Letters to the Editor
-
I want to believe Paul, but....?
"For many Ron Paul supporters, judging by their voluminous comments all over the Web, the Constitution is the code -- or more precisely, a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution that doesn't allow for its hijacking by busybodies of the left or right."
Firstly, Mr. Leonard, you do a good job of making your point without ever stating it. For example, you imply multiple times that Libertarians are tech-savvy, computer whizzes, Internet-loving freethinkers. At the end of the article, it's hard to imagine a Libertarian as anything other than a geek. Yet you never actually say that "Most Libertarians are computer nerds." This statement, or the similar inference you made, is crucial to your assertion that the reason Libertarians like Ron Paul is because of his streamlined thinking, and his focus on a central 'code', i.e., the Constitution. I don't know the demographics among Libertarians, but I can assure you, the majority of them will not be software nerds, because there aren't that many software nerds out there.
Personally, I agree with Ron Paul's diagnosis but not his cure. It's true the government has become bloated beyond recognition, but Paul needs to realize that there are just some things that have become essential to the functioning of the economy and political system over time, no matter how superfluous they were when they were established. His policies are based on his beliefs (like everyone else), and his anti-war, pacifist tendencies spill over into the abortion debate. He is strictly anti-abortion, and that does not agree with me.
Still, Paul strikes me as the most honest presidential candidate in a long time....
-
Re: empathy
Her posts on health care drew hundreds of people arguing that single-payer was immoral because it would increase taxes, and use the money to pay for health care. When you read the comments through it became perfectly clear that the libertarians, the Randians, all thought that the problem with health care is the negligence of others.
I agree.
In our society there really isn't too much that is patently "unresonable" that the government "forces" us to do.
Whenever a libertarian (or any generic smaller government advocate) tries to make the claim that our government is too "oppressive" -- the devil comes out in the details.
CEO's of industrial sites often cry that government is "oppressive" because they are being "forced" to reduce their pollution levels.
Generally whenever someone in America talks about how "oppressive" our government is -- its usually because they are trying to get away with something they probably shouldn't.
It's on both sides.
From the greedy CEO that can't understand the "tyranny" of being forced to reduce his toxic emissions so people living in a 50 mile radius of his factory don't get cancer ---- to the 15 year old YouTuber that can't understand why he or she can't post the movie she camcordered at the theater online for all to see for free.
"Big Government" is in the eye of the beholder.
-
Obviously Anti Ron Paul
In regards to your extremely biased article lets just point out a couple of blatant propoganda errors that neo-cons such as yourself often make.
First, Congressman Ron Paul is a Republican. He has been for his entire political career. He did run for President in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket but he has always maintained his true conservative Republican position.
Second, I cant help but wonder how many names you had to google before you came up with the cited extreme cases of nerdieness.
Personally I do not build droids. I am married persuing a career in Accounting and tired of seeing the political process hijacked by un-patriotic, un-American thugs like the current administration.
I am not surprised by the numbers of mindless drones that believe the lies spread by articles like yours. They also believe that Rudy and Hillary represent Americans because television says so.
So continue with your biased propaganda but please dont consider yourself a journalist. That would require an unbiased approach. Maybe you should join forces with the dark queen of neo-cons, Ann Coulter.
-
To: Anonymous
First, we are not going to agree because we have very different political view points.
Second, its okay that we don't agree.
Third, I'll try to answer your questions as honestly and coherently as possible but don't assume that my opinions cannot be changed. I have an inquiring mind.
---
"we want equality of all citizens regardless of where they are born then we can't let each local area decide too much for themselves."
I'm not sure what you mean by equality. If you mean, equality of opportunity, I'm inclined to agree with you in a utopian sense.
"Should worker safety laws vary between states?
Should we let states with huge coal/mining concerns (and millions of dollars of political influence) determine that there should be little to no worker safety laws in Kentucky whereas other states, like Nevada, should have high ones?"
Yes. I don't think of the federal government as a panacea. More federal regulations don't necessarily mean that people will be safer. Take the recent mining disaster in Utah where eight minors perished. There we have both federal and state regulations, but both apparently failed. Take Chinese mine disasters, again, regulations from a bloated beaurcratic fail too.
To be sure, I'm not saying that more state's rights will lead to some sort of safe and cuddily utopia, but I do believe that state governments would be better able to implement what their citizens want.
"Should people have a massively different quality of life simply because they were born in a different state?"
Yes, I don't see anything wrong with this.
"Should there really be 50 different abortion laws for each of our 50 different states?"
Yes, again, I don't see anything wrong with this.
"What about on issues of Affirmative Action?"
I'm totally against affirmative action.
"Wouldn't the South (which was basically the main problem to begin with) simply declare States Rights and enforce segregation and keep sending African Americas to the back of the bus?"
I think you're right on this. So I agree that idealistic, small federal government, breaks down here. But I'm not sure if we couldn't have found another solution.
"The governments role is to ensure equality under the law for all citizens and to reasonably ensure equal access to resources – which means that Bill Gates can’t simply buy up all the water and keep everyone else from having access to it. Nor can any CEO or billionaire overtake any of the commons (like the forests or the air) and bar other citizens from accessing it."
Okay but you are confusing libertarianism with anarchy. I, for one, do not believe in anarchy. I down property rights, the bill of rights, the Constitution, etc. I don't agree that it is the government's role to ensure equal access to resources to all citizens. To you mean environmental resources or simply all resources including clothes, housing, etc.
"To simply declare that most government is evil and that all Corporations are saintly and good is to bee deeply misguided. "
Again, I think you are confusing political philisophies. Libertarianism is not corporatism. What we have now, with both major political parties essentially enslaved by big corporations, is corporatism.