Here, Santa:
Here is exactly what I have a problem with in regards to everything Ron Paul, from a previous post...
iscussing matters RP himself has brought up as campaign issues:
“1. He has said he feels the US Dollar could be controlled by the United Nations...???
2. A return to the Gold Standard, in the 21st century??? Smacks of W.J. Bryan and Silver...
3. No foreign aid? So we can be even MORE hated around the world...foreign aid is an important diplomatic tool--it may be maoned "but we can't even take care of our own!" to which I promptly point to Hezbollah and like groups that DO give aid...along with bombs...so when 3rd-world nations are forced to choose sides between the over-fed nation that refused to lend a dime or the terror group that supplied meals in return for their becoming soldiers in a war against us...and that's WITHOUT mentioning what a callous and uncaring stance "no foreign aid" is in the first place.
4. I've said it before, I'll say it again--JEFFERSONIAN
POLITICS DO NOT WORK FOR A 21ST CENTURY NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER.
5. No Depts. of Education? Or Energy? Or the Interior? And so on? So we'll just allow all the states to teach whatever they want, no mandates? GREAT! So, when all that comes out of the south are Creation-Science-taught "doctors" and we lag even further behind the world in education...to say nothing of the other two Depts. I listed.
6. Economists have REPEATEDLY said hs economic policies could hurt us even MORE (And NO, I am NOT saying that because I denounce RP's economic policy I support Obama's, I AM saying, simply, I do not find RP's plan feasible, and neither do the experts.)”
And the answers, and my responses to these issues:
A. "He has said he feels the US Dollar could be controlled by the United Nations"
Do you have a citation for that? Ron Paul says some crazy stuff, so he easily could have said that, but I'm not sure what the specific context was."
Yes:
"The man who might win the Republican Party's first presidential nominating contest fears that the United Nations may take control of the U.S. money supply."
Taken from:
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-builds-campaign-doomsday-scenarios-161301486.html
So, I guess you can tell me if the context fits...as you say, though, it seems like something he might say, so I'm inclined to believe there's at least a seed of truth there.
1B. "This is just him being a supporter of free trade. Honestly, what is the difference between the UN controlling the money supply compared the the Fed controlling the money supply? Besides, this would never happen and in my eyes; its just hyperbole to get his free trade points across."
First--HOW does a conspiracy theory about...the United Nations taking control of the Dollar...true or not--HOW does his conspiracy stand as support for free trade?
What's the difference between the UN and Federal Reserve?
Well...one is part of our government...and thus should regulate or at least have some control over the dollar...and one is not...
How is this a question, unless I misunderstand you? Or are you seriously asking what the difference, is, because, if you are--well, if that;s your stance, what's the difference between the US Federal Reserve controlling the Euro and the EU controlling it? ...May we agree there's a tangible difference there? One should control it, one should not?
This still doesn't account for HOW Mr. Paul thinks the UN will control the US Dollar, or why, or to what effect, but still--we may agree there IS a difference?
And, again, I ask--WHAT is his point on free trade, that he is trying to make with a conspiracy theory about the UN taking over the US Dollar? That the US should control the dollar? Well...yes...I agree...but that rather goes without saying, that's sort of like saying the US President should command the US Military and not the UN Secretary General, it sort of goes without saying and isn't a serious point of contention for anyone, so...
What's the point on free trade being made here, with a flawed analogy at best, and a conspiracy theory--because that's who we want in the White House, a conspiracy theorist--at worst, and as mr. ckroberts has already said, he believes this is something he might believe Paul to have said, or could at least believe it of him, so...
Are you both OK voting for a conspiracy theorist, then? There's more where that came from, in that article, and newsletters, and interviews, and so on and so forth.
Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist, or else the worst wordsmith and crafter of plausible analogies and hyperboles I have ever seen.
2A. "Because rapid inflation, and the devaluation of our currency is looking much more promising..."
The deflation of our currency is promising? O.o
I'm honestly confused...if you meant likely...well, there's nothing there to say why we should return to the Gold standard and be subject to that standard--which we do not and would not control--rather than the oil standard that's more modern.
So, why? Why gold? Why an antiquated system? ("Antiquated," along with "Conspiracy theorist" and "extremist," both being terms I would isntantly associate with RP, so this is surely not the last time that word will pop up here.)
I made the William Jennings Bryan analogy for a reason, ie, a man going on and on for decades about Silver, FAR past the time when it was relevant or the mainstream of America cared...America had PROGRESSED.
Ron Paul, for keeping his bid for the White House going for so long now with such a devoted-yet-remote base, a base that's trying to seize the opportunity of an average-at-best Democratic ticket and a wide open GOP field where two front-runners (Cain and Gingrich) have already fallen...
Ron Paul=William Jennings Bryan.
And guess how successful or relevant HE was, in the end, in gaining the White House?
But historical comparisons aside, again, I ask--why Gold, what is special about Gold that would make it inherently better than oil or any other form that is more modern, and, I might add, how will inflation hit if Gold SPECIFICALLY is not implemented (NOT just "Why will inflation hit?" but "Why will inflation hit unless we pick this SPECIFIC form, Gold, and nothing else, ANY other standard would fail, why?")
2B. "Lots of people would like a currency system less beholden to the current economic elite. I'm not an economist, but I don't think the gold standard is a totally insane idea. It's just a minority one."
OK, at least that is a reason...although, I must say, I don't see Gold as not being elitist in an economic sense...so I'd ask why he/you feel that is so, as that seems counter-intuitive to me, I don't see Gold as being non-elitist, and, to be honest, the bigger point:
Why should I care?
I LIKE elitism, as I've repeated over and over...I'm not elitist enough for Fasces, but then, stopping short of Fascism is perfectly acceptable, I think, in being a moderate elitist. ;)
I'm not an economist, either, so please don't take it as me picking on you with this:
If you're NOT an economist, how can you say Gold will be better, that RP's radical--and it is radical, from oil to Gold--economic move will be better?
Gold may sound nice...but on what basis do you derive the idea that it actually will be so, aside from RP being the one to suggest it?
(Again, I'm no economist either, so please don't take this as my attacking you or your economic understanding personally, just asking--if you confess to not knowing how it might help...why support it and say it might help when it's a departure from a more widely-used and modern system?)
3A. " I disagree with Paul on this one, but its not a deal breaker for me. I think we should give foreign aid, but certainly need to do a better job of how we give aid. Most of it is political and I doubt it is very efficient. If you want to give aid, donate to the Red Cross."
OK, I'll agree with the bulk of that...ironically, the first part I agree with you here is over something you disagree with RP over, but anyway...
3B. "I reject this premise. Example of the Middle East: We give lots of foreign aid to both Arabs and Jews. Does that win of the affection of either side? No, that's not human nature. Instead, each side takes their aid for granted while resenting the money that goes to their enemies."
Well, first, you haven't granted my premise in proper, so you can't fully reject it, technically speaking, as my premise was that aid given strategically pacifies, builds alliances, and guards against attacks--as we have an ally in Israel as a result, and we give military aid there, and, more to the point, we have a LACK of aid going to places like Lebanon, and THERE is where Hezbollah gives the aid INSTEAD and, lo and behold, that is where they have their foothold...aid to Israel=ally, no aid to Lebanon =enemy was a general representative of my premise, which you have not acknowledged in full, and an example that seems fully valid.
In any case, however, leaving aside the "human nature" portion of this, lest we devolve into 10 pages of my debating that, the fact that the two sides resent one another is NOT the point of the aid, not as I gave it. I said the aid was given to foster peace and allies on OUR behalf...NOT peace for the region and between the region's powers in general. I agree--Israel and Lebanon may very well take their aid and use it to quarrel with one another...but as long as AMERICA is kept in their good graces, strictly speaking, the aid has done it's job for US.
"Second, where is the evidence that foreign aid is doing that much good?"
I just gave two examples, Israel as a positive and Lebanon as a negative:
We gave/give Israel aid, and as a result, the nation has stood (if we had not acknowledged it and given it weapons way back when, it never would have survived, and today, but for the threat of US military intervention, the Arab nations do not and have not launched a full-scale attack on Israel, so, we've kept a nation we hold to be an ally stable via aid... positive example...)
Negative example, we DON'T give to Lebanon, not like Israel, not more than Hezbollah, and as a result, more Lebanese people--out of the very sort of "human nature," I believe, as you yourself suggested" flock to a terror organization that chants "Death to America!" than not, and this feeds said terror organization's manpower and resources...how is this helping ourselves? How is this helping America? OR the Free World, for that matter? To dig up the old, tired term, how is this "winning" the "War on Terror" the GOP is so fond of touting around election time?
"It seems that far too often, the beneficiaries are dictators and military budgets, not the average person in any given country."
That's a granted and legitimate quarrel with the system, but this arises more due to a mistake in how to give aid and what kind of aid to give than in the act itself--give food, give energy, give resources...
DO NOT give Weapons of War, as we gave Saddam...and as we gave the Iranians...and Contras...and WHICH party was in office when all three received their weapons?
"Besides, taking this out of context hurts -- there's no amount of foreign aid that can fix the bad image of drone strikes killing innocent people, and that's part of what Ron Paul wants to end."
Admirable hat RP wants to end war, and in most respects, I will agree there...
However, ending wars does not mean an end to a need to give foreign aid...how do such wars START, after all?
For lack of resources, often, and so, we can either act preemptively and aid these regions and NOT go to war, or withhold aid, let these regions fall into disrepair, let dictators and terror cells that DO and WILL give aid in exchange for "Death to America!" drones...
And then OUR military drone airplanes will have to fight once more...and we'll be wondering, how DO we seem to keep landing ourselves in wars?
4A. "Not sure what you are saying here."
On Jeffersonian politics being outdated and unfeasible for a 21st century nuclear superpower? I'll defer to 4B and answer the two as one here...
4B. "We'll have to disagree here. Not everyone wants empire."
NOW, let me clarify this a bit.
First, one might argue we are ALREADY an empire, 50 states worth of essentially-settled/conquered territory, and military bases around the world, with the biggest military in the world.
*I* am all for cutting the military size and budget some, we ARE spending too much there--I'll again point out we have the GOP and Reagan to thank for that, though, and as RP is running for the GOP ticket, and the GOP is inexorably connected with the military and military-industrial complex...well, we're at an impasse there--if RP slashes the military size, he sticks to his guns, but good luck winning over the GOP base and military contractors he'll be alienating (to add to the oil companies he's already alienated by advocating for Gold over oil...so that;'s TWO major GOP constituents alienated now), OR RP Will leave the military as, is, in which case, we cannot complain about not wishing to be an empire...quite frankly, in terms of territorial and military size, WE ARE an empire in status.
NOW.
To be philosophical for just a moment, and this is a bit of a digression from the practicalities we have been discussing for the first portion here, but as RP's professed himself time and again as a strict Constitutionalist and an advocate of Jeffersonian political philosophy and ideals, we need to take a look at that quickly.
Jefferson--and when I say "Jefferson," I'm including John Locke here, as Locke and Jefferson are really two sides of the same coin separated by a century, by "property" vs. "pursuit of happiness" after "life" and "liberty" in their written works, and the Atlantic, but essentially, they ARE, for these purposes the same, so I'm going to utilize both of their ideals here, but keep it under the umbrella of "Jefferson" to simplify--was born in a different age.
The 1700s are NOT the 2000s.
Why?
Reason #1--We are no longer an agrarian-based economy, or society, for that matter, and such an idea and people are at the CORE of the Jeffersonian philosophy.
There's a reason there are so many allusions to rural and farm settings and like analogies in Jeffersonian philosophy.
This is no longer the philosophy or world we live in.
Our world is mechanized.
Our world is computerized.
Our world i nuclear.
In the 1700s, the MOST a government could do was conquer large swaths of land and pillage it.
In the 2000s, the most we can do is destroy all biological life on Earth.
In the 1700s, the worst sort of economic collapse possible would be the loss of a colony or land or else a famine or something of that ilk.
In the 2000s, we have a global economy, and this cannot be disengaged from if growth is to be maintained, and we're all connected--a collapse in Greece affects NYC, affects London, affects Tokyo...we have not just resources but MARKETS.
As a result of this huge amount of trade, we need a large amount of standardization and regulation, as these are a lot of diverse markets coming into play all at once.
IN ADDITION, in the 1700s, it could take months for cross-Atlantic communication.
It now takes seconds.
We are a fully connected world--meaning more freedom and more freedom to ATTACK all at once.
NOW.
Pause over JUST those three things, the proliferation of WMDs, globalized trade, and a fully-connected world in which happenings in Beijing can instantaneously affect Munich and Moscow and D.C. and so on, all at once.
What am I getting at?
The centerpiece of Jefferson's ideal government is a limited republic, ie, a SMALL government, a government that can work off of a drafted Constitution to the "T" because of it's relatively small size, isolationist state, self-sufficient state, agrarian nature, and so in and so forth.
Jefferson's ideal state is agrarian, allowing people to live off of natural resources, ie farm.
Most in Jefferson's time were farmers, or close to it.
Jefferson's ideal state is one separated by an ocean where an enemy attack would take weeks or months to arrive.
Jefferson's ideal state is one that is not dependent on alliances with other nations.
THESE ARE ANTIQUATED IDEAS AND NO LONGER APPLY FEASIBLY.
Most now do NOT farm--most now work in blue collar or white collar jobs that are often specialized or technology based...a MINORITY are farmers, NOT a majority, thus...
We are NOT all independent, as an ideal Jeffersonian society would have its citizens be, of one another to a large extent, but rather, are largely dependent; unless you personally made the computer you are reading these words on now or personally farmed, shot, and made the food you eat, or made the home you live i with your won two hands, you are NOT independent.
FURTHER, we are not merely dependent on one another as Americans, as we are in, not a localized, agrarian economy, but a GLOBAL economy...your computer could very well have been "Made in China," and your food has likely come fro miles away as well, and the building material for your homes...we have to trade with foreign nations to get the oil that fuels your cars or the bus you take...we are NOT independent of other nations, as the Jeffersonian ideal would have it be preferred, including...
It does NOT take months or weeks to attack our soil now--it can be hit in a manner of hours or minutes, and if we include the possibility of a cyber attack, as the Internet continues to grown and connect us all and become both a great tool and weapon, possibly SECONDS.
What does this all mean?
A SMALL, AGRARIAN-BASED, ISOLATIONIST GOVERNMENT IS *NOT* UP TO THE TASK OF RUNNING A 3,000+ MILE-LONG, 50-STATE, 15 TRILLION DOLLAR GOVERNMENT THAT IS A NUCLEAR SUPERPOWER AND NO LONGER EITHER SELF-SUFFICIENT IN ITS RESOURCES--SEE: OIL, MANUAL LABOR--AND CAN NO LONGER ISOLATE ITSELF VIA TWO VAST OCEANS IN A WORLD WITH BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
THE TASK IS TOO LARGE FOR A SMALL-LOCALIZED GOVERNMENT SYSTEM SUCH AS LOCKE AND JEFFERSON PROPOSE.
A LARGE, FEDERALIZED, GLOBALIZED GOVERNMENT IS NEEDED.
Hence one of my deepest core problems with Ron Paul--
His ideas are, as I said, antiquated--there's the word, see, told you it'd be back--and no longer feasible in this day and age with this nation at this point in time.
To be clear:
The ideas of life, liberty, and the protection of property/pursuit of happiness...the advocating for a 2/3-branch system of government with checks and balances, for arguing for a separation between church and state, and for private property...
THESE are all still fine, noble ideas--it's why we still idealize Jefferson and Locke, those ideas are timeless, situation-less, they can and should always apply.
But we are no longer isolated/protected by the Atlantic and Pacific.
Our largest source of trade is no longer with ourselves.
Most people are no longer farmers or builders and thus no longer, strictly-speaking, self-sufficient in the Jeffersonian sense.
The world has changed--and the United States and the ideals of Democratic Rule have changed with it, adapted, grown accordingly.
Ron Paul seeks a past time that is gone, and cannot return.
His appeal is largely one of nostalgia in some circles, but it is misguided...ballistic missiles can hit us from above. We can be bombed from above. Hit by terrorists on our own soil in minutes--with the Internet, again, possibly seconds, if a large, catastrophic hack were someday to occur.
Jeffersonian/Lockian ideals begin with agrarian and isolationist governments when put into practice...these governments no longer apply to the USA.
Ron Paul is a relic of a past age--let his ideas be confined to that age.
A final note:
Strict Constitutionalist government--fine in 1801...
When blacks were still counted as 3/5ths of a person, and when women couldn't vote...?
Even if we allow that RP means he's a strict Constitutionalist and, by that, means he accepts the amendments that have been made as well, this then defeats his position:
IF the US Constitution HAS been amended before, it seems folly to read it strictly, as if it should never need amending or adding onto or subtracting from or altering in any way.
OK, then...
5A. "Big government is bad."
...
If it's alright with everyone, I'm going to assume my answer to 4A/B was more than sufficient for a response--good or bad--to THAT point...moving on.. ;)
"Paul is all about letting the states do their own thing."
And I IMMEDIATELY point to the "Free State/Slave State" example to prove why this attitude was, again, OK for a small, agrarian government that didn't mind major moral and societal differences, but no longer acceptable, unless, again, we want to leave open the possibility of some states being completely anti-gay, or barring Mexican immigrants (or using racial profiling against those here legally), or teaching Creation Science in school and banning evolution...seems unattractive to me...I think most would find that unattractive as well...hence the reason state rights need SOME reigning in, otherwise, we're not so much a Union as a Confederacy, so to speak...
"And you statement is so rash with a stereotype of the south it makes you look like an ass."
Well, I didn't just name them in my bit immediately above, but cat's out of the bag--but ass or not, I WOULD point out that it is, like it or not, the Southern states that ARE most fiercely pro-Creationist, anti-gay, and, indeed, if we want to take this a step further, we can point out once more that it was the South--not all SOUTHERNERS, mind you, I'm painting with a broad brush, I know, so not EVERYONE, but enough to make the point stick here--that needed FEDERAL assistance and urging to help integrate and cool Mississippi Burning and Atlanta and all the rest in the 1960s...it WAS two Southern States (TEN and ARK) that have filed infamous Supreme Court Cases against teaching evolution in science classes...
Stylized or no, I think my point sticks--and the facts and history back me up here.
"The states can still have their own energy and education departments."
I've already made my point about the importance of standardizing education to a degree, I think, with Evolution--I HOPE you're not going to contest THAT--so, to energy...
What oil we DO produce here--guess what? Not ever state has it. We supply one another. Ditto with coal. The Midwest is the breadbasket. Here in California, we have some of the largest fruit farms in the Western world.
So, guess where many of your oranges come from? And your oil? And bread?
Different states, again, we're NOT in a state of Jeffersonian independence anymore where anyone could simply get a patch of land, an acre or two in size, and that was enough to sustain a family, locally, with no outside resources or aid needed.
This is EXCLUDING the aid that's constantly needed for earthquakes (like the Northridge one that hit right near where I live when I was a wee lad) and hurricanes (Ike, Katrina, Andrew) and tornadoes (like that one which destroyed an entire town this past year or last year or so) and floods, and so on.
Again, nice idea, Jeffersonian independence--no longer viable.
"What makes them worse at handling those things compared to the federal government?"
For one...the federal government has more resources and a greater supply of manpower.
For another, the federal government can be objective in a way localized government cannot always be; I point to their stepping in during the 1960s movements and the standardization of teaching to a degree--so our students are taught science in science class and NOT Adam and Eve, and the other way around, so science is kept out of the Church and that vital separation is kept intact--and so on.
Again, for starters.
Should the federal government handle EVERYTHING at a state level?
Of course not.
But who does the Constitution RP reveres so much say has priority power?
The Federal govt. over the State, EXCEPTING Amendment 10 accordingly.
5B. "People teach stupid things with the Department of Education in place."
Granted, but they also provide an important stabilizing function, ie, again, science for science classes and not religion...if you have a problem what they teach, THAT is another matter, and one I might in cases sympathize with--but that doesn't mean you junk the dept., it means you move to get mew material taught is all.
"The DoE doesn't have the kind of enforcement power you're giving it. I haven't seen much connection between the DoE and the educational attainment of Americans."
I'm using Evolution here until someone blocks me, because--apologies to the South once more for picking on you--a good few Southern states WOULD be teaching Intelligent Design and its religious underpinnings and NOT Evolution and proper science if not for federal mandates...
"The beneficial things that the Departments of Interior and Energy do could be done more cheaply in other ways -- we don't need cabinet level positions to protect them."
Energy is...a pretty important thing for a functioning govt...you don't think that's worthy of a cabinent post?
Ditto Interior?
And anyway, cabinet-level positions are appointed and not too great a source of federal congestion; more problematic is the legislative gridlock.
6A. "See Keynes vs. Hayek debate. I'm sure there are many economists who would support Paul's general economic stances. And until you give me some proof of the "experts" not finding his plans feasible, I will just assume you are talking out of your ass."
I believe there are links to dissenting economists on Paul's economic strategy in the link I posted way back in 1A...let me know if not.
6B. "Maybe -- I'm not an economist.
You might be right about all this about Ron Paul's economic ideas. They might indeed be strikes against him that would make it impossible for you to vote for him. But in that case, you've got to vote third party, because every other major candidate's positions on the drug war, bailouts and protection of the wealthy, and America's imperial adventures should strike them out as well."
OK, to point something out:
Tom, you objected to foreign aid...now ckroberts, you admit his economic policy may not be sound or, at the very least, might be a liability.
So, international relations and economic aid, both potential liabilities, IGNORING the alleged racism and the faulty philosohpy and all that...
WHAT is do remarkable about this man and his ideas? I just see to find more and more fault lines, even among his supporters--two issues, and you each objected to one and supported one. Tom objected to foreign aid but was OK with the economic side, and vice versa with ckroberts, I believe...
Even fault lines within his own supporters?
At the end of all THAT, I'm still left asking, more than ever...
WHY?
Why should I view this man as anything but a possibly-bigoted relic with antiquated ideas and faulty premises?"
Nooby question
for five minutes playtime?
)
)
)
)
)
