Every now and then Ron Paul will say something — usually about the absurdity of this country’s various wars, particularly the ones on war and terror — and I’ll think, “Heh, that makes so much sense…maybe I like Ron Paul?” But usually, often mere seconds after saying the thing that made me like him for a brief moment in time, he’ll say something so impossibly asinine that it just takes my breath away.

Now, it’s easy in these moments to just dismiss Ron Paul as a misguided fool who never stands a chance to be president, but he does have a considerable following on the web and I’ve seen some of his zaniest ideas gain traction. Anyway, he did this — took my breath away by saying something impossibly asinine — again a few days ago, shortly after announcing that he’d be running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination on Good Morning America, and I can’t seem to get it out of my head.

In the interview, Paul — a longtime opponent of taxpayer money going to help victims of natural disasters — was asked whether he thought the government should offer help, via FEMA, to victims of the Mississippi River flooding.

“If it’s too dangerous (for people to live there), why dump the responsibility on the taxpayer,” he said.

Now, obviously I’m a little biased, but here’s why this is either the stupidest thing anyone has ever said, or the most insane thing anyone has ever said, or both.

First of all, and I can’t stress this enough, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ABSOLUTE SAFE PLACE TO LIVE. Anywhere. Period. No matter where you are, there’s some sort of destructive natural force looming capable of raping your soul. Earthquakes. Floods. Hurricanes. Landslides. Tornadoes. Volcanoes. I could go on and on. The Gulf Coast region is a nice “well, that’s what they get for living down there” target right now because the area has seen more than its fair share of **** of late, but other areas will get theirs soon enough.

But let’s just take what Paul said — that people who choose to live on the Gulf Coast are asking for it by living there — and run with it. I wonder if Ron Paul has ever considered why people live there, and why it’s essential to the well-being of the country that they do? Has he ever considered that maybe there’s opportunity down there, that people can get jobs and feed their families and, in the process, keep the monolithic American commerce machine humming along? Has Ron Paul ever considered why just about every great American city — New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, San Francisco, New Orleans, etc. — is situated at, near or around some body of water?

The answer is a simple one: It’s because cities situated at, near and around bodies of water are hubs of commerce and free enterprise, which are things that Ron Paul supposedly loves. They’re hubs of commerce and free enterprise because moving goods via giant ships over water is still to this day the most effective and efficient way to transport massive quantities of goods.

So let’s pretend that we all live in Ron Paul’s little utopia and all of us in America cluster around to live in a “safe” place. Where would that be? Certainly not near a body of water. How would we import things? How would we export them?

You see, if it weren’t for people living on the Gulf Coast, where would America get the bulk of its oil and gas? What about all the food coming in from the Gulf and the Mississippi delta that feeds so many of us. Do all of these things just magically appear in Ron Paul land? Because in the world I live in, the real one, it takes human labor to produce these things for us, and humans need to reside within a reasonable geographic proximity of whatever bounty they produce though labor in order to produce them!

In short, America needs people to live in these “dangerous” places because their doing so is vital to our interests, and we should in turn spend taxpayer money, a resource pool that they contribute to, to help them when they need help. How else are Ron Paul’s constituents in Texas gonna be able to fill their precious SUVs with reasonably priced fuel?

Jesus Christ, Ron Paul is an idiot. I now look forward to Ron Paul’s army of zombies emailing me to tell me why I’m wrong.

http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/2011/05/absolute-proof-that-ron-paul-is-an-idiot/

Yep, a poor family in Kansas should be charged increased insurance/tax premiums so some CEO can rebuild his house on the beach here in Florida if wind or wave destroys it....

Sorry, I still agree with RP!

FEMA...Federal Environmental Mismanagement Agency

Ask those in Louisiana and here in Florida how FEMA worked for them!

Many are still suffering under the FEMA BS!

Some people just seem to overlook the facts when they on a mission to deride something....

You don't warrant a e-mail, you do this for fun and attention. You must not have much of a life.

Yep. I'd say Lpdon qualifies as a forum troll now.

btw, The fellow who wrote this is apparently still living in his parents' basement and has never had to deal with the real world. The reason RP is right in criticizing people who chose to live in an unsafe place and then demand welfare (FEMA, etc). When choosing a place to live, one has to assess risks/benefits. If you choose to live in a flood zone or tornado alley, it's not rational to expect everyone else to pay for your stupidity.

I think his point may have been more nuanced that you've allowed for. It isn't that people shouldn't live in dangerous places, its that they should take personal responsibility for choosing to live where they choose to live. If they find that private insurance to cover the cost of the dangerous their area is prone to is prohibitive for them, then maybe those individuals cannot truly afford to live there.


Edit: I grant that none of this is conveyed in his quote. RP may or may not agree with this line of thinking - I'm sure he explains his position more clearly, and more intelligently, somewhere.

Uh oh, the Pualbots are labeling me a troll because I post the truth about their "Messiah".

I will say this.....

Every time they try to smear RP in the press, it draws more support because people actually do a little research then....

So we must thank you for all the attention! YOU actually do more advertising for OUR candidate than we do!

He does agree with you, this has beaten to death.

He is about personal liberty and personal responsibility. The Mississippi river has f loaded countless times, and claimed untold damages and cost many people there lives and lively hood.

It IS dangerous to live there and it does not make sense for the rest of the country to subsidize the homes owners insurance.

You want to live there, ok np, just deal with the consequences. If you think about it the reality there is just no justification for arguing against the concept of personal responsibility.

People who lived in dangerous areas before FEMA used to ban together to create private insurance groups so that the region could support its own risk prevention.

So the question remains . . . and I think if you are going to criticize RP you should at least answer his question.

If it is dangerous to live there, why saddle the federal tax payer with that cost?

Its a regional issue, why should the nation support a regional issue that is foreseeable and possibly avoidable?

It is not like the very benefit of building on the river does not bring enough financial success to support the kinds of insurance needed, or the kind of savings.

If it doesn't he is exactly right, choices are made, and when you make the wrong choice: hey the river floods, but you know we will be all right . . . then you should also pay the consequence and be responsible.

When I rent I purchase renters insurance, I make sure its on high ground, I take the time to invest in an alarm system. Why should the government pay for my belongings being stolen, or being damaged by water, why should they? Well the real answer is they shouldn't and they dont.

What is the real difference in the Mississippi flood? Scale? Why should the scale make it different? Its foreseeable, it has happened countless times, history should teach people things . . . they should learn from it . . . they should modify behaviors, that is the rational thing to do.