Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Tas

Naturally there is nothing unfair about someone purchasing the Hummer H3 to replace the mint Escalade they have because the wheels on it are bigger. Instead of youknow, giving to charity that in turn will give people the money they need to LIVE.

Not unfair.. just.. brutally selfish?

Of course it is selfish. I just don't think it is within anyone's rights to force someone to be unselfish.

[Tas]

I respect your views, but it has killed, kills, and will kill in the future. How can you live with that knowledge?

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Tas

I respect your views, but it has killed, kills, and will kill in the future. How can you live with that knowledge?

By knowing that I am still being the best person I can be in my own life without trying to force my beliefs and opinions on others. And it's not like I LIKE the fact people are selfish, it's not like I LIKE the fact people die every day because they can't eat a decent meal or drink clean water. I just don't think force is the way to end it. I think it's possible that in the future we could change people themselves instead so they are more giving(and I mean though social change, not through conditioning or anything like that) instead of forcing them to give. Forcing someone to give doesn't make them a better person, it just embitters them more to the concept of giving and makes them more selfish outside of that forced charity. I believe that as individuals it is our duty to try to get people to be kinder and better people, but we can't force them to do so.

[Tas]

It's funny how one can sound so pessimistic and optimistic at the same time.

Have you considered the idea that you might be a tad naive in believing the more generous, caring and not-so-ignorant will someday "turn" the cheap, uncaring and ignorant.. when this has never occurred?
That social impact of "dooming" the poor to.. centuries, maybe millennia of poverty, sickness and simple jobs and lives, could very well kill the possibility of this utopia of yours ever taking place?

I wouldn’t be so quick to cut everyone loose and hope for the best.

/sleep

[Relander]

Like other people here have pointed out, Ron Paul is a libertarian so his views on federal programs isn't a surprise. However, he's a flawed candidate for many other reasons:

1. Has stated that the US troops should be pulled out immediately, at once, without providing any specific plan for this while leaving Iraq into state of chaos.

2. Voted NO on giving almost 600 000 D.C. residents a Congressman with voting power and electoral vote to affect on presidential elections. Seems that democratic decision-making and equal representation of the people isn't that important.

3. Voted NO requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations and banning soft money & issue ads, voted YES on unlimited campaign contributions. Maintaining the current corrupt system and even making it worse won't turn the US politics into better nor restore people's faith or interest on politics.

4. Has distinct anti-environmentalist record, counting everything on strong property rights (can you buy air space, is it right to pollute the ocean if you own it?)

5. Believes on little to none gun control & regulation, this surely would help the authorities to bring the crime down, enhance the communities and lessen school shootings.

6. Effectively promotes political & partially economic isolation from world affairs by supporting withdrawal from the World Bank, WTO and the UN in addition to pulling out ALL troops from foreign countries back to the USA. All this goes against the best interests of the USA and even the world to some extent. His negative stance on foreign aid won't make the world a better place either.

Not to mention that bringing down virtually all federal programs would have serious negative effects on the society, especially on those who aren't doing "just fine". Laissez-faire market economy would most likely divide the society into minority of elite individuals and majority of poor people: I think there are many people supporting Paul who hardly realize his strong pro-market policies but especially the dare consequences that would follow them, seeing just his pro-civil rights, limited government and get-out-Iraq stances. Not to mention that blind obedience & fanatical interpretation to the Constitution that was written over 200 years ago in very different conditions doesn't sound that wise when you think about it. I mean it.


Ron Paul has next to zero chances of winning the Republican nomination, no matter what Paul-fanatics want to believe. First off he seriously trails the front-runners in fundraising and has very little national recognition to make up the lack of money, and second off the mass media favours front-runners. Furthermore, there are many other distinct candidates around and the people still have some faith on the Democrats & Republicans. Strong internet presence of Paul don't mean much when most of the voters get their information from other medias and young people is known to be politically passive group. Strong internet presence didn't help Howard Dean at 2004 to win the Democratic nomination.

But "luckily" when Ron Paul don't win the nomination his fans will simply brush it off by saying that the votes were rigged, American people are totally stupid & ignorant and/or the USA doesn't deserve him while many of these fans return to passive, irresponsible path of no-voting. Way to go people, way to go.

P.S. Don't wonder, I'm on night shift so I have plenty of time to write replies.

[Sedistix]

I was all for Ron Paul, even spamming references to him on myspace and other outlets. That is until I did my research into his ideas on the issues jeff brought up here. I’m pro-choice, and I’m against religion in every conceivable sense.

[n0e]

without loans and help, many college students would not be able to afford to go to college at all. Anything above the grade school level in the US is not free education and must be paid for, and quite often it's a premium. This in itself is an example of what he wants to propose for all levels of school. In essence, if his policies are used, that would create a divide between the poor and wealthy as large as the grand canyon and in the same scale the middle class would be virtually non existent. Those that would be considered in that class wouldn't be able to afford to go to college and therefore not earn a middle class level or above income job as many require a college level degree. The guy is no doubt a pampered little twit that never had to pay for anything in his life that made him worry if he would have to risk other bills to pay it off, like most people. Wait until you're off to college and ask if it would be nice to get those federal loans. They help greatly. I'd much rather see the military budget and the education budget make a switch and remove this doctrine that we're the world police and just have a force that can focus on protecting our borders.

[masked_marsoe]

Originally Posted by Chemix2

If you are there to serve, then you shouldn't need a half a million dollar per year income for doing practically nothing. I do believe they should be paid, but a more reasonable amount, something around 100,000 at most.

That's actually one of the policies of one of the far-left parties here - tying politicians pay to that of first-year teachers. If the MPs want a payrise, they also have to raise teacher's pay.

And by now you will have found the major flaw in libertarian thinking. Giving people free access to weapons and drugs, while destroying their quality of life and incomes will turn people to crime and gangs, and any semblance of social cohesion will be destroyed. Libertarianism is the fast track to Bolshevism.

[WiseBobo]

I will actually respond to this because I find it worthwhile.

Originally Posted by Relander

2. Voted NO on giving almost 600 000 D.C. residents a Congressman with voting power and electoral vote to affect on presidential elections. Seems that democratic decision-making and equal representation of the people isn't that important.

That's the catch-22 of living in D.C.; it's not a state so it does not have state power. It would be somewhat conflicting to give electorate power in a voting province with career politicians.

3. Voted NO requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations and banning soft money & issue ads, voted YES on unlimited campaign contributions. Maintaining the current corrupt system and even making it worse won't turn the US politics into better nor restore people's faith or interest on politics.

According to Freakonomics, money contributions to campaigns does not significantly change the outcome of elections between canidates. Lobbying in congress is more of a problem than election campaigns. All of the legislation to stop this does not make a difference if the same people are constantly elected.

4. Has distinct anti-environmentalist record, counting everything on strong property rights (can you buy air space, is it right to pollute the ocean if you own it?)

"Pro-environment" regulation only hurts U.S. Businesses and workers. We cannot effect the major polluters in the world because they happen to be over in India and China. It is pointless to pass many environmentally friendly regulations (such as the hybrid car carpool lane access, mandatory light bulbs) but pollution is another story.

5. Believes on little to none gun control & regulation, this surely would help the authorities to bring the crime down, enhance the communities and lessen school shootings.

I have shown you this to be wrong many times. Gun Facts - Your guide for debunking gun control myth

An armed society is a polite society. Less guns = more crime. You can look up individual state crime rights here in the U.S. and the rising violent crime in Australia and Britain since gun bans.

Gun bans only prevent the law-abiding from owning firearms, not the criminals who use them to commit the overwhelming majority of firearm crimes.Enhance communities is rhetoric.

School shootings happen more often thanks to gun laws; all of the victims at Virginia Tech played by the rules and were killed. Gun-free zones = shooting fish in a barrel. Not surprisingly, no one here mentions the shootings in a Utah mall were the man going on a killing rampage was shot by a citizen with a concealed carry permit for a handgun.


6. Effectively promotes political & partially economic isolation from world affairs by supporting withdrawal from the World Bank, WTO and the UN in addition to pulling out ALL troops from foreign countries back to the USA. All this goes against the best interests of the USA and even the world to some extent. His negative stance on foreign aid won't make the world a better place either.

The World Bank is an extremely corrupt organization. They have repeatedly toyed around and inflated prices of what once were government-run resources companies down in South America. The U.N. is worthless as it pushes sensational political agendas down its members throats. Until times of war I believe the majority of the Army should be here in the states protecting our borders.

Not to mention that bringing down virtually all federal programs would have serious negative effects on the society, especially on those who aren't doing "just fine". Laissez-faire market economy would most likely divide the society into minority of elite individuals and majority of poor people: I think there are many people supporting Paul who hardly realize his strong pro-market policies but especially the dare consequences that would follow them, seeing just his pro-civil rights, limited government and get-out-Iraq stances. Not to mention that blind obedience & fanatical interpretation to the Constitution that was written over 200 years ago in very different conditions doesn't sound that wise when you think about it. I mean it.

This is quite debatable. History has repeatedly shown that less government in the market is a good thing. Many of the federal funding programs that are built on socialist principles are corrupt and broken; we both touched upon this in the president thread. I don't disagree with the notion of helping others, but 40% of one's income going to taxes is ridiculous; taxes spent on a broke and fraud-ridden system. I don't trust company CEOs anymore than I do politicians, BUT "wants" has always been a driving factor behind why capitalism produces greater results than ones that are nearly completely run by the government.

The Constitution must be followed at all times. The government must have rules and there are certain principles that should never be 'updated' for the sake of the times or progression. The Bill of Rights belongs chiefly in this category as well as many other parts of the Constitution.


Ron Paul has next to zero chances of winning the Republican nomination, no matter what Paul-fanatics want to believe. First off he seriously trails the front-runners in fundraising and has very little national recognition to make up the lack of money, and second off the mass media favours front-runners. Furthermore, there are many other distinct candidates around and the people still have some faith on the Democrats & Republicans. Strong internet presence of Paul don't mean much when most of the voters get their information from other medias and young people is known to be politically passive group. Strong internet presence didn't help Howard Dean at 2004 to win the Democratic nomination.

Howard Dean was a crackpot. That played a major role in him not getting elected. I don't believe that Ron Paul will win the nomination either because many Americans are apathetic towards the voting process. On top of this, I believe Thompson will come out in front of the many RHINOs and pseudo-conservatives.

But "luckily" when Ron Paul don't win the nomination his fans will simply brush it off by saying that the votes were rigged, American people are totally stupid & ignorant and/or the USA doesn't deserve him while many of these fans return to passive, irresponsible path of no-voting. Way to go people, way to go.

There are many conspiracy theorists out there who support Ron Paul, but you cannot blame him for that.

P.S.

Where do you work?

[WiseBobo]

Originally Posted by masked_marsoe

That's actually one of the policies of one of the far-left parties here - tying politicians pay to that of first-year teachers. If the MPs want a payrise, they also have to raise teacher's pay.

And by now you will have found the major flaw in libertarian thinking. Giving people free access to weapons and drugs, while destroying their quality of life and incomes will turn people to crime and gangs, and any semblance of social cohesion will be destroyed. Libertarianism is the fast track to Bolshevism.

This is complete and utter crap. It's funny the amount of anti-capitalist rhetoric I find here that is not based in reality.

In a libertarian system, companies that do not pay their workers adequately enough will be replaced by companies that will. It's an extremely simple concept. Inequalities will be sorted out by the nature of the market and the yields that fair wages give. Punishing a CEO for having a company that makes him profit for the idea he started is garbage. If the CEO makes too much money and the workers do not, they will simply leave. The only problem I foresee are monopolies and companies that are price gouging; for that I believe there should be minimal protection.

It's the same concept of minimum wage. Small companies being forced to higher fewer employees with higher wages than more with a smaller wage. Prices of items go up because of the increase in costs to keep the businesses running while fewer people can make money. Not a good concept.

Giving people "free access to weapons and drugs" is hardly an issue that can be wrapped up in a single sentence. First off, by weapons I will infer that you believe this to be firearms. Gun Facts - Your guide for debunking gun control myth Read it, Learn it, Live it. The majority of people committing violent crimes here in my country (where firearms are the most widely available, legally) are repeat, violent offenders back out on the streets. They are back on the streets for a multitude of reasons, one of which is that people who partake in victimless crimes (drug use and prostitution) have to be housed and taken care of. The only argument I believe makes sense against drugs is that parents should have no legal justification for use, or extremely heavy and dangerous drugs. I don't fear the pot smoker as much as I do the gang empires that make their living selling illegal drugs under the table. Bring that to legal status and their power is removed. It is either that, or severe punishment for gang involvement.

So I fail to understand your argument that giving people the option to do what they want without hurting others is "bolshevism". Bolshevism has absolutely nothing to do with what you have attempted to describe, either. I suspect that you meant "anarchy", as bolshevism falls under communism which is on the extreme opposite wing of libertarianism. You do not trust man enough to be capable of taking care of himself or do things to himself which harms no one else, but you feel the government, operated by man, to be capable of running an effective system and control others.

Either you trust people or you do not. If the majority of people were inherently evil and immoral, the world would be far shittier than it is.