5 votes

Can Ron Paul Really Be Right About Everything?

I was in Jacksonville last Friday for an event called “Ron Paul on the River.” The Republican presidential candidate was supposed to speak there, but had to cancel at the last minute due to a Libya vote in the House scheduled on short notice. While it was disappointing that the congressman would not appear, the keynote speaker that appeared in his place was well worth the trip.

Doug Wead is a self-confessed former member of the Establishment. In addition to being a best-selling author and world-renowned speaker, Wead has worked as a special advisor to President George H.W. Bush and on the campaign of George W. Bush. According to Wikipedia, Time magazine called Wead “an insider in the Bush family orbit.”

A good portion of Wead’s speech in Jacksonville focused on issues on which he had formerly disagreed with Paul. At one point, he made the startling statement, “but now I agree with him on everything.” He encouraged Paul supporters to persevere through the difficulties of supporting an anti-Establishment candidate and to remember that “logic and the truth are on your side.”

It is not fashionable to admit that you agree with someone “on everything.” To say that you do is to invite the accusation of belonging to a personality cult whose members blindly follow their leader no matter what position he takes. Indeed, this criticism is leveled at Paul’s grassroots supporters, who are called “Paulites” by detractors, implying that they have a pseudo-religious devotion to Paul rather than informed positions on the issues.

In modern American political thought, where only the results of political action are considered rather than the rights of the parties involved, it is not considered reasonable to agree with anyone 100% of the time. For someone like Wead, whose living depends upon his credibility as an expert on those things he writes and speaks about, there is a certain amount of risk in making this statement. Yet he did it in Jacksonville without hesitation, emphasizing the words “on everything” to ensure that no one missed the point.

This immediately struck me, because it was the second time in as many weeks that I had heard a statement like this from someone who had something to lose by saying it. Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor, John Stossel answered O’Reilly’s assertion that Ron Paul hadn’t won the New Hampshire debate by saying, “But he’s right about everything and you’re wrong.” O’Reilly retorted, “Everything?” Stossel repeated, “Everything.” When O’Reilly pressed yet again with the same question, Stossel finally backed up to “Just about everything.”

Stossel is a television journalist, so credibility is arguably even more important to his living than it is to Wead’s. That is not all the two have in common. Stossel also admits that he regrets much of the first 20 years of his career when he attacked the free enterprise system and championed increased government regulation over business. Like Wead, Stossel was a member of the Establishment, albeit from the other side of its aisle. Now, despite the risk to his credibility, he says that Ron Paul is right about everything.

So is this some sort of quasi-religious devotion? Are Paul’s followers simply caught up in a mass hysteria over someone who is likeable and has demonstrated his integrity for so long that they abandon their reason to avoid critical examination of his positions? Isn’t it impossible for an intelligent person to agree with someone on everything?

The answer to all three of these questions is “no.” In fact, contrary to what conventional wisdom tells us, it is actually illogical to agree with Paul on some things and not others.[1] As I’ve said before, Paul is simply applying the central libertarian axiom to each issue. As long as he applies the axiom properly and does not make an error of logic, he is going to come out with a position that is consistent with libertarianism 100% of the time.

For those in the grip of this “conventional wisdom” that has led us to the brink of societal collapse, Paul’s answers are anything but consistent. On economic policy, he seems like a hardcore conservative, surpassing all other Republicans in his zeal to eliminate regulation and taxes. On foreign policy and social issues, he seems to be some sort of lefty hippie, arguing to legalize all drugs, allow homosexuals to marry if they wish to (he wants government out of marriage even at the state level), and to immediately order home every soldier stationed on a foreign base.

Those just learning about libertarianism might conclude that it is some sort of “compromise” between conservatism and progressivism/liberalism. This is untrue. Libertarianism evaluates political issues from a completely different perspective than either mainstream political philosophy. Sometimes, conservatives happen to agree with libertarians, but for different reasons. Sometimes, the same is true for progressives/liberals. Libertarians care not for who agrees/disagrees. They follow one simple principle and let the chips fall where they may.

Walter Block sums this up best in terms of understanding how libertarians like Paul formulate their positions.

“This is because libertarianism is solely a political philosophy. It asks one and only one question: Under what conditions is the use of violence justified? And it gives one and only one answer: violence can be used only in response, or reaction to, a prior violation of private property rights.”

In order to understand Ron Paul’s platform, there are two conclusions one must reach. The first is that libertarians are correct that violence is only justified in response or reaction to a prior violation of private property rights. Block does not limit the definition of “private property” to land ownership or even physical property in general. Instead, property includes all of one’s life, liberty, and justly acquired possessions. So, any murder, assault, theft, fraud, or coercion would be violation of a private property right. Based upon that understanding, ask anyone if they agree that violence should never be initiated, but instead only used in defense, and you will almost always get agreement. So far, so good.

The second thing that one must conclude in order to understand Ron Paul is that all government action is violent action. This is where it gets difficult for conservatives and liberals alike. While it is easy to see the government’s use of its military as an act of violence, it is harder for people to see that other government activities represent violence. How could providing healthcare, ensuring workplace safety, or licensing barbers be violent acts?

This is the great truth that hides in plain site under every human being’s nose. In order to recognize it, one must disengage the deep, emotional attachments that almost everyone has developed to some or all government activity. Once you get someone to that point and they are truly ready to reason, they will come to the libertarian conclusion every time. To the genuinely interested and rational person, only one question is necessary:

“What if you do not cooperate?”

I cannot count how many times I have asked this question and received in response a stare - not a blank stare, but a thoughtful one. You can see the wheels turning. Sometimes they will begin to speak, then stop themselves while they think some more. They are looking for a hole in the theory. They are unable to find one. They are genuinely interested in either proving or disproving your argument. By that time, you have won.

For those who do not immediately “see the light,” you can pick any government action and walk them through that reasoning process:

You: Suppose that I do not wish to participate in Medicare and withhold only that percentage of my payroll taxes that would otherwise go to fund it. In return, I agree not to make use of any of the Medicare benefits. What will happen to me?

Him/Her: You will be charged with income tax evasion.

You: What if I don’t answer the charge?

Him/Her: You will be arrested.

You: What if I do not agree to submit to the arrest?

Him/Her: You will be physically forced to submit.

You: And if I resist further?

Him/Her: (reluctantly) You will be killed.

You: So, you now agree that we are forced to participate in Medicare under the threat of violence, correct?

Him/Her: (Even more reluctantly) Yes.

You: Is there any government tax, law, or regulation that we are not similarly forced to participate in under the threat of violence? Are not all of these answers the same in relation to even the least significant government regulation, like a parking ticket?

Recall the final scenes in the 1999 movie, The Matrix. After Neo’s “resurrection,” he stands up to once again face the agents that had apparently killed him a moment before. However, when we see the matrix through Neo’s eyes, as he sees it now, the whole world is made up of lines of green code. Neo had been told early in the movie that the matrix is a computer-generated illusion. He heard it, but did not know it. He is now seeing that world as it really is for the first time. His mind has reasoned through and understood all of the implications of what Morpheus has told him. Once he truly understands, he is invincible.

This is a wonderful metaphor for the libertarian “conversion.” Once one has had the epiphany that all government action is violent action, there are only three choices. 1) You come to the same conclusions that Ron Paul does on every issue, 2) You disagree with Walter Block and conclude that it is morally justifiable to initiate violence against other people, or 3) You abandon logic and stop acknowledging reality. This is why Paul told the Today Show’s Matt Lauer that “economic liberty and personal liberty are one and the same and foreign policy that defends America and not police the world [sic] – that’s part of the package as well.”

Doug Wead, John Stossel, and millions of Paul’s supporters have had this revelation. This is why they agree with Paul without exception. They refuse to accept the other two choices available to them: to support the initiation of violence or to abandon logic and refuse to acknowledge reality. This is not fanaticism. It is the inevitable conclusion that one must come to if one employs logic and faces reality. That is why Doug Wead said, “logic and the truth are on your side.”

During his 2008 presidential campaign, Ron Paul lost the Washington state primaries by a considerable margin. However, he won big in Spokane. Why? Because that was the one part of Washington in which Paul’s campaign was able to schedule an appearance. During that campaign, Howard Stern remarked about his exposure to Paul’s message just as Wead, Stossel and millions of Paul supporters have: “I think I agreed with everything that dude just said.” Stern went on to say that he had never heard of Paul before and that it was a shame that the Republican Party was not taking him seriously.

Once a reasonable person hears the libertarian message, it is inevitable that they will not only agree, but agree completely and without exception. This is the antithesis of fanaticism. It is reason. It is recognizing the real world for what it truly is and applying logic to those observations. It is the consistent application to separate political issues of one undeniable principle, which can only lead to libertarian conclusions. It is actually illogical and fanatical to come to any others.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, the Establishment media had a strategy to combat this very troublesome dynamic: Don’t let the message be heard. That is no longer a viable strategy. Paul’s grassroots supporters have forced his platform into the mainstream. The media is simply unable to ignore Paul’s campaign this time around. The libertarian message will be heard. Whether or not Paul wins the presidency is secondary. Every day, more Americans are hearing the truth for the first time and its power is irresistible. The revolution is underway. Whether it takes a year, a decade, or longer, liberty is going to prevail.

Check out Tom Mullen’s book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!

© Thomas Mullen 2011

[1] This assumes that Paul continues to apply libertarian reasoning consistently. It is certainly possible to disagree with him if he misapplies the theory. There are also fine points of theory that libertarians would take Paul to task for, but not on his general positions on the domestic and foreign policy of the federal government.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I understand the logic of

I understand the logic of this article completely.

I just might... agree with everything.

I appreciate the rational.

for those that just cant come to this, give some slack..

Does Ron Paul

need to be right about everything?

There is no classical Libertarian view.

Libertarian includes views from extreme left to extreme right. A candidate who claims Libertarian MUST define himself. I think RON PAUL has done that. But maybe could even do better. Libertarian is a large umbrella, and very confusing to the novice. Carl Marx was a Libertarian so a Libertarian MUST define themself. some ideals may be left and some ideals maybe right. This is what needs defined.
It is a scary lable to me also, and I understand.
Carl Marx after all promoted communism.
Please remember this about "any" platform, REASON does not always win the day.
GOD is soverign and rules the Worlds. We as humans, do not always see the reason and our reason does not always match with GOD's. Romans 9:22-33.

multiple definitions of libertarian

There are several meanings of "libertarian", especially if you consider usage in other countries and other languages.

But given the predominant usage of the term in American English today, no way is Marx a libertarian!

The definition most commonly used today here is that a libertarian is a proponent and practitioner of the philosophy that one should never initiate the use or threat of force against another, nor should he favor government policies and program that initiate the use or threat of force.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Simply put

no one can. But you can try.
You are in very good company when you follow the Constitution. Why would they have written it if they did not want it followed?
Perverted minds do perverted things. What has been going on?

How can you actually expect

How can you actually expect someone to be right on every single topic that is brought up? Of course everyone is different. In my mind, the ONLY subject he HAS to be right on is Liberty. With Liberty, we may all choose to do what we please, as long as it doesn't interfere with the Liberty of other individuals.

BTW, personally, I haven't

BTW, personally, I haven't found an issue that I disagree with Dr. Paul on.

The monetary system and

The monetary system and foreign policy are the two most important issues. END the FED and END the WARS. Let other issues be debated at a later time. Keep your eyes on the ball and stay on message.

While I know he's not right on everything

I do know in my heart the rest are wrong on everything.

I mean

I disagree with Ron Paul on a lot of things but overall I agree with him, I don't really think we should totally end the war on drugs, just weed and I don't smoke btw, just everyone does. I am not all for gay marriage either. I am against abortion...yatta yatta yatta....but anyway I don't agree with him on everything but he is the brightest candidate out there! I've taken a lot of classes in businesses and economics, math, etc. and hes making a ton of sense about economics!

Do you have the right?

If you wanted to kill yourself do you think you have the right to? Better yet, if someone else wanted to kill themselves for whatever reason do you believe you have the moral right to use force to stop them? This question has to be thought deeply into, because force used upon someone is immoral, unless justified. The government exist as the moral justification to use force. But again, the question, is your body your body? Do you ultimately own your body or can someone take it, and the choices of it, from you with force? This is how I come to the conclusion that the war on drugs should end. No one should be able to force you to do or not to do with your body but YOU! If you do not own your own body, and reserve the right to make good or bad choices affecting only you, then you exist on this planet owning nothing. Not even yourself.

rp311

Ron Paul, the Medical Doctor, does not believe in evolutionary

science.... hence Doctor Paul is not perfect.

(wink)

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Evolutionary science is not a fact it is a theory

Fact is a standard of proof, from which you can set your compass. The FACT is we do not know for certain, but others believe GOD. Who does evolution believe?

The Pope is infallible.

That would be Pope Paul I thru Pope Paul VI, inclusive.
as well as Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II.
Finally, as you mentioned, Pope Ron Paul.
Perhaps even his successor Pope Rand Paul will be infallible as well.

Infallible is a human term

it is not an infallible word. GOD never said that ST. Peter was infallible, on whom the Pope is built. God THE ROCK said to Peter, FEED MY SHEEP. 1Peter 5:2
Acts 20:28

You could argue that he's right because he follows...

...libertarian philosophy, but he doesn't follow it to the letter. Dr. Paul strays from classical libertarian philosophy in a couple of areas that I can think of... abortion and borders.

Many libertarians think that having the ability to abort a fetus is part of freedom. Dr. Paul thinks that the right to life is the most important right, and that life begins at conception. I have to agree with him on this point. I honestly don't see how anyone could NOT see that life begins at conception. When else does it begin? You can't have life without conception.

The medical definition of conception according to Websters is:

a : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both
b : beginning

Both definitions point to conception being the point at which life begins.

Many libertarians feel that having borders is just another means of government control. I can understand this from a purely ideological point of view, but thinking more practically... no border means no nation. No nation means no sovereignty. No sovereignty makes you more susceptible to tyrants taking over. We're losing our sovereignty more and more every day, and I personally think it's worth fighting for.

So, yeah. Ron Paul IS right about everything.

There is NO Classical LIBERTARIAN view.

Libertarian ranges from extreme left to extreme right.
A Libertarian therefore MUST define himself.

Abortion, liberty and force

What "mainline" Pro-Lifers cannot face is that outlawing abortion is just like outlawing any other category of murder. If the aborting mother is detected and apprehended, she is indicted, prosecuted, convicted and punished just as if she had murdered a born child or other person.
Justice Harry Blackmun pointed this out in Roe v. Wade at note 49 in the text and in note 54.
All punishment of crime is forcible. Even if a tribe punishes offenders only by exile, shunning or banning, the offender, if (s)he persists in violating the ban, is driven away. That means that force is offered and, if necessary, applied to the offender.
Prison is internal exile. The prisoner is separated from the surrounding society to whatever degree is decreed.

“What if you do not cooperate?”

"I cannot count how many times I have asked this question and received in response a stare - not a blank stare, but a thoughtful one. You can see the wheels turning. Sometimes they will begin to speak, then stop themselves while they think some more. They are looking for a hole in the theory. They are unable to find one. They are genuinely interested in either proving or disproving your argument. By that time, you have won.

"For those who do not immediately “see the light,” you can pick any government action and walk them through that reasoning process:

"You: Suppose that I do not wish to ______________________. What will happen to me?

Him/Her: You will be charged with __________________.

You: What if I don’t answer the charge?

Him/Her: You will be arrested.

You: What if I do not agree to submit to the arrest?

Him/Her: You will be physically forced to submit.

You: And if I resist further?

Him/Her: (reluctantly) You will be killed.

You: So, you now agree that we are forced to ______________ under the threat of violence, correct?

Him/Her: (Even more reluctantly) Yes.

You: Is there any government law, code, rule or regulation that we are not similarly forced to participate in under the threat of violence? Are not all of these answers the same in relation to even the least significant government regulation, like a parking ticket?" (slight change)

If violence is not credibly threatened, it is not law but a mere suggestion ("directory").
If no violence is threatened, but enjoyment of some privilege or benefit is forbidden to noncompliers, violence will be threatened if the noncomplier tries to exercise the privilege or obtain the benefit anyway. So, we're back to violence.

Do you have a deed to a piece of land? Then you threaten anyone who tries to use the land without your permission with violence: You call the Sheriff. The person refuses to get off the land. The Sheriff takes the person into custody. If the person resists the Sheriff, the Sheriff applies force. First, the Sheriff attempts to seize the offender. If that doesn't work, he Pepper-sprays, Maces billy-clubs or Tases the offender (or all of the preceding). If that doesn't work, the Sheriff applies a liberal dose of lead poisoning to the offender.

A lease or rental agreement is the same except that it leaves the landowner in an agreed degree of control over the land.

Any ownership of anything is based on the same principle. Copyright. Patent. Contract.

Any court judgment.

"Contract?" Yes, if one contractor is accused of violating the contract by the other party, that party petitions the court to have the Sheriff either force the accused violator to perform, or to pay damages. If (s)he won't do either, out come the manacles, truncheon, Pepper-spray, Mace, Taser, or shotgun.

Why do you think (apostle) Paul wrote, "Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." -- II Corinthians 6:14-18 ASV
NOTE: "unequally yoked together" is translated from a single Greek word, heterozugeo. "Unequally" does not imply that it is possible for a believer to be equally yoked to an unbeliever; all such associations are unequal by their vary nature.

Avoid binding relationships with people and institutions that are not of one spirit with you. Some cannot be avoided, but do the best you can.

Tom Mullen's picture

immigration is the big one for most libertarians

he's unlibertarian on immigration policy. I tried to point out in the footnotes that there are flaws. But on the hundred-billion dollar biggies he's right about everything.

YOUR QUESTIONS CLEARLY SUGGESTS HE IS NOT

But I maintain HE IS.

“ The second thing that one


The second thing that one must conclude in order to understand Ron Paul is that all government action is violent action. This is where it gets difficult for conservatives and liberals alike. While it is easy to see the government’s use of its military as an act of violence, it is harder for people to see that other government activities represent violence. How could providing healthcare, ensuring workplace safety, or licensing barbers be violent acts?
This is the great truth that hides in plain site under every human being’s nose. In order to recognize it, one must disengage the deep, emotional attachments that almost everyone has developed to some or all government activity”

Work place safety is not a case of deep emotional attachment. It's a case of me protecting my property namely me and anybody within a mile of the location. If I am in some empty 50,000 gallon fuel tank working I am not going to let some DA come in smoking a cigarette in the name of his liberties. That a little to puritan to me the problem with most of this stuff, is in someones extreme definition. I am a Ron Paul supporter and agree with most of his stuff to date.

Clinton/Bush/Obama: Centrist losers with their hand held out looking for a Government Bail Out Program to keep their Dividend checks propped up with Artificial Stimulus "False Profit. Welfare for stock market Gamblers.

Hopefully, if you work for a good company, it's private owner(s)

would value you and his/their other employees and neighbors enough to where those conditions in his/their company would never exist, thus preventing the DA from strolling on into the tank in the first place! If he didn't self-regulate his company, and you chose to work there anyway, then you are just as much at fault as the owner and, come to think of it, the DA with the Camel stogie as well! Who would want to work for a company that would not have rules to prevent a DA from doing such a thing anyway...especially if you had knowledge beforehand that the business was potentially unsafe to work at? Couldn't this literally be considered to be a DA decision as well. I personally have chosen not to work for many companies in my past due to risks and dangers that might potentially come along with them. That's a personal decision on my part, yet I have found someway to make a living in a safe environment.

Besides, even with all of the volumes of government regulations that already exist, STILL...from time to time, some DA walks into a 50,000 gallon tank with a lit cigarette! I'm glad to see that in those cases, the regulation was at least there to, in theory, save everyone! At least this ruse may help you to feel safer at night when you sleep...there some comfort in that I suppose...sweet dreams...give me a break...geez!

"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"

LearnRonPaul

No break this time.

As a Ron Paul Supporter I make this point I don't agree that the employee should be held Solely responsible for work place safety. Some types of work are specialized and the proper safety equipment is costly its not right to expect some $10 a hour newbie worker who does not no any better or is desperate for work to spring for a few grand in safety equipment or take a chance.

Its not right for my Company to compete with some half ass hack that is willing to cut all the corners just to make a buck(china or American), Why because of this globalist crap that has us in a bind right now. We did away with slavery along time ago at least slaves were given a place to live and food dam the Company store. This Country was set up for Individual Rights and the Pursuit of Happiness not a guarantee for Corporate or Business Profit. But I must admit I also believe in Sovereign Borders and Trade Tariffs over pure competition in pursuit of happiness in the American way of life.

I have seen 5 people killed on the job because of a lack of safety barriers only one person crossed the line but 5 lives were taken in the name of time and cutting cost. A week later a barrier was put up. But 5 people were dead.

I am still a Ron Paul supporter, but should the time come I would fight against Dr. Paul on this issue of work place safety. God Bless America

Sorry this is to important of a issue to give you a break...

Clinton/Bush/Obama: Centrist losers with their hand held out looking for a Government Bail Out Program to keep their Dividend checks propped up with Artificial Stimulus "False Profit. Welfare for stock market Gamblers.

Two questions...

One, were government safety regulations in place at the time to prevent these deaths?

And two, if so, then how did 5 people still end up dead? The "government" regulations did nothing to change the fact that they died.

No offense, but it seems to me that if 5 people died at different times, why didn't you workers do something about it after just one death? If safety is an issue there, then regardless of whether your "government" had a regulation in place to prevent them or not, is moot! They didn't prevent numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5 either. On top of that, your company is still doing business even after all of the deaths? That would mean that there is going to be dangers and risks associated with what you do, regardless of regulations apparently...is that correct?

The government regulations did absolutely nothing to prevent these deaths. They didn't make your company safer after the first death and they didn't maker it any safer after the second.

If you can give me a logical conclusion to how the existing regulations prevented, or will prevent in the future, anyone else from losing their lives, I'm open to the consideration.

Also, let me add that my heart goes out to your coworkers whose families members and friends lost their lives.

"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"

LearnRonPaul

living in the wild west

The employer was a State gov entity the 5 people were in a vehicle they went on to a ferry and something went wrong not sure what and the vehicle went off the other end into the water way and sank nobody got out. All 5 people drowned. May they rest in peace.

There were legal actions taken the whole process of loading was changed barriers were install and and check out with a old car and approved by the US Coast Gard. Nothing like that has happened scents that. State Government operation don't always have to operate under federal laws.

If we drop work place safety I think we will have more problems like that.
Living in the wild wild west (2013 ? mouther nature is a bitch)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoLHrq3z060&feature=related

Clinton/Bush/Obama: Centrist losers with their hand held out looking for a Government Bail Out Program to keep their Dividend checks propped up with Artificial Stimulus "False Profit. Welfare for stock market Gamblers.

But the legal action was the key...not the regulations!

Nobody would be an advocate of dropping work safety rules. It's how they are administered that is the issue and I contend that that does not come from the Federal Government but from the company owners and there employees.
And now, as you reveal even more facts about your incident, it is even clearer than before. Your are making my case for me now! First, you said that there were existing regulations in place and everything was checked out and approved by the Coast Guard? Then you indicate that these people died on a ferry accident, which apparently, was not their actual place of employment...they were simply passengers on the ferry? If that's the case, what would have happened if, instead of the accident taking place on a ferry, they were hit head-on by a semi-truck on their way to catch the ferry? Would you also consider that a work place safety issue? Maybe you would then argue that more regulations on the truck driver would have prevented the accident?
Get real...life has risk, period! All the regulations in the world don't prevent accidents...period! What next? Do you think that perhaps we all just seal ourselves in our homes and never venture out until there are enough regulations in place to save us? Are you that frightened by everything? Here's a newsflash...you are going to die from something someday! That is unless, in your logic of course, you can get a government death prevention regulation in place before it happens! LOL

Besides, the system worked in the long run anyway. The changes to the way the ferry company did things came from the lawsuit and bad press, not from the government - they may have come in after the fact with regulations, but that is irrelevant. They, the ferry boat company, were forced to make changes to their own company procedures due to the lawsuit, and not the government regulation, because they knew that people (individuals) might not choose to ride their "unsafe" ferries, in light of the bad publicity and lawsuit they received.

The fact that you would use this example here to defend work place safety regulations, when the actual accident never even took place at the deceased's actual workplace if ridiculous! Your argument has absolutely no relevance, and therefore, no relationship to the original post.

Sorry to be blunt, but this is getting silly now.

"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"

LearnRonPaul

Job Safety

OK .The ferry was run by the State because it was run by the State and not a private co. they could bypass standing Federal laws that were in place at that time and, policed by the US Coast Gard which could have saved lives. The state was free to run it as they Pleased Unfortunately...

The person who was driving was a employee of the State. also the ferry(state owned) services a State owned island a Wildlife Sanctuary which is not open to the public. So laws were in place to stop this type of thing from happening,but because the State was free to do things without adhering to Federal safety laws.

It's a fine example of a free run operation doing things the way they wanted to and the bad repercussions that can come from it. I bet you are a pencil push or a clerk of some sort. I could give more examples but whats the use.? You Sr. are the silly one.

Clinton/Bush/Obama: Centrist losers with their hand held out looking for a Government Bail Out Program to keep their Dividend checks propped up with Artificial Stimulus "False Profit. Welfare for stock market Gamblers.

LOL - I am a Business owner...

furthermore, the regulations didn't work even though they existed, so what was the point of the regulations if they were ignored...they were worthless, end of story...you just proved my case! Wow - your argument gets more diluted as you continue. You talk in circles...scroll up and read your original argument...you have completely disproved your own theory, by yourself! Common sense always wins out in the end! By the way, you should come work for me, we have a spotless safety record! I don't want to lose anyone or get sued for negligence. I want to keep my employees safe and stay in business, regardless of whether the government says I should or not! Best of luck with your big government...it's working very well so far.

"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"

LearnRonPaul

Love ya Dr. Paul, But

Our mind ain't that weak (2011). Love ya Dr. Paul, But we've come to far to go back to the Co.Store

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUpTJg2EBpw&feature=related.

Clinton/Bush/Obama: Centrist losers with their hand held out looking for a Government Bail Out Program to keep their Dividend checks propped up with Artificial Stimulus "False Profit. Welfare for stock market Gamblers.

Tom Mullen's picture

no one has a right

to force another person to make his workplace safe. You have every right to refuse to work for the employer (refuse to sell your service to him), try to negotiate for safer conditions, demand a higher wage for less safe conditions (which he is free to refuse to pay), or utilize any other non-violent means to try to resolve your differences. However, you do not have the right to force him to purchase your services under certain conditions.

then what do we do?

go back to the days of sweat shops and robber barons and child labor. With so many jobs left the country, what is the alternative?

Just asking???

Do we go back to times like these? That unions fought hard to stop and won decent pay and working hours? They used to do this here now they are doing it there and trying to bring it here by stopping unions. take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Bhodyt4fmU&feature=player_em...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0IBM7_BvTw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx8VPjRKOkY&feature=related

Do you think without any recourse you can trust the corporations to treat you well. If they are doing it there what makes you think they won't do it here after they get rid of union bargaining power.

These are just questions I am wondering about!

Most of the types of jobs where you have issues like this...

...have trade unions. The unions negotiate for the workplace safety regs. This would still occur in a truly free market, as there is nothing to stop workers from unionizing and negotiating... it just might not be as centralized as having federal regs like OSHA (which hampers and stifles many industries).

Point being, you don't have to have a federal or even state government mandating to businesses to ensure workers are safe. When will people realize that people can get things done without the government?

You need to watch this video with Thomas Woods talking to a group of high school kids about capitalism. It will open some eyes.

http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods173.html

Tom Mullen's picture

no one has to trust anyone

Workers have every right to try to bargain collectively if they want to. The injustice occurs when the government forces the employer to negotiate with them. Employment is a buyer/seller agreement. The employer purchases services from the employee. No one has the right to dictate conditions to the buyer (the employer) under which he may purchase those services.

The seller (the employee) certainly can refuse to sell for whatever reason he wants. Maybe he doesn't think its safe. Maybe the pay offered is too low. So he doesn't sell. That doesn't give him the right to prevent someone else from voluntarily selling under those same conditions or to stop the buyer from buying under those conditions.

If I want to sell my services to an employer under conditions that you don't think are safe, where do you get the right to tell me I can't do so? Where do you get the right to tell the employer he can't buy from me?

The market solves these problems with prices. Workers will either ask for higher prices in less safe environments or simply choose to work somewhere safer. That's why workplace safety was already improving by large orders of magnitude before government got involved. The increase in safety has actually started to level off since OSHA was created.

Employers need employees, just like you need the food you buy at the grocery store. If you want prices to be too low, you're not going to find anyone to sell to you. If they charge too much, no one buys from them. Voluntary trade is the source of all human progress. GOvernment interference in the voluntary nature of this wonderful institution is the source of all human misery.

Thanks for the summary

Can't argue with logic. The hard part is helping others overcome their emotional attachments to their ideologies. Like you said, people have a hard time seeing that force used for good is still wrongful use of force.

Thanks again.

Google+ Account: www.jmariano.com

Capitalism has never been tried.

That is a statement that Ron Paul has made that one could argue with.

There are a lot of people on the left who think Capitalism is what is wrong with the world--and while they like what Ron Paul has to say, but they just can't bring themselves to support him. It's as if there is this ideological barrier to common sense that holds them back. I think the best way to overcome this is to point out who the real enemy is: the fractional reserve banking system. This is the "Capitalism" that those on left hate and yet fail to see. But thanks to Dr. Paul, they are starting to wake up.

We must choose between a debt based money system (Western banking) a value based money system (like Gold, silver, etc). In my view, this is most important issue we can be discussing. All our conversations should turn back to this so we can light brush fires for liberty in the minds of others. The first recorded word for ‘Freedom’ in any human language is the Sumerian "amargi" which means 'debt freedom' so we see the issue of being a debt slave is a very old problem. When we speak of liberty, we must also speak of the ills of a credit/debt based money system. How it is used to finance war, and keep people in poverty, etc. Our duty is to learn from Ron Paul so we can better explain this issue to our liberal friends--that duty will continue long after Dr Paul has left the world stage.

I also point our that "Pure" Capitalism has never existed anymore than "pure" Communism has, both are phantom ideal. The way I address this with liberal friends is to explain that the real enemy of freedom is the Western banking system which issues bills of credit (in clear contradiction to the Constitution). No one is better as explaining this than Ron Paul. If we don't have Constitution money, how can we claim to have Constitutional government? The fact is we do not--this is what needs to change if we want to see greater liberty in this world!

==============
unSpy.info

He's right on 90%

What I want to here him on is Art. 1, Sec 8 .. and talk about the global banking Ponzi in more specifics ... Art 1. Sec. 8 is the evil that sparked the machine.

No other candidate comes close.

"In America, the criminally insane rule and the rest of us, or the vast majority of the rest of us, either do not care, do not know, or are distracted and properly brainwashed into acquiescence." - Kurt Nimmo

The FED is the Mothership!

If he concentrates on the FED, the rest of the cards come tumbling down...and since he is a US Congressman, he can only force change from within the confines of how OUR country operates, not the WHOLE world. He is smart enough to understand the the FED is the heart and soul of the beast! I'm good with that until he becomes Potus!

"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"

LearnRonPaul