Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul Campaign Answers Slashdot Reader Questions
On January 15th we asked you for tech-oriented questions we could send to the various presidential candidates, and you responded like mad. The candidates were the exact opposite: not a single one answered emails we sent to their "media inquiry" links or email addresses. Slashdot has more readers than all but a handful of major daily papers, so that's kind of strange. Maybe they figure our votes aren't worth much or that hardly any of us vote. In any case, the Ron Paul campaign finally responded, due to some string-pulling by a Slashdot reader who knows some of Ron Paul's Texas campaign people. Perhaps other Slashdot readers -- like you (hint hint) -- can pull a few strings with some of the other campaigns and get them to communicate with us. Use this email address, please. But first, you'll probably want to read the Ron Paul campaign's answers to your questions (below).
1) Global high tech
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Ron Paul campaign:
America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
4) What do you think about technology?
Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?
Ron Paul campaign:
I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights; however, some of the steps taken to protect these rights impose unreasonable burdens on the consumers and even raise civil liberties concerns. As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media.
5) What do you think about patents?
People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.
It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.
As President, would you fix our broken patent system?
Ron Paul campaign:
Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation. While I do not have a plan for patent reform yet, I would want to work with Congress to make sure that the US patent system encourages and rewards innovation. Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
1) Global high tech
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Ron Paul campaign:
America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
4) What do you think about technology?
Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?
Ron Paul campaign:
I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights; however, some of the steps taken to protect these rights impose unreasonable burdens on the consumers and even raise civil liberties concerns. As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media.
5) What do you think about patents?
People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.
It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.
As President, would you fix our broken patent system?
Ron Paul campaign:
Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation. While I do not have a plan for patent reform yet, I would want to work with Congress to make sure that the US patent system encourages and rewards innovation. Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
To me the answer to question 2 very much conflicts with the answer to question 1.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
So, like, I'm confused. Who is actually answering these questions here? The title and story intro say the questions are answered by the "Ron Paul campaign." So does that mean this is, in fact, Ron Paul himself answering, or his people, or a combination, or...?
His answer to question #3 contradicts his resolution in answer to question #2.
Which is a less than huge surprise, considering how leading most of those questions were!
Seems like the libertarian version of a typical politician - light on details, light on commitment, and exactly what the audience was looking for.
Not trolling at all here, but I was rather underwhelmed by the responses.
Basically, the responses given by the Ron Paul campaign carried the tone I expected (more focus on personal liberties and free market) but were truly lacking in depth. For once, it would be nice to get a more detailed response from a politician, and not just the typical buzzword jockeying.
Of all the candidates, this was the one I least expected generalizations and "typical response" muck. Oh well... at least they responded... I guess...
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
Just blowing off steam. Sheesh.
It is highly unlikely then Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination. This is unfortunate because he is an extremely smart man who is consistent in his policies. His voting history carries this out. Not only that, be he is the only candidate that seems to have a solid understanding of sound economic fiscal policy.
Even more unfortunate, we will soon be left with elections that are exactly as they have been in the past: A choice between the lesser of two evils.
Tell me, of the 4 front-runners (Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain), who deserves your vote? The answer is: None of the above.
[ exhale a sigh of desperation ]
More non-answers from a guy who claims to be running on a "not more of the same" platform.
/Quote
For instance:
Quote:
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions.
3) Marijuana : My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
Does anyone else think that Answer #2 conflicts with Answer #3? Did he just not answer the guy's direct question? (i.e. "what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?")
Another non-answer: "As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media. "
I must say, after all the hoopla about this guy being a "real candidate", I'm not impressed. He sounds like more of the same to me.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
How about the "Ron Paul stands just about as much chance of being elected as you do" posts? It doesn't really matter if the person reading is 15, an atheist, Chinese, or a member of Al Qaeda; the statement is still accurate.
The best thing about Ron Paul this year is how he can be the ultimate form of humiliation. Pundits and pollsters were all over Rudy "9/11" Giuliani before the primaries started. Some of them were practically writing his victory speeches before the first vote had been cast. Then people started voting and he got less votes than even Ron Paul.
As far as the "nut" complaint, just Google "Gold Standard". He's also protectionist as hell. He also stands behind a lot of things that Slashdotters find acceptable that are political suicide in America today (legalize drugs, gay marrage is ok, privatize Social Security). It's one thing to be against "wasteful government spending", but when it ends up involving people dying on the street (social programs), it's a lot harder to stomach. From a purely economic point of view it is probably better to let the mentally ill and unemployable just die on the street instead of subsidizing them for the rest of their life, but that's not what most people consider acceptable for the first world.
I read the internet for the articles.
Maybe they figure our votes aren't worth much or that hardly any of us vote.
I know this story is slanted such that we are supposed to feel that only Ron Paul cares enough about us to actually respond, but the truth of the matter is that despite slashdot's large readership, a significant fraction of the readership is not eligible to vote in U.S. elections, whereas large U.S. newspapers can boast a much larger percentage of eligible U.S. voters. Also, politicians still pay more attention to print publications than to internet publications. Print media still holds more respect. One of my coworkers once told me he had e-mailed his resume to 100 companies and not gotten a single response. I told him that I would bet money that he had sent his resume by regular mail to the company that he would have gotten multiple responses. Of course, that would have cost him over $40 in stamps, plus more effort to address everything. This is the same reason you are more likely to get a response from a politician if you send them a letter than an e-mail. You have to put more effort into a letter, so they are going to pay more attention to it.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You serve politicians up questions like that, where their answers will either alienate the Slashdot population or the general electorate, and you expect answers? Come on. Those were cherry picked by Ron Paul fanboys. The pot smoking question especially.
So we should vote based on who's viable rather than who's right? Anymore, this seems to exemplify exactly what's wrong with this country.
Asking Ron Paul questions about what he'd do if he was President is like asking me. I have as much chance of becoming President as RP does.
Advice: on VPS providers
Why don't you vote? Are you a felon? Or is it the whole 'voting doesn't matter' diatribe.
When you get bad service at a restaurant, not leaving leaving a tip only makes the server think you're an ass. Leaving a $.25 tip will still make them think you're an ass, but betters the odds of sorting themselves out (either via a manager, or themselves, etc).
Personally, this is the first election I'll have ever voted in where I felt like 1) my vote mattered (both to me and to the outcome), and 2) I'm excited for the potential of numerous candidates regardless of parties.
Unless you're prohibited by law, get off your lazy ass and vote.
If you don't vote, then your opinion doesn't count for much, does it?
Why don't you quit blabbermouthing for "insightful" posts on slashdot, and instead do something that makes a difference like try to get the man some delegates! I mean, damn, what the hell.
Good. I make my own damn plans. I'm a free person. I don't need a politician to make plans for me.
Much like Linux on the desktop, right?
Yes.
Well, actually the answer is probably "yes." If you actually want to make a difference you should vote in a way that enables that rather than voting in some idealistic attempt to make a statement. If you want to enable change, vote for the "right" people at a more local level where they stand a chance of getting into office where they can actually do something! Don't vote for someone who clearly has no chance of winning just to "make a statement" and then whine that things aren't how you want them. Change usually happens from the bottom up, only rarely from the top down.
To be fair, those questions outright SUCKED. *That's* the best Slashdot can give our candidates? No wonder no one responded! I was expecting questions that would give a layman's summary of all the great issues whose explanation we take for granted, including patents, copyright, distribution monopoly, fair use, parenting in the digital age, internet governance, etc., and then ask for a well-reasoned or thought-out action plan. But these questions do nothing to motivate a person to think deeply about anything I care about.
Fuck, you have an opportunity to get official answers to questions that would *never* be asked in a mainstream debate, and instead you shove forward crap about Marijuana and "our elected officials deceive us"? We all deserve the shitty response we got.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Well, what "viable" really truly means is "able to be supported by enough real voters to make it into office". "Real voters", in contrast to the vast horde of just-like-you voters that exist only in your mind.
You are free in a democracy to vote for whomever you like, but confining yourself to "viable" voters is indicative of the kind of maturity it takes to function in a democracy (by which I mean any system with a major democratic component, including the US Republic), which requires understanding that a lot of people don't agree with you.
This anger about people seeking "viability" strikes me as coming awfully close to a totalitarian impulse. What, am I just supposed to ignore the fact that I'm in the minority and angrily push my views through anyhow? No.
It's not a sign of degeneracy. It's maturity.
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail. What the fsck has giving a straight answer have to do with commitment to free market and limited government? Do they (Ron Paul campaign) have such a short attention span, or do they expect that their voters have? I felt like someone spat on me, when I read those answers.
I have seen this sort of BS in all of the answers. Either Ron Paul doesn't care enough to think about these answers himself and lets his minions do the job (but they did it SO poortly!), or his logic device is fried and severely compromised.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I'm glad you feel that way. And just imagine a life were everyone could live that way.
I mean, wouldn't it be liberating to wake up and get an electric bill for 50c/KW hour because of complete de-regulation of the electricity generation market? And how free I would feel when all those crappy last mile ISP's are bought out by the back bone owners and all of my traffic gets tiered, filtered, and over charged.
And just think about how cool it would be if the government got it's fat nose out of the way so that we could have 1 supreme software development company that could use it's control of the desktop market to crush any of those pesky competitors.
Yeah, the combination of libertarian reduction of government ideals with the open market theory and the republican 'business first!' attitude... that would truly be an inspiring country.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for the reduction of government in some arenas, but the idea of having a fire sale of all of the federal government's powers is not the way to do it. All that will result in is shifting power from the government to a small number of corporations. And corporations as we all know, can not be held accountable, have no morals, and have a responsibility only to the stock holders' investments.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You are a free person who is a citizen of a Republic. Here in America, we elect people to make plans for us, because we are free, and we choose to do that. Sorry if you don't like that, but the majority of citizens do, so it is unfair of you to force your 'no government is good government' view on the rest of us.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Do you honestly think the vast majority of beer drinkers are doing it for the taste of beer? That's a hoot.
And to be extremely frank about it, what's wrong with altered states? Why is it as an adult that sitting in front of the tube for 4-6 hours watching guys throw around or beat around a ball while getting wasted on Coors is acceptable but smoking up and listening to some Tangerine Dream or Pink Floyd is considered bad?
I'd love a real answer to this question. And no, I'm not a pot smoker but I've spent more than enough time around alcohol to know that "social drinking" is largely a joke for the vast majority of drinkers. If you choose not to smoke dope that's great but please don't act like we don't already have an available intoxicant that isn't abused just as much. The only difference is that one can be taxed easily.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
The problem with that philosophy is that the candidate does not know that you don't agree with on most issues and only voted for them because they were "viable". In their perspective you fully support the platform they ran on. This can be seen from the 2004 election where the many voters felt they were voting for "the lesser of 2 evils", but Bush took winning the popular vote as a "mandate" for his policies.
In order for anything to actually change, you sometimes have to vote for candidate "A" who has no chance of winning the current election. When this occurs then the other candidates/parties will be forced to consider the positions of "A" and likely integrate some of "A"s positions into their platforms.
Java has no friends.
Which PATRIOT Act? The one signed by President Bush on 10/26/2001? On 10/26/2001 Obama was serving in the Illinois State Senate and as such did not vote for or against the PATRIOT Act.
We were attacked due to our interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East.
... yet.
Why was Spain attacked by middle eastern terrorists? Or the UK, for that matter? Why was this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) murdered by an Islamic terrorist?
I'm sorry, there's a lot more to the issue than simply foreign policy.
Switzerland is free and propserous and Al Qaida didn't attack them.
Comment of the year
Right now there are millions of Christian fundamentalists who will tell you that you are stupid to think any of these things matter because the morality of the country is going down the tubes and we're straying from God's word, and that's what will destroy us.
Oh geez, someone has been drinking the Gold Standard Kool-Aid.
Man, I love it when people make original insults like 'drinking the kool-aid!' rather than debating the subject at hand. I usually know there is a lot of bunk coming afterwards.
Do you know why we got away from the gold standard? Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression.
Umm, no. The gold standard might have made it harder to handle the great depression (because the government couldn't inflate their way out of it), but it certainly didn't cause the great depression. Wikipedia lists several causes, but really the federal reserve, created in 1913, inflated the money supply, leading to looser lending standards. From Wikipedia:
Americans consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit, the former to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture and the later for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses who were deeply in debt when price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased often risked default. Many drastically cut current spending to keep up time payments, thus lowering demand for new products. Businesses began to fail as construction work and factory orders plunged. Massive layoffs occurred, resulting in unemployment rates of over 25%. Banks which had financed a lot of this debt began to fail as debtors defaulted on debt and bank depositors became worried about their deposits and began massive withdrawals.
The Austrian school of economics, which Paul subscribes to, predicted this would happen prior to the crash.. Ron Paul was saying there would be a recession or worse back during the first debates when everyone was talking about the strength of the Bush economy. Once again, the Austrian school is ahead of the curve. It's not that hard to predict really. In the 1920's you had a housing boom with easy to obtain credit which lead people and businesses to spend beyond their means. We've had the same thing in the 1990's through today, with the small recession around 9/11 which Greenspan inflated his way out of, which just ended up causing a larger bubble.
It is also far less flexible than the monetary systems we use today such that an attempt to go back to it would cause a major deflation in the currency while skyrocketing the value of gold
Ron Paul doesn't want to go back to the gold standard, but he does want to create a new currency backed by gold, so you could hold your 'dollars' in whichever currency you prefer. So once again, you are misstating his position.
. Oh, and guess who has a lot of holding in gold? You guessed it, Ron Paul. The Wikipedia article alone has some rather compelling reasons why return to the Gold Standard is a bad idea.
Yeah, and if he were elected, and he created a gold backed currency the price of gold would likely DROP. The only reason gold is priced so high since 9/11 is because of our irrational fiscal and foreign policies. Gold is a hedge vs inflation, so implementing a rational fiscal policy would actually hurt gold's value.
He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.
Once again, you are mindlessly smearing the man, based on something you probably read from one website. If someone votes against NAFTA and CAFTA but says 'we should trade with no restrictions with every nation on earth' they are not a protectionist.
States rights is a familiar dodge for people who rooted for the South in the Civil war but don't want to give the appearance of being pro-slavery. In here it appears to be a way to dodge for uncomfortable social issues
Sure, he should at least be (very lightly) commended for admitting he hasn't thought about it, rather than giving a bullshit answer.
But why hasn't he thought about it? All of RP's policy decisions come down to this decision: is the power mentioned in the Constitution? If so, then it merits resolution, else the 10th Amendment prohibits it. Well, IP is there, right in Article 1 Section 8. There are so few issues actually at stake, once you look at it in this manner, so I'm kind of disappointed that he doesn't have a position on this one.
More to the point, I find it hard to believe. Maybe we really did get a bullshit answer. That doesn't really line up with what we know about the guy, but nevertheless I'm getting a whiff of it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Now, back to the real world...
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
That having people stationed all over the world and going on wars of adventure on shaky evidence might just not be the best use of taxpayer money. So yes, shave the defence fund.
Ron Paul votes against free trade laws because no law is necessary for free trade -- for free trade you need to *get rid* of protectionist laws. "Free trade" laws like NAFTA or CAFTA go on and on for pages when only one sentence is needed: "Congress shall pass no law respecting trade between nations."
Anything else stupid you have to say? Please, by all means, continue tarnishing your reputation.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Yes, those people call themselves "Republicans" and "Democrats" and they are the majority.
That is why libertarians exist; and also why they lose.
The vast majority thinks the government exists to be their mommy, and their political parties have turned this cowardly and un-american outlook into the primary legislative theme of almost every representative. This in turn has led directly to the essential irrelevance of the constitution with regard to law, uncontrolled government expansion, loss of liberties, privacy and property, and a general feeling of helplessness when government abuse is directed, as it eventually is, at one's self.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Slightly OT, but what is with the fascination with gold? I mean, it has value in manufacturing of electronics, and makes an average metal for jewelry, but aside from that I find it to be entirely over-valued. I always want to smack the hell out of economists that take about using things with "intrinsic" value for currency, and then list gold and jewels as examples. Being pretty does not add "intrinsic" value. If you want something with intrinsic value, how about a loaf of bread, or a gallon of gas. At least with the gas it has a fairly well defined energy output that can be used to perform work.
The thing they all overlook is that gold just like the dollar only has value because we all agree that is has value. Since the only value of currency is what we agree to give to it, it doesn't actually matter what you use for currency.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
If anyone points out he didn't write those comments, you can claim that as a practicing doctor, his involvement in a political newsletter is representative of his involvement in the country as president.
You can't take the sky from me...
Woh, wouldn't that be a crazy idea, if a bunch of States, United, and formed some kind of group, or Republic, to help them combat interstate and international issues that could not be resolved at the local level?
Man, that's some out there thinking!
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The Austrian school of economics, which Paul subscribes to, predicted this would happen prior to the crash.
A couple Austrian economists were quoted as saying there would be a "crash", but one thing they could not predict was the keynesian economic policy would prevent recessions from spiraling into depressions ever again, which used to happen regularly and has not happened even once since. Which is why economists abandoned the Austrian school many, many decades ago.
Ron Paul was saying there would be a recession or worse back during the first debates when everyone was talking about the strength of the Bush economy.
Again, this is easy to do. There will be a recession. Sooner or later. Apple will make better, smaller iPods. You will meet someone new this week.
And, I'll also bet that Ron Paul has predicted recessions lots of times, and only the few times that he turned out to be right count. If he can reliably predict recessions more than one quarter in advance and is willing to write his method out, he should send it to Stockholm so he can get a Nobel.
Once again, the Austrian school is ahead of the curve.
As I said, the Austrian school was abandoned by economists generations ago. The Austrian school in its heyday used to seriously debate Marxist economics, which shows you the state of the field at that time. It died out because Keynes could explain the relationship between the money supply and economic growth much better than they could. Today almost no economists still believe in the Austrian school outside of a couple suspiciously well-funded "think tanks".
It's not that hard to predict really.
Now this is getting good. It's not hard to predict recessions and depressions?
So, why haven't you written this up and collected your Nobel prize?
Or, better yet, since you know when to buy and sell stocks, are you fabulously wealthy?
I normally wouldn't answer a rant like yours, but I feel I must as it's been rated "insightful" for some frightful reason. Guess I'll be losing my Karma.
You are wrong. Most people do not want to have the gov't be their mommy. Most people either feel helpless to fix the system, are just greedy, or don't think at all. They know the government is broken, but don't feel that they can do anything about it. One man I know feels that the tax cuts are wrong, and that W. has betrayed his conservative ideals, but this man still wants his tax cut money. Why? Because he says that the system is so far gone, he may as well "get his". I think that if you ask around, most people will say they just "want theirs". Greed is good, right Mr. Libertarian? Problem is, if we don't work together sometimes things just don't work.
Gagh, you made me defend centrists. Now I must shower.
Why was Spain attacked by middle eastern terrorists? Or the UK, for that matter?. Because Spain and the UK were involved in your interventionist foreign policy.
Also, Spain has been at war with islam for nearly a millennium. Go crack open a history book and a newspaper or two, sheesh!
You can't take the sky from me...
The federal government exists to serve the specific goals enumerated in the constitution. The president swears to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution; congressmen and all executive and judicial officials swear to "support and defend" the constitution. This is the constituting authority for the federal government. If the government is to expand its authority beyond those things specifically laid out in the constitution, then it must amend the constitution. All power taken outside that which is specified in the constitution is taken illegitimately, and certainly all power taken that is specifically forbidden — for instance, the power to make ex post facto laws — is illegitimate. When power is taken without authority, that power is of no different character than that which is exercised by a dictator or a monarch. The constitution allows for change, because it was well understood that the document could persist as the basis of government into times when situations demanded revision; this process is called amendment, and generally speaking, it is being roundly ignored in favor of outright power grabs.
The majority could not quote you the constitution chapter and verse if you stopped them on the street. They couldn't even enumerate the amendments. Why don't you try asking ten random people? They have no idea why the federal government actually exists. Then ask them if they think the feds should be protecting them from child molesters, raiding people's houses in California for using Marijuana, and controlling who has guns. Guess what answers you're going to get. They'll be "mommy" answers.
The decision on how the federal government is to serve their interests and values has already been made. If they want to change it, they need to instantiate the amendment process. In the meantime, those powers descend to the states and the people. It specifically says so — can you guess where?
Yes indeed. The choice of the state government, and the people, not the federal government.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Oh, but they do. Ask people if they think the feds should be raiding people's homes in California for using Marijuana. Ask them if they think the feds should be controlling who has access to guns. Ask them if they think the feds should be making laws about sexuality. Ask them if they think the feds should be concerning themselves with burning flags. Ask them if the feds should be making national databases of criminals. Ask them if the FBI and the DEA are legitimately constituted agencies. Go ahead, ask. If you just ask these questions and don't set them up as clear violations of constitutional authority, people will generally just nod. I've asked, I continue to ask; it is my way of agitating. Then I explain that there is no authority given to the feds for these things and that the state and local governments can be given that authority if the people so choose, that's the constitutional design, and this makes sense to them (of course — it was designed to make sense by people who were quite bright and very intent on trying to get it right.) When I do my asking, the answers are generally the same, most people, and by that I mean almost everyone I ask, think this is all ok, and furthermore, they are unable to tell me what the constitution says. Without that knowledge, it isn't hugely surprising that they don't understand the basis for the feds being out of hand, but nonetheless, that is the case.
No. Greed is ultimately destructive. The urge to grow, develop and expand knowledge, technology, medical care and creature comforts, however, is highly positive. Greed is what drives the federal government today. They are the penultimate example of people involved in a power grab.
Problem is, the federal government isn't doing the job it was constituted to do, and it has used force to steal the power to work together within the states, from the states, thereby making the people unable to work together in favor of their own interests. You act like I'm an advocate of chaos or lack of control; I most assuredly am not. However, if the government does not obey the law, then what controls it? Nothing — and that is both the problem in an anticipatory sense, and in the contemporaneous sense. Today, we have a government making war on a people who did not attack us. It is making ex post facto laws. It has turned the commerce clause on its very head. It has usurped powers that belong to the states and the people. It has grievously violated every one of the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) with the single exception of amendment three. The president is acting as if he is literally above the law, when the constitution specifically says otherwise. It has suspended habeas corpus outside of a time of war. It has made treaties and then not honored them. It has taken money and property from its citizens without trial. In short, the federal government is completely out of control. Any impression that anyone has that it isn't out of control is the result of propaganda. And as for your remark, sir, the implication that we have to let the fed abuse us in order to work together is both disingenuous and without any basis in reality.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.