Ron Paul also sees the Washington self-serving clearly: < The fact that Ron Paul is the only major candidate who sees this clearly is... very bad. Hopefully his success is a sign that the public is beginning to suspect that the boyz and girls in Washington are self serving and clueless. >The problem is not that the people running the government are self serving and clueless, it's that the electorate is. The politicians are simple giving the public what they want. Ron Paul is one of the few who hold a position which is right and if the public likes that position, they can choose it. If not, then he won't change his position and they can have what they vote for. Good and hard. A New New Deal or a Greater Society with more "social justice redistribution" maybe. Perhaps global war. Poverty.
As Paul said, the issue is that the public needs an intellectual revolution in the way they think of Big Government. He's trying to help them change their opinions. As old people die, young people arrive with new ideas. It seems that his ideas are appealing to lots of young people. It's the young people who don't have decades of entitlement thinking and dirty great government pensions to luxuriate in. The rascals who need to be thrown out are those who were in "public service" and now claim everyone has to work for them.
Unfortunately, they might throw out the baby with the bathwater. Government is okay to the extent that it represents actual communal property and protection of the commons, such as spectrum, clean air, water, ownership of roads, protection of borders. Throw out all the victimless "crimes" such as prostitution laws, ingestion of plant toxins such as dope, heroin, cocaine, ethanol, cutting down trees on your own property and general bossy regulatory red tape.
Yes, shovel-ready stimulus spending is broken windows fallacy thinking. To boost the economy, A big lottery could be held and the winners could have their houses burned down by government workers. Burn down say half the houses. Then the government could print money to give to everyone to rebuild houses. If all the things in the houses were burned too, then that would mean even more production is needed.
The economy would be going really well and everyone would be working. Poor, without a house or living in crowded conditions, but the economy would be booming. Personally, I'd rather keep my house and spend my time inventing genetic engineering and eugenics, Cyberspace and superconductor levitated and propelled tubular transcontinental "railways" and inductively coupled for recharge electric cars with battery swaps between charging.
Eugenics got a bad name because governments got into the act. Leave genetic engineering and eugenics as it is now, with women deciding with whom they wish to be pregnant and it would work well [better than the alternative anyway]. Yes, some women would make stupid choices, as they do now. But they are less likely to make stupid choices than would some government worker telling them who their "husband" is to be.
I dare say Ron Paul is in favour of women deciding for themselves who the father should be. Since genetic engineering is going to be a big deal, a president who knows a fair bit about pregnancy and babies could be a good choice. I bet you hadn't thought of that angle. It would be good to focus less on killing people than on giving birth to people. Spending a fortune to keep Islamic Jihadists in business in Afghanistan and Iraq seems like a bad idea though having the launch pad in Afghanistan did enable killing of Osama bin Laden. It is nice that there is no Uday, Gadafi, or Osama.
Mqurice |
