Thursday, May 14, 2009

In Other Words, More Like Ron Paul

Max Borders starts a list of what policies may revitalize the Republican party. His first five "new ideas" are below:

1. Legalize Drugs - You have turned a corner on this issue. All evidence and economics indicates that prohibiting anything for which there is a demand causes black markets. The black markets in drugs mean the costs of doing business are higher—but that means so too are the profits. These profits (and turf) are protected violently by gangs and drug cartels. Gang culture is built around said profits. Remove the profits through legal competition and the gangs fade away eventually (just as they did after alcohol prohibition was repealed). Yes, there will be secondary social costs. Yes there will still be petty crime due to addicts—despite lower-cost drugs. But you can offset those social costs by taxing the product to build rehabilitation centers, which are preferable to building more prisons and morgues. You get credibility points for admitting that people have a right to do what they like with their bodies. Freedom is freedom, warts ‘n’ all.

2. Civil Unions – Want to shake everybody up? Try this: The state should get out of the marriage business. Period. End the debate. Marriage is a matter for churches, mosques and temples. Civil unions ensure that people who unite contractually are treated equally before the law, as the Constitution requires. If a church is willing to marry two gay people, fine. It’s none of the government’s business. Government will, however, offer equal tax treatment. Civil unions cover this just fine and states may craft their own civil union variations. Ultimately, though, marriage is ritual and, therefore, a private matter.

3. Means-test Everything – If it is to exist, every federal social program should be designed to help the very poor. The middle class only a little. The rich none. Government welfare programs for the rich, such as Medicare, are insane. Let's say so. (That includes a louder call for bringing Medicare back from the precipice.) Shame rich, old people: “You cannot continue to rob the next generation and get away with it. You have more resources and your healthcare costs more. Pay for it. You owe it to ‘the children.’” Thus: No welfare for the rich. No corporate welfare.

4. Taxpayer Bill of Rights & Balanced Budget – After this monstrous growth of the federal government by the Obama Administration, people are very likely going have an appetite for some kind of limits on government bloat. A Taxpayer Bill of Rights – which would lock government revenues in at population plus inflation as measured by acceptable cost of living indices. Couple this with limits on national debt that would force cuts. Plus, say we’re not going to charge up the national credit card and the bill to Generation Y. This is grossly unfair. We need to have a limit on deficits and balanced budgets within a certain timeframe, or consequences will follow.

5. Global Warming: “More Technology, No More Taxes” - We’re willing to fund sequestration technology. We’re willing to fund geo-engineering technology. We’re willing to use X-prize-type contests to do it. But we’re not willing to tax the American people as they rebound from a severe recession—for all for a hypothetical “crisis” that has never quite materialized.

I would consider these policies a good start, and look forward to the other half of Max's list. That said, I don't think the Republican Party is going anywhere until they admit how far off track Bush, Cheney, and the Republicans of the last several years have led the Party and country from once-basic ideals, including fiscal conservatism, humble foreign policy, restrained government (executive) power, anti-torture, pro-privacy, pro-constitution, defenders of civil liberty, and anti-corporate welfare/bail-out.

Until errors are admitted and amends made, I will stick to the independent label, and would rather be pegged by the casual observer as the bluest of blue dog Democrats than a Republican of any stripe. That doesn't mean I would ever vote Democrat, it is just that they aren't angering (betraying) me in the same way as the party of torture defenders and policy hypocrites.

8 comments:

Dr. RosenRosen said...

Wow, Justus. There was some vinegar in those last two paragraphs.

And as a Yellow Dog Democrat, the Republican Party Mr. Borders describes is a party I could identify with.

Justus Hommes said...

Sorry, I usually try to be a little calmer and non-partisan, but outside stress and heated opinion apparently do not mix well.

Anonymous said...

Ah, yes, but heat and stressed opinions mix very well for blogs. Especially since they are so... anonymous?

I agree wholeheartedly that the Republican party needs revitalization. I would also put forth that the current two party system needs a massive overhaul. I suppose most politics in most countries at most times require that.

I am not convinced on the legalize drugs argument, and am not convinced that you can compare it unilaterally to prohibition. That would be like comparing alcohol to caffeine because they are both drugs.

I do not argue that the statement "prohibiting...demand causes black markets" is true. But that statement does not mean the best solution is to legalize everything.

Drugs are certainly a large part of the gang culture, but to say that gangs are built around and exist because of black market drugs, is in my opinion, convenient for the argument, but wrong. Gangs did not fade away after prohibition (don't we still have them?), they just stopped selling alcohol. There are gangs that rob banks and commit sexual crimes. Do we legalize those? The power of a gang is mental and emotional, not product driven.

I agree that rehabilitation centers are far more useful than prisons, but I don't think you have to legalize drugs to pursue that replacement.

I'm open to listening to an argument on this subject, but Max's does not compel me. I have heard you talk about de-criminalizing drugs, and I would be more interested in examining that option than this one.

Dr. RosenRosen said...

Mr. Anonymous you hit the nail on the head re: gangs being products of the mental/emotional realm. My experience with gang members (not as a member, mind you) is often that the gang is a surrogate for a stable family. Its a sociopath's family, but the function is nearly identical. There are rules, consequences, and rewards for behaviors in accordance with the gang's creed.

But gangs are also economic creatures as well. So the black markets items they deal in in (stolen items and drugs) are not determinative of the gang, but are necessary to underwrite the gang's existence. Of course, this is an issue for another post.

Anonymous said...

Agreed, gangs are economic creatures, and the black market elements are not a factor to ignore. Money and power are very closely related and often inseparable. My argument with Max was that even if we legalize drugs, I would assert that another product would fill that economic void. But now, I have to decide if I want to jump in the bloodied water of the blog above.

JCB said...

Attacks on George W. Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the Bush administration are relatively cheap and ignore the many realities faced during that time. If Republicans were to find someone as composed and thoughtful Cheney to run for the presidency in 2012, the party as a whole would be thrilled. (Cheney won't be running in all likelihood given his health.)

Sitting back on the sidelines and absolving oneself of each party's sins isn't political action. If one truly believes that certain steps need to be taken and is willing to stand behind those beliefs, then get involved to make them happen. The latter is what I started doing. :)

Justus Hommes said...

JCB,

You seem to imply that appropriate action can only include working through politically establish parties. I reject that notion fully, and would have a lot of the country's founders on my side were they available to debate the position. Our 1st President said in his farewell speech that political parties "serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests." "However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very engines, which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

There is little if not nothing of value that I could add to those words.

I respect how you spend your time, and think your intentions are honorable. You have a right to be a supporter (or apologist) for any person/party you wish. You may very well be able to help fix the system from the inside.

However, it is a false choice you present to say that not being a partisan is sitting on the sidelines. I consider political dissent equally if not more patriotic than unwavering support.

You reasoning is akin to the "if you don't vote you have no right to complain" argument that I find fully without merit. If one doesn't vote, it may be because they don't find anyone worthy of a vote, not because they don't care. Not choosing is also a choice.

Unknown said...

Washington disliked political parties for good reason. Nonetheless, they existed almost immediately, and after 200 years, no one has developed an alternative structure to assemble like-minded people.

My criticism is that merely complaining about how the political parties operate is not a solution. Similarly, acting as though some amorphous third way is the answer without specifics is also unhelpful. Your goal should be to persuade and convince a broader audience, and the present political parties offer the best vehicle to that end.