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.
Good point. Why didn't the poster use something like the Hivelogic Enkoder? At least only real people would then send messages to the account.
...I still support Ron Paul and am very vocal in proposing him as a choice to my many family, friends and customers who do vote.
Nonetheless, these answers were a bit short and vague, but I do agree with how he answered them. Ron Paul's greatest asset is that he does listen. I have an interesting story dating back many years to a gold conference I attended in San Mateo. Ron Paul was a keynote speaker there, and after his speech, everyone left the convention room to gather for drinks and snacks. Outside the room, I started speaking with some younger folk who gathered outside the convention room (the average age of people in the room was probably 70, and I was the only person under 40 who wasn't a nurse of an old person in a wheelchair). Even almost a decade ago, Paul had young fans who would gather to talk to him outside of the official convention. As I spoke to these teenagers and young adults, many from the convention gathered to hear me out. After about 45 minutes of fielding questions, the crowd finally dispersed, and then I noticed that Dr. Paul was in the crowd listening. A congressman who took time out from his then-hectic schedule to actually hear me speak about gold and freedom. We spoke for a few minutes, and since then I've regularly talked to him at other conventions he's attended. It's ridiculous to me to think that a popular congressman would take even a few minutes out of his life to listen to anyone but lobbyists, but Paul has done it again and again with people around him. Even during the current campaign I've seen Paul spend hours after a speech to shake hands, answer questions bluntly, and sign pocket Constitutions.
Paul's most magic words I've heard him speak is to say that as President he doesn't have the power that people would want HIM to have. He admits that the President's powers are very limited, and his sole purpose to be President is to use the bully pulpit to raise awareness on Constitutional issues. He would be wonderful with the veto pen, and he would call our big business and lobbying groups for their actions, as he has done (on C-SPAN) over his many years in Congress.
On the war issue that many neoconservatives hate him for, Paul has said repeatedly that he is against undeclared wars. He's also said that Presidents are to follow Congress on declaring war or refusing it. This means that Paul _would_ go to war if Congress declared it, even in Iraq. He's putting politicians in their responsible positions by demanding that they follow the Constitution.
Paul wants the Federal Department of Education gone, because they make a mess of education. He also admits he can't do it alone. He wants the IRS gone, because of its unconstitutionalist, but he can't do it alone. A vote for Paul is NOT a vote for getting rid of anything, or stopping a war, or ending rampant government growth -- it's a vote to put a freedom lover in the most powerful bully pulpit, to remind the politicians and the masses that freedom and responsibility are the individual's right to protect and follow through on.
Even though I don't vote, I support voters who make clear choices based on the Constitution that we believe in to protect the freedoms that I believe are God-granted, or inherent at birth for all people in all countries. Paul's message is powerful in that he's not looking to lead people, but to follow them, and protect their freedoms so they can make responsible, or irresponsible choices, and learn lessons from those choices. He's not looking to stop abortion, but to stop Federal involvement in an issue that is debatable as a "murder" cause. The definition of murder is a State issue, and Paul wants to force the issue there. I appreciate his candor and honesty even though I disagree with many positions of his.
I'm glad he answered these questions simply, because it allows you to see that Paul believes the President is near powerless, except for the veto pen and the bully pulpit.
Except this time, make it clear how many subscribers are actively reading slashdot. Instead of some crackpot geek site they'll see it as a forum for a significant amount of voters. Or maybe they just don't think geeks vote :)
Well, just like Ron Paul's newsletters, these will be his own writing when he agrees with it, then someone else's writing when it gets attention, and finally ghostwritten with no prior knowledge of his when the sh*t hits the fan...
But of course, we are all supposed to believe that he is not just another politician, and he is somehow fantastic and different.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The question was not "Do you oppose Federal Marijuana laws..." it was "What are you going to do to protect me from being arrested". It's an indirect answer at best. And just one paragraph above, he said we deserve direct answers.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
Not just leading, but real "softball" questions. I'm surprised they didn't ask if he likes puppies. I'm pleased to learn he believes in providing direct answers to direct questions and I'd like some answers to questions such as:
Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?
How will you reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?
Is healthcare a right?
Please give you opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London (Supreme court deciison which gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenues).
etc.
Frankly, I'd like answers to those questions from ALL politicians. It would be a step forward, instead of the current internecine squabbling : the "he said/she said/you made the girl cry" pandering Soap Opera.
You know, there's a good story about consistency and politics.
There were two referenda in Ireland. One was about banning abortion. It passed, and abortion was made illegal. The other was about stopping pregnant women from travelling to England to have an abortion. That also failed and they were free to travel. Now arguably the two positions are not consistent. But I can see the logic behind them - personally I'm in favour of abortion, but I can imagine other situation where I would want to ban something but not close all the loopholes because that would violate some deeper, overriding principle of civil liberties. But the most important point is that the demos in a democracy doesn't have to be consistent. Now if you're a democratic politician you basically don't want to annoy the majority on any issue and that means you can't be consistent either.
Now some politicians are incredibly consistent, but I suspect that you really don't want them in power. In a sense all sufficiently complex ideology must also be incomplete I guess.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I assumed differently, namely that he meant that if Paul is for strong national security (answer #1), he would likely, if President, find that he would have to avoid answering, or give misleading answers, to some questions (contradicting answer #2). But we'll have to hope the original poster comes back to answer, 'cause I'm only guessing, too.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
As far as the "nut" complaint, just Google "Gold Standard".
What exactly is nuts about the gold standard? The fact that the founders supported it, or the fact that we had it up until 1971? Is the gold standard any more 'nuts' than the Petrodollar? If anything the petrodollar is nuts!
He's also protectionist as hell.
Are you kidding? You might as well call him pro war too. I'm not sure if you're unaware of his position, or purposefully misstating it. Paul wants to open up trade with EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, including countries we currently do NOT trade with such as Cuba and Iran. His view is that we shouldn't punish the citizens of Cuba and Iran because we dislike their governments, and that OUR government shouldn't tell us who we can trade with.
Yes, Ron Paul opposes things like NAFTA and CAFTA, but really those are controlled trade, not free trade.
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,
His view on both is that the federal government SHOULDN'T be involved, so no he wouldn't be legalizing drugs, or gay marriage. He simply wouldn't be making them illegal on the federal level either, so your state would be left to decide.
How is letting the states decide political suicide?
Should we go on pretending that Alabama has the same culture as Vermont, and have the citizens of both States fighting politically to pass laws to force each other to live by their moral code? Or should we just let the states decide?
privatize Social Security).
Ron Paul would keep all current social security benefits the same as they are now, and wants to make it so the government doesn't tax social security checks like they currently do. You're spreading FUD. Ron Paul does want to let young people 'opt out' of social security if they want.
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.
Look at the FUD monster! Jesus, Paul has said multiple times that he would NOT end benefits for people who are currently on them, and the main way he plans to slash our national budget is to end our current foreign policy. Nobody would be starving on the streets, in fact Seniors would have MORE MONEY than they do now since Paul would get rid of the ridiculous tax on social security checks.
I didn't know whether I should post this to you or to the responder Valdrax, who also made important points, but it should apply to both.
Here's my attempt to untangle the issue:
1) Ron Paul supports 100% free trade.
2) NAFTA and WTO are not 100% free trade.
3) NAFTA and WTO are attempts to work, imperfectly, toward free trade.
4) Ron Paul, to my consternation, does not see the changes introduced toward free trade by NAFTA and WTO, as good enough to outweigh their pro-governmental aspects (which apparently include ceding sovereignty to international organizations and some other more esoteric reasons).
5) In my opinion, opposing NAFTA and WTO, given all they've done to bring about free trade, is very questionable if you support free trade, amounting to "anything that doesn't give me everything I want is bad".
6) Ron Paul's nuanced position allows him to say, basically, "Hey, protectionists, vote for me! NAFTA sucks [because its not free-trade-ish *enough*]!"
7) Disclaimer: I support and organize for Ron Paul despite all of the above.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Oh geez, someone has been drinking the Gold Standard Kool-Aid. Do you know why we got away from the gold standard? Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression. 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. 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.
He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes 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 that, while probably correct in the long term, are politically unpopular today.
Like most Libertarians, Ron Paul would much prefer getting rid of the socialized support systems we currently have, believing that people would be better off just saving on their own instead of having the government do it. In general, that is probably true, however if people were good at that we wouldn't have needed those systems in the first palace. Once he starts cutting the funds for those systems it is inevitable that more people will fall through the gaps. There is the promise that everybody currently on it will continue getting their support, but if the money is not there then there is no way to keep that promise.
For an extensive rundown of where Ron Paul stands on the issues, visit On The Issues. This is actually a good place to visit for all of the candidates.
I read the internet for the articles.
As for NAFTA, it was not free trade
I remember Ross Perot's proposal of simple reciprocity: any trading partner would get the very same terms for their exports to the USA that American exports got to their country. That went over like a lead balloon in DC.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
There are exceptions, of course. Ronald Reagan always insisted on viewing a small portion of his mail and answering it himself.
Anyone who wants to learn how a President should think should read the Reagan Diaries. It's really a fascinating glimpse into a President's mind. Reagan seemed to enjoy calling people whose stories had touched him in someway and sometimes he noted, "they didn't believe it was me calling at first."
Bloom County fans will enjoy reading about Reagan's call to Berkley Breathed. I paraphrase it below, but the profanity is actually Reagan's:
"Called Bereley Breathed, author of the comic strip Bloom County. He sounded apprehensive at first - I'm very sure he thought I was calling to bitch at him - but I just wanted to thank him for drawing a lovely picture of Nancy in his latest strip. He was nice and told me he would send me the original."
Love him or hate him, reading the Reagan diaries will reveal that this was a man who was very, very much concerned with the "big picture" yet made quite an effort to stay in contact with the "average guy in the street". It is clear that he felt talking with normal, everyday Americans kept him grounded.
Legalization of drugs is in a similar situation. If pot is legal in California and Utah, what happens when you drive through Nevada and are caught with a Nevada state felony possession?
Gun laws are currently in this dilemma, and it's extremely hard to even realize when you're doing something illegal when you go from one state to another. For example, concealed carry reciprocity between states is very fragmented (http://www.ccrkba.org/reciprocity.html)
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Let me see if I have this straight: Paul's website is a sales pitch, but the wishy-washy answers Roblimo got from the Paul campaign and posted as the article isn't? As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between the two. Both are claims as to where Ron Paul stands on particular political issues. That is all they are: sales pitches.
You can call me cynical, but as far as I'm concerned, all news is propaganda. Hard facts are diamonds trapped in a matrix created by the manner in which a journalist chooses to present the facts. Read a news article, and you are not just getting the facts, but the journalist's (or his editor's) perception of the facts.
This post is also propaganda, like every other post here.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
"Little is much when little you need."
What private ventures are these that are putting sciecne satellites in orbit and sending probes to other planets?
Ok, there are a few private ventures interested in giving insanely wealthy people joyrides. NASA should stay out of that business, sure.
His "sanity" such as his inability to accept the reality of biological evolution, his ability to make medical assessments of patients he's never examined (declaring that IDX is never medically necessary), his opposition to the separation of church and state and his typical Christian-right persecution complex? And his racism? (Paul-ites, before you claim he didn't write those articles, read the link and explain how he claimed authorship of them in 1996, just claiming they were quoted out of context?)
Libertarians need to disassociate themselves from Paul and identify him for what he is: a loon.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Given the way candidates are nominated, I don't think third parties really have much of a chance.
What I'd like to see (though, I'm sure there's a flaw in it somewhere) is for all the states to have partyless primaries, like Louisiana, where everyone running for prez is on the same ballot, and the two top vote getters go to the general election in November, even if they're from the same party.
Of course, it has been noted that even this system locks out third parties, because the two top vote getters will always be the favorites of the two main factions. Say candidate A is the favorite of faction A, and candidate B is the favorite of faction B, and nobody in faction A would ever consider candidate B as a second choice, and nobody in Faction B would ever consider candidate A as a second choice. But if there is a moderate candidate C that everyone could live with, even if not their favorite, C doesn't have a chance in the Louisiansa system.
I would modify that system such that everyone votes for TWO candidates in the partyless primary. So that everyone gets to vote for their favorite, and second favorite. That way Candidate C ends up in the general election.
Did you miss where I quoted his sarcastic comment and rationalized it? Or did you simply feel the need to re-rationalize my own point? Well, you are correct. Nobody earning more than $100 Billion dollars per year would be compelled to continue earning if his take home pay were on $1 Billion.
That being said, anybody earning that much is cheating the system somehow...
What's more to the point, how can you compare a progressive tax in a capitalist economy to communism? If somebody DID earn $100 Billion and he had to give 99% of it up to benefit the rest of us.... and then we all made within 1% of $1 Billion as our annual income (i.e. between $990 Million and $1.1 Billion) then I would agree with you. But *most* people earn 0.005% of $1 Billion, and that hardly meshes with the communist economic ideal that everybody is entitled to the same amount of resources. Thus, you are 99.995% wrong with your analysis.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
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.
The majority thinks that a representative government exists to serve their interests and values. That is a decision any organized community is entitled to make. Whether the money goes to erect a traffic light on main street, pay for the health inspector at the local meat packing plant, or or help provide a minimum income for the disabled is simply a matter of choice.