Ron Paul speaks against SOPA

By “strong central government” I did not mean an economy centrally managed to the point at which Washington would be dictating how many widgets are made in a given month. I meant to imply a government that acts in the best interest of the population. Is it unreasonable to have minimum national standards for education, welfare, safety, and pollution? Every successful OECD country has these because they are necessary to prosper in the complex modern world. Would the US be more successful if we had policies such as centralized healthcare? Insurance is a HUGE burden on business in the US (not to mention on the individual – my wife was seriously ill earlier this year, even with insurance the total out of pocket cost will be ~$30,000. I can assure you that this burden is NOT helping my own attempts to start a business).

The freedom for people to tinker, fail, experiment and hopefully succeed comes from living in a society that educates, has some form of a social safety net, and provides reasonable economic legislation – i.e. the stable conditions necessary for capitalism to flourish. It is disingenuous to ignore the role that government has played in the success of the US and every other successful country.

The sad truth though is that nearly all of these fall back into hierarchies with a ruling class in control of the masses - which is probably some type of innate state of humanity of any size - unless social collaboration costs decrease significantly.

Now, I agree that he has had substantial power rhetorically. He has people who are passionate about what he says; his elucidations and opinions have influenced them, raised money, started conversations, and affected the political agenda. That is why it is disappointing that the very little power he has has been used inappropriately in certain instances. If he hired awful ghostwriters who spread stupidly racist material because he wasn't minding the store, then that is not a good sign that he has successfully managed the one area where he did have meaningful power.

Separately: I think you can critique Obama without mentioning things which seem to me untrue or at least misleading, which I think warrant correction:

- Obama has never (I believe) indicated that he's in favor of suspending habeas for U.S. citizens. There's misinformation around that NDAA does this; it does not. If you're thinking of something else, citation please.

- The U.S. torture debate has mostly revolved around waterboarding and unauthorized treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Bagram, etc. -- none of these are known to have happened under Obama. Some people believe that the Army Field Manual enables other forms of torture; Obama ordered a full review and asked for all torture to be taken out; if you think he missed things, that's a complex judgement call, not a simple issue.

- On several other fronts, like the drug war, Wall Street, etc., Obama has in fact applied the policies he stated--I'm not sure what makes you think he's broken promises or compromised his sincere beliefs in any of these areas. He's not a libertarian (except maybe in comparison to H. Clinton).

"Batting average" is a helpful term to use, but I think you're not using the right denominator: Paul hasn't been up the plate many times, whereas Obama, Gingrich, Romney, even Santorum have had a lot more opportunities to either accomplish something or screw up.

By the way, I'm not arguing generally that you should vote for Obama instead of Paul or whatever. But I am defending this newsletter "scandal" as a still relevant datapoint on Ron Paul. Not definitive, but relevant.

The "don't comment about flagging" guideline is. It's meant to eliminate pointless arguments about what is or isn't germane to the site, much like how you're asked not to comment about being downvoted. But flags are invisible, and the number of people flagging is dwarfed by the number of people upvoting threads about Ron Paul's newsletters, so that the only way for it to leave the front page of the site (precipitously, if you didn't notice) is admin intervention.

Commenting on this post in the first place was stupid, since the story already got buried. I just felt bad for 'davidw, and I'm a nerd, so when someone says "I think HN is in fact a great place to talk about politics", it's hard for me to resist commenting that it's by charter not a place to talk about politics.

I'm answering in detail because you seem to follow my comments, and I don't want you to think I'm blowing you off. I'm not. I don't know you or have any problem with you personally.