> The gold standard would lead to economic turmoil (not to mention devastate industries which use gold),
You cited corrosion-resistant electrical contacts as one such industry. I have experience in at least one industry where some misguided individuals use such contacts: RF television. Gold-plated RJ59 connectors are garbage. The only situation in which they could conceivably do any favors for signal quality is being left outside, exposed to the elements, in a crap splice. We used good-quality, standard aluminum connectors. In situations where they would be exposed to the elements for some reason, we simply added a little bit of silicon grease to the connector, and then wrapped it with electrical tape. Such a connection typically had about a 5 year lifetime.
There are some industries which legitimately use gold (high quality optical visors, satellites, etc. come to mind). But, I think the worldwide gold supply is relatively abundant, and such uses are relatively minimal. If a return to the gold standard did create some kind of crippling shortage, why wouldn't you expect new materials to be developed to replace its use in those industries?
I don't see it creating any further economic turmoil than the sort we're currently experiencing. If anything, I would expect it to stabilize the economy in the longer run. For example, you do realize that the continued increase in price for petroleum -- which is driving increased costs in industries across the economic spectrum -- is due in largest part to the continued devaluation of the dollar?
> The abolition of the income tax would cripple the federal government,
It would cripple the federal government in its current incarnation. The government might then be forced to, oh, I dunno, stop running an expansionist empire? The alternative is that our government continues to operate as though it has a blank check and unlimited credit, and continue to spend frivolously out of the wages of the people who are both least able to afford it and least able to protest it.
If nothing else, so far as I care, the widespread continued abuse of the funds provided to it totally justifies reducing the government's income. If my kid ran up a debt on my credit card, the last thing I'd do is hand them another one.
> A law to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on an issue is un-American, even when it is not explicitly intended to bolster prejudice,
Specifically, this references an ongoing debate between states rights and federal powers. I think it was somewhat dishonest to present the question this way; he isn't seeking to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on all issues, he's seeking to keep them out of state business.
Lacking references at this time, I'm pretty sure that Paul has addressed this already. He is, as he says, a Constitutionalist. As the Constitution is currently framed, it is clear not just from the 10th amendment but from the overall text of the Constitution that the states were intended to have broad rights respecting their own laws. Essentially, the United States was to be exactly as its name implied: a confederation of sovereign states cooperating together under a central government. As Paul has said, if there's something wrong with this, then the Constitution has a way of handling that, too: amendments. Use 'em. If there's an amendment to the Constitution stating that the Supreme Court shall expressly have the power to rule in state matters, then he'll support it.
> Undermining modern medicine would destroy millions of lives in the most brutal fashion.
I don't see any more millions of lives being adversely affected than under our currently broken system. That said, I do support some form of guaranteed basic health care for all citizens. I've previously outlined why the current system will necessarily fail (in terms of game theory), and I've outlined a system which could be effective without requiring federal support.
no subject
You cited corrosion-resistant electrical contacts as one such industry. I have experience in at least one industry where some misguided individuals use such contacts: RF television. Gold-plated RJ59 connectors are garbage. The only situation in which they could conceivably do any favors for signal quality is being left outside, exposed to the elements, in a crap splice. We used good-quality, standard aluminum connectors. In situations where they would be exposed to the elements for some reason, we simply added a little bit of silicon grease to the connector, and then wrapped it with electrical tape. Such a connection typically had about a 5 year lifetime.
There are some industries which legitimately use gold (high quality optical visors, satellites, etc. come to mind). But, I think the worldwide gold supply is relatively abundant, and such uses are relatively minimal. If a return to the gold standard did create some kind of crippling shortage, why wouldn't you expect new materials to be developed to replace its use in those industries?
I don't see it creating any further economic turmoil than the sort we're currently experiencing. If anything, I would expect it to stabilize the economy in the longer run. For example, you do realize that the continued increase in price for petroleum -- which is driving increased costs in industries across the economic spectrum -- is due in largest part to the continued devaluation of the dollar?
> The abolition of the income tax would cripple the federal government,
It would cripple the federal government in its current incarnation. The government might then be forced to, oh, I dunno, stop running an expansionist empire? The alternative is that our government continues to operate as though it has a blank check and unlimited credit, and continue to spend frivolously out of the wages of the people who are both least able to afford it and least able to protest it.
If nothing else, so far as I care, the widespread continued abuse of the funds provided to it totally justifies reducing the government's income. If my kid ran up a debt on my credit card, the last thing I'd do is hand them another one.
> A law to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on an issue is un-American, even when it is not explicitly intended to bolster prejudice,
Specifically, this references an ongoing debate between states rights and federal powers. I think it was somewhat dishonest to present the question this way; he isn't seeking to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on all issues, he's seeking to keep them out of state business.
Lacking references at this time, I'm pretty sure that Paul has addressed this already. He is, as he says, a Constitutionalist. As the Constitution is currently framed, it is clear not just from the 10th amendment but from the overall text of the Constitution that the states were intended to have broad rights respecting their own laws. Essentially, the United States was to be exactly as its name implied: a confederation of sovereign states cooperating together under a central government. As Paul has said, if there's something wrong with this, then the Constitution has a way of handling that, too: amendments. Use 'em. If there's an amendment to the Constitution stating that the Supreme Court shall expressly have the power to rule in state matters, then he'll support it.
> Undermining modern medicine would destroy millions of lives in the most brutal fashion.
I don't see any more millions of lives being adversely affected than under our currently broken system. That said, I do support some form of guaranteed basic health care for all citizens. I've previously outlined why the current system will necessarily fail (in terms of game theory), and I've outlined a system which could be effective without requiring federal support.