Why do we have such a tough time accepting Ron Paul's ideas about government? (Huckabee, poll)

[And D]

"It is very difficult for most people to understand freedom because they have lived all their lives under the control of Big Government."

I really don't think so! Tea Party types like to argue much the same thing, but get past the simple freedoms that most of us can all agree upon, where issues of religious freedom, social inequities, national defense, international relations, etc., etc., collide, the simple Libertarian mantra's begin to fall far short. Plus what I really do believe is a serious concern when I look at all the wild things Americans tend to think and do, that we be saved from ourselves!

Hey, but don't mind me! What do I know about people who support the GOP, with someone like Trump as front-runner, hand slapping with Bush #3, plus how many others on that stage last night? Rand Paul way over there in the wings. What to make of it all...

What a circus!

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by pknopp

We aren't speaking about Republicans. On top of that, Obama had a ton of great general ideas, that he never followed up on.

I was pretty sure Ron Paul was a republican and so are a majority of the small government types.

As For President Obama, what you are arguing is about success, not the actual attempt to follow up on them, because he has indeed done so, just not succeeded in his attempts.

I have no idea if it would work but it seems to me many argue for a consumption tax.

A Consumption tax is worse than an income tax. You would then be taxing a poor person just for being alive in may sense.

It's also not very inclusive. We have bases everywhere. We are still engaged in the war in Iraq also.

I would then start on the waste and abuse that is rampant in all government programs.

You assume there is waste and abuse in all of government simply because your ideology tells you so. And while it could be true, there is also the possibility of you being wrong, or atleast being wrong about enough of it that it doesnt save as much as you hoped.

What do you do then?

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

I was pretty sure Ron Paul was a republican and so are a majority of the small government types.

As For President Obama, what you are arguing is about success, not the actual attempt to follow up on them, because he has indeed done so, just not succeeded in his attempts.

He never tried. He needed no one to go after the bankers and hold them responsible. That was 100% on him. (only one example, I doubt it makes any difference to you so.......)

A Consumption tax is worse than an income tax. You would then be taxing a poor person just for being alive in may sense.

I've seen it explained where the poor get a credit or whatever. All the same, that wasn't the point.

You assume there is waste and abuse in all of government simply because your ideology tells you so. And while it could be true, there is also the possibility of you being wrong, or atleast being wrong about enough of it that it doesnt save as much as you hoped.

What do you do then?

No, the government tells me so.

Medicare Funds Totaling $60 Billion Improperly Paid, Report Finds - ABC News

[pknopp]

The government tells me so....... Yeah, it's only X dollars but this is the norm not the exception.

Watchdog finds widespread fraud at U.S. Census Bureau | Washington Examiner

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

A Consumption tax is worse than an income tax. You would then be taxing a poor person just for being alive in may sense.

More than that, a consumption tax is advocated by the abolish the IRS crowd. But someone has to police the consumption tax. Greece has a consumption tax and tax evasion is rampant. There is a huge underground economy that eludes taxes.

So, income taxes are a fair way to fund a government -- the poor, who have little money to contribute, are largely exempt and the more wealthy pay a higher rate than those earning less. The consumption tax is a gift to the rich because they save, not consume, most of their income. Naturally, ultra-conservatives like the consumption tax.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

More than that, a consumption tax is advocated by the abolish the IRS crowd. But someone has to police the consumption tax. Greece has a consumption tax and tax evasion is rampant. There is a huge underground economy that eludes taxes.

Kinda like here in the USA.

So, income taxes are a fair way to fund a government -- the poor, who have little money to contribute, are largely exempt and the more wealthy pay a higher rate than those earning less. The consumption tax is a gift to the rich because they save, not consume, most of their income. Naturally, ultra-conservatives like the consumption tax.

You obviously don't understand the consumption tax or rich people.

Naturally, ultra liberals don't understand taxes.

[MTAtech]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

Kinda like here in the USA.



You obviously don't understand the consumption tax or rich people.

Naturally, ultra liberals don't understand taxes.

But we do understand smug know-it-alls.

Are you really under the belief that rich people consume income at the level that poor people do?

I understand both the consumption tax or rich people. The consumption tax is a regressive tax.

It is a well-known fact that the marginal propensity to consume is higher in the case of poorer people than in rich. When a person earns a higher income, the cost of their basic human needs amount to a smaller fraction of this income, and correspondingly their average propensity to save is higher than that of a person with a lower income.

Since a consumption tax taxes consumption, the burden is heavier on those with lower incomes. This is the precise reason that the wealthy support such a conversion -- they expect the tax burden to shift away from them and onto the middle-class and poor.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by pknopp

The wording of the first amendment has been the same for far longer but yet it's not the entire basis of the idea. You can still get arrested for your speech.

You are taking one section and forgetting the rest. It often happens. Most times Libertarians get confused with anarchist. You can't seem to understand that they are not pacifists.

Leave people alone. If one refuses, of course there are actions one can then take against those who refuse to abide by this idea.

As for speech, with a few exceptions, you cannot be lawfully arrested for your speech (exceptions like true threats, immediate incitement to crime, perjury, etc.). That said, police do break the law by arresting people for all sorts of "attitude" offenses.

Which is a good segue to a problem with NAP--it is decidedly theoretical and divorced from the actual conduct of human affairs. It is very clear that a police officer cannot lawfully arrest you for saying "f--- the police." It is also eminently clear that it does happen. Human enterprise has led to the creation of many institutions and legal/regulatory regimes to deal with the fundamental problems of human fallibility. NAP adherents are under the delusion that the "actions one can then take against those who refuse to abide by this idea" will not end up sharing many similarities to existing legal and regulatory regimes.

Originally Posted by pknopp

Why would you want to work with someone that has a goal of achieving something completely against your core beliefs?

Should one against targeting American citizens for death without due process, compromise on that idea and say "O.K., we will accept it under these circumstances" or should one hold to the idea that it is wrong?

Strictly speaking, Due Process does not apply to military action overseas. I would say there are serious problems with a drone assassination policy, but Due Process is not one of them.

Originally Posted by KonaldDuth

Ron Paul's "crazy" ideas about government (no income tax, legal prositution, legal drugs, formally declared wars, etc.) were the norm in this country for most of its existence. Why do people act like he's crazy?

Ron Paul is a loon--claiming philosophical consistency through a "commitment to constitutionalism" undermined by his loony bin positions that totally misunderstand the constitution. His own policy positions often represent oxymorons, like non-protectionist tariffs or "free trade" while opposing immigration. Others are simply disastrous for the general welfare and common defense, like opposition to inoculation programs or the police response to the Boston bombings.

His promotion of secession and opposition to the Civil Rights Act are morally wrong. His opposition to abortion is decidedly inconsistent with liberty.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

As for speech, with a few exceptions, you cannot be lawfully arrested for your speech (exceptions like true threats, immediate incitement to crime, perjury, etc.). That said, police do break the law by arresting people for all sorts of "attitude" offenses.

Thanks for repeating my point back to me.

Which is a good segue to a problem with NAP--it is decidedly theoretical and divorced from the actual conduct of human affairs. It is very clear that a police officer cannot lawfully arrest you for saying "f--- the police." It is also eminently clear that it does happen. Human enterprise has led to the creation of many institutions and legal/regulatory regimes to deal with the fundamental problems of human fallibility. NAP adherents are under the delusion that the "actions one can then take against those who refuse to abide by this idea" will not end up sharing many similarities to existing legal and regulatory regimes.

Leave people alone if they are not bothering you is different than do what you are told or risk getting your head busted.

No one claims that "leave others alone" is perfect and won't be broke, just that it's better than "do what you are told or get your head busted".

Strictly speaking, Due Process does not apply to military action overseas. I would say there are serious problems with a drone assassination policy, but Due Process is not one of them.

An American citizen does NOT forfeit their American due process rights just because they are not standing in the U.S.

[Quotr]Ron Paul is a loon--claiming philosophical consistency through a "commitment to constitutionalism" undermined by his loony bin positions that totally misunderstand the constitution. His own policy positions often represent oxymorons, like non-protectionist tariffs or "free trade" while opposing immigration.[/quote]

Just when I thought maybe you were a serious contributor. Ron Paul has never been against immigration. Never.

Others are simply disastrous for the general welfare and common defense, like opposition to inoculation programs or the police response to the Boston bombings.

Again, he is not against inoculations and he was right about Boston.

His promotion of secession and opposition to the Civil Rights Act are morally wrong. His opposition to abortion is decidedly inconsistent with liberty.

Without life one can not have liberty.

[tinytrump]

his ideas would work for a commune-