There is post made by blog called “The Tenth Amendment” which interestingly makes the case that socialists should support Ron Paul for president. Of course one’s initial reaction is to such a statement would be either utter dismay or rage. In the post the author lays down an argument that Ron Paul as president would relegate the responsibility of government functions to state level control. He believes that by doing this it would make it possible to have a socialist government option because a state could choose to do so.
He says it would allow “50 different political options to choose from”, based on the idea that each state would then chose how things would be. Meaning the door would be supposedly open for socialists to build their own type of government. Despite this belief the idea is based on several Libertarian fallacies.
“Whether you prefer socialism or laissez-faire capitalism, there would most likely be an option that fits the political environment in which you would like to live.”
This claim is predicated on the idea that capitalism is supposedly freedom. As Lenin said about capitalist freedom, “freedom for whom, to do what?” It’s an assumption that at least one state will automatically become socialist. That’s not what he is outright saying, however he is implying it by saying, “…there would most likely be an option..”. This implying comes from the typical lack of understanding that Libertarians have. Believing that all government is automatically socialist. Well this is not true, we have a capitalist government. That state is the apparatus by which the capitalists protect protect their private property.
The state is funded by the public, but controlled by the capitalist class. They pay for the representatives to run for office and provide them with all the incentives necessary to do their bidding. This is capitalism, where as Libertarians are in denial. The breaking down of the federal government into small state governments would produce no difference. The state itself would be less powerful and have less access to resources, but that would not alter how the state functions. It would not eliminate business being the ones who fund politicians. It would not eliminate the profit motive behind their corruption. Nothing in its essence of what makes the system what it is would change.
A negative would be that the government would have less resources to carry out what people did want it to do. Like national defence and security. We would have 50 different departments of Homeland Security with 50 different methods of doing things that would eventually conflict. Resources for national defence would be more complicated as different states would be fighting over what equipment should be purchased from who. Just forming an actual national defence military strategy would be next to impossible. Each state alone would think they are the most important and needed to be defended the most, not to mention all the other problems that would arise. That’s why the military has a central command structure; militaries should.
His next argument, which is against big government, implies that big government can’t get things done because of people with different “political motives”. As an example of this he points to the so-called Obamacare controversy as an example.
“Look at Obamacare and the controversy that it’s caused. It’s taking forever to set the plan in motion because people from different parts of the country view the issue differently. I always use Massachusetts and Mississippi as examples. People in Massachusetts aren’t going to agree with the political motives of people in Mississippi, and vice versa. Why should either state be forced to abide by the political views of the other?”
Here he continues the fallacy that “people” are fighting over what healthcare means. Again it is the intrusion of capitalism and the profit motive of insurance companies and medical suppliers who are against Obamacare. (At this moment I won’t go into what a fraud Obamacare is.) Universal healthcare is popular, especially among the 50 million Americans who are without healthcare. The drive against healthcare reform was completely at the behest of corporations trying to protect their profits. That’s all it is, we know this for a fact given the insanity of their arguments.
“Conservatives for Patient’s Rights” is a prime example of business interfering with the will of the people and the carrying out of that function. The group is a total fraud, it’s funded by corporate lobby groups, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Their website told people to literally yell “1930s Germany” at town hall meetings to invoke the fear of the Nazis. (Unfortunately the website is now gone and redirects to unrelated blog.) The move for healthcare reform was stopped by businesses defending their profits, not “political motives” of people in different states.
I’m not implying in anyway that all disagreements would disappear under socialism. (Although people in the comment section will claim that.) I am saying that 90% of what interferes with the will of the people will be eliminated. What we would have then is an actual debate on what we want.
This post is intended to get socialists to vote for a Libertarian candidate based on Libertarian arguments. Its an ineffective means of changing a socialists mind. If Libertarians already acknowledge that the system is controlled by big business, and both parties are owned by big business, how is Ron Paul supposed to change anything? It is a contradiction in itself. Him bringing any change at all is about as believable as Obama bringing any change. Even the poor got poorer while the rich got richer under his leadership. Even though that was supposedly what Obama promised to reverse.
Ron Paul is just being touted as a candidate of change. I’ve heard that one before.