Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

State your analysis of Rand Paul

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I don't follow current politics closely, because I can't stand to watch, so don't know much about him. It seems that he differs from his father in some key respects, most notably neither being as religious—he believes in evolution, condones birth control, and leads a more secular life in general—nor an absolute "non-interventionist" in foreign policy, which are good things. Whereas Paul Sr. was unwavering from a philosophy that was way out of step with the rest of the political spectrum and made him unelectable, Rand seems more eclectic and compromising, which while not admirable in itself actually seems to lead to better positions overall. He's recieved a lot of attention for fighting domestic surveilance, but doesn't make nearly as much noise championing economic freedom, which shows that he picks his battles carefully I think. I would vastly prefer his flat tax proposal over the current tax code and can accept it as a sincere attempt to reduce taxes while keeping his candidacy viable, as opposed to proposing to abolish the income tax outright like his father. His position on abortion is unfortunately quite bad. I'm trying to weave all this together into a generalization about what kind of politician he istead of saying "good on X issue, bad on Y," but just don't know enough. Compared to what else is out there, could a Rand Paul presidency be a net positive to the country? How do you rate his chances? I will say that so far, while I will neither be donating to his campaign nor adorning my car with his bumper sticker, I really hope he wins. Thoughts?

Edited by happiness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to add that while he doesn't make as much noise on these unpopular positions, I trust that Paul would not raise the debt ceiling, condone further economic "stimulus" by the Fed, or permit additional major acts of government intervention in the economy such as bailous in the event of another crisis, which I think almost all other candidates in the field on both sides would do. This adds to his attractiveness in my eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't follow it either, Happiness.  I only know that politics is a derivative set of ideas that have a basis, known by some, not by most, in ethics.  Then ethics is based on a knowledge of epistemology and metaphysics.  And so, the value of Rand Paul's conclusions in politics will not sway a population that knows so little about ethics (outside of religious mysticism).  So his only chance is to align with the religious right and he will probably not do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also like to add that while he doesn't make as much noise on these unpopular positions, I trust that Paul would not raise the debt ceiling, condone further economic "stimulus" by the Fed, or permit additional major acts of government intervention in the economy such as bailous in the event of another crisis, which I think almost all other candidates in the field on both sides would do. This adds to his attractiveness in my eyes.

I don't see how Paul would reduce federal government spending. Lots of politicians talk about doing so, but it is very difficult to deliver. The need to raise the debt ceiling is a derivative of the desire for Federal spending. On stimulus, supposedly he is talking about stimulus for places like Detroit. [Here's an article.] As for the Fed, he cannot really control Quantitative easing except by appointing a new chairman. His "audit the fed" may sound good "in theory", but it has the potential to make the Fed more responsive to Congress, and this is not a good thing because if Fed chairmen don't like pulling back stimulus, Congress likes it even less. 

 

On social security, the plan he proposed some years ago was geared toward making sure it lasts for a long time: by raising the retirement age and cutting back on what "richer" recipients get. Making Social Security more progressive in order to make it last longer is something that Hillary could easily support as well.

 

On immigration, he is probably on of the better Republicans -- on par with Bush and Rubio. He pushes the line about controlling the border to appeal to the typical GOP voter, but he has also said that he would like to put the existing 11 million illegals on some path to work-permit and citizenship. Again, Hillary would be similar.

 

He speaks of more freedom in health-care, but I'm not sure what the specifics would be. He says he supports high-deductible plans. He might (marginally) hold the line on health-care. [Meanwhile, he's a wee bit kookie about vaccines and conspiratorial about Ebola.]

 

None of the candidates is really pushing for any big change to the way the Federal government works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the fact that he favors "real" spending cuts as much as anyone can ask for?

Its a positive talking point. Do you think a Rand Paul presidency will see cuts in government spending?

"Economic freedom zones" are a indirect way of having government subsidize some people at the cost of others. The zone will be somewhere business would not invest on their own. If it costs a business an extra $100 to invest in Detroit, and if the government gives that business some tax-breaks more than $100 to invest there, they might do so. So, the government is forsaking the $100 they'd have taken in tax for the business to make a decision that is uneconomic for society as a whole, and will move business away from places that deserve it more (because they're better places for business). Rick Santorum talks about giving special breaks to manufacturing, Paul about poor places... someone else may give a break to a Green business, or to a small business, ... everyone has their own pet cause they will support at the tax-payer's expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a positive talking point. Do you think a Rand Paul presidency will see cuts in government spending?

"Economic freedom zones" are a indirect way of having government subsidize some people at the cost of others. The zone will be somewhere business would not invest on their own. If it costs a business an extra $100 to invest in Detroit, and if the government gives that business some tax-breaks more than $100 to invest there, they might do so. So, the government is forsaking the $100 they'd have taken in tax for the business to make a decision that is uneconomic for society as a whole, and will move business away from places that deserve it more (because they're better places for business). Rick Santorum talks about giving special breaks to manufacturing, Paul about poor places... someone else may give a break to a Green business, or to a small business, ... everyone has their own pet cause they will support at the tax-payer's expense.

 

I see. That isn't so great after all. I tried to find specific examples of what spending cuts he intends to enact and haven't had much success other than that seeing that he favors significant cuts to discretionary spending, which is good, but clearly inadequate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer if a candidate chooses a single topic and fleshed it out a bit, and was going to be just holding the line on other stuff. I mean, the way Obama campaigned on healthcare (except, I'm hoping for something positive). Maybe Rand could campaign on getting the government out of monitoring and intrusiveness: not just the NSA, but something meaningful: e.g. some law that ends the confiscation of assets, with little or no due process, under the guise of the drug-war.

If I thought a candidate could hold the line on most things, but do something positive on the drug-war (rolling it back), or on immigration (legalizing illegals) I would be happy.The "Overton window" implies that politicians cannot get too far ahead of the voters. So, I don't expect them to be too different from the average voter who has got us where we are today. Yet, I expect a little more than a zero... a little more than the average. I want to see leadership in at least one area. 

 

Otherwise, it might be... vote for the lesser evil.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If he could put forward a decent and realistic alternative to Obamacare, and sell it, that would be great... not merely a promise to repeal it.

Though Paul does not (officially) support legalization of marijuana, it seems that he leans that way. Anything that takes us a step closer to ending the drug-war would be a good thing.

As for his chances of becoming president, I think the odds are low. GOP voters don't like people they see as pacifists or isolationists. He has positioned himself as more mainstream than his dad, so I think he is a more plausible than Ron Paul (who had a "eccentric uncle" image), but still an outlier.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like every poster in this thread has their own personal issue - a specific issue they have an interest in.  They wonder whether Rand Paul will support that issue.

 

Ms. Rand would ask why you are looking to a political candidate to satisfy your values.  We want to support candidates who support the idea that the government should not support derivative values, that is ideas that are not contained in the founding documents, the ideas we all agree too.

 

I don't want a government that supports my ideas - I want a government that supports ideas all people agree with and ignores derivative ideas like the ones I might hold.

 

(There's some contradictions in the language of this post - I left them to spur discussion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like every poster in this thread has their own personal issue - a specific issue they have an interest in.  They wonder whether Rand Paul will support that issue.

These candidates are thrown up by the intellectual culture. In this democracy, we pretty much get the candidates we deserve. Obama, for instance, was supported quite enthusiastically by many. While he becomes a symbol for the anger of those who dislike what he does, the enthusiastic supporters should share much of the blame.

The reason I point this out is this: we cannot expect any radical moves toward more individual rights, because voters do not really want this. It's not the politicians alone: it is voters. They are the ones who want to take money from the rich to give to the poor, to stop abortions, to stop adults from having consensual sex, to stop drugs, and so on.

And, in this context, the most one can hope for is that some combination of president and legislature will manage to change some section of the laws to allow more freedom, while not doing too much harm elsewhere.

Ms. Rand would ask why you are looking to a political candidate to satisfy your values.

Personally, I don't expect much from any politician, least of all to satisfy my values. For instance, my best guess right now is that I will vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, though I expect each of them to be a net negative to my life and to those I value.

So, you're right: from the perspective of most individuals, elections are more like a reality show than something that will make a huge difference in their ongoing happiness [i.e. relative to all the realistic possibilities that fellow-voters will allow.]

We want to support candidates who support the idea that the government should not support derivative values, that is ideas that are not contained in the founding documents, the ideas we all agree too.

I don't use the constitution as the basis for which politician I support. The declaration of independence is a bit better. But, really there is a single moral foundation to government: individual rights. So, that's all I use as a basis.

Not sure what you mean by "...we all agree". Do you mean Objectivist/Libertarian types, or do you mean the majority of Americans. A majority of Americans do not agree that individual rights should form the only basis for governmental action. So, perhaps you meant people on this forum? If so -- again -- individual rights are the only foundation we need.

Americans do not disagree about derivative ideas. They disagree on the fundamental idea about the purpose of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...