| Jumpin said:
1. What's wrong with being a libertarian? It excludes the well being of the larger portion of society in order to benefit the people who have the greatest investments (those who run the corporations and who can afford to buy up everything) and not the people who actually work. It ignores environmental issues, and issues of healthcare, and instead turns both into a business - which ignores everything that does not lead to a profit. It's essentially an evil ideology, and we know from history that Laissez Faire economics always fail. |
First off, there have been several decent definitions of what Libertarianism is over the past several posts; and I suggest you read them.
Beyond that, while I would ask for evidence that "Laissez Faire economics always fail." being that the longest period of economic growth of the western world occurred with governments having the smallest involvement in the economy and with heavy government involvement today we're risking economic collapse on a constant basis, Libertarianism would not require a strict believe in Laissez Faire economics. Most Libertarians I have ever known would argue for a small regulatory system that focuses on eliminating harm, not the elimination of a regulatory system.
| Jumpin said:
2. He wants to remove restrictions on oil drilling, repeal federal tax on gasoline, lift restrictions on the use of coal and nuclear power, and eliminate the Environmental Protection Act. |
If the companies are required to follow modern environmental practices, and are liable for any environmental impact they have had on the land they leased, what is a matter with oil drilling?
Besides drive up costs to consumers, what does the federal tax on gasoline achieve?
If people are using modern/safe reactor designs, like a thorium reactor, what is the harm of nuclear power?
Beyond that, while any opponent can list off several green projects that were failures costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and projects that created short term "green jobs" for only $250,000 to $500,000 per year, it is amazing that no one who ever questions cutting green spending can ever list a cost-effective successful green project.
| Jumpin said:
3. I don't know about Canada, but public Health Care works everywhere else in the world. If you expect it to be absolutely perfect in the US after 1 year of implementation your deluded. If you think there is anything particular about American society where it doesn't work in the US, yet somehow works fantastically everywhere else, you're deluded. Being against public healthcare is essentially evil, and leaves hospitals and the medical profession in corporate hands - when this is something that should be eliminated throughout the entire world for the betterment of the world. |
It's not one year ...
For decades government spending on healthcare has experienced a steady increase and before Obamacare was ever passed government spending as a percentage of GDP on healthcare in the United States was (roughly) equal to Canada even though less than 1/3 of Americans were covered. While I am very critical of the care we have available in Canada, the fact that Americans spend so much more per patient and don't see it as being wasteful is disturbing.
|
Ron Paul has his heart in the right place, but he has to change his economic views to reflect that - not keep supporting econmomic policies that will widen the gap between rich and poor. |
If you look at income inequality in the United States since World War Two, incomes were steadily becoming more equal throughout the United States up until the middle of the 1960s. "Coincidentally" in 1964 the war on poverty began, and since then social spending have risen ahead of increases in income inequality.
While I'm reluctant to say that increased social spending causes income inequality, the fact that it has failed for nearly 50 years to prevent increases in income inequality should give significant doubts to supporters on its effectiveness.
