Ron Paul?

trantramp

Obviously he has some kind of cult internet following... but

in regards to his libertarian nature, nill taxes, minimal federal government and austrian economics are all these things actually viable?

Would they actually work?

Just curious.

Duki

Not exactly the type of thing you can argue through in one forum post, imo.

But basically no, no it wouldn't.

Nerdgasmic

Communism?

yeah, it obviously has a cult following but

in regards to the various complicated things related to it, has anyone ever considered it before? Has anyone tried to implement it?

Or am I the first person to ever think about this?

KevinNash

trantramp wrote: »

Obviously he has some kind of cult internet following... but

in regards to his libertarian nature, nill taxes, minimal federal government and austrian economics are all these things actually viable?

Would they actually work?

Just curious.

This thread is gonna deliver.

Finnbarr

No I don't think this model could work. Some of the most basic needs of a civilized society would be stripped away.

Duki

Even ignoring societies needs, there's nothing to stop someone with, you know, a military, just strolling in and taking all your shit.

KevinNash

Oh and to answer the OP: Yes they all could work but not to the extremes that Ron Paul endorses. At least not currently. Ron Paul is well aware of this but preaches his extreme position anyway because he understands it helps him better get his point across.

As a one of many legislator, Ron Paul can vote the way he does and get away with it to prove a point. As an executive he couldn't vote how he does and accomplish anything of value. He serves as a teacher more than a legislator.

Basic needs of a society wouldn't be stripped away, but provided by local governments, non government entities, or both.

Ron Paul isn't against having a military. It's constitutional.

Duki

Well no, not Ron Paul obviously, but I meant taking no taxation to its extreme of... no taxes.

I don't think even he proposes this, but the OP asked about zero taxes so....

trantramp

Duki wrote: »

Well no, not Ron Paul obviously, but I meant taking no taxation to its extreme of... no taxes.

I don't think even he proposes this, but the OP asked about zero taxes so....

Sorry, nill taxes is referring to no income tax not no taxes at all. Ron Paul proposes no income taxes but wants to keep the tax on certain goods and services


@ Nash I couldn't be fucked drawling on about policy specifics when its all available under 'Political positions of Ron Paul' on wiki.

Nerdgasmic

Do you have a position on this subject?


Or is that something you couldn't be fucked over either?

trantramp

Not really. I don't possess enough knowledge to determine whether or not his policies are actually workable under current or near future circumstances so I haven't formulated a position.

I guess I want someone to justify/shoot down their realistic viability. Do I have to have a position yet?

Nerdgasmic

I figured a position was necessary for starting a thread.

ronya

KevinNash wrote: »

Oh and to answer the OP: Yes they all could work but not to the extremes that Ron Paul endorses.

Austrian economics doesn't work, though.

Current Austrian economics consists of cherrypicking Chicago school results and conveniently rejecting any results that support intervention. The initial Austrian idea to rewrite the basis of economics has been quietly forgotten. The Austrian business cycle was revolutionary - back in 1912. By 1980 ABC is merely "yet another neoclassical model, but with systematically irrational investors". In other words: naive and simplistic* (and wrong). The Austrian methodological links between its microeconomic foundations and macroeconomic conclusions have evaporated.

The only links between allegedly Austrian theories are in their policy conclusions, not their theoretical methodologies.

* for those who are curious: a sketch of the problem.

Austrians want the government to step away from monetary policy. Austrians also want to posit rational individuals straight out of the neoclassical formulation. But such individuals would generally be immune to monetary policy shenanigans - there's no reason why monetary policy would be harmful!

So, aha, selective rationality, with individuals irrational exactly in such a manner that government activity then becomes actively harmful. Wow, how convenient.

And then there's the gold standard (short form: no.). And devolving abortion legislation to the states (because devolving issues of personhood worked so well and didn't encourage bitter interstate conflict, yessir).

Docken

...

Oh sorry! I just came in here because your thread title just seemed like the punchline to a joke.

nexuscrawler

KevinNash wrote: »

Oh and to answer the OP: Yes they all could work but not to the extremes that Ron Paul endorses. At least not currently. Ron Paul is well aware of this but preaches his extreme position anyway because he understands it helps him better get his point across.

As a one of many legislator, Ron Paul can vote the way he does and get away with it to prove a point. As an executive he couldn't vote how he does and accomplish anything of value. He serves as a teacher more than a legislator.

Basic needs of a society wouldn't be stripped away, but provided by local governments, non government entities, or both.

Ron Paul isn't against having a military. It's constitutional.

We'd have no military because the federal government would have no money for one

override367

We could just use a military for a typical nation of 300 million, that'd be what? 8% of the current cost?

No but seriously I'd love to see the military budget cut by 100 to 200 billion a year, somehow.

Saammiel

The main problem with their ideas on government size (I'm sidestepping Ron Paul's crazy ass gold bug ideas and his hypocracy when it comes to immigration) is that many of Ron Paul followers almost have a fetish for small government. A more reasonable push is for effecient government. If the government program is demonstrably more effecient than the market solution (health care) we should adopt it regardless of how much it inflates the government size. If the government program is demonstrably less effecient than the market solutions (agricultural subsidies) we should remove the government interference. The whole point is extracting the maximum utility from society, insofar as such an extraction doesn't impinge on fundamental human rights (strict utilitarianism is insane in other words). I mean, granted there is always fuzziness in how to measure overall utility, but IMO its worth it to try.

I think 'small government' types would have a far more effective argument if they stuck to this. They would still have targets for cuts, but without the insanity that comes from their dogmatic assertion that smaller is always better (except when they don't even think it is, like in the case of defense spending).

Djeet

Of course it could work, some unnamed pre-suppositions are that everyone has to grow pot and raise chickens.

ElJeffe

Allow me to illustrate Ron Paul's policies.

See, I'm going to lock this thread. If you want to make the thread again, you are free to negotiate with your service provider to establish a high-traffic web forum using the forum software of your choice, staff it with moderators, and then post whatever sort of threads you like. Since the subsidized service provided to you by Gabe and Tycho is in no way required for you to fulfill your desire of holding a discussion on this topic, I trust that you will have your own forums up and running post-haste. I look forward to debating this subject with you!