The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
The problems with Ron Paul
cafzal.blogspot.com — Ron Paul is better than Bush (but that's not a very high standard, now is it?). However, he is an inexperienced paleo-conservative libertarian who wants to abolish everything from the IRS to FEMA — that's just not practical! He and his supporters seem to be impervious to the reality that that kind of libertarianism doesn't work.
cafzal- 5 diggs
- digg it
- gottadiggit, on 12/30/2007, -3/+5Buried for your ignorant projection of who I am and what I think as a Ron Paul supporter.
- johnnick, on 12/30/2007, -1/+2Wouldn't it be more effective to either demonstrate that the claims made in the blog are incorrect or explain why we don't need to worry about them or, even better, actually address how the US would be better off if Ron Paul got the blank check to do everything he wanted?
- gottadiggit, on 12/30/2007, -0/+3No actually I made my point very clear. Also his last sentence shows just how receptive he would be to any discussion.
- johnnick, on 12/30/2007, -1/+2Wouldn't it be more effective to either demonstrate that the claims made in the blog are incorrect or explain why we don't need to worry about them or, even better, actually address how the US would be better off if Ron Paul got the blank check to do everything he wanted?
- johnnick, on 12/30/2007, -5/+2It'll be interesting to see whether the Ron Paul crowd tags this one as inaccurate, too.
- thecoolestguy, on 12/30/2007, -1/+4----If you thought the response to Hurricane Katrina was bad, how would getting rid of FEMA help? -----
If there were no FEMA, Louisiani wouldn't have been lulled into a false sense of security, and would have better preparations in place, and would have been taxed less by the federal government and therefore able to afford better preparations.
Besides, the federal government providing disaster relief is completely unconstitutional. It is a state function.
----SO for all those praising Paul as the answer to America's political woes — he's not.----
You're so wrong. It is those that think that it is ok that upper level government try to provide uniform solutions for 300 million people that have brought in the politicians that have created America's political woes.
----Which of those do I consider meaningful? Nearly all of them. NATO, the ICC, FEMA, DHS, the IRS, Social Security... the list goes on. ----
NATO is useful for what? Preventing Russia from invading Europe? Give me a break. America is going bankrupt trying to be the police man of the world. An American economic collapse would be far worse for the world than America withdrawing its military from around the world.
The US is not part of the ICC (International Criminal Court) right now, so this is a non-point. In any case, right now US does torture, and the Democrats condone it just as much as the Republican, so a Ron Paul administration at least would end that gross violation of ethical standards.
Social Security is going bankrupt very soon, and Ron Paul's plan of saving money on foreign military engagements is the ONLY chance of extending it long enough to take care of the elderly who are dependant on it right now, so again, a non-point.
The Department of Homeland Security is completely useless. It is the wrong approach to the problem of terrorism. The answer is to give people their second amendment freedom to protect their private property. It was the federal government's intrusion upon the Second Amendment when it said that there were no guns allowed on airplanes, that gave terrorists an easy target. If private property rights and the Second Amendment were respected, airlines would likely have had better security measures in place, like for example allowing their pilots to be armed, and 911 couldn't have happened.
----Ron Paul would be fine in the 1800s, in fact, he sounds like a good ol' 1890s Populist with the gold and silver idea, but his ideas wouldn't work this day in age.-----
The late 19th century, early 20th century is when America saw its greatest boom in history. Life expectancy increased by 20.8 years from 1900 to 1950 because of the laissez faire economic boom of the late 19th/early 20th century. Life expectancy only increased by 8years from 1950 to 2000, when things like government funded health care and social security came about. Socialism is condemned by history. Libertarianism is vindicated by history.
---Ultimately, we don't no government, we need a better government---
You need to learn the proper role of government in society. Government is supposed to be a judge, a jury, a referree, to keep the peace and protect people's rights. Government is not supposed to use coercion (taxation) to collect resources from people to provide social services. This leads to a lower standard of living. Freedom leads to a higher standard of living and a healthier society. - Robjayne, on 12/30/2007, -0/+5For every tax payer there is a tax consumer ie; Halliburton,General Dynamics etc. I would rather send my money to the charities I support than being forced to support Government.
- gypsynuke, on 12/31/2007, -0/+3Why not explain how we would go to hell without the IRS, FEMA and HLS? I see no reason we couldn't live without them. Homeland security was established 6 years ago and hasn't done us any good.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is