Ron Paul vs. Paul Ryan

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) sees Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget-cutting plan as being merely feckless adjustments within a larger vision of government that is unaffordable. As summed up at the Republican Liberty Caucus's blog, Paul slammed Ryan for not recognizing that:

"We are dealing with a problem in Washington as a budgetary accounting problem and that’s not it. It’s a philosophy problem. What is the philosophy of government? What should the role of government be?”

The Congressman went on to question the role of government in the economy and welfare system. “(Paul) Ryan doesn’t reject (the) notion (of a government-run welfare system). I do.”

Congressman Paul also criticized spending on “maintaining our empire” and “being the policeman of the world.”

The Hill also reported on Paul's critique of Ryan.

Reason's Nick Gillespie with Veronique de Rugy had their own critique of Ryan's budget.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Bitchslap.

  • ||

    Paulslap?

  • Tony||

    Why can't we deal with the philosophy of government after we're done dealing with all the crises we're currently in, using the best means we're aware of? That would certainly be the conservative thing to do. This is Hamilton vs. Jefferson all over for the thousandth time and it's bizarre how many generations of sore losers there are in the Jefferson camp.

  • fish||

    I really love you taking the faux high road again and declaring the debate over.

    I got time and you seem to enjoy the abuse.

  • ||

    Carpe diem, Tony. Carpe diem.

  • CE||

    I think Hamilton would have been shocked and offended at the size, power, scope, and cost of the government we have now.

  • fish||

    More shocked to find his name so closely associated with it!

  • Tony||

    The iphone might be a shocker too. We've dealt with the realities of an increasingly technologically unified society and gotten it right in large part, as we're still here and at least capable of prospering. Let's just be sure we're clear that through all the talk of "returning to our constitutional roots" and stuff is a totally unconservative, radical impulse. Even if it were a return to some prior ideal, it would still be back before 1819 at least!

  • fish||

    It's funny watching your little brain at work.

  • Tony||

    It's annoying watching yours be idle.

  • fish||

    Try harder....that was lame even by your standards!

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Just because most libertarians refuse to partake in any political, economic, or social machinations does not mean we are "idle".

  • ||

    The iphone might be a shocker too.

    He probably would not be shocked to see iphone's which were invented, sold and manufactured in a free market continue to get better and continue to get cheaper yet health care is centrally planed and regulated keeps getting more expensive and innovation of it has come to a near dead stop in countries which it is even more restrictive and centrally planned.

  • Tony||

    I guarantee you he wouldn't approve of iphones being manufactured by an inexhaustible supply of Chinese workers.

  • ||

    Hamilton was well versed in Adam Smith.

    The theory of absolute advantage and the division of labor pretty much cover the Law of Comparative advantage.

    Plus i am positive if I showed him the Law of Comparative Advantage he would be very happy with Chinese workers manufacturing his new iPhone.

  • Tony||

    He wanted America--that's America, not China--to be economically competitive with an industrial base.

  • MWG||

    By assembling plastic trinkets? B/c without the engineering, R&D, and innovation that was done in the good ol' US of A, that's all the iPhone is and that's all the Chinese are doing.

  • ||

    He wanted America--that's America, not China--to be economically competitive with an industrial base.

    Hamilton died a decade before the Law of Comparative Advantage was discovered.

    You live in 2011. What is your excuse for being a fucking idiot?

  • fish||

    Tough to be economically competitive with a veritable army of regulators sapping their productivity!

  • JoshINHB||

    Plus i am positive if I showed him the Law of Comparative Advantage he would be very happy with Chinese workers manufacturing his new iPhone.

    You're wrong.

    Hamilton was a mercantilist in the worst sense of the word. Today he'd be the worst sort of donkey - borderline fascist.

  • ||

    Hamilton was a mercantilist in the worst sense of the word.

    Bullshit

    He was an economist following straight as an arrow policy dictated by Adam Smith's theory of Absolute Advantage.

    You are judging him from a perspective of knowledge he did not have.

    It is as if you are pissed because he did not believe in evolution through natural selection before Darwin was even born.

    Smith ended up being wrong about how trade worked and the proof and thesis of absolute advantage is only slightly easier to understand then the proof of the Law of Competitive Advantage. I have little doubt Hamilton would have understood it and changed his policy positions to accommodate it.

  • ||

    Those Chinese workers will resemble future generations of American workers if we continue to let them have there way. What good will Ryan's plan do when the value of the dollar is completely wiped out?

  • intrepid demise||

    I'm always entertained when people try to say what some long-dead person or other would think. Humans, especially intelligent, creative humans like our Founding Fathers, are dynamic thoughtful. There's no telling exactly how one would react. It's just wild speculation used as hyperbole.

  • Ray Pew||

    ^^^^THIS!!!! It is ridiculous to project hypothetical positions on historical figures. Whether they would support or reject any position is irrelevant and is just another version of the fallacy of authority.

  • ||

    Even if it were a return to some prior ideal, it would still be back before 1819 at least!

    Libertarians love the 14th amendment and that was not passed until after the civil war.

    The idea that libertarians pine for a past ideal world is only you peering at a reflection of your own statist Utopian fallacy.

  • ||

    You realize that libertarians aren't "conservative". Right?

  • ||

    No. Tony does not understand that libertarians are not conservative.

    He has been told they are not and it has been explained to him ad nauseum.

    Still he does not understand it, he actively refuses to understand it, and furthermore he is physically incapable of understanding it.

  • ||

    It's funny how people seem to think that if we return to a Constitutional sized government we would suddenly lose all of the technological advances we have made and return to the horse and buggy. This is one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard anyone make.

  • ||

    That would make an awesome movie. Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr transported through time during their duel to 2013, put aside their differences to kick socialist ass Revolution style.

  • fish||

    Politico/Sci fi/Buddy picture?

  • ||

    If I produce, does that mean I get to nail all the actresses auditioning for the role of Molly Pitcher?

  • fish||

    Yeah....we'll file that too! Gotta be niche for that sort of thing somewhere.

  • fish||

    File that? film that.

  • ||

    If you wait for the time when there are no crises to wring your hands over, you will wait forever. The time to seek the right path is NOW.

  • Almanian||

    ^^this^^

  • Tony||

    That's kind of what I was getting at. I wasn't assuming we'd be done any time soon.

  • fish||

    So in other words your first post is like the majority of your posts deliberately false. No time to get back to the debate because crises will be forever needing attention...no time for discussion....plenty of time to find new problems for government to exacerbate.

  • Tony||

    To paraphrase President Laura Roslin: The war is over. You lost.

  • fish||

    Just what position are you jockeying for in the Space Administration that requires such mindless suck-uppery?

  • ||

    Pretty sure that's been said by thousands of people before BSG so she doesn't really deserve props. But it's consistent with your liberalism to view old discredited ideas as unprecedented historic novelties, so no bad blood.

  • Tony||

    Well, she said we lost, which was powerful. I thought.

  • ||

    Her next line was that "We have to start making babies."

    I'm sure you'll get right on that, shared sacrifice and all.

  • Tony||

    I'd happily donate sperm for the cause, but that's kind of the ultimate buyer's market.

  • ||

    Might makes right, bitches!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Maybe because: the question of how to deal with our current crisises is also the question of the proper role of government.

    So...we should murder and steal our way out of our problems, then decide what's moral--is the summary of your philosophy.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    True. It doesn't make any sense to treat the questions "what should be cut from the budget?" and "what is the proper role of government?" as unrelated. It's the same question.

  • Scruffy Nerd Herder||

    Ding Ding We have a winner!

    Now where is Draco to tell us how we're better living with the fucked up system we've got than trying to right it.

  • Paul||

    This is Hamilton vs. Jefferson all over for the thousandth time and it's bizarre how many generations of sore losers there are in the Jefferson camp.

    Jefferson has every right to be a sore loser. One of the greatest philosphers of minimal government has been largely relegated to the Democratic dustbin of history.

    Marx was right, the Soviets were right, hell, the North Koreans are right, they just had the wrong people in charge.

    Government power is where it's at. The government that governs most governs best. We're trying to create a space with ultimate [makes rock-and-roll gauntlet fist with bad-ass heavy metal font captions and umlauts] power.

    I know I feel better. Here's your blank check, government... pinky-promise you won't abuse it. Tony assures me e'ythang'll be aight.

    We're making a better world...

    *fireworks*

    ... or are those incoming mortar rounds?

  • ||

    It's a flash-bang courtesy of the police state.

  • Tony||

    Well when every modern government is the moral equivalent of North Korea, that does sound bad.

    Your problem is you aren't offering a rational alternative. It's all utopia--which is bad for at least 2 reasons: you can't get there incrementally, and there's no real-world evidence for it.

    Every time we go incrementally in the direction of so-called small government, it's a disaster, yet you guys get off scot free (what a perfect idiom in this context!) because it only works when the utopia has arrived.

  • fish||

    Your problem is you aren't offering a rational alternative.

    Nonsense! Don't go into Iraq, don't go into Afghanistan, don't interfere with Libyas internal affairs no matter how much it suck watch that useless fuck Ghaddd...however you spell his name....murder other Libyans! Don't bail out big banks....don't give 220 million dollars to the wives of wall street MF'ers (See Taibbi today)....Stop encouraging people to do stupid things! End the drug war! Leave people the fuck alone!

    Oh I can go on and on making sense!

  • Tony||

    That sounds about right to me. So are you going to form a political coalition with the warmongering wall street puppets or the somewhat less warmongering wall street puppets? Or are you not gonna bother because you'd rather continue jerking off to utopia?

  • fish||

    So I offer a rational alternative.....the government does less....and you accuse me of joining warmongering wall street puppets or war mongering wall street puppets.....or doing neither and jerking off.

    Let me go get the beach towel and vaseline!

    Look I'm saving tax dollars Tony....come on join me.....plenty of room on the towel!

  • Tony||

    Are you height/weight proportionate? Wait nevermind. Yeah I'd say you've laid out the alternatives pretty well. Join a team or lube up.

  • fish||

    I didn't say this was a mutual thing....and the towel is a metaphor!

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Let me go get the beach towel and vaseline!

    Only if it is this towel:

    http://lostinasupermarket.com/.....kTowel.jpg

  • fish||

    I'm on the right of the photo as the viewer sees the image.

  • ||

    Tony's wondering who's in the middle.

    He is a pitcher and not a catcher, right?

    NTTAWWT

  • fish||

    The left too. It was cold.

  • I love playing ||

    slinky

  • ||

    Every time we go incrementally in the direction of so-called small government, it's a disaster

    I agree, so-called small government is usually big government in a rhetorical disguise a la Reagan/Bush II.

    We need to go in the direction of actual small govt, a la 1995-2000 Bill Clinton.

  • Tony||

    A lot of the major legislative causes of the financial crisis happened under Clinton.

  • ||

    such as...

  • Tony||

    Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (written by Wall Street lobbyists)

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Compromise with Community Reinvestment Act.

  • ||

    Yeah, if anything screams small government, it's passing bills written by lobbyists.

  • ||

    Small govt according to Tony: Any government one law smaller than currently.

  • Tony||

    "Small govt" according to Tony: an insidious Orwellian slogan meant to stop the thinking process and act as a cover for plutocratic looting on a massive scale.

  • ||

    How we know Tony is stupid: He thinks bigger government is protecting us from plutocratic looting.

  • Paul||

    It's all utopia--which is bad for at least 2 reasons: you can't get there incrementally, and there's no real-world evidence for it

    It's not Utopia. Any real libertarian knows that not all outcomes will be tres magnifique!

    But we believe that absent government coercion, or with the least possible government coercion, a truly free people will be generally more egalitarian.

    you can't get there incrementally, and there's no real-world evidence for it.

    I'm not sure I understand you. Can't get where incrementally? You can damn sure bet we can get to small government incrementally.

    One of my personally proposed solutions to get there incrementally would be to turn all regulatory agencies into advisory agencies. Their functions and missions would be the same, but direct regulatory power would be nullified. The agencies would offer the exact same regulations they create now in what would be called "legislative packages" which could be voted on by congress and the Senate in thunbs-up or down vote. This would do two things:

    1. It would put democracy back into the government by takiing it away from where the real power has settled: unelected career bureaucrats.

    2. It would force legislators to directly confront all the regulations that the country has to live with by signing their own name directly to them. No free passes for the legislature.

    Every time we go incrementally in the direction of so-called small government

    Name one time we've gone "in the direction of so-called small government"?

    Oh wait, actually Tony, you have a point. "so-called" small government. Think hard about your statement and maybe you'll begin to understand how laughable modern GOP governing is.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    One of my personally proposed solutions to get there incrementally would be to turn all regulatory agencies into advisory agencies.

    Make professional licensing voluntary, as well.

    unelected [and unaccountable] career bureaucrats [with no vested interest].

  • Tony||

    I don't have a problem with bureaucrats really. There is something to be said for having the agencies responsible for administering policy being apolitical. It's not like they operate outside of Congress's will. The regulatory apparatus is strongly tugged in either direction, depending on which party is in power.

    And we certainly have enacted policies that I'm sure you'd favor as incrementally small government: notably, deregulation of the financial sector. It did happen. It did cause a massive fuckup. Granted, libertarians usually have an alternate history to explain that one.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Deregulation, or too much cheap, easy money being pumped into the economy by a man who developed a God complex?

    It is impossible to regulate the banking sector because they operate outside of the norms of regular businesses. One can not tame a lion by feeding him with one hand, and whipping him with the other.

  • Tony||

    Deregulation.

    You can regulate banks. Before that Act, you could be either an investment bank, a commercial bank, or an insurance company, but no combination of the three. After the Act, you could be. Hence, massive fuckup.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    While I admit it caused a conflict of interest, I do not believe it caused people to default on their mortgages.

    The ultimate regulator of the banks is the Federal Reserve. The Fed is owned and controlled by the banks. THAT is a conflict of interest. That is what ultimately allowed the banks to overleverage their shit assets.

    Then there's the issue of fraud. Lehman was the largest purveyor of liars loans in the world. They sold packaged and sold mortgages with failure rates of over 50%. Many had failure rates of 90%. 90% of the RMBS they sold have been downgraded to below investment grade. That is fraud. That is regulatory failure, not deregulation. The Fed had regulatory authority under HOEPA to regulate mortgages, but they refused. Why? Because the banks were making a ton of money off fraudulent mortgages. As I said earlier, the Fed is the ultimate regulator under our system, and the Fed was NOT deregulated. It is unaccountable only to the point of repudiation of the currency.

    It is impossible to regulate a system which regulates itself.

  • Tony||

    While I admit it caused a conflict of interest, I do not believe it caused people to default on their mortgages.

    These things are inextricably related. The conflict was huge: the institutions had a profit incentive to make bad loans. Because they could now be packaged into complex instruments (with a fraudulent stamp of approval from the ratings agencies), they were motivated to get the riskier high-interest loans. It wasn't the Fed that encouraged this behavior, it was pure unregulated capitalism. You're right that the Fed didn't regulate enough--because it was run by free market fundamentalists.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Where did the banks get the money to make these loans? The Fed controls capital and reserve requirements.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Not to mention the Fed controls the interest rates.

  • Tony||

    I'm not absolving the Fed or government. By faulting deregulation I'm faulting them explicitly--I don't expect profit-making machines to do anything less than maximize profits within the rules that are set for them.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Banks are protected by the Fed and Treasury. The are not accountable the way other businesses are. You can not effectively regulate something that you are protecting by granting special privileges to. Like I said, it's like trying to tame a lion by feeding him with one hand, and whipping him with the other. You end up with one fucked up lion.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Perhaps you might eventually understand that there is nothing "free market", or "Capitalist" about our financial sector. It more resembles the 17th century privileges of Mercantilism.

  • Tony||

    Then there is no such thing as a free market or a pure capitalist system. Political power is zero-sum. Reduce government's scope, it bubbles up somewhere else--in the modern world, under the care of large corporations. That they are given favors by government is not an argument against government itself. In the absence of government, they simply wouldn't have to bother buying lobbyists. They'd have the power anyway.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Tony, your lack of knowledge of the financial and banking system is immeasurable. Here's a link to educate yourself. No, it is not an "Austrian" site. It is explained in post-Keynesian terms. Please educate yourself.

    http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/index.html#2

  • Paul||

    I don't have a problem with bureaucrats really. There is something to be said for having the agencies responsible for administering policy being apolitical. It's not like they operate outside of Congress's will.

    You just contradicted yourself. Administering policy should be apolitical. But they don't operate ouside of Congress's will-- they're "tugged in either direction, d'pending on which party is in power."

    Y'see, tony, this is where you and I agree, I believe that the agencies should be apolitical. But the enactment of regulation should be entirely political. Over here, the advisory agency says we should do thus and so, and it will radically change the lives of 360,000,000 people if we do it.

    Your legislator is the one who pulls the trigger. His name is on the regulation. If the congresscritter believes in wetland preservation, let him vote on it. What, too much regulation.. you can't be bothered to vote on such things? I think that's a warning bell about the size, scope and sheer volumes of regulations coming out.

    Hell, note, Tony, I'm not even suggesting a line-item vote on regulations. Regulatory packages which may contain hundreds of regulations. Up or down. This makes it easy for the legislators, doesn't really change the speed of the process, but puts the accountability back into government.

    And we certainly have enacted policies that I'm sure you'd favor as incrementally small government: notably, deregulation of the financial sector.

    It did not. May I recommend This American Life story on the financial meltdown. I thought they did a very fair timeline of the 'crisis'. And what was fascinating about it, was how this so-called unregulated market operated within a sea of regulations, which exacerbated the selloff: Government regulation: you must sell off any asset not rated at AAA. Massive selloff ensues.

  • Tony||

    I'm not sure how your system differs from what you're arguing against so much, except perhaps requiring every regulation (every statute?) be re-voted on every new Congress.

    The causes of the financial crisis were many and complex, but I don't think the relevant story is too much oversight of the financial industry.

  • Tncm||

    Of course, Tony. It's not like they made those terrible investments knowing that the Federal Reserve and FDIC would bail them out when the house of cards came tumbling down. It was the the evil free market. Because as we all know, government-business collusion is integral to laissez-faire capitalism.

    I also noticed how you completely failed to mention interest rates or credit expansion in your analysis of the current economic recession. Proving, once again, that you are an idiot.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    The causes of the financial crisis were many and complex,

    Which is it? Only a few comments ago you were blaming the entire meltdown on deregulation. Not only do you lack knowledge, you are intellectually dishonest.

    deregulation of the financial sector. It did happen. It did cause a massive fuckup.

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/04.....nt_2231249

    Deregulation.

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/04.....nt_2231294

  • Tony||

    The causes were many and complex, but it was mostly deregulation of the financial sector.

  • fish||

    Plus the knowledge that the government would bail out the primary dealers.....you're for welfare for all aren't you Tony!

  • Tony||

    I am very much aware of the moral hazard that came with the bailouts. The problem, though, wasn't that the bailouts happened, but that they were necessary. Any institution whose failure could cause widespread economic harm should either be broken up or nationalized.

  • Tncm||

    Depression of 1920?

  • intrepid demise||

    Because "nationalizing" industries fixes the corruption problem, right? Seems to be working out just fine for Venezuela et al.

  • ||

    "Every time we go incrementally in the direction of so-called small government, it's a disaster"

    We haven't done that in around a century. If you're referring to the last decade, you're especially misguided, as George W. Bush was one of the biggest government expansionists ever to sit in the White House, and THAT was a true disaster. On the other hand, Clinton, whose actual policies were more small-government than Bush's, had a much less destructive presidency (which is not to say Clinton was a good president; just that he looks good next to the big government extremist who succeeded him, and the even-bigger-government extremist who has now succeeded that one). All-in-all, however, there has not been even one president who has overseen an actual net reduction in the size and scope of the federal government during the last several decades.

    So long as we're talking about "Jeffersonians vs. Hamiltonians," however, let us examine a REAL instance of movement towards small government; that which happened upon Jefferson's ascension to the White House. Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans in Congress stripped the tax code down to a bare minimum (the federal government was running off more or less only tariffs, postage stamps and land sales- Jefferson bragged in one of his addresses that farmers in the heartland of the country could go their entire lives without meeting a tax collector of the United States), cut back military and domestic spending, ended the trans-Atlantic slave trade and repealed the Alien and Sedition Acts. What was the upshot of all this? The national debt was cut by a third and the country enjoyed a major economic boom over the eight years of Jefferson's presidency. This isn't to say that Jefferson did nothing questionable at all during his tenure in office, but he was arguably the most libertarian president we've ever had (Grover Cleveland would be the other major candidate in my mind).

  • KingTaco||

    "Jefferson has every right to be a sore loser. One of the greatest philosphers of minimal government has been largely relegated to the Democratic dustbin of history."

    You do realize President Jefferson was a complete opposite of philosopher Jefferson, don't you? He expanded presidential powers, interfered with the courts, acquired territory from foreign powers with no constitutional authority, actively plotted to take territory from foreign powers, imposed a ruinous embargo, etc.

    Jefferson was all about limited government, except for the 8 years he spent as president. He would probably make a list of top 10 'fuck the constitution' presidents.

  • ||

    KingTaco, I hadn't seen your post before I made mine. To state my thesis for starters, I disagree. To wit:

    President Jefferson (along with the like-minded Congress) oversaw the repeal of the Alien and Sedition acts, pardoned everyone prosecuted under them, stripped the tax code down to a skeleton, abolishing all internal federal taxes (property taxes, inheritance taxes, whiskey taxes, etc., all went out the window), scaled back the military and domestic spending, had the trans-Atlantic slave trade banned, and cut the national debt by a third.

    Jefferson's "interference with the courts" came mostly in the form of rolling back Federalist court appointments which were themselves power grabs; Adams made a swath of "midnight appointments" of anti-Jeffersonian Federalists to ad hoc positions right before leaving office as a last-ditch effort to impede Jefferson's impending attack on big government. I wouldn't call reversing a power grab a power grab in itself.

    Jefferson didn't "plot to take territory from foreign powers," or at least not by conquest. He was hopeful the Indians would sell the United States more land, but actually made a point of defending their property rights well above and beyond the standard of his era; see his letter to Chief Handsome Lake.

    Jefferson's embargo was indeed ruinous, but I wouldn't call it "unconstitutional;" it was an actual non-disingenuous usage of the Commerce Clause, given that it consisted specifically in jurisdiction over "Commerce with foreign nations."

    It is true that the Louisiana Purchase was a power grab (Jefferson himself admitted to and agonized over this fact), but on balance (noting, here, that we have never had anything close to a truly-consistent libertarian administration), the Jefferson presidency was one of the MOST constitutionally-sound and limited-government-oriented we have seen in the history of the Union.

  • GLaDOS||

    Since the installation of my new morality core, I've lost all interest in killing. Now I only crave science.

  • ||

    The original 18th century Tea Party protested a tax DECREASE.

    Their philosophy was that a role of government was to even the playing field for citizen capitalists.

  • Paul||

    Read between the lines, Shrike. Libertarians protest tax decreases all the time.

  • ||

    Their philosophy was that a role of government was to even the playing field for citizen capitalists.

    Hmm...

    Looks to me like the current Tea Party protesting TARP and Obama's green-economy-stimulus is air tight consistent with the politics of the original tea party.

  • Paul||

    This.

  • Tony||

    Unless they also go after subsidies for the energy status quo, then they're just corporate tools doing propaganda for free.

  • ||

    Unless they also go after subsidies for the energy status quo, then they're just corporate tools doing propaganda for free.

    Tea Pirates do not advocate for oil subsidies. They are silent on them.

    You on the other hand advocate for green energy subsidies.

    So by your own metric you are more of a corporate tool doing propaganda for free then they are.

  • Tony||

    They are silent on them because they are ignorant of them.

  • ||

    They are silent on them because they are ignorant of them.

    If they are ignorant then they cannot be politically in opposition with the original tea party.

    By the way seeing as we are on the subject:

    Explain how the US government subsidizes the "energy status quo."

    Buckle up kiddoes, Tony's answer should be a doozy.

  • ||

    You don't know the history of the TP.

    Rick Santelli kicked it off in Feb 09 because of HAMP - a program to modify mortgages in favor of the average guy.

    The TP also would object to a corporate tax hike since they follow GOP orthodoxy.

  • Paul||

    There's absolutely nothing wrong or inconsistent with arguing against a corporate tax hike, and telling the Party of Corporate Welfare (Democrats) to stop giving away billions in tax dollars to failed business models.

  • ||

    The only difference in Democrats and Republicans is one keeps giving (our tax) money away to failed businesses while the other keeps giving (our tax) money away to successful businesses.

    Either way, they're fucking us.

  • ||

    Rick Santelli didn't kick off the modern Tea Party movement; Ron Paul supporters did in December 2007. Santelli and company have only co-opted it since.

  • ||

    That would certainly be the conservative thing to do.

    So the left wing hack is arguing that we should do the conservative thing on a libertarian blog.

    The irony is suffocating.

  • Tony||

    Hey I argue in favor of stronger central authority plus staying within the status quo all the time--making me, at least on that front, conservative relative to you.

  • ||

    making me, at least on that front, conservative relative to you.

    Yes Tony, I am a radical liberal and you are not.

    Pretty sure we established this over a year ago.

  • Xenocles||

    "Why can't we deal with the philosophy of government after we're done dealing with all the crises we're currently in, using the best means we're aware of?"

    Never let a crisis go to waste?

  • Tony||

    Exactly. We are in the crisis the starve-the-beasters always wanted, so they'd have an excuse to ram through their radical budget-cutting.

  • ||

    Why can't we deal with the philosophy of government after we're done dealing with all the crises we're currently in, using the best means we're aware of?

    Whatsamatter Tony? Multi-tasking giving you a tummy ache?

    I shudder to think of what means you're actually aware of.

  • crossofcrimson||

    "Why can't we deal with the philosophy of government after we're done dealing with all the crises we're currently in, using the best means we're aware of?"

    Because philosophy entails exploring the consequences of action and what should or should not be done (at least hypothetically). In other words, shooting blindly can sometimes be worse than not shooting at all.

  • ||

    Well, duh. Ryan voted for Medicare Part D and TARP for God's sake. His conversion to "deficit hawk" in early 2009 reeks of convenient timing.

  • SIV||

    He voted for the auto bailouts too. Ryan is a big-spending POS.

  • Paul||

    He's in the same bin marked "curb" that Romney and Obama are in.

  • ||

    As well as the Scott Brown big government freak bin.

  • ||

    I don't want to know which bin U.S. Grant is in.

  • Xenocles||

    He's in Grant's Bin, just like the old joke suggests.

  • ||

    Xenocles, Tulpa's post is somewhat of an inside joke between him and moi.

  • Xenocles||

    I'll be on the balcony with my tanto. Don't wait up.

  • ||

    His conversion to "deficit hawk" in early 2009 reeks of convenient timing.

    I welcome deficit hawk conversion at any time.

  • ||

    If the GOP wins the White House in 2012 you're probably going to see one in the other direction.

    Well, more than one.

  • ||

    I hope not but i do acknowledge it is a high probability.

    That being said i will always cheer those who want to cut spending large or small.

    ...well always until the coming singularity.

    Then I probably won't give a shit.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    2045

  • ||

    2045

    It will be earlier then that.

  • Almanian||

    I keep picturing this as an action-figure commercial.

    "PAUL VERSUS RYAN! FROM HASBRO!"

  • fish||

    "Rock'em Sock'em Legislators.......

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I think some website had an Obama vs. Clinton game back in the 08 primaries.

  • fish||

    Yeah...the kids stopped playing it because she always won!

  • ||

    Ryan's voting record vs. his current positions reeks of opportunism.

    It'd be almost like a US Senator voting against raising the debt ceiling because he is a petulent and partisan asshole, then, when in the White House 5 years later, saying anyone who votes against raising the ceiling wants to kill the nation.

    Whoopsie daisy.

  • ||

    Are you talkin' bout our brown bolzhevik in belova doma?

  • ||

    You missed your soul mate Boon earlier.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Absolutely.

    Many liberals I've encountered acknowledge that RP is one of the only principled members of Congress. They just disagree with him. Which is more than I can say for neocons.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Shit. That was a reply to Tulpa, below.

    Oh, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

    You might think I'd have figured out these nested comments, by now.

  • ||

    Oh, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

  • ||

    Ryan's voting record vs. his current positions reeks of opportunism

    I welcome deficit cutting opportunism at any time.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    Even if it means "protecting". or "saving" the social programs which caused the problems in the first place?

  • ||

    Even if it means "protecting". or "saving" the social programs which caused the problems in the first place? vs getting no cut at all?

    yes.

    The sad thing is libertarians would run a welfare state better then any socialist (conservatives come in at a distant 3rd) Still a welfare state that lives within its means is a better world then we have now.

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    To be postponed to a later date? Another band-aid to a broken, and fundamentally flawed system? Libertarians would not run a Welfare state. At least, not with money received through coercive taxation. That violates the non-aggression axiom.

  • ||

    I was using "runs" in the same loose terms as who runs the welfare state now.

    No one political ideology runs it...it is self perpetuating.

    When I say libertarians would run a welfare state better i mean that if Rand Paul's proposals were passed then it would function better then it is now.

    non-aggression axiom

    i like it but to get smaller government it is no help. Sometimes you have to fuck over statists to get the government off your lawn.

    If you don't believe me then go talk to Jefferson. He was more then a little blood thirsty.

  • robc||

    the statists initiated force. Now its self defense.

  • ||

    the statists initiated force. Now its self defense.

    I would like to believe that...

    But can you really justify harming people who were born over a hundred years after Marx died?

    No. The world we live and the people who live in it are products of history and as much as it may bother you ignorance is innocence.

    The fact is the world will not change unless you get your hands bloody.

    Note: i am using metaphors here. you don't have to kill people to usher in libertopia. But that being said you will have to lie cheat and steal to get it done and people will get hurt and eyes wide open you will have to break the non-aggression axiom.

    or maybe you will luck out and someone will do it for you...but more likely it won't get done so long as libertarians are unwilling to do what the left and right and statists do everyday.

  • Tony||

    Based on non-aggression, how do you justify the means of achieving libertopia--whatever they may be--in light of the fact that the vast majority of people you'd be imposing it on don't want it?

  • 0x90||

    Tony, the imposition of freedom, as you put it, implies a certain freedom on the part of those upon whom it is imposed, to organize however they should see fit. That is, while universal freedom does not preclude the establishment of organized governance, universal governance does preclude the possibility of universal freedom.

    That this is the case, and that you speak against it, illuminates the assumption upon which your point rests: that this vast majority of which you speak, at once, wishes governance to be imposed upon them, and at the same time, is ultimately unwilling to voluntarily shoulder the costs associated with such an arrangement.

    Which brings us to a clearer statement of your position: that this paradox is to be resolved by you, by force, for the good of the recipients, simultaneously against, and according to, their will.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    "Based on non-aggression, how do you justify the means of achieving libertopia"

    He explained it simply. Those who are violating my freedom initiated aggression against me. If they don't want "it" then they should stop interfering with my personal liberty.

  • crossofcrimson||

    "Based on non-aggression, how do you justify the means of achieving libertopia--whatever they may be--in light of the fact that the vast majority of people you'd be imposing it on don't want it?"

    I won't speak for everyone else, but frankly there's no other way to do it other than converting people over for the most part. That's especially true of democracies in general. Once there are enough people behind libertarians to fill our public offices with them, it kind of becomes a moot point. To whatever extent libertarianism is successful it will be through non-cooperation and the proliferation of our ideas.

  • crossofcrimson||

    But I will also agree with others that the implication that freedom is imposed is a misnomer. Freedom is a negative concept. It's like saying that we're imposing an apple's redness by refusing to paint it blue.

  • Ray Pew||

    Based on non-aggression, how do you justify the means of achieving libertopia--whatever they may be--in light of the fact that the vast majority of people you'd be imposing it on don't want it?

    This question is absurd, since it falsely equivicates "aggression" with "not giving me what I want".

  • Anonymous||

    How do you justify it? Its simple. It doesn't matter what they want. The non-aggression axiom is the universal natural law and may be legitimately imposed upon anybody whether they want it or not. It is necessary and it is morally just to force people to be free whether they want to be or not. The fact of the matter is that those who violate the non-aggression axiom are criminals and have forfeited their rights to the extent that they violate ours.

    It isn't "aggression" to impose the non-aggression axiom on anybody. It is defense.

  • ||

    Tony,
    I want to have your brain!

    And you gonna ask me why?

    "Because, it is NEVER BEEN USED..."

  • ||

    I agree with Representative Ron Paul here: We need to address the role of government, not spend our efforts on a relatively tiny proportion of the nation's debt (utilizing false premises and "fuzzy math" no less).

    The size and scope of government needs to be reduced before its costs of operations bankrupt us. The Federal government's domestic intrusiveness and foreign interventions are of great concern because they keep expanding at great expense, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans are in control.

    I also want to refute some ideas posted by another commentator, who wrote: "It wasn't the Fed that encouraged this behavior, it was pure unregulated capitalism. You're right that the Fed didn't regulate enough--because it was run by free market fundamentalists."

    There is strong evidence that Federal agencies - not "free market fundamentalists" - helped create the financial crises while enriching the few at the cost of the many. This, coupled with the Federal Reserve's central planning/market interventions which encouraged widespread mal-investment, brought about the economic woes that spread throughout the global economy.

    Please see "So You've Been Preempted-What Are You Going to Do Now?: Solutions for States Following Federal Preemption of State Predatory Lending Statutes" http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/...

    and "The Financial Crisis and the Federal Reserve" http://newsblaze.com/story/20080927140845tsop...

    These linked articles can help explain why a growing number of our fellow citizens are becoming distrustful of the "regulators" a majority of our countrypersons seem so strongly to believe in.

    Regards,

    Charles

  • ||

    Paul Ryan`s budget is a middle-class-killing "plan" based on the laughable Laffer supply-side theory. Ron Paul was right to vote against this voodoo economics, even if he gave a different reason for doing so.

  • Cure ear infection||

    Your post is really good providing good information. Garlic health benefits I liked it and enjoyed reading it.Keep sharing such important posts.Sinus headache

  • Nike Dunk Shoes||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement