Category Archives: Ron Paul

Applauding Turkey and Brazil (and Russia and China too)

Recent sanctions leveled against Iran seem troublesome, and as some (like Ron Paul) have indicated, seem to be the last or next-to-last step before armed conflict in our relations.  In my case, trying to promote freedom and liberty by constricting it (to a country that would greatly benefit from it) seems counterproductive.  In the case of Iraq, crippling sanctions resulted in the deaths of half a million children and women in the 1990s.  Hardly justifiable.  Sanctions have also failed in North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.  No regime change is apparently imminent in either country.  Instead, some of the poorest and most repressed on the earth become even poorer as their trade with other countries is restricted.  A far better policy would be to follow the Golden Rule, treating other countries as we would want to be treated.  This method would lead to greater peace and prosperity, and would make America the “city on the hill” it aspires to be, rather than the “king of the hill” it sometimes appears to be.

However, there is some good news to be found.  For one, Turkey and Brazil tried to go the third-party enrichment route (Iran’s refusal was reportedly the US’s rationale for issuing the sanctions in the first place), and though they succeeded in getting Iran to agree to having its uranium enriched elsewhere, both countries were informed it was too late, and that the sanctions were going forward.  Both boldly opposed the sanctions.

Russia and China were both interested in softening the sanctions; and soften them they did.  What the UN passed was far from the “crippling sanctions” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised to impose.  One of the biggest reasons was that China and Russia insisted on softening the sanctions, or they would not be passed.  I applaud such efforts to reduce the costliness of sanctions on a country that definitely could benefit from trade, especially at this juncture.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Austrian Economics, foreign policy, politics, role of government, Ron Paul

Is More Government the Answer?

This article indicates another problem (one of many) with our health care system: a doctor shortage.

The mainstream answer surprises no one: more government intervention.  President Obama will have a tough time with this one: how do we increase the number of doctors in the country?

Let’s pretend we live in a true market (unregulated) economy.  (We don’t, and I know we don’t, but let’s pretend anyway.)

The market has a number of ways to solve this problem, and does so automatically, without coercion, and without indebting future generations.  As doctors become more scarce, their wages rise.  Patients (doctor’s customers) start figuring out alternate solutions to avoid paying for increasing medical bills: visit a nurse practioner first before a doctor, practice preventative medicine, home care, etc.

Doctors, fearing a loss in business, and entrepreneurs, seeing a profit opportunity, decide to open lower cost clinics to meet increasing needs.

This all takes place without coercion or force, and is completely voluntary.

Now back to the real world.  What will probably happen is that there will be some new government program or initiative which will probably cost more to the taxpayer than it is worth to patients while delivering less than is promised to both doctors and patients.  It will strive to increase access to medical care while claiming to keep costs low.  One way to do this is by implementing waiting lists.  It’s also possible that one group (i.e. big pharmaceutical or insurance companies) will benefit from this deal at the expense of the taxpayer, doctors, and patients.

The bottom line is that it is government intervention which has caused this shortage.  As individuals like Dr. Ron Paul have noted, removing that intervention can reduce the shortage and resolve the problem quickly.  Increasing intervention (which is almost sure to happen) will exacerbate the problem or transfer it somewhere else.

1 Comment

Filed under Austrian Economics, fiscal policy, Libertarian, politics, role of government, Ron Paul

End the Fed

Lew Rockwell interviews Ron Paul (podcast 116 of The Lew Rockwell Show) about the principle of sucession, ending the Federal Reserve, and the future of our economy. Ron Paul also discusses the connection between foreign policy and the federal reserve. Listen and learn from the best.

Also, Ron Paul has written a new book “End the Fed” which will be released soon. Pre-order the book from Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Austrian Economics, fiscal policy, monetary policy, Ron Paul

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy

I admit I may not agree 100% with Ron Paul on everything.  I may find him to be too harsh at times.  For instance, I have a hard time equating taxation with theft.  To do so is to negate the efficacy of any taxation, or any state, for that matter, funded by coercion of any sort.  I’m not sure what this would do to the Constitution.

With that in mind, I find his recent remarks (see here) on foreign policy enlightening and refreshing.  I cannot for the life of me understand why so few refuse to take this common-sense, historical, and Constitutional approach to foreign policy.  Why is it so hard to comprehend antipathy to a foreign policy hostile to so many?

2 Comments

Filed under Austrian Economics, fiscal policy, foreign policy, Libertarian, politics, role of government, Ron Paul, War

You’re Asking the Wrong Question

From the latest commentary piece by Ron Paul posted today on CNN:

Now, in light of the election, many are asking: What is the future of the Republican Party? But that is the wrong question. The proper question should be: Where is our country heading?

1 Comment

Filed under fiscal policy, foreign policy, politics, role of government, Ron Paul

Socialism in America

I know some may bristle when I say that I believe socialism is in America’s current political system, but there are reasons for me believing so.

When the government can directly confiscate an arbitrary portion of my earnings (via the income tax), that’s socialism.

When the government has arbitrary authority to regulate all aspects of my life (what I eat, the car I drive, the clothing I wear, the place I work, ad infinitum), with unelected bureaucrats doing most of the decision-making, that’s socialism.

When the government makes it nearly compulsory to get a Social Security Number and then “contribute,” whether you like it or not, to this retirement program every time you get paid, that’s socialism.

When the government discourages wealth creation by punishing the wealthy for being wealthy (i.e. higher income tax bracket), that’s socialism.

When a huge percentage of the populus receives money from the government without paying any, that’s socialism.

When the government forces me to be charitable by deducting money from my paycheck for medicaid and medicare, that’s socialism.

There are opposites to all of these: a respect for private property rights, including the fruit’s of one’s labors, should be primary.  Freedom, in other words, and liberty, should be the principles upon which our government is based.  Charity becomes a private matter, between individuals and God.  Economizing and exchange should be minimally regulated, if at all.  

The opposites:

When the government allows me to keep all of my paycheck (the fruits of my labors), that is freedom.

When the government regulates itself heavily and only intervenes in the lives of its citizens as specified in the Constitution, that is freedom.

When the government allows me to withdraw from contributing to (or benefiting from) Social Security, that is freedom.

When the government encourages the wealthy to keep their wealth and save or invest it in as they see fit, that is freedom.

When taxation is minimal, funds only those Constitutionally-authorized government functions, and never singles out any class or group of people unequally, that is freedom.

When the government encourages private donations and contributions by not creating and supporting a dependent underclass, that is freedom.

Notice the Republicans are doing nearly nothing to counter the major socialist influences in America.  We need a freedom party, a Constitution Party, a Libertarian Party, and a Campaign for Liberty.

2 Comments

Filed under Libertarian, Personal, politics, role of government, Ron Paul

My Political Dream

At the invitation of Times and Seasons, I published my political dream as a comment to a recent post.  Here is my comment:

My political dream is simple: a body that acknowledges the existence of the welfare-warfare state, understands its origins, its impracticality, and immorality, and exists for one purpose: to ensure its dismantling so that individual liberty might once again be the principle upon which this republic is based.

There is, in fact, such a body: Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty.

Leave a comment

Filed under Libertarian, politics, Ron Paul