Archive for Ron Paul
Government Policy
Posted by: | CommentsAn argument over government policy pertaining to a particular issue also drives me to scream. Seldom is asked during such debate as to what role government plays in society. Ron Paul sticking with his philosophical principles responded to a policy scenario by asking that question. When the local government debates over funding for the county nursing home or the allocation of law enforcement for drug abuse, the first question should center on the nature of government. The following question asks whether the answer to the first allows government to intervene in the issue in the first place.
Government is created by man. Economically speaking, government agents are a division of labor that allows an individual to occupy their time for productive means. Individuals certainly could ration a portion of their time to sitting on the front porch with a shotgun protecting their property and person from harm. They also could stay close to the home in case of fire. But economic activity and thus human progress would move at a snail’s pace under such an arrangement. Labor necessary for the production of goods and the satisfaction of human wants would sit idle for a good portion of time watching over their property. Government agents free labor from idleness to productive. An agent cannot act in a manner differently from the collective individuals that hired them.
Under the idealism of liberty, a person cannot use force or fraud to plunder another’s property or threaten life. If I desire food on my table, then I cannot steal my neighbor’s dinner. Similarly, my sickness does not allow me to rob my neighbor’s money so I can buy medicine. I also have no right to threaten my neighbor with an act of violence for behaving in a manner that I do not approve of even though their actions cause me no harm. We hire government agents to intervene in acts of injustice. If I cannot steal from my neighbor, then neither can my agent. I cannot through force demand that my neighbor hand over money to put food on the table and neither can my agent. I cannot murder except in the case of self defense or property protection and neither can my agent.
A person cannot be both a thief and a saint. An agent cannot on one hand protect me and on the other hand steal from my wallet. No matter how noble the cause, the government becomes the agent of a thief when it takes through the threat of penalty or force the property of one for the benefit of another. And yet, this is exactly the state of our society. Government at all levels spends a large portion of its time as an agent for plunder instead of a protector against it.
Thomas Jefferson defined the proper role of government in his first inaugural address.
“A wise and frugal government , which shall restrain men from injuring one another shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”
Debates over government policy today are merely discussions on the amount of theft.
A True Visionary
Posted by: | CommentsBolstered by his win in South Carolina on Saturday, Newt Gingrinch head for Florida promising to deliver a “big idea” speech every day on his vision for the country. Obama and Romney also have their own visions. But none of the candidates for President, including Obama, ever saw the financial calamity, or the debt problems of the United States and Europe, or the problems escalating in the Middle East.
Only one candidate had the foresight to see where government intervention leads. The following is a speech given by Ron Paul in 2002. It appears he is the only true visionary.
I have a prediction to add:
If the Republicans nominate either Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum, then the party will go the way of the Whigs. And you can say Obama-four more years
Intellectual Roaches
Posted by: | CommentsLike a kitchen light turned on at a backwoods Georgia house in the middle of a sultry summer night, Ron Paul has the conservative mouthpieces and mainstream media roaches scurrying frantically. In their effort to marginalize the siren of liberty, talking heads like Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin and the rest of the bratty fraternity have illuminated personal intellectual shallowness. When Hannity talks about letting freedom ring or great, great Americans, he without a whiff of logic characterizes Paul in the most unflattering terms.
According to the self-appointed Popes of the conservative church, Paul and his philosophy of liberty and free markets is often characterized as whacky, nutty, or even dangerous. One writer described Paul’s Austrian economic beliefs as out of this world and acquired by reading obscure economist. The author never spent one word trying to explain the reasons for his feelings. Lack of supporting argument is commonplace among the media in their attacks on the Texas Congressman.
What we have learned over the last few months is the shallowness of their intellectual depths. Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly may talk a good game about freedom, but by flippantly dismissing Paul through a word or short phrase, they have shown an inability to express an argument in any meaningful words. One possible reason for this lack of argumentation is that the talking heads understand little about what they bloviate. Simply, they are read but not learned individuals. Their response to a person that dares to challenge their beliefs is to shout, name call, or hang-up.
This Republican “big government” Party may well be on its death bed. Libertarians are no longer willing to mark a ballot for the lesser of two evils. Conservative talk radio may also find its attraction waning. The new awakening in America finds people thirsting for knowledge not fill in the blank opinions. According to recent survey, the radio audience for Hannity and Limbaugh is down about 30% for both since last November.
May the Republican Party and their talking heads rest in peace.
Kraft on Bain
Posted by: | CommentsFor all you Newt Gingrich cool-aid drinkers out there, this one’s for you. I would have included Rick Perry but he’s done. What the revisionist historian Gingrich is suggesting is an anti-capitalist mentality. And if any of you have Mises’ book by that very name, you’ll understand precisely what I mean.
iPad users here:
Kraft_on_Bain
Gary Johnson has EARNED my support (repost).
Posted by: | Comments**This post was originally made on September 25th**
With the announcement today (12/28/2011) some 90 days later, my position is the same. However, now I am faced with supporting a Libertarian candidate. While I will not support the Libertarian party, I will support this man. Gary Johnson will be the first candidate for President of The United States (assuming he gets the L nomination) who I will vote for who is not a Republican.
When you watch the video, it might not hit you right away but it did me. Wanna know why? Because my family goes back 11 generations here in America, and we fought in the Revolutionary War, The War of 1812, The Civil War, WW1 and WW2.. so, by virtue of family heritage I consider myself as part of that 12% and take it seriously..
The balance of the candidates (Republicans) make me want to vomit, but here is a guy who I would be willing to support.
1. His position on taxes is laudable, better than the others, but not perfect.
2. His position on energy is precisely correct – his premise is that we have a supply problem, and until that gets corrected (meaning more domestic production, use of natural gas more, etc,) we ought to ride bikes more… I love that!
3. His position on legalization of certain drugs, e.g. marijuana is sane – unlike all the other candidates (except, perhaps, Ron Paul)
4. His position on immigration is sane: “America is a land of immigrants. Legal immigration should focus on making it easier and simpler for willing workers to come here with a temporary work visa, pay taxes, contribute to society, and fill jobs as the market demands.”
5. He opposes “Net Neutrality.” So do I, and for the same reasons!! “It is not a coincidence that the one element of our
modern economy that has been uniquely left free of government interference has created equally unique growth and transformation. An Internet free of regulation and taxation has produced innovation and enhancements to quality of life almost unparalleled in human history. If the market demands Internet services, speed and access, the market will provide them without any help from the government. The government, with its regulatory foot in the door, will inevitably end up attempting to regulate and referee content, speech, and commerce.”
6. Foreign Policy…. again, I agree with GJ when he states that our military needs to leave BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but from what I have read it appears he, like me, would like a far far smaller but far far more lethal military that stays close to home and is only used when we are directly and clearly threatened or attacked. Period.
Lastly (I could go on and on here), there is this quote out of the GQ article.. in reference to GJ’s attendence at Porcfest. A local public-radio guy and a local blogger ask if he would mind being interviewed, and they retreat to a smelly back hallway near the men’s room, where he answers questions about his campaign for the presidency while various revelers walk by with bongs and guns.
“A lot of people would say it’s a courageous candidate,” says the radio guy, “who would come to an event where people are walking around openly carrying weapons, there’s gay disco, there’s people smoking marijuana…”
Gary chuckles. “I wouldn’t say I’m a brave candidate for those reasons.” Another chuckle. “Those things don’t bother me at all.”
Ron Paul Nevada GOP Debate
Posted by: | CommentsPaul versus Paul
Posted by: | CommentsWhenever I hear the name of Congressman Paul Ryan, it brings me back to his justification that government had to do something during the financial plunge. He evoked no free market principles in voting for the auto and financial bailouts.
In an interview yesterday with Larry Kudlow, Ron Paul points out an important distinction between him and Ryan. Listen toward the end of the clip. Regarding interest rates Paul Ryan feels the Federal Reserve should raise them. Ron Paul, on the other hand, says let the free market determine interest rates and keep the central planners out of it. Paul also makes a great point in that a central bank controlling money is part of every transaction we make.
No Central Planning Here
Besides his belief in monetary central planning and bailouts, Paul Ryan voted for No Child Left Behind, Bush’s Medicare folly, the wars, and the Patriot Act. And this is the person the Republicans consider to be the next face of the party.
No Thanks!