9 ms·
This is unsurprising. Ron Paul is generally against new legislation.
by naz 15y ago
This is unsurprising. Ron Paul is generally against new legislation.
- jiggy2011 15y agoAs a British person I don't know much about American politics but I often see this Ron Paul guy turn up in discussions about politics in general. 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"?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- llambda 15y agoAfter Katrina he made remarks[1], and here I'm paraphrasing, that amounted to saying that neighboring states shouldn't have to pay for the misfortune of other states, i.e. through FEMA. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966_pf.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07...
- jiggy2011 15y agoRight. It appears to me that he would almost want to make states completely autonomous entities in which case why have a federal government at all? Ironically it would seem if he was elected as president he would basically work to put himself out of a job.
- RickHull 15y ago> in which case why have a federal government at all? To coordinate action between the states. For example, interstate highways and national defense. The Constitution pretty much spells it out.
- jeltz 15y agoYou can still have a bloated federal government administration with autonomous states, so I do not think he will be put out of work. Just look at the EU.
- megablast 15y agoSorry, that is not ironic. He is not out to get a job, he is out to do what he believes in.
- jiggy2011 15y agoIf it's not out for the job then why is he applying for it? Perhaps he is essentially a "protest vote" but there appears to be at least some chance that he could actually get elected?
- megablast 15y agoHe is not out to be president of the USA, he is out to do what he believes is right, and to do that he has to be POTUS. If that is his standpoint, then he is not ironic.
- j2labs 15y agoIf he became president, you'd likely see him close down many government functions and make strong pushes towards states rights and small federal government. 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.
- jonknee 15y ago> 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.
- nextparadigms 15y agoLet's put it this way. Without his supporters, the Republican party can't win the general election. So either the Republican party accepts them if they want to ever beat the Democrat party again, or they reject them, and they might end up forming a strong 3rd party later on, and help change the laws so they are more fair towards 3rd parties.
- waffle_ss 15y agoHe says "no" a lot because the federal gov't has become way too bloated. There already is a free market solution to your scenario - it's called "insurance".
- Angostura 15y agoI'm intrigued. Who should have taken out insurance in the case of Katrina, for example?
- waffle_ss 15y agoUm, anyone who wants something insured? Life insurance, homeowners insurance, automobile insurance, agricultural insurance, etc. I think most policies refer to things like hurricanes as "acts of God".
- steins 15y agoAnyone living in an area where a flood is possible.
- teamonkey 15y agoDoes this kind of insurance even exist? My home insurance has always had clauses about 'acts of god' such as these.
- toyg 15y agoExcept insurance against "acts of God" is extremely hard (and expensive) to get. The free market has spoken: when emergency strikes, f*ck the poor people.
- waffle_ss 15y agoI'm not sure about how much more expensive it is, but if I lived in a hurricane-prone area I would probably investigate it and consider it a cost of living there. Otherwise, if I can just get bailed out by the federal gov't when disaster strikes, those who choose to live in the safer areas of the country are essentially subsidizing the risks I assume by living there. Think of it as a negative externality (stretching my ECON101 limits a little here perhaps? :). I think the conclusion I'd rather draw is "the free market doesn't owe you anything."
- llambda 15y agoIt's interesting to think about consistency as something that is necessarily valued. I think the naive rationale goes something like this, "Well a politician should be consistent because they must represent the will of the constituency which elected them, thereby enfranchising those people and validating the institution of democracy." However, that said, consistency can be a burden. Imagine this applied to the startup world. I shudder to think of a founder who is unwavering in their convictions about their business model, i.e. wholly uncompromising. Today things like lean are popular methods that advocate quick iteration as your data changes, nearly the opposite of holding one and only one consistent position. But being dynamic and changing your product as new data are available is arguably a key strategy to avoiding waste and more importantly, producing something people actually want. I suppose then you could argue it really isn't the same as someone like Paul who is advocating for constitutional consistency. But on the other hand 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. That is to say that the document was written with a certain intent, so long as we respect that essence we should be able to work within that as a framework that isn't wholly limiting to the literal wording; in fact the constitution has already been amended, if that's what it takes to convince purists then maybe that's what should happen. Ron Paul is saying, quite literally, that he wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution, i.e. most federal programs should be stopped as they are "illegal".
- CWuestefeld 15y agohe wants to limit the govt to do nothing but what is legally provisioned in the constitution 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.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- Duff 15y agoHe says things that politicians don't typically say. The average American politician chants "create jobs" when he orders breakfast. 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.
- shill 15y agoI agree with most of what you say, but I think your idea of the word 'horrific' is something like running out of milk halfway through filling your bowl of Cheerios. 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.
- stcredzero 15y agoA 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/ http://thehistoryofrome.typepad.com/
- Duff 15y agoI agree with everything other than your first sentence 100%. 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.
- toyg 15y agoAmong other things, he'd spend his time enacting anti-abortion laws.
- toyg 15y agoThanks for the downvotes, but what's wrong about what I said? He's openly anti-abortion, and promoted anti-abortion legislation at Federal level (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Abortion-related_legislation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul... ). Presumably, he would do the same once elected.
- cbs 15y agopromoted anti-abortion legislation at Federal level Ron Paul: States Rights, unless its something I'm against. Just like any politician I guess.
- dantheman 15y agoI'm not a lawyer, but IIRC that act merely made it legal for states to prohibit abortion if they so desired. I'm pro-choice, but think that abortion, much like murder should be decided at the state level.
- cbs 15y agoFair enough. I didn't see the legislation, as it was presented in the grandparent post just gave me a laugh at the apparent irony.
- ugh 15y agoPart of it is an obsession with being consistent instead of being right.
- seanalltogether 15y agoI believe Ron Pauls support comes as a backlash against politicians who have been trained to give certain responses, like for instance Sarah Palin when she was running for Vice President and had absolutely no knowledge of national politics. People don't necessarily agree with every one of Ron Pauls ideals, but at least you believe he has spent a lifetime nurturing those political ideals for himself, rather then having someone coach him.