Official Rand Paul For President Thread

[Skeleton Jelly 2]

So, his point is that energy conservation is good, but that regulations demanding energy efficiency in appliances are bad.

That's a much better representation than saying he doesn't want energy efficiency regulated because he's lying about being in favor of energy efficiency.

[hblask 1]

I think he sounds like a child when he complains about his toilet.

Apparently you've never had to live with one of the faulty toilets the fed forced upon us for years. When something so frequently used and so personal fails so consistently, it's a pretty big deal. There are few things that could have more of a real-life impact than toilets that fail several times per week -- and for years that was the result of federal law.

[hblask 1]

Obama sucks, at what point did I give him a pass? I liked him when he was running, but he's pretty obviously a schmuck and has been running a schmucky administration. I haven't praised him in probably years. Is it really unfair of me to point out his egregious misuse of two words almost consecutively? When a guy is up there trying to sound really smart and he says something really stupid, it's notable. Why do you give Rand Paul a pass but you don't give Obama a pass on his misstatement about 57 states?

I usually do give Obama a pass for saying 57 states, except when people start using mis-statements as evidence of flawed thinking. These guys pretty much spend their days speaking on camera. It's not hard to find a serious mis-statement from any national politician. Digging for one and pointing it out is really lame, especially since the people who do it the most overlook Biden and Obama's verbal diarrhea.

I addressed that in my previous post, but again I will say that it's a ridiculous comparison that makes hardly any sense. No, I don't see it as hypocritical. Is it hypocritical that we can choose whichever cereal we want at the supermarket but we can't choose to carry M16s and grenades around in public? No, it's a silly comparison that doesn't make any sense.

See, this makes Rand's point: that we should be allowed to choose personal consumer items without interference, but the government *may* have a role when harming others is involved. So yes, it's hypocritical to go the other way, and say harming others is OK but making choices that some bureaucrat thinks could be made better is not.

He gave zero evidence for that and it seems extremely obvious that the light bulbs are getting made whether they're energy efficient or not, so I see absolutely zero reason why they can't be made in the US, probably by the very same companies that made the old ones.

Well, his little lecture wasn't meant to be a research paper, but the cost in jobs of environmental regulations in sending jobs overseas is well-documented. No, if your cost structure is higher, you cannot compete with foreign companies who do not have that same cost structure. And that is one of the major flaws of environmental regulations: they send jobs overseas to areas with even *weaker* regulations. It's obviously a balancing act, and Rand was making the point that the few watts saved by these bulbs probably doesn't justify the jobs lost. He could've further gone on to point out that the new high-efficiency bulbs are toxic and are leading to a massive new pollution problem. If you accidentally break one, you are supposed to get rubber gloves and a mask and scrub the area and put them in special bags and take them to a hazardous waste recycling center. If you throw them in the garbage, you are releasing toxic poisons into the environment. Is that an improvement, to poison us and our drinking water to reduce US energy consumption by 0.00000000000000001%?

I don't think that energy efficiency regulations are causing major job losses. Companies have been fleeing to Mexico and Southeast Asia for decades, and it's not because of government regulations. It's because they can do it cheaper there, period.

LOL, energy regulations can add several percentage points to the cost of a product. You can't really believe that has no effect on manufacturing decisions.

[hblask 1]

Yeah, this is much better -- poisoning 6000 gallons per bulb.Now, please explain the exact increase in global temperatures per traditional bulb, and the amount of harm caused by the increase of *that specific bulb*. Rand Paul was just scratching the surface. He doesn't have time for every single flaw in every single bit of environmental regulations. I do.

[timwakefield 68]

See, this makes Rand's point: that we should be allowed to choose personal consumer items without interference, but the government *may* have a role when harming others is involved. So yes, it's hypocritical to go the other way, and say harming others is OK but making choices that some bureaucrat thinks could be made better is not.

So why shouldn't the government *maybe* have a role when the environment is being harmed?

to reduce US energy consumption by 0.00000000000000001%?

I'm pretty certain that that's a massive mischaracterization of how much energy is saved by energy efficient bulbs. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm no bureaucrat and I certainly don't adore government intrusion in people's lives. I'm sure that many of the laws and decisions purportedly made in favor of conservation have been poor, unnecessary, and ill-conceived. But that doesn't make the concept poor or unnecessary. We're using the example of light bulbs, but I think the far larger issue, which Paul carefully ignored, is corporate pollution.

LOL, energy regulations can add several percentage points to the cost of a product. You can't really believe that has no effect on manufacturing decisions.

You're right, and I realized I was making a mistake right after I posted that. However, is it really wise to argue that it's better in other countries where they don't have strict regulations and companies can therefore pollute all they want and can pay their workers pennies? Or that America would be better if we let companies pollute all they want? Or is it better for us to legally demand that companies don't pollute egregiously and that they pay their workers a living wage?

[Balloon guy 158]

Or is it better for us to legally demand that companies don't pollute and that they pay their workers a living wage?

What about companies that don't operate in the US, do their products have to meet the same guidelines?

[timwakefield 68]

What about companies that don't operate in the US, do their products have to meet the same guidelines?

EDIT: Never mind, I'm not even gonna respond to your annoying rhetorical question. If you want to state an opinion or a set of facts then please go ahead, but I don't know what you think you're adding to the conversation by asking a question like that.

[Balloon guy 158]

EDIT: Never mind, I'm not even gonna respond to your annoying rhetorical question. If you want to state an opinion or a set of facts then please go ahead, but I don't know what you think you're adding to the conversation by asking a question like that.

Don't be chicken.I am just trying to get you to see that your suggested 'fix' would actually require us to close our borders to all foreign products, which isn't a good long term strategy.Basing our economic health on the supposed health of the planet is foolish if its not done all the way.Putting heavy requirements on our companies that China can ignore only results in the pollution to be spewed in another part of the earth, it doesn't stop the pollution.Look at it this way:Company A pumps 90 tons of pollutants into the air every year in Kansas. The government tells Company A they must put in new mufflers that would reduce their profits by 30%, or stop making widgets.Company B moves to China, and makes the same widgets for 1/2 the cost, AND no pollution restriction so they pump 250 tons of pollutants into the air.Company A cannot compete with Company B, and eventually folds ( or moves to China )Results:Company B keeps making widgets. sells to the US market, which is decreased because they no longer make widgets themselves, and must now watch their money ship off shores.ANDThe earth has more pollution.Only Democrats can screw things up so bad resulting in things being worse while they get re-elected for their motives, not their results.

[hblask 1]

So why shouldn't the government *maybe* have a role when the environment is being harmed?

Neither Rand Paul nor myself argues that the government shouldn't have *some* role, so I don't know why you keep bringing up that strawman. Dealing with negative externalities is one of the few legitimate functions of government. The problem is when the government starts making regulations that costs jobs and creates lots of headaches when the gain is basically zero. That's what Rand Paul argues against.

I'm pretty certain that that's a massive mischaracterization of how much energy is saved by energy efficient bulbs. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm no bureaucrat and I certainly don't adore government intrusion in people's lives. I'm sure that many of the laws and decisions purportedly made in favor of conservation have been poor, unnecessary, and ill-conceived. But that doesn't make the concept poor or unnecessary. We're using the example of light bulbs, but I think the far larger issue, which Paul carefully ignored, is corporate pollution.

Well, let's see the statistics. How much does it actually save? I'm guessing the improvement is far less than 0.01% of our total energy usage, and that the pollution contribution is orders of magnitude less than that.So no, the concept of regulating negative externalities is not the problem; it's the stupid way they do it. Residential use of electricity is a small minority of total energy usage in the US; most household use is from a couple of appliances, namely A/C, refrigerators, and water heaters. When the Feds regulated those to make those more efficient, I don't remember anyone complaining. Why? Because those actually make a measurable impact on usage, and the savings from the most efficient ones compared to the least efficient met sensible standards in terms of the tradeoff between energy savings vs additional costs to consumers. Light bulbs would basically have to use no energy to justify even a few additional cents cost to the consumer.So please, stop with the strawman. Nobody is opposed to ALL regulation; nobody is opposed to ALL environmental regulations. What Paul was speaking against is the stupidity of misguided regulations that harm lots of people for immeasurably small gains.

You're right, and I realized I was making a mistake right after I posted that. However, is it really wise to argue that it's better in other countries where they don't have strict regulations and companies can therefore pollute all they want and can pay their workers pennies? Or that America would be better if we let companies pollute all they want? Or is it better for us to legally demand that companies don't pollute egregiously and that they pay their workers a living wage?

Again, with the strawman ("pollute all they want"). The question is what is sensible? You can assign a dollar value to a human life; in fact, the government does this all the time. You can assign a cost to any regulation. You can do estimates of current and future harm. Most regulations over the last 20 years have failed to account for these things. (Or maybe it's just most *controversial* regulations, that could be). If the regulations are grounded in science and realistic cost-benefit studies, that's one thing. If they are ground in radical environmentalist fantasies, that's another. The light bulbs and the toilets are examples of the latter.Rand Paul and conservatives like living in clean, safe places as much as anyone. That's why they (and I) support sensible regulations, not the out-of-control nanny state BS that gets passed every time a greenie sees a cigarette butt on the ground.

[timwakefield 68]

Don't be chicken.I am just trying to get you to see that your suggested 'fix' would actually require us to close our borders to all foreign products, which isn't a good long term strategy.

I wasn't being chicken, I just didn't (and still don't) see why you didn't simply make the post you just did in the first place.But, um, I also don't know what you're talking about. You say that I'm suggesting a 'fix.' But I'm only arguing in favor of policies that are already in place. Are our borders currently closed to all foreign products? No.There are two forms of regulations: One describes what is legal and what is illegal as far as creating that product, paying your workers, not polluting, etc. The other describes standards which that product must meet in order to be sold in the US. Products made in Mexico under conditions which would be illegal in the US can and most certainly are sold in the US, because the product itself conforms to any necessary regulations. So, I don't know what you're talking about.

[timwakefield 68]

Well, let's see the statistics. How much does it actually save? I'm guessing the improvement is far less than 0.01% of our total energy usage, and that the pollution contribution is orders of magnitude less than that.

Yes, let's see the statistics. I don't know if you're asking me for them, but I don't have them. Guessing seems counterproductive.

That's why they (and I) support sensible regulations,

I've only ever heard him discuss the ills of regulation. He's totally all about free markets, and government regulations are totally not. I don't think I said that he wants zero regulations, and if I did I misspoke or was being snide ("pollute all they want"). Zero regulations on anything would be insane. My point is that, in my opinion, he wants dangerously few regulations.

[hblask 1]

Yes, let's see the statistics. I don't know if you're asking me for them, but I don't have them. Guessing seems counterproductive.I've only ever heard him discuss the ills of regulation. He's totally all about free markets, and government regulations are totally not. I don't think I said that he wants zero regulations, and if I did I misspoke or was being snide ("pollute all they want"). Zero regulations on anything would be insane. My point is that, in my opinion, he wants dangerously few regulations.

And that's been my point: we have dangerously too many regulations, and I think that is what Rand is arguing. There is some optimal amount of regulation.Just as if we decided to define murder as.. " one of the following crimes: killing with a knife in the garden, killing with a knife in the kitchen, killing with a toaster in the bathtub...", there reaches a point where we forget what the point of the regulation was in the first place and start causing harm. We have reached and moved beyond that point, by quite a long way. We're getting into micromanaging business decisions instead of preventing harm -- and it's counterproductive, for all the reasons I've already covered. Rand Paul is one of the few people talking sense about the problem -- although I will admit, he gets sidetracked into ideological battles if he's given the stage too long. But from what I can tell, his day to day behavior is all about practicality and common sense.

[timwakefield 68]

Rand Paul is one of the few people talking sense about the problem -- although I will admit, he gets sidetracked into ideological battles if he's given the stage too long.

The thing is, I agree that government regulations are almost certainly rife with corruption and waste and idiocy, like practically every other facet of the federal government is. But I disagree strongly with Paul's ideology, that free markets can solve practically anything and are the pinnacle of society. And whenever he starts talking about cutting government waste or idiocy (the sensible things I agree with) he also seems to almost always be talking about his fairly extreme opinions on free market capitalism (the things I don't agree with).

[hblask 1]

The thing is, I agree that government regulations are almost certainly rife with corruption and waste and idiocy, like practically every other facet of the federal government is. But I disagree strongly with Paul's ideology, that free markets can solve practically anything and are the pinnacle of society. And whenever he starts talking about cutting government waste or idiocy (the sensible things I agree with) he also seems to almost always be talking about his fairly extreme opinions on free market capitalism (the things I don't agree with).

And yet, as to the bolded, it has by far the best track record, AINEC.When it fails is when crony capitalism kicks in. And that happens most frequently when govt power over private transactions grows.Reality matters. Good intentions are not enough.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

The thing is, I agree that government regulations are almost certainly rife with corruption and waste and idiocy, like practically every other facet of the federal government is. But I disagree strongly with Paul's ideology, that free markets can solve practically anything and are the pinnacle of society. And whenever he starts talking about cutting government waste or idiocy (the sensible things I agree with) he also seems to almost always be talking about his fairly extreme opinions on free market capitalism (the things I don't agree with).

I understand a little better now about why you don't like Paul's Ideology. I don't agree with you, especially about capitalism for the reasons Henry has already articulated. I must say though, that I do get a similar vibe from libertarians, Paul included. It is a Utopian vision just as fanatical and unrealistic as the Marxist utopia. The belief of capitalism as messiah, if only it could be practiced uncorrupted then all the universe would fall nicely into perfect harmony. I am exaggerating.. but only a little. For example, to hear libertarians talk, you would think that crime will completely disappear if marijuana were only legalized. All the pushers, addicts, would all clean up and go get 9-5s and save a ton of money by closing down all the prisons, ect. ect. I actually am in favor of legalizing most drugs, but I don't have the delusion that everything is going to be hunky dory once this is done. Prohibition didn't work, but no great favor was done to society when alcohol was legalized, look at the most depraved acts committed in our society and you will find in many cases a link to alcohol abuse. The other biggie for me is the fact that libertarians have the delusion that Islamic terrorists were a product of the US govt. and that by ignoring them and by joining Europe in their anti-semitism that we will not be in any danger from terrorists. I have never heard a coherent foreign policy position from any libertarian candidate. I can understand being much more reluctant about going to war than we have been, but pulling back into a protectionist shell is not realistic, and until they get a little more realistic about foreign affairs then I don't think they will be able to put enough coalitions together to ever be a real player in American politics.

[akoff 0]

The thing is, I agree that government regulations are almost certainly rife with corruption and waste and idiocy, like practically every other facet of the federal government is. But I disagree strongly with Paul's ideology, that free markets can solve practically anything and are the pinnacle of society. And whenever he starts talking about cutting government waste or idiocy (the sensible things I agree with) he also seems to almost always be talking about his fairly extreme opinions on free market capitalism (the things I don't agree with).

They have in the past and they will in the future if people them them work. When Washington starts getting cute with them is when the syatem falls apart.

[hblask 1]

I understand a little better now about why you don't like Paul's Ideology. I don't agree with you, especially about capitalism for the reasons Henry has already articulated. I must say though, that I do get a similar vibe from libertarians, Paul included. It is a Utopian vision just as fanatical and unrealistic as the Marxist utopia. The belief of capitalism as messiah, if only it could be practiced uncorrupted then all the universe would fall nicely into perfect harmony. I am exaggerating.. but only a little. For example, to hear libertarians talk, you would think that crime will completely disappear if marijuana were only legalized. All the pushers, addicts, would all clean up and go get 9-5s and save a ton of money by closing down all the prisons, ect. ect. I actually am in favor of legalizing most drugs, but I don't have the delusion that everything is going to be hunky dory once this is done. Prohibition didn't work, but no great favor was done to society when alcohol was legalized, look at the most depraved acts committed in our society and you will find in many cases a link to alcohol abuse.

I don't know any libertarians who hold any of those positions. It's very frustrating that about 95% of the so-called arguments against libertarians (and not just from you, from lots of people) are cartoonish characterizations of anything any libertarian believes.

The other biggie for me is the fact that libertarians have the delusion that Islamic terrorists were a product of the US govt. and that by ignoring them and by joining Europe in their anti-semitism that we will not be in any danger from terrorists. I have never heard a coherent foreign policy position from any libertarian candidate. I can understand being much more reluctant about going to war than we have been, but pulling back into a protectionist shell is not realistic, and until they get a little more realistic about foreign affairs then I don't think they will be able to put enough coalitions together to ever be a real player in American politics.

Again, there is much cartoonish views here. In reality, libertarians are all over the map on foreign policy. None, not one, has ever said we should join Europe in their anti-semitism.The coherent libertarian position is to mind our own business. If someone threatens us, we take them out. If they play nice, we leave them alone. Any citizen who thinks they need to go to another country to fight for a personal belief is free to do so, but you do not get to enlist other people's kids for your personal beliefs. The military is for our defense. Period.As for the theory that terrorists are, at least in part, a product of our foreign policy, the CIA's own reports say *exactly* that, so it's not like it's some kind of crazy libertarian idea.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

I don't know any libertarians who hold any of those positions. It's very frustrating that about 95% of the so-called arguments against libertarians (and not just from you, from lots of people) are cartoonish characterizations of anything any libertarian believes. Again, there is much cartoonish views here. In reality, libertarians are all over the map on foreign policy. None, not one, has ever said we should join Europe in their anti-semitism.The coherent libertarian position is to mind our own business. If someone threatens us, we take them out. If they play nice, we leave them alone. Any citizen who thinks they need to go to another country to fight for a personal belief is free to do so, but you do not get to enlist other people's kids for your personal beliefs. The military is for our defense. Period.As for the theory that terrorists are, at least in part, a product of our foreign policy, the CIA's own reports say *exactly* that, so it's not like it's some kind of crazy libertarian idea.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/17/end-...r-save-black-amIf lots of people are making "cartoonish characterizations" maybe it is because of articles like the one linked. Again I will say I agree we need to end the war on drugs, but this guy is insane if he thinks it will lead to his conclusions.I encourage people to read the whole article, but here is how it begins. " One key to getting past the race issue in America is to end the war on drugs. John McWhorter says it's the most important thing we can do. "Here is another gem, "McWhorter sees prohibition as the saboteur of black families."This article is the perfect examples of the sweeping pronouncements common in libertarian arguments. I like McWhorter and Stossel, and agree with the part about ending the War on Drugs, but the rest is just crazy. To argue that race issues in this country including the breakdown of the black family, black unemployment, is caused in any significant way by the war on drugs, or that stopping the war in drugs will in any significant way solve these issues is ridiculous, wishful thinking based on nothing.

[hblask 1]

http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/17/end-...r-save-black-amIf lots of people are making "cartoonish characterizations" maybe it is because of articles like the one linked. Again I will say I agree we need to end the war on drugs, but this guy is insane if he thinks it will lead to his conclusions.I encourage people to read the whole article, but here is how it begins. " One key to getting past the race issue in America is to end the war on drugs. John McWhorter says it's the most important thing we can do. "Here is another gem, "McWhorter sees prohibition as the saboteur of black families."

I'm not sure why you think this is an unreasonable claim. If your neighborhood was a persistent police state, it would certainly affect the way you look at the future.He's got a speech online on this subject, and he makes the point, talk to a black person about the problems in their community, and it inevitably, within minutes, comes to police harassment. If that is one of your top problems, the system is failing you, badly.EDIT: Notice he doesn't say this will happen overnight. He says it will take a generation.If you want to see how this plays out in the real world, rent "The Wire". It's the most realistic representation of the Insane War on Drugs ever put on tape.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

I like McWhorter and Stossel, and agree with the part about ending the War on Drugs, but the rest is just crazy. To argue that race issues in this country including the breakdown of the black family, black unemployment, is caused in any significant way by the war on drugs, or that stopping the war in drugs will in any significant way solve these issues is ridiculous, wishful thinking based on nothing. I am not saying it wouldn't help, maybe even for some of the reasons he stated, but, you tell me what his premise and conclusions are based on. Is it just a guess? I will watch the whole speech if possible, maybe that will give a better perspective.I agree too that war on drugs is 'insane' as you call it, but ending it will not have the sweeping implications that libertarians claim.

[hblask 1]

I like McWhorter and Stossel, and agree with the part about ending the War on Drugs, but the rest is just crazy. To argue that race issues in this country including the breakdown of the black family, black unemployment, is caused in any significant way by the war on drugs, or that stopping the war in drugs will in any significant way solve these issues is ridiculous, wishful thinking based on nothing. I am not saying it wouldn't help, maybe even for some of the reasons he stated, but, you tell me what his premise and conclusions are based on. Is it just a guess? I will watch the whole speech if possible, maybe that will give a better perspective.

It's based on the fact that, before the War on Drugs, black communities were intact and strong. The war on drugs was originally grounded in racism, which is why the laws are so badly biased against blacks. I think worst case is that after a generation it goes back to the way it was before the war on drugs, which meant strong families and a strong expectation of work and honest labor. But when the only successful person in your neighborhood is in the drug business, it's pretty hard to convince kids to study and build for the future.I wouldn't rank the claim as crazy, just a speculative. If you listen to his whole talk (you can probably find it at Cato.org), it actually seems pretty reasonable.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

It's based on the fact that, before the War on Drugs, black communities were intact and strong. The war on drugs was originally grounded in racism, which is why the laws are so badly biased against blacks. I think worst case is that after a generation it goes back to the way it was before the war on drugs, which meant strong families and a strong expectation of work and honest labor. But when the only successful person in your neighborhood is in the drug business, it's pretty hard to convince kids to study and build for the future.I wouldn't rank the claim as crazy, just a speculative. If you listen to his whole talk (you can probably find it at Cato.org), it actually seems pretty reasonable.

this is link to more in depth articlehttp://www.cato.org/pubs/catosletter/catosletterv9n1.pdf