Ammunition against: "Dying in the streets"...

[specsaregood]

One of the arguments against Ron Paul is the he would cut programs and people would "die in the streets".

In the recent interview here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html
He gives us the ammunition to fight this claim. I've bookmarked it to use in the future.

Excerpt:
CD: Congressman Dennis Kucinich is kind of similar in that he is one of the more vocal antiwar critics on the Democratic side of the debates. I know you guys probably disagree on a load of things, but you’ve come together a lot to work on issues of war and peace. So could you talk about your relationship with Congressman Kucinich over the past couple years, what it’s been like, what you think of him?

RP: ....And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I’m not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I’m not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that’s not my goal. I’ve never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don’t think it’s the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people."

[BuddyRey]

This really helps to set my mind at ease regarding some of Ron's economic policies. Thank you!

[angelatc]

Yes, I have linked and quoted that post in several forums. I have it book marked, too. One big thing in our favor is that he not a flip-flopper. Anybody who challenges that statement with a "just politicians pandering" basis can be countered with that fact.

[ronpaulitician]

And, remember, the idea of a libertarian society is that, although some people will fall through the cracks, that amount will be far less than it is in our current society because people will not only be more independent but also more willing to look after one another.

It comes down to this question: does one have a generally optimistic view of Americans, that they are willing to sacrifice in order to help one another out; or does one have a generally pessimistic view of Americans, that they only care about themselves, and wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need out?

Often, people claiming welfare systems are needed must admit to believing they have a generally pessimistic view of human beings, and that therefore the government needs to be given the power to redistribute wealth. However, that doesn't make any sense, since the government acts with the approval of the people, and if most of those people are too selfish to help others, why would they want their government to use force against themselves in order to help others?

There is no principled logic behind welfare. It is just a means for people to get rid of their guilt at not having it in themselves to help out others.

[FSP-Rebel]

I realize that Paul's got to soften it up to play on the stage, which is fine w/ me. I just hope he's serious about getting rid of the IRS eventually

[angelatc]

I can go both ways on welfare systems. I've been sick and unable to work, fortunately it wasn't a long term condition.

HOwever, despite my 20 year contributions to the work force and paying the taxes that go along with that, I would have probably ended up homess if it were not for the goodness of my former employer, a "heartless multinational corporation that does nothing productive" except handle investments.

If I had a condition that would never have allowed me to return to work though, I don't know what would have happened to me.

[vertesc]

I use this sort of thing whenever people get edgy about the extreme libertarian views on goernment services. When people say "don't privatize 911, and our roads, and our..." I respond with an explanation that they aren't the only ones who feel that way. Extreme libertarianism is tough to stomach for a lot of people. Good thing Ron Paul ISN'T an extreme libertarian! He's a PALEO LIBERTARIAN, which means that he believes government can provide more than just the "big 3" minimum of pure libs.

"You're right about pure libertarianism" I say. "they want the government to provide army for protection from without, police for protection from within, and law courts for protection from each other... and that's it. Their morality says that the government can only do the absolute minimum without infringing on someone's rights. That's scary for a lot of people. Paleo-libertarianism says that in a country as prosperous as America, we have enough surplus that the government can take on some other tasks as well, such as - for example - providing roads and infrastructure. Some even believe in government provided basic health insurance. The thing that makes it libertarian is that these services will always be in competition with the private sector. If your town wants to have Joe's Contractor build their roads and infrastructure, your tax money will go to Joe's instead of to the federal government. That way, we preserve the freedom of choice for every consumer.

Anyways, the key difference to explain is with paleo-libertarianism. It's much more friendly. :)

[angelatc]

If you have a LiveJournal account you should pop over and post a comment on this person's blog: http://alostrael.livejournal.com/268445.html . I tried but can't seem to get an account set up. The captcha thing won't let me in. I'm not young and hip enough I guess.