Would Ron Paul be disastrous for the USA? -- Starshark vs. Philbeck

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

This thread has been set up for a formal debate between Starshark and Philbeck who will debate the following resolution:

"Resolved: Ron Paul, as US President, would be disastrous for America."

Starshark will affirm and Philbeck will oppose. The debate will have three rounds and Starshark will go first. The debate will also include a special format (see the parameters (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4995342&postcount=21) for details).

A Peanut Gallery (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4998136#post4998136) is set up in the World Events & General Politics forum for the rest of us to comment on the debate.

Enjoy the debate!

- KWSN, FD Moderator

[Starshark]

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the Ron Paul debate which - while I imagine will not be completely comprehensive nor conclusive - will at least bring the vast array of issues that surround Paul into one convenient thread. Ron Paul will never be elected as President. However, there are people who have put their support behind Paul as though his popularity will soar once more voters get to know his platform. "Do you know what viral means?" asked one supporter on the Something Awful boards. So, here we will hypothetically assume that Paul is made President. What could we expect from a Ron Paul presidency? My position is that Ron Paul would be disastrous for the USA.

First, the housekeeping. Thank you to KnightWhoSaysNi (who used to have a more succinct username) for moderating this debate. Thank you to my opponent for giving me this opportunity to participate in the debate. And finally, thanks to IIDB for deigning to host this debate on its bulletin board, even though some may argue the topic is beyond the scope of Internet Infidels. I hope that this debate will demonstrate that there are issues in politics which are also relevant to atheism, and that atheist boards would be more fruitful for hosting political debate.

Before I begin with the meat of the debate, I feel it's worth asking two questions which I've been asked a lot, on this board and other boards.

1) Why me?
2) Why Ron Paul?

I am asked the first question because I am an Australian, formerly a Canadian (for those who are really interested, I'm a dual citizen of the countries). What stake do I have in who gets elected in America?

There are two answers to that question. The first answer is that Australians have a stake in who runs America. For the last four decades, and especially in the last eleven years under Prime Minister John Howard, the Australian economy has been closely linked to the American economy. It has always been the case that when America sneezes, the world catches a cold, and this is especially true of Australia. Australia is also an ally of America. Australia has sent soldiers to fight in America's wars, such as Iraq and Vietnam, and we like to think that if some nation were to pick a fight with us, we'd have a strong ally with us when we have to defend ourselves.

The second answer is perhaps more sentimental. Once, I was staunchly anti-American, largely as a result of America's foreign policy, especially under Reagan. But I have also, in the last five years, been bitten by the History bug. And, if I'm going to be a historian, why not study the country which was the focus of my obsession? Studying the United States for the last five years has had a profound effect on me. America has a rich history, with many, many colourful figures. There is a certain drama to American history that, for me, is absent in the histories of nations such as the UK, China, Japan or Australia. All history and study of history is subjective, and while I don't expect everyone to have the same reaction as I did, I found that the more I learned about America, the more I loved her. Therefore, I don't want to see America harmed by electing someone who is arguably incompetent.

But why Ron Paul? The answer to that is also twofold. Ron Paul's support takes many forms, but perhaps the most remarkable form is his fervent internet support. Be it YouTube, facebook, 4Chan, Digg, even the Something Awful forums (which have actively tried to make Ron Paul debate as unpleasant as possible), you can't avoid Ron Paul and his fans hawking his wares. I am nothing if not a netizen (though perhaps the only netizen without a MySpace, blog or facebook account), and it's impossible to get away from the Ron Paul phenomena. I am baffled as to why this particular person gets such dogmatic support. Which leads into the second reason why Ron Paul.

It seems obvious to me that not only is Paul unelectable, but any normal person wouldn't want to vote for him anyway. I've found that Ron Paul supporters largely fall into two camps (though I stress that there are exceptions, and I will assume that my opponent is one of these exceptions): The crazy, and the ill-informed. Perhaps Death of the Discworld novels summed it up best in The Light Fantastic when he intoned, "THE DEATH OF THE WARRIOR OR THE OLD MAN OR THE LITTLE CHILD, THIS I UNDERSTAND... I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS DEATH-OF-THE-MIND." I don't feel that Paul's supporters examine and challenge his policies and history enough, and as a consequence I see the death-of-the-mind which is as confusing to me as it is to Death.

Ron Paul's supporters most commonly give the following reasons for their loyalty.

1) Paul is honest and consistent.
2) Paul may have policies which are disagreeable, but so does any other candidate, and Paul's agreeable policies make up for the disagreeable.
3) Paul is a faithful adherent to the Constitution, and America has strayed too far from the Constitution.
4) Paul believes in liberty/freedom.

The theme of my argument is that Paul has none of these qualities, which I will demonstrate first by looking at his domestic policy, then by looking at his foreign policy. As evidence, I will use his speeches, sponsored legislation, articles, and public appearances. I think there is a demonstrable pattern which shows that not only is Paul a tricky politician like any other, he is also particularly ill-suited to the role of President. This trickiness, along with his policies, means that he would be a disastrous President.

I have mentioned that when America sneezes, the world catches a cold. There is good reason for this. America has the world's largest economy, with a GDP of some 13 trillion dollars. The management of such an economy takes some skill. Ronald Reagan and George W Bush have not had such a skill, in Reagan's case this lead to the recession of the 90's which helped secure Bill Clinton's victory in 1992. In Bush's case, we can only wait and hope the effects are not too severe. What is indisputable is that now is not the time for someone with no economic sense whatsoever to be at the helm.

Ron Paul has no economic sense whatsoever. He is consistently obsessed with returning America to a gold standard for her dollar. As he concludes in this (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm) article,

The economic law that honest exchange demands only things of real value as currency cannot be repealed. The chaos that one day will ensue from our 35-year experiment with worldwide fiat money will require a return to money of real value. We will know that day is approaching when oil-producing countries demand gold, or its equivalent, for their oil rather than dollars or Euros. The sooner the better.

As the article reveals, Paul is not interested in a dollar partly-backed by gold as it was under Bretton Woods System. Instead, Paul wants a dollar fully backed by gold, as it was in the days before Franklin D Roosevelt. This would be disastrous for America on several fronts. First of all, there is not enough gold in the world to supply America's economy. A gold standard, then, would result in massive deflation which would stymie investment, encourage hoarding, and trigger a depression cycle. America's dollar would also be dependent on gold-mining nations such as South Africa and Australia, which would mean that America would no longer have any control over the value of her dollar. Because America exports a trillion dollars a year, and also has a massive trade deficit, America would bleed gold which would require a crippling recession to remove the trade deficit.

Most economists know this (the ones that don't are on the fringe, along with doctors who believe in homeopathic cures), and Paul as congressman would surely have heard the arguments against the gold standard which go beyond what I've outlined briefly above. So why does Paul continue to pursue the gold standard (the article I've linked above is from 2006)? Some would say it's because he's consistent, but as I will demonstrate he is not consistent when it suits him. The better answer is that he is stubborn. He is not a person who can internalise new ideas or let go of old ones, no matter how bad they are. This is not the sort of person America should have as President.

Perhaps this is just one instance of his economic incompetence, a mere peccadillo? Paul would also get rid of the income tax. As he said on the Jay Leno show, he would "lean toward a flat tax. But I want to make it real flat, like zero". In this instance, he is simply saying he wants to remove income tax - he may well want to introduce the flat tax which would also be disastrous, especially for America's poor, but I have not found solid evidence of this and will not be pursuing it in this part of the debate. Paul has not costed* the removal of the income tax.

He says (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/105/cough-up/),

But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history.

It turns out that not only is the idea 'radical', it is fiscally irresponsible. As Michael Dobbs (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/four_pinocchios_for_ron_paul.html) demonstrates, even after a Paul presidency meets its goals of withdrawal from the UN, Iraq and Afghanistan, after foreign aid is abolished and the State Department shut down, he has only saved 180 billion dollars. In fact, Paul's presidency would have to cut spending back to the early 90's, which would be impossible given America's growth and demands since then. He doesn't even stop there. He would also remove (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.j.res.00023:) estate tax and gift tax, too. He has tried to legislate against these three taxes no less than eight times, and some taxes more than that. He would have to slash other areas besides foreign spending - perhaps welfare, or the dismantlement of agencies. Whatever path he took, it would mean the same thing: Disaster, of the pre-FDR kind.

Paul seems to have an inherent distrust of America's federal aspect, as though an ideal America would be fifty or so separate poleis which pledge allegiance to the President. He seems to forget the words of the Pledge of Allegiance which say, "One nation, Under God, Indivisible". Far from it, Paul seeks to divide America as much as possible.

One way he would do this is through education policy. He wants to remove (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.966:) federal standards and certification for teachers. This is one of three bills he's put to Congress. He would also dismantle (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/education/) the Department of Education. On top of this, he would also abolish (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/education/) the regulation of home-schooling. What this adds up to is that each state could decide for itself what standards to apply for education. If you can't see the problem with this (and the number of Paul supporters who can't are legion), imagine a student in Freedonia**, who graduated top of his class, applying for a place in an Ivy-League university, reasonably expecting entry given his marks. However, he finds that his state's education standards are so lax that his his high school diploma is worthless in other states. He is forced to take up remedial study to have any chance of enrolment in the university of his choice. His time in high school has been wasted. This is, of course, one brief example as to why a states free-for-all with education is disastrous for America.

Paul wants to divide America in other ways, too. His suspicion of the Federal government has lead him to try to neuter the Supreme Court and the federal government. His pet legislation, the We the People Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3893:) is designed to prevent the Supreme court and the Federal government from intervening in any way to prevent the states from discriminating on the basis of religion or sexual orientation:

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--
(1) shall not adjudicate--
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation;

America does not need to go back to the days of state-sanction gay persecution, or persecution of Catholics; nor does it need to be a country where states can freely dissolve the separation between Church and State. It has been said that Paul is a faithful adherent to the Constitution. Yet, as this act shows, he ignores the First and Fourteenth Amendments when it suits him. He is supposed to be a believer in liberty, yet would pass a law that would hinder the liberty of gays, or the persecuted religion du jour.

Paul has made no secret of his opposition to abortion. The We the People act is partly designed to counter federal abortion law. Somewhat bizarrely, he has authored legislation (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/) which would define life as 'beginning at conception'. However, in his mind, the outright banning of abortion would be wrong. He avoids the issue of an outright federal overturning of Roe v Wade by making it a states issue. He says (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=446), "So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." There are two issues here. The first is the right for a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Besides the potential health issues, an unwanted child often does not grow up to be a happy one. As Levitt and Donohue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect) found, crime rates can be dropped by liberal abortion laws. This is because criminals are most often unwanted children (it should be noted that Levitt, if not Donohue, is not pro-abortion [as distinct from pro-choice] - his feeling is that the termination of foetuses is a wasteful way to handle the crime problem). This is a compelling argument that women who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy should have the right to an abortion, rather than condemn an unwanted child to a lifetime of unnecessary suffering.

The second issue is that this is a case of Paul talking out of both sides of his mouth - he is not an 'honest' politician. He claims on the one hand that abortion should not be determined by the Federal government. Yet he has voted for the ban of partial-birth abortions in HR 760 (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html). Not only is he a barracker for legislation which would be a major step backwards for the United States, he is also a politician who only holds to a particular view when it suits him. His argument, linked above (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html), that social policy should be decided by the states, is specious nonsense. States should decide on issues that directly impact them, such as environmental issues that do not affect other states. The abortion debate is clearly a national issue as it centers around the freedom of women. Paul knows that he can side-step the issue by deferring it to the states. It not only shows that he is tricky, but that he is not up to the task of leading Americans on the tough issues.

Time and again, Paul shows that he would be a divisive President. This is no more apparent than in his views on race. In his periodical, the Ron Paul Survival Report, he wrote (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793):

Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

and,

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.

The entire article cannot be reproduced here, but it is well worth reading to get an insight into the sort of racist bile Paul subscribes to. He has tried to weasel out of this damaging article by claiming it was ghost-written. He will not say who wrote it, nor has he condemned the person who wrote it. It is also stretching credulity beyond breaking point to believe that Paul somehow did not know what was being written in a five-page newsletter in his name. If we were completely gullible, we are left with the conclusion that Paul would let words - his lifeblood - be written in his name without him properly vetting them. But the truth is that Paul is simply another dishonest politician.

His colours tend to show in his legislation. He has proposed (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:HR04982:@@@D&summ2=m&) legislation which would make segregation in schools easier. He sought to punish (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:) Iranian students in America for the actions of their government in Iran. He would allow (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR03863:@@@D&summ2=m&) private schools with discriminatory practices to maintain their tax-exempt status. America does not need to go back to the days of 'separate but equal' education, where blacks were excluded from good education opportunities for no other reason than the colour of their skin. Yet Paul would support such a backwards step. For someone who is supposed to be a champion of liberty, he has no problem with letting the states restrict the liberty of people based on skin colour, or religion, or sex, or sexual orientation. He plays (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/)to the racist crowd with the myth (http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/socialsecurity.asp) of 'illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.' It is little wonder he has the loyalty and adulation of organisations such as Stormfront. His writings and legislation - when not outright racist - are whistle dog politics for racist organisations.

Take, for example, his lone nay-vote to grant Rosa Parks a medal from Congress. He justified (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm)it thus:


Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people's money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people's money. We should look for another way. It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people's money.

$30 000 dollars for a medal for a brave woman who was at the forefront of the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's out of a federal budget of over 2 trillion is a drop in the ocean. It amounts to less than one percent of one cent per American. He certainly has no trouble spending 'other people's money' when it comes to spending in his own district. He has, for example, requested (http://www.brokenlibrarian.org/ronpaul/misc.html) $8 million for 'Wild American Shrimp Marketing'. Why spend federal money on something of value only to his constituents? Where is his fiscal conservatism?

There are few who would say that Rosa Parks is not deserving of recognition for her services to American freedom - certainly no other Congressman. Paul is once again employing whistle dog politics to pander to the racist element of American society. America does not need such a divisive politician as President.

It is claimed by his supporters that Paul is 'pro-liberty', that he is a consistent adherent of the Constitution. Yet he has twice authored legislation to prevent the burning of the American flag (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80:). This is in direct contravention of the First Amendment for no good reason. It is a denial of the freedom of expression to soothe the egos of blind patriots. Clearly, Paul is neither consistent nor pro-liberty.

Paul seems almost hell-bent on undermining the rights and freedoms of ordinary workers. The right to work in a safe workplace? Paul has authored legislation to overturn the Occupational Health and Safety Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.2310:). Maybe you'd like to freely associate with a union - after all it's in the First Amendment? Paul has authored legislation to decertify unions (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:h.r.694:). Perhaps you'd like your dead-end job to at least be rewarded with a minimum wage? Paul has authored legislation to remove the minimum wage (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:h.r.2962:). A President that would so callously trample on the rights of the workers on the one hand while lisping freedom on the other (if I may mix my metaphors) would be disastrous to America.

For a doctor, Paul seems to be ill-informed about medicine. He has authored (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2117)legislation which would allow saw palmetto to advertise as an effective remedy for an enlarged prostate. It isn't (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5198053), and this has been known for some time. The rest of the bill is more of Paul's dog whistle politics, this time for the peddlers of snake-oil remedies like homeopathy. When he says...

`(E) The Secretary shall allow with reasonable and concise disclaimers not to exceed three sentences claims of the type described in subparagraph (1)(B) not authorized under this subparagraph or subparagraph (5)(D) unless the Secretary determines that--
`(i) there is no scientific evidence that supports the claim; and
`(ii) the claim is inherently misleading and incapable of being rendered nonmisleading through the addition of a disclaimer.
The Secretary shall not use tests of consumer perception of product health benefits as a basis for a determination under subclause (ii). The Secretary shall bear the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence on each element of this clause.

... he is opening the door for homeopathic remedies and the like to muddy the waters by claiming it is effective, and putting the burden of proof on the FDA (which he wants to gut) to prove otherwise. This is Paul using tricky politics to get his pet causes an airing they don't deserve. America does not need more 19th Century quackery being sold to the credulous or susceptible.

Paul is also anti-vaccine. As he says (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/), he has opposed mandatory vaccination of Americans against small pox. This is dangerous, short-sighted policy. Small pox has been all but eradicated thanks to vaccination. If too many people decide not to vaccinate for reasons other than to avoid the imminent risk of death, it gives the disease a chance to mutate and once again become a devastating plague. A President who does not understand the implications of his health policy - despite being a doctor - would be disastrous for America.

It would be a Herculean task to list all of the flawed policies and unfair legislation Paul would bring to America as President. Some have tried to say that Paul would not be able to enact the more 'radical' legislation, as he would be stopped by Congress. To say this is to ignore history. Reagan was able to damage America's economy with Reaganomics, despite the fact that even the economists who devised it changed their minds and said it would not work in the American economy. They forget that George W Bush persuaded Congress to support a war in Iraq based on no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was a clear and present danger. Even if it were true to say that Congress would block Paul's damaging legislation, it begs the question as to why anyone would vote for a President with so many unfair, unworkable, and shortsighted policies.

I have shown that Paul is not honest or consistent. He can be as tricky as the slickest politician, and he changes his whims to suit himself, as can be seen by his dodging of his racist remarks or his deference of difficult issues to the states; coupled with his disregard of the First Amendment when it suits him, along with the Fourteenth. Far from only having a few disagreeable policies, he has a great many disagreeable - disastrous, in fact - policies which would ruin the American economy, trample on the rights of those who cannot stand up for themselves as individuals, and divide the nation. He is not a faithful adherent to the Constitution, even if it could be argued that America has strayed too far from it; he ignores or undermines the Constitution whenever he wants. Paul does not believe in liberty and freedom any more than any other politician. When he sees something he doesn't like, he authors legislation which restricts peoples' freedoms, from the right to an abortion to the right to burn the flag. When he wants to stoke support, he mouths freedom like any other demagogue. His domestic policy alone demonstrates that a Ron Paul Presidency would be disastrous for America.



* The word 'costed' seems to be an Australianism, so I'll give a quick definition. To 'cost' something is to work out how much money is coming in versus expenditure to ascertain whether a policy is fiscally viable or not.
** In order to avoid implying that a state would deliberately apply repressive, or otherwise highly undesirable laws on its citizens because that state is inherently flawed, I have used 'Freedonia' as the name of a hypothetical American state. With apologies to the political historians the Marx Brothers.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Philbeck, please note that your statement is overdue. As the rules permit, you've been granted a 3-day grace period.

KWSN, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Philbeck has requested a 3-day extension on his grace period. I have agreed to grant his request.

KWSN, FD Moderator

[Philbeck]

First, I would like to engage in some thanksgiving. I would like to thank Internet Infidels for offering a place for people to dialog and communicate in ways that people might otherwise not get to do. I would also like to think KnightWhoSaysNi for taking his time to moderate and set up this debate as well as the other debates. I would also like to thank Ron Paul for his continued passion for a peaceful and thoughtful political conviction that is loving to people of all walks of life. I would lastly like to thank Starshark, who doesn't hold my views on Ron Paul, for taking time out of his life to debate this important topic.

Before beginning I would like to apologize for taking this long to post. It has been exam week and I didn't take that into account when considering the debate. Thus this post brief and will not cover what I wanted it to. In the rest of the posts I will respond deeper to the subject at hand. Also it should be noted that we are standing on two different platforms therefore you can't just jump into the mix and tango because we will just interpret the others remarks given our perspective.

Most of the following will be in response to what StarShark brought up in the opening post. He starts off in the first paragraph by simply stating “Ron Paul will never be elected as President.” First off, how could you possible know that? Secondly, Ron Paul is constantly climbing in the polls. Ron Paul supporters are much more likely to show up at the primaries. Ron Paul supporters are much more likely to engage in grassroots efforts for spreading the message of old America. It doesn't sound like he needs huge numbers in the polls right now to win. Let's just say that he can get to 10% in the polls and all 10% show up. We might be surprised. We will see, I just find it odd that you have such and arrogant confidence that he won't win. It is becoming a reality more and more each day and once American repents of her whorish ways we may see him in office.

We must first find common ground on the issue of 'What should government do?'
"Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. … Protect our environment through private property rights. … That's it," Paul said.
(http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970818&page=1 Taken from the video “What is the role of government)
I don't see any kind of fruitful conversation coming forth until we can find some common ground here.

You said that “Ron Paul has no economic sense whatsoever” to preface your rant about the gold standard and the possible decline of our economy if Ron Paul got his way. The reason for hard money is not that insane. Ron Paul is against socialism and socialism can only exist with paper money. You just can't have socialism without paper money. You see in socialism wealth does not represent work but the control of money by the state. It should not be this way and in fact it almost eliminates the middle class. Lot at any country with very high tax rates and liberal leanings. There are poor people and rich people, not too much else. You either make a lot of money or you become dependent on the government. Wealth should not be like this. Wealth should come from hard work and/or inheritance.

The government gets wealth and power through taxes and when it wants more power and control then it will tamper with the money. The ability to create paper money will always more towards people being enslaved by the government. Is it so wrong for Ron Paul to be against modern slavery?

You said that Ron Paul is “fiscally irresponsible.” You think this because of your inability to see what Ron Paul wants to do. Being blind is not a good virtue to have. Ron Paul doesn't want to just cut taxes but cut government as well. It has to be that way and he understands. No one in their right mind would try and eliminate taxes, like before 1913, and still have all the programs that we have today. You can only see big government in control because that is the only way for us to be safe. Ron Paul wants to eliminate government programs because they are, like anything governments get a hold of, unproductive and worthless. In essence the people become unproductive and worthless because they follow their savior, the government. There would be no “disaster” because it wouldn't be done in one swift fatal swoop. It would have to be done slowly and Paul and stated this.

You said:

“Paul seems to have an inherent distrust of America's federal aspect, as though an ideal America would be fifty or so separate poleis which pledge allegiance to the President. He seems to forget the words of the Pledge of Allegiance which say, "One nation, Under God, Indivisible". Far from it, Paul seeks to divide America as much as possible.”

Would you do me a big favor? If you have an American coin take it out. Now please look on it for a Latin phrase. The phrase is “E Pluribus Unum.” This simply means “from many, one.” America is full of diverse things that are unified. One of the reasons, it seems to me, that you have distaste with Ron Paul is over this very issue. Ron Paul likes diversity and unity, but never forceful unity as you seem to propose. Submission to the state is a unity but not a diverse unity. (See the philosophic Problem of the One and the Many and its relationship to the state)

Another section of very disturbed views are the ones you have on abortion. You said that, “There are two issues here. The first is the right for a woman to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Besides the potential health issues, an unwanted child often does not grow up to be a happy one.” First off ability is not a right. Just because we can make abortion a choice does not mean it is a right. Our rights do not come from the government but our Creator. Plus if this is the case about unwanted babies then it should go for unwanted people. If unwanted babies are a hindrance to women and unwanted people are a hindrance to society, then does it not follow that we should kill them both. (See the 20th Century blood shed documented in the Black Book of Communism) Speaking of inconsistency...

The Rosa Parks issue is weird as well. What does the American government have to do with this? What do the taxpayers have to do with this? Ron Paul was willing to give his own money, and if you agree you should too, to help pay for this. What every happened to charities apart from the government?

Lastly, the debate at hand is “Resolved: Ron Paul, as US President, would be disastrous for America.” I would like to know how in a country like America could one man could ever be disastrous. We have check and balances for a reason.

[Starshark]

Welcome to phase two of the debate, "Would Ron Paul be Disastrous for the USA". I'd like to thank my opponent for responding despite obvious difficulties doing so, and wish him the best in future responses. I shall begin by rebutting the points he has made.

Although the debate is not, 'Will Ron Paul be President,' it turns out that my second argument - Ron Paul's foreign policy - will be a short one, so I have the luxury of attending to my opponent's claim that Ron Paul has some sort of chance of being President. I must admit that my experience of elections is based upon Australian polling. As a consequence, I think that polls give a pretty good indication of who is likely to win an election.

At this stage, we can't be sure who's going to win. It's no joke that a week is a long time in politics, and a year is even longer. Anything can happen. What's most likely, though, is that come November 2008, Ron Paul will not be in the race unless he's running as independent. We can say this with a high degree of certainty based upon his polling. Real Clear Politics has taken the time to compile presidential candidates' popularity (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html). Ron Paul is averaging last. In fact, he's last in every poll conducted. In every poll ever taken for this election, Paul has come last. This should be a strong indication that to say Ron Paul has any realistic chance of winning a Primary - much less the Presidency - would take a level of sanguinity that would rival Baghdad Bob's (http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/baghdad_bob.htm).

However, this is not the topic of the debate, and I should move on to counter my opponent's more substantive points. To begin with, using Paul's words as a benchmark of the role of government is laughable. What, after all, is one to make of the statement that government should protect the environment 'through private property rights'? We have long ago (since Chernobyl, to be precise) figured out that pollution doesn't respect private property, or even national borders. To suggest that sound environmental policy can be developed through the protection of private property is to be hopelessly short-sighted, and even a bit bizarre.

Many philosophers such as Bentham and Locke have written at length on the role of law and government. We could look to them to get a better notion than Paul's on what a governing body should and shouldn't do. However, given the nature of this debate, I feel it is better to quote from the Declaration of Independence, which does after all owe much to these philosophers and others:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

There is more that could be quoted from the Declaration of Independence, and a full transcript is available here (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html). However, I feel this small excerpt gives us the common ground my opponent seeks. The role of government, then, can be described as providing the maximum safety and 'happiness' - the most good to the most people with the least harm to the least people - with the consent of the people. Can Paul be said to be achieving this with his peculiar worldview?

Before I answer this, we will first take a look at my opponent's arcane claim that paper money causes socialism. First of all, is socialism a bad thing, as my opponent suggests? He uses the rich/poor divide in socialist countries as his argument. As [/url=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908770.html]this[/url] chart shows, in fact the more socialist nations (Canada, Sweden, Denmark) all rank higher than the US which is the quintessential capitalist nation. Say what you like about socialism, there is no argument that it creates a rich/poor divide.

Not that I'm suggesting America should become a socialist nation: I know better than to try to jam a square peg into a round hole. America can do more for her poor, but one doesn't need to be as socialist as the Scandinavian countries to achieve that. Does paper money cause socialism, then? This is a ridiculous claim, and it's telling that my opponent uses as the crux of his argument the notion that fiat currency leads to 'enslave[ment] by the government'. Bombast. In fact, fiat currency can lead to greater economic prosperity. The government, along with other agencies, carefully inflates the currency when needed. Limited inflation is good for investment; it also discourages hoarding.

True, high inflation can be damaging, as was discovered during the Carter/Reagan years. However, to use this as an argument against controlling the value of currency carefully is to say that because your house is leaking, it's time to remove the roof. Especially when you consider the alternative: massive deflation, no control over the value of the dollar, depressions and recessions - we can look forward to all of this with a gold standard.

So would Paul bring safety and happiness to the American people? Not with the gold standard. And not by carving through government agencies which are there to serve the interests of the voters. My opponent says that government programmes are worthless. Really? That would be news to welfare recipients who, prior to the New Deal, lived in crippling, inter-generational poverty. It still isn't great to be a welfare recipient in America. But, like the gold standard, it's better than the alternative.

My opponent has given no compelling reason why the states should be wildly divergent, as they would be under a Paul Presidency. He uses 'e pluribus unum' as the foundation for his case, but doesn't seem to understand that this is hardly an argument for giving the states the power to infringe on rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom from segregation.

Or indeed the freedom to have an abortion. What does my opponent say in his insistence that women should not have the freedom to an abortion? First of all, he claims that rights do not come from 'government' (people) but 'the Creator'.

What an interesting notion. Perhaps Jefferson should have asked God what he should write in the Declaration of Independence when it came to 'unalienable rights'. Of course, when it comes to asking God what should and shouldn't be, we are met with silence, unless we happen to be suffering from one of the more robust forms of mental illnesses. We are left with several works written back when hallucinations were considered prophecy. But which work can be said to truly represent God? The Bible? The various Jewish texts? The Koran? Something else?

Even if we were to simply use the Bible (after all, the largest religion is the Christian one), which version? Which interpretation? Should we forbid sowing a field with two seeds, or is that the silly stuff we can safely ignore? What's silly and what isn't?

Philosophers lost their temper with the arbitrariness of religion centuries ago, and governments in developed countries followed suit. Now, we try to argue in terms of good and harm. Individual politicians may appeal to religion in order to mobilise their base, but the foundation of government is on quantifiable rights, not what God thinks. Does abortion cause more harm than good, then?

As I have demonstrated, unwanted children live a life of misery. Some argue that abortion is murder, and I assume my opponent is firmly within this camp when he compares abortion to the murder of 'unwanted people'. In fact, most proponents of pro-choice law draw the line at the beginning of brain activity, when we can pretty safely say life has 'begun'. Anything before that is simply a potential life. It would therefore be as absurd to say a collection of cells being terminated is murder as it is to say masturbation is murder. This is why we can't equate abortion with the fallacious slippery slope of killing 'unwanted people' (whatever they might look like).

My opponent cannot see what benefit giving Rosa Parks a medal would have for America. There are two benefits. First of all, America should recognise and remember her history. For too long, a section of America's population were denied the rights given to everyone else simply because of the colour of their skin. This is an abhorrent blot in America's history, and the heroic actions of people like Parks should be commemorated if for no other reason than to say, "America is capable of being a just nation."

This might be too touchy-feely for some people, and I recognise that. Perhaps a less subjective benefit is in order, then. Congress doesn't simply spend $30 000 on a medal and that's it. It also sells (http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CatalogSearchResultView?searchWord=rosa%20parks) replicas of the medals. As this (http://www.usmint.gov/downloads/foia/pef04Q2.pdf) document shows, selling medals and numismatical products is a nice little earner for the American government. I should have brought it up in the first phase of the debate, but I didn't know the American government made money on this sort of thing. Paul does, or if he doesn't he's incredibly incompetent given his interest in the financial matters of his country.

Finally, my opponent has used the gambit which I see a lot among Paul's supporters. It can be summarised thus: "Don't worry, Ron Paul's crazier policies would never get passed by Congress." Why anyone thinks this is a compelling argument for a Presidential candidate is beyond me. It makes as much sense as saying 'the final half of George W Bush's presidency was a resounding success as he was a lame duck unable to get any of his policies put into legislation.'

Would it even be true to say that Paul's crazier policies wouldn't go through? To say so in such a confident - dismissive even - manner is to ignore recorded history. Ronald Reagan was able to seriously damage America's economy even though his own economic advisers thought Reaganomics was a bad idea; George W Bush was able to compel Congress to go to a disastrous war based on a demonstrably false notion of clear and present danger. These are only two instances of Presidents managing to get around checks and balances.

Even if the checks and balances did work, that isn't to say Paul would be at-all an effective President. Not for nothing is he known as 'Dr No.' A Paul presidency would see constant vetoes over trivial matters and mis-reading of the Constitution. Paul has demonstrated again and again in his legislative record that he does not have the maturity to compromise his principles, even when it would be of benefit to America. Under Paul, Congress would need a two-thirds majority for every single piece of legislation it wanted passed. This would not be good for America.

But enough of domestic policy, for now. It's time to move on to Paul's foreign policy. This is going to be a short part of the debate, because it's very simple: "Pull up the drawbridge."

Paul, being a scholar of American history, was no doubt at least in part inspired by George Washington's Farewell Address (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Farewell_Address#1). Washington famously warned against foreign entanglements, particularly with European nations. The only business America had with other countries, was business.

Can this philosophy still be reasonably adhered to today, or is Paul locked in the past? It turns out that the answer is the latter. There are a variety of figures on just how much of the world's resources the US consumes in order to preserve her prosperity, ranging from 20 to 30 percent. What isn't debatable is that the US is the largest consumer of the world's resources. There is no other nation so reliant on the labour, materials and products of the outside world as the US.

Consequently the US has an obligation to assist people of the outside world in times of need. Sometimes the US enacts this philosophy disastrously, such as in the Vietnam War, certain actions in Central and South America, the Iraq War, among many others. Usually this can be put down to America pursuing her own self-interest over the nation she is supporting. However, there have been times when American foreign policy has been beneficial, as in World War II, more recently the Balkans conflict where American soldiers helped to stop ethnic cleansing, to the use of an aircraft carrier to provide fresh water to Indonesians in the 2004 tsunami.

Paul cannot see that the US can sometimes be beneficial in its application of foreign policy. For example, he wants to see the end of foreign aid (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst050106.htm) in favour of private charity. To support this, he points out that Americans give three times as much to overseas charity as the government.

This is highly disingenuous, a slight-of-hand from a tricky politician. The United States, when looking at aid as a percentage of GNP compared to other industrialised nations, is the lowest (http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch06/objectives03.htm) contributer of foreign aid, giving only .01% of its GNP. Even accounting for the amount given by private charity, 0.4% is well short of the UN target of 0.7%. That would put America 11th (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs) out of 22 developed nations - not including their donations to private charity, of course.

No President has ever seriously considered eliminating foreign aid, including George W Bush. It would be disastrous for America to be seen as stingy and careless, as it would under Paul.

Paul speaks of eschewing foreign aid and intervention in favour of, among other things (notably trade which I will discuss later), diplomacy. For someone who's foreign policy is so dependent on diplomacy in the absence of aid, he has no notion of how diplomacy actually works. Two pieces of legislation he's voted against are telling.

The first one is HR 180 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-180). The purpose of this act is quite simple:

To require the identification of companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes.

Paul was the single 'nay' vote to this legislation. In explaining the reason for his decision to effectively support the genocidal Janjaweed, he said:

Sanctions against Cuba, Iraq, and numerous other countries failed to topple their governments. Rather than weakening dictators, these sanctions strengthened their hold on power and led to more suffering on the part of the Cuban and Iraqi people. To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others.

Paul doesn't even have the diplomatic nous to understand that this is in no way a sanction. It is simply the government refusing to do business with people who do business with the Janjaweed. Paul then summarises the divestment in South Africa as 'it failed because it did exactly what it was intended to do.'

The problem isn't just one of diplomatic ineptness. Paul also doesn't seem to understand his own philosophy. He frequently cites the Free Market as the solution to all ills (such as in the case of health care (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul175.html)). Yet he opposes the United States government as a Free Market actor. As any economist could tell you, governments are just as much a customer as an individual. In this case, the customer doesn't like the reputation of a company which does business with a genocidal regime. She then does what any customer would do in a similar situation: she goes to the competition.

Paul wouldn't say a word against one of his constituents boycotting Wal-Mart for using sweatshop products. It would be that person's right as a consumer. Why does he have a problem with the US government doing the same thing? It's this inconsistency, coupled with his diplomatic incompetence, that would make him disastrous as a President.

His incompetence in diplomatic matters doesn't end there. He was one of only two 'nay' votes on H Con Res 200 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hc110-200). This was a non-binding resolution which called on the Myanmar Republic to release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and to address its deteriorating human rights record. His reason for opposing the resolution?

This sounds like an open door for an outside military intervention under the auspices of the United Nations, which is something I do not support.

This is ridiculously foolish. The United Nations, as any student of American history would know, cannot compel the US to undertake any military intervention it doesn't want to participate in. The United States played no part in the independence of East Timor, nor in various military actions in Africa. If Paul really felt strongly against military intervention, the time to vote against it would be during a congressional resolution that was actually initiating military intervention. He also has no consideration or compassion of the freedom of other people besides Americans, as can be seen in this resolution and HR 180. The fact that he doesn't seem to know how the United Nations works, and that he won't compromise his principles over a minor issue, shows that he is not suited for leadership and a disgusting human being besides.

Paul is consistent in one respect: He consistently misunderstands the role of the United Nations. One instance of this is in his constant accusations that the UN is trying to 'disarm' America. He says (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/):

H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely
He is referring to the United Nations Small Arms Review (http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/). The stated aims of the review are:

Delegates from all parts of the world reaffirmed during the Conference that the most urgent task is to take firm steps to control illicit arms brokers.

It is not trying to stop US citizens from legitimately owning weapons. He is either scare-mongering - the mark of a weaselly politician - or he has no understanding of the United Nations. Neither are desirable in a President.

The evidence is that Paul simply sees the UN as a threat to the US, as though America didn't have a veto. Paul's paranoia goes into other areas of foreign policy, such as NAFTA.

His fear of all things NAFTA verges on the insane. For example, he thinks that highways which connects Canada to Mexico (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul349.html) will somehow destroy American sovereignty. Why he thinks a highway that would make trade easier among Canada, Mexico and - yes - the United States is an attack on American sovereignty is a question for his psychiatrist. The problem is that there is no such highway on the blueprints. The so-called 'NAFTA superhighway' is simply the upgrading of existing roads for the ease of transport.

From this highway, he concludes that the goal is an 'integrated North American Union'. This is complete nonsense, with no evidence to support it. It is the stuff of conspiracy nuts, the sort who think the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. Having a clearly unbalanced man in charge of America's nuclear arsenal would be disastrous.

Paul seems to have no idea how trade between nations actually works. He frequently decries (http://mrspickles.wordpress.com/2007/04/24/ron-paul-2008-on-lou-dobbs-talking-about-free-trade/) NAFTA and the WTO as if they are somehow detrimental to America. He doesn't seem to realise that NAFTA actually benefits America at the cost of Canada and Mexico. He is against the WTO even though it helps provide a forum for fairness in trade. The fact that he has no real understanding of how international trade works would make him a disastrous President.

Washington cautioned America not to become aligned with European nations, to only engage in trade. Paul would be a disastrous President in Washington's view, with no idea how international trade works, or even how America's existing trade agreements work. Even if he did - hypothetically speaking - understand international trade, Washington's day is long past. America, far from being a handful of colonies on a map, is a massive nation, the largest consumer of the world's resources. America can no longer afford to be an isolationist nation. She needs to be a diplomatic nation that participates in treaties and agreements, and provides help when needed. Paul can offer none of this as evident from his words, voting record and policies. A Ron Paul Presidency would leave America an international pariah, essentially a ruined state on the international stage.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Philbeck, please note that your statement is overdue. As the rules permit, you've been granted a 48 hour grace period from the time of this post.

KWSN, FD Moderator

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Philbeck's grace period has expired. Unfortunately, I must declare a forfeiture. In addition, Starshark has declined to post a final statement.

This thread will now be closed.

KWSN, FD Moderator