RE: Ron Paul "statist" on helth care?

Dearest Brian:

You've done nothing of the sort! And I refer you to my voluminous prior posts on these issues if you have a genuine interest in them.

Cheers,

Brian

Brian Miller wrote:

BM) education, health care, the military, marriage, etc. (BM

BH) I've already ragelessly answered your disinformation regarding all these
topics except health care (BH

BM) You've done nothing of the sort! (BM

Your smear about Ron Paul's alleged support of federal funding for
abstinence education is re-demolished below. You've never responded to my
Sep 14 rebuttal of your charges against Paul concerning DADT, free trade,
immigration, federalism, and sodomy laws:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ca-liberty/message/5244.

BM) And I refer you to my voluminous prior posts on these issues if you have
a genuine interest in them. (BM

Pick the one that makes your strongest case against Ron Paul on health care,
and let's see if it hold up any better than the rest of your flimsy
misrepresentations.

BM) The argument about the bill is immaterial -- I did not raise the issue,
Starchild did. Assigning it to me is evidence of your characteristic
dishonesty. (BM

You said there is "no getting around the fact that Ron Paul voted for
continued government spending on education". The only such Paul vote I saw
alleged here before you made this statement was the one mistakenly cited by
Starchild. If you think you've cited some other Paul vote on abstinence
education more accurately than Starchild did, then cite and quote the
message in which you did so, or else apologize for suggesting I'm
"dishonest".

BM) Ron Paul, along with every other participant in the "values voter"
debate, pledged to increase abstinence education funding if elected
president. (BM

That remains false, as I've explained by twice quoting the question Paul was
responding to. If you don't have the intellectual integrity to address the
actual words of that question, then at least spare yourself the
embarrassment of repeating a claim that you're unwilling to defend.

BM) On marriage, Paul claims to support "getting government out of the
marriage business altogether," yet was a vocal proponent of the DOMA, which
creates a federal definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples. (BM

Your quote appears to be fabricated, as web searches on that phrase reveal
no instance in which Paul ever said it. The closest I've seen him come to
saying that is in the values voter debate:

RP) True Christians, I believe, believe that marriage is a church function,
it is not a state function. I don't think you need a license to get married.
We should define it. (RP

It is indeed true that Paul (in his words) "oppose[s] federal efforts to
redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one
woman". However, he says that the reason he does so is to "ensure federal
courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a
state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state". His
constitutionalism clearly trumps his apparent (but as yet undocumented)
personal opposition to gay marriage, because he vehemently opposes federal
efforts to enforce a definition of marriage on the states:

RP) The division of power between the federal government and the states is
one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that balance
endangers self-government and individual liberty. [...] Conservatives in
particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since
centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative
values. [...] Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal
government power to redefine marriage will be able to point to the
constitutional marriage amendment as proof that the definition of marriage
is indeed a federal matter! I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts
the authority to redefine marriage, or to deny a state's ability to preserve
the traditional definition of marriage. (RP

RP) Federal promotion of marriage, even if well-intentioned, is a form of
social engineering that should worry anyone concerned with preserving a free
society. The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage
any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that
people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. (RP

Here are some of the things Ron Paul told the "values voter" audience,
including his entire answers about "counteracting the homosexual agenda" and
"protecting the institution of marriage":

RP) A free country is designed for individuals to deal with the subject of
virtue and excellence. Once we defer to the government to get involved in
worrying about our own virtue and our excellence and perfect fair economies,
it is done at the sacrifice of liberty. If we do that, and sacrifice that
liberty, and the job of virtue and excellence is taken over by the
government, you can only do that through tyranny. [...]

Q) What do you intend to do to counteract the homosexual agenda? (Q

RP) All rights are individual. We don't get our rights because we belong to
a group, whether it's homosexual, women, minorities, it leads us astray. So
it's much more important to understand that all individuals have the right
to their life if they do no harm, you don't try to do a whole lot about it.
If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through
family values, through church values, but you can't do it through
legislation, because force doesn't work. But there should be, you don't get
your rights from belonging to your group, a group can't force themselves on
anybody else, so there should be no affirmative action for any group. So if
a homosexual group want to force there way onto us, there's no right to do
that either. But at the same time, you should eradicate all these hate
laws. These hate laws indicate that there's something subjective, in hate
laws that indicate that some people would receive a different penalty on
others. This violates the principle of the importance of the individual and
confuses us about the importance of individual rights, which is the purpose
of the Constitution -- defend our individual rights. (RP

Q) If elected, will you support a federal marriage amendment, and what else
will you do to protect the institution of marriage? (Q

RP) I think the best thing a President can do is set a good example. I've
been married for 50 years and am proud of it. I do not see any need for
another constitutional amendment. I think we have fallen into a trap that we
have to redefine marriage. We're on the defensive, defining marriage. Why
don't you just tell them to look it up in the dictionary, to find out what a
marriage says. For federal legal purposes, the Defense of Marriage Act is
proper, it takes care of all the problems. If you have to have rules and
regulations, put it at the state level like the Constitution says. But you
know, marriage and getting licenses only came about in recent history for
health reasons -- has nothing to do with it. True Christians, I believe,
believe that marriage is a church function, it is not a state function. I
don't think you need a license to get married. We should define it. (RP

RP) What we as conservatives must remember, is that if you're willing to use
the strong arm of government to regulate things that are negative, that you
don't like and you find abhorrent, you set the stage for regulating your
religion, your schools, and everything else. [..] Today we have the federal
government going in to the states that have legal medical marijuana,
arresting people, undermining state laws, arresting people who use marijuana
when they're dying with cancer and AIDS, and it's done as a compassionate
conservative, and it doesn't work. [...] We cannot go to Washington to
dictate to us how to improve our personal behavior. You don't dictate, you
don't legislate virtue. In a free society, you do that from the people, form
your family, your friends, and your neighbors, but not in the federal
government. (RP

It would be ridiculous to call the above statements unlibertarian. You
continue:

BM) Your knee-jerk defense of Ron Paul, regardless of the facts, record, or
even "who said what" is even more amusing (BM

You indeed disregard the "facts, record, and 'who said what'" of my defense
of Ron Paul -- so what's "amusing" here is for you to characterize my
defense as "knee-jerk", when it is your own arguments regarding Paul that
seem to consist of spinal reflexes devoid of cerebral involvement.

BM) when you consider that his primary campaign issue, the war in Iraq, is
an area within which I am in strong agreement with him. . . and an area
where you claim that the LP will be destroyed if it adopts a stance similar
to Paul's (BM

Yet another fabrication. I've never claimed that antiwar would "destroy"
the LP; I've merely said that the historical facts
<http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=456> show that antiwar doesn't
measurably grow the LP.

BM) He pledged, at the recent GOP "values voter" debate to: 1) Increase
funding for abstinence education; (BM

Still false. Wake me if you ever muster the intellectual courage to address
the text of the relevant question that I provide here for the third time:
"In the interest of fairness and effectiveness, will you bring abstinence
education funding onto equal ground with contraceptive-based education?"

BM) Stop federal funding of schools that "promote homosexual propaganda"
(whatever THAT is). (BM

Ron Paul opposes all federal funding of education. If you claim Paul has
ever said he would differentially de-fund such schools while preserving
federal funding for other schools, I defy you to quote him, or have the
integrity to retract your statement. I'm not holding my breath.

BM) Ron Paul is advanced as a libertarian -- despite all these unlibertarian
things he's promoting/supporting. Which leaves the question open -- why,
exactly, is he a libertarian again? (BM

I already told you to watch his 20 minutes from the VV debate, much of which
I transcribed above. It's thoroughly libertarian, and it's ridiculous to
pretend otherwise.

BM) And why do his supporters have carte blanche to attack other
presidential candidates as unsufficiently libertarian when Ron Paul is
unsufficiently libertarian on a number of issues himself? (BM

This Ron Paul fan hasn't yet bothered to criticize any presidential
candidates this cycle except Steve Kubby and Ron Paul. I was highlighting
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpradicals/message/1252> Ron Paul's deviance
from radical libertarianism a full month before I started systematically
correcting your serial misrepresentations of him. (I now believe I unfairly
characterized Paul's position on gay marriage, as I had not yet read him
carefully enough to realize that his extreme constitutionalism is what
drives his opposition to federal protection of gay marriage rights.)

A month before that, I wrote: "The idiotic thing that Paul said was the
moral relativism implicit in his question about how would we like it if
China did to us what we did to Iraq. Of the 14 arguments against
libervention that I catalog here
<http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=201> , this Patriotic argument is
the third dumbest. If China had America's track record of promoting and
defending liberty, and came here to snap the neck of a genocidal tyrannical
George Bush who had used chemical weapons to exterminate entire towns of
American dissidents, then I would welcome the Chinese Army with open arms,
and might even tear down a statue of Bush to smack it with the sole of my
shoe."

And in an Aug 2 PlatCom email I approvingly quoted Brian Doherty on Paul:
BD) Paul's concern with immigration is of a piece with his right-populist
strains, an obsession with "sovereignty" that feeds his fevered opposition
to international trade pacts and the UN. Combined with his strong emphasis
on trash-talking the Federal Reserve and advocating a return to gold, it's
the sort of thing that strikes many other libertarians as, if not inherently
unlibertarian, sort of cranky and kooky, and that led me to note to The New
Republic that many libertarians (though not me) think of Paul as a bit of a
yokel. (BD

BM) At some point, Ron Paul is going to take a position that embarrasses his
libertarian supporters if he keeps this up. (BM

Too late. I can't name a single political figure who doesn't have multiple
positions that I find embarrassing. I'm a fan of Ron Paul not because he
has no embarrassing positions, but because he has so few.