Debunking avid Ron Paul supporter.
Posted: 2012-05-28 06:20pm
I'm dealing with a guy who seems to be ardently in support of Ron Paul on Facebook, I say "seems" because he seems more interested in attacking everyone one of my statements semantically then really selling Ron Paul's ideals. I could be wrong in places because admittedly it's not something i've been looking into lately but I don't like Ron Paul. My points were quoted, but in some cases I believe he missed what I was trying to say and if you need me to post the quote from before I will. My biggest issue here is that I think he's trying to distract from Ron Paul's crazy agenda by attacking my wording and making references to economic red herrings. He's an economist as well, but I sense a lot of political bias towards a pro corporate standpoint since I found that a few of his sources are right-wing or libertarian. My posts are in quotations, his responces are italicized.
I think you have a fews things wrong. I hope you take my suggestions and check out the literature I recommend. From your comments im assuming you haven’t challenged the public school narrative of history you learned in middle and highschool. Theres a ton of misinformation out there, all of it very consequential. I put your text in quotes and mine without so you can see what I’m responding to. I haven’t proof read any of this, so ask any question you’d like, for clarity or rebuttal. I hope you take the time to read it and maybe even check some of the lit I mention.
“A lot of his "reforms" boil down to dismantlement of the Federal Government in many ways which just aren't even feasible. He's just trying to appeal to a disgruntled base of voters who feel that since the Federal Government doesn't make sense to them it should be redesigned so it does.”
I don’t see this as much an argument, but a plain assertion. The paul plan is “just not feasible”? How so? You haven’t offered an ounce of evidence other than an assertion that something isn’t feasible simply because it isn’t feasible. As for feasibility of massive cuts to a central government, the cases of China in 78, India in the 90s, and the Scandinavian countries in the mid 90s, I think, answer the feasibility question.
“Really he's the ultimate libertarian which is exactly what many Corporations want. “
This is curious, given that Obama has amassed more corporate money for his current campaign that any other politician in history breaking the current record set by himself in his 2008 campaign. Moreover, can you name a corporation that has donated to the libertarian party? To my knowledge the number is zero. The paul campaign has gotten money from one billionaire, peter thiel, and for anyone who has ever watch a minute of cnbc known theil’s donation is purely ideological, he’s been touting libertarianism since the founding of paypal. Last, if libertarianism is all corporations want, why did big business fund the progressive movement, and most notably Woodrow Wilson? Why did big business side with LBJ over goldwater? Why do corporations like Monsanto and GS repeatedly support interventionists? Why does wal-mart support a higher minimum wage? Wghy does buffet support a higher marginal tax rate? (he owns life insurance companies and doesn’t pay income tax!) Why is obama’s number of campaign contributor gldman sacs and GE? Why did health insurers funnel money to George W? (answer: medicare part d). If corporations love libertarianism, why don’t they support dr. paul who wishes to eliminate the fed (because big banks borrow from the fed at .025 and lend to the treasury at 6%!)… and the most obvious question, if corporations love libertarism, why don’t they donate to paul, the “ultimate libertarian”??? I think I spot a case of cognitive dissonance.
“No one donates to Paul's campaign because he doesn't stand a chance, and Mitt Romney is the far more attractive corporate shoe in.”
Sure, because he supports high tariffs on foreign goods, minimum wage laws, Sarbanes oxly to crush startups, government debt so big banks can collect interest, et etc. Mit is the furthest from libertarian one can be. You corporations love libertarians but don’t fund libertarians therefore corporations love libertarians. Interesting logic.
“Aside from that, Ron Paul is all just a complete and utter crackpot. He actually said that he believed the Civil Rights Act should be removed because it impedes America's Economy! “
If you keep up on labor economics, and most specifically, compensating differentials, you’d know that scholarship in this area comes to the same conclusion. The last time black youth unemployment was lower than white was circa 1948 before a higher min wage was passed. You’d also know, if you kept up on the recent scholarship on the black family, that it was the post civil right act era the marriage rates decline and illegitimacy rates increased in the black community. There is a good amount of scholarship on the economic effects of the civil rights act, and what improvements and setbacks are attributable to it and what aren’t. I suggest to pick up two books by Thomas sowell which provide a decent survey of the recent scholarship, “Civil Right, Rhetoric or Reality” and “Economic Facts and Fallacies.” It’s interesting stuff.
“He wants to remove the Federal Bank and work in gold, because he really believes the world was better off before market globalization. “
This shows a complete misunderstanding of money and its history. It was gold that made globalization possible. It is innumerable paper monies that keep us at a partial barter system, which obviously impedes global trade. Moreover, he doesn’t belevieve “the world was better.” If you knows the specifics about the various gold standards before 1971, none of them are advocated by paul. I suggest you wiki the gold exchange standard, bretton woods, the greenback, and the classical gold standard.
“He insists that Global Warming is a hoax, and that climate change isn't happening”
I am no scientist. I cannot speak for paul. I’ve seen videos where he says he believes the earth is warming. I’ve seen him say it wasn’t an issue. I have also seen scholars suggesting the effects of global warming are too unclear. There are a decent amount of scientists at MIT that challenge the orthodoxy. I suggest you google them.
“he also believes the UN is trying to take over America!”
I don’t think I’ve heard him say this. If you can provide a quote that’d be great. Safe to say he is against centralization, and the UN is quite a centralizing institution is it not? (rhetorical)
"These are not the views of a plucky, ambitious man, he's just a complete wacko. His supporters always advertise what they believe are his more "reasonable" views but their is nothing reasonable about wiping out taxes (the government's chief source of income) and getting rid of the Federal Bank. (The primary means in which America interacts with the global market.) His supporters are just disgruntled. They don't know anymore about the Federal Government than he does, and because they have precisely zero interest in learning about real politics they're attracted to a man who will do them a favor and just remove that pesky obstacle completely! It's so easy now isn't it!
“"Local Governmental" or government by the states has historically, never, ever worked. “
Sweden and the cannons “don’t work”? The US before the civil war “didn’t work”? Ulster county government “doesn’t work”? I, to a degree, completely agree with you. Government doesn’t work. Monopolies of ultimately decision making with the power to unilaterally determine the price for their services do not work. But small government is historically preferable to large states. Think soviet union. Moreover, look at the movement of people over history, they vote with there feet. Did people stay in highly centralized great britian of nearly anarchistic US? Are people not fleeing china to hong kong? Did people not flock to the west from the more centralized north during the 19th century? And in which area was there more violence and lawlessness? (if you say the west, again, you’re going to have to tell us why the recent scholarship is wrong and you are right!) Moreover, have you the studies linkinh decentralization to sustained GNP growth? They all come to the comclusion that economic growth is highly correlated with decentralized government. I’ve seen some with correlations of .75! This is HUGE correlation if you keep up with the work done on national accounts.
“The Articles of Confederation and the Confederate States of America were attempts on two separate occasions to allow the states overwhelming power over the Federal Government. The first case ended with economic and political stalemate in every area.”
If this not the case in the present world? Moreover, some of us would conclude that the constitution has been an immense failure. Government keeps growing, schools shitty, constant wars, dollar devaluation, you can be made slave by draft, obama can indefinitely detain you at a whim, we can bomb countries for 20 years and it’s a “military conflict”, not a war, Vietnam, Iraq, desert storm, Afghanistan, clusterfuck in Africa right now, 40 percent of the middle Americans money is taken from them and given to GE, GM, goldman, et al. AND THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT?????? An honest person, I think, should question the public school, 7th grade history lesson. I came across this article about 4 years ago. It really got me thinking. I suggest you check it out. : http://mises.org/daily/1296
“The second case ended with Confederacy being integrated right back in to the Union after trying to impose their idea on the rights of the states (particularly in deciding on slavery) vs. the right of the Federal Government.”
One could go on forever about states right, their record on fighting slavery (there are volumes on this), and the like. But I think the core problem with the anti-states rights camp is their logic. Simply, you do not think there should be anarchy between two people, therefore we should have a state to keep order. We should also not have anarchy between states because it is chaotic, therefore we should have a federal government. But, in your world of a federalism, there is still anarchy between federal governments. Logic forces you to call for world government. Until you throw up your hands in support for world government, you being content with numerous federal governments is precisely the logic of the who want numerous state government. Again, a contradicting in your logic. This all, of course, assumes you don’t support world government. If you do then, well, that’s another story, and ill address it later if you’d like.
“The Articles of Confederation were a failure, complete and total, their is no other way around it. Lack of a uniform currency and inability to enforce tax codes is NOT something to be proud of. “
Since when does paul not want a uniform currency? I thought he was for gold. Again, you are contradicting yourself.
The rest of your argument involves an number of assertions which I wont address, name calling and the like. But the core of it is.. welfare is good, taxes are good, we’d all be dead without them. They are “social progress.” I’ll address them as quickly and concisely as I can, though its hard to teach nearly the entire corpus of economic science in a facebook post.
People respond to incentives. They try and achieve the highest end with the least means employed. Or in the economic sense, they strive for the highest psychic profit with the lowest psychic cost. Therefore, if you raise the cost of an activity, this is a disincentive to engage in this activity, humans will find it less attractive relative to less costly endeavors. Now lets apply this to taxation. If tax activity X higher than Y, some will shift from the former to the latter. With this in mind, it is no surprise then, that poverty in the united states declined each year less depression years at least 1%, then after the great society, the largest expansin of the welfare state in US history, the poverty rate began to increase for the first time in non depression years. So.. plainly speaking, if you punish production, people will produce less. If you pay people not to work. They will work less. Most illustrative of this point is the recent recession, where unemployment benefits have had their lngest duration, highest pay, and where individual spans of unemployment are the longest they’ve been in any economic downturn.
Moreover, I think your assumption that “the middle class and poor need taxes” or whatever is based on some belief that things like schools and roads would not be provided for. Its interesting to note that great Britain’s entire infrastructure was built by private individuals, and that the Netherlands (I’m pretty sure, could be another euro country) have numerous private roads which businesses pay for absent corercive taxation. There are many more examples, also for schools, see this short post : http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/dollars-up ... ores-down/. For more historical examples of the private provision of goods and services absent taxation and the state, check the historical works by tom woods, tom dilorenzo, and murray rothbard. Most of their works are offered for free online.
For other, economic issues, I think you should check out “The Big Ripoff” by Tim Carney, “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt, “race and economics” by walter Williams, and “How Capitalism saved America” by Thomas dilorenzo. There are short texts and easy to read. If you need some more technical stuff, I’m a walking, talking bibliography. Just ask.
This guy has done some serious homework and that's better than a typical RP fanatic, but I feel like he's an economic idealist. IE: He's arguing from a purely economic outlook and makes the typical RP fan assertion that "the world has problems therefore RP is the way to go". I mean, I could be wrong on things but I sense the pungent stench of veiled right-wing/pro corporate bias.
EDIT: I make a lot of claims about what Ron Paul's been claiming in my posts, I attest that all of these claims are true. I didn't provide exact sources on them because they're literally all as simple to find as a Google search or looking right at the man's campaign and Facebook posts are a pain in the ass to do this with.
I think you have a fews things wrong. I hope you take my suggestions and check out the literature I recommend. From your comments im assuming you haven’t challenged the public school narrative of history you learned in middle and highschool. Theres a ton of misinformation out there, all of it very consequential. I put your text in quotes and mine without so you can see what I’m responding to. I haven’t proof read any of this, so ask any question you’d like, for clarity or rebuttal. I hope you take the time to read it and maybe even check some of the lit I mention.
“A lot of his "reforms" boil down to dismantlement of the Federal Government in many ways which just aren't even feasible. He's just trying to appeal to a disgruntled base of voters who feel that since the Federal Government doesn't make sense to them it should be redesigned so it does.”
I don’t see this as much an argument, but a plain assertion. The paul plan is “just not feasible”? How so? You haven’t offered an ounce of evidence other than an assertion that something isn’t feasible simply because it isn’t feasible. As for feasibility of massive cuts to a central government, the cases of China in 78, India in the 90s, and the Scandinavian countries in the mid 90s, I think, answer the feasibility question.
“Really he's the ultimate libertarian which is exactly what many Corporations want. “
This is curious, given that Obama has amassed more corporate money for his current campaign that any other politician in history breaking the current record set by himself in his 2008 campaign. Moreover, can you name a corporation that has donated to the libertarian party? To my knowledge the number is zero. The paul campaign has gotten money from one billionaire, peter thiel, and for anyone who has ever watch a minute of cnbc known theil’s donation is purely ideological, he’s been touting libertarianism since the founding of paypal. Last, if libertarianism is all corporations want, why did big business fund the progressive movement, and most notably Woodrow Wilson? Why did big business side with LBJ over goldwater? Why do corporations like Monsanto and GS repeatedly support interventionists? Why does wal-mart support a higher minimum wage? Wghy does buffet support a higher marginal tax rate? (he owns life insurance companies and doesn’t pay income tax!) Why is obama’s number of campaign contributor gldman sacs and GE? Why did health insurers funnel money to George W? (answer: medicare part d). If corporations love libertarianism, why don’t they support dr. paul who wishes to eliminate the fed (because big banks borrow from the fed at .025 and lend to the treasury at 6%!)… and the most obvious question, if corporations love libertarism, why don’t they donate to paul, the “ultimate libertarian”??? I think I spot a case of cognitive dissonance.
“No one donates to Paul's campaign because he doesn't stand a chance, and Mitt Romney is the far more attractive corporate shoe in.”
Sure, because he supports high tariffs on foreign goods, minimum wage laws, Sarbanes oxly to crush startups, government debt so big banks can collect interest, et etc. Mit is the furthest from libertarian one can be. You corporations love libertarians but don’t fund libertarians therefore corporations love libertarians. Interesting logic.
“Aside from that, Ron Paul is all just a complete and utter crackpot. He actually said that he believed the Civil Rights Act should be removed because it impedes America's Economy! “
If you keep up on labor economics, and most specifically, compensating differentials, you’d know that scholarship in this area comes to the same conclusion. The last time black youth unemployment was lower than white was circa 1948 before a higher min wage was passed. You’d also know, if you kept up on the recent scholarship on the black family, that it was the post civil right act era the marriage rates decline and illegitimacy rates increased in the black community. There is a good amount of scholarship on the economic effects of the civil rights act, and what improvements and setbacks are attributable to it and what aren’t. I suggest to pick up two books by Thomas sowell which provide a decent survey of the recent scholarship, “Civil Right, Rhetoric or Reality” and “Economic Facts and Fallacies.” It’s interesting stuff.
“He wants to remove the Federal Bank and work in gold, because he really believes the world was better off before market globalization. “
This shows a complete misunderstanding of money and its history. It was gold that made globalization possible. It is innumerable paper monies that keep us at a partial barter system, which obviously impedes global trade. Moreover, he doesn’t belevieve “the world was better.” If you knows the specifics about the various gold standards before 1971, none of them are advocated by paul. I suggest you wiki the gold exchange standard, bretton woods, the greenback, and the classical gold standard.
“He insists that Global Warming is a hoax, and that climate change isn't happening”
I am no scientist. I cannot speak for paul. I’ve seen videos where he says he believes the earth is warming. I’ve seen him say it wasn’t an issue. I have also seen scholars suggesting the effects of global warming are too unclear. There are a decent amount of scientists at MIT that challenge the orthodoxy. I suggest you google them.
“he also believes the UN is trying to take over America!”
I don’t think I’ve heard him say this. If you can provide a quote that’d be great. Safe to say he is against centralization, and the UN is quite a centralizing institution is it not? (rhetorical)
"These are not the views of a plucky, ambitious man, he's just a complete wacko. His supporters always advertise what they believe are his more "reasonable" views but their is nothing reasonable about wiping out taxes (the government's chief source of income) and getting rid of the Federal Bank. (The primary means in which America interacts with the global market.) His supporters are just disgruntled. They don't know anymore about the Federal Government than he does, and because they have precisely zero interest in learning about real politics they're attracted to a man who will do them a favor and just remove that pesky obstacle completely! It's so easy now isn't it!
“"Local Governmental" or government by the states has historically, never, ever worked. “
Sweden and the cannons “don’t work”? The US before the civil war “didn’t work”? Ulster county government “doesn’t work”? I, to a degree, completely agree with you. Government doesn’t work. Monopolies of ultimately decision making with the power to unilaterally determine the price for their services do not work. But small government is historically preferable to large states. Think soviet union. Moreover, look at the movement of people over history, they vote with there feet. Did people stay in highly centralized great britian of nearly anarchistic US? Are people not fleeing china to hong kong? Did people not flock to the west from the more centralized north during the 19th century? And in which area was there more violence and lawlessness? (if you say the west, again, you’re going to have to tell us why the recent scholarship is wrong and you are right!) Moreover, have you the studies linkinh decentralization to sustained GNP growth? They all come to the comclusion that economic growth is highly correlated with decentralized government. I’ve seen some with correlations of .75! This is HUGE correlation if you keep up with the work done on national accounts.
“The Articles of Confederation and the Confederate States of America were attempts on two separate occasions to allow the states overwhelming power over the Federal Government. The first case ended with economic and political stalemate in every area.”
If this not the case in the present world? Moreover, some of us would conclude that the constitution has been an immense failure. Government keeps growing, schools shitty, constant wars, dollar devaluation, you can be made slave by draft, obama can indefinitely detain you at a whim, we can bomb countries for 20 years and it’s a “military conflict”, not a war, Vietnam, Iraq, desert storm, Afghanistan, clusterfuck in Africa right now, 40 percent of the middle Americans money is taken from them and given to GE, GM, goldman, et al. AND THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT?????? An honest person, I think, should question the public school, 7th grade history lesson. I came across this article about 4 years ago. It really got me thinking. I suggest you check it out. : http://mises.org/daily/1296
“The second case ended with Confederacy being integrated right back in to the Union after trying to impose their idea on the rights of the states (particularly in deciding on slavery) vs. the right of the Federal Government.”
One could go on forever about states right, their record on fighting slavery (there are volumes on this), and the like. But I think the core problem with the anti-states rights camp is their logic. Simply, you do not think there should be anarchy between two people, therefore we should have a state to keep order. We should also not have anarchy between states because it is chaotic, therefore we should have a federal government. But, in your world of a federalism, there is still anarchy between federal governments. Logic forces you to call for world government. Until you throw up your hands in support for world government, you being content with numerous federal governments is precisely the logic of the who want numerous state government. Again, a contradicting in your logic. This all, of course, assumes you don’t support world government. If you do then, well, that’s another story, and ill address it later if you’d like.
“The Articles of Confederation were a failure, complete and total, their is no other way around it. Lack of a uniform currency and inability to enforce tax codes is NOT something to be proud of. “
Since when does paul not want a uniform currency? I thought he was for gold. Again, you are contradicting yourself.
The rest of your argument involves an number of assertions which I wont address, name calling and the like. But the core of it is.. welfare is good, taxes are good, we’d all be dead without them. They are “social progress.” I’ll address them as quickly and concisely as I can, though its hard to teach nearly the entire corpus of economic science in a facebook post.
People respond to incentives. They try and achieve the highest end with the least means employed. Or in the economic sense, they strive for the highest psychic profit with the lowest psychic cost. Therefore, if you raise the cost of an activity, this is a disincentive to engage in this activity, humans will find it less attractive relative to less costly endeavors. Now lets apply this to taxation. If tax activity X higher than Y, some will shift from the former to the latter. With this in mind, it is no surprise then, that poverty in the united states declined each year less depression years at least 1%, then after the great society, the largest expansin of the welfare state in US history, the poverty rate began to increase for the first time in non depression years. So.. plainly speaking, if you punish production, people will produce less. If you pay people not to work. They will work less. Most illustrative of this point is the recent recession, where unemployment benefits have had their lngest duration, highest pay, and where individual spans of unemployment are the longest they’ve been in any economic downturn.
Moreover, I think your assumption that “the middle class and poor need taxes” or whatever is based on some belief that things like schools and roads would not be provided for. Its interesting to note that great Britain’s entire infrastructure was built by private individuals, and that the Netherlands (I’m pretty sure, could be another euro country) have numerous private roads which businesses pay for absent corercive taxation. There are many more examples, also for schools, see this short post : http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/dollars-up ... ores-down/. For more historical examples of the private provision of goods and services absent taxation and the state, check the historical works by tom woods, tom dilorenzo, and murray rothbard. Most of their works are offered for free online.
For other, economic issues, I think you should check out “The Big Ripoff” by Tim Carney, “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt, “race and economics” by walter Williams, and “How Capitalism saved America” by Thomas dilorenzo. There are short texts and easy to read. If you need some more technical stuff, I’m a walking, talking bibliography. Just ask.
This guy has done some serious homework and that's better than a typical RP fanatic, but I feel like he's an economic idealist. IE: He's arguing from a purely economic outlook and makes the typical RP fan assertion that "the world has problems therefore RP is the way to go". I mean, I could be wrong on things but I sense the pungent stench of veiled right-wing/pro corporate bias.
EDIT: I make a lot of claims about what Ron Paul's been claiming in my posts, I attest that all of these claims are true. I didn't provide exact sources on them because they're literally all as simple to find as a Google search or looking right at the man's campaign and Facebook posts are a pain in the ass to do this with.
