Posted by Kromey at 1:39pm Jan 4 '12I get that the last one is controversial for those who want more local control (read: more creationism, less sex ed)
False. Downright strawman, in fact. Pro local control over academic curriculum is not pro-creationism nor anti-sex ed.
Case in point: I am pro-local control, yet staunchly anti-creationism and pro-sex ed.
There's plenty of legit controversy to be had over Ron Paul's platform without resorting to logical fallacies and thinly-veiled attacks.
The Dept. of Education
Tough one. There's undoubtedly a lot of good things that it does. But couldn't everything it does be done via local authority instead? In fact, wasn't the exactly how it was done for nearly the first whole century of our nation's existence before it was created, and even for some time after that? (Hint: The answer is "Yes".)
Why does this require a central authoritarian cabinet position?
The Dept. of Energy
Assuming "nuclear stockpile" refers to our nuclear weapons, why isn't the military overseeing those? Doesn't that sound to you like a job for the DoD?
The national power grid is already privately owned. Ditto all power plants. Why do we also need the feds? Well, okay, inspections of power plants to ensure safe operation is probably a good thing. But those could no doubt continue with a much smaller budget going to the DoE.
As for the publicly-funded labs, that's always felt odd to me that those are under the DoE. Maybe Paul's fallen for the fallacy of believing that the Dept. of Energy only deals with energy-related things? Has he at any point stated that publicly-funded labs should lose their public funding?
The Dept. of Commerce
We probably need to keep this one. Could be ripe for a smaller budget, but I don't think we can zero it.
The Dept. of the Interior
Ditto.
The Dept of Housing and Urban Development
Again with the attacks. Yeah, Libertarians are such heartless bastards who don't give a care in the world to the poor. Whatever, I'll pretend you have an actual legitimate argument here:
Tough one. I have a visceral reaction to the suggestion that the feds have to mandate and control how cities are developed. But certainly it can't be simply abolished without first putting in place a plan for dealing with the numerous individuals and families that have roofs over their heads only because of HUD.
And I haven't the faintest idea how to even begin developing such a plan.
I wonder, though, what would happen if the HUD was abolished, but instead of zeroing out their budget it was sent to the states (divvied up based on how much HUD would have spent in each state) earmarked for low-income housing projects and the like?
False. Downright strawman, in fact. Pro local control over academic curriculum is not pro-creationism nor anti-sex ed.
Case in point: I am pro-local control, yet staunchly anti-creationism and pro-sex ed.
There's plenty of legit controversy to be had over Ron Paul's platform without resorting to logical fallacies and thinly-veiled attacks.
The Dept. of Education
Tough one. There's undoubtedly a lot of good things that it does. But couldn't everything it does be done via local authority instead? In fact, wasn't the exactly how it was done for nearly the first whole century of our nation's existence before it was created, and even for some time after that? (Hint: The answer is "Yes".)
Why does this require a central authoritarian cabinet position?
The Dept. of Energy
Assuming "nuclear stockpile" refers to our nuclear weapons, why isn't the military overseeing those? Doesn't that sound to you like a job for the DoD?
The national power grid is already privately owned. Ditto all power plants. Why do we also need the feds? Well, okay, inspections of power plants to ensure safe operation is probably a good thing. But those could no doubt continue with a much smaller budget going to the DoE.
As for the publicly-funded labs, that's always felt odd to me that those are under the DoE. Maybe Paul's fallen for the fallacy of believing that the Dept. of Energy only deals with energy-related things? Has he at any point stated that publicly-funded labs should lose their public funding?
The Dept. of Commerce
We probably need to keep this one. Could be ripe for a smaller budget, but I don't think we can zero it.
The Dept. of the Interior
Ditto.
The Dept of Housing and Urban Development
Again with the attacks. Yeah, Libertarians are such heartless bastards who don't give a care in the world to the poor. Whatever, I'll pretend you have an actual legitimate argument here:
Tough one. I have a visceral reaction to the suggestion that the feds have to mandate and control how cities are developed. But certainly it can't be simply abolished without first putting in place a plan for dealing with the numerous individuals and families that have roofs over their heads only because of HUD.
And I haven't the faintest idea how to even begin developing such a plan.
I wonder, though, what would happen if the HUD was abolished, but instead of zeroing out their budget it was sent to the states (divvied up based on how much HUD would have spent in each state) earmarked for low-income housing projects and the like?
Re: Ron Paul says he wants to end five departments - Kromey