|
An Interview With Ron Paul
Doug Casey
Lew Rockwell.com
Saturday December 15, 2007
There are very few political figures for whom I
have any respect. One exception is Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX).
Ron has been a personal friend of mine for many years. I can assure
you that he’s a “stand up guy,” who has voted
“no” more times in Congress not just more than any
other member, but more than the rest of that august body combined.
He’s often called “Dr. No.”
The fact that he has managed to get reelected numerous times
– in Texas, of all places – in spite of his outspoken
stands against the so-called “War on Drugs,” the “War
on Terror” and other popular stupidities is one of the few
things that make me think all is not absolutely lost in America.
How does he do it? Ron’s an almost archetypical country
doctor; he simply radiates honesty and sound principles. He’s
about the last person you’d expect to see in Congress. The
voters may not agree with everything Ron believes in, but they
know they can trust him to do what he says he’ll do: always
vote for lower taxes, less regulation and, in fact, against absolutely
anything not specifically authorized in the U.S. Constitution.
His campaign for the U.S. presidency on the Republican ticket
– once laughed at by mainstream apparatchiks from both parties
– has generated a huge groundswell of national support.
Recently, his campaign broke the record for the most funds raised
online in a single day. That, in itself, raised a lot of eyebrows
– and the money has since been put into high-profile ad
campaigns libertarian-minded candidates could previously only
dream of.
(Article continues below)
Ron is famous for his principled rejection of fiat currency,
and advocacy of hard money – the gold standard. That’s
a matter of particular interest to us, with obvious investment
implications. We thought, therefore, we’d get an update
from Ron, to see if his thinking has changed any.
The following interview is from the December 2007 edition of the
International Speculator, our flagship publication dedicated to
uncovering highly prospective opportunities in pretty much any
market sector, but these days mostly in junior precious metals
exploration stocks – a sector that has treated subscribers
very, very well in recent years.
And they should only continue to do well unless Boobus americanus
stands up on his hind legs and demands some radical changes, at
which point we’d happily sell the gold we own as a hedge
against the fiscal calamity that is now all but inevitable. Importantly,
Ron Paul’s campaign isn’t about the relatively trivial
issue of who should govern, Tweedledee or Tweedledum. It’s
about what the nature of the government should be – and
how much and how fast we can cut it down.
DC: Why would the typical American, who gets far more from government
than he or she pays, even consider voting for Ron Paul?
RP: Even those Americans who receive a higher nominal amount
in transfer payments than they pay in income taxes suffer from
Big Government. Their standard of living is eroded by inflation,
their wages are garnished by income and payroll taxes, their civil
liberties are under constant assault, and their economic prospects
are limited because of the drag the welfare-warfare state places
on the economy. Furthermore, unless we reverse course quickly,
future generations will suffer a declining standard of living
and loss of liberty. Thus, I expect many Americans to vote for
me not only out of concern for their own well-being, but out of
concern for their children.
DC: What is your outlook for the U.S. dollar, absent any significant
change in the current course of things?
RP: Unless we return to a sensible monetary policy and rein in
government spending, I expect the value of the dollar to continue
to fall.
DC: Do you think we could see currency or capital controls being
implemented?
RP: History shows that governments tend to react to economic
crises by increasing government control over the free market,
so, yes, it is quite possible that the U.S. Government will respond
to a future economic downturn with currency and capital controls.
DC: We have seen the other presidential candidates perform all
sorts of linguistic gymnastics when asked how they would handle
the looming fiscal problems of Social Security and Medicare. While
the solutions will obviously not be quick or easy, where would
you start?
RP: I would transfer some of the money saved by my cuts in foreign
programs and unconstitutional domestic bureaucracies into the
entitlements programs to keep the promises to those relying on
the system. I would then work to transition to a market system,
phasing in an option for younger workers to opt out of Social
Security and Medicare taxes in return for agreeing to provide
for their own retirement and health care needs without participating
in a government entitlement program.
DC: Further on domestic issues, just what do you think the role
of the federal government should be?
RP: Ideally, it should be limited to providing protection from
foreign threats, securing the borders and ensuring free trade
among the states.
DC: By what % would you estimate that federal government spending
could be cut without causing any great hardship? Which agencies
would you cut first?
RP: I don’t have an exact percentage, but I am confident
that if the welfare state were cut, along with a corresponding
reduction in taxes, private charities would quickly step up to
help the truly needy – and do so in a much more effective
and compassionate way than government bureaucracies. I would cut
the Iraq war, foreign aid and all foreign commitments immediately.
Domestically, I would work to shut down the Departments of Education,
Energy, and Commerce. I would also work to eliminate all forms
of corporate welfare and business subsidies.
DC: Any idea how much of the total federal debt could be paid
off if the government sold all the land, buildings, equipment
and other assets it doesn’t need for activities authorized
by the Constitution?
RP: I do not have an estimate on that, but it is definitely something
I would pursue.
DC: There is much talk about the Chinese deliberately keeping
their currency cheap in order to undercut U.S. and European manufacturers.
And we are increasingly hearing discussions about layering on
more tariffs aimed at the Chinese. We assume you are anti-tariff,
so do you do anything at all about “unfair” competition
or just let the global marketplace sort things out over time?
RP: The United States does not have the authority to tell China,
or any other country, what to do with their currencies. The values
of currencies should be set by the market. Instead of worrying
about the speck in China’s eye, I would focus on the beam
in our eye by reducing the national debt, restoring a market in
currency by repealing the legal tender laws and ending the continued
debasement of the American currency.
DC: Much of the politicking this campaign season has certain
religious overtones. Are you a believer in a strict separation
of church and state?
RP: Yes. However, I believe state and local communities have
the right to adopt policies such as school prayer without interference
from the Federal Judiciary or any other branch of the federal
government.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
