Don’t mind if I do
So as I was driving I-84 today I caught my first glimpse of the “Google Ron Paul” brigade standing on an overpass. Such a clever idea - volunteer guerrilla marketing for the internet age, marred only by the inevitable lawsuits filed by someone’s next of kin. I tell you, people call Freewayblogger distracting…
So what happens when we do what the signs tell us to do? Hit #1 is the Ron Paul web site and hit #2 is the Ron Paul Wikipedia entry. Hit #3, meanwhile, is another Wikipedia article entitled Political positions of Ron Paul. Besides the one everyone who’s already heard his name knows - opposition to the Iraq War - here’s some highlights [percentage of potential voters he alienates in brackets]:
- Anti-choice [52%]
- Anti-universal health care [60%]
- Pro-don’t ask-don’t tell [60%]
- Anti-United Nations [64%]
- Anti-Darfur Divestment [77%]
- Anti-Affirmative Action [57-63%]
- Anti-Civil Rights Act of 1964 [Pretty damn high, one assumes]
- Pro-Letters of Marque and Reprisal [???]
Seems like the biggest problem with the “Google Ron Paul” campaign is the possibility that Americans might actually do it.
And that’s without googling ron paul 9/11 truth.
92 Responses to “Careful what you wish for”
Leave a comment
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
So it’s an actual organized campaign! I’ve been seeing the chalk graffiti all over campus in the past few weeks. So I Googled Ron Paul. What a douche. It’s difficult to believe there are people with such little regard for humans and humanity.
Letters of Marque and Reprisal? Seriously?
I mean, I dig Sid Meier’s Pirates! as much as anyone, but…just maybe that wouldn’t be the best policy course in real life.
I guess we can safely assume he’s against ratifying the Law of the Sea treaty.
Letters of Marque and Reprisal? Seriously?
I mean, I like Sid Meier’s Pirates! as much as anyone, but I don’t think it necessarily makes a good basis for real-world policy.
I guess we can safely assume he opposes ratifying the Law of the Sea treaty.
The outstanding feature of Ron Paul’s campaign is his anti-war stand.
Ron Paul is a nut and a racist. Here’s a quote (please excuse the length) from Ron Paul that was on Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
Paul in his own words:
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That’s what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn’t ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Ron Paul will be on Anderson Cooper 360 tonight.
Some of his ideas are interesting.
I agree with Ron Paul’s stance on Iraq (get the fuck out now) but then he starts going all “let’s eliminate the Department of Education” and he loses me right there.
What I find hilarious is how much the Republicans hate him. LGF and other right wing blogs have taken to banning the ‘Paulites’ excluding them from their reindeer games like voting on polls to see who won the latest Republican debate.
If Republicans were smart they would actually embrace and back Ron Paul. Then he might have a chance at winning. Their only issue with Ron Paul they don’t like is that he wants out of Iraq. Everything else (totally fucking dismantle government) the Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians are on board with.
You’d think they’d overlook the one issue they disagree with in favor of the 20+ other issues they agree with Paul on.
The Republican Dream since Reagan has been to destroy government; shrink it down to size so it could be drowned in a bathtub. That’s what the borrow and spending is about; to make sure there is no money left over for commie pinko programs like HeadStart, MediCare, and Social Security.
Paul is their man. That they can’t see it perplexes me.
I keep running into his supporters, who mostly look like hippies entranced by the pro-pot legalization (and the war, maybe). This should be printed out and handed to them. Other cards can (per Poli’s comment) say this:
My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. —Grover Norquist
It’s also worth noting that Ron Paul and any other anti-war libertarian is probably full of shit. A pro-democracy stance that’s pro-free market sounds good on paper, but as Milton Friedman’s buddy-buddy relationship with Pinochet demonstrates, the ugly reality that feudalism free market capitalism has to be marched at the end of a gun sets in.
Ah, Ron Paul. You’ve never seen true tinfoil-hat wearing crazy until you’ve seen a Ron Paul supporter talk about why we need to start using the gold standard again.
Ron Paul’s campaign is supporting the Detroit/Nevada weather and traffic reports on Sirius.
Ron Paul freaks the shit out of me. He’s the only one that I can be sure of that would gladly stand by and watch as people died from some of his wretched libertarian ideas.
He’s got a serious jones on for the end of the world as we know it. Hello neuvo cold war…
Uh, hello, people. Let’s google bomb him. Let’s all write blog posts that tell the truth about him and let’s link to each other and to that wikipedia article.
Marcotte, as far as I know Paul is legitimately isolationist, and (like a surprising number of anti-war libertarians, I think) his anti-war stances are fueled primarily by his isolationism. I don’t think he actually would be in favor of interventions in foreign countries to protect corporate interests: Maintaining U.S. corporate interests in foreign countries is not a concern of his, because he doesn’t want the U.S. to have corporate interests in foreign countries. From what I’ve seen he’s anti-globalization for the same reason he’s anti-U.N.– he wants us to lock down the borders, shut out the world, and ignore whatever’s outside. Acknowledging the world outside saps our “sovereignty”.
Given, I’m not sure I understand this correctly– in a certain sense he appears to be pro-”Free Trade” but anti-Globalization, with the apparent paradox here resolved because he is in favor of removing any protectionist tarrifs that would inhibit “Free Trade”, but is against joining any “Free Trade” organizations that would enforce those same tariff rules he would prefer anyway. (Organizations just want to steal our “sovereignty”, don’t cha know.) So I don’t know how he feels about American businesses having a presence overseas, or what he’d want to do if the ability for American businesses to do business overseas were curtailed by local unfriendly governments; maybe when push came to shove he’d be in favor of intervention after all. Or perhaps he imagines that if that if we would just pull our troops and our foreign aid from the rest of the world, that the world would love us?
Of course, it is usually pretty hard to figure out exactly what Ron Paul thinks, so please correct me if I’m mistaken here.
I had been happy to ignore Ron Paul, and cheer a little bit when he yelled at the other Republicans for not knowing what the Constitution says, until yesterday, when a herd of his supporters blocked my path to class, encouraging passing cars to honk for them, and trying to talk to me as I hurried along my way. After that, I felt compelled to do a little digging. In addition to all the stuff said above, did you know he’s against the 14th amendment?
In Ron Paul world, it would read thusly (H.J. res 46 as introduced by Paul)
“Any person born after the date of the ratification of this article to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States.”
The man is a certifiable nutcase. Oh, and he’s also a secessionist. And he’s a speaker at John Birch society dinners.
Would Ron Paul be worse than Bush?
Would a rock have been a better president than Bush?
It’s about gd time people start investigating Ron Paul. We here in Texas have known forever what a bigoted cretin he is. I’ve tried telling people in comments to check his record and statements. I get a lot of but buts…
Ron Paul would be worse than Satan himself. The man’s legitimately crazy and stupid, blind, self-absorbed liartarians are spamming for him knowing fuck-all about what he really stands for.
I caught my first glimpse of the “Google Ron Paul” brigade standing on an overpass.
Oh really. Was it a privatized overpass?
When I see libertarians lining overpasses or those odious “Vote on Marriage” types on overpasses I am sorely tempted to hope that they will enjoy the fruits of their efforts when that overpass goes down!
(the Vote On Marriage people advocate for enshrining hate in the state constitution when what MA needs is constitutional reform of funding mechanisms so it can properly maintain infrastructure)
ok, so Ron Paul is a racist loon who would destroy the infrastructure of our society in some misguided ideological libertarian philosophical !@#$!@#up.
But is the Letters of Marque and Reprisal thing a bad idea? It actually looks like a basic “don’t declare war, use police powers on the terrorists” idea. You know, the kind of thing that most sane people think is more effective then bombing unrelated (or even related) countries.
Admittedly, naming it after a centuries old provision of the constitution rather then the “go get the terrorists, confiscate their stuff, and arrest them act of 200x” would have been better. but the basic idea is actually in the constitution, namely that sometimes you gotta go after non-state actors and there are ways to do that.
Well, crap. Sorry for the double post.
Actually, as I understand it, he doesn’t want to return to the gold standard. He wants to return to negotiable gold (and silver).
I just don’t have pockets that big, Ron.
Why pro-don’t-ask? That doesn’t came from libertarian dogma. Neither does opposing Darfur Divestment, really, but at least that fits knee-jerk corporate apologia.
If Republicans were smart they would actually embrace and back Ron Paul. Then he might have a chance at winning.
I doubt it. Other candidates would then get to oppose the war more strongly, and leave him with only craziness to distinguish him from the mob.
Am I getting this right? Ron Paul rants and raves, saying that some people are destroying the country and whatnot and that a prime example of this is….
…i.e. the fact that they disagree with him politically? Is this satire?
The entire quote is disconcerting. It shares some qualities with fascist propaganda.
Enemies are separated into blocks. Those are then made to seem homogenous: all members of this block are said to share particular qualities, opinions or intentions. Not only that: they are seen as a danger to one’s own group, one that taps directly into people’s irrational fears. “You were right all along, there ARE monsters under the bed. But this is bigger than you thought - they’re already under the sofa and in the cupboard.” The threat is made to look (a) intentional and (b) malicious. Thus, f.expl., the rich having to give up unearned privileges becomes “the poor are after your money”. There’ll be war-like metaphors: you’re “under threat”, “besieged”, “being destroyed”. The enemy has “undermined” you and is “goosestepping all over” you. The threat is usually exaggerated. The enemy has already gained power! He is everywhere! He may look downtrodden and forlorn, but don’t let this fool you!
Next level: the threat is directly embodied by the opposing group. Any of their members either is a threat already or can/will become one sooner or later. This is made to look like common sense. Effectively, it is a potential excuse to kill babies and grandmothers. It is where you should slowly back out of the room and call the police.
Often the propagandist will add that “some” people “may” think his views to be extreme. He will then give pragmatic reasons for these views. “Of course this looks amoral, but how can we help sweeping with an iron broom when our very life/money/liberty is under threat?”
This man is not running for president, is he?
Of the Republican candidates, which one is the least bad?
You misunderstand the nature of Libertarianism. The idea is, government should be minimized in favor of private interests. Since the corporations that already exist already represent a tremendous concentration of power, a withdrawal of the official US government presence overseas combined with a “principled” refusal to regulate adds up to legalizing global corporate feudalism. The vast majority of our interventions overseas have been in the interest of either global capital, broadly conceived, or in a mind-boggling number of instances, specific private interests with direct ties to the government in Washington. “What’s good for the country is good for General Motors.” And with a former GM CEO as Secretary of Defense, as the man who said that was under Eisenhower, what was good for GM “was good for the country.”
So the general mayhem continues, without even the legal possibility of the will of the US electorate holding it in check.
Do you think the people overseas are going to refrain from holding us accountable, just because there is no official US government logo on nominally private corporate acts of brigandry? Heck, a lot of the mayhem our tax dollars paid for since WWII has been under cover of plausible deniability anyway; it may prevent the editors of World Book Encyclopedia from having to admit our culpability but the people in the targeted countries damn well know who to blame.
Paul doesn’t want to lock down the borders, not to capital anyway. Just people perhaps.
Global gated community. But enough angry villagers can storm Frankenstein’s castle…
Dan, do a search on “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” and start reading. And then as Auguste says–Be Careful What You Wish For.
One might naively interpret the literal definition as given by Wikipedia:
as I gather you do–you seem to presume the “designated agent” would be some kind of responsible police or other government official.
However, just after the ellipsis I inserted above, the same sentence clarifies what has been its meaning for at least a century before it was included in our Constitution:
And that’s the charm of it for the likes of Ron Paul.
Something I learned from these very brief researches of mine is that Congress may issue such letters, to private parties, bypassing the President or any other established executive completely.
As I understand it on the other hand, to issue such letters to the President would be redundant–anything Congress can authorize private individuals to do through letters of marque and reprisal, it can more easily and legitimately authorize the President to do as chief executive. Indeed, over 220 years of the Constitution as our basic law, the President has accumulated many enumerated powers as well as restrictions, and has a lot of leeway even when they don’t claim the monarchial privileges of the so-called “Unitary Executive.” No act of Congress may have been necessary at all.
Now in the current situation, with an at least nominally Democratic congress and a President who has repeatedly demonstrated reckless disregard for not only Congressional intent but the very letter of the law, I wonder whether a bolder Democratic leadership than we have might use such letters creatively. But again Careful What You Wish For; imagine what the R congress of 1994-2007 might have done against Clinton with such precedents established.
So–if the President wished to conduct a police campaign against foreign-based terrorists, rather than grasp at every excuse to wage international war on terms and in places of his choosing (while ignoring equally plausible pretexts for war where he doesn’t) and when excuses fail him, to abuse the power of the government and complicity of the privately owned press to make up false excuses–well I daresay quite a body of international law already exists to facilitate that, not to mention a shameful and dastardly but all too well precedented history of clandestine action. The President needed no new tools whatsoever in Sept 2001, is my impression, to conduct a global police action against al-Qaeda.
Letters of Marque and Reprisal wouldn’t add a single meaningful power to his arsenal. (They would be nice things for corporations like Halliburton or Blackwater to hold, of course).
Part of the “charm” of LMRs is supposed to be that they are allegedly a means of enforcing a nation’s interests “short of declaration of war.” But really, in the 20th century, how many of the bloody conflicts we are all more or less aware of were formally declared wars? Either we conduct our actions overseas in a way that foreign powers deem tolerable, or they can declare war on us in reprisal, formalities or none. It’s meaningless, no matter that we aren’t signatory to the treaties that ban LMRs, in a world where the other powers are. To them, there is no such legal animal any more, and either they ignore (or possibly facilitate) our actions out of prudence or sympathy, or they take notice of them as acts of war. Or, in the case of LMRs as they have actually been used, to privatize (or especially apt in this context, “piratize”) low-intensity warfare, they could just treat the privateers as plain criminals. Considering that they would be legally nothing more than rouge killers overseas, we’d expect them to be shot on sight. Or imprisoned for their own protection.
So there is no gain whatsoever over just quietly sending the CIA to assasinate our targets. Not that I’m saying that would have been best–I think we could have done far better than that, through the UN for instance–but there would be no benefit in invoking LMRs.
Except to the privateers, perhaps, if they can get away with it.
Which merely documents the point I made against mcc just above.
It’s great to see Ron getting so much attention (for a libertarian candidate). Despite the misinformation about him (just shows how he’s scaring some people), he’s got a great message, and he’s getting it out to more and more people. Will he WIN ???? Well, of course not, but for many of us, he’s given us someone to vote FOR, as opposed to trying to pick the lesser of two evils.
For you lurkers, libertarians, “real” conservatives, and other lovers of freedom, free markets, self-reliance and the US Constitution, don’t forget to vote for Ron in your primary.
I totally agree with Libertarian. Wingnuts! Vote for the spoiler! The rest of us sure would appreciate it.
Well, Paul makes me nervous because as has been pointed out, it would be rational for Republicans (if not sane persons) to vote for him, and he would indeed continue the Republican plan of action, as expressed in deeds if not words. It’s all about empowering the corporations and wealth as such.
As for the war being the deal-breaker for Rs, well, a lot of people are disaffected. Privatizing the occupation of Iraq and future adventures in the Middle East and other targets of opportunity could be this generation’s version of “Vietnamization.”
uh, libertarian? which parts of the foregoing have been “misinformation”, exactly? i will confess he’s been scaring me, not because he’s right, but because he sounds like a bigoted fucking nutbag lunatic. maybe you can provide evidence to the contrary, other than a vague assertion that he loves freedom or something.
I’m a bit curious about for whom the libertarians will vote after Paul loses the nomination. Maybe they’ll just shut up? I kinda doubt it. Will they hold their noses and vote for the party that their hero has spent the previous year castigating?
I just loooove racist political arguments.
5% of blacks are “sensible,” Paul?
I’d say a damn sight more whites voted for Bush and Kerry — both of whom Paul abhors.
There simply is no slur that applies to a minority in malice that does not apply to the majority in truth.
Whites in this country are, on average (not as an absolute), either politically stupid or evil. The former isn’t their fault. In fact, the _only_ reason minorities have an edge is because of blatant persecution. (Minorities are people and all people are, all things being equal, equally stupid.) In other words, racism is actually helpful: it’s clear proof that the Powers That Be suck. Even a dog knows the difference between being stumbled over and being kicked. Thus, minorities get an insight that the majority doesn’t get. No genetics involved: pure environment. Works the same way in Africa where melanin contents are identical within a population. Works the same way with the Hu and Han in China.
Paul is an excellent example of this phenomenon.
Next he’ll be complaining that one minority or another is lazy without a) noting that low-income jobs are harder work than middle-class and high-income jobs and b) ignoring that a good chunk of his fanbase are white slacker hippie kids.
And note that libertarian, upthread, was far, far too chickenshit to even touch a racist quote from his Annointed One. Typical. At least regular ol’ right wingers revel in their bigotry. Libertarians either blame others for their prejudices or stick their heads firmly in sand.
RobW wrote:
November 3, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I’m a bit curious about for whom the libertarians will vote after Paul loses the nomination.
The Republican. The libertarian ideology, in its present, popular form, is facile bullshit. It’s a more complicated smokescreen than neocon ideology. Both boil down to “I get what I want and fuck everyone else.” Remember the stats from a year or two back which correlated racial prejudices with political party (surprise!)? Seriously, who do you think the libertarians will vote for? All that legalize prostitution and pot shit just doesn’t have the priority of “keep blacks last hired-first fired so I can continue to get a better deal” plank of the platform.
Even without race, income and class are a better determinant than ideology on the right. It will still come down to which candidate gives the greatest personal benefit.
Letters of marque and reprisal? You mean Blackwater on the high Seas?
I think Ron Paul is the least bad Republican candidate currently running for the nomination because he is the only one who claims to want to roll back the post-9/11 police state. Yes, he’s a nut, but he’s not Nehemiah Scudder.
Again, of the candidates for the Republican nomination for President, who is the least bad? I find all of the Democratic candidates to be acceptable, so if I were going to try to influence the primary election, it would be on the Republican side.
Wow. So far we know that:
1. Ron Paul loves valuble metals.
2. Ron Paul loves guns.
3. Ron Paul really hates forigners, racial minorities, and women.
4. Ron Paul sees no value in government regualtion of anything.
The only clear conclustion we can draw is that Ron Paul is an 1800’s gold prospector displaced through time somehow.
It’s great to see Ron getting so much attention (for a libertarian candidate).
Really. What is “Libertarian” about the government interfering in a woman’s control over her own body? (Is “keep your laws off my body” only OK if we’re talking about smoking pot?) What is “Libertarian” about allowing the government to commission mercenaries to seize others’ private property?
Oh, right: because “Libertarian” means “I fetishize an authoritarian, jackbooted-thug leader as long as he lets me do what *I* want.”
Regardless of one’s stance on abortion and gay rights, Ron Paul does it perfectly from a political perspective - he has a stance, the abortion stance which is generally frowned upon by liberals, but he’s very, very smart, and right, when he says that the Federal government should stay out of the way on these types of issues and let the states decide. This brilliant maneuver allows him to get away with otherwise controversial stands while still upholding the true spirit of the Constitution. Ron Paul is the only candidate in decades that many from both the left and the right can agree on. This important fact is very telling in regards to the state of the union and to his overall leadership qualities.
According to the Wiki article, Paul calls himself an “unshakable foe of abortion.” The only reason he gets credit for “just being a states-righter” is that people like you perpetuate that myth.
Which is why the Google Ron Paul campaign is such a huge mistake. Libertarians do best when they’re able to conceal their true beliefs. Google makes that a damn sight harder.
Suggesting that “both the left and the right can agree on Paul” is an Overton Window move, and a transparent one. The move, not the window.
Um, Sea Hawk, obviously you’re not a regular around here, or you might have noticed that we just recently had a thread about George Will taking exactly this same “courageous and principled” stance you praise Paul for on abortion.
Here:
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/29/6252/
It always perplexes me (or would if I took glibertarians seriously) what oracle they consult or whether they channel the shade of Alexander Hamilton, to determine which issues “properly” belong to state government and which are OK for the Feds to handle.
Or is it 10-sided dice?
Or perhaps are these matters decided for reasons that won’t bear critical scrutiny without undermining all your pretensions to caring in the least about human freedom?
Why is anyone calling themselves “Libertarian” allowing any government at any level whatsoever latitude in overriding women’s right to choose whether to remain pregnant or not?
This “states’ rights” fan dance properly belongs to non-”Libertarian” reactionaries like Will and the Republicans in general. There aren’t any natural laws in place that determine which issues belong at which levels, nor for that matter is it a cosmic constant that the USA should have a federal system, or even exist at all. So in fact we decide whether to leave an issue to the states, or to the overriding Federal level, based on the pragmatics of the moment, the political balance, and perhaps the common sense of the issue.
If Libertarians generally believe a fetus is a human being being murdered with every abortion, then they might as well be for a Federal ban as going state by state. In fact “principle” would demand no less. Or if they have some more sensible view, or just don’t care about the issue one way or another, clearly this would be a good rhetorical moment to recall that whole “less government interference!” motto, and oppose any laws hindering a woman’s freedom to choose, at every level.
A good law is a good law, a bad law a bad one, no matter whether it is issued in the US Capitol, various statehouses, or emerges from the judicial process somewhere. If you are skeptical of laws as such, then why write new ones about abortion in particular?
As usual, the only way to resolve a Libertarian position as “principled and logical” is to reason from the same premises the Republicans do. Why should anyone expect you to arrive at less authoritarian conclusions, no matter how much you profess your love of freedom and abhorrance of a strong, arrogant state, unless we discount your ability to reason and thereby write you off as deluded or stupid?
I have a friend who really loves Ron Paul. He told us all to change our reigstraions to vote for him last night. I said I didn’t think getting rid of the CIA was a good idea, so I wouldn’t. He said that if Ron Paul is elected, the whole world will love us again so there will be no terrorism and we won’t need a CIA.
So I asked him, “If Ron Paul is so liberarian, why does he want abortion to be illegal?” And he said that he didn’t know and that was kind of strange but “That doesn’t matter, because I will never need an abortion.” I couldn’t believe he said that. I don’t know how this will evenually impact my friendship with this guy. I’ve known him since I was 12, and I’m 25, and he always seemed like a compassionate person.
mythago: You are correct in pointing out that Paul isn’t really a libertarian. His support of state promotion of religion is another example of his anti-libertarian ideology.
I’m not a libertarian. I’m just point this out because I think it is important for libertarians to know Paul is full of it.
Ron Paul is not a serious candidate but a stalking horse. The important thing about his campaign has nothing to do with his stances on any issue, except the Iraq War (or our policy of foreign intervention, generally), because on almost everything else he’s just a typical Republican.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy would kill war profiteering, and for that reason he absolutely CAN NOT be discussed on conservative forums. The purpose of Ron Paul is to expose this and damage other conservative campaigns, not to “win.”
Yeah, my friend, a normally intelligent person, has bought into this whole “liberterian” ideology, and supports Ron Paul as such. His overt racism she dismissed by “Some people in his office said that, not him”. It’s like she’s been sucker-punched by this guy.
Gee whiz, not many black people are libertarians! I wonder why?
(Hell, not many white people are libertarians either. Does that make white people insensible?)
Elizabeth, your friend forgot the First Rule of the Rightwing: lie your ass off about your beliefs. Selfinishness is at the rock-bottom of traditional conservativism, and such selfishness is imnical, utterly anathema to good government, so you have to pretend to give a shit about others to achieve your political agenda.
Real libertarians are insane. Sure, their stance on drugs and prostitution would have some bennies (more the former than the latter since they don’t give a rat’s about misogyny), but their principles would lead to a complete socieatal breakdown — which is why there has never been a libertarian government in the history of earth. Why, come again, should the government’s job ONLY be military and roads? It’s a batshit-arbitrary restriction with NO historical precedent and NO evidentiary support.
But there are virtually no real libertarians, and the few there are are virtuall: e.g., only on the web, never a party leader.
Most libertarians are just rightwingers with extra insecurity complexes so they need not just “no I’m not a pussy I hate brown people too!” rhetoric but intellectual bullshit to match. These guys aren’t insane — like the general right-wing stance, they’re immoral. They are lying to everyone about their desires — they aren’t delusional.
Ron Paul supporters are, I’m betting, usually ignorant of his stances. I saw him on Bil Mahr and he acquitted himself well — Bill didn’t go into race at all, and they only briefly got to the economy. It was all about Iraq. The problem is EVERYONE LOOKS LIKE A FUCKING SAINT on Iraq as soon as they say “let’s get the hell out of there.” Thus, because Iraq is damn near an instant win for voters, it’s possible to be a shitty candidate and still draw support.
It’s a bit like being against wallowing in shit — and having opponents who will require it. Does it really matter what else the candidate is for? He won’t make you wallow in shit. He can’t be all bad, right?
when he says that the Federal government should stay out of the way on these types of issues and let the states decide
That is not what he says. Welcome to the age of the Internet, where you can’t lie or soft-pedal what your candidate actually said. In this case, his explicit goal is to decide for the states, by “removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life”.
He also clearly doesn’t believe in the separation of powers, as he wants to remove a particular subject matter from Federal jurisdiction purely because he doesn’t like the results. So much for the lie that Paul is an ‘originalist’.
Elizabeth, sounds like you have an ex-friend there. He all but said “And I don’t care if YOU need an abortion, honey. It’s not my problem.” (Though I rather suspect if he were facing the issue of a girlfriend with a little blue line on the test stick, he’d flip-flop so fast you’d see the red shift.)
One day liberals and progressives will discover that the larger government becomes, even for nice-sounding programs such as health care and minimum wage, will be the only mechanism government will abuse power.
The more we the people outsource well-fare to government, instead of relying on private NGOs and our churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other secular organizations take care of cooperative (but private) health care, etc.
I do consider myself a minority and possibly, as some suggested upthread, threatened by a Paul presidency, but I’d rather be left fragile than have a government promise me something I will never get.
By the way, Ron Paul have always said that he is personally anti-abortion. That does not mean anti-choice. He is FOR the states to determine that. This is far better for pro-choicers than anything that the Democrats can ever do.
P.S., I consider myself a liberal libertarian, FWIW. Yes, we do exist. Just visit, for example, reason.com’s blog and see for yourself.
One day liberals and progressives will discover that the larger government becomes, even for nice-sounding programs such as health care and minimum wage, will be the only mechanism government will abuse power.
The more we the people outsource well-fare to government, instead of relying on private NGOs and our churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other secular organizations take care of cooperative (but private) health care, etc.
This predicate, subject not follows. The subject of this sentence.
Public education useless in this case. No wonder libertarian!
Pheonician:
It is not like I am writing an essay already! FWIW, I am foreign born, came here when I was 23 and am a PhD, double MSc holder from one of the top 5 schools in the country! So why don;t you address my comments instead of my writing ability.
I’m supportting Pon Paul for for president. No, I don’t think he has a snowballs chance. No, I dont agree with hin on all of the issues. Let’s just discuss two of them. Government spending and the War on poor people drugs.
Does anybody believe that K-12 or college/post graduate education has gotten better since the creation of The Department of Education? Don’t everybody talk at once now.
Before the Department of Energy was created in 1977, the country’s energy was mostly provided by fossil fuels (coal , oil and natural gas) with some fission plants and hydro-electric dams supplementing the electrical grid. 30 years later, the United States now gets most of it’s energy from, hold on to your hats, folks, fossil fuels (coal , oil and natural gas) with some fission plants and hydro-electric dams supplementing the electrical grid. We could never have done it without them!
Other than Dennis Kucininch the boy mayor, what candidates supportts ending the war on liberty drugs? Does this stop the columbian drug lords from making billions? Does it stop the disintegration of entire neighborhoods in our cities? No, it accelerates both processes. REMEMBER KATHRYN JOHNSTON! That name is worth a google.
Re: the Paul quote on DailyKos, there’s a back story there. Those comments were published in Ron Paul’s newsletter more than a decade ago, but he said afterwards that they had actually been written by a ghost writer, and apologized for letting that happen. It may sound like a pathetic attempt at a cover-up, but considering that Dr. Paul — who is a prolific writer and speaker in the libertarian movement — has never said or written anything approaching that stuff, before or since, it seems likely he’s telling the truth.
It is not like I am writing an essay already! FWIW, I am foreign born, came here when I was 23 and am a PhD, double MSc holder from one of the top 5 schools in the country! So why don;t you address my comments instead of my writing ability.
The problem is I can’t understand your comments because your sentence structure prevents you from actually making a point. With due respect to your possible ESOL status, would you care to actually rewrite your post so as to, I dunno, make an actual argument?
In a nutshell:
Having government take care of health care, for example, would (1) undermine the role of NGOs (which includes religious institutions) in society, (2) not care about how the money actually gets spent and to whom (whereas individuals are better at giving their money to the causes they see appropriate, with far less overhead), (3) will serve insurance companies by essentially subsidizing it through the tax-payer, among other things.
Regarding RP’s position on abortion, he is not absolutely anti-abortion. He is for the states deciding on this issue. So a state like Massachusetts, to name one, would probably be able to legalize abortion under a Ron Paul presidency.
Regarding foreign relations, he is for immediate withdrawal of ALL (including Europe) American troops abroad.
He is not against gay-marriage. He famously said that he is against government in the marriage business altogether, which would open the door for all and any kind of consensual arrangements.
He also firmly believes that the more controversial an issue is, the more local it has to be decided. The upper limit would be at the state level. The federal government would only take care of national defense (not to be equated with “offensive foreign wars”) and very few other matters.
Laugh riot.
By the way, Ron Paul have always said that he is personally anti-abortion. That does not mean anti-choice. He is FOR the states to determine that.
No, he is not. He is “state’s rights, but only when they’re right,” a la Hatch.
And your ESL is fading in and out; better have that checked.
Just scanning through the comments, so here’s a few reactions:
No, he’s not their man. The Republican Dream since Reagan has NOT been to destroy government. Rather, it has been to use government for their own ends. “They” being the wealthy classes. Bush is the culmination of their efforts, siphoning off wealth and productivity to line his peers’ pockets.
What you’re referring to (dismantle government) is actually The Republican Con.
That is because Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He is a paleo-conservative with a hard-on for the 10th amendment. He is simply anti-federal government. Other than that, he’s very happy to let the individual states discriminate against their citizens.
Any libertarian policies of his flow from his 10th amendment fixation, not from any independent reasoning on his part.
True, he is against state intervention in and definition of marriage. But he also believes that the acceptance of gays represents the decay and decline of our culture. He has a very low opinion of them. Try reading his tracts on gay marriage and pay attention to the adjectives he uses in reference to gays.
Here’s a link for further reading:
http://agonist.org/bolo/20070908/ron_paul_vs_liberty_part_3_language
As a black libertarian, I think this is a fair question.It’s a lot more blatant than that. Congressman Paul voted for the so-called “partial birth” abortion ban. Yup, a federal ban that overrides any state’s freedom to allow safe surgical procedures within his borders. Any further federal bans would be stripped of judicial review if he had his way. So some states’ rights are to be dismantled at the barrel of the federal government’s gun, just not the ones for white rich fundamentalist Christian conservatives.
But at least he’s dead-set against the federal government intervening to keep state legislatures from stomping on darkies and homos.
Geez, Art-P.O.G., I sympathize. It must be rough to see the public face of libertarianism co-opted by a racist closed-borders misogynist homophobe who’s repeatedly contributed to the secessionist Southern Caucus’ newsletter. Unlike some here, I’ve seen some rational libertarian ideas (primarily via Jim Henley and Co.), which makes it all the more unpleasant to see the entire brand tarnished by Paul’s batshit-crazy theocratic social Darwinism.
Ron Paul:
1) Is the only candidate calling for a complete and
immediate end to the War on Drugs…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=v3SYWDkWyXA
…and he’s been shouting it for decades…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
2) Is not only for immediately pulling out of Iraq, but
in fact for pulling U.S. troops out of over 100 countries
around the world. He would slash the federal military
budget.
3) Has been adamantly against corporate welfare for decades.
4) Unlike Hillary and Edwards, he actually voted against
the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.
5) Has consistently championed civil liberties and privacy.
6) http://youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA
You all can distort his views to your heart’s content,
but you sure come off as ignorant, or worse.
Having government take care of health care, for example, would (1) undermine the role of NGOs (which includes religious institutions) in society, (2) not care about how the money actually gets spent and to whom (whereas individuals are better at giving their money to the causes they see appropriate, with far less overhead), (3) will serve insurance companies by essentially subsidizing it through the tax-payer, among other things.
Nope, nope and nope - in that order.
(i) “the role of NGOs” is not a concern - the purpose of government is to foster the commonweal. If this can be done by leaving NGOs to it, fine, otherwise the government has a right to intervene. NGOs have no “role” as a matter of right.
(ii) International comparisons on government spending in healthcare show less overhead, and government spending is more rational (people not making choices based on a cost/benefit analysis of collective healthy years of living for example). I can dig out the WHO comparison if I need to, but I’m not in a mood to do additional research in a hurry with a big project due tonight.
(iii) Nope. Again, comparison with overseas examples.
For the third time:
Of the candidates for the Republican nomination, which is the least bad? I’d take just about any Democrat over Ron Paul, but if you had the power to direct $1,000,000 of Republican Party campaign financing to one of the candidates for the Republican nomination, who would you give it to? I currently believe that Ron Paul is the “least bad” Republican candidate; are any of the other credible Republican candidates better?
I don’t care who wins the Democratic Party nomination, but it might be possible to influence the
TheocraticRepublican party nomination away from the worst outcomes.Ron Paul:
1) is some racist. Why, he’s the only candidate calling for a complete and immediate end to the War on Drugs…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=v3SYWDkWyXA
…and he’s been shouting it for decades…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
2) Is not only for immediately pulling out of Iraq, but
in fact for pulling U.S. troops out of over 100 countries
around the world. He would slash the federal military
budget.
3) Has been adamantly against corporate welfare for decades.
4) Unlike Hillary and Edwards, he actually voted against
the Iraq war and the Patriot Act.
5) Has consistently championed civil liberties and privacy.
6) http://youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA
You all can distort his views to your heart’s content,
but you sure come off as ignorant, or worse.
Gee-
No one, not a single person on this thread, claimed he wasn’t against the war on drugs, nor that he wants to stay in Iraq, or he likes the Patriot act. The big ones we’ve claimed is that he’s racist (a la the quote provided upthread) , that he doesn’t care about WOMEN’s Privacy and civil rights (re reproductive health) and that he has nutbag ideas about how to fix things.
Try sticking to what we’ve ACTUALLY claimed, before we say we’re distorted his views.
Doug, can only speak for me, but the least evil of all the Republican canidates I can think of is McCain.
Republicans hate Ron Paul because they love war, and they don’t actually want a smaller government. Nixon, Reagan, Bush — these guys expanded government through the roof. They gave us the EPA, the EEOC, the Income Tax. It’s naive to think most Republicans really want small government, especially since Bush has increased domestic spending more than LBJ. You can’t have corporatism, theocracy, a police state, an empire or theocracy while having small government. So most conservatives are unmoved by his ideas.
But he’s raising millions!
www.ronpauls2008.com
I only ask that you be honest with yourself when talking about Paul.
He believes in individual rights, regardless of creed, sexual orientation (yes, he may have personal views, but look at his record), race, etc. I belong to one of the highly “endangered” minorities in this country (not only based on race, but, more importantly, religion). I’d rather be told that I am on my own than society pretend like BIG government can do it for me. The local police is enough. It has been the only force, along with patriotic and VERY LIBERAL neighbors (hint: in Ann Arbor, MI
), that provided protection in a time of need. The federal government, along with the “patriot” act have been nothing but a cause of distress.
If anything, I ask that you be honest with yourselves. And be smart! If Hillary or Obama come to office,the Christian right will be up in arms in 2010. Under a Paul administration, they can be subdued. This is called compromise. Simple. Easy.
gee,
1. Yeah he sure is some racist:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070512114222/http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
2. The only reason he wants to pull out of Iraq is because he is an isolationist. He also wants us to pull out of the UN and was against U.S. government divesting in Sudan until it’s government stops committing genocide in Darfur.
3. What does “corporate welfare” even mean? Ron Paul was the only one of three congressment to vote down the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. He may not want do give big business money, but he dosen’t want them held accountable either.
4. See 2 for Iraq withdrawl. I’ll give him voting down the patriot act though. Rock on, Ron Paul.
5. Except if you’re a woman:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/paul.html
6. Sorry, a youtube video with inspirational music isn’t a point.
And since we are all ignorant. Could you please explain why it would be a good idea to get rid of the federal reserve and fiat currency?
Actually if ANY Ron Paul supporter can fully explain why getting rid of fiat currency is good idea. Please, go ahead.
Actually if ANY Ron Paul supporter can fully explain why getting rid of fiat currency is good idea. Please, go ahead.
If you have not been involved with the recent housing market crisis (either as a home owner or a banker), then chaces are you’ve screwed because the interest rate adjustments are meant to correct for the greedy (the lenders who carelessly gave away money) or the stupid (those who wanted to live beyond their means). As a tax-payer who lives within his mean, as far as I am concerned, part of my tax was used to bail these idiots out (the lenders and the borrowers). With an independent commodity standard, no one can meddle the market to bail fools out at my cost. Yes, get rid of the reserve.
P.S. If you think that you have to carry gold in your pocket under a gold standard, remember that it is only a standard to value money. The Fed (which is really a coalition of private banks) currently sets the value. Guess who do they give preference to? You the individual, or the private banks!
Fair warning: I’m a free market economist who has written articles in favor of Ron Paul. (So if he is worse than Satan, I guess I’m somewhat worse than a demon.)
Obviously I’m not going to change anybody’s views here, but I wanted to clarify some things so RP’s positions at least seem coherent (if reprehensible):
* “Corporate welfare” means just that, the government giving taxpayer dollars to big corporations. Consistent libertarians are against this, just as much as giving tax dollars to “welfare queens.” Examples include not only military contractors but also agribusiness (which gets billions) and pharmaceutical companies. So for Ron Paul to oppose corporate welfare but also Sarbanes Oxley, is just as consistent as him opposing food stamps as well as the Patriot Act. I.e. corporations are entitled to privacy and their own money, but not taxpayer money. You might think this is heartless and crazy, but it’s perfectly consistent.
* Ron Paul is for free trade, but against NAFTA, GATT, etc. NAFTA is literally (I believe) over 1,000 pages long. It doesn’t take a 1,000 page document for Congress to say, “We are eliminating tariffs on the following goods:…” The objection to the UN, World Bank, etc. is that these are extranational bodies that have regulatory power over the US. It’s true, I personally don’t get into a tizzy over “sovereignty” but I don’t think this is somehow an internally contradictory position.
* Abortion: A person can quite consistently think abortion is murder but best left to the states. E.g. murdering a 30-year-old is *also* not the proper jurisdiction of the federal government; in one state you can get the death penalty and another, you can’t, for the “same crime.” Now maybe you think that’s unfair–indeed Michael Kinsley once wrote an article criticizing federalism for just this reason–but it’s not as nutty as is being portrayed. The whole point of federalism is to limit centralized power. E.g. there are plenty of hardcore libertarians who supported the Supreme Court’s ruling on the eminent domain case where the local government seized property to give to a private company. (I can’t believe it but the name escapes me at the moment; I’m sure you all know what I’m talking about.) The point is, just because you disagree with something–even if you think something is literally a crime–it doesn’t follow that you support the US federal government sending armed men to “fix” it.
* Finally, the racist quotes: I cannot personally verify this, but people whom I know to be honorable (though you guys would also think them crazy) have said that RP didn’t write those things, that it was something ghostwritten after he had returned to medical practice. Of course it begs the question why such a ghostwritten piece got produced and distributed without being caught, I grant you. But I didn’t want to make this post w/o addressing the racist claim.
Oh, quick two points for the person asking about fiat currency:
* To give the printing press to a bunch of politicians (or more accurately, individuals appointed by politicians) strikes a lot of “gold bugs” as crazy. The dollar has lost something like 95 - 99% of its purchasing power since 1914 (Federal Reserve).
* Austrian economists (e.g. 1974 laureate Friedrich Hayek) believe that the boom-bust cycle is caused by government manipulation of interest rates. Basically, when the gov’t pushes down interest rates it causes temporary euphoria, but necessitates the bust period. So on a pure gold standard with no gov’t intervention in banking and money, the claim is that there would be no severe swings in the business cycle.
If this is the real Bob Murphy, then we’ve been in touch by email today
What a coincidence!
Bob:
I can’t believe it but the name escapes me at the moment; I’m sure you all know what I’m talking about.
Kelo?
Ron Paul is correct on the Iraq War and correct on illegal immigration. Those are the two greatest issues impacting the US, so Ron Paul is the best candidate out there.
Robot,
1. Snippets of decades-old comments taken out of
context and NOT EVEN FROM PAUL’S PEN OR LIPS (he long ago
claimed they weren’t his statements, he distanced
himself from them, and the truth is the statements are
completely inconsistent with his mindset and style).
Here’s an ACTUAL Ron Paul-authored statement on racism
from THIS year. Got a problem with it?:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
If Ron Paul was racist, I doubt he’d be opposed to the
War on Drugs. Here he is addressing a black audience
on national TV at a Republican debate (how many Democrat
candidates have the guts to make such public comments?):
http://youtube.com/watch?v=o8S8N2OG7sU
2. Labeling Ron Paul an “isolationist” evidences your
ignorance. Unlike the rest of the field (including the
Democrats), he’s a NON-INTERVENTIONIST. There’s an
enormous difference.
There’s NOTHING isolationist about wanting to pull out
of an expensive, corrupt, political bureacracy like the UN.
I don’t know his views on Sudan (do you? cite?), but I’m
sure they’re consistent with his non-interventionist
principles (that’s correct, there’s a major party
candidate with principles).
3. “What does “corporate welfare” even mean?”
Look it up. Basically, it’s what every other Republican
and Democrat candidate supports. In fact, it’s what
SUSTAINS them.
4. Are you supporting a candidate who voted for the Patriot
Act? I’m not.
5. Paul’s view on abortion is informed by his delivering
over 4,000 babies as an OBGYN. I’m pro-choice, but I can
respect that, and I can respect the pro-life position, and
I recognize that it’s a polarizing issue that will never be resolved. As such, I have no problem with his stance
that it shouldn’t be decided at the Federal level. If left
to the states, a solid majority would permit abortion.
6. It may not be a point, but it sure as hell sells.
> Could you please explain why it would be a good idea to
> get rid of the federal reserve and fiat currency?
Sure, right after you explain why interest rate levels
should be dictated from an ivory tower.
BTW, Paul merely would allow for competition in currencies.
I have never voted for either party but I have always hated the Republicans and leaned towards the democrats. Even so I really like Ron Paul. I think he is very honest and really stands for what he believes in, even though a lot of it seems so eccentric.
He does have a lot of radical views on government, but he is a practical guy and realizes that everything needs to be done with a consensus. A lot of what he believes is just a philosophic ideal while he is prepared to be practical. For instance: He doesn’t philosophically believe in medicare or social security but he realizes many people are dependent on these programs to live. His plan is to cut military spending so that these programs can actually be strengthened instead of abolished. Meanwhile he wants to let people who don’t like these programs the freedom to opt out.
As for abortion, I am generally pro choice but I think Dr. Paul’s stance on abortion is principled. Personally I think it is unwise to stake all abortion rights on the supreme court. Currently the court supports abortion, but that could easily change with new justices. The court is only 9 unelected people. All it would take to deny abortion to 300 million people would be 5 men on the supreme court to say it is illegal. Dr. Paul’s plan to leave it up to the states might leave some states with anti abortion laws, but it would make sure abortion could not be made illegal everywhere by just 5 people.
On the gold standard, I am not an expert but I believe America has had some sort of gold standard for all but the last 36 years. The government abandoned the gold standard around 1971 because it was in such debt from the Vietnam war that it had to print dollar bills to pay its debts. The idea behind a gold standard is that money can’t be printed at will off a printing press, and thus inflation is limited. After the government abandoned the gold standard the country experienced extreme inflation. Inflation is very bad for the poor and middle class. For instance, the minimum wage used to be worth $7-9 depending on who you ask. Eventually it fell all the way done to 5. The government never once had to cut the minimum wage and look like it was bashing the poor, but inflation ate away the value. In a similar fashion everyone who makes a salary or wages (most of us) suffers from inflation because usually the rate of inflation rises faster than the rate of pay. So if your employer gives you a 2% raise but inflation is 4% you have actually been given a paycut and fooled into thinking you are getting a raise. In fact real wages adjusted for inflation have not risen for many decades while the wealth of the rich has exploded.
This is why Dr. Paul supports a gold standard and a non inflationary currency.
On the war: I think the democratic nominee will probably be Hillary. I could never vote for her because she voted for the war, and voted for the spending, and can’t say that we will leave.
She claimed that the president some how duped her into thinking that Saddam Hussein was minutes away from nuking us, or something like that. I don’t know how any American could think an isolated third world country with no military that had never attacked us needed to be invaded for our safety. That vote was the biggest responsibility Hillary has ever had in her life and she failed completely. The resolution to go to war read something like “the president will use all possible diplomacy and if it doesn’t work he can invade”
How could anyone in congress vote for something like that? Why didn’t it read “the president will use all possible diplomacy and if it doesn’t work he will come back to congress and we will consider a declaration of war”
She and other democrats completely gave up responsibility and told the president he could do what he wanted.
Since that time she and Obama have voted for all the billion and billions of spending necessary for the war to go on, while claiming to oppose it. They say the war is so bad, but it couldn’t continue if they didn’t keep on voting for the money to pay it.
Even worse all the money to pay for the war is borrowed. Here they are talking about how important social security is but the trillion+ in debt from this war will make it that much tougher to keep social security alive.
In contrast Ron Paul voted against the war before it started. He said that Iraq was a backwater 3rd world country and could never threaten us. He said that war might cost more and last longer than anyone planned. Somehow Bush could trick Hillary and many other democrats, but Ron Paul knew exactly what this war was about and where it would lead. Paul has voted against all the funding for the war and has made a strong commitment to bring are troops home as soon as possible, and use the funds spent on the war to ease our deficit and shore up social security and medicare.
Many people could never vote for Dr. Paul because he is against abortion, I could never vote for any pro war democrat because they have sat and watched as so many people have died in this war, American and Iraqi and helped to waste so much money that all the social programs we like are threatened by bankruptcy. The protests that they were tricked or that it is all Bush’s fault ring hollow. Only Congress can declare war, not the president, and only congress can appropriate the money that allow war to continue, so the responsibility for the war falls firmly with Hillary, who has done nothing to really oppose it.
False. In the Dark Ages and Middle Ages they had all that in Europe, while “the government” was basically nothing more that a bunch of promises by big shots to help the King/Emperor out when he asked them to. There was no mechanism of taxation, organized defense, or rule of law, except the whim of the local magnates.
The thing is, that once the configuration of big-shot private powers that be sorts itself out, they will have de facto arrived at a cartel-type set of working arrangements, and it would be to their advantage to start streamlining and centralizing the machinery, thus re-creating government. And the people they oppress would be likely to empower whichever ambitious big shots offer them credible promises of more fair, consistent treatment, or at least leverage against their immediate oppressors. This is how the later Medieval and early modern European monarchies got their leg up.
My point here is that you are making the distinction between Libertarians and Conservatives all about some ideal one holds while the other holds another. But it makes no practical difference. Libertarians are not going to be able to abolish Big Government because it would not result in meaningful increases in freedom for most people and would merely inconvenience the powerful to have to circle Robin Hoods barn to arrive at the same sort of central clearinghouse for horse-trading their interests that government now offers them.
Government is actually the only potential means that the non-rich majority has for securing and expanding their actual freedom. It doesn’t infallibly, automatically, irreversibly work that way; people need to take control of it and stand guard to limit the extent that it will be turned to the benefit of the already privileged–this is the idea of democracy. It’s a poorly realized idea, but trying to abolish government is going in the wrong direction.
Well, it’s becoming abundantly clear that Roxanne was right—Ron Paul’s support is coming from the same group of cranks, racists who think the Republican party doesn’t do enough, and idiots compelled the Mountain Dew marketing that were sucked in by Ross Perot.
Mark, I have to say we Pandagonians are blessed to have you here to share your thoughts and knowledge. You enrich this place, and I’m glad your on our side…
When we live in a world where some authoritarian cultist can make a statement like, “Ron Paul is correct on the Iraq War and correct on illegal immigration. Those are the two greatest issues impacting the US, so Ron Paul is the best candidate out there” - and that’s not from a piece in the Onion - we need all the intellectual firepower we can get our hands on.
Mark, thanks for being you…
Thanks, I’ve just lost a chunk of Net access time I was counting on, may not be back till Friday.
The heck of it is, I feel my posts are all flaky and half-baked. I’d do better if I weren’t shooting from the hip, on the fly, most of the time.
Then again I probably wouldn’t actually post anything if I weren’t under such deadline pressure.
Good thing I believe in the virtues of the half-baked and imperfect nowadays.
Well, it’s becoming abundantly clear that Roxanne was right—Ron Paul’s support is coming from the same group of cranks, racists who think the Republican party doesn’t do enough
Ummm, Amanda, Ron Paul’s support is primarily coming from people who think the Republican party is doing WAY too much — too much militarism overseas, too many civil liberties stripped away, too much non-torture that bears a striking resemblance to torture, too much ignoring of the Bill of Rights.
I realize it is hard for some leftists to wrap their head around, but libertarians like Ron Paul are hardcore pro-civil liberties — more than any of the Democratic frontrunners. Where we part from the leftists inhabiting this blog is that we’re also hardcore pro-economic liberties, and realize that both kinds of liberty are inextricably tied together.
Check out Ron Paul.
They’re starting to remind me of the religious who go around preaching in Europe and North America going “did you ever hear about Jesus?”
Only in this case I don’t think it’s a case of a warped perspective but rather a conscious choice made to ignore objections. People who don’t like Ron Paul just don’t know just how amazing he is. I can see how it would be easier to just repeat that.
Only in this case I don’t think it’s a case of a warped perspective but rather a conscious choice made to ignore objections.
Haven’t most objections been addressed above? May be not to your satisfaction, but they have been seriously addressed, especially by Bob Murphy.
I was commenting on a kind of rethorical device that’s notably absent from Bob Murphy’s posts. Thank you.
It’s not like you can’t feign to be bringing obscure knowledge/The Good News and bring a lot of handwaving along as well, though. And a lot of that there was, yes indeed.
When Ron Paul thinks as much about the civil liberties of pregnant women as he does for the rest of people bearing civil liberties, then I might consider.
Until then, I hold myself in abeyance.
“When Ron Paul thinks as much about the civil liberties of pregnant women…”
He does, and he also thinks about the civil liberties of the unborn human as well :^D
Regardless, he’s against federal legislation concerning abortion, which means he’d veto any anti-abortion bills from Congress. That means you can take your blinders off and pull your earplugs out and take another look at the guy.
Which reminds me - Why do so many people say, “Nope, I ain’t gonna listen no more!” when they find a single issue they don’t like?
Wow! So many misconceptions. Where to start?
How about “Ron Paul the Isolationist”? Paul is on record as saying we should not be the “world’s policeman”. He echoes George Washington’s warning against “entangling alliances” and advocates “free trade with all”. He opposes the current interventionist foreign policy and he doesn’t think we should tax Americans and send their money overseas. He thinks we should get out of the U.N. Those of you who think this is a bad idea should consider that half of the reason for invading Iraq was to enforce U.N. resolutions. (The other half was to search for WMD.)
How about a real live-wire issue: Abortion. Ron Paul is an OB/GYN. He’s delivered over 4000 babies. His personal opposition to abortion crystalized when he witnessed a live newborn tossed in a bucket to die. Paul opposes the “Roe v. Wade” decision - but not on the grounds that he personally opposes abortion. Abortion is NOT a federal issue. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution and it is properly handled at the state level. This might result in some states banning abortion, while others permit it. Paul is aware of this.
There has been mention of Paul being “tin foil hat” crazy for supporting a return to the gold standard. Paul, as an avid student and author in the field of economics probably has a better grip on this issue than ANY candidate. One example I’ve seen of the folly of fiat money is that a dollar used to buy 4 gallons of gas. The silver dollars in circulation at that time would still buy 4 gallons of gas at today’s rates - but the fiat paper money we call the “American Dollar” will only buy about 1/3 of a gallon. Think about that next time you fill up. Had we stayed on the silver/gold standard, you’d be paying 12 times less for gas. Ironically, the advantages of the fiat dollar accrue to groups you probably oppose - like the military industrial complex. A precious metal standard eliminates the ability of the power elite to erode your income.
Let’s see… oh! Socialized medicine. Paul points out that in every other field where technology makes great strides, costs go down. Your computer costs a tiny fraction of what comparable machines cost even 10 years ago. Cell phones are so cheap that they’re used as promotional items. Compare them to the huge bricks that were the earlier versions and which cost many times as much - even neglecting inflation. But what about medicine? The costs go up, and up, and up. Paul says the government is part of this problem. How can that be? Well, for starters, look at the prescription drug “benefit”. Part of the legislation prohibits the government from buying drugs from cheaper sources. That is, the price of the drugs is artificially inflated by the legislation itself! So who does this help? The patient who needs the drugs but isn’t yet covered? Or the Drug Companies, who now have a guaranteed profit for their drugs?
I know these issues are only the tip of the iceberg, but if your mind is open, do your own research. Impartial investigation will show that Ron Paul is a principled man dedicated to peace and freedom for Americans.
That’s a platform I can accept.
“I probably wouldn’t actually post anything if I weren’t under such deadline pressure.”
um, is someone paying you to post things against
dr. paul?
it’s true that the smear campaign has begun.
alas. i suppose it’s why the simpletons get elected, those
who’s ideas can be distorted and taken out of context
are easily mislabeled and maligned.
it begins. i hope dr. paul’s supporters can persevere.
it’s very disheartening and sad to see so many short responses that are volatile and slandering. that really says a lot about the people who wrote them and where they stand on the issues they claim to support.
i started off a green when becoming politically involved. it was easy for me to turn libertarian when i started to study the history and tactics behind government intervention. it did not live up to my expectations and practices as i myself engaged in as an individual in my own life. i support dr paul on principle. those who claim he is racist or bigoted are only perpetuating a problem of hate. the world is beyond race and gender. lets move into this age of ideas and information. these are the pressing issues. if one doesn’t recognize that you are living in the past.
John F. Kennedy was for returning the Gold Standard! He was about to sign an executive order before he was murdered. Was JFK a loon also. ?
Marqui and Reprisal means = GOING AFTER BIN LADIN. If the mafia attacks you you don’t invade Italy.
First they laugh at you.
then they attack you.
then you win.,
Ghandi.
we are in attack mode now..
I consider myself at least a small-’l’ libertarian, and I know a lot of other people like me who don’t think Paul is a libertarian at all. Personally I think the net effect of his positions would be terrible for civil liberties. I don’t think he is a nutjob; I think he is a very smart man who is personally likable and grandfatherly, and is also trying to convince people that the 14th amendment — and the reasons it was ratified — never happened. He also has serious, stereotypically right-wing issues with unenumerated rights (e.g. abortion), and acts as if that’s a perfectly sensible constitutional interpretation.
Here is a link to a page from the Annals of Congress, showing part of the original debate in the House in 1789 over the wording of what is now the 1st amendment: http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llac/001/0300/03820759.tif
Does it seem to you as if Ron Paul’s position on unenumerated rights would be remotely comprehensible to those people? Many liberal legal scholars would not give a damn what people two centuries ago thought about unenumerated rights, and they are generally sane people arguing in good faith, but that’s not the sort of language I am hearing from Paul (libertarians are often, but are certainly not somehow mystically required to be, some sort of originalists).
He just doesn’t smell like a libertarian to me, or really to anyone I have personally talked to about him, for that matter.
My apologies to any lawyers in the audience who are twitching at all the gaps in my story here — sorry — I was trying to be clear and terse! (yeah right, on that last one, I know)
please all you anti ron paul people-please post which candidate you support…i can`t wait to read your reasoning on why you support your candidate
I’m closing comments on this post. It’s becoming clear that paid commenters are likely spamming this post with pro-Paul propaganda, and I won’t be playing host to that.