Letters to the Editor
-
The Problem With Flint
Not a word of this is suprising at this point. It is inspiring to know Americans can still catch fire politically. Politicians with an ideology as strong as Paul's are getting hard to come by. Either that or the ideology is hard to see for all the rhetoric and flag waving.
It figures Paul what would click with the independant dissenters, or a segment of them. It all sounds great to their ears and I have great respect for that. But the business about eliminating taxes, the Dept of Ed, and ending the war NOW with no disclaimers sit in my stomach like a bowling ball, however, that is hard to eliminate.
What else is there that show the limits of the ideology--or throw into a light where there is darkness? I'm listening. But I've seen this before, everybody has, the "old school," in a way making a comback--putting some flint in the political spine, but to what end?
But no, I am still not convinced. I suspect he is running more as a Supreme Court nominee than a presidential candidate. The problem with flint is that it cracks easily.
-
Oh, sweet irony...
that Libertarians are choosing Guy Fawkes as the symbol of their movement. Guy Fawkes wanted to blow up Parliament so that he could replace the constitutional monarchy with a theocracy, centered on the Catholic church. I would also point out that things didn't go so well for Fawkes and his followers - the witch hunt following his arrest resulted in many executions. The religious polarization of his movement helped inspire the Puritan movement, and helped, at least indirectly, lead to the English civil war thirty years later.
Go Ron!
-
But you ARE free under a small government!
You're free to eat tainted food because nobody is inspecting it. If your kid dies from eating E. Coli-infested hamburger, just don't eat at McDonald's any more and the free market will eventualy resolve the issue. You're also free to buy dangerous consumer products because safety standards won't be enforced. After you get electrocuted by your poorly-wired toaster, you won't buy a new one and the free market will correct itself.
You're free to starve if you lose your job because there will be no unemployment insurance or social safety net. If you do find a job, you're free to work for pennies because there won't be a minimum wage. And you are always free to throw yourself upon the charity of others -- assuming that your fellow citizens have enough spare change to give to their favorite charities instead of needing it all to keep themselves afloat.
You're free to breathe polluted air, drink chemical-laced water, and live on contaminated land because there will be no EPA to enforce air pollution controls, no federal standards for drinking water, no funds to clean up toxic spills. Don't like it? Don't buy that company's products. The free market wins again!
-
Psychology Of A Ron Paul Supporter
I’ve had a chance to talk to a few Ron Paul supporters and the conversations always run the exact same way:
I ask, “What exactly do you love about Ron Paul?”
The answer is, “He’s against the war in iraq and he wants to return freedom to the people!”
Uh huh. And what exactly does that mean? How exactly is he going to “revolutionize” everything and “free” us?
This is where it falls apart. They don’t really know exactly what is going to change – all they know is that, magically, they will suddenly have lower taxes and cleaner water and everything will just magically work out.
“Because you don’t want the government controlling your life, do you?”
Somehow or another Ron Paul supporters seem to think all the problems in their life are because some mythical “government agent” is causing them. Somehow government is “controlling” them in some way. (True, under Bush things have gotten a little worse – but that’s a Bush problem)
They seem to think they’re broke not because corporations are ginning the system, suppressing wages, cutting benefits, relocating 100,000 jobs every month to Mexico – no! It’s really because of government!
But when you press them for specifics of how our “evil” democratically elected politicians are ruining their lives – well, they really can’t answer.
Usually they can’t come up with a single Ron Paul “philosophy” outside of lower taxes that they know of and/or like – and even then you can tell these supporters really have no idea how our economy works.
“Which is cheaper,” I ask. “What you pay in taxes every year to have unlimited access to every single road in this country – or paying 25 cents per quarter mile to a private corporation to maintain our nations roads?”
After a very long pause and some calculations they eventually come to the conclusion that, yeah, paying for highway construction and maintenance with taxes is far far cheaper than privatizing it and paying 25 cents per quarter mile.
“Dude! Just getting to work one way would cost me over $15 bucks! I don’t want that!”
Then I ask them which is cheaper: paying $300-$400 a month for private police “insurance” and another $200 a month for private “fire/rescue” insurance – or just paying for it via taxation?
Again after a lengthy pause, yup, it’s cheaper (and more efficient!) to pay for those services via taxation. And a lot fairer. Nobody wants the working poor to be denied police protection just because they make low wages, right?
What about education? Which is cheaper? Paying $500 a month for privatized basic education or simply paying for it via taxation?
A lot of Ron Paul supporters (all 500 of them) seem to be caught up in the hype of the so-called “revolution” without really understanding what exactly his policies would do.
I mean, yeah, I’d also like to have my paycheck increased by $5 (due to lower taxes) and my property tax bill reduced by $100 – but if by doing that I have to pay an additional $1,000 to privatized companies --- I didn’t really “save” any money, did I?
The amount “saved” by all of these privatization schemes is never equal to the massive increase you pay out-of-pocket to private for-profit corporations.