Saturday, December 29, 2007

Disagreements with Ron Paul

Che Bob has twelve of them:

Abortion Rights, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Kyoto, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Border Fence, Net Neutrality, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, and the biggie: Universal Healthcare!

Since I'm a big Ron Paul guy--no!--I thought I'd do my best to explain, in a paragraph or two, why Paul's position are substantially correct. From the list of complaints, as well as his handle, it's obvious that Che Bob is a left-leaning fellow. Notice, however, that he's taken enough time to disagree with Paul. This is a fairly good illustration of why Paul is more electable than any of the other Republican party presidential candidates. I dare say Che Bob would never vote for Rudy or any of the other Republican contenders.

To the points:

1) Abortion Rights: Paul is a firm believer in the Constitution; since that document nowhere mentions--or even alludes to--abortion "rights", the correct position is to let the states decide what to do about abortion; this is how things used to work before Roe v. Wade. Allowing the
states to decide is far more democratic than allowing unelected judges to write national policy. And while Paul is in favor of banning abortions at the federal level, he wants to do so through the Congress, though, depending on the makeup of the high court, this could require an amendment.

I've written time and again about abortion--most recently here--so there's no need to rehash any of that presently; Che Bob knows the arguments on both sides. I clearly believe that abortion is immoral, as does Paul. The important point, however, is that regardless of what one thinks about abortion, Paul's position is constitutional, and anyone with any respect for that document--which should be all of our representatives, given the oath they must take to enter office--should have no trouble accepting, and in fact advocating for, such a position.

2) Embryonic Stem Cells: First, recent developments have rendered the utilization of embryonic stem cells unnecessary. This is good news for everyone; science can continue to attempt to make our lives easier and more pleasant without having to wade around in morally murky waters. Second, what does the federal government have to do with stem cells? I'm being serious. We don't have the federal government involving themselves in other technologies--or rather, we shouldn't. This is plainly an issue for the private sector, at least if we want any real progress to be made.

3) ANWR Drilling: Drill away, I say. Nature is a means whereby man may communicate with his God, but it's also been given him to improve his condition. We've started an immoral foreign war, in part because we needed the oil; how profoundly idiotic historians will think us given that we had our very own supply, in the most thinly populated state, but chose to leave all of the land to the caribou. I'm not one of those rape-and-pillage-mother-earth folks, and I don't think Paul is either, but it strikes me as absurd to the nth degree that we're going to refrain from drilling in a very minuscule portion of a very large reserve, that is so far removed from the rest of the country that few of us even bother to visit it.

4) Kyoto: I can't wait until we can all look back on the global warming scare and have a good laugh about it. Of course, by then, we'll be worried about global cooling, so laughing will be verboten. Anyway, it's very silly to inhibit our ability to produce things, so that we can attempt to slow down a process which might not have much of anything to do with our actions. The predictive models, which folks like Al Gore use to demonstrate that we're all going to die, aren't accurate enough to anticipate the changes we've seen in the last couple of years. By all means, conserve energy on your own, start a movement for like-minded folks even, but don't use the federal government as a weapon of social control. I note in passing that the hubris of global-warming types--we puny humans are going to destroy the planet!--is matched only by the neo-cons and their global democratic revolution.

5) Assault Weapons Ban: Constitutionally speaking, this should be another issue of states' right. In any event, it's largely irrelevant, given the propensity for laws of this type to be ignored.

6) Guns - Background Checks: See number 5. As numerous studies have shown--I'm fairly certain John Lott deals with this in More Guns, Less Crime--the only impact these laws have is to reduce or eliminate the ability of owners of gun shows to make some money.

7) Citizenship Path for Illegals: It makes no sense for a nation, any nation, at any time, to allow any people who come marching across its borders, to become part of that nation. A nation is a people with a common history and language, and a shared culture. While there is something to be said for pluralism--it seems unavoidable in a post-Reformation west--diversity, is, in the long run, destructive. Only a relatively homogeneous society can exist in a stable state; a nation which only exists as an abstraction of blurry lines on a map is no nation at all, and will soon disintegrate. Allowing illegals to stay will destroy this county as it did imperial Rome.

8) Border Fence: I'm not actually one hundred percent sold on this one. A fence is useful in keeping the barbarians out, but it's also useful in keeping potential expatriates, such as myself, in. Clearly, though, some border security is needed to prevent problems like number 7 from reoccurring. Moreover, sufficient border security is the best way to combat terrorism; it is not immoral like invading foreign countries, and it is not only cheaper, but should also prove much more effective.

9) Net Neutrality: I had to look this one up. My guess is that Paul thinks, as I do, that allowing the government a hand in regulating any part of the Internet will give the government a better chance to regulate the content of the Internet. I'd like to believe that: 1) the government knows where to draw the line; and 2) the First Amendment would prevent them from threatening our free speech rights, which we daily exercise here on the Internet, but neither assumption is reasonable, especially given the current state of government. I pegged Che Bob for a free-speech advocate, so perhaps he can clarify for me on this one.

10) Minimum Wage Increase: I just finished Hilaire Belloc's The Servile State--which I highly recommend, by the way. Therein he notes that "the effects of Socialist doctrine on Capitalist society is to produce a third thing different from either of its two begetters - to wit, the Servile State." In the last section, he notes that a minimum wage law was precisely the type of legislation which would further our road to serfdom. The divide between those who control the means of production and those who do not is ever-growing. However well intentioned, minimum wage laws have been wholly ineffective, not only at mitigating the plight of the proletariat, but at allowing him to take some small hold of the means of production. In fact, the rise of "the servile state" has ensured that he is far more worried about becoming unemployed than he is about becoming a genuine owner. It makes no sense to continue policies which will only force us to march ever onward on this lonely road.

11) Same-Sex Marriage: This is another one of those issues for the states. I happen to think that the Religious Right is tremendously misguided on this one; the tide of public opinion is moving against traditional morality. Further, allowing the state to define marriage is senseless; marriage is primarily a religious construct. I won't say that the non-religious shouldn't be allowed to get married, but I'm unclear as to what the benefits for such folk might be. And, of course, it goes without saying that the Constitution has nothing to say about the matter.

12) Universal Healthcare: One of the central problems with the Federal Government is that they do almost everything badly. Outside of the military, which is rather good at fighting--but only against traditional enemies like the Nazis or the Russian Communists--the biggest objection to government is that it doesn't work as intended. Granted, our healthcare system is screwed up--I would argue, largely because of government interference in the private sector; why should we let the same people that couldn't get us out of the depression without a world war; that waged a war on poverty whose only result was the solidification of the servile state; that can't keep drugs off the streets despite billions upon billions of dollars allocated for that end, to run a healthcare system. The only argument for universal healthcare is that it will be be run so poorly that it will invariably force a few liberals to rethink their position on the role of government.

That was fun, now wasn't it? Of course, I'll be glad to do my best to handle any feedback thrown at me.

7 comments:

Ché Bob said...

Wiser,

I am currently on the road, so please forgive the delay before I am able to give a more thorough response.

Thanks for taking the time for a this response. Fortunately, you've provided plenty to work with when rebutting.

The most obvious flaws in your thinking and narrative--not unlike most libertarian rhetoric--are that you can't even see the deep hypocrisy in trying to have things both ways.

You desperately want to scapegoat government for its bureaucratic, inefficient ways, but you are unafraid to use it to regulate laws and policies that benefit your small sector of white, male society.

To expect the government to be an appropriate purveyor of justice in the Net Neutrality issue and to check its own power, but then to call it hopelessly futile in providing health care or a potentially totalitarian agent for social control when trying to abide common sense (Kyoto Protocol) are prime examples of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

What is it with Ron Paul "libertarians"? No government...yes government...no government...

"Don't tread on me!"..."Please tread on fuzzy foreigners trying to get into "my" country!"...

"Keep your government hands off "my" country, but make my country homogeneous!"

"Don't fence me in...build a big fence to fence "them" out!"

Utilize the government only to shape my white, ,anglosajon, male world...protect "my" world not universal rights!

Wiser seems to have completely forgotten that he reaps the reward of a sick and twisted history of rape, plunder and pillage only to now call it his divine right to exploit! Did God give us North America to exploit (drill)?...For real? "God damned injuns were just letting all God's green earth go to waste!" Seriously Wiser, there are some sick implications in your thinking. I can only imagine you don't understand what you're saying, because the implications are devastating!

Seriously Wiser, this is some scary shit!

A Wiser Man Than I said...

You are forgiven the delay.

To expect the government to be an appropriate purveyor of justice in the Net Neutrality issue and to check its own power, but then to call it hopelessly futile in providing health care or a potentially totalitarian agent for social control when trying to abide common sense (Kyoto Protocol) are prime examples of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I think that's unfair. The net neutrality issue, as I understand it, is an example of the government preventing corporations from tampering with the free market. Such enforcement is, or should be, less than complex, and shouldn't require much in the way of bureaucracy.

Since corporations are a creation of the state, the state has every right to ensure that they abide by certain rules. If a company doesn't like it, they can cease being a corporation.

The healthcare and Kyoto issues are much, much different. Allowing the government to run healthcare, besides being unconstitutional, requires a massive amount of manpower, and, of course, tax money. It's unrealistic to expect the government to handle this well.

Kyoto is closer to the net neutrality issue, except that instead of allowing the market to remain free, Kyoto prevents the people from making their own decisions. Such authoritarianism is not constitutional.

"Keep your government hands off "my" country, but make my country homogeneous!"

Doesn't a country have a right to decide who can enter into it? As Ron Paul pointed out in an interview with Vox Day:

"I don't support totally open borders, because although I think the federal government should be small, protecting borders and providing national defense - which excludes occupying other countries – are two of its legitimate functions."

Wiser seems to have completely forgotten that he reaps the reward of a sick and twisted history of rape, plunder and pillage only to now call it his divine right to exploit!

Every people and nation have a history full of "rape, plunder and pillage". Truth be told, the American experiment was fairly innocuous, historically considered.

Are you seriously equating the horrific treatment of the American Indians with the drilling for oil in a land bereft of all but caribou?

I'd appreciate if you could point out the "devastating implications" of thought which strikes me as largely common sense.

troutsky said...

Chebob, you think he is a confused self proclaimed libertarian, you should check out this site:
www.antiwar.com
They are commenting on the new Ron Paul ad which panders to the Tancredo crowd saying "no visas for students from Terrorist Nations" you know,like Cuba and Syria.The level of pure incoherance is astouding which is why I feel the need sometimes to work on theory before jumping into practice.

Anyway, Wiser will look back on his defense of "libertarianism" someday with regret. "Since the State created corporations it has the right to regulate them" Our education system is clearly failing a lot of young people if they still think "American experiment was fairly innocuous" or the constitution does not allow universal healthcare or the mythological "free market" could ever exist.As for Gods order to dominate the Earth, be fruitful and multiply etc...there can be no argument,it is therefore totalitarian.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

The level of pure incoherance is astouding which is why I feel the need sometimes to work on theory before jumping into practice.

I think it's fair to point out that a number of folks from anti-war, such as Justin Raimondo, are appalled by the ad. I agree with him, though this doesn't change my support for Paul.

I guess I fail to see how one inconsistency renders Paul's theory irrelevant. He's still the most consistent and correct candidate when it comes to foreign policy. I bet I could find dozens examples of hypocrisy by any other candidate.

Anyway, Wiser will look back on his defense of "libertarianism" someday with regret.

With all due respect, I rather doubt it. The lessons I have learned from my readings of history, to say nothing of a theology founded on the basic imperfectability of man, will never allow me to trust the State. The 20th century saw an unprecedented growth in the power of Government; it's not a coincidence that that same century was the world's bloodiest.

Our education system is clearly failing a lot of young people if they still think "American experiment was fairly innocuous" or the constitution does not allow universal healthcare or the mythological "free market" could ever exist.

I won't disagree with you on the first point, but it bears mentioning that I went to parochial schools until college.

The worst crime committed by Americans was the legalization of abortion and subsequent murder of forty plus millions of infants. A distant second would be our policy of imperialism, which will need to continue for some decades to match the bloodbath brought on by Roe.

As for the usual assertions that our treatment of the American Indians and enslavement of the blacks were immoral: point taken.

However, I can think of no such incident in history in which colonizers did not exterminate the native population. Some of the Jesuits, perhaps. This doesn't mean the genocide was defensible, but it's a bit unfair to blame Americans for something every other people has done.

As to slavery, it has been ubiquitous throughout human history. Again, this isn't a defense, but America did abolish slavery, something many African nations have yet to do. Further, I note that slavery is making a comeback in many part of the world.

Through my pessimistic lens, I think "fairly innocuous" could be modified by "occasionally beneficent" and allow the verdict to stand.

As for Gods order to dominate the Earth, be fruitful and multiply etc...there can be no argument,it is therefore totalitarian.

Not true. Unlike most totalitarian regimes, God's commands can be disobeyed. You might say that God is something of a libertarian Himself.

Doom said...

For my part, and in this particular article and your responses, I think you have it correct, Wiser. If you do parse, you do so correctly. Not all things are equal, and weighting is necessary. I think (hope), in time, you may travel a bit in politics. However, unlike troutsky, I hope you never regret your path... your roots.

I hope you have a great new year. Be well.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

I think (hope), in time, you may travel a bit in politics.

Does that mean I'll have to leave the house? =)

However, unlike troutsky, I hope you never regret your path... your roots.

I don't think I'll regret my path, but it makes sense that Troutsky hopes I see "the light". I wish the same of him, only, my light is a bit brighter.

I hope you have a great new year as well! Take care.

hoosiertoo said...

Curious mix of libertarianism and distributism.

I sympathise.