EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Grow Up, Ron Paul
Like many other little American kids, all I wanted to do was eat junk food, play video games and goof around with my friends. I didn’t like being made to go to school, going to bed at 9 PM, eating vegetables, doing homework after school, or taking out the garbage. And like most other little kids who don’t like abiding by the rules of their parents, I sometimes fantasized about what it would be like to run away from home. But when I packed my backpack full of clothes and individually-wrapped packs of peanut butter crackers from the pantry, I could never go through with my plan. I knew if I ran away, I’d be hungry, cold, lost, and eventually found by the police and returned home.
Libertarian views of government regulation are very similar to how the 6 year-old views the authority exerted by their parents. Ron Paul’s every-individual-for- themselves rhetoric appeals to young, radical libertarians with simplistic viewpoints of authority, and an ignorance of why government exists in the first place.
In Ron Paul’s ideal America, safety regulations imposed on employers by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration would be a thing of the past. Clean air and water regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency would be no more. Taxpayers would save money since Ron Paul would abolish the Department of Education and cut the Food & Drug Administration budget by 40%. Employers would save money by paying workers as little as they wish, since Ron Paul would abolish the Davis-Bacon Act. Corporate giants would be free to monopolize markets, since Ron Paul opposes federal antitrust legislation. And employees would no longer be required to pay into Social Security.
So what would this libertarian utopia look like, if Ron Paul were elected and followed through on his campaign promises?
-Families grieving for loved ones lost due to Massey Energy’s negligence in the Upper Big Branch coal mine explosion would have to accept that their relatives were casualties of the invisible hand of the unfettered free market. And Massey would've gotten off scot-free for polluting Martin County, Kentucky's drinking water supply with 300 million gallons of coal slurry.
-Millions of college students dependent on Pell grants would be forced to move back home and work minimum-wage jobs, no longer financially able to further their education. Oh wait-- what minimum wage?
-Food recalls would be a regular occurrence when tainted meat and vegetables hit supermarket shelves and cause record outbreaks of e-coli. And risky new drugs will avoid FDA tests and hit the express lane to the pharmacy, endangering the health of millions.
-Too-big-to-fail banks like Wells Fargo, Citi, Chase and Bank of America would be allowed to merge and/or buy out their competitors, as would oil giants like ExxonMobil, and Chevron, as would cell service providers like AT&T and Verizon.
-The Social Security trust fund would become insolvent, making retirement that much harder for those who paid into it all their lives.
Ron Paul and his right-libertarian ideology does espouse a new kind of freedom, just as rebellious children who fantasize about running away from home dream of a new kind of freedom. But as much as we may have rebelled against our parents as little kids, we eventually matured and realized that the rules and regulations our parents imposed on us were meant so we’d grow up to be responsible, functioning adults in society.
An unregulated little kid free to eat junk food and play video games all day won’t ever learn the responsibilities of adulthood. And an unregulated society where every individual is out for themselves will quickly collapse.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
273 Comments so far
Show AllThe thing that I just don't get is how Ron Paul's libertarian ideas have traction with some people. If you want to see what a libertarian utopia looks like, google search for pictures of the great depression. No government in your life when it started. You were free to sleep in a tent, and stand in a food line if you could find one. Yea baby, freedom, Freedom, FREEDOM!!!!
On a bit of a related note concerning Amerikan style "freedom", RT had a documentary on yesterday about the Tea Party, where it talked about the propaganda used to whip those folks into a frenzy. There was one scene that was actually a bit frighting. A large group of Tea Partiers were in Washington protesting, screaming about their freedom and how socialism was bad. Think about it, the vast majority of people in that crowd are tied to their jobs by debt, and the need for heath insurance. They are wage slaves to the corporation. A little socialism, like a single payer health care system would actually grant them some freedom, giving them the option to quit their miserable jobs and start a small business. A socialized college education system would allow them to go to school without taking on a crushing debt.
But there they are screaming in the streets, about their "freedom" and about the evils of socialism. This country is so screwed, and in a very pitiful and sad kind of way.
Oh yea and while your'e at it, keep the god damn government out of our Medicare too. 8-(
NC-Tom writes: "The thing that I just don't get is how Ron Paul's libertarian ideas have traction with some people."
Well, Tom, for one thing, Ron Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate advocating an end to continuous military intervention overseas; the ONLY candidate promising to dismantle the U.S.'s military empire of more than 800 overseas bases; the ONLY candidate who defends the Bill of Rights and advocates a return to the "rule of law"; the ONLY candidate who wants to end the futile and destructive and racist "War on Drugs"; and the ONLY candidate who wants to end the futile and destructive and racist "War on Terror."
These are probably some of the reasons Ron Paul has some traction with people -- and it may have little to do with "libertarianism," per se.
Now, for me, the thing I don't get is why "liberals" and "progressives" can't understand why people are attracted to a politician who publicly and vehemently opposes the violence of the American Empire and the injustice of its Police State. Why is that so hard to see?
Why is it so hard to see that if Ron Paul were elected, we would get a minimum of the reigning in of the MIC, which essentially has been out of the control of the executive since 1963, and a maximum of the destruction of the our commonwealth, social security, medicare, the regulatory agencies that remain, the pillage of which could then be touted as a popular mandate. In the end, libertarianism means more liberty for the 1%. And finally, how in hell can anyone vote for a physician who states that being without health insurance is a "consumer choice" and the uninsured must take the consequences?
Tony Vodvarka
Well said, Tony & NC Tom.
The libertarian ethos appeals to the macho guy who wants nothing to stand in his way. It's definitely an ideology that strokes the white male ego. And I agree, Ron Paul would NOT be able to dismantle the MIC as it's like a beast with its own tentacles reaching everywhere. Were he to attempt to cut it down, he might see a mutiny or worse.
The irony is that all those who think Paul would really stop the war machine, seem blissfully unconcerned with what his presidency would mean in the ways the article depicts.
As per the adage, "We're fighting THEM over there so we don't have to fight them over here," it would seem that Paul's alleged wish to close down bases in foreign lands would lead to MORE tyranny (by the corporation) at home. So it's trading one set of martial principles in for another (Might, via money, makes right inside the Homeland.)
The really tragic thing is that we're faced with these piss poor choices. The fact that Democrats have sold out and largely become Republican pushes the spectrum so far to the right that the guy ON the right, who actually makes sense about 2 things, is taken for the new messiah.
America... how far you've fallen.
Well, Siouxrose, actually 3 things: Getting rid of the privately-owned Federal Reserve so the government can print its own money and not have to pay interest to the owners of this unconstitutional enterprise.
Here's the meme about the Fed again. The Federal Reserve is not privately owned. It has some private components (note I didn't say "parts") but it is a creation of Congress and its important officers are appointed by the president. This is why Bernanke periodically reports to Congress. The US government does issue/print its own money as we have a fiat currency over which the gov't has complete control. The gov't only pays interest to holders of US Treasuries.
Learn more at http://moslereconomics.com/
Taxes function to regulate aggregate demand, and not to raise revenue per se.
The funds to pay taxes and buy government securities come from government spending.
I don't support libertarianism or Ron Paul but the Fed IS privately owned, its shareholders being private banks. The federal government has very limited oversight, mostly just the power of appointment.
The US government does NOT issue its own money, it merely prints circulating paper money. The money supply, save for a trivial amount of coin, is created by the Fed and private, commercial banks. The latter depend on the Fed to create, from thin air, the "reserves" they leverage to create the vast majority of the money supply (probably at least 90%), again out of thin air (via keystrokes on computers). Thanks to a great deal of agitation by some principled people, the Fed now returns its profits to the Treasury, but those pale in comparison to the profits made by the private banks.
It's ridiculous that the private banking system is allowed to create the people's money, and we are all paying an enormous opportunity cost in allowing them to do so. If the federal government created the money supply, as it is directed to do under the Constitution, money creation could replace a great deal of taxation or borrowing, and we would all be better off. Moreover, the private banking system wouldn't have us under its thumb, as it does today in this money system wherein the vast bulk of the money supply is created as debt to private banks (when they make loans).
Cathy Mason has been told this before, but she prefers her own interpretation of the Fed. You know the quote, "You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts." Well, for some reason Ms. Mason thinks she can have it both ways. A display of ignorance in some circles would be taken for an embarrassment. Hiding behind an anonymous screen name allows some posters to remain inured to shame.
I completely agree with RP on his stance on war, but pretty much nothing else. We as a country decided we needed social programs to be a more humane country, and now he want's to socially drag us back to the 18th century, and I just cant accept that.
You might be the slightest bit more persuasive if you nixed the grating, pedantic tone. Ron Paul, the ONLY candidate narcissistic and idolatrous enough to name his children after Ayn Rand. Why can't "progressives" appreciate that? Ron Paul is such a perplexing curiosity--he's right on certain issues for logic I can't fathom, and then he is utterly batsh*t crazy on other issues for the same logic.
We can certainly see the agreeable positions that Ron Paul has regarding war, empire and the police state. But we sure as hell aren't blind to the inadvertent fascist lunacy he embraces, either. Why is that so hard for his supporters to see? I had a term for Ron Paul supporters back in 2008--Paultards. They all came across as rigid and socially-inept as though everything was being typed from a basement on a buzz of snack chips and cola. That stereotype has softened a bit, but the rigidity of thinking and blind zeal in supporting someone with such schizo-policy choices sure hasn't.
THE ONLY CANDIDATE???? You are so wrong! I'll bet, when I have a California ballot in my hand, there will be at least one candidate that wants to end American wars, create green jobs and protect consumers. That person will get my vote. What you meant to say was, he is the only CORPORATE PARTY candidate who....
You're lucky in California - many of us live in states where ballot access is rather more restricted. And usually mainly by Democrats.
Arkay,
Because he doesn't opppose the violence of the American Empire. He just doesn't like it being wielded by government. It's inconvenient to the warlord system of business he and all the other insane right wing candidates believe in. He would unleash the violence to be wielded directly by larger and larger corporations instead of through their proxy, the government. In no time at all, there would only be one corporation in each industry, and then probably one corporation across any number of industries. And the corporation would then be the government, wielding the violence and full power of all their profits, to maintain their profits, protect their territory, fight other corporations, force people to buy their products... whatever they wanted.
People, including progressives, who don't understand addiction and mental illness, don't understand how people could fall for the deceptive half-truths, outright lies and deluded notions of people like Paul.
(1) Read the Glenn Greenwald article, "Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies" at www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
(2) I am sure you will now agree that there are not just one or two nitpicking points where Paul holds the moral high ground, but a whole slew of issues that mean life or death for the future of American democracy and the world in general.
(3) Explain to me, despite Paul's many regressive ideas, which we can agree are regressive, why it would not be a good idea to have Paul be the Republican candidate who will argue policy with Obama in front of the American people for six months.
(4) Vote for whom you wish in the general election, but vote for Paul in the primary.
(3) Explain to me, despite Paul's many regressive ideas, which we can agree are regressive, why it would not be a good idea to have Paul be the Republican candidate who will argue policy with Obama in front of the American people for six months.
Actually I would have no problem with that. I think It would prove to be quite interesting.
Paul should just be president and he can be brought up to speed as he goes along by all the people in the know. He lends his easy going personality to the world for a few years and takes the edge off life. Does the DOD really need all the budget. Just cut defense and give every citizen over 60 a million dollars to help his or her family members with... use the military to intervene in Africa... like an armed peace corps...
Tap the Arctic for fuel
Close army bases around the world... come home to USA
Let Israel fend for itself... they will be annihilated... deservedly for invading Palestine... just simple paybacks. It's just so simple MAD is still in effect.
You did get to choose your tent and which soup kitchen to go to.
Sorry friend, you go to the Hooverville with the tent you have not with the tent you wish you had.
But soup kitchens? Knock yerself out. Look for the one with all the unemployed truck drivers in line outside in the cold.
Looks like Obama has activated his cadres. This is truly one of the most ignorant articles ever, and a classic example of demagoguery;and this immature twerp has the nerve to tell Ron Paul to "grow up"? This guy doesn't know what he's talking about, he gives you the worst case scenario. How easy would it be for me talk about Obama and then make him look like Stalin with massive class warfare? Ron Paul would not be elected dictator, he'd be elected president, we have these things called "checks and balances". This writer is really, really, stupid. He's guiding you right back to Obama,and believe me, he's doing it so HE can get paid.
A homophobic racist who is the champion of all the white supremacist hate groups, is better for our country than Obama? A guy who wants to get rid of the departments of education, FDA (“why can’t we buy unpasteurized milk?”), EPA, CDC, etc.? No need for a department of energy – market forces will keep nuclear reactors safe – right? No need for the IRS, which of course would mean that there would be no federal tax revenues (we don’t need a federal government anyway, and it doesn’t matter if we default on our U.S. bonds) – right? No need for any government regulations, because corporations will behave in the interest of U.S. citizens – right? If you agree with these assumptions, then yes, Ron Paul is your guy.
Time for America to grow up. ALL Republicans and ALL Democrats are bad for the people of this country. ALL of them are corporate lackeys feeding at the lobbyist trough. All of them are good for the 1%, bad for the rest of us. All! If you're still voting in a two-party race, you're still a political infant. Get this through your heads--it makes no difference, R or D, they are controlled by the same evil forces. Stop it America! Stop electing evil vermin to high offices. If they are white and rich, they are probably not looking out for you. If you voted for McCain or Obama, you deserve indefinite detention--but I don't. Get a clue, USA!
Some would consider Obama a homophobic, he doesn't support gay marriage,and he gets rid of Don;t ask don;t tell only when its clear that the courts are gonna overturn it, and also, the right to die in his imperialist wars is no biggie anyhow. Dept of ed? Arne Duncan and Obama are teacher union busters BIG TIME. The coward Obama didn't even go to Wisconsin after his weak promises to march. EPA? He's known to oppose the scientists on EPA on a number of issues, he gives a few scraps at election time.And you're fear mongering anyhow. Paul wants to throw regulation to the states. The EPA? Every city in America has unbreathable air, AND EPA covers up Fukishima radiation in America. He's for throwing these powers back to the states- try something new for a change- Obama can;t save you, and in fact he's trying to destroy you, through the banks and glottalization. CDC? Oh, it look like you're determined to say he wants to get rid of everything when in fact he has only proposed 1 trillion in cuts across the board, NOT to get rid of all government. Show us where he says he wants to get rid of every government agency as you seem to be suggesting with you "etc". NO IRS- Good! Go to sales taxes or something else. You would protect the IRS? Do you work? Your quite the alarmist, calm down, Ron Paul has got this!
'In Ron Paul’s ideal America"
In Obama's Ideal America- People who blow the whistle on his numerous war crimes and failure to prosecute his predecessors numerous war crimes are kept in solitary confinement indefinitely, and those who protest will join them.
In Obama's ideal America, bankers who prepetrate massive fraud sucking quadrillions out of the economy wil be put in charge of the economy so that they can suck out more quadrillions.
In Obamas ideal America, teachers unions will be destroyed, and reconstituted at election time and then destroyed again.
I could obviously go on. Don't allow these liberal suck ups to lead you to the slaughter. Shake up this corrupt shitstem- Ron Paul in 2012!
Yes, Obama is vile, a cold-blooded liar who has reneged on most of his campaign promises, enshrined many W Bush policies that threaten civil liberties into standard doctrine, is a corporate flack, and on and on.
But your antidote to this is Ron Paul??? His social policies, including abortion rights, civil rights, single payer healthcare are a nightmare for most progressives. A cure as bad as the disease.
You need to suggest someone else to vote for before you criticize my "antidote'
Rocky Anderson as a write in. We simply have to initiate a viable Third party in this country. Socialist/Green.
I don't know enough to really say,lakeqi, not being a supporter of RP. However, when has the system of checks and balances been a reality with meaningful results lately? If i do vote, it will, again, be a write in.
My only point about the checks and balances is that they would keep Paul from instituting all of the changes this fear monger of a writer suggests would happen over night.
That system is disabled. RP would provide cover for the appointment of regional "Emergency Managers" from the private Finance/Insurance/Real Estate sector...a new kind of privatized dictatorial team that would look like one of worse corporations around. I can see him as being the last president of the USA...to be followed by a F.I.R.E.-appointed "CEO" of a management team of "Emergency Managers". This is far far away from what progressives envisioned.
Lake said:
"he'd be elected president, we have these things called "checks and balances".
There WERE checks and balances, but these became defunct once the Unitary Executive purged them. It used to be that it was the role of Congress to declare war, but that's no longer the case. And there used to be the presumption of innocence, but the deluded "War on Terror" has co-opted (or should I say compromised) that central tenet of a Democratic nation.
No. The checks and balances have been eviscerated, along with much of the Bill of Rights, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, and Habeas Corpus. As some very wise law professors have duly noted, America is a POST law nation.
You are deluded. BOTH "teams" play for the same owners. And it's a false choice to suggest that if a poster sees the dangers of Ron Paul they some how miss the dangers and deception of Obama. Most of us are fed up with the "menu of choices." They are ALL toxic, because in their own ways, they all serve the 1%... the same corporations that are despoiling the commons, tainting our food, making war for profit, manufacturing (via media) consent, and burning up the atmosphere to place the living world in very real jeopardy.
I think it's worth mentioning that Paul is a supporter of "checks and balances ...[,] the Bill of Rights, Constitution, Geneva Conventions, and Habeas Corpus", and Obama, in many cases, is not.
... at least for White (Christian) males.
For Hispanics ("illegal" aliens)???
For women of reproductive age?
For Blacks?
LESS so....
How do you think Paul would treat checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, Geneva Conventions, and Habeas Corpus differently for people of different cultures or sexes?
You are being naive. Under such a system, what is there to prevent the absolute WORST in your "society" from using the lack of rules to rise straight to the top? NOTHING, that's what. You HAVE to look at things like this from the absolute worst scenario, because that is EXACTLY what you're going to get. You think that ONLY the decent, honest people will take advantage of the lack of rules and regulations? NONSENSE. They are the ones who will be screwed to death by the sociopaths and psychopaths. Kind of like what is going on in business now days.
If you put such a system into place WITHOUT even considering the worst possible scenario and accepting that it very well could happen, and in fact, would HAVE to happen, you are being as gullible as a human gets.
And it's interesting how you have to insult the writer because he disagrees with you. That doesn't show a whole lot of maturity on your part, does it? You might want to actually try to take apart his statements with reasoned, informative arguments. You didn't do that at all, just insulted him and impugned his honesty. Bad form.
So please, don't sit there and make unfounded statements, back it up with some facts. Tell us why the rich WOULDN'T benefit far more from that type of system than you or I would. Tell us why such a system would not end up being used and twisted by the psychopaths in our country. Tell us how the checks and balances work when congress is so dysfunctional that it can't be counted on to cote on things of life and death importance to the people? Why don't you tell us how the lack of regulations that keep business from killing you for profit would mean a better country for all of us? I'm being totally serious, here, I WANT you to tell me these things. Because I've thought this through and I come to the same conclusion every time. I want to see how it's possible NOT to come to this conclusion.
EDUCATE ME. Otherwise, you're just like the rest of RP's supporters who can't answer a question with anything but an insult and don't know the first thing about his policies other than the drug war and the fed. So far, none of RP's folks seem to want to win any converts for him, because you're the most insulting, nasty and immature bunch I've seen in politics in my life. Please, prove yourself different.
Well put.
Who said the guy writing this is for Obama, simply because he's critical of Ron Paul? Do yourself a favor and stop thinking in political binary. Both are lousy choices for various reasons.
But how could I argue with someone whose powers of analysis are so mighty to proclaim "This writer is really, really stupid."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
lakeqi sez: "Ron Paul would not be elected dictator, he'd be elected president, we have these things called "checks and balances". "
Great argument. Elect Ron Paul because he won't be able to carry out his agenda (except for the parts you like!).
The article simply expounds on what Ron Paul has said.
To see how accurate the article is, check Ron Paul's website. You'll find Gibson's article nails RP's positions.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/
RP RIP
Another senseless talking point. How do you know that people who call out Ron Paul for his obnoxious policies are Obamabots? Why would they be? I'm certainly not in favor of O - never voted for him. But this has nothing to do with my take on Paul. And I find it disturbing that there are so many Paulistas on a supposedly progressive site. Divide and conquer?
Obama is not worried about Ron Paul. Nothing could make Obama's re-election more likely than a Paul candidacy.
The libertarian agenda Paul promotes is adolescent and simple-minded.
I don't oppose Paul for the sake of supporting Obama, and will not support Obama or any Democrats. I opposed Paul's agenda before Obama was out of grade school.
This thinking you are expressing - that we have checks and balances so need not worry about electing a right wing extremist, and that desperate times call for desperate measures - is exactly the thinking by many people in Europe in the 30's as they reached for the fascists as a "solution."
It is not Paul I worry about, it is the Paul supporters. Their next idol may just be a much more charismatic and powerful character, and all of the arguments being used by them to support Paul are the arguments people used in the 30's to promote the fascists. That is a dangerous mix.
Let me start off by saying I do not support Paul. However, this article does not explain libertarian ideas well at all. Corporations may not be "controlled" by government but they can be disciplined through the courts. If a company harms the public through its actions, it can be sued and damages awarded. That is all part of the game. It is not as if companies can get off scot free if they poison us, subject workers to injury, and otherwise destroy the lives of citizens. There is recourse. However, you can argue that ordinary people have no chance against a cadre of corporate lawyers. That is a valid criticism, one that is so convincing I could never support libertarian ideology. That said, it is important to represent ideas fairly and the author fell short in this instance.
>>Corporations may not be "controlled" by government but they can be disciplined through the courts.<<
So there would be very little government, but there would still be courts? Courts are government agencies. How would those courts' decisions be enforced? Would there be police agencies? Police agencies are government agencies. Maybe they would be replaced by private police departments? How would they be paid?
>>If a company harms the public through its actions, it can be sued and damages awarded.<<
Sued by whom in what venue? Government courts? Private courts? How would private courts arise, and who would pay the judges? Who would award damages? The private court? How would that decision be enforced?
>>There is recourse.<<
Please describe how this recourse works. How is it enforced? Who and how is this path of recourse implemented?
Further to that who pays the lawyers? Who ensures that cases do not drag on for years. If you make 25000 a year and see your health damaged due to an action by a Corporation that makes 200 million a year in profits how can you afford a lawyer to battle them if the case drags on for years in a clogged up court system?
Will the lawyers work for free on a pro bono basis? The Courts are already clogged up and filled with Corporatist judges. The USA already has 50 percent of all the lawyers in the World. Under this scenario they would need millions more. Is this how wealth created? Just sue everyone and hope to hit the jackpot?
My daddy sues people for a living. ! So does my daddy! Hey my daddy does that too!!
Fords lawyers once met and decided that by leaving a 2 dollar part out of a Car they could save 10s of millions of dollars a year and increase profits. They calculated that the fines they paid out in lawsuits by persons driving that car which burst into flame would be less then the extra profits earned.
Remove Government regulation and this is exactly what will happen. Cars bursting into flame and everyone working in the lawsuit industry.
GWNorth:
We have lots of FEDERAL regulators in this country who haven't been doing their job for decades. One only needs to look at all the bank fraud that's taken place since the Savings & Loan Crisis of the 1980s to see that they've been sleeping or engaging their "porn" appetites at their work station while the global economy was collapsing.
...........How about MF Global? Check out this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/francinemckenna/2012/01/09/the-neverending-mf-global-story-regulators-block-the-truth-from-coming-out/. Where were the regulators?
...........We still have anti-trust laws on the books. Where are the regulators?
There was a time when Federal Regulators did their job. Federal regulations, or the enforcement of regulations are eroding at warp speed.
............As I understand it, Paul wants the states to decide how much regulation should be placed on corporations and how they'll be prosecuted if they don't follow those regs.
............If these decisions are made by state legislators, we might have a better chance of controlling these entities.
You miss one rather important point in this discussion. In legal cases you must have standing in order to be able to take an action against someone else. And in the Libertarian world, unless you OWN something, you have NO standing at all. So if someone is polluting the air, YOU have no standing to sue them because YOU don't OWN the air. Same with the water supply. YOU don't own it, and so you don't have the right to sue anyone for destroying it. And if the government has no power, then who IN it will be the ones filing for the public? There won't be anyone to do anything of the sort.
Libertarian ideology is great IF you're already too stinking rich for words. If you're not, you can count on getting screwed by some psychopath, and there will be nothing you can do about it.
I'm serious. I really would like you to answer. Or have you not thought this out thoroughly?
>>There is recourse.<<
Please describe how this recourse works. How is it enforced? Who and how is this path of recourse implemented?
I wish that were so. In 1989 Exxon Mobil, through a combination of negligence and incompetence, caused the spilling of more than 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. The initial settlement for this diaster was for Exxon to pay 5 Billion dollars to the people of the region. That figure was endlessly contested until the Supreme Court reduced it to only 500 million dollars. Guess what? To my knowledge, Exxon continues to keep this tied up in the legal system and they have yet to pay any of this settlement - 23 YEARS after the disaster. Does that sound like a way to keep the corporations "disciplined" using the law? A more recent example is the BP oil disaster. BP has just been granted a multitude of new oil drilling leases in the Gulf. Sounds like business as usual to me.
>>Food recalls would be a regular occurrence when tainted meat and vegetables hit supermarket shelves and cause record outbreaks of e-coli.<<
Why? What consequences would they face if they did not recall those items? Would there be a law requiring such under a libertarian regime?
That claim - "food recalls would be a regular occurrence" - is especially ironic. I met Paul through my work in agriculture, and he has been extensively involved for years in organizations that seek to completely dismantle all public safety agencies and eliminate any regulation or inspection of food. It is an extreme right wing position that he takes on this, and he always has.
If people here want to support and promote Paul that is their prerogative, but I think it is important for us to talk about what they are actually promoting and supporting.
Obama's drones in the air and on the internet are legion.
The flip side of this argument is that we are children, and should be treated as such by the paternal state. If that's not authoritarian, I don't know what is.
This is definitely not the way to argue against libertarianism as it confirms all their stereotypes about the nanny state. The case for the social contract is made by the fact that we agree as citizens that the weak should be protected from the strong, that we do so with mutual responsibility and mutual aid -- not that we are children who should be protected from themselves by a benevolent, all-seeing eye. What the hell kind of Father Knows Best reality does this guy live in? That coercion and force are at the heart of it all?
That this guy is leading UnCut reveals to me the bankruptcy of liberal thinking in America. If this is the kind of argument that is being advanced, we are doomed. Other societies were not built on the force of the state, but on the moral vision of its people who saw the good society where people took care of each other, and the state facilitated this with universal regulations and programs.
Not sure what you're saying here. Paul's vision is an every man for himself, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, survival of the fittest type of economy. What kind of moral vision is that?