Letters to the Editor
DrEast
Published Letters: 101 Editor's Choice: 1
-
I am astonished
[Read the article: Ron Paul is a baby elephant]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]at the constant assumptions that the corporations in America are somehow any different than the government. Who do you think runs the government right now? Us? Nope.
There's a slanted perspective on the power of corporations in America because corporations have never, over the course of the industrial revolution and into the twentieth century, been unable to coerce the populace through borrowed governmental power. When the national guard breaks up the union strike, that's an example of corporacracy. Ditto regulations and bureaucracies, which on the face of it control environmental degradation or promote consumer rights, which instead actually just promote the corporate status quo by stifling innovation.
When McDonald's feeds your kid that e. coli burger, you sue them for criminal neglect! That's where the government should be involved in the market... in the courts, to protect the rights of individuals, not in the bureaucracies, to protect the rights of corporations.
-
@Anonymous
[Read the article: "The message is so powerful, in spite of my shortcomings"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Anyone who tells you they'll leave Iraq and legalize weed you'll vote for
Which is all well and good, but HOW do you think that will happen? Wouldn't it require Dr. Paul to be somewhat of a dictator?"
Seeing as we never declared war on Iraq, our being there is the sole (illegal) responsibility of the current dictatoresque president. That being so, all President Ron Paul would have to do to end the "war" is cut orders demanding that the troops be brought home.
Of course, what would happen next? Iraq and Iran, no longer bullied by the massive U.S., would tie their oil to the euro instead of the dollar. Whoops, there goes the value of the dollar! Enter a massive inflationary depression (which will happen anyway, we're just delaying the inevitable at the moment). Incidentally, a good old classical Keynesian economist will tell you that an inflationary depression is impossible. They are wrong. Look to Germany. Look to Russia. Their financial crises are not so different from our own.
Legalizing drugs would require the cooperation of congress. This would not be hard. You think the rEVOLution is going to end with just the presidency? Congress needs a clean sweep, and one way or another it's going to happen. Either peacefully, through the standard democratic process, or violently when the system collapses under the weight of its own ineptitude and hubris.
The government can not solve the problems of the world. Any attempt to do so just makes them much, much worse.
-
We DID do away with money.
[Read the article: Ron Paul is a baby elephant]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now we have an economy run on IOUs.
On the pro-choice thing: First, it's not philosophically inconsistent IF you believe that natural rights begin at conception. That doesn't make it the right view, just the philosophically consistent one.
That said, his view of the role of government means that the federal government shouldn't be involved in the question at all. That's a viewpoint that on the face of it should be acceptable to both sides. When you let the states deal with it, the people who live in the states are the ones that ultimately decide.
Of course, it means you have to actually care about state politics for that to work (oh noes!).
Also, whatever happened to contraception? Does it suddenly not exist? There seems to be an automatic assumption online that the instant a woman decides she has equal rights with a man, she becomes pregnant through some philosophical immaculate conception, and only universally legalized abortion can solve this crippling moral problem.
It's ridiculous. The man's allowed to hold a pro-life view if he wants to... after all, his entire stance is that government shouldn't be the reflection of the ideologies of just one man, or of the rich and powerful elites. He's not Bush. He wants to have the power so that he can pare it down, not to enforce his worldview in areas the government has no business poking its nose.
Novel concept, isn't it?
-
@Shan890
[Read the article: Ron Paul is a baby elephant]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Bill you reference does not list any penalties for abortions or practical consequences for obtaining an abortion. All that it would do, in actual terms, is undo Roe vs. Wade... which would automatically, according to the U.S. Constitution, shunt the issue straight back to the states, since the Constitution gives the federal government no powers in the issue. The federal government doesn't deal with murders... that's the prerogative of the states and state courts.
As such, that bill ONLY makes abortion a state's rights issue.
It's a subtle thing, I know, and requires an understanding of Constitutional government that I'll admit our current government tends to ignore. But that bill does not in any way make abortion illegal. It simple makes the states take a stance on it as an act of violence, with penalties that may range, depending on how the citizens of the states wanted them to, from absolutely nothing (have a nice right to your body!) to death for the doctor, the mother, the father, and any other family members deemed guilty (also known as, "this state legislature is going to go down in flames in the next statewide election."). Mind, that latter option probably wouldn't hold up in the courts.
-
Anyone else feel like the kids are all keeping their eyes on the Christmas in November?
[Read the article: House Democrats reject telecom amnesty, warrantless surveillance]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I am greatly relieved that the system of checks and balances is finally checking something, I can't help but wonder where these strong and backboned Dems have been for the past, oh, six years at least. Now that elections are coming up, is it possible that it does them political good to show themselves Honorable and Brave before the populace by rejecting an unpopular leader, as opposed to the quid pro quo of the whole rest of his administration?