[RANT] Ron Paul, Politics and Seriously WTF?

[Sovereign]

Seriously. What. Is. It. With. These. People.

Everything (and not just on Digg, on any social news aggregator) about the guy is either how he's the only freedom lover or how "the man" is keeping Ron Paul down. I've done my research. I don't like him. His positions on "let everything manage itself" and "cut the legs out from under the federal government" seem nice on the surface, but I don't think some of his supporters realize the ramifications of what he's proposing. Before some rabid Ron Paul supporter jumps on my ass, I ask this: is questioning the ideas and positions of this man who some seem to think is the next coming of Jesus even allowed?

I will not say that Ron Paul supporters are spammers (of the email kind. Now, comment-wise...) nor will I engage in ad hominem attacks the way some of his supporters often do. What I will ask is what they hope to accomplish by pissing off everyone who doesn't already support Ron Paul. Some of my friends also use social news aggregators like Digg and are sick of all the Ron Paul stuff (he seriously needs his own section so that I don't have to see that stuff). When I post on Digg (not that it matters, but it shows the mentality) I get buried for asking why Ron Paul is the only "real defender of freedom" and how literal interpretation of a document penned in 1787 can help us solve problems in 2007. My comments tend to disappear (no doubt reported as "offensive" by some Ron Paul supporter), apparently they don't like questions.

From his Wikipedia entry (which I'm sure is probably as accurate as his campaign page, I refuse to give his website hits), he proposes a phased elimination of the Federal Reserve so that private notes compete with federal money. Exchange rate nightmare anyone? What happens if the store only accepts Acebux but you have AcmeCash? What happens if your life savings is in ExxoDollars and the company goes belly up? He also proposes to gut the federal government. In no way am I promoting or defending the incompetent mess of a "government" that we have, but I do want to know: If you knock it down, what replaces it? Another government agency? Private industry? Nothing?

Example that really burns me up: Paul is against Net Neutrality because he believes that giving power to the government will enable corporations to buy control of the agencies that regulate. Partially true in any case, I'll give them that. But then, what do you do to force Net Neutrality? You let the market work it out? Hello Tiered Internet! If you can't trust corporations to manage something (the Internet), and thus propose government regulation of it, but are refuted by the idea that the companies will control it anyway so the government should stay out, you end up back at square one, with the companies having unfettered control. I'm not bashing Big Biz, just asking what's the sense in the "No regulation" mantra? Under this situation, no matter what you do, companies have some degree of control, but with the government in place they have less control. If someone could tell me how this makes sense, please feel free to speak up.

Another example of why I don't believe in the Savior of the Internet and the World: Literal Constitutional interpretation is not nearly as simple as a lot of Paul's supporters (and other people of varying political stripes) make it out to be. Even conservatives, who (used) to talk about smaller government, using the Constitution as justification, interpret the Constitution when convenient for them (just as they accuse "liberals" of doing). All politicians and parties do it, there's no point in pretending otherwise. Sure, you might argue that a literal reading of the Second Amendment grants unlimited freedom to bear arms (which I disagree with), but that's an interpretation in and of itself, is it not? Let me explain.

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Define "infringe." If you interpret that to mean inconvenience of any sort, then yes gun control of any kind is indeed afoul of the Constitution. But if you interpret it to mean that certain people (i.e. criminals) cannot have guns, then you are already doing some pretty heavy duty interpretation, because there is quite a bit of disagreement of what constitutes "infringement." After all, the "right of the people" to have arms shall not be infringed. The Bill of Rights makes no exception for the criminal, the insane or the young as being not able to bear arms freely. But we interpreted that in. Why? Because it suits our society and is advantageous to deter the insane, the criminal and the immature from owning lethal weapons, for they are a great responsibility (shut up about the cliche ).

That's why I have a problem with the Paul/"Literalist" tradition. What's "literal" to one person is "unacceptable interpretation and invention of/dilution of rights" to someone else. For example, Ron Paul wants to abolish the Income Tax, stating that his strip-down of the government will render it unnecessary. Let's assume that it will work. He then has to get it past Congress. Let Congress fall under the Ron Paul spell too. The whole government is stripped down. Social Security and Medicare are gone. Pork barrel spending is nonexistent. Sounds GREAT! Sign me UP!

What is the cost, though? Millions of senior citizens now have no money. And don't say that private charity will pick it up, because it simply can't. The old and disabled are now out on the street, lacking medical care and food. Millions who were able to keep themselves (semi) healthy and thus avoid more expensive treatment later now must go without. Many die. Some are given treatment, but there is not enough for everyone. The fact that the Federal Reserve is gone and there are many many different currencies competing does not help. Inflation and the economy become impossible to measure. People don't know how much everything is worth, and fights and conflict become commonplace. We are reduced to bartering because that is the only way we can have a concrete assessment of value, in-person transactions, because the value of money is at the mercy of the gold standard and the companies that issue it.

Even our military begins to suffer from these problems. A usage tax pays for it, but again the multi-headed hydra that is now our monetary system makes it impossible to tell how much to pay those contractors. The states have a much greater degree of autonomy now. The various state governments decide to either split off or band together to try to halt the insanity. Yes, we are "freer than ever before" under President Paul, but at what cost? The mere theoretical ability to do something is no good if you can't actually execute on the freedom. You're free to attend college in today's society, but just because you have the freedom doesn't mean your grades are good enough, that you have the money, or that your applications won't get lost. Freedom is more than the absence of restraint, which is what a lot of libertarians and Ron Paul supporters appear to believe from my point of view. Just because no one says you can't doesn't mean you can!

To address the rhetoric (which makes me vomit).
"Ron Paul is the only real American"
Bullsh-t. He's your idea of an American, and frankly given what I just wrote above, I would be hard pressed to say that screwing society over in the name of "maximum freedom through minimum restraint" is very American at all.
"Ron Paul is the only real defender of the Constitution"
Bullsh-t x2. Define defender of the Constitution. If you mean the "literal" interpretation, you forget the second half of the phrase. "Interpretation." Even what is called "literal" by one may not meet "literal" meaning by another person. And even if it does, some people don't believe in "literalism" anyway.
"Why do the other candidates hate freedom? Ron Paul 2008!"
Let me begin on what this tactic is called. It's a glittering generality that falls apart or doesn't make sense, depending on the angle of a non-Paul supporter. It sounds nice (it has the word "freedom" in it) and it puts anyone who supports a different candidate or just doesn't like Dr. Paul on the defensive. Again, his definition of freedom (from what I understand) scares the sh-t out of me. Accuse me of needing my "government security blanket" (ad hominem, anyone?) but I don't think that not having government is going to help us. The other candidates (and people who support them) don't "hate" freedom, they just have a different definition of the term. That's all. Take the rhetoric apart and it's silly, immature and shortsighted (just like most political claptrap from any candidate).
"Ron Paul is being kept down/Ron Paul has more supporters than you know"
Possibly. But how much of that translates into making him an electable candidate? Be as amazed as you want by his $5 million in fund-raising. Yes, it means people support him, congratulations! However, consider that in some areas, that's not even enough to run in a Congressional election, let alone a national campaign! Yes, there is too much money involved in politics, but it does mean for the present you need more than just $5 million. He's not just being "kept down" by some massive conspiracy. He's being "kept down" by his lack of fundraising. Anyone hear of Sam Brownback? He dropped out of the race because he couldn't raise enough dough. Maybe Dr. Paul has more, but unless he gets some serious infusions of money, he's not getting out of the primary.
"But he's a people-powered campaign! The Revolution will not be televised!"
Does that mean that all these people are going to fund his campaign? Try explaining Dr. Paul to the average person outside the Ron Paul circle (i.e. the Internet). They'll go "WTF?" because his positions are all over the map. Anti-Iraq war (doesn't support the troops!), anti-torture (terrorist coddler), anti-regulation (corporate welfare whore), anti-Social Security (hates old people!)...No, no, no, no NO! I say!

If you're going to say "NO" then you need to learn to say "YES" at some point. This was the problem the Democrats ran into. What do you stand for? NOT what George W. Bush stands for! Kinda hard to rally around, isn't it? It's easy to bash our government, but what's the solution (other than getting rid of things?)

Part of the draw of Ron Paul is the fact that he's really an outsider. An outsider even more so than that guy named Jimmy Carter. That's going to be a problem and an asset. He's unknown, so he can't be "corrupted" by the System. The problem is that some of his supporters just toss the rhetoric about and Bury any attempt to expose it for what it is: more political claptrapping that means nothing half the time. It's a bumper sticker, not a strategy. Also, many Ron Paul supporters claim that he doesn't get enough mainstream media attention. Personally, I think this is what has kept him from being shown for what he really is: someone who honestly couldn't run this country in the state that it's in. As soon as you get in the media spotlight, MoveOn, the Family Research Council, the Human RIghts Campaign and the Heritage Foundation get all over your ass. He's against torture? Great (MoveOn), but he's "an unshakable foe of abortion," screw him (MoveOn). He hates abortion? Yay (FRC, HF)! He was against the war? Terrorist coddler, weak (same). See where this is going? He'd be torn apart and really I don't think he'd hold up nearly as well as his supporters hope. I tell people to read his Wikipedia article, and both conservatives and liberals were repulsed. I didn't want to let my own bias get in the way...

Phew! I know that in the big scheme of things this means absolutely nothing, and I should have been doing homework, but I had to get this out and I sure as hell know that it would be Buried faster than stories about Goatse on Digg... Why here then (other than the lack of Bury buttons)? Because I respect(fully disagree) with people's outlooks on politics here, and I hope there aren't any of those Digg Paul-bots here, but real supporters who will read this and THINK, rather than just hit "Bury" and "Report as Offensive."

[stopthekilling77]

good read.

[Zelig]

Since I'm not American, I've only been following the primaries to a limited extent, however, overall, Ron Paul seems like the candidate who would be most likely to adequately represent my views. Some of his ideas (abortion) are wacky (or maybe I should just say ones I don't agree with, to avoid Ron Paul supporters arguing with my generally supportive post). However, with the (lack of) speed with which stuff tends to get passed in the US, I don't think Paul would be able to come through with his more extreme promises.

Overall, Paul is more economically right than most of the field, being about even with only Tancredo and Keyes. Socially, he's more libertarian than all the candidates other than Kucinich and Gravel, who both have ridiculous economic stances compared to the rest of the field. So, he's the pretty obvious choice to vote for supporters of more personal freedom, combined with a better economy.

As I was writing this post, I checked about Paul's gold standard/federal reserve, and although I still don't think it would be a great idea, it looks much more reasonable than the first time I read about it. So, in answer to your questions:

From his Wikipedia entry (which I'm sure is probably as accurate as his campaign page, I refuse to give his website hits), he proposes a phased elimination of the Federal Reserve so that private notes compete with federal money. Exchange rate nightmare anyone? What happens if the store only accepts Acebux but you have AcmeCash? What happens if your life savings is in ExxoDollars and the company goes belly up?

He wants private notes to have gold-backing, he's states that he won't be able to remove the federal reserve. Exchange rates, and limited acceptance of private notes could be an issue, but nobody would be forced to use private notes, and private notes could be traded in for fiat notes at any time. The gold backing necessitates that any companies printing money have the actual value of gold in reserve, if the company goes belly-up, they'd be forced to swap the gold for all of their notes.

[Sovereign]

Perhaps I misunderstood his position, but I still do not believe that what he says on private notes has any value whatsoever. People like having one currency. When you travel abroad, you understand that you're going to have to swap money. However, when you travel withing your own country (even a country as large as ours) people have an expectation of having one currency. They like "fiat" money because they know it has an established value.

Remember when the states and individual banks issued their own money? That was phased out in favor of a central banking system and a common currency. The reasons I find this idea unsound are many, but are not limited to the following:
1. If you require gold backing, there's going to be a mad rush on gold. Corporations already exploit people to mine diamonds (DeBeers et. al.) and by enabling companies to produce their own money, it would only get worse
2. So a company goes belly-up. They have to give out all their gold. There are presumably laws that say "You can't issue more money than you have gold to back" but how the heck are we going to enforce that? It doesn't sound "Ron Paul"-like to create a regulation that would keep private banknotes in line. If he would say differently, part of my point becomes a non-issue, but the fact remains that just because something is illegal doesn't put a stop to it, and unless the law is vigorously enforced issuers of private notes will try to take advantage of loopholes. I'm afraid of another Enron, really. A Bank of Enron. How would Dr. Paul and his pro-private-note supporters address that?
3. Please define "economically right" for me, that's a huge claim that you haven't defended (please defend it). I do not believe in the "all-powerful free market," while freer markets are better than command economies, I do believe that because of human nature, there are some things that must be regulated to prevent a "race to the bottom." This would be characterized by plummeting wages, lax environmental standards, stagnant product development and rising prices. It's nice to think that in a "perfect economy" companies would pay the bare minimum but also charge only what is needed to recoup the costs of production and R&D but we all know that's not the case and no sane CEO/CFO would approve of such a strategy. A few corporations are close to this "bare-minimum prices" without pulling a Wal-Mart (Costco anyone?) but there are very few examples of this. People naturally want returns on their investments, and I am confused as to how a "perfect" corporation would accommodate this. Because, frankly, humans are self-centered and greedy, this "self-regulating" economy is no more than a utopia to me.

[H]e's the pretty obvious choice to vote for supporters of more personal freedom, combined with a better economy.

Please, please! I just said that's what makes me sick about Ron Paul supporters...the rhetoric! The glittering generalities! I know all politicians do it but if you do (any politician) I will pick it apart. "More freedom?" Can I get a definition of that? Is it as I said earlier, freedom is lack of restraint freedom or there are some restrictions to prevent you from going overboard freedom? Because "freedom" is very subjective, I don't know if I can provide you with a satisfactory answer, or you me. A "better" economy? Again, race to the bottom combined with confusion over private notes and potential corporate scams don't equate to a better economy in my eyes. More personal freedom in what area or areas?

I said it earlier and I'll say it again: from my understanding, libertarians are more oriented toward freedom being the absence of restraint, and I cannot agree with that. Just because nothing's stopping you doesn't make you "free." It sounds nice, but we don't live in a Hobbesian society for a reason (Thomas Hobbes).

[Zelig]

Like I said, I don't think that gold-backed private notes would be a good idea, but I don't think it would be the disaster that eliminating the federal reserve, or reverting to the gold standard would be.

By "economic right", I meant on a right-left scale, not "right" as in "correct".

Obviously we've got differing economic views, while I agree that a perfectly free economy would have significant problems, as it stands, the market is far less free than what the optimum balance would be. (agricultural subsidies, trade barriers, etc., could all go)

When I wrote the sentence you quoted, I realized how it sounded, but it remains in essence true, simply due to his overall stance, economically and socially. I realize that when talking about freedom, there's a distinction between positive and negative liberty, with Paul generally focusing on negative liberty.

Regarding a "better" economy, this is in comparison to the other presidential candidates. While Paul's ideas are a mixture good and bad (even very good, and very bad), on a whole, he's more economically sound than any other candidate running in the primaries.

And for a musing which I don't have enough background to be able to answer myself: The race to the bottom generally isn't a problem in the world today, however, Paul focuses heavily on eliminating inflation. Would no (or very low) inflation cause more such problems?

[Alathald]

Nice read Sovereign, while I disagree with some of your views you make many good points. While I'm a Democrat, I have thought to myself if I was to choose a GOP candidate it would probably be Paul. Then again, I haven't really done much research on Paul so all I've really seen of him is the "glittering generalities" as you put it. After reading your article (with a grain of salt) it seems that he has many good ideas but he is extremely (I mean EXTREMELY) Libertarian and that, mixed with the strength of the Executive Branch, could be a very dangerous combination indeed. While your article makes it seem as though Paul is going to plunge this country into anarchy, I doubt he'd be quite that bad; I think you've just had an adverse reaction to those commenters over at Digg (haven't we all). In the end, I'm neither pro- nor anti-Ron Paul. I support a few of his ideas but I also agree with many of the things you've said against him. Alas, I guess that makes me a fence-sitter (or worse, a flip-flopper).

[Sovereign]

Like I said, I don't think that gold-backed private notes would be a good idea, but I don't think it would be the disaster that eliminating the federal reserve, or reverting to the gold standard would be.

I would agree, but I still think it's a risk not worth taking.

By "economic right", I meant on a right-left scale, not "right" as in "correct".

My bad, apologies for that...

Obviously we've got differing economic views, while I agree that a perfectly free economy would have significant problems, as it stands, the market is far less free than what the optimum balance would be. (agricultural subsidies, trade barriers, etc., could all go)

I definitely agree that some of those things have to hit the road, especially corporate welfare, which in my opinion is generally a tax incentive to an industry already making large profits to "encourage R&D" even though they could more than easily afford it. Examples include defense industries (We're at WAR...) and Big Pharma (you don't see anyone illegally downloading drugs, do you?)

When I wrote the sentence you quoted, I realized how it sounded, but it remains in essence true, simply due to his overall stance, economically and socially. I realize that when talking about freedom, there's a distinction between positive and negative liberty, with Paul generally focusing on negative liberty.

I'm not a big fan of "negative" liberty, which is why I said what I did. It has some purpose, but it can easily become corrupted, more easily so than positive liberty, in my opinion.

Regarding a "better" economy, this is in comparison to the other presidential candidates. While Paul's ideas are a mixture good and bad (even very good, and very bad), on a whole, he's more economically sound than any other candidate running in the primaries.

That depends on what you regard as "economically sound," really. I disagree with some of what the "classical" economists say (and that is what I think he is basing his positions on), is that the base you're using or are you drawing from something else? The biggest problem I see with the classical models is that it assumes business will charge the lowest price possible (some do), but also that they will have no long-run profits because all the money above and beyond goes back into employees first, R&D second, and not into gigantic amounts of money for the CEO or to report huge profits to satisfy investors. I'm not sure that the perfect classical economy even accounts for investing and how people think with regard to investing (I want a return!)

And for a musing which I don't have enough background to be able to answer myself: The race to the bottom generally isn't a problem in the world today, however, Paul focuses heavily on eliminating inflation. Would no (or very low) inflation cause more such problems?

The race to the bottom doesn't pose much of a problem (or as much as it would in the "free" markets Dr. Paul envisions) because the government prevents it through the minimum wage, workplace health and safety standards and other protections. Obviously, if this race to the bottom happened, the public would start to fuss, but public protests could be ignored if there is no legal mechanism to force corporations to pay a certain wage. I cannot for the life of me remember where I found it, but there was an article about catfish plant workers that detailed the gross abuse corporations are capable of in a "free enterprise" (read: The South) environment. Their employees lose pay if they have to take a bathroom break (they are highly discouraged from ever leaving the line for any reason) and they work with such enforced vigor that a 30 year old woman had arthritis like a 60 year old. Again, unforunately I can't source this one, but it sticks out in my mind. Given a lack of regulation, this is the worst of the worst.

Of course, such companies would say "well then take your dollars elsewhere" but with many of today's big industries qualifying as Oligopolies (a few big firms control almost all the market in something), some because of the very nature of the industry itself (you and I can't easily start our own airline, auto manufacturing plant or fast food chain to compete with the big ones), it would be very hard for consumers to use the "vote with your wallet" strategy. They would have to give up conveniences that many of them are addicted to and some things that are necessary for modern life itself (cars, planes etc) in order to "vote" down these corporations paying next to nothing.

Eventually the corporations would respond by lowering prices, most likely, in an attempt to buy consumers back. This might work, it might not, but if these companies refuse to change, they would either:
A. Stay in business, rip off their workers and consumers (most likely)
B. Lose some business, have to make a few token changes (less likely)
C. Go out of business entirely due to a flawed business model (which is least likely because it would involve coordinated mass boycotts and way too many changes to the "American" way of life)

Eliminating inflation does no good if you're not making enough to begin with. Even though it would mean you would not lose purchasing power from year to year (or only lose a very small amount) it would neither help nor hurt the situation overall by my estimates. Corporations, now free of inflationary pressures, could use the "extra" money to pay their workers more, but as a general rule large corporations don't do that. They add on to the bottom line (if it's sagging), use the money for R&D (which benefits a few employees, usually higher-paid researchers anyway) or they use it to pay off debt owed to creditors or money they borrowed from employee pension plans (if they even have one). It rarely goes into benefit packages that employees will see immediately (bonuses, higher pay).

Like I say, a few companies like Costco would be even better off, free of inflationary pressure they would pay their employees even more. See the Vault.com page for the company, they do the "right" thing with employee pay and their "profits" are razer thin but they continue to operate and prosper. Even see this Wall Street Journal article on how other corporations think Costco does the "wrong" thing, even though they are still in business (which is the point in the perfect economy, remain in business while putting as much money as possible back into your employees and R&D).

[ibleet]

You seem to have some strong opinions, so why not just write a book...you almost did anyway.

[Sovereign]

You seem to have some strong opinions, so why not just write a book...you almost did anyway.

I'm just sick of people (mainly Ron Paul but people supporting other candidates do it too) saying things like "John Smith is the best because he's [insert glittery generality here] and you're a [insert insult here] if you don't support John Smith!" when they have no idea what our hypothetical John Smith stands for.

Ron Paul's exciting for some people, because he's an outsider (really!) and is running not just against the other candidates but seemingly the government itself. With the government being in the shape it is in, it is very easy to say that the person wanting to dismantle the whole thing is the best choice. If you've done your research and understand what Paul is going for, great. But if you're just one of the many Digg-Bots who do nothing other than post "RON PAUL 2008" and "THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED" without having any idea what Dr. Paul stands for, then I have no respect for you. It pisses me off the way these people think he's the next coming of Jesus H. Christ and half of them don't have any idea what he stands for or what his ides might do to the country.

I'd rather have an informed opponent than a blind supporter.

[HONkUS]

im tired of Ron Paul's zombies wandering my Campus trying to indoctrinate everyone, if he gave a flying monkey crap about what students thought he would come down to The University of North Texas and tell us himself instead of having an aide of an aide convince some stoner that everyone must love Ron Paul and then send said stoner on his way with a stack of pamphlets. He is making the mistake of thinking that he can get easy votes just by putting up cryptic flyers on my campus without actually saying anything about what he wants to do. Honestly for the first few weeks I thought the douche was a cult leader instead of a candidate.

If I ever have the pleasure of meeting Ron Paul im gonna personally kick him in the nuts.

[Sovereign]

Today (November 5, 2007) is supposed to be the "Remember, Remember the fifth of November, gunpowder treason and plot. I can think of no reason the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot" donate-big-to-Ron-Paul day...

Yeah. Associating himself with V for Vendetta might get the "internet vote" (Hey cool!) but I don't think it will play very well with the mainstream of America. Unfortunately for the Paul supporters who completely write off the "MSM" (Mainstream Media) as an irrelevant, anti-Paul conspiracy, the media still matters!

I still stand by what I said earlier: Ron Paul not being dissected yet by the media is what has kept his mystique intact. He hasn't suffered the wrath of MoveOn.org, the Family Research Council, the American Conservative Union, People for the American Way, the Christian Coalition, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Sean Hannity, the National Rifle Association, EMILY's List, Concerned Women for America, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Enterprise Institute, Arianna Huffington, DailyKos...get the point?.

[Cannyone]

I'll admit I have a minuscule attraction to Ron Paul's rhetoric. Specifically I appreciate the idea of denegrating the media for their bias, which we all have but they categorically deny. Then again I grew up "in the middle of nowhere", or the "back-side of beyond", and I habitually think for myself. That's where my positive feeling toward Ron Paul ends.

All this "stuff" is just the same as what the other candidates spew, just a different flavor, or texture. Maybe slightly larger chunks... The bottom line is that even IF he was elected he'd never do most of the things he's promised. A president can't do that alone, and no one else is "crazy" like he is. My guess is that within six months of taking Office he end up with a bullet in his brain. But the reality is that he won't get elected in the first place.

I'm sure you know this already, but Presidential Elections are not by popular vote. The "corporate interests", which have the most to loose by his particular brand of insanity, will make certain some other candidate is chosen. In some ways I see Ron Paul as being a "polarizing" character. So if you want a Democrat to win, then he's the best Candidate for the Republicans to nominate. Hillary Clinton would have the same, but opposite, effect. She would mobilize even some Democrats to vote Republican. Of the two, I'm certain I'd rather have Hillary! And I know she can't be trusted as far as I can throw a tank... (in this case an M1 Abrams! Sorry I couldn't help myself there - oh and thanks for the chance to express myself!)

[Tim Burton]

I refuse to give his website hits), he proposes a phased elimination of the Federal Reserve so that private notes compete with federal money. Exchange rate nightmare anyone? What happens if the store only accepts Acebux but you have AcmeCash? What happens if your life savings is in ExxoDollars and the company goes belly up?

Grisham's Law? It wasn't an exchange rate nightmare, it worked quite well in the US during the 1800s. In fact, it worked extremely well in California (SS Republic or was that SS Central America?). The present problem with the Fed is that they inflate uncontrollably. Granted presently it looks like it is working, but every year if you actually study it the inflation is accelerating. The reason for it not looking like there is massive inflation is because the CPI doesn't include stock prices if you factor that in the rate of inflation is in the double digits.

If you want to study about the pitfalls of fiat money and the pros of a Gold Standard just check out http://www.mises.org It is the institute founded by Von Mises the Nobel Prize winner in economics.

By the way, I can't stand Ron Paul.

[Indignity]

Sovereign,

I appreciate your very well written Rant, but this sounds very similar to the "Bush-Haters" of today.

Many people don't want to take the time to read what he has to offer, so I invite you to watch this clip of him on Jay Leno last month: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0KwY9Uzqtk

About two months ago, I barely had even heard of Ron Paul... Well, he has some ideas are very radical, but they can work if they are drawn out & a plan put together. He seems to have done both. One of the views that made me stand up & take note is that he wants to bring back all of the military that is scattered across the world.. Why do you need military bases within other countries when the military should be protecting our borders? No wonder we have have other places in the world that hate us... Our forefathers have acted like an Empire. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden sent a message to the US many years before 9-11 to get the "F" out of the middle-eastern holy lands.

I don't much care for political debates, so I don't want to go into one, but hear what he has to say.... please????? I'd like to hear your opinion of the guy after reading/viewing some of his messages. When/if you do, think about the main message.... "Is less government better for this country?".

Here's how strong I feel about his views... I'm 38 years old & have never voted in my life.. I'll be there this time.

[FZ1]

LOL. Who is Ron Paul?

[Indignity]

Hehehehe that's what I said a couple months ago

[Sovereign]

Sovereign,

I appreciate your very well written Rant, but this sounds very similar to the "Bush-Haters" of today.

Many people don't want to take the time to read what he has to offer, so I invite you to watch this clip of him on Jay Leno last month: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0KwY9Uzqtk

About two months ago, I barely had even heard of Ron Paul... Well, he has some ideas are very radical, but they can work if they are drawn out & a plan put together. He seems to have done both. One of the views that made me stand up & take note is that he wants to bring back all of the military that is scattered across the world.. Why do you need military bases within other countries when the military should be protecting our borders? No wonder we have have other places in the world that hate us... Our forefathers have acted like an Empire. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden sent a message to the US many years before 9-11 to get the "F" out of the middle-eastern holy lands.

I don't much care for political debates, so I don't want to go into one, but hear what he has to say.... please????? I'd like to hear your opinion of the guy after reading/viewing some of his messages. When/if you do, think about the main message.... "Is less government better for this country?".

Here's how strong I feel about his views... I'm 38 years old & have never voted in my life.. I'll be there this time.

Hate to necromance a thread near the bottom of the page, but you comparing me to a "Bush hater" goes over the line, sir, and I had to respond to your accusation, which is patently untrue. I don't "hate" Ron Paul, but apparently disagreeing with him and pointing out parts of his policies with which I disagree and believe are bad for the country counts as "hating" with his supporters. This happens on Digg too, anyone who tries to argue against anything the Paul-bots on Digg support gets Dugg down immediately regardless of whether they are trying to be intellectual or are just a troll. I, sir, am no troll.

I have major problems with libertarianism in general. I do not believe necessarily in "big government" but this complete hands-off approach is unpalatable to me. Does that qualify me as a "hater?" I do not want to argue with you, but by accusing me of "hatin'" you are more of an ideologue than I am, I think. I've heard his message. And I don't like it, because it sounds like one big glittery generality to me. Pleading with me to hear his message is a moot point, because asking me to do that assumes that I am an ignorant "hater," again.

I'm sorry, but you touched a raw nerve, I'm sick of being told by RP supporters that I need to "hear him out" when I've already heard what he has to say and, to quote the internet, "do not want!" Call me anti-liberty if you must, but I seriously think that all he's doing is playing off the fact that 99% of Americans are pissed at the Federal government right now. He may honest, but just because he is doesn't make him the right man for the job. I do not support him and never will.

Yet more of my disagreements with your candidate, if you will allow it, of course:
The blanket statement that "less government is better" is simply an appeal to anyone and everyone who is mad about how the government itself screwed up. I'm not for an ever-expanding government, but I reject the hard lines drawn by the big-government and small-government sides. Shrinking the government sounds nice (glittery generality again) but what do you replace the missing government with? I know RP tends to support "letting the private sector take over" but I don't have much faith in the private sector either. The government may be corrupt, slow and bureaucratic, but to me the private sector has as much if not more capacity for evil. I'm not "anti-corporate," so please don't go there. I just feel like all the power players currently are cracked up.

Libertarianism unites a strange faction of people, as evidenced by Ron Paul's supporters. But again, this is an ideology and theory I mostly reject. The key difference between negative liberty (libertarianism) and positive liberty (other ideologies/ideas) is that negative liberty relies solely on the existence of an opportunity, whereas positive liberty is based on an exercise concept; we are not free if our freedoms are somehow unfulfilled or blocked, that is we are prevented from exercising our freedom. Of course, the ardent libertarian might reply that the government is always infringing on our freedoms, but what do we do when the infringer is not the government, or any entity? For example, consider a student who cannot attend college because he requires financial aid that the college is unable to give him for some reason (academic performance, limits of scholarship funds etc). He can get a private loan or a government loan. Needless to say, this student has to do his research. As you can see on this series of charts, the benefits of private versus government change. Sometimes, you're better off with a private solution, but other times the government offers a more reasonable helping hand. This is not in the Constitution, and to talk directly from Paul's Wikipedia entry (which I'm sure his internet supporters make sure is accurate to the last), he did not let his children take federal loans on principle. Would he deny federal loans to those who might be able to make use of them based on that?

His emphasis on state's rights is something that I find objectionable. His comments on how in the "Texas sodomy case," that the state should have the right to regulate sex for itself make me squirm, because of the equal protection clause. Of course, he claimed that since state's rights are defined in the Constitution, it's okay for there to be a patchwork of standards. In Texas, gay sex is illegal, but in Illinois it's not? I reject the argument people should "just get out" if they disagree with the state's "moral standing" or whatever, moving is not like turning on a transporter! There are certain freedoms that should be uniform, and to me that includes what people do in their bedrooms. I don't believe in unequal protection to "preserve state's rights." The States of the Union have more power than the subdivisions of other countries anyway.

His poor (again my opinion, but I'm allowed to have those without being called a hater, I think) stance on the environment makes me retch. "Private property rights?" I fail to see how allowing "states and those concerned" to control environmental issues will help. Say Texas has lax environmental standards (state's rights, remember?) because those involved don't place a particular emphasis on the environment, and are more concerned with the bottom line of various corporations and as such act to shield them from liability and minimize their environmental costs. That's a contradiction for Paul. On one hand he doesn't believe polluters should be shielded, but on the other he supports letting the affected region decide for itself. Which is it? Most likely he'd default to the second, if people choose to live in pigsties let them, because to try to fix it from the federal level would be unconstitutional to him. He also does not believe global warming, aka climate change, is a "major problem threatening civilization." I'm not an enviro-wacko, although I'm sure some of his supporters might try to tar me with that label to boost their own credibility, but I do believe man-made climate influences are damaging. I do not trust private industry to clean up their act, private property rights or not. They will put dealing with the climate problem off until they are forced to act. Only the government has the power to force this action. Citizens cannot "vote with their wallets" or anything similar, there is simply too much power invested in these companies.

If you want more explanations of why I cannot support your favorite guy, I can certainly provide. If you're going to go off on me for dissing the "champion of liberty (per the Internet)" go right ahead. I don't know how you (or anyone else) is going to react to this post, I just want to make it known I have educated, rational opposition to this so-called "savior of liberty."

[Indignity]

Sorry to have touched a nerve there buddy. You are a very good writer, that is very apparent in your replies.

As I stated before, I really don't want to get into a political debate with you or anyone else. I'm also not a "Ron Paul Freak", by the way.

I live in a little community that is run by a Democratic mayor. I'm just fed up of the wasted government spending (that goes for quite a few Republicans as well). This "Mayor" has promised a slight increase in the taxes, yet the assessment of our home has gone up $40k in 2 years... WTF is wrong with that picture???? <-- sorry, mini rant!

A friend asked me to take a look at what Ron Paul stood for & I was like, hey this guy has some really good ideas and quite different from everyone else. Also, I don't like any of the other candidates & what they bring to the table. And, good lord, if Hillary gets in, I'm moving to Austrailia.

Like I said, I'm sorry if I touched upon a sore spot for you. That is what's good about America, we have choices and can agree to disagree. I only chimed in on this thread to give my humble opinion & that is all..

I sincerely wish you, your family & the rest of the members here a Merry Christmas!!!!

TJ