Vote Republican: Support Senator Ron Paul!

[turbo]

He has a few Libertarian leanings that can attract single-issue voters, but the fact is that he will kowtow to the neocons and to the religious right to the detriment of the majority of US citizens. This guy is a wild card. If he gains traction as a third party candidate, he will be a spoiler for the GOP, which may be the only circumstance by which Clinton could get win the general election. Her negatives are huge and the GOP is portraying her as THE Dem candidate because they know they can Swift-boat her relentlessly should she get the nomination. They remind me of Brer Rabbit pleading not to be thrown into the briar patch. There is no other Dem candidate that the GOP would rather line up against.

 

[mheslep]

Ron Paul is a Christian Fundamentalist that seems to think that the Church should make the rules and run our lives.

How do you draw that conclusion from those quotes? Fundamentalist? Make the rules?

 

[Evo]

How do you draw that conclusion from those quotes? Fundamentalist? Make the rules?

Read his quotes.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think Ron Paul is a personality vote. I like watching him in debates, and I never suspected he was a Fundamentalist Christian, but I never thought I should vote for him just because I like him.

It seems like a lot of work to research all the candidates. I don't really trust most of the easily available information about candidates (especially information produced after they've announced that they'll be running).

 

[mheslep]

Read his quotes.

Ok:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America,

They were overwhelmingly Christian or Deist, and they wrote the establishment clause in the 1st amendment. Sounds historically correct to me.

with churches serving as vital institutions

Churches were certainly vital in their time.

that would eclipse the state in importance.

A broad assertion, I doubt one could find historical support for this one, certainly not in Jefferson's case. None the less he does not say replace or usurp the government which would contradict the 1st sentence.

Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

Somewhat Jeffersonian, the government as a necessary burden - as little as possible to protect us from ourselves.

This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.

I say that's a fair assessment of the opinion of Marxist organizers circa 1917.

So, nothing in there saying:

the Church should make the rules and run our lives.

Do you retract?

 

[Evo]

Ok:

They were overwhelmingly Christian or Deist, and they wrote the establishment clause in the 1st amendment. Sounds historically correct to me.

Churches were certainly vital in their time.

A broad assertion, I doubt one could find historical support for this one, certainly not in Jefferson's case. None the less he does not say replace or usurp the government which would contradict the 1st sentence.

Somewhat Jeffersonian, the government as a necessary burden - as little as possible to protect us from ourselves.

I say that's a fair assessment of the opinion of Marxist organizers circa 1917.

So, nothing in there saying: Do you retract?

No, when you don't disect what he said and read it together, it means what I said. Tearing it into little pieces out of context is disengenious.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.

Ron Paul wants to put Christianity back into government because he thinks we should revert to when the constitution was written when there was no tolerence for religion other than Christianity in America. He doesn't tout "freedom of religion", he's only supporting Christianity. He is not concerned about other religions, just puting Christian symbols back.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This doesn't sound like a stable person to me.

 

[mheslep]

No, when you don't disect what he said and read it together, it means what I said. Tearing it into little pieces out of context is disengenious.

Really? I'm not sure how I put your posted quote further out of context. Never mind, you're right, I see its a lot more fun to chuck careful scrutiny and go straight to 'it means what I said'. Hey let me try!

Ron Paul has fundamentalist bad breath!

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian ... [skip it - what he said doesn't matter]... faith in God before their faith in the state.

Ron Paul is a Nazi who wants to kill the jews!

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian ... [skip it - what he said doesn't matter]... faith in God before their faith in the state.

Ron Paul, an obvious member of the KKK, wants the Church to torture small animals!

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian ... [skip it - what he said doesn't matter]... faith in God before their faith in the state.

Now, please lock this thread, as there can be no further disagreement. IT MEANS WHAT I SAID.

 

[mheslep]

Ron Paul wants to put Christianity back into government because he thinks we should revert to when the constitution was written when there was no tolerence for religion other than Christianity in America. He doesn't tout "freedom of religion", he's only supporting Christianity.

He is not concerned about other religions, just putting Christian symbols back.

He clearly says "..religiously tolerant America". What shall I take 'tolerant' to mean?

 

[Evo]

Really? I'm not sure how I put your posted quote further out of context. Never mind, you're right, I see its a lot more fun to chuck careful scrutiny and go straight to 'it means what I said'. Hey let me try!

Ron Paul has fundamentalist bad breath!


Ron Paul is a Nazi who wants to kill the jews!


Ron Paul, an obvious member of the KKK, wants the Church to torture small animals!


Now, please lock this thread, as there can be no further disagreement. IT MEANS WHAT I SAID.

Sometimes I don't even have to say anything to prove a point.

 

[Evo]

He clearly says "..religiously tolerant America". What shall I take 'tolerant' to mean?

Where does he say anything about a religion other than Christianity? He doesn't. Tolerant perhaps to different forms of Protestant religions, perhaps a little tolerance for Catholics. Have you read much about the "religious tolerance" of that time period? I have. And that's what he keeps saying we should revert to.

He also doesn't include "secular" (non-religious) people as being due any tolerance or respect for their beliefs.

Again Ron Paul apparently has "no tolerance" for non-Christians.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

 

[turbo]

Where does he say anything about a religion other than Christianity? He doesn't. Tolerant perhaps to different forms of Protestant religions, perhaps a little tolerance for Catholics. Have you read much about the "religious tolerance" of that time period? I have. And that's what he keeps saying we should revert to.

As a person whose family was primarily French-Indian who grew up in the '50's and '60's, I was treated to the kind of "tolerance" that the protestants practiced so well. I was not encouraged to associate with their children, nor was I welcome in their homes when I was old enough to want hang out with their daughters, much less date them. The fact that I had firmly rejected Catholicism and in fact all organized Christian religions by the age of 14-15 didn't matter. I was one of "them". There were a few Jews in our town, but they kept their heads down, and there was no synagogue for over 50 miles anyway, and that was hours of travel in that day and in this area.

 

[mheslep]

Where does he say anything about a religion other than Christianity? He doesn't. Tolerant perhaps to different forms of Protestant religions, perhaps a little tolerance for Catholics. Have you read much about the "religious tolerance" of that time period? I have. And that's what he keeps saying we should revert to.

He also doesn't include "secular" (non-religious) people as being due any tolerance or respect for their beliefs.

Again Ron Paul apparently has "no tolerance" for non-Christians.

Sorry I don't see any of this in the quotes. He says tolerant, and does not qualify it to any group. You do that. Yes I'm well read on the time period, especially about the author of this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Now those 16 words are necessary and sufficient, I say, and there's no appendix or addendum that includes the word 'separation', or strikes special deals for Christians (not in the EU BTW, which has numerous established state religions to this day[1]). Anything you imagine replacing or updating them because they were of 'that period', is just that, imagination.

Edit:
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Religion"

Today, the Church of England is the officially established Christian church in England and senior branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. The British monarch is required to be a member of the Church of England under the Act of Settlement 1701 and is the Supreme Governor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Germany#Religious_freedom_in_Germany"

...This gives them certain privileges, for example being able to give religious instruction in state schools to adherents' children and having membership fees collected by the German Finanzamt (the German equivalent of the Internal Revenue Service) or by themselves.

England and Germany being extremely ill advised, IMO, to hold onto these state church establishments

 

[mheslep]

FYI edited last post

 

[Evo]

Sorry I don't see any of this in the quotes. He says tolerant, and does not qualify it to any group.

You're hopelessly blind to what he's saying. He ONLY mentions Christians, do you not get this? Apparently not. This is so typical of a Ron Paul supporter. Anyway, Ron Paul just assures that a Democrat will be elected, I'm fine with that.

 

[mheslep]

You're hopelessly blind to what he's saying. He ONLY mentions Christians, do you not get this? Apparently not. This is so typical of a Ron Paul supporter. Anyway, Ron Paul just assures that a Democrat will be elected, I'm fine with that.

I tried up thread to identify closely where we disagreeing. You didn't want to do that so I assume you're wedded to an agenda here. Paul only uses the word 'Christian' once in the main quote you posted and that was a simple recognition that many of the US founders were Christians, a truism, so what. Its ridiculous to imply a politician is required to mention every belief system, or lack there of, in any conversation about the establishment clause. One starts to conclude that the use of the C word anywhere, in any context, is sufficient to start a he's 'nuts', not 'stable', 'typical of' people-you-know-nothing-about smear campaign by you.

BTW, I'm definitely not a supporter of Rep. Paul. I am anti-crap. Some of his positions would take us places where there's little experience in contemporary US government and thus require a high burden of proof on his part which AFAICT he doesn't meet. I was hoping for good PF thread would explore these failings based on his actual positions; I see that's not going to happen.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America...

It's clear there that he is talking about tolerance towards religions other than Christianity.

Nevertheless, he now appears much more of a religious nutjob than I had previously pictured. Yikes! I had a whole lot of respect for him before...now I have to take away half the sackfull of brownie points that I'd given him.

 

[mheslep]

It's clear there that he is talking about tolerance towards religions other than Christianity.

Nevertheless, he now appears much more of a religious nutjob than I had previously pictured.

Well could be. Has he said something particularly nutty recently?

 

[Evo]

BTW, I'm definitely not a supporter of Rep. Paul. I am anti-crap. Some of his positions would take us places where there's little experience in contemporary US government and thus require a high burden of proof on his part which AFAICT he doesn't meet. I was hoping for good PF thread would explore these failings based on his actual positions; I see that's not going to happen.

Then we are both equally surprised that no one has cared to discuss him. I'm not sure if it's apathy. Perhaps no one sees him as a problem. I see that he will possibly steal away enough Republican votes to guarantee a Republican loss. I can only see that as a good thing. I thought we had a few die hard Republicans here.

I will go on record stating that I am

Pro-choice

For stem cell research

for separation of church and state

against special interest groups (such as religion ruling government)

I don't want to see religion in public classrooms

I don't want to see religious beliefs in place of science

This only scratches the surface of Ron Paul's crazy beliefs. I DON'T think we should turn our backs on the rest of the world.

More Ron Paul crazy beliefs

we should withdraw from the United Nations

vaccinations should be optional

we shouldn't support stem cell research

we should dictate a woman's choice

we should oppose universal healthcare

we can function without taxation, as Utopian and incredible that might be

we should live in the past

even slightly crazy people should carry assault weapons into a public park.

These are all things that Ron Paul has gone on record saying he supports.

HE'S CRAZY!

 

[mheslep]

These are all things that Ron Paul has gone on record saying he supports.

<yawn> Smokin' that good crack tonight? Come on, knock off the rants, pick one of the above and source it so we can discuss like you would on the science side

 

[Evo]

<yawn> Smokin' that good crack tonight? Come on, knock off the rants, pick one of the above and source it so we can discuss like you would on the science side

That vaccinations should be optional.

Show me where not having polio vaccines would have been a good thing. He's on record against those.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well could be. Has he said something particularly nutty recently?

Not that I know of. Most all the times I saw him on TV, he was being noticeably more sensible and honest than most of the others. But I hadn't read the above quotes until now, and that's what scares me about him. I don't know how long ago he said those things - I'm assuming he is still essentially the same person that made those statements.

 

[mheslep]

That vaccinations should be optional.

Show me where not having polio vaccines would have been a good thing. He's on record against those.

Ok thank you, I am off and searching...

I've looked at
Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
his congressional site:
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
The campaign site appears down. (Did you hack it )
I find no general statement on vaccines there. Googling on Paul and polio in particular gives nothing at all. If you have a particular source I'd appreciate it. I'm only able to fine this Paul position on the specific issue of forced administration of the small pox vaccine:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul66.html

The available vaccine poses significant risks, even though the more serious complications affect only a statistically small number of people. As with any medical treatment, these risks must always be balanced against the perceived benefit. Remember, not a single case of smallpox has been reported, despite the near-hysteria that characterized recent news reports. Even if some individuals became infected, smallpox spreads only with very close contact. Those in the surrounding community could then decide to accept vaccines based on a much more tangible risk...

Now I also see from http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-01-20-smallpox-cover-usat_x.htm" this news piece on hospitals in general balking at participation in the SP vaccination program

their numbers [medical practitioners refusing to give the SP vaccine] are growing as doctors and administrators at hospitals around the USA are concluding that the known health risks from the vaccine, which can cause illness and even death, outweigh the unquantifiable risks of smallpox being used as a terrorist weapon.

This appears to be a reasonable argument involving risk assessment; I wouldn't care to pass judgment either way as I am not the doctor. I did have a friend almost die once from reaction to the flu vaccine so I can certainly understand some squeamishness about being forced to take the thing, even though it may eventually be the best thing for us all. In any case, there's no case here for calling Paul and all of the hospitals in the USA Today article CRAZY for opposing a forced SP vaccine

 

[mheslep]

But I hadn't read the above quotes until now, and that's what scares me about him.

To what in particular do you object from the Paul quotes above?

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm generally of the opinion that anyone believing the Biblical stories as absolute truth are nutjobs (so that covers all the candidates), and am further of the opinion that the Church is the prime propagator of irrationality. That Paul wants the churches to lead the way¹ is downright scary to me. That he is against church-state separation² (which is a foggy issue, since he is against the state itself), wants the TCs in front of courthouses², prayer in school and "god" in the pledge² all indicate to me that he's lost a lot of marbles somewhere along the way. He is against gay rights³ due to what appears to be his Christian, traditionalist compass.

Neanderthals, the whole lot of them!

1: "...with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

2: He has voted against the Separation of Church and State consistently. He wants "under God" kept in the Pledge of Allegiance, he wants prayer in school, and the Ten Commandments in the courthouses.

3: He has voted against gay's having the same rights as others. He even COSPONSORED a bill (Marriage Protection Act) to make it ILLEGAL for the courts to challenge another bill called the Defense of Marriage Act, and has repeatedly voted against gays having the same rights as everyone else.

(all quotes from Evo's posts #139 and 140)

 

[mheslep]

I'm generally of the opinion that anyone believing the Biblical stories as absolute truth are nutjobs (so that covers all the candidates),

All the candidates ( 14-15 of them?) believe in absolute biblical truth? Not just I believe in the Bible, but as you say 'absolute' truth, every word is literal truth? I'll call you on this one. I doubt can you get a source that says shows any of them do.

and am further of the opinion that the Church is the prime propagator of irrationality.

the Church ...of [all?] irrationality? I assume then that is any Church/Synagogue? I was hoping you would at least put the Church after Britney Spears music videos.

1: "...with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance

From the complete quote that's clearly his historical assessment of the US founders intentions. Paul's 'eclipse the state' is probably not historic but otherwise the sentence is historic: "..endowed by their Creator...", "...Nature's God entitle them...".

2: He has voted against the Separation of Church and State consistently. He wants "under God" kept in the Pledge of Allegiance, he wants prayer in school, and the Ten Commandments in the courthouses.

I'd have to check the sources, but AFAICT Paul simply wants to stick to the constitution which doesn't say separation, it says "no law respecting an establishment of religion". To the extent, courts have gone beyond what it says there, he's against it.

3: He has voted against gay's having the same rights as others. He even COSPONSORED a bill (Marriage Protection Act) to make it ILLEGAL for the courts to challenge another bill called the Defense of Marriage Act,

Again I'm guessing he's again looking at the US Const. and if the federal courts are not given the job there, he wants them to stay out of it.

 

[Evo]

Ok thank you, I am off and searching...

I've looked at
Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
his congressional site:
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
The campaign site appears down. (Did you hack it )
I find no general statement on vaccines there. Googling on Paul and polio in particular gives nothing at all. If you have a particular source I'd appreciate it.

Did you try looking at his website?

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

The article you linked to is about smallpox being used as a form of terrorism.

Go back and research smallpox before there were vaccinations. Try and understand what vaccinations have done for world health. If they weren't required, the general populace is not intelligent enough to understand the medical reasons on their own.

Ron Paul is also for "alternative medicine" and "natural health care providers" which make me wonder if he's becoming senile.

 

[turbo]

To anybody that has been swayed by Ron Paul's libertarian stance on their favorite issue, please click here and click on "past writings" to see just how nutty this guy is.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

On stem cell research:

Our founding fathers devised a system of governance that limited federal activity very narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washington’s hands. They believed issues such as this should be tackled by free people acting freely in their churches and medical associations, and in the marketplace that would determine effective means of research.

Yep, the founding fathers knew that some day the specter of stem-cell research would raise its ugly head, so they designed the Constitution to forbid federal funding of it, leaving the issue to churches and medical associations.

On federal funding of private education:

I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act, a bill to empower millions of working and middle-class Americans to choose a non-public education for their children, as well as making it easier for parents to actively participate in improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom Act accomplishes it goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.

This is a favorite scam for politicians who want the southern white vote. Give segregationists $3000 per child so they can continue to send their children to all-white "Christian Academies".

Contradictory statement on educational vouchers:

The voucher debate really ignores the more important question of whether public schools should be run by federal or local government. The Constitution does not authorize any federal involvement in education; Article I grants Congress no authority to create, fund, or regulate schools at all. Congress should not be taxing you to fund a huge federal education bureaucracy that exercises dictatorial control over curriculum and standards nationwide. Those tax dollars should be left with parents and local voters, who can best decide how to allocate precious education resources. Public schools should be funded at the local level with local tax dollars, where waste is minimized and accountability is greatest.

OK, he is for using federal tax dollars in the form of tax rebates to fund education at private schools, but now he says that the federal government needs to stay out of education and keep education funded on a local basis. Must have been a different target audience this time.

It goes on and on. I'm surprised that his handlers put so much of his "writings" on his web site, given the inconsistencies and the stupid things he's written.

 

[ShawnD]

All the candidates ( 14-15 of them?) believe in absolute biblical truth? Not just I believe in the Bible, but as you say 'absolute' truth, every word is literal truth? I'll call you on this one. I doubt can you get a source that says shows any of them do.

They probably don't believe in the 6000 year creation garbage, but they're not allowed to say they don't believe it. The number of Americans who do believe this is overwhelming, so saying it's false is almost a 100% guaranteed election failure. I can't give a very credible link, but try this one: scientific knowledge in the US.
In this guy's rough survey: roughly 1/3 think the Big Bang is false, and an equal number are for and against evolution from apes (with about 15% who don't know). If you flat out say religion is wrong, there goes half of potential voters. Then also remember that church people probably vote in higher numbers because it's not uncommon for priests and ministers to suggest which candidate to vote for, or against as the case may be (that jerk-face who keeps saying our religion is wrong! hurrr!)

the Church ...of [all?] irrationality? I assume then that is any Church/Synagogue? I was hoping you would at least put the Church after Britney Spears music videos.

Yes Britney Spears is a hillbilly moron, but luckily her influence is very limited.

I'd have to check the sources, but AFAICT Paul simply wants to stick to the constitution which doesn't say separation, it says "no law respecting an establishment of religion". To the extent, courts have gone beyond what it says there, he's against it.

Having a bond between state and religion basically is "an establishment of religion". You can freely pray in a public school, but the school itself cannot force or even suggest prayer because that would be state-sponsored religion, unless they did it with every single religion.

 

[Evo]

You've "GOT" to read this doozy.

Ron Paul on environment and climate change.

Still, his (Ron Paul's) libertarian presidency would, among other things, allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, boost the use of coal, and embrace nuclear power. Moreover, it wouldn't do diddly about global warming, because, Paul reasons, "we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather."

I called Paul up on the campaign trail in Iowa to get the skinny on how the environment figures into his small-government agenda.

What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?
On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn't be directing research and development, because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol, and it turns out that it's not economically feasible. So my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.

On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property—water, air, or land. It is very strict.

But there are realms of the environment that, by definition, can't be owned, right? How would you divide the sky or the sea into private parcels?

The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don't have a right to pollute my air—that can be properly defined by property rights. Water: If you're on a river you certainly can define it, if you're on a lake you certainly can define it. Even oceans can be defined by international agreements. You can be very strict with it. If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems.

Can you elaborate on when government intervention is and isn't appropriate?Certainly. Anytime there's injury to another person, another person's land, or another person's environment, there's [legal] recourse with the government.

What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?
You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government into review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.

Would you dissolve the EPA?
It's not high on my agenda. I'm trying to stop the war and bring back a sound economy and solve the financial crises and balance the budget.

Is it appropriate for the government to regulate toxic or dangerous materials, like lead in children's toys?
If a toy company is doing something dangerous, they're liable and they should be held responsible. The government should hold them responsible, but not be the inspector. The government can't inspect every single toy that comes into the country.

So you see it as the legal system that brings about environmental protection?Right. Some of this stuff can be handled locally with a government. I was raised in the city of Pittsburgh. It was the filthiest city in the country, because it was a steel town. You couldn't even see the sun on a sunny day. Then it was cleaned up—not by the EPA; by local authorities that said you don't have a right to pollute—and it's a beautiful city. You don't need this huge bureaucracy that's remote from the problem. Pittsburgh dealt with it in a local fashion, and it worked out quite well.

What if you're part of a community that's getting dumped on, but you don't have the time or the money to sue the offending polluter?
Imagine that everyone living in one suburb, rather than using regular trash service, was taking their household trash to the next town over and simply tossing it in the yards of those living in the nearby town. Is there any question that legal mechanisms are in place to remedy this action? In principle, your concerns are no different, except that for a good number of years legislatures and courts have failed to enforce the property rights of those being dumped on with respect to certain forms of pollution. This form of government failure has persisted since the Industrial Revolution, when, in the name of so-called progress, certain forms of pollution were legally tolerated or ignored to benefit some popular regional employer or politically popular entity.

When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are—a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another—concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so. Against a backdrop of property rights actually enforced, contingency and class-action cases are additional legal mechanisms that resolve this concern.

You mentioned that you don't support subsidies for the development of energy technologies. If all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what do you think would happen to alternative-energy industries like solar, wind, and ethanol?
Whoever can offer the best product at the best price, that's what people will use. They just have to do this without damaging the environment.

If we're running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive half as much—something would happen immediately. Somebody would come up with alternative fuels rather quickly. Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create biodiesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It's the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.

But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?
Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of "market" that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.

What's your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that's human-caused?
I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather.

To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there's a fear that we're going to have this global warming and that we're going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that's extreme. I don't buy into that. Yet I think it's a worthy discussion.

So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?
No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus—those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.

What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it.

And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion.

You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?
It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law-enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things-I don't think that would work.

continued...

http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/ron-paul-interview.html

 

[mheslep]

Did you try looking at his website?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

It was down last night - as it says today on the page.

 

[ShawnD]

You've "GOT" to read this doozy.

I can't believe some people can actually believe those things. I mean some things are a leap of faith and personal preference, but other things can be shown throughout history to be absolutely right or wrong.

So my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.

This flat out does not work. This is how things have been done up until now, and it's the cause of dependency on OPEC. Oil is cheap, and this is why oil is king. Until there are subsidies on research and alternative energies, there are no alternatives. There is talk of US government securities being put on loans for nuclear power plants as a way of encouraging nuclear power, because right now the market has failed to create nuclear power. The startup cost is way too high; it's a bit difficult to find a way to secure a loan for 5 billion dollars (that's how much nuke plants cost). Having the government put up the security on the loan is the only way it will happen.

On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment.

How could Ron Paul possibly be this retarded? Private property rights only work if there is a law you can point at and claim somebody else has violated your property right. Suppose there is an EPA limit of 20ppb of lead in... the water next to my house. If my neighbor goes over the limit and dumps a bunch of lead in my water, I can point at the law, have my neighbor thrown in jail, and maybe sue him. If the government has no laws in place, what am I supposed to do? Kindly ask him to stop? Set his house on fire? The only way to settle any issue, without laws, would be vigilante justice. Things like the EPA don't just protect public property (like he's talking about), but they make the rules that protect private property as well.

A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

Oh so you want to dissolve government intervention and taxes, but at the same time you want to impose taxes or tax credits depending on the environmental impact of an energy source. That totally doesn't contradict any of your previous statements

They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it.

Ooooh so you don't want the EPA, but you want to form some kind of agency that sets limits on how much "poison" people contribute... we might even call that agency the Environmental Protection Agency.


What a god damn moron.

 

[mheslep]

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.

Let's stick to what we have sourced here. 5005 would force small pox vaccines, now. Not back in the 1930's, now. A certain small sample of people will likely become vary ill or possibly die as a result. Actual SP cases currently are zero. Many hospitals and docs oppose this as I sourced above. Do you support 5005 or not?
I disagree w/ his second sentence, seems extreme and I want to see his context, but

If they weren't required, the general populace is not intelligent enough to understand the medical reasons on their own.

not as much as I disagree with your implication here, that somebody like you has to decide for the rest of us.

 

[ShawnD]

Loads of non-sequiturs, putting words in his mouth.

I merely paraphrased what he was saying.

He said he wants the free market to control what kind of energy is used. USA currently has that policy, and it doesn't work. You guys are importing most of the oil your economy needs in order to survive. OPEC controls your entire economy, and could shut it down practically overnight (Yom Kippur War of 1973). The oil requirement is why the US needs a strong presence in the middle east. When OPEC put a trade block on the US in the 1973 Oil Crisis, Kissinger made it very clear that the US was fully prepared to "secure" oil by force if the trade block was not ended shortly.
In the case of oil, the free market has failed.

I said Ron Paul wants to subsidize or tax-exempt clean energy, which you say is putting words in his mouth. What Ron Paul actually said is that he wants to "internalize" the cost of polluting, whatever the hell that means. How does he expect to make coal more expensive than wind and nuclear power? Will it just magically get expensive for no reason at all? Will nuclear power plants build themselves?

I paraphrased by saying Ron Paul wants environmental regulations that either have no way of being enforced, or he intends to re-invent the EPA. Let's look at the exact quote.

You wouldn't need [the EPA]. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government into review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.

The reason the government doesn't need to watch newspapers is because everybody can read newspapers. The reason you need the EPA to actively watch the environment is because they're the only ones who can do that. Metal content in water is analyzed by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) which has a retail price starting at about $150,000 then moving up into the millions, depending on how good you want it. If somebody is dumping lead and mercury into the local lake, who is supposed to notice? Oh, right, each town has at least 1 crazy rich guy who knows how to run an ICP and he loves to randomly test things and tell us his results. Did I mention I live in the magical land of Narnia?Ron Paul reminds me of that episode of South Park where the kids are taken in by those hippy stoners who have silly ideas of how society should be, and it accurately reflects the way society already is.

Stan: So it seems like we have enough people now. When do we start taking down the corporations?
Hippie (takes a drag on his joint): Yeah man, the corporations. Right now they're raping the world for money!
Kyle: Yeah, so, where are they? Let's go get 'em.
Hippie: Right now we're proving we don't need corporations. We don't need money. This can become a commune where everyone just helps each other.
Hippie: Yeah, we'll have one guy who like, who like, makes bread. A-and one guy who like, l-looks out for other people's safety.
Stan: You mean like a baker and a cop?
Hippie: No no, can't you imagine a place where people live together and like, provide services for each other in exchange for their services?
Kyle: Yeah, it's called a town.

 

[mheslep]

...He said he wants the free market to control what kind of energy is used. USA currently has that policy, and it doesn't work. You guys are importing most of the oil your economy needs in order to survive. OPEC controls your entire economy, and could shut it down practically overnight ...
In the case of oil, the free market has failed.

I said Ron Paul wants to subsidize or tax-exempt clean energy, which you say is putting words in his mouth. What Ron Paul actually said is that he wants to "internalize" the cost of polluting, whatever the hell that means. How does he expect to make coal more expensive than wind and nuclear power? Will it just magically get expensive for no reason at all? Will nuclear power plants build themselves?

I paraphrased by saying Ron Paul wants environmental regulations that either have no way of being enforced, or he intends to re-invent the EPA. Let's look at the exact quote. ...

The reason the government doesn't need to watch newspapers is because everybody can read newspapers. The reason you need the EPA to actively watch the environment is because they're the only ones who can do that. Metal content in water is analyzed by Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) which has a retail price starting at about $150,000 then moving up into the millions, depending on how good you want it. If somebody is dumping lead and mercury into the local lake, who is supposed to notice? Oh, right, each town has at least 1 crazy rich guy who knows how to run an ICP and he loves to randomly test things and tell us his results...

The argument above seems to be that things that are complex, require specialized expertise, or are otherwise important can not by their very nature be left to the market but must be done by the government. In response Id recommend starting w/ Friedman's Free to Choose series, as posted by Economist. Friedman is an intellectual foundation for many of the Libertarian ideas Rep. Paul embraces.

... I think you should really check out these old PBS documentaries, titled "Free to Choose" by Dr. Milton Friedman. The link I am posting is a website where you can watch them for free. I'd start with the 10 episodes that aired in 1980 as they are the original series. After that you can also watch the 5 episodes that he updated in 1990. You can watch them all for free here: http://ideachannel.tv/

If you look on the right side of the screen you will see all the episodes listed. They cover many of the topics we've been discussing. I'd say it's one of the best ways for someone to get an elementary understanding of economics and economic concepts...

 

[Evo]

mheslep, please stay on topic. Do not derail the discussion. We're discussing who will police these companies if the government doesn't do it. We're supposed to believe that as soon as the regulatory agencies are gone, that all of these "crooked companies" are going to come forward and admit their wrong doings and impose penalties on themselves?

And what has any of what he said had to do with GLOBAL issues? He's babling about if someone dumps trash in your yard then you take action against them on your own. WHAT? What has that got to do with global pollution? What does he mean "the air can certainly be identified"? Oh, this is Puerto Rican air, and this is Chinese air. Did someone leave the asylum door open? Everything he says is nonsense and people are making up their own interpretation of what he means. I've never seen anything so ridiculous.