Popular Arguments Against Ron Paul
From Nola Wiki
[edit] He is impractical
[edit] People will be dying on the streets without the welfare state
Ron Paul and his supporters believe that no American deserves to die on the streets. With the vast wealth of this nation, there is little excuse for the unfortunate or impoverished to be unable to receive medical care or receive food. Those who have been promised care and depend on government services will not be cut off. However, a welfare state cannot guarantee humane care of the unfortunate. It can only guarantee larger and larger dependence on government, which can only collect money through taxing productivity.
Welfare states have historically shown larger and larger groups of government beneficiaries, creating rising costs, which require rising taxation, which make people less able to pay the bills, which push them onto the government dole.
The rising costs of welfarism lead to socialism. We currently see this in health care in America. Medicare and medicaid represent the majority of the health care industry's business, and they have had no power to keep costs competitive with what working Americans can afford. No amount of legislation or bureaucracy has been able to stop costs from rising. Now, Americans are blaming the health care industry, pushing for socialized (universal, single-payer) medicine. As taxes increase and producers pay the burden, they have less money to spend on their business and less incentive to produce. Eventually, everything becomes socialized, and there is little reason for anyone to produce anything, except for trade on the black market for survival.
Is socialism humane? Obviously not in the former USSR, N Korea, Venezuela, or many of the other authoritarian socialist nations, where black markets are necessary to provide food, and people actually die in the streets in regularity. Consider China, which is a modern industrialized nation with an externally great economy (rivaling our own); yet internally its GDP per capita is around $14,000 a year, while ours is $40,000. The free market should be viewed as the most humane means of distributing goods and services throughout society, as it is the most efficient system of providing high quality goods and services to all of society, while keeping the costs down. The largest barriers to a free market are government interventions, including licensing, regulation, government control (corporatization), and government ownership (socialization). A smaller barrier is crime (theft, fraud, blackmail...not "safe" conditions, "unlawful" termination of employment), prevention of which is the only noble goal of government.
The most popular argument against private charity is that the wealthy are greedy and will not voluntarily agree to fund such charity. Yet Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers and many other of the richest Americans throughout history have voluntarily given most of their money to charity, even in addition to the tax burdens they regularly pay. This trend only reverses itself when looking at those who made their money not through the free market, but through exploitation of government privilege, such as the "robber-barrons" who made enormous sums of money through government subsidies or corruption (including immunity from valid legal damages, such as pollution).
[edit] Privatization means inaffordability - What about the poor who can't afford ___
Private charity has traditionally been most involved with the same industries that are seen as universally demanded but not universally affordable. This is never 100% effective, but neither is socialization. In education, for instance, while most to all children go to school, some learn little to nothing, except how to bully other children. They are mandated to be given education, incapable of being expelled (or even disciplined) despite harming the education of others. This is similar to give everyone a free meal day after day, even when a few people choose to use their meal to have a food fight.
An ideal society provides opportunities, not hand-outs. A free society and a free market provide the most opportunities, as they naturally resist monopoly, lessen prices, and improve quality. This means that with enough economic growth, nearly all goods and services should be affordable to even low-wage earners. They would also be available to the unfortunate through charity, which could afford the low prices. This is precisely what has happened in home appliances; for instance, TV's and washing machines costed about $2,000 (after adjusting for inflation) during the 1980's. That's nearly two weeks of work for the average American. Comparably, these same goods, only with higher quality, now cost about $250, affordable after 2 days of work for the average American. Similarly, goods and services in all sectors of the economy that maintain freedom drop in price and increase in quality. The few sectors that don't are the ones the most heavily impacted by government interference.
Mandated hand-outs do not promote a better society for everyone, like free market growth does. They promote reliance upon the people that produce goods and services to pay for someone else's costs. For the recipient there is no cost, except to go vote. Therefore, society continually finds more people becoming recipients, and less people willing to aid all society through production and trade. Charities can successfully handle giving hand-outs, because there are no mandates to provide charitable services. People who abuse or don't deserve care can be cut off. If they aren't, and people exploit the charity, it simply won't be able to fund itself. This is why many successful private charities rely upon former recipients to supply funding. State mandated service, on the other hand, promises the service will be available, with few limitations, encouraging dependence, abuse, and continual necessity. It's users are rarely the ones whose taxes pay to continue the services, and their administration costs go unchecked.
Many anti-capitalists cite John D. Rockefeller as a "robber-barron," or someone who used undeserved ownership and nobility to grant himself monopoly and force people to buy his products at high prices. They conveniently ignore many truths, such as being born into modest roots as one of six children living off their father's income as a traveling salesman. Nonetheless, this afforded him a high school education and a single business course in college. He worked as an assistant bookkeeper, where he was not paid until after 3 months of work at the rate of $3.57 a week ($52.18 in today's dollars), eventually increased to $25 a month ($365.39 today). He saved $1,000 and borrowed another $1,000 from his father to start his own commission business, which eventually took interest in petroleum. He ran his business frugally and it wildly succeeded. It never established a monopoly, although it had a dominant market share for most of its lifetime (simply due to the low prices, a result of low business costs, which came from his sound business decisions). In 1896, he stopped running day to day operations to focus on philanthropy. He was said to be the richest man to ever live, yet he ended up giving away most of his money through charity. It wasn't until 1911 that the US Supreme Court ordered the dissolution of his business (at the command of politically connected industry rivals), which had done nothing wrong. A case in point is that in the late 1800's, Standard Oil had nearly a 20% larger share of the market than the time when it was accused of illegal "anti-competitive" behavior.
[edit] The Free Market Created Robber Barrons and the wealth distribution gap
[edit] The Free Market Created the Great Depression
Many economists, including Ben Bernanke, the current Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan, the former Fed chairman, and Milton Friedman, former Secretary of Treasury, have stated that the Federal Reserve's policies in the 1920's of attempting to save the British pound and refusal to bail out failing American banks pushed the recession into a depression. Furthermore, Roosevelt's New Deal program employing Keynesian economics and high progressive taxation escalated the depression for over 10 years. Also, FDR forbade American citizens from owning gold.
All of these policies, including the Fed's existence alone independent of specific policy, clearly butchered "laissez faire" economic principles. It seems the great depression could have been completely avoided, if not easily recovered from, had their been a truly free market at work.
[edit] Banking wasn't 'All That' before the FED
So what? Banking isn't 'all that' WITH the Fed.
Banks are given a particularly daunting task: predict the economy and invest accordingly. Whether this is done on a neighborhood level or a national level doesn't make it more predictable. The Fed, acting as the central bank has no better ability to avoid foolish investments. Yet, as the central bank charged with the issuance of fiat currency, it has less incentive to avoid foolish investments, as it really has no limit on its supply of capital. This is noticeable in the booms and the busts, especially the great depression (where private gold ownership was outlawed).
So, who takes the slack? Before the Fed and FDIC, account holders at failing banks did. They could not recover their "guaranteed" money, unless they paid for some other form of insurance. Of course, they were free to save their money in their own home without it losing value. Under the current system, the poor and the middle classes as a whole pay the slack (and there's a lot more slack, since they, rather than the mal-investors, are forced to pay for it). Most of the "new money" that gets injected into the economy is done through the government (who has many big business contracts) or Wall Street. Their spending actually triggers price inflation, which destroys the value of all monetary savings and lessens quality of life for those on fixed incomes. Since there is no other legal tender, Americans are forced to save money in the banking system simply for it to retain some of the overall diminishing value.
[edit] There isn't enough Gold for it to be used as Currency
...at the current "value" of the dollar, which is continually falling. As the Fed prints more and more money, it becomes more and more obvious that the dollar has absolutely no standard of value, despite being designed to be a unit of measurement. In other words, if we defined the dollar as 1/16 oz of gold, as it previously was, we would find that "$1" Federal Reserve Notes are only actually worth about $.02; and this price continues to fall annually. Yet, that is simply the legal tender value. Their commodity value is much lower, revealing the turmoil that could occur if tyrannical forces gained control of our government and declared paper dollars no longer legal tender. This is why Dr. Paul's plan is noble. He isn't seeking to leave anyone out to dry, allowing everyone the ability to fairly transition back to sound currency.
So yes, exchanging Federal Reserve Notes according to how much they say they are worth at a fixed rate of 1/16 oz of gold per "dollar" would reveal that there is not enough gold to be used as a valid currency. But first realize that 1/16 oz of gold is currently worth about 47 "dollars" in the free market, not the previous gold standard which fixed the same amount of gold to $1.
America makes up about 27% of the world's GDP, and there are approximately 150,000 tons of gold in existence. 27% of the world's gold would make 23,289,305,760 1/16 oz coins, with 77.6 coins per every American. At the current exchange rate, that's $3,647.20 per American, which seems more than enough. Compare that at 1.5 trillion in federal reserve notes, which amounts to $5,000 per American (assuming only Americans use fed notes, which is not true).
But how do I get change from my $47 coin; what about liquidity? Using gold as currency doesn't mean a requirement of physical currency. Bank notes were formerly issued as receipts for gold and traded as if they were gold, and fractional reserve banking was performed under a gold standard. This would allow more "money" to be available for exchange, while still guaranteeing it through bank accounts. Bank notes can be issued for lesser amounts than 1/16 oz; and electronic money is as divisible as its software allows. If further liquidity is needed in cash, silver or other less rare metals could be used, although exchange rates may be subject to the market (they shouldn't dramatically change, so it wouldn't be a major issue).
[edit] We Need an Income Tax
The income tax only accounts for about 40% of government's revenue. If we were to introduce the year 2000's congressional budget next year, we could afford it without collecting a penny in income taxes. This is a clear example of how quickly government expansion can get out of control.
Ron Paul does not plan to "turn off" welfare overnight. Paying out promised entitlements is still affordable without the income tax. We simply need to change our foreign policy. It costs nearly a trillion dollars a year, which simultaneously puts us into greater danger, and offers nothing to the American economy (except the arms makers...many through no-bid contracts). It gives other nations over $8 billion a year in arms, spurring violence and creating entangling alliances and allies of convenience at the tax-payer expense (foreign welfare).
Big government has failed us, just as central planning failed the Soviets. We shouldn't want it or rely on it. A government fulfilling its primary role as protecting life, liberty, and property from criminal individuals doesn't require an income tax to function. In fact, the income tax may be more criminal than the dangers government claims to protect us from. The federal government really has only a few purposes: common defense, national standards (like the dollar), and resolve certain interstate disputes. When limited to the constitutional purposes, there is no need for an income tax.
Spending is simply out of control, and the American people have little to gain by it. For most of the United States' existence, the government was paid for by small export and import tariffs; and the US economy was the envy of the world. Today, the government consumes nearly 1/5 of our GDP; and we have slumped in every national statistic. Ireland, Iceland, and Bermuda have higher GDP per capita. $200 billion a year is spent on agricultural subsidies, yet the average American farmer receives little over $900, while Ted Turner receives over $100,000 to simply NOT farm his land. The government is the largest purchaser of medical care, which has coincidently created costs that the working poor can't afford (...and the proposed solution is COMPLETE government control!). It has $12 billion every year in unaccounted money (more than LA pays in income taxes). Education has continually gotten worse while the Department of Education continues to grow, now spending many times more than our largest states. Social security funds have been pillaged by careless borrowing, offering retirees that were forced to pay into the system little of their deserved money. The Department of Energy spends 11 digits worth of dollars every year, with little effect on lowering energy prices (much of it goes to cleaning up the government's own nuclear waste, from the many thousands of nuclear weapons we maintain). Every bureaucratic or corporatist approach to making everything more affordable for average Americans has failed. The best way to make things more affordable for Americans is to simply let them keep the money they earn.
[edit] Pulling out of Iraq would make it a Chaotic Bloodbath
This assumes that our presence is discouraging violence and promoting order. This is in opposition to the situation on the ground. Our presence has drawn Al Qeada into the area, who are the most violent and morbid of those who fight, turning Iraqis against us. Many Iraqis oppose the democratic government simply because we are allied with it. Others don't support it because the Shi'ite majority want state persecution of Sunni and Kurds. We are seeking to unify 3 sects of Islam under one government, which has only been done through extreme dictatorship. The most peaceful sections in Iraq are the ones in which local militias and self-government have emerged, not the ones with the most US boots. Every day, more and more Iraqis and Arabs in general are holding the US responsible for the misery that has been introduced into their daily lives. While no road is perfect in this mess, a complete withdrawal would prevent terrorists from being able to target us; as well as allow Iraqis to determine their own fate.
[edit] He is not electable
[edit] He doesn't Have as Much Money
He doesn't accept corporate PAC money. His Presidential policies benefit no special interests, just as lobbyists never approached him while in congress. Given this, his $5+ million cash on hand (3rd most after subtracting debts) is very substantial. This shows he has much greater support from the average voting American than any other candidate.
Additionally, his fund raising has exponentially risen each quarter. As more people learn of him, more people open their wallets. There is no limit in sight as to how popular Ron Paul will be by the time the primaries have begun.
[edit] He doesn't Have as Much Name Recognition
But when he does, he polls very well. Given the grass-roots efforts and national media advertising, his name recognition is about to explode.
The true blame for lack of name recognition is the media. He is consistently given the least amount of time to speak in debates, and the least amount of publicity through media outlets. This is despite winning their own text messaging or internet polls that only allow one vote per IP address or phone number. This is despite increasingly enlarging fundraising, that is larger than two of the "front-runners" (McCain and Romney...unless you include the money Romney LOANED to his own campaign). And it is despite many state GOP sponsored straw polls, where Dr. Paul has consistently placed top 3 or higher. In head to head match-ups, he has the best record. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
The media tries to discredit Dr. Paul in a manner that is borderline insane. They delete comments and polls off their websites when he is winning. They discredit their own polls with vague terminology, such as "unscientific". They claim his support won't translate into votes when is consistently does so in verifiable fraud-free environments. They never mention that he consistently draws crowds of 1,000 - 2,000 people, everywhere he campaigns.
That's ok - it's we the people. We don't need to whine about the media, although anyone who believes he is not popular because of name recognition should know that they are being misled.
[edit] He isn't Polling Well
According to randomly selected national opinion polling...in self-selecting polls (the people most passionate and thus likely to vote), he does incredibly well.
Furthermore, the opinion polls are simply based upon name recognition (or are flawed altogether). Duncan Hunter, Sam Brownback, and Tom Tancredo have similar or better opinion polling. Yet...none of these candidates have anywhere near the fundraising, straw polls results, or debate poll results. Why is this? It is insane to think Ron Paul supporters manipulated polls with physical ballots nationwide. A greater example is Huckabee's dominant opinion polling over Ron Paul, while the situation is completely different in self-selecting voting and fund-raising.
One explanation is that he attracts many young people to his campaign. They will vote, despite their demographic group; but they don't have land-line phones, which are the source of these polls. Another explanation is that his name is simply excluded from some of the polls. (You may notice the numbers of "unsure" have actually risen throughout the year).
[edit] The Election is Fixed Anyway
We're working on that. Don't give up hope. In any case, it can't hurt to vote for Ron.
[edit] Libertarians and the Like Can't get Support on the Ground
...but we already have. More to come when we start winning primaries...
Remember, freedom is what makes America unique in the world. Our founders set about to bring us the most promising system of government that would keep tyranny at bay. Their plan was the Constitution. This document is the source of the government's power, and the pride of every American. Ron Paul is its champion. Every American can unite behind a Ron Paul presidency, because he embodies what America is all about. Attempts at labels like "libertarian" (to confuse him with a liberal) or "nutcase" are simply diversions. Ron Paul is the greatest champion of America's most cherished values. He unifies people through freedom, and no label can extinguish that.
[edit] General Media Smears and Bias
Recently, it seems that a large group of media outlets have been attempting to smear Ron Paul.
[edit] Ron Paul is not conservative, but is instead libertarian.
This doesn't make sense. Libertarianism, as Ron Paul pointed out, simply means that you like liberty. This would make many Americans libertarian, although they would likely hesitate to join the Libertarian Party. The true purpose of this label is to cause many to confuse it with the term "liberal," which has no real rational meaning. It is merely an attempt to draw a negative emotional response onto what is otherwise an extremely pro-American idea: liberty.
Fundamentally, however, the argument makes no sense. Conservative values have always been about decreasing taxation, spending, and government control of the economy; in other words, increasing economic liberty. In 10 terms, he has never voted to increase taxes or approve an unbalanced budget. He always votes against unconstitutional government spending, including much of the pork-barrel handouts to special interests. Socially, then, is Ron Paul more like a liberal? He is firmly pro-life; however, he thinks such decisions should be left to the states, considering there are no constitutional provisions that would allow the federal government to act in such a way. He is firmly in favor of the 2nd amendment and gun rights, consistently voting against governmental gun control. In fact, he is one of (if not the only) member of congress that introduces legislation to repeal prior legislation, earning him an A+ rating from Gun Owners of America. He defends civil liberties and the bill of rights, as stated in the constitution rather than the interpretation of special interests. It seems Ron Paul is about as conservative as you can get, without violating the constitution (which seems conservative in itself).
[edit] Ron Paul is a hypocrite...
...because he earmarks money for his district even though he proclaims he's against pork-barrel spending. This shows little knowledge of what earmarking is, which is simply directing the spending to certain beneficiaries in the case that the legislation passes. Ron Paul does earmark funds on unconstitutional spending bills for his district; however, he debates and votes against the bills. The earmarking is simply a way for his district's taxpayers to indirectly get some of their tax dollars back, since congress has become complacent in approving unconstitutional spending. If Dr. Paul could choose how to best serve his district, he would choose to abolish taxes. He has never and would never succumb to authoring, sponsoring, or voting for unconstitutional pork spending.
[edit] Ron Paul is a nut or just plain crazy.
Humorously, they rarely mention why they believe this. One argument was that he supposedly believes 9/11 was a government conspiracy. This is completely false. Although a number of supporters have stated this belief, Ron Paul has flat out denied his belief in such a conspiracy. In regards to 9/11, he would simply like an investigation of government ineptitude, which is merited considering our air defenses did nothing to prevent hijacked jumbo jets from striking not only two skyscrapers but the Pentagon, which is supposed to be the most secure location in the world. Also, 9/11 has been used to justify the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the sacrificing of civil liberties to combat terrorism. Yet, we seem to have had enough intelligence to prevent 9/11; ineptitude by the administration in acting on the information should be rigorously investigated before conceding that we simply need to disregard civil liberties if we wish to prevent terrorism. Was there ineptitude in TSA, our intelligence community, and our acting administration in preventing 9/11? Perhaps such an investigation is a good idea. I really can't think of any other reasons why someone would call Ron a nut.
[edit] Ron Paul wants to send us back into the dark ages...
...because he has supported a gold standard. These attacks seem to suggest that a gold standard implies only using physical gold coins for all financial transactions. Common sense would tell anyone that forcing such radical changes into the entire financial marketplace overnight would have a devastating effect on our economy. This is why Dr. Paul has never advocated doing such. He simply wants to allow a transition to sound money, which is commodity-based or commodity-backed money. Currently, the private Federal Reserve Bank has a complete monopoly over our money supply, which is only valuable because of legal tender law. By making gold-based money an additional legal tender, no unelected central institution could have a monopoly over currency. This prevents any single institution from creating money out of thin air, which devalues previously existing money. Such practices hurt the poor and middle class the most and destroy the dollar's usage in international markets.
In practice, his plan is to let commodity-backed decentralized currency compete with unbacked centralized currency. If the Fed's fiat money is so great, nothing will change; however, if he is correct, people may find that banking worked more in their favor during 'the dark ages.'
[edit] Ron Paul's support is only on the internet.
This ignores nearly all of his campaign activity, which has consistently attracted crowds between 500 and 1500, a better showing than most of the other candidates. His straw poll turnouts have been significant; in head to head matchups, he has placed higher than every other Republican candidate. While he dominates online polls, he also wins or competes with "front-runners" in text messaging polls, which clearly only allow one vote per person. It is also ignorant to believe only Paul supporters have figured out how "rig" nearly every online poll, created and implemented by many different independent businesses who have stake in accurate administration. Also, why have no other candidates supporters been able to "rig" any polls. Lastly, Dr. Paul's fundraising has steadily increased throughout the year, without accepting any donations from corporate entities. The average donation received is ~$40, and the donor base has not stopped growing. Despite refusing to take corporate PAC money, he still has raised the 3rd most cash on hand, after subtracting Romney's loans to his own campaign.
[edit] Ron Paul has never done anything worthwhile.
This is humorous because given congress's habits of unconstitutional legislation and endless spending, this should make Dr. Paul quite appealing. Nonetheless, he has led movements against the Iraq War, the welfare state, unconstitutional spending, and the dissolution of civil liberties. Most of the time he is ignored, and most of the time the implemented policies create a mess that leaves the American people, especially fiscal conservatives, very unhappy. In the past Republican debates, all of the candidates responded to the shrinking Republican base by saying that the party has lost its way; and that it has been acting like the Democratic Party. Well, Ron Paul has opposed the changes to the Republican party during this entire period. Should we blame him for the Republicans' folly, or should we blame the people who allowed themselves to be blinded by party politics and government power? Ron Paul is a leader, because he refuses to compromise at the people's expense. He would be one of the few Presidents in our history who was strong enough to resist the temptation to grant himself more power, at the expense of Americans' liberty.
[edit] Ron Paul is an isolationist.
Would an "isolationist" support international free trade, travel, and communication? This is yet another emotionally charged label that doesn't fit. Dr. Paul simply wants to end the use of our military and taxpayer dollars to agressively influence foreign politics. This is non-interventionism. Dr. Paul believes an aggressive interventionist policy makes us less safe and was partially responsible for 9/11 (most of the blame should rightly be put on the attackers themselves). He believes the founders were correct in that the best foreign policy was "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none". Our positions on foreign aid, supporting democracy and dictatorship without discretion, supporting regimes that have nuclear weapons and refuse to sign a non-proliferation treaty, and supporting regimes that are, in practice, harboring terrorists. Dr. Paul believes in a strong national defense, by bringing troops home from the 130+ foreign nations they are stationed and letting them focus on protecting America, including our currently unfunctioning borders.
