I thought this was would make a good thread, but it is a response to what Threads said in the Par-tea thread.
quote: Enthusiastically supporting the elimination of most government functions on the basis of some thought-experiments seems extremely risky. It sounds good in theory but, forgive the red herring, so did Marxism.
Pie in the sky. That is what I read most about Paul. His policies are pie in the sky.
Eliminate the IRS Eliminate the Income Tax Go Back to the Gold Standard Cut all Federal Programs like the Department of Education, Energy, CIA, Homeland Security Eliminate Government functions Ending Birthright citizenship Et cetera
What a whacko!
(lets ignore that he does like localized government and is not about to go back to the Gold standard.)
When Ron Paul is asked a question he generally responds with his philosophy in full effect. That gives us the opportunity to debate the philosophy.
He does a fantastic job, in my opinion, of explaining, justifying, and educating about his philosophy. He is all about re-examining what the role of government should be.
Many people feel our government is out of control. Paul's philosophy, however flawed, is a sincere and honest attempt at re-examining where we are, how we got here, where we are going, and if our current trajectory is sustainable.
After all, if the dollar collapses or we loose our sovereignty, it doesn't really matter what you want to support, the transition could get violent and ugly.
It is easy to make his philosophy seem pie-in-the sky, especially if you don't include what his rational is for dismantling something like Homeland Security.
But there is a second side to Paul. I'll call it Practical Paul . When he talks about what he would like to achieve as president, he always prefaces that you cannot make changes like he wants without the consent of the people and the votes in congress.
We would not get this violent cut in every federal program as Paul sticks his finger to the people. He is all about sunshine policies, openness, and getting the consent of the people.
He is honest and open. That means he would very much be kept in check within our checks and balances. What he could do is focus on balanced budgets and start true debates on what the role of government should be.
Any extreme veto would easily be overridden, but it would force both parties to stop wasting money.
I think people would have more power under his presidency. Government would be more open.
What he would do, without needing the consent of the people or congress, would be troop redeployment. By not entangling ourselves in foreign countries and focusing on trade, we would save money and bring in more revenue.
We would be removing the strongest recruitment excuses that people like Osama use on desperate people. You read something like Struggling for Relevance in Cuba and you see a man who understands practical issues.
He would not achieve his utopia. We would not be led into "anarcho-capitalism." We would, however, be forced to treat our budget with more respect and re-examine our taxes. We also would have the opportunity to open America to great ideas like taking sales tax off of Gold and letting people easily save in a competing commodity backed currency. If they are bad ideas, they will fail.
He is the antithesis of a dictator, so I feel no fear in enthusiastically supporting someone whom I have fundamental disagreements with. He is the only candidate I trust who is not just rhetoric.
He has never voted to use social security money for anything other then social security. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
That is integrity. That is fiscally conservative. That is someone who really will be working for the people and really will be constrained by the people.
He looks much better then the other republicans I see.