Ron Paul: the test to end various claims

I will mention up front that I might indeed vote for Ron Paul, albeit, not because of me agreeing with all (or even necessarily most) of his ideas.

There are but two main reasons why I may vote for him:

1. although it amazes me, he seems to genuinely want to substantially downsize the federal government. With the rather should-be common wisdom that people wanting to become a member of the federal government most likely would never want to downsize it by a large degree (for cronyism among other reasons), he might be truly driven by benevolence.

And, more relevantly to the title of this thread,

2. Ron Paul becoming president for at least 4 years would be a huge test. If he were able to eliminate several federal programs, and end interventionism among other policies, we would look at the results (economic and civil) of said elimination. We'd see just how accurate these claims are; namely, that the federal government is a hinderance against prosperity, and that, on the contrary, the federal government is necessary for prosperity.


In addition to the question in my poll, I want to know: WHY is it that people on BOTH sides (pro and anti Paul) never seem to focus on the realization that, whether they want his policies or not, electing Paul would be a GREAT way to determine if various claims are true and a great way to finally END the claims that turn out to be false? If his policies succeed in the ways that people claim, then indeed, his policies should become dominant over the policies supported by more big-federal government supporters. On the other hand if his policies prove useless or counterproductive, the status quo might be best left alone and maintained.

The only way to really know one way or the other is to TEST it by electing him-this should register equivalently to you whether you are madly in love with his policies, or think he's the child of Satan sent here to turture humanity.

 

Of course, the next big issue to resolve is..the classic flaw of logic:

Correlation vs. causation. If his policies coincide with failing/succeeding of certain aspects of society, or precede it, that is still not definitive..but this will get complicated and messy I'm sure.

 

No it'd be a horrible test for a number of reasons.

First, he's the president not the supreme ruler. Constitutionally he'd be very restricted in what he could actually do, particularly since he's against presidents going against or ignoring laws. He could very well find himself effectively ordered to do things when his veto gets overridden.

Second, four years isn't enough time for a reasonable experiment of that nature. Particularly given how many other convoluting elements are in play, and that even if he does get some of this stuff through, it likley won't be right away.

Third, the USA isn't something to screw around with just to prove something isn't a good idea. Maybe he should be the mayor of some town and implement some of his stuff at that level. Maybe he could even pick out a place that might be able to get enough like minded folks around to actually alter some laws.

 

I think R.P being president of this country would be a net positive.. I'm not worried about some of his more radical ideas.. as president he wouldnt be able enact most of them without congress anyway.. I am more concerned about the few things he could do.. like withdraw the great majority of our forces from overseas. Push for transparency for the federal reserve and really curtail its autonomy. Ending the hugely stupid and wasteful war on drugs. Ending corporate welfare.

Ron Paul would shine a glaring light on alot of the corrupt practices in government. This would be one the greatest benefits of an R.P presidency.

 

Okay. So for you people saying "well it wouldn't be enough time and congress would veto everything he wanted anyways", that's either (depending on whether you are pro or anti Ron Paul):

1. a useless, self-defeating, self-fulfilling prophesy (if you support him), or

2. shows that you don't NEED to be against him, since apparently the president can't do jack sh*t, according to your ASSumptions.

On the other hand, if you assume that maybe, just maybe, the president can cause certain things to happen, then we'll see if the policies he enacts benefit us or harm us. If so, good, if not, we don't elect anyone like him again.

 

Oh. The president can do a whole lot. Just not everything that he wants. So if he's going way against the grain it means tons of half measures, and maybe a government shutdown after vetoing every budget that comes his way.

The result would almost certainly be painful. But, since he wasn't getting everything his way, it won't convince a single libertarian that they're wrong.

The USA isn't just something to screw around with. You're proposing the electoral equivalent of french kissing an electrical outlet in case it just maybe feels good.

And again, it's pointless, because since congress won't give him everything he wants he'll be doing his damage through half measures, shutdowns, defaults, and that kind of thing, and therefore every libertarian will only convince themselves further that they're absolutely right about everything and the Democrats and Republicans are the problem.

 

This is a center-right country and politicians have been pandering to the "Government is out-of-control" crowd for decades. People are tired of the unconstitutional federal government and the budget debt issues. To me, Ron Paul is the only one who seems genuinely to want to restore this country to what it is, legally speaking, supposed to run. I think the OP makes some good points, but as far as the "test" is concerned; there is the correlation vs causation problem.

But I think Paul's point is that more solutions should come from the People and the States. Plus, all US debt is backed by all US public and private persons and business. I think when US spending is headed toward danger-levels, the market reacts negatively for good reason. If it "can" be considered a test, I think Paul's Liberty-based philosophy would do better than Obama's "copy-Bush" philosophy.

 

Ron Paul could be quite effective as President. He could end the wars we are involved in, re-negotiate trade deals, reign in spending and rescind some of the ornerous Executive Orders that have come from the White House. He could do all this without much help from Congress, but it seems apparent that the next Congress will be one ready to make the difficult changes necessary, especially on budget matters (if the mood of voters carries forward to the next election). A Congress with a similar mindset would only make him a more effective President.

Just by ending our various wars and engagements, along with some spending cuts, this country might save enough to pull us back from the brink and give us breathing room to make more fundamental changes that take more time to implement. Obama has put our backs to the wall and we desperately need some relief.

 

Yes you're right; no matter WHAT happens, people will milk the hell out of causation vs. correlation in order to prove that if his policies coincide with higher prosperity, that his policies didn't cause said higher prosperity, or that if his policies coincide with furthering of lower prosperity, that his policies didn't cause said lower prosperity. It applies to both "sides".

And it's not at all like "french kissing an electrical outlet in case it just maybe feels good"; we pretty much all know that it wouldn't feel good. On the other hand, there's no way to really know if Paul's policies will damage us.

 

I'm just glad Paul's running as a Republican this time. In case of the slim (to none) chance he's chosen as the GOP's candidate, I'd vote for him.

Do you think liberals have altered their ideals because Obama's policies are failing? He seems to have a very loyal group who's willing to follow him over a cliff. Not the type of Americans the rest of us should strive to emulate.

 

A more responsible Economic policy by the United States. If Ron Paul slows growth by cutting government it will have largely the same effect that Reagan's policy's had on cutting government growth. The market only needs to be stimulated with confidence, they don't have to get immediate results for there to be a positive response for investment in the private sector. Right now there is no alternative to the debt policy of the current administration. Remember government inaction is the issue with the sluggish markets.They should have enacted a plan for growth not a stealthy plan for more DEBT.

 

Interesting response, B.Larset. It's interesting to note that despite the general economic sluggishness today, major corporations and their owners are actually doing (based on what I've read) better than they ever have before, in recent U.S. history!

Also, to be honest (not sure where you stand on this), outsourcing is a HUGE problem for the U.S. and is sucking out a GREAT many jobs from here.

 

As I've said, it doesn't seem to matter what results occur; people who support or are against a national policy seem to support it even DESPITE it consistently coinciding with negative results.

I think outsourcing soooo many U.S. jobs and tax cuts for the "richest", in addition to frankly, people living to unprecedentedly long ages, are hugely to blame.

^^ It bothers me to admit that because if it weren't for modern medicare, my grandparents probably would not have survived their separate but equally challenging health problems.

 

I think the main problem is that we keep electing human beings who are incapable of solving all of society's ills. I remember when George W. Bush passed the $4 prescription bill... which made such a HUGE difference in the lives of low-income folks who couldn't afford their meds. When it's talked about today, it's seen as just another reason we're so far in the hole.

No president will ever be able to make everyone happy, but it's to our benefit that we expect them to keep trying.

 

The billionaires/multimillionaires that try to make sure that this country continues to be Corporate America, are the ones you can thank for that. No one else.

 

Based on a private capital system . Profits are for the enterprise to grow. Some of the capital must be put into maintaining the operation and for profit in it. The businesses profits are up now due to less operating costs ( cheap labor ) . We know the economies around the world have been declining so we have been buying less, businesses continue to move manufacturing to lower wage countries. The lower wage markets have been growing simply because they have more supply of labor and can compete with other labor markets- supply and demand. The problem arises when you try and maintain a system like a sovereign nation by using labor from another nation. The capital must follow where it is to be used. In this case to the nations doing the manufacturing. Problem is the money is not spent here in America, where we have become more of a consumer and less of a manufacturer of goods. So now as the work goes to the other countries our labor is in less demand. Exactly as it is now. My problem is that we need apolitical solution to the issue of trade and balanced employment. We need a manufacturing index thats tied to unemployment. Based on a % of Unemployment. When its above say 5% we trigger tariffs and when it is below we ease import restrictions.
Its ok to have a limited solution to address our national manufacturing policys- I say lets do it now this election- lets have a political solution to the issue affecting our trade policys, after all isnt that how we got here?
I didn't understand the vote tho?

 

Fair enough. SO we agree that electing him is no kind of "test to end various claims".

I think it's almost certain, from what I know of him, that it would be damaging, EVEN IF he of overall RIGHT about his policies increasing prosperity.

The reason is that:
A. Ron Paul seems the sort to stick to his positions
B. There aren't meaningful numbers of those with similar positions in the Senate or House.

As a result I think he'd go about making awkward half measures, which tend to not work well.

He's also out to destabilize and/or collapse the dollar in order to acheive a gold standard.

Now, even if you think, in the long run, it's better to have a gold standard (which I think is ridiculous but that's another discussion) , in the short run that's definitly going to hurt. And therefore there won't even be a long run as he'd be a one term president.

 

The only reason why I think that would be, is because of the fact that Congress probably wouldn't allow anything he wanted to pass. Doesn't mean we should hire another runothemill corporate President. These corporations that are hoarding all and controlling all should give some of that up for the sake of the rest of us.

I don't know; do you have any sources that would be evidence for this?

I'm not so sure one way or the other. What is your reasoning for this? It is relevant to this discussion, assuming that Ron Paul supports a gold standard.

 

This would not be a good test at all. Those who oppose his philosophy (which is pretty much the entire political class) would make sure to enact his policies as disastrously as possible in order to remind everybody how important they are.
If you want proof that his policies are sound, all you have to do is look at Europe.

 

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with your assessment of "how this country is, legally speaking, supposed to be run".

While I agree that the Statism, Crony Capitalism, etc in Government is extremely far advanced, and should be reigned in, having grown up in the ghetto I firmly believe that without a strong dose of State Authority, American society would descend into chaos, and would break apart into unsustainable chunks, if not legally, then de facto.

Libertarian philosophies are a sure path to civil war, or at the least civil unrest. Because a society that believes Government has no authority over them, does whatever the hell it pleases, even when whatever it pleases is destructive.

Libertarian philosophy accepts such lunacy as secession being legal, the repeal of civil rights legislation, privatization of just about everything, protectionism and anti-globalization policies, etc.

All of these are a recipie for national suicide. I'm an American, not just an Ohioan.

 

Wait. That's your reason for liking Ron Paul? That you think he'll make things harder on corporations and get them to "give some of that up for the sake of the rest of us"?

I think you really really need to spend some time reading up on Libertarian philosophy. The only way RP would move against corporations in any form is altering various government policies that subsidize or support specific corporations.

However that doesn't weaken corporations as a whole, it just alters the playing field, and not neccessarily in a good way.

But after that Libertarian policies involve things like eliminating anti-trust laws and other restrictions on underhanded or predatory business practices. They slash or completly eliminate taxes as well as regulations on corporations, and give them near soverignty on land that they own.

They put a crown on the slumlords and owners of company towns. If you live on their land you can be asked to sign away virtually all your rights.

His book? I'm refering to the only book of his I've read "The Revolution" which he wrote when he was running in 2008 and in which he discusses what he'd like to do in the short run. He wants to eliminate the Fed entirely, and enact a gold standard. But he realizes he couldn't do that outright. So his short term plan is to enact policies to destabilize the dollar by allowing gold to be used as currency alongside the dollar.

Why moving to a gold standard is a bad idea? There are a couple reasons for this.

Before even moving to the problem of gold, you have the alternate in the dollar. It is incredibly powerful having the global currency being something we have control over for a vast array of reasons.

The ARE problems with the misuse of this power. However I feel RP creates a false dichotomy that the only alterante to fiat abuse is gold. How about trying to keep the power and beinifits but NOT abuse it?

And then there is the issue with gold itself. It is deflationary. Meaning that it becomes worth more in goods over time. Instead of encouraging investment as with a currency that inflates, your best move is just sitting on it. Grinding the economy to a halt. There are also lots of ways things can go horribly horribly wrong with gold if you fall prey to mercantilism.

After that you also have to consider the other players. Even if Libertarians controlled all of our government, they can only control the US. If we tank the dollar and try to move to gold, everybody else will be trying to have their currency become the new dollar. China, who doesn't seem to care if its people starve, seems to have a solid case for why they could maintain a stable fiat currency. So while you could probably find people who think going from dollars to gold is great, I think even they'd agree that going from dollars to Yuan would be horrible for the US, and that may very well be what would actually happen.

Things like this keep coming up. It's really the political equivalent of snake oil salesmen.

Yes, they can point out all the ills you have, or that someone else who doesn't use their product has. And, especially in the political realm, they may be quite correct and astute.

However, is their snake oil really what you want to be chugging? That is an entirely different question.

I don't remember the movie well so I may be off with this. But I recall a Woody Allen film where there was some rebel leader taking over a country. He gained a huge following because he could tirade against what was wrong with the country.

When the rebels finally won and put the man in power, his first order of business to correct society was that everyone should stop wearing pants, and just walk around in their underwear.

I think that's very much like the issue we have with Ron Paul and Libertarians in general.

 

For that alone he should have everybody who isn't in the top 2% vote. Not that actually voting for him will dethrone the two party rule, since they still count the votes, Perry will be the next president, the best government corporate money can buy will see too it.

 

Ok. So I guess you're another one who for some bizzare reason doesn't think the wealthiest stand to benifit the most under libertarian policies.

I could imagine someone of modest means who supports libertarian ideals in spite of the fact they so greatly benifit the wealthiest.

But the position that they don't is simply bewildering.

 

The rich will always have the advantage, because they are rich, but mainly because they are able to bribe the public officials into a state of submission which allows them preferential treatment and exemptions the overwhelming majority is not privy too.
　
　
Ron Paul would shake things up, just short of being completely destructive IMHO (they will never allow him to do all the things he say's he wants too, in fact he would most likely be assassinated on stage taking the oath), and have a lot of public officials on the hot seat, explaining things a lot more thoroughly, and/or facing criminal charges.

You will never completely control the rich but you can place them on notice, make an example of a few who continually sway politicians into providing them with favor, and force them to participate on the same playing field as everybody else has too.
　
　
As far as I am concerned corporate lobbyist should be shot on sight. They have done more damage to this country than any ME terrorist organization could possibly have done. The people who sent them should be relieved of their personal assets and imprisoned in some of those corporate prisons where we house pot smokers for the time being, and when they are released they should immediately banned to an island in the Pacific. What happens to them there should be of no concern to anybody who isn't a criminal themselves, and I mean real unscrupulous criminals, like petty thugs who would steal from their own mother, murderers, and at the risk of being redundant, con artists/liars/thieves/lawyers, yet I repeat myself.

 

Not much of a counter-argument. Basically, you're trying to support some goofy argument that railing about the government's ills somehow means that the solutions implemented will be ineffective. Problem is, this ain't a Woody Allen movie and nobody here is advocating "walking around in underwear" as a solution to anything.
Look... I'm willing to have a rational debate about this, but not if you're gonna throw out weak sauce like this. You need to step up your game.

We can look at Europe as a model for where these "big government" solutions end up. Or even right here at home in California and New York. In all cases, big government leads to inefficiency, corruption, and insolvency. Is there a minimum limit to government? Absolutely. And the Constitution does a fine job of spelling out what that limit is. I submit that we're all better-off maintaining a government closer to that limit.