I feel like I must be missing something, because my problem with Ron Paul always comes down to this inconsistency.... The sections of the constitution, (most of the document) that is not a rule for how the government works, is in regards to budgeting money for the "welfare" of Americans (I would even go so far as to say, that is how the constituion actually defines a nation of liberty and freedom) and then auditing the spending. I sympathize with Ron Paul when he's asked a question about a program in place to end a specific form of human suffering. The questioning is disrespectful, almost always emotional, and is with the agenda of making him appear without sympathy.. But still.. to undo the systems that alleviate suffering under the assumption that those suffering do not merit being helped, because... [whatever reason, they didn't 'try' for example] is what seems to me.. unconstitutional. I assume that everyone who can read the constitution, and interpret the text for themselves, will understand that the main point of it is for government to use the money it receives from 'fair' taxation to best help the people. Bureaucracy, from my reading, is precisely what -is- constitutional. Shouldn't Ron Paul consider himself an anti-constitutionalist? Also, I feel deep down the constitution is revered by RP not only as a rule set for a functioning government, but because of it's morality. The message of freedom, liberty, opportunity and so on.. Abstractions that the country is supposed to represent. Communism and socialism for example, have the same kind of ideology (brotherhood, freedom.. the same terms in many cases) Republicans especially seem give special providence to American history the same way religions may consider a certain text hallowed. If anyone can help me understand this basic problem with Ron Paul's ideas and the actual contrary text of the constitution, please give your opinions.
Also Ron Paul seems like a nice old man. Actually he is a nice old man. But aren't his views a bit masochistic? With a solution, if you can even call it that, to rely on 'privitization' or charity to give help when it's needed... To the question 'what if nobody does?' The response seems to be 'they will, we need to have faith in the generous spirit that makes the people of this country so great' etc. I ask, how desirable it is to be on the receiving end of 'charity'? Having to get on your knees, kiss the ring, grovel for pity, sacrifice your human rights, bow down, and serve.. so on, rather than an emotionless subtle nudge to your ego of receiving a pinch of help from the government giving you just enough to scrape by.
Ron Paul seems to be privately/philosophically a voluntarist, but he is running as a constitutionalist. The Constitution wasn't put in place to create massive bureacracies that waste billions of dollars. Welfare, especially in the context you are using it, on a federal level, basically equivocates to the government bribing people with taxpayer's dollars. The Constitution is mostly irrelevant nowadays. Paul is just using it because it sounds nice and he definitely is more of a constitutionalist than anyone else running.
Let James Madison sum up the beginning? "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,†amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…. But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?" It's so ironic to me that Democrats are so quick to call Libertarians assholes for "not wanting" to contribute to society through taxes, yet they are so willing to put a gun to our head (albeit indirectly, but nonetheless) to make us help. "I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. " -Mohandas Gandhi
You're referring to the "general welfare" clause in article 1 section 8, and your interpretation of it is dangerous and antithetical to the intentions of the founders. What you are condoning is an unlimited Federal government! "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792 "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798 Ron Paul holds this view espoused by our founders. Unless the Constitution explicitly grants the Federal government the power to do something, such as provide an army or a post office, then it is a state power. As the 10th amendment says: "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." So all that Ron Paul and other Constitutionalists are asking is that instead of assuming the power, you have to amend the Constitution. This isn't to say that we wouldn't have a large welfare state, just that we would have the proper consent of the people. Under FDR congress created all these new roles for the Federal government without a Constitutional amendment because that would have required a greater majority. 2/3rds of the house and 3/4ths of the states. Until the Constitution is amended to list the provision of tax handouts as a Federal power, it will remain a state power. That is Ron Paul's political position. Ideally he supports a system of voluntarism, and believes that the moral hazards provided by government are worse than the fear of begging.
Question to bleeding heart liberals. What has the massive spending on the welfare state got us? Extreme debt and a ponzi scheme mostly. We have very high unemployment, more and more poor all the time, middle class being wiped out, a general lowering of the quality of life, etc. If government spending was the answer, we should be in a perfect utopian society right now since government spending has never been higher, but we aren't. You know why? Because the government can do almost nothing better than the people can. Military is one of the few things that makes sense for them to have on federal level. The vast majority of the things government spends money on simply takes wealth away from the people and then severely misallocates those resources either very inefficiently or just wastes it completely on paying far too much for things that the private sector would have handled much better and cheaper. Clearly government spending is not the answer. Libertarians know far better how to help the people of a nation than liberals do, and the insinuation that we don't care is insulting and ignorant as hell.
Mainly it's the Federal government spending that is failing. I think social programs at the state/local level will be much more efficient and productive.
Too bad the Supreme Court already decided on it in 1935. The decision was a compilation of three cases: Helvering v Davis Steward Machine Company v Davis Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke Co. and Gulf States Paper Justice Cardozo wrote the opinions in Helvering vs. Davis and Steward Machine. he made clear the Court's view on the scope of the government's spending authority: tl;dr Basically, the court decided that unemployment and poverty are ailments of the country as a whole, and if they are not rectified, then the general welfare of the country is not being properly maintained. Regardless of the cause, it is the court's opinion that the government must aid those who need. So drop the "I love the founders, everything they did was perfect" attitude, because it is one of lazy disposition. Effective opinions about law must include the relevance of today's society. What good is it to relish in the economic views of the founders, when we have more than triple the states and 100 times the population. Things are not as simple today, period.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4TJBTddP3A&feature=feedu]Why Should Liberals Like Libertarian Ideas? - YouTube[/ame] This was just uploaded minutes ago, ironically.
Don't make the same mistake with these words that countless people have been saying for decades now. Trust me. It can ALWAYS get worse. Never underestimate the true power of greed and corruption.
States having power instead of the federal government will be worse? Nah sorry, I stand by my statement.
OP: If you want a pretty darn good explanation, please watch this video from Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Pay close attention, especially to the first 20 minutes. He covers everything you are wondering about. Dr. Woods' positions and Ron Paul's are closely aligned. Dr. Woods is a pretty smart dude, he is a New York Times bestselling author of 11 books. A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods holds a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and his master's, M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia University. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmUPCrZGjEQ]Breaking Free of our Shackles: Tom Woods Speaks at Nullify Now! Kansas City - YouTube[/ame] Breaking Free of our Shackles: Tom Woods Speaks at Nullify Now! Kansas City - YouTube Regarding Federal welfare programs, I've stated it before and I'll keep saying it until people actually get it, for every $1 in tax revenue collected FOR Federal Welfare Programs...70 cents goes to bureaucrats and only 30 cents goes to the "poor". Think about that...
And that's just his hobby! He was doing a live Q&A the other day in advance of the upcoming Liberty Fest in NYC and he said they are thinking about offering History, Law, and Economic Classes (similar to Mises.org) via his website. For like $8/month. Learn at your own pace kind of thing. He named a lot of Ph.D Historians and Economists as well as J.D.'s that would be presenting the information. That's a lot of work and commitment on their part for $8/month. I hope it pans out.
Everyone knows that most of MIT course material is freely available from their site? Lectures, notes, videos, references, etc. Seriously, that was my education. A treasure trove of info that would take lifetimes to digest. http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm