I read or skimmed Ron Paul's Farewell Address to Congress.
Ron Paul is impressive for a Republican, with surprising ideas on many issues. He is representative of what is called Libertarian ideology, which is liberal on social issues, or some social issues, but right-wing on fiscal issues, with a bias for cutting government spending. I trust that he means what he says, that he would cut military spending just as much as domestic spending. But why cut domestic spending at all? Isn't there a benefit to it? I always find the Libertarian argument a bit too simple and find it preposterous for them to claim the middle ground between liberals and conservatives, as though they represent that dish that's neither too hot nor too cold but just right. Ron Paul thinks he occupies some sane middle ground between two opposing, equally crazy, freedom-destroyers, Democrats and Republicans, who chew on Liberty instead of chewing gum. But what he calls welfare spending on grandmother or newborns is not the same as spending billions of dollars on invading a foreign country. I don't think the two parties are equal. There's the Democrats, and what's worse than them are the Republicans. I never saw a good reason for Ron Paul to ally with the Republicans.
He wrote many appealing and true statements, but sometimes drew simple conclusions that were astonishing. I don't know if he always explained the line he drew from true statement "A" to Ron Paul Conclusion "B". I did not always appreciate the reasoning.
There's an odd dimension in his thesis that wants to turn back the clock on a lot of social programs and social progress to make the country resemble some kind of 1800s Industrial Age all over again, workers working six days a week and twelve hours a day, no benefits and no right to strike.
This "Absolute Liberty" permits no check upon the individual, most of all the wealthy individual, because only the wealthy own factories, run financial empires, influence politicians. The wealthy thus access liberties that the rest of us cannot afford. Thus under the ecosystem of absolute "Liberty," a few rich tycoons would accrue all power, because there would be no curb upon their power from the government. The rich would have the liberty to do as they please to you and your kind. That is how things were in the 1800s.
The 1800s was Ron Paul's magical era, a time when the federal government was behaving in general accordance with Ron Paul beliefs. I don't see that Ron Paul would have favored Lincoln's Civil War. I hesitate to predict how he would have stood on slavery. I do believe him, however, when he promises he would let the tokers, like Abraham Lincoln, have their weed. Right on for that, man. I just don't know whether you're also with us on other stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment