Constant Conservative Ron Paul...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

What is "rational self-interest?" Most people will say they are willing to sacrifice now, while they are alive, to make life better for their grandchildren and great grandchildren. The successful propagation of your genes through future generations is tautologically advantageous for your genes, but it would be difficult to detail an argument that it was rational for an individual to make sacrifices now in order to make life easier for future individuals who might share some copies of his genes. The point is that rational self-interest doesn't cover the bases. Rational self-interest alone cannot drive an economy that promises the stability and agility that is required for our future survival. Rational self-interest never gets beyond the rational motivations of the self. It is an insufficient grounding for a philosophy of economics and governance. Empathy, ethics, morality and sacrifice are not derivative of rational self-interest and yet they necessary components of living life successfully with others.

---

I agree with you Trish when you write: "Rational self-interest alone cannot drive an economy that promises the stability and agility that is required for our future survival."
Oil companies pursue their own interest. Regardless of the harm it may cause to future generations. Namely global warming.
So-called rational self interest could also be: I -- or we -- just don't care about future generations. Which, of course, is frightening.
ExxonMobil is concerned about the next quarterly profits. That's considered rational.
But what will global warming do to people who walk the planet in, say, 50 years or 100 years? Or 150 years? Or 200 years? I mean, at the dawn of the so-called Industrial Revolution many would've said: what impact will this have on future generations. Some would've said: Who cares; we'll be dead. But we're living with the consequences of that. The good consequences -- and the bad.
Our economic system is saying that: profits are more important than people. That's the scary nature of these so-called rational corporations and the entire economic system.

Stand Still for the Apocalypse:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ypse_20121126/

I wonder even how one’s interests are to be judged rational. “Is it rational for individual X to have interest Y?” How does one decide questions of this sort? What is the rational procedure for deciding whether an it is rational for X to have interest Y? What factors are rationally relevant to making such a judgement? Do interests arise and develop within an human mind or are they rationally chosen? I wonder whether the whole concept of “rational self-interest” isn’t indicative of a self-contradictory misunderstanding of human psychology that was invented to bolster a reactionary economic ideology.

Given interests it is easy to see how reason can be applied to decide how best to optimally promote those interests. Suppose you have an interest Y. “I will act to promote interest Y,” can be used as a postulate (a starting point) in any chain of deductions you make to justify an action. For example from “I will act to promote Y,” might be used to in a chain of deductions that concludes with “I will perform action Z.” If the deductive chain is logically valid one might say that Z is the rational thing for you to do. But what axioms do we use to decide whether it was ever rational for you to adopt, develop, grow, happen upon or choose interest Y? Does rationality apply at this level?

X has a wife and a mistress. One might say X has two conflicting interests. One might say that if X has a wife, then he has no rational justification for having a mistress. Another might say it’s irrational for X to remain married to his wife if he wishes to maintain his interest in his mistress. Still, a more urbane observer who knows the family intimately might not see the conflict in these interests as very compelling, not significant enough to require X to sacrifice one interest for the other. There are no set rules to decide which interests are rational and which aren’t; i.e. the word “rational” has no application here. We have interests because human beings develop interests and pursue them. Should Mr.K sell his business and devote his life to writing? He loves both. He can afford it either way. He just has to decide which of his consuming interests should be allowed to oust the other. But he can’t decide that. He just has to wait and see which interest will eventually consume all his attention. Rational self-interest doesn’t apply.

Q is devoted to debauchery, he is a true hedonist. He works hard, saves up money and every year he takes a long vacation in one of the world’s sex resorts. Currently he’s a happy man. Surely Q’s interest in debauchery is irrational, right? It’s pursuit increases his exposure to life threatening diseases, it burns through his money etc. etc. Is it always irrational to risk exposure to disease? Of course one can think of situations where the risk is warranted. If the risk was taken in pursuit of an interest worthy of risk we would say the risk was warranted. We all agree that the risks taken by police and fireman on 9-11 was a noble and worthwhile risk to take. Debauchery not so much. But what if Q thinks the pleasures are worth the risk? Q has two interests, his health and his pleasures. Neither is rational nor irrational. Those words just don’t apply to interests. He simply has two interests that are in conflict. No one has a rational basis for deciding which he should pursue. No one. Not even Q. But Q, and no one else, experiences his interests. Only in Q will one interest win out over the other. Which one wins is not a matter rationality. We can say that his health is more important to his future pursuits and interests; but that’s not the same as his self-interest.
It seems to me that Rands philosophy and libertarianism in general is based on fallacious concept, namely, rational self-interest.

People have interests. They all arise from within the self. So the “self” in “self-interest” refers to the intension of the interest, not on who has the interest. So if X has an interest Y, how does he decide whether Y is a self-interest? How does X discern the intension of Y? Suppose Y is the welfare of his mistress. Well it’s not about X’s welfare. So maybe it’s not a self-interest. But it is about HIS mistress’s welfare, so maybe it is a self-interest.

Let’s try something easier. X has taken an interest in the plight of sick and poverty stricken child whom he never met. Responding to a charity ad, X sent money to help the ill child. The interest, call it C, is the health and welfare of the child. Is it a self-interest? It is certainly one of X’s interests. It sprung from within his breast (with a little help from the ad); but the intension of C is the child’s welfare. Most of us would say that for X, C is not a self-interest. So if it couldn’t possibly be a rational self-interest. Rand’s libertarianism would advise X not to pursue C. In fact Rand claims the it’s people pursuing non-self interests who muck things up. Objectivism claims the world would work better if we all just stuck to pursuing our own “rational” self-interests.

The first example about X’s interest in the welfare of his mistress muddies the waters a bit. It demonstrates that the notion of “self-interest” is fuzzy around the edges; i.e. not absolutely clearly defined. The second example, however, demonstrates that we can find unambiguous cases of non-self-interest. But the second example also provides a clear counter to the objectivist dictum that one should only pursue one’s rational self-interest.

Some Randians will argue that X is pursuing his rational self-interest when sending money to charity sponsoring the child. They will argue that X is free to determine his own interests and when he makes a free and rational choice those interests become his rational self-interests. If you have a genuine interest it is in your self interest to pursue it. If the first example muddied the waters a bit, this attempt to save objectivism makes them opaque even to Superman’s X-ray vision. It not only make “rational self-interest” a vacuous concept but it renders “self-interest” vacuous as well.

The whole pursuit of objectivism is simply ill-conceived. Rand was a writer of young person’s books (a bad one at that). She was not a philosopher, nor was she an economists. She was born and grew up in Russia 1905, suffered under the communist rule and emigrated to the U.S. in 1925. Her writings are understandably reactionary diatribes against “collectivism.” That doesn’t make them right, nor does it make selfishness a virtue.

Trish, there is a large literature on 'rational choice' theory, but it might help to think historically about the growth of capitalism and the way in which the spread of it outside Europe and the USA collided with existing economic systems, and how, it seems, capitalism has triumphed -but at whose expense? I am thinking, for example, of the moral economy contasted with the market economy.

The market economy became the means whereby the Ottoman Empire in its Middle Eastern domains in the second half of the 19th century, and for example the British Empire in East Africa, attempted to integrate 'backward' areas that were not producing profits, into a centrally managed system that craved them.

The growth of agriculture in Palestine, and what today is Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon was built on existing markets, in fruit and vegetables, cotton and silk and so on, but collided with the moral economies which existed side by side with these markets, most of which were based on large cities and towns such as Jaffa (oranges); Beirut and Damascus (silk and cotton). Outside these markets in rural areas, people practised subsistence agriculture which in a good year meant they could sell their surplus in markets, but mostly it was a moral economy where decisions were made that were considered good for the community as a whole rather than decisions that were determined by what was good for markets. Thus land may be farmed in rotation, with one family's land lying fallow for a year to protect its soil, with that family being compensated for its loss of production by the others; just as the distribution of goods would be decided morally - on the basis of need- rather than in market terms =the ability to pay. The Ottomans, and subsequently the British and the French, hated this moral economy because by the standards of the market it was not considered productive, whereas markets were viewed as dynamic, and giving people an incentive to produce for themselves through their benefit from sales. However in a precarious environment where it might not rain enough to produce a good crop for three years in a row, is a market economy superior to a moral economy?

In Kenya, there is a powerful argument that an undercurrent in the Mau-Mau rebellion of the 1950s was precisely the dislocation of the moral economy that had existed among the Kikuyu, which suffered as their lands were taken over by White setllers practising agricultural capitalism based on the production of goods for markets (in tea, coffee etc). The crisis this engendered in terms of the inheritance of land -lost through colonial disposession-, and the distribution of its products in a roughly equal manner throughout the Kikuyu -lost through the creation of markets- could not be resolved in the context of colonial rule -indeed, it was because some Kikuyu abandoned the 'age old' practices to graft themselves on to the colonial system in order to benefit from it tha explains why Mau-Mau in essence was a war within the Kikuyu for the soul of the Kikuyu people. Capitalism, in this sense, is the destroyer of one world, and the creator of another.

Thank you Stavros for your examples. The contrast between the “moral economy” of the rural regions outside Beirut and the “market economy” of the Ottomans is engaging.

My concern in the last post was theoretical and focused not so much on the whether objectivist economic principles are good or bad but whether they are conceptually coherent. One more brief attempt to clarify:

To choose rationally, one needs to assess the costs and benefits of various choices. But one man’s cost may be another man’s benefit. Costs and benefits are measured relative to one’s interests. Rational choice is possible only when one has a clear idea how each possible choice would benefit one’s interests and how each possible choice would impede one’s interests. Clearly then, rational choice is possible only if one’s interests are available before the rational analysis begins. Therefore, to choose one’s interests rationally it is required that one’s interests already be known! There is no such thing as rational self-interest. There are only interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Thank you Stavros for your examples. The contrast between the “moral economy” of the rural regions outside Beirut and the “market economy” of the Ottomans is engaging.

My concern in the last post was theoretical and focused not so much on the whether objectivist economic principles are good or bad but whether they are conceptually coherent. One more brief attempt to clarify:

To choose rationally, one needs to assess the costs and benefits of various choices. But one man’s cost may be another man’s benefit. Costs and benefits are measured relative to one’s interests. Rational choice is possible only when one has a clear idea how each possible choice would benefit one’s interests and how each possible choice would impede one’s interests. Clearly then, rational choice is possible only if one’s interests are available before the rational analysis begins. Therefore, to choose one’s interests rationally it is required that one’s interests already be known! There is no such thing as rational self-interest. There are only interests.

---

First of all I should make it clear that I do not believe in a processional theory of history, that a moral economy pre-dates a capitalist economy. In those parts of the Middle East dependent primarily on rainfall as the water supply for agriculture, a moral economy can be a response to a crisis following a sequence of seasons with low or insufficient rainfall, but also political crises created by war or invasion. Collective action thus becomes a 'rational choice' but in this way exposes the broader question inherent in the assumption made by rational choice theory: why? Why would an individual subsume their interests in a collective decision-making process over which they may not have any influence or control?

Rational Choice theory became dependent on mathematical modelling and game theory to explain the myriad of choices that people make, but could never adequately explain social norms, except as describing them as social norms! Just as rational choice can become a circular argument by claiming all social or economic actions are rational.

For example, to most people maximising the benefit of one's skills is a rational choice -if you have a degree in medicine and have trained as a doctor, it makes sense to become one, rather than opt to drive a taxi; but even that can be a rational choice if, for example, an accident as an intern engendered a crisis of self-belief that made practising medicine so traumatic it became impossible. With therapy, it may be possible to practise medicine yet again. Similarly, it may seem irrational for a 19 year old to steal a car, given the sanctions imposed by society upon it as a criminal act. But if the 19 year old is not seeking an economic reward in money for the vehicle, but a social reward in the approval of his gang, then it is a rational act. The same goes for the Japanese kamikaze pilot or an Islamic suicide bomber -neither act has a direct financial reward for the man, both seek appproval from their most valued social group -Japanese patriots, and those Muslims who believe suicide bombings are 'martyrdom operations' that bring glory rather than shame on the family.

What rational choice theory stumbles over is precisely the apparently irrational acts of individuals that can only be explained by norms -why, after all, should a teacher join the teachers union if there are so many teachers in it one more won't make a difference, but still benefit from the wage increase negotiated by that union?

So the issue may be, as you suggest, that the problem lies with the emphasis on rationality as the driver of economic and social behaviour; that human beings have individual desires, but social needs; that we contain within ourselves contradictions that rationality can neither predict, nor explain.

This is a useful overvew of rational choice theory:
http://www.soc.iastate.edu/sapp/soc4...onalchoice.pdf

I agree with your last post. It comes pretty close to expressing what I was trying to say. Nicely done.

I'm am somewhat familiar with Von Neumann's and Morgenstern's game theoretic approach to economic theory. They, I think, would've been the first to admit their analysis presupposes the players have a known and fixed set of quantifiable interests. Their theory tell the players how to play rationally so as to optimize those interests, it doesn't tell them how to choose their interests. That is why rational choice theory fails to adequately deal with the formation of interests that arise out of social norms, and personal fascinations.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

I'm sure there are many games where an individual acting rationally in his own self-interest ends up with a worse outcome because he failed to take into account the behavior of another player (or is the "rational" person a game theoretician?). A Nash equilibrium arises when each player is making the best decision he or she can make taking into account the decisions of all other players, thereby making it irrational to defect. Yet it is probably more common for rational decisions made on an individual basis to have unintended consequences, sometimes resulting in a position worse than status quo.

I think the explanation of social values shows that rational interest cannot be very easily approximated, but there also seems to be something inherent in the nature of competition. People will do things in competition that will inevitably destroy them in the long-run. Win the battle lose the war. Pyrrhic victory. We hear about this in war, but in economic competition, such as with oligopolies selling highly elastic goods, individual self-interest results in a premium good being converted into a commodity. Aggrandize market share and end up with a worthless market. Of course I suppose it depends how you define group, because society is composed of consumers too who could argue they would be harmed by collective action in that paradigm.

Why subvert your individual decision-making to the group? One reason is that people do not let you act in a vacuum. They are aware of what you are doing and will retaliate if they think you trammelled on their interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Just as rational choice can become a circular argument by claiming all social or economic actions are rational.

---

This sort of gets back to fixing meanings for such terminology. But it is especially difficult with such words as rational or reasonable or self-interest. Can every action be considered a selfish action because by subverting self-interest you serve your self-interest? Is everything rational in the sense that some interest must have been valued favorably to all those competing? Is the determination of what's rational subjective and individualized or objective based on group norms? If the determination of what is rational is subjective, then every action must be rational, unless one made a decision when he was in a state atypical for him. But if he was, then it would be rational for him to make such a decision when in that state. Tremendous circularity.

But this puts the lie to all arguments about rational self-interest because they all impute differing degrees of omniscience to the actors. And it presumes some sort of fixed relationship between information and choice (input and output). Any decision is made within an extraordinarily complicated, fluid system.

Saving Economics from the Economists:

http://hbr.org/2012/12/saving-econom...conomists/ar/1

Is that like saving climatology from climatologists? Or biology from biologists? Or is it more like saving theology from theologians, or parapsychology from parapsychologists?

Economics is not the study of business management. Nor is it the study of entrepreneurship (whatever the fuck that is). Just as thermodynamics seeks to establish the emergent properties of complex, many-bodied physical systems, economics seeks to establish the emergent properties (if there are any) of complex, many-bodied economic systems. The emergent laws of thermodynamics cannot predict the behavior of a particular molecule, but only the interrelationships between statistical variables such as average kinetic energy (temperature). Similarly, economics cannot predict which stocks will rise, nor can it tell you how to manage your business. It cannot predict the behavior of single constituent elements of the system. It attempts to understand the system at the macroscopic level. Economics, like thermodynamics, or climatology should indeed be driven by empirical data, but at the appropriate scale. Just as the weather on a single day at a single place is irrelevant, to climatology, the details of a single business and what made it fail or succeed may or may not be relevant to economics. We should probably leave home economics to home makers and leave economics to economists.

Where Are the Female Libertarians? - YouTube

Where Are the Female Libertarians?

They're probably both drooling over some commie with a big bulge.

Ron Paul Bots:

Mob Of Ron Paul Bots Send Death Threats! - YouTube

Ron Paul supports Snowden and Manning in Larry King interview - YouTube

Ron Paul's interview with Glenn Greenwald starts at the 12:23 mark:

Ron Paul Channel FIRST EPISODE!! Interviews GLENN GREENWALD August 12, 2013 - YouTube

Going back to the origin of this thread, I think I have an explanation for why Ron Paul has been able to maintain consistency in his views throughout his political career. He is an extremist and so it is always very easy for him to know which direction to pull on any policy decision.

He believes in nearly absolute free markets and so doesn't forget to say that he thinks regulatory agencies should be de-funded or abolished. He believes the U.S should be on the gold standard, that the fed should be abolished, and that social welfare programs should cease to exist. He believes in an almost absolute policy of non-interventionism, to the extent that this policy should be adhered to even in the face of genocide. He avoids testing this proposition by calling every humanitarian crisis a "false flag" operation and engaging in crank conspiracy talk when confronted with any complexity.

He thinks the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional but even it were not he has said he would oppose it for policy reasons, as it conflicts with his Libertarianism. His newsletters from the 90's ranted about how the Americans with Disabilities Act forced dentists to treat AIDS patients who are basically no better than murderers for seeking treatment. He has denied knowledge of a great deal of what was written in his publications, but this view attacking legislation that created extra-contractual rights for vulnerable people seems right up his alley.

Yes, he's consistent. He's also a batty extremist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Going back to the origin of this thread, I think I have an explanation for why Ron Paul has been able to maintain consistency in his views throughout his political career. He is an extremist and so it is always very easy for him to know which direction to pull on any policy decision.

He believes in nearly absolute free markets and so doesn't forget to say that he thinks regulatory agencies should be de-funded or abolished. He believes the U.S should be on the gold standard, that the fed should be abolished, and that social welfare programs should cease to exist. He believes in an almost absolute policy of non-interventionism, to the extent that this policy should be adhered to even in the face of genocide. He avoids testing this proposition by calling every humanitarian crisis a "false flag" operation and engaging in crank conspiracy talk when confronted with any complexity.

He thinks the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional but even it were not he has said he would oppose it for policy reasons, as it conflicts with his Libertarianism. His newsletters from the 90's ranted about how the Americans with Disabilities Act forced dentists to treat AIDS patients who are basically no better than murderers for seeking treatment. He has denied knowledge of a great deal of what was written in his publications, but this view attacking legislation that created extra-contractual rights for vulnerable people seems right up his alley.

Yes, he's consistent. He's also a batty extremist.

---

I wouldn't say that he believes in absolute "free" markets. Remember absolute "free" markets mean absolutely no government intervention. He certainly supports the military. Which, of course, exists outside the market system. As he would -- and does -- consider it a public good. And, again, that exists outside the market. It's an externality. Or external to markets. And, too, he supports a public police force.
I have disagreements with Paul. But I think he's good on a lot of issues. I consider myself a left-leaning libertarian. I mean, I do support gay marriage etc., etc.

Hi Ben,
I said nearly absolute free markets. You are right that believing in having a standing army is outside the market system, a public good, a positive externality that would otherwise not be paid for. This is for me one of his few reality based positions.


Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Some of his other positions are not purely libertarian views but have their own little quirk. For instance his views on the first amendment favor the free exercise clause more than the establishment clause on religion. It means he doesn't believe the constitution says that there is even an implied separation of church and state. It allows free practice, but the establishment clause in his view only prevents the government from choosing a religion. The Supreme Court interprets it much more broadly than that.

His views on sodomy, gay marriage, and abortion are not exactly pure libertarian views as I'm sure you know in disagreeing with him there. They are sort of a mixture of state's rights advocacy, strict construction constitutionality, and pro-religion bias. Of course, if I went into it there's quite a bit wrong with Mr. Paul's understanding of the Constitution. He seems to disagree with over 200 years worth of interpretation of the document in favor of his own personal view.

But the biggest indictment of him are his positions linked above. Go through and take a look at them one by one. Here's my caution before doing so. Don't think too much about his justifications for having a position because it's very easy to listen to these rationalizations and pretend there's something deeply principled about them. For instance someone might say, "I'm for genocide, but you don't understand, it's only because I am generally in favor of anything that prevents over-population. I've supported every measure of that kind". Look more at what he supports.

He often supports things for many reasons. For instance, he may say he thinks the civil rights act is unconstitutional (it's not), but he also says he thinks it creates racial disharmony. To believe this last statement is to truly have your head up your ass. Look at what he says about sexual harassment in the workplace. That a female who complains about being subjected to it and does not leave her job is valuing her employment over her morals by not quitting. So again, he may quite quaintly claim that it is his libertarianism, in other words his view that employers should be able to do what they want. But his real reason boils down to something else: he blames the victim.

Other views of his are just plain stupid. That judges don't even have the right to instruct the jury on what the law is. The entire point of the instruction is to tell the jury that they must figure out what happened and then apply it to the law as the Judge explains it. But Paul thinks this somehow usurps the rights of the accused to a trial by jury....that the founders believed that jurors should just sit in a box and act based on whim and caprice. I don't know where he comes up with half this shit.

Some inconsistencies: he believes abortion should be left to the states, but then voted in favor of federal legislation banning "partial birth" abortion. This is why one should pay attention to what he does, because his explanations are a complete fraud. Also loved his lecture upon looking at the bill to consider acting in Darfur, that it was not in the United States' interests.

More evidence that Ron Paul is homophobic. His position on gay marriage is about as muddled and inconsistent as it could be. At once, he says that he thinks marriage should not be a government function, and so it should be a matter of any two people engaging in a private association.

On the other hand, he believes that states should be able to ban gay marriage. I don't know how to reconcile these two views except to say that maybe in the absence of getting his way (that the government stays out of marriage), he prefers that this legislative power resides in the states rather than the federal government.

However, if he believes that it's ideal for both the state and federal government to stay out of it altogether, shouldn't he prefer that when states do inevitably regulate marriage that they choose the least restrictive definition possible? In other words, if he believes that in his best case scenario individuals decide for themselves, why in his second best scenario does he support a restrictive definition of the institution that excludes gays?

Then there's the issue of him saying he would have voted for DOMA. DOMA basically allowed the federal government to impose its own view of marriage on the states and to thereby disregard the state's definition of marriage. Very odd for such a staunch state's rights advocate to support this legislation except that the government's definition was the exclusive one.

As you can see from his chameleon like views on gay marriage, his constitutional justifications have a sort of heads I win tails you lose logic. And the man who has opposed dozens of pieces of legislation on the grounds that the federal government doesn't have the right to legislate in a particular area, says he would have supported legislation that overrules state definitions of marriage and imposes a uniform federal view for federal administrative purposes.

As for his other views on social issues. He also wants to pass laws that strip the Supreme Court of any judicial oversight when it comes to issues of abortion, marriage, and religion. What he doesn't understand is that this is one of the most important functions of the Supreme Court. The Court makes sure that both state and federal laws do not violate the federal constitution. And it was established very early on that the Court has the final say on matters of constitutionality. This is why banning abortion is unconstitutional. You cannot simply say that it's a matter that should be left to the states, because states are not allowed to violate the federal constitution any more than the federal government can.

He says he thinks the Court was also wrong in ruling that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and that making such laws should be the prerogative of the several states. Yes, yes Dr. Paul, but there's this whole constitution thing and the fact that men in robes decide on issues of constitutionality, not some half-baked wide-eyed demagogue who has never been a judge!!!! For him, the only thing that should matter is precedent...has the Court decided and if so, that's the law!

Ben,
I realize I've posted up a couple of long-winded objections to Ron Paul's politics. I'm not daring you to respond if you don't want to because I have nothing against people who happen to like some of Paul's ideas, even if I clearly have something against him.

But can I just ask you what it is you find unique about him, or that you like? If I had to guess, I would say it is the non-interventionism, which as a long-term policy would have been a lot better for us and the rest of the world than what we've engaged in. If that's it then fair play.

But there are some things about the rest of the package that I think are appalling. And even if you're a non-interventionist, it doesn't mean that you don't think we might be able to act on occasion in one-sided cases of genocide. It's unfortunate that Ron Paul does seem to be one of the few politicians who wants to pare down our foreign aid and reduce the size of our military, both of which I also think are good ideas.

Name me 1 politician who you like all their policies ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by surf4490

Name me 1 politician who you like all their policies ?

---

I don't really see the point of that exercise. There's not a politician whose list of policies I dislike in their entirety either.

However, I can't think of anyone in this country whose policies I dislike more than Ron Paul. Maybe Paul Ryan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I don't really see the point of that exercise. There's not a politician whose list of policies I dislike in their entirety either.

However, I can't think of anyone in this country whose policies I dislike more than Ron Paul. Maybe Paul Ryan.

---

Ron Paul supports decreasing the military budget. Isn't that a good thing? Ron Paul supports ending the fruitless war on drugs. Isn't that a good thing?
I've disagreements with both Pauls. But they have some sensible policies. I mean, I don't support a push toward a full free market system. (I mean, a full free market means: no child labor laws, no minimum wage laws.)
And how do we address, say, spillover effects or externalities? The big one is pollution. How would a so-called "free" market address pollution? Or the bigger one: global warming?
In the absence of government, well, who puts constraints on corporate power?
But Ron Paul is right when he points out: we've a merger of corporate and state power. And that's the problem.
But we do have some say/control over government. As they've a flaw: they are potentially democratic.

Ben, look no further than my last post on the previous page. I sort of anticipated some of your agreements with Ron Paul. As I said, it is possible for a politician to want to reduce the military budget and end the war on drugs but who does not want to get rid of Medicare, the Americans With Disabilities Act, The Civil Rights Act, who thinks the world should respond in cases of genocide, who supports same-sex marriage rights, who doesn't support the now ruled unconstitutional DOMA, who does not want to strip jurisdiction from the Supreme Court on abortion, who doesn't want to privatize all federal lands so that environmental law can be waged by private lawsuits, who doesn't have such bizarre notions of how jury trials should operate, and who doesn't think sexual harassment is something women can avoid by quitting their jobs.

Just my take. Not difficult to have one or two sensible policies out of several dozen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

I mean, I don't support a push toward a full free market system. (I mean, a full free market means: no child labor laws, no minimum wage laws.)
And how do we address, say, spillover effects or externalities? .

---

Believe it or not, Ron Paul does have an answer to the externality question, though it's not a solution. He says if we privatize all federal lands, then there will not be a spillover problem because every individual will be able to vindicate their rights in court by suing the polluter. Of course, this leads to a tremendous amount of wasted expenditure in the form of court costs, there are enormous transaction costs associated with getting thousands of parties together to sue corporations, there are increases in insurance costs for businesses because of the uncertainty in magnitude of their liabilities. You are also going to have tremendous number of trial cases where the nature of property rights are litigated; what does it mean to own land adjacent to a stream, what quality of air are you entitled to? What he has suggested is not really an answer but in his view it's a good way to prevent the government from legislating.

The principle difficulty with privatizing Federal lands is there won't be any Federal lands! No commons! No national parks! Nothing but private roads, private waterways and no resources belonging to the people! This is supposed to be a government of, by and for the people not an anarchy of the corporations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Believe it or not, Ron Paul does have an answer to the externality question, though it's not a solution. He says if we privatize all federal lands, then there will not be a spillover problem because every individual will be able to vindicate their rights in court by suing the polluter. Of course, this leads to a tremendous amount of wasted expenditure in the form of court costs, there are enormous transaction costs associated with getting thousands of parties together to sue corporations, there are increases in insurance costs for businesses because of the uncertainty in magnitude of their liabilities. You are also going to have tremendous number of trial cases where the nature of property rights are litigated; what does it mean to own land adjacent to a stream, what quality of air are you entitled to? What he has suggested is not really an answer but in his view it's a good way to prevent the government from legislating.

---

The problem here is that Ron Paul talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to civil litigation. When he ran for president in 2012, he claimed to oppose tort reform on federalist grounds. But the Private Option Health Care Act that he authored in 2010 replaced malpractice litigation with a tax credit for adverse outcome insurance, which may be one of the worst health-policy ideas ever conceived. He also voted against a measure that would allow negligence lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He voted in favor of liability protection for manufacturers of certain gasoline additives. And he voted for a bill aimed at addressing court shopping that would move national class-action lawsuits out of local state courts to federal courts. He’s stated numerous times that he thinks the American economy is overburdened by civil litigation, and that it should be more difficult for a claimant to bring a lawsuit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

Ron Paul supports decreasing the military budget. Isn't that a good thing? Ron Paul supports ending the fruitless war on drugs. Isn't that a good thing?

---

I just plain don’t get the progressive fascination with the Pauls. Ron Paul is certainly not the only politician in this country who supports reducing DoD’s budget and ending the war on drugs, and on virtually every other issue, he’s a hard-right demagogue. Plus, how anti-war/anti-security state is he, really? He voted for the AUMF, one of the most intrusive pieces of national security policy this country has ever seen. And being against the drug war is not exactly a fringe position anymore. John McCain mentioned marijuana legalization yesterday. So why does Ron Paul have more credibility among the left than Barbara Lee or Alan Grayson?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thombergeron

The problem here is that Ron Paul talks out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to civil litigation. When he ran for president in 2012, he claimed to oppose tort reform on federalist grounds. But the Private Option Health Care Act that he authored in 2010 replaced malpractice litigation with a tax credit for adverse outcome insurance, which may be one of the worst health-policy ideas ever conceived. He also voted against a measure that would allow negligence lawsuits against gun manufacturers. He voted in favor of liability protection for manufacturers of certain gasoline additives. And he voted for a bill aimed at addressing court shopping that would move national class-action lawsuits out of local state courts to federal courts. He’s stated numerous times that he thinks the American economy is overburdened by civil litigation, and that it should be more difficult for a claimant to bring a lawsuit.

---

First, good point on the AUMF.

I didn't know any of this above. This is the sort of heads he wins tails you lose stance he takes. He clearly wants to abolish the regulatory state. In its place he indicates he wants people to be able to vindicate their rights as individuals in court. Then he supports measures to limit liability. This isn't a free market paradigm but a rigged system.

I don't want to write anything else that's too long-winded but his federalism/state's rights arguments are grounded in an idiosyncratic view of the Constitution. I suppose he's entitled to think about constitutionality in his own terms when considering legislation, but he's gotten to the point where he doesn't even want to let the highest court in the land have its say. He wants to strip them of jurisdiction on issues where he disagrees with their rulings. Where is the principle in that?

Just a small historical note: If I remember correctly, one of the things established by Marbury v. Madison is that the executive cannot just ignore the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings in favor of his own view. Ron Paul is not exactly doing that by considering the constitutionality of laws BEFORE voting for them, but the only branch of government that can overturn that law once it's passed is the judiciary. So his insistence that settled law needs to be overturned with jurisdiction stripping measures is really just an end-run around the separation of powers.

Note: I am not a Constitutional scholar and I am not sure if what I am saying is completely correct, but that's my take on the matter.

Ron Paul on NBC: U.S. Moving Toward "Soft Fascism" - YouTube

Howard Zinn on Fascism in America - YouTube

Do We Live in a Police State Ron Paul - YouTube

Ron Paul U S foreign Policy AIPAC Israel greatest obstacle no respect for the constitution 360p - YouTube

How Real Conservatives Get Crushed By Money In Politics:

How Real Conservatives Get Crushed By Money In Politics - YouTube