The Ron Paul Blog-O-orgy
I can't turn around without elbowing some rabidly optimistic Libertarian Ron Paul supporter.
I love his anti-war positions, and it's refreshing to see him in interviews. Particularly when compared to the manicured plastic ivy league heads that are the majority of choices this upcoming presidential election.
Who doesn't love the first four stanzas of the Libertarian vision? More privacy, less spending, no taxes, lots of sex with Indonesian hookers, errr....
But in reality, here's another white, affluent male who thinks if you strip away government powers and let industry wander the earth unchecked, utopia springs forth from between sidewalk cracks and Walmart, now free of the pesky bonds of 'unnecessary regulation' (like 'don't dump shit in our rivers'), gives us all a great, big existential hug.
But really. Then comes the real plan, partially cooked: no Department of Energy, Homeland Security, Education or FEMA. No more U.N., NATO, CIA or NAFTA. A weak regulatory authority that can't protect consumers (not that the current system does a remotely good job, but it could if you drastically reduced influence peddling)...
Note his website is absurdly surface oriented and mentions none of this.
If you dig below all this bubbly enthusiasm over his anti-war stance, his positions are extreme. That's not interpretation, it's fact. Total deregulation of industry is his agenda. That isn't some assumption, it's his vision. The primary goal of course being no taxes or pesky government so Bob the Libertarian can afford a new boat and dump old paint behind his shed.
Modern Libertarianism is greed wearing a dress, trying to pretend it's a political plan.
That said, there is something positive to be said about an administration where you're only seeing deregulation, instead of deregulation, ridiculous subsidies, and lobbyists (89 at last count) now overseeing the industries they belong to ....but I'm stretching even to come to that positive.
Comments
Isn't that a nihilistic argument? You're saying that either government dominates the economy and controls people, or corporations dominate the economy and control people. Is the future of humanity truly a necessary tyranny?
Posted by: Nathan Pannbacker | July 17, 2007 07:45 PM
Why do so many people assume that if the federal government doesn't do it then no one will? If you're concerned with companies polluting in your local river or lake then elect local government leaders who will write local laws to regulate the companies. By having state government be responsible for many of the tasks federal government is now responsible for, you give greater control to the people. Down with the US department of Education and up with the State Department of Education. Let the people of each state decide what their children should and shouldn't learn. Don't leave it to the federal government to stifle all creative education by mandating a one size fits all plan for every school in the US.
Posted by: dshcustom | July 17, 2007 08:06 PM
"You're saying..."
What I'm saying is what I'm saying. Not what you've just re-phrased me as saying. My goal clearly isn't a radical government nanny-state either.
I'm completely on board with radical change. But I think serious reform of the federal government is a more realistic solution that the elimination of the federal government.
I also think history has shown the result of letting companies play without adequate accountability. I don't see patchwork state-level laws as much of a match for say....AT&T or Exxon and their multi-country, multi-billion dollar presences (and PR departments able to convince Joe Public red is in fact green).
If it's this easy to lobby the federal government, how easy is it to lobby Joe State lawmaker? Also I'll assume that you've stripped away federal limitations on influence peddling in order to let the states determine just how corrupt they'll be one by one (plenty).
I'm always on board with the Libertarian message until the fantasy half of the equation kicks in: that is that you can eliminate the federal government, rely on the good will of the public to replace all social programs, deregulate all corporations, and then things just oh....improve.
I just have never found the platform (at least in its full scope) realistic. Or at least realistic at this stage in our dysfunctional and corrupt political history.
Posted by: Karl | July 17, 2007 08:38 PM
"I'm always on board with the Libertarian message until the fantasy half of the equation kicks in: that is that you can eliminate the federal government, rely on the good will of the public to replace all social programs, deregulate all corporations, and then things just oh....improve."
It's not goodwill that does it so much as common sense. Non-governmental organizations form in response to problems like consumer safety, environmental issues, etc. And they are much more responsive to changing consumers' or environmental needs than the lumber, can-never-kill-a-program federal government.
It is *much* easier to lobby one big federal government than 50 scattered, more local and therefore more accountable and more frugal state governments.
Lobbyists here in DC even have a term for it: "One-stop shopping."
You don't fully understand Paul's views on these issues you (and I) care so much about. If you watch his interview at the Google HQ from last week I think you'll find a lot of answers.
Posted by: Buckwheat | July 17, 2007 09:15 PM
"It is *much* easier to lobby one big federal government than 50 scattered, more local and therefore more accountable and more frugal state governments."
I think you'd be surprised. The baby bells tried to lobby for a federal law eliminating eminent domain rights, public access TV, and TV/broadband build-out requirements (they're getting into the TV biz).
When the federal government route didn't work, they turned instead to state legislators, and have since passed their wishlist legislation in 21 states with more looming. Note: they managed to eliminate a large chunk of local EMINENT DOMAIN RIGHTS (something I know Libertarians care a lot about) with nary an effort.
They did it in record time, largely thanks to immensely deep marketing budgets that managed to convince state leaders that these bills would bring them price-competition for TV (they won't, given limited deployment and no consumer protections). In some cases they used completely artificial consumer advocacy groups to mislead the public, journalists, and lawmakers.
I just don't buy that eliminating federal government cures what ails this country.....
Posted by: Karl | July 17, 2007 09:22 PM
He is also a "the jews are responsible for 911" guy.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 20, 2007 05:30 PM