Answers...

[OURPLAN]

What would your response to this be?

"You'll never convince me to come over to the Ron Paul. I simply don't agree with the Libertarian/Republican philosophy that the "Market" is the solution to all problems and industries should be deregulated. In my opinion, health care should not continue to be a profit driven industry. Education should not be privatized. All you have to do counter his "Market" agruement is to look at America before the 1940s. If his "Market"ideas are so great why is there no industrialized nation with a higher quality of life espousing the Libertarian/Republican economic policies. It's because they don't work, in my humble opinion."

[Dustancostine]

Tell them to take a look at history. The standard of living has gone down since the 1940's because of socialization. Tell them to take a look at the Soviet Union, China, Cuba any other socialist nation. Ask them to show you where the Socialist governments of Europe are booming. Tell them to look at how much better China has done since it made its economy slightly more open.

This person seems really ignorant of history and economics. There may not be much you can do.

--Dustan

[AlexAmore]

What would your response to this be?

"You'll never convince me to come over to the Ron Paul. I simply don't agree with the Libertarian/Republican philosophy that the "Market" is the solution to all problems and industries should be deregulated. In my opinion, health care should not continue to be a profit driven industry. Education should not be privatized. All you have to do counter his "Market" agruement is to look at America before the 1940s. If his "Market"ideas are so great why is there no industrialized nation with a higher quality of life espousing the Libertarian/Republican economic policies. It's because they don't work, in my humble opinion."

Jesus I would have to write a book to answer all his vague statements and he probably wouldn't even read it.

You could have him/her watch this video:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev050807a.cfm
Click "view event".

John Stossel pretty much debunks Sicko in that video, yet he actually had this speech soon before Sicko came out.

[micahnelson]

Dear Nashville,
Responding to your question will be futile, as you have already stated that you will never be convinced to "Come over to the Ron Paul". Healthcare is currently currently existing in a state of limited socialism. With government subsidy, the incentives to excel are removed and the free market is broken of its ability to react to the needs of the consumer. Even with our limited free market, we are a leading power in the world for Medical Research. We must continue to allow the medical industry to profit from it's success. Perhaps it is better to explain the opposite- it is unlikely to conclude that removal of competition in the medical field will lead to people striving for excellence.

As far as privatized education, states will likely continue to provide schools. Control from the federal government impedes the educational system, ask any teacher. Also, students in private schools test higher- and the per student cost is not any more expensive then then the average cost per student in public schools. The answer is not providing more money to schools from the federal government, with strings attached. The answer is returning to more local adaptive controls from teachers, parents, and school boards.

The united states, for many years, had free markets. In 200 Years we became a superpower. That is a blink of the eye in terms of history. The free markets have slowly eroded, leaving us with a sinking dollar and increased competition from countries like China. The free market made us strong, socialist ideology is bringing us back down.

[OURPLAN]

This is a friend who supports Gravel. I was asking for your replies.

Thanks!

[akovacs]

Hong Kong has a flat 15% tax on income and has little to no regulation of industry. Last I checked, they were doing quite well. 50 years ago they were one of the poorest areas in the world. Estonia is another. Although it still retains some socialist aspects, I think it's doing the best out of all the eastern bloc countries. There are other countries as well (I believe New Zealand is another?) but those are the ones I'm most familiar with.

Most countries go along with socialized fixes to problems because they're popular. They're popular because the common person on the street doesn't understand economics. They hear "We will give this to you for free" and vote accordingly. Things may work for a while, and even seem to work quite well, but eventually they always fail.

[NCGOPer_for_Paul]

Lithuania is another former Soviet-bloc nation that has a flat tax, limited government intervention in the free market, and a very strong belief in private property rights. The belief in individual ownership of property is so ingrained in their society, they are actually going back into medieval records and determining if original families had lands confiscated by Russians, the Nazis, or Soviets, and if there are surviving family members, and it is practical (no other people or businesses on the land), the family is being offered the lands back at no cost.

Granted, they have some silly socialist ideas still flying around their heads about health care and education, they probably have the same, if not more individual liberty, than today's Americans.

[mport1]

Hand them a copy of Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell.

[akovacs]

Another thing, while many europeans have public education, you have a voucher system so you're able to choose between schools even if you cannot afford a private school. I have no idea if they have private schools, but it would seem silly for even Europe not to have any.

This won't change your Gravel supporter's mind (Gravel is a voucher advocate), but I think it's important to mention when comparing the two's education systems.

[Akus]

What would your response to this be?

"You'll never convince me to come over to the Ron Paul. I simply don't agree with the Libertarian/Republican philosophy that the "Market" is the solution to all problems and industries should be deregulated. In my opinion, health care should not continue to be a profit driven industry. Education should not be privatized. All you have to do counter his "Market" agruement is to look at America before the 1940s. If his "Market"ideas are so great why is there no industrialized nation with a higher quality of life espousing the Libertarian/Republican economic policies. It's because they don't work, in my humble opinion."

-Ok, Sir, thank you for your time.

-Oh, hi, how are you, Sir, if I may speak to you for a moment, have you heard of Ron Paul? Ron Paul is a Congressman from.........

[shadowhooch]

On healthcare, you should point out that government was the one who created this convoluted HMO system in 1973. HMO's didn't exist before then and are simply a middle man between the patient and the doctor. And it has created an illogical connection between employment and healthcare and has driven up costs. Corporations are the ones receiving all the tax breaks.

Before the 1970's, the US healthcare was the most envied in the world.

[ronpaulitician]

"You'll never convince me to come over to the Ron Paul. I simply don't agree with the Libertarian/Republican philosophy that the "Market" is the solution to all problems and industries should be deregulated.
This person has no faith in his fellow man. He believes most Americans are uncaring and wouldn't lift a finger to help those in need.

Getting him to admit to that is probably the best you can hope for.

[jonahtrainer]

What would your response to this be?

"You'll never convince me to come over to the Ron Paul. I simply don't agree with the Libertarian/Republican philosophy that the "Market" is the solution to all problems and industries should be deregulated. In my opinion, health care should not continue to be a profit driven industry. Education should not be privatized. All you have to do counter his "Market" agruement is to look at America before the 1940s. If his "Market"ideas are so great why is there no industrialized nation with a higher quality of life espousing the Libertarian/Republican economic policies. It's because they don't work, in my humble opinion."

Ron Paul is against federal government interference because this is the Constitutional stance. If California wants to be socialized then the Constitution allows it. That is the first issue.

The next question about 'no industrialized nation with a higher quality of life' could be answered with the Switzerland example. There are plenty of places with freer markets that have resulted in higher standards of living than the USA. Because of the 'new world order' there are no real free markets in the world.

For being such a new area where capital investment had not been deposited over centuries America rapidly rose in wealth and standard of living faster than any other area of the world. The erosions of economic substantive due process during the 1930's and the Supreme Court's broadening of the Commerce Clause is what has led to such a highly regulated and parasitic government that we have now.

That is why the standard of living, while still extremely high compared to the rest of the world, is rapidly decreasing.

The person obvioviously does not understand economics and a good start would be Gold and Economic Freedom (http://www.321gold.com/fed/greenspan/1966.html) by Alan Greenspan and The Case for the 100% Gold Dollar (http://www.mises.org/story/1829) and What Has Government Done To Our Money (http://www.mises.org/money.asp) by Rothbard.

[shadowhooch]

This person has no faith in his fellow man. He believes most Americans are uncaring and wouldn't lift a finger to help those in need.

Getting him to admit to that is probably the best you can hope for.

Yeah, look in your community. There are a lot of local charities that help out with needs. They do FAR more good for the community than any government program.

[shadowhooch]

Regarding education....look how well the Federally controlled education system is doing now.

Even at the Democrat You Tube debates, all but 1 candidate said the current system needs to be scrapped and re-evaluated.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in "no public schools". He simply believes that it is the State that should run their own education systems. Each community and city has their own unique education issues. These can be better dealt with at those levels instead of a flat, regulated program installed at the Federal level.

Ron Paul isn't against public services. He is just against them at the Federal level. Most problems aren't universal. They are unique and local and can be better handled at a lower level.

[Wendi]

Why are we wasting energy on people who freely admit that they will never look at the evidence because their mind is already made up? I would suggest politely agreeing to disagree with your friend and moving on.

[akovacs]

Most Paul supporters aren't saying get rid of public education. It's just that you don't need the federal government involved in it. States are much better at providing education, and some states can try different things to see if other methods work better. One could move to vouchers, and another could do a completely socialist model, or whatever. It's very easy to see after a while which system is better. Same with healthcare. This is why I'm REALLY concerned for a national healthcare program: I have yet to see it work on a state level anywhere in the country.

You can still do all the socialist programs you want, just now instead it's on a state level, so if one ends up unworkable, or corrupt, or whatever.. it doesn't bring down the whole country with it. With the state, if it's really bad, I can at least move easily. I guess look at it this way: Would you want a president like Bush in charge of your healthcare?

[wbbgjr]

Tell the person that Ron Paul supporters would love the idea that everyone has health care, but we reject the National Healthcare solution method to achieve it because it won't work.


Just point out that our current system is not "free market". It's corporate run market that discourages the free market and encourages people to make needless visits to the doctors and the hospitals to charge the maximum. National Healthcare will only exacerbate that problem.

[V-rod]

I like how there are all these Gravel "supporters" out there, yet he only has enough campaign money to go to the movies.... alone :rolleyes:

[RockEnds]

The free market bothers people. Both free market and education are conversations about the ownership of property.

There are alot of old dead philosophers that can explain the ideas, but it all hinges on the concept of property. Locke and Hegel are my favorite comparison. Locke asserts that we each own our own labor. We are free to invest and trade our labor in whichever direction we individually believe will be most profitable. Totally free. The creative diversity of individual choice benefits society as a whole. Hegel asserts that we are each a part of the collective, and the state has an interest in determining the best investment of an individual’s labor for the benefit of the larger society. (This is really condensed.) Tom Sawyer cannot exist under Hegel’s philosophy. The state demands Tom be trained in public school to serve a national industrial interest. Hegel believes Tom is a very bad boy because he is squandering his state-owned human resources.

The argument hinges on the ownership of property. But the property in question isn’t cars, cash, and a house in the burbs. It is our individual self. Are we our own property, or are we property of the state? Our entire public education system was built on Hegel’s philosophy.

This certainly isn’t a conversation I would try to have on the phone with cold calls, but if this guy is a friend of yours, maybe over the course of the campaign you can visit with him about the principles of liberty and the ownership of property.

[10thAmendmentMan]

"The Road to Serfdom" by Hayek. It pretty well sums up why socialism doesn't work.

[Elwar]

Ask them if they believe that humans have a natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

If they believe this simple concept then they cannot believe in anything other than a system that encourages you to bear a bit of pain in order to obtain pleasure.

The only system that encourages you to bear a bit of pain without a return of pleasure is a system where the return of pleasure is replaced by a fear of more pain.

Without pain (studying in school, wracking your brain, hard work, sacrifice, etc) there is no productivity.

[Nefertiti]

Here's another one I got from someone: If Ron Paul were president, he would never get anything done because he would need the agreement of Congress.

How would you respond to that?

[Akus]

Here's another one I got from someone: If Ron Paul were president, he would never get anything done because he would need the agreement of Congress.

How would you respond to that?

that one is actually worth rebuttaling, in my opinion. I would like to know the answer to that, too.

[ronpaulitician]

Here's another one I got from someone: If Ron Paul were president, he would never get anything done because he would need the agreement of Congress.

How would you respond to that?
a) There are plenty presidential powers that do not involve Congress. See the late Harry Browne's article The president's first day in office (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13247) (I so hope Ron Paul will write a similar article soon).
b) The kind of change that a Ron Paul presidency will herald will force members of Congress to reconsider opposing their president at every turn. Their selfish interest in their own political hides might actually serve the cause of liberty for a change.

[Gee]

What would your response to this be?

"You'll never convince me to come over to the Ron Paul. I simply don't agree with the Libertarian/Republican philosophy that the "Market" is the solution to all problems and industries should be deregulated. In my opinion, health care should not continue to be a profit driven industry. Education should not be privatized. All you have to do counter his "Market" agruement is to look at America before the 1940s. If his "Market"ideas are so great why is there no industrialized nation with a higher quality of life espousing the Libertarian/Republican economic policies. It's because they don't work, in my humble opinion."
1) Don't trust Dr. Paul on it then, talk to an economist. Not even the most liberal of economists will say government involvement in the economy is generally helpful. In fact, they'd probably laugh if you suggested such a thing.

2) All industrialized nations are based on market economies. In general, the freer the economy, the more prosperous its people are.

3) All industries are profit-driven, including socialized ones. The individuals involved in education and medicine get paid, and most would not do their job if they were not paid. The difference is that individuals who get paid by the government can more or less gouge the taxpayer, since the government has little incentive to spend its money wisely. This is why public schools cost, on average, almots twice as much as private schools to educate a student, and why medicine has gotten so much more expensive since half of it has been socialized.

4) Regulation and socialism just push more jobs overseas to freer economies. Socialism just can't compete with a free market.