|—||Ron Paul (via reallyronreally)|
I’ve seen a disconcerting surge of Ron Paul support amongst the Left on tumblr of late, and, though I do understand how, at times, Ron Paul takes some great stances no one else is willing to take, and, by the very fact of being such an idiosyncrasy, he appeals to the general distaste for…
pretty much these
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says “If you have the inconsistency then you’re not defending liberty.” Paul has always been inconsistent. This inconsistency was noted by conservative commentator Mark Levin who says “Paul is poison. Hate America first crowd.”
A major reason is because the Texan…
ABSOLUTELY FUCKING PRICELESS
GREGORY HILTON, WHOEVER THE FUCK YOU ARE
LET ME KISS YOUR FEET
Stay smart, America. This is a piece from someone who is not a big Ron Paul fan, but it is good reading on what to think about as we wrestle with health care issues. Read the full article HERE and think.
GOP presidential candidate, Ron Paul, believes that government must get out of the…
I read this and thought of it as a common-sense article. Because it’s common sense.
I dreamed my cat was sick and the only veterinarian in town was Ron Paul and I didn’t have my proof of pet insurance card. It was awful.”
~ Jay Leno
I use to call myself a libertarian. You know, back when I also thought that word “atheist” actually meant you had no belief. How times (and my maturity) have changed. As I began to age, read, travel, learn and understand more and more about the world we live in and the animal species we call…
REBLOG SO HARD
I still can’t believe Ron Paul didn’t win Best Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series.
So I came across this post by jeffrotheman on the Ron Paul tag feed.
Libertarianism > Ron Paul
Ron Paul. Fuck if I’m not sick of hearing his name. He’s currently seeking the Republican nomination for president, as the ‘libertarian’ candidate.
As a self-described libertarian, I’ll say this: Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian.
Let’s start at the beginning. What is a libertarian? Given the root word of ‘liberty’ it can be easily defined as a person who believes in liberty, in freedom. In America, it generally refers specifically to fiscal conservatives who advocate liberal positions on social issues. Pro-gay marriage, anti-drug war, anti-imperialism, etc. etc.
On this base definition, Ron Paul seems to fit pretty neatly into the ‘libertarian’ mold. But we need to get more specific to show why Ron Paul is NOT a libertarian.
The philosophy behind libertarianism, most commonly attributed to Ayn Rand, but originally conceived of by John Locke, starts at self-ownership, or the sovereignty of the individual. We are capable of making rational decisions, and employing our bodies to complex ends. Because of this, immorality is construed (generally) as depriving an individual of their self-ownership, and the libertarian will use this to argue against forced taxation, for example. The idea of self-ownership lends itself to the idea of individual rights- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, without forcefully depriving anyone else of these same rights.
Still, Ron Paul seems to fit into this category of ‘libertarian.’ But dig just a little deeper and you see where he goes wrong. Let’s get into some things that Ron Paul believes, and I’ll show you why they aren’t libertarian positions.
Church and State
“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.” (1)
Well, the first sentence is debunked explicitly by Thomas Jefferson in his letters. “There is a wall of separation between church and state.” (2) Also, “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”(3)
Regardless of what the Founders or the Constitution says, there are other reasons to advocate keeping religion out of government. Thomas Jefferson’s lament that ‘[the priest] is always in alliance with the despot’ has been shown historically. In World War II, the Vatican pursued neutrality with regards to Hitler’s anti-Semitic genocide. (4) Furthermore, insofar as a government is supposed to represent its constituents, it can’t endorse one religion over another. Even in the most radical of radical Muslim countries, they have their closet Christians, and closet atheists. No one admits to it, because they’re murdered if they do, but they exist. A government that is openly Christian flies in the face of the Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, Pagans, Taoists, or any other religion out there. Even further down this line of argument, what denomination is the government advocating (assuming its hypothetical endorsement of Christianity)? Whichever one it picks, it alienates all the others. Ergo, government and religion should not be mixed. Rather, any religious activities ought to be left completely up to the individual, and not meddled with or endorsed by government.
When Ron Paul is asked about his position on gay marriage, it’s usually enough to sate the pro-gay marriage crowd, although in reality, his beliefs on the subject are just as homophobic as any other Republican’s, just in a different paradigm. Before the House of Representatives in 2004, he said
“Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended” (5)
In other words, he believes that the federal courts shouldn’t define marriage at all. Fair enough. However, his position allows for the states to define marriage. In other words, if Texas wants to hate fags, Texas should be allowed. But what about the gay people who live in Texas? Unless Texas is going to pay the costs for a gay couple to move, and ensure that they have somewhere to go, this would just flat out be wrong. Obviously, they’d be free to leave Texas, but it’s not that easy. Moving costs money, and it might be money that they might not have. Tough luck for them, Mr. Paul?
Also, he has defended Clinton’s homophobic ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ He said,
“I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality. It’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.”
The current policy at the time, DADT, was not a decent policy. All it did was repress homosexuals. And in fact, the ‘don’t ask’ portion was ignored more than once, leading to it being re-dubbed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, don’t harass.’ (6) The rest of the quote is valid, I think, although Paul and I would probably disagree on what constitutes ‘disruptive’ behavior. Keep the latter half in mind, though, for later, the bit about getting our rights ‘as individuals.’
Let’s be fair, though. Before digging down myself, I would bring up Ron Paul’s vote to ‘support a ban on gay adoption.’ (7) This infuriated me when I saw it? Ron Paul voted to keep gays from adopting? The homophobic fuck! But in reality, what he voted for was to prohibit federal funding for gay adoption, which is in line with his beliefs. (8) So this is an unfair criticism of his position on gay rights. However, this is important to note for our next topic, abortion.
Alright, abortion’s a sensitive topic even among libertarians. I personally am pro-choice prior to the point where the baby can survive on its own, which, in my (admittedly not thorough) understanding is at the start of the third trimester. I would allow for exceptions when the mother’s life is in endangered, and when the woman can prove she was raped. However, Ron Paul isn’t so forgiving.
“On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.
I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement — that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!” (9) So he defines life at conception, despite the fact that the biological definition of life doesn’t agree with that. (10)
But fine, let’s say that life begins at conception, and all abortion is wrong. What course of action should a mother follow if they don’t want their unborn child? The answer most pro-life people give is adoption. However, there are already hundreds of thousands of children awaiting adoption. (11) Adoption isn’t viable. So the parent ought to raise the child, right? If I have a kid I don’t want, do youreally think I’m going to take excellent care of that child? The logic doesn’t flow there. If I’m being forced to bear the burden of a child I don’t want, doesn’t it only make sense that I should receive financial aid? As a libertarian, I don’t advocate increasing financial aids for situations like that right now; we can’t afford it. Should there come a time when our debt and deficits aren’t ridiculously out of hand, we can consider things like that. But right now, we can’t consider increasing spending. Ron Paul’s position necessitates that as a moral obligation.
He doesn’t even allow for exceptions for rape and the endangerment of the mothers’ life. He says simply, “any argument for all abortion endorses the principle that you can take that life…” (12)
This is Paul’s big thing. The federal government should leave the states alone, and let the states do as they please. On the surface, this sounds great. If California wants to legalize pot, let them. If Nevada wants legal prostitution, let them.
Let’s look at the flipside of that. If Texas wants to outlaw sodomy and jail homosexuals, let them. If Alabama wants to put potheads in jail, let them. If California wants to take your guns away, let them.
And this is where Ron Paul goes horribly wrong in his positions. While for certain issues, especially the legalization of marijuana, starting at the state level is the only effective strategy, the fundamental question is this; who has rights? The states, or the individuals? Let’s ask Ron Paul; returning to his defense of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, he said
“And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way… It’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights.”
We get our rights as individuals, says Paul. So why, then, is it acceptable for Texas to ban gay marriage? Or to bring a case to the Supreme Court saying that you can’t burn the US flag as an act of symbolic speech? Why is it wrong for the federal government to infringe on our rights, but not for the states? In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that at least the First Amendment is notsubject to individual state subversion, in Gitlow V. New York. (13)
It is just as wrong for Texas to infringe on your rights as it is for the federal government. There is no difference between the two; both are cases of a government depriving an individual of their rights. And you can bet your ass that Paul would, in an instant, vote to keep gay marriage illegal in Texas.
In summary, Ron Paul is just a conservative who strays a little from the path. He gets foreign policy right, he criticizes the war on drugs right, and his economics are mostly sound. Short of that, he’s still a homophobe, his stance on abortion is absurd, he’s in favor of mixing the church and the government, and most importantly, he advocates a states’ right to infringe on an individual’s rights.
— Republican presidential candidate RON PAUL, answering a hypothetical question: how would a person who requires medical care and cannot afford health insurance receive the care he needs?
And he’s a physician. Do no harm, doctor? You asshole.
I’m glad he said it out loud at least. If we can’t take care of everybody then some people are just going to die for lack of money and Ron Paul says “Oh well!”
Ron Paul, commenting on his promise to ban all federal funding of Planned Parenthood if he is elected President.
What Paul failed to mention is that Congress already prohibits Planned Parenthood from using federal funding to provide abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. Rep. Paul’s bill would strip Planned Parenthood of all federal funding in an effort to prevent taxpayers from paying for a service which they already don’t pay for.
Cool! I would like to invoke the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act to cut off all taxpayer funding of killing brown people for oil. And ignorance-only education. And Mike Pence’s salary. kthx
Reblogging for the next time some libertarian doofus asks me why I don’t like Ron Paul.
Amidst all the complaints that Ron Paul isn’t getting enough attention from the media — or, at least, the attention he deserves — Matthew Yglesias decided to give Paul’s ideas some careful attention. Here’s what I assume is the opening salvo:
After looking at his positions and statements, the most remarkable thing is that if it weren’t for his loud fanbase of self-proclaimed libertarians you wouldn’t really think this is the platform of a libertarian. He’s loudly trumpeting his plan to impose criminal penalties on women who terminate their pregnancies and he makes it clear that his interest in freedom doesn’t extend to the freedom of anyone unfortunate enough to have been born in a foreign country. His campaign slogan of “RESTORE AMERICA NOW” is strongly suggestive of conservative impulses and nostalgia for the much-less-free America John Boehner grew up in. The mainstay of his economic thinking is the ridiculous proposition that “[t]here is no greater threat to the security and prosperity of the United States today than the out-of-control, secretive Federal Reserve.” Not only is Paul’s goldbuggery nutty on the merits, like his affection for forced pregnancy and severe restrictions on human freedom of movement it’s difficult to see what it has to do with freedom. The freedom of the government to set a fixed dollar price of gold? America’s current monetary policy—a fiat currency that’s freely exchangeable for other currencies and commodities—is the free market position.
There’s more at the link. Enjoy.
This this this this this THIS.
And he wonders why people think Ron Paul supporters are wackos.
Hey, stereotypes exist for a reason.
Rick Santorum, taking another broad swipe at Ron Paul. (via shortformblog)
The GOP can’t play nice within their own party; I’m not sure why we ever thought they might possibly be capable of legislating with people from another one.