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.

Comments

Even though I don't vote...

[dada21]

...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.

Re:lolwut

[damn_registrars]

So does that mean this is, in fact, Ron Paul himself answering, or his people, or a combination, or...?
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.

Softball questions.

[JonTurner]

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.

Re:coflicting answers

[Hal_Porter]

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.

Re:lolwut

[The Breeze]

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.

And now for some actual analysis

[Bloodoflethe]

1) Global high tech

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.

This statement basically says he wants to keep the role of the government to national defense purposes, to which our space program has contributed greatly. He clearly sees private innovation as helpful in much the same way that we see open source development as a good thing (just wait until the private community stops communicating openly with each other).

2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?

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.

This answer has no conflict with #1. Some may think the quote of limits on government conflict with #1, but libertarians believe that the limits on government are not in the area of national defense, rather in the arena of internal policies that override the sovereignty of states. He believes in free-market (more than I do) and he supports limits on government. So he's basically saying that his voting record and his words match up.

3) Marijuana

Ron Paul campaign: I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.

This is pretty damn straightforward and does not conflict with the previous statements.

4) What do you think about technology?

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.

He obfuscates his answer a small amount here, but not much. The question itself was badly flawed in that it required a a somewhat convoluted answer in order to get at both topics (which, in my opinion, should be answered in a dissertation for any worthwhile content) For a short answer, this is pretty good.

5) What do you think about patents?

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.

I think this is the best answer of all: he admits that he doesn't have a reform plan. He then blows a bit of sunshine our way in a nice little marketing ploy, yet managing to keep it honest.