Ron Paul Would Veto Children’s Health Insurance

Here’s an interesting point to consider when regarding Ron Paul as a potential President.  Imagine he was in office now.

We know he opposes universal health care.  And federal level social programs.  And taxes.

So even as Bush, in a widely despised move, prepares to veto health care for millions of children, consider.   Ron Paul would do the same thing.

Advertisements

24 Responses

  1. AS it should be! There is no reason that the federal government should have a childrens health insurance program! Please read

    Article 1. sec.8 US Constitution
    Section. 8.

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–And

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    now

    Amendment X

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    You see the Federal Government cannot create a Childrens Health Insurance Program, but the States can. The States can create a universal Health Insurance plan if they want, but the Federal Government can’t.

    Please try and read and understand the Constitution and you will see that Ron Paul is correct in everything that he says.

  2. Johnnyb,
    I call bullshit. Ron Paul is wrong on a lot of things relating to the constitution. Like separation of church and state, for one egregious example.

    He’s wrong here too. Ethically as well. Why shouldn’t the federal government FUND state programs?

  3. For the same reason you shouldn’t convict someone without due process — it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Why is this so hard to understand? If you want the government to run programs like this, then you have to amend the constitution, period.

  4. He doesn’t believe in state and church, you fucking idiot! Why shouldn’t they? Because:

    a. it doesn’t solve the problem

    b. wastes money, inflates the currency further, which increases the cost of living for the poor and middleclass.

    c. a true free market solves the health care issue. We only started having problems when government got involved, and you want to solve that with involving more government?

    You are a great moron.

  5. Jeffrey Bubb,
    No, it isn’t. This is something Ron Paul supporters kick and scream about, but providing federal funding to the states, be it for roads, health care, whatever, is not unlawful.

    Joseph the Libertarian,
    Check again Joseph. Ron Paul’s own words:

    The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

    As No God Zone noted:

    Let us put aside for a second his opposition to “rigid separation between church and state” and concentrate, not on Constitutional theory, but on Constitutional facts. Mr. Paul claims that the Constitution is “replete with references to God”. Now replete means abundantly supplied or filled. So if the Constitution is abundantly filled with references to God how many are there? Let’s get precise. How many times is God mentioned in the Constitution?

    Zero!

    Plus there is the first amendment. So not only is Ron Paul for a union of church and state, his constitutional scholarship is just plain wrong.

    A true free market doesn’t solve all problems. That’s nothing more than a libertarian fantasy.

  6. Nice try statist.

    But an opposition to the states hostility towards the freedom of religion is not indicative of a support of the institution of religion within law. You are deliberately taking his words out of context in order to place him, falsely, within the realm of the “religious right”. The entire article you pulled that quote from was about a societal and more importantly, legislative attack, upon the exercise of religion.

    I challenge you to show me in any way where Ron Paul has expressly supported through his years in Congress, the legislation of religious doctrine as law. Indeed he has attacked the lax ‘morals’ of the neo-con on various occasions as can be evidenced by 5 minutes of “research” on youtube. Certainly he has called for an end to nearly all forms of vices as crimes since the eighties.

    You are absolutely wrong about the legality of the use of federal funds to institute state monopolies or corporate subsidy upon any portion of a market the ruling class so ordains. The powers of Congress section (article one section eight) lays out explicitly the powers of Congress. And no where within that section of the Constitution can you find any justification for health care or your vague and broad open window terminology of “whatnot”s. If you are erroneously attempting assert the first clause of that section where the issue of “general welfare” is raised then I need only point you to this quote by the key writer of the Constitution:

    “For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?”
    — James Madison, in Federalist No. 41

    An unlimited collection of powers the Constitution was NOT meant to be. It was to the contrary a collection of limitations upon the central body. Though I would admit that it most likely was the intention of Hamilton and his yoke to see this and various other bits later perverted by succeeding generations of mercantile, Hamiltonian, tory hacks… like himself… and you… for political and economic gain. (at the loss of individual freedom and economic prosperity of others of course)

    You should take some time to study that which you have little to no understanding of along with most Americans) – the free market and economics. It is no fault to be ignorant of economics, but it is exceptionally irresponsible and illogical (at best) or tyrannical and dangerous (at near worst) to call for legislation in that field when one chooses to remain ignorant of the science. Perhaps if you took the time to correct this mistake you would not place so much faith within a state monopoly upon industry X or Y.

    Maybe if you merely took the time to analyze beyond emotional calls of “think of the children”, to study history… or even recent history… you would realize that the ever growing involvement with the medical industry has been the root cause of the inflationary results we see today. From HMO’s (a government mandated business structure that is enjoys the ire of many) to massive subsidy and regulation (evidenced through the FDA, tariffs and blockades of foreign competition… ie foreign prescription drugs) the government has been spreading its plague of collectivization as a cure for a disease it started.

    It is understandable that you cannot see the forest for the trees. It is, after all, by design that the politician will advertise more government involvement (and subsequent power and wealth for himself) to solve the ills of the previous government involvement. You are in essence: attempting to cure the symptoms of the disease (socialism) with more of the disease

  7. “He’s wrong here too. Ethically as well.”

    Shouldn’t ethics be for the large part removed from governments who have the ultimate implication of forcing said ethical structures upon others? Ethics: Greek – “moral philosophy” – a major branch of philosophy, is the study of values and customs of a person or group. Government cannot have a place within the realm of the investigation into moral truth or ethical philosophy, they can only force morals upon others. Ethics and government are not two things that belong together… but so is the perverting power of government. Hence my issue is not so much the use of ones own philosophies but that through government, only force is applied with any philosophy

    “Why shouldn’t the federal government FUND state programs?”

    Well for starters it is unlawful. Via the constitution which is supposedly the highest law of the land, but as the modern day blue and red state fascists are so ready to spout out when it favors their particular form of fascism: ‘its just a god damn piece of paper’. And indeed it is.

    I do hope you are not a opponent of “pork” spending or corporate/individual welfare/subsidy. To be so would be contradictory in nature to this argument.

    One reason not to fund state programs is that these programs if funded in such a way would necessitate the robbery of other states for the benefit of ONLY the receiving state. You assume that we Virginians are obligated to pay for the programs of the citizens of California. Or that California is compelled through threat of force to fund the programs and initiatives set upon by the governments of Virginia. I see not how this is anything but outright robbery writ large. Of course I expect no sympathy from the like of you… the proponents of the ‘benevolent’ state. I suppose such theft is as legitimate as robbing the rich to give to the poor. So long as you approve who the victim shall be and who the recipient of fruits of said criminal activity shall be, it makes no difference that at its core a crime is committed upon a person or persons to your average modern ‘liberal’ (that you power loving goons have stolen that term and perverted it to be the exact opposite of its original understanding is a spit upon the graves of Lord Acton, Thomas Jefferson, Lysander Spooner, etc.)

    You also ignore the FACT that the government cannot fund anything. Literally. They can only rob from the rest of the tax paying populace through the printing of federal reserve notes for the commodity known as ‘money’. They have no real money to back up all of the fraudulent notes they create. This back-door scheme to fleece the American man of all the fruits of his labor is nearly invisible and entirely for the benefit of banks, politicians, and any corporate private or individual beneficiaries they may and do have. The support of this system of theft will ruin this nation and steal all from the American people in the end, but that does not matter so long as Mr.Lefty gets what he says is his ‘right’… right? Damn the costs, Damn the implicit and explicit criminal behavior, and damn the ruination of the future generations of tax/dollar slaves. The only results will be a step closer to economic collapse and a more complete despotism.

  8. People, I have tried arguing with this socialist jerkoff in the past. It is of no use. He just simply discards anything you say and just says what HE wants to say. His responses get more and more irrelevant to the original subject and he simply piles on more straw on the rhetorical straw man. It is a waste of time. He isn’t asking any questions or expecting any real dialog, he is making statements trying to fish out people he can convert to his socialist ideas. He is hoping he can talk over the head of some, so they will cede to his opinion.

    Please, don’t waste your time thinking you can argue any sense into him. He wants a socialist country, plain and simple. The constitution means nothing to him. Nothing. It is simply a piece of paper in the way of his socialist goals.

    I bet he would even consider Obama a ‘radical right-winger’ with the crap he has been writing.

    Darrin, you realize Canada isn’t THAT far away and right now, you are still free to go there. Maybe you should. Long term. It would sure be easier than trying to fuck up OUR country and convert it to socialism, and we’ll probably even respect your opinion then.

    BTW, this guy isn’t stupid. He knows EXACTLY what he is trying to do. He is the worst kind of socialist mind-bender, a psychologist in the beltway.

    Also, BTW, if the “majority” wants health care for kids, why don’t the “majority” pay for it themselves? If the “majority” supports it, the “majority” will pay the taxes for it anyway, so why not just buy better insurance on their own? Your carefully crafted fallacy points out that it isn’t really the “majority” that wants it, but those that want the majority to buy it for THEM. Consider this extremely simple point:

    If EVERYONE (I mean everyone) paid a fair share for universal health care, then they would essentially be paying their own share (because to divide the costs equally among everyone, you would have to charge the same tax for everyone.) In reality, not everyone will be taxed. So, the “majority” will pay their fair share and someone else’s fair share (since if they still expect benefits, their cost is not reduced.) In summary, the cost of health insurance for the majority goes UP. This is the terrible reality behind socialism. Sounds great until you actually get it. The ONLY people that will benefit from it are those not paying their fair share. And guess what that means? More people chosing NOT to pay their fair share. So then the remaining payers will then pay EVEN more, until they can *no longer afford to work* either. Then what do we have? Well, Michigan, technically, but I am talking about the whole country, here.

    The free market ALWAYS has better solutions. Of course, you will come back with the people can’t afford it. But they COULD if they weren’t paying so much in taxes and getting raped by inflation. See, you can pick at small pieces all you want, but people smarter than you actually understand the WHOLE picture, although I suspect you understand it just fine but discard it just like you do any counter-argument.

    Go on converting people by making them believe the government has all this money and is just being greedy with it. That it harms NOONE to give you your universal health-care. I mean, you’re just sticking it to the fed, right? Right?

    Of course, predictable as you are, you will point out the cost of this war and how if we took THAT money, we could have universal health care. Well, guess what? They shouldn’t be spending our money on that, either! Now, maybe you can understand why the democrats will NEVER stop the war. It provides gargantuan levels of money being borrowed from China, etc.. And people will believe we had this money all along and will accept big programs in it’s place, and continue to not understand what a budget deficit actually means (it’s like thinking you have a couple of extra zeros in your checking account and the bank letting you continue to think that while charging you interest.)

    Later, Comrade!

  9. oops, I meant FITNESS, not Darrrin. I actually meant to praise your comments Darrin.

  10. Darrin said:
    “One reason not to fund state programs is that these programs if funded in such a way would necessitate the robbery of other states for the benefit of ONLY the receiving state.”

    Not to mention that when the federal government funds a state, it means that the government is able to regulate the behavior of a state through these funds. There have been many examples of this happening recently, where the federal government withholds funds to states unless they go along with something (no child left behind, for instance.) That is a crime against the States Rights part of the constitution. It’s interesting to hear other candidates talking about their support for States Rights and in the next breath talk about this anti-republic funding/control scheme.

    Also, another “unintended consequence” is that Federal taxes go up to “fund” all these State programs so that the States themselves cannot raise their OWN taxes and provide what is best for their OWN people.

    We are so far removed from what this country was intended to be that I almost wish they would stop bothering to call it America anymore. Stop teaching history in schools, it just breaks the spirit when the children get out of school and see that the country they live in is nothing like the country they were told about in the history books.

    But, like fitness, they are going to focus on single individual problems, ignoring the actual source of the problem, and proposing more of what caused the problem in the first place.

  11. I concur with Scott on the manipulative results of federal level meddling. Thus is the impact of centralization.

    I especially agree on the reality vs propaganda bit of public “education”. Even if it was not intended by you to assault the institution of public mis-education.

  12. Alrighty, this should be a long one. Here goes:

    Darrin,
    Sigh, I’m hardly a statist. And I’m sick and tired of hearing “his words out of context”. Bullshit. Don’t you see that putting up religious displays in our courts, and school prayer amount to endorsing religious beliefs by the state?

    I did show you, and you chose not to see the facts. That’s your decision sir.

    Tory Hacks like me? Now who is engaging in personal attacks johnny consitency? (Still, damn I like your style, that is an awesome insult, even if its totally off base like the rest of your comment).

    I understand economics, and frankly, now matter how much you glorify statistics and pop psychology, it is no substitute for scientific method and good old fashioned logical proofs. That might be a bit mean, but libertarians treat economics like some intellectual golden calf. And look where that ended up.

    I look and see different governments involved themselves in different ways. European governments did so successfully. We didn’t. You are the scientist who watched 10 people run an experiment, 9 succeed, and you point to the one who failed and yell “See? Science fails!”. Hardly.

    …. Government officials and policies can be ethical. What’s wrong with that?

    You keep saying “unlawful”. I don’t believe you. The constiution wasn’t, point of fact, written by God. So I support it when it makes sense to, and oppose what doesn’t make sense. This seems logical (and hopefully leads to ammendments and such). Why do we either have to accept it blindly or toss it out completely? This dichotomy doesn’t exist in the real world.

    Funny you mention that, but all the Red States who complain so loudly about this are the takers. Blue states are the givers. Funny, huh? Maybe we should just listen and let the Red States starve as their stupid economic policies rob themselves blind.

    Scott McDonnell,
    Wow. Poorly argued sir. Can you back up a single word you said?

    For the record, I consider Obama a will not take a position stick in the mud Bill Clinton wannabee. I think you, on the other hand, consider anyone to the left of Romney socialist. And hey, more power to you, illusions are fun.

    I do rather like being called a mind-bender though.

    Nutty libertarians keep saying, hey, the free market will save us all. Prove it. Prove your irrational belief, unless it is in fact merely an argument put up to defend the idea of letting the rich and the powerful run rampant over the rest of us. I can find plenty of examples where the free market utterly fails to do crap. And I can find plenty of examples where the evil government stepped in and took positive action.

    Adious citizen Scott.

    Darrin and Scott,
    Sigh. Sometimes its good for the fed to interfere, sometimes its not. The world isn’t black and white.

    And there’s no reason we can teach investigative history and good reasoning skills. We can have good schools gentlemen.

    And there is nothing magical about having states write the laws and set taxes. Save civil rights may not apply in all states (but its that way now, isn’t it?).

  13. Didn’t trying to impose state rights divide the country, set off a civil war and attempt to protect a systematic system of enslavement? Just asking….

  14. Man Fitness, you seem to really attract the far Libertarian wing of American society. I wonder what would the United States look like without, you know the federated part of the federation?

    This is not 1776, things have changed, the world has changed.

  15. Rafael:

    The oldest cop out in the book is the ‘argument’ that “things have changed”

    and I would like it kept straight in the books that I am certainly a libertarian, as a square is a rectangle, but among libertarians I am much more properly referred to as a Market Anarchist and Agorist.

  16. I buy the Anarchist part, and things have changed, we no longer live in the ear of robber barons, because those ways did not work. One of the reasons why the United States broke out of its depresion cycle of the late 19th to early 20th century was because of the New Deal (among other things).

    The Free Market is a myth, as it has being proven again, and again and again.

  17. Fitness:

    Sigh, I’m hardly a statist.

    If you support a state then yes, you are a statist. And I have seen you do nothing but support governments here…

    And I’m sick and tired of hearing “his words out of context”. Bullshit. Don’t you see that putting up religious displays in our courts, and school prayer amount to endorsing religious beliefs by the state?

    You failed to show me anything but taking his words out of context. MY opposition to a bible in a court house or a star of david on X government funded thing lies SOLELY in in the fact that a government fleeced the money from me nd others to pay for it. I can see your side and agree in part but do not see this is as horrible as it would appear. Can I not take office if I endorse Islam? Am I barred from being a lawyer or policeman if I wear a star of David? Does swearing to tell the truth (a useless relic from times when men were MORE of their word than now…) upon the bible make you a Christian or specifically promote the government as endorsing Christianity?

    Tory Hacks like me? Now who is engaging in personal attacks johnny consitency? (Still, damn I like your style, that is an awesome insult, even if its totally off base like the rest of your comment).

    Your loyal to governments and force, what else can be said? And thank you I suppose… 🙂

    I understand economics, and frankly, now matter how much you glorify statistics and pop psychology, it is no substitute for scientific method and good old fashioned logical proofs. That might be a bit mean, but libertarians treat economics like some intellectual golden calf. And look where that ended up.

    Lol. you obviously dont know jack about economics if you think a austrian (economist) is going to come at you with statistics and numbers or that he will not SOLELY use logical praxeological constructs to argue for the market over intervention. Utter reliance upon figures and mathematics is indicative of a control based economist.

    I look and see different governments involved themselves in different ways. European governments did so successfully. We didn’t. You are the scientist who watched 10 people run an experiment, 9 succeed, and you point to the one who failed and yell “See? Science fails!”. Hardly.

    You are assuming that European models of fascism are superior to our particular form of fascism. I am friends to both a Portugese man, an Italian market anarchist, a Britishman, and a Frenchmen who would READILY combat you on the worhsip of those “success” stories… stories being a key word there

    …. Government officials and policies can be ethical. What’s wrong with that?

    A policeman stopping a man from murdering another man is moral yes. Even the Nazis markedly reduced rape within Germany. This is a absolute good thing. But to say that this good, justifies the means is quite another.

    You keep saying “unlawful”. I don’t believe you. The constiution wasn’t, point of fact, written by God. So I support it when it makes sense to, and oppose what doesn’t make sense.

    As do I

    This seems logical (and hopefully leads to ammendments and such). Why do we either have to accept it blindly or toss it out completely? This dichotomy doesn’t exist in the real world.

    read about the rule of law. It has everything to do with limitations upon government.

    I will never support your calls to amend the constitution to enslave your neighbors.

    Funny you mention that, but all the Red States who complain so loudly about this are the takers. Blue states are the givers. Funny, huh?

    I suppose you assume that I care one way or another which direction robbery flows. That sort of mentality is left up to statists in my book.

    Maybe we should just listen and let the Red States starve as their stupid economic policies rob themselves blind.

    Too bad the economic policies of the red states often are exactly the same as the economic policies (especially of trade and interstate commerce) of blue states. THe differences between republicrats and demopublicans, I can assure you, is entirely superficial.

    Darrin and Scott,
    Sigh. Sometimes its good for the fed to interfere, sometimes its not. The world isn’t black and white.

    Interference in one matter sets precedence to interfere in all matters.

    We can have good schools gentlemen.

    we sure can! as soon as we stop letting governments pervert them into mandatory brainwash centers for my children

    And there is nothing magical about having states write the laws and set taxes. Save civil rights may not apply in all states (but its that way now, isn’t it?).

    indeed there isn’t. Which is why I am an anarchist. Though what you perceive as civil rights and what I do likely differ, and it was the intention for this confederacies (yes a federalist nation is a form of confederacy) central system to be small and to allow as much autonomy as possible under a federalist system. With more diversity within the land the more one an vote with ones feet and move to a state which suits one better. The smaller and more impotent a governments the less successfully it can institute its laws. and all governments pass bad laws, and I would argue that all laws passed by governments are so.

    Power is not synonymous with freedom. No mater what Rudy Guilani says. Government is force, it is coercion, it is the very opposite of freedom. And the smaller and more fragmented the grip of government the more freedom people will enjoy.

  18. I buy the Anarchist part, and things have changed, we no longer live in the ear of robber barons, because those ways did not work.

    *arg* the robber barons historical fallacy once again. These robber barons were not the product of a free market bu of a controlled and corporatist one. The gilded age was home to although specific and less broad, significant protections and pairings of government and business. Particularly the rails. (which continues today I might add). In addition: some of these supposedly horrible men challenged federal and state monopolies upon a service or good (like Vanderbilt) and opened the enterprise to the markets improving both safety and price (s was especially the case of the steam boat monopoly the state had).

    It would do you good to visit Mises.org once a day and read the daily article there… or to look for the opposing argument I might present to you on any given subject

    One of the reasons why the United States broke out of its depresion cycle of the late 19th to early 20th century was because of the New Deal (among other things).

    economic fallacy. The New Deal helped to exasperate the effects of the Depression and John Maynard Keynes (who died on my birthday in 1946… 🙂 ) was wrong when he attempted to justify governemnt intervention within the monetary and trade systems to prevent such cycles. In fact it is the creation of the inflation and deflation of the money supply and control of said money supplies loan rates by central banking that cause economic booms and busts as we know them.

    We can go into this in great detail if you have the time and space somewhere, or you can correct your ignorance again and read… for free… or listen… for free… to one of the numerous books on the subject of economics concerning the great depression and more importantly the subject of central banking available at Mises.org under “Media” and “Literature”.

    The Free Market is a myth, as it has being proven again, and again and again.

    If by proven, you mean provent o have never really existed in america… or if by proven you mean simply stated as fact and backed up with fallacious examples of economic ignorance… or if by proven you simply mean restricted and once control screwed everything up, the blame erroniously placed upon it… then yes.

  19. But how do you create a “free market” after all if there are no regulations, the largest actors in the market will seek to control the market, monopolized it and close it to others, since their main goal is not fair competition but profits, and the best way to assure profits (and stagnation in the long run) is through the creation of monopolies and economic cartels.

    Free markets, as you envision them, have never existed, only a mode of ‘laize-faire” economics. Fantastic on the surface, but not workable.

    And how did the New Deal did what you say it did?

  20. “Nutty libertarians keep saying, hey, the free market will save us all. Prove it.”

    We will, when Ron Paul is elected president. Care to give him a chance so we can “prove it?” We haven’t had a “Free market” in well over a century.

    What I can prove to you is that our current system ISN’T working. But, yeah, just dismiss everything I said with a simple “poorly argued..” just like I said you would. Keep using “false authority”, etc.. rhetoric. It is your field of study after all.

  21. “One of the reasons why the United States broke out of its depresion cycle of the late 19th to early 20th century was because of the New Deal (among other things).”

    And the ONLY thing that caused the depression in the first place was the establishment of the central bank (federal reserve) and federal income taxes.

    See, like I said, you freaking socialists just CANNOT grasp the “big picture” at all. You look at singular scenarios, build straw men, hypothetical crisis’, etc.. and then propose big government solutions.

    Read a fucking history book for a change. And Fitness, if you support the constitution ONLY when it makes sense (to you, of course, meaning when it doesn’t interfere with your goals, which it DOES on nearly everything you have mentioned,) as I said in a different post, you do not deserve the protection of it.

  22. But how do you create a “free market” after all if there are no regulations, the largest actors in the market will seek to control the market, monopolized it and close it to others, since their main goal is not fair competition but profits,

    Why do you associate regulations with a free market? I am not following you here…

    more villainization of the market process from those who don’t understand economics. Ones main concern yes, is to subjectively turn a profit. Just as a consumers goal is to do the same. It is this tendency for humans to subjectively improve their present state of happiness through a trade, trading one thing for another thing they want more, that comprises the market process. It is not evil by any means and is mutually beneficial.

    You also ignore or are ignorant of numerous writings about the near impossibility of a true monopoly to form in the market without government regulation upon its competitors, which is after all how they form. Even the maintenance of a monopoly is nigh impossible. Nor do you address how several NEAR monopolies that formed (some even with government help) were NOT “bad” for anyone.

    Free markets, as you envision them, have never existed, only a mode of ‘laize-faire” economics. Fantastic on the surface, but not workable.

    yes, they have. Anywhere where there is a total lack of government there have been free markets. Anywhere where the government has strictly stayed as far from it a possible it has been. It has existed in NEAR freedom in many times and places as well.

    You fail to show how it is in anyway not ‘workable’. Perhaps you should define what that word means or implies when you say it. “workable”

    And how did the New Deal did what you say it did?

    Should we really get into this here? I would be going on for a LONG time. One point I will make before providing you with some links to some readings is that The New Deal… which was nothing but straight up theft and control, nothing NEW there… was heavily supported by many corporate interests on wall street. And even economists who support interventionist policies have recently admitted that the opposite of what they EXPECTED to occur given the changes, actually occurred.

    If you feel so inclined to read a book, Americas Great Depression. this is written by the late and great Murray Rothbard:
    http://www.mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

    Why facists loved FDR:
    http://www.mises.org/story/2312

    The New Deal in one lesson
    http://www.mises.org/story/1816

    “The New Deal debunked (again)”
    http://www.mises.org/story/1623

  23. Man, I leave things for a day and look at all of this :).
    I’ll try to get to this thread, there is a lot I want to respond to.

  24. Rafael,
    Hmmmm. It is interesting.

    Darrin,
    Yes, that is a cop out. At the same time, this ceaseless hammering on the consitution and attempts to argue the federal government away just don’t make sense to me. I suppose for some things, sure, I see the argument. But for others it just seems like a really craven way to let some states be bigots.

    Rafael,
    Right on with the new deal and the free market.

    Darrin,
    Then you haven’t been looking. I support governments for some things, not for others. Most people you’ll meet differ in this respect issue by issue.

    Excellent… Public displays of faith are surely ok. It is official displays of faith that are at issue. This should be an easy distinction to make. A Senator wearing a cross? Personal & public. Embedding a giant cross into the Senate itself? Official.

    As for taking his words out of context, sure I could quote his entire speech, and then that argument would no longer be at your disposal (as opposed to merely linking to it). My argument stands. What I don’t see is you showing how this abundance of context I apparently lack in any way contradicts my argument. So again, your cry of “out of context!” is weightless.

    If loyalalty to governments and force is the criteria, then nearly every politician out there is a tory. I’d like to see this used more often.

    I know that economists use a study of history, politics, and current indicators in making their recomendations. There is a lot to be said for that. But in the end we are still talking about prediction.

    And I’m sure your personal friends provide a compelling substitute for an argument on the merits. I am not talking about European fascism, and you know I am not. I am talking about things like health care. How is guaranteed health care fascism, in any way?

    You example with the nazis is way off base. I am simply saying government need not always be unethical. And your response is to go on about ends justifying the means… How is that a response to my point?

    We are not talking about enslaving neighbors….

    Look, if you are going to resort to hyperbole, I almost don’t see the point in continuing to debate with you. If you get too outrageous, it becomes difficult trying to find the point you are trying to make. I’m certain you can do better.

    The robber barons were the result of corporations controling local government, and a lack of restrictions on their actions. In other words, in a market free of government controls, what is to stop the most powerful corporations from exerting their influence unduly?

    As for the new deal, I’m afraid you have a long way to go in convincing anyone other than a few diehard republicans that it was anything other than a success.

    The free market never really existed in the same way “pure” communism never really existed.

    Rafael,
    An excellent point. A market will always be susceptible to force, from government or corporation, or simply very powerful individuals.

    Scott McDonnell,
    No, I would not. I’m not going to elect that racist nutbag president so we can watch corporations freed from regulatory shackles rise up and rule us all even more than they do now. I’ll not watch a return to states rights while drooling southener states like Mississippi and Louisiana rush to implement new Jim Crow laws and ban homosexuality.

    …. You mean the stock market crash and over-leveraging, right?

    Scott,
    If the constitution has a clause that does not sufficiently protect rights, I am for extending it. I dig reasonable ammendments. If you think this disqualifies me from its protection, I’ll toss the same argument back at you. Do you oppose all ammendments? The 1st? The 4th? If it must remain an unaltered document, fine, limit your own protections to just that core, sans ammendments.

    That is the argument you are making.

    Darrin,
    That is curious. (Free Market == No Regulations).
    In any case, look, the market process itself is fine.
    What isn’t fine is the market process with nothing to check it.
    Pure greed leads to ugly places.

    And that is I think an interesting problem with the “yay free markets” cheerleading. It leaves out any possibility of people doing nasty things with concentrated economic power. In other words, it leaves out reality.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: