Ron Paul Sells Out

Ramesh, from a few years back, on Frank Meyer:

The influence of fusionism has not been wholly positive. Meyer contributed to an unfortunate tendency among conservatives toward theoretical maximalism, as in his casual reference to “the totalitarian implications of the federal school lunch program.”

David Freddoso, yesterday, on a sense-of-the-House resolution to the effect that public schools should offer healthy lunches:

What to make of Ron Paul's "aye" vote? Is he selling out to win the presidential race?

A Paul staffer informs me: "It was a sense of Congress [resolution]. It was harmless. It didn't do anything." Also, he said, Dr. Paul figures that as long as there is a school lunch program, the least we can do is make sure it isn't doing too much damage to American children.

Well, okay. I would have still thought of this vote as a teachable moment for the American people. After all, it's not often that someone like Paul gets all this attention. The wave of interest in him as the anti-war Republican gives him a nice platform from which to explain to liberals why socialism is bad.

Indeed. I know that whenever I try to explain to my liberal friends why I'm not a socialist, I usually start with the case against healthy school lunches and work my way forward from there.

Photo by Flickr user Bookgrl used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

I'm sincerely not clear on what your objection is. Do you believe that (1) public schools should not offer free lunch to poor children; or (2) public schools should offer greasy free lunch to poor children because it's yummier than the healthy stuff, or (3) the federal government should not be regulating this matter? A case could be made for any of these propositions, but you're not entirely clear.

Posted by nbt | July 28, 2007 11:22 AM

Zing, Ross. If it was a binding resolution, it would be different, but it isn't, so David really doesn't have much of a point.

Posted by Joe Marier | July 28, 2007 11:42 AM

Clearly my sarcasm index was set too high. I think that the public school system and the school lunch program that goes with it isn't going anywhere, that school lunches should be healthy, and that conservatives who attack the school lunch program as as "socialism" are self-marginalizing their way out of the national conversation.

Posted by Ross Douthat | July 28, 2007 11:44 AM

THAT BEING SAID, it's still the parent's job to feed the kids, not the government's, and certainly not the federal government's.

Posted by Joe Marier | July 28, 2007 11:45 AM

Ron Paul has admitted he's an "idealist", in that his political position is a goal. The goal to get Americans to understand that freedom is less government isn't going to win votes by attacking people's children through public lunches, which tax payers like me, would rather, than blowing up other nations kids for oil and profit. I'm sure your argument for healthy food is appealing to liberals, but I don't believe no food is the solution, or that it is selling out.

Posted by Jeanette Doney | July 28, 2007 11:52 AM

Jeanette says that Ron Paul's goal is "to get Americans to understand that freedom is less government."

Freedom is less government. Libertarians, please get serious.

First, what does this even mean? If "freedom" just means "lower taxes, smaller government, and less regulation," then, yeah, I suppose that freedom is less government. But why is freedom, understand in that sense, something valuable? You've got to argue for that view, not assume it.

Second, if "freedom" means political freedom--you know, the stuff the Constitution and Bill of Rights seeks to protect--then the slogan "freedom is less government" is obviously false.

To begin with, less government isn't sufficient for political freedom. There's "less government" in the US than in, say, Sweden. But the fact that we're more libertarian than the Swedes didn't prevent the passage of the 2006 Military Commissions Act. There's simply no contradiction in the idea of an economically libertarian tyranny.

Not only is less government not sufficient for political freedom but it isn't necessary for it either. The example of Sweden serves here too. In Sweden, taxes are higher, there's universal healthcare, and more regulation of industry. But by jimminy it isn't the law of the land there that any one of them can be detained indefinitely and held without trial at the say so of the prime minister. There's simply no contradiction in the idea of a robustly politically free social democracy.

The "freedom" that's valuable is political freedom, and there's no contradiction between it and "more government." Indeed, "more government" is often necessary to ensure that the privileged don't so abuse their privilege that the less privileged are denied the ability to exercise their political freedom.

Not that I haven't said anything about socialism here. The point was just this: slashing taxes on the rich is neither necessary nor sufficient for guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom from arbitrary search and seizure, etc.

C'mon, libertarians. Surely this isn't so hard to get?

Posted by John | July 28, 2007 12:15 PM

So many people are trying to look cool finding any fault with RP possible. They want another NWO president so bad.

Posted by oilnwater | July 28, 2007 12:40 PM

So many people are trying to look cool finding any fault with RP possible. They want another NWO president so bad.

Posted by oilnwater | July 28, 2007 12:41 PM

I think that the public school system and the school lunch program that goes with it isn't going anywhere, that school lunches should be healthy, and that conservatives who attack the school lunch program as as "socialism" are self-marginalizing their way out of the national conversation.

Right. I mean, purely in symbolic terms, is this the sort of issue you want to bang the drum for? It doesn't seem tactically wise to me. I can't imagine a consituency who is rabidly opposed to feeding poor children (or ensuring that the food they eat is healthy.)

Jeanette says that Ron Paul's goal is "to get Americans to understand that freedom is less government."

I wonder what the people of Liberia would think of that sentiment....

Posted by Freddie | July 28, 2007 12:53 PM

It must be good to be Ron Paul right now. They don't really dare to pick a fight based on the substance of his speech, so they'll ding him on his nefarious support of the federal school lunch program.

Maybe he'll run out of money, before they have to pick a fight?

Posted by Rich | July 28, 2007 12:56 PM

I don't see the point here...

Schools offer lunches and whether they are free or paid, they are the same...

The kids tend to like the greasy junk food style stuff, and I watched a lot of the 'healthy' stuff go in the trash whenever that was tried.

So long as you have the lunches being provided (whether free or paid) I think it's OK to encourage the choice of the healthy stuff and then after that, if the kids pick the greasy stuff, not much you can do.

Because you see you can't legislate good culture. I was brought up on a healthy Mediterranean diet, and yet, I ate those lunches out of convenience and the fact that I hated dry cold sandwiches. Of course in my day, they even served spinach, which I ate, but noticed not many of my classmates did.

Most elementary cafeterias only have one choice -- they should at least offer two.

Posted by NH | July 28, 2007 1:03 PM

Wow....your digging pretty deep to try and find something wrong with Ron Paul. Keep digging, as we only see you as an enemy of the constitution.You just a Red coat.

Posted by Matt | July 28, 2007 1:19 PM

I'm sure that I speak for all of us deep thinkers on the Internet when I ask, "How does this relate to Hitler and the Nazis?"

Posted by Implicaverse | July 28, 2007 1:25 PM

Well this sure is a marginal topic to bash Dr. Paul on.

I think this blog post is all about getting another "Hit piece Headline" on google news search.

Well... shucks I guess I'll just have to distribute 100 more Ron Paul flyers today.

I've been doing that all week.

This blog isn't worth the magnetic impulses used to store it.

READ
EDUCATE YOURSELVES
THINK FOR YOURSELVES
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELVES

Thank you. Have a nice day. Sincerely

Lost in Samoa

Posted by Lost in Samoa | July 28, 2007 1:29 PM

Useless post, stupid headline.

Posted by Ormandy | July 28, 2007 1:34 PM

What a waste of time.

Posted by dp | July 28, 2007 2:09 PM

Hey John, read the Constitution then maybe you will "get" it. It is not rocket science. It does not just mean political freedom. It means that the government cannot regulate our speech, privacy, where we gather, what we watch and listen to, how we protect ourselves, what we do in our bedrooms, what we do with our money and that they do not tax us to death in order to pay for programs that the federal governement should not be involved in such as welfare, food stamps, kid's meals. It also means that the government should only go to war in the event we are attacked, not this so called pre-emptive garbage that is happening under King George.

Posted by mike | July 28, 2007 3:06 PM

Misleading title. Ron Paul is less of a sell out than any other candidate for President be they a Democrat or Republican. That is the truth of the matter not this piece of anti Ron Paul spam.

Posted by libertyman | July 28, 2007 3:42 PM

Ron Paul doesnt sell out

Posted by andy | July 28, 2007 4:05 PM

It's always fun to see a media lackey, under some kind of marching orders, try to smear Ron Paul. I just doesn't work. Actually, it has the reverse effect; the supporters dig in their heels and go out and campaign more vigorously.

At the end of the day, it can only help Ron Paul's campaign.

Posted by zenpiper | July 28, 2007 4:06 PM

Mike writes:

"It does not just mean political freedom. It means that the government cannot regulate our speech, privacy, where we gather, what we watch and listen to, how we protect ourselves, what we do in our bedrooms, what we do with our money and that they do not tax us to death in order to pay for programs that the federal governement should not be involved in such as welfare, food stamps, kid's meals."

I'll grant you that the Constitution forbids government regulation of speech, privacy, and assembly. But these are precisely the sort of freedoms I mean when using the term "political freedom."

At all events, the Constitution definitely does not say that government cannot regulate "what we do with our money." (Think about that one a minute, Mike.) Nor is there anything in there forbidding being "taxed to death"--whatever that might mean. And while you're free to believe that government shouldn't be involved in "welfare," there's nothing--not a word, nada--in the Constitution forbiding that either.

At all events, you didn't address the point of my post. Libertarians argue that unless we slash taxes on the rich, eliminate Social Security, stop regulating food and drugs, etc., we'll all be living in some kind of tyranny. That view is false--obviously false. No wonder only Ayn Rand-reading nutters fall for it.

And, by the way, I agree with you about King George and the war.

Posted by John | July 28, 2007 4:19 PM

John, pretty weak point of view. "Political freedom" is the only freedom worth having?

So you wouldn't mind if others were allowed to choose what you eat, where you live, or how you make a living?

BS. You don't have the right to tell me how to run my life, and I don't have the right to tell you either. Freedom means making YOUR decisions, for YOURself.

You think forcing people in to Social Security is freedom? That's exactly what freedom is not.

Posted by Stephen | July 28, 2007 4:24 PM

Stephen,

I'll take your points one-by-one.

"John, pretty weak point of view. "Political freedom" is the only freedom worth having?"

I didn't say that. What I did say is (1) that unless "freedom" just means "freedom from government" the slogan "freedom is less government" is far from obviously true and (2) that it is crazy to think (as libertarians do) that less government is either necessary or sufficient for political freedom.

"So you wouldn't mind if others were allowed to choose what you eat, where you live, or how you make a living?"

What I would or wouldn't mind is beside the point. What's to the point is which social arrangements are just. You've supplied no argument for thinking that, say, unemployment benefits or government regulation of food and drug safety is unjust.

"BS. You don't have the right to tell me how to run my life, and I don't have the right to tell you either. Freedom means making YOUR decisions, for YOURself."

First, you do have the right to tell me what to do. If I want to drive on the wrong side of the road, endangering everyone else, you have the right to demand that I be stopped. Second, freedom definitely does mean making one's own decisions. But, as the driving on the wrong side of the road case illustrates, some freedoms must be given up as a condition on joining a polity. If you insist on being free to rape or murder, fine--but you can't be allowed to join society.

"You think forcing people in to Social Security is freedom? That's exactly what freedom is not."

What's wrong with Social Security, exactly? Don't say that the problem is that people are forced into it. People are also forced to drive on the right side of the road. Presumably you have no beef with that.

Posted by John | July 28, 2007 4:54 PM

It's unjust to take someone's money and give it to someone else. Could you take my money and call it just? I can't take your money and call it just.

So if unemployment benefits means using the government to take money from citizens and give it to other citizens... of course that's unjust. You don't have a right to distribute someone else's property (money is property).

As far as having the right to tell you what to do. I have the right to do whatever I want, as long as I'm not violating your rights. And vice versa. If you're engaging in reckless behavior that threatens others, you're violating their freedom and rights.

Murder and rape, violates the freedom of others. (Just like your social security scheme.) When you violate someone's freedom, the violated has a right to defend their freedom somehow.

The problem with social security is that people are forced into it. (Whoops) Your example of being forced to drive on the right side of the road is wrong on... all levels. For one, roads are publicly owned. So a vote on how to run them makes sense. If you forced an individual to drive on the right side of the road... on their OWN PRIVATE road, that'd be a problem.

But in any case, the reason you're 'forced' to drive on the right side of the road is because you'd be encroaching on the rights of others if you didn't. You're not encroaching on ANY ONES RIGHTS if you don't pay social security, to the contrary, your rights are being violated when forced to pay into the worst 'insurance' program anyone could imagine.

If people put 15% of their income in to an IRA their whole lives, they'd retire millionaires and be able to pass their prosperity on to their kids. Social security takes 15% of your income and gives you small checks until you and your spouse die. And then you can't pass the rest on to your kids. It's straight up theft.

Posted by Stephen Dean | July 28, 2007 5:48 PM

RE: John

At all events, the Constitution definitely does not say that government cannot regulate "what we do with our money." (Think about that one a minute, Mike.) Nor is there anything in there forbidding being "taxed to death"--whatever that might mean. And while you're free to believe that government shouldn't be involved in "welfare," there's nothing--not a word, nada--in the Constitution forbiding that either.

You must have missed the 9th and 10th Amendements or do not understand the concept of the Constitution. It was written to dictate what the federal government "Could" do, not what it "Cannot" do. That's why it wasn't ratified until after the 9th and 10th Amendements were added. So, you're are incorrect. Since no text in the Consitution grants the federal government the power to regulate "what we do with our money" or redistribute wealth (through corporate or social welfare), they are forbidden from doing so. Of course, nothing prevents the states from infringing on liberty in this way but you weren't talking about the states.

If you read the Constitution, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, you get a very clear picture of the intent of the document. There is nothing that needs interpreting.

Posted by Andrew | July 28, 2007 6:42 PM

Man. Tough crowd around here.

Posted by Freddie | July 28, 2007 6:55 PM

Dean hit the nail on the head.
John sounds like a wannabe elitist.
John feels that we owe him something because he is better, smarter, and prettier than the rest of us.
John uses an incredible amount of selectivity when he builds his arguments. Sweden? Liberia? Really John? Apples and oranges, John.
John, specifically because the Constitution says nothing of welfare, kiddy lunches, income tax, etc., is the exact reason these confiscations are illegal at the federal level, it does not mean, as you socialists believe, that the Constitution is open to interpretation.
John, the usurpation of states rights by the federal government, in order to redistribute wealth, is a crime.
John, what happens when you steal a bunch of money, heap it into a huge pile, and assign a bunch of thieves to watch over it?
Do you think the thieves would be good stewards, and do the right thing?
I didn't think so.
No, your beloved Social Security scheme is bankrupt. Stolen/borrowed by a gang of thieves, representing a country that is so deep in debt it would take 147 years to pay back their debts, at current level, before interest!
Are you going to live another 147 years, John?
No? So instead you would rather saddle generations of future Americans to pay for your fat lifestyle?
Yeah, I guess your right, we better get the highest quality food into those future debt payers as possible. Free lunches for all! That's the ticket.

Posted by DrNo | July 28, 2007 7:14 PM

What kind of idiot wrote this article.

If you stop wasting the money in the Iraq war some 400 billion dollars so far, we could feed our school kids on a silver platter with a personal butler.

Really don't you have something better to write about.

Posted by Joe Lawson | July 28, 2007 7:18 PM

I'm sure that I speak for all of us deep thinkers on the Internet when I ask, "How does this relate to Hitler and the Nazis?"

I LOVE IT!
Of course, if you like healthy meals in schools, then you must favor legally prescribed menus suited for each individual student's metabolism.
So, you obviously favor implantation of biometric identifiers linked to the menu database at the NSA, controlled by Bush. Clearly fascist. ;o)

Posted by Westmiller | July 28, 2007 7:33 PM

Oh, and to the author of this weak attempt at a Dr. Paul hit piece, trade your shovel in for a backhoe.

Posted by DrNo | July 28, 2007 7:33 PM

What are you waiting for? Get on with it already. Self-inflicted suffering is free and you can do it at any time you want.

You don't have to attack Ron Paul to destroy your rights and give your money away. There are an endless number of ways for you to inflict self-suffering on yourself. No need to waste time writing Internet articles.

Get to it man!

Posted by John | July 28, 2007 7:35 PM

You can see Ron Paul's position on your own at http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Posted by Peter Hughs | July 28, 2007 8:11 PM

Re: Stephen Dean's msg. 7/28/07

In paragraph 1 Steve said:

"It's unjust to take someone's money and give it to someone else. Could you take my money and call it just? I can't take your money and call it just."
====================================================
So, Steve,

-Is this to say that you think 5 out of 9 Supreme
Court JUSTICES were UNJUST when they made the KELO
Decision [6/23/05]...?
-Oh, right, that's only partially about money.. -and mainly about taking someone's home and property and giving Them to someone else. -Which is now perfectly legal and common practice. [Of course Legal and Just are not even close to being synonymous..]
-Why do they call them Justices..?

Posted by Bob H. | July 28, 2007 8:40 PM

I find it amazing were discussing school lunches when the debate should be about cutting spending.

If anyone hasn't noticed the dollars is becoming worthless, were trillions in debt and we are still borrowing from the future to pay for waste today.
It's the spending stupid.
Who cares what the government can or can't do. We can always demand it change. How about a government that does very little but is good at it.

Posted by Davy C Rockett | July 28, 2007 9:21 PM

Dr. No,

Your comment is so confused and angry in tone that I probably shouldn't reply. But I can't resist.

"John feels that we owe him something because he is better, smarter, and prettier than the rest of us."

I assure you: I don't think any of those things.

"John uses an incredible amount of selectivity when he builds his arguments. Sweden? Liberia? Really John? Apples and oranges, John."

What?

"John, specifically because the Constitution says nothing of welfare, kiddy lunches, income tax, etc., is the exact reason these confiscations are illegal at the federal level, it does not mean, as you socialists believe, that the Constitution is open to interpretation."

Where to begin? First, the beginning of this passage suggests that you think the Constitution's silence on a matter makes the matter "illegal at the federal level." That's false. Second, I'm not a socialist, and nothing in my comments argues for socialism. To be a socialist one must believe that the government should control large portions of the economy. I definitely don't believe that. Repeat after me, libertarians: Uncle Same nationalizing Apple Computer would be socialism, the income tax is not socialism. Finally, nothing in my comments suggests that I think the Constitution is open to interpretation (though it obviously is).

"John, the usurpation of states rights by the federal government, in order to redistribute wealth, is a crime."

Cleansed of the looney tunes rhetoric, this amounts to the claim that redistribution (e.g. the income tax and transfer payments) is "a crime." Why? You've got to argue for this stuff, you can't just assume it. (And you've got your work cut out for you. Most political philosophers--and the vast majority of the American people--disagree with you.)

The remainder of your comment, the bits on Social Security, are too factually inaccurate--to say nothing of crazy--to warrant a response.

Take a deep breath, Dr. No. The fluoride in the water isn't going to kill you, there are no black helicopters, the income tax isn't slavery, and your Social Security number isn't the number of the beast.

Posted by John | July 28, 2007 9:40 PM

It's not the justices' job to find justice. It's to apply/interpret the constitution. The constitution is not perfect. But I don't blame the constitution for the justices' bad decision.

Posted by Stephen | July 28, 2007 9:46 PM

Socialism has many parts, John. The redistribution of wealth is an important part. Just because we're not a socialist country doesn't mean we don't have some socialist policies.

Posted by Stephen | July 28, 2007 10:00 PM

Hi,
You are slightly misusing the Creative Commons license. First, it'd be better to specify which license the photo is under instead of just "a Creative Commons license". Second, the photo for this article is non-commercial while the atlantic seems to be commercial. Please respect the terms of the license. Other than that, keep up the good work.
Cheers.

Posted by scott | July 28, 2007 10:32 PM

Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. That means not a single American soldier stationed anywhere outside the country's borders and no other kind of foreign intervention whatsoever. Non intervention is not isolationism. On the contrary, it liberates individuals so they can trade and generally engage voluntarily in any peaceful activity worldwide. Sticking to The Constitution only a defensive war -i.e. defending the country's borders- is a just war, Letters of Marquee and Reprisal -not invading armies- being the answer for cases when lawfully acquired American property abroad is attacked. An efficient, professional, cost effective response targetting the specific aggressors, rather than incurring in a trillion dollar failure. Sticking to The Constitution also means abolition of the IRS and the Fed. Ron Paul's consistent record over three decades is out there in the open for all to see. A most comprehensive source is www.ronpaullibrary.org. Ron Paul is not just the best American presidential candidate since Jefferson. He is also the best candidate the whole world has seen in a long, long time.

Posted by L. A. Dietz | July 28, 2007 11:54 PM

Dr.Ron Paul is a man of impeccible honesty, integrity, etc. He puts his record out there for anyone and everyone to see. He was a OBGYN doctor delivering over 4000 babies. He has a great respect for life. Vote for a principled man. He also was a flight surgeon during the Vietnam war (Air Force). He studied economics and he goes strictly by the Constitution. The Federal Reserve is a hoax and so is the IRS. The IRS is a private corporation We have been duped as a nation. The war is costing 12 Billion dollars a month. You can buy a lot of healthy lunches for that.Go Ron Paul 2008, and may the forces be with you.

Posted by Carmel Bailey | July 29, 2007 1:28 AM

John, As Andrew mentioned earlier but you apparently missed, under the 9th and 10th amendments such things as federal Social Security and federal law enforcement agencies are illegal because the federal government is not given the authority to create them. States have that authority because it is not prohibited to them.

And John, DrNo's exaggeration about how long it would take to pay our National Debt does not change the fact that Social Security is heading toward a time when it will not have enough money to continue to pay full benefits, and it certainly doesn't excuse your ad hominem attack on him.

Posted by GalapagosPete | July 29, 2007 1:57 AM

It is time for us reassess our endless commitments, made within the framework of an interventionist foreign policy. The grandiose and unrealistic plans for policing the world will eventually collide with limits imposed by reality. Our commitments seem endless. It’s estimated we have over 700 bases around world, in 130 different countries. Intervention creates endless commitments and ongoing unintended consequences that obligate our military and even future generations to fight wars without the slightest involvement by Congress. Our bellicose approach encourages protectionism. Our government preaches free trade and commerce, yet condemns those who want any restraints on the use of our military worldwide. We refuse to see how isolated we have become. Our loyal allies are few, and while the UN does our bidding only when we buy the votes we need, our enemies multiply. A policy of strategic independence is far better than international entanglements. UN mandates, backed by American troops and money ironically lead to neo-isolationism. Those who advocate the traditional American policy of nonintervention are ridiculed as “isolationists” by the authoritarians who want the U.S. to decide all disputes. Yet it’s their interventionist’s policies, especially in the last six years, which have isolated us, reduced our allies, and increased our enemies. We are more ostracized and isolated in the world than ever before.
Ron Paul 2008

Posted by Caplist | July 29, 2007 10:04 AM

Ron Paul voted to continue feeding children!?! He is the Devil!!! Go Ron Go! Ya got 'em scared!

Posted by Dwayne | July 29, 2007 10:34 AM

This thread makes me wonder when Internet libertarians lost their ability to understand sarcasm.

Posted by Matthew Stinson | July 29, 2007 11:55 AM

Libertarians need better arguments. Sadly, I have to say that as one myself.

BTW: I understood right off the bat what Ross was saying, and even chuckled.

Posted by b-psycho | July 29, 2007 12:59 PM

My only comment to you John is this: If you haven't watched (and understood) The Money Masters at Google Video, then you'll NEVER understand what is going on in our country and around the world.

With the exception of moral issues such as abortion, smoking pot etc... ALL of the REAL problems are directly rooted in the Federal Reserve private bank. Remove the root, and the plant dies.

Please educate yourself on how the world is being manipulated by a small group of elitists and then write something resembling HELP for us rather than a feeble attempt to discredit the one person running for President that is trying to remove the REAL problem in our country.

Brothers and Sisters... There's something new going down. Be a part of it!

Posted by Scott | July 29, 2007 1:17 PM

There is no such thing as a healthy public school lunch. Merely stepping in to one of those buildings rots the brain almost beyond comprehension. No amount of healthy food can marginalize the blatant manipulation of our schoolchildren.

Posted by Chris | July 29, 2007 1:59 PM

Oh my G-D!

SCHOOL LUNCH! Run away for the evils of school lunch.

If this is the worst we can expect from Ron Paul. We are in pretty good shape in my opinion.

Posted by BibbityBobbityBoo | July 29, 2007 3:00 PM

Re: So if unemployment benefits means using the government to take money from citizens and give it to other citizens... of course that's unjust.

News flash: this is an insurance-like situation, not "taking person A's money and giving it to person B". The unemployed recipient has paid into the insurance fund (via his employer's contribution, which is really coming out of his wages). Hence there is nothing unjust in this, unless you believe that insurance payments in general are unjust. And yes, the employee has no choice about paying into the fund to begin with, but how much choice do you have about getting homewoners insurance when you have a mortgage or collision insurance when you finance a car? You want a job, you have to have unemployment and workers comp and Social Security insurance. Don't like it? Then don't work.

Posted by JonF | July 29, 2007 9:43 PM

Ron has nothing to explain.

This is probably the worst blog entry I have ever read.

Congrats on wasting bandwidth.

Posted by infragreen | July 29, 2007 11:17 PM

Re: Jon F

Since my conversation was about the lack of freedom, your answer of... "If you want a job we're going to force you to pay in to unemployment insurance and social security, and if you don't like it, tough", is a pretty funny answer.

Of course, that's the opposite of freedom.

Your examples of needing homeowners insurance when you have a mortgage or collision insurance when you have a car... don't even get close to the mark. For one, they're voluntary contracts between two parties. For two, the reason for the insurance is because someone ELSE'S INVESTMENT is at risk.

The idea of forcing an individual to "insure" themselves for their own employment through the government's programs, doesn't match up to those scenarios. Who's effected when someone becomes unemployed? Just that person, no one else. So let them make the decision to insure themselves.

If someone wants "unemployment" insurance, go for it! But if someone doesn't want it, why do you think you have the right to tell them they must have it? You don't think they can save their own money and make themselves secure without your help? Plain arrogance, mind your own business.

Posted by Stephen | July 30, 2007 1:32 AM

What you all need to remember is that we don't gain our rights from the Constitution, or any other document. We have rights endowed upon us by our Creator, who or whatever that might be. As human beings, we have the right to choose for ourselves our lot in life. Our first right is the right to property. Our first property is ourselves, and everything we do with our own life. Therefore, the government has no right to take by force anything which belongs to me.

Also, a state only exists with the consent of the governed. You are always free to 'opt out'.

There is no 'argument' needed to necessitate being free from taxation or social programs. We have the right to exempt ourselves simply because we are humans. No further argument is necessary, we may simply say, "I wish to not be involved in this." and we are free to go off and form our own society or government.

This is the idea that America was founded on. We have far more rights than are contained in the Bill of Rights.

Maybe Swedish socialism works for Sweden, but that concept is an anathema to everything America was founded on. America was founded on an entirely new and different concept than any other society that has ever existed in this world.

America was founded with the belief that people have rights inherently. In EVERY society since the dawn of time, all citizens' rights came from the State, from the King, Shah, or other ruler. You lived, worked, and died, at the whim of whomever was in charge. Oftentimes they declared themselves 'divine rulers' and that God or Allah had placed them in charge of you.

America is different, though. The purpose of government in America is ONE thing and ONE thing only. To PROTECT the liberties of all individuals. The Constitution gives very little power to the Federal Government; it may coin money, and regulate commerce between nations and states, issue letters and marques of reprisal, etc. Anything NOT -expressly- granted in the Constitution, the government has no power to do. Any power NOT enumerated within the Constitution falls to the States, and where they make no law, it falls to the individual.

So back to my first point. We don't need to 'defend' our right to be free of taxation and socialism. We simply are free, and that should be enough.

Posted by Jason | July 30, 2007 4:16 AM

wow, I agree with the "waste of time" posting.
Anyone else interested in the big picture?
Maybe we could find out where those hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq have gone missing than to focus on whether or not kids get lunch?
If this was an example of the better hit pieces being posted, Ron would be a shoe-in.

Go Ron! the last hope.

Posted by crazychester | July 30, 2007 9:28 AM

go ron!

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com

Posted by pc93 | July 30, 2007 10:06 AM

heh.....i can see now that you point it out.....but yes, your sarcasm was a little too subtle for me (and apparently the rest of these Paulies.) sure gets the mob riled up to see a headline like that, and i definitely came in guns at the ready like everyone else. i guess we take any attack on Ron pretty seriously, perceived or actual. That's a good thing, in my humble opinion! RUN RON RUN!

Posted by liberty | July 30, 2007 12:15 PM

If the author intends sarcasm, it shouldn't be subtle. There are total spoof news sites that do that job quite well already and give you a smile to boot.

Posted by crazychester | July 30, 2007 12:27 PM

And yet Ron Paul remains at 1% in the polls. I am forced to conclude that every one of his supporters is present in this thread.

Posted by Steve | July 30, 2007 3:21 PM

John,

When I read this, I went into a trance... could this guy really be right? Then I re-read the Constitution. Here is what you said:

"Where to begin? First, the beginning of this passage suggests that you think the Constitution's silence on a matter makes the matter "illegal at the federal level." That's false."

Here is Amendment 10 of the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Here's another quote of yours:

"Cleansed of the looney tunes rhetoric, this amounts to the claim that redistribution (e.g. the income tax and transfer payments) is "a crime." Why? You've got to argue for this stuff, you can't just assume it. (And you've got your work cut out for you. Most political philosophers--and the vast majority of the American people--disagree with you.)"

Have you read The Federalist Papers? If you get a chance, read all the references to direct tax and apportioned tax. The power to tax is the power to destroy. It's clear from the Federalist Papers that the Constitution was written to get away from a monarch that could collect taxes from each individual. Pay closest attention to Alexander Hamilton's articles.

And as far as redistribution of wealth through welfare and state taxation... isn't that a big part of socialism?

Posted by roger | July 30, 2007 4:06 PM

"And yet Ron Paul remains at 1% in the polls. I am forced to conclude that every one of his supporters is present in this thread."

You know what they say...ignorance is bliss. Apparently we are all rich because just the handful of us here donated 3 million dollars. So just let me know when you figure out where the rest of my money is and how with a $2300 cap that we all managed to donate over the allowed maximum.... Yeah I thought so...

As for the piece it's a pointless topic and I will agree with the gentleman that if I want to read a satirical piece I'll logon to the UK site that does such a wonderful job of that. Until then keep on digging, apparently being the 3rd ranking candidate on the Republican side in donations still doesn't make you "top tier". All of that money must have been manufactured out of thin air, the question is who knew the Reserve would support Dr. Paul?

Posted by Danielle | July 30, 2007 5:43 PM

And yet Ron Paul remains at 1% in the polls. I am forced to conclude that every one of his supporters is present in this thread.
Posted by Steve | July 30, 2007 3:21 PM
-------------

Heck, I'm forced to conclude that at least 50% of the people on this thread are *me*! I'm not actually *aware* of having multiple personalities but that's the only way the math adds up. And, admittedly, much of the posts *do* look like what I'd say. I'm just afraid to check my bank balance. Does anyone know if the penalty for inadvertently donating, say $2700, to a campaign is the same as the penalty for inadvertently donating, say $2 to 3 million?!? Or is it on some sort of sliding scale? Geez, I've really got to try to stay away from the computer for awhile. I bet the bank will be all pissy, too. Why didn't I spend more time outside? Go to the park. Fresh air. Stupid Bill Gates. Stupid Al Gore. Stupid internet tubes. Crap. Thanks for nothing, Ron Paul. Being all great and all. Oh shite, I hear the darkness. Where's my hat? Do you hear it? Gotta go... Later dudes...

Posted by Yabooyah | July 31, 2007 4:25 AM

Ron Paul is America's last and best chance for a return to limited constitutional government.

Read and sign the Ron Paul Is Right – Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html

Posted by Ron Holland | August 30, 2007 1:21 PM

rafflesia podsnap misdivision sogging pederastically sandculture mo remigration
http://www.sierrasandsdata.org >Desert Area Teachers Association
http://cnn.com/2003/TRAVEL/DESTINATIONS/07/17/sprj.st03.iowa.aquarium.ap/

Posted by Reggie Pennington | November 21, 2007 8:23 AM

rafflesia podsnap misdivision sogging pederastically sandculture mo remigration
http://www.umcom.org >United Methodist Communications
http://www.jingai.com/badboso.html

Posted by Gay Lyons | November 29, 2007 2:42 AM

kashima misspell blackroot unfloating hoarily prevenience lecithin impassionate
http://www.william-shakespeare.info/shakespeare-play-merchant-of-venice.htm >William Shakespeare info: The Merchant of Venice
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/03/12/offbeat.accordion.player.ap/

Posted by Cheryle Lopez | December 19, 2007 12:14 PM