Ron Paul

[Mammon]

Well, I can see how outsourcing to china with wages of $40 a month would be profoundly disturbing to the American worker.

When we talk about the benefits of competition and suddenly the American worker is plunged into competition with the 6 billion people of the world soon to be 9 billion … most of them making very poor wages, I can see how it would be a problem. The American worker simply cannot compete on this level and expect to have a good standard of living — naturally it would create resentment.

Moving to a global economy does come with some severe growing pains because many countries have not had the benefits of capitalism, rule of law, private property and are in a feudal and semi feudal state.

The goal of the advocates of free markets is not vast swaths of cheap labor and environmental degradation and somehow we need to balance our ideas of free markets and free trade with the very real problems that globalization is creating for Americans.

The abuses of the labor movements notwithstanding, I think the American worker has a few legitimate concerns which we should try to address.

Also I think a very real issue facing America is the numbers of people coming into the country. By the year 2100 we will be a country of 1 billion people if current immigration trends (legal and illegal) continue. A population the size of India. I think that common sense dictates that the third world countries from whom these populations are coming need to get their houses in order instead of America being flooded with their excess impoverished and illiterate populations. If the situation is allowed to happen I think that socialism and Marxism may become very popular because our poor planning will have created a bad situation. The thing about the Marxists and the socialists is that they take advantage of bad situations but they do nothing to alleviate those situations. My point is that if Americans begin to loose en masse because of globilization and immigration (which is happening today), we may loose to socialist and marxist manipulators and thus we need to pay attention to the very real problems of globilization effecting our populations as they are arising.

http://www.capitalism.net/articles/Globalization.htm.

Hello friends,

Ron Paul is the man for us in 2008, He is a Fan of Ayn Rand and trys to follow and objectivist philosophy.

He will bring us back to our Limited Government Constitutional Republic. While Hillary is the Opposite, she is a complete Socialist / Collectivist.

Look at this youtube video where Ron Paul Talks about Ayn Rand with some college students !

Ron Paul 2008 !!

Everyone I know in the Michigan Militia is voting for him.

Did you miss the part of that video where Paul blasted Rand for being too militant?

[Xare]

Well the Militia today has one main goal, to defend the Republic that America was created as.

I think Ron was referring to his Foreign Policy of non-intervention when he said that he wants us to be less militant. I do not think he would want us to be unable to defend ourselves. He understands that Americans have guns for one reason and one reason only, and that is to keep Tyranny at bay.

[DarkWaters]

[Ron Paul] understands that Americans have guns for one reason and one reason only, and that is to keep Tyranny at bay.

If Ron Paul believes this (I suspect that he does not), then he does not understand the importance of philosophy in defining a man's life, in shaping a civilization and in driving history. Personal firearms possession cannot prevent all of the Hitlers and Stalins from rising to power.

[softwareNerd]

Personal firearms possession cannot prevent all of the Hitlers and Stalins from rising to power.

Nor ought that to be the primary reason people have a right to own guns.

[KevinD]

Anyone who wants to know what Ron Paul is really all about, needs look no further than the following blurb which he contributed to the book Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System by John W. Robbins:

"John Robbins is as stalwart a defender of a free society as I have known. His love of freedom — religious, political, and economic — motivated him to write Without a Prayer, a brilliantly insightful analysis of Ayn Rand's influential philosophy. Without a Prayer deserves to be read by everyone who loves freedom — everyone who wants to advocate freedom with arguments that cannot be refuted. Robbins furnishes the indispensable ideas — the intellectual ammunition — required to defend freedom successfully."

John Robbins is a Calvinist and Bible literalist; he calls Objectivism a "deadly poison," and his book is a 350-page attempt to discredit Ayn Rand while preaching the Gospel.

Draw your own conclusions, folks.

[volco]

Thaks for that link KEvin. I'm not American but I was a big supporter of Dr Paul, I thought he was just too good to be true, and indeed that was the case. Besides the anti-abortion issue, and the non interventionist issue, things which I've softl flirted with in the past, the first alarm came when I read his statements about Waco. He completely dismissed any responsibility on the part of the Davidians calling them a peaceful religious sect that should have been protected by the government.

Well you are a big anti-socialist anti-FED individualist until you don't recognize a 3 year old girl her right not to be raped.

The important thing I've learned from my infatuation for Paul is that you don't have to be an outspoken evangelist to pave the way for de-facto theocracy.

[Mammon]

I think Paul is the perfect libertarian though. All talk and no principles. Likes to cherry pick and plagiarize Rand when they need to, and denounce and degrade her when they need too.

Pragmatism is the word of the day.

[DarkWaters]

Anyone who wants to know what Ron Paul is really all about, needs look no further than the following blurb which he contributed to the book Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System by John W. Robbins:

"John Robbins is as stalwart a defender of a free society as I have known. His love of freedom — religious, political, and economic — motivated him to write Without a Prayer, a brilliantly insightful analysis of Ayn Rand's influential philosophy. Without a Prayer deserves to be read by everyone who loves freedom — everyone who wants to advocate freedom with arguments that cannot be refuted. Robbins furnishes the indispensable ideas — the intellectual ammunition — required to defend freedom successfully."

John Robbins is a Calvinist and Bible literalist; he calls Objectivism a "deadly poison," and his book is a 350-page attempt to discredit Ayn Rand while preaching the Gospel.

Draw your own conclusions, folks.

Thank you for the pertinent and important information. It appears as if Ron Paul is more reprehensible than I ever considered.

[Mammon]

Thank you for the pertinent and important information. It appears as if Ron Paul is more reprehensible than I ever considered.

Yeah, me too DarkWaters.

[Mammon]

http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/

Guys, we have been totally fucking wrong about this whole thing. How could we be so blind? I mean... look... a blimp! I, feel so, so... compelled to vote Ron Paul into office now! Like, if he doesn't get elected -- it would be the Hindenburg all over again!

[Robert J. Kolker]

http://www.ronpaulblimp.com/

Guys, we have been totally fucking wrong about this whole thing. How could we be so blind? I mean... look... a blimp! I, feel so, so... compelled to vote Ron Paul into office now! Like, if he doesn't get elected -- it would be the Hindenburg all over again!

Mammon. I am irony impaired. Are you being ironic or satirical here? Subtlety and I have not slept together for over 50 years.

Oh! The Humanity!

Bob Kolker

[Clawg]

I am not sure precisely what you mean. In the hypothetical example, if most people if who list Candidate C as their favorite prefer Candidate B over Candidate A, then the strategy would be for fans of Candidate C to vote for Candidate B.

Yes, but looking at the current candidates who would fit the description of a 'candidate B'? Who is a secular candidate?

I think Ron was referring to his Foreign Policy of non-intervention when he said that he wants us to be less militant. I do not think he would want us to be unable to defend ourselves. He understands that Americans have guns for one reason and one reason only, and that is to keep Tyranny at bay.

No, he thinks that government can't provide complete security.

Laws (or government monopoly of force respectively) can't prevent determined people committing a criminal act so the individual must retain some possibilities for self-defense.

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul383.html

@Volco:

You should research Waco more closely.

@Mammon:

Political ideas and philosophical ideas are two pairs of shoes. A president or a congressman is an executive. If his goals (end Iraq occupation, IRS, income tax etc.) align with yours then you should vote for him even if you disagree with his philosophy. The philosophy is only relevant with questions where he did not explain his position.

@Kevin Delaney:

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess that closes the question whether he is an Objectivist or not.

I didn't read the book, from what I have read in this thread

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Quotes/1053.shtml#0

Robbins does rise some points which should be discussed (and refuted).

Here is a more detailed analysis:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--71-H...een_Refuted.asp

[DarkWaters]

Yes, but looking at the current candidates who would fit the description of a 'candidate B'? Who is a secular candidate?

Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican who fits this description. He is secular compared to all of the other Republicans, especially the front-running Mike Huckabee.

[RussK]

With the Ron Paul blimp, plastered on it the question 'Who is Ron Paul?', flying up and down the east coast until either its funding dries up or Ron Paul drops out, I wonder how many times Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged will be mentioned in relation to Ron Paul and his campaign. Already I've seen quite a few editorials, though none mainstream, equating his positions to those of Ayn Rand's, and most of them of course are negative towards both Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, because those that will go out and purchase AS due to this campaign will probably be interested in smaller government or a change in the status quo, and will be given some intellectual ammunition to support their interests. However, it's almost as problematic as most those who are introduced to Ayn Rand though the LP or libertarianism in general. They tend to harbor incorrect ideas pertaining to the level of compatibility and support between what Ayn Rand espouses and that of their candidate, party, or political philosophy. Of course, it is on them to take their interests further and investigate their positions properly.

Another potential positive of this 'Blimp Campaign' is the method in which they're financing it. They have essentially accomplished a way to skirt the restrictive campaign finance laws and fund their candidates campaign with unrestricted donations from individual supporters. The manner of financing will probably be challenged in court, but I think they have a good argument.

[Mammon]

With the Ron Paul blimp, plastered on it the question 'Who is Ron Paul?', flying up and down the east coast until either its funding dries up or Ron Paul drops out, I wonder how many times Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged will be mentioned in relation to Ron Paul and his campaign. Already I've seen quite a few editorials, though none mainstream, equating his positions to those of Ayn Rand's, and most of them of course are negative towards both Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, because those that will go out and purchase AS due to this campaign will probably be interested in smaller government or a change in the status quo, and will be given some intellectual ammunition to support their interests. However, it's almost as problematic as most those who are introduced to Ayn Rand though the LP or libertarianism in general. They tend to harbor incorrect ideas pertaining to the level of compatibility and support between what Ayn Rand espouses and that of their candidate, party, or political philosophy. Of course, it is on them to take their interests further and investigate their positions properly.

[DavidOdden]

Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican who fits this description. He is secular compared to all of the other Republicans, especially the front-running Mike Huckabee.

So now that the unthinkable looks possible and even non-negligibly probable, would you prefer Obama or Clinton? The devil or the deep blue?

[DarkWaters]

So now that the unthinkable looks possible and even non-negligibly probable, would you prefer Obama or Clinton? The devil or the deep blue?

That question seems tantamount to if you would inquire: "Would you prefer to be bludgeoned with the truncheon or the mace?"

First, I will answer Hillary versus Obama. I will discuss whether either Democrat is better than Huckabee in a future post.

Hillary vs. Obama

On Religion

Hillary appears to be better in that I think she is insincere when it comes to bridging faith and politics while Barack Obama might harbor some sincerity. Obama's rally in Atlanta began with a five minute prayer. Most likely, if in office, Barack Obama would make great use of the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives to expand the welfare state and would in general get the American public accustomed to the intermingling of faith and politics. In contrast, Hillary Clinton has not really made any appeals to her faith until it became politically fashionable this year.

Advantage Hillary

On Combating Islamic Extremism

Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama seem to acknowledge Iran as a threat (unlike Ron Paul). For example, Hillary has suggested that we urge U.N. sanctions here, she suggests that a military confrontation should be considered here and

has defended her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization here.

Second, I perceive that Hillary Clinton will be a more competent leader to deal with Islamic Terrorism. However, my reasoning here is not because they differ substantially in rhetoric but simply because Hillary appears to be a more experienced leader in general. Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama seem to acknowledge Iran as a threat (unlike Ron Paul). Hillary has suggested that we urge U.N. sanctions (e.g., here), she suggests that a military confrontation should be considered here and has defended her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization here.

On the other side, Barack Obama has expressed that he would be open to military strikes against Iran and Pakistan back in 2004 when he was running for the Senate, see here. Moreover, Obama has reiterated similar sentiments during a 2007 Presidential debate, see here. Overall, their philosophies seem to be similar but again, I perceive that Hillary might be more capable in this regard. Recall that Barack Obama has made some serious mistakes, such as suggesting that he would invite monsters such as Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the White House, see here.

Advantage: Hillary

On Socializing Health Care

Both candidates want to increase government involvement in the health care sector, which is both alarming, terrible and significant. However, from what little I know, Hillary is in favor of even more state control than Obama in this regard. Hillary has criticized Obama's plan for not mandating individual coverage on all Americans, see here.

Advantage: Obama

Overall, I would probably support Hillary over Obama, but this is certainly not a conviction. At present, I think the most important political activity is to support Rudy Giuliani over the other Republicans in the primaries. Deciding whether Hillary or Obama is less evil is not as much of a priority for me right now.

Edited December 15, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Clawg]

Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican who fits this description. He is secular compared to all of the other Republicans, especially the front-running Mike Huckabee.

Giuliani is catholic and catholic philosophy is reflected in his political position.

He appointed a "decency council" because one museum presented an anti-catholic art, he openly says that he prays, believes in god, respects the opinion of Catholic and religious leaders of all kinds (!), he assumed the position of 'freedom through authority' that is based on the Catholic view of the relationship between authority and liberty, he sees some sexual acts as "sin", he actively worked against pornography and sex shops, ...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm

To quote an article about Giuliani's philosophy:

Catholic thinkers do not see liberty as an end in itself, but as a means-a "natural endowment"--by which to achieve the common good. For that to happen, individuals have to be encouraged to use their liberty well; and that is where authority comes into play. Authority, embodied by law and the state, encourages--at times, forces--free individuals to contribute to the common good. Or, to put it in Aristotelian terms:Authority--by creating a just order--encourages liberty over license.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...29-90b0fa0213ed

Now, where is Ron Paul less secular than Giuliani? Overall I think Ron Paul is much more secular than Giuliani because Paul's position is much clearer on several issues. The only point I can remember where he did mention religion was with foreign policy, i.e. when wars should be fought.

[Jay P]

Anyone who wants to know what Ron Paul is really all about, needs look no further than the following blurb which he contributed to the book Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of Her System by John W. Robbins:

"John Robbins is as stalwart a defender of a free society as I have known. His love of freedom — religious, political, and economic — motivated him to write Without a Prayer, a brilliantly insightful analysis of Ayn Rand's influential philosophy. Without a Prayer deserves to be read by everyone who loves freedom — everyone who wants to advocate freedom with arguments that cannot be refuted. Robbins furnishes the indispensable ideas — the intellectual ammunition — required to defend freedom successfully."

John Robbins is a Calvinist and Bible literalist; he calls Objectivism a "deadly poison," and his book is a 350-page attempt to discredit Ayn Rand while preaching the Gospel.

Draw your own conclusions, folks.

Thanks for posting that. Indeed, I remember Ron Paul's favorable comments on Without a Prayer, and also his disparaging of Objectivism because it is atheistic, but I didn't have the quotations handy.

I'm very glad that Ron Paul has no chance of being President of the United States.

[fletch]

The only point I can remember where he did mention religion was with foreign policy, i.e. when wars should be fought.

The fact that he reaches for some sort of mystical guidance when he should be pursuing what is in the nations self-interest is not particularly comforting.

[Clawg]

The fact that he reaches for some sort of mystical guidance when he should be pursuing what is in the nations self-interest is not particularly comforting.

No, not guidance but principle. He thinks that the US does not have the right (i.e. it is not moral) to invade another country if that country does not pose any direct threat and did not use force against the US.

The Objectivist position is that a free country does have this right if it is in the nation's self-interest. His approach on this issue is more oriented on the political practice. The question is if you can determine what is in the nation's self interest and if the current system is 'free' (military financed by forced taxation, majority rule). The non-aggression principle saves the country from decisions to go to war when it isn't in the self-interest while refraining to go to war in cases where it is in the self-interest of the nation. It's hard to imagine a case where a country did not use force and does not pose a threat but where it's still in the national interest to engage in a war. On the other hand there are many examples where the motive is not self-interest but altruism, e.g. to save a people from their dictator.

[Robert J. Kolker]

No, not guidance but principle. He thinks that the US does not have the right (i.e. it is not moral) to invade another country if that country does not pose any direct threat and did not use force against the US.

The Objectivist position is that a free country does have this right if it is in the nation's self-interest. His approach on this issue is more oriented on the political practice. The question is if you can determine what is in the nation's self interest and if the current system is 'free' (military financed by forced taxation, majority rule). The non-aggression principle saves the country from decisions to go to war when it isn't in the self-interest while refraining to go to war in cases where it is in the self-interest of the nation. It's hard to imagine a case where a country did not use force and does not pose a threat but where it's still in the national interest to engage in a war. On the other hand there are many examples where the motive is not self-interest but altruism, e.g. to save a people from their dictator.

Just a slight nit. How can there be Nation Self Interest? Self refers to individuals. So there is my self interest and your self interest and it is possible for them to overlap or even coincide in certain particulars. But the National Interest, whatever that means, is collective. How does one determine collective interest? Do we have a a vote? What vote rules? Majority? Or should it be unanimous? The only collective interest that makes any objective sense is a unanimous position. The only people I know of who can make this work are the Quakers at their prayer meetings. Unfortunately or Nation is not a Society of Friends.

Bob Kolker

[Clawg]

Just a slight nit. How can there be Nation Self Interest? Self refers to individuals. So there is my self interest and your self interest and it is possible for them to overlap or even coincide in certain particulars. But the National Interest, whatever that means, is collective. How does one determine collective interest? Do we have a a vote? What vote rules? Majority? Or should it be unanimous? The only collective interest that makes any objective sense is a unanimous position. The only people I know of who can make this work are the Quakers at their prayer meetings. Unfortunately or Nation is not a Society of Friends.

Currently people are collectively taxed even if they think that a war is not in their interest. That's why I said that assuming a non-aggression principle is more practicable - as long as wars are financed by taxation.

Arguing that it is moral to fight a war that is in the 'national interest' if the country is more free than the other rises the question how one determines whether this is actually true. This can only be done individually, i.e. in form of individual donations plus a democratic vote (the latter because a war is fought in the name of the country).

[Marty McFly]

Giuliani is catholic and catholic philosophy is reflected in his political position.

He appointed a "decency council" because one museum presented an anti-catholic art, he openly says that he prays, believes in god, respects the opinion of Catholic and religious leaders of all kinds (!), he assumed the position of 'freedom through authority' that is based on the Catholic view of the relationship between authority and liberty, he sees some sexual acts as "sin", he actively worked against pornography and sex shops, ...

the Brookly Meuseum of Art was a city funded CITY FUNDED thing. funded by us, the tax payers. So there is nothing wrong with not wanting to offend the city by protraying such disgusting art. AND he did not censor it: he simply wanted to pull funding. they still wanted to parade that art - they are welcomed to it. and he said he would protect their right to do it. but not with city money.

and as for pornography, as a head of a family with little children, I, too, do not want my children bombarded with pornographic images. if someone wants to see that dirt, let them do it in their own place, not where my children walk around. there are many reasons why I like giuliani

Edited December 16, 2007 by Marty McFly

[Clawg]

Interesting comment on Huckabee from Paul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrkltetQ0x4

He comments on the Huckabee ad putting Huckabee in front of what looks like a cross.

"Well, I haven't thought about it completely, but you know, it reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, 'When fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag carrying a cross.'"

He continues: "Now, I don't know whether that's a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly. So I don't think I would use anything like that."

While the second part is questionable, the first part is a pretty good statement calling Huckabee a fascist for his religious platform.

Of course the newsman answered:

"I certainly don't think -- you know, Governor Huckabee is not selling fascism, he's simply sending out a Christmas message. Anyway, just curious how you felt about that."

Edited December 19, 2007 by Clawg