Why shouldn't I vote for Ron Paul? - Page 3

I don't want to make it into a pissing contest, at all. You're not discussing, you're posting rafts of links. With all this new information, how do you now feel about Ron Paul as a presidential candidate?

Ron Paul voted against going to war with Iraq, and yes, he is for withdrawal from our other military engagements. 

 

It's worth asking why he holds these views.  It's because he's an isolationist.  Now, even if you don't think such a foreign policy outlook is prima facie unreasonable in the modern, globalized world, you have to acknowledge that it represents a complete 180 from our current foreign policy platform.  You also have to acknowledge that foreign policy is the one thing the executive branch is unbeholden to Congress for, making isolationism something Paul could actually do.

 

He is against all taxes, at least in principle.  He wants to dismantle every government agency.  Why?  Because he has an unrealistic view of free markets.  He thinks that they are perfectly capable of regulating themselves.  Again, even if you don't think such views of the free market are prima facie unreasonable, you must acknowledge that basing policy on such views will take this country in a completely different direction.  At the very least it will lead to chronic side-shows between the executive and legislative branches that make the current gridlock look like a picnic.

 

He believes that we should return to the gold standard.  This alone should disqualify him for the presidency.  It's pure crackpottery.  He is a sincere, honest, and decent guy.  I like him as a person.  His views are worth being heard.  But he's so out there in terms of his views on the virtues of free markets, and returning to the gold standard, that putting him in the role of the presidency would be enormously disruptive.  We need a forward thinking technocrat, right or left (preferably left), not some quixotic laissez-faire idealist.

Where have I attacked you, aside from a bit of ribbing about your love of Whedon? Jesus, are you sensitive.

I'm sorry if that offended you. It wasn't meant as an insult - I think it's pretty easy to get seduced by the social values Paul pays lip service to whilst forgetting how he would damage the lower classes.

Regardless of what he may say on the campaign trail, abstaining from political and economic relations with other countries is EXACTLY the position Paul has championed for years.

 

And I can't seriously believe you need the craziness of the gold standard explaining to you.

 

Ok, semantics.  I know he doesn't want to end political and economic relations with foreign countries.  Non-interventionism is itself a U-turn from current policy.  I am asking you first to acknowledge that much.  We're talking about a very, very different role for America in geopolitics.  Once you acknowledge that, then we have to ask, would it be a good thing?  I don't think it would.  I believe it's incredibly myopic to think we can protect our national interests without exerting our influence on various nations and international bodies.  I think a strong United States is in the world's interests, say what you will about our various misdeeds.  But that's the locus of the conversation: Is America's global influence something that should be used for national, and international benefit?

 

Why is the gold standard crazy?

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40088925/Roubini_Here_s_Why_a_Gold_Standard_Won_t_Work

Time To Renounce The United Nations? by Ron Paul

 

Get Out of the WTO by Ron Paul

 

 

re: the gold standard:

What you're seeing in Europe right now, with Greece, Italy, France, unable to reduce their debt burden/increase competitiveness through inflation is a consequence of being pegged to the Euro, which is acting as a quasi-gold standard.  Having their own currency would make the European debt crisis much more manageable.

Nothing, Barry?

The ability that the use of federal notes grants banks to create money is essential to what upward mobilty our country has. That's where I was going on the first page, before a more amusing diversion cropped up.

I'm sure we can be civil if we care to here. I'll confess that I have a soft spot for Barry; I remember his first day here came during one of Devin's "I wish all these goddamn people would quit using the message board" mood swings, and sticking around after that first impression shows character.

Jesus Barry, you're obviously not looking for a discussion because you're only listening to one side of the argument while seeing the other as either hyperbole or an attack. How else was a thread you may as well have entitled "Burst my bubble for me - go on I dare ya", not going to turn into a pissing contest in your eyes? Anyone that disagrees with your new found crush is of course going to be treated sniffily from you.

 

What info would it have taken for you NOT to vote for Paul by the end of this thread? Selling poisoned milk to school children?

Why shouldn't you vote for Ron Paul?  Because he cannot defend or even articulate the most basic of his libertarian principles. 

 

The last interview he did with Stewart settled it for me, and it was almost sad the way he was whiffing at the softballs being lobbed at him.  Which really is too bad, because I agree with many of his published stances.  But at this point, he's doing himself more harm than good whenever he starts talking.

That was the conclusion I arrived at when I did my own little journey of curiosity, back when LaRouche ran in '92. If it looks like cutting off the heads of the hydra, it might be because Libertarianism is full of holes and wilts in direct sunlight.

Anyone who seriously believes that we shouldn't have a central bank doesn't deserve a seat at the big kid's table.  It's a ludicrous, crackpot idea.  If you want to outsource control of your currency to Peru and other countries with significant gold reserves, you're not thinking straight.

 

 

And you seriously can't see what might make him a little sketchy? And why some folks aren't too keen on him?

 

 

This libertarian angle on property rights is probably why I find them so insufferable in general. We're a big giant fucking melting pot of a nation, and while we're all individuals and should be able to express ourselves and live our lifes the way we see fit? Sometimes we also have to fucking suck things up and make sure others that are different might be comfortable as well. And at the end of the day, that means Bob might have problems owning a bar that says "No blacks" allowed, and that's just a general good thing for society.

 

 

Also? In that interview he calls the Jim Crow era "Anicent History" as if it's something we've put behind us, gotten over, and moved along from. It should automatically earn him a big badge that says "Out of touch White Man"

 

 

 

Founding father, great intellectual, fascinating figure, owner of a rapier wit, owner of black people as property.

 

I'm just sayin' dude wasn't perfect.

 

And a product of his times.

 

 

But... but that's awful.

 

Dude, I know WHAT he thinks.  I just explained to you why it's crazy.  That link does not respond to a single argument for WHY a return to the gold standard is an awful, awful idea.

 

 

 

Ok.  One more time.  Switching to the gold standard, right now, or via an extended transition.  BAD IDEA.  Economists don't think the gold standard is a bad idea because it's impractical to switch to it, they think it's a bad idea because it creates an inflexible currency.  I know he thinks the dollar is headed for a collapse....  despite all evidence to the contrary.  It's because he doesn't understand economics.
 

 

He's done nothing but study economics his whole life? 

Let me add: hahahahaha.

 

I'm assuming this is in addition to the years of study and specialization it takes to become an OBGYN

As everyone knows, Milton Friedman is a notorious Keneysian...

I voraciously read everything I can on artificial intelligence, that doesn't make me a computer neurobiologist. 

A lifetime of study of one's narrow focus of interest is not a true education on a given subject.  

And you're making the assumption that he has.

Barry, you obviously buy into Paul's ideology on the fed and the dollar.  That in and of itself makes him the only candidate for you.  I don't think you're looking to be convinced, I think you're looking to see how well you can respond to the criticisms of your vote.  That's not a totally ignoble goal, I've done it, it's a fun rhetorical exercise, but it's mental masturbation I'm not interested in participating in.

You realize Thomas Jefferson was against a central bank (and banks in general) because, among other reasons, he hated Alexander Hamilton, was against the federal government assuming the debts of the individual states to avoid empowering a strong central government, and he was a southern land holder and thus hostile to the merchant class of the north?

 

Please, son.  For every Jefferson quote condemning one thing, I can find you one where he praises that same thing.  

 

Justice Holmes better explained what's really going on with private property:

 

"Property, a creation of law, does not arise from value, although exchangeable -- a matter of fact."  INS v. AP.

 

It's a bit of a haiku, so let Cass Sunstein explain to you what Holmes meant:

 

"What Holmes is saying here is that even though property is exchangeable, it doesn't arise from value; it's a creation of law. And that's simply a matter of fact. With these sixteen words, Holmes captured much of the legal realist critique of laissez-faire -- and a key part of legal thinking between 1890 and 1930. A system of free markets isn't law-free; it depends on law. Property rights, as we enjoy and live them, are a creation of law; they don't predate law."

 

This is why, at the end of the day, the libertarian view on private property is full of shit.

 

 

Not to mention the fact that the economists whose degrees you seem to discount did a lot more than sit around and read about different economic thoughts in order to earn their credentials. They wrote, extensively. They researched and analyzed. They discussed, debated, and were challenged by other economic experts throughout their education. An education, which, for many of the economists we actually pay attention to regarding matters such as this, consists of much more than a bachelor's degree from their closest state school.

 

There's a reason why very few people with that level of education and experience in the field are full fledged libertarians. It's a deeply flawed system of thought, despite having some attractive qualities.

Does it? I'd love to see a youtube video of him debating and discussing these issues with some well-respected economists. And I'm not being a smartass, if you can dig that up, please post it.

Barry Woodward

See what you did there? You're attacking what you assume he believes and not what he actually believes (I see no quote). Obviously he doesn't think the poor and weak deserve no protection, he just questions what role the government should play.

 

Cylon Baby

 

So here's one test of Libertarianism: So you think that Government shouldn't/can't support the poor and weak? What about non-profits, Churches, community organizations? Are Ron Paul and other prominent Libertarians, involved with such organizations? Do they promote charity in the abstract or specific causes/organizations? I honestly do not know the answer but am very curious.

 

Same is true of private corporations, which can't exist without a government charter. 

"... and how he voraciously reads everything he can on the subject."

 

I'd say a lot of us here read everything we can find on a lot of subjects. In itself, it doesn't necessarily make us competent, let alone experts in any particular area.

 

...Dad?