What is wrong with Ron Paul?

[jabbernaut]

people are idiots.

And the government is a beacon of intelligence? Give me a break.

I work for the Department of Defense, and trust me, if you think people are idiots, the government is no better than the people. You know the saying about stupid people in large groups? Yeah, well the federal government is one of those large groups.

I find the idea of "Big Business bad! Big Government good!" is simply laughable. The Federal Government IS big business. Politicians are no different from CEO's. It's all money and power... and interns, of course.

And I find it so amusing those who are always crying for the government to be involved in everything, take charge of everything, run everything, and wipe people's butts for them... are also the first to explode over what they consider infringements on their civil liberties. Don't they realize greater dependance on the State is less liberty for the people? Are they really expecting to have their cake and eat it too?

I guess so many Americans want things federalized instead of privatized because they think such things as health care and education have somehow made it into our Bill of Rights. But talk to some of our elder citizens, they'll tell you of days when education was available but not mandatory, and thus was a privilege not to be abused the way young'uns abuse it today.

How have we come to feel so entitled to everything?

[Anita Blake]

How have we come to feel so entitled to everything?

I think it's the whole Bill of Rights thing. Everything is a "right" these days.

Yeah, the government is stupid because it is comprised of stupid people. However, one could hope that those in higher positions of making/changing policies would have a bit more education and be a little bit less stupid.

But this is the problem with democracy. You let of bunch of idiots vote for who they want in power and inevitably, they will vote for more idiots.

Viva monarchy!

[wiggin]

Apoc: My issue with Ron Paul is that his policies, while sounding somewhat reasonable on the surface, belie a fundamentally incorrect understanding of how the world works when examined at any level of detail.

His grasp of economics and monetary policy is laughable, his proposed tax policies are not sustainable, and he even wants to go back on the gold standard! He doesn't understand how inflation works, and seems to think that the government should not be concerned about those citizens on the financial margin.

His foreign policy is also pretty silly. His 'noninterventionism' is newly packaged isolationism and won't work in today's world. Ignoring the world's problems won't mean that we won't get hurt by them.

Similarly you could take pretty much any policy of his and realize that it is based on unfounded assumptions and beliefs about how the world works. Hell, he doesn't even believe in evolution! And I love how he goes on about government interference and federal oversight, but then argues that the government can outlaw sodomy. It's like he has this fundamental disconnect - all federal government is bad, but as soon as you get to the state level it's just fine!

I think the reason so many outsiders find him compelling is because he takes a tried-and-true political tactic for his arguments. He legitimately criticizes the excesses and ridiculousness of our government, generally on things that we can agree with. It's just that his proposed solutions only sound good on a first listen. Any discriminating voter will soon realize that he's not running on all of his cylinders.

(of course this comes from the girl who went to Cuba and decided that the way things are being run there are actually really, really good. free milk for children, 100% literacy, 0% homelessness, no beggars, equal opportunities for all children for cultural enhancement like ballet classes, no crime. You know, for the cost of greatly reduced material wealth for all, and lack of political dissent, I'd say it's worth it.)

I know this is an aside, Anita, but I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on this one. I think the US' position on Cuba is pretty silly nowadays, but it's still a very troubled country. They're run by an authoritarian regime that silences all dissent. There exists an upper class of 'privileged' who are allowed luxuries not present for the rest of the population - hardly a description of freedom. The government perpetrates widespread human rights abuses, particularly in imprisoning anyone expressing anti-government opinions. The press is strictly censored. Health care, while nominally free, is only fully available to those who can pay in hard currency (i.e. the elites or foreigners). Freedom of assembly and travel are strictly regulated by the government, and anyone wishing to leave the country should expect to have all of their property stripped from them. The economy is slowly faltering - GDP per capita is depressingly low, and capital investment is strictly controlled - and is largely supported by tourist income.

I'm not going to argue that the US way of life is always better - it isn't - but Cuba is a stagnant state that cannot significantly improve itself under its current regime. Even more than practicalities, I feel very strongly that no amount of security or stability or whatever is enough to justify the complete lack of freedom that Cubans suffer.

Ender

[Dregs]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

Deckchairs.

[dark fuschia]

deckchairs? You mean deckchairs for president? :question:

[Dregs]

Deckchairs for rearranging.

[Malcor Sylverwood]

Sounds like a good name for a band...

[Arianna]

gah... i wrote something really long and detailed and then i accidentally closed the tab on firefox. lame. maybe i'll write it agian later, when i feel up to it. maybe losing it was for the best...