« Education Vouchers Work | Main | Destiny: A Story about the Future of Humanity »

May 05, 2007



This position of yours seems curious to me in that you also 1) support Mike Gravel and 2) seem to be something of an globalizationist as well.

Let's focus on Mr. Paul for the moment. Mr. Paul has put the cart before the horse. If you really want to "change the nature and roll of the government" you can't accomplish anything substantive (including eliminating the beloved IRS) until you acknowledge and rein in so-called entitlement payments (Social Security, Medicade, Medicare, food stamps, etc.) which account for 60% of the federal budget, up from 22% in the 50s. To tie that in with Mr. Gravel, this is something Mr. Gravel (the other guy you support) wishes to EXPAND by granting universal health care.

In any agenda there's a cost. You should know what it is and ask who's going to be paying. If you don't, odds are its going to be you.

One contender would have you believe bringing the military home would pay the bills. The other would have you believe its economically feasible to expand welfare. Neither is correct.

Mr. Paul apparently believes that simply reining in the military will get it done economically, which is absurd in that, even with the war in Iraq, defense spending is only 20% of the budget. Its not enough. You can't make economic policy sound on 20 cents on the dollar. How about addressing that 60 cents floating around there.

Mr. Gravel would make it worse. He would expand that 60%, which is economic suicide.

But, since your post is about Mr. Paul, lets return to him and his disdain for our role as the world's policeman.

There exists the small problem of natural resources. Right, wrong of indifferent, we will always be the world's policeman until such a time as we are completely self-sufficient, which, in the globalized world, will be never.

When the Michael Moore crowd screams about the oil connection and profiteering of corporate America as reasons for our military and business presence overseas, I certainly don't see them giving up plastic, computers, heating their homes, their cars, trucking/distribution, jet travel or countless manufactured goods. All of which are dependant on the massive oil consumption that this country engages in.

The problem that a lot of people don't understand is that although 45% of our crude oil is refined into some type of gasoline the majority of that doesn't go into your or my gas tanks, it goes into diesel for trucking, trains, jets, distribution and shipping so you can toodle into your local supermarket and buy what you need.

So even though 45% goes to gas, most of that isn't to you and me, but to commercial traffic, and that's still less than half of total production.

Can we live without oil? You tell me. If we can't (my position as technology stands currently) then I must ask - who's paying?

We'll be "policing" the world for a long, long time. Or at least until we don't need anything from anyone. You see that happening any time soon?

Or we can all go live the Amish lifestyle, but I'd sure as hell miss Starbucks.


To the previous poster's point about government entitlement payments, take a look at this article. Indeed, a huge problem.


I agree with the previous points regarding the infeasibility of pulling out of world military affairs, however surely you would agree that our current method of "policing" has little chance of providing an overall benefit to our society. You wouldn't enjoy your Starbucks nearly as much if the people we were aggravating were a little closer to home. Ron Paul might refer back to the founding fathers. Over-policing produces revolt on a massive scale, hence their wish that we not get involved to this degree.

Economically, let's say hypothetically that big business, specifically the energy companies, have some role in protecting their profit margins by keeping their product marketable, i.e. cheap petroleum based fuel. Is this really the best situation for us as consumers? It seems to me that in this situation is actually preventing the free market from significantly investing R&D into alternative forms of energy (and materials.) Why? Because prices are low (ok bearable) and without higher prices, there is no market impetus to kickstart massive R&D into alternative forms. In a capitalist society, major innovation requires demand and an economic reward for those willing to invest early. Sadly, our economy could not withstand a major fuel price spike. Especially on the consumer side where most of us live beyond our means to begin with. Why do we do live beyond our means? Perhaps partly it's because we have grown accustomed to the major markets and the government's ability to keep prices low at whatever cost (overthrowing regimes, sending future generations into debt, etc.) We would throw out the political leadership that was unlucky enough to be in office during a fuel price spike.

So look at it this way, if fuel (and the plastic lid on your coffee cup) had spiked in price fifteen years ago. Do you think that fuel and materials technology would have stayed stagnant all this time, or do you think that maybe a few innovative companies may have seized the opportunity and produced the technologies needed?

Same arguments can be applied elsewhere, e.g. Is big government preventing market evolution in the education system? Does Microsoft do everything it can to prevent true innovation in operating systems? Ask yourself what Exxon Mobil is trying to prevent.


MavsFan: Ron Paul is not just about cutting spending by ending the war. He wants to eliminate every federal program that is not authorized by the constitution. Yep, that includes Medicare, Social Security, and every other entitlement program.
If Paul had the reins, we'd have spending cut pretty drastically. I say "go for it".
And since when was a nation required to "police the world" just to maintain its economic interests? That seems like a pretty arrogant foreign policy to me. And obviously it's not working. Maybe we should try what the founders recommended - trade freely with all and avoid entangling alliances. Not a bad idea.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • Destiny is my science fiction movie about the future of humanity. It's an epic, similar in breadth and scope to 2001: A Space Odyssey.

    To see the 18 minute video, click on the graphic below.