ronpaulhawaii
04-14-2009, 03:31 PM
Considering the source, at least we can start to see how they will try to counter our effective efforts
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/426413/what_the_paulites_have_right
(1) There is nothing sacred about the Fed
(2) Power is overly centralized in the Executive branch and the federal government
(3) Power is overly concentrated in agencies that are not designed to be responsive
We ought not get rid of the Fed--I would fight hard to keep it--but it's a critical point, because once people realize the flexibility of our federal government, they can open up their imaginations about what is possible in response to this, or any other, crisis. We need not put all our trust in Bernanke, let alone Geithner or his replacement (if he gets replaced); Congress actually can lead on nationalizing the banks and reorganizing them.
My own hope is that we first shift power away from the executive to the Congressional branch--this only requires that we speak differently, collectively. Instead of "what should Obama do...?" or "what should Geithner do...?" about the banking crisis, we ought always be asking, "what should Pelosi do...?" and "what should my Congressmember do...?" If we talk differently, we will start holding different people accountable. We will, and can, demand more imagination and leadership from our Congressional representatives.
Second, I hope that we increasingly shift power to local governments. Collective decisions about health care and education are best answered on a local level. A government should not become too big to fulfill one of its most basic functions: representation.
I am very far away from libertarianism in other areas; I would like to see more investment in education, more investment in health care, more collective choices made about our collective societies. The only way I see it functioning (without nonresponsive agencies) is if we distribute all of these public goods via smaller state governments. More government, not less--but more of it local. The libertarian argument and the G20-protesters arguments share a common, and common-sense thread: we cannot design systems that are inherently non-responsive, either because of scale or by design, and then expect them to be responsive to our collective needs and wisdom during a time of crisis.
The writer seems to like the word, "collective" :p
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/426413/what_the_paulites_have_right
(1) There is nothing sacred about the Fed
(2) Power is overly centralized in the Executive branch and the federal government
(3) Power is overly concentrated in agencies that are not designed to be responsive
We ought not get rid of the Fed--I would fight hard to keep it--but it's a critical point, because once people realize the flexibility of our federal government, they can open up their imaginations about what is possible in response to this, or any other, crisis. We need not put all our trust in Bernanke, let alone Geithner or his replacement (if he gets replaced); Congress actually can lead on nationalizing the banks and reorganizing them.
My own hope is that we first shift power away from the executive to the Congressional branch--this only requires that we speak differently, collectively. Instead of "what should Obama do...?" or "what should Geithner do...?" about the banking crisis, we ought always be asking, "what should Pelosi do...?" and "what should my Congressmember do...?" If we talk differently, we will start holding different people accountable. We will, and can, demand more imagination and leadership from our Congressional representatives.
Second, I hope that we increasingly shift power to local governments. Collective decisions about health care and education are best answered on a local level. A government should not become too big to fulfill one of its most basic functions: representation.
I am very far away from libertarianism in other areas; I would like to see more investment in education, more investment in health care, more collective choices made about our collective societies. The only way I see it functioning (without nonresponsive agencies) is if we distribute all of these public goods via smaller state governments. More government, not less--but more of it local. The libertarian argument and the G20-protesters arguments share a common, and common-sense thread: we cannot design systems that are inherently non-responsive, either because of scale or by design, and then expect them to be responsive to our collective needs and wisdom during a time of crisis.
The writer seems to like the word, "collective" :p