7 ms·

He 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 ago
I'm intrigued. Who should have taken out insurance in the case of Katrina, for example?
- waffle_ss 15y ago
  Um, 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 ago
  Anyone living in an area where a flood is possible.
- teamonkey 15y ago
  Does this kind of insurance even exist? My home insurance has always had clauses about 'acts of god' such as these.
toyg 15y ago
Except 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 ago
  I'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."
  - toyg 15y ago
    The free market doesn't owe you anything indeed, but society, which the government represents, is a very different thing. 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?
    - cheez 15y ago
      I read this as follows: "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?
      - jiggy2011 15y ago
        The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate. 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.
        15y ago
- bmelton 15y ago
  If that sort of insurance is hard to get in a given area, or prohibitively expensive for say, Kansans to get tornado insurance, then that is an issue that the Kansas state government should take up with the insurance company. 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.
jiggy2011 15y ago
Right, perhaps the federal gov't is too bloated (I wouldn't really know , I'm british). My question more would be does he have a fundamentally different view on what the federal government is for? In which case I would expect him to say "we will do less of all of this stuff, but I think instead we should do more of this". 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?
- ja30278 15y ago
  He would favor limiting the actions of the federal government to the "enumerated powers" listed in the constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military 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_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_State...
thebigshane 15y ago
Actually, I usually hear him promote local (and often church-based) fundraisers and volunteer efforts to assist in these situations. Admittedly, that may not be enough for a Katrina-size disaster -- that might genuinely warrant federal intervention via the Reserves/Nat'l Guard.

Angostura 15y ago

I'm intrigued. Who should have taken out insurance in the case of Katrina, for example?

waffle_ss 15y ago
Um, 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 ago
Anyone living in an area where a flood is possible.
teamonkey 15y ago
Does this kind of insurance even exist? My home insurance has always had clauses about 'acts of god' such as these.

toyg 15y ago

Except 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 ago
I'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."
- toyg 15y ago
  The free market doesn't owe you anything indeed, but society, which the government represents, is a very different thing. 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?
  - cheez 15y ago
    I read this as follows: "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?
    - jiggy2011 15y ago
      The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate. 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.
      - 15y ago
bmelton 15y ago
If that sort of insurance is hard to get in a given area, or prohibitively expensive for say, Kansans to get tornado insurance, then that is an issue that the Kansas state government should take up with the insurance company. 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.

jiggy2011 15y ago

Right, perhaps the federal gov't is too bloated (I wouldn't really know , I'm british). My question more would be does he have a fundamentally different view on what the federal government is for? In which case I would expect him to say "we will do less of all of this stuff, but I think instead we should do more of this". 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?

ja30278 15y ago
He would favor limiting the actions of the federal government to the "enumerated powers" listed in the constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers
CWuestefeld 15y ago
Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military 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_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_State...

thebigshane 15y ago

Actually, I usually hear him promote local (and often church-based) fundraisers and volunteer efforts to assist in these situations. Admittedly, that may not be enough for a Katrina-size disaster -- that might genuinely warrant federal intervention via the Reserves/Nat'l Guard.