Pardon my ignorance. a response to a friend about the libertarian stance

[jimmyjamsslo]

My promoter friend from Egypt, who is getting into Ron Paul, sent me this email:


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I need more time to research & I whole heartedly think you're right (*about the letter I wrote about the racist issue: posted on another thread *-jimmy)

but there's a parallel with that libertarian talk & Ronald Reagan talk
before taking office .

I have not made up my mind on this , just being cautious .

Nice letter you wrote about him you should his ghost writer from now on .

Peace & be well , Med .

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my response, and I should preface it by saying that I only became in interested in politics after 911 happened, and that I consider myself a novice:


MY RESPONSE:


Here's my recent new perspective on the libertarian concepts of downsizing
the government.

*** Social Security: The government forcibly takes money from our
paychecks to put into this 'trust fund'. What happens, however, is that
this fund is periodically raided to fund our military misadventures, as
well as other waste. It would be easy for our private banks, whose
transparency I trust way more than the Federal Government's, to set up a
private account, that takes a certain predefined percentage of your
earnings, WHICH you DEFINE, into an account that may be locked down, or
with certain parameters, say, for instance in the case of a medical
emergency, the funds can be accessed, otherwise the fund is untouchable.
Since most banks have their statements online, watching your own 'IRA' is
much easier, and like I said, I trust my bank more than the Government.

When the constitution talks about the 'General Welfare', this does have to
be balanced with the idea of personal freedom, which entails a certain
amount of responsibility. In this sense the New Deal welfare system, which
we are forced to pay into, rewards those who abdicate their personal
responsibilities, you and I have witnessed the degraded social paradigm
that arises from this as a result. In effect, those of us who work hard
are coerced into picking up the slack for those who are not willing to do
so, which is an affront to our economic personal liberty. Mr. Paul calls
it "The Nanny State". Along with it come countless excuses to invade our
personal privacy. Certainly, there are individuals who can't get on by
themselves, such as the handicapped. I guess I'd have to see how he'd
implement downsizing the Government. The idea, however, is that the
bureaucratic process is wasteful. I think that he advocates putting into
place private-sector solutions ALONGSIDE the current ones in effect, with
a gradual phasing out of the nonviable model. He mentions this on The
Daily Show, he says he just wants to legalize competition. End government
monopolization. It should be noted that he considers corporate welfare as
evil, citing Halliburton as a particular example. He also mentions that
socialism has failed countless times in history. I'd have to do more
research on that particular piece of information.
I think that perhaps Mr. Paul does not suffer from the same
megalomaniacal tendencies as Bush does, such as the inability to admit a
mistake. Perhaps if RP were to undertake some of these libertarian
measures, and they failed, that he would be humble enough to recant, and
reinstate the previous model, or to consider new models of governance.
I think the genuine desire is to eliminate the wasteful bureaucracy, and
you know as well as anybody how detrimental this is to our country, in a
variety of ways.
In as far as deregulation is concerned, I'm not so sure how that works.
Especially for us Californians, who were victimized by the deregulation
of our electric utilities to the tune of over 30 billion dollars, thanks
to Enron. But the Department of Energy should have prevented this, but
it did not, hence another wasteful bureaucracy. Whenever government gets
involved, bloat and waste occur. Same with the Department of Education.
In this era of greatly increased illiteracy, how relevant is this
particular bureau?
Homeland Security is the flagship of bureaucratic excess and invasiveness,
and as such, RP has vowed to dismantle it.

The same rule of thumb applies to his stance on the Federal Reserve.
Although he has called for its abolition, he advocates introducing
commodity-based currencies into the money stream in competition with the
federal reserve notes. He is very conversant with the idea of transitional
phases.

Somebody sent me a link to this pamphlet from 1850 that explicates how
socialism leads to plunder:

http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html

I haven't read much of it yet, so I don't have any insight into this yet,
nor an opinion.

So, at any rate, the subject of government fiscal irresponsibility (waste)
and the resultant intrusiveness (DHS, Real ID, No CHild Left Behind, etc..
all bastard children of the bureaucratic process) are what the economic
libertarians are trying to address. I haven't heard any other viable
solutions proffered. Neo-liberals like Hilary Clinton, and
Neo-conservatives like Rudy Giuliani will most certainly continue the
trend of big-spending, and living beyond our means.

In the end, a fine balancing act must be achieved. The private sector
must be allowed to provide social services, which will benefit the
economy, without Federal intrusion and snooping. Corporate welfare must
be eliminated before this can happen properly.

On a tangent, it is interesting to note that some positions that RP holds,
which may bear a semblance to other GOP positions, he holds for different
reasons. Where Bush declares the UN as being merely "irrelevant", Dr. Paul
cites the Resolution that dragged us into this current conflict, and how
the UN are part of the 'World Police', and as such violate our National
Sovereignty and independence, cornerstones of the Founding Fathers' vision for
our country. This is not to be confused with Isolationism! I think
non-interventionism is wholly desirable for countless reasons, no matter
how the New World Order crowd tries to spin it.

Well that's all for now, and like I stated before, I really don't know
much about these issues, so some study is in order. To quote Hogan's
Heroes Schultz: I see nothing. I know nothing, Colonel Klink! Absolutely
nothing!!




Comments and corrections are entirely appreciated! :D

[USPatriot36]

I would suggest that for any question you look to what Ron Paul has written. He has a history going back decades of explaining what I would call the American Constituitional viewpoint. Do a search like "Ron Paul General Welfare". Much of what Ron Paul has written is on lewrockwell.com

Ron Paul's solutions are better than those proposed by many Libertarians. His solutions will achieve most of the libertarian proposed goals in a way that most Amercians will agree with once they understand it. The American people are quite ignorant of the proper role of government and the distribution of power defined by our Constituition.

The General Welfare clause occurs in the preamble and was meant to give a general introduction to what Government should be. It was never meant to be an unlimited grant of power to the federal government.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." Paul explains on his website that he "never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

In many places such as Education, Health, Police and public safety Ron Paul's position is not to privatize those endeavors as much as to get the Federal Government out of them and let the States or the People deal with them as is their rightful place under our Constituition.

[jon_perez]

*** Social Security: The government forcibly takes money from our paychecks to put into this 'trust fund'. What happens, however, is that this fund is periodically raided to fund our military misadventures, as
well as other waste.I guess this is more or less correct. By "raided" you mean congress takes money from the budget that should be put in social security and switches it to military spending instead.


It would be easy for our private banks, whose
transparency I trust way more than the Federal Government'sWell, the Fed is owned by private banks (e.g. citigroup, etc.) ... and was made non- or quasi-governmental precisely because it was believed that such a mechanism would keep it independent of politicians.

In other countries the central banks are much more under government control than the Fed.


to set up a private account, that takes a certain predefined percentage of your earnings, WHICH you DEFINE, into an account that may be locked down, or
with certain parameters, say, for instance in the case of a medical
emergency, the funds can be accessed, otherwise the fund is untouchable.
Since most banks have their statements online, watching your own 'IRA' is
much easier, and like I said, I trust my bank more than the Government.Sounds like what Paul has been talking about.


In effect, those of us who work hard are coerced into picking up the slack for those who are not willing to do so, which is an affront to our economic personal liberty.Agreed, and this is clearly the sentiment that Republicans have always tended to bank on. I would say that if such a sentiment won out in the polls it tends to mean that more people are getting prosperous and thus prefer their own income to gov't handouts.


Neo-liberals like Hilary Clinton, and Neo-conservatives like Rudy Giuliani will most certainly continue the trend of big-spending, and living beyond our means.I don't think this is necessarily a given but do admit that they have not talked as much about reducing spending as many people would like to hear.



On a tangent, it is interesting to note that some positions that RP holds,
which may bear a semblance to other GOP positions, he holds for different
reasons. Where Bush declares the UN as being merely "irrelevant", Dr. Paul
cites the Resolution that dragged us into this current conflict, and how
the UN are part of the 'World Police', and as such violate our National
Sovereignty and independence, cornerstones of the Founding Fathers' vision for
our country. This is not to be confused with Isolationism!Well, I always thought this attitude of 'avoiding foreign entanglements' is exactly what the term 'Isolationist' was coined for, so I disagree. On the other hand, Paul's point was that the current Bush foreign policy - while not 'isolationist' as per the orthodox definition - has isolated the US!


I think non-interventionism is wholly desirable for countless reasons, no matter how the New World Order crowd tries to spin it.This sentiment is more a testament to how recent history has played out and the incompetence of the neocons with respect to their Iraq policy.

If Bush had succeded in Iraq, the sheeple would be applauding the neocons for their 'brilliant' notions and shouting out loud that non-interventionism is stupid.

[Gee]

Bastiat's The Law is good, and a short, concise read. So its a nice thing to show to people, nice link.

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm

[Broadlighter]

One thing that's becoming increasingly clear to me is that whenever a special interest embeds itself into the government in the form of an agency and shapes policy, both special interest and government become more corrupt. It's actually very simple although the consequences are highly complex.

I like when Ron Paul says we have to change our attitude of what government is and what it should do for the people. I think it's going to take a while for attitudes to change, probably longer than two presidential terms, but I think a Ron Paul presidency will get us off to a meaningful start.