polisciguy (CA, USA) 1/2/08

Ron Paul is a man of political idealism and integrity, and for that I commend him.

After that, I fundamentally disagree with the foundation for his political ideology.

The idea of small government- one I fundamentally agree with- is that local economies can govern themselves. When communities are self-sufficient agrarian townships, political power should be shifted towards them. Basically, economies require governance, and the government should be as close to the economy as possible.

State rights in the American sense worked marvelously when economies were (mostly) local and self-sustaining. Since the industrial revolution we have seen time and time again that local legislation and control cannot maintain the stability and security necessary to grow larger, interstate economies (see: Southern economy post Civil War; Black Friday; the Great Depression). 

The obvious, and ideologically consistent solution is to shift the governance closer to the economy. Reconstruction was working marvelously until Lincoln died. FDR implemented appropriate, temporary federal plans to alleviate the distress in the economy by creating jobs, projects, and new wealth. After WWII, with much of Europe and Asia's infrastructure completely devastated, interstate (in the European sense) collaboration allowed for financial rebound.

As economies continue to grow to international levels and globalization becomes the dominant economic force, new models of government are needed. This should be an inclusive conversation where all ideas for structure and implementation are discussed thoroughly. Many, if not all, of the world's hunger, crime, war, poverty and inequality issues can be traced to poor economic governance, the stratification of wealth, and the spoilage of goods.

Further, for strict capitalism to work, according to the creators of the model, there must be a free and accurate distribution of information to consumers so that they might make informed choices about the products they consume, thusly allowing the market to balance itself for the common good. What we have now in this conglomerate plutocracy is far from a free and accurate distribution of information. With this fundamental flaw, how can consumers be expected to make the economically and socially correct decision? One example is foreign reliance on oil. If the average consumer was aware that competitively priced renewable alternatives were available from domestic sources, do you really think we would be exporting so much of our national wealth to countries that are violently opposed to American political, cultural and economic influence?

One more argument against the Libertarian position, and this is more my opinion than empirically supported, as I believe my other two arguments are.

Money is no measure of freedom. Left to the market, certain occupations would by necessity (and are) be low-paying. Space exploration has been minimally profitable so far, but the potential benefits are profound. Financing from a not-for-profit institution (such as a government) is essential. Education for the masses, not just the privileged few, is requisite for successful democracy. That includes educating children that come from poor or incompetent families. Doctors deserve fair compensation for the years of training, high stress, and high risk of their jobs, yet low-wage, blue-collar workers that are the backbone of any diversified economy might, left to the open market, be unable to afford adequate medical attention.

Happy, contented workers are more productive than stressed, insecure workers. This is, in my opinion, a large part of the reason the European Union (with widespread public support for education, heath care, maternity, transportation, information, energy, and even vacation) is quickly narrowing the economic gap between itself and the United States. We should not clone the European model, but take astute note of its successes and especially it's failures, and blend the best of their system to balance for the worst of ours, without sacrificing too much (subjective) of what allows America to excel technologically and economically.

I respect Ron Paul for his integrity and commitment. That is where my fondness for the gentleman ends.