Wooden Nickels

July 18, 2007 9:02 AM

Presidential candidate Ron Paul (previously) introduced H.R.2755 on June 15, 2007, a bill "To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes." None of the major news sources have thus far reported it (CNN, BBC, Reuters, Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, AP) which presumably means it's not newsworthy, perhaps because it doesn't have the slightest chance of passing. Nonetheless, it doesn't mean it's a bad idea. But then, that's the problem with many of his positions such as abolishing the IRS, personal income taxes, and ending the War On Drugs. When asked why he wants to be president, he said, "I want to restore the original intent of the constitution, which maximizes individual liberty and restrains the government from doing the things they shouldn't be doing." And as was said on The Colbert Report, he was one of the few who voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war. LOL!
posted by sluglicker (225 comments total)

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.” - Woodrow Wilson, 1919

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."-- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. Bankers own the earth; take it away from them but leave them with the power to create credit, and, with a flick of the pen, they will create enough money to buy it all back again. Take this power away from them and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for then this world would be a happier and better world to live in. But if you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.” - Lord Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1940
posted by sluglicker at 9:03 AM on July 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

Cute.
posted by grobstein at 9:04 AM on July 18, 2007

I am very happy that Ron Paul is running. It keeps the anti-social nutjobs from voting Republican this time.
posted by DU at 9:06 AM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

If he keeps on making sensible statements like this the MSM is going to brand him a crazy outsider.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:08 AM on July 18, 2007

Can I get this in early: Who is Ron Paul? I'm British and I've seen a zillion stories about him recently. But it's always assumed I know who he is.
posted by humblepigeon at 9:08 AM on July 18, 2007

If I wanted to read Ron Paul stories, I'd be reading Digg.
posted by smackfu at 9:08 AM on July 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

I am very happy that Ron Paul is running. It keeps the anti-social nutjobs from voting Republican this time.

Uh, he's running as a republican, for the republican nomination. Duh.
posted by delmoi at 9:10 AM on July 18, 2007

He's not only concerned the Federal Reserve threatens our democracy, he also concerned about "federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."
posted by donovan at 9:10 AM on July 18, 2007

If I wanted to read Ron Paul stories, I'd be reading Digg Fark.

Fixed that for you.
posted by Poolio at 9:10 AM on July 18, 2007

Can I get this in early: Who is Ron Paul? I'm British and I've seen a zillion stories about him recently. But it's always assumed I know who he is.

Uh...
posted by delmoi at 9:11 AM on July 18, 2007

What You Didn't Know About Taxes & The 'Crown'
posted by hortense at 9:11 AM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Can I get this in early: Who is Ron Paul?

Ron Paul is a Libertarian (snicker) politician who starts flamewars on Metafilter.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:13 AM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Uh, he's running as a republican, for the republican nomination.

Oh right, I remember that now. That's even better, really. I doubt he's going to garner many independents once his white supremacist background gets more exposure. And doesn't he talk about atheism a bit? Social conservatives eat that stuff up.
posted by DU at 9:13 AM on July 18, 2007

Full disclosure, I'm a Ron Paul supporter. He comes the closest to my own views out of any candidate in recent memory.

I think a huge problem that Ron Paul and his campaign face is the tendency of many, especially liberals, to equate libertarian views with selfishness. Related to this is the concern for security. I browse the archives here a lot. A few days ago I was looking at an old question in AskMe where jessamyn was commenting on why she and others didn't think much of Ayn Rand (who I also dislike) and libertarian policies. What it boiled down to is that a sizable population is dependent on the government and they don't want that support to shift to private charity. For some of the dependents I'm sure there are psychological issues when your care provider goes from the government (it's their duty) to other private citizens (it's their goodwill). I would be resistant too as your sense of dependency would increase.

This bill, like most libertarian policies, has long odds. The Federal Reserve System is difficult to understand and it's tough to get much momentum against it.
posted by BigSky at 9:15 AM on July 18, 2007

If I wanted to read Ron Paul stories, I'd be reading Digg.

Surely you mean reddit, where at least 1 of every 4 stories on the front page has 'Ron Paul' in the title.
posted by cmicali at 9:16 AM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ron Paul is stirring up the waters. How dare the media shove Hillary, Obama, Guilly, and the other media darlings down our throats. They've already made our choices for us.
I think Ron Paul is showing us that we have a choice and we don't need 'Flavor of the month' or 'Oprah' to tell us what to do or think. Hey! The coffee has kicked in.....
I for one welcome our Indie Overlords!
posted by doctorschlock at 9:18 AM on July 18, 2007

I love that clip on the Colbert Report where the anti-war people realize "This guy isn't just for getting rid of the Patriot Act, he's for getting rid of the federal government!" Which is debatable, sure. He's a libertarian, which I admire since they have principles. But I don't get why some on the left would admire this guy. He definitely isn't for universal healthcare.

he was one of the few who voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war

He's not even the only presidential candidate who voted against PATRIOT and the war. There's always good ol' Denny Kucinich. And why isn't anyone talking about this bill? Oh right:

Sponsor:
Rep. Ronald Paul [R-TX] (no cosponsors)
posted by ALongDecember at 9:19 AM on July 18, 2007

Ron Paul is a member of Congress from Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives. In his nearly 20 years in Congress, not one of his sponsored bills has ever made it into law.
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:19 AM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

...to equate libertarian views with selfishness...your care provider goes from the government (it's their duty) to other private citizens (it's their goodwill).

If it isn't about selfishness, that would imply that you'd be giving to such a charity (and even more than you are paying now, since there'd be fewer donors)....right?

Oh and what about charities, such as the catholic ones in Boston, that would like to refuse service to the "sinful" needy? Who helps poor gays/blacks/Muslims/abortion doctors?
posted by DU at 9:20 AM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Kind of an amusing moment between Paul and George Stephanopoulos.
posted by EarBucket at 9:20 AM on July 18, 2007

LOL! indeed
posted by dopamine at 9:22 AM on July 18, 2007

I like Ron Paul. He's a little crazy, yes, but it's the fun kind of crazy. He's a refreshing change from the usual kookoo christianist nutjob crazy kind of republican getting all the attention these days. (Which is why, sadly, he'll never get far in this race.)

Oh, and his wikipedia page got vandalized (not by me!!):

Ron Paul is a crappy candidate for President with some pretty excitable (and really annoying) supporters who like to raid internet polls and call talk shows in a feeble attempt to make it look like Paul has some giant grassroots support. In reality, he has about 6 supporters who all have 100 different Yahoo, AOL and Hotmail email accounts each.

I'm thinking a Brownback supporter...?
posted by contessa at 9:22 AM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

He definitely isn't for universal healthcare.

Heh, yeah. I was mystified by the softballs-only content of the Colbert interview till the end where Paul was like, "Yeah, I guess I'd get rid of UNICEF." I think it was a well-structured interview from a comedic point of view (first agreement then WTF) and a nice contrast to the usual style of humor that drives the Report interviews.
posted by grobstein at 9:23 AM on July 18, 2007

The page hortense linked (What You Didn't Know About Taxes & The 'Crown', on conspiracyarchive.com) is hilarious. A major candidate for an xkcd beatdown.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 9:23 AM on July 18, 2007

reddit, fark, digg...you're all correct.

Remember, kids, only you can prevent Ron Paul spam.
posted by MikeKD at 9:23 AM on July 18, 2007

Uh... [provides link to Wikipedia]

You'll be surprised at how much Wikipedia expects you to have background knowledge. For somebody who's not American, the article isn't much help.

The article says he's a Republican politician. The question I wanted answering is what kind of politician, and in particular why the college kids who infest the Internet seem so fascinated with him. That's the kind of info Metafilter is good for.

Anyway, I've just watched the intro video on his website and found out. Seems he's a principled right-wing politician and libertarian. That might just work in a country as huge as America. Hopeless elsewhere.
posted by humblepigeon at 9:23 AM on July 18, 2007

Just a reminder, because either it's news to nearly everyone or America is waaaay worse off than I suspected:

Ron Paul is a longstanding racist and a close friend of the extremist right.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:24 AM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Surely you mean reddit, where at least 1 of every 4 stories on the front page has 'Ron Paul' in the title.

I didn't see that many ron paul stories, but I did see this:

Why you should never smash a can of wd-40

Which makes a very compelling argument.
posted by delmoi at 9:27 AM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Libertarian-filter, yet again.

Ok, fine, we get it. You hate government and ignore the fact that anarchy doesn't work.

You think that a man (a real man) should make his own way in the world, shouldering aside the impediments of other, weaker, people, to stand astride his land, his woman by his side, surveying what he has wrought.

The rest of us like living in a civilization, and don't care to dismantle it because you'd rather be a hermit.
posted by bshort at 9:28 AM on July 18, 2007 [18 favorites]

He's pretty much always been a libertarian. He's also a libertarian who caters to social conservatives. Well, again, pretty much like most libertarians. Government is bad when it's keeping us from owning guns or making us pay taxes, but it's good when it's disallowing gays and lesbians from marrying who they love or preventing women from controlling their pregnancies. He mentions in that first article "the dangers to liberty and traditional values". Ron, you can't have it both ways -- liberty and traditional values are usually at odds with each other.
posted by jiawen at 9:29 AM on July 18, 2007 [9 favorites]

humblepigeon,

Ron Paul is a candidate to be the Republican nominee for President. He represents the small government faction of the Republican party, which is also sometimes called Barry Goldwater Republicans. Most of his policies match up with Libertarian positions, the main exception being his strong advocacy to control illegal immigration and to strengthen border security. Many Libertarians feel this violates their principles in that everybody should have the freedom to go where they like without constraint of borders. Social conservatives, the other major faction of the Republican party, are not very sympathetic to his program. In particular they dislike his opposition to the drug war and the Patriot Act. Many social conservatives want a strong executive office that will fight crime at a federal level and that will support legislation and policies that promote security. Generally, these security promoting policies are invasive to privacy, e.g. national I.D. card, phone tapping, internet legislation.

Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist and wants to limit the power of both the executive office and the federal government to the roles intended in the Constitution. His position on abortion is that while he is against it, he is a practicing obstetrician/gynecologist, he feels this is a matter to be decided by the states as the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to rule on the matter. This is not a fringe position, many legal scholars have pointed out that the Supreme Court's reasoning in Roe v. Wade is exceedingly weak. As for his, white supremacist background, this is absolute nonsense. This being Metafilter, someone will come along and post a link if they haven't already. Investigate for yourself. Remember that George Bush the Elder has been photographed with Rev. Sun Myung Moon and has been quoted speaking favorably of the Reverend. He is not a supporter of the Church. And no matter what photographs you see of Ron Paul standing next to whoever at some anti-income tax even he has never supported any white supremacist organization or platform.
posted by BigSky at 9:35 AM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

"...he feels this is a matter to be decided by the states as the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to rule on the matter."

That's wrong. He says on his website that

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

He is very much in favor of the federal government telling the states what to do.
posted by jiawen at 9:42 AM on July 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

I think a huge problem that Ron Paul and his campaign face is the tendency of many, especially liberals, to equate libertarian views with selfishness.

Because it is selfish, duh.

What it boiled down to is that a sizable population is dependent on the government and they don't want that support to shift to private charity.

You mean like, old people on social security? Yeah, get a job, gramps!

But whatever, many liberals are wealthy and independent, but feel that government should provide for the poor, regardless of how much randroid berchers piss and moan about it.
posted by delmoi at 9:43 AM on July 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

See, t-bills aren't riskless investments!
posted by geoff. at 9:43 AM on July 18, 2007

Bah, Jeffersonian ideals, looks where THOSE didn't get us.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:45 AM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Why is that everytime I think of Ron Paul I think of Norm MacDonald's Bob Dole impersonation - some creepy dude lurking in the shadows talking about himself in the third person. "Ron Paul says get rid of the Fed!" "Ron Paul doesn't like big government!"


Also: if you want to be slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers control money and control credit.

So, how exactly were we supposed to go from feudalism where the magnanimous lord owned all the land and the rest of us slaved away at it without owning anything without banks and credit?
posted by spicynuts at 9:46 AM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

DU,

I'm not sure what you're point is. Do you expect me to start proclaiming what my involvement with local charity would be once the income tax is repealed? Come on. The point is that large bureaucracies create waste. When the bureaucracies shrink the average citizen will have more resources. What will those resources go to? Some will go to charity, some will go to goods, some will go to the bank. When more goods are bought there is more demand for production and employment goes up, when more goes to the bank there is more money to loan and interest rates go down. The money that goes to charity provides needed services according to the knowledge of the local community, and local knowledge always makes more efficient decisions than centralized power. Funding a large bureaucracy with that money seems like a poor choice to me by comparison.

"Oh and what about charities, such as the catholic ones in Boston, that would like to refuse service to the "sinful" needy? Who helps poor gays/blacks/Muslims/abortion doctors?"

The Catholics in Boston have that right. That's what freedom means, free to choose. Who helps the rest? Whoever chooses to. That doesn't mean no one helps, it means whoever chooses to. As others have pointed out in countries where the government gives out the largest benefits (Europe), charity is the weakest. Charity is much stronger in America because to some extent it is still on us. The incentive is on us to take responsibility for our communities. This is a good thing. I'm skeptical that a charity like Habitat for Humanity could have been started in any socialist country.
posted by BigSky at 9:49 AM on July 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

He's not only concerned the Federal Reserve threatens our democracy, he also concerned about "federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."

So, basically, he's a libertarian with a footnote that he hates women and hates women having the same freedoms as men?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:50 AM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

jiawen,

No, I am not wrong on this issue. That legislation proposes to remove the federal interference in the rights of the states. You can read his statement on the matter here.
posted by BigSky at 9:53 AM on July 18, 2007

"free to choose"

But not who you marry, or whether or not you stay pregnant.

Or even, if you're honest, free to spend your money how you want. Serious economists usually acknowledge that government has a positive role in monitoring markets and making sure that everyday citizens, who don't have infinite time, don't have to do all the monitoring themselves.
posted by jiawen at 9:54 AM on July 18, 2007

many liberals are wealthy and independent, but feel that government should provide for the poor

That we must provide for the poor is so self-evident that it must be done through coercion, because people could never be persuaded to do it voluntarily, because it is so self-evident.

Right?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:54 AM on July 18, 2007

As for his, white supremacist background, this is absolute nonsense. This being Metafilter, someone will come along and post a link if they haven't already. Investigate for yourself.

Well let's see:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. -- Ron Paul in the Ron Paul Political Report

Yeah totally [NOT RACIST] in the least.

More from that DKos article:

Years later, in an interview printed in the October 2001 issue of Texas Monthly, Paul changed his story about these and other racist comments: "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me," he said. "It wasn't my language at all." Unfortunately, this explanation doesn't really withstand scrutiny. The Ron Paul Political Report was an eight-page newsletter, not a 200-page magazine; whether he employed other writers or not, it beggars belief that Paul would not have had full control and approval over its contents.

Now why don't you go ahead and find the "links" you think someone would post in order to discredit that? Because frankly, simply asserting that they are 'nonsense' isn't really a credible way to disprove documented evidence.
posted by delmoi at 9:54 AM on July 18, 2007

That we must provide for the poor is so self-evident that it must be done through coercion, because people could never be persuaded to do it voluntarily, because it is so self-evident.

Er no, the opposite. People must be coerced because it is not self evident.
posted by delmoi at 9:56 AM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

That legislation tries to make one part of the federal government more powerful than another part of it, therefore allowing for that part of government to have excessive power. It's a bizarre stance for a true libertarian to take -- doing something that, in the end, inflates the power of the federal government -- but when you see that Paul is very much beholden to social conservatives, it all makes sense.
posted by jiawen at 10:00 AM on July 18, 2007

The point is that large bureaucracies create waste. When the bureaucracies shrink the average citizen will have more resources. What will those resources go to?

How much waste, exactly? How will the functions of these large bureaucracies be handled? How will private enterprise, which must generate a profit, accomplish these functions with less waste than the government?

It feels great to walk around complaining about government waste, but what you see as waste is usually seen as vital by someone else.
posted by bshort at 10:01 AM on July 18, 2007

Ron Paul raped Sarah Silverman.
posted by doctorschlock at 10:05 AM on July 18, 2007

i really like some of the guys ideas, but the racism and the pro-life stuff are deal breakers for me. Im glad he's getting some air time though - its *always* a good idea to re-evaluate the ancient institutions of the state.

It was that critical analysis of the status quo that brought us the separation of church and state - which we can all agree was one of the best ideas since representative government. I wish there were more of these "nut case outsiders" willing to question.
posted by nihlton at 10:06 AM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Why do libertarians hate government? Because large bureaucracies create waste.

Why do libertarians favor deregulation? Because monopolistic large bureaucracies benefit from economies of scale.

You can never dissuade a True Believer.
posted by DU at 10:10 AM on July 18, 2007 [6 favorites]

boiled down to is that a sizable population is dependent on the government

the bottom line is in a modern economy not everyone gets to be the hotshot PHP programmer pulling in $100k/yr+. Somebody's got to clean the toilets, gut the chickens, drive the garbage trucks, teach the third graders, front the shelves at the supermarket, drive the taxis, rotate my tires at Big-O, etc etc at the end of the day, and these relatively unskilled -- fungible -- citizens are going to lack the bargaining power to secure sufficient salary to afford the true necessities of life: quality education for their kids so they don't necessarily inherit the same social status, affordable, convenient transportation around their comunities, and full access to the wonders of modern medicine that keep them productive members of society.

BigSky, earlier you said you leaned geolibertarian. I do too. I think of all utopian solutions geolibertarianism has the greatest chances of actually producting a better socio-economic world to live in. But even so, I think the Euro-socialist model is pretty darn close. People rail at the 60% taxation, but here in the states, in the end, what isn't taken off the top by the government just ends up in inflated land valuations.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:14 AM on July 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

Jiawen, how does it make one part of the federal gov't bigger? The bill explicitly states that abortion should be a state decision, not that the federal gov't could decide either way.
posted by Snyder at 10:14 AM on July 18, 2007

The point is that large bureaucracies create waste.

Large bureaucracies also create economies of scale. For instance: Want to get affordable (cheap or free) drugs to people with HIV/AIDS? Try doing that when you're buying for 10 or 20 or 50 people. It's much more economically efficient to buy drugs for uninsured/underinsured PWAs if you're buying for thousands, not tens, of people.
posted by rtha at 10:17 AM on July 18, 2007

I typically don't trust people with two first names.
posted by NationalKato at 10:18 AM on July 18, 2007

delmoi,

I don't need to say anything beyond what's in your post. That's good enough for me. The quote from Texas Monthly does the job, he didn't write that passage and I believe he has apologized for it as well. Whether DailyKos (!) thinks that withstands scrutiny or not is not a matter of concern. Ron Paul is a congressman and a practicing doctor I think it is entirely believable that an 8 page newsletter could have gone out in the mail without his "full control and approval".

But I'll go a step farther. So what? This country is faced with massive issues: deficit, illegal immigration, drug war, suspension of habeas corpus, invasion of citizen's privacy, and a foreign policy prone to going off on adventures (Iran?). I am not one to see that there is much racist in American public policy period (a notable exception being affirmative action) but there is some legislation that is discriminatory to Blacks, namely the mandatory minimums in the Drug War. These sentencing requirements have been terrible for individuals, families and neighborhoods. Without question Blacks and Mexicans have been disproportionately hit. The disparity between sentencing for crack and meth is just the most obvious example. Are there other candidates out there who will address this? Is there a more pressing issue in legislation affecting an ethnic minority? To go back to the quote, look at the first part, the second is beyond repair but given the way he defines 'reasonable' is he really wrong? Maybe he is off by a little and there are more Blacks who support free markets and the rest of it but these are not the politics of most blacks I have met. I will certainly concede that 'reasonable' is a poor rhetorical choice and there is no need to talk about it in the first place. All in all, it gets nothing more than a 'so what' from me. Considering the scope of problems we face and that there is no one close to taking a similar stand on these issues to focus your eye on these 'quotes' (which were written by someone else), shows poor judgment and a petty mind.
posted by BigSky at 10:19 AM on July 18, 2007

Jiawen, how does it make one part of the federal gov't bigger? The bill explicitly states that abortion should be a state decision, not that the federal gov't could decide either way.

It gives Congress powers that it shouldn't have -- namely, the power to declare some of its legislation off-limits to the courts. It creates a power imbalance in the federal government, and by removing checks and balances, it makes that unbalanced federal government far more able to get what (one part of) it wants.
posted by jiawen at 10:24 AM on July 18, 2007

One more thing about federal funds vs local charities and economies of scale, efficiency, etc.: Federal monies like those used to purchase drugs fo PWA are given to states, which then distribute them to local groups who work with the populations in need. It's not like the feds come into a city and chuck a sack of money at random poor people; those funds are managed by local groups who know exactly what populations they're working with, and what those populations need.
posted by rtha at 10:24 AM on July 18, 2007

Who helps the rest? Whoever chooses to. That doesn't mean no one helps, it means whoever chooses to.

See the problem I have with this is that historically similar situations have ended with a substantial portion not being chosen by anybody, and then rising up and violently taking. I'd rather have a portion of my income taken away and wastefully redistributed by a bloated central bureaucracy than taken from my dead body by a hapless revolutionary. I have no faith at all in any alternative to these two options. Every one I have encountered actively chooses to ignore the disgusting truth of human nature.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:25 AM on July 18, 2007 [7 favorites]

"I typically don't trust people with two first names"
Not even Billy-Paul (SNL joke on BillyJack).
posted by doctorschlock at 10:25 AM on July 18, 2007

Ron Paul is already president of the Internet, with a commanding 0% of support in the real world.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:30 AM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

O hi, I'm a Libertarian, and I support the freedom for local governments to restrict individuals' rights.
posted by LordSludge at 10:30 AM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

I can see it now...I'll be on MTV in the first row. There on the stage is Ron Paul. I am chosen for the next question and I reply:

Me: Mr. Paul (snickering girlishly)...do you prefer doggie or
missionary?

Then the lights go out.
posted by doctorschlock at 10:39 AM on July 18, 2007

"Somebody's got to clean the toilets, gut the chickens, drive the garbage trucks, teach the third graders, front the shelves at the supermarket, drive the taxis, rotate my tires at Big-O, etc etc at the end of the day, and these relatively unskilled -- fungible -- citizens are going to lack the bargaining power to secure sufficient salary to afford the true necessities of life: quality education for their kids so they don't necessarily inherit the same social status, affordable, convenient transportation around their comunities, and full access to the wonders of modern medicine that keep them productive members of society."

Heywood Mogroot,

Indeed, someone does have to do this. And to go a bit off topic here, we can't keep bringing illegal immigrants in to do it for us. One ethical guideline I like is to wonder what would happen if a certain action continued and became common place. Would that be a sustainable course of action? It's not the end-all and be-all but it's a useful question. I think it's a good question for policy as well. At some point we have to let the free market work. We can't keep funding social benefits for a class that won't work at market wage while allowing manufacturers to hire foreign workers at a wage that wouldn't attract the needed local labor in order to give the consumer an artificially low price. This simply isn't sustainable. I can't link to it now but Walter Williams published a column some years ago showing that it is a small minority of low wage workers that stay in those jobs their entire lives. Let's not necessarily consider them life long destitutes. If anything freeing up markets gives more opportunity for economic advancement.

I'm not sure I can agree with you about the Euro-socialist model. It can be very difficult to find real estate in some of these countries. I have spent a fair amount of time in Greece and seen what the citizens have to put up with there in terms of regulatory bodies and bureaucracy. The utilities don't come close to matching ours in efficiency and small business owners have a tremendous of paper work to deal with. I also strongly believe that it is good to give people access to tools and to encourage innovation and initiative. There is a reason why many countries have suffered brain drains with their best and brightest coming to America. Socialist countries do provide some important services to the most needy but they also make it too easy on those who want to exist as a permanent underclass (e.g. Gypsies) and there is a lack of incentives for production. There is more of a difference than land valuation
posted by BigSky at 10:42 AM on July 18, 2007

All I know about Ron Paul is that someone keeps leaving spam comments linking to his campaign on my blog. I wish they'd stop.
posted by scruss at 10:42 AM on July 18, 2007

At some point we have to let the free market work

that's religion-ideologically, not factually-based. I say let what works best (in a general utilitarian meaning), work.

Modern society is immensely productive enough to meet everyone's needs and wants.

I respect the Free Market's powers to produce the latter efficiently, but not the former, which is why I'm a left-libertarian and not vanilla libertarian.

And talking about Greece is slightly disengious, since the Euro model extends from NZ through Canada through Finland and at any rate deadbeats lounging on the labors of others exist in any system. cf. the millions of wanna-be rentiers in our present system. I don't propose a transplation of their systems, just an analysis of what is working better for them than for us.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:50 AM on July 18, 2007

I was in the Poconos last week and the mountain townies were draping white bed sheets with RON PAUL INTERNET REVOLUTION spray painted on them from the overpasses which says...not much, really, but it kind of cracked me up.
posted by The Straightener at 10:51 AM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

O hi, I'm a Libertarian, and I support the freedom for local governments to restrict individuals' rights.

O hi, I'm a MeFite and I make the assumption that the views of one politician accurately represent all Libertarians.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:56 AM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

"It gives Congress powers that it shouldn't have -- namely, the power to declare some of its legislation off-limits to the courts."

What?

I don't know if this is confusion or a masterpiece of rhetorical misdirection. Let's say HR300 becomes law. The Supreme Court could declare that law unconstitutional. And then by doing so they could continue to claim they have the right to make rulings on abortion at a federal. Where is the power imbalance? What checks and balances have been removed? The issue is precisely the opposite of what you have stated. The Supreme Court made law (which is of course the province of Congress) in Roe v. Wade by finding a 'right' to an abortion. This is what Constitutionalists are referring to when they speak of 'activist judges'. The power imbalance in the federal government is not awaiting passage of HR300, it is already there. When the judiciary makes law they are stepping beyond the role delineated in the Constitution. This bill is a maneuver to repeal and prevent further unconstitutional action on this issue and to give it back to the states.
posted by BigSky at 10:57 AM on July 18, 2007

O hi, I'm a MeFite and I make the assumption that the views of one politician accurately represent all Libertarians.

Show me a big-L Libertarian that's interested in limiting the power of any government but the federal one and I'll show you a small-l libertarian.
posted by aaronetc at 11:03 AM on July 18, 2007

The Supreme Court made law (which is of course the province of Congress)

Wrong. The Congress makes statutory law. The Courts make case law.
posted by aaronetc at 11:04 AM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

You think that a man (a real man) should make his own way in the world, shouldering aside the impediments of other, weaker, people, to stand astride his land, his woman by his side, surveying what he has wrought.

You forgot about the part where they want to keep all the money they have, even though they got it from mommy and daddy and didn't earn it.
posted by oaf at 11:11 AM on July 18, 2007

This country is faced with massive issues: deficit, illegal immigration, drug war, suspension of habeas corpus, invasion of citizen's privacy, and a foreign policy prone to going off on adventures (Iran?).

This does not, except by the most twisted of logic, indicate that government is the problem.

This bill is a maneuver to repeal and prevent further unconstitutional action on this issue and to give it back to the states.

And without a constitutional amendment, it has absolutely zero effect on the Supreme Court's power.
posted by oaf at 11:20 AM on July 18, 2007

It gives Congress powers that it shouldn't have -- namely, the power to declare some of its legislation off-limits to the courts.

Congress already has that power, Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution:

"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

Even then, I'm not sure how this bill is an example of that, the court could strike it down again, if it so chose, like BigSky says.
posted by Snyder at 11:29 AM on July 18, 2007

This country is faced with massive issues: deficit, illegal immigration, drug war, suspension of habeas corpus, invasion of citizen's privacy, and a foreign policy prone to going off on adventures (Iran?).

This does not, except by the most twisted of logic, indicate that government is the problem.

Um, I'd say that since the gov't is the one that started most of these (illegal immigration being an exception,) that the problem is with the government. I can't see any logical progression where the government is not the prime responsible party, or even the sole one.
posted by Snyder at 11:31 AM on July 18, 2007

aarontec,

Fair enough. You're right.

I think it is clear in my post that the problem most Constitutionalists have with Roe v. Wade is that they see the Supreme Court overstepping their bounds and creating law. It is widely recognized that the Constitution is silent on the matter of abortion and the Court had little justification to make the ruling it did. So the power imbalance in the federal government has already occurred. HR300 would not distort the powers of the three federal branches but would simply return a decision for the states to their authority.

-------

oaf,

"This country is faced with massive issues: deficit, illegal immigration, drug war, suspension of habeas corpus, invasion of citizen's privacy, and a foreign policy prone to going off on adventures (Iran?).

This does not, except by the most twisted of logic, indicate that government is the problem."

No shit. I never said it did. The list of issues was to indicate why focusing on a derogatory quote attributed to Ron Paul is silly. Waving that quote around and using it to push the undecided away from examining his beliefs is race baiting at its worst. There are plenty of books that will show you problems with big government. If you are interested in how Ron Paul compares with other potential candidates I recommend looking at the above list of issues. In my opinion these are the most crucial problems facing the country.
posted by BigSky at 11:34 AM on July 18, 2007

The list of issues was to indicate why focusing on a derogatory quote attributed to Ron Paul is silly. Waving that quote around and using it to push the undecided away from examining his beliefs is race baiting at its worst.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read, and I've been on Metafilter for quite a while.

Why shouldn't we examine exactly what Ron Paul said in the past when evaluating his arguments today? Why is it suddenly off limits?

If he's a racist bigot, shouldn't we know that? Shouldn't we demand answers of those that we could potentially elect to lead us? Shouldn't we be suspicious of his credibility in other issues if he holds noxious beliefs?

And his answer doesn't hold water at all. So what if a ghostwriter wrote it for him. He was responsible for vetting it in the first place when he decided to publish it and put his name on it.
posted by bshort at 11:53 AM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

I'd rather have a portion of my income taken away and wastefully redistributed by a bloated central bureaucracy than taken from my dead body by a hapless revolutionary.

This is a false dichotomy.

Certainly, a massive centralized power will stifle revolt out of its self-interest. What you're not acknowledging is that massive centralized powers, whatever their guiding star, historically accrete into sovereigns that terrorize their constituents through law enforcement and their neighbors through war.

A state's self-interested redistribution of funds will only help the poor so much as it serves to maintain the appearance of usefulness and stifle revolt. The rest will be sunk into the military and its cousin industries, into building more prisons, into constructing new ways of finding yourself there, into building secret prisons for the very bad, into agencies that monitor your private behavior and correspondence, and into handouts for a constellation of industries allied with the state. Surely I must be talking about Stalin, Mao, or Nazi Germany, no? Actually, I'm talking about our federal budget, made by Democrats and Republicans alike, all of whom I'm sure operate out of higher ideals but have fallen prey to greed and to our propensity to thoughtlessly grant their every desire.

Any government, whatever its stated agendas or values, when overfed and not held to the the strictures of its social contract, will do this. Just like any company with too much capital and marketshare to leverage can drift into the dangerous territory of a monopoly.

You're advocating big government because you're afraid of the revolutionary, highwayman, or anarchist on the prowl. I'm saying that this fear is out of balance, and ignores the reality of the midnight arrest and the swat team. If you look at the Constitution and in particular the Bill of Rights, you'll see that the authors, themselves revolutionaries with the sting of imperialism still fresh in their minds, were more afraid of the latter.
posted by kid ichorous at 11:53 AM on July 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

Libertarians: They don't pay taxes, and they want to live on the moon.
posted by Artw at 12:01 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

"If I wanted to read Ron Paul stories, I'd be reading Digg Fark.

Fixed that for you."

Actually, Fark hasn't had too many. Digg and Reddit especially have been an endless flood of Ron Paul articles.

And locally, we've heard even more since he visited Google.
posted by drstein at 12:06 PM on July 18, 2007

HR300 would not distort the powers of the three federal branches but would simply return a decision for the states to their authority.

On the other hand, why would a libertarian (constitutionalist or whatever Ron Paul should be called) want to take a right away from the people and give it to the state? The Roe decision affirms a women's right to make medical decisions in private until the fetus is viable, or seek an abortion if her health or life is at stake in the pregnancy - that is to be the owner of her person and do with it as she sees fit. I think this is another issue where Ron Paul's social conservatism does not square with his libertarian ideals.
posted by peeedro at 12:10 PM on July 18, 2007

I'm sick of hearing about this free market bullshit. Who in their right mind thinks that a truly free market would do anything other than harm? Have a look at China, they get human hair in their soy sauce and antifreeze in the toothpaste/cough syrup. So they execute a guy for it? Whoopee. Government regulation here prevents that shit from happening in the first place. You like your clean water, don't you? How about your dependable electricity (deregulating that was a huge mistake, luckily we still have a good public utility here)? Do you like the fact that drug companies have a harder time selling you snake oil due to the FDA? True, all of these have problems, but removing the fragile controls that are already in place would lead to an even BIGGER disaster. Free market, my ass. It's anarchy you 'libertarian' buggers are after.
posted by IronLizard at 12:30 PM on July 18, 2007 [5 favorites]

Because telling a person what they can and cannot do with their own body is a core libertarian principle.

The abortion thing really rends the big-L dopes down the middle, separating the maximized-liberty naifs from the republican-lite controllocrats.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:30 PM on July 18, 2007

Anyways, on topic, I don't understand what the federal reserve is, exactly, how it works, who is really in charge, and what the effects are. Why is the Federal Reserve a corporation (a private one?) if it's in charge of the nation's money supply? Anyone?
posted by chlorus at 12:39 PM on July 18, 2007

chlorus, wikipedia might be your friend here. IMO, The Federal Reserve system was created in the afterglow of Gilded Age market gyrations and the burgeoning understanding among the movers and shakers that Public Men -- Senators, Bureaucrats, and The Establishment -- maintaining a loose, but firm grip on the wrist of the Invisible Hand was going to be necessary to stabilize, streamline, and control the system.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:50 PM on July 18, 2007

kid ichorous: So some of the money goes to the poor, and other money goes to things that the government does. Certanly I would like the government to stop spending money on the war on drugs, but that's because I disagree with the policy. I don't mind the government spending money to enforce laws that I like.

The military industrial complex is a big cash sink, but I doubt many Americans would be willing to give up the "security" it provides.
posted by delmoi at 12:55 PM on July 18, 2007

Chlorus - the wikipedia entry is pretty good. As is Greider's book .

Having a separation between a central bank and the elected government is common - the Euro-area does the same thing. I think the Bank of England is run by ministers appointed by the administration, but their mandate is to match the rate of inflation specified by the Office of National Statistics, which is supposed to be politically independent.

What's strange is that the belief that the Fed is deliberately causing inflation to reduce the national debt is sort of a libertarian trope. I'm surprised to see the libertarian candidate arguing for monetary policy to be *more* coupled with electoral politics. Some insane gibberish about a Gold Standard would be more in keeping...
posted by bonecrusher at 12:57 PM on July 18, 2007

You're advocating big government because you're afraid of the revolutionary, highwayman, or anarchist on the prowl. I'm saying that this fear is out of balance, and ignores the reality of the midnight arrest and the swat team.

I am not simply advocating big government: I am advocating bloated inefficent government. Mao and Stalin were efficent, whence midnight arrests, long marches, Potemkin villages, mass executions and the like. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are not, whence half-assed but ultimately toothless fascism like the Patriot Act and Clinton's futile attempts to get all encryption keys deposited with the FBI. I hate George W. Bush, but I do not fear George W. Bush, because George W. Bush is easy to route around. Not so, with the strong state and local A capitalist liberal democracy with a large centralized bureaucracy provides the best balance of security and liberty available in a realistic contemporary system.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:57 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Whoops, posted to soon. Should be "Not so, with the strong state and local 'autonomous' governments advocated by libertarians.'"
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:00 PM on July 18, 2007

bshort,

I never said it was off limits. My point is that it is thrown out there with vastly over exaggerated importance. The issues I listed are real, they require a response. Some people may wish to examine a politician's stance in relation to those issues. Jumping around with some racially insensitive remarks as a way to close off debate about a politician's views is bullshit. All politician's have some skeletons in their closet. These are busy people with a lot going on, it is easy to be associated with something, whether through a stray remark, or a staff written newsletter, or a photo, that can be used to portray them unfavorably. Everyone needs to evaluate the evidence for themselves. Look into it, find out all about it, I approve. But I think it's a complete non-issue and I wouldn't give it any credence in looking at a politician I despise. It's a matter of focus. I don't think Ron Paul's opponents have any substantial evidence that he has some sort of white supremacist agenda. When I see this quote brought up instead of a discussion on Iraq, or the IRS or the Drug War, I think it's pathetic.

His answer doesn't hold up? You're right he was responsible and he published some derogatory remarks under his name. And you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

------

peeedro,

I'm not one to require absolute consistency in belief. If there was some list of propositions that was indisputably correct then the discussion wouldn't have continued for 3,000+ years. Principles are a good guide but there has to be pragmatism as well. So that there is conflict with libertarian ideals doesn't concern me. Libertarians see the abortion issues in two ways, rights of the mother and rights of the fetus. Just as in every other debate about abortion it comes down to when we grant the fetus the status of an individual.

A constitutionalist world view and a libertarian one are not synonymous, although they fit well together. The constitutional issue with Roe v. Wade is simply to make sure that all the branches of government keep to their appropriate roles. That's what HR300 is about. It isn't about giving power to the state but removing power wrongly exercised by the Supreme Court. Our personal beliefs about abortion come into play at the debate on the state level.
posted by BigSky at 1:03 PM on July 18, 2007

Our personal beliefs about abortion come into play at the debate on the state level.

That you think you have any sort of right to vote on it marks you for the hypocrite that you are.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:20 PM on July 18, 2007

Also, I notice that this thread is suddenly not about Libertarian whack-job Ron Paul, but about Libertarianism. Can we discuss one without the other? Can we just say "My values are X and they impact my reading of the issue in y way" without getting into the underlying debates?
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:22 PM on July 18, 2007

Jumping around with some racially insensitive remarks as a way to close off debate about a politician's views is bullshit. All politician's have some skeletons in their closet. These are busy people with a lot going on, it is easy to be associated with something, whether through a stray remark, or a staff written newsletter, or a photo, that can be used to portray them unfavorably.

...

And you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

And you're a fool if you think his previous racist comments don't matter. The DailyKos article cited above has an awful lot of damning content, and barring some sort of item by item response to it, I just don't see why I should waste any time at all researching Ron Paul's wondrous ideas.

His comments and statements weren't just quirky or strange. They don't read as off-the-cuff comments by a busy guy. They're racist and offensive, and look like considered comment by an apparently intelligent guy.

You can think it's pathetic, but the rest of us would rather elect a guy who isn't, and wasn't, a bigot.
posted by bshort at 1:25 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

kid ichorous: So some of the money goes to the poor, and other money goes to things that the government does.

Delmoi, did you even read my comment? That's an extremely euphemistic way of putting it. My point is that very little goes to the poor, and that the most expensive "things that government do" - its highest priorities - involve pursuing war, power, and secrecy, as well as handouts to the very industries they should be regulating. And why shouldn't they, since we continue to give them whatever they ask?

Of late, our federal "charity" toward the poor has manifest itself most visibly as building cages and throwing them in. I think individuals and local agencies can do better than that, thanks.

Yes, I'm a libertarian, and no, I'm not talking advocating privatization of the commons or anarcho-capitalism or whatever strawmen Mefi wants to heap on us. I'm talking about basic separation of powers, and states and localities seizing back some goddamn autonomy and responsibility, instead of relying on a central sovereign that thinks amendments against flag burning and gay marriage belong in the constitution. It's massively telling to me that advances in basic rights like gay marriage, and resistance to draconian measures like the Patriot Act and National ID, are happening on state levels now. Yes, Washington was heroic when it swept in and ended slavery and segregation, but yesterday's hero changed after we set him on a throne.
posted by kid ichorous at 1:42 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Yeah, voting for a bigot would be almost as bad as voting for a guy who is proud of the fact that he hasn't read a book in thirty-something years.
posted by troybob at 1:43 PM on July 18, 2007

Ahem. With apologies to Gilbert and Sullivan, and a nod to Everything2:

I am the very model of a modern Libertarian:
I teem with glowing notions for proposals millenarian,
I've nothing but contempt for ideologies collectivist
(My own ideas of social good tend more toward the Objectivist).
You see, I've just discovered, by my intellectual bravery,
That civic obligations are all tantamount to slavery;
And thus that ancient pastime, viz., complaining of taxation,
Assumes the glorious aspect of a war for liberation!

Chorus:
You really must admit it's a delightful revelation:
To bitch about your taxes is to fight for liberation!

I bolster up my claims with lucubrations rather risible
About the Founding Fathers and the market's hand invisible;
In fact, my slight acquaintance with the fountainhead Pierian
Makes me the very model of a modern Libertarian!

Chorus:
His very slight acquaintance with the fountainhead Pierian
Makes him the very model of a modern Libertarian!

All "public wealth" is robbery, we never will accede to it;
You have no rights in anything if you can't show your deed to it.
(But don't fear repossession by our Amerind minority:
Those treaties aren't valid---Uncle Sam had no authority!)
We realize whales and wolves and moose find wilderness quite vital,
And we'll give back their habitats---if they can prove their title.
But people like unspoiled lands (we too will say "hooray" for them),
So we have faith that someone else will freely choose to pay for them.

Chorus:
Yes, when the parks are auctioned it will be a lucky day for them---
We're confident that someone else will freely choose to pay for them!

We'll guard the health of nature by self-interest most astute:
Since pollution is destructive, no one ever will pollute.
Thus factories will safeguard our communities riparian---
I am the very model of a modern Libertarian!

Chorus:
Yes, factories will safeguard our communities riparian,
He is the very model of a modern Libertarian!

In short, when I can tell why individual consumers
Know best who should approve their drugs and who should treat their tumors;
Why civilized existence in its intricate confusion
Will be simple and straightforward, absent government intrusion;
Why markets cannot err within the system I've described,
Why poor folk won't be bullied and why rich folk won't be bribed,
And why all vast inequities of power and position
Will vanish when I wave my wand and utter "COMPETITION!"---

Chorus:
He's so much more exciting than a common politician,
Inequities will vanish when he hollers "Competition!"

---And why my lofty rhetoric and arguments meticulous
Inspire shouts of laughter and the hearty cry, "Ridiculous!",
And why my social theories all seem so pre-Sumerian---
I'll be the very model of a modern Libertarian!

Chorus:
His novel social theories all seem so pre-Sumerian---
He is the very model of a modern Libertarian!
posted by Mayor West at 1:51 PM on July 18, 2007 [110 favorites]

I think individuals and local agencies can do better than that, thanks.

The appaling conditions (physical and otherwise) and overcrowding in your average county jail or state penitentary would argue against that.

It's massively telling to me that advances in basic rights like gay marriage, and resistance to draconian measures like the Patriot Act and National ID, are happening on state levels now.

And Anti-Sodomy Laws were local. It took federal action to render them null and void. Isn't that also massively telling?
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:51 PM on July 18, 2007

Why do I always feel like I need a shower after reading any thread where libertarians argue their position? And how can you be "libertarian" and a social conservative? It boggles the mind.
posted by maxwelton at 1:52 PM on July 18, 2007

"Our personal beliefs about abortion come into play at the debate on the state level.

That you think you have any sort of right to vote on it marks you for the hypocrite that you are."

Two questions:

1. Why don't I have a right to vote on it?

2. What is hypocritical about believing I have a right to vote on this issue?

-----

bshort,

Thanks for the DailyKos link! I had never read a political hack job before!
posted by BigSky at 2:00 PM on July 18, 2007

You're welcome. If you'd care to actually respond to some of their points I'm sure we'd all love to hear your responses.

But give us a freakin break. Just stop with the nonsense about howwe should talk about those valuable opinions of his, but only the ones where he doesn't look like a nutcase.

That's not how people judge others, and to assume otherwise is naive.
posted by bshort at 2:03 PM on July 18, 2007

This thread needs more cruel mockery of Libertarians. It's a well-known fact that if you put them sufficiently on the defensive, they revert to that pre-adolescent stutter only eliminated after their parents spent thousands of dollars on speech therapy—a particularly humiliating memory for Libertarians, as this eventually led to their parents' divorce.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:06 PM on July 18, 2007 [9 favorites]

BigSky: That's what HR300 is about.

My confusion over this point remains unabated. From my point of view, H.R. 300 is about the Republican Holy Trinity of election issues: outlawing abortion, outlawing gay marriage, and the establishment of a Christianized government.
posted by peeedro at 2:07 PM on July 18, 2007

bshort writes "If he's a racist bigot, shouldn't we know that?"

But he's not. That's the problem. It's a quote he didn't write. I see these things occasionally about Ron Paul. Several years ago someone I know tried to convince me Ron Paul was a big UFO person. Pretty soon we'll be hearing that Ron Paul advocates mugging old ladies. He's such a small fry, yet he provokes such strong reactions that people just make stuff up about him in order not to deal with the issues he presents.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:13 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

But he's not. That's the problem. It's a quote he didn't write.

Then who wrote it?
posted by bshort at 2:14 PM on July 18, 2007

humblepigeon: and in particular why the college kids who infest the Internet seem so fascinated with him.

Don't put all us eggs in one basket. This post was the first I'd heard of him.

I'm reasonably sure that at least as many college kids are fascinated with Barak Obama.
posted by JHarris at 2:15 PM on July 18, 2007

Lentrohamsanin writes "And Anti-Sodomy Laws were local."

So are medical marijuana laws.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:15 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

1. Why don't I have a right to vote on it?

For the same reason you don't have a right to vote on slavery.

2. What is hypocritical about believing I have a right to vote on this issue?

A Libertarian wanting to vote on restricting civil liberties? I wouldn't believe it if It wasn't so thoroughly common!
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:18 PM on July 18, 2007 [6 favorites]

bshort writes "Then who wrote it?"

I assume someone who works for him, but he's since repudiated it. What's your point? If you really want to find something meaningful here, why not look at his record in Congress and see if you can find anything that supports this supposed racism?
posted by krinklyfig at 2:19 PM on July 18, 2007

And if he didn't write it how did the person working for him get the idea that this was the kind of thing Ron Paul would endorse?

Are campaign workers in the habit of just making stuff up that their candidate has never so much as hinted at?
posted by Reggie Knoble at 2:21 PM on July 18, 2007

I assume someone who works for him, but he's since repudiated it. What's your point? If you really want to find something meaningful here, why not look at his record in Congress and see if you can find anything that supports this supposed racism?

Ha! That's an incredibly lame excuse. He put his name on it, and if he didn't read it and agree with it at the time, then he's negligent.

And it's not like it's just one event, is it?
posted by bshort at 2:21 PM on July 18, 2007

He's such a small fry, yet he provokes such strong reactions that people just make stuff up about him in order not to deal with the issues he presents.

Racist right-wing extremists don't need shit made up about them.

Or would you care to explain why the Patriot Network held a banquet in his honor?
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:22 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

bshort writes "But give us a freakin break. Just stop with the nonsense about howwe should talk about those valuable opinions of his, but only the ones where he doesn't look like a nutcase."

Why don't you argue on his positions and his Congressional record?

Dismissing him as a "nutcase" isn't really bringing the debate forward.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:22 PM on July 18, 2007

Why don't you argue on his positions and his Congressional record?

That would be the Congressional record where he's never once written a bill that's been passed?
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:24 PM on July 18, 2007

maxwelton: [H]ow can you be "libertarian" and a social conservative? It boggles the mind.

No... the right-wing "libertarians" want the FEDERAL government to be minimized so that state and local govts are "free" to do whatever they want -- i.e., enact a (de facto religious) majority-rules-fuck-you agenda. That's what qualifies as "freedom" to them -- the freedom to pass whatever laws we like without federal oversight.

You see, it makes all the difference in the world WHICH level of government you want less of.

Left-wing libertarians want guns and pot. Okay, I kid. Sorta. Bottom line, the civil rights of the individual are sacred, and whatever government is necessary to preserve these rights is a necessary evil. So, essentially, lefty libertarians are for less *local* government, with whatever federal is needed for oversight.

Living in Greenville, SC -- home of Bob Jones University -- I'll take less local government over less federal any day. With no federal oversight, I feel sure we'd still have racially segregated schools. Hell, it's *just now* gotten so that you can buy beer on Sunday...
posted by LordSludge at 2:24 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

Pope Guilty writes "Racist right-wing extremists don't need shit made up about them."

You know, this is exactly why I left the Democratic Party. What's the point of answering? You've already poisoned the conversation past the point of communicating.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:26 PM on July 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

Pope Guilty writes "That would be the Congressional record where he's never once written a bill that's been passed?"

Now, at least you're arguing substance. He's always been known as a principled Representative. His mission is not to pass a bunch of laws, but to act as a reminder that this country is far from the intent as spelled out in our founding documents. He won't compromise on his beliefs. Whether he'd be more effective by compromising is debatable, but if he did, we probably wouldn't be talking about him now.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:29 PM on July 18, 2007

You've already poisoned the conversation past the point of communicating.

It would be much easier to take the guy seriously if he had a response to the massively racist stuff that went out on his campaign material that was stronger than it wasn't me.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 2:32 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

You know, this is exactly why I left the Democratic Party. What's the point of answering? You've already poisoned the conversation past the point of communicating.

I'm not a Democrat, but hey, keep trying.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:35 PM on July 18, 2007

I am not simply advocating big government: I am advocating bloated inefficient government. [...] I hate George W. Bush, but I do not fear George W. Bush, because George W. Bush is easy to route around.

I can't appreciate this position. You think it's okay for us to splurge on all the wars and drug wars, so long as we appoint total incompetents to the helm? Are you suggesting that people vote for another idiot child, and pay for his sandcastles and war games?

Since you think Bush is so easy to route around: Is the Iraq war easy to route around? Will trillions of dollars of debt be easy for future generations to route around? Is being put in a cell without due process easy to route around?

And Anti-Sodomy Laws were local.
I know, and there's a reason why we have a federal government and a supreme court. But we don't need the largest government in the world and a phonebook of intelligence and defense agencies to override some local sodomy law.
posted by kid ichorous at 2:36 PM on July 18, 2007

His mission is not to pass a bunch of laws, but to act as a reminder that this country is far from the intent as spelled out in our founding documents.

Good for him. My mission isn't to pass a bunch of laws, either. And you know what? That's why I'm not a fucking Representative.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:36 PM on July 18, 2007

Pope Guilty writes "I'm not a Democrat, but hey, keep trying."

Doesn't really matter. It's also why I'm not a Republican or registered with any party. Partisan nonsense keeps people from thinking rationally.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:37 PM on July 18, 2007 [7 favorites]

He's always been known as a principled an ineffectual Representative.

I totally agree with this statement.
posted by IronLizard at 2:37 PM on July 18, 2007

Pope Guilty writes "Good for him. My mission isn't to pass a bunch of laws, either. And you know what? That's why I'm not a fucking Representative."

Seems like you want to grind your axe more than have a discussion, so I'll leave you to that.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:40 PM on July 18, 2007

Pope Guilty,

Declaring that a ban on abortion is a restriction on civil liberty is a great way to frame the debate if you say it quick. But like I said up thread it's simple enough to see that libertarians could also focus on the individual rights of the fetus.

And thinking that I have a right to vote against it still would not make me hypocritical. You want to make the case that voting to ban it would, except that it wouldn't.

-----

bshort,

I'm not going to get into a debate with you on the Kos article. There is no doubt in my mind that you would like to keep us on the defensive, trying to justify everything the statists see as problematic. I'm not interested, thanks. I'll focus on his political views and why I think they are appropriate prudent choices.
posted by BigSky at 2:41 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'll focus on his political views and why I think they are appropriate prudent choices.

Wouldn't his racism be classified as a political view?

And if you actually want to see this guy elected as opposed to becoming a libertarian martyr you had better get used to defending this point.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 2:45 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Doesn't really matter. It's also why I'm not a Republican or registered with any party. Partisan nonsense keeps people from thinking rationally.

You brought partisanship into this. I'm a member of no party; my political views see to that. You are the one responsible for bringing partisanship into the discussion with your attempted ad hominem attack, not me.

Seems like you want to grind your axe more than have a discussion, so I'll leave you to that.

Grind my axe? I want to make sure people understand that Ron Paul is a right-wing extremist and a racist, and make sure that any time liars try to cover that up, the point gets repeated and defended. Am I persistent about it? Yes, but I wouldn't have to be if the liars weren't so pernicious and so pervasive.

Declaring that a ban on abortion is a restriction on civil liberty is a great way to frame the debate if you say it quick. But like I said up thread it's simple enough to see that libertarians could also focus on the individual rights of the fetus.

Except that said rights don't exist except as a pretext for misogyny.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:55 PM on July 18, 2007 [3 favorites]

You know who else was racist but had good public policy ideas???
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 2:55 PM on July 18, 2007 [4 favorites]

There is no doubt in my mind that you would like to keep us on the defensive, trying to justify everything the statists see as problematic.

You don't have to be a statist to be against Ron Paul. You just have to be anti-racist and not be a right-wing lunatic.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:58 PM on July 18, 2007

You know, you people bashing on Paul for 'being racist' are precisely like the neocons bashing liberals for being 'against the troops'.... anything, anything to avoid actually talking about the issues.
posted by Malor at 2:58 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

I never said it was off limits. My point is that it is thrown out there with vastly over exaggerated importance. The issues I listed are real, they require a response. Some people may wish to examine a politician's stance in relation to those issues. Jumping around with some racially insensitive remarks as a way to close off debate about a politician's views is bullshit. -- BigSky

For a lot of people, these sorts of views on race are "serious" issues. A hell of a lot more important then federal reserve policy, for example.

Delmoi, did you even read my comment? That's an extremely euphemistic way of putting it. My point is that very little goes to the poor, and that the most expensive "things that government do" - its highest priorities - involve pursuing war, power, and secrecy, as well as handouts to the very industries they should be regulating. And why shouldn't they, since we continue to give them whatever they ask? -- kid ichorous

This is one of the problems with metafilter. Person B responds to Person A and person C then takes up another with Person B. My origional comment was to someone complaining about people being "dependant" on the government, and I said it was good for the government to be helping poor people. Then you say, well but the government spends money on other things too! And that's true, but each individual spending program can be debated on it's own merits. We might agree on some, like lots of subsides for oil, corporate welfare, etc.

Thanks for the DailyKos link! I had never read a political hack job before! --BigSky

You keep complaining about the article, but you have yet to provide any refutation, or any link or whatever. Other then to say "he didn't say that!" Well, as far as I can tell he only said that about one particular comment, not all of them. And they appeared under his name in his own newsletter. There is a lot of evidence that he said it, and only his word that he didn't say it, and even then it's not even an exhaustive refutation. And he's said he has the moral responsibility for the statements!

I know, and there's a reason why we have a federal government and a supreme court. But we don't need the largest government in the world and a phonebook of intelligence and defense agencies to override some local sodomy law. -- kid ichorous

That's true. I agree with you 100% on this. It's one of the main reasons I'm anti-war. Wars give the government an excuse to be secretive and, er, curious. Putting the U.S. on a more peaceful course would do wonders for the cause of government transparency. And who are we going to fight? Iran? North Korea? The drug war is a huge excuse to violate civil liberties. But I just don't give a damn about taxes and rich people whining about paying them.
posted by delmoi at 2:59 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

I think the prevalence of racist politicians is a pretty big issue.
posted by bshort at 3:00 PM on July 18, 2007

You know, you people bashing on Paul for 'being racist' are precisely like the neocons bashing liberals for being 'against the troops'

Except for the part where one statement is about a specific individual which has documented evidence behind it while the other is a wild generalisation applied to literally millions of people.
posted by Reggie Knoble at 3:02 PM on July 18, 2007

You know, you people bashing on Paul for 'being racist' are precisely like the neocons bashing liberals for being 'against the troops'.... anything, anything to avoid actually talking about the issues.

If a politician being a racist bastard isn't a dealbreaker for you, then you seriously worry me.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:03 PM on July 18, 2007 [2 favorites]

I don't have anything to say to all of these "ZOMG racist!!11!!" comments so I'll leave this thread. But I do want to point out that this comment:

"Except that said rights don't exist except as a pretext for misogyny."

in reference to the rights of the unborn for life, is one of the uglier, more offensive comments that I have seen on Metafilter. As if all the women who believe that life begins at conception are expressing their misogyny by doing so. How inane.
posted by BigSky at 3:12 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

As if all the women who believe that life begins at conception are expressing their misogyny by doing so.

Hahaha, oh, goodness. Yes, run along, let the adults talk.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:19 PM on July 18, 2007

I dunno. I like that duet he did with Elton John.
posted by Brak at 3:27 PM on July 18, 2007

I prefer his #1 reggaeton hit "Get Busy."
posted by ALongDecember at 3:34 PM on July 18, 2007

Who is Ron Paul? He's no Ron Jeremy.
posted by Joeforking at 3:59 PM on July 18, 2007

And thinking that I have a right to vote against it still would not make me hypocritical.

Yes, it would. You're intruding in others' affairs. It doesn't adversely affect you, so if you're a true libertarian, you don't care about it.
posted by oaf at 4:04 PM on July 18, 2007

I can't appreciate this position. You think it's okay for us to splurge on all the wars and drug wars, so long as we appoint total incompetents to the helm? Are you suggesting that people vote for another idiot child, and pay for his sandcastles and war games?

Not necessarily, but it is better than a Ron Paul being elected and dismantling everything without consideration because of "common sense." The resulting chaos would just pave the way for a successor who would make Bush look like FDR, and probably turn the whole middle east into a glass parking lot. The nation and the world are far better off with one of the slightly better than Bush candidates like Obama, than an idealist like Paul or Gravel or Kucinich.

Since you think Bush is so easy to route around: Is the Iraq war easy to route around? Will trillions of dollars of debt be easy for future generations to route around? Is being put in a cell without due process easy to route around?

Easier than dealing with door to door visits from some over powered local gang of thugs, where in order to escape one has to pass through several different territories controlled by different gangs of thugs, each with their own bizarre codes and mores. That's the end result of devolving more power to state and local governments, not some rebirth of the enlightenment where it "ain't nobody's business if you do."

"And Anti-Sodomy Laws were local."

So are medical marijuana laws.

And we'll only ever get a sensible marijuana policy through the slow actions of a bloated federal government. Devolve it to the states and local governments and it would only ever be legal in 20% or so of the country.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 4:05 PM on July 18, 2007

I'd rather vote for a Librarian candidate. Run Jessamyn run!
posted by davy at 4:05 PM on July 18, 2007 [1 favorite]

Except that [fetuses'] rights don't exist except as a pretext for misogyny.

That's not true, either.
posted by oaf at 4:07 PM on July 18, 2007

Ron Paul cemented his 'glibertarian' credentials with me by his consideration of the Federal emergency-room medical care requirements as an actual good-enough ('what more do these statists want from us taxpayers???') public health system in a speech on the floor. He's an ass, as is anyone who supports his retrogressive policies.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 4:14 PM on July 18, 2007