1

I saw Fred Thompson's video announcing he was running for president. He looked very presidential, had a nice voice, and seems kind of like Reagan. Let's all rally him. That Ron Paul...he just a little, you know,...weird and nuts.

2

What utter nonsense. It those who support the status quo candidates that are liviing in a "utopian" fantasy. America is on the brink of bankruptcy. The nation will collapse and the standard of living of Americans will plummet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGpY2hw7ao8

Ron Paul is the only politician dealing with this. The rest of the candidates either don't know or don't care. They are not competent to hold the office of President of the Republic.

3

"The main problem with Libertarianism is that it is the rightwing equivalent of Marxism, a utopian ideology that makes a fetish of a particular virtue (in this case, libertas!)"

Libertarianism is actually pretty simple: it is the belief that coercion should be minimized as much as possible. Nothing justifies coercion against innocent individuals. Taxes are a form of coercion. They should be minimized. They should not be eliminated as that would lead to chaos, tyranny, and consequently more coercion. That's libertarianism for you. It's what the founding fathers believed in, and it is what made America the greatest country in the world with the most prosperity, prosperity that has been squandered by pseudo-intellectuals like you for the last 3 decades.

4

I think it's contradictory to say on the one hand that the other candidates should have more respect for Ron Paul and not laugh at him during the debates and on the other to say that his ideas are adolescent and so is anyone who believes in them.

This is a well-written entry, with a veneer of good argument and good sense, but underneath it boils down to an ad hominem attack. The idea that some of his crazy ideas might be right isn't even entertained, and this refusal to entertain them is touted as a virtue (maturity).

5

An interesting piece. Unfortunately you mix up what Ron Paul ideally would have happen and what he would actually be able to do. He has drwn this distinction; so should you.

As for the IRS, I recently heard this statistic: If we returned to 2000 spending levels, we could get rid of the IRS, replace it with nothing and still spend as much as we did in 2000.

6

Paul I think it's contradictory to say on the one hand that the other candidates should have more respect for Ron Paul and not laugh at him during the debates and on the other to say that his ideas are adolescent and so is anyone who believes in them.

Good point. I should have clarified a bit more why I think the other candidates should treat him with more respect.

While I think his libertarian views are utopian and unrealistic, they are not inherently evil or stupid (at least most of them) and are deserving of a modicum of respect. Paul seems to be a man who formed him opinions before he ever decided to run for office. That in itself is refreshing. But there is a huge chasm between "deserving of being treated respectfully" and "deserving to be treated seriously."

Paul This is a well-written entry, with a veneer of good argument and good sense, but underneath it boils down to an ad hominem attack.

I'm not sure that is the case (and I certainly didn't intend it) that this is is an ad hominem since I am not attacking him so much as his idealogy.

Granted, I didn’t go into detail about the reasons why libertarianism if fatally flawed (this post was already too long). But I think its clear that I'm making the case against libertarianism and that Paul's flaw is that he accepts such views. An ad hominem attack would be more along the lines of saying that he is a stupid man, ergo he accepts libertarianism. My point is simply that libertarianism is an inherently immature philosophy, and unworthy of a serious Presidential candidate. Anyone--not just Paul--who held such views would be held to the same standard so the attack is not "to the man" but "to the idea."

The idea that some of his crazy ideas might be right isn't even entertained, and this refusal to entertain them is touted as a virtue (maturity).

Politically speaking, I think being realistic is inherently more mature than utopianism. To be correct, the views would have to tenable in the world we live in rather than a world we wish we lived in. If men were inherently virtuous, then libertarianism would be an ideal philosophy. But because they are fallen/sinful/unvirtuous (the Christian view) it is doomed to fail.

Hotchkey Unfortunately you mix up what Ron Paul ideally would have happen and what he would actually be able to do. He has drwn this distinction; so should you.

As a candidate for the Presidency, I don’t think he can be afforded the luxury of saying "I believe X, but wouldn't try to put it into practice." To me, that is as dishonest as the politicians who say that they think "abortion is murder" yet say it should still be legal.

Because we cannot know what types of situation a President will face, we have to judge a candidate based on his philosophy of governance. What good does it do to know that Paul is a libertarian if he never plans to act like one in office? That would seem to undercut the reason many people support him.

7

The problem with Ron Paul is simply that the Arlington Group has not ordained him to be the "christian" candidate.

8

Frankly, if I'm to choose between Libertarian or NeoCon, I'll choose Libertarian every single time. If I had to choose between crazy hobo on the street begging for money, or a NeoCon I'd vote for the crazy hobo. Seeing as there is a distinct lack of crazy HOBOS (there's alot of crazy people running) I guess I'll vote for Ron Paul.

9

The Paul campaign's biggest headache (besides the way the institutional deck is stacked against them) is the antics of some supporters, who fly around the internet posting less than thought out commentary on his appeal. That said, I find myself leaning toward Paul, after listening to what HE has to say, not what some of his MoveOn equivalent groupies say. As Joe points out, Paul may not be the modern definition of a Republican, but neither is he comfortable with the more extreme anarchist views held by some libertarians. There is no denying he has diagnosed problems associated with ever-larger state influence over our lives, and is the only candidate asking whether/how such influence can be put back into its Constitutional bounds. That's what annoys the rest of the establishment.

Ron Paul is neither the 'second coming,' nor a perfect man/candidate. But he shows a greater appreciation for the original vision that was America, including the proper role of faith in balancing secular power, than anyone else I've seen in the dog and pony show so far.

10

Joe, what is radical about any of his positions on the Constitution? At least he recognizes it is there.

The 14th amendment interpretation that you can cross the border illegally and have a kid that is a citizen is part of the reason we have the immigration mess. Changing it so that it is clear that people who are citizens who have kids and those kids are automatically citizens is not radical.

How did the government collect tax money before the 16th amendment? Going back to that system would get rid of the nightmare that is the income tax.

I wish we would repeal the 17th amendment. It would end a lot of the grandstanding of Senators and return some power to the states.

BTW, why is it wrong to want out of NATO? What purpose does it serve now? Can't the Europeans protect themselves?

While this is the sort of thing that appeals to cranky old men down at the coffee shop, the world would be chaos if we pulled back into the fetal position behind our own borders.

I don't think Paul means to crawl into a fetal position. Instead he means to only use American diplomacy and force to protect American interests. We can't police the world and most Americans don't want to anyways. The world won't fall into chaos. Instead, a lot of countries that get to complain while doing nothing will have to start acting on their own for a change. That might be a good thing.

*Disclaimer: I am not a Ron Paul supporter. However, I respect a candidate who actually knows that the Constitution exists and tries to follow it. And while I do agree that libertarianism is a utopian system, Paul is far less extreme than most.

11

Ron Paul does have some extremism in his ideas, but to think it would be utter chaos would imply that he could inact them on day one! Look, we need to start moving in a different direction. Ron Paul is the only one that wants to move us in that direction.

Ron Paul has no desire to be a "Unitary Executive" which means our checks & balances might actually start to work again.

We have tried extreme in the other direction (GWB) and some people are toying with the idea of going even MORE extreme (Hillary.) Nobody besides Ron Paul is trying to actually change the debate. And when the other candidates try to sound like him, they are almost laughable. States Rights out of one side of their mouth, then a solution to another problem is to withold federal funding to a State to force it to comply.

So, yes, Ron Paul's supporters are bit more grounded in reality than you think. We realize that unless we start talking about these things in all honesty, we are going to continue down the wrong path.

We DO still have a Congress and Senate, you know. And being a firm believer in the Constitution, he could NOT overstep his authority as President of the executive branch and enact many of these things entirely on his own.

So, is the solution to vote for the person that promises to keep moving us in the wrong direction instead of the candidate that is talking about getting back to that radical document called the Constitution?

12

Frankly, if I'm to choose between Libertarian or NeoCon, I'll choose Libertarian every single time. If I had to choose between crazy hobo on the street begging for money, or a NeoCon I'd vote for the crazy hobo.

What is it about "neo-conservatism" that inspires such disdain, perhaps even hatred in you? Is it their support of Israel? Their preference for a robust US foreign policy? Their largely conservative positions on social issues? Your stated preference for "crazy hobos" over neo-cons tends to color your disdain with a hint of the irrational so I would be interested in finding out exactly what it is about neocons that you find so distasteful.

13

When you hire someone for a job you look for a few things:
Do they understand the role and purpose of their job?
Will they faithfully execute that role?
Do they have the knowledge and skills required?
Is the company's best interest their top priority?

While the rest of the candidates are campaigning to become the next dictator (esp. Guiliani & Hillary) Ron Paul fully understands what his job he is running for.

Above all else, it is this concept of "Unitary Executive", centralized government, and a government no longer deriving its power from the consent of the governed (hell, they won't even talk TO you anymore) that I worry about most. And while everyone else is pretending the most important issue is an external threat, our country is falling apart from within. Not one other candidate has said they would throw out all the Executive orders exceeding the President's ACTUAL authority.

We have a government that is extorting nearly 56% of our income while being decidedly unresponsive to the people.

Wake up, people. We need a Revolution right about now! I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence again. Then read the Constitution. Now is a good time, since we are getting close to the anniversary of the Constitution.

14

ucfengr,

Maybe it is the fact that they are ex-democrats that joined the Republican party, but forgot to leave the liberal and socialistic policies behind? Maybe it is the fact that this happened right around the same time that the Communist and Socialist parties were being hunted down?

Maybe, just maybe, it is because since the "neo-cons" showed up, this country has rapidly deteriorated?

Is that enough reason for disdain? Do you have disdain for baby-killing, culture-destroying liberals? I do.

My question to you: Abortion has been a hot topic every election since Roe v. Wade, yet not one single thing has actually been done about it. Do you ever wonder why?

15

Or maybe it has to do with the fact that Conservatism is so far gone in this country, that we have the Republican party making fun of an actual conservative and calling his ideas "adolescent." This is what the liberals and progressives say about conservatives.

Are you sure YOU people aren't in the wrong party?

16

It's my opinion that the neocons are the ones pretending to be Republicans, not Ron Paul. They're all a bunch of big spending, big borrowing, welfare-warfare, nation-building, posers. Ron Paul is a statesman offering a real meaty platform, backed up by a lifetime of consistency and integrity.

Giuliani is republican? A gun-grabbing, abortion fan, sanctuary city, authoritarian whose kids won't even speak to him is Republican? The ghoul ain't fit to shine Paul's shoes.

17

Maybe it is the fact that they are ex-democrats that joined the Republican party, but forgot to leave the liberal and socialistic policies behind?

What specific "liberal and socialistic policies" do "neo-cons" support?

Maybe, just maybe, it is because since the "neo-cons" showed up, this country has rapidly deteriorated?

Deteriorated in what way? The "neo-cons" started showing up in the 1970's; do you really want to try to make the case that we are worse of now than we were in, say 1976? Had to wait in a gas line or pay 10+% interest on a mortgage lately? Spent much time worrying about an all-out nuclear attack from the USSR in the last decade or so? Me neither.

My question to you: Abortion has been a hot topic every election since Roe v. Wade, yet not one single thing has actually been done about it. Do you ever wonder why?

I always assumed it was because there is not a strong consensus for making drastic changes to our current abortion laws. Maybe I am wrong, are you trying to assert that it is because of evil neo-con manipulations?

18

Second, she is right in saying that the other candidates should stop giggling. Paul is not a buffoon or a clown but an honorable man who is more consistent in his views than most any other member of Congress (he would be more consistent, though, if he stopped pretending to be a Republican).

Wow, did Joe just say honor and consistency is not consistent with being a Republican! Finally an honest moment!

He also sponsored a Constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools.

That would make the Constitutional overly verbose as the 1st already does that.

Conservatives and libertarians agree that the government should be smaller. But Paul wants, a minarchist, would cut it to the bone by eliminating the FBI, CIA, FAA, FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education and just about every other federal agency in D.C.

Yea you guys have come quite a long way since Ronald Reagan. He too wanted to eliminate the DOE but he never tried to cut the DOH because the DOH didn't exist under him. Needed two more Republican Presidencies to create that.

Along with the FBI and IRS, Paul wants to eliminate the Federal Reserve. He would put the government back on the gold standard, a position that most economists agree would completely destabilize our economy.

That is true, he must have picked up that silliness from Jack Kemp.

Paul has no tolerance for the homosexual agenda. So he supports the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

That doesn't exactly make him much of a libertarian but it does put him pretty much in lock step with the GOP...except for Rudy.

(I'm largely in agreement with him on that one, though I doubt most of his fellow libertarians would agree.)

So are you saying he is a crazy libertarian or are you saying he your normal crazy Republican whose fooled some libertarians into thinking he is their candidate?

Politically speaking, I think being realistic is inherently more mature than utopianism. To be correct, the views would have to tenable in the world we live in rather than a world we wish we lived in.

The only really unrealistic view you presented is his idea to abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing. Then again that is just your standard Republican supply side economics taken to its logical conclusion. Most of the other proposals you presented are quite realistic in the sense that they can be implemented. Senators were originally picked by the states, not popular election. Automatic citizenship by birth is not the policy in many decent, civilized countries. On Foreign policy:

(While this is the sort of thing that appeals to cranky old men down at the coffee shop, the world would be chaos if we pulled back into the fetal position behind our own borders.)

Yea, Germany, Japan and England are on the verge of total chaos and are held together only by our presence there. Iraq is a peaceful dream. Nations, by default and definition are inside their borders. That's not a 'fetal position'. It's quite realistic to point out that the reasons that NATO and our European bases were created have passed on. Our presense there is more of a handout now to countries that are wealthy enough to take care of themselves. I think trying to recreate the Cold War with massive force projections is actually quite unrealistic.

Which brings us to the problem with your post. It's not that Ron Paul has positions that are wrong or seem to have more negatives than positives, it's that your entire perspective is backwards. The Republican Party today is a monument to unrealism. The Bush Presidency has been a diaster, not only for those people the Republicans don't care about (which would be just about everyone) but also for the people they do (themselves and their own egos) and also for conservatism as an idea (which, believe it or not, I think is a good idea in its proper dose). None of this is recognized by the current crop of Republicans. In fact, the denial is so strong they seem to do little more than pat themselves on the back and pretend everything is going great. That and, of course, trying to one up each other by sucking up to the social right ("No drivers licences for illegal immigrants BUT I demand that fetuses should be able to get them!").

19

The 14th amendment interpretation that you can cross the border illegally and have a kid that is a citizen is part of the reason we have the immigration mess. Changing it so that it is clear that people who are citizens who have kids and those kids are automatically citizens is not radical.

Actually it is radical. You've identified one positive which is decreasing the incentive for illegal immigrants to come here and have kids to grant..at least them...citizenship. The 14th was adopted to establish citizenship for the former black slaves. As you may recall, the Dred Scott decision stated that not only did slaves not have citzenship but neither did free blacks...even ones that had been free for multiple generations.

This has made citzenship very simple in the US and has avoided the spector that Europe has with its 'guest worker' programs where multiple generations have lived in countries that they are not citizens of. Quite frankly it is not good for liberty to have large numbers of people who do not have a franchise. Do you really think it is a good idea to have people born here in the US who grow to full adulthood who are suddenly then deported because they are not technically citizens?

I'm willing to accept the fact that some will come here illegally and have babies in exchange for the benefits that citizenship upon birth confers for all of us.

I wish we would repeal the 17th amendment. It would end a lot of the grandstanding of Senators and return some power to the states.

I could go either way on this. But what power are you returning to the states? You are transferring power from the people to the states. Be clear about that.

BTW, why is it wrong to want out of NATO? What purpose does it serve now? Can't the Europeans protect themselves?

A valid point, although it makes sense to have a presence there.

How did the government collect tax money before the 16th amendment? Going back to that system would get rid of the nightmare that is the income tax.

We used a system of steep tariffs and import duties which dramatically raised the prices of consumer goods. I believe on some necessities the system was the functional equilivant of a 40% sales tax. The system was quite popular with the well off in the north since they manufactured goods and the tariffs protected them from foreign competition allowing them to enjoy excessive price power. The south and many poor hated the system since they produced raw agricultural materials and needed to buy manufactured goods with the money they earned from that. You may recall the south came very close to leaving the union at least once before the Civil War just due to that very fact.

I don't mind arguing these points with libertarian, Ayn Rand types but I wonder why they are so ignorant of the debate. They seem in awe that not only do some people disagree with them but they seem to consider it amazing to assert that there even might be one or two arguments against their policies. If, for example, the 16th amendment is your pet peeve then wouldn't you study how and why the 16th amendment came to be? To listen to some you would think it just plopped down into the Constitution from Mars one day.

20

We cannot continue on our course to Armegeddon. Do not follow the instinct to further war toward Iran, otherwise you are doing the devils work. I pray with a shield from Jesus and power of the holy spirit that American Christians wake up and turn their head away from the temptation to follow the beast into war. Ron Paul will show the world that Christians are not bloodlusters.

21

I don't mind arguing these points with libertarian, Ayn Rand types but I wonder why they are so ignorant of the debate. They seem in awe that not only do some people disagree with them but they seem to consider it amazing to assert that there even might be one or two arguments against their policies. If, for example, the 16th amendment is your pet peeve then wouldn't you study how and why the 16th amendment came to be? To listen to some you would think it just plopped down into the Constitution from Mars one day.

Preach on, brother.

22

Whoa, who let all the wacky Ron Paul supporters in?

23

This is really one of the most uninformed articles I've read about Ron Paul.

Thinking libertarianism is simply made up of Utopian fantasies simply shows a drastic fear of other people who exercise their freedom, which many Christians seem to have these days.

Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq is just the tip of his isolationism.

Isolationism? What are you talking about? How is free and open trade to all nations isolationist? War tears down and makes both sides worse off with it's destruction. Free trade, however, tends to improve both sides.

Libertarians never were very good on civil rights.

Excuse me?

Most of the civilized world had already abolished slavery peacefully. Only the United States had to kill hundreds of thousands of people to do it. And that's just if you recognize that slavery was even the reason for the war, which it demonstrably WASN'T.

A distinction needs to be made between economic libertarianism (which can work when society is moral) and political libertarianism (which espouses an untenable minarchism)

This shows your fundamental misunderstanding of human behavior and incentives. Libertarianism works precisely because society is not moral and that everyone will inherently behave selfishly. If you believe society is truly immoral, however, why would you be so quick to put such immoral people behind the awesome power of the State? Politicians don't suddenly become benevolent when elected. In fact, they become even worse, because they don't have to deal with direct negative consequences.

I would go on, but there is really nothing much to argue. I notice how you don't even cite the so-called "economists" that say the gold-standard is a bad idea. Of course there is dissent among the ranks, but it's hardly as clear cut as you seem to think.

You say this is about the problems with Ron Paul's ideology, but actually do nothing buy say it's adolescent with nothing to back it up. You don't try to refute the years of economic thought scholarship nor the real-world examples throughout human history that back it up.

There's a reason why libertarian sentiment is growing in this country among those who are educated (according to a study done by the Cato Institute 2 years ago, which I can't seem to locate at the moment, but this article deals with the study.). And there is a reason why Jefferson (and Cicero before him) said a highly educated populace was the essential backbone of a free society.

24

Well said Joe!

p.s. I tried to send a track-back to your post, but it failed indicating an incorrect trackback URL.

25

Joe,

Conservatives can just easily be called utopian baffoons in their own right. I can't even count the number of times where I have heard a conservative blithely blow off all concerns about how civil liberties are being lost by their pet vice enforcement actions like the War on Drugs in the name of "it's the right thing to do." Conservatives are as domestically blind to the consequences of their ideology as most libertarians are to the foreign policy implications of theirs.

The reason I would vote for Ron Paul is that the man has concrete ideas. This country has for too long been run by men and women who have no ideas. "Democracy" has hitherto given us a government and legal system that is an ad hoc nightmare designed by a committee of morons. We need ideas, we need concrete plans to really fix major problems. You won't get those from the other, "respectable" candidates.

26

And that's just if you recognize that slavery was even the reason for the war, which it demonstrably WASN'T.

It almost certainly was.

I notice how you don't even cite the so-called "economists" that say the gold-standard is a bad idea. Of course there is dissent among the ranks, but it's hardly as clear cut as you seem to think.

There are very few economists who would support the gold standard. The problem with the gold standard is that it solves basically one problem; government hyperinflating the economy by printing money. The cost of solving this problem is a monetary policy that is not linked to the real economy but to gold production. This means inflation when new discoveries are made (what happened to Spain after they stumbled upon S. America) or more likely deflation when production lags or money demand is high. Unlike inflation, even tiny doses of deflation are very economically destructive.

On balance, developed economies tend to have powerful interests and institutions that check the urge towards hyperinflation. The problems of deflation are so bad that it is worth carrying a modest single digit inflation rate to avoid them. That in a nut shell is what's wrong with the gold standard. Most economists will agree with that broad overview and by most I mean economists that tend towards both left and right.

Conservatives can just easily be called utopian baffoons in their own right. I can't even count the number of times where I have heard a conservative blithely blow off all concerns about how civil liberties are being lost by their pet vice enforcement actions like the War on Drugs in the name of "it's the right thing to do."

Leave that aside, the current crop of non-Paul supposedly 'reality based' candidates have asserted that they would turn to Jack Bauer (a fictional TV character) to address terrorism, that they would 'solve' illegal immigration, that all sectarian violence in Iraq is due to Al Qaeda (or Iran), that the surge has worked and so on. IN all honesty, Joe is right that this guy has some silly views but ironically he as silly as some of them are they are less utopian or unrealistic than the fantasies all his fellow candidates seem to be addicted too.

27

The main problem with Libertarianism is that it is the "rightwing equivalent of Marxism, a utopian ideology that makes a fetish of a particular virtue (in this case, libertas!) and refuses to acknowledge that, if followed consistently, the philosophy would cannibalizes itself and destroy the very thing it seeks to venerate: individual freedom. It is the politics of adolescence, amusingly suited to precocious teens who think Ayn Rand is a "philosopher." No mature adult, however, should take it seriously. "

Best Post Ever.

28

." No mature adult, however, should take it seriously. "

Well i personally would say the very same thing about the insane belief that its ok to pollute the world until its ruination because some dead/recycled sumerian god from the late bronze age is gonna give us a new one any day now, along with new bodies that will never die...but i guess most of the yahoos on this blog wouldnt agree with me on that...

29

Leave that aside, the current crop of non-Paul supposedly 'reality based' candidates have asserted that they would turn to Jack Bauer (a fictional TV character) to address terrorism, that they would 'solve' illegal immigration, that all sectarian violence in Iraq is due to Al Qaeda (or Iran), that the surge has worked and so on.

Don't forget the ones that are going to solve the health care crisis and who think all our foreign policy problems could be solved by pulling out of Iraq or maybe ditching Israel.

30

The cost of solving this problem is a monetary policy that is not linked to the real economy but to gold production. This means inflation when new discoveries are made (what happened to Spain after they stumbled upon S. America) or more likely deflation when production lags or money demand is high. Unlike inflation, even tiny doses of deflation are very economically destructive.

"Deflation" caused by a lack of growth in the money supply is not destructive. The worst thing that would happen is that if you stuffed gold-backed money under your mattress, in five years you would be able to buy more stuff with it, not less.

Money should just be a means of exchange, a way of keeping score.

31

I could go either way on this. But what power are you returning to the states? You are transferring power from the people to the states. Be clear about that.

Repealing the 17th would bring more power to the people, at least theoretically. The State appointed senators would fight to have decisions and policies handeled at the state level, where people have more influence.

32

The current "Conservative utopianism" that we are living under is ruining the nation. Unchecked immigration (absolutely we should end birthright citizenship!), fiat currency, and send our military running around globe invading other countries is not a recipe for peace and security in any sense. Considering there is no real substantial difference between Hillary Clinton and any of the Republican frontrunners, I will take a man like Ron Paul anyday.

He is the ONLY one not living in a utopian fantasy right now.

33

You would not have to revise the 14th amendment to end automatic birthright citizenship.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

If automatic birthright citizenship was the rule it would read simply "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are..."

No need for "and subject to the jurisdiction therof" if being born here was the only requirement.

34

Wow Joe, you're either very misinformed or a complete sell out. But instead of ranting I'm going to address all your points with my magical weapon called history. So lets go back 100 yrs ago and see how Joe stacks up.

Constitution-
14 Amendment did exist 100 yrs ago. Its first line says this "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" It became law in 1868 after the civil to make sure slaves became citizens. It has nothing to do with illegals sneaking across the border and dropping anchor babies. Sorry Joe

16 Amendment did not exist 100 yrs ago. The country was fine. Joe asserts Ron Paul plans to replace the money with nothing which is correct since he plans to reduce Federal gov't spending to 2000 levels which was still a trillion dollars. Apparently Joe believes the last 7 sevens yrs of spending is vital to the nations health and can't be cut back

17 amendment one again did not exist 100 yrs ago. The country was fine. Joe only thinks the U.S started existing when he was born.

Pray in schools. Existed 100 yrs ago, I would think this is something Joe would want. I'm confused.

Economy

Gold standard- Joe defense is following the herd because msot economsits agree it would destabilzie the economy. 100 yrs ago we had the gold standard and were a creditor nation, now we are a debtor nation. Thanks economists.

Federal Reserve- Again non existent 100 yrs ago. This goes with the gold standard as the Fed Res is not needed when you have a currency actually backed by soemthing.

NAFTA, WTO- Does anyoen think these have actually helped us? We were fine without just a century ago. Whats changed.

I already spoken about the IRS.

On Gov't

FBI, CIA, FAA, FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education. None of these existed 100 yrs ago. Somehow we were fine.

Foriegn Policy

No UN, no NATO, no entanglements. Even Joe hates the U.N and NATO was created to contain communism. Does Joe believe Europe still needs our help even now when it has become the EU. WHo is the threat Joe, why do we have troops all over the world. Joe lets his cards slip here "the world would be chaos if we pulled back", we'll come back to that at the end

History and the Military

There was no civil war 100 yrs ago, but WW1 and WW2 happened later on. I'll actually side wih Joe and support the conscription that happened then. But no one today is realistically trying to bring back the draft so I'm not sure the point he was trying to make. Don't ask, don't tell- not sure if Joe agrees or disagrees with it.

Church and State relationship

Well Joe agrees with Ron on this one and I doubt libertians will run to Rudy because they disagree with Ron on this one point.

Words Joe use

Childish, not mature, no grown up shoudl take seriously, radical, bizarre, naive, lunatic, compares Ron Paul's world to Atlas Shrugged, yet it all existed 100 yrs ago.

Whats going on here?

As stated before Joe believes "the world would be chaos if we pulled back", believes in birth right citizenship even for illegals, and consistently insults Ron Paul's views by calling them childish, views that our Grandparents and great grandparents would all adhere too. So whats going on here? Simple. Joe is a globalist who belirves the U.S gov't has an obligation to help every citizen in the world. He thinks those who disagree are living in the past like my 100 yrs comparision and need to grow up. To Joe I doubt the Constitution matters much to him if he can save one more person in Nigeria. But Joe forgets human nature doesn't change, that the founding fathers were much smarter then him and that its the growth of gov't, not the no shrinking of it that eventually leads to tyranny. In Joe's world history is sadly already repeating itself.

I apologize for the doubtless many typoes.

35

Boonton:
Quite frankly it is not good for liberty to have large numbers of people who do not have a franchise.

You're assuming that we need some massive amount of imported labor. I'm not going to debate or concede that. Such an argument has nothing to do with birthright citizenship. I mean you could even craft the law to say that if you are here legally and have a kid they are citizens. It's just the idea that you can come here or stay illegally and have an anchor baby that is a significant problem. The legal immigration/guest worker issue is a different debate.

I guess my point here is that the reading of the amendment is flawed and needs corrected. Of course people have argued about that for decades.

You are transferring power from the people to the states. Be clear about that.

Which part of my statement wasn't clear? And who elects the state government?

A valid point, although it makes sense to have a presence there.

It only makes sense if you see us as needing to maintain some kind of stability to the world. It's not our job and most Americans don't want the job. If you are saying it's good to have a forward base to allow us to protect our interests, that makes sens. However, it could be a lot smaller than what we have today.

We used a system of steep tariffs and import duties which dramatically raised the prices of consumer goods...

I'm not a die hard on this issue. However, it's not some radically insane idea either like Joe makes it out to be. And it is within the realm of reasonable debate.

I don't mind arguing these points with libertarian, Ayn Rand types but I wonder why they are so ignorant of the debate.

Because like all good objectivists, they are smarter than anyone else. :-)

ucfengr
What is it about "neo-conservatism" that inspires such disdain, perhaps even hatred in you? Is it their support of Israel? Their preference for a robust US foreign policy? Their largely conservative positions on social issues?

I know this wasn't addressed to me but I'll respond. First, the neocons do seem slavishly tied to Israel. I support Israel, but I don't believe that was is good for Israel is always good for us.

Second their "robust" foreign policy is broken. As someone described it, our foreign policy seems to be invade the world, invite the world, and owe the world. I supported the invasion of Iraq for removing a threat. However, I don't support the continuing use of our blood and treasure to try to build a country out of Iraq which is something we can't do. As such, even though Iran is something that needs to be handled, I don't trust this current group of yahoos to handle it properly. Therefore I prefer we do nothing.

Finally, neocons have always been soft on social issues. They play the same race games. ("Look at all of our minoritites") They usually try to ignore or downplay social issues. After 9/11, many were crowing about how this would take the culture war away. Their only concern seems to be lower taxes. While I like lower taxes, there is more to governing than taxes.

So, while the paleos are nutty over the neocons, I still don't think they've been good for Republicans, conservatives, or traditionalists.

36

Thanks for the reply to my comment Joe. But I still do think it's ad hominem to say that Paul's positions are wrong because they're adolescent. If you had only called them utopian, that'd be different.

But leaving that aside, I've another question for you: Ron Paul's positions do not differ very much with the founding fathers, or for that matter Taft or Goldwater. Do you believe all of those people to likewise be adolescent? That's a pretty heavy statement.

37

Don't forget the ones that are going to solve the health care crisis and who think all our foreign policy problems could be solved by pulling out of Iraq or maybe ditching Israel.

To date no Republican or Democratic candidates have promised that.

Jay D
"Deflation" caused by a lack of growth in the money supply is not destructive. The worst thing that would happen is that if you stuffed gold-backed money under your mattress, in five years you would be able to buy more stuff with it, not less.

On the contrary it is highly destructive. Deflation or even the expectation of it freezes spending (why buy something today when tomorrow it will be cheaper?) which then freezes production, investment and other good things. Perhaps this is irrational. Perhaps humans shouldn't 'lock up' if prices are going down 1% per year while they don't seem to care if prices go up 1% per year but a good theory describes the world, you don't try to force the world to fit what you think is a good theory.

Money should just be a means of exchange, a way of keeping score.

Perhaps it should but it doesn't. Money does have a real influence on production. But say it doesn't, you've given your game away.

If money doesn't matter then what's the point of the gold standard other than hurting the environment by giving yet another incentive to difficult and expensive gold mining? If money is just a means of exchange inflation shouldn't matter either. If the gov't printes twice as much money just multiply prices and wages by two. No different than if the Soccar suddenly declared goals are worth ten points each instead of one.

If inflation does matter then why is it impossible to believe that deflation matters too? And if they both matter why assume they are both equally important?

Repealing the 17th would bring more power to the people, at least theoretically. The State appointed senators would fight to have decisions and policies handeled at the state level, where people have more influence.

Now you're just being silly. Right now Senators are directly elected by the people. Why would they have more influence filtered through their state capital rather than directly in the voting booth?

The Founders didn't have the states selecting Senators to give the people more influence, they wanted the people to have less influence.

No need for "and subject to the jurisdiction therof" if being born here was the only requirement.

From wikipedia
The phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that a person born within the territorial boundaries of the United States is eligible for birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of his or her parents. The only exceptions to this rule identified in Wong Kim Ark concern diplomats, enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States, and members of Native American tribes.

Technically I suppose you could argue that even enemy troops occupying part of the US would still technically be under its jurisdiction... If the enemy troops were defeated and captured I'd imagine courts would rule they could be tried for crimes they committed on US soil. That's in contrast to diplomats who are immune from jurisdiction and can, at most, be kicked out of the country. But I'm not sure how you would apply this "subject to the jurisdiction therof" to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants do not enjoy any immunity because they are illegal. If they, say, shoplift or steal something they are very much subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

I noticed that you didn't really address the why part of the question. Why would we want to abolish birth based citizenship and create a large group of people living here without a home? Slightly decreasing the incentives for illegal immigration strikes me as a pretty poor argument for such a change.

38

Joe,
You do a disservice to the ONLY congressman that has been consistent to his stated beliefs for his entire term of service.
I was completely terrified when Clinton was elected - thought it was the end of the world. Turns out he was just a politician...and a liar. Go figure.

I was ecstatic when W was elected, finally a true conservative who will govern and I can trust. Turns out that he is just a politician...and a liar. Go figure. (To wit: he campaigned on the issue that the next Supreme Court nominees would be the most important in history. What did he try to give us? Harriet Miers.) I'll leave it to others to give more examples.

Both previous Presidents have ignored or denigrated the Constitution. Paul's "wacky, utopian" ideas arise from a close examination of that document. The gold standard is spelled out there. Why is that so wacky? Or is pragmatism more important than keeping one's oath to "uphold and preserve the Constitution."?

Perhaps everything old (200+ years of adhering to the Constitution) is new again. If that is what you mean by adolescent, then Bring. It. On.

39

First, the neocons do seem slavishly tied to Israel. I support Israel, but I don't believe that was is good for Israel is always good for us.

Can you give a clear cut example of a "neo-con" supporting something that would obviously benefit Israel to the detriment of the US?

I supported the invasion of Iraq for removing a threat. However, I don't support the continuing use of our blood and treasure to try to build a country out of Iraq which is something we can't do. As such, even though Iran is something that needs to be handled, I don't trust this current group of yahoos to handle it properly. Therefore I prefer we do nothing.

So, you would prefer an Iraq dominated by Iran or even the Middle East with a nuclear armed Iran as the dominant power to the current situation? I think the current situation would have to be a lot worse before I would consider that an acceptable alternative.

Finally, neocons have always been soft on social issues. They play the same race games.

I don't think you can demonstrate this as a universal truth. It is true that some "neo-cons" are more liberal on some issues than I would like, but so what? I imagine I am more liberal on some issues than some "neo-cons"; does that mean I ahve to tear up my membership card and turn in my secret decoder ring?

After 9/11, many were crowing about how this would take the culture war away.

Can you quantify this statement for me? Is "many" 2 or 10 or 50; is it a majority, because I don't remember this being the case?

40

As far as Paul being powerless to abolish the IRS, CIA, FBI, etc., I note that refusing to sing a Budget proposed by Congress would do the trick nicely.

They call him "Doctor No" for a reason.

41

So, you would prefer an Iraq dominated by Iran or even the Middle East with a nuclear armed Iran as the dominant power to the current situation? I think the current situation would have to be a lot worse before I would consider that an acceptable alternative.

Don't worry ucfengr, if there's one talent this administration has demonstrated it has been finding how to make situations much worse.

As far as Paul being powerless to abolish the IRS, CIA, FBI, etc., I note that refusing to sing a Budget proposed by Congress would do the trick nicely.

Indeed but you have kind of skipped over the 'why' part. Why exactly are we abolishing all those things?

42

No different than if the Soccar suddenly declared goals are worth ten points each instead of one.

It certainly would make a difference if the referees did that at halftime. (Is there a halftime in soccer?)

The cool thing about gold is that the referees can't arbitrarily change the worth of goals.

The supply of money does change the dynamics of supply/demand and production. Arbitrarily changing the supply of money throws things out of whack and creates mal-investments and bubbles, which deflate.

On the contrary it is highly destructive. Deflation or even the expectation of it freezes spending (why buy something today when tomorrow it will be cheaper?) which then freezes production, investment and other good things.

Which is why I have never bought a computer. :)

If the gradual reduction in price was natural and normal, people wouldn't get spooked. Even if people did slow spending, that means they are saving. Their savings are growing in value the longer they wait. Eventually their savings would become valuable enough to spend on something.

43

Don't worry ucfengr, if there's one talent this administration has demonstrated it has been finding how to make situations much worse.

I think recent Democratic holders of the office have shown much greater aptitude than Bush Seriously though, you should get out more. Things really aren't that bad.

44

As far as Paul being powerless to abolish the IRS, CIA, FBI, etc., I note that refusing to sing a Budget proposed by Congress would do the trick nicely.

I find it amusing that people who think that Bush has arrogated too much power to himself think that Ron Paul should have the power to unilaterally dissolve government agencies he feels unnecessary.

45

Again why are we abolishing these agencies again? I mean, ok, if you abolish the income tax and put tariffs in its place you're still going to need to enforce that law so the IRS is still around. Likewise the Fed. gov't had law enforcement before the FBI was created. Is simply changing the name that important? Or is it just that it's cool to imagine doing really dramatic things? In that case maybe Joe's right, there is an element of adolescence here.

46

I Support Ron Paul

You can vote for Ron Paul in the Free Market Hall of Fame Poll of legislators and government officials at http://www.freedomfest.com/halloffame plus sign and comment on the Ron Paul Is Right – Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html

You also might want to read “The Final Presidential Executive Order” a fictional story about a future terrorist attack against the US and learn how the government response elected Ron Paul as President of the United States at http://www.swissconfederationinstitute.org/swisspreserve14.htm

47

The One It has nothing to do with illegals sneaking across the border and dropping anchor babies.

If it has nothing to do with babies born in the US then why does it need to be revised? Also, during the days of the Founding Fathers until the 20th century, immigration was almost unimpeded. Do you want to return to that level of "libertarian" immigration too?

Apparently Joe believes the last 7 sevens yrs of spending is vital to the nations health and can't be cut back

No, the question I have is, "Where are tax revenues going to come from?" Paul opposes a national sales tax so how does he plan to raise money to pay for the legitimate functions of the government?

17 amendment one again did not exist 100 yrs ago. The country was fine.

True, it didn’t exist then. But it exists now because the Founders set it up for us to amend the Constitution as needed. I'm not saying that the amendment can never be cut. But aside from Paul and a few dozen of his supporters, no one else has any serious intention of doing so.

Pray in schools. Existed 100 yrs ago, I would think this is something Joe
would want. I'm confused.

It exists now. It's called the First Amendment.

100 yrs ago we had the gold standard and were a creditor nation, now we are a debtor nation.

A hundred years ago we were a dirt-poor nation. Today, even our poor are wealthy by global standards.

It's ironic that almost ever libertarian in America is middle to upper class yet they want to cut the foundation that makes their lifestyle possible.

This goes with the gold standard as the Fed Res is not needed when you have a currency actually backed by soemthing.

The gold standard is fine if you want to remain a third world nation. But no one who wants the US to remain an economic superpower would consider it a serious idea.

None of these existed 100 yrs ago. Somehow we were fine.

So essentially, you are saying that we need to return to the status we held 100 years ago. I think you are alone in wanting to go back to those "good ol' days."

Does Joe believe Europe still needs our help even now when it has become the EU.

You're missing my point. Paul doesn’t like NATO, which means that he wouldn't have supported it even to fight communism. If Paul's non-interventionism had prevailed during the last half of the 20th century, half the world would now be under Soviet control.

But no one today is realistically trying to bring back the draft so I'm not
sure the point he was trying to make.

The point is that a leader should be acceptable in almost any historical period. What if Paul had been President during the early days of WWII?

Don't ask, don't tell- not sure if Joe agrees or disagrees with it.

I agree with him on that. I pointed it out to show that he's not as socially libertarian as some of his supporters may assume.

believes in birth right citizenship even for illegals,…

No, I believe in birth right citizenship for people born in the United States. The status of your parents should not matter. In fact, why aren't libertarians supportive of birthright citizenship? Why do the libertarian ideals get thrown out the window when it comes to immigration?

But Joe forgets human nature doesn't change, that the founding fathers were much smarter then him and that its the growth of gov't, not the no shrinking of it that eventually leads to tyranny.

Anyone who thinks the Founding Fathers were libertarians needs to study some their history. Most Founders had no problem with government power as long as it was in the hands of the States (which were controlled by rich white landowners like themselves).

Paul If you had only called them utopian, that'd be different.

I would think "utopian" would be more insulting than "adolescent." Adolescence, after all, is merely a stage of natural development on the path to maturity. Utopianism is a failure to see the world as it truly is (or can be).

Ron Paul's positions do not differ very much with the founding fathers,…

I beg to differ on that point. The 1790s was a period of heavy taxation and rigid enforcement. (Remember the "Whiskey Rebellion", the response to Hamilton's excise tax on alcohol?) Madison wanted a central bank (the forerunner of the Federal Reserve). Jefferson started the first "war on terror" by attacking the Barbary States. Etc., etc. Whatever they were, the Founders were certainly nothing like modern Libertarians.

or for that matter Taft

I honestly don't know enough about Taft to comment.

…or Goldwater.

To be honest, I'm no fan of Goldwater. He is not what I would call a "conservative." As Brent Bozell, the ghostwriter of Goldwater's book once said, " Goldwater didn’t know much about conservatism" until he read The Conscience of a Conservative.

But the guys at LewRockwell.com say he ain't a libertarian either. He may have had some libertarian views, but he sure wasn't anywhere near Ron Paul.

48

As a conservative Christian who has lost all respect for the GOP, I will be voting for Ron Paul in the primaries. This man has been both a fiscal and social conservative. Repealing the 17th ammendment a bad idea?? Our country survived for 120 years without it, what's the problem?

16th amendment? Bring of the Fair Tax.

Department of Education? Remember the Contract with America? This was part of the official GOP statement.

FBI? Again, only been around for 50 years, I'm sure we could pour that money back in to LOCAL law enforcement.

Truth here is that Ron Paul is Republican from 30 years ago and the modern day GOP doesn't recognize him because THEY HAVE strayed so far. VERY similar to GA Senator Zell Miller who used to get chastised by the left. Senator Miller often said that it was the DNC that changed their views, not him. The same applies to Paul, and I for one support him.

49

"And that's just if you recognize that slavery was even the reason for the war, which it demonstrably WASN'T."

"It almost certainly was."

Again, no. It wasn't, despite what public schools like to shove down people's throats. The root issue was over political self-determination. More and more historical scholars are beginning to come around to this fact.

Lincoln is even quoted as saying that if he could "preserve the Union" without freeing the slaves, he would do so.

50

this is a sick hit piece. Does this Mr. Carter even understand the constitution. For Mr. Carter and all of the neocons, let me remind you that Jesus Christ was a man of peace. Remember "Blessed are the peacemakers"? Here we have a man that wants to give the citizens their rights and liberties back and these "Christian Conservatives" want to run him in the ground. I call myself a Christian Conservative, that is why I am voting for Dr. Paul. What is wrong with these people. Please Mr. Carter do your homework before we have to read anymore of this garbage

51

Thanks for the reply, again.

I'll leave aside the adolescent issue and Goldwater and Taft, and address the positions of the founding fathers bit.

It's true that they did differ in many positions from RP, but I don't think it's true that it was an era of heavy taxation. There was no income tax back then, and although certain items were taxed as you mention, and taking all forms of taxation into account, the total taxation didn't surpass 10% of a person's income per year. Now, taking all forms of taxation into account, it's closer to 50%.

But that isn't the primary way in which I meant that the RP's positions is mainly that of the founding fathers.

In foreign policy: Attacking the Baraby States (which were not actually a nation) is entirely different from occupying a country in perpetuity and maintaining bases in 150 countries. The analogy to Iraq isn't there, although there is an analogy to Afghanistan if the intention were simply to bring bin Ladin and his group to justice and not nation-build. But you're right that not all of the founding fathers were non-interventionists, an example you could have used (which is far closer to what we are doing today) is the Monroe Doctrine, which was intended to establish our hegemony over the western hemisphere. Regardless of that, plenty of countries practise non-interventionism, pretty much every country in the world except the U.S., Western Europe, Russia, and China -- are all those countries which do not have a policy of interventionism utopian?

In monetary policy: Yes, Madison wanted a central bank, but he was still in favor of the gold and silver standards, not fiat money; most of the income tax going to pay the national debt would be unknown to him. And he was an exception, the majority of the founding fathers didn't like the idea of a central bank.

In most other areas their positions were identical, not only in theory, but in practice -- the way government worked in the 18th and even in the early 19th centuries was generally minarchist. We had a working government in those centuries, it wasn't a utopian government, but it was generally minarchist, it was generally non-interventionist, and it worked. You might argue that it was worse than what we have today in some way or another (they still had slaves, etc.) but it did function. If the idea of limited government were utopian, you'd expect it would not have functioned.

52

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, if more of our politicians were constitutionalist, then we would not be in the mess we are in now. Rising deficits in trade and spending, debt that will soon reach 10 trillion, unnecessary preemptive war and many others. Ron Paul has the most integrity of any candidate on both sides of the isle. The Christian Right should be begging for a leader like him if their motives were truly pure. Our Foreign policy is the reason why we are in the trouble we are in with Islam. For years we have been intervening with the Islam world when we ousted the democratically elected Iranian leader in the 1950's. Our Foreign policy has been doing this stuff on many other occasions. I hope we can all realize that if these wars don't end, like Ron Paul wants, then we will be in a full fledged World War 3 with the Islamic world and possibly Russia and China. We need to go back to our heritage and adopt a just war theory, Iraq was more about Oil and Corperatizing the Military than about WMD's and Terrorism.

53

Ron Paul follows the constitution, if more of our politicians did the same then we would not be in the mess we are in now. Rising deficits in trade and spending, debt that will soon reach 10 trillion, unnecessary preemptive war and many others. Ron Paul has the most integrity of any candidate on both sides of the isle. The Christian Right should be begging for a leader like him if their motives were truly pure. Our Foreign policy is the reason why we are in the trouble we are in with Islam. For years we have been intervening with the Islam world when we ousted the democratically elected Iranian leader in the 1950's. Our Foreign policy has been doing this stuff on many other occasions. I hope we can all realize that if these wars don't end, like Ron Paul wants, then we will be in a full fledged World War 3 with the Islamic world and possibly Russia and China. We need to go back to our heritage and adopt a just war theory, Iraq was more about Oil and Corperatizing the Military than about WMD's and Terrorism.

54

I just read up a bit on the Monroe Doctrine and would like to correct myself: initially it was partially motivated as a way to enforce non-interventionism in the western hemisphere -- which is contradictory, because an enforcement of non-interventionism is itself interventionism (policing the hemisphere).

Eventually it was expanded by Teddy Roosevelt, who added a corollary announcing that we had the right to intervene in any country in the western hemisphere. But the original intend wasn't to establish hegemony in this hemisphere, that came only with that corollary.

55

His voting record speaks for itself.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

56

It's just the idea that you can come here or stay illegally and have an anchor baby that is a significant problem. The legal immigration/guest worker issue is a different debate.

You don't get to stay just because you have an 'anchor baby'. Just because the children of illegals are citizens does not mean their parents become citizens. I do have a problem with the idea that people can be here for multiple generations, grow up knowing as residents of the US but not be citizens, not have the right to vote and 'technically' be eligable to be kicked out to their 'home countries' which they have never known.

You're assuming that we need some massive amount of imported labor.

I've made such assumption. The birthright prevents large portions of non-enfrancised people from developing inside the US.

Which part of my statement wasn't clear? And who elects the state government?

The part saying that taking the power of the people to elect Senators is giving them more power.

It only makes sense if you see us as needing to maintain some kind of stability to the world. It's not our job and most Americans don't want the job. If you are saying it's good to have a forward base to allow us to protect our interests, that makes sens. However, it could be a lot smaller than what we have today.

True but I think we have been downsizing our presence in Europe. As our presence there remains fixed but economies grow the cost becomes relatively less as time goes by. Whether it could be downsized right now is more of a technical question but I see no great imperative to shut down our outlets in Europe and Asia.

I'm not a die hard on this issue. However, it's not some radically insane idea either like Joe makes it out to be. And it is within the realm of reasonable debate.

Perhaps but then they should debate it. I notice advocates do often come up short here. Many of them seem to assume their ideas are self-evident and the only reason they are not being adopted is that so many of us just aren't enlightened like they are. This has been a problem with the Ayn Rand camp since just about day 1.

Second their "robust" foreign policy is broken. As someone described it, our foreign policy seems to be invade the world, invite the world, and owe the world. I supported the invasion of Iraq for removing a threat.

Indeed. I think ucfengr is aiming to replace 'Baghdad Bob' as the most out of touch spokesperson for a gov't yet. At least Bob, though, was on somebody's payroll...ucfengr gives it away for free it seems. By their own standards the 'robust' foreign policy has failed. Failed. The administrations own terrorism assessment has found that the US is in more danger of a terrorist attack, that Al Qaeda is more powerful than it was on 9/11. After trillions of dollars and thousands of lives that is a failure. By its own stardards the 'surge' has failed in Iraq. Again failure. Perhaps some of this might be tolerable if mistakes were admitted. If they said something like "we thought X would work, sadly it hasn't, we are trying to learn from this mistake". Instead the response has been to dig in their heels, attack critics as unpatriotic and aiding terrorists and attempt to confuse and distort the truth.

Jay D
It certainly would make a difference if the referees did that at halftime. (Is there a halftime in soccer?)

The cool thing about gold is that the referees can't arbitrarily change the worth of goals.

Yes you have discovered an analogy has limits. The same issue applies here. There's no 'game over, let's start a new game' in economic life. If a 2% inflation rate tomorrow is 'arbitrarily changing the worth of goals' then the same would apply to a 2% deflation caused by adopting the gold standard.

If the gradual reduction in price was natural and normal, people wouldn't get spooked. Even if people did slow spending, that means they are saving. Their savings are growing in value the longer they wait. Eventually their savings would become valuable enough to spend on something.

First why would it be gradual? You've linked it to gold production. Like oil or any other natural resource there's no way to predict when mines might get shut down, unexpected diasters happen and so on. Second the problem with your scenero is that income is the other half to the savings equation. If deflation causes a spending collapse an income collapse follows...see Great Depression 1930.

The only 'problem' I see solved by the gold standard is hyperinflation (unless, of course, they find a twenty ton gold rock on the other side of the moon ten years from now). This problem seems to be under control by having strong, independent central banks and institutional bias against inflation. The financial markets are also flexible enough to provide methods to insure and hedge against inflation as well as to punish countries that appear to be edge closer to establishing inflationary policies. At the same time, the current policy appears flexible enough to prevent deflation & target a modest amount of yearly inflation which appears to be economically healthy (even though a country of rational Mr. Spocks wouldn't need such a policy).

Here's a final problem, unless you are proposing actually circulating gold coins only there is going to be paper money. The amount of paper money is going to be more than the gold in stock because of the nature of fractional reserve banking. OK you can stop that by implementing a 100% reserve requirement but given paper money...in a bind...the gov't is going to be tempted to run the printing press and if the bind is serious enough they may not even make it public that they are doing it. In that case the gold standard may actually be harmful since, at least for a brief period, people may be fooled into thinking the gov't was still honoring the standard. Right now any gov't is under strict scrutiny by the financial markets who put a huge amount of effort into teasing out from the data any indication for how inflation will go. That is probably much more effective than a gold standard would be.

57

Again, no. It wasn't, despite what public schools like to shove down people's throats. The root issue was over political self-determination. More and more historical scholars are beginning to come around to this fact.

Yes, 'political self-determination' in order to protect slavery.

Lincoln is even quoted as saying that if he could "preserve the Union" without freeing the slaves, he would do so.

Well if you're going to just look at the surface of things you could say it was about whether states could leave the Union. The South said yes, Lincoln said no. That academic question is not why both sides sent thousands to die. Isn't it interesting after all the fighting was over they didn't even bother to add an amendment banning states from leaving the Union? Technically one could still consider it an open question.

Paul
It's true that they did differ in many positions from RP, but I don't think it's true that it was an era of heavy taxation. There was no income tax back then, and although certain items were taxed as you mention, and taking all forms of taxation into account, the total taxation didn't surpass 10% of a person's income per year. Now, taking all forms of taxation into account, it's closer to 50%.

Averages can be very deceptive. For the poor with less income buying necessities takes up most of their income. Consumption taxes back then were very burdensom but for the rich they were trivial. There was a strong class warfare element and keep in mind the Civil War almost started a few decades early over a dispute about taxes. Life was not running beautifully and then everyone decided to impose income taxes for no particular reason.

It's been a while since I read it but Seven R Weisman's The Great Tax Wars: Lincoln to Wilson was a great book on the subject.

58

Another problem with knee-jerk 'abolish the irs, no income tax, ya!' idea is that it puts the horse before the cart. The Federal gov't spends a lot of money. To maintain anywhere near that level of spending would require tariffs so massive they would probably destroy the economy. The fact is the income tax is incredibly efficient in terms of raising revenue. That is why it was adopted nearly a century ago. For many people it is nearly seemless and compliance is pretty high. Yes some people make money under the table but its nothing near what smugglers did when the tax base was consumption goods or tariffs.

The only tax that might be nearly acceptable as a replacement is the VAT style tax Europe and other countries has. To my knowledge, though, VAT is used with income and wealth taxation...not as the only option.

And it shouldn't be surprising, there's a lot of income and a lot of wealth hence you can raise serious revenue with a modest rate. To pull the same rabbit out of the hat with, say, tobacco taxes you'd almost need a total police state to prevent the smuggling that would be incredibly profitable at the rates you need.

Now we all know the standard Libertarian answer. "We will cut spending! We won't sign any spending bill, we won't vote for any unbalanced budget" Yawn. This continues to be adolescent grandstanding. Sure promise goodies (no income tax) and don't even try to articulate how you're going to pay for it (guess what, love your mom and grandma?...well good 'cause you can start paying their medical bills now Medicare/caid is gone!). And please, no "well we had Medicare in 1990 so we'll just roll the budget back to then and vola, spending cuts to make abolishing income taxes managable!". This isn't 1990, we had a different population then and different prices and needs.

The real story here is how intellectually bankrupt the right has become during the Bush years and the resurgance of the left's intellectual quality. You don't hear this pie in the skyism on the Democratic side. Ohhh sure the various plans being pushed probably wouldn't stand up to an intense audit but it does seem like we left behind some dreamy sceneros like "universal coverage will pay for itself". Perhaps this is the anti-matter version of the 1970's where the left slowly crumbled after years in power and the right was shinning intellectually? I mean what else can account for Ron Paul being hyped as so intellectually brillant on the GOP side?

59

Joe thinks that any plan, idea, or desire for change in politics, economics, and American policy is Utopian and adolescent. Joe cannot take cues from history either, history being anachronistic and passé. Don't bother debating Joe about change because Joe thinks everything is perfect today. Joe obviously wouldn't change a thing unless it were to strengthen the current Neocon strategy as it is working so well that we only need more of it! Remember, all other ideas than the Neocon status quo are either Utopian adolescence or passé.

60

Another problem with knee-jerk 'abolish the irs, no income tax, ya!' idea is that it puts the horse before the cart. The Federal gov't spends a lot of money. To maintain anywhere near that level of spending would require tariffs so massive they would probably destroy the economy.

For the record. Ron Paul has said he would replace the income tax with *nothing*. He also said you simply can't without rethinking what government is all about, so he wouldn't be eliminating the income tax first and asking questions later.

I think it is actually people who ask him questions in debates and interviews that give the impression that he would put the cart before the horse because one of their first questions is "so you want to abolish the IRS?"

61

@Boonton

"Yes, 'political self-determination' in order to protect slavery"

It was one issue out of many. Not the sole reason for the war. Slavery had been abolished peacefully by rest of the civilized world. Only in the United States did we have to kill hundreds of thousands of people. On the surface it might seem that way. But there is much more troubled water underneath.

"Well if you're going to just look at the surface of things you could say it was about whether states could leave the Union. The South said yes, Lincoln said no. That academic question is not why both sides sent thousands to die. Isn't it interesting after all the fighting was over they didn't even bother to add an amendment banning states from leaving the Union? Technically one could still consider it an open question."

They hardly had to pass an amendment. The lesson was taught. The consequences, the South left in shambles, clear for all to see. The power of the gun had already destroyed the right of secession.

And technically, yes, one could still consider it an open question. But the sentiment is not there in the public's minds. Thanks to the mindless cheer leading and US evangelism that goes on in the public schools.

With every child almost forced to recite everyday throughout his youth that we are:

"One nation, under God, indivisible..."
"One nation, under God, indivisible..."
"One nation, under God, indivisible..."

It's no wonder the debate hardly ever comes up anymore. People are too infatuated with their government to even entertain anything remotely close to the thought. Hardly anyone knows that the Father's knew well that secession was the last weapon against Federal tyranny. Heck, even Alexander Hamilton recognized the right.

62

'He also says the Civil War was a "mistake" and that the country should have just paid Southern slaveholders to give up their rights to their...what exactly, "property"?'

I believe he also said the rest of the civilized world gave up their slaves with out civil war.

'He would put the government back on the gold standard, a position that most economists agree would completely destabilize our economy.'

Seeing as how all of our money is manipulated by powerful bankers that also operate the media and military industrial complex.. Keeping a gold standard is good FOR OUR SECURITY.

'Paul's opposition to the war in Iraq is just the tip of his isolationism. He wants to abolish both the UN (not a terrible idea) and NATO (not so smart). He believes terrorism should be treated as a "crime" rather than as a foreign policy threat and would withdraw all military troops on foreign soil and return them to the U.S. (While this is the sort of thing that appeals to cranky old men down at the coffee shop, the world would be chaos if we pulled back into the fetal position behind our own borders.)'

How so? If we listened to our Constitution and our founding fathers we wouldnt be in the mess we are in today. Are you implying that we shouldnt at least try to remain a soveriegn nation dependant on ourselves for our security?

I wish I had more time to write. I dont though.

I would like an answer to one thing. What is wrong with listening and obeying the Constitution? Not one of those politicians believe in it other than Ron Paul. Its just business as usual to them and I believe to you too.

No offense.

63

Lincoln is even quoted as saying that if he could "preserve the Union" without freeing the slaves, he would do so.

The South seceded over a perceived threat to slavery. Read the writings of the founders of the Confederacy (Alexander Stephens and Robert Toombs are good examples) and you will find that the reason the South seceded was slavery. Lincoln went to war initially to preserve the Union, though eventually freeing the slaves became a purpose of the War. So no slavery, no secession, no Civil War (or War of Northern Aggression), it's silly to argue otherwise.

The real story here is how intellectually bankrupt the right has become during the Bush years and the resurgance of the left's intellectual quality.

Ron Paul is a fringe candidate; he is no more representative of the right than the CPUSA is of the left. And where is this resurgence of intellect on the left? What new ideas do they have? National health care? Pull out of Iraq and damn the consequences (Vietnam redux)? Higher taxes on the rich? Please, it's like Democrats are running on a Labor Party platform from the 1960's.

64

I believe he also said the rest of the civilized world gave up their slaves with out civil war.

That's nice, but it is also irrelevant.

Seeing as how all of our money is manipulated by powerful bankers that also operate the media and military industrial complex.. Keeping a gold standard is good FOR OUR SECURITY.

Wealthy bankers were able to manipulate our currency when we were on the Gold Standard too. In 2001, 2500 tons of gold was mined with a value of $24 billion. Our economy is currently about $13 trillion per year, or more than 500 times the value of all the gold mined worldwide each year. How do you propose we monetize our economy using gold? Revalue the currency at 0.001% of its current value?

65

Joe, your opposition to Ron Paul's views seems to be based on an erroneous "pragmaticism" about what is realistic, and a failure to understand the political philosophy behind the U.S. Constitution. As a member of the Constitution Party, I support Ron Paul candidacy. Eventually, on my blog, I'll use this post to respond to "conservative" concerns about Dr. Paul. Thanks for posting it. Sadly, the utopians are those who think non-constitutionalist policies and programs (and Departments) are legitimate, healthy or viable in the long run. Since we're friends, I'll stop short of calling you a "lunatic"... but your take on Ron Paul is definitely looney.

66

Nothing is so infuriating to me as to be considered child out of libertarianism. I can be called a communist or a fascist and remain completely unperturbed, but being considered a child is next to unforgivable! Why? If being an adult means anything, it of course means no longer being dependent on one's parents. And what does libertarianism mean at its very least? Independence of the government!

Try saying with a straight face that the IRS is a legitimate and necessary institution when: the US managed perfectly well without a permanent income tax for 126 years; income tax was formerly an idea advocated only by Marxists (it essentially means we do not own our labor); it is theft no matter how you look at it (it's called the Eighth Commandment, Joe! Read the Bible!). You say the federal government cannot be funded without the IRS. Well, duh. The idea is to cut down the government to only what is explicitly permitted by the constitution.

You say that the economy would collapse if we moved to gold-based money. How totally ignorant. Do you seriously believe that debt-based money is stable? Let me tell you about the FDA: it is a central private bank (this is no conspiracy, they're quite open about it) that prints paper, calls it money, lends it, and charges interest, essentially making money out of nothing. It is an exemplary instance of corruption.

It is patently absurd how conservatives can support King George's foreign policy while they have historically been against interventionism as such. Reagan won over the Soviets simply by stocking missiles and holding his ground, yet an obscure bunch of muslims armed with box cutters and squirt guns are a threat to national security. You say that the whole world would collapse if the US stopped its meddling. What hubris! When did we become god? Saying that only we can protect the weak is extremely condescending. Rather it is far more effective, ethical, and economic to allow others to simply grow up and defend themselves. As for the UN and NATO, simply consider what they are: poor countries being parasites on the lives and wealth of Americans.

You might accuse me of being uncompassionate. How does forcing our taxpayers to support people they've never met qualify as charity, when charity universally begins with individual initiative. Ultimately there is nothing more charitable than allowing people to live freely without being dependent on anyone.

It's easy enough to dismiss libertarianism as mere utopianism (after all, freedom means responsibility so it's natural for people like Joe who fear it). But I submit that it (in the minarchist sense anyway) is an inherently Christian ideology. Consider: the objective of Christianity is to free us from sin, and the objective of libertarianism is to free us from government dependency (i.e. we are trust in God alone, never in m