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

[DSpencer]

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

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?

Imagine a system where the government takes ALL of your income and then draws a random number form a hat to determine how much you get back. Ron Paul would certainly think this system was unconstitutional and immoral. However, I wouldn't consider him unprincipled for participating when his other choice is just to simply get robbed blind.

This is the same thing to a lesser degree. Sure he doesn't need the money. But by not claiming SS he would be effectively allowing the government to take the money and simply keep it. How is that fair? And what does it prove? I don't think being principled should require getting screwed.

To me it seems like a philosophical debate: When attacked do you fight back or do you only use peaceful methods. The effectiveness of each can be debated, but for me personally I think you at least have the right to fight back.

The thread title suggests he is a hypocrite, that he has told people something like "It's wrong to claim your SS benefits, don't do it". Simply provide a reputable source of information that shows that he tells other people that they should not claim SS benefits and it will be proved.

[DSpencer]

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

I have to add after looking more at one of the links in the original post saying it's "akin to permitting slavery". I find this headline to be extremely misleading when compared to what was actually said/meant. He's really just questioning the courts ability to make sound decisions based on historical performance.

The headline:
Ron Paul Calls Social Security and Medicare Unconstitutional, Compares Them to ‘Slavery’

The actual quote used to justify this headline:

WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

[aaron]

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

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

He is a politician. Regular folks, who do cash social security checks, do not want to be told they are sinning. They also do not want to vote for crazy people who do not take money from the government retirement plan that one has paid into for 40 years.

Or, it could be simply that he thinks of SS as a tax refund.

[Finster]

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

Again you are making a statement which is untrue.

Nowhere did I say that Ron Paul must do anything.

What I said was:



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



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:



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?



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?



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?



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.



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.



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.



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.

Aren't you going to an awful lot of trouble to argue after having already conceded my position?

[jiimbergin]

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

Aren't you going to an awful lot of trouble to argue after having already conceded my position?

I like much of what C1ue posts, but it is true and I believe he has admitted it, that he simply does not like to not win and not have the final word.,,

[c1ue]

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

Imagine a system where the government takes ALL of your income and then draws a random number form a hat to determine how much you get back. Ron Paul would certainly think this system was unconstitutional and immoral. However, I wouldn't consider him unprincipled for participating when his other choice is just to simply get robbed blind.

This is the same thing to a lesser degree. Sure he doesn't need the money. But by not claiming SS he would be effectively allowing the government to take the money and simply keep it. How is that fair? And what does it prove? I don't think being principled should require getting screwed.

I don't see the similarity at all.

We're not talking about all money. We're not talking about all income. We're not even talking about the means of fighting back.

We're talking about a specific program for which Ron Paul has expressed very strong opinions.

And the question was: if you consider a specific program a pyramid scheme and unconstitutional, and you don't need the money, why then partake of its benefits?

From a purely financial perspective, I absolutely agree there is no question that accepting said payments is fine - and even good.

The perspective in question, however, is if participation in a scheme you disapprove of, even the parts which you are not legally required to participate in, constitutes a principled action or not.

This is very much in line with Catholic organizations' non-funding of contraception unrelated to health issues.

The thread title suggests he is a hypocrite, that he has told people something like "It's wrong to claim your SS benefits, don't do it". Simply provide a reputable source of information that shows that he tells other people that they should not claim SS benefits and it will be proved.

Perhaps so, and perhaps not. If Ron Paul is not a believer in Social Security, he has the choice to elect out of all the portions he is legally able to do so.

However, he has not.

You might note, however, that I deliberately put this in Rant 'N Rave.

I have to add after looking more at one of the links in the original post saying it's "akin to permitting slavery". I find this headline to be extremely misleading when compared to what was actually said/meant. He's really just questioning the courts ability to make sound decisions based on historical performance.

And you'll note, I've made no mention whatsoever of slavery. That's pure MSM crap.

Aren't you going to an awful lot of trouble to argue after having already conceded my position?

Unclear what you've conceded. Saying that Ron Paul isn't Gandhi is not the same thing as answering the question of the principled nature of this particular action.

Your points on the means of expression are valid, but equally you have not apparently considered any of my points regarding the elective nature of Ron Paul's participation in Social Security in contrast to his very public stance.

I like much of what C1ue posts, but it is true and I believe he has admitted it, that he simply does not like to not win and not have the final word.,,

I believe in getting to the truth as much as possible. I also believe that it is not always possible to do so through amicable means, but that's also why I always read whatever is posted and ask for more data.

[Finster]

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

I like much of what C1ue posts, but it is true and I believe he has admitted it, that he simply does not like to not win and not have the final word.,,

I like c1ue's posting too, Jim, just in case my posting suggests otherwise. There is of course a disagreement here, but part of my motivation is that I like to debate with smart people ... good exercise for the mind!

So despite my conclusion that c1ue has already conceded my core position, maybe I'll go ahead and reply to the particulars of that last post anyway ...

[Finster]

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

…

Unclear what you've conceded. Saying that Ron Paul isn't Gandhi is not the same thing as answering the question of the principled nature of this particular action.

Your points on the means of expression are valid, but equally you have not apparently considered any of my points regarding the elective nature of Ron Paul's participation in Social Security in contrast to his very public stance…

This is what I was responding to … I’m satisfied with it.

… I don't expect Ron Paul or any other person to accept sacrifices in order to promote a belief or ideal...

But this is a good debate so I’ll go ahead and post a fuller reply to your points anyway as soon as I get some time.

[Finster]

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

Again you are making a statement which is untrue.

Nowhere did I say that Ron Paul must do anything.

What I said was: …

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

Your argument boils down to concluding that because Paul has spoken out against SS, he should decline the checks it sends him. Your supporting reasoning begins from the premise that because Paul has spoken out against SS, he should decline the checks it sends him.

That’s circular. The aforementioned logical no-no.

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:

Confusing idealism and libertarianism was your error, not mine.

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?

So you admit invoking libertarianism was an evasion of the issue?

Or just a smokescreen?

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.

My response was indeed that "there is a whole panoply of possible behaviors consistent with advocating SS be abolished". You deserve the credit for the specific instances including "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?

My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul. But what really gives me heartburn here was better put by StealthCat … that it is unfair to suggest that somehow Paul has invoked a double standard, as if he were accepting SS checks while denying them to others. If that were the case, I might be more sympathetic to criticism towards him. But it’s not.

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

You assert that since Paul has spoken out against Social Security, he should not cash the checks it sends him.

I assert that the exact same logic holds that since Paul has spoken out against the Federal Reserve, he should not accept any of its notes or use its banks.

It’s really hard to discern any bright line there.

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?

I think we are back in the assuming-the-conclusion circle. It is you that asserts that Paul’s acceptance of SS checks is "purely symbolic". I read no symbolism into that whatsoever.

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'.

I doubt whether you or I would construe it as kooky much concerns Paul. Now whether MSNBC or the New York Times or Bloomberg News might portray it as kooky is a different matter.

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.

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.

There doesn’t have to be a law stating one must accept SS payments for my argument to prevail. The distinction is between operating a Ponzi scheme being against the law versus accepting SS payments being within the law. Your position fails to recognize this important distinction thus my calling it to your attention.

Your points on the means of expression are valid, but equally you have not apparently considered any of my points regarding the elective nature of Ron Paul's participation in Social Security in contrast to his very public stance.

Considered and rejected. Paul has no choice but to participate by paying into the system; it’s unreasonable to expect him to selectively eschew the rest … one leg in and one leg out … for his trouble to make a clear statement of principle of dubious value to begin with, the best he could do would get him a messy, ad hoc, half-in-half-out result. I sure wouldn’t do that.

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.

You already have. You claim Paul advocates ending Social Security. That’s close enough to "tried to persuade voters to support ending it" for me.

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?

My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul. I think it’s perfectly acceptable - expected, even - that as a member of the United States Congress Paul behave in accordance with the law while advocating the law be changed.

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...

Correct.

So far your arguments lie in 2 realms:

1) … 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.

That’s a bit of an exaggeration. The "kookiness" risk is not so much that it would cause him to be portrayed as kooky, rather that it would play into the hands of detractors that already like to portray him as kooky. He’s smart to avoid that. I admire that kind of smarts.

And if statement of principle is really that important, why not insist he avoid paying into the system as well? After all, that might land him in jail, whereby he could really make a dramatic statement!

(As well as look really kooky!)

The rest of this realm is problematic in that as the accuser, it is incumbent upon you to make a prima facie case that accepting the checks is logically or morally inconsistent with his beliefs. As defender, I need merely point out that you have failed to do so. Hence yet further relevance of my pointing out that there are multiple behaviors consistent with his stated support for ending Social Security. As the advocate in the first instance, Paul has considerable discretion in his choice of which behaviors to adopt, absent a compelling case to the contrary. Mere failure to adopt one of those behaviors isn’t even close to inconsistency.

Suppose I think liver and onions stinks. Suppose as a dinner guest a plate of same is set before me. What am I to do? Should I eat it? Should I shove it back in my host’s face declaring my hatred of the stuff? Should I discreetly toss bits of it to the dog under the table? Which of these behaviors, if I fail to practice, renders me guilty of inconsistency of principle?

But more importantly, you are taking the comparison between SS and a Ponzi scheme too far. Your logic is a simplistic, mechanical: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is illegal. Therefore accepting Social Security checks is illegal (actually, imprincipled … your logic isn’t even that tight…).

The faulty premise here? Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. More about that next.

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

You invoked the question of legality by insisting on equating Social Security with a Ponzi scheme to make your case. Running a Ponzi scheme is illegal. Accepting SS checks is not. There is a big difference, and I think that despite his taking rhetorical license by comparing SS to a Ponzi scheme, Paul understands that. And I think you err in interpreting his rhetoric too literally. Otherwise, his behavior is inexplicable if not for stupidity, weakness, or avarice.

There are at least two possible conclusions that one can draw: 1) Paul really believes Social Security is an illegal, abhorrent Ponzi scheme yet participates in it nonetheless; 2) Paul’s comparisons between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme are a rhetorical device in a political context to cut through the media noise and emphasize what he sees as serious problems with the program.

One can choose the first conclusion and fuss over Paul’s moral lassitude and lack of character. Or one can choose the second and move on to issues of substance such as vital reforms or alternatives to Social Security.

I’ll take the second, please.

[flintlock]

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

Ron Paul does not advocate not cashing SS checks. He advocates abolishing the system. I don't see the conflict. Since he is forced to play by the current rules, and has paid into the system, why not collect?

[c1ue]

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

Your argument boils down to concluding that because Paul has spoken out against SS, he should decline the checks it sends him. Your supporting reasoning begins from the premise that because Paul has spoken out against SS, he should decline the checks it sends him.

That’s circular. The aforementioned logical no-no.

Interesting, yet again you've avoided the concept of principle.

And by doing so, you attempt to create a circular reasoning because you've conveniently ignored the actual question: is accepting payments from a Ponzi scheme principled?

You can keep on trying to avoid the issue, but until you address the concept of principle and the mode(s) of adhering to same (or failing to do so), you're not going to answer the question.

I'll repeat the question yet again: As Ron Paul has publicly decried Social Security, as well as compared it to a Ponzi scheme, is his elective participation in Social Security payouts a principled action?

I don't see what is so difficult to understand or respond to here. Some people don't eat meat because they are against killing animals, some don't because they believe carniculture is destructive of the environment, other don't for religious reasons, etc etc.

In every single case, the behavior on either side of the equation is legal, however, the elective action is a principled one.

Confusing idealism and libertarianism was your error, not mine.

Again unclear what is being confused, since I am not speaking towards libertarianism. The question which is again repeated above has nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism.

So you admit invoking libertarianism was an evasion of the issue?

Or just a smokescreen?

Given that I wasn't speaking about libertarianism, nor was I invoking any of its principles in any way in this discussion, the divergence into libertarianism is yours, not mine.

Thus the question of smoke screen is really something you should answer.

The question asked, in which the 'l or L' word appeared, was my query to you as to what Ron Paul should be considered as, not a description of him on my part.

If in fact he is just another Congressman, but one who is considered more principled than most/all of his peers - as much or as little as that says - then that is perfectly fine.

My response was indeed that "there is a whole panoply of possible behaviors consistent with advocating SS be abolished". You deserve the credit for the specific instances including "doing nothing to gaining the reputation for being a kook by going too far".

In fact, you are the one who first mentioned the term kook, and specifically cited a failure to accept Social Security payments as a possible means of Ron Paul being portrayed as a kook. To wit:

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.

My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul. But what really gives me heartburn here was better put by StealthCat … that it is unfair to suggest that somehow Paul has invoked a double standard, as if he were accepting SS checks while denying them to others. If that were the case, I might be more sympathetic to criticism towards him. But it’s not.

The above sentences are interesting because nowhere in this thread have I ever noted that Ron Paul was denying anything, nor have I examined any aspect of Ron Paul's criticisms of Social Security which concerns other people. Neither have I commented on my view on whether Ron Paul's views on Social Security are right or not.

The question I posed was: is it principled for someone who is so publicly against Social Security to still accept Social Security payments?

Thus frankly your heartburn has very little to do with what is talked about in this thread. This isn't about the rightness or wrongness of Social Security. This isn't about about anyone else but Ron Paul.

You assert that since Paul has spoken out against Social Security, he should not cash the checks it sends him.

I assert that the exact same logic holds that since Paul has spoken out against the Federal Reserve, he should not accept any of its notes or use its banks.

It’s really hard to discern any bright line there.

The logic is pretty simple: there are gigantic operational problems with not accepting Federal Reserve notes or using Federal Reserve banks. For that matter, there are specific laws stating that Federal Reserve notes are acceptable as payment for all legal debts.

The same cannot be said for accepting Social Security payments. There is neither an operational issue nor a legal one. Thus the two situations are in no way comparable: avoiding the Fed is both illegal and extremely difficult, while not accepting Social Security checks is neither.

In fact, not accepting Social Security checks is even easier than accepting them, because you have to apply for them - a deliberate action.

I think we are back in the assuming-the-conclusion circle. It is you that asserts that Paul’s acceptance of SS checks is "purely symbolic". I read no symbolism into that whatsoever.

Your opinion is certainly welcome, but it is not the driving factor. Nor in reality is it necessary than anyone's opinion be the driving factor, including my own.

However, to deny that there is no symbolic value in Ron Paul not accepting Social Security checks - that is a false proposition.

I doubt whether you or I would construe it as kooky much concerns Paul. Now whether MSNBC or the New York Times or Bloomberg News might portray it as kooky is a different matter.

Probably true. On the other hand, principle should only rarely, and in very carefully considered cases, bow down to expedience. Because too much expedience = no principle.

There doesn’t have to be a law stating one must accept SS payments for my argument to prevail. The distinction is between operating a Ponzi scheme being against the law versus accepting SS payments being within the law. Your position fails to recognize this important distinction thus my calling it to your attention.

Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme according to the laws of the United States. Ron Paul, however, has called it such, and as such has shown that his personal opinion on the matter.

Once again you're trying to invoke legality in place of principle. I fail to see what the legality of Ponzi schemes are when the question isn't about the legality of Ponzi schemes.

Ron Paul has expressed an opinion that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, which would presume either that it is illegal or criminal in his own view. Paying into Social Security is the law, thus avoiding doing so is illegal.

Accepting payments from Social Security, however, is not against the law, which then permits full exercise of principle.

Considered and rejected. Paul has no choice but to participate by paying into the system; it’s unreasonable to expect him to selectively eschew the rest … one leg in and one leg out … for his trouble to make a clear statement of principle of dubious value to begin with, the best he could do would get him a messy, ad hoc, half-in-half-out result. I sure wouldn’t do that.

Your view is interesting, because the 'leg in' is mandated by law, but the 'leg out' is not.

I don't see what is messy at all about the situation. Financially it is clear that Social Security checks are to Ron Paul's benefit - that has never been the question.

The question is principle: if I don't care about Social Security one way or the other, there is no question of principle either in paying in or in getting payments out.

If I do care, and call it a Ponzi scheme, there is principle involved. As Ron Paul has neither a need for the money nor would be breaking the law, when then elect to accept Social Security payments?

You already have. You claim Paul advocates ending Social Security. That’s close enough to "tried to persuade voters to support ending it" for me.

A random person making public pronouncements is one thing. A Congressman, is another.

The former cannot introduce legislation, the latter can.

You said specifically:

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.

The very last part, he may or may not have done - though it is subject to interpretation. The other parts, I asked for some evidence.

My position is that no violation of principle has been cited here against Paul. I think it’s perfectly acceptable - expected, even - that as a member of the United States Congress Paul behave in accordance with the law while advocating the law be changed.

Legal, yes. But the question wasn't acceptability - depending on the term.

The question was principle.

Sure, you can own slaves even as you advocate the ending of slavery, but you're not going to convince me that it is a principled position even as it is a legal one.

That’s a bit of an exaggeration. The "kookiness" risk is not so much that it would cause him to be portrayed as kooky, rather that it would play into the hands of detractors that already like to portray him as kooky. He’s smart to avoid that. I admire that kind of smarts.

This would be much more credible if in fact Ron Paul has played into all sorts of 'kooky' claims in other areas.

Be that as it may, there is no evidence of any kind whatsoever that what Ron Paul is doing here is a reasoned act. You are assuming that.

And if statement of principle is really that important, why not insist he avoid paying into the system as well? After all, that might land him in jail, whereby he could really make a dramatic statement!

Because breaking the law, especially in such a way as to be construed as selfish, is in fact both a mistake for most politicians and would lead to the kooky label, because failing to pay into Social Security could easily be parlayed into Ron Paul wants this cute granny to starve.

How exactly would 'kook' be applied for him not accepting Social Security payouts? That he's not as greedy as he should be?

The rest of this realm is problematic in that as the accuser, it is incumbent upon you to make a prima facie case that accepting the checks is logically or morally inconsistent with his beliefs. As defender, I need merely point out that you have failed to do so. Hence yet further relevance of my pointing out that there are multiple behaviors consistent with his stated support for ending Social Security. As the advocate in the first instance, Paul has considerable discretion in his choice of which behaviors to adopt, absent a compelling case to the contrary. Mere failure to adopt one of those behaviors isn’t even close to inconsistency.

So far your justifications seem to consist of either that he's not doing anything illegal, that he's avoiding the possibility of being labelled a kook, and that he is entitled to get his money back out of the system.

Not a single one of these justifications has anything to do with principle. The first is law, the second is public relations/politics, and the third is financial gain.

As such I don't see why these should be accepted as relevant in any way with the original question, which once again was:

As Ron Paul has publicly decried Social Security, as well as compared it to a Ponzi scheme, is his elective participation in Social Security payouts a principled action?

Suppose I think liver and onions stinks. Suppose as a dinner guest a plate of same is set before me. What am I to do? Should I eat it? Should I shove it back in my host’s face declaring my hatred of the stuff? Should I discreetly toss bits of it to the dog under the table? Which of these behaviors, if I fail to practice, renders me guilty of inconsistency of principle?

So liver and onions stinking is a principle? What principle is that precisely? Are people morally corrupt and or criminal in liking or not liking liver and onions?

I fail to see the relevance.

As for what to do, that seems quite simple: you state that you're very sorry, but you really don't take well to liver and onions, and could the plate please be moved elsewhere.

You invoked the question of legality by insisting on equating Social Security with a Ponzi scheme to make your case. Running a Ponzi scheme is illegal. Accepting SS checks is not. There is a big difference, and I think that despite his taking rhetorical license by comparing SS to a Ponzi scheme, Paul understands that. And I think you err in interpreting his rhetoric too literally. Otherwise, his behavior is inexplicable if not for stupidity, weakness, or avarice.

There are at least two possible conclusions that one can draw: 1) Paul really believes Social Security is an illegal, abhorrent Ponzi scheme yet participates in it nonetheless; 2) Paul’s comparisons between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme are a rhetorical device in a political context to cut through the media noise and emphasize what he sees as serious problems with the program.

Unfortunately as noted before, you are again fixated on objective legality.

Be that as it may, the point which you are now making is that Ron Paul is in fact politicking against Social Security, but in fact is not actually of the opinion that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

Yet this doesn't change the equation in any way to Ron Paul's benefit.

If you in fact believe Social Security is wrong and should be abolished, it still seems more than a bit odd to elect to participate in it - especially the parts you don't have to either financially or legally.

If anything this view is worse: Ron Paul is now a politician cynically making inflammatory comments on Social Security in order to get his way, even though he is more than happy to reap the benefits from it in the meantime.

For that matter, under your latest view on Ron Paul and Social Security - that he is engaging in rhetoric - what then of his rhetoric on the Federal Reserve? That it too is purely a political device?

One can choose the first conclusion and fuss over Paul’s moral lassitude and lack of character. Or one can choose the second and move on to issues of substance such as vital reforms or alternatives to Social Security.

I do in fact believe there need to be changes made, however, this dichotomy is hard to sustain given Ron Paul's very public crusade against the Federal Reserve.

It is equally difficult to credit given Ron Paul's lack of alternatives to Social Security outside of the amorphous 'free market', but perhaps you can fill in what Mr. Paul is advocating in Social Security's place.

[DSpencer]

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

I'll repeat the question yet again: As Ron Paul has publicly decried Social Security, as well as compared it to a Ponzi scheme, is his elective participation in Social Security payouts a principled action?

I don't see what is so difficult to understand or respond to here. Some people don't eat meat because they are against killing animals, some don't because they believe carniculture is destructive of the environment, other don't for religious reasons, etc etc.

If you're looking for an opinion, clearly most people following the thread think yes, it is a principled action.

When offered logic or sound analogies you simply claim to not understand the relationship. So I'll try to use yours to explain:

Suppose a person likes meat, they think it's delicious and nutritious. But they don't like that animals have to be killed to get it. They don't have any religious objection though. Now suppose the government forces them to go out and kill a deer. So they do what they are legally obligated to do and kill it. Now that the deer is dead they are presented with the question: Should it rot in the woods or should they eat it? Is it unprincipled if they eat it?

What Ron Paul objects to is the part of the system that forcibly takes people's money. Not the part where they give some back. Not claiming the benefit doesn't fix the system or somehow make it less immoral. He's just making the best of a bad situation.

Do you think he's unprincipled if he cashes an income tax refund? He thinks the income tax is bad. Why shouldn't he just let the government keep the money? In both cases he is simply trying to get back money he believes should never have been taken from him in the first place. How is that unprincipled? It's like returning stolen goods to their rightful owner.

If the whole system was optional and he chose voluntarily to BOTH contribute and claim benefits, your point would be more valid.

Since I haven't seen you make any arguments that he is being unprincipled, other than simply restating the question repeatedly, I will try to help: IF, Ron Paul knows how much he has contributed and intentionally claims enough benefits to where he is actually coming out ahead (hard to know with interest involved) then I could see the argument that he's purposefully using the system to get other people's money. Even in this case there are some counter-arguments to be made.

Regardless, it would be hard to know enough information to claim the above. And since it seems the goal is to sling mud at Ron Paul specifically, it doesn't suit your cause to discuss the hypotheticals of being principled in an unjust world.

[aaron]

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

http://web.archive.org/web/20070518101118/ --> Ron paul refuses to participate in pension system for moral reasons

Ron Paul does not use government health plan:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...isy/?mobile=nc

FANG: Do you think it’s hypocritical to take government subsidized and regulated health care as a member of Congress but repeal it for everyone else?

PAUL: Could be.

########

Personally, I have great respect for the man. Right or wrong, I lost a bit of that respect after reading the SS stuff in this thread.


He is making a statement by accepting the checks. What is that statement?

He does not need the money. He claims to do not believe in the system. He has taken the principled stand regarding pension and health benefits.

So, we are left guessing.

The two other programs he does not participate in are really a nice benefit to congressmen that the rest of the country cannot get. However, ss is something everybody contributes to. Perhaps he feels that the 2 are apples and oranges?

One can choose the first conclusion and fuss over Paul’s moral lassitude and lack of character. Or one can choose the second and move on to issues of substance such as vital reforms or alternatives to Social Security.

I think character is everything. Without it, we get to where we have gotten.

As c1ue has been emphasizing, Paul made a conscious decision to accept the payments. I would like to hear his reasoning. It is inconsistent with his record and the character that he has played in life.

[jiimbergin]

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

If you're looking for an opinion, clearly most people following the thread think yes, it is a principled action.

When offered logic or sound analogies you simply claim to not understand the relationship. So I'll try to use yours to explain:

Suppose a person likes meat, they think it's delicious and nutritious. But they don't like that animals have to be killed to get it. They don't have any religious objection though. Now suppose the government forces them to go out and kill a deer. So they do what they are legally obligated to do and kill it. Now that the deer is dead they are presented with the question: Should it rot in the woods or should they eat it? Is it unprincipled if they eat it?

What Ron Paul objects to is the part of the system that forcibly takes people's money. Not the part where they give some back. Not claiming the benefit doesn't fix the system or somehow make it less immoral. He's just making the best of a bad situation.

Do you think he's unprincipled if he cashes an income tax refund? He thinks the income tax is bad. Why shouldn't he just let the government keep the money? In both cases he is simply trying to get back money he believes should never have been taken from him in the first place. How is that unprincipled? It's like returning stolen goods to their rightful owner.

If the whole system was optional and he chose voluntarily to BOTH contribute and claim benefits, your point would be more valid.

Since I haven't seen you make any arguments that he is being unprincipled, other than simply restating the question repeatedly, I will try to help: IF, Ron Paul knows how much he has contributed and intentionally claims enough benefits to where he is actually coming out ahead (hard to know with interest involved) then I could see the argument that he's purposefully using the system to get other people's money. Even in this case there are some counter-arguments to be made.

Regardless, it would be hard to know enough information to claim the above. And since it seems the goal is to sling mud at Ron Paul specifically, it doesn't suit your cause to discuss the hypotheticals of being principled in an unjust world.

+1

[cjppjc]

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

Dr. Paul has a wife. Consideration of her needs might play into some of his decisions, Since he is not taking many of the perks and benefits of his office.