Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

[c1ue]

For someone who is a millionaire and thinks Social Security is bad, seems odd why Mr. Paul cashes his SS checks...

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...cial-security/

Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), a libertarian hero, last year said that allowing Social Security to exist is akin to permitting slavery. But during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe today, Paul admitted to the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein that he collects Social Security checks anyway:

STEIN: A bit of a personal question then, are you on Social Security? Do you get Social Security checks?
PAUL: I do.
STEIN: Well, I mean, is there — you just told younger generations that they should ween themselves off this social contract.
PAUL: That is true.
STEIN: But you haven’t done it yourself…Don’t you think you chould have set a good example for the future generations. You’re not the wealthiest man in congress, I know that, but you have enough means to take care of yourself in retirement…Couldn’t you have set an example?
PAUL: No. I think the programs are so designed, just as I use the post office too, I use government highways, I do that too, I use the banks, the federal reserve system, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t work to remove this in the same way on Social Security.

Watch it:

Paul is, of course, not the only conservative to benefit from government programs that he or she opposes. But his crankish view of the Constitution has brought him to the conclusion that Social Security is altogether unconstitutional, which also hasn’t stopped him from collecting benefits.

Wouldn't a more principled stance be to return them?

[cjppjc]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

This is a very high standard to set for someone else.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

This is a very high standard to set for someone else.

+1

[Finster]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

Wouldn't a more principled stance be to return them?

I think he's got it right. Maybe if he returned them he could get a lot of publicity for being a fruitcake. Heck, the quote already calls his view of the Constitution "crankish" (without saying why) ... portraying him as nutty being something the "mainstream" media generally likes to do when it has to acknowledge his existence. Cashing the checks is a perfectly rational, sane thing that most regular people would do. Just like living by the rules while working to change them.

[stealthcat]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

The title of the thread is a little unfair as well. There's a difference between:

1) Trying to bring about a change while benefiting directly from what is trying to be changed ("I think SS should be eliminated, but until it is, I will make use of it").

2) Trying to hold others to a different standard than oneself ("no SS for my constituents, but I'll take mine").

The phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" implies hypocrisy - something more along the lines of statement 2. It seems to me that Ron Paul's stance is much more along the lines of statement 1.

[c1ue]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

Cashing the checks is a perfectly rational, sane thing that most regular people would do. Just like living by the rules while working to change them.

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with cashing the checks, at the same time I find it interesting that so many people think that this is perfectly fine for someone who is supposed to be 'idealistic'.

My point of view is this is exactly like an advocate of say, locavore-ism eating at McDonald's, or an advocate of campaign finance reform accepting millions of dollars from banksters.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with it - maybe their kids want the McD's toy of the month or the campaign finance reform guy saying he needs to play the game in order to change it.

But it is very much a dilution of the idealist's message.

Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I personally believe the idealist must adhere to a higher standard than anyone else.

[Finster]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

I don't think there's anything morally wrong with cashing the checks, at the same time I find it interesting that so many people think that this is perfectly fine for someone who is supposed to be 'idealistic'.

My point of view is this is exactly like an advocate of say, locavore-ism eating at McDonald's, or an advocate of campaign finance reform accepting millions of dollars from banksters.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with it - maybe their kids want the McD's toy of the month or the campaign finance reform guy saying he needs to play the game in order to change it.

But it is very much a dilution of the idealist's message.

Perhaps I am old fashioned, but I personally believe the idealist must adhere to a higher standard than anyone else.

But it is he, or you, who is type-casting him as an "idealist"? Not to mention defining what one should expect from such a person. I happen to agree that Paul is one of the most principled politicians out there, but don't take the absolutist position that because of that, he must be judged compared to my ideal of perfection, while his contemporaries are held to a lower standard.

Stealthcat gives us a remarkably lucid framework for approaching the question:

The title of the thread is a little unfair as well. There's a difference between:

1) Trying to bring about a change while benefiting directly from what is trying to be changed ("I think SS should be eliminated, but until it is, I will make use of it").

2) Trying to hold others to a different standard than oneself ("no SS for my constituents, but I'll take mine").

The phrase "Do as I say, not as I do" implies hypocrisy - something more along the lines of statement 2. It seems to me that Ron Paul's stance is much more along the lines of statement 1.

I agree.

Personally, given a choice I'd prefer Paul took the course he has ... as suggested above, I think if he refused the checks it would just be playing into his detractors hands, making it all that much easier to portray him as a kook.

[c1ue]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

But it is he, or you, who is type-casting him as an "idealist"? Not to mention defining what one should expect from such a person. I happen to agree that Paul is one of the most principled politicians out there, but don't take the absolutist position that because of that, he must be judged compared to my ideal of perfection, while his contemporaries are held to a lower standard.

If Ron Paul is not an idealist - in the specific Libertarian sense, not in the general idealist sense - then what exactly is he?

As for what should be expected - again the question arises: if my expectations are wrong, then what are the correct ones?

I don't believe that Ron Paul needs to adhere to my standards. At the same time, I don't believe that I need to allow Ron Paul - or any other politician - to only have to exceed either the average or the worst of his peers' behavior.

Personally, given a choice I'd prefer Paul took the course he has ... as suggested above, I think if he refused the checks it would just be playing into his detractors hands, making it all that much easier to portray him as a kook.

I don't see at all how Ron Paul returning Social Security checks as being in any way kooky. He doesn't need the money, and if in fact he feels so strongly about Social Security, the stance has far more power than the income.

Calling Social Security unconstitutional and a giant Ponzi scheme would seem to indicate very strong feelings.

[Finster]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

If Ron Paul is not an idealist - in the specific Libertarian sense, not in the general idealist sense - then what exactly is he?

A human being. And it’s axiomatic that human beings are complex creatures that cannot in general be reduced to simple binary is or isn’t propositions. If one attempts to judge that and doesn’t get satisfactory answers, is it the subject’s fault or the judge’s?

What do you mean by "Libertarian" (big L)? One who conforms to the platform of the Libertarian Party? How many people might fit that description exactly? My guess is most members agree with the majority of those planks, but differ with one or some. In which case there are probably very few Libertarians, making it an unrealistic standard. So what about going by membership? If you were to use that standard, Paul would be "Libertarian" at one point in his political career and not in another. If he now identifies himself as "Republican", then is it his behavior or our expectations that are out of line if we expect him to act like a "Libertarian"? In any case, does the Libertarian Party have a monopoly on defining "libertarian" (small L)? If so, then does the Republican party get to define a republic? Does the Democratic party have the last word on defining democracy?

It’s easy to define "libertarian" by simply examining the origin of the word. It’s someone who advocates liberty. By this standard, Paul fits the bill. Conversely, if one heaps sufficient extra freight on the word, it’s possible to exclude everybody, in which case you are back to the unrealistic standard department.

We can do the same thing with "idealist". It’s someone who believes in ideals. But who gets to say what those ideals are? Or how one’s behavior reflects them?

As for what should be expected - again the question arises: if my expectations are wrong, then what are the correct ones?

What is the correct color for a car?

I don't believe that Ron Paul needs to adhere to my standards. At the same time, I don't believe that I need to allow Ron Paul - or any other politician - to only have to exceed either the average or the worst of his peers' behavior.

I don't see at all how Ron Paul returning Social Security checks as being in any way kooky. He doesn't need the money, and if in fact he feels so strongly about Social Security, the stance has far more power than the income.

Most people would say a normal, sane, person, if walking down the street and seeing a $100 bill on the sidewalk, would pick it up and put it in his pocket.

Carrying the metaphor further, he might first try to ascertain whether its rightful owner might be identified. If so, what might Paul conclude about the rightful owner of the money he receives in Social Security? Arguably, it’s him. After all, he was required to pay into the system by the same law that sends him the checks.

Calling Social Security unconstitutional and a giant Ponzi scheme would seem to indicate very strong feelings.

At least a strong analysis. And I would expect a person holding such views to work to end Social Security, if he is in politics. He might have submitted legislation to end it, advocated a court case contending its unconstitutionality, or tried to persuade voters to support ending it.

...

[don]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

Remember back to the good ole daze when Presidents worked for a dollar a year.






no, not this one . . .



or this one . . .



or this guy, either


It was a nice gesture in its day



JFK dollar-a-year man

largely symbolic, but nice . . .

[DSpencer]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

Most people would say a normal, sane, person, if walking down the street and seeing a $100 bill on the sidewalk, would pick it up and put it in his pocket.

Carrying the metaphor further, he might first try to ascertain whether its rightful owner might be identified. If so, what might Paul conclude about the rightful owner of the money he receives in Social Security? Arguably, it’s him. After all, he was required to pay into the system by the same law that sends him the checks.

Seems to fit in well with his overall stance on issues of a similar nature. He thinks the whole system takes too much money from Americans and they should do what they can to get it back while also working to change the system.

It's simply impossible to live a life that would be free from this kind of criticism. By not cashing the check he's simply helping to prolong the ponzi scheme at his own expense. If he buys shampoo in bottle that's made in China he's supporting communism.

In reality it's pretty remarkable how consistently principled his life and record are. It's always seemed odd how hard people try to make a big deal out of things like this. I guess he's one of the only targets because how can you attempt to show someone is violating their principles when they don't seem to have any to begin? If you say Obama is a capitalist or a socialist or pro-freedom or anti-freedom, you will immediately get vehement disagreement from someone before you can ever compare to his record.

[Finster]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

... how can you attempt to show someone is violating their principles when they don't seem to have any to begin? ...

Excellent point, DSpencer. By this reasoning, the most principled are the most vulnerable to criticism for violation of principle! Oh what a topsy turvy world ...

[c1ue]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

A human being. And it’s axiomatic that human beings are complex creatures that cannot in general be reduced to simple binary is or isn’t propositions. If one attempts to judge that and doesn’t get satisfactory answers, is it the subject’s fault or the judge’s?

This would be more sensible if in fact, later in the same post, I had not called out Ron Paul's strong public statements on Social Security.

Thus your Sturm und Drang over the definition of (large L or small l) libertarian is in fact irrelevant since I'm not talking about generic libertarians of either stripe, libertarian philosophy in general, nor even Ron Paul's other views - libertarian or otherwise.

To wit:

Calling Social Security unconstitutional and a giant Ponzi scheme would seem to indicate very strong feelings.

Attempting to muddy the water by implying some form of observer bias in fact thus is pointless because I'm not calling Ron Paul out on some subject which he doesn't care about or hasn't spoken of.

He does care, and he has spoken out.

Most people would say a normal, sane, person, if walking down the street and seeing a $100 bill on the sidewalk, would pick it up and put it in his pocket.

Carrying the metaphor further, he might first try to ascertain whether its rightful owner might be identified. If so, what might Paul conclude about the rightful owner of the money he receives in Social Security? Arguably, it’s him. After all, he was required to pay into the system by the same law that sends him the checks.

Totally irrelevant.

You're trying to now equate a completely morally ambiguous situation with Ron Paul's views on Social Security - which are anything but ambiguous.

You then try to equate Ron Paul's actions as being just in some way.

This is poppycock - if in fact Ron Paul believes Social Security to be a Ponzi scheme, as he has said so publicly, then accepting Social Security Payments is exactly like being a high level pyramid member/early adopter in a Ponzi.

The principle being followed then is what?

At least a strong analysis. And I would expect a person holding such views to work to end Social Security, if he is in politics. He might have submitted legislation to end it, advocated a court case contending its unconstitutionality, or tried to persuade voters to support ending it.

Amusingly enough, I am far less surprised and not at all disappointed that he has not performed any of the above actions. Because if he did so, he'd be out on on a** in a heartbeat, and he knows it.

However, symbolically refusing Social Security is entirely a different proposition.

It is Gandhi weaving his own cloth to refuse business to the British offshoring of cloth.

It is the manumission of slaves by various founding fathers, albeit after a somewhat embarrassingly long interlude and after no further personal use can be had.

Both of these acts, and many others historically, were on issues which were legal but which were felt to be unjust or immoral in some way, and the actions above were not overt but were personal expressions of disagreement.

I don't expect Ron Paul or any other person to accept sacrifices in order to promote a belief or ideal, but at the same time I respect the ones that do.

I guess he's one of the only targets because how can you attempt to show someone is violating their principles when they don't seem to have any to begin? If you say Obama is a capitalist or a socialist or pro-freedom or anti-freedom, you will immediately get vehement disagreement from someone before you can ever compare to his record.

This shouldn't be in the least bit surprising. The one thing I've seen in the (corporate) politics level is that being right is irrelevant. The reason sociopaths and general bastards wind up climbing the ladder is because they do nothing but sit around all day waiting for those others with the desire to accomplish specific goals to screw up, while they in turn guarantee a string of successes by pushing forward minions toward risky initiatives, then stealing the credit.

I have no doubt politicians are the same way.

[Finster]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

This would be more sensible if in fact, later in the same post, I had not called out Ron Paul's strong public statements on Social Security.

But this merely assumes your conclusion. That because Paul has spoken out against SS, he should decline the checks it sends him. Using your conclusion as a premise in your argument is a logical no-no.

Thus your Sturm und Drang over the definition of (large L or small l) libertarian is in fact irrelevant since I'm not talking about generic libertarians of either stripe, libertarian philosophy in general, nor even Ron Paul's other views - libertarian or otherwise.

I could be wrong, but I thought it was you that posted the first occurrence of the word "libertarian" in this thread.

To wit:

Attempting to muddy the water by implying some form of observer bias in fact thus is pointless because I'm not calling Ron Paul out on some subject which he doesn't care about or hasn't spoken of.

He does care, and he has spoken out.

Right, c1ue. It’s not observer bias per se, rather the assumption that A > B where A is the fact that he cares about the issue, and B is that he should decline checks made out to him.

There are all sorts of possible B to go with that A, and Paul’s choice of which ones to practice appears to present no logical conflict and be well within his moral discretion.

As Paul himself points out, he also uses the Post Office, the highways … and most pointedly, the banks and by extension the Federal Reserve, even though he has written a book called "End the Fed". If we are to fault him for cashing his SS checks, it would appear that consistency demand he find himself a cave near some remote mountain aerie in Tibet and permit but one question per year.

Totally irrelevant.

You're trying to now equate a completely morally ambiguous situation with Ron Paul's views on Social Security - which are anything but ambiguous.

You then try to equate Ron Paul's actions as being just in some way.

Where did you get that? You’re confusing my argument about sanity (picking up the $100 bill) with one about morality. Remember? This part of the debate was about whether he’d appear less kooky to the public if he cashed the checks?

This is poppycock - if in fact Ron Paul believes Social Security to be a Ponzi scheme, as he has said so publicly, then accepting Social Security Payments is exactly like being a high level pyramid member/early adopter in a Ponzi.

The principle being followed then is what?

Obey the law. If anything, we might fault Paul here for indulging in a bit of rhetorical hyperbole. (What??? A politician engaging in rhetorical hyperbole???) Paul knows damn well there’s a difference between SS and a Ponzi scheme … SS isn’t illegal but a Ponzi scheme is. He won’t go to jail for cashing his SS checks.

Amusingly enough, I am far less surprised and not at all disappointed that he has not performed any of the above actions. Because if he did so, he'd be out on on a** in a heartbeat, and he knows it.

How do you know he hasn’t? Far as I know he’s done at least one, maybe all of them. But the point being there is a whole panoply of possible behaviors consistent with advocating SS be abolished. He’s just apparently failed to adopt one you’d prefer.

However, symbolically refusing Social Security is entirely a different proposition.

It is Gandhi weaving his own cloth to refuse business to the British offshoring of cloth.

It is the manumission of slaves by various founding fathers, albeit after a somewhat embarrassingly long interlude and after no further personal use can be had.

Both of these acts, and many others historically, were on issues which were legal but which were felt to be unjust or immoral in some way, and the actions above were not overt but were personal expressions of disagreement.

I don't expect Ron Paul or any other person to accept sacrifices in order to promote a belief or ideal, but at the same time I respect the ones that do.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Paul is not Ghandi. And you don’t expect him to behave as if he is. So finally you accept my position. Thank you for the interesting debate.

[c1ue]

Re: Ron Paul: Do as I say, not as I do

But this merely assumes your conclusion. That because Paul has spoken out against SS, he should decline the checks it sends him. Using your conclusion as a premise in your argument is a logical no-no.

Again you are making a statement which is untrue.

Nowhere did I say that Ron Paul must do anything.

What I said was:

Wouldn't a more principled stance be to return them?

Where is the assumption? Where is the definition of libertarian (L, l, or whatever)?

I could be wrong, but I thought it was you that posted the first occurrence of the word "libertarian" in this thread.

And again, if you care to reread the record, it would show that my mention of the word libertarian was in response to your comment on idealism.

And you'll further note that I did not ascribe any form of definition to libertarian - positive or negative - but merely used it in context of your comments involving idealism:

If Ron Paul is not an idealist - in the specific Libertarian sense, not in the general idealist sense - then what exactly is he?

As for what should be expected - again the question arises: if my expectations are wrong, then what are the correct ones?

I don't believe that Ron Paul needs to adhere to my standards. At the same time, I don't believe that I need to allow Ron Paul - or any other politician - to only have to exceed either the average or the worst of his peers' behavior.

Defining libertarian as large L or small l is all fine and good, but it still doesn't answer the original question:

Is participating in something you believe is a Ponzi scheme a principled stance?

Right, c1ue. It’s not observer bias per se, rather the assumption that A > B where A is the fact that he cares about the issue, and B is that he should decline checks made out to him.

There are all sorts of possible B to go with that A, and Paul’s choice of which ones to practice appears to present no logical conflict and be well within his moral discretion.

The question was of principle.

Your response here seems to indicate that Ron Paul has this huge range of choices by which to execute on his beliefs, ranging from doing nothing to gaining the reputation for being a kook by going too far.

The problem is that in a question of principle, the range of actions is far more constrained. Legally you can steal in many ways - the banksters have shown this - but principles excludes pretty much all of them.

I've never said Ron Paul must do this or that. My question is: are Ron Paul's actions in this specific subject principled?

As Paul himself points out, he also uses the Post Office, the highways … and most pointedly, the banks and by extension the Federal Reserve, even though he has written a book called "End the Fed". If we are to fault him for cashing his SS checks, it would appear that consistency demand he find himself a cave near some remote mountain aerie in Tibet and permit but one question per year.

I'd say there is a huge difference between using dollars, the post office, or any bank vs. accepting Social Security checks.

Must I point out the silliness of trying to equate a single action which is purely symbolic and has no real benefit or harm vs. attempting to do without mail or US dollars?

Where did you get that? You’re confusing my argument about sanity (picking up the $100 bill) with one about morality. Remember? This part of the debate was about whether he’d appear less kooky to the public if he cashed the checks?

Hardly, because the $100 bill has no principle involved in any way.

Given that Ron Paul has a principle - that he thinks Social Security is unconstitutional and a scam - I fail to see how making a principled decision to not participate in its payouts while still obeying the law can be in any way construed as 'kooky'.

Or put another way: if all people judge is on the acceptance of legal financial benefits - the definition of which all sorts of campaign finance abuses equally fall under - then principles don't matter at all.

Obey the law. If anything, we might fault Paul here for indulging in a bit of rhetorical hyperbole. (What??? A politician engaging in rhetorical hyperbole???) Paul knows damn well there’s a difference between SS and a Ponzi scheme … SS isn’t illegal but a Ponzi scheme is. He won’t go to jail for cashing his SS checks.

Show me a law which states you MUST accept Social Security payments. In fact you have to claim Social Security - thus Ron Paul must have filled out the application for same. This is a positive action, not a result of inaction - or in other words Ron Paul consciously chose to claim benefits from a system he decries.

I didn't say Ron Paul should not have paid his Social Security withholding - that is the law.

How do you know he hasn’t? Far as I know he’s done at least one, maybe all of them. But the point being there is a whole panoply of possible behaviors consistent with advocating SS be abolished. He’s just apparently failed to adopt one you’d prefer.

Perhaps you can point out where he has done so. I'd be happy to hear that he has actually acted on his very strong public statements.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Paul is not Ghandi. And you don’t expect him to behave as if he is. So finally you accept my position. Thank you for the interesting debate.

Your position appears to be that he is simply not as bad as other politicians.

However, the original subject wasn't that Ron Paul is or is not Gandhi, nor that Ron Paul is or is not as principled as other politicians.

The original question was: Are Ron Paul's actions in accepting Social Security payments from a system he calls unconstitutional and a Ponzi scheme, principled?

So far your arguments lie in 2 realms:

1) that there are a wide range of actions Ron Paul could or could not choose to take which would still preserve his principles on this matter, including that not doing so would create a perception of kookiness.

Unfortunately you have yet to demonstrate how accepting said checks is in any way consistent with his strong beliefs. He doesn't need the money, it isn't illegal to not accept Social Security and he believes strongly on this subject. Ron Paul in fact had to consciously fill out an application to claim said payments.

You've commented that this is somehow fine, because he paid into the system. Yet the problem here is that if Ron Paul believes Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, claiming benefits out of it is literal theft, unless perhaps Mr. Paul stops accepting Social Security payments after his withholdings - even with interest - are returned to him. Even in this case, he could just as easily have said in public that he was doing just that.

As for kookiness, I've already noted that to not accept Social Security payments due to principle is neither illegal nor, given a strong and public belief, bizarre - the same which could not be said for refusing to pay into Social Security.

2) that his actions are legal. Unfortunately legality was never the question. And legality isn't principle.