[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDTH8lTQE7c"]Ron Paul Explains Plan to Restore America on Meet the Press - YouTube[/ame]
Yes he did. Every time the interviewer asked a straw man question, Ron answered him clearly. Interviewer- "Since having a big government was the reason we got into this mess, why don't you support a bigger government to put in more regulations?"
Poor Ron: he thinks regulations just came into existence for no reason. Like most libertarians he thinks history started yesterday. Trouble is, regulations are a response to problems, and mostly they solve those problems. And when you get rid of the regulations, get what? The problems come back. The poor dear Libertarian couldn't understand cost/benefit analysis if it bit him on his skinny ass.
Poor Landru, like most progressive authoritarians, thinks that only government can respond to problems and that all government response is good and proper because the intentions are good. We libertarians are far more aware of the "problems" that lead to government "solutions" than those like you. You swallow the propaganda line of government hook, line and sinker and believe all that you are told by authority. You can't help it, thinking for yourself just isn't in your nature. In fact, most government solutions are implemented long after private industry has already responded to the problem, or they serve to create more problems as in the case of centralized economic planning and monetary socialism, or the problem progressive believe were the reasons for a solution simply weren't the reasons given by the advocates for regulation in the first place. Here's an exercise for you. It will probably strain your critical thinking skills, if you have any at all, but that's a good thing, right? Look at the history of OSHA, and see if you can prove to us that OSHA regulations have, since they were first implemented, decreased the rate of workplace accidents faster than they would have without OSHA regulations. Now, as a progressive authoritarian, you might think this is a no-brainer because, after all, to your way of thinking if government doesn't do something then nothing gets done. Therefore, this ought to be very easy for you to prove, being the expert in the history of regulations as you claim to be. So how about it, can you provide clear and substantial evidence that one of the most significant bodies of government workplace safety regulations has actually lead to a decrease in workplace injury and death? A graph showing the rate of decline prior to 1970 and then after 1970 would be a great start and maybe even enough.
I got through the first 4 minutes. Ron Paul should have been paid overtime to endure retarded questions like this from Gregory.
Look he's pretending to actually address the issue with anecdotes and out of context quotes! And that's what makes libertarian economic policy.
