Let's Talk About Ron Paul

[Galleleo]

I did read it.. but I dont really have anything to add to this discussion. Well, I did add something but people tend to ignore what I post.

[Kolar]

Tariffs ensure that foreign products must be either made from materials we cannot produce or technologies we do not possess. If it is something that we already make ourselves, than there is no need to buy them from overseas as shipping costs and tariffs will always outweigh profit earned from domestic manufacturers. This accomplishes two things: it ensures that we have REAL jobs at home which produce items themselves instead of just selling the goods of others, and it makes sure that we do not benefit from the horrible working conditions abroad.

Sorry but this doesn't seem to me to be in the interest of free market policies. I don't think this is what a Libertarian would support. They argue for no protection and no interference into the private sector.

"Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs" Ref 21

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone not interested in the fair treatment of workers of any nation. But I have to ask wouldn't a piece of legislation from one country being imposed on another like Mexico or Canada be worse then the current situation? Republicans especially but also some Democrats would argue for the use of political power to influence social and political happenings in other countries. To me it seems to be against what Ron Paul is talking about, even with the best intentions like improving working conditions in the third world.

I think the point I am getting at is I like Ron Paul as a politician, he's more honest then any of them for the past 50 years, he votes consistently and he's not a sell out. But I don't like his ideas or policies and when it comes time to decide who to vote for I believe their political views, not their personality type, should play a more prominent role. I think some of you guys need to understand his position a little better and the position of the Libertarian movement before jumping on the bandwagon.

[Vatican Assassin]

Sorry but this doesn't seem to me to be in the interest of free market policies. I don't think this is what a Libertarian would support. They argue for no protection and no interference into the private sector. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone not interested in the fair treatment of workers of any nation. But I have to ask wouldn't a piece of legislation from one country being imposed on another like Mexico or Canada be worse then the current situation? Republicans especially but also some Democrats would argue for the use of political power to influence social and political happenings in other countries. To me it seems to be against what Ron Paul is talking about, even with the best intentions like improving working conditions in the third world.

I would never try to impose laws on another country, I was just pointing out the fact that free market agreements make it lawful to take advantage of poor conditions unimpeded. Before NAFTA, tariffs acted as a barrier.

You originally asked why I opposed NAFTA, so I did not answer for a libertarian or Ron Paul. Would Paul allow a reinstitution of tariffs if NAFTA were removed? Being a libertarian, he probably wouldn't. If I were to answer your original question with Ron Paul's point of view, I would have said no to NAFTA for what it is likely to become as you suggested, and infringe on each of our country’s sovereignty. You say libertarians do not want government interfering with economics. That is very true, but what's even worse to Ron Paul is economics interfering in government. Here is his statement on the issue, tell me what you think about it:

"The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme."

[Kolar]

I only asked because you are a supporter of Ron Paul but appeared to not understand his position on many issues. He would allow non protectionist tariffs to be in place meaning they could still tax imported materials and products but not to the benefit of any domestic or foreign business sector, the auto industry for example.

I believe the WTO is abused by all parties. The MPAA and the RIAA put pressure on the US to threaten other countries (like Canada and the Netherlands) where piracy is high, even if the intellectual property laws of that nation does not address it. And I don't think it's a concern of real people either.

[Vatican Assassin]

I only asked because you are a supporter of Ron Paul but appeared to not understand his position on many issues.

I just stated that when you asked "Do you only oppose NAFTA on the basis..." I answered for myself, not for Ron Paul. I do not have to agree with all of a canidated policies, that would be almost impossible, to still think he is the best choice. And although Ron Paul is a libertarian, he does not have to agree with every libertarian issue to be considered one. What are the other "many issues" to which you refer that I am not understanding?

[Kolar]

Mostly his economic polices but I think it's clear now. I still believe that people should examine the political positions of each candidate to make the best decision for their own situation. I don't believe picking one over another simply because you believe they are more honest or trustworthy would be beneficial. Politics is not an honest profession.

[Reaver]

Mostly his economic polices but I think it's clear now. I still believe that people should examine the political positions of each candidate to make the best decision for their own situation. I don't believe picking one over another simply because you believe they are more honest or trustworthy would be beneficial. Politics is not an honest profession.

If you're referencing me, I only make the point that Ron Paul is an honest person and stands out amongst other candidates as so, and that it should be considered as important, but not as the sole criteria on which someone would vote for that candidate. After all, what good is it if a Candidate's platform matches your own beliefs but they don't stick to their word?

[Epinephrine]

But this is besides the point.

I think you should learn to read.

Reaver basically agreed with what I said:

Epi, I don't think America should be policing the World. We should be protecting our borders at home, and reducing poverty in America. It's ridiculous how many bases we've got in other countries and even more are being built. America cannot financially carry the burden of helping the World

I said, that America doesn't actually police the world, it just does interventions to it's own benefit, so therefore the common suggestion that 'America should stop helping the world' is wrong, as it is helping no one but itself ("police" in a democratic society like America means to instill order for the benefit of the local people). Reaver replies with "America cannot financially carry the burden of helping the World", therefore confirming the fact that I explicitly said that most people who say 'america should not police the world' are referring to the fact that America has no business spending money to help people around the world that don't appreciate it.

The fact is Reaver is plain and absolutely wrong, because America doesn't have troops around the world to generally help other people, it does it purely to help itself and it's own interests. So pulling back America's military might from around the world would actually be a detriment. One example would be my citing of the US Navy which does more to protect american economic interests than any other part of the military through the policing of shipping lanes and keeping ports from being blockaded.


Secondly, I never said that no income taxes leads to no civil rights. You need to learn to read yet again. What I did say was that it's stupid that the big reason people say 'we don't need an income tax' is because 'we didn't have one in 1900 and the country worked fine'. Well my examples about civil rights are that the world is completely different from 1900. Income taxes make up 40-50% of the government's revenue. Without this money, vital programs would have to be cut off completely. Kolar's breakdown shows it quite clearly. Furthermore the argument that 'income taxes are not in the constitution' and 'not in 1900' further reflect a basic conservative view (and Ron Paul's view) that we should return to exactly what the constitution says. Well if you do that, you should also strip civil rights, universal sufferage and many more things, because hey... the founders never cared about those things either, and those things weren't specifically protected in the constitution in 1776.

Basically it's a sham argument, and not an argument at all.


I stand by my original statement that you are mentally deranged.

[Epinephrine]

Don't compare Ron Paul to Tom Cruise heh, the comparison isn't even close. To make a bold claim that someone's ideas are crazy without systematically proving them to be so is not you Epi, or is it?

What good is it to elect a candidate with a good platform if they're untrustworthy to do as they promised? George Bush had a good platform to run on and he completely flip-flopped. Maybe this election people will learn from their mistakes.

Before I start on Paul, remember that Bush campaigned on conservative judges, tax cuts, and a new education bill, all of which were achieved. Bush did his platform, he just had a crappy platform. And 9/11 was the big wrench that changed things from his platform as well. Besides, before he was elected, many people would have stood out to say Bush was trustworthy and bipartisan.



As for Ron Paul, I debated this extensively with Jerome on the universal healthcare thread a month ago for a very long time. But here I will sum it up again. From http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ :

1) American Independence
He talks bad about the WTO, which was American created to instill the American system of economics onto the world. The system which is mostly run by America, and benefits America the most. What an idiot.

He talks about the NAFTA Superhighway, it's not even going to happen LOL.

2) Immigration
He'd 'secure' the borders whatever that means (berlin wall around Mexico?). And then round up 10-20 million illegals. Yes that's going to be VERrrrry constructive.

3) Debt
"In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. "

Is he serious? He wants to cancel the Fed and go back to the gold standard or whatever form what I get from you guys on this forum. The economic implications are just stupid. There isn't nearly enough gold to certify American money. Either the economy contracts by about 1/1000 of it's current size, or maybe American money will be worth less than pesos.

4) Environment
His way to stop global warming is to allow private citizens to 'sue' polluters. Not only would this clog up the courts, it would be useless. You can't sue everyone, and most private citizens don't have enough money or time to sue smaller polluters. You also can't sue other countries.

5) Health Care
I support universal healthcare, he does not. I think he's against abortions too, and I'm all for it.

6) Health Freedom
Yikes he sounds like Jerome here. Yeah I'm sure the industry would be well regulated without a regulating body... kind of like pharmaceuticals in China

7) Home Schooling
"I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students."

Yikes, so now you have millions of kids running around with substandard educations becuase their parents are crazy? That's not fair to the kids.

8) Life and Liberty
I am all for freedom of choice in abortion.

9) Privacy
The only part I agree with

10) Racism
I don't see how he will end it. Sounds like crap to mee.

11) Social Security
Okay that's fine. But how are we going to pay for it without income taxes? Cut everything else from government?

12) Weapons
Oh great he wants more people to have assault weapons. Grrreeeeat idea.

13) War

"Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."

That's nice... except the US is on the security council with a veto. In fact the US uses the UN to legitimize it's wars, not the other way around. All in all it sounds like rhetoric to me.



There you have it, it's almost all BS.

[Vatican Assassin]

At least I do not feel the need to refer to someone with a different opinion as a deranged idiot.

[Cops]

13) War

"Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."

That's nice... except the US is on the security council with a veto. In fact the US uses the UN to legitimize it's wars, not the other way around. All in all it sounds like rhetoric to me.



There you have it, it's almost all BS.

I completly agree, if America feels something is unjustified they just Veto it and it's not-their-problem. Basically Ron Paul turned around the UN to be the antagonist and the current American government to be the protagonist by simply flipping their current roles (UN is the problem not the US government).

If Ron's talking about current wars then maybe people need to remember that the UN never backed Iraq and Bush, Bush is by definition a war criminal and should be tried for this crime, but that is wishful thinking at best. I'll give Ron credit he took wars and even possibly Iraq and did an awesome job at spinning it around so the average citizen (who doesn't know their cock from their balls) think that international community is the reason why the US goes to war more than it should. Although like any rational person knows the United Nations Emergency Force or (UNEF) has done some amazing things (Rwanda , Darfur). The problem is UNEF is given a short leash and most missions are so beat down with bureaucracy that they can't save or help as many people as they should and are able to do. This is why the UN fails at times, but don't get me wrong when the UN fails it's not because the UN failed it's because we as countries and societies failed.

If anything I think it's imperative that America still feels like there's an international community to answer to, not that they listen anyways. If Canada, or any other country for that matter started a war with any country without getting backing from the UN then it would probably be the US who would be the first one to answer the call and lay a massive beat down. I don't want to live in a world where America isn't part of the UN, even if Ron Paul is sincere and wouldn't turn tyrannical it still leaves an opening for the president to follow to abuse the fact that he is not part of any international body. Think long term not just short term guys, I know a lot of you want things to change in America but is digressing from a legitimate International Community that has a lot of good to offer a great idea? You guys hold a power stick in that community as well, why would you want to give that up?

[Reaver]

I think you should learn to read.

Reaver basically agreed with what I said:



I said, that America doesn't actually police the world, it just does interventions to it's own benefit, so therefore the common suggestion that 'America should stop helping the world' is wrong, as it is helping no one but itself ("police" in a democratic society like America means to instill order for the benefit of the local people). Reaver replies with "America cannot financially carry the burden of helping the World", therefore confirming the fact that I explicitly said that most people who say 'america should not police the world' are referring to the fact that America has no business spending money to help people around the world that don't appreciate it.

The fact is Reaver is plain and absolutely wrong, because America doesn't have troops around the world to generally help other people, it does it purely to help itself and it's own interests. So pulling back America's military might from around the world would actually be a detriment. One example would be my citing of the US Navy which does more to protect american economic interests than any other part of the military through the policing of shipping lanes and keeping ports from being blockaded.


Secondly, I never said that no income taxes leads to no civil rights. You need to learn to read yet again. What I did say was that it's stupid that the big reason people say 'we don't need an income tax' is because 'we didn't have one in 1900 and the country worked fine'. Well my examples about civil rights are that the world is completely different from 1900. Income taxes make up 40-50% of the government's revenue. Without this money, vital programs would have to be cut off completely. Kolar's breakdown shows it quite clearly. Furthermore the argument that 'income taxes are not in the constitution' and 'not in 1900' further reflect a basic conservative view (and Ron Paul's view) that we should return to exactly what the constitution says. Well if you do that, you should also strip civil rights, universal sufferage and many more things, because hey... the founders never cared about those things either, and those things weren't specifically protected in the constitution in 1776.

Basically it's a sham argument, and not an argument at all.


I stand by my original statement that you are mentally deranged.

Epi, I didn't change anything to agree with you, re-read what I originally said. You were arguing against a point you thought I was making but I wasn't. I never made the point that America was doing good around the World and we should stop because people don't appreciate that. You said that, not me. When I talk about the good America has done around the World, I'm talking about donations of food to Africa. I readily admit that America is involved in many operations where it's doing nothing but looking out for itself. I haven't argued otherwise and yet you spend over a paragraph proving a point which I never said I disagreed with or pointed otherwise. America has done little good around the World, my point was that we need to stop all of it, the little amount of good we're doing and all of the bad. And you keep inferring what you say most Americans say or believe, and quoting me, and throwing me in with those generalizations.


Your point about removing suffrage because it wasn't in the constitution is weak at best. We can easily revert back to the constitution and still keep those important movements in mind. Nobody here (nor Ron Paul) is suggesting that we remove women's suffrage rights or any of those things, why are you?

I asked you to prove your allegation that his policies are insane. Not to prove that you wouldn't vote for him because you don't see eye to eye on solutions. The only remotely close idea that you came close to proving was outlandish was his idea on the Gold standard. I don't see eye to eye on every issue with Ron Paul but there's no one else out there as close as my views. Obviously I know you don't like Ron Paul, but that wasn't my interest.

You were wrong on at least one of those, for instance, he doesn't support abortion. He simply made the point that it shouldn't be a federal decision, but a state decision. I'm still upholding my challenge for one of you to supply a candidate that stands a chance at doing a better job at running America, and will actually do as they say.

Do you honestly think a candidate that points the blame on America is going to be voted in? Think for a second guys.

[Epinephrine]

At least I do not feel the need to refer to someone with a different opinion as a deranged idiot.

Deranged idiot? I never said that. In fact I was complementing you, geez.

[Kolar]

Your point about removing suffrage because it wasn't in the constitution is weak at best. We can easily revert back to the constitution and still keep those important movements in mind. Nobody here (nor Ron Paul) is suggesting that we remove women's suffrage rights or any of those things, why are you?

Why? If we're removing 300 hundred years of legal precedent then how exactly do you propose we hold onto such accomplishments in social progress?

[Reaver]

Why? If we're removing 300 hundred years of legal precedent then how exactly do you propose we hold onto such accomplishments in social progress?

Who's removing 300 hundred years of legal precedent?