Forum Thread

How well do you know Ron Paul?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 22 of 22 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    I'll say it again. It's not about Ron Paul. No one is all good or all bad. We all make mistakes. Ron Paul included.

    The fundamental issue is this: Just because you think something is good does not justify the use of force to get it. We all have the right to life, liberty and to be left alone. When one decides that he knows what's best for others and starts using force to effect his goals, violence is the result.  I don't have the moral authority to tell you how to live and vice versa.

    Shared sacrifice is the tragedy of the commons. To your (Schmidt) example: Health care is expensive because of insurance and government subsidies among other things. Why, in every other area of technology but health care, are things getting cheaper and cheaper? You can now hold more computing power in the palm of your hand than existed in NASA's trip to the moon, but setting a broken leg now requires some massive insurance company or government bureaucracy. This is just one example of how good intentions to provide something backfire and hurt the very people they are ostensibly supposed to help.

    But the practical argument is secondary. The hubris that some idea is so good that it justifies the use of force in its implementation is repugnant. There is a twisted logic among many so-called liberals that a person does not own herself. But even though she does not own herself, she can, with the collective, own everyone else. That is the fundamental failure of progressive liberalism, which at its core, is indistinguishable from the fascism of Mussolini or the communism of Lenin. All three spring from the notion that the individual is subordinate to the collective, and ultimately can be sacrificed on the altar of the collective. Democratic processes do not make it any prettier, and do not justify the violence inherent in that philosophy.

    True liberals know that freedom requires respect for the individual, tolerance for others (especially those with whom we disagree), and rejection of coercion as a political means.

    As for the Federal Reserve, try reading "The Creature from Jekyll Island".

    All my best.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Blah, blah....government does not have a right to use force?  Murder should not be illegal  then, eh? Let vigilante justice prevail, eh?

    Fact of the matter is you so called "libertarians" are full of shit.  

    Paul  is lieing, lieing, and lieing about his involvement in the newsletters.  And the truth is too much for your brains to handle. 
    How do we know he is lieing? Well, Ron Paul himself. 

    FACT CHECK: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletters

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    "Ron Paul would not only abolish the Department of Education but also all student loan programs. Having been Home schooled himself, Ron Paul is a strong advocate of home schooling and promotes tax credits for families that home school. When asked how a student could pay for his college education, Ron Paul said, "The way you pay for cellphones and computers. You have the marketplace there. There's competition. Quality goes up. The price goes down."

    Ron Paul responding to a question on ABC on whether public education was socialist said, "When the state runs things, that's a socialist thing." He added, "I preach home schooling and private schooling and competition."

    Ron Paul was also a sponsor of a proposed amendment that would permit "individual or group prayer in public schools or other public institutions.""

    Private schools are so expensive because there's not as many as public schools and they offer advantages in education to those that pay the extra money. The high tuition funds greater resources for the school and offers a higher standard of education as opposed to public schools, which are funded by a shared portion of government money. So why would making all schools private and eliminating loans help education at all? Well, that's fairly simple. As the market becomes flooded with new private education institutions, the supply for private education goes up. This raises competition in the market, because there are more players competing. In the cell phone market, as more and more companies produce similar products, such as smart phones, buyers have more options to choose from. Apple was able to charge an insane amount for the first iphones because they had control of that specific market and could set whatever price they wanted - there was nothing else like it at the time. Apple's success sparked a chain of other companies making similar products and providing them at a much cheaper price. This influx of substitutable products from numerous companies raised competition and in result, lowered the price of iphones. If more private schools existed, then competition would then increase. The competition would cause price to drop. Private schools would have to lower prices for their applicants. The demand for education would go down as people are only willing to pay a certain amount for it, especially no longer having public education as the go-to choice. With an increase in supply and a decrease in demand, the prices would respond by falling drastically to accomodate for the lack of demand. Now with privatized education, the market controls the price. Private schools would have to find ways to have an edge on their competitors and offer better education benefits to raise the tuition and bring in revenue. This raises efficiency and the standard of education provided. Loans being eliminated puts more importance on scholarships - scholarships based on ability and loans based on economic disadvantage. This would cause a greater competition among students to get these scholarships which would ALSO raise the standard of education and our education system's efficiency.

    I can see where he is coming from - competition is a good thing. It would improve the education standards across the board. Improving education is our goal isn't it? Public education has been proven difficult to offer equal opportunities for all. But with equality, we lose efficiency. Whats sad is that our supposed "equal" public education system is not equal at all! Lower-income areas receive less funding than middle/upper class communities. Is increasing government spending in education going to raise the quality of public schools? I really doubt it.

    Home schooling applies to K-12. In giving tax benefits to those that home school, it raises the incentives for parents to home school their children. Home schooling has a bad rep for not being efficient and not providing students with appropriate education and social interactions. However, if those that could not afford to pay for private schooling chose to home school their children, the tax benefits would help them provide better quality education. And with potential student loans out of the question, they would have to compete with other private school children to get the same scholarships to go to college. And while many argue parents are incompetent in providing education to their children, neither do a good handful of public teachers in schools today. Home schooling can strengthen a community in lower-income areas in a way where parents could coordinate with another to offer a quality education to their kids. In a sense, home schooling would become the new public education. The difference being a greater sense of community and core values. Government is pumping our money into schools where kids don't learn anything, don't care, and abuse their chance at education by never showing up and dropping out. This way, you're given the incentive to care and learn because you're paying for it. Or, you're given the incentive care and learn because you have something to prove and the tools to do so.

    It all sounds crazy. But it's so crazy it just might work. But you could argue either way...
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    "Ron Paul would abolish the Federal Reserve and supports a return to a commodity based currency. He has repeatedly introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act since 1999, to enable "America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold." He opposes dependency on paper fiat money and argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent inflation..."I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender."

    The government would no longer be able to print money for bail outs and to "jump" start the economy. Everyone knows if you create a bunch of money and put it in the economy, it will cause inflation. Inflation then leads to bubbles that eventually burst leaving the economy in a recession which then leads to attempts to stimulate the economy. So the Federal Reserve prints non existent money and etc. etc.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    What--no one speaking on Ron Paul outing as a neo-nazi.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    thanx for this............
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Why are you posting on old posts from 10 months ago. I don't believe that Ron Paul has done anything news worthy ????????????????