Complex Systems
-
200 -
200 -
200
Offline
- Quote
- Posted: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:35:26 +0000
I wrote this for another thread originally, but it's a topic I've been thinking about for quite a while. I feel bad making another Ron Paul thread, as there are more than enough of them as is, but I figured I would weigh in, in my own way. The following is largely about why, as a libertarian, I cannot support Ron Paul, largely citing legislation he's supported, his official website, or websites with links to his directly quoted words. So newsletters and other such things are left out, as I think this gives the most analytically precise critique of what Ron Paul wants, and stands for. A final version with some small edits and changes can be found here if people want to share as well, since I feel this is very comprehensive.
I do a lot within public policy. The two jobs I've had this year dealt with regulation and taxation, two things that Ron Paul has spoken tremendously on. What I want research in graduate school relates to monetary policy and immigration, things that Paul has likewise made bold stands on. Simultaneously I admit I cannot vote for any candidate due to their economic stances, so rely on social stances as a means of judging how well they align with the values I care about. This was what back in 2008 made me support and campaign for Obama, though I was far more of a democrat overall as well.
Ron Paul however I think has done some rather shady things in this realm that make me hesitant to support him. First off, he supports DOMA as the right realm of federal policy. For those that forget, DOMA does the following;
This does little to help promote labor mobility for homosexual couples, and does a lot to allow discrimination of social services to married couples. It has created a lot of negative consequences in my opinion. Likewise, in the realm of federal policy, Ron Paul supports a federal right to life amendment. This can be seen in his signing statement where he claims;
and H.R. 2597 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2007
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
Simultaneously he has written the We the People Act, which does the following;
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
At the same time, he's argued against abolishing courts just because he didn't like their positions, but tells federal courts to remove their jurisdiction because he hasn't liked their decisions
I believe that these policies represents a huge affront to civil liberties in the US, or at least is a reactionary view against an extension I would like to see. I believe in the equal enforcement of laws and regulations across all races, genders, and sexualities for the most part. Instead, Paul's positions on civil liberties empower the federal and state legislators to pass rules against abortion and homosexuality that I find against the concepts of liberty I hold dear. Rather, I would prefer to see the opposite happen, either an equal extension or retraction of federal marriage across all genders, and an acknowledgement that women have property rights over their own bodies that the government shall not infringe.
Ron Paul's stances on many social issues want to allow for a 50 country policy, each state having its own social policy regime. I do not think this is the way the country should go, as it only empowers states to pass the sort of tyranny of the majority style legislation that I dislike. I do not necessarily believe that just because democracy wants something, it is right, one of a variety of facets that draw me to trying to empower individuals to act freely of government action.
On economic issues, he's had a mixed bag on immigration, a policy issue I've written about extensively over the years, both on Gaia, for classes, and professionally. According to his website, his plan is as follows
If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:
* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.
* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.
* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.
* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.
* Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.
As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake.
I believe that for the most part, this is the wrong path to take. Amnesty, liberalized immigration standards, and easy paths to citizenship overall are the way to go. Enforcing the border has not worked, and is the same sort of failure of a policy that Ron Paul opposes in the form of the war on drugs. I see no reason for this logical inconsistency given his position as a logically consistent warrior for Liberty.
This consistency is further questioned by bills such as H.R.5842 - Iranian Student Expulsion Act
While simutaneously writing H.R.1698 and supporting free trade and cultural exchange as a way to solidify peaceful ties between countries.
On his economic policies, as outlined in his Plan to Restore America, he makes drastic cuts to the federal budget. He cuts entire budgets for the Departments of Energy, House and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, and Education, and makes no lip service to trying to protect any of the variety of services that they provide. A variety of which go beyond the regulatory state that he so adamantly opposes. In juxtaposition, a variety of republican candidates have come out supporting a more rigorous retroactive cost-benefit analysis done by the OMB, OIRA, and the various regulatory agencies, which I emphatically support. Shock therapy in some areas might do the country well, but the scope and brevity of Paul's plan is jumping the gun to one ideologically driven instead of pragmatically, and results in policy makers having to recreate the wheel.
Likewise, Ron Paul opposes the 16th amendment.
source
Groups such as the Tax Foundation do a variety of analysis on taxes, and while there may be grievances against the income tax, there is no question that it is an efficient way of capture willingness to pay for services one receives from the government and the free market society it can help augment and support. Part of this though is found in a relatively low, fair, and easy to navigate tax code, something Paul also opposes.
More deductions and credits are not what we need, and is in part of why we're in such a mess right now. Despite groups like the tax foundation, a flatter code is bipartisan, as supported by the National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, Obama, and Paul Ryan. For the most part, everyone agrees in order to balance the budget and promote growth argued we must removing those very deductions, and do something to augment the rates.
Things like the gold standard (despite serving on a commission in the 80's that rejected it),
Auditing (and possibly abolishing the fed),
and other priorities get even hazier. The gold standard was not good for the economy, and as research has continued to provide better analysis to the federal open market committee and other groups with the Fed overall stability has improved. This is supported by long run inflation data, number of financial crises, and a variety of other metrics.
In the end, Ron Paul has a lot of stances I like. He wants to end the war on drugs, curtail the police state (I live in DC, and I now get random bag searches just by using public transportation), and generally move towards a more Liberty (loaded on purpose) oriented society. I don't necessarily agree with the scope to the degree he wants to take these things, I believe a complete withdrawal from international affairs would not be in ours, or the world's, best interest, but I acknowledge that the direction is the way I want to go. Unfortunately I also feel that many of the methods he wishes to implement to get their do not jive with the same image I have of a free market, and a free society. This has been through his stances on social issues, and through economic policy that is beyond reactionary by today's standards.
I do a lot within public policy. The two jobs I've had this year dealt with regulation and taxation, two things that Ron Paul has spoken tremendously on. What I want research in graduate school relates to monetary policy and immigration, things that Paul has likewise made bold stands on. Simultaneously I admit I cannot vote for any candidate due to their economic stances, so rely on social stances as a means of judging how well they align with the values I care about. This was what back in 2008 made me support and campaign for Obama, though I was far more of a democrat overall as well.
Ron Paul however I think has done some rather shady things in this realm that make me hesitant to support him. First off, he supports DOMA as the right realm of federal policy. For those that forget, DOMA does the following;
DOMA
`Sec. 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof
`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.
...
`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.
`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.
...
`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'
`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.
This does little to help promote labor mobility for homosexual couples, and does a lot to allow discrimination of social services to married couples. It has created a lot of negative consequences in my opinion. Likewise, in the realm of federal policy, Ron Paul supports a federal right to life amendment. This can be seen in his signing statement where he claims;
Ron Paul
I don't just believe life begins at conception; I know it as a scientific certainty. And I have sponsored bills in Congress to make this definition law.
and H.R. 2597 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2007
H.R. 2597
(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
Simultaneously he has written the We the People Act, which does the following;
We the People Act
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).
At the same time, he's argued against abolishing courts just because he didn't like their positions, but tells federal courts to remove their jurisdiction because he hasn't liked their decisions
I believe that these policies represents a huge affront to civil liberties in the US, or at least is a reactionary view against an extension I would like to see. I believe in the equal enforcement of laws and regulations across all races, genders, and sexualities for the most part. Instead, Paul's positions on civil liberties empower the federal and state legislators to pass rules against abortion and homosexuality that I find against the concepts of liberty I hold dear. Rather, I would prefer to see the opposite happen, either an equal extension or retraction of federal marriage across all genders, and an acknowledgement that women have property rights over their own bodies that the government shall not infringe.
Ron Paul's stances on many social issues want to allow for a 50 country policy, each state having its own social policy regime. I do not think this is the way the country should go, as it only empowers states to pass the sort of tyranny of the majority style legislation that I dislike. I do not necessarily believe that just because democracy wants something, it is right, one of a variety of facets that draw me to trying to empower individuals to act freely of government action.
On economic issues, he's had a mixed bag on immigration, a policy issue I've written about extensively over the years, both on Gaia, for classes, and professionally. According to his website, his plan is as follows
ronpaul2012.com
If elected President, Ron Paul will work to implement the following common sense reforms:
* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.
* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.
* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.
* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.
* Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.
As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake.
I believe that for the most part, this is the wrong path to take. Amnesty, liberalized immigration standards, and easy paths to citizenship overall are the way to go. Enforcing the border has not worked, and is the same sort of failure of a policy that Ron Paul opposes in the form of the war on drugs. I see no reason for this logical inconsistency given his position as a logically consistent warrior for Liberty.
This consistency is further questioned by bills such as H.R.5842 - Iranian Student Expulsion Act
H.R.5842 - Iranian Student Expulsion Act
Iranian Student Expulsion Act - Prohibits the making available of funds, authorized under any program to aid higher education, to any institution that enrolls or has enrolled on the date of enactment of this Act any person who is not a citizen of the United States and whose country of origin or residence immediately prior to entry into the United States is Iran.
While simutaneously writing H.R.1698 and supporting free trade and cultural exchange as a way to solidify peaceful ties between countries.
H.R. 1698
Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and other specified Federal law to repeal the embargo placed upon all trade with Cuba.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to declare the denial of foreign tax credit inapplicable to Cuba.
Permits: (1) installation and maintenance of telecommunications equipment and facilities in Cuba, including telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba; and (2) travel to and from Cuba by U.S. citizens or residents.
Requires the U.S. Postal Service to provide direct mail service to and from Cuba.
Prohibits U.S. assistance to Cuba, including assistance by the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, and any exchange, reduction, or forgiveness of Cuban debt.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to declare the denial of foreign tax credit inapplicable to Cuba.
Permits: (1) installation and maintenance of telecommunications equipment and facilities in Cuba, including telecommunications services between the United States and Cuba; and (2) travel to and from Cuba by U.S. citizens or residents.
Requires the U.S. Postal Service to provide direct mail service to and from Cuba.
Prohibits U.S. assistance to Cuba, including assistance by the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, and the Commodity Credit Corporation, and any exchange, reduction, or forgiveness of Cuban debt.
On his economic policies, as outlined in his Plan to Restore America, he makes drastic cuts to the federal budget. He cuts entire budgets for the Departments of Energy, House and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, and Education, and makes no lip service to trying to protect any of the variety of services that they provide. A variety of which go beyond the regulatory state that he so adamantly opposes. In juxtaposition, a variety of republican candidates have come out supporting a more rigorous retroactive cost-benefit analysis done by the OMB, OIRA, and the various regulatory agencies, which I emphatically support. Shock therapy in some areas might do the country well, but the scope and brevity of Paul's plan is jumping the gun to one ideologically driven instead of pragmatically, and results in policy makers having to recreate the wheel.
Likewise, Ron Paul opposes the 16th amendment.
ronpaul2012.com
As President, Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes. And he will be proud to be the one who finally turns off the lights at the IRS for good.
ronpaul.com
recently introduced “The Liberty Amendment,” legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set.
Groups such as the Tax Foundation do a variety of analysis on taxes, and while there may be grievances against the income tax, there is no question that it is an efficient way of capture willingness to pay for services one receives from the government and the free market society it can help augment and support. Part of this though is found in a relatively low, fair, and easy to navigate tax code, something Paul also opposes.
ronpaul2012.com
As a congressman, Ron Paul has consistently endorsed legislation to let Americans claim more tax credits and deductions, including on educational costs, alternative energy vehicles, and health care.
More deductions and credits are not what we need, and is in part of why we're in such a mess right now. Despite groups like the tax foundation, a flatter code is bipartisan, as supported by the National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, Obama, and Paul Ryan. For the most part, everyone agrees in order to balance the budget and promote growth argued we must removing those very deductions, and do something to augment the rates.
Things like the gold standard (despite serving on a commission in the 80's that rejected it),
HR 7874 Monetary Freedom Act
Title V: Redemption of Federal Reserve Notes - Directs the Secretary to redeem in gold all Federal Reserve and U.S. notes. Makes gold the money of account of the U.S. Government. Authorizes the Secretary to issue gold certificates for redeeming such notes and gold coins in denominations by weight. Directs the Secretary and the Federal Reserve to cease issuing Federal Reserve and U.S. notes on enactment of this Act.
Auditing (and possibly abolishing the fed),
H.R. 1496: Federal Reserve Transparency Act
Directs the Comptroller General to complete, within 12 months after enactment of this Act, an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and of the federal reserve banks, followed by a detailed report to Congress.
H.R. 1094: Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act
To abolish the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks, to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, and for other purposes.
and other priorities get even hazier. The gold standard was not good for the economy, and as research has continued to provide better analysis to the federal open market committee and other groups with the Fed overall stability has improved. This is supported by long run inflation data, number of financial crises, and a variety of other metrics.
In the end, Ron Paul has a lot of stances I like. He wants to end the war on drugs, curtail the police state (I live in DC, and I now get random bag searches just by using public transportation), and generally move towards a more Liberty (loaded on purpose) oriented society. I don't necessarily agree with the scope to the degree he wants to take these things, I believe a complete withdrawal from international affairs would not be in ours, or the world's, best interest, but I acknowledge that the direction is the way I want to go. Unfortunately I also feel that many of the methods he wishes to implement to get their do not jive with the same image I have of a free market, and a free society. This has been through his stances on social issues, and through economic policy that is beyond reactionary by today's standards.
