A few questions a left leaning Independent who's considering Ron Paul would like to ask of his supporters.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hmm, I guess I forgot about the audience I'm dealing with so this time around, I'll make my questions nice and simple.
1. What position does Ron Paul and his community of supporters take on American citizens being subjected to very intrusive procedures in the name of security? Are they only against it if its a gov't agency or employee that executes the procedures, or are they equally against it if these procedures are done by private businesses?
2. What is his stance on Civil Rights? What was Ron Paul's take on the Civil Rights movement, its legacy, in terms of legislation send impact on society? What is Paul's stance currently on Civil Rights along with the sentiments about Civil Rights among his supporters?
3. What is his position on anti-trust laws and their enforcement? I know in the past he has criticized the TBTF masters of the universe, but has he endorsed the use of anti-trust laws to deal with this problem? If he's not in support of anti-trust measures, what alternatives does Paul and his supporters endorse to protect the free market from monopolies and oligopolies?
4. What is the position of Paul and his supporters on the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies enjoy?
5. Ellen Brown has been speaking of late on state owned banks, and by state she means banks that are owned by the individual state and NOT any federal agency nor are Wall Street affiliated.
Its a very interesting idea and I'm surprised given how much I hear Paulian supporters talk of states' rights, I have yet to hear them mention state owned banks as a viable alternative banking system to what we have now.
6. And last but most certainly not least what position has Ron Paul taken on the Citizens United decision and what is the position of his and those from his community of supporters on the issue of campaign finance reform in general?
On #1 he is VERY AGAINST THE TSA! He thinks what they do is a violation of our right to privacy and protection against illegal searches. He was VERY OUTSPOKEN about it when they first started the Pat Downs. He himself flys often and has been patted down numerous times and thinks it is disgusting! He thinks security at airports should be handled by the airlines themselves. He has also pointed out that the TSA style security in airports only exists in a few countries such as Bolivia, Libya, Poland and the United States. He introduced a bill called the "Amercan Traveler Dignity Act" almost right away that says TSA agents have to follow the same laws we do. If any of us groped another like that we'd be thrown in jail! Listen to this address to Congress.
On #2, He is strongly in favor of EQUAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE ACROSS THE BOARD. He believes in property rights. Here's his response to the attacks that people make saying he's racist.
On #3, He's against the Federal government getting involved in the private sector. He thinks a hands off approach is the best. He thinks the Free Market should be allowed to work without intervention from the government. Here is what he said about anti-trust laws as a young Congressman in the 80's.
On #5, he is very in favor of competition in general. Banks are no different. Again he's seeking a federal office. What the states would do would be up to the states.
On #6, He's in favor of making getting on the ballot easier (fewer signatures needed) and lowering the cost of campaigning and a huge proponent of having all parties be represented in the debates (Not just the Rs and the Ds).
Now this part where the airline might is what I really want clarification on. Unlike a NFL game, transportation via airplane is a must as there is no viable, practical alternative for me to get to certain destinations. Neither am I able to hire my own private jet and helicopter to get where I need to go. Thus I'm forced to use the main airports.
So I'm asking from what you know of Ron Paul and his community of supporters, should an American citizen be forced to submit to intrusions into their private areas by security employees and machinery of private airline companies? And for further clarification, I'm talking about American citizens who have no criminal backgrounds nor are suspects involved in any illegal activity, who have no other choice but to use regular airports. I can't speak for Paul nor his base of supporters, but from what I do know of them, I'd think they would consider such actions a major breach of civil liberties.
In some ways it can be a breach of civil liberties thou the right to fly is not a right. A private business must protect its private property of which is their private property rights. Nobody forces you to fly and in fact its not a governmnet service is it followed the free market. I think it would be nice to have rules and explainations to customers on what they will do and not do for security and violation of privacy. A concept that might work better would be ship luggage seperate from passangers with less likely chance for bombs, and other tools lessing security on passenger planes and less invasive actions by the airports.
If you don't mind and are able to, would you be able to post a video link or talk where Paul goes into some depth on his position on Civil Rights. I have heard some sound bites, but I'm well aware that the sensationalistic media often quotes out of context.
I'm asking because, in the past the federal gov't had to step in and take a more forceful role in ensuring that groups of individuals that were being discriminated against on the basis of the characteristics you just mentioned because the states were not doing their job in that regard, if not outright endorsing and encouraging the discrimination.
Being that I currently dont have access to youtube at the moment but I know in many speeches he talks about civil liberties. The federal governmnet can be forceful to Protect individual liberties thou with individuals they have protections of their freedom of speech and personal property government can not overstep its boundaries. Forcing people to do something with their own property is illegal as well and not be looked at is protecting civil liberties if you take others liberty of their property and free speech. Example a black person who owns a RESTURANT can choose not to provide a service to white people. In a free market this is stupid and would be a loss of profit. The white person will just go to the black person who is not racist and get service. The right to enter a building that you do not a government protection. A public place such as a park, government funded land and or beaches etc. These rare places did exist in the south where government supported the segeration of races. While this is poor policy and illegal to the constitution we are in some ways still dealing with the problems and ideas of the civil war. Forced beliefs via government are hard to undo via government.
I'm in agreement in that sometimes a monopoly or oligopoly may be a better alternative. Utility companies are of that nature, but they are often (or at least supposed to be) highly regulated.
But sometimes, for various reasons, monopolies/oligopolies happen. So in the case of the TBTF banks that nearly wrecked the global economy, I'm asking if Paul and his base are in favor of using anti-trust measures to make sure no corporation ever becomes too big to fail. If Paul and his base do not believe in anti-trust measures, then what alternatives do they advocate and endorse to ensure competition and protect the free market.
A company can be big but does it get big via merit or via tax dollars and government benefits. Anti-trust laws are written and really this a question for the surpreme court and justice system I think from a government stand point each company can be doing illegal and or legal actions its up to good people to investigate REAL sources. Every company should know the risk of failure and it should happen in a free market no matter how BIG the company is. The problem was government along with the FED created a too big to fail situtution and the companies lobbyed for the bailout money. Completely unconstitutional
This particular question is not about breaking up banks. If memory serves me correct its the Constitution that states that the Congress has the right to control the money supply. Once again if memory serves me correct, this power was delegated to the Federal Reserve once it was created.
In my original #5 question I have provided links to Ellen Brown and Yves Smith who are vocal advocates of having states (rather than FDIC insured or federally controlled) own and control their own banks. This does not mean that other banks are not allowed within the states however. The links I provided go into greater detail and we can discuss them further if you want to. The links also provide an excellent model and example of the Bank of North Dakota, which is the only state owned bank in the US that I know of, for proof of concept.
As per the constitution the congress does control the money supply and turned it over to the FED. Taking control out of congress money supply to the FED has create other issues of which Ron Paul is pointing out. The constitution doesnt allow for a private bank to print our money which is really another issue in itself. State governments probably could control its own creation of money but it would be unconstitutional and against the law and FEDERAL miltary would be arresting the governor of the state. Then bring about criminal charges against the state government turning to the discussion of secession. This is where a failed federal governmnet on money supply and the FED bring the discussion right for economic security. Out of failed policies of the federal government states feel their own currency or state bank will keep their state secure in economic stablity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
