This is inspired by a couple of pro-Paul people who commented on my post of yesterday.
I think the thing is that non-interference on the part of government would paradoxically result in (even more) interference on the part of other agencies (such as corporations - fracking anyone?) and even where there is no interference, this is not necessarily good. As with people who have lost their jobs or have medical needs but no money. Those who can and will do stuff will do it, and those who can't are at their mercy.
McNationalist commented: "1. International aid and Medicaid need to be phased out gradually before they are arbitrarily cut off when the U.S. economy is in such rough shape that both programs will be forced to be cut. Weening recipients off government subsidy in the face of a crumbling economy is not "mean-spirited", it is humane, and practical."
Sounds good. Wean 'em off. But onto what? The old & infirm should go out and get a job? Let's leave international aid to one side (a whole large argument - I'm for humanitarian aid, but not military), but take Medicaid. How is it humane to leave sick people to fend for themselves? While at the same time leaving the insurance companies free to do their thing? Solutions are available and applied in many other countries - government interference established, and insurance companies off peddling life and auto instead. (Speaking as a Canadian, government-paid health care gives me fantastic freedom as compared to a lot of Americans right here on OS struggling with health-finance issues.) Frees up a lot of money to be used directly on health-care. Also, the argument is not "in the face of a crumbling economy", but as a matter of philosophy on the part of libertarians and a lot of Republicans: people should take care of themselves. And when they can't, well then their friends, relatives and 'community'. And if THEY can't, well, shrug.
Crumbling economy - yes. And globalization is going to mean a flattening of national economies to better match each other (while the oligarchs have even broader fields to ravage). But the American current condition could be alleviated with government spending (yes - borrowing rates are low, and look on it as investment) on infra-structure and education. And taxing the rich and the corporations.
Non-interference means unfettered oligarchy...and bridges falling down.
Absolute freedom means slavery for a lot of people. And death for others.
Because Paul's non-interference stance extends to America's meddling abroad, its long-time 'adventures' in Central America, propping up dictators, etc., and the wars since WWII, a lot of people think he's The Answer. And I might agree with Jack Heart that throwing the baby out to get rid of that particular bath-water would be good...except that the chaos at home would be incredible.
I also agree with another accidental benefit of Paul's non-interference thing: decriminalization of drugs and freeing prisoners with drug convictions. But I think people need to pick and choose among freedoms and non-interferences, rather than take blanket positions.
And Paul is on record as saying his philosophy of non-interference would have included WWII. If Germany wanted to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, Communists, the halt and the lame, that was their business.
And, in fact, the U.S. does shrug off genocides and terrible things in non-white places - Burma, the Horn of Africa, Congo, etc.
And, if you look back at WWII, I think why the U.S. got involved was the fear of having Britain, still the mother country despite all and American's main ally, being taken over by Germany. Jews & Gypsies be damned. It was self-interested interference.
Anyway, we're talking about now. It happens that Paul's blanket non-interference principle has some aspects a lot of people like - no more American wars - but this is an accidental result, and the whole package of non-interference would be disastrous.
Okay, there's Paul's stance on gay marriage. While my position is that religious ceremonies around marriage should not be entangled with the civil contract that marriage is (clergy are sanctioned by the government to witness the signing of said contract but do not themselves give legality, 'only' community sanction), Paul's position is the opposite: government out, only religious marriage, and then only if people want.
To a large extent, that's how the society is moving anyway. The original legal marriage was for protection for women in the days before their emancipation and to provide for child support and inheritance rights (after church and community could no longer enforce such things, to what extent they ever did). The tax benefits could be attached to (as I think they already are) to any dependent. Those things can be covered in law without formal marriage (though whether Paul supports those things is unclear [to me] - possibly those laws constitute interference too, and let the kids fight for parental support on their own).
But while marriage is a government matter and involves some rights, Paul thinks it should be left to the states. The feds should not be pronouncing on whether gays or anybody should be able to marry. Fine - in theory. In practical terms, that means that a gay couple married in, say, Hawaii, the latest state to recognize it, pretty well have to stay in Hawaii, or could only live in those other states that recognize them. If they settled in Mississippi or someplace, say for a job, then they're unmarried. Something considered so fundamental as marriage should have some kind of national status, because certain rights are involved (visitation in hospitals by only close kin or spouses, for instance). To me, the human angle is more important than upholding some abstract principle.
He thinks marriage should be a private contract between the parties involved, and that the contract should be recognized wherever. But that would require a federal rule - otherwise we're back to some states recognizing and some not.
On abortion - this is from Paul's own site:
* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”
* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”
As I read this, he would remove non-interference with abortion and legislate against it. Which doesn't seem to be in line with McNationalist's understanding: "... if you truly understood Ron Paul's ideology, you'd know that even if he personally is against abortion, it would not influence his presidency ."
Malcolm - is this rewrite a better statement of Paul's position on marriage and abortion?
Paul's position seems to be freedom for the unborn...which necessarily interferes with the freedom of women. He doesn't support supporting Planned Parenthood, which provides education and help for women that prevents a lot of abortions.
Abortion is a thorny topic. Let's just consider the mechanics here: In order to provide for the freedom of one category, Paul deems it necessary to curtail the freedom of another category.
And that's the core of the problem: Total non-interference allows for total interference. Total freedom allows for slavery.
Ye old compromise (a dirty word in right-wing circles these days) and working out of messy solutions to allow for the most accommodation for the most people - that's the answer. But it's a whole lot easier to say NO. Reduce government to baby-size and then drown it in the bathtub. No interference - means taking no responsibility. Let people fight it out in the street.
My view is that government is institutionalized community. And that is necessary once civilization moved from autonomous villages and tribes and formed nations. "Government interference" in and of itself is a good and necessary thing...tho it can be clumsy or officious...or dumsy and vicious. People and their representatives have to steer the ship. (And corporations are not people.)
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Jeff J.
Mark Bieter
Kathy Gori
Donegal Descendant
Lucy Hancock
podunkmarte
Salon.com
Comments
Don't we pay taxes, in part, the support the elderly and sick because we want to to have access to medical care?
Is not government there to pass laws to rein in no holds barred corporations?
If there were no national laws on such things as marriage, how or who would define it?
I still say Paul is a scary clown with an agenda I cannot support.
And I never had better health care than in my eight years of living in Canada. Single payer for all, I say.
Much better than the none at all I currently enjoy.
Actually, some of each.
Philosophical purity tends to be evil. Because it puts abstract principle before human wellbeing.
Big Salon has a piece today along the same lines as I was arguing, with a compelling sub-title: The moral idiocy of Ron Paul.
Boanerges1 - and a hearty amen to your last line.
It's about while how Paul appeals to disaffected young people and those against wars (including the drug war), he also has a strong following among far-right religious loonies, like the Reconstructionists. Consider this: "It might seem that Paul’s libertarianism is the very opposite of theocracy, but that’s true only if you want to impose theocracy at the federal level. In general, Christian Reconstructionists favor a radically decentralized society, with communities ruled by male religious patriarchs. Freed from the power of the Supreme Court and the federal government, they believe that local governments could adopt official religions and enforce biblical law."
Kenny - right: total freedom = anarchy = anything-but-free
Chrissie - I learned some stuff - hadn't paid much attention before to fringey crazy Paul.
Mumblety - Eek, hybrid sharks and giant shrimp - I thought you were hallucinating, but I googled...
Candace - 'ppreciate it!
Paul believes that the Federal Government should be weak, and almost non-existent. That sounds a little weird, but that's exactly how the people who founded this country felt. We were supposed to be a confederacy, but too few of the original 13 colonies were willing to go for it, and Madison was convinced that a federal system would be the only one that had a chance at ratification at the Continental Congress, so that's what we got.
Canada is, in essence, a confederacy, and y'all were a confederacy until your constitution was ratified in 1982.
All Paul is saying is that the states should decide on these things, and not the Federal Government. AND, if a state decides that gay marriage is cool, the Reciprical Clause of our constitution means that every other state would have to recognize the marriage.
Now, do I think Paul is a bit of a racist, homophobe and mysogynist? Why yes I do. He's a product of a time and a place where those attitudes were common, and while it sucks, it is what it is. In the end, he will HONOR his OATH to PROTECT and DEFEND the constitution. That means his views are irrelevant.
Most importantly, HE WILL STOP THE KILLING AND THE TORTURE AND THE GOVERNMENT INVASIONS OF PRIVACY AND THE DISMANTLING OF HABIUS CORPUS.
And, again, Paul isn't my 1st choice in politicians I know of to be President, but Kucinich can't run against a Democratic incumbant and hope to ever win another election in Ohio, so given ALL the other choices, I gotta go with Paul as he embodies my views on the things I find most important, which are, again,
If you can find me another candidate who is both for those things, and who seems serious about achieving them in the 1st 100 days of their presidency, I'll look into that candidate, but I know the president isn't that person, so who else ya got? Gingrich? NO - he's a fucking criminal. Santorum? NO - he's the frothy aftermath of butt-sex. Rick Perry? NO - I'll take a pass on Jesus boy, thank you...that idiot will probably try to start the apocalypse if he gets in office.
All Paul is, is the best of a handful of bad choices with a legit shot at winning. I think you're exagerating my support for him, but you're exagerating everything about him, so it's not terribly surprising.
(The other person I'd love to see run is Elizabeth Warren, but she's gotta win her Senatorship 1st...Like I said, I'm what most people would call a liberal/progressive...my views on things have remained consistent. No one elses in here has, because if Obama were white and his last name was Bush, the people in here would be skewering him...but, he's black and his name is Obama, so everyone is scared to criticize him in any way that is meaningful.
THAT is reverse racism. That is giving him a pass on everything he does because people are afraid of being called racist. It's cowardly and it's demeaning to black people who are qualified, and honorable enough, to be president. Obama fell out of that group LONG AGO.)
(**no rating this time...)
r./
To stop the torture and foreign wars and assaults on habius corpus I think a different approach would have a better chance of working: if people really cared, they would *occupy* the congressional nomination process and insist their reps do the job. According to surveys, the majority of the population favors single-payer health care, getting out of foreign wars and doesn't give a crap about preventing same-sex marriage. But the people's will is ignored. A handful of people, as in Iowa a day or two ago, have undue influence, and then over a ridiculous field of candidates who put themselves forward out of ego, and the electorate is apathetic. Y'all can take back your government - but giving it over to someone (who has a lot more agenda than just Teensy Government - his ties to the Reconstructionists makes him anathema regardless of anything else) strikes me as stupid. What's needed is demonstrations, sustained large demonstrations, or the government, fed or state, regardless of leader (or 'leader') will do what it wants, or what its puppet masters want.
And Obama is not getting a pass in here - there are a lot of people here on O.S. who are very disillusioned and against him and have said so in clear language, and plan to vote against him regardless of the outcome (like getting in someone worse). The Obama defenders seem less numerous and less loud.