Why Ron Paul Can't Win

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:

Indeed. One tends to pay little attention to those utilizing name calling as the crust of a given argument–whatever that may be–against their intended target. Debating the issues would be significantly more productive and indeed, honest.

It would, but are Paul supporters honestly up for the challenge?

I have noted in numerous posts about Paul’s ideology interfering with sound public policy - free trade is one I have referred to on several occasions.

Any bites? Nope. Paul supporters seem content not with placing Paul on a playing field with other candidates and proving that his “nuts and bolts” platform for public policy is better than his fellow candidates - instead, we get diatribes about Paul’s godlike properties and a belief he possesses the One Great True Fix to government and that he will be a martyr to that cause.

A good old fashioned debate on the policy planks - the meat of any election - is a lost cause with the crop of Paul followers around these parts.[/quote]

What’s wrong with Ron Paul’s ideas about Free trade?

82

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

The US Constitution specifically and textually affirms the federal government’s right to put down insurrections and rebellions, thus holding the Union together by force if necessary. What good would a permanent government be if it didn’t have that ability?

[/quote]

Then when do we have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government? There were plenty of (non slave owning) Southerners who thought Lincoln was a dictator. Was their cause not justifiable?

I mean, if the Constitution is a contract with Americans, and a significant portion of Americans think the government is not living up to this contract, is rebellion justified?

Dustin

83

[quote]Sloth wrote:

What’s wrong with Ron Paul’s ideas about Free trade?[/quote]

Paul says he favors free trade as a policy matter, but he votes against nearly every government policy that tries to put free trade into reality, be it fast-track negotiation or trade agreements.

It’s fine to want free trade among nations - the problem is, the world is not a libertarian free-trade zone. Never has been. Nations aren’t naturally organizing their economic policies according to one uniform template. In order to reach a point of free-trade with a given nation, a deal must be struck that levels the competitive playing field and equalizes things like tariffs, etc. between the trade partners.

Otherwise, there is no free-trade, and none of the benefits that flow from it. There must be mutual agreement between the parties as to the rules of the game - otherwise, free-trade makes no sense. And the rules of the game must be written down, like any contract.

Paul rejects this real world need for policymaking and negotiation, insisting that the government stay out of the process. Well, his rhetoric is for free-trade, but his results will be the same as any throat-clearing protectionist scheme, as what nation would want to open up lines of trade with no treaty agreement enforcing the rules and principles of free trade?

Again, his foolish error of making the perfect the enemy of the good blows up in his face - he would set back free trade all the while swearing he was for it.

It is beyond obvious that other nations are quite different from us - but the one thing we are certain of is that none of them are libertarian nations. Paul’s model for trade works great if you are sitting around a table at a coffee house and you have invented a world where everyone operates and appreciates and values the same rules and principles you do. If you want real free trade and the real advantages of it, you must do the nasty business of real world policymaking, negotiation, horse-trading, and concession-making.

The fact that Paul seems completely immune to “how things really work” is a major disqualifier of his candidacy - far from being presidential timber, I can name middle managers at software companies who understand the point of “getting things done in business” and appreciate the wisdom of “half a loaf is better than no loaf” more than the sainted Paul.

84

[quote]Dustin wrote:

Then when do we have the right to overthrow a tyrannical government? There were plenty of (non slave owning) Southerners who thought Lincoln was a dictator. Was their cause not justifiable?[/quote]

Please. The Southern Slave Power lost an election - they seceded over the fact that their man didn’t get enough votes. Lincoln hadn’t done a damn thing except win an election according to the law.

If a candidate you don’t like winning an election amounts to “tyranny”, then the idea of a Republic under a Rule of Law is a joke.

Lincoln proposed nothing radical in terms of getting rid of slavery - he simply supported a platform of not allowing slavery to be spread to new territories and giving slavery a slow, methodical, legislative death. He did exactly what all the critics whine other countries’ did to get rid of slavery - it’s just that the Slave Power wasn’t going to go gentle into that good night.

Southern plantationists had thought of daring General Jackson with their flirtation with secession - and then rightly abandoned the project when Jackson dared them back. Lincoln was an unknown quantity, not a firebrand general with a reputation for putting his fist under people’s noses - so they called Lincoln’s bluff.

One problem: Lincoln wasn’t bluffing.

Jefferson’s Declaration talked of the right to revolution - what triggered it here? A close election that didn’t go your way? The fact that someone might lawfully pass a law that you disagree with?

The Slave Power had no right to revolution - they weren’t denied participation in the election, they had every opportunity to have their idea win the battle of public ideas. No, secession wasn’t about principle - it was about sniveling self-interest. And losing that battle of ideas is no justification for revolution - if it is, then there is no such thing as a constitutional republic, and we shouldn’t pretend so.

85

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Jefferson’s Declaration talked of the right to revolution -what triggered it here? A close election that didn’t go your way? The fact that someone might lawfully pass a law that you disagree with?
[/quote]

I knew I should have clarified before submitting this. Not counting the Civil War, when is armed rebellion by the civilian populace justified?

Dustin

86

[quote]Dustin wrote:

I knew I should have clarified before submitting this. Not counting the Civil War, when is armed rebellion by the civilian populace justified?[/quote]

In a democracy, hard to say exactly, since democracies theoretically make revolution unnecessary.

But that said, after a “long train of abuses and usurpations” and if the people have been denied a right to participate in self-government, then rebellion is justified. Rebellion is never justified merely because a group of people didn’t get their way.

87

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

What’s wrong with Ron Paul’s ideas about Free trade?

Paul says he favors free trade as a policy matter, but he votes against nearly every government policy that tries to put free trade into reality, be it fast-track negotiation or trade agreements.

It’s fine to want free trade among nations - the problem is, the world is not a libertarian free-trade zone. Never has been. Nations aren’t naturally organizing their economic policies according to one uniform template. In order to reach a point of free-trade with a given nation, a deal must be struck that levels the competitive playing field and equalizes things like tariffs, etc. between the trade partners.

Otherwise, there is no free-trade, and none of the benefits that flow from it. There must be mutual agreement between the parties as to the rules of the game - otherwise, free-trade makes no sense. And the rules of the game must be written down, like any contract.

Paul rejects this real world need for policymaking and negotiation, insisting that the government stay out of the process. Well, his rhetoric is for free-trade, but his results will be the same as any throat-clearing protectionist scheme, as what nation would want to open up lines of trade with no treaty agreement enforcing the rules and principles of free trade?

Again, his foolish error of making the perfect the enemy of the good blows up in his face - he would set back free trade all the while swearing he was for it.

It is beyond obvious that other nations are quite different from us - but the one thing we are certain of is that none of them are libertarian nations. Paul’s model for trade works great if you are sitting around a table at a coffee house and you have invented a world where everyone operates and appreciates and values the same rules and principles you do. If you want real free trade and the real advantages of it, you must do the nasty business of real world policymaking, negotiation, horse-trading, and concession-making.

The fact that Paul seems completely immune to “how things really work” is a major disqualifier of his candidacy - far from being presidential timber, I can name middle managers at software companies who understand the point of “getting things done in business” and appreciate the wisdom of “half a loaf is better than no loaf” more than the sainted Paul.[/quote]

Why do we need a level playing to trade? Doesn’t free trade mean that I trade with whoever I want, even if the other party is practicing protectionism?