Beginning of the end, Ron Paul scales back his campaign

[Alonzo]

Ron Paul, the Lake Jackson GOP lawmaker whose Internet-driven presidential campaign has smashed fundraising records but failed to garner substantial voter support, is scaling back his White House efforts and is focusing on the primary race to retain his House seat.

In an e-mail message sent to supporters Saturday, Paul said that while he will remain in the presidential race, he must place a priority on his congressional contest, where he faces Friendswood accountant Chris Peden.

"If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas," he said. "I cannot and will not let that happen."

With Arizona Sen. John McCain on a clear path to the Republican presidential nomination, Paul said he no longer needs as big a national staff, "so," he said, "I am making it leaner and tighter."

No third-party run
Paul repeated earlier pledges that he will not make a third-party run for president. In 1988, he was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, and thousands of his grassroots backers have encouraged him to continue his national fight through November.

While Paul's opposition to the Iraq war has drawn followers nationally, it has also stirred up dissent in his heavily Republican district. The strangely shaped district hugs the Gulf Coast, takes in pieces of Galveston and Chambers County, reaches up to include parts of Brazoria and Fort Bend counties, and stretches beyond Victoria.

In an interview with the Houston Chronicle, Paul said he was not worried about retaining his seat in the March 4 primary.

"If we look at the history of running in the district, I usually win without too much trouble, and we assume we will," Paul said.

Paul's primary challenger said he was surprised at the abrupt about-face because the incumbent has thus far not been willing "to come here for a debate."

"He suddenly has awakened to the fact that he has an opponent working very hard," Peden said.

Paul indicated winning the GOP nomination for re-election will be his biggest victory in Texas but said he will make a mark in the presidential voting, too.

Ads to start airing this week
"It's a little bit early to write us off, but I'm not making any predictions that we're going to run away with it, either," he said. "We're going to be continuing the process to remind Republicans what the conservative philosophy is all about."

Paul's spokesman Jesse Benton said the national staff would likely be reduced from 150 to about 50, with those who worked in the Super Tuesday primaries in states such as California being let go.

In addition, Benton said, he and other national staffers will transfer to Paul's congressional re-election operation.

But Benton said that even as Paul wages a primary campaign he will also continue running his presidential campaign in Texas. Three staffers will be assigned to his presidential effort here. He said that the Paul campaign has purchased about $700,000 worth of radio and cable television advertising that is scheduled to start running this week in the Houston, Austin and Dallas-Fort Worth markets.

Benton said that Paul still has about $6 million in his presidential election account. He said the lawmaker cannot transfer that money to his congressional campaign unless he terminates his presidential effort, which he does not intend to do.

But Benton said Paul had recently raised several hundred thousand dollars for his congressional race.

Paul is scheduled to hold a rally for his congressional race today at the Lake Jackson Civic Center from 1:30 to 4 p.m.

Opponent 'running hard'
Local Republican officials said they were not surprised by Paul's decision to concentrate on his local race.

"In terms of the presidential campaign, I think realistically, you know, he's not going to be a viable candidate at the convention, and he does have an opponent in the primary who is running hard," said Mary Anne Wyatt, the chairwoman of the Victoria County GOP.

Jared Woodfill, Harris County GOP chairman, said, "It's very surprising, if not shocking, that he's still in the presidential race. His numbers have gone absolutely nowhere."

Paul's announcement was greeted with sadness by supporters in cyberspace and at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

"His analysis is correct," said Aaron Biterman, a Paul backer from Arlington, Va. "He should be worried about his congressional seat. We don't want to lose Ron Paul in Congress."

Although the libertarian-leaning Paul outpaced all of his GOP presidential rivals in fundraising late last year, he has failed to win a single contest.

He has collected just 14 delegates, according to The Associated Press count, far behind McCain, who has almost sealed the GOP nomination with 719 delegates. Benton, however, contended that Paul has a minimum of 16 delegates and could have as many as 42 when tallies of contests already held are complete.

To win the Republican nomination a candidate must have a total of 1,191 delegates.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5528537.html

I'd like to that Ron Paul for all the funny looks and rants he's given, plus the hours and hours of laughs his campaign has given me.

Also, for those who fear what may happen, don't worry for Ron, as even if he loses both he can always find work with these guys:

http://www.ronpaulsalon.com/Images/Salon-Photos-1.jpg

[Pookie]

I doubt he's going to make it over McCain. I think Romney had a better chance than Ron Paul, but he's out.
I still think Paul will run third-party, despite what he says.
Purrs,
Pookie

[firefox]

Zo, you are wrong. Here it from the horse's mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryMliyeIDp4

[Scorpion]

"If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas," he said. "I cannot and will not let that happen."


It would seem that according Paul's moon bat logic he considers that his miserable showing during his presidential campaign somehow translates to his ideas being accepted.

http://home.austin.rr.com/rlormand/images/infidel.JPG

[ViolaLee]

At least while Ron Paul is around, the nasty insulters aren't all over Hillary. I'm getting pretty tired of all the Ron Paul bashing. Why are you so afraid of him?

[Scorpion]

At least while Ron Paul is around, the nasty insulters aren't all over Hillary. I'm getting pretty tired of all the Ron Paul bashing. Why are you so afraid of him?


Why bash Ron Paul? Principally because he's an irrational joke who hasn't got the good sense to admit that he's had his ass handed to him.

Fear not. I'll be turning my attention to bashing Hillary soon enough.

[ViolaLee]

At least while Ron Paul is around, the nasty insulters aren't all over Hillary. I'm getting pretty tired of all the Ron Paul bashing. Why are you so afraid of him?


Why bash Ron Paul? Principally because he's an irrational joke who hasn't got the good sense to admit that he's had his ass handed to him.

Fear not. I'll be turning my attention to bashing Hillary soon enough.
I'm sure you will. It's all you're good at.[hr]Meanwhile Ron Paul is making a point.

The point is - respect and protect the constitution and don't drain our national treasure by spending our hard earned tax dollars blowing up other countries that didn't attack us and then occupying them for decades.

You Ron Paul bashers don't care about the constitution or our national treasury?

[jafar00]

At least while Ron Paul is around, the nasty insulters aren't all over Hillary. I'm getting pretty tired of all the Ron Paul bashing. Why are you so afraid of him?


Why bash Ron Paul? Principally because he's an irrational joke who hasn't got the good sense to admit that he's had his ass handed to him.

Fear not. I'll be turning my attention to bashing Hillary soon enough.
I'm sure you will. It's all you're good at.[hr]Meanwhile Ron Paul is making a point.

The point is - respect and protect the constitution and don't drain our national treasure by spending our hard earned tax dollars blowing up other countries that didn't attack us and then occupying them for decades.

You Ron Paul bashers don't care about the constitution or our national treasury?


What we don't care about is Ron Paul. Typical Paultard rhetoric. If you don't like Ron Paul then you hate the constitution.


Thats like if you don't support George Bush's warmongering, you support terrorists.
I don't think they are saying that at all. RP supporters just can't understand voter rejection of the things that are at the roots of what had in the past made the US a country to be respected.

[Truth_and_Power]

At least while Ron Paul is around, the nasty insulters aren't all over Hillary. I'm getting pretty tired of all the Ron Paul bashing. Why are you so afraid of him?


I guess it's more comfortable to pretend that its all republicans bashing paul, when it fact it's the people you're holding hands with, the hillary and obama voters. I think it's natural for everyone to be threatened by paul in an election where every candidate is promising change but has no plans to deliver.

[ViolaLee]

At least while Ron Paul is around, the nasty insulters aren't all over Hillary. I'm getting pretty tired of all the Ron Paul bashing. Why are you so afraid of him?


I guess it's more comfortable to pretend that its all republicans bashing paul, when it fact it's the people you're holding hands with, the hillary and obama voters. I think it's natural for everyone to be threatened by paul in an election where every candidate is promising change but has no plans to deliver.


Maybe I haven't been paying attention as closely as you, but it looks like at least on this board, it's the rabid righties and alonzo who are bashing Ron Paul. Which other democrats besides alonzo have been mocking him so hard?

Most Dems I know also like Ron Paul for his strong stance on protecting the constitution and ending the war and ending wild government spending.

Alonzo's the only non-right winger I've seen bash him.

[firefox]

This is true. Maybe Zo is really a hard right nationalist in disguise...

[Osborn F. Enready]

What a joke reading from "citizens" who "fear voting for a loser", and instead choose to vote for the most popular of the lesser of two evils in hopes of voting for a winner.

A sad example of what many Americans have become today.... politically apathetic, and ignorant.

[Alonzo]

What a joke reading from "citizens" who "fear voting for a loser", and instead choose to vote for the most popular of the lesser of two evils in hopes of voting for a winner.

A sad example of what many Americans have become today.... politically apathetic, and ignorant.


It's not voting for a loser, it's choosing the best outcome. If for some bizarre reason I suddenly agreed with Paul on something, anything, it would still make more sense for me to pick a viable candidate. My vote doesn't help the environment, same sex marriage, Iraq etc. if I vote for Paul, but it does if I vote for someone who has the potential to be elected.

It's not even that you can say that Paul is threatening someone and causing them to change their position to get his voters, he's not. He sits out their and is viewed as a lunatic by the viable candidates, and they make no attempt to get his voters.[hr]
This is true. Maybe Zo is really a hard right nationalist in disguise...


I thought qwerty calling me a neocon was funny, but that's just hilarious! Especially considering that nationalists generally don't move to another country, something I've done.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
It's not voting for a loser, it's choosing the best outcome. If for some bizarre reason I suddenly agreed with Paul on something, anything, it would still make more sense for me to pick a viable candidate. My vote doesn't help the environment, same sex marriage, Iraq etc. if I vote for Paul, but it does if I vote for someone who has the potential to be elected.

That explains why this system has become so backward, its voting mentality like that.

If you change your vote based on "who can win", you are setting up constant failure for every voice of change that comes out to fight the major "establishment" candidates.

If there is no consistent demand for change, change doesn't come. By removing your FINAL vote for change by giving it to a "major candidate", you remove any hope for it by being just another sheeple, voting for another establishment backed candidate, because they are already bought off, corrupt and "part of the game".

That is how we got, where we are now. A joke of an election system, faulty voting machines, and 157 years straight bi-partisan monopoly on all seats of power, elected AND appointed.

Alonzo said:
It's not even that you can say that Paul is threatening someone and causing them to change their position to get his voters, he's not. He sits out their and is viewed as a lunatic by the viable candidates, and they make no attempt to get his voters.

You have the right to have that opinion, as subjectively spun and jaded as it is, much like you see mine.

[Alonzo]

Osborn, change for the sake of change is not a virtue. I have no common ground with Paul.

[Osborn F. Enready]

You have no common ground with Paul Alonzo??!?

How about free speech?
How about the right to self-defense?
How about the right to petition government for redress of grievance?
How about the right to assumed innocence until being proven guilty?
How about the right to trial?
How about every right you take for granted everyday, that BOTH parties are trying to take away at an increasing rate, at the behest of the UN and CFR??

Yea, nothing in common.....

[bishop]

It's not voting for a loser, it's choosing the best outcome.

i love it when voting for the future of your country is broken down into a game of gambling on the odds.. as if you win a prize for voting for the lucky skinbag who enters office.

[Alonzo]

You have no common ground with Paul Alonzo??!?

How about free speech?
How about the right to petition government for redress of grievance?
How about the right to assumed innocence until being proven guilty?
How about the right to trial?

I didn't think we were including rights that EVERY CANDIDATE supports.

How about the right to self-defense?

I assume this is code for guns. I don't really support gun ownership.


How about every right you take for granted everyday, that BOTH parties are trying to take away at an increasing rate, at the behest of the UN and CFR??

Yea, nothing in common.....


Paranoid much?

But rights to things such as health care, schools, clean environment etc. are things Paul would harm.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
I didn't think we were including rights that EVERY CANDIDATE supports.

In order for that statement to be true, there would be proof of that. Where is it?

I am not talking about what they SAY, but their VOTING RECORD and their LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.

Alonzo said:
I assume this is code for guns. I don't really support gun ownership.

Ok, so you don't support an individual right to self defense?
Under what pretense or logic then, would you deem it "ok" for troops and police to have arms, or do you propose removing those also?

Alonzo said:
Paranoid much?

No, just a realist, and an informed one at that. Read much? Research much?

Alonzo said:
But rights to things such as health care, schools, clean environment etc. are things Paul would harm.

Absolutely unsupportable.

What harm?

You assume because he doesn't want to throw money at a problem, he has no intention of addressing something?

I would like to see YOU describe what Paul would do, and why it is wrong, using facts and your own logical expression. Are you capable, or are insults and vague drive-by comments all you have in your entire arsenal of communication?

I came here to debate, I don't know what your intentions are, but it doesn't seem to be debate, learning or working to help anything but spreading rhetoric.

Whats the point?

[Alonzo]

In order for that statement to be true, there would be proof of that. Where is it?

How about free speech?
How about the right to petition government for redress of grievance?
How about the right to assumed innocence until being proven guilty?
How about the right to trial?
How about every right you take for granted everyday, that BOTH parties are trying to take away at an increasing rate, at the behest of the UN and CFR??

Find me the candidate that opposes those rights, considering the precise meaning is ambiguous.

I am not talking about what they SAY, but their VOTING RECORD and their LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.

And his voting record was based on principle, not where those principles led. In fact, when it was directly related to him, he took significant amounts of funds for his district and, despite supporting term limits, keeps getting elected again and again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPLFKUdhqY



Ok, so you don't support an individual right to self defense?
Under what pretense or logic then, would you deem it "ok" for troops and police to have arms, or do you propose removing those also?

Guns present an unnecessary risk to children and family members and are often used for hunting.

There are two conditions where I think guns are acceptable. One would be if you live in an area where police help is far away or unreachable. For example, I was out on a Navajo reservation in Arizona last year and villages would often be 10 or 20 miles apart, and consist of maybe 5-15 houses. The police were even further. There was no cell phone signal (unless a local, rural carrier provided it as neither sprint nor verizon did). Most of these were "off the grid", though I'm not sure if they were entirely off the grid or not. I did see some generators.

The other condition is when you have reason to fear for your safety. For example, a person who has left an abusive relationship, someone who has been threatened, or someone whose fame, by its very nature, makes them a potential target.

In both cases though a permit should be required and the firearm should be registered. No semi-automatic or 16 round guns. A normal hand gun or rifle should suffice.


No, just a realist, and an informed one at that.

Realists, while acknowledging both are important, typically favor consequences over principle.

Read much? Research much?




Absolutely unsupportable.

What harm?

You assume because he doesn't want to throw money at a problem, he has no intention of addressing something?

Abolishing departments and leaving everything up to the states isn't a viable solution, especially when poor states won't be able to fund such programs without outside assistance.

Are you capable, or are insults and vague drive-by comments all you have in your entire arsenal of communication?

I've made one borderline, at best, comment, which you made two in response.

I would like to see YOU describe what Paul would do, and why it is wrong, using facts and your own logical expression. ......

I came here to debate, I don't know what your intentions are, but it doesn't seem to be debate, learning or working to help anything but spreading rhetoric.

Whats the point?


Paul wants to leave environmental regulation to the states, essentially leaving the environment at the mercy of 50 separate states.

He also supports don't ask don't tell, with some changes:

"I think the current policy is a decent policy.

And Paul on same-sex marriage:

Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

Paul on free speech:

Freedom of speech

In 1997, Paul introduced a Constitutional amendment giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag of the United States.[120] In June 2003, he voted against a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical "desecration" of the flag of the United States.[121] He believes that prohibiting flag burning is a state power, not a federal power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_speech

On juries dictating laws:

Jury nullification

Paul believes that juries deserve the status of tribunals, and that jurors have the right to judge the law as well as the facts of the case

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Freedom_of_speech

Market regulations:

Minimal market interference

Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process.[108] He also endorses defederalization of the health care system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy

Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. He supports abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service, most Cabinet departments, and the Federal Reserve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy

The rest of these (until noted) are coming from the same page so the link is obvious

On Sudan

In his speech before the House on a related bill, H. Con. Res. 467,[31] Paul rejected the proposal for "[urging] the Administration to seriously consider multilateral or even unilateral intervention to stop genocide in Darfur should the UN Security Council fail to act."

On international organizations:

nternational organizations

Paul advocates withdrawing U.S. participation and funding from organizations he believes override American sovereignty, such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Law of the Sea Treaty, the WTO, NATO, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

Prayer in school:

he believes that prayer in public schools should neither be prohibited nor mandated at the federal or state level.

On abortion (and notice the extremely dangerous part in forbidding the courts to deal with any privacy issue)
Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue".[158]

Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[159] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[118] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[160]

His education policy seems simple: "The rich get smarter, the poor get dumber", as the poor states lack the funding needed:
Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level

Paul on why homosexuality should be illegal in Texas (or the minority should be subject to the bigotry of the majority):

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.”

Environment:

He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between and among the states or regions concerned. "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards."[186]

In an October 2007 interview on the environment, Paul held that climate change is not a "major problem threatening civilization". He declined to name any particular environmental heroes and affirmed no special environmental achievements other than his educating the people about free-market solutions rather than "government expenditures and special-interest politics"....

Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end...

On the electoral college

In 2004, he spoke out against efforts to abolish the electoral college, stating that such a reform would weaken the “voting power of pro-liberty states” and that “Populated areas on both coasts would have increasing influence on national elections, to the detriment of less populated southern and western states.”

End wikipedia quotes

Animal protection:

Rep. Paul is one of only 31 members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted against every single animal protection measure that came up for a vote in 2007.

http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2007/12/ron-paul.html

Paul scores 5% by the LCV (League of Conservation Voters) on environmental issues

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Environment.htm


Paul also opposed the renewal of the civil rights act of 1964, and went so far as to denounce it.

[Keith Hamburger]

But rights to things such as health care, schools, clean environment etc. are things Paul would harm.

So, the rights that were acknowledged by the founders of the country were those rights that could be provided to everyone, without violating the rights of anyone.

How can health care be provided to everyone, without violating the property rights if others? Or, even, the right to life, that is, the right of medical care providers to live their own lives without interference from others?

Negative rights can be provided to everyone equally. Positive rights can not be provided without taking rights from someone else. The rights you list are positive rights that require violating the rights of some to provide your claim of rights to others.

Keith

[Alonzo]

Keith, the loss in rights to some due to taxation, not polluting etc. are minimal when put up against the great increase in rights that those things provide to people.

Though the environment is not about human rights, its about ensuring that human issues don't harm the earth and its inhabitants as a whole. Human rights should never supersede that issue.

How can health care be provided to everyone, without violating the property rights if others?

Taxation and property rights are separate issue I think, especially since, over time, health care costs would likely be lowered if people can act preventively like they do in most nations.

Or, even, the right to life, that is, the right of medical care providers to live their own lives without interference from others?

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, the right to life is the the right for medical care providers to live their own lives?

[Keith Hamburger]

Keith, the loss in rights to some due to taxation, not polluting etc. are minimal when put up against the great increase in rights that those things provide to people.

Though the environment is not about human rights, its about ensuring that human issues don't harm the earth and its inhabitants as a whole. Human rights should never supersede that issue.

So, you're advocating leaving it to whom to determine which rights are more important than others? The majority? An elite group that's put in office through elections or some other method? What do you do when the ones making the decisions decide against you? Where do you draw the lines as to what rights are important and which aren't?

The principles on which this country was founded, the one of negative rights as opposed to positive rights, can be very clear, and protect everyone equally. Positive rights, on the other hand, put one person, or one person's beliefs, values and desires, as more important than the beliefs, values and desires of another person.

The concept of true equality of opportunity, as opposed to some sort of equality of outcome, is one that puts everyone on an equal legal and moral footing. Certainly there will be those that don't succeed under such a situation, but no one is placed into a position where an arbitrary decision is made to the beliefs and values they hold compared to the equivelent beliefs and values of another.

How can health care be provided to everyone, without violating the property rights if others?

Taxation and property rights are separate issue I think, especially since, over time, health care costs would likely be lowered if people can act preventively like they do in most nations.

Or, even, the right to life, that is, the right of medical care providers to live their own lives without interference from others?

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, the right to life is the the right for medical care providers to live their own lives?


I've made the point in another thread, but, I'll go for it again, here.

It's much more difficult to discuss the problems with entitlements or giveaways than it is to simply promise to give something away. It's very easy to promise health care for everyone, it's much more difficult to explain the negative aspects of such programs. Of course, in a forum such as this it is only possible to discuss one or two negative aspects and still keep the discussion manageable.

As to the rights of health care providers, and not even going to the point of taxation to provide for others, we have to take a look at what has already happened with such efforts and project what might happen based on our previous experience.

Currently there are a number of health care providers that will not accept Medicare or Medicaid because of the restrictions and rules involved with providing care under such government programs and the limits on compensation for such programs. Many, many more doctors refuse to take new patients on such programs and only caring for those that they already have a relationship with. These programs provide an enormous amount of our health care today, but are being accepted by fewer and fewer doctors.

What happens when all care is provided by such programs? What do you do when doctors don't wish to accept such programs or work under such conditions? What do you do when fewer and fewer young people go into medicine because of limitations on income and other rules that make such a career less desireable? Are we to increase taxes to the point where working as what is effectively a government doctor is more desireable? Or, do we force doctors who may wish to drop out of such programs to continue their jobs as doctors against their wishes?

Even on the provision side of "universal health care" there are serious problems. That doesn't include the problems of paying for the programs through taxation, government doesn't have anything that it hasn't taken from someone else.

Keith

[Alonzo]

So, you're advocating leaving it to whom to determine which rights are more important than others? The majority? An elite group that's put in office through elections or some other method? What do you do when the ones making the decisions decide against you? Where do you draw the lines as to what rights are important and which aren't?

People do not have a right to harm what is not theirs, and nature is not theirs. If your actions harm the environment or animals, within reason (ie. unnecessary harm) then property and other rights are secondary.

As for which rights supersede others, a decision is going to be made by someone or some group regardless. You can argue by who all day long, but that decision has been made in every society since the dawn of civilization.

The principles on which this country was founded, the one of negative rights as opposed to positive rights, can be very clear, and protect everyone equally. Positive rights, on the other hand, put one person, or one person's beliefs, values and desires, as more important than the beliefs, values and desires of another person.

In the end though society is much better off. If you lay taxes, prevent job discrimination, protect the environment etc. someone can always claim they lose some right, but the well being of the population, if those regulations are done properly, or at least not completely screwed up, will benefit enough to outweigh the smaller loss in rights.

The concept of true equality of opportunity, as opposed to some sort of equality of outcome, is one that puts everyone on an equal legal and moral footing. Certainly there will be those that don't succeed under such a situation, but no one is placed into a position where an arbitrary decision is made to the beliefs and values they hold compared to the equivelent beliefs and values of another.

Equality of opportunity is not reached unless the poor have access to the same form of institutions and benefits that the rich do. To use colleges as an example, a smart person may go to harvard and a less intelligent one (at least academically) may go to a relatively anonymous state school. But, if there is equality of opportunity, the distinction in those students will be drive, academic intelligence etc., not income. Currently that's not the case, and practically all aspects of society are heavily dependent on income. It often takes a person with special levels of motivation to rise to the level that another, wealthier, person may achieve with only average drive and motivation.

To achieve equality of opportunity social programs need to be in place, otherwise the socioeconomic condition of those people will be a more powerful factor than anything else.


As to the rights of health care providers, and not even going to the point of taxation to provide for others, we have to take a look at what has already happened with such efforts and project what might happen based on our previous experience.

Currently there are a number of health care providers that will not accept Medicare or Medicaid because of the restrictions and rules involved with providing care under such government programs and the limits on compensation for such programs. Many, many more doctors refuse to take new patients on such programs and only caring for those that they already have a relationship with. These programs provide an enormous amount of our health care today, but are being accepted by fewer and fewer doctors.

What happens when all care is provided by such programs? What do you do when doctors don't wish to accept such programs or work under such conditions?

Hospitals are an essential service. This isn't a factory or an IT job. Doctor choice and doctor rights are secondary to patient choice and patient rights.

What do you do when fewer and fewer young people go into medicine because of limitations on income and other rules that make such a career less desireable? Are we to increase taxes to the point where working as what is effectively a government doctor is more desireable? Or, do we force doctors who may wish to drop out of such programs to continue their jobs as doctors against their wishes?

No one continues a job against their wishes in any free society. But this catastrophic vision makes no sense, as most first world nations provide universal health care, of some sort, and don't face such catastrophic events. There are problems some face (and, to point out, wait times in those nations are both longer and shorter than the u.s., depending on the country), but the issue often has less to do with lack of doctors and more to do with wealthier nations, such as the u.s., stealing doctors.

Even so, the health of citizens in a country such as Canada is higher than the u.s., despite significant problems with wait times and doctor shortages. Their universal health care does not function as well as most other nations with universal health care do, but their results still are better than ours.

Even on the provision side of "universal health care" there are serious problems. That doesn't include the problems of paying for the programs through taxation, government doesn't have anything that it hasn't taken from someone else.


Universal health care will cost money at first, but in the end likely reduce costs.

If people have health care they often seek treatment when the disease is treatable for much less money, as the focus is more on preventive care. Int he u.s. though we waste millions of dollars treating extremely expensive, life or death illnesses since people wait until they have no choice, as they often have no insurance or inadequate insurance.