Ron Paul's candidacy

Jasongreat

Reagan also signed the original amnesty plan for illegals, he doubled down on nixon's war on drugs, and set mandatory minimum laws for sentencing. I do agree that Reagan was a great man, held alot of conservative beliefs, and was a good president, especially when compared to Carter. When compared to Jefferson he left me wanting a more conservative president. Although at the time I liked him as a whole, but I was only eight. :)

If the three things I listed above were removed from his presidency, I would have listed him in my list of conservatives, instead of the list of progressives.

Angry Citizen

He sure wasn't a big spender when it comes to the Depression. His reaction to the collapse was practically laissez-faire.

I didn't say it was a bad idea. I just said it wasn't the least bit constitutional.

Agrarian societies don't need much regulation (although the great Dust Bowl in the twenties or thirties sure does provide an incentive for some). Industrial societies, on the other hand, flat out require regulation. To say otherwise is to ignore reality. Corporations would rape the middle class if it weren't for regulation and big government. In fact, I have historical precedent: the Gilded Age.

Republicans really don't want larger government, at least economically.

It's precisely because they're efficient at force that the federal government should remain the most powerful entity. Bureaucrats will exist regardless. Do you believe that people can send money to states and no one take a cut off it? Ridiculous. You either have one agency taking up all the inefficiency, or fifty separate ones.

Furthermore, the 'efficiency' argument is untrue. What about companies that wish to operate across state lines? Instead of one set of rules that applies nationally, they have to follow two, three, ten, maybe even fifty different sets of rules. As for the 'experiments' argument, I think that too is not borne out by history. We have ample precedent that single payer health care is an incredibly good system of health care, yet only one state currently practices it (Vermont - and I don't believe it has been fully implemented yet). We can use other countries for experiments. And we can experiment ourselves. It's not hard, and it's not disastrous.

Furthermore, where does your argument end? The same exact logic could be applied for the primacy of city/local governments. Why send money to Austin when it could be kept in Podunk Texas? Heck, why send money to the city when it could be kept on your street? While we're at it, what's with those greedy neighbors wanting my money?!? I better hide my money under my pillow and spend it only on my own interests!

This is actually quite true. But I don't believe we've ever had a non-interventionist president.

The prime cause was most certainly about slavery, which trickled its way down into issues like 'states rights' and other baggage which was then quite important.

What did they found, then? They certainly didn't found a vacuum cleaner!

The term I would ideally prefer is 'Democratic Republic'. However, that often has connotations of Communism (for some strange reason). A true republic does not require a voting public, and a true democracy does not have representatives. We are a representative democracy. The term 'constitutional' is usually applied only to monarchies whose country has a Constitution. Surprisingly, the UK doesn't have a constitution, and I'm rather lacking in examples of a country with that system. I think Belgium might, or maybe Spain...

Given that a proper application of Federalist mentality (taken to its logical conclusion) would result in a country like Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, it stands to reason that this is patently false. I would urge you to conduct a thorough study of Scandinavian welfare states. These represent the most left-wing nations on Earth that still maintain a foundation in capitalism, and they are without a doubt the most egalitarian, most humane, most democratic, and most liveable nations. Their debt's pretty low too, just in case you were about to mention that.

That's the definition of government. If it were voluntary, no one would pay taxes (except me, but I'm weird and have a sense of civic duty).

Not anything, but the Commerce Clause gives tremendous powers.

No, but the last hope of states rights supporters is a racist:

http://www.examiner.com/anonymous-in...ion-blitzkrieg

I beg to differ, good sir or madam. The Declaration of Independence was written at a time when the articles of confederation still hadn't come into being. If you want to see what a Ron Paul nation would look like, you may look at the nation under the Articles.

Not gonna argue this one.

Angry Citizen

Actually, I just think the US has a bad system. Sure, it's the law of the land. I didn't question that. I do question the efficacy of such a system.

Angry Citizen

Again with the IMO. Please, please look at Scandinavia. Also, I think you may have gotten your hands on revisionist history. The government made huge investments in the economy after Hoover waited years before trying to do something.

It's interesting to note that FDR was probably wrong. But he was wrong because he did not go far enough. We have proof that the Great Depression was ended by government spending - in fact, I can tell you exactly what caused the reemergence of the American economy: World War II, with incredibly high government spending. FDR let us tread water for a while. What should have happened was a lot of nationalization, starting with the banks.

mheslep

Agreed. He was not a libertarian on drugs. But on net, he tried to shrink the overall size of government, though he failed.

ThomasT

Not to get too far off topic, but just to offer an alternative view, I was in my 30's during Reagan's presidency, and, to me, he seemed like an incompetent stooge. An actor playing a part. We know now that he was clinically senile for most of his second term in office. As far as I'm concerned, and wrt to what they did before and after their presidencies, Reagan was insignificant, a little person, just an actor, compared to a man like Carter.

Jasongreat

Before his presidency Reagan was a governor of one of the largest states in the nation, Carter a peanut farmer in Georgia. According to this Reagan was a much bigger man than Carter ;). It seems he was a bigger person, and more signifigant than carter, but you did get one thing right, he was an actor. :)

ThomasT

Ok, we can agee to disagree on this -- except for the height thing, which I concede.

Jasongreat

How about his spending leading up to the depression? He was a big spending progressive conservative, in todays terms, a compassionate conservative.

I agree, I only wrote what I did to show a change in thinking in Washington. Jefferson atleast fretted about the constituionality of it, today the constitution isnt even mentioned.


Where did those 'evil' corporations get their monopoly power from? Government loves to cause a problem then turn around and say they have a cure. Heck, if it wasnt for governmental overreach I dont think the politicians would have much to run on. The railroads were one of the last corporations created by the old rules, by those rules they can only be a railroad. Now that the rules have changed corporations can use those exceptions the people gave them when they formed and use the money they made off those to go into other markets, helping to get to the too big to fail area. The main thing that kills me is we always hear how superior we are to past generations, if we are so superior, why do we need so much more government than they did?


No, but they do like expanded government when it controls the morallity of the masses.


And it should be, why should the city send money to the county, when they can spend it how they want where they want to better their community? Next, why should a county send money to a state, when they are in a better position to see what the county needs than the state can? And finally, why should a state send its money to the feds, to solve problems in their state. One of the things I liked in the constitution of the southern confederacy, was that they prohibited taking money from one state to make improvements in another. It seems to me it would solve alot of problems if California or Mass. or any other state were forced to pay for their failing policies, instead of taking money from their neighbors through the feds. It really helps one to see the error of their ways, when they face the consequences of those choices, on the otherhand it is very easy for people to put their heads in the sand when someone else bails them out.



Well maybe you should read more US history. Washington was a non-interventionist, as was Madison, Monroe, Jefferson. None were isolationists though. Here is a quote from Jefferson: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Notice how he wants to do buisiness with all nation, not isolationist. Yet he doesnt want to get involved in entangling alliances, non-interventionist.


Why then did it take till the end of the war for the emmancipation proclamation, seems to me if the war was about slavery, one would free the slaves then send the army out to enforce said law. I cant remember who wrote it but it was a study of the civil war, they concluded that it would have been cheaper for the feds just to pay the going rate for the souths legal property, not to mention the half million men who would get to live the rest of their lives. If war was needed to end slavery, why did no other slave owning countries have to resort to war for slavery to end?


Wouldnt that term mean that the majority controlled what the government could do, we have a document that controls the government, which is why it is a constitutional republic?


So you feel that once a state enters the federal governmental compact there is no way they can get out, which sounds like a pact with the devil to me. There is no need of force for taxes, our country went a long time on tariffs and duties. I think a national sales tax would work, if you want a ferrari you will pay the tax it takes to get one. On the other hand if the government abuses its taxing the impact would be immediate. People would quit buying the products because of the excessive tax. Unlike the system in place now, death by a thousand cuts, all federal tax would be in one place.


Tremendous powers to regulate interstate commerce, in state commerce not so much.


The declaration of rights was a declaration of what the citizenery of the colonies believed, the articles of confederation and then the constitution were their attempts at creating a government that would best suit those beliefs. The Declaration was the founding document of our country, the constitution was the controlling document of the federal government, atleast thats the way I see it.

The main reason I like Paul is he starts the discussion at zero, isnt that the way to barter? If we keep arguing about should the feds get 10, 20 or 30 percent, we are going to keep getting what we already have. I think we need them to show why they deserve more than 0% of my labor.

lpetrich

What do you mean by "anti-American"?
What's the difference?
Why is that notion "anti-American"? Although I will concede that it's incorrect, that does not make it anti-American, just that the North was not as good as we might have wanted it to be.

In any case, the Confederate politicians had been very big on protecting slavery.

You might find this analysis of the Confederate Constitution an eye-opener: Constitution of the Confederate States of America- what was changed?
Most of it is cribbed from the US Constitution. It's not very big on states' rights -- it adds a few and it substracts a few, but it has no changes in the more contentious parts of the Constitution, like the Commerce Clause.

But it was big on defending slavery. While the US Constitution's writers avoided mentioning slaves and slavery explicitly, the Confederate Constitution's writers were explicit, like where they stated "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Yes, it forbids outlawing slavery.
They didn't found 13 separate nations, that's for sure.

Wimpy government has been tried, and it's a failure. Look at Somalia. Also look at Poland in the 17th and 18th cys. They had a reform in their parliament called the Liberum Veto, where any MP could veto some proposal. Yes, only one was necessary. That made it easy to obstruct the parliament's business, and in the late 18th cy., Austria, Prussia, and Russia divided Poland up between them. In 1795, Poland disappeared from the map.
I've never understood the "republic not a democracy" meme. The US is clearly a representative democracy, not some oligarchic republic where the vote and public office are restricted to a small elite. Some republic like the Roman Republic or the Republic of Venice.
Again, being mistaken != being anti-American.

A lot of racists hid behind states' rights during the civil-rights struggle.
It's the Constitution that's legally binding, not the DoI.

Are the numerous "conservative" advocates of hawkish foreign policies really "anti-American"? Just for starters, that would include just about every Republican Presidential candidate but Ron Paul.

Dotini

This chart will help readers get an idea where they fit on the political spectrum.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PL07fcBkGN...plundChart.jpg

Respectfully,
Steve

Jimmy Snyder

It still would have been useless, but at least he could have put centrists in the center.

Angry Citizen

I would very much like to know how, because an admittedly cursory examination of history shows this to be false.

Folks like Andrew Carnegie used to have a philosophy. First they'd create a company. Then they'd purchase everything that the company needed to create its product. Then they'd purchase everything that the company needed to ship its product to consumers. Then they'd try to buy out other companies in the industry. It was a system known as vertical integration, if I remember correctly. No government required. Indeed, it wasn't until the anti-trust laws came about that monopolies could be legally eliminated.

I agree regarding California, but you have to understand that the Republicans pushed through a constitutional referendum limiting the ability of the government to raise taxes. That is essentially the problem with California today.

However, I think your decentralization is dangerous and precedents exist showing just how dangerous it is. Instead of fifty regulations, you would have thousands - each from a different city!

Madison, for instance, eventually found the position of non-interventionism untenable during the War of 1812. Both French and British would board American vessels bound for the other's shores. Intervention comes to you from without if you do not seek it from within.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a wonderful propaganda piece, but it was essentially a useless document for the purposes of freeing the slaves. The run-up to the Civil War was the growing abolitionist movement and the prohibition of the importation of foreign slaves. The Army responded to the opening shots fired by the Confederacy.

No, it means that representatives are elected based on majority votes.

Sounds like an attempt to maintain union to me.

I used to think that. Then I realized that paying twenty cents on the dollar for everything would disproportionately harm the poor rather than the rich, not to mention the fact that the rich often use their money for items that are not sales tax worthy. A progressive income tax works. See Scandinavia.

Because we tried a system without an income tax. It didn't work, not even in a time when America was an agrarian society.

lpetrich

So no business can possibly do bad things? As Angry Citizen noted, it's possible to build a monopoly by legitimate business practices, like buying the competition. It's also possible to use less-legitimate practices, like demanding that business partners not deal with rivals. That's what Microsoft has done with operating-system preloads. Make it significantly more expensive to preload Windows on 99.99+% of a company's PC's than to preload Windows on 100.00% of them. This makes it much more difficult for that company to offer preloaded alternates. There are even less legitimate practices, like physically attacking rivals, as in the frog wars between railroad companies in the 19th cy., and between rival criminal gangs. One might argue that that's not true capitalism, but that seems to me the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Commerce with no military involvement? That's idealistic nonsense that only works with friendly nations. Even in the early years of the US, that policy could not be made to work.
If the other states agree to secession, then I'm sure that national-level politicians will go along. That's an interesting historical riddle -- why was the North reluctant to let the South secede? Could it be the attack on Fort Sumter? Or concern about being weakened by division?

What's so patriotic about secession, anyway?
To get protected, for starters.

mheslep

Well, "there you go again". At best all you will find are anecdotes about senility. As to being a 'stooge', Reagan was a prolific writer. You can judge for yourself from his ample letters and radio speeches.
http://www.amazon.com/Reagan-His-Own.../dp/074320123X

And from the PBS series, Howard Baker taking over from the disgruntled Don Regan as Chief of Staff:

.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...an-transcript/

lpetrich

I spent some time perusing what the candidates have recently stated about Iran, and Ron Paul is the only dovish one. I could easily find hawkish statements from Barack Obama, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

Dotini

If more war and debt is sincerely desired, there are many to choose from who will leap to take us there. Romney, for instance, has surrounded himself with neocons, those wonderful folks who lied us into Iraq.

If you value peace above all else, our only current choice is Ron Paul.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve