Thread: Ron Paul's ideas no longer fringe

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm ok with the libertarians on fiscal responsibility, smaller central government, and withdrawing our troops from every contintent on the planet. However, I believe corporations still need to be regulated, our borders need to remain in place, and we shouldn't legalize our presently illegal drugs. I'm guessing fully half of our so-called libertarians are on board that wagon just for the drugs.....

Oh yes another conservative who paints us as part of the amnesty crowd. No Libertarian advocates dissolving the borders, we support a sane immigration policy that isnt bogged down by massive red tape. Try again.

Originally Posted by nonpareil

I doubt it will become law. I think there are still intelligent senators who would what's good for the country, and giving Congress too much power over the Fed is not good for the country. Look at the shape of America's fiscal policy, the politicians aren't going to do any better at monetary policy, they will only make it worse. Ron Paul may come from a position that on the surface seem like good intention (giving "the people" control over its government as a democracy should) but he's so committed to his anti-central banks ideas, his solution is worse than the problem. Instead of making monetary policies work better for the population at large, giving Congress more control over the Fed will only mean that Congress has another area to politicise and use for their own gains (not that they haven't already tried).

As I understand it, the Constitution gives Congress (more specifically the House of Representatives) domain over currency and finances.

Whether or not we think Congress would suitable for this kind of responsibility is irrelevant -- it's the correct mechanism as per how this nation was designed, and it is up to the electorate to hold Congress responsible for doing its duty.

If we don't, we can't blame it on Congress when everything gets screwed up. It's our fault if we let them run amok.

Furthermore, I think we should abolish the Fed altogether. If it's going to be legal tender, it should be directly issued by and regulated by the authority of the United States government. No more of this borrowing-to-create-currency crap.

Originally Posted by chevydriver1123

Oh yes another conservative who paints us as part of the amnesty crowd. No Libertarian advocates dissolving the borders, we support a sane immigration policy that isnt bogged down by massive red tape. Try again.

And one that will allow libertarians to hire foreign workers cheaper than what they have to pay for domestic workers.

Ron Paul hasn't moved, the right has gone out there to join him.

Originally Posted by samsmart

Some of Ron Paul's ideas are no longer the fringe. Others, such as the elimination of most social and public programs in favor of private businesses and the abolishment of certain executive agencies such as the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency still are.

I might have some concerns about eliminating the EPA along with selling off our National Parks, but definitely not eliminating the DoE. It is a billion dollar bureaucracy that doesn't educate a single child.

Education, health, and welfare belong in the state. With a smaller federal government, citizens would pay less taxes and have more to spend either voluntarily or through their state programs.

As I have stated, I don't mind moderate libertarianism. However, I think allowing an extreme libertarian such as Paul to become President would cause too much change far too soon and will further lead the U.S. into becoming a corporatocracy more so than it already is.

I think there is some misunderstanding here about how libertarianism would lead to further "corporatocracy" of America. I am not saying that there are corporate apologists who call themselves libertarians, but many libertarians have an issue the modern day corporation and do not see it has product of the free market. In fact, moving towards free markets would lead to less corporate power.

As Roderick Long points out:

Corporate power depends crucially on government intervention in the marketplace.[2] This is obvious enough in the case of the more overt forms of government favoritism such as subsidies, bailouts,[3] and other forms of corporate welfare; protectionist tariffs; explicit grants of monopoly privilege; and the seizing of private property for corporate use via eminent domain (as in Kelo v. New London).

Cato Unbound Blog Archive Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now

There are some valid concerns over the legitimacy of the modern day corporations. Its not a cut and dry argument and even libertarians will argue among themselves about this topic.

Originally Posted by j-mac

IMHO, Dr. Paul's positions on fiscal responsibility, and limited government are being picked up as correct, and they should be. However, until Paul drops this need to bash America as some sort of imperial power, he will be ever relegated to the sidelines.


j-mac

Holy crap! I just had to give j-mac a 'thanks'.

Of course, he considers me a liberal, so I'm not sure what he'll make of it.

Ron Paul says things that make of lot of sense to me re: limiting the size and scope of the federal government. He bucks the establishment on both sides of the aisle. However, some of his specific policy solutions don't seem practical or workable--at first glance.

For example, dismantling the Dept. of Education--what is the process? Give me a timeline with goals. What is the potential negative fallout and what steps would he take to minimize that?

He has some bold policy ideas for making the Federal government more efficient and accountable. I've only heard the broad strokes though--I'm still unsure about how practical and pragmatic some of his ideas are. But I want to hear more...

j-mac:

Two things I really respect about Ron Paul is that when I've heard him speak, he doesn't engage in hyper-partisan rhetoric (comments meant to demean the other party by distorting their position) and, when he disagrees with his own party, he's honest about it and openly critical.

Congress controlling the Fed will have quite a negative effect on interest rate spreads as it is essentially giving the keys to the printing press to the people who are the biggest spenders in the history of the world. This is why i believe they will not politicize monetary policy... the result could be catastrophic.

It would be a shame for the policy in which was intended for reform turned into the catalyst for true inflationary pressure.

Originally Posted by TacticalEvilDan

As I understand it, the Constitution gives Congress (more specifically the House of Representatives) domain over currency and finances.

A power which Congress grant to the Fed, an institution which already answer to Congress. The Fed was designed the way it is to give a balance between politics and some stability to make policy with a long-term view (something American politics isn't). As a central bank, the Fed is much more answerable to the legislative and tied to popular opinion from politicians and business than other countries', and the thing is, if you want good monetary policy that will hurt when it needs to be (like when we need to curb inflation) then giving politicians more control over the Fed is the wrong way to go.

Whether or not we think Congress would suitable for this kind of responsibility is irrelevant -- it's the correct mechanism as per how this nation was designed, and it is up to the electorate to hold Congress responsible for doing its duty.

1. I personally think it's stupid to stick to a document written more than two hundred years ago irregardless of the circumstances, specially on issues that didn't exist when said document was written. And monetary policy on the scale we are talking, in an electronic age, in a globalised world, certainly didn't exist for them. But if you want, we can play a game of what would they do if they were here, but that'll lead you no where either.

2. It is relevant because as point out above, Congress can find ways within the boundary of the constitution to have a body that look at these issues on its behalf. It's by Congress's will that the Fed exists in the first place.

3. It's "up to the electorate" to do a lot of things, but saying that doesn't make it happen. So do we sit by and hope the electorate will live up to its responsibilities (what are they exactly?) or make choices like sensible people?

If we don't, we can't blame it on Congress when everything gets screwed up. It's our fault if we let them run amok.

That's really a comfort when you see the debt keeps going up, isn't it?

Furthermore, I think we should abolish the Fed altogether. If it's going to be legal tender, it should be directly issued by and regulated by the authority of the United States government. No more of this borrowing-to-create-currency crap.

1. Your last sentence is not clear. Either you are talking about the Fed creating money - the Fed doesn't need to borrow, it's the one institution that can create liability out of thin air (or the printing press to be more accurate), or you are talking about the Federal government's borrowing, in which case I think you don't know your monetary policy 101 very well. I would suggest you google the term "monetisation". This policy was popular before the 60's when the executive arm had more power over the Fed - basically the Fed was another arm of the Executive branch in fact if not in the letter. But Chiarman Martin was against that and worked to change that, but Volcker was the one that really asserted the Fed's independence. Most people who read about the Fed's history admires him for that, and yet now you are talking about undoing all that and put the Fed in a position where it might be made to monetise the debt or keep rates too low to satisfy the politicians, again.


2. I think people who want the Fed to "answer to Congress" comes from a position where they want to abolish the Fed because the Fed already answers to Congress, the Chairman can be called to testify anytime I believe. Ron Paul can't answer the questions about the consequences of abolishing the Fed would be and what do you put up in place of the Fed (let Congress put up a vote every month as to what the rate should be? What if there's a filibuster?) so the best he can do is make it difficult for it to make decisions.

Originally Posted by Voluntary

I might have some concerns about eliminating the EPA along with selling off our National Parks, but definitely not eliminating the DoE. It is a billion dollar bureaucracy that doesn't educate a single child.

Education, health, and welfare belong in the state. With a smaller federal government, citizens would pay less taxes and have more to spend either voluntarily or through their state programs.



I think there is some misunderstanding here about how libertarianism would lead to further "corporatocracy" of America. I am not saying that there are corporate apologists who call themselves libertarians, but many libertarians have an issue the modern day corporation and do not see it has product of the free market. In fact, moving towards free markets would lead to less corporate power.

As Roderick Long points out:

Cato Unbound Blog Archive Corporations versus the Market; or, Whip Conflation Now

There are some valid concerns over the legitimacy of the modern day corporations. Its not a cut and dry argument and even libertarians will argue among themselves about this topic.

What about the fact that firms in the same market sector have a natural tendency to consolidate? Bigger firms has more natural advantage, there may come a point they would become too big, but in the mean time, if left to themselves, they tend to progress to hold a huge chuck of the market.

Originally Posted by Manc Skipper

Ron Paul hasn't moved, the right has gone out there to join him.

I wouldnt say that, I havent seen any "mainstream" conservatives join him on his foreign policy views.