It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationists.
The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe…and who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy…
A counterproductive approach that actually leads the U.S. to be more resented and isolated in the world. - Congressman Ron Paul, MD, U.S. Presidential Candidate 2008
This YouTube video (3 min:23 sec) provides a good summary of Ron Paul’s position on immigration.
As his typical of his way of thinking, he doesn’t see immigration, legal or otherwise, as separate from other issues like the welfare state. He points out that our welfare programs encourage illegal immigration and that our courts have given illegal immigrants many of the same benefits as American citizens for more than 20 years. The fact that they have had these rights for so many years has only provided incentives for them to come to this country illegally.
His ultimate goal is to get rid of welfare for everyone, not just illegal immigrants.
He does not support amnesty for illegal immigrants.
He also says that the constitutional right to citizenship by birth should be clarified. He doesn’t believe that a person should be able to walk across the border and have a baby, thereby giving the baby full American citizenship with all its benefits.
He also notes that many immigrants work harder and make a greater contribution than American citizens, so he supports a legal, enforcible immigration policy.
The whole notion of enforcing borders seems like an anti-libertarian position and many libertarians believe that it is. Ron Paul is very clear that he wants to enforce our borders rather than worrying about enforcing borders between foreign countries, which is too often a cornerstone of American foreign policy. Certainly restricting/encouraging movement across borders has a big impact on economics, employment and other economic factors. So my question is, how do you have a free market if the government is controlling the number of employees and where they can live and work?
There is no question, however, that forcing Americans to pay welfare benefits like schooling and medical care is also anti-liberty, whether the welfare is for illegals or American citizens.
For Paul the issue of immigration is linked to the issue of entitlements and also foreign policy. So when he talks about immigration, he talks a lot about welfare, entitlements and foreign policy.
Enforcible borders are inevitably statist concepts when individuals are not permitted to cross them freely. That gets into a whole discussion of states v. individual rights which can’t be covered in this post. As irrational, inanimate entities, I don’t believe that states can have rights, only individuals can have rights. A state is merely a social organization for protecting individual rights. For more on that read my book.
I’d like to know more about Ron Paul’s position on immigration because I like how he looks at problems. His view is dialectical and philosophical and therefore his ideas and proposed solutions don’t lend themselves well to sound bites.
There are a couple of interview videos on YouTube where Ron Paul talks with a representative of the Kaiser Family Foundation about his views on health care, a subject near and dear to my heart. As I listened to him talk, it was like I was hearing my own words and my own thoughts.
In Part I, Congressman Paul talks about how free markets have lowered costs and increased options in areas like computers and telephone service, while health care costs have skyrocketed. I have made those comparisons on many occasions and it is so obvious to me that I don’t understand why people can’t see it.
He also talks about how corporations, government programs, and barriers to entry have increased costs. Allowing doctors to protect their turf denies patients other cheaper but equally safe and effective options. If a nurse can do something as well as a doctor, why should we have to pay a doctor’s high price when somebody else can do the job for less? Billions could be saved if patients didn’t have to go to a doctor for things they could do themselves or that could be done just as well by a qualified technician.
I’ve often asked why patients can’t do things like write their own prescriptions if they know how to do it. I can think of more than one case where I wanted to get a drug only available by prescription and had done the necessary research on it. I had to go in and pay my doctor for a visit. He’s usually given me the prescription I wanted because I’ve never asked for anything unreasonable, and the times he hasn’t given it to me, he should have. Furthermore, most pharmacists know much more about drugs than doctors, so they could often be a better and cheaper resource for getting the right prescription.
He sees a migration away from government programs and wants to encourage younger people to move toward Medical Savings Accounts and away from government entitlements. One advantage of a free market that Dr. Paul notes is that patients are free to try other forms of medicine, like holistic medicine for example, because they are controlling the money.
In Part II, he talks about major medical or catastrophic insurance. He rightly maintains that what we have now is really a pre-paid health care system that encourages people to use the system because they feel like they’ve paid for it or somebody else has paid for it. Major medical insurance is cheap and should only cover major illnesses or accidents.
He also talks about Hurricane Katrina and FEMA.
I’m totally in agreement with the views he stated in this interview.
Another change that follow from putting patients in charge of their health care is that individuals would take better care of themselves if they had to pay for basic medical care out-of-pocket. As it stands now, there is little incentive for people to take care of themselves or to spend responsibly when it comes to health care. With shopping mall medicine as I like to call it, consumers would seek out highest quality product for the best prices as they do in everything else.
His basic message boils down to putting health care back into the hands of patients and their doctors as well as other health care professionals and taking control away from corporations and the government.
This is the first time I’ve listened to Ron Paul speak at any length on any one issue and I found him smart and I must admit even sexy. He talks about issues as a problem solver and views problems from many different angles. There’s a quality, an intellectual integrity to his discussion that is totally lacking in the other presidential candidates. There’s a lack of arrogance and the insincerity that is the hallmark of all professional politicians. He’s not out to save people, but to give them the ability to save themselves, and that’s good medicine. What other person running for office has the honesty and the guts to say there’s no entitlement to health care at the expense of others?
It should also be noted, that as a physician (OB/GYN), Dr. Paul has a perspective on health care that none of the other candidates possess.
Interview with Ron Paul on Health Care - Part I.
Interview with Ron Paul on Health Care - Part II.
ABC Evening News reported that a new poll shows Ron Paul effectively tied for third place in New Hampshire.
Dr. Paul is also scheduled to appear this Sunday with Tim Russert on Meet the Press for the full hour. It’s perfect timing for the Iowa and New Hampshire votes.
Even though I disagree with Ron Paul on some very basic issues, I love watching somebody effectively challenging the status quo, especially since I agree with him on many other major issues . If he continues to rake in the cash the way he has been and continues to gain strength in the polls, this could suddenly become a very interesting election.
I’m sure the other candidates have taken notice.