Right, perhaps the federal gov't is too bloated (I wouldn't really know , I'm british).
My question more would be does he have a fundamentally different view on what the federal government is for?
In which case I would expect him to say "we will do less of all of this stuff, but I think instead we should do more of this".
Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military to defend the USA if directly attacked.
In a way, yes. The role of the US Federal government described in the constitution was to make sure agreements were upheld between the states, and deal with international issues outside of the states concern. The rest is up to the people to decide for themselves, whether by individual liberty or local government bodies.
Specifically, that the people support the government, not the other way around. Ron Paul's favorite president, Grover Cleveland, says it well:
"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution (federal aid for a natural disaster), and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."
Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military
As I read his position, his philosophy is that of a pretty strict Constitutionalist. That is, the federal powers are limited to what's listed explicitly in the Constitution. Most of those powers can be found enumerated in Article I Section 8 [1]
- - - - Quote
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Interesting. So essentially he is talking of not so much reducing the federal government but basically dismantling it in it's current form and reforming it into something that is basically responsible for the military (although interestingly that list provides no provisions for an airforce presumably because planes hadn't been invented when it was written, so I guess it would have to be ammended) and currency control.
Interestingly also it does provide for copyright control which could be viewed as being consistent with SOPA?
I wonder if his supporters realise what a fundamental restructure this would be and whether such a change would even be practical.
Has he outlines a plan for doing this? I assume he couldn't just turn up on day 1 and basically tell all federal employees to go home.
I can't imagine that you'd really need more than a few thousand federal employees (not counting military) to provide these services.
> Has he outlines a plan for doing this? I assume he couldn't just turn up on day 1 and basically tell all federal employees to go home.
You might be interested in reading Paul's proposed budget for his potential term in office. He realizes that instantly switching to a constitutional federal government would be terrible, so he takes a more gradual approach.
Seems to me he's suggesting that the federal government do essentially nothing, except perhaps maintain enough of a military to defend the USA if directly attacked.
Perhaps I misunderstand his position?