Categories
ron paul
alright... then i'm done. but i'm open to discussing the merits of Ron Pauls stances anytime you happen to have the free time to do so.here we go...
on his want for withdrawal from nafta and wto:
i agree that it's necessary, but not for the reasons that he wants. paul is a hardcore capitalist, so his motivation is to exit what he considers managed trade. he's right that it is managed, but that's not the real problem. the problem with those pacts is that they encourage companies to outsource. neither of those agreements has anything about worker's rights or minimum wages, so when companies outsource they can bust up any union that tries to rear it's head and pay the workers whatever they want. by creating this inequity, it makes the movement of jobs from the states to other countries a cheaper option. by stripping the old tax penalties that were formerly imposed prior to the agreements it would be, for lack of a better word, stupid for most companies to keep the bulk of their manufacturing inside the states. the way paul sees it, we should strip everything down and just tariff the shit out of everything that comes to our shore. i can see the logic behind that, but the consequences would likely be other countries simply doing the same thing to us and our products. it's a conundrum. the real solution should be simply to interject guidelines in those pacts to guarantee that the workforce in whatever country we're negotiating with adheres to the same worker's rights laws as we do. it's not that other country's workers are better than ours, it's that they haven't acquired the rights of workers here. that's the root of the outsourcing evils.
on his want for withdrawal from the united nations:
this is just grandstanding. the u.n. is just a podium that we stand at when we want to tell the rest of the world what we're about to do. the united states seldom listens to the u.n. and/or functions within their guidelines. the organization itself is relatively useless aside from the fact that it makes worldwide leaders come in to contact with each other and stay civil. the idea that each nation has an equal say at the u.n. helps quell any inferiority complexes some countries could develop. the u.n. also facilitates in the extradition of felons. if we were to withdraw from the u.n., most likely it would be seen as an aggressive move. the last thing we need is for european countries to be questioning our motives. and for what? so we don't have to pretend that we care what they think? if you ask me, it's much ado about nothing.
on state's rights:
the idea that the united states is a union of sovreign entities is ridiculous. the civil war pretty much ended it. (if you want a *real* constitutional discussion, debate me on the legality of that war) at this point, the only thing that separates states are a few fringe laws. gay marriage, taxes, buttsechz, etc. by actually dividing the states up and removing most of the blanket federal laws, you would invite a mess. it's already confusing enough with some states allowing gay marriages and medicinal marijuana, but washington not. i just can't see where this would benefit anyone.
on the border fence:
sigh...does anyone really think this would work?
on abortion:
i'm not the biggest proponant for abortion, but i recognize that it is a necessary evil. blanketly banning abortions is irresponsible. there really are children that don't need to be born sometimes. abstinence is a nice idea, but goes against our basic animal instincts. while it's easy to look down on adults who go with abortion, there are countless teenage pregnancies every year that would not only destroy the lives of the parents, but also cripple them financially. once you add in the pregnancies that result from rape and incest and the fetuses that are known to have significant deformities...i just don't see how you can ban the practice.
on the drug war:
he's right on this. and it would probably make most of the reasons for the border fence disintigrate, since the main problem with illegals is crime.
he's also right about the federal reserve, the patriot act, torture and domestic spying.
but...
i couldn't disagree more on his stance regarding govenment agencies. while we all complain about shit like the dmv, we also realize that it is necessary and just needs some reform. lots of things that were left out of the constitution are necessary now. keep in mind that our founding fathers economic system consisted of shit like horse trading. the size and navigation difficulty of our current financial structure makes the old constitutional pov completely obsolete. the deregulation of the financial sector is what got us in this mess. i don't know how many people have been paying attention, but wall street profiteers pretty much robbed the american people and their own companies blind, and are currently living it up because the department of justice won't do anything about it. there needs to be reform there, but gutting the entire agency would be ludicrous. it's bad enough that bush stripped it down to where it is now. at this point, with the campaign finance laws the joke that they are, lobbyists are making sure that the republicans don't allow for more supervision of wall street. if anything, regulation needs to be strengthened, not weakened. which is exactly what paul wants to do. same goes for the epa. the anger towards this agency is manufactured by right-wing media because shit like the coal and oil industries want more lax regulations so they can make more profit. why else would anyone demonize an agency that is only there to make sure that our air is breathable and water is clean? the worst part is that, if anything, they need to be more enabled because it's getting to where air quality in most major cities is shit and the drinking water is even worse. can you imagine how shitty our country will be if there's nobody to make sure corporations, who have no conscience or motivation beyond profit, can just dump and spill whatever they want, whenever they want?
police forces, fire departments, hospitals, librarys...none of these things are guaranteed by the constitution. but where would we be without them?
Post edited by SATAN on
Comments
Abortion - I am actually in agreement with Ron Paul 100% on this and either you misunderstood his position, or are glossing over what he really believes. Ron Paul believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is best handled at the state level. It is not the federal governments responsibility to be involved in this sort of regulation. I personally believe that Abortion is a moral dilemma that is best left to the individual. I personally would never want a girl I impregnated to get an abortion, but I would never say someone else is wrong for getting one. that is their choice and their life, not mine. I believe Ron Paul shares this belief. He is pro-life, but he is also against the federal government regulating it.
State rights - This is such a huge topic that I feel very passionately about and so perhaps it is best that we just drop it. I will say however that the civil war was was 100% illegal. Abraham Lincoln was a piece of fucking shit, who
1. Had no legal right to illegally invade the south
2. Had no legal right to set up illegal port blockades.
3. Had no legal right to suspend habeas corpus
4. Had no legal right to intentionally ignore supreme court orders
5. Had no legal right to round up reporters and send them away to secret prisons without trial.
6. Had no legal right to prevent the southern states from succeeding from the union which was the god given constitutional right.
7. Did not free one god damn slave nor did he give any fucks about the slaves. There are many quotes where he said stuff like "If I could keep slavery and keep the union together, I would. If I could abolish slavery and keep the union together I would. It is important to save the union". Lincoln disagreed with the constitution being a collection of individual states coming together to form a union. He is the father of big government and I think he is damn near close to the worst president we ever had.
8. Slavery - forgot about the slavery he forced on poor citizens. unless you were rich and could pay your way out, you had to go to war against fellow Americans.
Fuck lincoln and his bastardization of our great country.
You've given me something to think about on your NAFTA and WTO and UN paragraphs. In general I support his position, but I guess I had not thought too hard about what following though with his position might actually do. I'm not saying I agree with you, but I am saying that I need more time to consider these two topics.
your last paragraph is also a pretty big topic to cover and again I don't think it is necessarily the elimination of them, but the focus on a lot of these services should be on the state level instead of the federal level. Ron's interpretation of the constitution is exactly in line with what the founding fathers intended. He is not against a police force, fire protection, or other society services like that.... He is against it on a federal level and then there is some debate about how it should be funded. Keep in mind that the role of the gov was to protect the peoples life, liberty, and property (or pursuit of happiness if you like that term better). These services are required for a prospering society. Ron knows that, I know that, and so does everyone else. The debate is how do we pay for it.
see why i wanted more time on this
EDIT: I also shudder to think of a government that has the nerve to ban abortion.
"Big Government" - A government or public sector which is considered to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The private sector is used in relation to government policies which attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior.
Yes, like you stated Lincoln caused the centralization of the American Government. He worked very hard at making sure the federal government was strong, centralized, and superseded state rights which was in complete disagreement with the constitution. He wanted to move away from state rights (which is smaller government so the people are better represented) to a large government (which brought us back into the position of not having any real representation). I assert to you that if Lincoln had let the south leave the union, that "Big Government" (as defined above) would not be present in our country because State rights would be more predominate and we would not be in our current situation of a large unrepresentative corrupt government. It is more then fair to blame "Big Government" on Lincoln, that was the outcome of his legacy of terror.
Also FTR - I personally believe that had the South left the Union, they probably would have been begging to come back shortly there after. Cotton production was on a steep decline, and the industrial north was starting to take off. The south would have spiraled down towards a third world nation, and they really had nothing to offer the North. Slavery was on its way out. It was mostly abolished in the North because society realized the hypocritical nature of the act of slavery and what they were supposed to stand for as a society. The South was going to quickly follow after, it was inevitable.
and if you want to know the truth... I am pushing from stronger state rights now, but if I was given that then I would be pushing for stronger city governemt rights over state rights. Bottom line is the smaller the gov, the more representive it is to the needs of "we the people"
interstate commerce
utilities
roads
taxes
extradition
water
air travel
these are all things that will suffer a significant level of upheaval if paul has his way. basically, the way i look at it is the same as how i look at communities with homeowner's associations. people whine and complain about the fees, but they really appreciate the fact that they don't have to worry about their neighbors burning their front yard or painting their house purple. that's the federal gov't controlled model. then you have the states-first model where it's more every homeowner for themselves. there, the neighbors can let their weeds grow 4 feet high and paint their driveway black (these are all examples i've witnessed first hand, btw). it's all a matter of preference, i guess. i'd just prefer to be in the nice gated community where i don't have to worry about my neighbor's letting their dog shit on the sidewalk. i know this is another metaphor, but i don't know any better way to put it. see above. but i don't see where deferring everything to the states makes things constitutional. i see your point earlier about the division of powers making things run more efficiently, but i'm not sure if it's even possible anymore since there's been more than 150 years now of the current federal-led system.
if the gov't were a computer, it would need to be rebooted. that may happen sooner than most people think.
I'm not sure that Ron Paul believes all these things should be handled at a state level. Interstate commerce, extradition, utilities, roads, air travel are probably some of the few things that should be handled by the feds. I think taxes should be handled at a state level, and federal financing should flow up from the states. States are more the capable of more effectively managing their finances (or they should be) Completely agree. So does Thomas Jefferson (one of my favorite quotes):
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
things needs to be changed for sure, but states power superseding the feds ins not the answer
I don't believe any war since then has been necessary. I don't believe we have any rights to policing the world. I work my ass off and allow them to steal my hard earned wage (they call it taxation, I call it theft) for them to run around the world starting wars here and there, at the benefit of their special interests pocket books?
So yeah... If a week central gov and strong state rights ends the American war machine.... Good fucking riddance! When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.