(no subject)
I alternate between amazed and a little annoyed with the crowd of Ron Paul zealots that dominates so many news aggregating websites lately. I’m really surprised by how readily his supporters advance and accept the position, “He thinks it should be left up to the states or local governments,” or, “He’s personally against it, but he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved,” when it comes to so many important issues and then leave it at that. While that is certainly a fine libertarian response, almost nobody ever stops to discuss the practical implications. If reproductive rights were entirely left up to the states, then reproductive rights would be weaker than they are now. If healthcare programs or other welfare programs were entirely left up to the states, they would be weaker than they are now. Forget about net neutrality, a policy for which so many people on the internet have argued. Roads, school systems, and other projects currently partly regulated by the federal government would all become worse, at least in the short term.
But actually, it’s not like all of these responsibilities would spontaneously delegated to the states and the federal government would begin to compress. Ron Paul, like any president, would have to wheel and deal and compromise to get done what he wants to get done, and his opinions will play a part in the policy decisions he makes. At the very least, he almost certainly will be appointing a Supreme Court Justice or two, and he almost certainly will try to appoint justices that share his opinions: that federal protection of reproductive rights should be struck down, for example.
To a very great extent, though, he seems like he gets so much support because he is so unlike most other candidates and not because of his positions. He’s a maverick, an outsider. He’s principled, and he doesn’t seem like he’s ever shilled for anyone, wihch can’t be said for most politicians. He doesn’t change his positions based on what is fashionable or politically correct. He’s anti-war, anti-establishment, and he’s for the legalization of marijuana. One thing that’s really fascinating is that I see comments all the time like, “I wish Ron Paul would take Mike Gravel as his running mate!” or “I wish Ron Paul would take Dennis Kucinich as his running mate!” I hear Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich respect each other very much, but I’m sure they are adamantly opposed to each others’ policy positions, and any proponent of Ron Paul’s policies would oppose Dennis Kucinich’s. The only thing they have in common is that they all speak their minds, aren’t corporate mouth pieces, and are dark horse candidates.
Ron Paul is, of course, still leagues better than the other Republican candidates. Forgive my casual use of the term, but the top contenders are fascist bastards (Giuliani and Romney, of course, but also John McCain). I do respect Ron Paul, but I’d respect him a whole lot more if he publicly recanted or disowned some of the racist remarks he’s made in his newsletter. 1
But speaking about deregulation, there is one thing that I badly dislike, or maybe just badly misunderstand, about libertarianism. If I understand the system correctly, there is no means to correct personal or corporate malfeasance except through punishment after the fact, and this seems like a really bad thing to me. What I mean is that if the FDA were to not exist, Evil Corporation #4 rushed a drug to market, and I died as a result, my estate could sue the corporation and consumers could choose to no longer purchase drugs from it. But I’d be dead and the corporation would still be in business. The problem is that the stakes will always be higher for me than it will be for any corporation. Whereas if there is some means of federal oversight, even if it isn’t perfect, even if it is ugly and ill-managed, the corporations will, at least to some degree, be held in check. Or have I misunderstood?
1In 1992, the following comments appeared in his newsletter in an article supposedly written by him: "[B]lack males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such” (meaning that, though only 13, they should be prosecuted as adults?); "[O]nly about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions"; and "95 percent of the black males in [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Since then, Paul has said that the article was written by a ghost writer and that he does not agree with these positions. But it sits really, really badly with me that he hasn’t spoken out against them, especially given the poor track record on racial issues that southern Republican congressmen so often have.
But actually, it’s not like all of these responsibilities would spontaneously delegated to the states and the federal government would begin to compress. Ron Paul, like any president, would have to wheel and deal and compromise to get done what he wants to get done, and his opinions will play a part in the policy decisions he makes. At the very least, he almost certainly will be appointing a Supreme Court Justice or two, and he almost certainly will try to appoint justices that share his opinions: that federal protection of reproductive rights should be struck down, for example.
To a very great extent, though, he seems like he gets so much support because he is so unlike most other candidates and not because of his positions. He’s a maverick, an outsider. He’s principled, and he doesn’t seem like he’s ever shilled for anyone, wihch can’t be said for most politicians. He doesn’t change his positions based on what is fashionable or politically correct. He’s anti-war, anti-establishment, and he’s for the legalization of marijuana. One thing that’s really fascinating is that I see comments all the time like, “I wish Ron Paul would take Mike Gravel as his running mate!” or “I wish Ron Paul would take Dennis Kucinich as his running mate!” I hear Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich respect each other very much, but I’m sure they are adamantly opposed to each others’ policy positions, and any proponent of Ron Paul’s policies would oppose Dennis Kucinich’s. The only thing they have in common is that they all speak their minds, aren’t corporate mouth pieces, and are dark horse candidates.
Ron Paul is, of course, still leagues better than the other Republican candidates. Forgive my casual use of the term, but the top contenders are fascist bastards (Giuliani and Romney, of course, but also John McCain). I do respect Ron Paul, but I’d respect him a whole lot more if he publicly recanted or disowned some of the racist remarks he’s made in his newsletter. 1
But speaking about deregulation, there is one thing that I badly dislike, or maybe just badly misunderstand, about libertarianism. If I understand the system correctly, there is no means to correct personal or corporate malfeasance except through punishment after the fact, and this seems like a really bad thing to me. What I mean is that if the FDA were to not exist, Evil Corporation #4 rushed a drug to market, and I died as a result, my estate could sue the corporation and consumers could choose to no longer purchase drugs from it. But I’d be dead and the corporation would still be in business. The problem is that the stakes will always be higher for me than it will be for any corporation. Whereas if there is some means of federal oversight, even if it isn’t perfect, even if it is ugly and ill-managed, the corporations will, at least to some degree, be held in check. Or have I misunderstood?
1In 1992, the following comments appeared in his newsletter in an article supposedly written by him: "[B]lack males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such” (meaning that, though only 13, they should be prosecuted as adults?); "[O]nly about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions"; and "95 percent of the black males in [Washington] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Since then, Paul has said that the article was written by a ghost writer and that he does not agree with these positions. But it sits really, really badly with me that he hasn’t spoken out against them, especially given the poor track record on racial issues that southern Republican congressmen so often have.