Ron Paul is an Asshat
| OK, I'm sure that Ron Paul is a really nice guy. But I keep hearing about this huge angry online army of libertarians who rape and plunder blogs that say things that they don't like about Ron Paul, and I've been feeling a bit left out. So I heard that if I called him an asshat, tagged the post and pinged technorati, they would come tell me how wrong I am. Here's my opinion on Ron Paul. In a field of republicans who are trying to out-hawk and out-Jesus each other, and he's the only one who doesn't pander to the authoritarian theocratic religious right, and he's the only one speaking out against the Iraq war. In and of itself that might make him more attractive to liberals and progressives who wouldn't be voting in the republican primaries anyway. But upon closer examination, libertarianism is one of those ideas that sounds great in theory but would never work in the real world. Sure, it would be just swell if the magical mystical markets made everything work out right and nobody told anybody what to do. Just as it would be swell if everybody just played their part to contribute to a greater communal good. The problem with utopian theories is that they are pure fantasy. They ignore basic human nature. And that is why debating with libertarians is as annoying as debating with religious fundamentalists. How is it possible to have a rational discussion against a leap of faith? So, to the army of Ron Paul supporters who are supposed to show up and flood my comments - you're not going to change my mind, but you might win a prize. I'll give a DVD of the movie Washington Interns Gone Bad to whoever posts the comment that I find the most outlandish. In order to win, you can't post anonymously. Technorati tag: ron paul Labels: 2008 primaries, asshattery |
Comments on "Ron Paul is an Asshat"
-
tarsi210 said ... (10/23/07 11:43 AM) :
-
Jason said ... (10/23/07 12:02 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (10/23/07 1:01 PM) :
-
Jason said ... (10/23/07 1:07 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (10/23/07 2:39 PM) :
-
Jason said ... (10/23/07 3:00 PM) :
-
Dave said ... (10/23/07 6:16 PM) :
-
tarsi210 said ... (10/23/07 6:38 PM) :
-
Jason said ... (10/23/07 6:45 PM) :
-
tarsi210 said ... (10/23/07 9:56 PM) :
-
Jason said ... (10/23/07 10:19 PM) :
post a commentRon Paul's sweat cures cancer!
Ok, probably not, but I'll weigh in on this, because I'm a fan of Ron's but not in the IDKBFFJILL sort of way.
Caveat: I tend to be socially liberal, politically and fiscally conservative/libertarian. But not in the pure sense. Just so you know.
You're right -- pure Libertarianism doesn't work out in reality, because some things simply need regulation and control. You cannot expect the masses to get together and pay to fix roads, provide for the elderly, etc. It just won't happen because everyone's standards are different. While I would repave the roads when too many cracks appeared, Joe Schlo down the road wouldn't do it until he lost an axle. Government allows large projects for the social good to happen in an organized fashion. So abolishing all of it is a Bad Idea(tm).
That being said, I think many of Ron's ideas about big government sticking their fingers into too many places is very true and I agree with the relaxation of many of the regulations, taxes, and so forth that he cites.
Not all of them, certainly, as I think that would be irresponsible, but there is too much bulk in government. I do believe that businesses are, in general, self-regulating. The thing that bothers people and they can't get over is that capitalism does not have a moral component to it, and so the way businesses regulate themselves may or may not consider the people that work for them or their emotions. But capitalism works best if it is not hindered by too many regulations and restrictions. We need enough to keep people from becoming abused and slaves to the system, but not so many that the business suffers needlessly because you're breaking the rules of capitalism.
Libertarianism follows that principle, I think -- keep your hands off and the system will balance, eventually. It may not be great for everyone, but it'll balance. Most people aren't willing to take the chance that THEY will be the ones shit on at the end of the day, so Libertarianism doesn't work, at least, not in a pure form.
Ron has lots of good ideas. Moreover, he's articulate, personable, smart, clever, and approachable. His ideas are a bit left-of-left-of-center, but I would think that he'd be pulled into alignment by Congress et al and end up being an ok guy in office. He's one of the first politicians I have heard in years that makes me want to believe in someone and a better America -- the rest just don't do it for me. I just doubt he's going to get anywhere close, so I'm not holding my breath.
Not exactly the angry wingnuttery I'm looking for. I'm looking for the old "paying taxes is theft of property at gunpoint" kind of libertarian argument. I do not agree in deregulation exactly because business has no moral compass. There is no incentive for businesses to do anything but race to the bottom of labor costs, and the decades of less regulation since the Reagan years have demonstrated stagnating wages, more outsourcing, less benefits, less time off, less rights in the workplace, etc. The workers are the ones who wind up with the short end of the stick in a deregulated business environment.
That said, there's plenty that the Government should get their noses out of, particularly when it comes to what people do in the privacy of their own homes or with our bodies.
/does not care about the DVD.
However, be that as it may for business to not have any moral compass, at least they HAVE a compass. (profits)
Government, not so much on any sort of compass. "Oh, we ran out of money? uh... raise taxes, that'll do it."
Why do you believe half the lines that you're fed about government anyway? Most of them come from some press secretary who's been told what to say.
That's the kind of wingnuttery I'm looking for! Let's get more of this from people who have the guts to actually put their names to their words.
Ah, we're looking for nuttery. Let's see what I can do for you (I also couldn't give a rats about the DVD).
I think of the Federal Government as Tolkien's ring. It has a lot of power. Some think that it can be used for good. Others think it should simply be destroyed. I'd be in the latter camp.
Is it Libertarianism? I follow Canadian politics rather closely. There's a difference between State and Federal politics. Just because I want the Federal Government out of my State doesn't require that I sign on to a minimalist State government.
I've been on the Right; I've been on the left. I've yet to see an argument against a strong Federal Government as persuasive as Bush. Why would I ever trust the system again? I want it smashed and to have independence from those that currently run the show.
Well, there you have it. Certifiable nuttiness.
That's actually a lot less nutty than the standard libertarian dogma. I don't see the government itself as being so far gone that it needs to be eliminated (and replaced with what?), but it definitely needs a massive overhaul, starting with the banning of political parties and campaign contributions. Publicly funded elections of individuals with issues not backed by corporations, special interests or archaic political parties would be a good start. It's a shame you are so against using your name. Out of both anonymous comments, you'd probably enjoy my film the most.
Ok, but what does a drag queen have to do with politics?... Oh wait, I thought you were talking about RuPaul. My bad
No, I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to go truly nutty on ya. No DVD for me. Ah well.
I don't think a simple re-regulation of businesses will get you what you ultimately want (more money/benefits in your pocket). I think businesses (and people) have become so used to the idea that regulations and hurdles cost money to businesses, which means less money in the pockets of the workers, whereas things like cheaper materials, lower labor costs, outsourcing, and the like allow more profits to come to the business and therefore more wealth to distribute.
"But Nathan," you say, shaking your head in disgust, "what about the workers on the low end of the totem pole? Don't they get shafted?" Yup. Blue collars get toinked. White collars get the benefits. That's the cost.
Want your $350,000 home and 3 SUVs? Well, there's a price to it. Unless the white collar worker is willing to live with less and have less, I don't think you'll see big changes happen, because you start taking away monies from the middle/upper class and the whining will get so bad, no amount of cheese in the world will compliment it. The cost of having a prosperous world (to the middle/rich) is a greater chasm between the classes.
You can narrow that gap, sure, but then you bring the rich/middle down and the lower up a bit, and nobody lives well.
I'm sure there's a good balance in there somewhere, but I think at the end of the day, someone has to get screwed in capitalism.
And that, in a nutshell, is the failure of capitalism.
I'm not sure it's so much a failure as a feature. Not a very good feature, mind you, but it's inherent to capitalism. Many people can't get a grasp on the fact that capitalism almost certainly requires someone being the pigeon and someone being the statue. You can't have one without the other in capitalism.
I was just thinking that perhaps we can view the three parties of thinking in terms (economically, of course) of different ways of distributing the forces inherent in capitalism:
Democrats: People shouldn't have to struggle, so businesses should make up the difference because they have more resources than the individual. It is morally corrupt to let the individual struggle and barely make it through life. Business should always fall in preference of the individual.
Republicans: People should struggle a lot and businesses less so because easily-run business will benefit the people who struggle the most in the long run. People can only climb a corporate ladder and make more of themselves if there's something there to climb.
Libertarians: People and businesses should both struggle, no matter what role they play. Businesses get no handouts and they succeed or fail based on their own merits. People shouldn't get handouts to help them if those handouts will prevent them from struggling. IE: Folks should only get welfare if they are attempting to better themselves through education, training, job hunting, etc. If the welfare causes them to be able to buy an SUV, then it's too much, they should still struggle, the welfare is just there to help them make it.
This is all very nutshellish, but it's an interesting thought running around my mind, so I thought I'd share.
Democrats frustrate me because they forget the principles of capitalism. Republicans frustrate me because they forget the people. Libertarians frustrate me because they forget about the assholes that break the rules.
What's a guy to do?
I like that. It's not a bug, it's a feature! I don't know what can really be done. Until people can agree enough to try to find a middle ground, the only thing to do is sarcastically point out how ridiculous the people on the fringes of all three of these ways of thinking are.
By the way, since the wingnuts didn't really perform as I wanted them to, hit me with your address and I'll send you a DVD of the most cynical no-budget political comedy ever.