Flutterby™! : Ron Paul fundraising 2007-06-11 14:29:39.176065+00

Ron Paul fundraising

2007-06-11 14:29:39.176065+00 by Dan Lyke 27 comments

Okay all you folks who believe that Ron Paul has a shot at the presidency: FreeMarketNews.com is predicting that he can raise $5 million very shortly, which would boost him out of the fringe candidate arena and into competitive with Romney, Giuliani and McCain. Here's your chance to show that he's a viable candidate.

So it's somehow only right if you can afford to spend several years in Washington DC without maintaining your regular job? It's somehow unethical if you give up your regular retirement benefits to take on the job of Congressman and have to rely on the congressional pension?

The man is by no means perfect. He's not even a good big-L Libertarian IMO, much less a true libertarian. But he's enormously better than the other alternatives, and may have a shot at the title. From his position hopefully we can slog further from big government.

Ron Paul has a number of stances on issues for which I'm a single-issue voter, mostly revolving around individual liberty issues (starting with abortion), so I couldn't see myself voting for him. I'll happily support him in the primary against the slimeballs he's running against because I'd like to see that race shook up, but less government intrusion means legal as well as economic.

However, I do think it's completely reasonable to call bullshit on the whole practice of passing laws that the legislator knows to be unconstitutional for politcal gain.

There are many different interpretations of the Constitution and it should not be up to Congress to interpret the Constitution. Of course, there are some things that are obvious - like selling California back to Mexico. But on that matter - where did it say in the Constitution that we could acquire California in the first place?!?

Reasonable point, but for every one of those questions there's a COPA or what-have-you, and it's totally within bounds to take your colleagues to task for frivolously wasting the time and resources of the judicial system for quick political gain.

I'll still have to check on COPA (COPA and COPPA were two separate but related bills), but that's a positive sign.

ebradway, so who will you vote for and why? What impresses you about another candidate that Paul comes up short on?

I don't agree with Paul on some things, like abortion, but I see no one else who comes close to him. He would get the country back on track.

Oh, and yes I have donated. You are not supporting someone unless you either donate your time or money.

And don't give me the "tough love is compassion" or "no taxes are best for everyone" spiels. I've heard them. It's easy to get caught up in the "logical framework" of lassez faire capitalism: everyone will succeed if all barriers to such success are removed.

The problem is people of unrecognized privilege do not understand the barriers to success. They think the barriers come in the form of a tax bill that goes to support things that don't benefit them directly. To them, success equates to the number of dollars they earn and keep. Unfortunately, there are many for whom success might mean "finding a warm place to sleep tonight" or "getting my next meal" or "avoiding being beaten to a pulp today" or even "getting my next fix".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the government should be in the business of providing drugs. But if the government is really concerned about the society it governs, it would allow a more serious look at WHY people end up in a state where they measure success in those ways. And you can't do that without compassion and empathy.

I have, in the past few years, been involved in processes trying to set a few people on their feet.

In those cases I've come to the conclusion that the current levels of government "welfare" (don't want to limit it specifically to the programs labeled welfare because it's a complete ecosystem) are primarily serving as enablers.

I can get over the arguments that taxes are theft, because in an economic system this complex there's all sorts of theft going on, taxes are merely one mechanism, but in passing of charity by proxy to the government we've done basically the same thing that has happened with education: we've built a system that's geared towards sustaining a level of survival, not actually raising anyone up.

The transition to one that actually helps people isn't going to be easy, and I don't believe that simply slicing the programs out will work, but having self-reliance as a goal seems like a good first step.

Otherwise we'll continue to have programs that are designed to not let people out, and the escape velocity will only climb.

I'm gonna have to let this one bang around in my head and try to make a longer post on it, while protecting the identity and privacy of those I know who are on government programs, because it hurts when I see someone looking like they're climbing out, but ducking back into the underground economy because in the shorter term it's easier to take the money under the table and subsist on the subsidies because it's easier than keeping a real job.

ebradway, so you are a socialist. That is fine. We ought to do away with our current tax codes altogether and switch to a consumption tax. That way there will be no need for the elaborate tax schemes that require CPAs to do the calculations, etc. The taxes would take care of themselves. The more you spend the greater the tax paid. Maybe even eliminate taxes altogether on those who earn below some minimum amount.

But, back to the question at hand, who would you vote for then based on your compassionate, empathic stance?

I agree that much of the current "welfare" system is b0rk3n - but I think it's as much a matter of the apparent goals of our society. Dan states that the target should be "self reliance" but maybe there are people who are genuinely incapable of maintaining "self reliance". Sometimes I envy more inbred nations like Austria and Japan where genetic dissimilarity allows for more focused public policy. Of course, it's hard to say that without coming across like Hitler.

At one point in my life, I was a big Ayn Rand/Objectivism fan. I didn't understand why anyone wasn't driven to achieve in the best way they could and succeed. I felt the government was using force to take my money and give it to people who were just plain lazy. Then I started waking up to just how different people are. It's not just a matter of having a good childhood (which I did) or educational opportunities (which I did and still do) or even privilege (I'm a white middle-class guy). There are some very deep differences in psychological makeup that lead to issues like persistent homelessness.

If this were the Third Reich, it would be easy to just ship all those folks off to the gas chambers. But if history teaches us one thing, it's that societal "cleansing" only deprives us of unforeseen benefits.

But, speaking as someone well-schooled in logical positivism (which some might claim is objectivism purloined by science), it is difficult to quantify those benefits even after the fact. Logic dictates, that we should continue to pursue the system (capitalism) that is quantifiable. Of course, my colleagues who study qualitative methods might disagree about measuring the unquantifiable. There are other models of understanding the world around us than through simple numbers. It's not voodoo or witchcraft either. The biggest challenge with qualitative methods is that you can frequently get different answers given the same inputs depending on the methods used. What is most promising, though, is that social systems (unlike physical systems) that defy understanding through quantitative methods begin to reveal themselves through these qualitative methods.

As far as who I'd vote for, I generally vote Democrat for the Executive office. I would have voted Green in 2000 if I hadn't been in a state that supposedly was a swing state (Tennessee) which Gore managed to lose. I won't vote for Ron Paul simply because I think he's a little screwed up about what his job is (i.e., he attempts to interpret legislation according to the Constitution - that's the job of the Supreme Court). One of my biggest peeves with the Republicans is they managed to push something truly evil on the American public in a Trojan Horse-platform that had nothing to do with the responsibilities of the Executive office. Of the current Dems, I actually like Barrack Obama, but not because of his platform (he's a Democrat and in the end, that's his platform). Ronald Reagan demonstrated the power of having a charismatic president regardless of their party or platform (much like JFK). I think Barrack has a great deal of charisma and I think that charisma could effect the nation in a positive way.

Perhaps to back-peddle on my statements above, charisma has a funny way of focusing and directing social systems. Much as JFK could pull off "Ask not what your country can do for you...", I think Barrack could bolster the spirits of the very downtrodden folks who embody inefficiencies in our society.

Oh yeah, in addition to being a bit of a socialist, I'm also a die-hard optimist.

Eric--I agree with your assessment of charisma, and the implicit positive qualitative effects that it can have on society. I would add that charisma is also highly subjective; one could say that Rudy is very charismatic, for example. However, given a choice between only Rudy and Barrack, my vote goes to Obama in a heartbeat.

Ron Paul is somewhat soft-spoken, but he does carry a big stick (or at least should) in my opinion. My support for him doesn't necessarily hinge around his attempts at interpretation of the Constitution, but rather on his sanity. He is perhaps the most sane of all of the candidates that are being presented to us. As a pediatrician, he also seems to have quite a compassionate side as well.

He's an OB/GYN, not a pediatrician. Though he did raise five kids of his own. The bit about his being an "unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values" begs to ask how he defines "family". I suspect "family" = "man + woman" where the "+" is Christian matrimony. I gained enormous respect for Jimmy Carter when I heard him talk about the challenge of enforcing Roe vs. Wade while he was President. He saw it as his job to enforce Roe vs. Wade even though he personally disagreed. He was clear in his responsibility as President.

My greatest hope in the next election is that we get someone in office who just doesn't sound like an idiot. One of my biggest fears is that Hillary will get elected and will constantly come across as a Femi-nazi. I heard someone describe the pros of a Gore/Obama ticket which I'd love to see. Gore's experience makes up for Obama's inexperience just as Obama's charisma makes up for Gore's lacking.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-06-13 10:22:57.690184+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Great point, Eric. Let's not forget that this is a "package deal." If you were to put someone in front of Ron Paul (retain Paul as VP), who would it be? I don't see anyone in the Democratic leadership bringing enough experience to the job, other than Gore.

Someone to match Ron Paul on a Libertarian ticket? The problem is Libertarians lack experience. To sound amazingly crazy, and knowing it's impossible, I think a Schwarzenneger/Paul ticket would be impressive. Arnold has charisma and more experience than Barrack - enough experience to know that getting things done means straying from party lines.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-06-13 12:47:27.204017+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Yes--sadly that's impossible due to Arnold's place of birth (outside the U.S.). But I agree, it could be a plausible combination, outside of that! And I don't vote along party lines, I vote for the best "candidate package."

On the topic of place of birthplace and citizenship. An illegal alien who produces offspring while living in our country illegally could actually be giving birth to a future U.S. president. Given the higher birthrates of illegals (I believe I read somewhere where it's about 3.2 per household), this is a very high possibility. At that point in the future, I think that English will be the second option for voice menu response options.

That's one law (birthplace and automatic citizenship) which I think has run its usefulness and needs to be modified or abolished entirely. It's currently being abused, with very large (and negative) societal impacts. I wonder what Ron Paul's position is on this (as well as the other candidates).

#Comment Re: Ron Paul/Lou Dobbs made: 2007-06-13 15:02:25.996094+00 by: jeff

What I'd really like to see (but it's just a bit of dreaming) is a Ron Paul/Lou Dobbs ticket!

Before 9/11, most illegal immigrants came to the states seasonally to work and returned home during the off-season. They maintained their family and home South of the Border. Since the border crack-down, crossing each season has become too risky so illegals are becoming more permanent. Because they are becoming more permanent, they are looking beyond Southern California due to the high cost of living there. That's lead to the illegal population growth throughout the rest of the states.

As far as the "instant citizenship" for babies born here, you should look at Germany's citizenship standards. They actually ADDED such a standard around 2001. The West German economy - the strongest in Europe - took on the task of absorbing East Germany during reunification. It's interesting to note that they made German citizenship easier to obtain even after that massive blow to the economy.

America is still the strongest economy on the planet (but likely to be surpassed by China RSN). Why do we completely dismiss opening the border with Mexico? Is Mexico actually a threat?

And yes, I happen to be an odd mix of socialist and capitalist. I believe there are some things that government does best (usually having to do with universal access and unrealistic revenue models) and things that the market does best.

#Comment Re: made: 2007-06-14 10:52:17.785886+00 by: jeff [edit history]

Correction. We're talking about illegal immigration. There are plenty of legal immigrants still waiting in line.

I really don't think the increase in illegal immigration has much to do with 9/11, but is mostly due to the better life here (way too much corruption and crime south of the border), and the amount of tax-free money which can be sent back home (to Mexico). I don't think the German analogy works here for a number of reasons, starting first with language.

I also don't look at this phenomenon in purely black/white economic terms. To me, the larger issues are societal in nature (i.e. language, crime rates, etc.), which also have implicit economic costs. I'll be frank. I don't like what is happening. Some of my frustration can be summed up in this short video clip. Some of the legislation being considered is a <expletives deleted> joke.

But I digress. How many of these illegal immigrants are contributing to Ron Paul's campaign?

Boy... I really don't like Lou Dobbs. He forgot to point out that the Amnesty Bill didn't even address Cuba! What does Cuba have to do with Amnesty? About the same thing 1/2 of what he complained about had to do with Amnesty.

Academic publication is a painfully slow process. You'd think the advent of the web would speed it up. But it's the process of peer review that really slows things down. There are only just so many people who can critically review the content of a new paper in a specific discipline (migration demographics) and they also be busy teaching classes and doing their own research... Oh, I forgot, University faculty only work maybe 12 hours a week....

Thanks for the references, Eric ... after a very brief perusal, they look interesting. I'll need to read them later tonight or over the weekend.

I feel like we're hijacking this thread (Ron Paul fundraising), and I don't have the ability to create new threads myself.

#Comment Not Pro-life made: 2007-06-16 20:22:11.908064+00 by: Benita

Ron Paul isn't pro-life in the least. He's pro-states rights. He has publicly said a number of times that while he wouldn't perform an abortion himself, that the US government has no right to legislate that issue. Personal liberties are his #1 priority.

Amen to pro-states rights (e.g. Vermont). Most of the other candidates seem to be pro-business oriented.