the tenth amendment

Why socialists should support Ron Paul for president:

It seems like you’d have to be stupid to think that a libertarian president would allow for socialist programs, doesn’t it? It’s not a conspiracy though, I promise. Just hear me out.

Ron Paul is running on a platform that seeks to limit the size of the federal government and give power back to the states, a view that that he derives from the tenth amendment. A smaller federal government means less money needs to be taken in taxes. States can then raise taxes to whatever rates they need to allow for whatever socialist programs they’d like to pursue. If taxes get too high, a person can move to a different state. It’s almost like opening the free market to the states. They’ll have to compete for citizens and businesses based on their tax rates and services rendered.

It allows for the possibility of 50 different political options to choose from, and would lower the number of people that each side of the aisle needs to convince. Whether you prefer socialism or laissez-faire capitalism, there would most likely be an option that fits the political environment in which you would like to live. Worrying about nationalizing the issues is causing too much controversy and making it take much longer to provide the services than it would ever take a state.

Look at Obamacare and the controversy that it’s caused. It’s taking forever to set the plan in motion because people from different parts of the country view the issue differently. I always use Massachusetts and Mississippi as examples. People in Massachusetts aren’t going to agree with the political motives of people in Mississippi, and vice versa. Why should either state be forced to abide by the political views of the other? 

Libertarians and socialists can live in harmony as long as we bring back the tenth amendment. Ron Paul is the only candidate who brings these ideas up though. All others (with an exception for Gary Johnson) support a large federal government that will continue to operate inefficiently and controversially.