Paul: FEMA revisited

[matt0611]

Which ones lack evidence? Just point out which ones.

It would take a while to write out all those bullet points. Most of them are totally wrong. All are at least partially wrong. Some are so vague that they are worthless statements.

Easiest one to disprove is workplace injuries though. look at any chart of workplace injuries before and after OSHA. They were going down before OSHA.

Go to 5:10 in this video:



Pretty much all of those points can be refuted rather easily.

Government is pretty inefficient at most things. Many times government programs achieve the opposite of what they intend.
The great society welfare programs are an absolute disaster when you look at poverty rates over the entire century.

 

[anewvoice]

Which ones lack evidence? Just point out which ones.

Okay, I'll feed the troll.

Governments have been successful at ameliorated the effects of business cycles. - Generic statement, no evidence provided. Business cycles over the past decade provide an abundance of evidence to the contrary that government has not been able to "manage" the business cycle.

Without government regulations, business will produce externalities, which are costs borne by third parties. This is an unfair and immoral outcome that can be prevented by the judicious use of government action. - Can but has not, the same "government regulations" are written by those same businesses who are lobbying to have it so. Furthermore, it is the government regulation preventing adequate damages lawsuits that are preventing third parties from pursuing justice. I'm certain all of those familes with dead workers as a result of asbestos feel very justly treated when the government gave the businesses a free pass.

Governments provide most of the resources to feed the poor, take care of the sick and elderly, protect children and otherwise care for needy people. Governmental efforts in these areas are successful. - State government is and has been the primary source of resources for the needy. Federal government intervention has reduced the quality and scope while further limiting ability to remove oneself from the program. Also, generic statement with no evidence that anything has been successful.

Governments abolished child labor with some success. - Yes, we're all holier than thou on this one now. Governments have encouraged the same regulations that have pushed labor overseas where children are often used as labor in conditions MUCH worse than we had here. But it's okay, it's half way around the world and my iPod is shiney so it's all good.


Governments abolished slavery with some success. - Governments made it illegal, but again the practice of servitude still exists in other areas of the world we are happy to support with our government money. I'll give you a 1/2 point for this one.

Governments are successful at ensuring the safety and efficacy of medicines and medical treatments. Purely private markets could not be as successful. - You are ridiculous if you believe this. The FDA has an appauling track record at achieving even the most rudimentary protection of consumers here, for medicines and food. Again, the corporatism here ensures the regulated and regulators are playing on the same team. Not to mention much of the research used in the creation of said drugs is already Federally funded but for some reason we still allow for price gouging and a patent protection which punishes the lower income, making them dependent on "federal programs" in order to purchase the drugs, loop.


Governments are successful at reducing workplace injuries. - Maybe, but so are lawsuits and workers compensation insurance. I'll let you have this one but it still needn't be the Federal government.

Governments have been successful at keeping unsafe products out of markets. - Patently false. I can't count the number of unsafe products, limiting only to children's toys, that have made it to market. Poisons and lead abound, and the manufacturer has the protection of our government agreements to ensure proper damages are never received.

Government-run deposit insurance has been successful at preventing banking instability. - HAHAHA, oh man. While the insurance may have a use, stating it has lent stability to the banking industry is absurd. The banking industry does whatever they are allowed without risk as they know they will be bailed out when they fail. See back to corporatist...

Government-run public health programs have successful saved people's lives. - So did a toddler calling 911 on the news the other night and a hero dog. Most of these programs are STATE run, not Federal, and justification on something that has worked in some capacity is not justification for existence.


Government intervention has had success in alleviating the harm caused by economic depressions. - Government intervention causes and prolongs economic depressions, period.

Governments can promote informed decision-making in people through regulations, while laissez-faire economics results in poor outcomes due to poor decision-making. - It is not any governments job to regulate personal decisions whether it be effective or not.

State aid programs in the United States are effective at increasing the wellbeing of children. - Not debating effectiveness of state programs, though with some exposure to it I wouldn't say "personal well being" was ever something that jumped out.

Workers need government regulations to protect them from workplace injury and exploitation. - We are not in the 1920's but workplace safety is the least of my concerns from the government. This can be perfectly well managed at the State government level.

The United States federal government has had numerous successful domestic policy programs, which achieved positive outcomes. - Generic statement and the United States federal government has had countless more utter failures or programs, both of which were illegal under the Constitution.

That was an enjoyable mental exercise, thank you.

 

[Gray Fullbuster]

- lol. They cause the business cycle in the first place.

Severe depressions were a routine and recurring problem in this country – occurring in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907 and 1929, up until the 1930s until well, you know what happened then.

The use of force is immoral, not the natural state of things. No externality has such bad effects as the intervention of government in the free market. Uninteded consequences and so on.

This kind of problem cannot be solved within a market framework. Voluntarily assuming the costs of cleaning up its own pollution would be irrational for a business – it would lower profits and put it at a competitive disadvantage with rival companies.

Governments cause poverty, are the reason the elderly have no money and are a threat to children.

Studies have shown that Western countries that spend more on social programs and do the most to promote worker interests are the ones who have the fewest poor and the lowest economic inequality

No they did not. Child labor extinquished with increasing wealth due to capitalism. Only those children work who would die otherwise. Is it good practise to let them die?

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb280/pdf/gb-3-2-abol.pdf

It created slavery.

Left alone, markets and businesses will sell anything for which there is a demand. But there are many things that shouldn’t be sold. Such as women sold into the sex slave industry.

Wrong, the opposite is true.

?

No it did not. It increased working costs and created unemployment and less overall wealth due to idiotic regulations (every factory worker can tell you how immensly stupid some safety regulations are - and nobody cares about them really).

Viewing the entirety of government as inept and cumbersome is an entirely diff argument.

Markets have been successful at keeping unsafe products out of markets.

Please read earlier about the slavery.

LOL. This is one of the biggest created moral hazards that creates the business cycle and causes the whole society a huge loss of wealth.

Before the FDIC, in the depression of the 1930s, over 5,000 banks went bust and millions of Americans lost their savings

Hello, Mr. Bernanke!

Okay.

Government causes millions of deaths every year due to higher cost of medical care, regulations and destroyed wealth wich could have been used in research. Without government intervention cancer could be cured decades ago - who knows?

The scourges of polio, cholera, and smallpox have been effectively eradicated from this country – a huge achievement. And vaccination programs have reduced by 95% our risks of contracting potentially debilitating diseases like hepatitis B, measles, mumps, tetanus, rubella, and diphtheria. Federal funds spent on buying and distributing these vaccines have saved countless lives and the billions of dollars it would cost to treat these illnesses.

I have more to this argument but this suffices.

This is just idiotic.

Okay.

Just not true.

Okay.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

Bad answer on the hurricane victims question during the CNN Interview. The only thing people will have understood from him is that a supposed to be helping organisation= FEMA is bad and theres literally nothing that he would do to help these poor people. Sorry but for the average listener he comes across like a mean old man who has zero compassion.

This is what I think too.

I think it should be left to the states to provide aid.

 

[WD-NY]

Yea, he spoke so well in both this one and Face The Nation, and my only gripe was this FEMA issue. I wish his answer had a bit more detail on what HE would do about it, if he feels the Feds shouldn't be involved. Didn't really seem like he gave much closure on it and in the very few times at some events when it was brought up, he is going to have to do a little better than the 'charity' thing. That just isn't going to cut it and is going to cause some serious flak going his way. You can't honestly think people are going to be thrilled with hearing that, when they have basically lost everything and expect random people to help them. This is an area people are afraid to go all in on with Ron, as they feel he is abandoning people on social/welfare issues and entitlements, and drifting way too far to the right.

And it's the fact that Ron did not really provide a clear alternative that leads me to believe that he's not delivering specific policy speeches/blue-prints because doing so would risk his ability to live forever within the spiritual-leader realm of airy/lofty platitudes about the awesomeness of "liberty", "less government" and "sound money"... dishing out specifics opens Ron up to all the people who specialize in gauging the 'viability' of policy (re: running numbers, crunching data, gaming out outcomes, etc.) and frankly, think 30 years of being on the 'outside looking' has made it difficult for Ron to transition into the role of "executive".

Obama gets a lot of shit for his big empty 'we are the change we've been waiting for' /puke messiah speeches, but in many ways, that's exactly what Ron is doing with his unspecific & unchanging rally speeches + interview answers that offer little in the way of specifics or ways to bridge the divide between the problem and Ron's solution. (n.b. Obama's 'messiah' speeches were, of course, clearer, more coherent and persuasive than Ron's since he read from prepared text). But let's be real and admit that Obama at least had the 'balls' (respect for his supporters) to also offer up specific policy proposals that could be analyzed and debated by all the TV analysts and online journalists/bloggers.

I mean, this was Ron's answer (with some abridging):

Q: Is there a role for fed money in helping these citizens getting their lives back together?

A: Not really, because it's not authorized... because there's no such thing as federal money...fed money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me... but to say you don't support federal money doesn't mean you don't care for people. FEMA is inefficient... I live on the gulf coast and I got re-elected by criticizing FEMA because the people who had to put up with FEMA after the hurricanes had nothing but frustration and anger for having to deal with them...it's so wasteful and inefficient. But you know, the guard units and other things within the states are certainly there. People who live in hurricane alley should have insurance for doing this. But under major disasters, if there is a need for help - say for the military to come in - that is not a tragic violation... but to say that any accident that happens in the country is to say "send in FEMA! send in the money! send in the government!" There's a much better way of doing this... and helping it. The FEMA I was constantly told by the people in my district, they just get in the way. They take over the law enforcement and they hinder the voluntary group and they hinder the state organizations.. exactly opposite of what we should be doing.

(n.b. note how by the end of his FEMA answer, Crowely is basically just like "uhuh yeah hmm ok c-ya"... I can only imagine what she was thinking... probably something along the lines of: "ok, wow. Is this guy serious or does he honestly still not get it? I just served him up a golden opportunity to ignore the BAIT about "federal money" and instead offer up a "compassionate" and heartfelt response to all the people listening...and if he felt like it, paint a picture for what disaster relief would look like in a Paul administration.
Heck, he even had time to go "bill clinton" on them and tell a story about

• his personal experience with deadly weather as a 12 term congressman from a coastal district

• how the destruction brought the community together

• how everyone worked hand-in-hand to rebuild/restore each other's homes & businesses

• and how this very personal and uplifting experience helped to shape his current position that FEMA not only inhibits local/state organizations from manifesting a more community-lead response, but also is less efficient and costs more money).

But noooooo, that would be "fake+phoney"! Far more "honest+real" to get all defensive and start going off on how FEMA sucks and the government has no constitutional right to lend assistance/$$ to the thousands of people and communities FLATTENED/KILLED by random fucking tornadoes. LOL! Srsly?? And he didn't even once say "my thoughts and prayers go out to all the families affected by these storms"... AMAZING! )

=======
=======

If Ron is going to throw out ridiculous statements like this after the news media has been breathlessly covering the tornado story ALL WEEKEND (showing aerial footage of entire houses/blocks leveled + interviews with the friends & family of the dead - e.g. Survival stories emerge from the South, Midwest after deadly tornadoes scar hundreds of miles), he better bring something other than the verbal poo he thoughtlessly pooped out in this interview.

You want to rail against FEMA and other federal aid Ron - FINE. But you better back it up with viable "SPECIFIC ALTERNATIVES" and have real "EVIDENCE/DATA" that backs up said alternatives. Does anyone else not find comments (re: gaffs) like this insulting given the $30million+ we've donated to his campaign?? His answer on FEMA was political malpractice given the complete lack of any alternative - his "cold/heartless" response makes even the most "aloof + professorial" version of Obama look Bill Clinton-esque.

We're lucky Ron isn't leading the 'not-romneys' right now because if he was, the comments he made about FEMA (while the tornadoes are still a threat) would've created a political shitstorm on par with the clusterf**k Santorum created after his dumbass comments about college, birth control, Obama's faith and whatever other ridiculous things he said last week.

Of course, Santorum followed those comments/gaffes up with a prepared speech after the Michigan primary that effectively (according to most pundits) neutralized and re-spun/framed his gaffes into not-romney "strengths"! Amazing right?! I especially enjoyed the pandering bit about his mom, wife and daughter! /srsly

Sorry teamRPF, but while 95% of Ron's interview was A+, his comments on FEMA were deplorable given the fact that he offered up nothing but vague platitudes about the states handling their own disaster recovery and FEMA being "inefficient". The reason I'm digging so hard into this one interview though is because I believe it offers up the perfect example for why we aren't winning and why we won't (and don't deserve to) win barring a complete 180 by Team Paul to address these shortcomings. At some point, the grassroots either needs to call out the campaign for being intellectually dishonest in regards to promising "real solutions" and "real change" to all the bad policy (both past, present and future) coming out of Washington DC.

It's been almost 5 months since Ron presented the Plan to Restore America (Oct 18th, 2011) - 5 long months since Ron last put himself and the ideas/solutions he believes in out there for reporters, analysts and American voters to legitimately debate+discuss+rate+review+etc the specifics of his proposal.... That to me pretty much sums it all up. The "messiah" shtick and speeches are all well and good - without it, there'd be no 4,000+ people rallies - but at some point you have to get real and start backing up the rhetoric with legitimate alternatives/solutions.

• Not backing up the empty-platitude-talk with specific/verifiable ALTERNATIVES = NOT SERIOUS

Obama presented both "platitude speeches" and "detailed policy blueprints" in 2008 and ...wait for it...won!

I have no doubt that if Ron had done the same and presented a "blueprint" + prepared speech for each and every "ISSUE" that the press has ranked him over the coals over**, we'd be running neck and neck with Romney for 1st, have several wins in the bag, a lot more money in the bank and most of the momentum going into Super Tuesday.


** issues = student loans, Iran, "social issues", social security, medicare, the deficit, national defense, the federal reserve, REAL inflation and FEMA.

Yeah, that's a lot of work to write up blueprints, but guess what, there are few/zero shortcuts to winning something as serious as the GOP nomination.

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

http://thinksquad.net/2012/01/02/a-democrat-president-who-vetoed-aid-to-drought-stricken-farmers/

During his [Grover Cleveland] term as President, the state of Texas was getting it’s ass kicked by mother-nature in the form of a drought. Congress in both the house and the senate, approved a relief effort package of $10,000 dollars, but when it got to the President’s desk, he did some research, and re-read the constitution, and could not find anywhere in the all the writings, that our forefather created, that allowed him to give other people’s money, so he vetoed it.

He felt really bad for the people of Texas, and decided to give them money out of his own pocket instead, which he gave $2000 dollars, still $8000 dollars short of the money that the Government was going to send, but enlisted in the people of America for help, instead of relying on all the bureaucratic red tape. The people of Texas ended up with $100,000 dollars in aid.

 

[Danan]

I like what you wrote anewvoice, but I'd like to add a few words:

Yes, we're all holier than thou on this one now. Governments have encouraged the same regulations that have pushed labor overseas where children are often used as labor in conditions MUCH worse than we had here. But it's okay, it's half way around the world and my iPod is shiney so it's all good.

If you believe it or not, but these children work in 99% of all cases voluntarily in sweatshops. At least more or less voluntarily, because it's better than what they otherwise had to face. The company (almost) never forces their workers to work for them. They do it because otherwise they would have to work in even worse conditions or would simply die.

I know that it can sound heartless to defend sweatshops, but you don't do those guys any favour if you would put pressure on their countries to eliminate them or boycott the products. As so often, the message of true liberty when it really comes down to individual cases like child labor, minimum wage laws or government help for tornado victims is very hard to understand. It goes against human intuition and human instincts. We want to help other people. That's why so many people can't come over to true libertarianism. Because you really have to understand how unintended consequences destroy every good intention and worsen the condition for so many people on this world.

A good video to the sweatshop topc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx5fzBNO4l4

HAHAHA, oh man. While the insurance may have a use, stating it has lent stability to the banking industry is absurd. The banking industry does whatever they are allowed without risk as they know they will be bailed out when they fail. See back to corporatist...

It is the insurance itself that is the big problem. Sure, some economists argue that if your deposits are insured by the government it increases confidence which increases overall wealth. What they don't see is that consumer behavior changes when such policies come into force. The consumer gets completely uninterested in how risky the actions of his bank is if he knows that the government a) will rescue the bank anyway and even if not b) at least insures his savings. Therfore the only thing he cares is the interest rate. Now the government created an invironment in which no bank can survive if it doesn't try to achieve the highest possible profits at the expense of security. Even if they tried, they would go out of business because no customer values this business model anylonger. It is not the fault of the individual bank that the whole economy collapses, but the system in which it has to operate. This crisis was completely predictable and of course Ron Paul predicted it.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

Wow this President Grover guy sounds like a really nice dude. Goes to wiki him.

I can see Ron donating a few thousand to help victims when he is president. I think he'd give more, but since he will be getting a salary of like 30-40k as president. Heck, I think he would go out and give some minor medical attention to victims.

 

[asurfaholic]

Exactly. I do not have a problem with helping these people out, but there has to be some sort of federal aid to help out. You know that private insurance and charitable organizations just wont cut it sometimes.

I disagree. Take your own location and analyse it. Do you rent or own? If you own, you probably have homeowners insurance. This protects you from a limited list of damages. If you live in a flood prone area, you can choose to buy an additional insurance. This list can go on. You have to educate yourself and decide what sort of risks you want to take.

If you rent, and your place gets destroyed, well, it wasn't yours, so no loss. Renters insurance policies are cheap and cover all your belongings.

Businesses can insure too.

Those who don't choose to insure their property are doing it because the cost/benefit seems to steer them to prefer have extra money in their pockets and not have protection.

So if one person protects their belongings, then why should somebody in a different part of the country be forced to pay for the loss of those who chose not to protect themselves?

Ok, so that is cut and dry. How about when an entire city is destroyed and there is mass chaos. This is a difficult and trying time for all involved, and there is is destruction everywhere. Perfect call the feds in... since they are so good and efficient at everything they do and all.. Here's a solution - how about if local communties organized to take care of the needy. Private companies can mobilize because they plan ahead for disasters. Private disaster relief companies and move in to provide generators, ice, water, temporary shelter units.

Oh wait, you called the feds already... those people wont be allowed in the disaster zone, there are special permits and permissions that need to be obtained from some beauracrap somewhere.

And why would anyone choose to insure themselves? They are entitled to fed molahh anyways if something bad happens.

 

[Miss Annie]

We should get some people on the ground in Ron Paul shirts/hoodies/etc to hand out water and other aid supplies. THAT will look good.

I agree with this! Dr Paul strongly advocates charity!

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm talking about ear marking in general. I don't have a problem in sending some of these states federal aid. I'm not talking about sending FEMA, I mean the National Guard should be funded to go and assist these states. Some states do not have a budget and expects natural events. As for insurance, some individuals can not afford the add-on policy that come with some private insurance companies.

You can't just expect people to transition to a message that we have, and this is why so many people have a hard time accepting Ron Paul. You have to be more considerate for people, and I'm not saying you drive FEMA into these areas to help out. But I am saying, that some sort of federal aid should be given to assist these states.

Perhaps an idea would be to return some of the monies that were taken from the respective states by the federal government, so that they could take care of themselves. That and volunteer help from all over the country ie. charity. Americans are still the most charitable people on the face of the earth.

People seem to forget that the federal government has no money. The only money they have is taken from us.

 

[NYgs23]

Fuck FEMA and fuck the evil idea that there is something loving and compassionate about taking care of people through theft. That's not an act of love. That's an act of hate: hatred for the rights of others.

This is on top of the fact that a violent monopoly is the most ineffective way possible of taking care of people--or doing anything else. If people really were compassionate, they'd advocate taking these important societal functions out of the hands of the violent monopoly known as the state. They would no more want the state involved in charity than the Mafia.

 

[Danan]

Severe depressions were a routine and recurring problem in this country – occurring in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907 and 1929, up until the 1930s until well, you know what happened then.

Most of these crises where caused by government interference in one way or another. And because government was way smaller back then and neither could nor did anything to "stimulate" they were over in a few months or in very few cases years. Of course that's not true for 1929 which was caused by excessive spending during WWI (which could only be financed with the recently created Federal Reserve - what a coincidence!). But even this big crisis would have been over very quick without the dumb policies of Hoover and Roosevelt. If you want to learn about real economic history study the books of Murry Rothbard and other free market economists to that topic.

This kind of problem cannot be solved within a market framework. Voluntarily assuming the costs of cleaning up its own pollution would be irrational for a business – it would lower profits and put it at a competitive disadvantage with rival companies.

If a company pollutes something it has to compensate the damage done. A government that jumps in and says: "You can pollute, but only this much. If you pollute more you have to pay us!" does nothing to help the people. In a free market the polluter would have to make a deal with it's victims or it has to be sued out of business.

Studies have shown that Western countries that spend more on social programs and do the most to promote worker interests are the ones who have the fewest poor and the lowest economic inequality

Wrong. The causallity is exactly the other way around. Once a country becomes wealthier and more and more workers get out of poverty laws come into existence that should help the poor. A really poor country would destroy it's population with minimum wage laws or other regulations and they know that. The ironic thing is that the existence of all those uncountable regulations and "benefits" manifests poverty and disables the poor to become wealthier. Very often these laws have exactly the reason to do that because the middle class wants to protect monopolistic status without competition.

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb280/pdf/gb-3-2-abol.pdf

There are plenty of sources that argue for the opposite case. Listen to Dr. Sowell or watch the video I linked to the sweatshop topic. That would be a good start.

Left alone, markets and businesses will sell anything for which there is a demand. But there are many things that shouldn’t be sold. Such as women sold into the sex slave industry.

You own your body. To initiade force against someone is immoral and slavery is impossible in a free market because it's existence is contrary to the free market's precondition. Nothing to argue here.

Viewing the entirety of government as inept and cumbersome is an entirely diff argument.

Your arguments are not very precisely either to be honest.

Please read earlier about the slavery.

Slavery has nothing to do neither with free markets nor with product safety. A free market can provide safe products. Wouls you want do buy dangerous stuff?

Before the FDIC, in the depression of the 1930s, over 5,000 banks went bust and millions of Americans lost their savings

And how many people were driven into poverty due to inflation since the FED exists? The problem with government intervention is you always see the stuff that happend you never see what would have happend. This interference destorted the whole market place for decades, destroyed possible wealth and transfered what was left to very few privileged ones. And it's the only reason wars can be paid for.

I already stated how the FDIC causes a huge moral hazard. Just like in the case of the hurrican and tornado victims you always see those who get help but the inintended consequences keep unseen for the most part.

The scourges of polio, cholera, and smallpox have been effectively eradicated from this country – a huge achievement. And vaccination programs have reduced by 95% our risks of contracting potentially debilitating diseases like hepatitis B, measles, mumps, tetanus, rubella, and diphtheria. Federal funds spent on buying and distributing these vaccines have saved countless lives and the billions of dollars it would cost to treat these illnesses.

That nobody has the right to vaccinate me against my will is a whole other topic but to say withoud coercion nobody could have paid for this is wrong.



Sorry but your views on the economy, the role of government and personal freedom seem to be the diametrical opposite of Dr. Paul's.

 

[Danan]

Wow this President Grover guy sounds like a really nice dude. Goes to wiki him.

I can see Ron donating a few thousand to help victims when he is president. I think he'd give more, but since he will be getting a salary of like 30-40k as president. Heck, I think he would go out and give some minor medical attention to victims.

If I'm not wrong Ron said he is his favourite president.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

I think Ron Paul should say that the foreign policy has to change so we have money to keep these bloated, bureaucratic federal "aid" organizations around... if we decided to keep them around. How can we help our own people if we have no money. How come we have money and how come we keep helping people in afghanistan, pakistan and other places... but not our fellow americans?

Use it to help his foreign policy differences.

 

[Danan]

I think Ron Paul should say that the foreign policy has to change so we have money to keep these bloated, bureaucratic federal "aid" organizations around... if we decided to keep them around. How can we help our own people if we have no money. How come we have money and how come we keep helping people in afghanistan, pakistan and other places... but not our fellow americans?

Use it to help his foreign policy differences.

He often says the US should stop bombing bridges in Afghanistan to have some money left to repair bridges at home. The problem is that nothing Ron says or does seems to have any consequence as long as these pundits, establishment guys and the MSM is against him. =/

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

He often says the US should stop bombing bridges in Afghanistan to have some money left to repair bridges at home. The problem is that nothing Ron says or does seems to have any consequence as long as these pundits, establishment guys and the MSM is against him. =/

keep hammering it. also keep hammering the social security/medicare issue.

 

[NYgs23]

Severe depressions were a routine and recurring problem in this country – occurring in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, 1907 and 1929, up until the 1930s until well, you know what happened then.

All of which were caused by the state's interference with money.

This kind of problem cannot be solved within a market framework. Voluntarily assuming the costs of cleaning up its own pollution would be irrational for a business – it would lower profits and put it at a competitive disadvantage with rival companies.

Violent monopolies can't solve anything. They just make the problem worse. Can the Mafia solve anything? Pollution is banned in a free market because it violates the property of others.

Studies have shown that Western countries that spend more on social programs and do the most to promote worker interests are the ones who have the fewest poor and the lowest economic inequality

Richer countries can afford bigger, more totalitarian states. Thus, the rich, big spending state is caused by the prosperity. The state itself tends to redistribute wealth upward to its cronies.

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/gb/docs/gb280/pdf/gb-3-2-abol.pdf

When you throw children in third world countries out of work, you just throw them on to starve on the streets, i.e. the compassionate, progressive way. Child labor is a necessity in poorer economies. In fact, it still exists in wealthier economies; haven't you ever watched Hollywood movies? All those child actors are child laborers. There's nothing wrong with young children working if they choose to do so. It gives them experience, money, and much better education than abusive state prison-schools. If you don't like the conditions in which they're working, then support a free market, so that the economy can grow and conditions can improve.

Left alone, markets and businesses will sell anything for which there is a demand. But there are many things that shouldn’t be sold. Such as women sold into the sex slave industry.

Like pollution, slavery is banned under a free market. It's an act of aggression, i.e. a violation of an individual's person and/or property (the fruits of his labor). In the free market, all violations of person and property are prohibited.

Before the FDIC, in the depression of the 1930s, over 5,000 banks went bust and millions of Americans lost their savings

That's what should have happened. Those banks engaged in the unsustainable and unethical practice of fractional reserve banking, which shouldn't exist and couldn't exist without the state propping them up. Complaining that without the FDIC, we couldn't have fractional reserve banking is like complaining that without the state, we couldn't have war.

The scourges of polio, cholera, and smallpox have been effectively eradicated from this country – a huge achievement. And vaccination programs have reduced by 95% our risks of contracting potentially debilitating diseases like hepatitis B, measles, mumps, tetanus, rubella, and diphtheria. Federal funds spent on buying and distributing these vaccines have saved countless lives and the billions of dollars it would cost to treat these illnesses.

If this was economically worthwhile, it could and would have been done through voluntary means instead. There is absolutely nothing on this Earth worth doing that can be better done by a violent monopoly than through voluntary means. And even if there could, it wouldn't matter because violence is always unjust, regardless of outcome. And the state is nothing more than means of violence.

So why do you support Ron Paul? You sound more like a Nader man.

 

[Crystallas]

Instead of funding the upkeep of a department, cut out the middle men, allow direct relief. At least that is how the market would help people. It's far more effective than a bureaucracy, and those who are victims to natural disasters get MUCH more out of it and have FAR more options to help them. I'm not even exaggerating when I say it's close to a 650% improvement for a victim. Prevention, resilience in the form of design and allowing market signals to work, is a WONDERFUL thing.

 

[Gray Fullbuster]

All of which were caused by the state's interference with money.



Violent monopolies can't solve anything. They just make the problem worse. Can the Mafia solve anything? Pollution is banned in a free market because it violates the property of others.



Richer countries can afford bigger, more totalitarian states. Thus, the rich, big spending state is caused by the prosperity. The state itself tends to redistribute wealth upward to its cronies.


When you throw children in third world countries out of work, you just throw them on to starve on the streets, i.e. the compassionate, progressive way. Child labor is a necessity in poorer economies. In fact, it still exists in wealthier economies; haven't you ever watched Hollywood movies? All those child actors are child laborers. There's nothing wrong with young children working if they choose to do so. It gives them experience, money, and much better education than abusive state prison-schools. If you don't like the conditions in which they're working, then support a free market, so that the economy can grow and conditions can improve.



Like pollution, slavery is banned under a free market. It's an act of aggression, i.e. a violation of an individual's person and/or property (the fruits of his labor). In the free market, all violations of person and property are prohibited.



That's what should have happened. Those banks engaged in the unsustainable and unethical practice of fractional reserve banking, which shouldn't exist and couldn't exist without the state propping them up. Complaining that without the FDIC, we couldn't have fractional reserve banking is like complaining that without the state, we couldn't have war.



If this was economically worthwhile, it could and would have been done through voluntary means instead. There is absolutely nothing on this Earth worth doing that can be better done by a violent monopoly than through voluntary means. And even if there could, it wouldn't matter because violence is always unjust, regardless of outcome. And the state is nothing more than means of violence.

So why do you support Ron Paul? You sound more like a Nader man.

The only sane election choices this time around are Paul or Green Party.