Ron Paul "WE NEED TO TAKE OUT THE CIA"



Libertarianism is one of those things that sounds cool until you really think about the implications. Where do you draw the line at how much government is too much? At what point do you abdicate responsibility for the security of your country and people?
 
I'm a Ron Paul guy, but we need to speak in terms that America understands. Yeah, ideally we never would have done a lot of the crap we've done (go read the book Overthrow)... but to say we need to completely remove it sounds far too radical for 99% of the country.

Why not say "cut its budget by 25% and put the money back in the taxpayers' hands"... now that's something more people can get behind.

I guess I'm what you call a "Reasonable Libertarian".
 
He doesn't get that people don't like change - real change.

Convincing people to end the fed, convincing people to stop big spending isn't hard.

Convincing people to end things that they idolize. Be it the CIA, FBI, or NASA is hard.

There's nothing I would rather see then to see Ron Paul President. But he has to take baby steps - really convince people on a certain element [e.g end the fed] that isn't "too crazy" to the American people.

Edit: Yeah, what the above poster said. He has to think more political, don't just suddenly spring the idea of ending the CIA to people who think without the CIA the US couldn't function. Say, "Let's make it more lean and mean" that's something the majority would get behind.
 
FTC-Hater said:
He doesn't get that people don't like change - real change.

Convincing people to end the fed, convincing people to stop big spending isn't hard.

Convincing people to end things that they idolize. Be it the CIA, FBI, or NASA is hard.

There's nothing I would rather see then to see Ron Paul President. But he has to take baby steps - really convince people on a certain element [e.g end the fed] that isn't "too crazy" to the American people.

Edit: Yeah, what the above poster said. He has to think more political, don't just suddenly spring the idea of ending the CIA to people who think without the CIA the US couldn't function. Say, "Let's make it more lean and mean" that's something the majority would get behind.
Click to expand...

Very well spoken.
 
There will never be a politician that you can 100% agree on all their views on. Ron Paul is no exception. Even though they have some sketchy history I completely disagree with his views on the cia and nasa. I think they're essential to our country's future.

If you wanted to start getting rid of government agencies based solely on corruption, being expensive, and not accomplishing their established role: congress would be the first on the list to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FTC-Hater
Deliguy said:
There will never be a politician that you can 100% agree on all their views on. Ron Paul is no exception. Even though they have some sketchy history I completely disagree with his views on the cia and nasa. I think they're essential to our country's future.

If you wanted to start getting rid of government agencies based solely on corruption, being expensive, and not accomplishing their established role: congress would be the first on the list to go.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with the state: there is no profit/loss system that serves as a gauge for the allocation of limited resources. Nor is there a price mechanism that can be used to determine whether there is economic justification for any given agency.

Given that there is no possible way to measure success or failure, limited resources will be allocated toward unproductive ends. At what point would this misallocation become excessive? At what cost would it become unacceptable?

To say that a given agency is essential to our country's future either ignores these questions or suggests private property is secondary to the collective good.

That is a dangerous path to travel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: greenleaves
That reminds me of the time he said we needed to completely dismantle the Department of Education and people said he was fucking nuts. Then he calmly pointed out that the Department of Education wasn't creatred until 1976, and asked people if they feel that the quality of education in our public schools has gotten better or worse since 1976...

The point is, just because you advocate doing away with an institution doesn't mean you want to do away with any or all of it's functions, it just means there is a more efficient way to do what needs to be done.
 
Andrew Scherer said:
Fuck it then lets do it - anarchy ftw :)
Click to expand...
People don't want to be grownups. And the ones that want to, aren't allowed to.

Trademark said:
Here's the problem with the state: there is no profit/loss system that serves as a gauge for the allocation of limited resources. Nor is there a price mechanism that can be used to determine whether there is economic justification for any given agency.

Given that there is no possible way to measure success or failure, limited resources will be allocated toward unproductive ends. At what point would this misallocation become excessive? At what cost would it become unacceptable?

To say that a given agency is essential to our country's future either ignores these questions or suggests private property is secondary to the collective good.

That is a dangerous path to travel.
Click to expand...
I am proud to consider you a friend.

Unarmed Gunman said:
The point is, just because you advocate doing away with an institution doesn't mean you want to do away with any or all of it's functions, it just means there is a more efficient way to do what needs to be done.
Click to expand...
Yes. Here is another one.

Common law did not come from government. It came from the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom