I know I've said a lot of very pro Ron Paul things on this website, but I'm starting have some doubts about supporting him in the coming election. The first issue I have is that I was told he wants to do away with the department of education. While I deeply support the idea of individual liberties and state's rights, I just don't see how this is the right approach to take. How unfair would it be to live in a state that doesn't offer as good of an education as another? Or what if you lived in a state that only taught creationism? Both of the scenarios are not only possible but also quite likely in a few states. My second issue with Ron Paul is his opposition to abortions. While I am not going to sit here and discuss the morality of such a procedure, I will say that I support every Women's right to have a safe and professional abortion. My third issue is his refusal to support investing in alternative energy sources. A quote off of his website states, "I can't support government 'investment' in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all". If our government is only providing subsidies to help alternative energy sources (I'm looking at you, solar energy) to get their feet off of the ground, what is the problem with that? There may be more I want to bring up later, but I think this is enough for now. I'm not trying to attack Ron Paul or any of his supporters, actually quite the opposite. I just want some honest input regarding these points or any clarification I may need.
I can't really answer your third question, but I'll give my opinion on the first two. 1. He would end the department of education because no where in the constitution does it allow the government that authority. Just because there is a problem in society (i.e. shit education) that does not mean the gov needs to fix it. The DOE hasn't raised test scores or improved education at all in my opinion, so I agree it needs to go and just be handled at the state level. If a state chooses to teach creationism, then damn, I geuss the people decided. At that point you can move, or try and change people's/congresses mind to allow evolution (or whatev you believe) to be taught. Not trying to come off rude here, just being blunt. 2. He wouldn't support legislation making it illegal, as he would let the states decide, as the Federal government has no say in it. Also, if you believe life is after conception, it would technically be the governments duty to protect life, as then abortion would be considered murder. Personally, I believe a woman should be able too, but I just don't think they should.
Government is not smart enough to invest your money into alternative fuels. Case in point: Corn ethanol By removing oil subsidies, market forces will put a much greater pressure on the development of alternative fuels then would otherwise exist.
If you have doubts about RP, they surely are less than any other candidate, no? To decentralize anything, is to foster varying viewpoints. So by leaving it a states issue it ensures that whatever you want to be taught, will most likely be taught somewhere. If you have to leave a state that's good. That is like free market competition between states. That will be a good thing because it will force the states to stay competitive with other states to retain productive citizens, thereby increasing the likelihood of a governance that is truly for the people. Ron Paul wants to follow the Constitution. The Constitution gives no authority to the federal government to make any mandates concerning abortion. So it's a state issue. His personal opinions are against abortion, but those opinions won't affect anything he does regarding this issue. He is sticking to the Constitution, just like he always does on any issue. This is an economic issue. The government never "invests" in anything. That is his point. All it does is take wealth and waste it, destroy it, or transfer it to someone else. Interfering with the functioning of the free market by government doesn't result in anything good, and it won't achieve the end that is desired because it's based on flawed thinking in the first place. The reason that there shouldn't be subsidies is exactly the same reason why the green people say we do need it. It's because it wastes our limited resources. If government has to subsidize an industry for it to survive it's because it's an inefficient venture, and inefficiency is wasteful to resources. The free market will develop alternate sources of fuel by itself far better than the government ever will. The market has to be allowed to function freely though, so that progress isn't setback. The fastest way to get to any new technology is to let the market function without government interference. That way the economy can grow at a fast enough pace to rapidly develop new technologies when the need becomes apparent.
Ok, so you say that the constitution doesn't allow for the DOE, but then why does it still exist? Has nobody ever brought this up with the supreme court? And while I agree that the DOE does a pretty piss poor job and educating this country, I just don't see how states will do it any better. As for the abortion issue, I definitely support his idea to leave it up to the states. That is a fairly acceptable option, though I know I would be angry to live in a state that outlawed it. @Lay Low I appreciate the response, very informative. Cleared up many things for me.
I have so many friends who are teachers & would love less Govt in their daily education plans, especially standardized testing. On paper, the idea of Govt having a role in education looks good but completely fails in practice. Just compare American students scores in Math, Science, etc, compare them to the rest of the world. Here's a spoiler, America scores pretty low in a lot of areas (ie math).
My main problem with Ron Paul is the fact that he is so conservative. If its him or Obama, I'm going to stick with Obama.
so you're directly relating the cause of stupidity in america and blaming it on the "big monster government"? you do realize those other countries you mentioned all have rather active government involvement in the school systems? and when you say: oh, the states should handle such matters- what's really changing, besides the name (federal government -> state government)? i can agree more local spending could ultimately become more optimized and effective, but in the end, it shouldn't change much...
What is so wrong with him being conservative? From what I understand, that can only help this country. Our federal government is corrupt, inefficient, and oppressive. We as people deserve our individual liberties and Ron Paul is willing to stand up for that.
I have no hope for humanity , or the USA reading some of the comments in this thread... disheartening.... truly disheartening...
That's the problem that I always see. I don't understand what's the difference between our federal government running it versus the state government (minus my concerns expressed in the OP).
Directly blaming the Govt for lower scores? Not exactly, but they are definitely apart of the problem, not the solution. They could be a part of the solution but, from what I hear, they're doing it wrong. Also, when I did I mention state handling any matters? And what other countries have I mentioned? I compared the USA tests to the rest of the worlds (good and bad). The numbers are there and the USA is lagging behind, especially for such an advanced country. Are there countries that beat out the USA whose Govt are involved in Education? Of course there is. Now are all of those countries Gov't directly involved? What are their roles exactly? How to they compare to the USA? So stop putting words into my mouth. Basically I'm just relaying what I talk about with teachers and I haven't met one yet that enjoys the Gov't imposing teaching standards on them, especially standardized testing. I'm sure their are teachers out there who do enjoy it, I just haven't met them yet. We could get into the nitty gritty & find out what exactly grinds their gears but I'm gonna need a week or so to gather all of their opinions. Their opinions count in my book.
It basically all comes down to money, but the State and Federal Gov't have a hand in the school system. Public schools receive monies from the State who in turn receives money from the Federal govt (grants/programs). In order for the state to receive this money, which they count on (if they don't get their budgets are screwed), they must meet whatever requirements the Fed imposes on them to receive said monies. The State then in turn relays the rules and procedures onto the teachers. One the main things schools have to meet is standardized test scores. If the schools test scores are low problems are to be had. A side effect of this is that teachers teachings are based on the students passing these standardized tests rather than actually teaching, you dig? I have a school a few towns over (Long Island, NY) whose district was taken over by the State because scores were low, high school graduates were too low, etc.
Look at this way, how many miles to DC for you? Can you go protest in DC easier than you could in your state capital? In 15 miles from Nashville, but damn near 1400 from DC. I would have to take days\weeks off work to go to protest bad shit under the fed banner, but I can go and raise hell in the Nashville capital anytime I want to. Therefore I am willing and able to exert far more persuasion at the local level than at the big gov level merely because I am able to show my presence. That is why state > federal. Every. Single. Time. (IMO)
@Swills Ok yes the money issue certainly brings a strong argument. So, basically we pay the federal government to impose regulations on our states to impose regulations on their various schools. It would certainly make a lot more sense to simply pay our state to impose the very same regulations... The fed always has and always will overlook the small stuff.
where are these words i'm putting in your mouth? you seem to had made the direct assumption that the government's involvement in our school system was a result of our failing testing scores in comparison to other country's scores... government's involvement in school is way beyond standardized test scores, just so you know (see: public schooling system). so since, in your words, government role in education absolutely fails in practice (looks good on paper!), the only other option i see is privatization. i also never did say you said this, however it's a general assumption that is constantly made on this board, and i'd thought you'd probably agree with. as far as other country's level of intervention within the schooling system is usually considered more or less of the same.
Also a very good point. Damn I'm happy I made this thread. I'm re-learning why I love Ron Paul so much.