I know our system of governance is horribly broken, and I desperately want a good reason to check that "none-of-the-above" box. Ron Paul is NOT that box. He must do some very specific things, or (IMOHO) he will remain what is, at best, a well-intended part of the problem, and at worst, a cure that's worse than the disease. I used to quip that libertarians are merely re-branded GWBush-ite neo-cons without the aversions to dope, hookers and peace. I was wrong. As it turns out, we have common ground; we share concerns: Corporatism, reckless Militarism as an unsustainable Economic staple, and what the Reagan administration once coined as "permanent deficits", among other things. But what of our conclusions regarding the solutions to these problems?
Let's start with the 800 Pound Gorilla. I really really wanted to leave this gorilla alone. But I just couldn't. Originally, this post was even titled "*Two* Simple Things for Ron Paul...". But deeper I dug, the more obvious and problematic this issue became to me. But "I got it, and I got to report it": The libertarian ideal (as I've come to understand it), taken to it's logical conclusion, says that government (AKA We the People) cannot forbid a merchant (or a corporation) from discriminating against others (based on race, or gender or any other reason). Ron Paul's son's name is Rand (presumably after Ayn Rand, who betrayed her own dogma, collecting Social Security until her last breath). Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) came right out and said it: He would not have voted for the Civil Right Act (amending the Constitution). That bugged me. Imagine. I thought to give the older (presumably, less wild-eyed) Rep. Paul (R-TX) the benefit of the doubt; I wanted to find a You Tube video where he walks back this atrocity. Instead, what I found was the shocking antithesis thereof, as Ron Paul "doubles down", confirming these atrocities (and worse), while the Interwebs explodes with the approval of anti-Semitic, white supremacist and hate sites that are (to be kind) waaaaaay too enamored with the Pauls' confirmations of said atrocities for my comfort. The most offensive of these sites I'll leave you to find, on our own. Your Google is as good as mine (for now). Instead, check this: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/17/is-ron-paul-a-white-supremacist-absolutely, the sequel http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul. And dig into details about Paul's voting record: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html. In his own words: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/05/15/335036/-Ron-Paul,-In-His-Own-Words. Here's another, more didactic opinion piece http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/14/u-might-be-a-ron-paul-supporter-if
So, Ron Paul wants to abolish the Department of Agriculture? And the FAA? And the EPA? And FEMA? Really? If you openly support this policy, you don't get to act surprised when others' reactions includes the word "wacky". Furthermore, if you feel that strongly about this dogma, be sure to send back that unemployment check, if and when that time comes (as it has for most of us). Eliminate the Department of Education? As a nation, we've steadily cut Education funding (to satiate neo-cons, who have relentlessly and unjustly vilified teachers for 30+ years). The results are self-evident. The answer is not full-speed ahead with the same old, trickle-down/slash-and-burn-and-privatize fiasco. A full and complete reversal of this failed Conservative course will (among other things) give our kids a chance, to help America compete (once again) with some of those economies that are currently kicking our butts. The governments of those emerging economies pump a lot more money into their educational systems, silly. Maybe Pauls' more youthful zealots are too young to remember, but I am not. I understand that Paul is really talking about dismantling some of the very institutions that helped make America great. As a nation, over time, We the People decided that institutions like these are ways to promote the general welfare and thus, are in no way at odds with the Constitution. Let go back to what works. Stop paying farmers for *not* growing certain crops? I get that. Ending subsidies to the Corporate Mega-Farms? I'm with you, there. But...
Let's dissect Paul's "Less Government = More Freedom" mantra. Like Cain's "9-9-9" errr "Plan", it's catchy, memorable and marketable. And like Cain's 9-9-9 "Plan" (and most simplistic proposed "solutions" to complex problems), it quickly falls apart under a little scrutiny:
But unfortunately AT&T, Verizon and others have purchased access to (and influence over) our legislators, to lobby in favor of the fallacy that this reasoned government regulation is evil, because it limits some multinational (not necessarily American) corporation from doing whatever it wants (in the name of profit, of course), without regard to We the People. Such has become America's fate, as a handful of activist corporate lawyers have unilaterally determined that corporations are people (and consequently, money is speech). If indeed, money is speech, then we are not equal, as those with more money are "more free" than the rest of us. The idea is patently anti-American, on it's face. So, the Citizens United decision *must* be overturned, as it defies both justice (legalizing graft and corruption) and logic (as clearly, I am not a hair follicle). We the People don't vote with our checkbook. We vote with our votes. With said votes, we get to determine just how far big business, *any* business can go in the name of profit.
Bottom line: No matter how powerful I become, I should not be "free" enough to unjustly exploit you, nor endanger, nor impinge upon your freedom/opportunity. That is the very essence of "secure the blessings of liberty". As We the People *are* the Government, We are tasked with that often contentious and messy work. The so-called "Free" Market will not. There's where it all falls apart for the advocates of Plutocracy, regardless of the label or clever disguise. Their attempts to overshadow/conflate our Representative Democracy with Capitalism (thus "freedom" with consumption) are inherently anti-American as "A democratic government derives it's just power from the people, but corporations [i.e., the "Free" Market] do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power."
Maybe I'm wrong about all of this. Maybe there's a better, more palatable brand of Libertarianism unrelated to the Paul Senators' ideologies? Yes, I've heard Neil Boortz... more than a little bit. Is there any distinction between him and the aforementioned dogma? If it's about ideas, I'd love to talk about them [below]. Just keep it civil. Hint: Lay off the CAPS LOCK, Leadfingers (and the bumper sticker slogans, too).
Update (2011-11-21) -
Couldn't have planned this better: The Bad Lip Reading peeps weigh in:
Let's start with the 800 Pound Gorilla. I really really wanted to leave this gorilla alone. But I just couldn't. Originally, this post was even titled "*Two* Simple Things for Ron Paul...". But deeper I dug, the more obvious and problematic this issue became to me. But "I got it, and I got to report it": The libertarian ideal (as I've come to understand it), taken to it's logical conclusion, says that government (AKA We the People) cannot forbid a merchant (or a corporation) from discriminating against others (based on race, or gender or any other reason). Ron Paul's son's name is Rand (presumably after Ayn Rand, who betrayed her own dogma, collecting Social Security until her last breath). Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) came right out and said it: He would not have voted for the Civil Right Act (amending the Constitution). That bugged me. Imagine. I thought to give the older (presumably, less wild-eyed) Rep. Paul (R-TX) the benefit of the doubt; I wanted to find a You Tube video where he walks back this atrocity. Instead, what I found was the shocking antithesis thereof, as Ron Paul "doubles down", confirming these atrocities (and worse), while the Interwebs explodes with the approval of anti-Semitic, white supremacist and hate sites that are (to be kind) waaaaaay too enamored with the Pauls' confirmations of said atrocities for my comfort. The most offensive of these sites I'll leave you to find, on our own. Your Google is as good as mine (for now). Instead, check this: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/17/is-ron-paul-a-white-supremacist-absolutely, the sequel http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul. And dig into details about Paul's voting record: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html. In his own words: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/05/15/335036/-Ron-Paul,-In-His-Own-Words. Here's another, more didactic opinion piece http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/14/u-might-be-a-ron-paul-supporter-if
Conclusion-Task 1:
Repudiate racism in all its forms and disavow all white supremacists claiming any kinship with you and your campaign. Do so without qualification and without rest. Period.
As long as Senator Paul appears to have no problem with those followers, I cannot count myself among them. Duh. How about you?
So, Ron Paul wants to abolish the Department of Agriculture? And the FAA? And the EPA? And FEMA? Really? If you openly support this policy, you don't get to act surprised when others' reactions includes the word "wacky". Furthermore, if you feel that strongly about this dogma, be sure to send back that unemployment check, if and when that time comes (as it has for most of us). Eliminate the Department of Education? As a nation, we've steadily cut Education funding (to satiate neo-cons, who have relentlessly and unjustly vilified teachers for 30+ years). The results are self-evident. The answer is not full-speed ahead with the same old, trickle-down/slash-and-burn-and-privatize fiasco. A full and complete reversal of this failed Conservative course will (among other things) give our kids a chance, to help America compete (once again) with some of those economies that are currently kicking our butts. The governments of those emerging economies pump a lot more money into their educational systems, silly. Maybe Pauls' more youthful zealots are too young to remember, but I am not. I understand that Paul is really talking about dismantling some of the very institutions that helped make America great. As a nation, over time, We the People decided that institutions like these are ways to promote the general welfare and thus, are in no way at odds with the Constitution. Let go back to what works. Stop paying farmers for *not* growing certain crops? I get that. Ending subsidies to the Corporate Mega-Farms? I'm with you, there. But...
Conclusion-Task 2: ...you've got to crank that draconian level back a couple of notches, before you get my ears. Baby... bathwater, dude.
Let's dissect Paul's "Less Government = More Freedom" mantra. Like Cain's "9-9-9" errr "Plan", it's catchy, memorable and marketable. And like Cain's 9-9-9 "Plan" (and most simplistic proposed "solutions" to complex problems), it quickly falls apart under a little scrutiny:
- Less Government = Less Oversight (e.g., over the Big Banks who have wrecked our economy)
- Less Government = Global Climate Change. If you don't believe it exists, I pity your hatred for science. It *still* leaves us with More Pollution from colossal industrial smokestacks. We the People are still left with Big Oil spills from those who manage to privatizing their profits while socializing the risks, taking more and more chances with our fresh air and water, and leaving it to We the People to suffer the consequences of (and clean up after) their horrific mistakes.
- Less Government = More Poisons from those who would take (harmful, but profitable) short cuts with their access to our food supply (and who would prefer to not tell us about it).
But unfortunately AT&T, Verizon and others have purchased access to (and influence over) our legislators, to lobby in favor of the fallacy that this reasoned government regulation is evil, because it limits some multinational (not necessarily American) corporation from doing whatever it wants (in the name of profit, of course), without regard to We the People. Such has become America's fate, as a handful of activist corporate lawyers have unilaterally determined that corporations are people (and consequently, money is speech). If indeed, money is speech, then we are not equal, as those with more money are "more free" than the rest of us. The idea is patently anti-American, on it's face. So, the Citizens United decision *must* be overturned, as it defies both justice (legalizing graft and corruption) and logic (as clearly, I am not a hair follicle). We the People don't vote with our checkbook. We vote with our votes. With said votes, we get to determine just how far big business, *any* business can go in the name of profit.
Bottom line: No matter how powerful I become, I should not be "free" enough to unjustly exploit you, nor endanger, nor impinge upon your freedom/opportunity. That is the very essence of "secure the blessings of liberty". As We the People *are* the Government, We are tasked with that often contentious and messy work. The so-called "Free" Market will not. There's where it all falls apart for the advocates of Plutocracy, regardless of the label or clever disguise. Their attempts to overshadow/conflate our Representative Democracy with Capitalism (thus "freedom" with consumption) are inherently anti-American as "A democratic government derives it's just power from the people, but corporations [i.e., the "Free" Market] do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power."
Conclusion-Task 3: Act like you understand how ultimately, some entities will regulate others, and ask the wiser questions: Who will regulate whom, and under what criteria? Respond to that question with an answer that falls within the realm of We the People, regulating our own most powerful entities, assuring they do not unjustly regulate us. Stop talking as if our government is the enemy of We the People, as government *is* We the People. When you do, by logical extension, you will join us in our commitment to overturn the Citizens United case (thus, corporate personhood), getting the big piles of corporate (and often, secret) money out of our system of governance. Only then, can you rightfully call President Obama a Corporatist [ www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSaQ7WPd_LM ]. And only then, can you begin to make a case for my vote.
Update (2011-11-21) -
Couldn't have planned this better: The Bad Lip Reading peeps weigh in:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.