YouTube Description:

Airing Date Nov.20, 2011, " I just watched the Ron Paul interview (11/20) and I must say, your show couldn't have been more rude or unprofessional. Bob Schieffer is obviously biased. His twisting of Ron's policies and statements are the norm from the left, not a big deal. But when Ron went to explain what he said or what his policy is, Bob didn't accept his explanation and would end the question by putting words in Ron's mouth before immediately moving on. Instead of giving Ron a final statement, Bob just thanked him and cut him off to move on to something else. "From CBS's 89 seconds of disrespect to this Deface the nation interview, Ron should not go on CBS anymore. The station is clearly biased and is shameful.Here is a dailymotion link below just in case http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmgkw9_ron-paul-interview-on-deface-the-nati...

posted by Grimm 2 years 9 months 1 week ago • 2,423 views • 9:02
siftbot says...

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Sunday, November 20th, 2011 2:42pm PST - promote requested by original submitter Grimm.

Grimm says...

Easy to say when you don't know the facts.

First fact the "Federal Department of Education" NEVER existed until 1980. Do you believe that our education system was completely f'd until 1980? Some people would argue that it has gotten worse since then.

Second fact is that EVERY state has it's own "State Department of Education" that were there before 1980 and after and would remain if the "Federal Department of Education" was shut down.

Ron Paul is not "anti-education"...his is anti Federal Government over reaching it's power to control the States.>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Shutting down the department of education? Wow. Fuck off Ron Paul.

BansheeX says...

The department of education helps no one but those in the education industry, it's a really bad deal for students. Education is a noble profession, but all services can be overpriced. Federal loans allow colleges to jack up rates every year knowing that the government will borrow more to pay for this supposed "sacred service that is the key to everything no matter the cost". Politicians have no fear of loss, the money is coming from future taxpayers that don't exist to vote it down. It's no coincidence that prices have accelerated far faster than unsubsidized products and services. If the government were to declare laptop ownership a social protocol and issue $1000 vouchers to everyone, the price of laptops would go up $1000 overnight. They do the same to education as they've been doing with housing.

My stepfather graduated from college in 1967. He paid 4k total for 4 years, that includes room and board. His first accountant job paid 10k a year. He is actually fairly liberal and is shocked to see how many people naively think that college didn't exist or wasn't any good prior to the DoE. He's old enough to know it's the total opposite.

dystopianfuturetoday says...

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.

We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealth to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)

Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

ghark says...

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).


Well said sir, in my view no department is inherently bad or good, the value of the department depends on who is running it, how it is used and how policies governing the department are made. If the Department of Education is causing harm to the education of students then this could be fixed by resolving the underlying issue which is one of corrupt policy making. Look at Bill Gates for example, he's playing his part to destroy and privatize the education system so he can have Windows on every school computer and influence the public education budget. He's allowed to do this because of policy changes and enormous amounts of lobbying money (which go hand in hand).

Here's an interesting read about some of the sweeping changes he's been able to introduce via lobbying:
http://techrights.org/2011/09/09/new-york-times-and-washpo-on-edu/

Plus of course all the other issues dystopianfuturetoday mentions - these won't go away just by removing a couple of departments - the core issues of corruption and lobbying have to be fixed first.

Is Ron Paul going to fix these? Hell no. Even if he was strongly in favor of these sorts of real changes, he wouldn't get support for them under the current system, the GOP would block everything, the Dems would keep talking about how bad the GOP is for blocking everything, and everything would continue to get fucked just as badly, or worse, than it currently is.

GeeSussFreeK says...

I read the wiki article you posted, it says the opposite of what you suggest. That pre-1980, they had no ability to generate policy...they just gathered information. Do you have a link to something that talks about the freemarkety nature in the 80s?, because that link doesn't have it. Unless you are just talking about Regan doing free market stuff on the whole affecting education somehow indirectly, but the link clearly says he made it a federal government responsibility to create educational policy in the 80s. In that, I don't know that your argument fully answers @Grimm's claim that educational stardards have gone down since federal policy making has been done. We aren't talking about free markets here, even at the state level. We are talking about who makes better policies affecting children's education; federal or state. It has also been of my opinion that for important things, eggs in one basket methodologies are dangerous. Best to have a billion little educational experiments boiling around the country, cooking up information that the rest of them can turn around and use. Waiting for a federal mandate to adopt a policy can be rather tedious.

I have some friends that are educators, I will have to ask them how they feel about this. It is easy for us to have an opinion based on raw idealism of our core beliefs, but I would be interested to see what certain teachers have to say. I met a real interesting person at my friends bachelor party. He came from a union state, and moved down here to Texas, we have teachers unions and things, but they aren't as powerful as the north. He experienced a complete change in himself. He found that his own involvement in his union happened in such a way where he basically held the kids education hostage over wages. He said that is was basically the accepted role of teachers to risk children's education over pay. I am not talking about just normal pay, but he was making 50k as a grade school teacher in the early 90s. Not suggesting this is normal, but it is something we don't copy here in Texas. As for his own mind, he knows he would never teach in that area of the country again, and would never suggest anyone move their that values their children's education.

What would be interesting to me is if the absence of the DOE would break down some of the red tape and allow schools to "get creative" with programs a federal political body might not want to take a risk on. Education is to important to fail on, and applying "to big to fail" kind of logic to a failing system of education is to much politics to play for me. Empower teachers and schools, and try to avoid paying as many non-educators as possible would be one way to improve things I would wager. What aspect of the DOE do you think is successful that we need to keep exactly? I mean, I can tell you I don't like that the DOD is so huge and powerful, but I know nuclear subs and aircraft carriers can't operate themselves. What necessarily component of the DOE do you see as necessarily, beyond just talking point of either party line stance of it? I mean, the Department of Energy's main goal was to get us off foreign oil, like a long time ago, that is pretty failed as much as the DOE. Different approach needed, or a massive rethinking of the current one. You don't usually get massive rethinking nationally of any coherent nature, which is why I think a local strategy might be a good way to go here. Perhaps then, you could have that initial part of the DOE before it became the DOE of providing information to schools about what works from other schools kick in again.

This kind of talk of "Ron Paul addresses none of this" about something that isn't related exactly isn't really fair. It is like trying to talk about income tax issues and saying changing them doesn't address the issue of the military war machine...well of course not, it is a different issue. Did you see that recent Greewald video where he talks about the founders did think that massive inequality was not only permissible, but the idea...just as long as the rules were the same for everyone? What I mean to say is that there does need to be a measure of fairness, but that fairness needs to be the same for everyone, rich and poor. I still say the real problem lay in the government creating the monster first and the monster is now eating us. If legislators simply refused to accept the legitimacy of corporate entities and instead say that only individuals can deal on the behalf of themselves with the govenrment(the elimination of the corporate charter as it refers to its relationship to the government) things could get better in a day. But since the good ol USA thinks that non-people entities are people, well, I don't see much hope for restoration. Money is the new government, rule of law is dead. I liked the recent Greenwald input on this. Rant over Sorry, this is just kind of stream of consciousness here, didn't plan out an actual goal or endpoint of my ideas....just a huge, burdensome wall of text

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The first incarnation of the department of education was actually created in 1876. Was our educational system unfucked before 1876? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education
1980 was a pivotal year, but it had nothing to do with the department of education. 1980 was the year that Reagan ushered in a large number of 'free market' reforms: Privatization, deregulation, tax cuts for those at the top, austerity for those at the bottom... basically the Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine as described in Naomi Klein's excellent book.
We've since seen the rise of the corporate state and a deterioration of the public sector. These market principles have seen our jobs exported to 3rd world slaves (and then asked us to compete with those slaves), have given the green light to mass pollution and global warming, have allowed big business to use our military as middle east mercenaries and have redistributed vast amounts of wealthy to a tiny fraction of the population (not to mention numerous scandals (Enron, Exxon, BofA, Countrywide, Halliburton, Blackwater, Savings and Loans, Mortgages, etc..)
Ron Paul addresses none of this. He has no solutions for jobs or inequality outside of his faith in invisible hands and invisible deities. He doesn't even seem aware that there is a problem. I don't think he's lying when he pretentiously states that his partisan political views are the very definition of liberty. I just think he is another out of touch conservative millionaire with a mind easily manipulated by self serving dogma (be it religious political or economic).

dag says...

I don't think he was rude. He was asking all the right questions and doing what a journalist should do. I thought Ron Paul's answers to most of the questions were points well made too.

Kofi says...

Stupid interviewer. All he was trying to do was the simplify Pauls views to one sentence.

"So basically what you are saying Mr Paul is it was America's fault. 9/11 happened and it was our fault"

Way to go egg-head.

dystopianfuturetoday says...

^JesusFreak

Reagan made drastic budget cuts to education. I'd call that austerity. Do you have some specific bit of policy you believe to be the culprit instead?

Sounds like your teacher friend is confusing his role as a teacher with his role as an employee. If he feels he is being mistreated by his district, he is allowed to stand up for himself. If teachers allow themselves to be bullied into pay cuts or poor working conditions, the profession becomes less competitive and thus less effective. This might explain why Texas is dead last in high school graduates? His students are less likely to graduate, but at least they don't have to worry about him going on strike. Well done! To hell with union states and all their uppity diploma earners!

Further reading:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-education/public-education/why-does-texas-rank-last-in-high-school-diplomas/

The problem with education is funding. More funding = better education. Period. The government has been plenty 'creative' by allowing private charter schools into the educational system. In a study done at Stanford, they found that 37% of charter schools underperformed their public counterparts, 46% were comparable and 17% were better. Among the charter schools that did outperform public schools were schools like the Harlem Children's Zone, which get much higher funding. The take away here is that you get what you pay for. If we want better schools, we need to fund them.

Further reading on this topic:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/nov/11/myth-charter-schools/?pagination=false

As far as I know, RP doesn't have any kind of realistic jobs plan, other than to further deregulate big business, cut their taxes and then pray for some hot trickle down watersports action. And, as you say, I guess he also has no problem with vast economic disparity. These two points are a great illustration of how out of touch he is with the world around him. He seems like a nice guy, and I like his liberal views on foreign policy, but if he is going to willingly kowtow to wall street, then he is the wrong guy for the job.

ghark says...

>> ^bobknight33:

dystopianfuturetoday does not know what he is talking about.


Um...
In terms of his comments on Reagan:
"During his first term in office, President Reagan cut the real budget of the Department of Education by 18.6 percent"
http://www.aei.org/papers/economics/fiscal-policy/president-reagan-champion-budget-cutter/

And as for Ron Paul:
"The Paul plan would also lower the corporate tax rate to 15% from 35%"
Ron Paul also wants to ABOLISH personal income tax and extend all Bush tax cuts.
http://runronpaul.com/campaign-trail/ron-paul%E2%80%99s-economic-plan-cut-5-cabinet-agencies-cut-taxes-cut-president%E2%80%99s-pay/

So dystopianfuturetoday's comments seem to be accurate, yours seem to be opinion which you haven't even bothered backing up.

heropsycho says...

The point is not that there wasn't policy. The point is policy is harder to push when needed without a Department of Education.

The entire question of whether we should have a Dept. of Edu should not have a thing to do with specific policy debates. If the Dept. of Edu. is pushing bad policy, then change the policy it's pushing; abolishing it completely is ridiculous. It would be like abolishing DoD after the Vietnam War.

The Dept of Edu serves many functions beyond just pushing policy. It provides an apparatus for data collecting, analysis, correlating, etc. dedicated to education. It provides a national mechanism to help enact educational policies that are national in nature. It's common sense that if education is important, and if there are national tendencies, trends, data worth investigating that could/should drive national education policy, then we should have a Dept. of Edu. What policies should be pushed, as I said before, is an entirely different issue.

>> ^BansheeX:

The department of education helps no one but those in the education industry, it's a really bad deal for students. Education is a noble profession, but all services can be overpriced. Federal loans allow colleges to jack up rates every year knowing that the government will borrow more to pay for this supposed "sacred service that is the key to everything no matter the cost". Politicians have no fear of loss, the money is coming from future taxpayers that don't exist to vote it down. It's no coincidence that prices have accelerated far faster than unsubsidized products and services. If the government were to declare laptop ownership a social protocol and issue $1000 vouchers to everyone, the price of laptops would go up $1000 overnight. They do the same to education as they've been doing with housing.
My stepfather graduated from college in 1967. He paid 4k total for 4 years, that includes room and board. His first accountant job paid 10k a year. He is actually fairly liberal and is shocked to see how many people naively think that college didn't exist or wasn't any good prior to the DoE. He's old enough to know it's the total opposite.

Grimm says...

It's easy to say "just change bad policy". But the reality is when the Federal government has control it's not an easy thing to do. Why do you have a problem with putting that power back in the hands of the states? What works for one state may not work for another. Or what works for one state can then be adopted by other states who are looking for a better solution.

No child left behind is finally getting repealed....but how long did that take? Good for the new students...but what about the kids like mine that had to live with that failed experiment for the last 10 years?

Boise_Lib says...

@dystopianfuturetoday

The points you made about Reagan are correct, but you left out the most insidious--and pertinent to this conversation--action of the Reaganites*.

When they found they couldn't abolish a department, or regulatory body, they appointed a lap dog to oversee that department. Reagan's head of the Department of Education was William (come on number 7!) Bennett (who went on to be the Drug Czar under Bush the First). Bennett implemented "reforms" to the Dept. of Ed. such as:


Competency testing for teachers
Opening the teaching profession to "knowledgeable" individuals who have _not_ graduated from "schools of education"
Performance-based pay
National examination of students
Holding educators accountable for how the children do on tests.
Parental choice of schools

These all sound innocent enough--but are all terrible ideas. These "reforms" are what opened the "teach to the test" mentality and started the decline of American Education.

These actions (not only in the Dept. of Ed.) also set up the guvment=bad meme.

As to @Grimm's statement, "Why do you have a problem with putting that power back in the hands of the states?" What would have been the result of letting Mississippi set it's own standards on letting Black people vote?

BTW, Dr. Paul kicked Schieffer's ass over the, "Nobody is saying Bomb Iran" fuck-up.

*I don't directly blame Ronnie.
At this point he was playing with Jelly Beans and asking, "What day is it, Mommy?"

heropsycho says...

The simple fact is the vast majority of educational policy is already done by the state and local governments, and it obvious to anyone who teaches. I was a public school teacher for 4 years in Virginia. What impacted me more, NCLB or Virginia Standards of Learning? The SOW's by a very wide margin.

What you're suggesting is the federal gov't should play no role whatsoever in educational policy. It's not a case of all or nothing. NCLB is an example, and I agree with you, of bad national education policy. But many states are also enacting standardized multiple choice tests for state accepted curriculum, and judge teacher effectiveness based on these scores, which is IMO also bad policy. Bad policy can come from federal, state, or local government. Why would you think federal gov't is any more likely to generate bad policy than any other level of gov't? And past that, NCLB being a mistake is not a good point for abolishing the Dept. Of Edu. It's an argument to change federal education policy.

Sure, there's a portion of educational policy where what works for one state doesn't work for another. However, there's also shared policy that's in common across all states, too. Across the US for example, there is an increased demand for workers with technology skills. Federal gov't initiatives can help facilitate that. Federal tax dollars have also helped to supplement state and local gov't funding for education, too. A federal apparatus is useful in these situations.

>> ^Grimm:

It's easy to say "just change bad policy". But the reality is when the Federal government has control it's not an easy thing to do. Why do you have a problem with putting that power back in the hands of the states? What works for one state may not work for another. Or what works for one state can then be adopted by other states who are looking for a better solution.
No child left behind is finally getting repealed....but how long did that take? Good for the new students...but what about the kids like mine that had to live with that failed experiment for the last 10 years?

Grimm says...

@Boise_Lib, bad analogy...."What would have been the result of letting Mississippi set it's own standards on letting Black people vote?". Voting is a "rights" issue and our rights come from the Constitution that apply to all citizens of this country and therefore becomes a federal issue by default. State Education is not a rights issue and therefore does not require control by the Federal government.

@heropsycho, I did not use NCLB as the "reason" to get rid of the Fed DOE. It was an example of one of it's problems and how it is not that easy to "just change the bad policy" when the power is so far removed from the people and their local schools.

Again I ask...what was wrong with our school systems pre 1980 that have been so vastly improved after 1980?

Grimm says...

No, I addressed the fact that you did not answer my question....you only gave a poor apples to oranges (something that is a constitutional right to something that is not) "what if" analogy. You also gave some examples of what "some" state and local policies that have been implemented since 1980 that are also bad. But unless I skipped it please show me were you gave examples (not what ifs) of what was wrong pre 1980 that was vastly improved by adding the Fed DOE.>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^Grimm:
Again I ask...what was wrong with our school systems pre 1980 that have been so vastly improved after 1980?

Umm, you kind of ignored my answer to this question.

Boise_Lib says...

>> ^Grimm:

No, I addressed the fact that you did not answer my question....you only gave a poor apples to oranges (something that is a constitutional right to something that is not) "what if" analogy. You also gave some examples of what "some" state and local policies that have been implemented since 1980 that are also bad. But unless I skipped it please show me were you gave examples (not what ifs) of what was wrong pre 1980 that was vastly improved by adding the Fed DOE.>> ^Boise_Lib:
>> ^Grimm:
Again I ask...what was wrong with our school systems pre 1980 that have been so vastly improved after 1980?

Umm, you kind of ignored my answer to this question.



Jesus, are you being intentionally dense? Or, is it congenital?

"You also gave some examples of what "some" state and local policies that have been implemented since 1980 that are also bad."

Try reading what I wrote next time.

"Reagan's head of the Department of Education was William (come on number 7!) Bennett (who went on to be the Drug Czar under Bush the First). Bennett implemented "reforms" to the Dept. of Ed. such as:"

This is like trying to have an intelligent discussion with shinny about religion. And like those conversations--it's over.

Ignore!

Grimm says...

Before calling someone else "dense" you better check yourself....I'll be more polite and assume you just don't pay attention.

ME: What was wrong with our school systems BEFORE 1980 that was vastly IMPROVED after 1980 with the FED DOE?

YOU: (an example of a BAD thing about the FED DOE) "Reagan's head of the Department of Education was William (come on number 7!) Bennett (who went on to be the Drug Czar under Bush the First). Bennett implemented "reforms" to the Dept. of Ed. such as:...These all sound innocent enough--but are all terrible ideas."

ME: That doesn't address my question.

YOU: Allow me to help you with your drool cup you ignorant simpleton by repeating the same text that still doesn't address your question.

NetRunner says...

@Grimm, I think the right legislation to focus on is the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which appears to be the genesis of federal funding for education.

Now, I confess I have no direct knowledge of the Department of Education beyond what I can google, but according to their website, their mandate is:

  • Establishing policies on federal financial aid for education, and distributing as well as monitoring those funds.
  • Collecting data on America's schools and disseminating research.
  • Focusing national attention on key educational issues.
  • Prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal access to education.

Now I'm not sure how many of those things Ron Paul is really against, but for the sake of argument, let's just pretend he's only opposed to that first bullet.

But why is he opposed to that? I'm guessing the whole idea here is the money comes with strings attached. Well, that's fine, if states want to forgo that funding and ignore those strings, they can. What's his objection?

If he doesn't want the money to have strings attached, I'm open to that idea, but I would like him to put a little effort into explaining what "strings" are currently being attached, and why he thinks they're so onerous.

If he's just opposed to some specific policy the Department of Education has put in place, then he should just say that. But then it's not the Department of Education that's the problem, it's that policy that's the problem -- the Department of Education as an institution is fine, he just wants it to be run differently.

But just outright discarding the Department of Education means getting rid of popular, reasonable things like federal funding for education, collecting statistics about educational outcomes, enforcement of federal anti-discrimination law, or even basic curriculum standards (like you can't teach religious doctrine as science).

And this in a nutshell is why I never really have anything nice to say about Ron Paul anymore. Either he's a fucking clueless idiot who doesn't know anything about what the Department he supposedly wants to eliminate is responsible for, or he does know all the things the Department he wants to eliminate is responsible for, and he's just hoping normal people don't realize that eliminating it would mean cutting education funding and decriminalizing racial segregation of schools until it's too late.

One can certainly complain about the policies the Department of Education is setting -- and I see liberals doing so all the time, BTW -- but this call for the abolition of the Department in its entire is mindless, heartless insanity, and it's gotta fucking stop.

dystopianfuturetoday says...

@Grimm - At the risk of stating the obvious, don't you think it's more logical to believe that Reagan's loyalty to big money (and ALL of his predecessors) might have played a dominant role in the degradation of American public education, rather than the fact that a Department of Education exists? Boise laid out a number of deliberate poison pills in his comment. You've merely asserted your claim without any rational other than an arbitrary number of trips around the sun.

Let's say you buy a new car, and I tell you I hate it and intend to pop the tires, break the windows and light it on fire after you go to sleep. If the next morning you wake up to find your car on fire, with popped tires and broken windows, would you take it back to the dealer and claim the car was faulty? This, in essence, is what you are doing here.

If I were you, the logical counter argument would be, "well there you go, you've made my case, a malicious or subservient (take your pick) president was able to have a hugely negative effect on education nationally. Had it been left to the states, our educational system would be a utopic wonderland."

To which I would respond, "If big money can compromise a huge government, what makes you think they couldn't eat a state house for champagne brunch?"

The problem with libertarians is that they are unwitting allies of the corporate state. They believe that getting rid of government would end authoritarianism, completely failing to understand that the kind of authoritarianism that haunts our country would prefer to be unrestrained by government too. Right libertarianism, if enacted, would indeed provide more liberty to a handful of wealthy and powerful people, but it would come at the cost of liberty to the vast majority. 1% vs 99% if you will. Sound familiar? I see no clear difference between libertarianism and social Darwinism. If you respond to any of this, I'd most like to know how you differentiate libertarianism from social Darwinism.

I think a vast amount of people would prefer the liberty of healthcare, education, roads, fire departments, police departments, schools and libraries to the liberty to dominate a labor force, the liberty to pollute the environment with impunity, the liberty to manipulate the banking system or the liberty to build bloody corporate empires on foreign shores. What makes you think the business men that took us to war in the middle east wouldn't be twice as brutal without a single shred of oversight or transparency? What makes you think deregulated labor markets wouldn't revert back to pre-regulation era slavery if given the option?

If social Darwinism is what you truly desire, then we have nothing more to say to each other. However, if you want to stop authoritarianism, then stop trying to make it easier for authoritarians to thrive. Ron Paul is a nice fella and all - an adorable little grandfatherly gnome even - and I take him at his word when he says he believes his economic hypothesis would create liberty. Unfortunately, reality begs to differ. And, sincerity is no excuse for bad ideas.

Good debate. Peace.

You can join the convo too if you like @GeeSussFreeK

Grimm says...

I'm gonna try to keep this short. I'm not trying to change your minds, just set the record straight. When someone makes a comment like "He wants to shut down the Department of Education? Fuck that!" I think that is purposely trying to paint the man as "anti-education".

It is not "social-Darwinism" to believe that state and local governments can do things better and more efficiently then the Federal gov. by being more accessible to the actual people their policies effect. BTW, also more in line with how the founding fathers setup the rules via the Constitution.

Yes, there are a lot of things that RP does not want the "Federal" government involved with. That is not the same as saying "RP doesn't want govt to do any of these things"....just that they should be done at the state and local levels of government if that is what the people want.

About Big Business running rampant...just how much easier (and cheaper) it is for Big Business to lobby a single "Federal DOE" as opposed to having to lobby 50 separate "State DOE"?

dystopianfuturetoday says...

-I don't believe Ron Paul to be directly pro- or anti-education, he is indifferent to it. What he is against is paying taxes. But, without taxes there are no schools. He talks about vouchers and school choice, but doesn't go into any depth as to how those would be achieved. At the end of the day, I don't see much difference between anti-education and anti-education-funding. The outcomes are the same.

-I don't disagree with the fact that local, state and federal governments have different strengths and weaknesses. Local school districts should decide how to run their own schools, and they largely do from my experiences in education. The only federal mandates I'm aware of are the NCLB testing (which is admittedly terrible - and the schools districts have the option of opting out at the cost of federal funding) and the basic restrictions and protections that apply to government programs (religious restrictions for teachers, religious freedoms for students, civil rights protections, low income aids, etc.)

-My arguments were more aimed at anarcho-capitalism, since my window into libertarianism was opened by a fairly extreme ancapper. You sound like a more reasonable states rights conservative. Again, I agree with you that states should be given greater power, but I do like the idea of having a greater constitutional authority that prevents prejudice and corruption. Of course it's all so confused and corrupt at the moment, big or small...

-But big business does already intervene at the local and state level. They even pick off city council seats when they need to. It would be much easier and cheaper for corporations to destroy state houses one by one or to buy them outright, rather than to lobby them. Be careful what you wish for.

My main gripe with Paul is that he talks a good game against corporatism, but at the same time supports the kinds of deregulation and tax cuts that empowered corporatism in the first place. Fighting fire with gasoline.

who voted against this video:

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon