On Safety Nets

Shouldn't the government provide safety nets for failed businesses and people? Isn't that a reasonable role for government? Dr. Paul gives us his thoughts on liberty and responsibility...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• capitalism
• ron
• paul
• markets
• dow
• interventionism
• statism
• government
• bush
• economics
• austrian

[MrDeppness]

Ron Paul is one of the smartest and most dignified men in the world. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us on these important matters!!!!

[greatvaluemustard]

Thank you.

Just like the "no child left behind" shenanigans. Half a trillion dollars to administrators and lawyers. Nothing for the children.

[jfsfrnd]

The government gave land to farmers. William Penn gave land to the Mennonites and Quakers so they could come to America.

[ISLAMisGlory]

@MrDeppness you and he are assholes

[Aspetta17]

"If it truly helped the poor people, it'd be a little hard to argue against it"

I wish I could go back to the 1800s and talk to some poor industrial sweat shop slave and ask them if they think some extra money per month for food would help.

We've done a piss poor job of creating a fair safety net (one that DOESN'T give people something for nothing), but It's more than "a little hard to argue against" the concept of a safety net altogether.

[Aspetta17]

I wonder what Ron Paul thinks about Wal-Mart. 2nd biggest employer in the country (next to the fed gov't) WM Employees are usually parents w/ dependent children, and they get paid just over min wage. Every 200 person Supercenter is responsible for an estimated $300,000 in federal taxes for WELFARE (every single year) and meanwhile they rake in a cool $12bn in profits per year.

To fix this, we just need to deregulate all private enterprise (and don't you DARE ask Wal-Mart to pay a living wage)

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

Revolution?

Ok, here's an example: It is known that land in Russia was owned by a small number of people. It is speculated that this was a major contributing factor which allowed the Judeo-Bolshevik regime to garner support, and imprison and ultimately slaughter between 20M and 40M Christian kulaks.

Contrast with Finland wherein land was divided relatively equally, centuries prior, by King Gustav. Very little support for Communism there; a rebellion was easily quelled.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

Well, to understand it, you have to think in terms of a geoist (or georgist) left-libertarian principle: a person has a natural right to the usage of land, and anyone who denies him that right owes compensation (e.g., via prop taxes, easements, etc.). IMO, the German system I described above adheres to that principle rather well.

This contrasts to the winner-takes-all-land-and-prov­ides-charity-for-the-rest, right-libertarian principle; a system that can only lead to one outcome: revolution.

[kellyfurness77]

I'm not sure I fully understand you. What would you suggest as far as remuneration goes?

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

I would see charity as being well suited for one who not only can't function in the modern economy, but who's also not capable of living according to some ancestral paradigm (e.g., hunting, gathering, building tee-pees, etc.).

Conversely, for a person who IS capable of the latter, I don't see why he should be relegated to the status of "lowly charity recipient" when clearly someone else has stolen his means to survival--namely, his access to land. Shouldn't such person be remunerated?

[kellyfurness77]

No they wouldn't. If the government didn't waste 50% or more of your tax money it would be put back in your pocket. When it's in your pocket you get to choose how and what to spend it on and NOT have 50% go to waste. There fore you could donate to churches and charities etc that would fill the void to help those that need housing, clothing, and food assistance. I'm tired of the "If the government doesn't do it it won't get done" argument. B.S. There are better and more efficient alternatives.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

The transportation system is another "socialism" in Germany. Someone, like me, who isn't sufficiently "evolved" enough to drive a car every day can choose to ride bike on the comprehensive bike infrastructure. Everywhere; it's the law. It's also a good way to save about 5K/year.

Contrast with America's "homesteader" urban planning and crude road "system," which has crowded-out all other forms of trans., leaving the low-wage pedestrian straggling along in the exhaust of the "enlightened" ones.