10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul

These are all things he supports, few to none of them are things he has any control over as the President. There's a difference.

The fact that he would have a lot of trouble delivering, doesnt make them any less disasterous if he could. Whether or not he has the power to deliver on these policies doesnt make the positions any more defensible or make him appear any more rational. At best by this account his promises are irrelevant and demoguery.

"Just because Mike Huckabee believes solely in Creationism does not mean that Evolution would disappear under his administration."

Nope, just another reason to believe that he would lead the country down the wrong path and away from scientific reality.

Nope, just another reason to believe that he would lead the country down the wrong path and away from scientific reality.

The president should have no say in the study of science or education in general. The head of the executive enforces the law and heads the military. That's it.

A huge problem today, as I see it, is too much power in the hands of the president and federal government in general. What's ignored in this "10 reasons" list is that most of the powers Paul wants taken away from the federal government should be handled at the state level. That's his primary argument on many of these topics. Evolution shouldn't be a topic of conversation for a presidential candidate because education should be handled at only the state level and lower.

I don't agree with even half of Paul's beliefs, but his argument that they should be decided at the state level trumps them all. When funding for education and science, for example, are handled locally we can stop these ridiculous national debates that get us nowhere. There are many things for which the whole nation does not need to agree.

bush prevents funding for stem cell research do to his beliefs.
Bush fought for ID in our schoools.
The bush administration has forecd the grand canyon park to offer books that say the canyon is only 6,000 years old.
Bush has had scienctific studies edited that disagree with his religious views.
We are spedning billions in abstinese only education that has been proven time and time again to not work.
Bush also started the faith based initiatives, which wouldnt be bad but many of these "faiths" use our money to spread their faith rather than for welfare which si why we gave it.

Then you also have to think about what laws would he actually sign if congress sent them to him and yeah some of them scare me.

So yeah normally before bush i'd agree that faith and some of these beliefs dont matetr, I man fter all the president does care or effect the reading material at our national parks.. and yet bush does and now things liek faith and beliefs ARE IMPORTANT> Plus bush has been the most legislating president in history.
And while pure libertarianism is evil and scarey, i dont think ron paul would be half as bad for the us as bush is.

bush prevents funding for stem cell research do to his beliefs.
Bush fought for ID in our schoools.
The bush administration has forecd the grand canyon park to offer books that say the canyon is only 6,000 years old.
Bush has had scienctific studies edited that disagree with his religious views.
We are spedning billions in abstinese only education that has been proven time and time again to not work.
Bush also started the faith based initiatives, which wouldnt be bad but many of these "faiths" use our money to spread their faith rather than for welfare which si why we gave it.

*being sarcastic*
didn't you know that the grand canyon is only 6,000 yo? and... and... and... and... That money was going for God I mean for good... :-)

"The bush administration has forecd the grand canyon park to offer books that say the canyon is only 6,000 years old."

That's actually a fallacy that was debunked... I'll try to find the link. But, the other ones are right on.

Just because Mike Huckabee believes solely in Creationism does not mean that Evolution would disappear under his administration.

It could though, in seven days.

"The bush administration has forecd the grand canyon park to offer books that say the canyon is only 6,000 years old."

That's actually a fallacy that was debunked... I'll try to find the link. But, the other ones are right on.

Although some of the claims have been overstated, it isnt exactly "debunked." After a park official sought to have the book removed from bookstores as unscientific, the effort was blocked by the Bush administration and the book continues to be sold at the grand canyon bookstore.

Of course it is a tiny example among many others that more convincingly show the Administrations politicalization of science.

But Libertarianism tied to social principles, and mechanism, and to progressive candidates like Kucinich, to make sure the two principles do not stray, would combine to form a fine pair of candidates. Kucinich must make sure that Ron Paul does not dismantle only part of the class state, but the whole of the class state, which can only mean socialism and libertarianism, combined in parallel form.

Eric
I think I agree with you but, even though it maybe impossible, you need to use words the rest of us can understand.

There are reasons while corrps dont latch onto libertarianism..
In a class society.. it is actually better for them to have what we have now.. which is protectionism and lucrative gov contracts for those that grease the right palms.
Why would anyone want to even the market when an uneven one is sooo much more profffitable.

How are you supposed to get libertarianism and socialism working together when they're pretty much antithetical? Socialism means extremely high taxes and government intervention to equalize society, but libertarianism is about as little governmental intervention as possible and very low or no taxes collected. You can't get rid of economic classes by shrinking government - that's just not how things work.

As a basic fact of human nature, people want to make money at the expense of other people, and the people who've got money are better equipped to make more of it. A society that is deregulated economically in the way that Ron Paul argues for would lead to more monopolies, more worker exploitation, and a wider gap between rich and poor.

If you want to "dismantle the class state" the last thing you'd do is vote for a libertarian.

Read my earlier articles, and my seeds, there is no contractition between libertarianism, anarchism, and socalism, if you have been following my generic theory of class corruption.

"A society that is deregulated economically in the way that Ron Paul argues for would lead to more monopolies, more worker exploitation, and a wider gap between rich and poor."

Not if labor unions are strong.

There are reasons while corps don't latch onto libertarianism..
In a class society.. it is actually better for them to have what we have now.. which is protectionism and lucrative gov contracts for those that grease the right palms.
Why would anyone want to even the market when an uneven one is sooo much more profitable.

JoulesBeef, this has to be one of the more insightful things I've seen you write. You just need to take this insight one step further.

Up thread you made the standard liberal arguments for regulated markets. Yet, it seems to me that the problem we have is not free markets -- it's rigged markets.

Eric Albert is right that there is no inherent contradiction between libertarianism and socialism. If you trace back to the 18th century, these movements have common origins. The separation of these two aspects of the anti-aristocracy movement has allowed a new aristocracy to form that has replaced the old. Social justice achieved by force will never last and a libertarian with no sense of social justice will end up fighting for the "liberty" of entrenched interests.

Since this is from "Who Would Jesus Vote For?" I think we have our answer now.

I agree the logic in the 10 reasons is pretty twisted. I think if the author actually read what Ron Paul thinks from his site, and looked at some of his interviews they would realize the reasoning behind his actions and not just look at it from face value.

He is not for big corporations at all and anyone who has done some basic research would be able to deduce that.

He is not for big corporations at all and anyone who has done some basic research would be able to deduce that.

Dont confuse intent with effect. The effect of many of his positions if implemented would favor large corporations whether that was the intent or not.

He is not for big corporations at all and anyone who has done some basic research would be able to deduce that.

None of the ten reasons say that he is. Which of the reasons exactly do you have a problem with and why?

agree the logic in the 10 reasons is pretty twisted.

They all appear to be logical results from his positions whether he thinks so or not.

I disagree with the above Paul supporters. I'm a supporter myself, but I don't think the logic here is 'twisted.' Rather, there is a difference (and perfectly acceptable) difference in ideology. Remember, we're dealing with a lot of 'what if' situations. Professional economists spend years studying and even they can't predict with complete certainty the effect policy will have on markets. Similar things can be said about foreign, social policy, etc.

I choose to vote for Ron Paul because I'm thinking that most of his contenders try even less to truly understand what's going on. They try to feed of the political climate to score points with the constituents without ever forming real opinions or having real ideas. I like Paul because he wants to try out something new, by returning to the old. Honestly, I don't think the result will be better than if someone else gets into office.

I am realistic about his chances tho... I'm still going to cast my @!$%# you vote to the establishment by the way of Ron Paul, however.

He is not for big corporations at all and anyone who has done some basic research would be able to deduce that.

None of the ten reasons say that he is. Which of the reasons exactly do you have a problem with and why?

And from the article:

He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations

I might have understood this wrong but I thought it was saying that only corporations can receive income tax credit.

They all appear to be logical results from his positions whether he thinks so or not.

I have a problem with most of them, they seem to be one sided, e.g. saying he is racist because he wants to get rid of affirmative action makes no sense at all. Affirmative action states that people should get jobs based on race. Is that logical to you? Also they mention the cause he would supposedly do to the environment but have they even looked at what he supports to help it? A lot more then most of the candidates. So you really think they are all logical?

I have a problem with most of them, they seem to be one sided, e.g. saying he is racist because he wants to get rid of affirmative action makes no sense at all.

Being one sided isnt quite the same as dishonest or not making sense. I do believe you have a legitimate gripe about some of the excessive spin starting with the first.

Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.

I tend to agree that this is not a fair characterization of his position. The examples do show that he does not value measures that are designed to remediate past descrimination against minorities. They do show that he is opposed to programs designed to assist minorities. Of course, the question is whether you believe that these programs are justified or do what they are intended to do. IF you believe they are justified, then his approach would result in harm to efforts to promote equal rights - of course this question is subject to debate. A fairer characterization would be: Ron Paul is opposed to many programs designed to remediate for past descrimination. While this advocacy spins a lot of arugments that basic impact appears to be essentially correct. Claims about his intent are highly subjective and certainly arguably false.

While Paul wouldn't be increasing taxes on the lowest class he -would- be drastically lowering taxes on the upper class. Less taxes would be being taken in and it's the lower classes that benefit most from the social programs that would have to be cut in Ron Paul's administration (food stamps, free education, health care benefits, minimum wage, worker's comp..... the list goes on and on). With these programs removed, even if the lower classes weren't paying any taxes on income, their quality of life would be significantly lower. Paul would effectively turn the poorest third of America into a third world country.

Thank goodness that internet forums aren't polling booths and that Presidents can't pass legislation. All a Ron Paul presidency would amount to is 4 years of constant vetoes on spending bills and an even worse government than we have today.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how is "get(ting) rid of the estate and gift taxes" unfair to lower earners? How does it benefit those with the highest incomes?

Because only those with the highest incomes are subject to the estate tax. If you eliminate the estate tax that by necessity means that the expense of government is shifted to all other taxes. Perhaps you are not taking into account that like most simplistic solutions there is no change in spending? It is pure fantasy to think that you can lower tax rates for the wealthy, keep spending the same and not raise taxes on anyone else. There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you lower taxes on the wealthy the proportion of revenue paid by everyone increases whther or not you decrease spending. Now I have also heard Ron Paul supporters claim we dont need an income tax, but that appears to be based on fantasy.

How would taxing all earners at 10% be unfair to lower earners who are already paying at 10-15%?

Its not possible to lower all taxes to 10% without a huge overhaul of government including a sharp reduction in services the tend to assist the poor. Elimination of progressive taxation has consequences.

Now if you come up with a realistic and evidence based way to lower everyones taxes to 10% without causing a huge amount of harm that disproportionately falls upon the less afluent, I would love to hear it.

Blooomburg offered you 1 million dollars for your proof that his secretary pays less percentage in taxes than he does.

The estate tax is a very old tax not designed for revenue stream, it was designed to prevent the rise of aristocracies that we ran from in old europe.. i dont need to hear about producers, walmart is long dead, his kids didnt do crap but inherit.. and if you look, it is mainly the inheritors that want a repeal fo the estate tax, the ones that acvtually earned their moeny are happy to give it back.

presidetn do pass legistaltion and sign it into law.. he can also veto. And this presidetn legistlates with executive orders and signing statements. Not sure how you are so misinformed.. maybe presidents shouldt, maybe it is unconstituional. BUT BUSH DOES LEGISLATE

But your right, paul wont control the direction of legislation, nor have as much influence as i suggest, but he definately doesnt have none as many in hear suggests.

presidetn do pass legistaltion and sign it into law

Um, what? Only congress can pass legislation. Take a civics course.

Signing statements are mostly rhetorical to clarify the executive branch's views on a bill, and executive orders are only valid with the permission of congress.

"Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders." - Wikipedia

inflation tax anyone? That one hits the lower classes pretty hard. Especially when it directly affects their purchasing power.

It is pure fantasy to think that you can lower tax rates for the wealthy, keep spending the same and not raise taxes on anyone else.

Only if you assume higher taxes always leads to more revenues, which they do not.

(food stamps, free education, health care benefits, minimum wage, worker's comp..... the list goes on and on)

Do we have to keep going over this? No he is not going to get rid of these programs. He's not on a crusade to destroy medicaid and medicare, public education, social security, etc. He has specifically stated that he plans on saving billions of dollars overseas in order to fund these programs while simultaneously cutting taxes.

He is simply against Federal oversight of public education, not public education in general. The one size fits all solution of the Feds is hardly beneficial.

People criticize the Republicans, and rightly so, for wanting to cut taxes but not cut back spending. Well here is Paul, who actually wants to do that and still take care of people here at home.

Only if you assume higher taxes always leads to more revenues, which they do not.

Nope. I did not and need not assume any such thing.

Another obufuscatory strawman. No one needs to assume this any more than you need to assume that lowering taxes never lowers revenue.

Given our current tax structure lowering taxes has reduced revenue and returning them to prior levels is expected to increase revenue.

You dont need to make ridiculous assumptions about all circumstances at all times to talk about the present. Under the present system, all the tax proposals to decrease taxes will reduce revenues.

If you have any fact based tax cut that will not decrease revenues please share with us on your free lunch tax cut option.

Come down from the clouds and try reality.

The question being of course, "the best chance we have" to accomplish what?

I like him because he's the closest thing to a 'civil war' candidate

Fehrenbacher is right. Paul isn't perfect, but he is the best candidate considering the Democrats would continue the war and destroy the economy and the other Republicans would extend the war and destroy the economy. Paul is better simply because he would end the war and get the nation back on the path of fiscal responsibility.

if only marriage weren't a legal principle then it wouldn't matter. But, the govt, for whatever reason, feels it needs to form some sort of contractual bond between people.

This is why marriage should be a private affair. If, for the purpose of benefits, inheritence, etc, people still needed to identify a civil partner then fine let them do that at a federal level (not for controlling purposes, but just so it is centralized) and go from there. Someone should be able to name anyone who is old enough to enter a contractual relationship as their civil partner; provided both parties are willing. Treat that relation, from a regulatory and economic perspective, just like a small "business".

I agree that the state shouldn't be in the business of legitimizing or delegitimizing relationships, but the Marriage Protection Act has little to do with that. The Marriage Protection Act allows states to ignore the constitution when it gets in the way of their desire to discriminate against gays. And Ron "Personal Freedom" Paul co-sponsored it, which I think voids his claim of not supporting legislation that goes against the constitution.

Then how do you explain why he always polls so low? Sure poll's arent perfectly accurate, but if your guy is polling at less than 5% than it's pretty fair to say that he doesnt enjoy broad public support.

There is little question that Ron Paul has millions of supporters out there and some that are highly committed. That doesnt change the fact that he has a fraction of the support of most other contenders for office.

Nor does there appear to be much chance that he could get a majority support in the United States around his positions. He is certainly free to keep trying.

His numbers are steadily increasing.. last time I checked he was at 6% where most other candidate's numbers are going downhill. Give him time.. slow and steady, remember? :D

Nor does there appear to be much chance that he could get a majority support in the United States around his positions. He is certainly free to keep trying.

Thanks, we'll keep trying. And when we ensure clean elections....

Then how do you explain why he always polls so low? Sure poll's arent perfectly accurate, but if your guy is polling at less than 5% than it's pretty fair to say that he doesnt enjoy broad public support.

Well, I would say that Ron Paul supporters have better things to do than use a landline phone to talk to robotic telemarketing pollsters. If I want to get a huge poll going about how prevalent atheist is in America, all I need to do is call people on Sunday morning. These polls are a joke.

Never mind that he and kucinuch are consistently left off of the polls until someone notices and raises hell.

I'm almost fed up. I've got a good mind to turn the revolution on to NV.

hahahahha
Please don't though. Most those supporters (i see on digg) are really annoying and usually ignorant of Paul's views. Certainly not up to Newsvine snuff.

I don't go to digg. I would send quality only, but they haven't the time to add NV to the mix. There's a revolution going on. : )

More you say? Here, have a third helping:

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion

I'm surprised that I don't have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in the Congress and a president's signature. It's a much easier way to accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of new laws, let's just use what we have & pass this type of legislation.

Obviously whoever wrote this article was too stupid to let you know what this means. He wants to repeal this law so that the states can decide, and therefore reduces the power of the federal government. He's not some monster out to steal control of the uterus. For pete's sake.

He isn't good for our environment, you say? You must be getting fat by now with all these helpings of the truth:

Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
An amendment to prohibit funding the "Yucca Mountain Youth Zone" website. Voting YES indicates opposition to using Yucca Mountain as the national nuclear waste repository. The amendment's sponsor says:

* I would like to introduce the American people to the newest member of the Bush administration's energy policy team. His name is Yucca Mountain Johnny. He is the star of the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain Youth Zone Web site devoted to brainwashing school children into believing that burying the Nation's nuclear garbage 90 miles from Los Vegas is safe. The Web site features games and activities to make high level nuclear waste fun. High level nuclear waste is not fun. It is dangerous, and the Department of Energy should not be using taxpayer money for a propaganda tool. * I would probably not be as upset with Joe Camel, excuse me, Yucca Mountain Johnny, if there was a more balanced approach on this Web site. It doesn't talk about the potential of accidents or being an inviting target for terrorists. It doesn't talk about the fact that Yucca Mountain is in a volcanic and seismic zone area. It doesn't say anything about the existence of safer and cheaper alternatives. * Among Yucca Mountain Johnny's witty sayings, he says, "The worst mistake is never making one." Well, Yucca Mountain is a mistake. This Web site is a mistake. Yucca Mountain Johnny is a mistake, and to promote the proposed nuclear waste repository to our children under the guise of education is a big mistake.

* The amendment's opponents respond:To my knowledge, nobody has questioned the accuracy or truth of what is on the Web site. My guess is that most of the children that access this website use it for term papers and papers in their classrooms that they have to do on nuclear power. * Whether you oppose or support the repository, we should at least want the facts out to our children and adults who wish to use that same Web site about just what exactly it is.

"Continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other countries?" How? By not randomly invading and trying to drag the world into WWVI?

indica, Amen.

The problem is that Paul doesn't need to worry about his civil rights, he's rich, white, Christian, and definitively heteronormative. When he says there's no need for affirmative action, that's because his civil rights are already secured and he could care less about minorities.

As a Black man, I can tell you that there is no need for affirmative action.

25 years of Affirmative Action and the only changes people are seeing are increasing discrimination and racial preferencing. You cannot eliminate racism by creating more racism.

It's not a problem that Ron Paul would be against affirmative action, it's that he wouldn't prosecute companies for refusing to hire black workers. From a libertarian point of view a college could refuse to admit all African Americans regardless of their qualifications and Paul would have no problem with that. It's their right to make whatever racist contract they want.

I don't see how we're supposed to improve race relations by allowing people to be even more racist.

It's their right to make whatever racist contract they want.

Oh yeah, and they wouldn't get any bad publicity at all. No negative consequences whatsoever for making a racist decision.

The Don Imus fiasco just goes to show that these type of things can be self-policing, especially in this age of easy information gluttony.

If a college was known to exclude black students just because of they're race, they wouldn't be in business very long.

The list doesn't say Ron Paul is racist, it says Ron Paul doesn't value equal rights for minorities, which is a fair inference to make from his voting record. To value something means to think it is important and to take action to advance it. Name one piece of legislation that Paul sponsored which in anyway tries to create an equal playing field for minorities or rectify past injustice. Certainly co-sponsorship of the Marriage Protection Act suggests he doesn't value equal rights for sexual minorities.

it says Ron Paul doesn't value equal rights for minorities, which is a fair inference to make from his voting record.

That's exactly right. Ron Paul doesn't see groups, minorities or otherwise. He values each person's individual rights.

or rectify past injustice.

Two wrongs don't make a right ;-)

Well how nice for him, but people are viewed by society as belonging to groups and your position as a member of some groups favors you while your membership to other groups disfavors you. If you are, for instance, gay you are discriminated against in terms of insurance benefits, inheritance rights and many other things as well as being more likely than a straight person to be beaten for your sexual orientation. If you are black you are the product of 400 years of official disenfranchisement as well as unofficial discrimination today. There is nothing fair or free about the system that exists today and certain government programs can help to make things more fair and free.

A quick word about racism: a lot of Paul supporters in this article seem to be defining racism as "consideration of race in making a decision." Racism has never been defined that way, the definition of racism is closer to "the belief that one race of people is in some way inherently better or at least inherently more worthy of control than another." Affirmative action often considers race, but it isn't racist because it tries to correct real differences in opportunity between racial groups, rather than assuming one race is better than another.

There is nothing fair or free about the system that exists today and certain government programs can help to make things more fair and free.

If you define fair as equality of outcome, some government programs can make things more "fair", but they do so at the cost of making them less free. Guaranteeing equality of outcome always comes at the cost of limiting freedom of action. There are arguments to be made for these programs, but increasing freedom is not one of them.

I would argue that they do increase freedom. Freedom to me is not the abstract, theoretical possibility of doing something, but rather the actual ability to do something. If belonging to a certain minority group or a certain social class limits your ability to achieve at the same rate of someone else, then I would argue that you are less free than that someone else. And a government program that shrinks that disparity increases your freedom.

I'm starting an LLC this week to work on getting a candidate's name marketed, planning the logistics for a skydive from a blimp, preparing for a Meetup, changing the platform of a 800 member Internet forum, initiating a weekly statewide conference call, mailing PM and other assorted little things that keep a laptop happy, so I won't be sending anyone here, because frankly, everyone else who supports Ron Paul is just as busy and you're not worth the efforts lost for the cause.

What are you doing to better the world?

you left out that he sodomises kittens and that bush has made a few mistakes sure but he's still your man.

Spreading the truth about Ron Paul which...... and fiscally irresponsible.

Again: What are you doing to better the world?

Well yes, Roe v. Wade was a case fought about an abortion and set a precedent that women have a constitutional right to abortions as part of their right to privacy. As it was a US Supreme court decision, the constitution that is referred to is the US constitution, making it inherently a federal matter. All of those assumptions are factually correct, not really assumptions at all.

Roe v. Wade was a case fought about an abortion and set a precedent that women have a constitutional right to abortions as part of their right to privacy.

Roe v. Wade was more or less about privacy only. At no time did the ruling declare a right to abortion, instead it only declared that anti-abortion laws infringed on the right to privacy. This is why Griswold v. Connecticut was used as a main precedent. Theoretically, if an abortion law can be constructed as to not infringe on the right to privacy, Roe v. Wade would not apply. Whether that is possible or not is an entirely different question.

Thus the assumption that Roe v. Wade was about reproductive rights, or that there is a right to an abortion are just that, assumptions, and not founded on fact.

"right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Thats from the supreme court decision on Row v Wade. I really cant see any interpretation of that as saying anything other than abortion is fundamental to a womans right to privacy.

The constitutional right the Supreme Court found was "privacy", not "reproductive rights". The right to privacy is nowhere described in the Constitution, and this decision is often viewed as the Supreme Court making law from the bench for that reason. The only way this is a federal matter is the principle of incorporation (from the 14th Amendment) and how it has been interpreted over the years, another contentious issue. If you think it's not contentious, read the 14th Amendment again.

The right to privacy is nowhere described in the Constitution

Well, there is the Ninth Amendment, just because a right is not explicitly enumerated does not mean that it does not exist.

making it inherently a federal matter.

Actually the 10th Amendment inherently makes it a state or individual matter. Unlike rights, if a power is not explicitly granted to the federal government by the Constitution, then it is reserved exclusively to the states or people.

It's kinda fun to argue both sides at the same time. This is also why I just throw up my hands on the abortion issue.

Article I, Section 8;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

The founding fathers thought the only means of 18th century communication to be so important, and ensuring the privacy of communications so vital, that they nationalized postal services. Privacy is a federal concern!

The facts:

Here is the central portion of Roe v. Wade

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 -542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [410 U.S. 113, 154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

We note that those federal and state courts that have recently considered abortion law challenges have reached the same conclusion. A majority, in addition to the District Court in the present case, have held state laws unconstitutional, at least in part, because of vagueness or because of overbreadth and abridgment of rights. Abele v. Markle, 342 F. Supp. 800 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-56; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730; Doe v. Bolton, 319 F. Supp. 1048 (ND Ga. 1970), appeal decided today, post, p. 179; Doe v. Scott, 321 F. Supp. 1385 (ND Ill. 1971), appeal docketed, No. 70-105; Poe v. Menghini, 339 F. Supp. 986 (Kan. 1972); YWCA v. Kugler, 342 F. Supp. 1048 (NJ 1972); Babbitz v. McCann, [410 U.S. 113, 155] 310 F. Supp. 293 (ED Wis. 1970), appeal dismissed, 400 U.S. 1 (1970); People v. Belous, 71 Cal. 2d 954, 458 P.2d 194 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 915 (1970); State v. Barquet, 262 So.2d 431 (Fla. 1972).

Others have sustained state statutes. Crossen v. Attorney General, 344 F. Supp. 587 (ED Ky. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-256; Rosen v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 318 F. Supp. 1217 (ED La. 1970), appeal docketed, No. 70-42; Corkey v. Edwards, 322 F. Supp. 1248 (WDNC 1971), appeal docketed, No. 71-92; Steinberg v. Brown, 321 F. Supp. 741 (ND Ohio 1970); Doe v. Rampton (Utah 1971), appeal docketed, No. 71-5666; Cheaney v. State, __— Ind. ___, 285 N. E. 2d 265 (1972); Spears v. State, 257 So.2d 876 (Miss. 1972); State v. Munson, 86 S. D. 663, 201 N. W. 2d 123 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-631.

Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.

Where certain "fundamental rights" are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a "compelling state interest," Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963), and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 485 ; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 508 (1964); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307 -308 (1940); see [410 U.S. 113, 156] Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 460 , 463-464 (WHITE, J., concurring in result).

In the recent abortion cases, cited above, courts have recognized these principles. Those striking down state laws have generally scrutinized the State's interests in protecting health and potential life, and have concluded that neither interest justified broad limitations on the reasons for which a physician and his pregnant patient might decide that she should have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. Courts sustaining state laws have held that the State's determinations to protect health or prenatal life are dominant and constitutionally justifiable.

"Thus the assumption that Roe v. Wade was about reproductive rights, or that there is a right to an abortion are just that, assumptions, and not founded on fact. " Your interpretation is not supported by the actual decision. You appear to assume that if the case is decided upon privacy it cannot be about reproductive rights, when the fact is the case is clearly about both. The content of the action is instrumental in the decision and the fact that it had to do with reproductive rights was central to the case and not as you suggest merely incidental. The court held that the "decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy" is a "fundmental right" although not an absolute right.

Of course, there has been several cases since then but to claim that Roe v. Wade was not "about reproductive rights" is not justified by the plain language of the decision.

Exactly. The supreme court found that the right to abortion is an integral part of the right to privacy and a law disallowing abortion (at least abortion of a "non-viable" fetus) could not be constitutional. The ruling was very much about reproductive rights. Further I'm not aware of any controversy over whether states have to respect supreme court rulings regarding the bill of rights under the 14th amendment, if you have evidence of such controversy, I'd love to see it.

The principle of incorporation was written to ensure that recently freed slaves had full citizenship rights, not to limit the power of states or federalize every issue under the sun.

http://www.constitutionalfreedomfoundation.org/Articles/constitutional_primer_14th_amendment.htm

Judicial Activism

All of a sudden, many decades after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, we saw the U.S. Supreme Court start down a path to inject itself into issues which, ever since our nation was founded, had been left to the states to decide on their own within their respective state boundaries.

Did this occur because the requisite super-majorities within Congress and the states formally and explicitly amended the Constitution to so provide? No! Rather, all of a sudden and out of the blue, the14th Amendment started to take on a new and expansive meaning beyond the wildest imaginations of the vast majority of those who voted to adopt it.

In a string of separate cases spread out over several decades after Gitlow, step by step the U.S. Supreme Court took upon itself the power to second-guess the states on many different things-- determining such issues as the separation of church and state, limitations on states' abilities to regulate pornography, criminal rights, search and seizure, self incrimination, etc. In the process, states' rights were decimated, all because a majority of nine unelected people on the U.S. Supreme Court wanted it to be so. Of course it wasn't the same nine people every time since the make-up of the court was constantly changing over that period of time. But each time a new inroad was made, it only took somewhere between 5 and 9 votes to do it. And as the body of case precedent grew with each new inroad, future ones became easier and easier to accomplish. ...
Conclusion

The Supreme Court's interpretation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment effectively stripped the states of many of their traditional "police powers" – the power to regulate the public "safety, health, morals, and general welfare."[22] This was done in obvious contravention of both (1) those legislators who adopted it at the federal and state levels and (2) the Justices who were sitting on the Supreme Court at the time of its adoption (and shortly thereafter) and who would certainly have been very familiar with the intents and moods of those legislators as to how far they intended the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment to go.

But the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment represents just one of the ways the federal government has gotten so powerful and the states so weak.

Section one of the fourteenth amendment pretty clearly establishes that no state can abridge the civil rights of anyone in their jurisdiction. As the right to privacy is a civil right, it would seem to imply that it is a federal matter. Again, if you have evidence of any legal controversy over this, such as in a court finding to the contrary, I'd love to see it; as far as I can tell though this is a pretty well established federal power.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Amar1.html

And yet, despite the importance of the topic and all the attention devoted to it, we still lack a fully satisfying account of the relationship between the first ten amendments and the Fourteenth. Minor variations aside, three main approaches have dominated the twentieth-century debate. The first, represented by Justice Frankfurter, insists that, strictly speaking, the Fourteenth Amendment never "incorporated" any of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. [16] The Fourteenth requires only that states honor basic principles of fundamental fairness and ordered liberty-principles that might indeed happen to overlap wholly or in part with some of the rules of the Bill of Rights, but that bear no logical relationship to those rules. The second approach, championed by Justice Black, insists on "total incorporation" of the Bill of Rights. [17] The Fourteenth Amendment, claimed Black, made applicable against the states each and every provision of the Bill, lock, stock, and barrel-at least if we define the Bill to include only the first eight amendments. Faced with these diametric views, Justice Brennan tried to steer a middle course of "selective incorporation." [18] Under this third approach, the Court's analysis could proceed clause by clause, fully incorporating every provision of the Bill deemed "fundamental" without deciding in advance whether each and every clause would necessarily pass the test. Methodologically, Brennan's approach seemed to avoid a radical break with existing case law rejecting total incorporation, and even paid lip service to Frankfurter's insistence on fundamental fairness as the touchstone of the Fourteenth Amendment. In practice, however, Brennan's approach held out the possibility of total incorporation through the back door. For him, once a clause in the Bill was deemed "fundamental" it must be "incorporated" against the states in every aspect, just as Black insisted. And nothing in the logic of selective incorporation precluded the possibility that, when all was said and done, virtually every clause of the Bill would have been deemed fundamental.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&ean=9780700612901

Speaking for the slim majority in the Court's 5-4 decision, Justice Samuel F. Miller upheld the state's actions as a fair use of its "police power." Of much greater import, however, was Miller's finding that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended exclusively as a means of protecting and redressing the suffering of former slaves. The result was a very restricted interpretation of the "privileges and immunities," "due process," and "equal protection" clauses of the new amendment. The Court refused to allow the broad terms of a single amendment to alter the existing balance of power between the states and the federal government. In striking contrast, the minority, led by Justice Stephen Field, claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment had been intended to apply to all Americans, not just former slaves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is the legal doctrine by which portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights are applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Most of those portions of the Bill of Rights were incorporated by a series of United States Supreme Court decisions in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s.

The interpretation of the 14th amendment has shifted radically since the days after it was first passed, and the current interpretation only became dominant about 70 years after the amendment was passed. It is a very important topic in Constitutional law.

Sorry I'm jumping in a little late but I think there is a distinction here that needs to be made based on the text from RvW:

conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision

This, to me, says that the parties involved have the right to privacy in terms of the decision to abort - however the actual abort procedure is another matter altogether.

It seems that RvW says you can decide to abort all you want - that decision is a private one and can not be infringed upon by the govt. However, it does not say that execution of the abortion procedure is protected.

Now, I'm not entirely sure how one would defend that in court - but the text of the decision does seem to leave some hedge room toward preventing an abortion while still letting people decide to abort.

finalcut, I think I agree. I think for all practical purposes abortion is protected by Roe v. Wade but that is not because there is a right to abortion, instead it is because any law that would prohibit abortion would have to infringe on an actual right of privacy.

You can use semantics all you want. People who earn mininmum wage are commonly working class. Many employees of contractors are working class.

OHSA is Constitutional.
Social Security is Constitutional.

We have a court system that have reviewed cases on both of these many times.

Do you have any substantial and material evidence to the contrary other than opinion?

the working class commonly makes minimum wage

is not the same as

People who earn mininmum wage are commonly working class.

The vast majority of the working class does not "earn" minimum wage and this that wage has little affect on them.

We have a court system that have reviewed cases on both of these many times.

The court system at one time also declared separate but equal to be Constitutional. The court is not perfect. Nor is any given court the last word on the constitutionality of a law or program.

People who earn mininmum wage are commonly working class.

That is not however the assumption I was pointing out.

Assumption: the working class commonly makes minimum wage

You've flipped the statement around. Most working class people do not make minimum wage. Most people making minimum wage are teenagers living at home.

I wasn't saying those assumptions were indefensible, only pointing out that they are assumptions.

That is not however the assumption I was pointing out.

My point is that you are playing semantic games by inventing an assumption that need not be made. The "assumption" you list is your own invention and is not at all necessary for the comment quoted.

You've flipped the statement around.

Yes I did, again because the assumption you stated does not logically follow from the quote.

I wasn't saying those assumptions were indefensible, only pointing out that they are assumptions.

I am pointing out that no one need to make those assumptions and whether you want to hide behind semantics you certainly appeared to imply they were indefensible otherwise what is the point of listing them. You can play semantic games all you want, but the assumptions you claim are necessary are not necesssary. You can support the quote and not make the assumptions you claim, which makes them irrelevant.

Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage

How should I read these two statements then? Abolishing the minimum wage would be disastrous for the working class for what reason if they don't make the minimum wage? Would it hurt their feelings? Would it diminish how much money their teenage children make working after school? In what way would it be a disaster exactly? There is SOME assumed way in which it would be, so please tell me the right assumption if mine is wrong.

How should I read these two statements then?

Why not try reading it like it was written?

He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make "coverage completely optional for both present and future workers", and would "freeze benefit levels".

The clear point is that all of these positions taken together would be harmful for the working class. All of these programs impact a significant number of working class people even if none alone of them apply to all working class people. Your attempt at reductionist logic leads to fallacious conclusions. Of course, the total impact depends entirely how you define "working class" and "commonly." Furthermore, your assumption that only people who earn minimum wage would be effected by abolishing the minimum wage is your own unsupported assumption. To some degree wages are tied together and that a decline in one sector could result in declines in closely related sectors. The only premise you need to accept to agree with this argument is that either individually or taken together a significant number of working class numbers would be substantially negatively impacted by directly and indirectly by such policy decisions if adopted. Now of course you can disagree, but you dont need to play games by artificially isolating individual pieces and pretending to you agree you have to believe that each policy in isolation have to individually be responsible for devastating the working class. Its not that hard to believe especially if many working class individuals are surving near or at paycheck to paycheck.

Catch22 - I'm sure you have some great points in there - but honestly, it was very hard to cobble together what you were trying to say. I'm not trying to be an ass - and, of course I don't know your primary language (but I'd still bet it is English) - however, it would be really helpful if you rewrote that long paragraph after proofreading it.

While I get the general gist of what you're saying there are quite a few lines in there that make little to no sense unless I try to infer your meaning. I prefer not to though as you undoubtedly know what you were trying to say better than I.

Thanks

Let me know which lines do not make sense and I would be glad to elaborate.

There are certainly a lot of ideas and concepts to digest and I am not particularly inclined to spend a great deal of editing further when I provide no indication what parts in your opinion needing editing.

If you want a step by step:

The question was how to read the words. Answer: In context.

What does in context mean? Reading all of the words in the sentence and including them in your interpretation.

The rest of the comment is a quick explanation about how all of the individual policies tend to harm sub populations of working class people and that taken all together how you reach the conclusion that the policies would be devastating to working class people.

To recap:

The claim being analyzed includes more than one policy position and no single policy in isolation.

With respect to the minimumm wage you can reasonably conclude the elimination of federal minimum wage laws would have a adverse impact on a significant number of working class persons without it necessary to assume: "People who earn mininmum wage are commonly working class."

It is misleading to portray the claim as requiring this assumption.

Elimination of minimum wage could be reasonably expected to cause hardship to a significant number working class individuals.

The number of working class individuals impacted adversely could reasonably be expected to include working class persons who earn more than minimum wage due to resulting changes in the labor market.

Ok - in particularly these two lines:

The only premise you need to accept to agree with this argument is that either individually or taken together a significant number of working class numbers would be substantially negatively impacted by directly and indirectly by such policy decisions if adopted.

Now of course you can disagree, but you dont need to play games by artificially isolating individual pieces and pretending to you agree you have to believe that each policy in isolation have to individually be responsible for devastating the working class.

No matter how many times I read them I not sure what you're saying. Either there is some missing punctuation (or I'm inserting my own mental punctuation incorrectly) OR there are some grammatical errors in the sentences which make the statements less than clear.

Thanks

Even in your reply to me I have to make assumptions about what you are saying:

There are certainly a lot of ideas and concepts to digest and I am not particularly inclined to spend a great deal of editing further when I provide no indication what parts in your opinion needing editing.

Here I have to assume you meant to say:

There are certainly a lot of ideas and concepts to digest and I am not particularly inclined to spend a great deal of time further editing when you provide no indication what parts, in your opinion, needing editing.

Assumption: Taxing people the same rate is "unfair".

If someone making $1M/yr pays $200,000 of that in taxes and someone making $10,000/yr pays $2,000 in taxes, they're both paying 20%, but the person making $10,000 feels the hit harder. That $2,000 he pays is worth more to him than the $200,000 is worth to the millionaire. That's the problem with flat tax proposals - they ignore declining marginal utility.

I repeat, the assumption is that taxing people the same rate is unfair, and you obviously believe that to be true.

Let's say you and I are shopping in a 7-11. We're standing in line, and we both have $5 worth of identical goods. We get rung up by the cashiers. I pay $5.10 and you pay $7.50. Is that your definition of fair? Or would it seem more fair if we both paid $5.65?

Treating everyone equally is my definition of fair. Ensuring equal outcomes seems to be your definition of fair. It is a fundamental disagreement. I do not want the government treating me any different from anyone else based on race, gender, income, politics, religions, or orientation. You would probably insist that the government must treat me different based on race, gender and income.

That's the problem with flat tax proposals - they ignore declining marginal utility.

But most flat tax proposals don't propose strict flat taxes where every dollar is taxed at the flat tax. Most still tend to leave a starting X amount that is untaxed, and all dollars above that amount are taxed at the flat rate.

Assumption: People with children should pay less taxes.

Hell, children take up a ton of resources, we should tax people with children more ;-)

I repeat, the assumption is that taxing people the same rate is unfair, and you obviously believe that to be true.

You don't have to take my word for it, declining marginal utility is the basis for every bracketed tax-system in the world. We're not buying goods, we're collecting taxes!

Ensuring equal outcomes seems to be your definition of fair... I do not want the government treating me any different from anyone else ...

Don't give me these pre-fabricated slogans. Government can't be blind and stupid, it has to adjust to the reality that certain people are more able to pay taxes than others. It doesn't make that reality.

Government can't be blind and stupid, it has to adjust to the reality that certain people are more able to pay taxes than others. It doesn't make that reality.

Which reality are you talking about? The one where Warren Buffet pays 17% of his income today while his secretary pays 30%? The one where capital gains are taxed at 15% while income is taxed around 30% for most people?

The one where Warren Buffet pays 17% of his income today while his secretary pays 30%?

Brian, don't perpetuate the myth to make your point. That 17% is only valid if you completely ignore the double taxation of the corporate profits where his capital gains actually came from. Remember, corporations don't pay taxes, people do.

Can you explain this? Someone else may be paying for the corporation's tax bill, true, but it isn't Warren Buffet himself. As an investor I think he personally only pays the capital gains rate.

Brian, let's say a corporation makes 100 dollars in profit. Before that 100 dollars can be distributed to its investors, the corporate tax is taken out at say 35%. Thus that 100 dollars becomes 65 dollars in after-corporate-tax profit. Then that $65 is dispersed to the investors who are then taxed at the 15% rate, leaving $55.25. So on that corporate profit of $100, the federal government takes $44.75 of it.

Corporate profit is thus taxed twice, and in this example at a rate of 44.75% before it reaches the investor as after-tax income.

But the investor is only taxed on the $65. So for the individual investor, their tax rate is the 15% capital gains rate in that case. Most of the money made on stock investment are gains in value, and not distribution of dividends, and those are not subject to the taxation of corporate profits (except indirectly in how the stock is valued by investors). So I appreciate your point, but I don't know how much of Warren Buffet's personal wealth comes from money subject to it, as opposed to money created by investors suddenly valuing a stock he holds more than they used to. Since he's a stock market guy, I'm guessing most of his money comes from rise in value.

Most of the money made on stock investment are gains in value, and not distribution of dividends, and those are not subject to the taxation of corporate profits (except indirectly in how the stock is valued by investors).

I might as well let someone far smarter respond to that:

An increase in the value of a stock is a reflection of an anticipated increase in the future income stream from that stock. Yet that income stream will be taxed (usually two times!) when it occurs. The real effective rate on that portion of Buffett's income is harder to calculate, but it certainly will be far higher than 15 percent.

source

Remember also that sales of stocks are taxed whether they are used as a source of income, or whether you are just selling them to reinvest in another company. If you are an active investor, you have been taxed multiple times at 15% before you take the money as "income".

That's why I'm not a fan of mutual funds. Every time the damn mutual fund manager sells stocks in that fund to reinvest in something else, you get to pay taxes on that transaction.

Treating everyone equally is my definition of fair.

Notice you have to import your own assumed definition of what is and is not equal. You assume that people cant be treated equally under progressive taxation. There is nothing magical or fundamental about tax rates. Everyone regardless of who they are, taxed "equally" under the same system and the first x amount of income is taxed at rate a and the next at rate b and so forth. You assume that it is somehow not "equal" to also tax people who make less money on money they did not make. There is nothing inherrently unequal at taxing higher amounts of income at a greater rate as you appear to assume.
Nor is clear why you assume this should be the line. You could likewise argue that it is unfair to tax a person who as no wealth at the same rate as someone who has a lot of wealth, since the person with accumulated wealth has more to lose and gain from government systems in place to protect property rights than those who have a lot less. You might say we want to reward wealth accumulation, but that is an assumption to justify treating people unequally. The national tax proposal includes a rebate for poorer individuals. Isnt that unequal? Why draw the line there? It makes sense to tax someone who is barely able to get food and a place to live less than others? When does that become unequal and who is the judge? The fact is life isnt so nice and neat as many would like to pretend and there are a wide variety of ways to measure equalness.

You assume that people cant be treated equally under progressive taxation.

That's not an assumption, but a matter of definition. If the government takes 30% of my $1 in earnings, and takes 15% of your $1 in earnings then we are being treated unequally based on how much money the government expects us to make.

This point doesn't assume any of those things. It assumes that when considering building new industrial capacity, environmental impact should be considered. It doesn't even compare him to anyone else or mention anyone else's policies, it just talks about what Paul supports.

What do you think you are proving by pointing out assumptions? I don't think anyones under the impression that this is not an opinion piece; the title is "10 Reasons Not to Vote For Ron Paul."

the title is "10 Reasons Not to Vote For Ron Paul."

As someone else pointed out, it should be called 10 Reasons not to vote for Ron Paul if you're a socialist.

I think my points here are valid actually. If we want to increase domestic production of oil and increase refinery capacity, we have to increase offshore drilling and build new refineries. If you should vote against him based on supporting those two things, that is only logical if you oppose expanding domestic oil production and refining. If you should vote against him because his policies will harm the environment, that can only be because other people's policies will not harm the environment. The "not use oil" was speculative on my part, I withdraw that one. If you should vote against him because he supports mining on federal land, that can only be because other people don't support it.

If we want to increase domestic production of oil and increase refinery capacity, we have to increase offshore drilling and build new refineries.

True, but that doesn't mean increasing domestic production of oil and increasing refinery capacity are bad; just that given our options for doing so, it isn't in our best interests to expand those right now. Were there a more serious oil shortage, or were the technology for oil exploitation to improve, it might become a good idea.

If you should vote against him because he supports mining on federal land, that can only be because other people don't support it.

No, I can vote against him and all other candidates who favor mining on federal land, or at least who favor expanding mining on federal land or those who support specific aspects of his plan.

Your lists of assumptions are really lists of straw men. For instance I would certainly say, and the author would probably agree that, "Americans should look in to ways to use less oil" but I would not say "America should just not ever use oil, period." However you claim our position as the second because it's silly and easier to attack.

As someone else pointed out, it should be called 10 Reasons not to vote for Ron Paul if you're a socialist.

Maybe socialist with today's connotations of the term, but if you go back to their historical roots, socialism and libertarianism can be quite compatible.

Instead, I think people that would oppose Ron Paul are statists and authoritarians. They have a view of the world and they want to force that view on others through the use of government force.

just that given our options for doing so, it isn't in our best interests to expand those right now.

You believe it's not in our interest to expand refinery capacity after seeing the effects of Hurricane Katrina shutting down just a few refineries? The plants run near 100% of operating capacity at most times, and with no slack in the system the smallest disruption has huge effects on the available supply. I can see being against offshore drilling, but I just don't understand being against more refineries.

This is what his bill on this topic was titled: Title: To reduce the price of gasoline by allowing for offshore drilling, eliminating Federal obstacles to constructing refineries and providing incentives for investment in refineries, suspending Federal fuel taxes when gasoline prices reach a benchmark amount, and promoting free trade.

No, I can vote against him and all other candidates who favor mining on federal land, or at least who favor expanding mining on federal land.

http://www.envirofront.org/Other_Resources/Issue_Ref_Library/Nat_Res_IS/Mining_on_Public_Lands.html

We've had major mining on federal lands since the 1920's. It's not like it's a new program.

This is what his bill on this topic was titled: Title: A bill to prohibit the imposition of unreasonable severance taxes or fees on coal or lignite mined from Federal lands.

However you claim our position as the second because it's silly and easier to attack.

I withdrew that position.

You believe it's not in our interest to expand refinery capacity after seeing the effects of Hurricane Katrina shutting down just a few refineries?

I believe that natural resources should be public goods and should be publicly managed. I also believe that current petroleum use in the US is inefficient and wasteful and we need to address that before we think about expanding exploitation of oil.

The title of a bill means very little, his "unreasonable severance taxes" may seem perfectly reasonable to me. I suspect they are as they're taking public property and are able to be profitable at current rates, so why not get as much as we can out of our coal. Honestly I was talking more about how one could not vote for Paul because of his position on this while recognizing that other candidates support mining on federal land. I haven't really studied this issue in any depth and this point wouldn't really affect me not voting for Paul.

I believe that natural resources should be public goods and should be publicly managed.

The last time they tried that with oil there were was a shortage and lines many cars long in the 70s. See also food production back in the USSR.

The last time they tried that with oil there were was a shortage and lines many cars long in the 70s

That was because OPEC put an oil embargo on us. Are you referring to OPEC member states nationalizing production? If so, that doesn't make sense as other states nationalizing their resources isn't supposed to benefit Americans; it seems to have worked out fine for OPEC countries.

I'm referring to Jimmy Carter's price controls. If he would have left that market free it would have sorted itself out by using price to ration oil, rather than long lines and government nonsense.

But yea, the nationalization of a resource shouldn't be meant to screw others either.

if we had the "fair tax" as suggested by Mike Huckabee would we still need the IRS?

The FairTax (it's a registered trademark, not need for quotes) does not require the IRS. Businesses collect the tax at the POS and state governments disperse the tax upwards to the federal level. In payment, the Fairtax then gives 1% of tax revenue collected to the businesses and states.

The FairTax (it's a registered trademark, not need for quotes)

Whatever you want to call it, its a national sales tax. Whether or not its fair is a matter of opinion. We could also call it a huge cut for the wealthy, at least thats based in fact.

Its also an exercise in misleading semantics. Using quotations around an unsupported opinon is perfectly appropriate whether its a registered trademark doesnt make it any less of an exercise in propaganda. An accurate description is National Sales Tax, of course that doesnt sound as inviting even though that is exactly what it is. Its also misleading since it would still involve a bureacracy whether or not you want to call it IRS or something else since the proposal also calls for a monthly payment to households of citizens and legal resident aliens (based on family size) as an advance rebate of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.

Odd that many people who object to the silly names of laws produced by Congress, hypocritically follow the same approach in describing their own favored proposals.

We could also call it a huge cut for the wealthy, at least thats based in fact.

It's a huge cut if they stop shopping. Money does not do much if you don't spend it.

I should apologize I kind of wedged the fair tax question in there which served to distract from the real question I wanted answered:

I've seen a lot of people say that the getting rid of the IRS is a bad idea; but not a single reason for it. Why is it a bad idea?

However, since I've made this faux pas once I figured I do it again. I actually like the general principle of the "Fair Tax" assuming it is not an additional tax to those we already pay and the other taxes it is meant to replace are really removed. I, for some reason, doubt that will happen. Instead I imagine we will end up with a national sales tax AND the other taxes all at once.

Here is an interesting article that discuss the FairTax in more detail.

One thing it notes (way near the end) is that employers would basically have to reduce salaries to support the FairTax and I would actually support that, so long as prices really did stay flat now that that chunk of the overhead is also removed from the cost of production of stuff. However, just like the taxes, I don't figure the net prices (including tax) would remain flat - instead companies would cut salaries and then leave the end price the same so that I would be paying out the 23% as well.

However, the fact that everyone who buys anything would be subject to the tax is very compelling and the simplicity of the system is very very attractive.

We could also call it a huge cut for the wealthy, at least thats based in fact.

It's a huge cut if they stop shopping. Money does not do much if you don't spend it

Not true. The tax as propose would save the highest paid Americans on taxes even if they spent 100% of their money. First of all is simple math, it is impossible under current conditions or the program proposed to cut taxes , not raise the deficit, and not cut huge programs there is no evidence will be cut.

The current top tax bracket is over 35% with an effective tax rate approaching that amount for very wealth invdividuals. The proposed national sales tax is said to be deficit neutral at 23% by proponents (actually it would probably have to a be a lot higher). Unless the national tax is over 33% then persons well into the highest bracket get a substantial tax cut. Of course, the more disposable income you have the more you have not to spend and not pay any taxes on at all. It is also not clear how purchases by people overseas would be taxed if at all.