I have written previously about Representative Ron Paul’s extremist views, but with his surging fundraising and steadily climbing poll numbers it seems another visit to this deluded Libertarian’s views is in order. Many of my non-political friends have asked my opinion on Paul. They are seduced by his anti-war views and GOP underdog status, and somehow consider him a real alternative to the current crop of warmongering Republican and “celebrity” Democratic candidates. I try hard to inform them that despite the pleasing surface, his positions are radical and he espouses a form of government never before attempted on the planet Earth;
Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted by the vast majority. They are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian ideas.) These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for practical purposes.
To examine Dr. Paul’s positions, let’s first take a quick look at a bedrock Libertarian principle;
A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It’s easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society — language, law, money, and markets — all developed spontaneously, without central direction.
In short, Libertarians believe government is an obstacle to personal liberty. The above author’s logic is suspect, however. He says the constraints of government stop societies from empowering the individual freedoms of its citizens, all the while saying such ordered systems will be spontaneously created by the actions of millions of citizens in the absence of such controls. News flash- these systems did spontaneously generate. That’s how we ended up with government to begin with! What else is government than the method by which such spontaneous relationships is exercised? In America laws were written and governmental bodies were formed, for the most part, to address real situations, not to slowly steal away the rights of citizens. It seems like Libertarians are advocating a return to feudalism. Without government, unrestrained free markets would enrich the already powerful, allowing them to rule the way lords of old did. They controlled the assets, and the less fortunate looked to their lords to protect them and keep them alive, similar to the faith my dog has in my ability to fill his food dish. So how about Representative Paul? Let’s go over a few of his more radical positions. If after reading this those of you supporting or considering Ron Paul are not swayed that his Libertarian principles are a little kooky, or at the least require a tad more thought, then it’s likely you supported Bush as well, and thus convincing you with reason was already impossible. Maybe I could dress up like God with a wig and false beard and chuck lightning bolts to change those kind of minds. Anyhow, on with the list;
- Ron Paul adamantly opposes U.S. participation in in international organizations such as NATO and the United Nations. He also opposes any international intervention, even for genocide in Darfur or Rwanda (“You don’t get involved, but you can make a moral statement.” Tell that to the orphans of Rwanda or Darfur!)
- He wants to abolish the IRS, Federal Reserve, the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security, and the FBI.
- He opposes the separation of church and state.
- He opposes universal health care.
- He is opposed the adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, landmark legislation that outlawed segregation.
These positions alone should disqualify him as a viable presidential candidate in most people’s minds. Hopefully posts like this will serve to educate the public, and keep citizens from being snookered by his more popular antiwar positions. Having the temerity to post on Ron Paul means one thing; an inevitable viral rush of Paul supporters with snide comments and logically fallacious arguments. These folks tend to proclaim long-standing support for Dr. Paul, but I suspect they are mostly disillusioned former Bush supporters, seeking a candidate to help minimize the humiliation created by the president’s foolishness over the last seven years. Hopefully this post will sway a few of them back over to the side of reason and sanity. UPDATE: I wrote a comment on Digg that came out just right so I had to link it up and re-post it here;
I sure wish Ron Paul’s positions were as groundbreaking and fantastic as his supporters make out. Unfortunately he seems to me to be a supply-sider in wolf’s clothing, an elitist with an elaborate political philosophy to cloak less than honorable intentions. It seems Libertarians forgot the days of the robber barons, the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Morgans, and Harrimans. That’s exactly what we would get if we relied on people’s good intentions to rein in a wild, completely free market. Government has a purpose. The different branches of our current system evolved to take care of problems that popped up organically over the lifetime of our country. People don’t just wake up and say “Let’s go tax the hell out of someone and regulate everything in sight.” When some kid loses an eye on a toy or somebody’s balls are sucked off in a pool drain the free market doesn’t swoop in to make it all better. Indeed the Bush administration proves this; during their tenure toy manufacturers greedily sold our children lead-laced toys, drug companies sent dangerously under-tested drugs through a corrupt FDA to hurt and kill lots of people (think Vioxx) and contaminated produce ends up on our tables. American history clearly shows what deregulating industry does- it hurts the average joe and enriches the elites. Anyone who makes this concept a cornerstone of their governing philosophy must be treated like they are RADIOACTIVE and be quickly and quietly led well away from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
27 users commented in " Ron Paul’s Radical Views "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI’m afraid your article is a disappointing combination of misinformation and misunderstanding. To begin, while on a philosophical level Congressman Paul is indeed a libertarian, it is not appropriate to characterize him by the Libertarian Party’s established views. He has been a Republican in Congress for 10 terms and certainly doesn’t adhere strictly to the Libertarian platform. Further, he recognizes that many people in the country are currently dependent on the government and has no intention of kicking them to the streets.
To be more accurate you might point out that his entire platform is based on the idea that politicians should operate in a manner consistent with what is proscribed by the US Constitution. This is a significant distinction from your claim that he is somehow an extremist.
Additionally, while he is indeed in opposition to foreign interventionism, his reason is simple. It has never worked. It usually consists of arming one side of the fight against the other. It consistently produces the blowback effect.
Also, Ron Paul is not a racist as your comment about the Civil Rights Act would seem to suggest. He simply believes the government should operate within the boundaries of the Constitution, or when it is necessary the constitution should be amended. The example you cite against him would fall under the latter category.
There is plenty more to contend with in your article, but that can be left for others.
“it seems another visit to this deluded Libertarian’s views is in order”
Who is this supposed to be for? Your first sentence immediately alienates any and all of Ron Paul’s supporters. If you are trying to convince people to change their minds about supporting the man, you need to rethink your approach. The people that actually take you seriously enough to get past the first sentence are the choir, and you are the preacher. Who are you trying to convince?
Oh Please just stop the ranting. Why should anyone listen to it? Please try to be calm.
Speak the truth. Speak calmly. And do not extrapolate wildly.
Ron Paul is advocating limited government with a strong decentralized approach like the founders tried to set up by leaving a lot for the states to do in governing. That has changed a lot in the last 120 years. The Federal government seems to think it can rule on EVERYTHING. This is not good in Ron Paul’s opinion. The states have a roll and it should be MUCH bigger than the Federal government after the federal government has been substantially cut back to 1995 levels.
Why is this difficult to understand? Why do you like $1.6 trillion being spent for NOTHING in Iraq when we are going broke? Do you actually think the Federal Reserve can raise interest rates enough to control inflation without the interest payments on our $9 trillion national debt going sky high.
Please help me understand why you like the US governmenet like it is.
Who out there runnning for President is proposing anything that is going to make things actually get better? Wishing does not count. What is the plan that will work?
Please contrast it to Ron Paul’s plan.
Thanks.
I’m so tired of hearing this “Ron Paul is a radical” and “Ron Paul is an extremist” and “Ron Paul is a terrorist” BS.
Come on you bozos!! There is nothing radical or extreme or terrorizing about following the US Constitution and promoting individual liberty and limited government. These are the ideals that made America the great nation it is today and these are the ideals that are being subverted by the real terrorists – the people that are in office today.
We are spending trillions on a stupid, warrantless war. A war that BushCo lied us into. And they’re doing it again with Iran. When will you people learn?
Here is the truth:
War is radical. War is extreme. War is terrorism.
Torture is radical. Torture is extreme. Torture is terrorism.
The “Patriot Act” is radical. The “Patriot Act” is extreme.
Ron Paul is about de-centralizing power so that government can not be abused that way it has been for TOO LONG in this country. The US Constitution was designed to protect the people from government abuse of power. However, if the people do not defend the constitution it can not protect the people!
Get a clue people!
Perhaps it’s your views who are extreme. To me, being forced to pay an illegal income tax is extreme. Illegally invading another country is extreme. Having to pau into a Social Security system, when I will get nothing from it in return, is extreme. Throwing a person in prison with AIDS or cancer because they and their doctor have decided that marijuana is the best medicine, is extreme. Someone being arrested because they enjoy smoking pot, when it’s far safer than alcohol is extreme. The list goes on and on. Ron Paul even claims that, while he is an idiologist, he’s also a realist. He’s not going to wipe out SSI, Medicare, and other programs with a snap of the finger. These programs are doomed to fail anyway.
I don’t fault people being ignorant of Paul’s overall ideas. All I can say is that, if you weigh the odds, we’d all be a hell of a lot better off under a Paul Administration, than under any Clinton or Giuliani Administration!
NEWS FLASH! Dr. Ron Paul are revolutionary thats it why the founding fathers had them during a revolution. Read the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights or as Dr. Paul Likes to say “READ THE CONSTITUTION”.
Every thing he says, everything he believes about government comes from this bed rock given to us from our founding fathers. It only went bad when these documents our corporatism, that is were af few business get together with government to cheat everybody else. Now we have discovered the department of education has actually made our children less intelligent, the department of energy has left us with nothing but oil and gas, the military is starting wars not stopping them, the EPA shows business how to avoid the laws, the TFA count find bomb parts in the airports, Home Land Security has done nothing caught no one and onlyT real acomplishment is building a bondoggal department that harases Americans and wants to ID us the owners.
The department of heath has done nothing to make people healthier or live longer. Gee it sounds like Dr. Paul’s crazy ideas of getting rid of theses useless departments department may not have much negative effect. And he want to send the illegal, “Yes I said illegal” Federal Reserve System packing back to Europe where it came from. And last but never the least is the IRS…the good old boys just having some fun boot jacking citizen’s for illegal taxes…Yep I said it again Illegal. There is no law anywhere stating a citizen must pay income tax. Even the code says it is voluntary just in case they get caught, and some one notices they are stealing our money from us.
What really bothers me is that the people that try to discredit Ron Paul never address the issue of why his idea is radical? Why don’t you actually explain why they are so off the mark rather than just list a few things out of context and say see he is crazy for even suggesting getting rid of these things.
So i suppose i will have to do your job for you considering i have researched most of his ideas already and have come to startling conclusions to why he is actually correct.
I will address each iten you listed
1: Non intervention has been done on numerous accounts : Stalin and Pol Pot, we stood by and did nothing about these travesties at all. Does anyone here know that General Pol Pot in Cambodia killed more people than hitler during the holocaust? You can do the research on him for yourself.
2: federal reserve is actually illegal and a violation of our constitution i refer you to article 1 section 8 : CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER : To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; The federal reserve is a private bank not owned or run by our goverment and prints our money without the backing of anything ie; gold or silver and then loans that money they print to us to use with interest where congress has the power to print money and loan it to us INTEREST FREE, yes getting rid of the fed is a great idea.
The IRS : Did you know that not one penny from the taxes collected on your labor pays for anything you or i benefit from? Yes not 1 penny. NOT ROADS, POLICE, SCHOOLS, DEFENSE ETC…. Look it up.
Department of education : When installed in the 70’s the USA has been on a constant decline in education ever since it was founded Canada is rated # 1 to where now the USA is rated 12th so what does the DOE do? Nothing except take billions of dollars from the states then give a portion of it back to the state to educate with.
NATO : Is worthless for it is not actual free trade is nothing more than a venue to allow our jobs to go over seas where people will work for less then send it back to the USA to be sold at a gigher price, it is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, look it up.
You can look up the other departments yourself and will come to the facts of why they should be ended.
Where did you get he is against the seperation of church and state? He has been very clear on this issue by refering to the constitution.
Bill of right Amendment 1 : Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I think that is self explanitory isn’t it?
Universal healthcare : I am not going in to a long case on this for i would waste too much time explaining it so i will give you the short version. The federal goverment needs to stay out of these issues because all they do is create more problems. Ron Paul is a medical doctor and he understands healthcare more than you can.
Civil rights act : I think Ron Paul explained this fine on his own because it is unconstitutional : Ron Paul quote : The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
I would like for you the writer to please take the time to discredit these views i pointed out for a healthy debate.
I would urge all people to do the research before they listen to propaganda that is being fed to us.
I think that DefendTheConstitution’s point is very valid. As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once said the States are the laboratories of democracy. And I would guess based on his states rights approach to gay marriage and abortion, that Ron Paul would support this view as well. Many programs like universal health care are the prerogative of the States. So if Ron Paul wins and you want universal health care, start lobbying your state legislature. If people in Montana want universal health care, and they do it on a state level so be it, it’s their prerogative. Oregon wants physician assisted suicide, Utah wants polygamy, Louisiana wants no drinking age, California wants legalized marijuana, Nevada wants legalized prostitution, and Vermont wants none of those things. Fine by me.
One theory of a small federal government and strong state legislatures is that state governments have a smaller group of constituents and therefore are more responsive to the needs of their constitutions.
to quote your article:
“Having the temerity to post on Ron Paul means one thing: an inevitable viral rush of Paul supporters with snide comments and logically fallacious arguments.”
it’s really hard for the pot to effectively call the kettle black when the kettle has the means to talk back isn’t it makuykoo ?
at least i’ve got the cochones to use my real name.
God bless you.
charles ranalli
Hey everyone. Makuykoo makes good points, I just don’t think that he or she understand the guiding principles of Paul’s political platform. Makuykoo, Ron Paul supporters do tend to get upset when you post negative stuff, but it’s only because there is so much to understand about Paul and the mainstream media doesn’t give him a fair shake.
1. I’ll address some of your points first:
a) Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He is a Libertarian Republican. That means he has a libertarian view on economic matters and a devolutionist view of federal matters. Alan Greenspan is also a Libertarian Republican and he tends to agree with Paul on almost everything.
b) Paul is not opposed to the separation between church and State as it is explicitly described in the Constitution. What that means is that he believes that the state should not mandate religious views or any specific religion. What he *is* opposed to is the state mandating the reverse: namely, the state telling children they cannot pray when they want to.
c) Paul does not oppose international intervention in humanitarian crisises. He opposes unilateral state-sponsored interventions by the federal government. I think Paul would point to the fact that Amnesty International as a private entity does more for the world than America does when it steps into world affairs with guns-a-blazing. For all the orphans of these crisises there are also orphans of servicemembers who died in Iraq, Viet Nam, and our other various other misadventures to liberate the world.
d) He would probably have opposed the Civil rights Act in practice, but not in principle, because it is an example of the Federal Government going beyond the prescription of the Constitution. That said, he usually has alternative ways of achieving the same goals. For instance, he believes the Civil War did not need to be fought because the federal government could have paid the southern states for loss of remuneration to their agricultural industry. It would have cost a lot less in blood and money in the end. Then, there’s also constitutional amendments that would achieve identical goals.
2) You also have to understand that one of the principles of Strict Constitutionalism is that the Constitution can, and should be, amended. Without Strict Constitutionalism people to focus their efforts to achieve things like racial and social equality through a divided legislature, which results in gridlock or waxing and waning of the efficacy. By contrast, the people have the power to give that legislature an unequivocal mandate through the amendment process, which the legislature cannot snub. When the Congress is restrained by a strict-consitutional philosophy, people focus their efforts on permanent reform rather than the temporary whims and wills of pseudo-representaives in Washington. This results in more productivity and less political wrangling. It may also result in less political division and more political parties. But as it stands now, we get no productivity because there is so little effort to deal with problems through the appropriate process. I have no doubt that things like energy policy, social justice, and global warming would be addressed by now if politicians appropriately directed us through the correct channels instead of nodding their heads and making promises they cannot keep.
3) Now you’ve called our arguments logically falacious. I would like to hear a logical explanation as to why. I would be happy to have a polite debate on this on your website or mine.
I also ask you to genuinely compare the whims-and-wills-type front-runners to this sort of policy. Paul’s political philosophy only sounds radical when you haven’t sought to understand the unlying tenets. It also sounds outside the mainstream because mainstream politicians would rather battle, so that they can increase their donations and fill their coffers, rather than be told what to do by an electorate. In that sense, Paul is the champion of the electorate because he believes the Constitution was intended to enumerate and limit the powers, rather than advance, the powers of government. He wants to do what the people have mandated rather than what the politicians have conceded to special interests. It is quite amazing that we have a politician like this, Makuykoo. A politician who cannot be bought or sold is a rare creature, my friend. I think we should capitalize on it.
lol…Honestly where is it that people like you even come from anyway?
I dont know what the correct term is for those who- knowing that they DO NOT support a certain candidate- put on a cape and swoop in to inform all us poor “deluded” supporters of our preferred candidate’s positions, but “incredibly smug” doesnt quite do it.
Really. Its amazing how many goofballs who are just now hearing of Ron Paul in the past couple months are running to their computers to “save us all from ourselves” and report the urgent news that “while you all may like Ron Paul because of his anti-war stance…you all couldnt possibly be aware of his MANY OTHER plans to break with the status quo!” OH NO! lol
First, detractors like you assume right off the bat that everyone is drawn to Ron Paul because of his stance on the Iraq war alone- an erroneous assumption once you consider the simple fact that Ron Paul’s views differ from the other candidates on FAR MORE than simply that one issue, and that anyone who has spent longer than a soundbyte listening to Paul speaking obviously already knows this.
Why would one assume that the average Paul supporter didnt learn about him and his positions from one soundbyte? First because Paul doesnt speak in soundbytes, second because he rarely gets any major media exposure; your average Paul supporter learned about their candidate through independent research.
After already getting off on the wrong foot, you then progress from THAT mistaken assumption to lecture Paul supporters about how “silly” or “crazy” or “unheard of” his policy proposals and ideas supposedly are. But the problem in lecturing people who are already more familiar with something than you are is in that they will know when you are lying or misrepresenting the information, and that you are already preaching to the converted.
Before you counter with some assertion that you are giving this information freely for consideration to those who do not support Paul but potentially could…such a motive doesnt hold water- Paul’s supporters practically have a flag planted in the online news and blogging community, being that this is where they are forced to find news on their candidate, who has been ignored at all costs by the mainstream media. Point being, you know who youre talking to with this stuff, and you know its a majority of Paul supporters.
If, however, you are simply on an honest crusade to dissuade potential voters from making a wrong decision, then I would suggest you take equal time and pains to publish articles which make the following information visible:
– The fact that EVERY other candidate besides Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich (yes, ALL of them) all belong to the private Council on Foreign Relations…an international think tank to which Dick Cheney was a director, whose corporate members include every major news conglomerate in the US, all corporations standing to gain from military-industrial complex advancement, and central bankers from around the world.
– The fact that in 2005 Hillary Clinton threw Senator Robert Byrd (a grand cyclops of the KKK who still sits in the senate) a birthday party in the historic home of FREDRICK DOUGLASS.
– The fact that Mitt Romney belongs to a fundamentally racist religion…and-since you love to throw these words around- therefore subscribes deeply in faith to some of the most “kooky” and “crazy” things I have ever heard; the idea that “Adam and Eve” actually lived in Jackson, MO or that a known paedophile and polygamist received a new set of commandments 100 years ago from God on golden plates that no one ever saw both strike me as LEAPS and BOUNDS more “moonbatty” than anything I have EVER heard Ron Paul say.
– The fact that Rudy Giuliani, running on an image of being “America’s mayor” and the “hero of 911,” receives no support but HARSH CRITICISM from both the FDNY and NYPD (the real heroes that day), who insist he bungled the entire emergency-response aspect by placing the new equipment in one of the towers (which had been previously hit in 93 and an idea everyone in his city government advised strongly against). Not to mention the fact that the “911 hero” ordered the strongly protesting FDNY and NYPD to stop searching for their dead after over $200 million in gold was recovered and had the rest of the 911 remains used to fill potholes in NYC. Watch “the real rudy” (or any of the other MANY videos by FDNY and NYPD members criticizing Giuliani) on youtube if you are unfamiliar with this.
– Newscorp and Rupert Murdoch are currently being sued for over $100million for actively directing top executives and reporters to lie about Giuliani’s association with the increasingly-blatant crook Bernard Kirek, in an effort to keep his campaign from scrutiny.
Sorry if any of that comes as a shock, but what can I say? It just seemed like another visit to these deluded mainstream Republicans and Democrats was in order.
Why is every artical about Ron Paul filled with Lies and bogus truths
Ron Paul supporters continue to be informative always correcting these Liars that call themselves Journalist . I have read well over 100 of these hatchet jobs I feel the evidence is overwhelming that this is an organised attack I have a hard time believeing there is that many misinformed journalist out there . If they really are that sloppy with what they report how can we believe anything they say. Its a sad situation when the news can defame a person wrongfully and there is no legal recourse ..
And out they come like freakin cockroaches when you turn on the light.
Ron Paul is the light, and you, my statist friend, are the cockroach, scurrying this way and that with your silly rhetorical games that do not even rise to the level of actual “arguments.”
Your logic is like drool coming from a dogs mouth. I don’t really want to touch it, but I feel compelled to just clean it up a little.
1. “Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted by the vast majority”
So the above quote is the work of the great anti-libertarian Mike Huben? Too bad it is a stupid, self-contradictory statement. The contradiction is a crucial one with huge implications. One cannot say that libertarian beliefs are not accepted by the vast majority if one is also at the same time saying that the vast majority doesn’t even know about those beliefs. How can people be against something if they don’t even know about it?
Aha, there’s the rub; when libertarianism is properly explained, people do accept it, because it’s simply common sense. The growth of the Paul campaign is certainly consistent with this assertion, as Paul is a very good explainer and thinking people with open minds don’t take long to figure out that he’s telling the truth.
2. “America laws were written and governmental bodies were formed, for the most part, to address real situations, not to slowly steal away the rights of citizens.”
Um, ok, so you say, but that isn’t how the founders felt about it. In fact, James Madison actually said, “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
— James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788″
Now we get to the heart of the matter – liberals don’t think much of the Founders, so they despise Ron Paul for being a Constitutionalist. To me, it’s simply a credibility issue. I think the Founders have a lot more knowledge and credibility as judges of human nature and human interaction than the modern statists who defame them.
3. “Government has a purpose. The different branches of our current system evolved to take care of problems that popped up organically over the lifetime of our country. People don’t just wake up and say “Let’s go tax the hell out of someone and regulate everything in sight.”
The above is a rare combination of ignorance, statism, and exaggeration. It’s ignorant because the founders already told us what the purpose of government is in the Declaration of Independence, and it ain’t to solve problems. No. governments are instituted among men to secure the rights of the governed.
Trying to solve every problem in human existence conflicts with securing our unalienable rights.
It’s exaggeration because of course people don’t think their new tax and regulatory proposals amount to taxing the hell out of anyone or regulating “everything in sight.” As Madison pointed out over two hundred years ago, but you apparently didn’t get the memo, it’s a gradual process. Not to mention something else: look out your window and tell me what you see (everything in sight) – every f@#$%ng thing you will set your eyes on, whether it be land, cars, trees, your fence, whatever…odds are it is regulated in one way or another. The point is that with statism, over time, even without people waking up in the morning and wanting to regulate everything in sight, it happens anyway. So there.
You’re a statist because you’re addicted to government and hate those who oppose it – that is clear from your silly attacks on libertarianism, which is nothing less than the founding political values of our country, and from your attempts to smear Ron Paul by calling him an extremist.
In one sense, I guess you’re right about Ron Paul and libertarianism being extreme – freedom and people like Dr. Paul who espouse it are extremely good. After all, moderation in the pursuit of liberty is no virtue, and so-called “moderates” like you are destroying America. You are not part of the solution – you are part of the problem.
It seems some people need a History lesson on what America is suppose to be about.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&q=overview+of+america+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=81&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
“Ron Paul adamantly opposes U.S. participation in in international organizations such as NATO and the United Nations. He also opposes any international intervention, even for genocide in Darfur or Rwanda (”You don’t get involved, but you can make a moral statement.” Tell that to the orphans of Rwanda or Darfur!)”
He opposes those organizations because they are pathways to war. The reasoning for the war in Iraq is that were there to enforce UN resolutions. Last I checked, our counstitution only allows us to go to war via a declaration from Congress. With NATO and the UN, the United States is required to go to war for another countries interests, not ours. It’s impossible to deny that the cause of World War I was the patchwork puzzle of alliances that Europe had. Our intervention has a bad history of blowing up in our faces. World War II would not have been possible if not for World War I. The current regime in Iran would not have been possible if not for interference in that country decade ago. Genocide and mass killing is horrible. No one argues against that, but as a US citizen, living and working in the US, what happens in other countries is not my business. The US has a history of destroying countries to save them. Just ask Vietnam, Korea, Guatamala, Arganistan, and the former Yugoslavia. Darfur is a tragedy but it’s not the US government’s problem and it’s not the US Army’s problem. Are you going to tell a child whose father is a marine that his daddy has to die for a country that’s not his?
“He wants to abolish the IRS, Federal Reserve, the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security, and the FBI.”
These are the very instruments that cause us problems. The IRS is unnecessary if we simply brought spending back to 2000 levels. It is a doorway to help government get into stupid overseas wars like the one in Iraq. The Dept of Education is bad as it is unncessary. Education is a state function, not federal. As it stands now, it is a huge beauracracy that wastes money and our schools are worse off for it. Homeland Security is also a waste. This is the same organization that spies on Americans without court order, causes delay after delay at airports for stupid searches of toothpaste and left New Orleans in shambles. We wouldn’t need a Homeland Security if we weren’t bombing other countries and using the CIA to torture and overthrow governments. The Dept of Energy is why energy is so expensive and why we’re dependent on foreign oil. The Federal Reserve is the reason why our dollar loses value every year. The current housing market collapse is because of interest rate tampering and the money supply increase. The FBI is a national police force and his argument against it is that it gives unnecessary power to the federal government. Considering the past 7 years, do you really want the federal government to have more power? The more power concentrated, the greater the odds it will be abused.
“He opposes the separation of church and state.”
No, he does not. You obviously didn’t understand what he was saying. He was saying that some secularists were using government to stifle religion and as a religious person, he wants that to stop. I’m not religious at all and I agree with him.
“He opposes universal health care.”
What he opposes is communism and socialism, what universal health care really is. Universal health care is too expensive and will not work. The people pushing this are either doing it to garner votes or they really don’t understand how destructive it is. They are pushing this because of the belief that health care is currently too expensive. There are 3 reasons why health care is so expensive. The FDA for creating a huge bureacracy that makes new drugs more expensive. The AMA for limiting the number of doctors and lobbying for stricter license laws, which drive up costs greatly. And the HMO legislation from the 1970’s, which benefit the corporations. The current system gives people little choice for alternative care. It marginalizes new treatments and innovations. It protects the large coporations from smaller companies by limiting the amount of competition.
“He is opposed the adoption of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, landmark legislation that outlawed segregation.”
Actually if you read what he said about that, he said he was against it because it treated one group different from another– Which is what the constitution argued against. People should be treated the same. It said that all people have the same rights. When you started treating people as groups instead of individuals, you lose liberty. And that’s what he was against. What that legislation did was create manditory minimums and quotas for race. He asks the very important question, why discriminate to end discrimination?
I would ask that you really research what he’s saying because you’re mis-characterizing what he’s stands for but I think you will probably only look at the surface, like too many talking heads of Fox News have done. They don’t look at the philosophy, the logic, the understanding.
The bottom line is that Ron Paul is the most honest and consistent man in the current presidential race. Even if you don’t agree with him on everything, which I do not– You always know where you stand with him. You can’t say that with Giuliani, with Romney, with Clinton, with Obama.
Anybody interested in a man of integrity, really do the research on Ron Paul. You cannot reduce some of his philosophy and positions to a 10 second soundbite. So I say: Take hours, take days, take weeks. Research him, listen to him, read his books, his essays. I did. I have spent a lot of time researching Ron Paul. I didn’t always agree wtih him, but I came away with something very important. Ron Paul is a man that is consistent and honest, he never played politics, never traded away votes, never left himself be influenced by lobbyists. He is the best candidate running. Give him a second look.
Thanks
I’ll take this radical any day over what others we are offered.
Like communism? Vote Hillary.
Like facism? Vote Giuliani.
Like Freedom? Vote Paul!
FREEDOM IS NEVER EXTREME
You know, speaking about extreme – lots of people think that letting people carry weapons on planes is extreme. Yet, the moderate, common-sense policy of disarming airline passengers failed dismally. Why? Because it wasn’t extreme enough. So, again, when it comes to freedom, sometimes you actually need “extreme” freedom. Anything less can be mighty unsafe, and lead to a whole lot of other problems.
Boy the Neocon Left and Right is sure pissin in there boots! Go lick the boot of Rudy the turd! The draft dodgin left and right can’t stand this man! I love it! You’re bullshit just keeps rollin off and Ron Paul keeps marchin on! Nothing but lies at the Bloggers News Network! Neoturds!
Well, many of us have been at these point-by-point debates for months, but I don’t see any real argumentation on the key question: what kind of a president would be best for the country? Let’s not even discuss who the candidate is, for a moment.
To begin, many Americans are, and have been, suffering from a long list of syndromes for at least two decades: social and political polarization, a dysfunctional news media, devaluation of the dollar (and inflation, regardless of the government statistics), war hysteria (thanks to Bush and Clinton), totally dysfunctional foreign policy (unless one is a nihilist or an aspiring emperor, and this includes Clinton and both Bushes), a growing and malignant socialistic state (with emphasis on corruption versus social reform), a loss of national pride and national identity, a growing disgust with government, a health care problem, a massive immigration problem, and many more things that are important but too long to list.
At this point, one can logically deduce that things are amiss, in a radical way. A nation with such military and “economic” might (as we have been led to believe) should not be facing such resistance in Iraq or scrambling for dollars from China. Even a rational idiot could conclude that America is high on expectation and low on delivery. We Americans have been deluded, lied to, misinformed, and manipulated in a radical way. And that is not changing–we watch the debates, and get heaps of manure, not arguments. So all the debating points are fine about candidates’ positions, but do these points really matter? Bush, Clinton, what’s the difference?
Look at the debates honestly and note that there’s not much difference between anyone in the “mainstream.” You get to pick between “war” and “a little less war,” more empire and a little less empire, an immigration fence or an immigration ID card, more intervention or a little less intervention, a Blackwater in Iraq or a Blackwater in the US, and on and on.
Folks, the game is up. This two-party system is failed, period. The two parties have merged into a super-party that is beholden to three things: interventionist-globalism at any cost because we cannot afford the tragic economic policies otherwise, economic interventionism everywhere on the planet to preserve the empire, and creation of a social-welfare state that may not be solvent but keeps the people dependent. The reasons are diverse: some “leaders” do want a new world order, globalist government, while others are so “out of phase” with technology that they do not know how the US can compete with anyone if we don’t own the oil cartel. And others, probably most, are simply worried about hanging on to their cushy jobs and elite positions of authority (and readily bribed by any corporate donations).
So, as I listen to the “liberals” worried about health care, I laugh because the money doesn’t exist–what’s left is being drained by the costs of Empire and America’s inability to perform competitively on the world market (a function of bad, centralized planning and lack of acceptance of market realities). And, as I listen to the phony “conservatives,” who see a radical Arab on every doorstep, I laugh–because many of the radicals are disaffected and downtrodden people who don’t want a Walmart on every street corner, anymore than most Americans don’t want a madrassa on their street corner.
It’s a funny thing that the “war on terror” emerged years before Bush’s election, when the neocons (it’s a bad term: both “liberals” and “conservatives” are neocons) started worrying about their grip on power. They were concocting strategies to conquer the world and “rule over” the people years before Bush. Were they worried about terrorism? Yes, the terror that can be applied from the voice of democracy and freelancing technology. Google, the Internet, free speech, the Constitution, the rule of law–all of these things erode their elitist powers and make these supreme mortals less relevant and more accountable to reality. Additionally, the spoon-fed elites don’t want to work for a living–so they have to continue their imperial rule over the subjects in a way that insures most people are making next to nothing while they make all the decisions and scoop in all the money. They are elitist snobs, failed intellectuals, idealistic fools, that’s all. And their empire is eroding.
The elitists among us are the ones being pushed for the presidency. They are the “frontrunners,” the ones with gobs of media attention and tons of campaign cash. They won’t change a damned thing. They don’t care about the country–they look for Empire. They rule over subjects.
So, to answer the question, what kind of President would be best for the country? The one that can kick over as many chairs as possible, butt heads with the establishment, and reverse course on the tragic insanity that is gripping this dying nation. He/she would be someone who is honest, not afraid to voice an opinion, work without a script, eliminate the Empire dreams, and help usher in a new way of looking at economics. He/she would not be a plastic, unreal, technologically-challenged candidate. He/she would have to be pushing for a massive change in this country–a change that would benefit many of us, and incur damage to the select few who rule by order of privilege, not competence.
This is a hilarious attempt for an attention grab. Ron Paul is a man of integrity and principle. Something no other Republican candidate can claim this election cycle. And that’s precisely why he will win.
Let’s be the Republicans who bring back the GOP to its conservative platform. RP08.
Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.
by Ron Paul, Dr. February 7, 2005
“…man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
Ronald Reagan
We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.
George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?
A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.
Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.
Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.
The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive– and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.
The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state– but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.
Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.
Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.
I always find it amusing how many of the Paulbots can’t spell!
Scott HArman You are a Wise Wise Man I wish what you just said was shouted from every hose top in the US
Mike, I too once considered myself a progressive democrat. At 53, and looking back on my lifelong interest in sociology and politics, I keenly remember the assassinations and the wars fought in the 60s, the overthrow of democratically-elected foreign governments opposed to American-style capitalism and foreign policy, and the rage I felt towards a rigged system manipulated by elitists – whether they be intellectual, bureaucratic or financial.
I wondered why I was always trying to fit in; and felt alienated and so much the outsider wherever I tried to establish myself.
When I would try to peaceably assert my independence I was shot down by those defenders of the status quo pleased with the authoritarian order of things as they existed.
And I thought to myself, “Either I’m deluded, or damn near everyone else is deluded.”
But one thing was clear: Whichever the prevailing wind was to blow, I constantly demanded the right to go with it… or go against… however I saw fit. I understood that I was consciously ruled by recurring emotion and supposed reason – for me, this was as intuitively acceptable… and as naturally ordered… as could be expected from this life.
I craved love; and hated rejection – but I disdained coercion by others… if it didn’t please me… even more.
I understood “I” was completely made up. So I sought sustainability and cooperation, a peaceful co-existence of sorts – wherever I could find it – only this, in spite of myself… and the peccadilloes… of others.
For whatever it’s worth to you… I voted for Gore and Kerry… in 2000 and 2004, respectively. Whereas before, I always seemed to be demanding justice in a progressive democratic society, today I have come to realize that only a strict constitutional republicanism can bring this vision to fruition.
Today, I actively – and enthusiastically – support Ron Paul. Not only will I vote for him, but I thank my lucky stars every day I picked up a copy of the Constitution and re-read it. I keep a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution and an old dictionary by my side… as my newest constant companions… whenever I labor to expand my horizons.
I’m also amazed and profoundly delighted a candidate like Dr. Paul has even entered onto the world’s center-stage!
Other commentators have challenged your assertions about him. But I’ll leave you to ponder the implications of something called communitarian law, which has arisen from so-called communitarianism. [Google it]
Ask yourself if you ultimately buy into this societal view. Are you a free man or simply a consumer? Are you the master of your fate; or are you a slave to the whims of others? Do you believe there is virtue in self-reliance? How would you define true liberty and justice for all? Have you ever pondered the infinite meanings of words like economy and freedom… in their entirety?
I highly respect your notion of yourself as a do-gooder, Mike. I fancy myself as being one too. And most progressives hold that democracy works best to bring the most goodness about in the world.
For people like us, our aspirations are as bright as the noonday sun; and as right as rain. We want the world and society as a whole to adhere to a common standard of decency… and of righteousness – which can only happen by adopting a certain sense of noblesse oblige… naturally…for good and honorable purposes, of course.
We’ll fantasize and forever cling to these Utopian dreams throughout eternity.
But for me to also believe in the goodness of sustainability and cooperation I have learned to respect the equally honorable intentions… of those guided by lights… which are very different… but no less noble than my own.
Though I’m no religionist, I remain religious about my fondness for the Golden Rule.
Now today I’m contentedly futilitarian… and anti-communitarian… in whatever truths I still do hold… to be trustworthy. [Google the Wikipedia entries]
Most every assumption generally excludes some useful aspects of human knowledge – ill-considered, or not properly considered at all – within natural, universal, scientific, and, yes, even some… man-made laws. Yet, often these are just mere conjectures… arising from ignorance – whether willful or not.
Likewise, most all beliefs… are borne from fear… and nominally, of the great unknown.
So if the truth be honestly known, language itself can be construed as a kind of tyranny-of-words, wouldn’t you think? And this assertion only supports what Dr. Paul himself has stated when he says there’s no such thing as perfect knowledge.
The founders of this nation-state called America didn’t create the perfect set of documents to mandate fairness. But governmental authority conferred to too many people making too many decisions for how you and I should conduct our affairs is definitely not what they had in mind… either.
At the heart of the matter, we must all consider what promotes the greatest amount of virtuous reward for our activities… enables the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of individuals amongst us… and does so with the least amount of coercive government rule.
This 2008 presidential election promises to be THE watershed event of our lifetime. And it has much to do with crushing oppression wherever it exists on our soil, and our ability to deal with the inevitability of a worthless currency collapse… and a disintegrating economy… in our own backyard.
Therefore, Mike, let’s first determine if we want real change to occur in this country. Secondly, let’s determine if we want to scrap our Constitution altogether… and forever allow… a relative handful of smug elitists… to be the deciders for our futures, or not.
Unfortunately, I respectfully submit, this time around… our choices… are just this stark.
“Never before attempted on Earth”?? What?! It was attempted by our Founding Fathers. It’s worked out pretty well, but has strayed a bit. Now it’s time to reign the government back in. It’s time for some housekeeping.
“It seems Libertarians forgot the days of the robber barons, the Vanderbilts, Carnegies, Morgans, and Harrimans.”
HA! No, actually it is the Libertarians that have been shouting these names for decades and warning of what was coming. It is people like the writers of this sh^tty blog that laughed and pretended these people were simply trying to make the world a better place with their tax free foundations.
Get a clue…
Sir:
Your arguments were very interesting, although I would like to mention that a truly reasoned dialogue might do best to stay away from value-laden descriptors (e.g. crazy, radical, etc.), which are terms not backed by any known standard (like gold for currency, for instance?). Below are several thoughts I had in response to your statements in their order of occurrence.
The first is that utopias are ideals, dreams, and visions that have driven humans throughout history. They are never achieved but it is the process of striving for them that makes life worthwhile. Without them, life would be quite meaningless. If anyone has any grand vision about how government ought to be reformed, it is a utopia. I wonder then, how it can be claimed that the ‘vision’ of the current administration for a free Iraq is not a utopia?
Second, in analyzing your cited bedrock libertarian principle, you assume only two alternatives – government or no government. This is a false dichotomy since clearly there can be more or less government. The libertarian view is less government, not its complete abolition (the position of the anarchist). You also seem to conflate two uses of the word spontaneous, one in describing the initial generation of a government and the second in describing its subsequent maintenance/preservation. The libertarian strives to maintain the spirit underlying the original spontaneous generation of government, by keeping the power of the central government consistently in check.
Thirdly, all of Paul’s supposedly “radical” positions, which you have framed as anti-(name issue), can also be restated as pro-(name issue) positions which follow logically from a philosophy of small (central) government grounded in the US constitution. Paul is pro-bilateral trade, championing the freedom of individual states within the global community in the same spirit that he champions freedom of individuals (within the United States) to conduct business with one another without interference from centralized government. Paul is pro-individual liberty; the organizations you refer to all contribute to the health and strength of the state, which inevitably diminishes individual liberty. For instance, by withholding income tax the IRS tacitly assumes that the individual’s wages are the property of the state, and the Federal Reserve, through its ability to create credit autonomously, funds the economy at will with the result that wealth is redistributed. Therefore, both organizations empower the state and its financial backers at the expense of the individuals’ economic freedom. Similar arguments can be made for the Dept. of Education, the DHS, and the FBI. The issue of separation of Church and State has become a huge problem only because the central government has become so powerful, and can only be resolved by Paul’s limited government approach. With respect to health care, again Paul’s philosophy is to keep it decentralized, relying on solutions at the state and local level. And consistent with all of his other positions on social policy, Paul opposed the CRA on the principle of limited centralized government, regardless of its potential merits (see Glen Greenwald for an extensive discussion on this matter). Finally it should be emphasized that Paul is also a realist, as he has repeatedly admitted that these are only his ideals. He has pledged to work with congress to reach consensus on these issues.
With respect to your point about whether Libertarians have forgotten about robber barons, I think the key difference is that we now have a mechanism by which a truly free-market can operate: the internet. As is clear from the plethora of product rating sites, rumor gets around about products in an instant nowadays. This alone requires businesses to operate as honestly as possible. Much as it has served as a great equalizer for Ron Paul’s campaign, the internet is therefore a great equalizer that can protect the working class. With such a mechanism in place, it is no longer a given that deregulation of industry in the future will necessarily hurt the working class (I was not sure why you claimed that this would at the same time enrich the elites). The incomparably greater threat that hurts the working class at the expense of those in industries that have government access is the redistribution of wealth caused by the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.
Finally, it is worth commenting on ways in which a more decentralized form of government may be better than a highly centralized one. As an analogy, it is widely accepted in the fields of neuroscience and artificial intelligence that distributed systems are smarter, more flexible, and less prone to damage than highly centralized ones. (That is, distributed systems limit damage by not placing too many eggs in one basket.) Consistent with such a view, the brain is considered a collection of many subsystems that are loosely coordinated by a central executive. Too much centralized control and problems arise. For example, everyone may have experienced a time when thinking too much about a well-practiced skill led to its paradoxical impairment. For the baseball player whose throwing has become an issue, the more he thinks about it the worse it gets (that is, it gets to his head). Excessive cerebralization can thus prevent spontaneous flow. In my mind, this seems similar to the current relation between centralized government control and individual freedom.
Leave A Reply