Posts
I finished Ron Paul's Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedoms. I have two items.
1.
His chapter on "Unions" pretty much contained the usual conservative
and libertarian arguments: that unions artificially increase wages and
thus decrease opportunities for employment, since people cannot come
forward to work for lower wages, independently of the unions. But what
would be the good of having more jobs if they don't pay much? Ron Paul
believes that companies in a free market will compete for workers and
offer them good wages that way. Paul also sees a potential
danger in the federal government having authority in labor disputes, for
the federal government can use its authority to set limits on wages (as
occurred under Richard Nixon's wage and price controls) or to benefit
the rich.
I think that Ron Paul is overly optimistic
about the free market setting decent wages. To what would he attribute
the stagnation of wages that has occurred in America over the past
thirty years? At the same time, the opposite extreme (unions making it
expensive to hire a new worker, if that's what happens) looks
problematic, too.
While Paul makes a good point about the problems
of giving the government authority, my question is this: Is there a way
to ensure that the government uses its authority for good and not for
evil? I don't know. I suppose that elections are a way, but special
interests in our republic play a significant role in those, and that has
encouraged the government to do things that are hurtful to a lot of
people.
2. Ron Paul's chapter on Zionism essentially argued that
the U.S. should stay out of the Middle East and let Israel work things
out with her neighbors, and he says that we have hindered through our
involvement such attempts to work things out. Paul also is critical of
how we fund both Israel and also the Arabs, then he throws in the point
that Israel would still be at a military advantage were we to cut off
our aid to both sides. (I'm not sure if Paul considers that a good
thing or a bad thing, or even why he's mentioning it.) At the same time,
Ron Paul is a strong supporter of trade, which he believes is conducive
to peace.
Regarding who has a right to the land, Paul says that
he feels compassion towards Arabs whose homes were taken away by the
Israelis. He's not entirely against Zionism, however, for he hearkens
back to the time when Jews were moving into Palestine peacefully, before
the UN granted them a state. Paul also raises the point that so many
people-groups have been in Palestine, that it's really hard to determine
who has the rights to it, and he does not feel that appealing to
religion helps matters. Essentially, he wants people in the Middle East
to solve their own problems, and he appears to be optimistic that the
younger generation is eager to do so.
I wouldn't be surprised if
things are more complex than Ron Paul presents, but I'm sure that he has
good observations in his analysis.
Showing posts with label Liberty Defined. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberty Defined. Show all posts
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 10: The Radical Becoming Reality
Ron Paul presented an interesting scenario on pages 270-271 of Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.
He says that there will come a time when the states will ignore the
mandates of the federal government, which will no longer have the money
to "bribe and coerce" them into submission. Secessions will occur. And
the American empire will collapse. According to Paul, the government
will struggle to hold it together, even sacrificing welfare programs to
preserve "the domestic military presence used to 'keep the people safe'
from the dangers of anarchy" (page 271).
Ron Paul says that "It's a shame that it could come to this". Perhaps he hopes that there will be a softer and easier path towards less government. But I find it interesting that, although he expresses skepticism a few times in this book that liberty as he understands it will soon become a reality in the United States, he does appear to believe that less government will one day happen----apparently after the government collapses under the weight of its debts and spending obligations.
Paul's scenario reminds me somewhat of how prognosticators envision the U.S. eventually having a national single-payer health care system. This looks radical and unlikely, at first sight, for how could the government possibly buck the pharmaceutical and the health insurance companies? Well, according to some prognosticators, the expansion of Medicaid will move more people into a government system of health insurance, and even some businesses will dump their workers into the Medicaid system so they (the businesses) won't have to pay for their workers' health coverage. I've read liberals who hope that this will happen, and conservatives who fear and warn about this happening. In any case, what appears to be radical and unlikely can very well happen. And the same goes for Ron Paul's conception of liberty becoming a reality. Under certain conditions, perhaps that could happen.
Ron Paul says that "It's a shame that it could come to this". Perhaps he hopes that there will be a softer and easier path towards less government. But I find it interesting that, although he expresses skepticism a few times in this book that liberty as he understands it will soon become a reality in the United States, he does appear to believe that less government will one day happen----apparently after the government collapses under the weight of its debts and spending obligations.
Paul's scenario reminds me somewhat of how prognosticators envision the U.S. eventually having a national single-payer health care system. This looks radical and unlikely, at first sight, for how could the government possibly buck the pharmaceutical and the health insurance companies? Well, according to some prognosticators, the expansion of Medicaid will move more people into a government system of health insurance, and even some businesses will dump their workers into the Medicaid system so they (the businesses) won't have to pay for their workers' health coverage. I've read liberals who hope that this will happen, and conservatives who fear and warn about this happening. In any case, what appears to be radical and unlikely can very well happen. And the same goes for Ron Paul's conception of liberty becoming a reality. Under certain conditions, perhaps that could happen.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 9
In my latest reading of Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom,
Ron Paul talked about how the United States in 2009 spent 46.5 per cent
of the world's military expenditures, then he asks, "And how much of
the rest of the world's spending is due to nations protecting themselves
against the United States as the perceived threat?"
Ron Paul elaborates on page 257: "Now, most Americans can't even conceive of other countries believing the United States to be a threat. And yet, ours is the only government that will travel to far distant lands to overthrow governments, station troops, and drop bombs on people. The United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against people. And are we surprised that many people in the world regard the United States as a threat?"
Is there truth to this? I don't think that we are the only country that has overthrown foreign governments, sent troops, or dropped bombs, for (if I'm not mistaken) the Soviet Union did that. Nowadays, other than us, there does not appear to be a massive nation that does these things, and yet terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda certainly cause destruction and mayhem (as Ron Paul knows). But I can understand Ron Paul's point that the U.S. is a looming presence in the world, and I'd say that has been for good and for ill, as far as other countries are concerned.
Ron Paul elaborates on page 257: "Now, most Americans can't even conceive of other countries believing the United States to be a threat. And yet, ours is the only government that will travel to far distant lands to overthrow governments, station troops, and drop bombs on people. The United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against people. And are we surprised that many people in the world regard the United States as a threat?"
Is there truth to this? I don't think that we are the only country that has overthrown foreign governments, sent troops, or dropped bombs, for (if I'm not mistaken) the Soviet Union did that. Nowadays, other than us, there does not appear to be a massive nation that does these things, and yet terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda certainly cause destruction and mayhem (as Ron Paul knows). But I can understand Ron Paul's point that the U.S. is a looming presence in the world, and I'd say that has been for good and for ill, as far as other countries are concerned.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 8
In his chapter on "Public Land" in Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, Ron Paul argues that federal land should be turned over to the states so that it can be sold to private interests.
On page 233, Paul anticipates an objection to this idea: "Some argue that in the West, the land has to be managed by the federal government due to the natural resources available. They argue that these resources belong to the people and shouldn't fall into the hands of a few rich individuals." I raised a similar concern about the privatization of the seas in my post here.
So how does Ron Paul respond to this objection? First of all, he says that, under the status quo, a few politicians control the land, and that "special interests...benefit from bureaucratic and political schemes" (page 233). That's the sort of argument that I've heard a number of times from libertarians: that big government benefits rich special interests. What caught my eye, though, was Paul's second argument----that private ownership of land can lead to less wealthy people benefiting. Paul states on pages 233-234:
"Texas is a good example of how private ownership of land facilitated the development and use of its natural resources----especially oil, gas, and coal. In the beginning, the Spanish land grants allowed large blocks of land to fall into the hands of a few. But over time, for economic reasons, this land was broken up into smaller and smaller pieces. Ownership of the oil was divided according to private property rights, which allowed many less wealthy people to benefit. The risks were taken by the entrepreneurs and the benefits were spread generously to small landowners with mineral rights and to the workers who labored in the industry. Before joining the union----probably a mistake----the Republic of Texas owned very little land. Texas never needed the federal government to manage its progress, whether it concerned natural resources, agriculture, or ranching."
In my opinion, this is probably the best point in Ron Paul's book. Against the argument that private ownership leads to the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few, Paul presents a historical example in which a lot of land was initially held by only a few people, but economics led to that land becoming more widely distributed. A lot of times, the libertarians I read argue that government fosters monopoly and income inequality by supporting rich corporations, but they do not address the concern that a laissez-faire economy would itself result in survival of the fittest and the concentration of wealth and power into a few hands. Ron Paul, at least, does address that concern. But I wish that he had gone into more detail, explaining what economic factors led to the land becoming more widely distributed.
In quoting that passage from Paul's book, I had to include the part about how the Republic of Texas joining the union was a mistake. Ron Paul offers some pretty unconventional views on American history in this book! On page 211, he discusses the erosion of limited government in America, an erosion that he considers to be a bad thing. He states: "The erosion started early, and it could be argued that even the Constitution itself weakened this principle that was embedded in the Articles of Confederation." This is the second time in the book that Paul speaks highly of the Articles of Confederation.
On page 233, Paul anticipates an objection to this idea: "Some argue that in the West, the land has to be managed by the federal government due to the natural resources available. They argue that these resources belong to the people and shouldn't fall into the hands of a few rich individuals." I raised a similar concern about the privatization of the seas in my post here.
So how does Ron Paul respond to this objection? First of all, he says that, under the status quo, a few politicians control the land, and that "special interests...benefit from bureaucratic and political schemes" (page 233). That's the sort of argument that I've heard a number of times from libertarians: that big government benefits rich special interests. What caught my eye, though, was Paul's second argument----that private ownership of land can lead to less wealthy people benefiting. Paul states on pages 233-234:
"Texas is a good example of how private ownership of land facilitated the development and use of its natural resources----especially oil, gas, and coal. In the beginning, the Spanish land grants allowed large blocks of land to fall into the hands of a few. But over time, for economic reasons, this land was broken up into smaller and smaller pieces. Ownership of the oil was divided according to private property rights, which allowed many less wealthy people to benefit. The risks were taken by the entrepreneurs and the benefits were spread generously to small landowners with mineral rights and to the workers who labored in the industry. Before joining the union----probably a mistake----the Republic of Texas owned very little land. Texas never needed the federal government to manage its progress, whether it concerned natural resources, agriculture, or ranching."
In my opinion, this is probably the best point in Ron Paul's book. Against the argument that private ownership leads to the concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few, Paul presents a historical example in which a lot of land was initially held by only a few people, but economics led to that land becoming more widely distributed. A lot of times, the libertarians I read argue that government fosters monopoly and income inequality by supporting rich corporations, but they do not address the concern that a laissez-faire economy would itself result in survival of the fittest and the concentration of wealth and power into a few hands. Ron Paul, at least, does address that concern. But I wish that he had gone into more detail, explaining what economic factors led to the land becoming more widely distributed.
In quoting that passage from Paul's book, I had to include the part about how the Republic of Texas joining the union was a mistake. Ron Paul offers some pretty unconventional views on American history in this book! On page 211, he discusses the erosion of limited government in America, an erosion that he considers to be a bad thing. He states: "The erosion started early, and it could be argued that even the Constitution itself weakened this principle that was embedded in the Articles of Confederation." This is the second time in the book that Paul speaks highly of the Articles of Confederation.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 7: Marriage Policy, Health Care
For my write-up today on Ron Paul's Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, I'll talk some about Ron Paul's views on marriage policy and health care.
1. Ron Paul thinks that the federal government should stay out of the marriage business and that gay couples have the First Amendment right to call their union a marriage. Regarding the argument that gay marriage should be legally recognized so that gay couples can have the same benefits that heterosexual married couples have, Paul states on page 184: "When dealing with government benefits, this becomes an economic redistribution issue----a problem that would not be found in a truly free society" (page 184).
Paul states that the issue of insurance benefits should be solved by voluntary agreement. In terms of Social Security benefits, Paul says that people could be free to designate whom their beneficiaries would be, as occurs in private insurance, but Paul then calls this approach "expanding a welfare program" (page 184), which, for him, is probably a bad thing. According to this site, Paul supports private retirement accounts, so perhaps he could argue that, if people were in charge of their own retirement money, they could determine whom their beneficiaries would be.
I do not know enough about the benefits that heterosexual married couples receive to critique Ron Paul's position. The benefits that relate to government spending or law (at least at the federal level) would probably become a moot point in Ron Paul's libertarian society. Federal laws that discriminate in favor of heterosexual marriages would be a thing of the past, and people would have charge of more of their own money, and they could then determine for themselves who would benefit from it. The benefits that pertain to discrimination by private interests would still be a problem in Ron Paul's libertarian society, unless growing tolerance towards homosexuality leads to a lessening of such discrimination. There are companies, after all, that provide benefits to same-sex couples.
Click here to read about "Ron Paul's "ambivalence on gay issues".
2. Ron Paul presents typical conservative or libertarian arguments about health care: that health insurance is legally required to cover too much, which is bad because that drives up premiums; that people who have "better health habits" should not have to "pay more to take care of those who don't" (page 191); that there should be tort reform (but Paul also thinks that there should be a means for people to be compensated for doctors' mistakes, without involving the trial lawyers); that government intervention drives up the cost of health care (the same way that the government's defense budget makes a $5 hammer $700); and that a free market will deliver health care at an affordable price, the same way that technological wonders such as the cell phone have become affordable through the free-market. Paul also believes in a sound monetary policy that will keep down inflation.
For Paul, part of the problem is that the supply of medical care has been restricted. There is licensing that "strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care" (page 195). According to Paul, attempts to protect the incomes of doctors and to discriminate against homeopathy resulted in the closing down of medical schools, which occurred since 1910. Paul affirms on page 196 that "we need to remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care", and that "We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives."
Again, there are things that I do not know, so I am limited in my ability to evaluate what Ron Paul is saying. Do private insurance companies discriminate against homeopathy, and, if so, is this due to their choice, or to law? If the former is the case, then Ron Paul's libertarian society may not help matters, unless there is enough demand for health insurance that covers homeopathy. Regarding holistic or homeopathic medicine, I know a little bit more, since there were people in my family who owned a health food store, and the FDA sought to ban certain vitamins.
Can Ron Paul's libertarian society bring down the cost of health care? Many argue that health care is expensive on account of technology, but libertarians have argued that the free market can bring down the price of technology, as has occurred with cell phones. Perhaps the same could occur with health care technology in a free society. Unfortunately, I don't see that sort of society coming anytime soon. As Medicaid expands, however, we may move closer to a single-payer system, and, in terms of health care, that costs less than the system that the U.S. has.
1. Ron Paul thinks that the federal government should stay out of the marriage business and that gay couples have the First Amendment right to call their union a marriage. Regarding the argument that gay marriage should be legally recognized so that gay couples can have the same benefits that heterosexual married couples have, Paul states on page 184: "When dealing with government benefits, this becomes an economic redistribution issue----a problem that would not be found in a truly free society" (page 184).
Paul states that the issue of insurance benefits should be solved by voluntary agreement. In terms of Social Security benefits, Paul says that people could be free to designate whom their beneficiaries would be, as occurs in private insurance, but Paul then calls this approach "expanding a welfare program" (page 184), which, for him, is probably a bad thing. According to this site, Paul supports private retirement accounts, so perhaps he could argue that, if people were in charge of their own retirement money, they could determine whom their beneficiaries would be.
I do not know enough about the benefits that heterosexual married couples receive to critique Ron Paul's position. The benefits that relate to government spending or law (at least at the federal level) would probably become a moot point in Ron Paul's libertarian society. Federal laws that discriminate in favor of heterosexual marriages would be a thing of the past, and people would have charge of more of their own money, and they could then determine for themselves who would benefit from it. The benefits that pertain to discrimination by private interests would still be a problem in Ron Paul's libertarian society, unless growing tolerance towards homosexuality leads to a lessening of such discrimination. There are companies, after all, that provide benefits to same-sex couples.
Click here to read about "Ron Paul's "ambivalence on gay issues".
2. Ron Paul presents typical conservative or libertarian arguments about health care: that health insurance is legally required to cover too much, which is bad because that drives up premiums; that people who have "better health habits" should not have to "pay more to take care of those who don't" (page 191); that there should be tort reform (but Paul also thinks that there should be a means for people to be compensated for doctors' mistakes, without involving the trial lawyers); that government intervention drives up the cost of health care (the same way that the government's defense budget makes a $5 hammer $700); and that a free market will deliver health care at an affordable price, the same way that technological wonders such as the cell phone have become affordable through the free-market. Paul also believes in a sound monetary policy that will keep down inflation.
For Paul, part of the problem is that the supply of medical care has been restricted. There is licensing that "strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care" (page 195). According to Paul, attempts to protect the incomes of doctors and to discriminate against homeopathy resulted in the closing down of medical schools, which occurred since 1910. Paul affirms on page 196 that "we need to remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care", and that "We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives."
Again, there are things that I do not know, so I am limited in my ability to evaluate what Ron Paul is saying. Do private insurance companies discriminate against homeopathy, and, if so, is this due to their choice, or to law? If the former is the case, then Ron Paul's libertarian society may not help matters, unless there is enough demand for health insurance that covers homeopathy. Regarding holistic or homeopathic medicine, I know a little bit more, since there were people in my family who owned a health food store, and the FDA sought to ban certain vitamins.
Can Ron Paul's libertarian society bring down the cost of health care? Many argue that health care is expensive on account of technology, but libertarians have argued that the free market can bring down the price of technology, as has occurred with cell phones. Perhaps the same could occur with health care technology in a free society. Unfortunately, I don't see that sort of society coming anytime soon. As Medicaid expands, however, we may move closer to a single-payer system, and, in terms of health care, that costs less than the system that the U.S. has.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 6: Illegal Immigration
In this post about Ron Paul's Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom,
I'll write about Ron Paul's views on illegal immigration. Essentially,
Paul is somewhere between amnesty, on the one hand, and building a wall
to keep out illegal immigrants, on the other hand. Some of his
policies are hard-line, and some of them are compassionate towards
illegal immigrants.
Let's start with the hard-line positions. Ron Paul supports abolishing the welfare state, and he wants to "Stop all federal mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants" (page 155). He is for more border guards, allowing private landowners to keep illegals off of their own land, and permitting states to enforce immigration law. He does not favor granting children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. automatic citizenship. He opposes amnesty, and he thinks that legal and illegal immigrants who "incite violence or commit crimes of violence should be prosecuted under the law and lose their right to stay in the country" (page 156). He favors the police being allowed to research the citizenship of a person who is "caught participating in a crime" (pages 156-157).
Some of this should be qualified. First, while Paul is against amnesty, he's not necessarily for deporting every illegal immigrant, for he supports providing a green card with an asterisk. Second, in terms of the police researching the citizenship of illegal immigrants, Paul distinguishes what he supports from "stopping anyone anytime and demanding the individual present documentation of a legal status" (page 157). But does Paul, a believer in states' rights, think that state authorities should be permitted to stop anyone at anytime?
Now let's proceed to Ron Paul's policies that are compassionate towards illegal immigrants. Paul supports a guest-worker program. He wants a strong U.S. economy in which citizens and foreigners can participate, and he believes that getting rid of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies will keep wages high. Paul does not support punishing businesses for hiring illegal immigrants, nor does he agree with punishing Catholic churches for providing them with sanctuary.
I should also note that Ron Paul supports legalizing drugs and believes that the drug war and the problem of illegal immigration are connected.
In terms of any questions that I have, there is one. Suppose there is an illegal immigrant who is allowed to stay in the U.S. and to work, and his wages are high now that the Fed's inflationary policies are gone. If his family can be legally excluded from U.S. public schools and medical care, is that much of a deal for him or his family? At the same time, Paul appears to be for many things being private-sector anyway, so perhaps Paul would say that private schools and doctors under his system would be able (if they chose) to provide services to illegal immigrants and their families.
Let's start with the hard-line positions. Ron Paul supports abolishing the welfare state, and he wants to "Stop all federal mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care for illegal immigrants" (page 155). He is for more border guards, allowing private landowners to keep illegals off of their own land, and permitting states to enforce immigration law. He does not favor granting children of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. automatic citizenship. He opposes amnesty, and he thinks that legal and illegal immigrants who "incite violence or commit crimes of violence should be prosecuted under the law and lose their right to stay in the country" (page 156). He favors the police being allowed to research the citizenship of a person who is "caught participating in a crime" (pages 156-157).
Some of this should be qualified. First, while Paul is against amnesty, he's not necessarily for deporting every illegal immigrant, for he supports providing a green card with an asterisk. Second, in terms of the police researching the citizenship of illegal immigrants, Paul distinguishes what he supports from "stopping anyone anytime and demanding the individual present documentation of a legal status" (page 157). But does Paul, a believer in states' rights, think that state authorities should be permitted to stop anyone at anytime?
Now let's proceed to Ron Paul's policies that are compassionate towards illegal immigrants. Paul supports a guest-worker program. He wants a strong U.S. economy in which citizens and foreigners can participate, and he believes that getting rid of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies will keep wages high. Paul does not support punishing businesses for hiring illegal immigrants, nor does he agree with punishing Catholic churches for providing them with sanctuary.
I should also note that Ron Paul supports legalizing drugs and believes that the drug war and the problem of illegal immigration are connected.
In terms of any questions that I have, there is one. Suppose there is an illegal immigrant who is allowed to stay in the U.S. and to work, and his wages are high now that the Fed's inflationary policies are gone. If his family can be legally excluded from U.S. public schools and medical care, is that much of a deal for him or his family? At the same time, Paul appears to be for many things being private-sector anyway, so perhaps Paul would say that private schools and doctors under his system would be able (if they chose) to provide services to illegal immigrants and their families.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 5: Global Warming
In this post, I'll talk about the chapter on "Global Warming" in Ron Paul's Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.
Ron Paul labels himself a global-warming skeptic. Paul says on page 139 that change in climate has been occurring for millions of years, and that there is even evidence that temperatures may be falling. Paul appeals on pages 139-140 to Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, who, along with other scientists, contends that "climate change and temperature variations are related to sunspot activity and water vapor" rather than hydrocarbons (Paul's summary). According to Robinson, the increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has not affected noticeably either "atmospheric temperature or...the trend of glacial length" (Robinson's words). You can read about Dr. Arthur Robinson here. I think that believers in human-made climate change would highlight that Dr. Robinson is not a climatologist but a chemist.
Ron Paul is a strong advocate of nuclear power, and he does not believe that wind power will meet America's energy needs. Paul says that he has a windmill and that it saves him a few dollars on his electric bill, but he contends that "To replace one nuclear power generator you need windmills to cover an area the size of Connecticut" (page 135). Paul says on page 141 that windmills and solar panels, were they to replace hydrocarbons, would destroy a lot of acreage and not even meet our energy needs.
Paul also argues that certain attempts to save the environment have a counter-productive effect. The cost of cap-and-trade, for example, pushes companies to leave "more efficient conditions and [to be] pushed into third world countries where the cheapest form of fossil fuels is used" (page 138), resulting in an increase in CO2 emissions. And Paul states on page 140 that recycling "consumes more energy than it saves", citing this article for support. Paul goes on to say that "Recycling aluminum makes economic sense, but that would happen even without the demand to recycle everything from paper to glass and plastic."
I thought that Paul made fairly decent arguments. His arguments are good, in my opinion, but not so much on the scientific front, for I believe that many climatologists have made a good case that global warming is happening, and it also makes sense to me that carbon traps heat, that the increase in CO2 emissions would make the weather warmer, and that the growing number of hurricanes and the winters that feel like tundras (on some days) indicate that global warming is occurring. But Paul did well to question whether windmills could cut the mustard, and also to note that certain measures to protect the environment could have counter-productive effects. But I wish that Ron Paul had spent more pages detailing how his libertarianism could actually help the environment, as other libertarians have done, rather than focusing so much energy on criticizing environmentalists.
Ron Paul labels himself a global-warming skeptic. Paul says on page 139 that change in climate has been occurring for millions of years, and that there is even evidence that temperatures may be falling. Paul appeals on pages 139-140 to Dr. Arthur B. Robinson, who, along with other scientists, contends that "climate change and temperature variations are related to sunspot activity and water vapor" rather than hydrocarbons (Paul's summary). According to Robinson, the increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has not affected noticeably either "atmospheric temperature or...the trend of glacial length" (Robinson's words). You can read about Dr. Arthur Robinson here. I think that believers in human-made climate change would highlight that Dr. Robinson is not a climatologist but a chemist.
Ron Paul is a strong advocate of nuclear power, and he does not believe that wind power will meet America's energy needs. Paul says that he has a windmill and that it saves him a few dollars on his electric bill, but he contends that "To replace one nuclear power generator you need windmills to cover an area the size of Connecticut" (page 135). Paul says on page 141 that windmills and solar panels, were they to replace hydrocarbons, would destroy a lot of acreage and not even meet our energy needs.
Paul also argues that certain attempts to save the environment have a counter-productive effect. The cost of cap-and-trade, for example, pushes companies to leave "more efficient conditions and [to be] pushed into third world countries where the cheapest form of fossil fuels is used" (page 138), resulting in an increase in CO2 emissions. And Paul states on page 140 that recycling "consumes more energy than it saves", citing this article for support. Paul goes on to say that "Recycling aluminum makes economic sense, but that would happen even without the demand to recycle everything from paper to glass and plastic."
I thought that Paul made fairly decent arguments. His arguments are good, in my opinion, but not so much on the scientific front, for I believe that many climatologists have made a good case that global warming is happening, and it also makes sense to me that carbon traps heat, that the increase in CO2 emissions would make the weather warmer, and that the growing number of hurricanes and the winters that feel like tundras (on some days) indicate that global warming is occurring. But Paul did well to question whether windmills could cut the mustard, and also to note that certain measures to protect the environment could have counter-productive effects. But I wish that Ron Paul had spent more pages detailing how his libertarianism could actually help the environment, as other libertarians have done, rather than focusing so much energy on criticizing environmentalists.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 4
In my latest reading of Ron Paul's Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom,
Ron Paul discusses such issues as the American empire (he's against it,
saying that it's counter-productive and that terrorism is a small
problem compared to the magnitude of other problems out there, since
terrorism takes far fewer lives), evolution (he doesn't think that it's
inconsistent with God's existence, and he believes that local school
boards should decide how to handle the topic in schools), and the
question of how we rank the Presidents (he cites a book
that says that we shouldn't assume the war-time Presidents are the
best, but that we should look at who presided over peace and
prosperity).
These were interesting discussions, both when I agreed with Ron Paul's analysis, and also when I disagreed. Ron Paul's chapter on "Envy" stood out to me, however, because he argued that envy of the rich is behind the call to redistribute wealth. I've heard that from a number of conservatives. In terms of my opinions regarding public policy, I don't care if someone makes more money than me or has more, newer, better, or fancier stuff. What does concern me is that people are becoming bankrupted under our current health care system, that the middle-class and good jobs appear to be eroding, and that there are people who are suffering in poverty. If a rich person has more than enough for his comfort, what is wrong with him contributing more in taxes so that these problems can be alleviated? That's not "envy".
These were interesting discussions, both when I agreed with Ron Paul's analysis, and also when I disagreed. Ron Paul's chapter on "Envy" stood out to me, however, because he argued that envy of the rich is behind the call to redistribute wealth. I've heard that from a number of conservatives. In terms of my opinions regarding public policy, I don't care if someone makes more money than me or has more, newer, better, or fancier stuff. What does concern me is that people are becoming bankrupted under our current health care system, that the middle-class and good jobs appear to be eroding, and that there are people who are suffering in poverty. If a rich person has more than enough for his comfort, what is wrong with him contributing more in taxes so that these problems can be alleviated? That's not "envy".
Friday, June 15, 2012
Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 3
I have two items for my write-up today on Ron Paul's Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom.
1. On pages 66-67, Ron Paul states: "Our Constitution was designed to protect individual rights, and the Founders knew clearly that they wanted a republic, not a democracy, where the majority could not dictate the definition of rights of the minority. They did a reasonably good job in writing the Constitution but yielded to the principle of democracy in compromising on the slavery issue. The majority voted for supporting second-class citizenship for blacks, a compromise that we paid heavily for, not only in the 1860s but more than a hundred years later as well. It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation and not allowed the failed principles of democracy and slavery to infect the Constitution."
Ron Paul's point is that democracy is not a good thing because it allows the majority to undermine the rights of the minority. Case in point: By majority vote, African-Americans were given second-class citizenship under the U.S. Constitution. Paul does not state explicitly what he has in mind, but he may be thinking of such provisions as Article IV Section 2, which states that servants must be returned to their masters, or the three-fifths compromise, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of determining the representation of states.
I don't understand what Paul means when he says "It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation". Is he expressing preference for the Articles of Confederation? If so, what makes him think that would have been better for slaves? Is it because slaves presumably could flee to free states, without having to be returned? Later in the book, there is a chapter on slavery, so I'll see what Ron Paul says there. In any case, it's refreshing to read Ron Paul, an adamant defender of the Constitution, acknowledging that the Constitution is a human document that contains flaws.
Another question: If the Constitution protects individual rights, does that imply that the federal government has the authority to restrict the state governments from violating those rights? And would that not mean that (contra Rick Santorum) the federal government can overturn a state law that bans contraception, treating it as a violation of the right to privacy? One could argue that the right to privacy had nothing to do with contraception, but rather pertains to banning unreasonable searches and seizures (Amendment 4 to the Bill of Rights). Perhaps the answer hinges on what the un-enumerated rights mentioned in Amendment 9 to the Bill of Rights could be.
See the discussion on The West Wing about the right to privacy here.
(UPDATE: On pages 123-124, Paul says that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to restrain the federal government.)
2. On pages 74-75, Paul says regarding anti-discrimination laws (which he supports when they prohibit the government from discriminating, but opposes when it comes to private interests discriminating):
"The idea here is that if people are left to their own devices, they will always and everywhere choose homogeneity in their social associations. I can't imagine a stranger view of the human condition. To me it demonstrates that the supporters of antidiscrimination have an extremely low view of people and their choices."
I myself am skeptical about human nature. I think that there are many people who mean well, but there are also prejudices that lock the door of opportunity to people who are different. Consequently, I support anti-discrimination legislation.
1. On pages 66-67, Ron Paul states: "Our Constitution was designed to protect individual rights, and the Founders knew clearly that they wanted a republic, not a democracy, where the majority could not dictate the definition of rights of the minority. They did a reasonably good job in writing the Constitution but yielded to the principle of democracy in compromising on the slavery issue. The majority voted for supporting second-class citizenship for blacks, a compromise that we paid heavily for, not only in the 1860s but more than a hundred years later as well. It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation and not allowed the failed principles of democracy and slavery to infect the Constitution."
Ron Paul's point is that democracy is not a good thing because it allows the majority to undermine the rights of the minority. Case in point: By majority vote, African-Americans were given second-class citizenship under the U.S. Constitution. Paul does not state explicitly what he has in mind, but he may be thinking of such provisions as Article IV Section 2, which states that servants must be returned to their masters, or the three-fifths compromise, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of determining the representation of states.
I don't understand what Paul means when he says "It would have been better if we had stayed a loose-knit confederation". Is he expressing preference for the Articles of Confederation? If so, what makes him think that would have been better for slaves? Is it because slaves presumably could flee to free states, without having to be returned? Later in the book, there is a chapter on slavery, so I'll see what Ron Paul says there. In any case, it's refreshing to read Ron Paul, an adamant defender of the Constitution, acknowledging that the Constitution is a human document that contains flaws.
Another question: If the Constitution protects individual rights, does that imply that the federal government has the authority to restrict the state governments from violating those rights? And would that not mean that (contra Rick Santorum) the federal government can overturn a state law that bans contraception, treating it as a violation of the right to privacy? One could argue that the right to privacy had nothing to do with contraception, but rather pertains to banning unreasonable searches and seizures (Amendment 4 to the Bill of Rights). Perhaps the answer hinges on what the un-enumerated rights mentioned in Amendment 9 to the Bill of Rights could be.
See the discussion on The West Wing about the right to privacy here.
(UPDATE: On pages 123-124, Paul says that the Bill of Rights was originally intended to restrain the federal government.)
2. On pages 74-75, Paul says regarding anti-discrimination laws (which he supports when they prohibit the government from discriminating, but opposes when it comes to private interests discriminating):
"The idea here is that if people are left to their own devices, they will always and everywhere choose homogeneity in their social associations. I can't imagine a stranger view of the human condition. To me it demonstrates that the supporters of antidiscrimination have an extremely low view of people and their choices."
I myself am skeptical about human nature. I think that there are many people who mean well, but there are also prejudices that lock the door of opportunity to people who are different. Consequently, I support anti-discrimination legislation.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 2
In my latest reading of Ron Paul's Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, Paul made four points that stood out to me:
1. Paul criticized capital punishment, making the excellent point that the government botches things up, so why should we give it the power over people's life and death (especially considering the innocent people who have been executed)? At the same time, his view appears to be that there should be no federal death penalty, but that the states should be able to set their own policies. This illustrates why I find Ron Paul's political philosophy puzzling: He talks a lot about liberty (i.e., freedom to live, for example), yet he also seems to want for the states to have the latitude to restrict liberty, if they so desire.
2. In his chapter on the Central Intelligence Agency, Ron Paul is all for gathering intelligence, but he's against the CIA assassinating people, as that breeds resentment and invites terrorist attacks against America. I think this is a reasonable position on Ron Paul's part.
3. I especially enjoyed Ron Paul's discussion about civil disobedience: Paul's admiration of Mohammad Ali for sacrificing what was dear to him to oppose the Vietnam War, and Paul's mixed feelings about Martin Luther King, Jr, for, although Ron Paul admires King's stand for racial justice and opposition to the Vietnam War, he did not care for King's anti-free market economic views. (Moreover, Ron Paul in his chapter on "Demagogues" criticizes the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it is the government telling private interests whom they can associate with.) Paul laments that people in the United States either oppose war while supporting socialism, or support war while opposing socialism, when a consistent position is to oppose both war and socialism, since both expand the power of the state. I tend to fall more in the leftist category, but I enjoy reading the writings of anti-war conservatives, such as Bill Kauffman's Ain't My America.
4. Ron Paul criticizes the draft because it's the government controlling people, plus he says that the rich can get out of it, which is unfair. What interested me, however, was Paul's discussion about the history of the draft. He says that the draft was not used in the War of 1812, when the British were attacking America. But Lincoln used it, inciting riots, and Woodrow Wilson employed it as well. I was amazed that we did not have the draft in the War of 1812.
1. Paul criticized capital punishment, making the excellent point that the government botches things up, so why should we give it the power over people's life and death (especially considering the innocent people who have been executed)? At the same time, his view appears to be that there should be no federal death penalty, but that the states should be able to set their own policies. This illustrates why I find Ron Paul's political philosophy puzzling: He talks a lot about liberty (i.e., freedom to live, for example), yet he also seems to want for the states to have the latitude to restrict liberty, if they so desire.
2. In his chapter on the Central Intelligence Agency, Ron Paul is all for gathering intelligence, but he's against the CIA assassinating people, as that breeds resentment and invites terrorist attacks against America. I think this is a reasonable position on Ron Paul's part.
3. I especially enjoyed Ron Paul's discussion about civil disobedience: Paul's admiration of Mohammad Ali for sacrificing what was dear to him to oppose the Vietnam War, and Paul's mixed feelings about Martin Luther King, Jr, for, although Ron Paul admires King's stand for racial justice and opposition to the Vietnam War, he did not care for King's anti-free market economic views. (Moreover, Ron Paul in his chapter on "Demagogues" criticizes the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it is the government telling private interests whom they can associate with.) Paul laments that people in the United States either oppose war while supporting socialism, or support war while opposing socialism, when a consistent position is to oppose both war and socialism, since both expand the power of the state. I tend to fall more in the leftist category, but I enjoy reading the writings of anti-war conservatives, such as Bill Kauffman's Ain't My America.
4. Ron Paul criticizes the draft because it's the government controlling people, plus he says that the rich can get out of it, which is unfair. What interested me, however, was Paul's discussion about the history of the draft. He says that the draft was not used in the War of 1812, when the British were attacking America. But Lincoln used it, inciting riots, and Woodrow Wilson employed it as well. I was amazed that we did not have the draft in the War of 1812.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Ron Paul's Liberty Defined 1
I started Ron Paul's Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom. In this post, I'll comment on select sections of the book that I have read so far.
Introduction: On page xii, Paul says: "To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation." I, however, do believe in a particular social and economic outcome, in that I desire an economy where all people prosper, at least enough to meet their needs. And I think that libertarians do, too, since they argue that libertarianism is best for society, in terms of bringing costs down and giving people the opportunity to prosper. But I also get the impression that they think that people should suffer the consequences of their mistakes (i.e., a bad investment, signing a sub-prime mortgage, etc.). On some level, I agree, for that is what taking responsibility is all about. But I also believe in a society where people are able to recover from their mistakes.
Abortion: This chapter was a little muddled, in my opinion. On the one hand, Ron Paul criticizes Roe vs. Wade because he thinks that "the federal government has a responsibility to protect life" (page 2). On the other hand, he asserts that the states have the authority to make criminal law, and so he is for the states deciding their own abortion policy rather than a federal policy. And yet, he appears to be open to a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Ron Paul made good points about the sanctity of life and how it's absurd that doctors have been charged with murder if the baby dies after being born, and yet that same doctor is legally allowed to kill the baby before its birth. Moreover, Paul is a consistent pro-lifer in that he also criticizes war and capital punishment, not just abortion. I had an issue with Paul's criticism on page 9 of "government-run programs where medical care is rationed for economic or social reasons that place relative value on life." I'd heartily applaud Paul here if he also criticized private health care plans that ration care and place relative value on life. Rationing is problematic regardless of who does it: the government or an HMO.
Assassination: Paul in this chapter criticizes the government policy of assassinating people, even American citizens, in fighting the War on Terror. Does Ron Paul believe that terror is a threat? I had my doubts while I was reading this. He says on page 12 that "It appears that many people in government want us to believe that the greater danger is coming from people like the underwear bomber rather than from our own government." But Paul does believe that something should be done about terrorists, for he notes on page 13 that "The perpetrators of the first Twin Towers bombing in 1993 were arrested, tried in New York City, and sentenced to life in prison." For Paul, those who commit acts of terror should be prosecuted in civilian courts. Paul also says on page 14 that the Bill of Rights does not just apply to U.S. citizens, for "The Constitution protects 'persons,' not just 'citizens.'" I think that Paul makes a good case that the War on Terror gives the government frightening powers, but I also believe that there should be a policy of preventing acts of terror, not just prosecuting the terrorists after the acts of terror are done. Paul has a chapter later in the book on terrorism, so perhaps he addresses this issue there.
Campaign Finance Reform: Paul criticizes campaign finance laws such as McCain-Feingold as an attack on free-speech. He does not buy the argument that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations, for corporations consist of individuals, plus even many media outlets (such as CNN) are corporations, and many would agree that setting limits on what CNN says would infringe on free speech. Paul also says that, if the government were doing less, special interests would not be trying as hard to buy candidates. I think that campaign finance reform is important because I want for the government to be on the side of the people rather than the special interests. But I thought that Paul made a good argument against the claim that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations.
Introduction: On page xii, Paul says: "To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation." I, however, do believe in a particular social and economic outcome, in that I desire an economy where all people prosper, at least enough to meet their needs. And I think that libertarians do, too, since they argue that libertarianism is best for society, in terms of bringing costs down and giving people the opportunity to prosper. But I also get the impression that they think that people should suffer the consequences of their mistakes (i.e., a bad investment, signing a sub-prime mortgage, etc.). On some level, I agree, for that is what taking responsibility is all about. But I also believe in a society where people are able to recover from their mistakes.
Abortion: This chapter was a little muddled, in my opinion. On the one hand, Ron Paul criticizes Roe vs. Wade because he thinks that "the federal government has a responsibility to protect life" (page 2). On the other hand, he asserts that the states have the authority to make criminal law, and so he is for the states deciding their own abortion policy rather than a federal policy. And yet, he appears to be open to a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
Ron Paul made good points about the sanctity of life and how it's absurd that doctors have been charged with murder if the baby dies after being born, and yet that same doctor is legally allowed to kill the baby before its birth. Moreover, Paul is a consistent pro-lifer in that he also criticizes war and capital punishment, not just abortion. I had an issue with Paul's criticism on page 9 of "government-run programs where medical care is rationed for economic or social reasons that place relative value on life." I'd heartily applaud Paul here if he also criticized private health care plans that ration care and place relative value on life. Rationing is problematic regardless of who does it: the government or an HMO.
Assassination: Paul in this chapter criticizes the government policy of assassinating people, even American citizens, in fighting the War on Terror. Does Ron Paul believe that terror is a threat? I had my doubts while I was reading this. He says on page 12 that "It appears that many people in government want us to believe that the greater danger is coming from people like the underwear bomber rather than from our own government." But Paul does believe that something should be done about terrorists, for he notes on page 13 that "The perpetrators of the first Twin Towers bombing in 1993 were arrested, tried in New York City, and sentenced to life in prison." For Paul, those who commit acts of terror should be prosecuted in civilian courts. Paul also says on page 14 that the Bill of Rights does not just apply to U.S. citizens, for "The Constitution protects 'persons,' not just 'citizens.'" I think that Paul makes a good case that the War on Terror gives the government frightening powers, but I also believe that there should be a policy of preventing acts of terror, not just prosecuting the terrorists after the acts of terror are done. Paul has a chapter later in the book on terrorism, so perhaps he addresses this issue there.
Campaign Finance Reform: Paul criticizes campaign finance laws such as McCain-Feingold as an attack on free-speech. He does not buy the argument that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations, for corporations consist of individuals, plus even many media outlets (such as CNN) are corporations, and many would agree that setting limits on what CNN says would infringe on free speech. Paul also says that, if the government were doing less, special interests would not be trying as hard to buy candidates. I think that campaign finance reform is important because I want for the government to be on the side of the people rather than the special interests. But I thought that Paul made a good argument against the claim that the First Amendment does not apply to corporations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)