The most consistent counterpoint I hear to Ron Paul as president is that libertarians, if they took the executive branch, would let corporations "run wild".
I'm honestly not sure what this means.
If a true small-government candidate like Ron Paul took office, corporations and big business would have far less influence into our lives. Currently, big business is totally in bed with big government to the point that you can even interchange the names of top government people and top business executives and it's all the same. Right now, the whole system is out of wack and running wild.
If businesses like Coca-Cola, Walmart, Budweiser, Haliburton, etc. have no lobbying power, how can they control or affect our lives as citizens?
Realize that under Ron Paul we would have a very small federal government but leave some things up to states and local governments.
People say there would be nobody to "stand up" to the corporations. What exactly does this mean? Right now they not only don't stand up to big business, but the government actually gives them corporate welfare and uses favortism, things that Ron Paul is completely against!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Good post! Even I have made that criticism, mostly because I'm worried about it as a Paul supporter. I'd like to see a book on how corporations gain their heavy advantage in the first place, just to see whether it's primarily through government, or through business practices, or a combination of the two (as the former sets the stage for the latter).
I worry that the corporation's will just attempt to influence the state governments when a less powerful fed is created. The corruption will be the same, just the faces changed.
Post a Comment