(Lunar;34454)
But there are some major problems with Ron Paul. First, I have to say that I disagree strongly with how infallibly he views the Constitution. Ron Paul fetishizes the Constitution to a dangerous extent. I'll acknowledge that the Constitution was a brilliant work with many great ideas for its time. Some of those ideas are still relevant today. But some of them aren't. The Constitution was obviously not an infallible document. Under the original Constitution, women couldn't vote. Indeed, the Constitution needed to be amended a number of times to get it to the right place. Why does Ron Paul think that that process has stopped? The views of the Constitution are only as relevant as the time period in which it is being used, and as the time evolves, so too must the Constitution. Now, some people want to amend the Constitution in bad ways. Some people want to use it as a weapon to destroy civil liberties. I disagree with these people. But there are other ways in which the original Constitution simply can't keep up with modern society - in particular, I was aghast when he suggested we repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
The Constitution was certainly a flawed document as it was a product of the time in which it was written. I don't see where Ron Paul thinks the Constitution should not be amended anymore, aside from statements he has made that in effect state the Constitution shouldn't be amended to legislate morality. What he would like to see, as far as I can tell, is a return to states' rights as opposed to sweeping federal mandates for or against issues that are better left to the states.As for the 16th amendment, why are you aghast? The income tax, as defined by the constitution is a tax on income, not labor. And more specifically income is defined as corporate profit. (lunar)
Which leads me to another thing I object to about Ron Paul - his no-tax, pro-business model. Ron Paul places far too much faith in the integrity of private corporations to provide effectively for the citizens of the United States. Now, I have a healthy skepticism of the good intentions of our government. But I have a far healthier skepticism of the good intentions of businesses, which do not even make any pretensions to acting in the interest of the citizens. Ron Paul's stance on government regulation of C02 emissions is a perfect example of this. There's simply no incentive for businesses to act in the interests of the environment - and in turn, the citizens, as the environment affects all of us - without government interference.
Ron Paul's environmental policy would make it easier for citizens to hold those businesses that pollute accountable for their actions. (Lunar)
Health care is another issue where I don't trust private corporations to function effectively. What's in the best interest of the health care provider - to make you better at once? Or to lead you on and keep you mostly sick, so that you keep coming back and spending more money?
The Health Freedom idea that Ron Paul espouses (and let's not forget he is a doctor) would allow for health savings accounts not tied to a high deductible insurance policy. The consumer would have an account that is specifically for use in paying for health services. All health-related payments would be tax-deductible. Rather than pay upwards of $1000 per month to pay into an insurance scheme whether you need care that month or not, one would pay into an interest bearing account to be used when the need arose. I think this would foster a better working relationship with doctors. Of course, if you felt more comfortable with a traditional insurance policy that is your choice. Ron Paul also firmly believes that vitamins and supplements should remain legal and vaccinations, such as the HPV vaccine Gardasil, should not be mandated.(Lunar)
And that he suggests that the Department of Education be dissolved? Honestly, I can scarcely believe he even suggested it. It takes very little imagination to envision the ridiculous class imbalance that will ensue when education is left up to private corporations. In short, thinking that leaving all of these services up to businesses will somehow magically work things out is hopelessly idealistic and suggests severe historical amnesia. Businesses do not care about the citizen. They care only about maximizing profits. I read an article once that was doing a psychological profile of a number of different social entities. The business was diagnosed as a sociopath, and that's very reflective of how much faith I put in them to effectively manage our interests on their own - none.
The removal of the Department of Education used to be a plank on the Republican Party platform. It's not such an outlandish idea. Again, Ron Paul would prefer to see education control returned to the states and in turn the local communities. I have read no writing from Dr. Paul that even remotely suggests that education should be turned over to private corporations. (Lunar)
Ron Paul also doesn't really have a coherent positive stance on what the role of the government actually is. I watched several interviews with him and, when asked what role the government actually did have, his only answer was that the role of the government was to reduce regulations and get rid of needless laws. In other words, the role of the government is to destroy itself. His libertarian ideals seem synonymous with anarchism.
I beg to differ. Ron Paul has a very coherent stance on the role of government. It's just not what we have been led to believe the role of government should be. The role of government is to protect our liberty as individuals. We have a right to privacy and the pursuit of happiness. So long as what I do doesn't harm anyone I should be left alone.(Lunar)
There's also the issue of the newsletters published under his name from 1978-1995. The content of these newsletters is, to put it bluntly, completely appalling, as they spew a steady stream racist and homophobic vitriol, along with flagrant medical falsehoods (at one point the newsletters claimed that "we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in [Washington DC] are at least semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Another snippet suggested that, because of its high black population, Washington DC be renamed to "Welfaria, or Rapeville, or Dirtburg, or Lazyopolis.")Ron Paul denies that these words were his own and that the articles were ghost-written. The cynic would see this as damage control and assume that Ron Paul is actually a racist, homophobe, and all-around lunatic; while there is some merit to this view considering Ron Paul's voting record and his failure to do anything about the newsletter for seventeen years, I will be generous and give him the benefit of the doubt. But if this really was all an unfortunate mishap, and these views don't reflect Ron Paul's views, then what does this tell us about Ron Paul? I would say that it shows that he is astonishingly incompetent. To have this as a persistent issue for seventeen years, have it brought to his attention numerous times, and not do anything about it - if Ron Paul can't effectively manage a newsletter, what does that say about his ability to manage the country? The whole ordeal represents at best disturbing negligence and incompetence on his behalf, and at worst, blatant racism and homophobia.
Libertarianism is the least racist or homophobic political bent there is. I will cede the point you make that he should have been more aware of what was going out under his name. However, the fact that he assumes moral responsibility for this lapse in oversight is a respectable stance. He is, like you and I, a human being and is not infallible. He isn't a lunatic. If you listened to what he has to say and if you actually read any of his writings you would see that.(Lunar)
This charge of incompetence is also consistent with Ron Paul's legislative track record. Considering how long he has served in Congress, it is somewhat astonishing that Ron Paul has absolutely no significant legislative achievements. When you have extreme views like he does, you need a certain degree of tact and legislative finesse in order to accomplish your goals. That he has not been able to implement any of them suggests that he has neither. You have to question how much of his agenda the guy would actually accomplish as president. I'm going to be presumptuous and say not much.
I would tend to look at the legislation which he has introduced and look at the other legislators he is working with. Unlike the majority of elected representatives in Congress, he isn't directly influenced by corporate lobbyists. In fact, his legislation would reduce the scope of government and corporate influence on government. Unfortunately, most congressman are fat and happy where they are and wouldn't dream of doing the things he not only advocates but actually does, such as voting against a pay increase for congressman. He also doesn't participate in the congressional pension program and he returns a portion of his office budget to the Treasury every term. Another thing he doesn't do is charge us for his work-related travel. My congressman can't say that, can yours?(Lunar)
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I don't think Ron Paul is interested in helping people. In terms of foreign policy, he's an isolationist. Even with respect to Darfur, where absolutely horrible things are happening, he has said something to the effect of "It's a civil war, and it's not our problem." What a horribly cynical view to take! Now, I'm wary of the charges of policing the world, and being an arrogant nation, but frankly, I see nothing arrogant about sending aid to Darfur. That seems like a very compassionate view to take. But Ron Paul doesn't seem interested in compassion. His rationale for everything seems to be based on money, not social wellbeing. You can't help but feel that he equates what is right with "where the money is." He seems interested primarily in the Constitution and libertarian ideals, and he has prioritized this ideology before the wellbeing of the people. I simply can't stand for that.
Not to toot my own horn but my family sponsors a Compassion child. If we had more of the money my husband earns in our pockets we would, as a family, have more to give-- on a local level and internationally. I don't agree with your point about Darfur. While I agree that the situation in Darfur is a grotesque tragedy, I don't think that a nation that is $9 trillion dollars in debt is in any position to give money as aid. The monies that our government have traditionally given to countries who need humanitarian help inevitably goes to the governments of those countries who are perpetrating the crises on their own people, not to the people who need it most. And Ron Paul doesn't necessarily advocate a complete hands-off approach to foreign military intervention. What he does say is that if we are going to use our military, it should be in a war declared by congress and not a pre-emptive strike in the name of security.(Lunar)
So, that's why I don't support Ron Paul. I think his ideas would be incredibly destructive and not at all what Christ would want, and I think that he, personally, is not a competent politician.
After reading your other posts, I think that you lean more toward a socialist Jesus. In my understanding, Jesus did advocate an almost communistic lifestyle. The difference is that Jesus didn't come to be a political savior, but a personal, spiritual savior. When a government is socialist, the people inevitably become slaves. A socialistic government makes a god of the state. In my opinion the government is best which governs least allowing me to be benevolent (or not). We have been led to believe that other people know what's better for us than we do and as a statesmen, not a politician, Ron Paul disagrees.
