DailyPeaberries

This post is a reply to a YouTube comment. I wanted to address multiple issues in more than 450 characters. I asked Sam Snee why he found Dr. Ron Paul "distasteful".  He volunteered the epithet, but this elaboration was requested, so lets all respect he was just answering my question.

Ron Paul was a REMF that gave physicals to the brass during Vietnam, not exactly on par with what Dewhurst did. I find him distateful because he uses states rights as a justification for states to walk over human rights (read Amendment 10 is not greater than any of the others). He has an uncomfortable following of the sourge of humanity (read white power and antisemitism). I don't like his earmark hypocrisy. His views on economics suck (fiscally he is ok). His foreign policy is unrealistic.

Military Experience
This is the part with which I'm the least familiar, and you mention it first, so just a quick response.  Someone has to do the supplementary jobs to keep the front-lines a well-oiled machine, and if it's not done right, there are more casualties.  It's probably true he didn't have a "charging the hill" moment, thought.  I found  this link with people discussing his service.  You might also like to see the link because someone challenges how "American" Mitt Romney is, and another Paul supporter who enthusiastically dismisses Dr. Paul's opponents is quick to point out that being an American has nothing to do with ethnicity, but about coming together to be free.

Paul made his small contribution to that effort.  If need be, he probably could have been reassigned.  Mitt Romney protested draft dodgers, yet didn't serve himself.

States' Rights
Now we're on a topic near and dear to my heart, and on which I've read quite a bit.  I think a crucial distinction needs to be made from the outset: natural rights and legal rights aren't the same.  The task of statecraft is to so structure political communities as to assure that legal rights will approach natural rights, on this claim I hope (and suspect) we can all agree.  Since political constitutions are the product of error-prone humans, though, we have to ask, if we get it wrong, or exigent circumstances really do justify temporary suspension of those rights, what system of governance will encourage us to get back on track with maximum rapidity?

"States' Rights" sounds as if it is a special carve out of privilege for the state regardless of the effect on subjects, a concept wholly unfit for a free people; however, here's a quote from James Madison, 4th President and father of the Constitution, that I found useful for a presentation on the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights:

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone, they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantage of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

~ Federalist No. 46, my emphasis.

If the federal government goes astray, what recourse is there if it is imbued with unlimited sovereignty?  If the state government tramples your right - which absolutely can happen, no dispute there - you at least have recourse to neighboring states that must respect your "privileges and immunities" as American citizens.  In a worst-case scenario, no state can discriminate against waves of immigrants fleeing the failing state if both are part of the American Federation, which aims to divide power into safer portions.

Significantly, though, what concerns you seems to be that the balance embodied in a Tenth Amendment taken too out of context from the other amendments doesn't strike that balance, but gives the states too much power.  I support a robust tenth amendment.  I certainly don't support a states' right to hold different legal standards on the basis of race, because the Civil War Amendments make clear that's disallowed.  I do, though, support the right of a state to restrict rights covered under the Bill of Rights, because:

1. These rights were never intended to be absolute carve outs where no regulation can make the freedom of all commensurate with the freedom of the individual (to paraphrase Immanual Kant), but rather to protect domains from federal incursions.
2. My understanding post-dates the Civil War by many decades, and was the understanding of our federal system before the 1920s, when the Supreme Court - without any additional changes to our Constitution - divined the "Doctrine of Incorporation", purporting to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights by a new interpretation of the due process clause ("substantive due process").  
3. Due process refers to procedure - making sure all Americans have access to the courts, and that the same legal procedures are followed regardless of sex, race, religion, etc.  For example, a voting test that asks the poor white guy to read See Spot Run and then asks the black guy to read Chaucer violates due process.  

You need a federal negative when institutional shenanigans try to get around due process by institutionalizing what is "arbitrary and capricious", another part of 14th amendment jurisprudence; however, incorporation doctrine still does a dirty deed upon the body politic.  For instance, the culture wars - on so many different fronts - wouldn't be as inflamed if we recognized the state, between the federation and the citizen, was the instrument through which local representatives struck the balance with regulation on many matters, including speech and gun regulation.

His Supporters, and His Position on Racial & Religious Equality
Everybody has some unsavory supporters if they're on the national stage, just by the law of numbers.  I do agree, though, that if someone stokes and encourages hatred to ride its wave into power - that's not just distasteful, that's repugnant!  However, Ron Paul has not done that.

First, some claim he catered with his Newsletter.  He did not write most of the newsletters, though, he was merely hosting a forum for free speech.  It would really be no different than if I made this blog a collaborative effort, and you slipped in something offensive.  With the internet, all someone has to do is write me an e-mail that says, "Sam Snee called gay people [BLEEP] on your blog, whadiya gonna do about it?!" And I can take ownership and delete your post.

Unfortunately, with ye olde print media, though, once it's out there, it's out there.  The bulk of the offensive material that slipped through editing seems to have come from a Mr. James Powell, according to some investigation done by Ben Swann available here.  Still, Dr. Paul has apologized that it got through.

He maintains he never wrote anything racist, and that claim goes unrefuted.  His individualist principles don't admit of any institutionalized racism!  I think he opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (as did Barry Goldwater), but I agree with that stance.  Again, this is partly out of wariness of centralized power, but also out of unintended consequences that actually hurt minorities.  Both problems:

1. If the central government can decide what is and is not discriminatory action by private individuals, then the central government itself can become discriminatory - holding groups out of favor to higher burdens.  For instance, if you have a high probability of voting for the government, your claim might be looked at more favorably by the administrative organs who enforce.  Sure, there's recourse to Article III courts, but that costs money, and so many (i.e. employers) will yield.  
2. That doesn't help minorities, though.  If it's more expensive to fire someone, it's correspondingly more expensive to hire that person.  If you can fire someone very easily, well, then if you have an opening and someone seems like they might work out well, trying them out is fairly risk free.  If firing could be costly, you have to more rigorously scrutinize, because the decision is less reversible.  Likewise, you can add costs in more ways than just employment.  Landlords worried about false accusations will have to pass legal costs on to all renters.  This adds to housing costs.  

What about antisemitism?  Actually, Dr. Ron Paul was the only person in the 1980s to stand up to oppose even the Reagan Administration when Israel exercised self-defense against international wishes.  Further, Dr. Paul has never singled out Israel to lose foreign aid.  He and his son, Sen. Rand Paul, both want to cut out all foreign aid to all other countries.  We have real problems here at home, and shouldn't borrow from China to pay other countries to do what we want them to do.  Further, if we pay $12 billion to countries that are enemies of Israel, and $3 billion to Israel, then in terms of relative aid, cutting out all foreign aid would actually help Israel, because it weakens her enemies more than her!

What's in Ron Paul's heart? Well, I'm not a relative or close family friend, so we can't really know.  Actions do speak louder than words, though.

Earmarks
I don't see any hypocrisy at all here.  I do know he's a prolific earmarker in a sense.  Rick Perry tried to raise this criticism in the debates.  (Mitt was probably thinking, "oh Rick don't touch the 3rd rail ...") Strategy and Constitutionalism shows he's actually doing his duty!  The Constitution gives Congress power over the purse, and if you allow bureaucracy to award grants and such on goals allegedly in the national interest, rather than the parochial ones of congressional districts, the Executive can tilt the federal rules to reward its friends.  Lets make sure Michigan and California - heavily Democratic states - get more transfers in Democratic administrations, and Wyoming and Florida - a loyal Republican state and pivotal swing state Republicans need, respectively - get great transfers in Republican administrations.  Is that what the founders wanted - pay to play?  Earmarks limits executive power.

Also, he'll vote for earmarks in committee, then vote against the final bill.  This is what Gov. Perry saw as "the height of hypocrisy".  It's strategic.  You're voting your principles, but your second-order vote is saying, "if I can't get my way, and all districts get less federal largesse so the American taxpayer can get more back and enjoy a more vibrant economy, then my district shouldn't have to make a larger sacrifice than the big-spenders!"  The opposite wouldn't be principled at all: Those who vote to bust the budget get not only more federal funds, but increase their relative economic strength viz-à-viz the more prudent regions of the country!  That penalizes thrift!

Economics - especially Monetary Policy
Worry about penalizing thrift brings us smack-dab up against Dr. Paul's economic policy.  Since you said he's alright on fiscal policy, I'm going to infer your biggest objections are with his monetary policy.  Perhaps you also see his tax policy as naive.  I'll address tax policy first, because it's more straight-forward.  I don't want to shy away from addressing his monetary policy, though!  I've been an Austrian economics adherent since 2004, when I read a book by Dr. Roger Garrison from Auburn University.  It does a great job of explaining the importance of a "natural interest rate", and if you're interested in a scholarly discussion, I urge you to go to the professor's web page for the book Time and Money and view some powerpoints and sample chapters of the book for free!

First, regarding tax policy, Dr. Paul has advocated a 0% income tax, but only after spending is decreased sufficiently so that alternative revenue sources are sufficient to fund government!  Libertarians recognize government does need to do certain functions.  We want strong national defense, courts that don't suffer under backlog, and (with differing views) a few other services/expenditures.  He has said that if you want a federal government powerful enough to police the world and rich enough to provide cradle-to-grave welfare, you need an income tax. That's not what the Constitution envisages, though!

A tariff that only funded essential services wouldn't really impede free trade.  It's only protectionary - insulating less productive elements of our national economy - if the tariff is arbitrarily high, or high enough to contribute to a bloated state.  Plus, remember, the income tax's multiple brackets, many exemptions, etc. have two major problems:

1. More arbitrary power - reward supporters with exemptions, soak the rich with higher brackets.
2. They create a "wedge" between employer and employee, resulting in overtime and new hires not happening if the equilibrium wage rate isn't viable because the taxes would make the marginal gains (from additional hours worked or additional employees hired) insufficient to offset the costs.

That second reason is especially relevant because David Dewhurst supported a Wage Tax!  A wage tax is basically an income tax on the employer side of the ledger.  If an employer must pay a tax on your wages, your employers true cost of your labor is your wage + the wage tax.  If your marginal product isn't worth that cost - you don't get hired!  Mitt Romney wants to raise the minimum wage!  Again, for the low-skilled in America who are already hurting, that won't help get them started climbing the economic ladder to discourage hiring them for entry level positions!

Lets not forget, no sixteenth amendment was needed for the income tax!  Why?  Around 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was an "indirect tax", and so a uniform rate across the states was allowed by the Constitution.  What was not allowed was a capital gains tax, which was a "direct tax" on capital and property!

That tax is what must go, and it brings us to monetary policy.  First, let me say I do not own any stock.  Capital gains taxes shouldn't just be a concern to stockholders, but to all of us.  Gold - or any asset, really - can be a check against inflation.  If you save 5% of your annual income, and the inflation rate is 3%, you're basically only retaining 2%, as the government erodes the purchasing power of your hard-earned thrift!  What if you could buy a stock, a piece of land, a commodity like gold, silver, or even grain or oil, and hedge against inflation?  You might remark - you can! Go to it, and quit haranguing and belaboring the point! 

Ah, but you will suffer a capital gains tax.  Unless you're a major player, that means the gains from success may no longer be worth the risk of loss.  Government wants a cut of the gains, but doesn't want to cushion anyone but the banks in the event of loss.  How's that fair?  How does that encourage the savings that is an element of individual responsibility!?!

Much more problematic than inflation is the dislocation of productive capital as an unintended consequence of interest rate tinkering.  Even if there were no inflation, if the Federal Reserve drops the interest rate artificially low - and it does, and has, on multiple instances - it can create asset bubbles, and divert capital to sectors with less future demand.

Why?  Well, here's the short version:  the interest rate reflects the return on capital, but also the social time preference in a society.  As people value the future more, they'll save more (for that future).  With more capital available, the interest rate decreases.  A lot of capital improvements further back from the point-of-sale (i.e. oil excavation, new pharmaceutical exploration) has a lot of risk and won't see returns for many years, so when capital is expensive, it's not "worth it" for firms to invest in such endeavors.  If they must borrow, the returns won't offset the borrowing cost.  If they have capital-on-hand, they'd get a higher return by investing in banks/capital markets, and indirectly allocating it to nearer-term, higher-yield projects to which the ultimate borrower will put the money.  Make capital appear cheaper, capital shifts back to more of these projects than individuals really want, and when the future buying patterns don't match-up, and when the savings well runs dry, a bust occurs.

Busts are not natural - that's a popular misconception.  Booms come first, and when the markets become aware the boom isn't a sustainable one born of real increases in savings, productivity, or technology, the bust unravels the financial arrangements building a mountain on quicksand.

Dr. Ron Paul's book End the Fed does not actually call for the Federal Reserve to be abolished overnight.  What it advocates is allowing competing currencies to run parallel to the Federal Reserve Note.  To do this, we need to abolish legal tender laws and the capital gains tax.  The result would so constrain the arbitrary actions of the federal reserve with regard to its Open Market Operations and its tinkering with the federal funds rate and discount rate that it would be a much more neutered agency.  When the dollar loses the last vestiges of its world reserve currency standing, which is already eroding, we will find ourselves facing problems of Greek proportions.

Foreign Policy
Foreign policy is nowhere near my forte.  I'm much more interested in domestic policy.  I will simply ask you this:  Don't you think his objections have merit at the margins?  I can understand some reluctance on some positions, but when he suggests its time to withdraw from Germany and Japan - over fifty years after Hitler and Tojo were annihilated - that makes a lot of sense to me!  Why should we protect Germany and stimulate her economy so that her factories can out-compete ours?!

We shouldn't presume to know how to fix Africa's problems, yet the supposed Anti-War candidate from 2008 has us involved with not only Libya, but Uganda!!

Plus Point: Civil Liberties intersects his Foreign Policy with your Human Rights Concerns
His civil liberties positions are broad and rich enough to warrant their own section, but you didn't object to those, so I'm going to leave that for another day.  I do want to make one point, though - while it is often pitched as a limit on foreign policy, it bears directly on your earlier concern for human rights.  Where is the biggest threat: that the State of Indiana might trample human rights, or that an American President might arbitrarily use the National Defense Authorization Act's power to indefinitely detain an American citizen on American soil who he - without judicial check - classifies as an enemy combatant in the same way that the King of France could use a lettre de cachet??

So, he does share your concern, he just sees the chief threat coming chiefly from a different center of power right now.  Much more recent than the travails of slavery is the internment of Japanese Americans for no reason other than their ethnic origins.  Who has the racist legacy?  The party of FDR, William Fulbright, and ex-Klansman Robert Byrd, or Ron Paul?