10 Reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul

[E. Nato Difficile]

The unfamiliar often hold such views based upon their fear of losing the comfort & security of the nanny state. But lucky for you, I'm here to help.
There's no reason to apologize for cynicism....tis central to us to distrust giving great power to government. People are greedy, mean, stupid,
power hungry & incompetent (among other things), so we favor having a smaller government with limited function. Preserving civil, social &
economic liberty are our goals. Generally, we would minimize the risks of governmental mischief by keeping it small, minimizing its financial
burden, & limiting its power by observing a strong constitution. I note that you're quick to use dismissive epithets like "naivete" & "quaint",
but they would also apply to your side of this dispute. We've lived with leftist & neo-con big government for a very long time now, & it ain't
work'n too well. Yet people keep expecting that pursuing the same failed policies over & over again will yield different results. Is that sane?

And how are you so certain that the greedy, mean, stupid, power hungry & incompetent people are only in government? Seems like there are plenty of them to go around in industry, too. And who is going to make sure we don't become victims of their predations, in terms of abuses of the labor force, environmental hazards, or consumer fraud?

-Nato

 

[Revoltingest]

And how are you so certain that the greedy, mean, stupid, power hungry & incompetent people are only in government?

Note that I never made that claim. I expect such people to be everywhere.

Seems like there are plenty of them to go around in industry, too. And who is going to make sure we don't become victims of their predations, in terms of abuses of the labor force, environmental hazards, or consumer fraud?

When companies don't serve their customers, those companies go out of business.
But when government doesn't serve it's customers, one cannot vote with one's feet so readily.
The process of change is much slower, & sometimes impossible in a lifetime.
I see the libertarian view of government & markets as providing the best balance.

An illustrative example:
I once owned an International pick-up truck. It was junk, so I never bought another. (Neither does anyone else these days.) This was a convenient solution.
I once had a military draft number of 34. At the time, it was either move to Canada or end up in Viet Nam. Both options would be very inconvenient.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

When companies don't serve their customers, those companies go out of business.

Everyone with a bank account at a corporate bank begs to differ. These companies suck their customers dry with fees, and offer negligible service. Why don't they go out of business? Because they all do the same thing, it's wildly lucrative, and it's absolutely legal.

-Nato

 

[Revoltingest]

Everyone with a bank account at a corporate bank begs to differ. These companies suck their customers dry with fees, and offer negligible service.

Easy. Tis because each person finds that the service is worth the cost, & the competition is no better.
Of course, that doesn't mean we like this relationship. But it is acceptable, & therefore it continues, unlike our
relationship with International. (I probably hate banks even more than you do....especially RBS &
its American minions who are wrecking our economy with a scorched Earth policy funded by bail-out money.)

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Easy. Tis because each person finds that the service is worth the cost, & the competition is no better.
Of course, that doesn't mean we like this relationship. But it is acceptable, & therefore it continues

So it's the devil-you-know dilemma. And this is superior to our relationship with the government how...?

-Nato

 

[Revoltingest]

So it's the devil-you-know dilemma.

No. It's that in a free (somewhat) market, businesses compete for customers. The result is that those who offer
the most competitive deal win customers. It doesn't mean that we'll be happy though, as we see with airlines.
But people who complain most about airlines freely choose to not pay the extra money for a better class either.

And this is superior to our relationship with the government how...?

If the country had a single government run airline, I believe that service & cost would be even worse. But we'd lack
the opportunity to shop among competing airlines, so they'd have no incentive to respond to customer wants.

 

[Amill]

No, I've supported him for a long time simply because he's the closest thing to a libertarian to appear in the Big Two.
The OP misrepresents his social positions. But most important to me is his consistent pursuit of limited constitutiona
government, & eschewing foreign adventurism. Paul differs from other not-one-of-the-usual-candidates, such as Ross
Perot, who didn't really differ politically from his competition. Paul actually represents something different.

It's perfectly fine to not vote for him, but one should do so for the right reasons.

Consistency is the reason I find him so appealing, although I'd have to hear more about his stances on social issues before I'd consider actually voting for him. But he is interesting because he appears to be far more consistent and far less dishonest than most other politicians. I think that's what draws in other people as well. I think the first time I noticed him was when he was debating other Republicans about the causes of 9/11 and didn't simply just fall in line with the others with the silly excuse that they "disliked that we have freedom".

 

[Desert Snake]

I need more reasons than that not to vote for somebody.

 

[Splarnst]

Paul's position is that the US should follow the first amendment and not officially recognize any religion or have a national religion, but he's against things like banning public prayer in schools and such,

Yes, that's what's known as "being against the separation of church and state." I'm sure he hates Lemon v. Kurtzman.

 

[Mathematician]

When companies don't serve their customers, those companies go out of business.

In an idealized market with perfect competition. Those don't exist in reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

In an idealized market with perfect competition. Those don't exist in reality.

No idealized system I know of exists unmodified.
So we settle for a hybrid, which we describe by the system it's closest to.
The question then becomes...how far do we compromise & in which direction?
Example:
Which is better?
1) One cel phone company owned & run by Uncle Sam.
2) Having multiple private companies compete as they do now.
I'd pick #2. Here is a risk if the gov't controlled all.....
BART board to take up cellphone-ban policy - Wire - Lifestyle - bellinghamherald.com
I'd hate to give Bush, Obama, Palin or Perry the power to shut down protests by a cel phone black-out.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmmm.....here is one reason to vote for Ron Paul (the only anti-war candidate)....
US troops may stay in Afghanistan until 2024 - Telegraph

 

[Kathryn]

Everyone with a bank account at a corporate bank begs to differ. These companies suck their customers dry with fees, and offer negligible service. Why don't they go out of business? Because they all do the same thing, it's wildly lucrative, and it's absolutely legal.

-Nato

Don't use a bank account then. Take your paycheck, cash it, buy a cash card and use that as you would use a debit card.

Or you could just pay cash for everything and put your money in a safe at home, or in a cigar box under your bed.

Or use a credit card for all your purchases, and then cash your paycheck, buy a cashier's check (should cost around $7) and pay the balance in full each month.

But wait - does that sound like a hassle? Or impossible due to a low credit score? Or...do you like the convenience of a debit card, direct deposit, online banking, apps for access to your account anywhere, wire transfers, savings accounts which earn interest, mortgages, all sorts of loans, secure transactions, etc?

If customers don't need bank services, they don't need a bank. If you need a bank, guess what - services and products cost money. If you don't like the service you're getting at your bank, change banks. If you can't find a bank you like, then maybe you need to get together with some other people who feel the same way, and open a bank. That's how banks get started after all.

Banking is not a non profit industry. It's not run by the government, and it's not an automatic right for anyone.

 

[Revoltingest]

Don't use a bank account then. Take your paycheck, cash it, buy a cash card and use that as you would use a debit card.

Or you could just pay cash for everything and put your money in a safe at home, or in a cigar box under your bed.

If customers don't need bank services, they don't need a bank. If you need a bank, guess what - services cost money. If you don't like the service you're getting at your bank, change banks. If you can't find a bank you like, then maybe you need to get together with some other people who feel the same way, and open a bank. That's how banks get started after all.

Banking is not a non profit industry. It's not run by the government, and it's not an automatic right for anyone.

But I want it all for free!

 

[Penumbra]

Everyone with a bank account at a corporate bank begs to differ. These companies suck their customers dry with fees, and offer negligible service. Why don't they go out of business? Because they all do the same thing, it's wildly lucrative, and it's absolutely legal.

-Nato

That's why I stopped using a corporate bank for my personal banking.

I use a credit union instead; a non-profit organization. They don't charge many fees, and the few that they do charge, are very reasonable. The rates they charge on their products are slightly more competitive than for-profit banks, and their customer service is excellent. I've moved a significant distance from their branches, but still use them because they are so good, I have no reason to change. For an operation like this, cost of capital is pretty low compared to corporate banks, because they're not paying dividends to shareholders or trying to aggressively expand, so all would-be profits are instead redirected back to providing superb customer service, more competitive rates, and a lack of fees.

 

[Kathryn]

To each his own. Banks don't fit everyone's needs, and credit unions don't fit everyone's needs either. I say, research all your options and make the choice based on your own individual set of circumstances.

 

[Mathematician]

No idealized system I know of exists unmodified.
So we settle for a hybrid, which we describe by the system it's closest to.
The question then becomes...how far do we compromise & in which direction?
Example:
Which is better?
1) One cel phone company owned & run by Uncle Sam.
2) Having multiple private companies compete as they do now.
I'd pick #2. Here is a risk if the gov't controlled all.....
BART board to take up cellphone-ban policy - Wire - Lifestyle - bellinghamherald.com
I'd hate to give Bush, Obama, Palin or Perry the power to shut down protests by a cel phone black-out.

False dilemma.

Most of the problems we face result from property law being whacky or the collusion between government and business. Amend these problems and the welfare state (mostly) becomes redundant.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's why I stopped using a corporate bank for my personal banking.

I use a credit union instead; a non-profit organization. They don't charge many fees, and the few that they do charge, are very reasonable. The rates they charge on their products are slightly more competitive than for-profit banks, and their customer service is excellent. I've moved a significant distance from their branches, but still use them because they are so good, I have no reason to change. For an operation like this, cost of capital is pretty low compared to corporate banks, because they're not paying dividends to shareholders or trying to aggressively expand, so all would-be profits are instead redirected back to providing superb customer service, more competitive rates, and a lack of fees.

You unrepentant capitalist! Influencing the market by voting with your feet, eh? That's downright subversive..revolting even!
It's people like you who enable the system to work at its best. Shame.....for shame!

I like cash. It's not only outside of the banking system, but government can't monitor it very well.
We call them "freedom dollars". Benjamins ($100) are "hundies"....you could call me a "hundamentalist".

 

[Revoltingest]

False dilemma.

False understanding.

 

[Penumbra]

You unrepentant capitalist! Influencing the market by voting with your feet, eh? That's downright subversive..revolting even!
It's people like you who enable the system to work at its best. Shame.....for shame!

I'm in favor, for the most part, of free markets. I try to support smaller businesses over larger ones, and try to support domestic businesses over international ones. Plus, I try to boycott companies that do things I don't agree with.

I like cash. It's not only outside of the banking system, but government can't monitor it very well.
We call them "freedom dollars". Benjamins ($100) are "hundies"....you could call me a "hundamentalist".

You store a lot of money in cash?

The problem with cash is that you get a negative rate of return on it equal to the rate of inflation, which I'm sure you know. You're willing to pay that cost to ensure the government can't track your net worth? I only keep some emergency cash around, and try to put the rest of my money to work. A minimum amount in a checking account to pay bills, a savings account to provide some additional liquidity for unforeseen events, and then bonds, stocks, partnerships, retirement accounts, etc.

I would only use a for-profit bank if I needed a financial product that my credit union doesn't provide. My broker is for-profit, and if I wanted a business loan or a mortgage for an investment property, I'd probably have to find a for-profit bank. But the credit union meets all of my personal banking needs exceptionally well.