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 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.
http://indigentahole.blogspot.com
Mike Kuykendall is a progressive, patriotic veteran of the U.S. Air Force, fighting hard to save our democracy.
In trying to understand Ron Paul's support the only logical explanation is that most of his passionate supporters are running away from our corrupt, eveil and dishonest two-party system. Disgust and anger drives them to Paul. But they really do not understand that his policy beliefs are quite ludicrous. Of course, exactly the political system that drives people to Paul will never, ever make him a nominee of the Republicrooks. The big question is: what will Paul do and say when he does not get the nomination....
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (113 articles, 20 quicklinks, 46 diaries, 428 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 9:50:59 AM
Please note that when Ron Paul is asked about his more radical views, he consistently admits he would have to work with Congress to get any movement in those areas. Ron Paul would reduce the recently expanded power of the Executive Branch and make Congress go back to work.
You say radical views, I say we have a voting public, a democracy, a Congress and a Constitution which will temper what he proposes.He has been in Washington for ten congressional terms, and he has not lost his integrity, or his honesty.His positions on the issues have not changed, he owes special interests nothing. Given the alternatives, I'm voting for Ron Paul.
by
David Martin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 10:44:46 AM
Really. We're picking a President here- your argument is, "he has some good views mixed in with a lot of bad ones, but hey, at least it will be a Democratic Congress."
Why accept less than the best? Why not get the whole, progressive package with one of the Dems? They'll have the samer good ideas and far fewer extremes. Hell, Kucinich couldn't get elected if he was the only one running, but I vastly prefer his views to a guy who wants to abolish a huge chunk of our national security apparatus right when we need it most.
by
Mike Kuykendall (30 articles, 53 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 80 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 2:47:50 PM
You count Clinton or Obama as the best? If they are the best, then I'd hate to see the worst. No question about it, I'm going with Ron Paul. Abolish the Federal Reserve? Fine with me. Get out of Iraq? Okay by me also. Get someone who has at least been honest and straightforward in his tenure? What a breath of fresh air that would be!
by
Barbara Peterson (46 articles, 75 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 407 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 7:40:58 PM
I believe that Paul's inate honesty is seductive, especially in this era of dishonest politicians and abysmal leadership. The very worst thing about non Libertarians support for Paul is that they fail to do their homework.
If you agree to do away with all social safety nets, to abandon the poor, the powerless, the children, then vote for Libertarian principles. If you like rampant capitalism and expect that, in the absence of welfare and govt run social security there will be a miraculous surge of compassion from our Boards of Directors, that our corporations will spread largesse to cover the absence of those social safety nets that Paul abhors, then by all means vote for him.
Please do not become a single issue voter, please recognise that we have a lot of reforming to do but throwing away the bedrock principles that made this nation great is far from the answer to our current plight.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 8:21:39 AM
Well put, Ardee. I frequently ask why anyone would think the richest in our society, the ones more likely to be a tad greedy, would for some reason have compassion after years of busting their asses to acquire wealth and power and just trickle it down to someone underprivileged.
Our history shows us what happens when the fatcats have their way absent governmental controls of any kind- take a look at the Bush administration and you're pretty close to an unregulated chaotic market that does not promote the safety of the people (can you say Vioxx? How about Escherichia coli?)
by
Mike Kuykendall (30 articles, 53 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 80 comments)
on Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 11:38:44 AM
If you want to abolish the Federal Reserve, how would you propose to exercise control over national markets to avoid another Black Tuesday? We learned then that the Fed could have manipulated interest and currency and possibly headed off the Great Depression, or at least lessened the blow to a recession.
Look at the way central banks all over the world injected liquidity into the mortgage markets to keep the housing bubble from crashing economies worldwide. Without a "handle" on the situation things would be FAR worse.
by
Mike Kuykendall (30 articles, 53 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 80 comments)
on Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 11:34:55 AM
These Paul suporters simply havent done the hard work necesary to accurately assess a candidates worth. This is unfortunately a rampant symptom of todays political climate. That poster may very well be a well meaning and principled American but she is simply too lazy to do the work necesary to an understanding of what it is she supports.
These folks post undying love for Paul and then, when those nasty little facts are presented, run away....what a system!
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, November 23, 2007 at 9:12:23 AM
"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."
what?! former bush supporters?? i have no idea where you found information to base this opinion on. There is no one who voted for bush in 04 that now supports paul, absolutely no one. I also don't quite understand certain points of your article, such as making it seem like a negative that he wants to abolish the dept. of education, the federal reserve, and the cia.
let's start with the fed. reserve-
even alan greenspan concedes that he's not even sure we should have one. the fed is an utterly horrendous organization that literally steals from the poor by devaluing the currency and causes all inflation and economic bubbles. The rich get their hands on the new money first while it has full value, spends it, and the consequence is a less valuable dollar by the time it gets to us and devaluing our salaries and savings. this is literal thievery. Ron Paul simply wants to legalize other forms of currency, such as gold and silver, to compete with the dollar to stop the fed from doing this nonsens and give citizens and businesses the right to choose what they want to accept as payment. This will also curb inflation and help the lower classes.
secondly the cia
it is responsible for multiple unconstitutional actions such as illegal removal of democratically elected foreign leaders, the most prominent being the shah of Iran in 1953, who was elected and then removed by the cia for american oil interests. there is a long list of horrible things the cia has done and absolutely should be abolished. an intelligence community should (and according to paul) will be kept, but not a covert organization like the cia.
the dept of education- nowhere in the constitution does it give the right to the federal government to make states accountable for education- the education system has one standard and that is to be accountable to the parents in their district. What is important to be learned in nebraska is not the same as what is important to students to know in philadelphia. It all requires context and practicality and there most certainly should not be one broad brush being made by the idiots in washington.
abolishing lastly, the irs-
are you kidding?? this is a negative?! the only people who feel we need an income tax are people who aren't educated in government revenue and spending- word to the wise, the income tax accounts for 40% of the government's revenue and budget- roads are paid for by gasoline tax, other government services are paid for by the tons of other taxes-
property tax
estate tax aka the death tax,
transfer tax
state tax
telephone tax
utility tax
sales tax
fica tax
cigarette tax
court fines
capital gains tax
toll tax
federal and state "licensing" fees
and there is more! and on top of these taxes we need our income taxed at nearly a third as well!?
I'd love to hear your defense on this one.
Ron Paul serves on multiple House monetary and finance committees and knows better than anyone what our country needs in this aspect. Please reconsider your opinion.
Jeremy Frombach, Las Vegas NV
by
jeremy xx (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 23 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 10:45:12 AM
I have only one question for you- if you abolish the CIA and FBI now, what institutions would you stand up in their places to ensure we have the best possible national security apparatus possible? These are troubled times - do you really want to vote in a guy who wants to do this?
The Libertarian retort to this thus far today is that with a Democratic Congress Paul would be held in check.
WTF? You want another President with aims contrary to the Congress and the public at large, so that the gridlock currently ensnaring the Senate continues?
Are you nuts?
by
Mike Kuykendall (30 articles, 53 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 80 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 3:07:39 PM
I have only one question for you- if you abolish the CIA and FBI now, what institutions would you stand up in their places to ensure we have the best possible national security apparatus possible?
The FBI didn't even exist until 1908, it basically took over the responsibilities of the Department of Justice. The DOJ is SUPPOSED to enforce immigration, which it doesn't.
The CIA was for a long time a secret organization that the Federal Government wouldn't even admit existed. If you can name something good about what the CIA has done, I'd sure like to hear it. Military Intelligence is what should replace the CIA entirely, and Military Intelligence.
by
fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 10:42:21 PM
I'm not convinced. You do not state how you would pick up the law enforcement and intelligence gathering capapcities of these bodies... military intelligence gave us WMD's in Iraq, so I'm not as big a cheerleader for that idea as you seem to be.
by
Mike Kuykendall (30 articles, 53 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 80 comments)
on Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 11:42:06 AM
"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."
Isn't this what the sheeple do now looking for their handouts from their government?
Rarely does one get to read a more clueless, unresearched, ridiculous piece of claptrap. Sadly, you deserve the socialist government you get and don't come crying to me when the almighty dollar collapses and your savings, if you have any, are wiped out.
You can thank Bush economic policy for the dollar, chump
I have to say I dislike your tone, first of all, so I make no apologies being harsh in return. Your ad hominem attacks are unsupported and logically fallacious.
Unlike you, I have compassion for my fellow humans, especially my fellow citizens, be they rich or poor. Since when did the American dream become dog eat dog, may the biggest bankroll survive? Why do you personally feel the need to oppress the least economically fortunate amongst us?
If you had some kind of history in school, you'd know we've been down the unregulated road before in this country. I do not look forward to another President that will take us backward. The time has come to move ahead.
by
Mike Kuykendall (30 articles, 53 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 80 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 3:12:54 PM
I must disagree that Ron Paul's views are radical have have never been tried before. Following the Constitution may seem radical today bcause we have strayed so far from the system setup by our founders. For instance we never had a Federal Income Tax until 1913. It was not needed nor is it now. It has become accepted as normal simply because that is all that you and I have ever known.
The people of this nation have forgotton how and why it was created. The ideas we now have of being the world's policeman and creating undeclared wars are relatively new.
Go back and read the history and then see if Ron Paul seems so radical.
by
Cleaner44 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 10:48:08 AM
Teddt Roosevelt, FDR and other progressive president and Congressmen helped move this country the direction we have gone. The founders made it explicitly clear that the Constitution was intended to be a living document, able to change with the times.
I'll ask you the same question I asked above- if you truly support Paul's positions, what is your answer to how to fill the void after he abolishes the CIA and FBI? Here's another- without payroll taxes how would you save the Social Security system that so many people depend on today, and many more will in the future?
If you do not support these positions you really shouldn't support Ron Paul.
by
Mike Kuykendall (30 articles, 53 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 80 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 3:17:28 PM
Libertarians recognize that no change happens overnight or without a broad consensus. We'd be happy to just start heading in the direction of our Utopia, taking baby steps to get there. ANYTHING heading in that direction, compared to the way it is today, would be an improvement. Ron Paul is the only candidate that can make any difference at all.
I can't fathom the logic presented in this article!
by
BugMan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 11:11:53 AM
We've gone down the road of free markets and deregulation. That lead to the robber barons and 18 hour work days for kids. That led to monopolies and a stifling of the small entrepreneurs.
Please be specific in your criticisms of my logic. Where did I go wrong? Is it your ideology that is offended? Your emotions? We're talking about the next leader of the Free World, here. It's a big job, and having someone with whom a majority of the population disagrees on most substantive policy positions, similar to the impasse we face today, would be a disaster for this country.
There's no time for crybabies. We need a leader, not a deconstructionist.
by
Mike Kuykendall (30 articles, 53 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 80 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 3:21:56 PM
Mike, it difficult to believe that you could support our current system and totally decry a voice of some basic reason.
Webster’s - Radical; “as in, favoring basic change in the social and economic structure.” Count me radical and count me a supporter of Ron Paul.
I do agree with you that big government and regulations have worked out well. 1% of our population controls more money than the lower 90%. So for that top 1% it has worked marvelously.
Government controls that benefit our public? Agriculture and industry is leaving this county like rats off a sinking ship.
Does government invade freedom? All day every day.
Ron Paul is not running for Dictator of the United States, he’s running for President. However, with the corrupt and spineless whimps that we send to represent us each and every year, I can see why you would believe that a Dictator is in charge. Lest I remind that you that Congress has an 11% approval rating. And you think we need more of ‘em?
Change we must Mike and when you’re running out of fuel, radical change is not the most effective course, it’s the only course.
by
Mike Folkerth (97 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 464 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 11:23:04 AM
Not such a big fan of abolishing large chunks of our current national security setup. That alone disqualifies your man.
I'm all for change. I don't want to go backward, though. We need regulations, we needs government subsidies, we need the FBI, we need the CIA, we need a strong, efficient Department of Education to knit the education of our children into a strong national consisitency.
Radical, as I use it, means way the hell off the current path. Not the Bush path, the FDR path we've been on since the New Deal. It works, when correctly run. The problem we have had is bad management for the last seven years.
You should really think about whether you truly agree with all of Dr. Paul's positions, and then you need to ask yourself another question;
Do we want another President with views diametrically opposed to that of the nation at large, stopped from extreme federal restructuring by a majority of the opposing party in both houses of Congress?
Do you? Really?
by
Mike Kuykendall (30 articles, 53 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 80 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 3:29:00 PM
Maybe yoo'd better read some of Paul's views again, friend. By saying he will get rid of the Dept of Education, he means will return that power (and others) back to individual states, where they belong according to the constitution anyone with scholl aghe kids knows that the 'no child left behind ' means they all get left behind. Pauls approach to streamlining government lets each state decide how best to taech their children and how to pay for it, instead of the cookie cutter 'one size fits all' plans that mandated by the federal government that are not working. similarily with sociual programs, medical plans and abortion, let each state decide what's best for them; in effect, re-establishing competition in government, which should lead to efficiency and a variety of workable solutions.
by
wxman2001 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 104 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 10:48:13 PM
So you say now that the US is lagging behind the other industrialized countries of the world in school, we should suddenly scrap the system that attempts to standardize education across state lines so that we can "promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access" (from http://www.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml?src=gu)
Bush has run it badly, that doesn't mean government doesn't work.
by
Mike Kuykendall (30 articles, 53 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 80 comments)
on Saturday, November 17, 2007 at 11:46:12 AM
"deluded Libertarian's views is in order." He did run as a libertarian but he is more of a constitutionalist. Show me in the constitution where any of what you want the government to do is constitutional. You sir are a socialist. You think that the government has the right to take what I work for and do whatever it wants with it. If that is true what will stop them from taking it all?
I learned a long time ago that you can't win an arguement with an idiot so I wont try.
by
chessmaster (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments)
on Friday, November 16, 2007 at 11:38:26 AM
