Congressman Ron Paul today on “Morning Joe” said his “program is the most humanitarian,” and he wants “young people to opt out of Social Security” but admitted that he is actually on Social Security. The libertarian GOP presidential candidate from the state of Texas spent several minutes claiming that “free markets” and “sound money” equal freedom and are best for all Americans, and derided social programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Paul said that the concept of the Social Contract is “not in true Constitution. That’s sort of a 20th century concoction.”
Then Sam Stein said, “A bit of a personal question: Are you on Socil Security? Do you get Social Security checks?”
“I, ah, I do,” Ron Paul responded.
Stein added, “You just told younger generations they should wean themselves off that. But you haven’t done that yourself.”
Paul: “That’s true.”
Hypocrisy?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Friends:
We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.
Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
{ 5 comments }
posted a comment 4 hours ago– it still hasn't shown-up. I guess NCRM doesn't want comments…
Thanks for the article. Are Jews hypocrites for using Nazi roads?
Paul's arguments are constitutionalist and not particularly libertarian. Libertarian policies of increased free choice are being seen in things such as IRA's. Are IRA users hypocriytes who don't agree with all of libertarian suggestions?
For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization @ http://www.Libertarian-International.org, …
@Editor: "Are Jews hypocrites for using Nazi roads?" This is a total non-sequitur. This is computing apples and oranges. The Nazi-built roads benefitted Jews and non-Jews alike and in themselves contributed nothing to the oppression of Jews by the Nazis; it is just a misleading comparison. If a Jew rented boxcars to the Nazis for transport, then you might have a comparison — but it would be a silly one. You response lacks simple logic. I don't even know how to begin to address the fuzzy logic you are using in your examples — but I know 'stinkin' thinkin' when I see it.
It was pretty much inevitable that some dimwit would come up with this argument.
Here is why it is not "hypocrisy": for his entire life, Paul was forced by his government, against his will, to pay into Social Security. Therefore, even if he doesn't believe in it, he is perfectly justified in GETTING HIS MONEY BACK!!!
There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about his trying to pull down a system he doesn't believe in, even though he participates in it… because he was given no choice in the matter. You want that he should abandon all the money he put into the system? THAT would be rather hypocritical, and an admission that the system does not work as advertised.
And as for the comment, "Paul's arguments are constitutionalist and not particularly libertarian." … I would like to see some justification for this statement. Abolishing Social Security is most definitely a Libertarian ideal. Speaking as a long-time member of the Libertarian Party, I can say that in this particular instance, there is little difference between "constitutionalist" and "Libertarian". After all, fundamentally, the Libertarian Party IS constitutionalist.
The right to opt for young people is not hypocritical. Anyone has the right to take out of a system that they are forced to pay into. Similarly it is not hypocritical to advocate a change in that system.
Consider a situation where the state takes all one's income and then doles out all "benefits." One can oppose the system without having to starve to death. People coerced into a system are not hypocrites for using it, even if they want to end the coercion.
Comments on this entry are closed.