There’s obviously as ton of people on here voting for Paul. As a Paul voter I’ve had a lot of venom spit at me for being pro-Iraq among other foreign policy issues. All too often I deal with candidates who seem to parrot their candidates lines. This is no different with Paulies who seem to think you a “sheep” if you don’t which I find damn funny.
Anyshit, for those that WILL vote for him, the question at hand is: What about Ron Paul DON’T you agree with?
mike
Only one thing: his stance on abortion.
I hate the practice of abortion, I know how physically and emotionally traumatic it is for the woman undergoing the procedure (not firsthand, obviously), not to mention for the fetus being snuffed out, but I can see the necessity for it, and don’t think it’s the federal government’s job to abolish the practice.
Otherwise, I still think old Ron is worth voting for. He probably won’t win, but I’ll still back him for as long as he’s in the race. If this makes me a kook or a racist, then so be it.
Paul doesn’t want to abolish abortion. He wants to let the states establish their own abortion laws.
I don’t really have any major disagreements with Ron Paul.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
There’s obviously as ton of people on here voting for Paul. As a Paul voter I’ve had a lot of venom spit at me for being pro-Iraq among other foreign policy issues. All too often I deal with candidates who seem to parrot their candidates lines. This is no different with Paulies who seem to think you a “sheep” if you don’t which I find damn funny.
Anyshit, for those that WILL vote for him, the question at hand is: What about Ron Paul DON’T you agree with?
mike[/quote]
Not to spit venom, but I don’t see how you can pick out the issue of Iraq to disagree with. Cancelling the war is essential to his platform, and indeed is prerequisite to nearly everything else he wants to do.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Only one thing: his stance on abortion.
I hate the practice of abortion, I know how physically and emotionally traumatic it is for the woman undergoing the procedure (not firsthand, obviously), not to mention for the fetus being snuffed out, but I can see the necessity for it, and don’t think it’s the federal government’s job to abolish the practice.
Otherwise, I still think old Ron is worth voting for. He probably won’t win, but I’ll still back him for as long as he’s in the race. If this makes me a kook or a racist, then so be it.[/quote]
I’m with you on abortion, but doesn’t Paul want the states to decide on the issue rather than outright abolishing it on the federal level?
I’m not American, but I believe Paul would be best for America as a country and for the world in general. I agree fully with his platform, but not his personal views on abortion and evolution; not that I think it would make him a worse president.
Alex.
I voted for him, but I don’t like his position on abortion. I don’t think his stance is grounded solely in the Constitution:
[i]HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2007
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce two bills relating to abortion. These bills stop the federal government from promoting abortion. My bills accomplish this goal by prohibiting federal funds from being used for population control or ``family planning’’ through exercising Congress’s constitutional power to restrict federal court’s jurisdiction by restoring each state’s authority to protect unborn life.
Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within people’ hearts and minds, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, where the court usurped the state’s authority over abortion.
One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state’s ability to protect unborn life.
In addition to restricting federal court jurisdiction over abortion, Congress must stop the unconstitutional practice of forcing Americans to subsidize abortion providers. It is not enough to say that family planning'' groups may not use federal funds to perform or promote abortion. After all, since money is fungible, federal funding of any activities of these organizations forces taxpayers to underwrite the organizations abortion activities. This is why I am also introducing the Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act. The Taxpayer Freedom of Conscience Act prohibits any federal official from expending any federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, it is sinful and tyrannical’’ to force the American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally abhorrent.
Madam Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of these two bills. By following the Constitution and using the power granted to the Congress by the Constitution, we can restore respect for freedom of conscience and the sanctity of human life.[/i]
I want to know what he means by “ending the war on drugs.” He’s talked about stopping federal raids on medical marijuana cooperatives, which I think is great, but if he wants to dismantle the DEA and replace it with nothing… that just seems like a terrible idea to me.
I stand corrected.
No complaints, then.
I don’t believe in the magic of free markets. Markets don’t conform to the laws of math and physics. Markets are just a herd of people, and people are corrupt, short-sighted, and stupid, and herds are prone to panic at the drop of a hat. Sure, herds have their own sort of logic that can be understood and predicted to some extent, but that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to run wild. I believe in the necessity of some laws and regulations to keep the playing field somewhat honest. Like Ron Paul, I don’t think it is the government’s job to manage or try to “stimulate” the economy. Their job is only to punish fraud, theft, and break up trusts that stifle competition. Regulations should always be limited in scope, and we shouldn’t let the government get carried away, as it always likes to.
I believe that the federal government has to enforce environmental protections for air and water. Ron Paul’s answer is that if someone’s pollution damages your property or your health, then you can sue them. This is utterly ridiculous. If I was a farmer in Kansas, and my crops were destroyed by acid rain, who would I sue? Every single industry, car owner, and power plant in North America? I don’t believe in solving everything with lawsuits. There are too many lawsuits in this country anyway. No one owns the air, it belongs to all of us, and therefore, it is proper for our government to set limits that work for everyone, not so strict that it strangles industry, but not so lax that citizens and consumers suffer ill effects.
I also don’t want to abolish the income tax. It’s loathsome, but so are all forms of taxation. The government has to perform certain functions and all methods of raising revenues to pay for it all have their drawbacks. I do think the tax laws ought to be simplified drastically. A flat tax seems fair to me.
But I’ll probably vote for him.
I think his stance on abortion is primarily driven by his religiosity, which he usually tries to conceal. Nevertheless I’m in full agreement about witholding federal funds from abortion clinics. If a woman has the right to choose, she has the right to pay for the proceedure herself. Forcing taxpayers to foot the bill is absolutely fucked up.
Philosphically, I disagree with him on abortion but I like the way he would allow the states to legislate it themselves – the way it should be.
I don’t 100% agree with non-intervention. I can understand about not having entangling alliances, but I think that genocide and brutal dictatorships should be intervened.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
I don’t believe in the magic of free markets. Markets don’t conform to the laws of math and physics. Markets are just a herd of people, and people are corrupt, short-sighted, and stupid, and herds are prone to panic at the drop of a hat.[/quote]
Markets do not operate on magic. They operate on the notion the all individuals know what suits their own needs. The laws of physics have nothing to do with the markets and thusly is a fallible argument. Economics come from a priori knowledge whereas the natural sciences come from a posteriori knowledge.
The herd of people you speak of actually are what makes the markets work. The goodness or badness of particular individuals has nothing to do with how market operation. That is to say, one individual has little influence in the market. It is because the majority of individuals seek to improve their own position in life that markets function. In a free and unhampered market customers are kings.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The herd of people you speak of actually are what makes the markets work. The goodness or badness of particular individuals has nothing to do with how market operation. That is to say, one individual has little influence in the market. It is because the majority of individuals seek to improve their own position in life that markets function. In a free and unhampered market customers are kings.[/quote]
How would customers make decisions as to what suited their needs if the government did not force industry to provide that information? We know that transfats are bad for us, but how could we choose to avoid transfats if the government did not require ingredient and nutritional content labels on foods?
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
The herd of people you speak of actually are what makes the markets work. The goodness or badness of particular individuals has nothing to do with how market operation. That is to say, one individual has little influence in the market. It is because the majority of individuals seek to improve their own position in life that markets function. In a free and unhampered market customers are kings.
How would customers make decisions as to what suited their needs if the government did not force industry to provide that information? We know that transfats are bad for us, but how could we choose to avoid transfats if the government did not require ingredient and nutritional content labels on foods? [/quote]
Businesses would go out of business if and when the customer isn’t satisfied – so long as they weren’t protected by the government from competition. Government regulation actually prevents competition and thus bad businesses go unpunished in the market. There are many examples I could site.
The US auto industry should have long ago perished to foreign markets but government bailouts have prevented it. AT&T was allowed to operate a monopoly before the government decided to back out. There are many regulations that prevent mom-and-pop organizations from competing with big-business and thus never make it past infancy.
Government does not need to get involved in the market. The example you give of not having consumer information except by force of government is incorrect. If customers decide they want nutrition information, for example businesses will provide it as long as it is perceived as an economic benefit. Many restaurants do this without being told to do so by any regulation because they know customers demand it. There are also many non-profit consumer watch-dog organizations filling in where government has failed. If government were so good at this function we would not have these organizations.
If government were to simply follow its mandate and protect life, liberty, and property these extraneous regulations would not be necessary. Unfortunately, the only way our government perceives it can uphold its mandate is with newer and more specific regulation. Life, liberty, and property cover every domain of humanity. Regulations do not actually stop crimes against life liberty and property they just put more roadblocks in front of already law abiding citizens.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
I don’t believe in the magic of free markets. Markets don’t conform to the laws of math and physics. Markets are just a herd of people, and people are corrupt, short-sighted, and stupid, and herds are prone to panic at the drop of a hat. Sure, herds have their own sort of logic that can be understood and predicted to some extent, but that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to run wild. I believe in the necessity of some laws and regulations to keep the playing field somewhat honest. Like Ron Paul, I don’t think it is the government’s job to manage or try to “stimulate” the economy. Their job is only to punish fraud, theft, and break up trusts that stifle competition. Regulations should always be limited in scope, and we shouldn’t let the government get carried away, as it always likes to.
I believe that the federal government has to enforce environmental protections for air and water. Ron Paul’s answer is that if someone’s pollution damages your property or your health, then you can sue them. This is utterly ridiculous. If I was a farmer in Kansas, and my crops were destroyed by acid rain, who would I sue? Every single industry, car owner, and power plant in North America? I don’t believe in solving everything with lawsuits. There are too many lawsuits in this country anyway. No one owns the air, it belongs to all of us, and therefore, it is proper for our government to set limits that work for everyone, not so strict that it strangles industry, but not so lax that citizens and consumers suffer ill effects.
I also don’t want to abolish the income tax. It’s loathsome, but so are all forms of taxation. The government has to perform certain functions and all methods of raising revenues to pay for it all have their drawbacks. I do think the tax laws ought to be simplified drastically. A flat tax seems fair to me.
But I’ll probably vote for him.[/quote]
See that is not the libertarian holy grail, but I think most libertarians could live with it.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Government does not need to get involved in the market.[/quote]
Unfortunately, I think it does. The problem with all those “free market” and “invisible hand” arguments is that they never quite work out like that in real life.
As soon as a business becomes successful enough in it’s domain, it will try to control and restrict the market from others. It’s the very nature of competition that having the least competitors - ideally none - is good for you. It’s the unstated, and maybe unconscious, goal for any successful business to have as close to a monopoly as it can on its target market.
That said, I think that any government intervention should be minimal. The goal should be to maintain the level playing field for all involved. Here also, large businesses have discovered that they can unduly influence government action in their favor by lobbying it enough.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Businesses would go out of business if and when the customer isn’t satisfied – so long as they weren’t protected by the government from competition. Government regulation actually prevents competition and thus bad businesses go unpunished in the market. There are many examples I could site.
The US auto industry should have long ago perished to foreign markets but government bailouts have prevented it. AT&T was allowed to operate a monopoly before the government decided to back out. There are many regulations that prevent mom-and-pop organizations from competing with big-business and thus never make it past infancy.
Government does not need to get involved in the market. The example you give of not having consumer information except by force of government is incorrect. If customers decide they want nutrition information, for example businesses will provide it as long as it is perceived as an economic benefit. Many restaurants do this without being told to do so by any regulation because they know customers demand it. There are also many non-profit consumer watch-dog organizations filling in where government has failed. If government were so good at this function we would not have these organizations.
If government were to simply follow its mandate and protect life, liberty, and property these extraneous regulations would not be necessary. Unfortunately, the only way our government perceives it can uphold its mandate is with newer and more specific regulation. Life, liberty, and property cover every domain of humanity. Regulations do not actually stop crimes against life liberty and property they just put more roadblocks in front of already law abiding citizens.[/quote]
That all sounds great in theory, and I really don’t know enough about economics to argue the specifics of any of it. I just know that in reality, it never works out that way. It’s sort of like abstinence only education. Sure, that’s the best way to avoid STDs and unwanted pregnancies, but people are going to fuck, that’s human nature.
Once an industry gets big enough, it buys off politicians, smothers the competition, and if they can’t smother the competition, they get in bed with them to fix the market to keep costs down, and profits up, at the expense of competition, and innovation. Remember, the competition is your friend, the consumer is your enemy. And when things go south, the free-market “true-believers” never stay true to their beliefs and tough it out, but always go running to the government for a bailout, and, because they funded the campaigns of everyone in power, they always get it.
Again, I’m against most government regulations, interventions, bailouts, etc. But I believe the government has to maintain some over-sight to keep the playing field somewhat fair.
[quote]pookie wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Government does not need to get involved in the market.
Unfortunately, I think it does. The problem with all those “free market” and “invisible hand” arguments is that they never quite work out like that in real life.
As soon as a business becomes successful enough in it’s domain, it will try to control and restrict the market from others. It’s the very nature of competition that having the least competitors - ideally none - is good for you. It’s the unstated, and maybe unconscious, goal for any successful business to have as close to a monopoly as it can on its target market.
That said, I think that any government intervention should be minimal. The goal should be to maintain the level playing field for all involved. Here also, large businesses have discovered that they can unduly influence government action in their favor by lobbying it enough.
[/quote]
True, but how many businesses are actually capable of a monopoly without government interference? There has never been a monopoly without government interference and when there is potential for a monopoly without interference it must be because their products are cheap and superior if there are no other competitors in the same business. Mac and Microsoft should come to mind.
Look at the fact that most regulations originate from private industry as lobbies in the name of protecting the individual. In reality it is just a mask to protect their own interest. Any huge corporation can start up a “non-profit” to advocate for some “consumer interest” just to lobby congress for some specific legislation to help protect them from competition. Tobacco companies should come to mind. The big three are all that are left and no one is getting into this business anymore even though big tobacco post some of the largest profits of any one worldwide industry – even after many no smoking laws are put into place.
Also, I look at licensing as some of the worst legislative practices in existence. These are regulated in the name of helping the poor, uninformed customer but actually don’t do anything for the customer and stop competitors from entering the market. Why does a hair stylist need a license to cut my hair in her shop but if that same stylist were to come into my home it is unnecessary? Wouldn’t the market protect customers by displacing bad business owners and entrepreneurs? Is regulation and licensing really the answer?
As fallible, panic-stricken individuals we make the mistake of thinking legislation knows best how to handle our private affairs. If it is true that I can make a mistake on my own behalf then it is also true the all-consuming, monolithic, big-brother legislator can also make mistakes with my affairs but on his own behalf – and even more so.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
True, but how many businesses are actually capable of a monopoly without government interference?[/quote]
Microsoft. Standard Oil.
Whenever a corporation, for whatever reason, ends up controlling near or over 90% of a market… it gets to be very difficult for others to enter the same market, even if they have a better idea on how to do it.
Exactly. But then Microsoft used their OS near-monopoly to destroy Netscape. They gave an inferior browser for free, and placed it prominently on the desktop giving most people little incentive to go and get another browser. Netscape died in a matter of months…
The customers were also the losers here. It made the internet browser market (arguable one of the most used application for a lot of people) a secondary market where only businesses that had another “money making” area were willing to “compete.”
To this day, MSIE is still the most widely used browser, even though it’s generally inferior and a couple of years behind everything else.
Big Tobacco have since long diversified enough that it’s a feat to go to the grocery store and not buy a product from a company they ultimately own.
A hair stylist can do limited damage. Aside from making you ugly (or uglier in my case), he/she can hardly do permanent damage, short of lopping off an ear or putting an eye out, but you have to be really clumsy and incompetent to get there.
For many other professions, it is a lot more desirable to have a process in place that certifies that the guy selling you a product or service knows at least the rudiments of his profession. It would really piss you off to have your house crumble down after 3 years, because the contractor who gave you an amazing deal didn’t get the foundation nor the frame right.
Note that these licenses or certifications don’t have to be government controlled. They can be run by associations of service or goods provider. In most cases, they’re probably better off regulating themselves than waiting for the government to step in.
Still, there are some cases where it’s very hard to avoid government regulation. Nature and natural resources, for example. If you own the land, you’ll be very reluctant to let others tell you what you’re allowed to do with it. But if we want to leave our descendants something that is still inhabitable, we have no choice but to restrict corporate greed at some point.