Yes, but how much of that money is backed by gold?
By Thoreau
Ron Paul is pulling in vast amounts of cash today. I don’t claim to agree with him on everything (for instance, the title of this post) but he’s about as anti-war, anti-torture, and pro-Bill of Rights as we’re going to get. Other than Kucinich. And Dodd. And his credentials on the Drug War are at least as good as Kucinich’s. Plus there’s that whole “spend less money” thing he’s got going on. As somebody who’s bragging to colleagues about the marble cafe table I got for $15 (can you believe that price?) on Craigslist (it’s in my office, for students to sit at during office hours), I can respect frugality. So, Ron Paul all the way, but props to Kucinich. And Dodd. Respect the Dodd.
Oh, and I will give $100 to a good Dem running in a primary against a bad Dem, but it will be a week or so before I pick the person. I want to give the commenters in the relevant thread some time to offer and discuss several candidates.
Comment by mds —
November 5, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
Indeed, a preoccupation with specie as well as gold-backed banknotes indicates a lack of sophistication about modern economics, or indeed the fundamental meaning of money. Now, as others have pointed out to me, perhaps Dr. Paul wouldn’t be so bad, because he’d likely have a Democratic Congress (possibly) pushing back against his most egregious assaults on the safety net or women’s and minority rights; meanwhile, with at least some sweeping executive powers, where Democrats have demonstrated an unwillingness to do the right thing, a President Paul would be self-regulating.
Unfortunately, a President Paul could have a strong negative effect on immigration and border policy, at least from a libertarian point of view. Also, in foreign policy in general, his irrational hatred of multilateral institutions like the UN would hamper mending bridges with other nations, which I think will be necessary for a grown-up approach to terrorism, trade, climate change, etc. I’m also not sure I’d enjoy his appointments to Interior, Health and Human Services, State, or Treasury. Agriculture would probably be fun to watch, though. And the DEA would have to brace itself…!
Again, though, no matter how interesting a show it would be, it’s not going to happen. No amount of hatred for women’s bodily autonomy, “multiculturalism,” illegal aliens, or the 14th-16th Amendments will make up for his heresy on the Global Battle for Survival agaist Islamofascism with Republican primary voters.
Comment by somebody —
November 5, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Again, Paul basically just wants the federal gov’t to just protect the rights guaranteed by the constitution. Don’t bring abortion into it.
Comment by Glaivester —
November 5, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
mds-
Paul understands modern economics and the meaning of money very well.
The belief that we need a gold standard is not based on a belief in some magical property of gold. It is based on the idea that you cannot increase the supply of gold the way that you can increase the supply of paper (or bits) and therefore cannot use inflation to manipulate the economy.
You can agree or disagree, but Paul’s position is based on his philosophy of limited government (including government control of the money supply), not on a misunderstanding.
As for the safety net, Paul has already indicated that he would prioritize foreign policy reform over safety net reform, and would work to phase the nets out, not just try to eliminate them by fiat.
Comment by bbartlog —
November 5, 2007 @ 11:15 pm
I donated $100 to Paul today. He does have his faults, but his stances on war and torture combined with his promise to pardon all non-violent drug offenders are enough to cover a host of sins. And I agree with him on a lot of other issues anyway.
Comment by TGGP —
November 5, 2007 @ 11:18 pm
Ron Paul has said he is not going to legislate the gold standard back into existence. He is going to change the law so that other currencies may compete with it on more equal footing. He believes that in such a competition money backed by something like gold will win out. I think he believes that then the government would not be able to undertake expensive wars without raising taxes.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 6, 2007 @ 2:44 am
You know, I think it says something great about the American people when the most staunchly anti-war, anti-torture, anti-Prohibition, anti-spending, pro-Habeas Corpus candidate sets a record for fundraising, and most of it comes from small donations.
Maybe there is some hope for us yet.
Comment by Eric Martin —
November 6, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Other than Kucinich. And Dodd
What about Gravel? Where’s the love…?
Comment by abb1 —
November 6, 2007 @ 10:05 am
It’s not obvious to me that disabling the safety net on the federal level would necessarily be detrimental to the cause itself. It’s easier to legislate, customize and administer most (if not all) of the safety net components locally, on the state level. If the people of Montana don’t want Social Security, Medicare and so on, I don’t see why the people of Vermont should force it on them – and vice versa.
Same could be argued about the women’s rights and other issues. There’s still a canton in Switzerland where women don’t have the right to vote. So what.
Comment by Thoreau —
November 6, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Leaving the administration of social benefits programs to local levels of government is one thing. But leaving individual rights to state and local gov’t can amount to tyranny of the local majority.
Still, I’ll say this about Paul and abortion: A few months ago, during one of the “debates”, the GOP candidates were asked what is the most pressing moral crisis facing America. All but one of them used that as an opportunity to score cheap rhetorical points about abortion in front of a sympathetic crowd. Paul said it’s our abandonment of just war theory. (Note the interesting fact that the only person on the stage who didn’t want to discuss abortion was the obstetrician.) Paul is staunchly pro-life, but I don’t think he’ll approach the issue with the fanaticism of others.
Comment by Jackmormon —
November 6, 2007 @ 10:29 am
What’s gold at these days, somewhere around $750 and rising, right?
Comment by abb1 —
November 6, 2007 @ 10:50 am
Local majority will tyrannize you anyway, they’ll find a way. But this is one country, it’s not too difficult to move from state to state.
I realize that this is a simplification – yes, certainly often it’s not easy to move and ideally you shouldn’t have to move – yes, but all things considered this might not be a bad solution; weak central government/strong state autonomy. Arguably.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
November 6, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
I’ll generally split the difference between abb1 and others. I’m deeply happy for the federalization of the Bill of Rights, female suffrage, etc, and I don’t mind the feds breathing down the neck of state and local authorities that infringe on our rights. I just mind most everything else the feds do from a regulatory, service, or law-enforcement angle.
Comment by TGGP —
November 6, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Thoreau, in what sense is the tyranny of the national majority preferable to the tyranny of the local majority? At least with the latter we get reduced exit costs and policy competition.
Comment by abb1 —
November 6, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Oh, the Bill of Rights – of course, that goes without saying.
Comment by Glaivester —
November 6, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
On the topic of frugality, I recently bought ~100 audiotapes at a garage sale for $2.00 total.