PDA

View Full Version : Social Programs: Too much truth, not enough sugar-coating




intelliot
01-12-2012, 02:30 AM
Q: Do you think everyone should just be responsible for themselves and if a flood washes your house away no FEMA? Sink or swim?
- Celia, Springfield, OH

A: Yeah, I think that's the way a free society works, and that's the way the Constitution mandates. I'm on the Gulf Coast, I have a house on the beach-- or had one recently-- and I don't think somebody in New York, or New Hampshire, or Iowa has to pay for my flood on the Gulf Coast. No.
But insurance is an old-fashioned way of doing it. Buy insurance. If the insurance won't sell it to you, it means it's too dangerous. If it's too dangerous, why dump the responsibility on the taxpayer? It doesn't make good economic sense, it doesn't make moral sense, it doesn't make Constitutional sense.
- Ron Paul http://youtu.be/JS10Xap4C9w

While what Paul says is true, it strikes me as being too harsh. Here's what I think he should've brought up instead:
- The fact that private charities and organizations always provide aid
- The fact that individual citizens voluntarily provide aid
- Ability for the States to provide aid
- Ineptitude of FEMA

Inny Binny
01-12-2012, 02:37 AM
Well you can be verbally harsh but care about people at the same time:

If FEMA continues to subsidise dangerous places, more people will go to live there, and next time there's a disaster more people will die.

intelliot
01-12-2012, 02:49 AM
You and I see that this is, effectively, caring about people; but for people who live in dangerous places, that's going to sound pretty brutal. They want FEMA, and some other people, thinking that they're being "compassionate", will agree.

Inny Binny
01-12-2012, 03:15 AM
People who already rely on the program should perhaps be helped while other solutions don exist. And frankly FEMA insurance is one of the last things that should be targeted. But I think emphasising that people die with insurance programs like this is fairly convincing.

When it comes to the beaurocratic aspect, we should always talk about how people caring for each other can be very humanitarian and much more so than some ridiculous "let's tick boxes to keep everyone safe" managerial nonsense doing worse than nothing.

Paul does indeed answer with the moral reason far too often. Saying we shouldn't tax people to help that person dying on the street isn't going to persuade anybody that libertarianism is anything but 'get off my property hurrrrdurrrrr!'. We should always talk first about the specific ways in which policies ramp up costs and prevent alternative systems from competing with the insurance companies. Mention the moral reason at the end.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/09/the-libertarian-three-step-program/

W_BRANDON
01-12-2012, 02:44 PM
Fortunately, Paul got a lot of practice with his arguments against FEMA during that last hurricane. Dr. Paul also represents Galveston, a coastal city with a long history of dealing with big storms.
As for the NFIP, it's anti-free market, works sort of like mandated sub-prime mortgages, a lot of risk secured by taxpayer money.

BUSHLIED
01-12-2012, 02:49 PM
The general point the OP is making is that Paul is not very clever in how he presents the issues. He leaves himself open to misintrepretation, smear, and attack...he will admit his delivery is horrible.....it is his biggest flaw and probably why he doesn't broaden his base. People are ready for his message, if only he could deliver it effectively...he could start by finishing his words, stop saying "but no", and slowing down a bit...

W_BRANDON
01-12-2012, 04:08 PM
The general point the OP is making is that Paul is not very clever in how he presents the issues. He leaves himself open to misintrepretation, smear, and attack...he will admit his delivery is horrible.....it is his biggest flaw and probably why he doesn't broaden his base. People are ready for his message, if only he could deliver it effectively...he could start by finishing his words, stop saying "but no", and slowing down a bit...

I have to disagree strongly overall with your post. When placed on a debate stage with candidates who have been heavily coached and highly reliant on prepackaged talking points, Paul's delivery may seem substandard to the untrained ear. Paul's words are honest and genuine, which is evident in their consistency. I think he comes across as true and authentic when he works his way through his thoughts. You will often see Paul's approach to the same question vary slightly each time he is asked, while the essence of the answer remains constant.
How about Dr. Paul's New Hampshire address? As usual, he didn't use a teleprompter or notes, it was straight from the heart, people sensed it..., and it was awesome. Unlike Mitt Romney who took a page from the Obama playbook when delivering his speech using a teleprompter.