I found Herman Cain’s response to Lee Doren’s question to be weak.
“If you had to get rid of one department, would would it be?”
“I want to get rid of the EPA!!! so i can rebuild it”
Nope. I don’t see why you would feel the need to come up with such exaggerations and uncharitable readings of people?
I did not see what I said as being an exaggeration, nor as uncharitable, but perhaps I missed something somewhere.
I will say, still not having much familiarity with what Ron Paul has written or said in the past, that I have heard him say some very good things, even in that debate. Perhaps it seems that I am only picking something gratuitously out of context; perhaps it seems that way because I did not acknowledge anything good said by him (or other libertarians). Sometimes, when people criticize, its seems they only see the bad, especially if and when they do not explicitly acknowledge what was good.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I understand in part at least, I believe, the point of Dr. Paul (and you) as being, that under our Constitution (10th amendment, which Dr. Paul addressed in the debate), certain things not specifically, constitutionally delegated to the federal government are retained (“reserved”) to the “States, respectively, or to the people.”
But that some issue is left to the states (or the people) to decide does not make it proper for the states (or their respective people) to decide to violate the rights of individuals. Perhaps it seems that I am making an unwarranted assumption from what Dr. Paul said, concluding that his respect for the Constitution shows a disrespect for individual rights, as long as that disrespect is by the states (or the people). What I heard was a moral endorsement, but perhaps you are saying that he was simply stating a constitutional endorsement of the 10th. Seems to me that that, after taking some time to consider it, is where we are in conflict.
My quarrel is with the idea that if the states (or even the people within the respective states) want to have a government medical care or whatever , then it is proper, it is right, for them to do so, with the implication that the federal government has no constitutional authority to stop the states from violating rights. In a sense, even if it is constitutional, I can’t see it as constitutional. What then, were the states to decide to have government medical care or whatever, would be the use of a federal government vis-a-vis the states?
I’m planning on listening again to the debate clip that you posted and maybe posting a transcript of those responses (and the questions for which) Ron Paul gave. That is “maybe.” If I do, perhaps that will be helpful to anyone reading this thread.
In spite of our disagreement, I have been giving this some thought, and I wanted to at least say something to you. I may disagree with you, but you have typically given me reason to think.
I understand in part at least, I believe, the point of Dr. Paul (and you) as being, that under our Constitution (10th amendment, which Dr. Paul addressed in the debate), certain things not specifically, constitutionally delegated to the federal government are retained (“reserved”) to the “States, respectively, or to the people.”
Right, that’s all he was saying. The question was this:
QUESTION: There’s growing concern among Americans about the size and the scope of the federal government and its infringement upon state and individual rights.
QUESTION: If you’re elected president how do you plan to restore the 10th amendment, hold the federal government only to those enumerated powers in the Constitution and allow states to govern themselves?
So it’s quite clear that the questioner wants to know, since RP is trying to be the President, how is he going to restore the federal government within the confines of the constitution, with respect for the 10th Amendment? So RP answers and explains:
PAUL: Well, I’ll tell you what, that is the subject that is crucial because government is too big in Washington, D.C. It’s run away. We have no controls of spending, taxes, regulations, no control in the Federal Reserve printing money. So if we want government, whether it is medical care or whatever, it is 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 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 our personal lives!
So you’ve seemed to have jumped from being that under the US Constitution, it is legally proper to do this, to it being morally proper to do this, in RP’s view. Notice how he says, after he explains DC is exceeding its legal bounds, “So if we want government, whether it is medical care or whatever…” He nowhere says “I want government.” He’s saying, if the advocates of interventionism were to be forced to follow the Constitution, then they must relegate themselves to doing their projects on the state level. He doesn’t say in that answer that he supports them in this. In fact, as we can see from an investigation of RP’s beliefs (which I think is an entirely reasonable thing to do when you’re critiquing someone, or at least you should listen when someone who has done such investigations point them out), he time and time again explains that his support for the Constitution in no way implies his support for any of these things For example, in his book Liberty Defined, there is an entire chapter on this, where he explains that properly understood, states have no rights, only individuals do, and that in the end, only the right ideas about liberty will work.
Now, I don’t think you need to read his book to figure this out either, as a careful context-keeping of the question itself in the debate, and what RP says (and doesn’t say) is such that it doesn’t warrant making the claim that RP supports violations of rights at the state level, or that he thinks it is morally proper.
I think we are still at agreeing to disagree.
I do understand the Constitutional point, and you have helped to make that clear. I take you at your word that such is what Ron Paul meant. However, I’ve asked you questions re the relationship of the federal government and the states should the states violate individual rights, questions which would help me to further understand the issue as well as Dr. Paul’s position, but you’ve not responded on those questions. I assume that you are not going to do so, but if you care to respond to them, please do so.
Ron Paul was making his comments in a public, national forum to a general audience (anyone there or who watched it live or who has since watched the video or read his statement). At best, his statement is ambiguous, even in the context.
The reason for my statement which you took to be unwarranted exaggeration is that you state that before anyone should criticize his comments, they should investigate and know just what he really meant, that they should read or listen to what else he has said that is relevant and which would make his meaning clear. But where would they look? Since they don’t know, then the expectation is that they must make sure they are familiar with all that he has written or said in case somewhere, they know not where, he said something that would make clear what his ambiguous statement (answer) actually meant.
It’s one thing to speak in front of and to an audience already familiar with one’s basic views; it’s another to speak in front of and to a general, national audience, most of whom it can be reasonably expected with have much less if any familiarity with his basic views.
My guess is that you’ll say that his meaning wasn’t ambiguous in the context, but then it seems that if a person, myself or anyone else in that general, national audience, did at least find it to be ambiguous or even took him as morally sanctioning state medicare care or whatever, then it is their fault, that, again, they should have investigated what else Dr. Paul has said or written, so that they could properly, accurately interpret his meaning, before they take exception to his statement(s). I disagree.
Though I don’t know much about what he has said or written, I do know that he considers abortion to be murder. So, even though I’ve not read all that he has written or listened to all that he has said, I have that much knowledge about him as context that I can bring to bear in listening to him.
Ron Paul on the issues (Abortion): “The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.”
Obviously, what we need are state abortion police.
If he holds that abortion is murder, if he holds that life and rights begin at conception, then surely he would be fighting for state laws, within his state of residence (and morally defending all other states to outlaw abortion), to legally ban abortion and prosecute and penalize those who violate that state law. Such laws violating the rights of women, if no others, would have his moral blessings. Why in the world he would think that the women who hire the assassins are innocent, I can only guess. (I noticed that he did not answer the question he was asked in that debate about his exception, presumably, to outlawing abortion, within any and all states, in cases of rape which result in pregnancy.)
Given that bit of context, I cannot be assured that he would be against other violations of rights by the states.
Just what is his view of rights? I’ll be investigating that. Upon that will depend what other rights he would be willing to let states violate.
“So if we want government, whether it is medical care or whatever, it is proper to do it at the local level as well as our schools.”
Ambiguous at best, a moral sanction at worst.
Well I guess we’ll have to, but at least acknowlede that at the end of the day, this isn’t RP’s views. The worst you would be able to say is “I couldn’t tell from this comment alone,” or “He poorly communicated the point, from my standpoint,” however I think you should be able to, seeing as how making such an inference is not valid based on those comments.
I can’t quite agree that this would be “ambiguous at best, a moral sanction at worst,” seeing as how the inference isn’t there, that should take away the moral sanction as an option. I see it is ambiguous at worst, in which case I think it reasonable to investigate further, or at least listen to people when they try to make it unambiguous. Though I guess I can agree that RP isn’t the most eloquent public speaker (though I did point that out in my first post in here.)
On the abortion issue, I don’t think this argument works because again, if RP sees abortion to be murder, why wouldn’t he advocate laws stopping it? In his view, he is protecting rights. I disagree with RP on that one. But I don’t think that, if you were ignorant of his general views, that you can go from this to saying that he would also likely support state-level socialized medicine, or whatever advocates of government intervention would want, especially when he was just asked a question about how things should be organized under the Tenth Amendment. Such a jump isn’t warranted from the abortion position he expresses. It’s a subtle distinction, I know, and you’re right that it’s probably beyond the average Republican audience member, but I have higher expectations for this board.
His view of rights is the Lockean view, unfortunately leaning more toward the religious side, but I don’t think it necessarily has to be taken as absolutely dependent on religion (also explicitly spelled out in Liberty Defined, which btw, you can read the Introduction and Appendix online for free.) I’m sure you can find some other views which aren’t compatible with Objectivism, there are a few of them. But I can’t help but wonder why Objectivists focus all their attention on these handful of things, when the vast majority of his views would greatly help increase our country’s condition with regard to liberty, prosperity, and peace; and when he is the only principled and honest politician out there that understands liberty and Austrian economics.
Well I guess we’ll have to, but at least acknowlede that at the end of the day, this isn’t RP’s views. The worst you would be able to say is “I couldn’t tell from this comment alone,” or “He poorly communicated the point, from my standpoint,” however I think you should be able to, seeing as how making such an inference is not valid based on those comments.
I’m honestly not sure what to say. If I haven’t read him sufficiently, I should have else I shouldn’t criticize as I’m leaving out the broader context that would make his meaning clear. If I consider only the context of that (those) questions in the debate and his answer, then it’s ambiguous, and what I mean is that, given his audience, he should, ideally, make his meaning clear to such an audience. All I see is, if the federal government wants medical care or whatever, that’s bad, but if the states, individually, want medical care or whatever, that’s good. Now, talking with you, okay, I kinda accept that that “good” means consistent with the Constitution, State’s Rights and the 10th amendment.
I can’t quite agree that this would be “ambiguous at best, a moral sanction at worst,” seeing as how the inference isn’t there, that should take away the moral sanction as an option. I see it is ambiguous at worst, in which case I think it reasonable to investigate further, or at least listen to people when they try to make it unambiguous. Though I guess I can agree that RP isn’t the most eloquent public speaker (though I did point that out in my first post in here.)
I cannot see though your eyes or think using your mind, only my own. How about giving me the benefit of the doubt, unless you think that I’m being dishonest or irrational (in which case it would be helpful were you to actually explain how so, not just tell me you think that I’m being dishonest or irrational)? I took what he said a certain way and thought (and still think, likely - I’ll try to explain below) that he meant to be morally sanctioning the states to have medical care or whatever “we” want, and I said so.
You’ve taken issue. But, you think that I should have investigated first. Why? I thought I understood. Why, if I think I understand, would I want to investigate? On principle that I’m stupid or ignorant? Let’s see, Ron Paul thinks that abortion is murder, wants to have states outlaw it and punish the offenders, and that’s, well it’s excusable given his stand for the Constitution, but for me to not investigate him so well that I agree with him, when I do not, well then that is beyond the pale. I am filled with shame.
Now, in talking to you, I may come to see a need to investigate, but it’s like you expect that I should know everything possibly relevant prior to making any judgements even when I think, sincerely, that I have sufficient grounds to comment and criticize.
There’s not time enough in life to approach things in the manner I believe that you’re suggesting. I notice something that I disagree with, something I find offensive, and I criticize that. Oh no, no good. Wait, read all that you should of the person before you draw a conclusion. Don’t say anything until then. Well, maybe a question or two would be okay.
In other words, I think that I have approached this issue reasonably; you seem to think otherwise. By what standard? I’m not purposefully ignoring something that I think is relevant. Maybe I’m ignorant, but if so, if I’m ignorant of something that would be helpful for me to know, then I don’t know that I don’t know something that you think I should already know, or at least know that I need to know what I don’t yet know that I should already know. Well, I can hear you type, “Yes, you should have!” (I’m kidding.)
Now:
On the abortion issue, I don’t think this argument works because again, if RP sees abortion to be murder, why wouldn’t he advocate laws stopping it? In his view, he is protecting rights. I disagree with RP on that one. But I don’t think that, if you were ignorant of his general views, that you can go from this to saying that he would also likely support state-level socialized medicine, or whatever advocates of government intervention would want, especially when he was just asked a question about how things should be organized under the Tenth Amendment. Such a jump isn’t warranted from the abortion position he expresses. It’s a subtle distinction, I know, and you’re right that it’s probably beyond the average Republican audience member, but I have higher expectations for this board.
His view of rights is the Lockean view, unfortunately leaning more toward the religious side, but I don’t think it necessarily has to be taken as absolutely dependent on religion (also explicitly spelled out in Liberty Defined, which btw, you can read the Introduction and Appendix online for free.) I’m sure you can find some other views which aren’t compatible with Objectivism, there are a few of them. But I can’t help but wonder why Objectivists focus all their attention on these handful of things, when the vast majority of his views would greatly help increase our country’s condition with regard to liberty, prosperity, and peace; and when he is the only principled and honest politician out there that understands liberty and Austrian economics.
Thanks for the links. I will check them out.
Here’s the deal, and I’m just going to bring that one bit of context, which I was already aware of, Mr. Paul’s views re abortion. This is why I asked about the relation between the federal government and the state governments, in as much as, should the federal government have any say if a state has violated rights.
Okay, for Mr. Paul, the federal government should not have any say in abortion, it’s a state’s rights issue to be decided by each state according to what “we” in each state wants: abortion as legal, abortion as illegal, some compromise. Whatever. There’s that whatever again.
So, let’s say that a few years down the road, Ron Paul has been president for awhile, got elected in 2012, and he’s vetoed each and every bill that was not consistent with the 10th amendment. It’s state’s rights all the way. Damn fine president!
So, in accord with whatever “we” in each of the states think should be legal or illegal (such as abortion, or medical care or whatever ), given that such issues of rights in relation to such things as abortion, medical care or whatever is a matter of “we” to decide, just as obviously Mr. Paul does believe that his view on abortion is correct, that abortion is murder and should be outlawed, and that if enough of his fellow Texans get together to be the “we” that decides that issue, well then it’s settled. Abortion is illegal in Texas because “we” hold that it is murder, a violation of rights, and should be outlawed. What’s our standard for rights? Is it objective? Hell yes, life and rights begin at conception and abortion is murder and therefore a violation of rights. Any fool with a bit of common sense can see that. Damn right! And babe, get me a beer! And take care of that damn kid of yours…ur…ours.
Now surely, given that abortion is murder, a violation of rights, that issue of rights must point to the fundamental principle underlying that particular issue, the fundamental principle of rights that would give rise to the view that abortion is murder and must therefore be outlawed, and the federal government should keep it’s damn self out of our state’s business. After all, there’s the 10th amendment and President Paul is set on upholding it come hell or high water.
How about you guys in Louisiana? What do you, what do “we” over there think are rights, and what do “we” think should be outlawed over there?
Kansas? I can barely hear you, but please speak up. Oh, yes, religion and intelligent design in your public (as long as they’re not federal) schools. Well God bless you!
On and on. State by state, “we” in every state decides what rights to uphold. Just as “we” in Texas think that abortion is murder, well all those other “we” have their opinions too.
Rights? You damn straight! Rights all the way. “We” know what a right is when “we” see one.
And you federal guys with your Constitution. Your only job is to butt out of our state’s rights. “We” decide what’s right for our state, what individual rights are, etc. You guys, we’ll you get the hell out of our way! Remember John Galt! Remember the Alamo! And, God bless Texas!
Whatever!
Tongue out of cheek.
Well no, again I don’t think you would have had to read everything he ever wrote to understand the point. I know you saw: Fed level bad, state level good, go do whatever y’all want now. But even based entirely on the question as presented in the video, I don’t think this is warranted, especially when you know you know little if anything at all about his views, and that you know this is a debate where you are given 15-20 seconds to explain complex positions that probably have a lot more to them.
Even given entirely what we have in the video, Ron Paul says the hypothetical “If we want government…” He never said “doing this is good,” he never said “good” at all. He mere said, in the context of being asked about the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment, that if we want government, it’s proper to do this at the state level only, and thus there is no authority to do most of what the federal government does. Given this, I think you should know better to launch into a tirade calling RP an advocate of state-level tyranny.
I don’t know what you mean in that last part, there. Perhaps, it would be apt to mention that RP believes in, not the people of each state deciding what rights are, but in universal rights. However, “universal rights, protected locally.” I think there is something involved here, that he thinks more problems would arise if, for example, the people of Texas tried to enforce their anti-abortion view on the people of Connecticut, that resentment would arise and bring further complications. So this is why he says in the video, when asked the question about why have an exception for incest and murder, he ends up giving a pragmatic answer, and says basically that only the right moral ideas will solve the problem.
So, in the end, he would probably just say “So what?” if Texas wants to have one law, and Connecticut a different law, honestly, who cares? Will the sky fall? Will the world come to an end? Will the Earth break free of its axis and careen into the Sun? No, and we Texans who believe it is murder will simply have to reason with the Nutmeggers and convince them of the righteousness of our ways, but enforcing a policy on them that they find offensive to their rights will not work. Let a thousand flowers bloom, he would say, and let peaceful moral suasion, not a competition of who can force their views on the others or be forced, solve the problem. I doubt that this will be entirely acceptable from an Objectivist point of view, but I think that would be an accurate representation of Ron Paul’s views on the matter. As far as what I think, though this falls short of our idea of a fully free society, there is something to say for this approach, if only as opposed to the behemoth central-state approach on every issue.
In your own view, 2046, would laws against abortion be objectively consistent with the principle of individual rights?
Or would they be a violation of the principle of individual rights?
In your own view, 2046, would laws against abortion be objectively consistent with the principle of individual rights?
Or would they be a violation of the principle of individual rights?
No, I agree with the critics, and not RP on that one.
The Real Nut Gingrich
Gary Johnson is my pick, though I would prefer he be more hawkish on his foreign policy. My second choice is Cain who needs a more thorough foreign policy understanding / plan.
None of them are my pick. Not one.
*******
The same people who look to government and complain that government and government intervention are the problem…
…look to government again to solve the problem.
********
“We have met the enemy and he is us.”
********
Indeed, as pointed out in the philosophy, we are the only solution.
It has always been up to us, it is now up to us and it will always be up to us.
There is no other way.
Richard Salsman comes out for Mitt Romney as the best of the Republican alternatives in this interesting Forbes article:
Wait… you mean that wasn’t a sarcastic title to an awesome article? If, like me, that’s what you were expecting, then prepare to be disappointed: Salsman actually supports the massive-government plastic man haha… Note the article makes no mention of the anti-theocracy Ron Paul, I guess he doesn’t exist as far as Salsman is concerned.
Wait a minute… this is the ARI’s favorite economist!!! Sweeping Massachusetts’ socialized medicine plan under the rug based on the (alleged) intent of the guy who foisted it on them? Since when did intentions count?
His criticisms of the other candidates, however, are valid.
Ron Paul, by the way, is not anti-theocracy; he just wants it to be on the retail level. He does not believe the first amendment (or any other part of the Bill of Rights) should apply to the states and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/238/what-does-the-first-amendment-really-mean/ used to explain this but apparently he caught enough flak that he’s pulled it. He also does not accept evolution.
Ron Paul, by the way, is not anti-theocracy; he just wants it to be on the retail level.
This is a falsehood. There is nothing to indicate that Ron Paul wants theocracy “on the retail level.” There is nothing to indicate he wants it at all. None of what you posted after this, even if we accept it at face value (which I would caution against) would suffice to prove this either. Even if we accept without further inquiry that RP doesn’t accept the incorporation doctrine, it doesn’t follow that he wants theocracy. If he wants to overturn the unconstitutional Roe vs. Wade, then it still doesn’t follow that he wants theocracy. If we stupulate that he doesn’t accept evolution, it doesn’t follow that he wants theocracy. This statement is just poisoning the well against Ron Paul.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is suicidal.
At this stage, the only people who seem to have a shot at being on the Presidential ballot for 2012 are Romney, Gingrich and Obama. I think Romney should be able to win against Obama, but he’s no shoo-in. I think Gingrich will have a significantly harder time beating Obama. Personally, among those three, I would probably vote for Romney; today I’m not sure which one I’d choose between Gingrich and Obama.
Leftistspew, if you want the perfect progress you seem to want, you are going to be waiting until long after your grandchildren are dead. It may be wrong, but it sure as hell isn’t as wrong or as destructive as the increasing and dare I say frighteningly militaristic statism of both the Democrats and Republicans.
“Ron Paul’s foreign policy is suicidal.”
I have seen plenty of foreign policy suggestions on here that are far more suicidal, and I would contend that is something agreed on by most foreign policy experts that have the real world experience and backgrounds to have such an opinion. While I don’t think you have to read his books to understand him, as was discussed earlier, I do think this applies in the case of foreign policy specifically, and not the other areas. I do not prefer his foreign policy, but I do prefer it to the current widespread appeasement, misdirection, and inaction that has been the governing policy of the last few decades of our foreign policy, which has created us far more enemies than friends, and even our friends are barely worth such a title. Either way, he won’t win, so either get ready for more of the status quo of the last few years or a war with Iran which will devastate our economy and stretch our military thin, regardless of what delusions lead you to believe such over concrete, well known intelligence facts we’ve had for years. Have fun with that.
You all vote for who you want, but I’ve already decided I won’t be voting for those 3 clowns. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night.