It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What is the safety net for the poor and the elderly.
Healthcare, If people don't have health care that would mean that a lot of people would be in danger.
What is he going to do about public education, teachers etc.
What is his stance on FSA (Federal Student Aid) if he's eliminating a lot of government help to the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Objectivism is the philosophy founded by Ayn Rand (1905–1982), the author of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, The Virtue of Selfishness, and other works. It is a philosophy of reason, individualism, respect for achievement, and freedom.
Based on their political philosophy, Objectivists do not consistently follow typical "conservative" and "liberal" political positions. Rand advocated the right to legal abortion. She opposed involuntary military conscription (the "draft") and any form of censorship, including legal restrictions on pornography. Rand opposed racism, and any legal application of racism, and she considered affirmative action to be an example of legal racism. As a life-long atheist Rand rejected organized religion and specifically Christianity, which she decreed "the best kindergarten of communism possible." More recent Objectivists have argued that religion is incompatible with American ideals, and the Christian right poses a threat to individual rights. Objectivists have argued against faith-based initiatives, displaying religious symbols in government facilities, and the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools. Objectivists have opposed the environmentalist movement as being hostile to technology and, therefore, to humanity itself. Objectivists have also opposed a number of government activities commonly supported by both liberals and conservatives, including antitrust laws, public education, and child labor laws.
Originally posted by HueyvsRiley
Correct me if i am wrong and i am open to hear everyone's views. from the little time i've had spend researching this guy and what he wants to do. It is to my understanding that this guy wants this country to be on some survival of the fittest #.
The only thing that i kind of like about him is that he is anti war. He also believes the government should not be involved w/ anything nonetheless help anyone. I disagree i think the government should be involved in some ways so that they can help those who can't help them selves such as the poor and the elderly.
Correct again if i am wrong but from some research this is what i have gotten from Ron Paul and what he wants to do. He wants to eliminate medicare/medicaid and most government assistance, if not all of it and thus, cut spending. he wants to end the wars, bring troops home from abroad and cut military spending substantially as well as legalize all drugs and leave people alone. he also wants eliminate much of the bureaucracy and "departments of". Which probably means he would like things to sort of go back to times of before in a sense.
Also can some one please explain why wouldn't he support the Civil Rights Acts from their understanding and what he said.
Now i have some interesting questions i would like people to try their best to answer on an unbaised perspective and provide facts and sources.
1. What does Ron Paul plan on doing w/ the Low Income Communities/ Elderly? Since he wants to eliminate everything that helps them. What is he going to replace it with something else and what would that be? How would he be helping these people if he eliminates everything that helps them. What is the safety net for the poor and the elderly. How long would it take for his ideas to work.
2. Healthcare, If people don't have health care that would mean that a lot of people would be in danger. What is he going to do for the Sick people who can do nothing about their condition?
3. What is he going to do about public education, teachers etc. If he wants little involvement with the government and the people what does this mean for the education of those who go to public schools. Is he going to leave it as it is. Is he going to make it better how?
4. What is his stance on FSA (Federal Student Aid) if he's eliminating a lot of government help to the people. What does this mean for those who receive this help to get a higher education. Is he eliminating this also. Is he going to be making this better or worse.
Can someone try to their best of their ability to answer these question in a unbiased way and provide facts and sources to support their claims i will highly appreciate this.
Rand applies her philosophy of Objectivism to the subject of politics. When Rand talks of capitalism, she means laissez-faire capitalism, in which there is a complete separation of state and economics "in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of church and state." Rand says, "Objectivists are not 'conservatives'. We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish."
Rand says that most people do not know what capitalism is, which is why it is "the unknown ideal."
 What is capitalism?As understood by Rand, capitalism is the system that emerges among a group of free individuals, each applying time and reason to sustain his or her own life, each the owner of the means to do so, freely trading among themselves.
Rand regarded a mixed economy as a dangerous and unstable combination of freedom and controls which tends to develop into ever increasing statism.
 Reason and valuesRand held capitalism to be the only moral social system, that is, one consistent with an objective theory of value and ethical individualism. The creation of wealth, according to Rand, is a fusion of mind and matter, and she argued that reason is the most fundamental tool of survival for human beings. However, rational thought is rendered inoperative under conditions of compulsion, coercion or, as she puts it, the initiation of physical force. Whether it is the force of an armed robber or the force of a law, an actor's own judgment is rendered irrelevant to his actions by a threat of force, compelling him to act on the judgment or will of another, thus neutralizing the source of wealth and survival itself. Only voluntary trade can ensure that human interaction is mutually beneficial, and an analysis of history shows that only economic and political freedom has worked to create significant growth and economic development, precisely by liberating the rational faculties of ever wider numbers of individuals, according to Rand.
 Individual rightsIn its most basic form, the right to life (as understood by Rand) is the right of each human to do any and all activities necessary to sustain his or her own life. Rand further argued that one's selfish interests can never rationally entail the use of physical force or violence against the person or the property of another. Rand saw humans as thriving only as independent beings, reason being a faculty of the individual, with each freely expending his own time, effort and reason to sustain his own life.
Rand suggested that through the division of labor, specialization and voluntary trade, other people are of enormous value to an individual. Moreover, knowledge, skills and interests vary from human to human. One person may be better at shaping flint into arrowheads, another may have acquired the skill to turn mud into pottery. If the first wants a pot to cook in, he may trade an arrowhead for a pot. The central feature of free trade is that each participant judges that he or she has gained from the transaction.
When physical force is banned, according to Rand, persuasion alone can organize or coordinate human activity, and, consequently, the use of reason is both liberated and rewarded. The technological innovation which characterizes capitalist systems is thus directly related to conditions of economic freedom. A producer profits and becomes wealthy only by satisfying the voluntary choices of other market participants and in direct proportion to the value those participants find in transactions with that producer.
In this way, individuals who themselves could have never invented, for example, the light bulb or the steam engine can none the less benefit from the creativity of others – but this can be only ensured when both the innovator and the consumer are free to refuse the proposed trade. This, according to Rand, is the mechanism behind America's rapid economic development, its liberation of human reason.
Freedom being the primary condition for the practical use of reason, the role of government in protecting individual rights is therefore fundamental, according to Rand, and it is equally fundamental that the government itself be limited to its role of protecting rights, for only by rendering all human interaction voluntary, i.e., free from the initiated coercion of criminals and laws, can the market operate to radically improve the lives of everyone. To the extent that it has been permitted to operate, this is what a free market has done, argued Rand.
Thus, she held, "a free mind and a free market are corollaries."
But how do you say pure capitalism is the way to go where every thing will be perfect. No cops to rule over you and no criminals to steal from you. How does that work? Capitalism will make crime disappear some how? And the barter and trade thing does not seem to really work unless your dirt poor and living off the land. Tradeing a home made arrow head for a clay pot that you made. Ok I guess that works. But what guy builds a car for me to trade a clay pot to him. He has to need a clay pot for something. Or who builds a computer in a neanderthal way of life. Except that way of thinking does work if you go back to the 1400's or earlier where you had the royal kings and knights and Lords of the land. And all the rst are just peasants who mean nothing and deserve nothing. Let them eat cake I tell ya.
Originally posted by JBA2848
I guess the problem is Ayn Paul/Ron Paul/Rand Paul have a thought of a Utopia if they can just get rid of everything. And they get this idea from Ayn Paul's fiction novels. Reminds me of Scientology based on L Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer.
Originally posted by HueyvsRiley
I remember a question i had, Ron Paul talks about having doctors just taking care of the people for free and churches taking care of the people. If they can pay then they pay, if they can't then they can't and the doctors would still attend them it's what he basically said.
IDK how would this work, but i don't think doctors would want to take care of people if they're not getting paid. They spend a lot of their life studying medicine to get paid nothing or almost anything. If they're not getting paid by the people who can't afford it then who are going to pay these doctors.