hour in addition to the $9 an hour they must pay to employ the legal worker. A rule of thumb for legal employees is the employer pays anywhere from 1.25 to 1.5 times what they offer the employee in the form of taxes, fees and insurance. If these workers become legal they will find it cheaper just not to work minimum wage. In essence we would be robbing them of wages by making them legal.
-
...
It may just be that no one can stay in Congress very long and remain sane. I gave some money to Paul's campaign after a party boss tried to ban him from the debates, but maybe it would have been better given to Cato or IJ...
Money better spent on arsenal enhancement, perhaps, if Paul is the best the system can cough up today...
-Roland
-
Ron Paul is a conservative with some libertarian leanings. Notice that the times he has wavered on what he calls Constitutionalism he has done so in a social conservative direciton.
His new found anti-immigration platform (I don't remember him jumping on the Know-Nothing bandwagon when he ran for president before) is very worrying. Here is a man that wants a wall on the premise that it keeps out Mexicans but who is ignoring that walls work in two directions. It also keeps people in.
His criticism of the war is warranted and good but I wouldn't support his campaign just over that. I do take the position that funding is better spent in other ways. His campaign will not go anywhere. And he simply isn't garnering any percentage support at the polls. He seems very cozy with some far Right groups which is also worrying like the crazy John Birch Society.
-
Hmmm. Paul voted for the 700 mile fence? At the very end of the clip, he states that we need to stop spending $1B annually on preemptive war so that we can spend it on education and medical care?
That prompted me to examine his voting record (http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929 (http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=BC031929))
- He touts himself as a defender of the Constitution, and refers to Roe v. Wade as an example of Federal interference in issues that should be decided at the local level, however, he voted for every law regulating partial birth abortion that came down the pike. So into which domain do abortion issues fall? Even if one considers partial abortion to be the murder of a fully developed human being, which enumerated power grants the Federal government dominion over this issue?
- He voted for HR4844, which mandates government-issued photo voter id cards. Again, it is not a question of whether or not this is a good idea, but of whether such election governance is authorized by an enumerated power granted to the Federal government.
- Voted for several measures that seem to promote Federal financial aid to education and generally reinforce Federal jurisdiction over education.
- Voted for HR5092 to modernize and reform BATF. A bit sticky, as the legislation tends to roll back some discretionary powers of the bureau. However, there is no Constitutional foundation for BATF to even exist, and any such legislation tends to further legitimize it, no matter what the net present effect. A NV would have been a better defense of the Constitution.
- Voted to require Sec H&HS to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients. Again, the entire program and Department is extra-Constitutional.
- Voted for several other measures that on balance tend to reinforce Federal jurisdiction over medical care.
- Voted for the Secure Fence Act mentioned previously.
- Voted to require hospitals to provide information on care rendered to undocumented persons (presumed immigrants). An unfunded mandate and not among the enumerated powers.
- Voted for HR2028 to prohibit Federal courts from hearing cases challenging the Pledge of Allegiance and its constitutionality. Oh really?!
- Voted for two measures allowing display of the Ten Commandments: one State, one Federal. I have no problem with the first bill, it is none of the Federal government's business. However, I have some difficulty with allowing this at the Federal level on First Amendment grounds, and the second bill went on to affirm the Ten Commandments as "declaration of fundamental principles that are the cornerstones of a fair and just society". Hmmm. The first five Commandments are specifically about empowering clergy. That is an unacceptable Federal intrusion.
- Voted to extend Federal transportation funding to avoid one of the mythical "government shutdowns" pending passage of a reauthorization bill.
I will concede that I could have found much more to criticize had I examined just about any other voting record. He is no doubt the least bad of the declared candidates and may be head and shoulders above anyone else in Congress. However, I believe that his voting record puts the lie to his claim to be a "defender of the Constitution" or a libertarian (he can qualify as an upper-case "L" Libertarian these days, but so can just about anyone else) Ron Paul is nowhere near enough to persuade me to endorse the screwed-up electoral system by voting.
-Roland
If those are the only noxious bills that Dr. Paul has ever voted for (out of what? 1000s of votes?), do you really have much to worry about?
-
Ron Paul is a conservative with some libertarian leanings. Notice that the times he has wavered on what he calls Constitutionalism he has done so in a social conservative direciton.
His new found anti-immigration platform (I don't remember him jumping on the Know-Nothing bandwagon when he ran for president before) is very worrying. Here is a man that wants a wall on the premise that it keeps out Mexicans but who is ignoring that walls work in two directions. It also keeps people in.
His criticism of the war is warranted and good but I wouldn't support his campaign just over that. I do take the position that funding is better spent in other ways. His campaign will not go anywhere. And he simply isn't garnering any percentage support at the polls. He seems very cozy with some far Right groups which is also worrying like the crazy John Birch Society.
I don't think that is completely accurate. I think that Ron Paul votes according to his own personal, emotional bias when that bias conflicts with the Constitution. No doubt that bias may be generally described as socially conservative, but there is nothing conservative about affirming Federal jurisdiction over education and health care. In my opinion, anyone who operates out of personal bias but publicly ascribes his motivation to a set pf principles like the Constitution needs to be regarded with a jaundiced eye, as does anyone who can be so hypocritical as to criticize Roe v. Wade on the basis of jurisdiction over abortion, while voting in favor of regulating that practice at the Federal level.
-Roland
-
...
If those are the only noxious bills that Dr. Paul has ever voted for (out of what? 1000s of votes?), do you really have much to worry about?
In the practical sense of the word, I am not "worried" about any particular politician. At this point in time, the die is pretty well cast for increasing erosion of Liberty and confiscation of property in this country until the people wake up and remember that they are the source of power, however long that takes. I am particularly "unworried" about Ron Paul, since in practical terms, he hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of having any effect on the upcoming election. That was not the point of my post - maybe you should read it again. However, anyone who accepts Paul's disingenuous statements about being a libertarian and a "champion of the Constitution" at face value should probably be worried, about both the validity of his premises and his gullibility...
-Roland
-
...
If those are the only noxious bills that Dr. Paul has ever voted for (out of what? 1000s of votes?), do you really have much to worry about?
In the practical sense of the word, I am not "worried" about any particular politician. At this point in time, the die is pretty well cast for increasing erosion of Liberty and confiscation of property in this country until the people wake up and remember that they are the source of power, however long that takes. I am particularly "unworried" about Ron Paul, since in practical terms, he hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of having any effect on the upcoming election. That was not the point of my post - maybe you should read it again. However, anyone who accepts Paul's disingenuous statements about being a libertarian and a "champion of the Constitution" at face value should probably be worried, about both the validity of his premises and his gullibility...
-Roland
He may not have a chance of winning but, what would he do if he won anyway? I think he stands more of a chance educating and pulling votes away from other candidates than trying to win. Supposedly over 30% of the voting populace in the Gore/Bush election didn't vote for Gore or Bush. That's a pretty strong message. And as I said, what good is it to be president? You can't just will everyone to do things your way. If that were the case we'd have illegal abortion and illegal gay marriage by now. Now Paul could just sit in the white house and cut spending right and left and veto every single bill but that's about it and even cutting spending is dubious since those things requires congressional and senate approval. More than likely all he could do is stagnate the US for 4 years making sure the US doesn't expand, doesn't do anything abroad and maybe pull troops and resources back home from abroad. I really don't see what is effective about being president.
Now a better approach is to take a state like Montana or Vermont or some low population state, run it the libertarian way and perhaps secede in the long term. If people can see real world examples of schools run "right" roads done "right" laws done "right" then they will start changing. Unlike a lot of people I don't accept people are mindless moron zombies they just don't have an idea or clue as to what to do. And the problem with the libertarians is the examples they put out of driving without a license or not paying taxes seem more coo coo for coco-puffs than rational behavior which no one is going to follow. Its almost self destructive in a way.
Take a state. Run it the libertarian way. Don't get mired down in petty fringe arguments and that will be more effective than trying to be president. I think Paul has done more just getting into the debates and having his opinions heard.
-
He may not have a chance of winning but, what would he do if he won anyway? I think he stands more of a chance educating and pulling votes away from other candidates than trying to win... I really don't see what is effective about being president.
Now a better approach is to take a state like Montana or Vermont or some low population state, run it the libertarian way and perhaps secede in the long term.
...
To take your points one at a time:
Assuming a candidate who holds either Liberty or the Constitution in high regard (I can accept either), that person could do a much better job of educating from the Oval Office than from the campaign trail. Calling it the "Bully Pulpit" would be inaccurate in this hypothetical case, but T. Roosevelt understood that much of the power of that office lies in guaranteed mass media access to most of the population. No matter how much a libertarian President might nauseate the media, it is highly unlikely that they would have either the imagination or the balls to ignore him or her. 1,461 days in a four-year term - that is a mighty opportunity to educate and persuade. Veto a bill, then go on the air to explain the issues. Hell, as President, you could produce your own TV show, with guests, and make it very difficult for the networks not to show every bit of it. Hire a good publicist, and "difficult" likely becomes "impossible". Do it again and again until all of the people who have enough intelligence and integrity to get it, do get it. If and when that point is reached, the stage is set for change, from the voting booth or from the street, as fate may dictate.
Regarding the individual state approach, I don't hold out much hope. A couple of decades ago it might have been possible. No doubt getting a libertarian governor and/or state legislature elected is somewhat more doable than electing a President who is similarly inclined (fewer felines to herd:-) But there are so many Federal mandates on states today that secession would almost have to be part of the master plan, not just a contingency. That would require a much larger mandate than what is needed to get elected to office. If secession is the order of the day, it had better be a coastal state, as the Feds are likely to close the surrounding airspace. Unfortunately and possibly non-coincidentally, the sea coast states seem to be the very ones that are the least promising candidates for an electoral takeover by libertarians. Assuming that secession succeeds (sorry:-) there must be a strategy for dealing with the inevitable backlash. Do you try to find a way to make the aftermath of secession so immediately rewarding as to discourage election of a re-admittance slate four years later? Or do you count on the reaction of FedGov to be so draconian that it will make the cost of re-admittance unpalatable (likely, but not guaranteed)? The third option would be to gerrymander the new system so that the people would be unable to legally choose to rejoin the US - that might be possible, but then what would really have been accomplished?
-Roland
-
I will concede that I could have found much more to criticize had I examined just about any other voting record. He is no doubt the least bad of the declared candidates and may be head and shoulders above anyone else in Congress. However, I believe that his voting record puts the lie to his claim to be a "defender of the Constitution" or a libertarian (he can qualify as an upper-case "L" Libertarian these days, but so can just about anyone else) Ron Paul is nowhere near enough to persuade me to endorse the screwed-up electoral system by voting.
-Roland[/size]
Ok, so more than just a few of his congressional votes are questionable from a constitutional standpoint. But so what? It means he’s not perfect. The point is, we’d have a president who knows he’s not infallible and who would be open to reassessing his view based on constitutional arguments —not a self-anointed demigod sociopath like all the rest, taking us all down with them on their own fucking personal collision course with destiny.
Realize this is something we may never again see in our lifetimes: someone on a national platform who understands the temptation of power and who actually has a shot at winning. (I know how slim it is - don’t call me delusional). Maybe he can’t win, but he sure as hell won’t if those who know better (like us good folks here) don’t support him.
A vote for Ron Paul IS giving the middle finger to the screwed up electoral system. The system never acknowledges your non-voting anyway so right now is the time for POSITIVE action for a change—just for once. In 6 or 8 months we’ll all have the rest of our lives to go back to non-voting for crying out loud.
Edit: Deleted Jefferson comment
-
...
A vote for Ron Paul IS giving the middle finger to the screwed up electoral system. The system never acknowledges your non-voting anyway so right now is the time for POSITIVE action for a change—just for once. In 6 or 8 months we’ll all have the rest of our lives to go back to non-voting for crying out loud.
Do you really think that the media will give more coverage to the % of the vote that Paul gets, even if he tops 1%, than to the % of the electorate who voted? On what are you basing your contention that Paul is aware of his own fallibility? I see no empirical evidence that indicates that. I do not regard voting for someone just because he is somewhat less repulsive than his competition to be a positive action. Given two candidates, one is always at least marginally preferable to the other. It doesn't justify endorsing a crooked system. If you think otherwise, the casinos would love to have you for a customer. Now, if you could do something about the Supreme Court that would result in it doing its job properly, that would be positive.
-Roland
-
...
If those are the only noxious bills that Dr. Paul has ever voted for (out of what? 1000s of votes?), do you really have much to worry about?
In the practical sense of the word, I am not "worried" about any particular politician. At this point in time, the die is pretty well cast for increasing erosion of Liberty and confiscation of property in this country until the people wake up and remember that they are the source of power, however long that takes. I am particularly "unworried" about Ron Paul, since in practical terms, he hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of having any effect on the upcoming election. That was not the point of my post - maybe you should read it again. However, anyone who accepts Paul's disingenuous statements about being a libertarian and a "champion of the Constitution" at face value should probably be worried, about both the validity of his premises and his gullibility...
-Roland
Well, I can't say I don't understand where you're coming from. Essentially being an individual anarchist myself. Though I've set that aside, recognising what might be the greatest chance at increasing liberty in definitely my lifetime and probably since the Revolutionary War. I know that if Dr. Paul doesn't get on the ballot, then I'll go back to my apathetic anarchist ways...
-
I can agree in part that the welfare state creates problems in regards to open borders. And thus can take the position Milton Friedman actually took when I heard him speak on the issue. He said that the optimal solution was illegal immigration. It allowed immigrants to come to the US and yet not qualify for welfare. Paul’s solution is bullshit. Think about it for a second. He would do his level best to deny entry to people who don’t qualify for welfare, and who pay more in taxes than they collect in benefits of all kinds. But he would allow in other immigrants legally, the kind who then do qualify for all the welfare benefits he says he opposes.
Legal immigrants may collect benefits. Illegal immigrants may not (there are some “public good” benefits the states hands out that all people get equally whether they wish to or not -- such as streets, sidewalks, fire services, etc. but the cost of those would not be reduced in any significant way if illegals weren’t in the US). I would think that the consistent position is to ratchet up the requirements for legal entry and abolish the INS.
A study out of the University of Arizona recently investigated the impact of immigrants on Arizona. Most were illegals. The net impact was an increase in state revenue not a drain on state revenue. In other words illegals were net contributers. They can get tax identification numbers so that revenue is collected from them, along with SSI, etc. but they are forbidden from collecting SSI and the other benefits they pay for. Many are fearful to file for refunds that are due them legally. And they may well be one of the highest taxed segments of the population.
By the way the list of votes Roland posted is not exhaustive. Paul is bad on numerous issues. For instance his vote to forbid gay couples to adopt in DC was not on the list. None of the hundreds in millions in pork earmarks that he sought are listed.
Sometime he wants power invested in the states and sometimes in the federal government without a consistent approach to either. Personally I don’t think states have rights only people do.
I also don’t think libertarians should be jumping on his bandwagon. I don’t think they should derail it, just ignore it. And I wish he had never been associated with the LP and that he had never used the term “libertarian” to describe his increasingly paleoconservative viewpoints. I think libertarians who fund his campaign will be disappointed that his campaign will end and most the funds will be sitting in the bank unspent and thus eligible for him to use in other ways. If Paul were clearly identified as a paleoconservative of the Pat Buchanan kind, and never identified with libertarianism I would be satisfied. The danger comes when people conclude that libertarians are antiabortion, antigay, antiimmigrant, antifree trade, etc based on Paul’s record and speeches.
-
Paul’s solution is bullshit. Think about it for a second. He would do his level best to deny entry to people who don’t qualify for welfare, and who pay more in taxes than they collect in benefits of all kinds. But he would allow in other immigrants legally, the kind who then do qualify for all the welfare benefits he says he opposes.
[...]
I wish he had never been associated with the LP and that he had never used the term “libertarian” to describe his increasingly paleoconservative viewpoints. [...] If Paul were clearly identified as a paleoconservative of the Pat Buchanan kind, and never identified with libertarianism I would be satisfied.
I suspect that Ron Paul's voting record and many of his public positions now primarily reflect that which is required for him to continue to get re-elected in his "Overwhelmingly Rural," quintessentially "Red State" district. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Relationship_with_district)
If correct, the above hypothesis would be consistent with the thesis that Ron Paul has become a typically cynical and hypocritical "Career Politician," whose primary goal and first and foremost consideration above all else has become "Getting Re-Elected."