Would you vote for Dr. Paul?

[History_Buff]

I can't think of a libertarian president we've had since Jefferson, and he definitely ain't responsible for this

I've seen people blame Bush, Obama, or even FDR, but I have NEVER heard the Libertarians blamed, and for good reason...

The minor detail that they are never in power.

I don't think he means to blame any particular Libertarian, but the delusion that so many Libertarians subscribe to: Austrian Economics. What got us into the current crisis was the idea that if we deregulate the markets, and leave them to their own devices, everything would automagically turn out alright.

 

[warpus]

I don't think he means to blame any particular Libertarian, but the delusion that so many Libertarians subscribe to: Austrian Economics. What got us into the current crisis was the idea that if we deregulate the markets, and leave them to their own devices, everything would automagically turn out alright.

That's one of the crazy things Ron Paul believes, that the free market should be free to reign from any oversight whatsoever.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's one of the crazy things Ron Paul believes, that the free market should be free to reign from any oversight whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure he believes that regulations should be at the state level, not that they shouldn't be tolerated at all.

 

[Perfection]

No, because he's nuts.

 

[classical_hero]

I can't think of a libertarian president we've had since Jefferson, and he definitely ain't responsible for this

I've seen people blame Bush, Obama, or even FDR, but I have NEVER heard the Libertarians blamed, and for good reason...

The minor detail that they are never in power.

FYI, I am blaming Greenspan, since he was very much libertarian and many of the policies he implemented as fed chief are the causes of the market crash. Also many of the policies implemented have a libertarian lean to them to remove many of the regulations on banks on whom they can lend to and that was a real great help to us all. Just because there has been no Libertarian president, there have been people in power who have leaned that way only to cause great hrm to the rest of us.

 

[Cutlass]

FYI, I am blaming Greenspan, since he was very much libertarian and many of the policies he implemented as fed chief are the causes of the market crash. Also many of the policies implemented have a libertarian lean to them to remove many of the regulations on banks on whom they can lend to and that was a real great help to us all. Just because there has been no Libertarian president, there have been people in power who have leaned that way only to cause great hrm to the rest of us.

That's true. The libertarian economic philosophy is very strong in the Republican party. And even has a lot of influence on parts of the Democratic party. And it is the following of those libertarian precepts that is substantially responsible for the financial crisis.

 

[warpus]

I'm pretty sure he believes that regulations should be at the state level, not that they shouldn't be tolerated at all.

I concede that this is a possibility. Not that it makes much sense, but that is potentially his position. I skimmed through the wikipedia article on his political views earlier today. There is way too much crazy stuff there.

 

[aw3524]

FYI, I am blaming Greenspan, since he was very much libertarian and many of the policies he implemented as fed chief are the causes of the market crash.

In what way can a Fed chief represent a libertarian ideal? Giving a central authority the unique ability to fix the price of money is to be viewed in the same anti-libertarian light as any other government-enforced monopoly.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Who?

I'm personally torn between FDR and Eugene Debs.

 

[Ajidica]

Ditch FDR, go for Huey Long.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I can't think of a libertarian president we've had since Jefferson, and he definitely ain't responsible for this

I can think of one: Calvin Coolidge. His laissez-faire policies led to greatest debt reduction and lowest unemployment in history. He was the strongest opponent of farm subsidies or government intervention in the Depression of 1921, which was deeper than the great depression but without intervention led to a quick and strong recovery. We have never had a more popular peace time president, but his reputation since the great depression has suffered greatly since people tend to group successive presidents of the same party together. His successor Hoover was a Republican that served in his cabinet, but they didn't really agree on anything. Coolidge is known to have claimed that in the 6 years they worked together Hoover constantly gave him unsolicited advice, all of which was bad. It seems he only kept him around to remind himself of what approaches should not be considered. Hoover was the protege of Woodrow Wilson whose support for the efficiency movement demanded turning more and move control of the economy over to government experts and less to private individuals.


Of course, Coolidge was not perfectly libertarian (neither was Jefferson for that matter). He still supported the level of tariffs on which the federal government still depended for most of its revenue. While dramatically reducing income taxes (eliminating them entirely for 98% of Americans), he did increase the estate tax and create the gift tax. Although the was definitely the least racist president we had until very recently he did fight for strong limits on immigration, and signed a bill that cut off immigration from Asia all together (with exceptions for Asian capitalists trying to relocate and create jobs here). Coolidge's signing statement strongly condemned the Asian Exclusion provisions, but he signed the bill anyway in order to honor the memory of the late President Harding. Limiting immigration was a major plank in Harding's platform, and he thought that he owed it to the public to keep his predecessor's promises when he was finishing Harding's term and had not been elected in his own right yet. Actually, you could say that this immigration bill actually made immigration easier, as it cut short a temporary moratorium on all immigration.





Greenspan was not a Libertarian, but rather an Objectivist.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Which part of DOMA? States don't have to recognize anything that they don't want to recognize.

The Defense of Marriage Act says states don't have to recognise gay marriages performed in other states.

HOWEVER. The Full Faith and Credit Clause is the reason marriage in Nevada is recognised in New Jersey.

It is woefully inconsistent with constitutionalism, therefore, to say marriage of one strand should be recognised but another must not.

Either full recognition, or no recognition.

Contrary to belief, constitutionalism and states' rights are NOT one in the same. States do not have the right to establish a church anymore than the Feds do.

DOMA blatantly amends the Constitution without an amendment.

It's one thing to be against gay marriage, but I would like people to be consistent. Don't say you support the Constitution and then blatantly defy it with an act of Congress. Get a federal marriage amendment.

As for Federal recognition, I don't think Paul has stated an opinion on that.

Paul doesn't believe in federal marriage, for or against. He supported DOMA but seems to have changed his position to no recognition.

 

[Cutlass]

In what way can a Fed chief represent a libertarian ideal? Giving a central authority the unique ability to fix the price of money is to be viewed in the same anti-libertarian light as any other government-enforced monopoly.

Most of the powers of the Fed are regulatory. Greenspan choose to not allow those powers to be used. So while the power still technically existed, it was used in the "libertarian" manner, which is to say not used at all.

Beyond that, it needs to be recognized that there really isn't any such thing as "neutral money". In a perfect world there might be. And it is the goal of many to make money as neutral as possible. But to actually take any available choice of monetary policy, it will not be entirely neutral. There is an inherent problem that the money supply is never perfect, and so someone has to make the decision on what it is. An independent central bank that is trying to inflation low, but greater than 0, is the most neutral that anyone has ever come up with.

As to Greenspan's monetary policy, that was informed by his libertarian mindset as well much as his regulatory policy (none) was. It was "let the market do its thing, the market knows best".

So with Greenspan, his going wrong really was in accordance to his variant of Randite libertarianism. He did not go wrong because he wasn't libertarian enough, or not a good libertarian, but because what he did was in keeping with his version of libertarian philosophy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Contrary to belief, constitutionalism and states' rights are NOT one in the same. States do not have the right to establish a church anymore than the Feds do.

DOMA blatantly amends the Constitution without an amendment.

It's one thing to be against gay marriage, but I would like people to be consistent. Don't say you support the Constitution and then blatantly defy it with an act of Congress. Get a federal marriage amendment.

Well, a state establishing a church is clearly against the 14th amendment.

On the other hand, Full Faith and Credit actually is talking about court cases and such. Basically, they don't want a marriage in NC rejected in SC just because it was between NC citizens.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, a state establishing a church is clearly against the 14th amendment.

On the other hand, Full Faith and Credit actually is talking about court cases and such. Basically, they don't want a marriage in NC rejected in SC just because it was between NC citizens.

So a same sex couple has a New York judge declare them married. The couple moves to Texas and want to divorce. One of them files for divorce in a Texas court. Should full faith and credit apply?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Well, a state establishing a church is clearly against the 14th amendment.

So constitutionality is supreme to States' Rights.

Anybody who wants to give the Feds a power explicity, an amendment process is great for it. Albeit cumbersome, but that's the point.

On the other hand, Full Faith and Credit actually is talking about court cases and such. Basically, they don't want a marriage in NC rejected in SC just because it was between NC citizens.

Legal proceedings, which extends to marriage. Kind of odd we can say one kind of marriage is constitutionally protected but another isn't, hmm? It's a ridiculous double standard.

If a state didn't have marriage, should it be forced to recognise a heterosexual marriage?

 

[GhostWriter16]

If a state didn't have marriage, should it be forced to recognise a heterosexual marriage?

No.

So a same sex couple has a New York judge declare them married. The couple moves to Texas and want to divorce. One of them files for divorce in a Texas court. Should full faith and credit apply?

In Texas, the same-sex marrriage does not legally exist.

 

[JollyRoger]

In Texas, the same-sex marrriage does not legally exist.

No, but in my hypo, the New York court order for them to give full faith and credit to does exist.

 

[GhostWriter16]

They aren't required too since that thing isn't allowed in Texas law.

The purpose of full faith and credit is more like: New York sentences a murderer to life, then gives him parole several decades later and lets him go. He moves to Texas. Texas can't just say "Well, if that happened in Texas, we'd have gassed him, so that's what we'll do!" Nope, beecause New York already punished him, however ineffectively, and sadly Texas has to accept that.

If Texas doesn't recognize gay marriage at all, that's a totally different issue.

 

[JollyRoger]

The purpose of full faith and credit is more like: New York sentences a murderer to life, then gives him parole several decades later and lets him go. He moves to Texas. Texas can't just say "Well, if that happened in Texas, we'd have gassed him, so that's what we'll do!" Nope, beecause New York already punished him, however ineffectively, and sadly Texas has to accept that.

That's double jeopardy.

Full faith and credit would protect a child support order from one state when sought to be enforced in another even though the states have different laws on child support. Same with alimony. Texas does not have alimony, but it will recognize court-ordered alimony from another jurisdiction.