Doofuses against Ron Paul

Idiots like Chris Petrilli think that this is an "articulate deconstruction of why Ron Paul is dangerous".

Chris conveniently disables comments on posts with which people might disagree, so I reply here.

The "article" is not so much a deconstruction as an emotional roller-coaster ride through what Ron Paul has said about a few arcane topics that are of disproportional importance to the author of the "article".

The facts are that, yes, Ron Paul is not as well-educated on science as we would like. Yes, he has been recorded stating that evolution is "just a theory".

But there is a greater moral principle that scientists shouldn't get to run other people's lives just because they think they're right. The FDA shouldn't be able to prevent you from taking human growth hormone, or taking steroids, or smoke pot, or take useless nutritional supplements, because it thinks those things are bad for you.

The U.S. presidency is a supremely powerful position. The U.S. president has more or less direct control over some 1/3 of all things done in the United States. This makes most candidates personal beliefs suspect and dangerous, because given this power, they will try to use it in accordance with their personal beliefs.

But the purpose of Ron Paul's candidacy is to reduce this power. He is not running for office on the premise that he will enforce his moral views. He is running on the premise that he will increase everyone's freedom, including the freedom of those with whom he agrees, as well as those with whom he does not.

Ron Paul is in favor of devolving the U.S. federal government. He is in favor of reducing it in size by factors of magnitude, and letting the states govern themselves.

Yes, the ensuing deregulation might make your life slightly more dangerous to the extent that people trying to sell you cherries or pomegranates might find it easier to dupe you into believing that the fruit protects against Alzheimer's. But it is not the role of the government to protect you from this. People got along without an FDA just fine before Fascist. D. Roosevelt came along. And we can get along without an FDA again.

The role of scientists is to do research and publish results. It is not their role to intrude on people's lives and prevent them from doping up on human growth hormone if they want to. Nor to lock up grandmas if they are found growing marijuana for medicinal use. Or for whoever's use!

The current U.S. government is fascist. So are most social democracies abroad. Ron Paul is pretty much your only hope to live in a country that might once again be as free as that of its founding fathers.

Comments

verbatim said…
I Agree with you article but none of western societies will ever be free again. Majority of population are sheeps and follow nonsense actions of politicians. I can't believe that people are spending more and more time in schools (and they have access to all possible informations) and actually getting dumber.

Even worse...modern societies are slowly turning into children's playgrounds (although potentially vulnerable children aged 15 or less constitute around 15-20% of general population in developed countries). There are more and more laws based on religious beliefs which are then forced on all population (of course all in the name of the protection of the children). Any "dumb-land" is better than living in society where our lives are "controled by children".

Australia (who else?) is leading at the moment and I am afraid soon others will follow.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071223-australia-to-enforce-a-ratings-system-on-web-track-users.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7165987.stm

Latter article is really a bad news for free world! And Mr. Conroy statements show how stupid people are getting (like that blocking official porn sites will curb down child pornography). And lately, if they need an excuse to limit our freedoms in any way they always abuse poor children or child pornography.

Liberal thinkers will be marginalized group in the future and I think that even internet (and access to more information) won't change that (as you claim in your other article). Otherwise internet censorship wouldn't be happening in 21st century (take this as allegory).
denis bider said…
Agreed, the situation in Australia is disgusting. I think the problem is that the current government they elected includes these prudes.

Fortunately though, if the Australians want to, they can elect a new government next time which will remove this ridiculous censorship.

The question is whether the Australian voting majority cares enough about this to overturn it. This is definitely oppression, but the income tax is oppression, too, and it has popular support.

In democracies like we have them today, all those oppressions which are popular will eventually be enacted, and will continue. That's the sad thing about democracies. The tragic thing is that everyone supports their favorite oppression while criticizing the kinds of oppressions they don't want, while ignoring that the very support they're giving to their favorite oppressions makes it possible for the other oppressions to thrive, too.
verbatim said…
Completely agree with you (I especially like your last sentence). The problem with opressions is that once they are placed into law they are actually never lifted. The other problem is that countries are copying opressions between each other (domino effect) which will eventually lead to mono cultural world which will be a great loss for humanity in cultural sense.

And I thought about moving to Australia... will never happen.

Popular posts from this blog

When monospace fonts aren't: The Unicode character width nightmare

"Unreachable" beauty standards

Is the internet ready for DMARC with p=reject?