An email from my uncle with questions..

[jjockers]

This is from my uncle:


"A couple days ago I was reading David’s e-mail about Ron Paul and I remembered that Sarah might have also mentioned Ron Paul (and Libertarians) when we were in Guatemala. But we never had a chance to talk about it. I’m not sure if the rest of your family is interested but I figured I would copy everyone just in case.

I looked up a few of websites to get a short introduction about Ron Paul. So here are a few thoughts and questions I had. (Keep in mind I just started reading about it so I could have missed many very obvious things).

First: I have to say, what Ron Paul wrote in 2002 about his opposition to invading Iraq was in very good agreement in most (not all) points to what I wrote to my congress people in 2002. It was interesting to read his speech since I didn’t know about him at that time.

Second: Ron Paul recently said if elected president he would get rid of foreign aid to Israel. What are the steps he would follow to do this? How does he envision or predict that his scenario would play out?

Third: In reading about Ron Paul, I was a little confused about the Libertarian idea to protect the ownership of “justly acquired land”. What is “justly acquired land”? Almost all land has been unjustly acquired many times over. If you buy some of this stolen land, is it now “justly acquired” or does a person who it had previously been stolen from have a claim to it? And can land be justly acquired by inheritance? Given the libertarian idea that only individuals have rights (not groups), why does the child of a land-owner have any more right to his parent’s land than anyone else’s child has (especially if he has not lived and worked there)?

Fourth: Ron Paul expressed his opposition to the Kyoto treaty because it puts the burden on the USA to cut greenhouse gasses but not China (for example) and China is the biggest polluter. That confused me a little because I think we are still out in the lead for greenhouse gas emission, and far exceed China in emission per capita (Is this not true?) And the results of greenhouse emission will hurt other countries especially very poor ones more than it hurts the USA. And although it was not intentional, people in developed countries actually gained their developed status and advantage partly by creating the greenhouse gas problem. So is it not fair that people in developed countries use their technical advantage to start solving the problem? I think Kyoto recognizes the need in less developed countries to improve the conditions of the poor and this means some development at this time. The developed countries have more resources and less poor so we can help the poor and cut greenhouse gasses at the same time. So it’s important for the developed countries to lead the way in reducing the emissions and quickly. We have more resources to improve the green technologies and share them with the less developed countries. Ron Paul mentions supporting some small environmentally friendly projects. But what does he envision as a path to prevent the effects of carbon emissions on a world-wide scale in a short time?

Fifth: In his support of free-market capitalism, how does Ron Paul envision the protection of common resources like air and ocean water that have no clear owner? It seems to me that a pure free-market system is too pre-occupied with immediate gratification to protect resources that don’t repay people individually and immediately for their good or bad actions. (They do repay in the long-term but don’t distinguish between the innocent and guilty.)

A couple other short questions about the actions of government:

Ron Paul said he wants to secure the borders against illegal immigration. Is this a temporary measure until America is no longer a welfare state? (Ron Paul said that a small minority of immigrants are attracted here for a free ride.) I noticed that more extreme libertarians think that governments should not stop people from crossing borders.

Ron Paul said he strongly believes in the rule of law. But I suppose that many things that others call laws, seem like government interferences to libertarians. Many people think it’s difficult for the free market forces to control things like intellectual property and the enforcement of weights and measures. Where does Ron Paul draw the line or how does he decide if something should be a law or not?"

Can anyone address these questions or point to specific articles?

[Mortikhi]

Dear Uncle,
Google.

Love,
jjockers

[james1844]

check out the ron paul library.

[Elwar]

Ron Paul said he strongly believes in the rule of law. But I suppose that many things that others call laws, seem like government interferences to libertarians. Many people think it’s difficult for the free market forces to control things like intellectual property and the enforcement of weights and measures. Where does Ron Paul draw the line or how does he decide if something should be a law or not?"


Ron Paul believes in all of the laws listed in the Constitution.

[disinter]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/rp-everything.html

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php





.

[jjockers]

Seriously guys, no reason to be smartasses. My uncle is the most intelligent person I know (my career is in physics). Can any of you respond to his questions? I've read nearly everything at lew rockwell and ronpaulibrary. I will point him to these websites, however, I was looking for specific answers to his questions as I intend to respond back to each person who received his email (many of which aren't going to look up stuff on the internet, but will read email).

Thanks again

[constituent]

jjockers-

on the environment Ron Paul has the best policy. no one has the
right to pollute the air you breathe or the water you drink. when
their crap crosses their line you have a right to say something, particularly
if you are the owner of private property.

now sometimes cities own property near big polluters... in this case, look
into the houston chronicle story about the families living near refineries.

If the gov't and courts had respect for property rights the way that they
should, one should be able to setup experiments like that as a basis for
litigation....

the only real obstacles at that point become gov't protections of big industry
polluters (themselves included) through their aptly titled

"Environment Protection Agency" which functions linguistically to provide one
with the same sense of irony that they feel when seeing

"the ministry of truth"

[Shatterhand]

Seriously guys, no reason to be smartasses. My uncle is the most intelligent person I know (my career is in physics). Can any of you respond to his questions? I've read nearly everything at lew rockwell and ronpaulibrary. I will point him to these websites, however, I was looking for specific answers to his questions as I intend to respond back to each person who received his email (many of which aren't going to look up stuff on the internet, but will read email).

Thanks again

These are very intelligent questions. Your Uncle must be sharp. I think these questions can only be answered by Dr. Paul or maybe the campaign. Maybe if you emailed the campaign these questions or called them then they would help? In fact, maybe everyone at the forums should gather all the difficult questions that can't be answered via the library and submit them to Dr. Paul. If Dr. Paul could take a few minutes to answer these questions then maybe we would have an intelligent uncle and others on board the revolution. :D :D :D :D :D

[jblosser]

First: I have to say, what Ron Paul wrote in 2002 about his opposition to invading Iraq was in very good agreement in most (not all) points to what I wrote to my congress people in 2002. It was interesting to read his speech since I didn’t know about him at that time.

Yay.


Second: Ron Paul recently said if elected president he would get rid of foreign aid to Israel. What are the steps he would follow to do this? How does he envision or predict that his scenario would play out?

Congress controls the budget, but he has stated he would not sign a budget into law that contained unconstitutional spending. Ponder that for a moment. Obviously he would not sign any budget they would be willing to come up with, so they would need to override his veto, which would mean a lot of compromise. This is one method available to the President under the Constitution to change things like this.


Third: In reading about Ron Paul, I was a little confused about the Libertarian idea to protect the ownership of “justly acquired land”. What is “justly acquired land”? Almost all land has been unjustly acquired many times over. If you buy some of this stolen land, is it now “justly acquired” or does a person who it had previously been stolen from have a claim to it? And can land be justly acquired by inheritance? Given the libertarian idea that only individuals have rights (not groups), why does the child of a land-owner have any more right to his parent’s land than anyone else’s child has (especially if he has not lived and worked there)?

It is important to note that even though he ran on the LP platform in 88, Ron Paul is primarily running as a Constitutionalist and classical liberal, not a Libertarian per se. The two tend to look similar because our Constitution is a fairly libertarian document, but the focus on states' rights and local government is not particularly libertarian (Ron's platform allows for states to have fairly draconian laws for education, drug use, etc.; he is focusing purely on the national level as required by the Constitution).

The point there in response to the question is that we the people have to figure out the laws we will abide by to determine property rights. This can be complicated due to the issues cited, but Ron's focus is that we do figure out something we agree is legal and abide by it. This is a simple notion but it is not one we follow very much today.


Fourth: Ron Paul expressed his opposition to the Kyoto treaty because it puts the burden on the USA to cut greenhouse gasses but not China (for example) and China is the biggest polluter. That confused me a little because I think we are still out in the lead for greenhouse gas emission, and far exceed China in emission per capita (Is this not true?) And the results of greenhouse emission will hurt other countries especially very poor ones more than it hurts the USA. And although it was not intentional, people in developed countries actually gained their developed status and advantage partly by creating the greenhouse gas problem. So is it not fair that people in developed countries use their technical advantage to start solving the problem? I think Kyoto recognizes the need in less developed countries to improve the conditions of the poor and this means some development at this time. The developed countries have more resources and less poor so we can help the poor and cut greenhouse gasses at the same time. So it’s important for the developed countries to lead the way in reducing the emissions and quickly. We have more resources to improve the green technologies and share them with the less developed countries. Ron Paul mentions supporting some small environmentally friendly projects. But what does he envision as a path to prevent the effects of carbon emissions on a world-wide scale in a short time?

The main point here again is that we have to follow the law of the Constitution. We are not allowed to go tell other countries what to do with their emissions unless the Congress determines there is a threat to our defense and declares War. We are not allowed to subvert our sovereignty to the rule of other nations and extra-national bodies. Paul prefers to follow the advice of the founders and influence other nations by setting a good example, not telling people what to do. This is not just good thoughts: if we had a real market in this country we would see pollution levels drop as efficiencies improved, and that technology would then become available for other countries as well. Your uncle doesn't sound like he's a big believer in the market so he may not think this is true but going into that all here would take too long. There are plenty of resources out there.


Fifth: In his support of free-market capitalism, how does Ron Paul envision the protection of common resources like air and ocean water that have no clear owner? It seems to me that a pure free-market system is too pre-occupied with immediate gratification to protect resources that don’t repay people individually and immediately for their good or bad actions. (They do repay in the long-term but don’t distinguish between the innocent and guilty.)

This kind of argument against the market assumes that the consumers are incapable of thinking long term or just forgets the market is primarily about and driven by the customers when allowed to operate freely. Companies may not always be directly incented to protect resources but they are incented to do what pleases their customers, who often do care about the long term. There are plenty of examples even in this mixed economy of companies doing PR blitzes based on some new safety or environmental feature they have developed above and beyond government requirements to distinguish themselves from their competition. The market "fails" here only when we have no real market and instead have government collaborating with businesses to allow them legal rights they should not have to pollute, hide from litigation, etc. Respecting private property and requiring everyone to play on the same terms instead of letting those with money buy laws historically does a much better job of protecting the planet than intervention does.



A couple other short questions about the actions of government:

Ron Paul said he wants to secure the borders against illegal immigration. Is this a temporary measure until America is no longer a welfare state? (Ron Paul said that a small minority of immigrants are attracted here for a free ride.) I noticed that more extreme libertarians think that governments should not stop people from crossing borders.

Yes, Ron has repeatedly stated that if we had a real market, immigration of any kind would not be a concern, we'd need people to come to take all the jobs we'd have. We only have a problem now because the welfare state both encourages our people to not work, creating a market for illegals, and because people can come and get welfare without being legal or contributing anything. We secure the borders so our economy has time to get fixed. The fence is a tourniquet.


Ron Paul said he strongly believes in the rule of law. But I suppose that many things that others call laws, seem like government interferences to libertarians. Many people think it’s difficult for the free market forces to control things like intellectual property and the enforcement of weights and measures. Where does Ron Paul draw the line or how does he decide if something should be a law or not?"

The law that decides this is already written: The Constitution. If the central government wants to make a law about something, the Constitution decides if they have the authority or not. If they do, fine, if they don't, the Constitution requires it be left to the States, which have their own legal frameworks for deciding the question of authority. If the people think the central government should do more, they have the option through their Representatives to amend the Constitution. They do not have the option to just do it illegally as happens now (compare the amendment for prohibition and its repeal vs. the current illegal war on (some) drugs).

[bdmarti]

In regards to Ron Paul, the environment, and the Kyoto protocol:

Ron advocates attempting to improve our existing court system and improve it's efficacy in enforcing property rights and understanding pollution as a violation of those rights.

Groups such as the greenpeace, the sierra club, the nature concervancy, and so on should serve as helpers to the average consumer in matters where pollution is a concern. These groups have the ability to provide for pollution testing and legal assistance.

If the courts were working properly, and the consumer were able to ask for help from consumer groups in determining the impact of pollution on his air/water/land, then the EPA and other environmental laws would not be needed.

I'm not exactly sure what Ron would do as president to that end other than appoint federal attorneys and judges that would work hard to protect property rights and understand that pollution is a violation of those property rights. Certainly Ron would favor legislation that acted to clarify this fact and enforce existing property rights laws.

As far as the Kyoto protocol goes Ron is right in that we can't expect such a thing to work, or be favorable, or even be acceptable to us unless everyone were to play by the same rules, and they won't.

Jevon's paradox is an interesting concept that relates to this issue. While the paradox traditionally deals with how a technological innovation in efficiency can lead to MORE of a resource being used, I think the concept applies in an economic realm as well.

Think about it:
The market has a very strong inclination to do things in the cheapest/most profitable manner. If we are using fossil fuels or polluting methods of production it is because market forces show that this is the most profitable way to do things. By their very nature, all alternative means of production will be less profitable and less competitive.

Now, if the government by force prevents us from using the polluting methods of production, our costs go up.

Anyone who is still allowed to use the polluting methods will produce goods and services at lower prices than us.

At the same time, any reduction in the use of fossil fuels by us will lower the prices of those same fuels in the global market. This will result in even greater profitability by those who still use the fossil fuels. So, this is a double-whammy situation, where we are forced to use more expensive means of production and at the same time we lower the price of our competitor's means of production by not using it.

That means that US goods become less competitive in both local and global markets. The faster we push to stop using fossil fuels or lower pollution, the faster we become non-competitive.

This is very bad news for a country that has over 9 trillion dollars of government debt and somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 trillion more in unfunded government promises and many 10's of trillions of dollars in consumer debt. We need to profit heavily or else we will suffer as a nation.

If our goods become less competitive locally and globally because of environmental legislation, our economy will suffer, and quite frankly it's already a precarious situation.

Now, in the long run I'll certainly agree that we need to take better care of the earth, but using the force of the government to cripple our industry may not be the best way to deal with things.

In this area, I would return to the advice of Dr. Paul and help the courts to improve and allow the states and local governments to deal with the matter.

If the courts became better at understanding the true damages done by pollution, and thus the true cost of production, they would be able to enforce property rights and reduce pollution. Assuming a well running court system: court costs, on top of properly levied fines and clean-up costs would in the long run cause non-polluting methods of production to be cheaper in the market than their pollution creating counterparts and the market would gravitate that direction absent any binding treaties or federal laws.

I believe Paul likes to point out how Philadelphia, his old home, used to have a horrible pollution problem, but that even absent the existence of the EPA the local people and governments cleaned up the area a great deal.

[pyrazole2]

Fourth: Ron Paul expressed his opposition to the Kyoto treaty because it puts the burden on the USA to cut greenhouse gasses but not China (for example) and China is the biggest polluter. That confused me a little because I think we are still out in the lead for greenhouse gas emission, and far exceed China in emission per capita (Is this not true?) And the results of greenhouse emission will hurt other countries especially very poor ones more than it hurts the USA. And although it was not intentional, people in developed countries actually gained their developed status and advantage partly by creating the greenhouse gas problem. So is it not fair that people in developed countries use their technical advantage to start solving the problem? I think Kyoto recognizes the need in less developed countries to improve the conditions of the poor and this means some development at this time. The developed countries have more resources and less poor so we can help the poor and cut greenhouse gasses at the same time. So it’s important for the developed countries to lead the way in reducing the emissions and quickly. We have more resources to improve the green technologies and share them with the less developed countries. Ron Paul mentions supporting some small environmentally friendly projects. But what does he envision as a path to prevent the effects of carbon emissions on a world-wide scale in a short time?


I'll take a shot at this point. There are a lot of good questions in here. And, of course I don't speak for Ron Paul, so it's hard to comment on 'what he envisions'.

1) China is industrializing at a serious clip. Imagine China 'catching' up to us and emitting greenhouse gases per person at the same levels as the USA - it would be 3-4x what we emit. I think the opposition to the Kyoto protocol is based upon the simple fact that China will meet and exceed our levels (maybe 5-10 years), and with the protocol in place, benefit from its policy.

2) China is now a Neocommunist country, and they are creating a strange situation. They free up their market to some degree, but the government isn't adapting to the rate of industrialization. If they were capitalist, I'd bet money that their people would be able to have a greater share of the pie. I don't believe that China is a poor country, just that their economy is stunted by the communists. The companies producing the emissions should easily be able to curb their own emissions, especially since their labor is cheap. Of course in a communist country, the government should take care of the environment...It's really a catch-22 for them, but I think they could lower their emissions if they'd quit trying to undercut our market. Is it our problem that their government is screwed up? Should we pay for their blunder?

So, should we sign the Kyoto protocol? I don't think so. Curbing our emissions would cost more money for the government and for companies, thus raising prices. China could keep on going as they are, polluting out of control, while being able to produce very cheap commodities that could undercut just about any country in the world.

Less developed countries are another issue, and you're right, we can't prohibit them from industrializing. In this case, would free market cooperation be a solution? Maybe US company says, we'll give you these shiny new pollution controls if you sell us your product for 5% less for 5 years? I believe that we can help the third world and help ourselves if we cooperate in this type of way. We should look for win-win situations around the world, any country.

Did I miss anything?

[Shatterhand]

Yay.



Congress controls the budget, but he has stated he would not sign a budget into law that contained unconstitutional spending. Ponder that for a moment. Obviously he would not sign any budget they would be willing to come up with, so they would need to override his veto, which would mean a lot of compromise. This is one method available to the President under the Constitution to change things like this.



It is important to note that even though he ran on the LP platform in 88, Ron Paul is primarily running as a Constitutionalist and classical liberal, not a Libertarian per se. The two tend to look similar because our Constitution is a fairly libertarian document, but the focus on states' rights and local government is not particularly libertarian (Ron's platform allows for states to have fairly draconian laws for education, drug use, etc.; he is focusing purely on the national level as required by the Constitution).

The point there in response to the question is that we the people have to figure out the laws we will abide by to determine property rights. This can be complicated due to the issues cited, but Ron's focus is that we do figure out something we agree is legal and abide by it. This is a simple notion but it is not one we follow very much today.



The main point here again is that we have to follow the law of the Constitution. We are not allowed to go tell other countries what to do with their emissions unless the Congress determines there is a threat to our defense and declares War. We are not allowed to subvert our sovereignty to the rule of other nations and extra-national bodies. Paul prefers to follow the advice of the founders and influence other nations by setting a good example, not telling people what to do. This is not just good thoughts: if we had a real market in this country we would see pollution levels drop as efficiencies improved, and that technology would then become available for other countries as well. Your uncle doesn't sound like he's a big believer in the market so he may not think this is true but going into that all here would take too long. There are plenty of resources out there.



This kind of argument against the market assumes that the consumers are incapable of thinking long term or just forgets the market is primarily about and driven by the customers when allowed to operate freely. Companies may not always be directly incented to protect resources but they are incented to do what pleases their customers, who often do care about the long term. There are plenty of examples even in this mixed economy of companies doing PR blitzes based on some new safety or environmental feature they have developed above and beyond government requirements to distinguish themselves from their competition. The market "fails" here only when we have no real market and instead have government collaborating with businesses to allow them legal rights they should not have to pollute, hide from litigation, etc. Respecting private property and requiring everyone to play on the same terms instead of letting those with money buy laws historically does a much better job of protecting the planet than intervention does.



Yes, Ron has repeatedly stated that if we had a real market, immigration of any kind would not be a concern, we'd need people to come to take all the jobs we'd have. We only have a problem now because the welfare state both encourages our people to not work, creating a market for illegals, and because people can come and get welfare without being legal or contributing anything. We secure the borders so our economy has time to get fixed. The fence is a tourniquet.



The law that decides this is already written: The Constitution. If the central government wants to make a law about something, the Constitution decides if they have the authority or not. If they do, fine, if they don't, the Constitution requires it be left to the States, which have their own legal frameworks for deciding the question of authority. If the people think the central government should do more, they have the option through their Representatives to amend the Constitution. They do not have the option to just do it illegally as happens now (compare the amendment for prohibition and its repeal vs. the current illegal war on (some) drugs).

I enjoyed reading your answers to these questions. I enjoyed reading bdmarti's answer as well. :)

Jjockers, please keep us updated. :)

[micahnelson]

Ron Paul recently said if elected president he would get rid of foreign aid to Israel. What are the steps he would follow to do this? How does he envision or predict that his scenario would play out?

Its not a specific foreign aid to Israel he would cut, but foreign aid in general. If the American people wish to give to other parts of the world in times of emergency or crisis, they may do so through the free market and charities. It may even be possible to give money via the government, as long as it is an expression of the will of the people.

Current foreign aid is used as a bargaining chip, much like federal aid is to the states. While we would like to see human rights respected, most of our attempts to do so through dollar diplomacy fail. Current foreign aid is often an expression of long term entangling alliances, which promise the wealth of private citizens for years to come to be redistributed to foreign agencies and governments. Noble or Ignoble as it may be, it is not up to the congress to determine how charity should be distributed. Government has an authority to provide for the common good, but only inasmuch as it is authorized by constitutional authority. It is often assumed that the preamble is a directive to the government, which may be true. However, the directives may only be accomplished within the confines of the articles of the constitution. Long term permanent foreign aid is not a legitimate role for the government.

Also, Israel can handle itself.


In reading about Ron Paul, I was a little confused about the Libertarian idea to protect the ownership of “justly acquired land”. What is “justly acquired land”?

Property Rights are crucial to liberty. Discussions like this are common among libertarians, but Ron Paul hasn't made this element of the debate an issue in his campaign. You will find libertarians are very adamant about their viewpoints on the issues, because they take the time to hash them out. Don't assume that there is a single "libertarian" view on property rights. This is in stark contrast to the Red/Blue dichotomy that has replaced debate within the two major parties.

In other words, just because "a libertarian" talks about it doesn't make it germane to the Ron Paul campaign.


Ron Paul mentions supporting some small environmentally friendly projects. But what does he envision as a path to prevent the effects of carbon emissions on a world-wide scale in a short time?

Well, as President of the united states he is constitutionally limited to act within the confines of his authority. Negotiating the output of another countries emissions with an unelected foreign body does not qualify. We have seen through the selling of "carbon credits" this will do nothing but sink into corruption a la the oil for food program. There is also the question of enforcement. Are we going to nuke China if they dont meet their carbon quotas? In the end, the attempt to make change at the global level is top down and difficult. Education about the issue may work globally, but it will require the efforts of individuals on a local level to bring about change.

Property rights bar you from polluting water and air of your neighbors. Our judicial system can work to protect the environment for the property owners in individual cases, which can lead to change on a larger scale.

Kyoto would allow a factory to pollute, assuming that they had the appropriate stamp of approval by the UN, or a hallow promise to stop polluting in 57 years.



Fifth: In his support of free-market capitalism, how does Ron Paul envision the protection of common resources like air and ocean water that have no clear owner? It seems to me that a pure free-market system is too pre-occupied with immediate gratification to protect resources that don’t repay people individually and immediately for their good or bad actions. (They do repay in the long-term but don’t distinguish between the innocent and guilty.)

It seems to me politicians are too preoccupied with the immediate gratification of public opinion to make good choices for our future.

The crux of this answer is in the previous answer, but to address the oceans and the air, people share the beach, and communities share the air. We have class action lawsuits, etc, that would assist in this matter. Where I live in newport, the beachfront property owners could sue for damages that the XYZ factory is devaluing their property by polluting- etc.


Ron Paul said he wants to secure the borders against illegal immigration. Is this a temporary measure until America is no longer a welfare state? (Ron Paul said that a small minority of immigrants are attracted here for a free ride.) I noticed that more extreme libertarians think that governments should not stop people from crossing borders.

Ron Paul believes in nations, while some libertarians (borderline anarchists) do not. He has stated that a healthy American economy would likely need a guest worker program, but people would not resent it because there is an economic benefit.

Elimination of the welfare state removes the benefit for people to come here who are looking to get a free ride. When our economy rebounds, we may need more workers to cover the demands of labor- but Ron Paul is not interested in a borderless society by any means.



Ron Paul said he strongly believes in the rule of law. But I suppose that many things that others call laws, seem like government interferences to libertarians. Many people think it’s difficult for the free market forces to control things like intellectual property and the enforcement of weights and measures. Where does Ron Paul draw the line or how does he decide if something should be a law or not?"

The constitution is the line. States can make laws, but the federal government is limited to the constitution. Patents and Standard Weights are the realm of the federal government according to the constitution. Again, some libertarians disagree- but Ron Paul is a constitutionalist before a libertarian.

[jjockers]

Thanks for the responses guys - I did email the campaign (doubt they'll have time to respond) and I sent my uncle the link to the forums. Either he or I will keep you updated.

[micahnelson]

Thanks for the responses guys - I did email the campaign (doubt they'll have time to respond) and I sent my uncle the link to the forums. Either he or I will keep you updated.

You sure you want to do that? lol

[xcalybur]

A follow up on that. I know Ron Paul wants to eliminate a lot of federal programs and offices and I agree with that, but what about NASA?

Is NASA something that the government should be involved in?

[jmdrake]

jjockers - I don't think people are meaning to be "smartasses". The simple fact is that someone might give their own OPINION and not accurately reflect Dr. Paul's position. Here are relevant links to your questions. (I'll also mention my own opinion too in come cases, but clearly spell out when I am.)

* On foreign aid to Israel. Ron Paul's position is that we should quit funding both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. By funding both sides we help both sides kill each other more effectively.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=737

* On global warming. Part of his opposition to Kyoto is as your uncle described. But then there's also this statement he made:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=534

"Environmentalists go back and forth, from warning about a coming ice age to arguing the grave dangers of global warming."

Now here's my own opinion. I don't believe global warming is primarily caused by carbon emissions. And I do think there is a compelling corporate interest to push the idea of man made global warming. (Hint. How does the NUCLEAR INDUSTRY benefit from the global warming scare?) There is a video you should let your uncle see called "Global Warming or Global Government". Another good video is "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

Also (more of my opinion) there are free market approaches to getting us off of fossil fuels. Say if direct subsidies for oil exploration were ended? And what about indirect subsidies from using our military to "secure" the flow of oil in the middle east? What about abolishing taxes on biofuels?

* On free market capitalism versus the environment.

Someone already answered this. Here's Ron Paul's direct words.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=53

" When one has a proper respect for property rights, environmental concerns go away. In a society that respects the property of others, it is cause for legal action if someone pollutes your land, or the water coming across your property, or the air which floats above it. With a proper respect for private property, people can and should be allowed to do whatever they would like with their land - barring any restrictions they agreed to when they purchased the land - up until the point that their actions physically affect their neighbors."

My opinion. By contrast Al "Green" Gore has a toxic dump on his family's property and has run up a $30,000 yearly electric bill.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/27/93622.shtml?s=ic
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659

As for securing the borders, that's NOT just about immigration. It's also about security.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=234

No matter what you believe about 9/11, leaving the borders unsecured doesn't make sense. The official story is that people who were here illegally carried out the attacks. The "9/11 truth" view is that the official story isn't accurate, but that the "Arabs" were needed as patsies to cover for what really happened. Either way, having the borders unsecured leaves us open for another attack.

* Rule of law
The best way to deal with unjust laws is to repeal them. Just because you don't agree with a particular law doesn't mean that you don't accept the rule of law. And as someone already pointed out the constitution is the highest law of the land. Ron Paul supports the idea of a constitutional republic where the rule of law trumps the rule of man.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=498
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=661

(My opinion) The constitution does give the federal government the authority to regulate interstate commerce. While I think this has been abused at times (for example using this authority to overrule states legalizing medical marijuana) I think that "weights and measures" falls under interstate commerce. Clearly a person in one state would have a problem trading in another state if "pounds" had different meaning in different states.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[jmdrake]

A follow up on that. I know Ron Paul wants to eliminate a lot of federal programs and offices and I agree with that, but what about NASA?

Is NASA something that the government should be involved in?

Here's a position paper he put out in 1988.

http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html

Time after time NASA has developed capabilities at great expense then discarded them: a space station larger than the Soviet MIR, a heavy lift vehicle competitive with the new Soviet Energia, a nuclear engine twice as efficient as the space shuttle main engine and a well tested Earth-Moon transport.

The fate of the Saturn V heavy lift launch vehicle is one of the saddest examples of this folly. Production was intentionally halted and portions of its tooling were "lost". This bridge burning ensured support for the next aerospace welfare program: the space shuttle. Now we have a grounded government shuttle that can lift a third as much as the Saturn V for the same cost per pound. That's progress, government style.

Even worse, this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well deserved embarassment. American companies desperately need to get their satellites into space. They have been blocked from using the cheapest, most reliable launcher in the world which unfortuneately happens to be the Soviet Proton.

NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent that may well be irreparable. It is inconceivable that a private firm could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better.

Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their own resources for their own dreams. We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators. The reciepts would be applied to the national debt. Then, all government roadblocks to commercial development of space must be removed.

It is not the business of the defense department of a free society to veto business decisions of remote sensing or launch companies. The interests of liberty would be well served by a bevy of mediasats that will put any future Iran-Contra affair under the full glare of live television coverage. Maybe, besides competition, that's what our government is afraid of.

There is really only one proper role for the military in space or on Earth: the protection of America. Otherwise, the new frontier of Space should be opened to all. Space pioneers will generate knowledge and wealth that will improve the lot of all people on earth. We should not let government get in their way.

[pyrazole2]

A follow up on that. I know Ron Paul wants to eliminate a lot of federal programs and offices and I agree with that, but what about NASA?

Is NASA something that the government should be involved in?

I politely say no! Private industry makes all the hardware anyway (well, the lowest bidder does), why can't they administrate things as well?

Good info above. A lot of companies needing to launch satellites do send them to Russia b/c it is cheaper.

[smtwngrl]

Ron Paul said he wants to secure the borders against illegal immigration. Is this a temporary measure until America is no longer a welfare state? (Ron Paul said that a small minority of immigrants are attracted here for a free ride.) I noticed that more extreme libertarians think that governments should not stop people from crossing borders.


Here's an excellent recent interview of Ron Paul that covers immigration and illegal immigration in detail.

http://www.vdare.com/misc/070912_paul.htm

[ronpaulitician]

In regard to Kyoto, ask him to read up on Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. There's plenty of (unfair?) criticism of his work, but in short, he believes that the Kyoto Protocol's positive results would not outweigh the cost. The argument that it "can't hurt" fails when you consider that the resources that will be spent on the Kyoto Protocol are resources that will not be used to combat the variety of other problems that humanity still faces.

[ronpaulitician]

PS I think your uncle's questions reflect the questions I've often been asked by serious skeptics: "What exactly will Ron Paul be able to do as president?"

I hate to sound like a broken record, but I hope Paul will write an article like the late Harry Browne's The president's first day in office (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13247).


On Wednesday, Joseph Farah told us what he would do if he were the new president (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15097). He focused mainly on whom he'd appoint to his cabinet, but I'd like to tell you what actions I'd take if I'd been elected president.

After my inaugural day, I'd probably spend little more than an hour a day in the Oval Office, because a busy president is a dangerous president. But for the very first day, I'd have an extremely long agenda.

On that first day in office, by executive order I would:

Pardon everyone who had been convicted on a federal, non-violent drug charge, order their immediate release, reunite them with their families, and restore all their civil rights. (Anyone convicted of using violence against someone else in a drug case would not qualify as "non-violent.")

Pardon everyone who had been convicted on any federal gun-control charge, tax-evasion charge, or any other victimless crime, order their immediate release, and restore all their civil rights.

I would empty the prisons of those who haven't harmed anyone else and make room for the violent criminals who are currently getting out on plea bargains and early release.

Following the issuance of the pardons:

I would announce a policy to penalize, dismiss, or even prosecute any federal employee who violated the Bill of Rights by treating you as guilty until proven innocent, by searching or seizing your property without due process of law, by treating you as a servant, or in any other way violating your rights as a sovereign American citizen.

I would immediately order that no federal asset forfeiture could occur unless the property's owner had been convicted by full due process. And I would initiate steps to make restitution to anyone whose property had been impounded, frozen, or seized by the federal government without a legal conviction. (Over 80 percent of such seizures occur when no one has even been charged with a crime.)

As commander in chief of the Armed Forces, I would immediately remove all American troops from foreign soil. Europe and Asia can pay for their own defense, and they can risk their own lives in their eternal squabbles. This would save billions of dollars a year in taxes, but -- more important -- it would make sure your sons and daughters never fight or die in someone else's war.

I would order everyone in the executive branch to stop harassing smokers, tobacco companies, successful computer companies, gun owners, gun manufacturers, alternative medicine suppliers, religious groups (whether respected or labeled as "cults"), investment companies, health-care providers, businessmen, or anyone else who's conducting his affairs peaceably.

I would end federal affirmative action, federal quotas, set-asides, preferential treatments, and other discriminatory practices of the federal government. Any previous president could have done this with a stroke of the pen. Do you wonder why none of them did?

And then I would break for lunch.

There's more ...

After lunch, I would begin the process of removing from the Federal Register the thousands and thousands of regulations and executive orders inserted there by previous presidents. In most cases these regulations give federal employees powers for which there is no constitutional authority.

I would call Office Depot and order a carload of pens -- to use to veto congressional bills that violate the Constitution or that spend more money than necessary for the constitutional functions of government.

I would send to Congress a budget that immediately cuts federal spending in half -- on its way to reducing the government to no larger than its constitutional size.

Congress would undoubtedly pass a larger budget and expect me to sign it. I wouldn't. I'd veto it.

Would Congress override my veto?

Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't.

Even if Congress succeeded in passing bills over my veto, the battle finally would be joined. We finally would have something we haven't had in my lifetime -- a president standing up to Congress.

At long last, there would be two sides arguing in Washington -- one to increase government and one to cut it sharply -- instead of the current trivial debate over whether government should grow 5 percent a year or "only" 3 percent.

Just say no

No president in the past several decades has had the will, the determination, the courage to "just say no" to Congress.

No president in the past several decades has even tried to reduce the size of government. Any president who wanted to do so could have managed it -- even in the face of a hostile Congress.

No president since the 1950s has proposed a single budget that would reduce the size of the federal government. And when Congress has come back with even larger budgets, no president has vetoed them.

Every president who claimed to be against big government has had that veto at his disposal, but none thought enough of your freedom to use it.

As president, I would -- for the first time -- use that office on your behalf. I would say no to Congress. Whatever new program it wanted to spend money on, I would veto. Whatever new tax it wanted to impose, I would veto. Whatever new intrusion it wanted to make in your life, I would veto.

No deals. No excuses. No apologies. No regrets.

But I would do more than just defend what little freedom you have left today. I would go on the offensive. I wouldn't rest until the income tax was repealed, the federal government was so small you wouldn't worry about who was elected president, and you had control over your own money, your own freedom, your own life.

And when we achieved this, we'd have a celebration. Do you remember the German youths who tore down the Berlin Wall and sold pieces of it to us?

Well, we would tear down the IRS building and sell the pieces -- and use the proceeds to help IRS agents find honest work.

Do you think any of my plans would appeal to George W. Bush or Al Gore?

Not likely, is it?

So why are we worrying over which one of them will win the current legal mud-wrestling?

(note the Ron Paul mention in the linked Joseph Farah article)