There was a Republican debate Thursday night in Orlando featuring eight presidential candidates: Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann. Who won the debate, from an Objectivist’s perspective?
Please tell me if you know where this debate can be watched online!
I’m not sure what you’d mean by, “from an Objectivist perspective”, as all of these candidates are committed statists.
Another question you might ask is, “based on this debate, who do you think advanced in their goal of winning the nomination the most?”.
In that regard, I’d say Romney. He, Perry and Paul were the only ones on that stage seriously running for the nomination–and Paul’s seriousness is questionable. The rest are running for VP (I think Gingrich did himself a few favors in that race tonight).
So either Rick “Social Security should be abolished” Perry or Mitt “Gold Plates” Romney is going to make Obama’s work pretty easy.
I certainly could be wrong–and the economy is going to suck pretty hard in the next 18 months putting huge pressure on the currently-in-office pols, but the repubs and the bizarre t-party populist line they are taking are, in my view, completely unelectable right now.
I watched this because I was flipping through channels and stopped there while distracted by something on my iPad. I’m certainly not a follower of these things and can’t imagine why anybody would be.
That said, watching the debate commercials was informative in that I got to learn all about the products I will want to start using when I turn 90.
There was a Republican debate Thursday night in Orlando … … Please tell me if you know where this debate can be watched online!
This one was partially sponsored by Google and was streamed live. They have it on YouTube now.
I was furious when Santorum told the gay soldier who asked on a Youtube video if he would reverse the ended policy of DADT. Santorum said under his presidency he would put it back into place because gays shouldn’t get a “special privilege” and the military isn’t for “sex”. So being able to talk about your life without lying is a “special privilege”, and being gay is tantamount to some kinky sex fetish. What an asshole.
The rest of the debate was par for the course. Mitt Romney lying, Perry acting, Ron Paul sounding weird, Ginrich looking like a Lucas Arts CG monster.
There’s been a lot of positive comments about Gary Johnson among Objectivists, though he’s unlikely to win.
Seeing things evolve over the last few debates, and seeing that the GOP nominated McCain the last time around, I’m guessing they nominate Romney (perhaps with a suitably kooky Christian running mate) this time around.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI-yStFdjfQ
The only 285 seconds out of the whole 2 hour debate that wasn’t spoken by a lying fascist. But still terrible questions. Though usually they are like: Ron Paul the economy is collapsing, so why do you hate kittens and want babies to use cocaine, you have 10 seconds to answer, and time started 5 seconds ago… And unfortunately terrible abortion position. But not a great debater either.
“[G]overnment is too big in Washington, D. C. It’s runaway; we have no controls of spending, taxes, regulations, no control on the Federal Reserve printing money. So, if we want government, whether it’s medical care or whatever , it’s proper to do it at the local level as well as our schools. But there’s no authority in the Constitution to do so much of what we’re doing. There’s no authority for them to run our schools, no authority to control our economy, and no authority to control us as individuals on what we do with out personal lives.”
So, it’s not proper for the federal government to, “if we want government,” to control whatever we want, “whether it’s medical care or whatever,” but fine if it’s done on a local level?
“Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can.” - Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson), “The Patriot” (2000)
Or, why should one trade one tyrant in D.C. with 50 tyrants in 50 states? A state government can trample a man’s rights as easily as the federal government can, and they will if “medical care or whatever” is proper to do at the local level.
as all of these candidates are committed statists.
Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are statists? Go figure…
“[G]overnment is too big in Washington, D. C. It’s runaway; we have no controls of spending, taxes, regulations, no control on the Federal Reserve printing money. So, if we want government, whether it’s medical care or whatever , it’s proper to do it at the local level as well as our schools. But there’s no authority in the Constitution to do so much of what we’re doing. There’s no authority for them to run our schools, no authority to control our economy, and no authority to control us as individuals on what we do with out personal lives.”
So, it’s not proper for the federal government to, “if we want government,” to control whatever we want, “whether it’s medical care or whatever,” but fine if it’s done on a local level?
“Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard, why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man’s rights as easily as a king can.” - Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson), “The Patriot” (2000)
Or, why should one trade one tyrant in D.C. with 50 tyrants in 50 states? A state government can trample a man’s rights as easily as the federal government can, and they will if “medical care or whatever” is proper to do at the local level.
A little context, Trebor. Obviously, Ron Paul knows this and agrees with this. What he is saying is that it is proper, under the US Constitution (as in, it is only legal under the system we are told we live under), to do it that way, but not proper to do anything at the federal level. Shrinking the behemoth federal government and letting these battles be fought at the state level, where RP would also oppose it, would increase freedom, so certainly one should trade one tyrant in DC who recognizes no limits on his power with 50 weaker and more limited state tyrants who face a vastly different incentive structure. Why do you think the statists love centralization of power?
Dear LeftistSpew,
Ron Paul is absolutely, objectively not a statist.
I’d check your definition of Statism and then do research on Ron Paul beyond emotional whim.
A little context, Trebor. Obviously, Ron Paul knows this and agrees with this. What he is saying is that it is proper, under the US Constitution (as in, it is only legal under the system we are told we live under), to do it that way, but not proper to do anything at the federal level. Shrinking the behemoth federal government and letting these battles be fought at the state level, where RP would also oppose it, would increase freedom, so certainly one should trade one tyrant in DC who recognizes no limits on his power with 50 weaker and more limited state tyrants who face a vastly different incentive structure. Why do you think the statists love centralization of power?
From his statement, it is not obvious to me that Ron Paul does know and agree. It is no more proper for state governments to violate rights than it is for the federal government to do so.
I am not convinced that having 50 tyrannies, one per each of the 50 states, is better than having one federal tyranny. Tyranny is tyranny. I know that there are arguments for that, arguing that there would be competing governments (not in the same territory), as it were, and individuals could more easily move to states with greater freedom, creating an incentive for the worst states to shape up, and that makes some sense to me, but only to a degree. Where that sufficient, were there more governments for smaller territories, then by that argument, we should have growing freedom across the world, not growing tyranny. After all, there are a great number of countries, each with its own government currently. There are, as it were, those competing governments now, across the globe, but we’re not moving towards more freedom, but towards less freedom. What’s driving us into tyranny is ideas, not details with respect to the implementation of government.
Why not just get rid of the federal government altogether? And then, why not get rid of state governments altogether, reducing governments to smaller and smaller geographical areas?
The federal government does have a proper role with respect to the states. If the states are violating individual rights, then the federal government does have the Constitutional authority to force the states to abide by the fundamental principle of individual rights, does it not? Isn’t the whole, proper, point of having a federal government, to ensure the protection of individual rights throughout the fifty states, throughout the union?
From his statement, it is not obvious to me that Ron Paul does know and agree. It is no more proper for state governments to violate rights than it is for the federal government to do so.
Right, it wouldn’t be obvious to someone who criticizes without investigating, but that’s why we shouldn’t take things out of context, don’t you think? To anyone who has read Ron Paul’s books, articles, listened to his speeches, it would certainly be obvious because he has explicitly explained this topic repeatedly. For the section you quoted, he was asked a question about the authority of the federal government under the US Constitution to take on these kinds of projects, so he’s saying no, under our system, it is only proper for the states to do these things. He nowhere says he supports states doing these things, or even thinks that, given the various state constitutions, that it would be legal for them to do it, and certainly does not believe it is proper for the states to violate individual rights.
Don’t you think it would be a bit frustrating if you saw people consistently distorting or making straw men out of someone you respected’s view, say Ayn Rand, in spite of what s/he had explicitly wrote and spoke about on the issue? Why should we treat Ron Paul any differently than what we would expect then?
I am not convinced that having 50 tyrannies, one per each of the 50 states, is better than having one federal tyranny. Tyranny is tyranny. I know that there are arguments for that,…
Okay, so given that you know there are arguments for that, given that you know Ron Paul probably sees it this way (that more decentralization provides a better incentive structure for freedom as compared to the status quo), then why would you suggest Ron Paul thinks it’s okay for states to become tyrannies and violate rights? If you were indeed aware of that, it would seem to make sense to believe Ron Paul thinks this is a way to have more freedom, not immediately declare that, why, that darn Ron Paul must be a state-level statist! You could say that Paul is mistaken on that, if you disagree with that premise, but it wouldn’t make sense to say Paul thinks it’s okay to for states to become tyrannies and violate rights if you recognized the above.
Where that sufficient, were there more governments for smaller territories, then by that argument, we should have growing freedom across the world, not growing tyranny. After all, there are a great number of countries, each with its own government currently. There are, as it were, those competing governments now, across the globe, but we’re not moving towards more freedom, but towards less freedom. What’s driving us into tyranny is ideas, not details with respect to the implementation of government.
Well I think you are fatally misconceiving of the argument. The argument does not say that this is a sure-fire way to ensure people take on the right ideas. After all, as we know, the amount of freedom prevailing at any given moment depends on the ideas in the heads of people. What it is supposed to argue for instead, is that the incentives provided for any one area becoming more tyrannical are drastically reduced, and that if any one area does go tyrannical, it is not imposed upon all. Decentralization is no guarantee that people will accept liberal ideas. If all the people are dead set on statism, everywhere, then there will be no freedom. But neither will there be any freedom under centralization, if we accept that premise.
So the point is, on the other hand, if not all the people are dead set on statism (and who can doubt this would be the case with regard to most of the actions of the federal government, thus giving us more freedom?), then centralization makes freedom more difficult. So it is about incentive structures, not guarantees.
So your historical analysis is a bit off the mark. And anyway, have we not also seen increasing power in centralized governments recently in the twentieth century? Do you think an Adolf Hitler, for instance, would be possible, or that it would be as easy to do what he did, when Germany was split into hundreds of loosely federated polities? What if America had remained severely decentralized? Would the Federal Reserve had been possible? The 16th Amendment? World War I? The New Deal? Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare? The regulatory state? Obamacare? Indeed, part of the “ideas” that are turning us toward more statism, as you indicate, is the idea that there must be one centralized plan for society and the economy on every issue!
Right, it wouldn’t be obvious to someone who criticizes without investigating, but that’s why we shouldn’t take things out of context, don’t you think? To anyone who has read Ron Paul’s books, articles, listened to his speeches, it would certainly be obvious because he has explicitly explained this topic repeatedly. For the section you quoted, he was asked a question about the authority of the federal government under the US Constitution to take on these kinds of projects, so he’s saying no, under our system, it is only proper for the states to do these things. He nowhere says he supports states doing these things, or even thinks that, given the various state constitutions, that it would be legal for them to do it, and certainly does not believe it is proper for the states to violate individual rights.
You are accusing me of criticizing without investigating and taking things out of context. It seems that, in your view then, I have no business criticizing what Ron Paul said until and unless I’ve “read Ron Paul’s books, articles, listened to his speeches” because had I done so, his actual meaning “would certainly be obvious because he has explicitly explained this topic repeatedly.”
The context was what he said in that debate, not all that he has written or said elsewhere (of which I know very little). In what context would it be appropriate or justified to say that "if we want government, whether it’s medical care or whatever , it’s proper to do it at the local level"? Or, “it is only proper for the states to do these [medical care or whatever] things”?
National control of medical care ( or whatever ) is bad or improper, but state control is good or proper?
Don’t you think it would be a bit frustrating if you saw people consistently distorting or making straw men out of someone you respected’s view, say Ayn Rand, in spite of what s/he had explicitly wrote and spoke about on the issue? Why should we treat Ron Paul any differently than what we would expect then?
You have seen me “consistently distorting or making straw men out of someone you respected’s [Ron Paul’s] view in spite of what [Ron Paul] had explicitly wrote and spoke about on the issue”?
I understand your point, but I did not distort what Mr. Paul said, nor did I create a straw man our of what Mr. Paul said.
Okay, so given that you know there are arguments for that, given that you know Ron Paul probably sees it this way (that more decentralization provides a better incentive structure for freedom as compared to the status quo), then why would you suggest Ron Paul thinks it’s okay for states to become tyrannies and violate rights? If you were indeed aware of that, it would seem to make sense to believe Ron Paul thinks this is a way to have more freedom, not immediately declare that, why, that darn Ron Paul must be a state-level statist! You could say that Paul is mistaken on that, if you disagree with that premise, but it wouldn’t make sense to say Paul thinks it’s okay to for states to become tyrannies and violate rights if you recognized the above.
I do not know enough about Ron Paul to assume that he “probably sees it this way (that more decentralization provides a better incentive structure for freedom as compared to the status quo).”
“[W]hy would you suggest Ron Paul thinks it’s okay for states to become tyrannies and violate rights?” Because of what he did say in that context, and something that I cannot conceive of any context justifying. The implication is, yes, from what he said explicitly, in his view it is “okay for states to become tyrannies and violate rights,” but it is not okay for the federal government to do so.
From his own statement, “So, if we want government, whether it’s medical care or whatever , it’s proper to do it at the local level as well as our schools ,” however, in the full context available to me (what he said in that debate), then yes, I did take him to be saying that if the states what government run medical care or whatever, then it is proper.
Were I to have heard Miss Rand, of whom I have read and generally understand, say something similar to what Ron Paul said, in any context, I would be equally appalled.
You tell me, when is it proper for us “if we want” to have government " medical care or whatever" as long as it’s not on the national level? And, " whatever"? " Whatever" decided how? " Whatever" by what standard? By the standard that finds it appropriate to have government medical care as long as it’s on the state level, not the national level?
Well I think you are fatally misconceiving of the argument. The argument does not say that this is a sure-fire way to ensure people take on the right ideas. After all, as we know, the amount of freedom prevailing at any given moment depends on the ideas in the heads of people. What it is supposed to argue for instead, is that the incentives provided for any one area becoming more tyrannical are drastically reduced, and that if any one area does go tyrannical, it is not imposed upon all. Decentralization is no guarantee that people will accept liberal ideas. If all the people are dead set on statism, everywhere, then there will be no freedom. But neither will there be any freedom under centralization, if we accept that premise.
I do not think that I’ve fatally misconceived the argument at all. I acknowledged the idea as valid, but not sufficient. Somewhere, I remember Dr. Peikoff making a similar point with respect to arguments for a one-world government. He said that he was against a one-world government because if it then goes bad, there’s no place else to go, and he wanted to give man all the opportunity possible for freedom.
I agree with that; however, I do see good reasons for having a federal government and one nation as opposed to fifty independent nation states. It’s not the size of the government, per se, that is the problem; it’s what it does.
So the point is, on the other hand, if not all the people are dead set on statism (and who can doubt this would be the case with regard to most of the actions of the federal government, thus giving us more freedom?), then centralization makes freedom more difficult. So it is about incentive structures, not guarantees.
Then, in logic, why are you not arguing against not only federal government but state government as well? And even beyond that? Is it true that centralization as such offers no advantages for freedom?
So your historical analysis is a bit off the mark. And anyway, have we not also seen increasing power in centralized governments recently in the twentieth century? Do you think an Adolf Hitler, for instance, would be possible, or that it would be as easy to do what he did, when Germany was split into hundreds of loosely federated polities? What if America had remained severely decentralized? Would the Federal Reserve had been possible? The 16th Amendment? World War I? The New Deal? Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare? The regulatory state? Obamacare? Indeed, part of the “ideas” that are turning us toward more statism, as you indicate, is the idea that there must be one centralized plan for society and the economy on every issue!
The “size” of government, as far as the territory of its jurisdiction, is but a matter of scale - for a small country, a federal or central government would be comparatively small, compared to the US federal government, and for each state, were the United State’s union dissolved, then their respective, centralized governments would be comparatively small, compared to the US federal government. Then, would not those arguing against a federal or central or centralized government be arguing for a dissolution of the state governments in favor or more and more regional and smaller governments?
Are there no arguments in favor, in your view, of a federal or central government?
Sure, having a centralized government makes some problems possible, but so too are there problems made possible by virtue of not having a centralized, federal government. Or do you disagree?
You are accusing me of criticizing without investigating and taking things out of context.
Yes.
It seems that, in your view then, I have no business criticizing what Ron Paul said until and unless I’ve “read Ron Paul’s books, articles, listened to his speeches” because had I done so, his actual meaning “would certainly be obvious because he has explicitly explained this topic repeatedly.”
Yes. It would help your case not be wrong.
The context was what he said in that debate,
Yes. And what was that context? I only mentioned it twice in the two previous posts. So what was it?
In what context would it be appropriate or justified to say that "if we want government, whether it’s medical care or whatever , it’s proper to do it at the local level"? Or, “it is only proper for the states to do these [medical care or whatever] things”?
In the context of the debate question Ron Paul was asked and answered.
National control of medical care ( or whatever ) is bad or improper, but state control is good or proper?
Yes, according to the US Constitution, if we want these things. In other words, exactly what Ron Paul said.
You have seen me “consistently distorting or making straw men out of someone you respected’s [Ron Paul’s] view in spite of what [Ron Paul] had explicitly wrote and spoke about on the issue”?
Is that what I wrote?
I understand your point, but I did not distort what Mr. Paul said, nor did I create a straw man our of what Mr. Paul said.
As I see it, that’s exactly what you did.
I do not know enough about Ron Paul to assume that he “probably sees it this way (that more decentralization provides a better incentive structure for freedom as compared to the status quo).”
You said you were aware of these arguments, so isn’t it safe to assume that’s what Ron Paul thinks, given what you do know about him, e.g. that he is a libertarian?
“[W]hy would you suggest Ron Paul thinks it’s okay for states to become tyrannies and violate rights?” Because of what he did say in that context, and something that I cannot conceive of any context justifying. The implication is, yes, from what he said explicitly, in his view it is “okay for states to become tyrannies and violate rights,” but it is not okay for the federal government to do so.
From his own statement, “So, if we want government, whether it’s medical care or whatever , it’s proper to do it at the local level as well as our schools ,” however, in the full context available to me (what he said in that debate), then yes, I did take him to be saying that if the states what government run medical care or whatever, then it is proper.
You can’t imagine any context? Have you read the US Constitution? You are aware that it permits the states to do things, such as have medical care programs, if they so decide? Are you aware this is what the question pertains to? If you weren’t aware of this, as you aren’t aware of Ron Pauls views, shouldn’t you have investigated further before criticizing?
Were I to have heard Miss Rand, of whom I have read and generally understand, say something similar to what Ron Paul said, in any context, I would be equally appalled.
Well that would be an unfortunate mistake. Since you are probably aware of OPAR, you may want to freshen up on this:
Let me begin this topic on a familiar note, by recalling a well-known fallacy: quoting a person out of context. This means quoting some statement of his while ignoring other statements that constitute its background and determine its proper interpretation. By this device, one can make a person appear to advocate virtually any idea. Such quoting is fallacious, because men do not write or speak in a vacuum; they do not emit a stream of disconnected sentences, any one of which can stand independent of the rest. To communicate a viewpoint, a man must say many separate things, each relying on the others; the viewpoint is understood only when the listener grasps the relationship among the items and thus the total. To interpret any single remark, therefore, one needs to know: what else did the man say (or presuppose) that conditions his statement? What was the surrounding framework? What was the context? (OPAR, 121)
You tell me, when is it proper for us “if we want” to have government " medical care or whatever" as long as it’s not on the national level? And, " whatever"? " Whatever" decided how? " Whatever" by what standard? By the standard that finds it appropriate to have government medical care as long as it’s on the state level, not the national level?
It is proper according to the US Constitution, which, as you may be aware of, is the legal system we are told we live under.
On this, I think that we have to simply agree to disagree.
Well, that’s okay, because people can pretty much read these kind of plain facts which are open to all to see, such as the text of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, RP’s statements in that video, and his published works.
Well, that’s okay, because people can pretty much read these kind of plain facts which are open to all to see, such as the text of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, RP’s statements in that video, and his published works.
Yes, of course people can pretty much read “these kind of plain fact which are open to all to see.”
And given, it seems, that you consider the context for any particular statement made by Ron Paul in a delimited context, such as that debate, to be the wider context of the text of the Constitution as well as his published works, then no one should consider any particular thing he has to say before they have familiarized themselves first with all that he has said to date, and read or reread the Constitution.
Without that context which you seem to think is necessary, others simply have no way of understanding or assessing what he says.
That is a unique requirement for context.
Nope. I don’t see why you would feel the need to come up with such exaggerations and uncharitable readings of people?
I first saw RP in person about 20 years ago (I was literally walking by). He’s a nice enough guy. I’ve always had fun watching his presence in the primaries.
But he’s also a case-study in the pointlessness of libertarianism.
Yes, he ducks a lot of questions in the name of constitutionality, and perhaps this is politically expedient.
When it comes to the “hard” questions, he’s party-line fundy:
“I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”
The denial of a person’s right to an abortion is no more a “state issue” than the denial of any other fundamental right. Wherein he believes that a successfully fertilized human egg is a person yet then says that he 9th and 10th amendments preclude the federal government from prohibiting their murder does not logically follow. Murder is a Federal offense, and no state in the union can legalize murder.
***
Another area RP makes me want to vomit is the area of immigration. This in particular proves he has not even the faintest clue about the true origins of liberty. And no, it’s not just about adding more people to the dole, because that would have a pretty simple solution that would nicely support his stated goal of countering the police state. In fact, for this particular issue, an all-out police state is exactly what he’s necessarily advocating: how else to do systematically identify and deport some 10% of the population, as he advocates?
The immigration issue is now and always has been about jobs. It’s no accident we only hear about it when the economy is in a down phase and demand for labor is low. The fundamental (immoral) belief that you are owed your high-paying job is what is behind calls for the Berlin-like wall across the southern desert.
***
It’s worth noting that in the debates the reaction to Paul is, among non-libertarians, one of distrust. He seems slimy to a lot of people. That’s because he is, in context, talking out of both sides of his mouth in ducking issues on “constitutional grounds”. He’s doing what the other candidates routinely do, but on much more fundamental issues and, frankly, not as effectively as they do. Not only is he a con-man, but he’s just not a very good one.
The next question somebody might ask me would be, “but Mr. SpewTM, how will we make any progress towards liberty without people like Ron Paul who can perform the necessary compromised to make progress?”
The answer is, this isn’t progress. Ron Paul and the libertarians will kill liberty by displacing it with something that is ultimately false. It’s a straw man attack wherein they are themselves the straw man.
If you don’t believe me, observe what has recently happened to Keynesianism: intellectually, it’s dead. It died about two years ago when the $700b stimulus failed to jump start the economy. Obama’s new $400b hail Mary–which every Keynesian will tell you is about 5x too small–has a snowball’s chance of passing and would make things worse for Keynes even if it passed.
Surely we can all celebrate this here. But we should note that the same exact disease that killed one of our enemies could kill us just as dead.