Friday, October 30, 2009

Ron Paul at His Best on Larry King


1 comment:

  1. Wenzel,

    I thought this was actually an example of how weak a speaker/articulator RP can be for liberty. He made a number of goofs, from major to minor:

    1. Said people have "a right to earn a living". Wrong. No one has a right to earn a living. You have a right to be left alone and not be forcibly prevented from providing for yourself. But to say you have a right to earn a living seems to imply that if you can't earn a living it is incumbent upon everyone else to provide you with one (welfare). I know RP didn't mean this but I thought that was really sloppily worded.
    2. RP said he "dislikes this system [healthcare] as much as Michael Moore does" Okay, this is minor but for an Austrian to say it, it's MAJOR... how did RP calculate that? He can't! You can't compare interpersonal value scales. He can't say "I dislike this an equivalent amount as Michael Moore does." You can't objectively quantify MM's distaste and RP's and then conclude they're equal. This was just really sloppy, and then they ran with it and their flashing pull-quote over and over.
    3. RP said if you really believe in freedom, free markets, then you don't advocate govt. But RP believes in govt, he's a Constitutionalist (big C for THIS constitution, not little c for constitutional govt in general). So, I guess he doesn't actually believe in freedom and free markets? I'd say that's right, he'd argue it isn't but he'd be a hypocrite if he did so. "Well, if you believe in MY arbitrarily-arrived at preference for a particular level of govt you still love freedom, but if you arrive at MM's or Larry King's... you're a socialist."
    4. Larry King asked if someone has a heart attack and can't pay don't they have a right to be provided medical care and RP said they don't have a right (that's good) but then went into some bizarre utilitarianist claim about the past, present and future whereby he said that that never really happened and in reality people always have and always will provide those who can't pay with free medical care. "No one is getting turned away" uhhh, so then what is the problem with the govt forcing doctors to care for people if they were going to do it anyway. The proper way to respond to the question would be to reiterate that no one has that right, to observe that that "right" is dependent upon there being doctors in the area in which one lives in the first place and all the idiotic organization it would require to make that a reality for everyone anyway (what, are we gonna force doctor's to move to rural areas to ensure everyone has a right to doctor attention when they collapse on the logging trail and have a heart attack?), point out that if this is really a right then it belongs to everyone in the whole world and then FINALLY suggest that even though it isn't a right, in the past people had received charity from doctor's and could most likely count on that charity to continue into the future because there is no reason to assume people have gotten any less charitable over time.