Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Your Presidential hopefuls for 2012

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Apart from his stance on abortion, I don't see religion as being a major component of Ron Paul's platform and don't see him as a theocrat. He is the only man in politics who understands the cause of our economic problmes and the only one who will avert the economic calamity that I believe we are facing if we don't drastically change course soon. Gratned, I disagree with his stances on Iran and on Islam in general, but at this rate the U.S. won't have enough money to fight Iran even if we do eventually elect a leader willing to crush them. All things considered, I believe Dr. Paul is the best candidate. All the big-name candidates have major flaws and I don't see how he could be worse than Romney, Palin, or anyone else who has actually has a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from his stance on abortion, I don't see religion as being a major component of Ron Paul's platform and don't see him as a theocrat. He is the only man in politics who understands the cause of our economic problmes and the only one who will avert the economic calamity that I believe we are facing if we don't drastically change course soon. Gratned, I disagree with his stances on Iran and on Islam in general, but at this rate the U.S. won't have enough money to fight Iran even if we do eventually elect a leader willing to crush them. All things considered, I believe Dr. Paul is the best candidate. All the big-name candidates have major flaws and I don't see how he could be worse than Romney, Palin, or anyone else who has actually has a chance.

Thing is, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination, much less winning the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from his stance on abortion, I don't see religion as being a major component of Ron Paul's platform

He actually has a more personal reasoning for being against abortion. He has not, at least from what I understand, ever explicitly stated it was for religious reasons that I am aware of. At least, in his first main book, which I read a few years back when it was newish, he explained his view on abortion and his views on people that are pro-choice. Although I still (obviously) believe he fell on the wrong side of that fence he has better reasons for his position than many others on that side. I honestly think he gets viewed poorly a bit unjustifiably around these parts. Once you get to know more about the man himself and his views he is not nearly what some people make him out to be. But that is just my opinion, and people are welcome to have their own, I have no intention of starting a debate about it.

Thing is, Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in hell of getting the nomination, much less winning the election.

Very true. BUT:

1. He seems to be the next guy in charge of Federal Reserve Oversight. Which is kind of a big deal since he is one of the most knowledgeable (he wrote a book just about it, a very good one at that) people on the Federal Reserve and quite clearly would like to abolish it. Obviously, he realizes thats an unrealistic goal but has put a lot of work in trying to get its documents transparent, which he feels would make the end result happen much more quickly.

2. Ron Paul's son, Randall (Rand) Paul, have agreed to submit a Federal Reserve bill in each of their respected residences, the House and the Senate as the first thing they do. We can hope to get some extra support since the first big, and last attempt the other year, since we now have many more Republicans and the pressure is on them to act like real Republicans this time. No guarantees obviously.

Here is some more info on this 2nd thing w ith a lot of good details on how they plan to go about it. (Subpoena etc.)

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. He seems to be the next guy in charge of Federal Reserve Oversight. Which is kind of a big deal since he is one of the most knowledgeable (he wrote a book just about it, a very good one at that) people on the Federal Reserve and quite clearly would like to abolish it. Obviously, he realizes thats an unrealistic goal but has put a lot of work in trying to get its documents transparent, which he feels would make the end result happen much more quickly.
The problem is that the most likely outcome -- at the end of all the congressional fights -- is a bill that makes the Fed more responsive to populist pressure. It probably won't matter 95% of the time. However, fast-forward to the 5% case somewhere in the future, when the Fed wants to provide liquidity to banks or when some Volcker-like chairman wants to buck the populist trend and raise rates. That is when a higher-degree of congressional/populist control will be the flaw that Paul will be responsible for.

The only type of new Fed law that would make sense is a bill that lays down certain limits on what the Fed may or may not do (assuming the right -- baby-step -- limits are laid down). However, I doubt this is what will come out of the process. Instead, I think all we'll get is some type of "openness" and some type of extra oversight. Both these will keep the actions of the Fed open to the subjective decisions of the government, simply moving part of that to the legislative branch.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the most likely outcome -- at the end of all the congressional fights -- is a bill that makes the Fed more responsive to populist pressure. It probably won't matter 95% of the time. However, fast-forward to the 5% case somewhere in the future, when the Fed wants to provide liquidity to banks or when some Volcker-like chairman wants to buck the populist trend and raise rates. That is when a higher-degree of congressional/populist control will be the flaw that Paul will be responsible for.

The only type of new Fed law that would make sense is a bill that lays down certain limits on what the Fed may or may not do (assuming the right -- baby-step -- limits are laid down). However, I doubt this is what will come out of the process. Instead, I think all we'll get is some type of "openness" and some type of extra oversight. Both these will keep the actions of the Fed open to the subjective decisions of the government, simply moving part of that to the legislative branch.

Don't you think that is going to be the case though with any situation in which the law is not a closed system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you think that is going to be the case though with any situation in which the law is not a closed system?
Today, the Fed is run by a mix of three things: good principles, bad principles and populist/Congressional pressure. A guy like Ron Paul might argue for fewer bad principles and more good principles behind the Fed; however, my bet is that what we will get -- if anything -- is more populist/Congressional influence. If he does manage anything substantial, hats off to him. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but Ron Paul doesn't pass the secularist exam, as far as I am concerned. To pass that test, it's necessary that you repudiate the role of religion in government. Paul does not meet this necessary criterion

The only criterion worth two shits in Congress right now is honest people. He is both honest and one of the most principled people in Congress. If you want every congressman to fit your criteria that is fine, but good luck getting many of the Congressman currently in office to meet Objectivist standards, it won't happen. His religious views don't go any further than state control of the issues. There are many other Congressman that are just as religious that have no problem bringing their opinions in and justifying totalitarian control of others lives in such a manner. Paul's version is not perfect but it is certainly better. I have seen many Objectivists give full applause to people much more unprincipled, much more unethical, much more opposed to Objectivism and its ideas than this man, and that is the only reason I take issue with some peoples evaluation of him, is when those people are being hypocritical in their evaluations of non-Objectivists.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but Ron Paul doesn't pass the secularist exam, as far as I am concerned. To pass that test, it's necessary that you repudiate the role of religion in government. Paul does not meet this necessary criterion

I've read that before and it's certainly concerning, but apart from his stance on abortion, I haven't seen his religiosity reflected in his platform or voting record to any significant degree. I've never heard him try to justify any policy (even abortion) on religious grounds. For the most part, he keeps his religion to himself, and has even said that he is uncomfortable discussing religion in the political arena. He is not a theocrat.

Edited by BRG253
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I have some concerns with Ron Paul, religion isn't one of them. The last time I remember him commenting on religion at all, was back when he said something like "If fascism comes to America, it will come carrying a cross." There's a good reason why so many of his supporters are atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the caveat that I need to know more about him, I think NJ's governor Chris Christie could make a good fiscally center-right president with only token religious kow-towing.

I also want to see Hillary run on a more centrist message than her last attempt, and nevertheless thrash Obama in the primaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you in 2006 have included Barack Obama in a list of people who objectively had a chance to win in 2008?

I knew he was a viable candidate from the first time I saw him. I had a feeling it was going to be him and Hilary. Once you know where the people with the money bags are aiming, and you take into account the stupid altruistic masses, you can narrow it down a decent bit I think. I knew it would be McCain (this was before Palin came into the picture) or Mitt for Republicans, and Mitt is definitely going to try for it in 2012, and potentially Palin, I wouldn't doubt it.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you in 2006 have included Barack Obama in a list of people who objectively had a chance to win in 2008?

Maybe. But I wasn't following politics beyond war news then because I was in the navy and often somewhere in the Pacific. When at sea, sailor's awareness of current events does not go beyond headlines and the biggest stories included in the daily unclassified news and sports summary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the caveat that I need to know more about him, I think NJ's governor Chris Christie could make a good fiscally center-right president with only token religious kow-towing.

I also want to see Hillary run on a more centrist message than her last attempt, and nevertheless thrash Obama in the primaries.

Bad news for you, then- she said she'll never run again: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20021921-503544.html

But I agree with the Chris Christie thing, definitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh! Do I have to give up hope that Obama will be challenged by another Democrat less left than he, and lose?

Yes, you do. The great ideological movement of present day America is the capture of industrial unions, government employee unions, and government transfer payment recipients by socialist organizers that call themselves Democrats. I recommend again Radical in Chief because beyond the subject of Obama it also serves as a recent history of the progress of socialism in politics and how they did it. That faction within the Democratic party will continue to strengthen not go away. Ayn Rand's dictum that the more consistent side wins is once again coming true. The seesawing of control of the government when the stakes are so high is making both sides more ideological.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The seesawing of control of the government when the stakes are so high is making both sides more ideological.

And this is a good thing, IMHO. Remember the other part of Rand's analysis of compromise: when principles are stated clearly it benefits the rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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