Barry Germansky: “Ron and Rand Paul are dangerous because they subscribe to free market libertarianism, which essentially allows them to look at every single aspect of human nature and the tangible world around them through the narrow minded paradigm of economics.”
Henry Moore: They are dangerous merely because they ‘subscribe’ to free market ‘libertarianism’? So, in the ideal world, a safe world, no one, especially if they held any sort of public office, would ‘subscribe’ to such an ideology? It is dangerous to simply even belong to their unapproved school of thought?
And why is economics a narrow minded paradigm? Is it because people don’t make decisions based on their own well being, their very survival and sustenance, and that of their dependents? Is it because economics has nothing to do with anything other than a gaggle of greedy capitalists counting their coins? Is it because you don’t actually need some medium of exchange to acquire certain goods and services, be they needed for the barest of survivals or the most trivial of leisures? Is it because only people that have been indoctrinated or seduced by the ‘system’ have jobs, are paid wages, invest capital, and purchase goods? Is it because we actually are NOT a society of consumers? Is it because every action that a non-idle person takes is not taken with the conscious or subconscious thought in mind of how it might effect their economic status, their financial situation, or even their life further down the road? Is it because nearly every major secular ideology’s main tenet is not their respective view of how economics works or should work? Is it because, as Republican (gasp!) President Calvin Coolidge didn’t suggest, ‘The Business of the American People is Business’?
Shall I go on with this line of inquiry or shall I wrap it up? The former if need be, the latter for now. Is economics really as disconnected from all other fields, spheres, paradigms, and categories, as you maintain? Perhaps it is not that economics itself is such a narrow minded endeavor or subject, as much as it is that your own cloudy perception and definition of ‘economics’ is.