News Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[Galteeth]

Apparently Paul is leading in some polls now. But there might be a problem, at least down the road, with his old newsletters. My personal opinion on that is that he should just be honest about it. He's a WASP. No secret there, and it appeals to LOTS of Americans.

We're, all of us, predjudiced and racist to certain extents. If you deny it, then you're just lying to yourself. But now Paul is caught in an interestingly ironic dilemma. He's running for president in the most transparently racist and predjudiced party, and yet he's forced by currently politically correct dialogue to deny his biases.

Personally, I would just rather have him say that he doesn't want blacks or hispanics or Jews, whatever, to run things. I don't think that most Americans want that either -- because MOST Americans are still of European/English descent. But that's changing -- at least it was, perhaps also somewhat ironically, until the more strict enforcement of immigration by the Obama administration. If America goes back to the pre-Obama status quo wrt immigration, then projections indicate that the US will be a Spanish speaking country by about 2070 -- with the WASP population only about 25% to 30% of the total population of the US.

It appears that neither Paul nor Obama would let that happen.

As regards the newsletters, I researched this issue quite a bit the last time around. Here is the conclusion I came to. Ron Paul released a popular newsletter while he was a libertarian gadfly in congress In 1985, he quit congress, and in 1988 he ran for president under the libertarian ticket. After that was unsuccessful he retired from politics and went back to being an obgyn. The newsletter subscriptions dwindled. Sometime around 1990, a new editorial staff took over, renamed it the "ron paul surivival report" and changed the tone of the newsletter. A certain author was employed from 1992 to 1993, who wrote extremely inflammatory articles with racist rhetoric (to be fair the letters sound a little, but not much, better in context.) At this point, Ron Paul had stopped paying attention to the newsletter, he hadn't payed much attention since his failed presidential run. When he ran for congress again in 1996, the issue came up, and he basically ducked it.

The Paul campaign has handled the issue poorly. They have not given enough in the way of explanation. I certainly don't think Paul wrote the letters, as it sounds nothing like anything he has ever said at any other point. I don't think he read them either. I doubt he knows the name of the writer. What he might know is who was on the editorial staff that allowed it to go out in the first place. Many in libertarian circle suspect Lew Rockwell, although I see this as largely speculation.

The thing with Paul's campaign is that has always been about spreading the message rather then about the individual Ron Paul. I think Paul has no interest in personal mistakes and scandals (which he has avoided talking about in regards to other candidates). He wants to talk about political issues. I think if his campaign was in a serious position to make a run, he has to address the issue thoroughly, and probably ultimately throw somebody under the bus.

 

[mheslep]

So how does Ron Paul invest his money?

...Ron Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different [from other Congressmen]. It’s shockingly different.

Yes, about 21% of Rep. Paul’s holdings are in real estate and roughly 14% in cash. But he owns no bonds or bond funds and has only 0.1% in stock funds. Furthermore, the stock funds that Rep. Paul does own are all “short,” or make bets against, U.S. stocks. One is a “double inverse” fund that, on a daily basis, goes up twice as much as its stock benchmark goes down.

The remainder of Rep. Paul’s portfolio – fully 64% of his assets – is entirely in gold and silver mining stocks. ...

about which, an investment manager says:

At our request, William Bernstein, an investment manager at Efficient Portfolio Advisors in Eastford, Conn., reviewed Rep. Paul’s portfolio as set out in the annual disclosure statement. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. ”This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds,” he says.

http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2011/12/21/the-ron-paul-portfolio/

 

[ThomasT]

As regards the newsletters, I researched this issue quite a bit the last time around. Here is the conclusion I came to. Ron Paul released a popular newsletter while he was a libertarian gadfly in congress In 1985, he quit congress, and in 1988 he ran for president under the libertarian ticket. After that was unsuccessful he retired from politics and went back to being an obgyn. The newsletter subscriptions dwindled. Sometime around 1990, a new editorial staff took over, renamed it the "ron paul surivival report" and changed the tone of the newsletter. A certain author was employed from 1992 to 1993, who wrote extremely inflammatory articles with racist rhetoric (to be fair the letters sound a little, but not much, better in context.) At this point, Ron Paul had stopped paying attention to the newsletter, he hadn't payed much attention since his failed presidential run. When he ran for congress again in 1996, the issue came up, and he basically ducked it.

The Paul campaign has handled the issue poorly. They have not given enough in the way of explanation. I certainly don't think Paul wrote the letters, as it sounds nothing like anything he has ever said at any other point. I don't think he read them either. I doubt he knows the name of the writer. What he might know is who was on the editorial staff that allowed it to go out in the first place. Many in libertarian circle suspect Lew Rockwell, although I see this as largely speculation.

The thing with Paul's campaign is that has always been about spreading the message rather then about the individual Ron Paul. I think Paul has no interest in personal mistakes and scandals (which he has avoided talking about in regards to other candidates). He wants to talk about political issues. I think if his campaign was in a serious position to make a run, he has to address the issue thoroughly, and probably ultimately throw somebody under the bus.

Thanks for your research. and your assessment (which is, imo, reasonable, and which I adopt in lieu of supported info to the contrary). I do remember Paul saying, to his credit, that he was still "responsible" for the content of the newsletters during the period when he apparently wasn't paying attention to that content.

Personally, I don't think Paul is anywhere near being a racist. I think that, like most of us (I'm assuming), he has a natural affinity for his own culture and maybe has some sort of personal ethnic identity. But, like lots of us, but maybe not most (again, just assuming), I think that he's aware of how this could bias his judgements and therefore tries consiously to not let that happen.

So, for me, the newsletter thing isn't important (though, as you mention, if he does become a serious contender, then he's going to have to "address the issue thoroughly" -- probably on national tv). Imo, there are other, much more important issues wrt which Paul's positions, while consistent with libertarian values, are contrary to the well-being and improvement of America.

 

[ThomasT]

So how does Ron Paul invest his money?
( ... snip interesting stuff from post #242 ...)

Does any of this constitute a conflict of interest?

 

[MarcoD]

I like a lot of Ron Paul's idea, but my main beef with libertarianism is that it sometimes equals, and shouldn't equal, lack of taking responsibility.

 

[FlexGunship]

I like a lot of Ron Paul's idea, but my main beef with libertarianism is that it sometimes equals, and shouldn't equal, lack of taking responsibility.

I think differently, I think libertarians are forced to embody the height of responsibility. Individuals become responsible for their actions. I think most people dislike libertarianism because it tends to take away the control they have over their neighbors. Everyone loves to control "the other guy."

 

[MarcoD]

I think differently, I think libertarians are forced to embody the height of responsibility. Individuals become responsible for their actions. I think most people dislike libertarianism because it tends to take away the control they have over their neighbors. Everyone loves to control "the other guy."

We probably agree. Nobody should meddle into the affairs of others when they have no right to do so. But that's the thing, libertarianism ends with the question: If your neighbors are starving what are you going to do?

I personally have the feeling that we are at a junction in global problems. Roughly described as A) either people shape up, and take some responsibility to solving things, or B) at some time in the future the military will shape up, and nuke all global existential problems out of existence.

 

[FlexGunship]

We probably agree. Nobody should meddle into the affairs of others when they have no right to do so. But that's the thing, libertarianism ends with the question: If your neighbors are starving what are you going to do?

As someone who just donated time in a food shelter AND a soup kitchen over the holiday season, I often insulted by the question of "what would we do for our starving neighbors." Weirdly, the question is most often asked by people who are not involved in charity at all. The reason people ask that question is because they NEED TO BE FORCED to help people in need.

The answer is "feed them."

When someone says "without welfare, people would starve!" What I really hear is "if you don't take money from me at gunpoint, I refuse to help other people!"

I personally have the feeling that we are at a junction in global problems. Roughly described as A) either people shape up, and take some responsibility to solving things, or B) at some time in the future the military will shape up, and nuke all global existential problems out of existence.

It won't be "the military" it will be many militaries. The fact is that some unnamed religious groups will continue to exert their maximum influence for the maximum amount of time.

Either we (as a species) will continue to tolerate that behavior under the auspices of "religious and cultural diversity" or we (as a species) won't.

 

[MarcoD]

As someone who just donated time in a food shelter AND a soup kitchen over the holiday season, I often insulted by the question of "what would we do for our starving neighbors." Weirdly, the question is most often asked by people who are not involved in charity at all. The reason people ask that question is because they NEED TO BE FORCED to help people in need.

The answer is "feed them."

When someone says "without welfare, people would starve!" What I really hear is "if you don't take money from me at gunpoint, I refuse to help other people!"

Our grand neo-liberal leader, our prime minister, of our private soccer support group agrees with you. He's very well-known for a quote: "The government is not a good-fortune machine."

But that begs the question, if a government isn't a good-fortune machine [for the public], then what is it?

I expect my government to solve the problems I cannot. That's why I pay taxes. They should specialize in solving my neighbor's problems since I have no rights there, and for the rest they should have the determination to solve the problems of the next century, since I cannot.

 

[FlexGunship]

But that begs the question, if a government isn't a good-fortune machine [for the public], then what is it?

I expect my government to solve the problems I cannot. That's why I pay taxes. They should specialize in solving my neighbor's problems since I have no rights there, and for the rest they should have the determination to solve the problems of the next century, since I cannot.

What is government? Its a group of officials elected to carry out tasks too large for individuals in society. Building interstates, for example, is a task too large to be organized by individuals; feeding your neighbor, as another example, is not.

I'm not actually explicitly against welfare and certainly not against public food programs. But I am against the compulsory charitable contributions. I'd feel better if I could choose how my money was spent.

This year you spent $1400 on welfare programs. How would you like those funds dispersed?

• Directly as nutritious food
• Directly as housing subsidies
• Directly as heating subsidies
• As a check

Guess what, I wouldn't choose "as a check."

 

[MarcoD]

Guess what, I wouldn't choose "as a check."

The reality probably is that it doesn't matter. People [with low income] will need to spend their income on food and housing. I personally would say it's irrelevant.

 

[Woopy]

A libertarian wouldn't have welfare even in place. The government is in place to uphold civil liberties

 

[MarcoD]

A libertarian wouldn't have welfare even in place. The government is in place to uphold civil liberties

Which is my point. If the government doesn't work anymore for the welfare of the public, the public ends up starving. It's their role, weaseling out of it just shows lack of responsibility.

[ I personally think (extreme) libertarianism is a defeatist stance against: Hey, we tried to solve some problems the last decade, and failed. Let's stop solving, and see where that gets us. I personally would say: God, man, don't give up, just try again. ]

 

[Woopy]

social darwinism man. When you say the government needs to spend money to fix my neighbor's problems, that just translates to me having to pay for my neighbor's woes. I'm a rugged individualist and do not believe in any form of aid and everyone can forge their own destinies. The lazy are the ones asking everyone else to fix their problems

 

[MarcoD]

social darwinism man. When you say the government needs to spend money to fix my neighbor's problems, that just translates to me having to pay for my neighbor's woes. I'm a rugged individualist and do not believe in any form of aid and everyone can forge their own destinies. The lazy are the ones asking everyone else to fix their problems

Social darwinism is a perversion of humane goals. You'll end up with fascism down that route. If your neighbor is starving, you either take care of it yourself, or you organize a public 'decent' endeavor to solve the problems in a professional, and just, manner. And the latter is preferred, since individuals have little to no rights intervening in the matters of other individuals, the collectivized public government, after pondering a lot about the ethics of intervening, on that other hand, does have that right. [ Since the public gave them that right after determining that individually, people just suck at ethics. ]

Btw. As I said before, I agree with a lot what Ron Paul says, certainly with civil rights. But not with economics, the role of the government, or international policy.

 

[FlexGunship]

The reality probably is that it doesn't matter. People [with low income] will need to spend their income on food and housing. I personally would say it's irrelevant.

I watched a woman get into a fight with a cashier because she wasn't allowed to use food stamps to buy Red Bull.

That really happened. In real life. Real people were involved. What possible role could Red Bull (an expensive energy drink) play in a balanced tight-budget diet?

A libertarian wouldn't have welfare even in place. The government is in place to uphold civil liberties

That's not necessarily true. That's like saying "a Republican would never raise taxes." Or "a Democrat would never cut entitlements." Practicality and ideology often clash. In the case of welfare, even a libertarian would be forced to provide something. It might look different, come in a different amount, or seek to accomplish a different goal... but it wouldn't just disappear.

 

[MarcoD]

That really happened. In real life. Real people were involved. What possible role could Red Bull (an expensive energy drink) play in a balanced tight-budget diet?

Well, she has some right to spend her 'money' in her own way. But, it's also somewhat irrelevant. It's not her response, but your response which matters. You won't always get kudos for doing the right thing. Take some pride in that you, and your government, did the right thing; despite some individuals.

 

[FlexGunship]

Well, she has some right to spend her 'money' in her own way.

Hardly! It's not her money. It's money that was taken forcibly from the populous and given to her for the purpose of meeting baseline nutrition... so that she wouldn't starve to death. Welfare (and food stamps) are not supposed to be a luxury.

In my mind, if you don't have enough food to buy bread and milk, then you CERTAINLY don't have enough money to buy Red Bull. Take a second to really process those events:

1. Woman is hungry: "please, help me, I'm out of work and I'm starving!"
2. Government agrees to help: "Okay, fine, these people have some extra cash, we'll grab it from them so you don't die of starvation"
3. Government gives the money to the woman: "here you are ma'am, it took the threat of incarceration, but we took money from other people so that you could eat"
4. Woman gets food stamps: "Hmm, food stamps? So I can only buy food with these?" "Well, yeah, obviously... you said you were starving."
5. Woman is incredibly ungrateful for the help: "what do you mean I can't buy sugar lumps, chocolate lollipops, and energy drinks with my food stamps?"

I cannot possibly sympathize with your argument.

 

[MarcoD]

I cannot possibly sympathize with your argument.

Ah well, it's social-democrat versus libertarian, so I don't think we can possibly agree. I will give you and Paul the kudos for believing that you are doing the right thing. Looks decent to me.

 

[Woopy]

If you can't afford milk and bread, you are not looking for a job. I refuse to believe that someone couldn't afford to eat in this country. I know a girl who came here from vietnam with virtually no money at age 19 (now is 24) and has had to forge her entire destiny without the help of the government, and is managing to get through school (as an electrical engineer no less) and is able to atleast feed herself, have a room that she can live in, and pay for her own education (which I should mention cost a lot more for an international student than a U.S. citizen). With that in mind, I see no reason why someone can't have a full time job. The problem is people won't do what it takes to survive if they know the government will bail them out. If they were thrown onto the streets with nothing but what they carry on their back (like my friend), things would be a lot different.

I should also mention my friend managed to find menial jobs even though she didn't even speak english hardly at all when coming here, she'd do any job no matter what it was no matter the pay, even going as far as to make $3/hr working at vietnamese restaurants as a dishwasher without knowing about minimum wage laws and being grateful to god for even having a wage of $3/hr.

Rugged individualism, man.

 

[FlexGunship]

Ah well, it's social-democrat versus libertarian, so I don't think we can possibly agree. I will give you and Paul the kudos for believing that you are doing the right thing. Looks decent to me.

Well, I'm not voting for Ron Paul, anyway. I was just playing devil's advocate. Libertarianism is the CORRECT ideology, but it's not practical; the question is whether you should restart from a libertarian society and move away from it again (i.e. start at 1776 in the U.S. and head to the present).

I was trying to point out the absurdity of claiming "it's her money, she can do what she wants with it." It's my money, and she may only use it to meet her base nutritional requirements so she doesn't die while trying to rejoin society.

I should also mention my friend managed to find menial jobs even though she didn't even speak english hardly at all when coming here, she'd do any job no matter what it was no matter the pay, even going as far as to make $3/hr working at vietnamese restaurants as a dishwasher without knowing about minimum wage laws and being grateful to god for even having a wage of $3/hr.

Rugged individualism, man.

Another strong argument for abolishing the minimum wage law. It basically amounts to discrimination against unskilled workers. My brother has Asperger's and would love to learn to work a cash register, or learn how to take inventory... but no one will hire him for minimum wage. When he offers to work for less... well... doesn't matter... it's illegal for him to take a job for less than minimum wage.

It's a law that discriminates against unskilled workers and it's grossly outdated.

EDIT: It's amazing to me that people who promote a higher minimum wage will not even take a breath before that go on to complain about the unemployment rate.

 

[Char. Limit]

Another strong argument for abolishing the minimum wage law. It basically amounts to discrimination against unskilled workers. My brother has Asperger's and would love to learn to work a cash register, or learn how to take inventory... but no one will hire him for minimum wage. When he offers to work for less... well... doesn't matter... it's illegal for him to take a job for less than minimum wage.

I'd hardly call an argument based on two unprovable anecdotes a "strong" argument. Is there any data that indicates that unemployment would go down (and that poverty wouldn't rise sharply) from abolishing the minimum wage?

 

[Evo]

I see no reason why someone can't have a full time job. The problem is people won't do what it takes to survive if they know the government will bail them out. If they were thrown onto the streets with nothing but what they carry on their back (like my friend), things would be a lot different.

Yeah, most would die. You seem to have forgotten the elderly and those too ill to work.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I see no reason why someone can't have a full time job. The problem is people won't do what it takes to survive if they know the government will bail them out. If they were thrown onto the streets with nothing but what they carry on their back (like my friend), things would be a lot different.

Yeah, most would die. You seem to have forgotten the elderly and those too ill to work.

Not to mention the millions who have been made unemployed thanks to the current economic climate even though they are *highly* qualified. In the UK at the moment there are only several hundred thousand jobs (registered at jobcentreplus, the government employment organisation) yet millions of unemployed people. To assume that being poor or unemployed is the fault of the poor/unemployed individual is fallacious, to not think it was a virtue for society to take care of these people is callous.

 

[Woopy]

Yeah, most would die. You seem to have forgotten the elderly and those too ill to work.

Call me a darwinist, but the weak and unfit would die.

 

[FlexGunship]

I'd hardly call an argument based on two unprovable anecdotes a "strong" argument. Is there any data that indicates that unemployment would go down (and that poverty wouldn't rise sharply) from abolishing the minimum wage?

Uh. Illegal immigrants that have jobs exist? At least in the U.S. its a problem. When someone has a $3/hr job to fill (i.e. sweeping floors) it's illegal to hire a U.S. citizen to do it so they're forced to (a) hire someone illegally, (b) lose money, or (c) just leave the position empty.

Generally goods and services are priced based on value. The only exception is price-fixing (when the price of a good or service is artificially raised or lowered). What's the point of hiring someone at $7/hr to do a job that is only valued at $3/hr?

I'm always surprised when I see someone who has not made the connection between sub-minimum wage jobs and illegals working in the U.S. There is a 1:1 correlation.

EDIT: My housekeeper is grateful for the $5/hr I pay her. VERY grateful. I told her that's how much I would pay her to clean, and she was happy to accept it. It's totally mind-blitheringly illegal... but we both agreed to the terms. Both of us. She wanted work. I was hiring. I told her ahead of time. She knew ahead of time. There was no lying. I didn't deceive her. She's happy for the extra money. She likes having the extra money. She uses it to buy food and clothes and to participate in the economy.

But, yes, it's illegal.

DOUBLE EDIT: To be clear, I would not have hired ANYONE at minimum wage. The job wouldn't exist. This is a real-life example of job creation by avoiding the minimum wage. I have personally created a job. I'm a job creator. If I was forced to pay her $8/hr, I would have to fire her and should wouldn't get any money from me at all.

 

[FlexGunship]

Call me a darwinist, but the weak and unfit would die.

::FACEPALM::

Okay, not all libertarians feel that way! Please don't lump libertarian ideology with anarchism. They are fundamentally different.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Call me a darwinist, but the weak and unfit would die.

Clearly you have no understanding of evolution, especially the significance of social cooperation in the success of species survival. This is becoming off topic, I suggest the topic returns to a discussion of Ron Paul's candidacy only.

 

[turbo]

Clearly you have no understanding of evolution, especially the significance of social cooperation in the success of species survival. This is becoming off topic, I suggest the topic returns to a discussion of Ron Paul's candidacy only.

That would be nice.

 

[FlexGunship]

And return to OP:

At this point in the race, I'd like to see Jon Huntsman win the candidacy; I'll be voting for him. I think it would be important for him to pick a more "fringe" running-mate, though. Ron Paul would be an interesting Vice President, don't you think? You'd have two sides of the same ideological coin, a social and economic moderate Republican president and a libertarian vice president.

If nothing else, they'd generate a lot of ideas as a team.