This is unsurprising. Ron Paul is generally against new legislation.
He seems to a hero to many people including those who aren't the stereotypical republican voters. I have to admit I don't quite understand his appeal, his position seems to always just be to oppose any new legislation on government involvement in anything. His position always seems to basically boil down. "let the free market decide" or "let the individual states decide"
At least he appears consistent in what he says and I'm not necessarily saying he is even wrong about anything in particular. But let's say he was elected president , I can't see him actually doing anything (some might argue this is what the president should be). Let's say there was a national disaster of some kind, what would he do? Just say "we the federal government would help but we would just mess it up , let the free market create a solution"?
He is a hero to many because he holds stances that are antiwar and, generally, pro-individual liberty.
I must say that I would be scared of a Paul presidency but I also love the way he's shaken up the republican party.
He has not shaken up the GOP whatsoever. He has arguably shaken up the Libertarian party, but his base has nothing in common with the GOP base.
I think the conclusion I'd rather draw is "the free market doesn't owe you anything."
Sorry, I'm European and hardcore US "free-marketism" is so incredibly alien from here... I mean, the free market wouldn't ever give me 24 days of paid vacation every year, so why should I want more of it?
"I should force people, at the threat of violence, to give me 24 days of paid vacation."
That's pretty much what you are saying. I agree with you: the free market doesn't provide everything but that is what charity is for. Government is not charity. What kind of charity is it when they will send you to jail or bankrupt you for not tithing on time or enough?
So if a billionaire for example has a relative who suffers from a rare type of cancer for example they will be likely to donate a disproportionately massive amount of money to research and care for that particular type of cancer, or perhaps they find one particular endangered species particularly cute and will donate the money to the preservation of that particular species. They might also be opposed to environmentalists or hate gay people so will donate no money at all to environmental causes or treatment of aids victims.
If their income is 1000x that of the average person they basically get 1000x the say in what is important (actually perhaps more since their cost of living will likely be lower as a % of income).
This money might be used far more efficiently when some kind of justification is required in terms of providing the widest amount of help throughout society or the world as a whole.
In addition allot of the "free market" type people that I know are quite opposed to the idea of charity anyway, although I think this may be somewhat different in the US.
But the government just gets money from the people. Also, they get mandates from the people. So getting the government to tax you to pay for someone else's problem is exactly the same as paying for the problem yourself. Except now you've got a bunch of politicians involved. I don't see how that's supposed to make things better.
If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that. I can't think of a case where people would rather be taxed by the government instead of giving money to charities.
In most countries people do not vote for individual laws. Instead we trust the politicians to write laws we like. This means the government being a single huge entity can have a more holistic plan where less obvious groups get left out in the cold.
I for one have no idea what groups really need help in our society and do not want to spend time to figure it out so am very happy that I have a government doing that job for me. Sure they do it quite poorly but I am positive I would do a worse job.
It's not about not wanting to be taxed, not at all. It's about removing the incentives to tie profit to violence.
To take an extreme example. Let's say that as a society we decide that young children living homeless on the street is a bad thing and that some provision should be provided for this. However let's say you have a handful of people who are the owners of the owners & directors of huge monopoly companies, their personal income put together might be comparable to the rest of the population (basically the 1%/99% thing).
Now if these guys decide that they don't really care about homeless children because they all follow a religion which tells them that children are evil. Now the people who want to do something about the homeless children problem have a much more restricted amount of money with which to do that.
What this really implies is that if you have more money available to donate then you have a better understanding of what is important in society.
So yes, if the government comes in and forces the rich guys to hand over some of their money to solve the problem they are going to be pissed but if not then countless more people would be at least equally pissed that nothing can be done about a massive problem facing society.
Obviously, as a social-democratic position, this moves from an implicit critical view of original capitalism, i.e. rich people exploiting the poor for financial gain, as observed through post-XVII-century history (more so in Europe than in the US, I guess, which might explain why it's not as widely accepted a concept over there). Times when Charity was widely praised and practice, but clearly was never enough.
Obviously, if all economic disparity was eliminated overnight, things would be different. I look forward to the 1% renouncing their fortunes in order to establish a free-market utopia where such laws wouldn't be necessary.
And if you don't pay the financial penalties? You go to jail... Ultimately, the government derives all its power from having a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
People don't go to jail for breaking workers' rights like holiday entitlements, let's not make it more dramatic than it is.
Seizure of assets is violence. You can be sure I would not like my assets to be seized because I have to follow some dumb, overreaching law. But I don't have the guns.
It's a more constructive debate when you start analysing on utilitarian terms whether there's any practical benefit to having 24 hour weeks, whether the market tends to underprovide them and whether regulation is the optimal solution.
Most libertarians don't advocate for no government, they advocate for as little as possible to maintain order and preserve freedom.
Also when you have a large number of staff who all doing essentially the same job they will usually get roughly the same vacation time or that would be regarded as unfair.
Just because somebody works as say a programmer but doesn't happen to be numero uno rockstar-ninja coder doesn't mean they don't deserve some time off every year.
She had insurance that covered, flood, wind, and rain damage. The insurance company did not pay her a dime, even after she, and the rest of LA sued them.
There is no free market when insurance companies can buy judges to get their way out of doing what they were paid to do.
The thing is, judges work for the government, this means, no matter how illegal a law is, they will always take the government side of it.
For example, the constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate insurance at the federal level, but judges will rule based on the assumption it does because they are government employees and wouldn't be able to keep their jobs otherwise.
The problem with this logic is that there are extremely few (if any) locations in the United States that aren't affected by severe natural events (blizzards, heat waves, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, flooding, earthquakes, etc). I live in one of the more moderate locations in the USA (western MA) and in the past 11 months we've had an earthquake, tornado, hurricane, an ice storm that left much of the region without power for about a week,and 80 inches of snow in February alone.
We all subsidize each other - maybe you had more moderate weather this year while we got whacked, but the situation could reverse itself next year.
The point isn't that people who are poor get fucked, but that the federal government shouldn't be the ones bailing them out, especially because under Paul's regime, the federal government would be much much smaller, and wouldn't be able to afford to.
Instead of paying federal taxes to the federal government, for which states could then petition to get some of it back, states would levy the taxes they saw necessary to operate and maintain their own infrastructure without help from the federal government.
This means that moneys spent on infrastructure would be spent more efficiently, as the overhead on managing the money would be significantly lessened.
Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military to defend the USA if directly attacked.
Perhaps I misunderstand his position?
As I read his position, his philosophy is that of a pretty strict Constitutionalist. That is, the federal powers are limited to what's listed explicitly in the Constitution. Most of those powers can be found enumerated in Article I Section 8 [1]
- - - - Quote
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
- - - - End Quote
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_State...
Interestingly also it does provide for copyright control which could be viewed as being consistent with SOPA?
I wonder if his supporters realise what a fundamental restructure this would be and whether such a change would even be practical.
Has he outlines a plan for doing this? I assume he couldn't just turn up on day 1 and basically tell all federal employees to go home.
I can't imagine that you'd really need more than a few thousand federal employees (not counting military) to provide these services.
You might be interested in reading Paul's proposed budget for his potential term in office. He realizes that instantly switching to a constitutional federal government would be terrible, so he takes a more gradual approach.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-resto...
Specifically, that the people support the government, not the other way around. Ron Paul's favorite president, Grover Cleveland, says it well:
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution (federal aid for a natural disaster), and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
That's essentially correct, but a bit of an oversimplification. A more accurate representation would be "he wants to limit the federal govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution". There are a number of things that he'd like to see the government do, but at a state or local level.
For example, he's strongly opposed to abortion, but he's also opposed to any federal legislation addressing the issue one way or the other (note that there's no federal law against murder, for example; this is dealt with by the states).
So your concerns about the agility of the organization are better handled through Paul's approach. The way the system works today, politicians make a choice, and then stick to it no matter the evidence (see the War on Drugs, NCLB, etc.). No matter what happens, they can't back down on their position because it weakens them politically. Given Paul's approach, the states can serve as mini laboratories, each trying out different approaches to solve problems, with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states.
I'm very concerned with your statement:
the constitution was written over three hundred years ago, although I think it's paramount to protect the rights as allotted in the Bill of Rights I don't necessarily think that the constitution insomuch as it exists as a legally-binding document, needs to be adhered to without the consideration that iteration may need to be made on the intent of the original authors with respect to the ever-changing world.
The problem with this is in the interpretation of the "intent of the original authors". This is essentially what's happening today, and it means that whoever is in power gets to do whatever the hell they want, as long as they can come up with some plausible rationalization. When the document can be plastic in this way, it serves as only a very weak protection against runaway government.
I'm also concerned with your statements regarding abortion et al. These are serious issues that significantly impact people's lives. We shouldn't have a "playground" or a labyrinth of "mini laboratories" for such issues. What's to stop a state, say Alabama for hypothetical purposes, from testing out slavery again? It's economically beneficial, isn't it?
Also this statement seems contradictory: "with the rest of the country able to watch what happens, and then pick the best results from the other states." Who picks the best results? Certainly not the federal government under a Paul administration. Many supporters counter by stating that people can just move to another state... but unfortunately for the poor moving is almost impossible.
You say that we then pick the best result from the states, but that seems contradictory to Ron Paul's message.
Finally, the Constitution was written by rich white individuals who were basically looking after their own well-being (I may be overcritical, but you can decide whether I am or not by reanalyzing it). This requires critical analysis and a historical background: but how many clauses benefit the rich? how many the poor? how many benefit slave owners? The constitution is a relatively vague document, and although I agree that some branches are overextending their powers (i.e. executive) I don't think a strict adherence to the literal wording of the document will be any beneficial to solving the broad problems that exist today.
Sorry if my wording seems harsh, I don't mean for it to be. I had to hastily write this in a couple minutes before I head out the door.
Any lawyers here to clarify? I looked this up [1], and find a couple of interesting things. First, it specifies a death penalty for Murder 1st Degree -- but we all know that there are plenty of states (most?) in which you cannot be killed for this. So there's a contradiction. Also, see [2]
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws to the conduct proscribed by this chapter, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any proceeding.
So my best guess is that this stuff is applicable to DC, national parks, etc., but not to the states.
What's to stop a state, say Alabama for hypothetical purposes, from testing out slavery again?
Ummm... maybe the 13th Amendment? Honestly, I think you're being intentionally obtuse here.
Who picks the best results? Certainly not the federal government under a Paul administration.
The people of each state, or their duly appointed representatives, of course.
Many supporters counter by stating that people can just move to another state... but unfortunately for the poor moving is almost impossible.
This creates a competitive situation between states. In the end, the most prosperous states will be those that can find the best equilibrium between positive and negative rights for the residents. Crank up the taxes too high, and you'll get mass exodus as with California today. But with them too low relative to expenses, the states can't provide necessary services (or wind up in significant debt, as we see with PIIGS in the EU; this suggests that balanced-budget rules are necessary for the states, which is a problem we'd need to overcome).
It looks like you're so afraid that a small portion are going to be disadvantaged that you're insisting on a one-size-fits-all solution. But experience shows that such solutions are almost always worse in the end (e.g., NCLB), and by their very nature they hurt a much broader scope of people -- better to make your experimental mistakes at a small scope. Especially since experience also shows that legislative mistakes (again, like NCLB, but there are countless other examples) are almost never rolled back, because of political gamesmanship.
I don't think a strict adherence to the literal wording of the document will be any beneficial to solving the broad problems that exist today.
In what way is insisting on using Article V (the amendment process) in order to patch bugs inferior to ad hoc power grabs? When the changes are ad hoc, we get phenomena like GWB's power grabs around USA PATRIOT and other issues. In some cases these were decried by the other side, but a few years later, when power swung the other way, those that claimed to oppose the overreaches did nothing to right the problems, and indeed, have enjoyed exercising and even expanding those newly-minted powers themselves.
So it looks to me like the ad hoc route has tremendous dangers. The only disadvantage I can see to the use of Article V is that it requires enough political support that those advocating the changes, although they don't admit it, don't believe they can get it (or so it seems to me).
First, it specifies a death penalty for Murder 1st Degree -- but we all know that there are plenty of states (most?) in which you cannot be killed for this. So there's a contradiction.
Actually, it isn't a contradiction. The wording for part B (which you are referring to) states "Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." If you are confused as to what that means you can refer to 18 USC 7 which lays out a specific definition.
18 USC 1092 is only applicable to Chapter 50a, not 18 USC 1111. However, 18 USC 1111 is applicable to states (but not part B). There are several complex nuances to this. I won't claim to know all of them, but 18 USC 454 adds better clarification than I could explain.
Ummm... maybe the 13th Amendment? Honestly, I think you're being intentionally obtuse here.
Yes, I was exaggerating. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Replace slavery with abortion, child labor, or anything... the point is still the same.
The people of each state, or their duly appointed representatives, of course.
######################
We can keep discussing this as this is the single most important argument overclouding this entire conversation.
######################
To start the discussion, do you believe that the collective taxes of one state should go to benefit another?
It looks like you're so afraid that a small portion are going to be disadvantaged that you're insisting on a one-size-fits-all solution. But experience shows that such solutions are almost always worse in the end (e.g., NCLB), and by their very nature they hurt a much broader scope of people -- better to make your experimental mistakes at a small scope. Especially since experience also shows that legislative mistakes (again, like NCLB, but there are countless other examples) are almost never rolled back, because of political gamesmanship.
First off, it's not as small of a portion as you may think. NCLB is a good example of a federal program gone awry, but fortunately this administration is putting into place several policies to fix the fundamental issues of why NCLB didn't succeed. There is no reason why federal legislation can not give leniency to the states. If you are interested in learning about these policies let me know and I can generate a few sources for you to check out.
In what way is insisting on using Article V (the amendment process) in order to patch bugs inferior to ad hoc power grabs?
I understand your argument and why you feel that Article V is a good process, but it isn't. I'll give you reasons why but first I'd like to read your response to the question posed a couple sections above.
Your explanation appears correct, but I'd want to understand the larger framework around the whole thing. Because, taking a step back and looking at the big picture, it is certainly true that the federal government does not have general police power. See, e.g.,
- - - - Begin Quote [1]
In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory ... Under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers prohibited from or not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ...
Because the Congress has limited powers granted in the Constitution, the Federal government does not have a general police power, as the states do. The exceptions are laws regarding Federal property and the military; the Federal government was also granted broad police powers by the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.
- - - - End Quote
To start the discussion, do you believe that the collective taxes of one state should go to benefit another?
There are two ways that I can answer, depending on exactly what you mean.
If you're talking about the application of federal revenues, then I think it's OK for a given state's residents to pay more in taxes to the federal government then they get back in terms of services, etc. For example, we do like to have interstate highways spanning across those large, sparsely-populated states. This clearly demands a model for spending that doesn't necessary allocate spending in lockstep with revenues. Similarly, the federal need to secure borders demands that more federal money be spent in border states.
However, I fear you might instead mean that, in a more decentralized system, state revenues could be redirected to other states. For example, in the absence of significant federal aid for education, it's likely that not all states would be able to subsidize public education in the same way. I would not support any forced redistribution of taxes from one state to another for such purposes. Not only do I believe that it's morally wrong, but I think it also ruins the potential for those mini laboratories. For example, the Massachusetts attempts at healthcare reform were crappy examples for the federal government to follow because their success (inasmuch as they were successful, which they were not, but the politicians like to pretend that they were) depended significantly on the use of greater federal Medicaid funding, and thus the rest of the country has been underwriting Massachusetts plan.
There is no reason why federal legislation can not give leniency to the states.
It's certainly true that our legislators could patch NCLB to fix its most glaring failures. However, they almost certainly will not address the flawed premise on which the whole thing is founded. They virtually never say "we were wrong, let's undo this", they'll keep patching and duct-taping more to the side of it to shore it up. And this interferes with finding an approach that really is better.
fortunately this administration is putting into place several policies to fix the fundamental issues of why NCLB didn't succeed.
If you're referring to what I think you are (Obama granting waivers to states based on his own criteria) [2], what Obama is doing is almost certainly illegal. The Congress, and only the Congress, has the power to set the laws. In some cases the President may have some discretion, like he could instruct DOJ to stop prosecuting people for marijuana violations. But there's no question that the President does not have the authority to simply discard terms of the laws as Congress passed them, and insert his own.
I'll note that this is becoming habitual with him. He's been doing it for some time already with waivers for ObamaCare, and there's further talk of IRS rules re-writing part of the ObamaCare rules governing federally-created exchanges.
EDIT: and this is precisely the kind of usurpation of power that your "living document" philosophy permits, and I believe is necessary to stop. The government is leviathan. It grows and grows. You may think that an instance of such growth is good or advantageous, but that's fleeting, because a little ways down the road your opponent will have a chance at the reins, and morph those powers into something that will damage you.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power
[2] http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/93414/arne-duncan-obama-...
Paul says things that sound insightful and refreshing on the surface, when heard in terms of a soundbite. Most of his fans don't dig much deeper.
He would be a horrific president, but he's having a positive impact. By speaking his mind and talking about things that don't make it out of the PR machine of the mainstream political parties, he's giving air to important issues.
The media collaborating with the military-industrial-complex to drum up a war on phony pretenses that resulted in the slaughter of more than 100,000 Iraqis is horrific.
Strip searching citizens before they can get from point A to point B is horrific.
The media (both Team Left and Team Right) blatantly conspiring the blackout of a popular politician is horrific.
93 out of 100 senators rubber stamping the indefinite detention and torture of American citizens and declaring the Internet a battlefield is horrific.
A president that would do anything in his power to prevent these things from happening would be Heroic, not Horrific.
If we've reached a time for heroes to be politicians and politicians to be heroes, then we're living in interesting times indeed.
What it means, is that the US and possibly the world economic/geopolitical body as a whole is in a systemic crisis. Heroes can either change the course of the world, or they can be a temporary stopgap. Worse, they can be a throwback to old patterns of thought that no longer work.
Don't know what I'm talking about? Have a listen: http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/
A Ron Paul Presidency probably wouldn't be a member of the war-of-the-month club that we've been members of since 2001. But I think he would rapidly discover the limits of Presidential power. A Paul presidency in the current environment would almost certainly lead to economic ruin as markets panic and that military-industrial complex (which employs millions of people) gets turned down. IMO, a Ron Paul administration would be like a second Andrew Johnson administration.
When 93% of Senators (the house of Congress that is supposed to squash bad ideas) are willing to attack fundamental principles of American government, a new president isn't going to have the influence to "save" us.
What Paul CAN do is inspire people. We need people in congress, state houses and county governments who can represent the people, and not just the various special interests that pull the strings.
Presumably, he would do the same once elected.
Ron Paul: States Rights, unless its something I'm against.
Just like any politician I guess.