He says "no" a lot because the federal gov't has become way too bloated. There already is a free market solution to your scenario - it's called "insurance".
Except insurance against "acts of God" is extremely hard (and expensive) to get. The free market has spoken: when emergency strikes, f*ck the poor people.
I'm not sure about how much more expensive it is, but if I lived in a hurricane-prone area I would probably investigate it and consider it a cost of living there. Otherwise, if I can just get bailed out by the federal gov't when disaster strikes, those who choose to live in the safer areas of the country are essentially subsidizing the risks I assume by living there. Think of it as a negative externality (stretching my ECON101 limits a little here perhaps? :).
I think the conclusion I'd rather draw is "the free market doesn't owe you anything."
One of the Representatives of the State of Louisiana at the time of Katrina lived in an area that was not directly hit by the hurricane.
She had insurance that covered, flood, wind, and rain damage. The insurance company did not pay her a dime, even after she, and the rest of LA sued them.
There is no free market when insurance companies can buy judges to get their way out of doing what they were paid to do.
Insurance companies don't buy judges. This is really just nonsense.
The thing is, judges work for the government, this means, no matter how illegal a law is, they will always take the government side of it.
For example, the constitution doesn't give the government the power to regulate insurance at the federal level, but judges will rule based on the assumption it does because they are government employees and wouldn't be able to keep their jobs otherwise.
> but if I lived in a hurricane-prone area I would probably investigate it and consider it a cost of living there [..] those who choose to live in the safer areas of the country are essentially subsidizing the risks I assume by living there
The problem with this logic is that there are extremely few (if any) locations in the United States that aren't affected by severe natural events (blizzards, heat waves, wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, flooding, earthquakes, etc). I live in one of the more moderate locations in the USA (western MA) and in the past 11 months we've had an earthquake, tornado, hurricane, an ice storm that left much of the region without power for about a week,and 80 inches of snow in February alone.
We all subsidize each other - maybe you had more moderate weather this year while we got whacked, but the situation could reverse itself next year.
The free market doesn't owe you anything indeed, but society, which the government represents, is a very different thing.
Sorry, I'm European and hardcore US "free-marketism" is so incredibly alien from here... I mean, the free market wouldn't ever give me 24 days of paid vacation every year, so why should I want more of it?
"I should force people, at the threat of violence, to give me 24 days of paid vacation."
That's pretty much what you are saying. I agree with you: the free market doesn't provide everything but that is what charity is for. Government is not charity. What kind of charity is it when they will send you to jail or bankrupt you for not tithing on time or enough?
Most Europeans also find the fringe libertarian argument that government collecting and distributing rent is morally wrong because of the use of "coercion" a little odd. There's no more or less coercion when the government (or private individuals) enforce particular rules essential to the function of the market system US property-rights libertarians hold so sacrosanct: namely property and contract enforcement. Both have a high degree of social acceptance generally ensuring people will comply, but both are ultimately preserved by implied violence, be that legislative or physical. So when it comes down to it, all property rights libertarians tacitly acknowledge the use of implied violence to collect rent is acceptable and sometimes necessary. If any corporation has a right to force me to pay to live on land they acquired through some historical sleight of business, and then dispose of the collected rent how they see fit, why exactly is it morally objectionable for the government to do the same thing?
It's a more constructive debate when you start analysing on utilitarian terms whether there's any practical benefit to having 24 hour weeks, whether the market tends to underprovide them and whether regulation is the optimal solution.
The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate.
So if a billionaire for example has a relative who suffers from a rare type of cancer for example they will be likely to donate a disproportionately massive amount of money to research and care for that particular type of cancer, or perhaps they find one particular endangered species particularly cute and will donate the money to the preservation of that particular species. They might also be opposed to environmentalists or hate gay people so will donate no money at all to environmental causes or treatment of aids victims.
If their income is 1000x that of the average person they basically get 1000x the say in what is important (actually perhaps more since their cost of living will likely be lower as a % of income).
This money might be used far more efficiently when some kind of justification is required in terms of providing the widest amount of help throughout society or the world as a whole.
In addition allot of the "free market" type people that I know are quite opposed to the idea of charity anyway, although I think this may be somewhat different in the US.
If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that.
To take an extreme example. Let's say that as a society we decide that young children living homeless on the street is a bad thing and that some provision should be provided for this. However let's say you have a handful of people who are the owners of the owners & directors of huge monopoly companies, their personal income put together might be comparable to the rest of the population (basically the 1%/99% thing).
Now if these guys decide that they don't really care about homeless children because they all follow a religion which tells them that children are evil. Now the people who want to do something about the homeless children problem have a much more restricted amount of money with which to do that.
What this really implies is that if you have more money available to donate then you have a better understanding of what is important in society.
So yes, if the government comes in and forces the rich guys to hand over some of their money to solve the problem they are going to be pissed but if not then countless more people would be at least equally pissed that nothing can be done about a massive problem facing society.
The problems with charity as a model for providing what is provided currently by the government is that it is basically dictated by being able to make a plea to people with enough spare money to donate.
But the government just gets money from the people. Also, they get mandates from the people. So getting the government to tax you to pay for someone else's problem is exactly the same as paying for the problem yourself. Except now you've got a bunch of politicians involved. I don't see how that's supposed to make things better.
If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that. I can't think of a case where people would rather be taxed by the government instead of giving money to charities.
Political scientist here. The United States has tried relying on charities in the past. Here's (partially) why it didn't work out: people are selective to the charities they donate to and charities are often selective to the people they choose to help (some charities target war veterans, some children, some minorities, some certain neighborhoods). This leave a large, noticeable gap of many people left ignored. It's not a matter of whether people wanting to be taxed or wanting to give to charities; of course no one wants to be taxed. The government took the responsibility from the church and various charities because they weren't providing enough help across the board to citizens in need. I'm not saying don't donate to charity or volunteer, you should, but I am arguing that government, albeit in need of improvements, is one of the best mechanisms for helping the needy.
> If people in a society want to pay for poor people's problems, they can just do that. On the other hand, if people don't want to pay for that, then of course they would never vote for a law to make them do that.
In most countries people do not vote for individual laws. Instead we trust the politicians to write laws we like. This means the government being a single huge entity can have a more holistic plan where less obvious groups get left out in the cold.
I for one have no idea what groups really need help in our society and do not want to spend time to figure it out so am very happy that I have a government doing that job for me. Sure they do it quite poorly but I am positive I would do a worse job.
There is no threat of violence, workers' rights are a civil matter, penalties are financial.
So yeah, society should force wealthy people, at the threat of financial ruin, to give their workers a decent lifestyle, to compensate for the unfair advantage they enjoyed (in terms of education and family networks as well as purely financial) and to basically let them call the shots on everything else.
Obviously, as a social-democratic position, this moves from an implicit critical view of original capitalism, i.e. rich people exploiting the poor for financial gain, as observed through post-XVII-century history (more so in Europe than in the US, I guess, which might explain why it's not as widely accepted a concept over there). Times when Charity was widely praised and practice, but clearly was never enough.
Obviously, if all economic disparity was eliminated overnight, things would be different. I look forward to the 1% renouncing their fortunes in order to establish a free-market utopia where such laws wouldn't be necessary.
> There is no threat of violence, workers' rights are a civil matter, penalties are financial.
And if you don't pay the financial penalties? You go to jail... Ultimately, the government derives all its power from having a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
Actually, it slipped my first reading of this and probably yours too. The wording is so 'big government' that we don't even see it: If you don't pay the financial penalties your assets are seized and you go bankrupt.
Seizure of assets is violence. You can be sure I would not like my assets to be seized because I have to follow some dumb, overreaching law. But I don't have the guns.
Holiday entitlements, probably not. However, in each country where there are things like corporations, directors can go to jail for stuff like nonpayment.
What right do people have - even poor people - to demand that everyone else in society pay for damage to their homes? At least with insurance, the amount paid in is related to the probability * amount paid out. But if something is covered by the government, I'd pay a fixed amount in my taxes regardless of the risks I personally would be taking. So in that case, what would my incentive be to minimize risk? Anything bad that happens will be taken care of by other people.
If you are valuable enough your employer probably doesn't want you to take any vacation. Your only real bargaining chit is being able to get a job elsewhere which means that if your skills are specialised enough and your employer is the only game in town where you would be that valuable then you actually have little to no bargaining power.
Also when you have a large number of staff who all doing essentially the same job they will usually get roughly the same vacation time or that would be regarded as unfair.
Just because somebody works as say a programmer but doesn't happen to be numero uno rockstar-ninja coder doesn't mean they don't deserve some time off every year.
If that sort of insurance is hard to get in a given area, or prohibitively expensive for say, Kansans to get tornado insurance, then that is an issue that the Kansas state government should take up with the insurance company.
The point isn't that people who are poor get fucked, but that the federal government shouldn't be the ones bailing them out, especially because under Paul's regime, the federal government would be much much smaller, and wouldn't be able to afford to.
Instead of paying federal taxes to the federal government, for which states could then petition to get some of it back, states would levy the taxes they saw necessary to operate and maintain their own infrastructure without help from the federal government.
This means that moneys spent on infrastructure would be spent more efficiently, as the overhead on managing the money would be significantly lessened.
Right, perhaps the federal gov't is too bloated (I wouldn't really know , I'm british).
My question more would be does he have a fundamentally different view on what the federal government is for?
In which case I would expect him to say "we will do less of all of this stuff, but I think instead we should do more of this".
Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military to defend the USA if directly attacked.
In a way, yes. The role of the US Federal government described in the constitution was to make sure agreements were upheld between the states, and deal with international issues outside of the states concern. The rest is up to the people to decide for themselves, whether by individual liberty or local government bodies.
Specifically, that the people support the government, not the other way around. Ron Paul's favorite president, Grover Cleveland, says it well:
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution (federal aid for a natural disaster), and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military
As I read his position, his philosophy is that of a pretty strict Constitutionalist. That is, the federal powers are limited to what's listed explicitly in the Constitution. Most of those powers can be found enumerated in Article I Section 8 [1]
- - - - Quote
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Interesting. So essentially he is talking of not so much reducing the federal government but basically dismantling it in it's current form and reforming it into something that is basically responsible for the military (although interestingly that list provides no provisions for an airforce presumably because planes hadn't been invented when it was written, so I guess it would have to be ammended) and currency control.
Interestingly also it does provide for copyright control which could be viewed as being consistent with SOPA?
I wonder if his supporters realise what a fundamental restructure this would be and whether such a change would even be practical.
Has he outlines a plan for doing this? I assume he couldn't just turn up on day 1 and basically tell all federal employees to go home.
I can't imagine that you'd really need more than a few thousand federal employees (not counting military) to provide these services.
> Has he outlines a plan for doing this? I assume he couldn't just turn up on day 1 and basically tell all federal employees to go home.
You might be interested in reading Paul's proposed budget for his potential term in office. He realizes that instantly switching to a constitutional federal government would be terrible, so he takes a more gradual approach.
Um, anyone who wants something insured? Life insurance, homeowners insurance, automobile insurance, agricultural insurance, etc. I think most policies refer to things like hurricanes as "acts of God".
Actually, I usually hear him promote local (and often church-based) fundraisers and volunteer efforts to assist in these situations. Admittedly, that may not be enough for a Katrina-size disaster -- that might genuinely warrant federal intervention via the Reserves/Nat'l Guard.
