I thanked Rand Paul for his Internet Rights efforts lately. He replied.
camtyler.com
camtyler.com
There is plenty to disagree with Rand Paul about. But this filibuster is not. Thank you, sir. http://twitter.com/lessig/status/309415470879100928
I feel the same way about his efforts on Internet rights.
However when Rand Paul talks I listen and consider carefully what he has to say. I don't always, or even usually, agree with him - but I respect him and his principles. I can't say the same for many other current Republican leaders.
it's refreshing seeing someone defend a position because he believes in it, and not because his job depends on it
He knows how critical the "internet generation" was to his father's success. You only had to look at how Ron Paul's supporters cleverly involved themselves in the mechanics of the primary process to know that this was a group that punched above its weight. Given that Rand is clearly positioning himself for 2016 every decision he makes is not necessarily altruistic.
I don't care what his motivations are he's still got my vote by a long shot. And that sentiment gets stronger with every mention Rand gets in the media.
See http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/23/1204296/-Rand-Paul-...
(article is biased liberally; I'm more of a moderate but it's where I saw the information.)
I'm happy that he actually used the spoken filibuster instead of hiding behind rules-based filibusters (which have been the cause of some of the worst obstruction in our country's history), but I no longer hold the belief (as I did right after his filibuster) that it was some sort of principled stand.
I'd like to be able to pick and chose the parts of each individual in Congress.
There is little else of Rand Paul worth paying for.
For instance, he opposes women's right to abortion (except in certain cases), same-sex marriage, birthright citizenship, and any gun-control (the laissez faire regulation of killer devices in the US is, in my view, a huge infringement on freedom).
That is some professionally constructed doublespeak. Orwell would be impressed!
So by your logic, any place where you're not locked up in a padded room, protected by armed guards is an infringement on your freedom because you have a greater chance of being killed.
Listen, you can be opposed to supposedly "laissez faire regulation" of guns because of your ideological persuasion, but stop lying about it being an infringement on your freedom.
He didn't say he was against guns. Only against the lax regulation of them. And given that the overwhelming majority of the population support him it is hardly a controversial position. Not sure why you decided to derail the point with a criticism of alcohol.
"It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie."
Also, I'm fairly confident he believes that same-sex marriage is a state issue, and should not be touched by the federal government.
Anytime either of the Paul's do something great that hits the news (many times a year), the armchair pundits on the internet make vague references to everything else they do which makes them not worth voting for. Some of the only people in congress who'll stand by their values and whom you know from what to expect.
It's contrarian bullshit and I'm sick of it.
- Civil rights : The Pauls have long been against the Civil Rights act though they recently pretend they aren't.
- Environmental regulation : They want none. Our major cities would look like those terrible pictures/video from China. Some of you may be too young to remember but the LA smog of the 80s was pretty bad.
- Finance regulation : They want none, basically. The practices that caused the crash of 2008 haven't been stopped (and actually China is headed for a much, much bigger real estate crash which could make 2008 look mild.) We need regulation to provide a stable economy. See: Elizabeth Warren's many interviews on this subject.
- Right to choose : They are against a woman's right to choose.
- Equal pay : They are against equal pay for equal work laws.
- Food inspection : They are against food inspection and want to rely on the free market to protect us from bad chicken and bean sprouts.
- Health care : Again, they want a totally free market system where poor people are basically told "Good luck, sucker!"
- Worker's rights : Never mind unions, the Pauls are against such simple things as safety regulations, laws requiring lunch breaks, time off, etc. for full time workers. All workers would be at the mercy of their employers. Which might sound great if you've only ever worked white collar jobs, but try go working delivering car parts or something.
- Immigration : As part of their overall isolationist viewpoint, they are not going to treat the millions of illegal immigrants like human beings.
It's not "contrarian bullshit", it's people who actually pay attention pointing out that being right twice a day doesn't make a good clock.
EDIT:
Because apparently I have to do all the work, I've added WHY they're wrong on all these issues.
You may disagree with my viewpoints, but the point of this comment is to show I have well considered reasons for not liking them.
Edit: Ebbv recently changed his post to elaborate on his points, so while his argument now basically boils down to "I'm a hardline liberal and this is where the Pauls and I differ," my post is no longer relevant.
You show you give the issues no real thought, or more likely, choose to coldly ignore the harsh realities.
I'm not very into any 1 ism myself, but I've studied enough to realize that there are pointed differences between corporatism and capitalism. The Pauls seem to be capitalists. Many others who claim to be capitalists are corporatists.
Regulation is what requires corporations to dispose of pollutants properly instead of just dumping them in rivers.
Regulation is what requires corporations to give workers proper safety warnings, equipment and training rather than just putting them in harm's way.
Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want.
Regulation is what requires corporations to pay full time workers overtime, give breaks and sick time, and just generally treat them like human beings.
Regulation is for corporations what criminal law is for individuals.
It's what prevents the worst of us from behaving as badly as they would otherwise.
Not all regulation is automatically good, just like not all criminal laws are automatically good. But there is a reason it exists, and it has an important role to play.
Another example is Bell Systems("Ma Bell")'s stifling of innovation as they held a government-sanctioned monopoly over telephone service via the Communications Act of 1934. Ma Bell would have had no reason to build you an iPhone as they had the market cornered.
Just because there's been bad regulation doesn't mean you get rid of all of it, just like you wouldn't get rid of all criminal laws just because the system has been abused in the past.
REGULATION = GOOD REGULATION + BAD REGULATION
Arguing against "regulation" means arguing against the good and the bad. Which is the height of stupidity since you're effectively arguing for companies to do whatever they want, whenever they want with zero consideration of anybody else.
Regulation allows Company A to influence the government to implement regulation that favours Company A and hinders Company B or individuals X.
Now perhaps regulation is required to a certain extent (especially with regards to the environment) but many of the potential issues are already covered by criminal law. What is certain is that without regulation, corporatism would become very difficult.
"Regulation" doesn't allow Company A to influence the government, the First Amendment allows Company A to influence the government. In your statement, regulation is the effect, not the cause.
Depends on the content of the regulation. Regulation that gives particular companies special voices on public policy does, in fact, give "Company A" a special ability to influence the government to implement policy in a way detrimental to competing "Company B" that is not granted a similar voice. There's quite a lot of regulation that does this in one form or another (usually, with safeguards that notionally serve to avoid abuse, but there is plenty of room for debate about how well those safeguards work.)
Actually, regulation prevents consumers from making choices with their investment decisions. By putting publicly traded companies in a special class, and only allowing individuals to invest in those companies, they vastly limit choice.
Regulation is what requires corporations to pay full time workers overtime, give breaks and sick time, and just generally treat them like human beings.
In America this is the case, however, over the whole world there is a relatively free market. For competitive job marekets/professions where is necessary to pay workers overtime and give them sick leave to continue employment, those benefits are given. Across the whole world, those benefits aren't necessary to hire some professions, jobs for those professions leave the US.
In theory regulation would protect us from predatory industries, in practice we often suffer from regulatory capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture.
Some recent libertarian deregulation success stories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Savar_building_collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Thane_building_collapse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Pakistan_garment_factory_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dhaka_fire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos...
>You may disagree with my viewpoints, but the point of this comment is to show I have well considered reasons for not liking them.
Maybe you need to consider further.
But my point was that it's not just "contrarian bullshit", and I'm right about that.
A couple of counterpoints:
The Pauls aren't against civil liberties, they're against abuses of government power. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 extended the federal government's authority to legislating morality through a stretched-to-the-max definition of the Commerce Clause. It is that same Commerce Clause the government has since abused to all ends, and is why medical marijuana grow-houses and dispensaries are raided by the federal government in California, even though California has deemed it legal. Given that there is no Constitutional provision for marijuana either way, that should de facto remain within the purview of the state. The Civil Rights Act, and the New Deal before it began the malevolent precedent that was set.
My opinion is mixed on the matter. Yes, I believe that it is an overreach of federal authority, but I also believe that it needed to be done to uphold the Constitution. That said, there would have been many smaller ways to implement its tenets without allowing the federal government so much power to abuse, especially knowing that they have done so to much woe.
The Paul's are against a woman's right to choose, however, that should be tempered with the knowledge that they also believe that the federal government has no authority on the matter. Even Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act" would simply grant the states the authority to disallow abortion (or allow it, however they chose). This is, I think, how we expect our federal government to run, wherein it meddles less with the lives of American citizens and prefers to leave those choices to the states, as the Constitution allows for.
On Health Care, I personally find their beliefs to be the right one. In today's economic system, it would be hard to do, but considering the steps that got us to our inflated health care system, and how cheap and efficient it was before those steps were taken, I think it's the right way to go. In short, the federal government, once upon a time, wrongly capped salaries for employees of all sorts. Companies, looking for ways to entice workers, found a loophole - I can pay you the agreed upon max allowed, but I can augment that pay by taking care of your health care, life ensurance, etc., as perks. Now that health care was being paid out of 'big pockets', costs rose because of the additional abstraction between the actual costs and those paying for the care. Since then, the federal government has repealed salary limitations, but companies still provide perks, and health care is still ridiculous. The bar on competition is set so arbitrarily high that it persists. If individuals were to pay for health care out of their own pockets, I have little doubt (though no proof, except history) that costs would baseline back to affordable.
I think that Obamacare worsens the situation by adding yet another layer of abstraction to even deeper pockets, FYI, but that is my own personal belief.
Regarding immigration, I think you exaggerate. Yes, they want to tighten the borders. Yes, they want to regulate immigration more. The United States currently has some of the most permissive immigration laws in the first world, and those laws are routinely exploited to benefit the exploiters. If we didn't have the social safety net that we had, it would be a non-issue, but as the social safety net that exists is taxpayer funded, it is unfair. That is an opinion, naturally, but it is a generally accepted truth by both major parties, which is why immigration reform is such a hot-button issue. Sadly, it has devolved into an election issue, as whoever can grant amnesty first will likely win the largest number of new voters to their party.
All that said, I do agree that your rationale isn't "contrarian bullshit", and I appreciate you taking the time to educate others to your opinion. Obviously, these are complicated issues, with a myriad of possible solutions, some of which likely haven't even been considered (or even thought up) yet. Regardless, neither your opinion nor mine are certain to be 'right'. At best, they're both varying degrees of both right and wrong.
They are both far too beholden to corporate interests as well.
But Obama is right on more issues than the Pauls are, IMHO.
corporatist: "A supporter of corporatism."
corporatism: "The control of a state or organization by large interest groups."
The Pauls are corporatists because they would eliminate basically all regulation and so many government services that corporations would be the government.
The flaw in your logic is in the absence of government regulation the buyer, not the supplier is the primary regulator in the market. Consumers are more in control of cost/quality/safety trade-offs than corporations, because corporations that tailor their product to their preferences succeed.
ebbv, who do you not give a second thought to not returning their phone call? Someone from the government, or someone from Microsoft or Ford?
I think you might need to read up a bit more on capitalism, classical liberalism, libertarianism, crony capitalism, and perhaps marxism or communism. It might help you make your points better. There's a bit of each(and possibly others) mixed in your views.
Ron and Rand are libertarians. Also, Rand is more moderate and conservative(AKA republican in this case) than Ron. They don't always share the same views. For example, I doubt Rand would push the gold standard like Ron has in the past. This is one of the reasons I'd support Rand, but had my concerns about Ron. To be clear though, they are not corporatists. In fact, they(like most libertarians) very much believe that crony capitalism through extensive lobbying and regulation that prevents new markets from being created is precisely what's caused the somewhat recent rise of corporatism in the US.
As I'm merely trying to educate and not criticize you, so I won't go into why I disagree with your viewpoints. Though I'd like to point you to the telecom, banking, and broadcast industries to see what happens when government applies strong regulations on "corporations."
This is where you show your true colors.
It means a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. You're just being ridiculous now.
I am not trying to defend Ron Paul or Rand here. I will tell you my own views on your list of things. Perhaps this will help you understand Ron better.
- Civil rights: I don't want my government to have colour-specific laws. I believe in individual rights. When I start a company, I reserve the right to discriminate against blacks, browns or whites. I am brown myself, and don't really care if a potential employer rejects me for my skin colour.
- Environmental regulation: I believe in the right to property. I pay money (tax) to agencies to protect these rights. If my neighbour cooks meth, it makes my own home smelly. The police, to protect my property rights, should prevent it. If he is cooking whatever crap he wants on his own farm, and there is no house or person in sight, why should the government make laws to have regulations about stinking the place up?
- Finance regulation: regulation and protection lead to corporatism. Your claiming Ron is corporatist based on this seems contrived, to put it mildly.
- Right to choose: I disagree with Ron on this. But then Ron wants to leave it up to the state. Fine by me. I'll just walk out of the states I don't like.
- Equal pay: see my first note on individual rights. If I find an employer who values my skill enough to pay me more, I'll go there. My employees are free to do the same. I'll discriminate as I please. It's my company.
- Food inspection: why isn't the court system enough for this?
- Health care: Remember the days when Canadians crossed the border to pay for the service they get? Heck, I'm sure the healthcare industry loves these regulations: they can charge a million bucks to fix your common cold. The government will pay them with your tax or by printing more money. The problem in the US is not universal healthcare. The problem is expensive drugs. Fix your patent laws, and your regulatory hoops, and poor people will be able to afford most drugs themselves. And charities can cover the gap when the drugs are too expensive. That's how it works in India. (Actually, India has other problems: corruption and illiteracy.)
- Worker's rights: covered earlier.
- Immigration: easy immigration makes no sense in a welfare state.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/11/r...
"You can bet the UN is working to FORCE the U.S. to implement every single one of these anti-gun policies...."
It frightens me mildly that someone like this has power, although he's certainly far from the worst in Congress.
Seriously, I'll trust Rand Paul, the one who actually has experience in politics, including the UN, rather than the one throwing the conspiracy smears.
The UN Arms Trade Treaty does create an international database of dealers, brokers and affiliated workers in finance, security, transport etc- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty#Criticism
All this is gradual, incremental steps towards a defined ideological model- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integration
Edit - Reply:
Reason I ask is because you said 'our guns' and I wondered if you really meant 'your guns.'
> One of the few that are fighting against our privacy and rights on the internet is KY Senator Rand Paul.
I think you meant "fighting for our privacy?"
"Many of the calls for additional legislation depend on the false premise that there is a 'market failure' regarding cybersecurity, and that businesses cannot adequately protect themselves."
From what I understand, the Obama administration believes that cybersecurity is a public good, and that there is a free riding problem. One company finds a vulnerability or comes up with a new security solution, shares that information with other companies, and then everyone benefits. The idea is that many companies would assume that others will put in the resources to solve these problems, and that they can benefit from the resulting information.
Overall expenditure in cybersecurity may be increasing, however, I'm curious what the distribution of spending looks like across various industries. Are there a few players that make up the large portion of spending, or is it spread out among more companies. In the former, a free rider problem seems more likely, while in the latter I don't really see a problem.
Personally, I'd assume that many companies are very worried about cybersecurity and free riding is a minor issue. It's bad for a business' bottom line and reputation to have a security breach, especially if they deal with customer finances. Honestly though, I do not know enough about the industry and would love to hear from someone who is more familiar with the economics and incentives.
blockquote { color: #333; }