Ron Paul

[Clawg]

If you haven't seen it:

"Conversation with the Candidate" with Ron Paul (6 parts, from June 17th)

[Fireball]

I checked out Ron Paul's web-page and he has chosen to highlight 6 issues. Here they are:

Debt and Taxes: He wants lower tax and lower spending. He throws in the typical conspiracy theory line about "private banks dictat[ing] the size of our ...deficit".

By private banks Dr. Paul refers to the Federal Reserve System -- America's central bank. He wants to abolish this non-competitive banking system and return to free-market money and banking (i.e., objective money & banking).

Border/Immigration: He is anti-immigration.

Dr. Paul is anti-illegal-immigration.

American Independence/Sovereignity: Obviously sovereignity is good, but he throws in the standard conspiracy about a U.N. takeover of the U.S. And, far more relevant, he opposes the various agreements that are attempts to open up trade: NAFTA etc. Evidently a protectionist.

Dr. Paul is an Austrian School of Economics advocate, thus he is not a protectionist. He simply does not want governing bodies dictating who Americans can trade with and how.

Privacy/Personal Liberty: Appears to be for restraint on government encroachment into private affairs.

That's good.

War and Foreign Policy: Wants to pull out of Iraq, but offers no solution to Islamists. Hammer could probably vote for him . Sounds like the typical libertarian anti-war position.

Dr. Paul is reflecting America's Founder Fathers' view: laissez-fair or hands off foreign nations' affairs. His solution to Islamists is to leave the Middle East, regroup/recoup the US military and then firmly protect US borders from Islamist terrorists entering/attacking America.

Property Rights: He opposes eminent domain

And he firmly defends property rights -- something Democrats undermine in the name of egalitarianism.

[softwareNerd]

By private banks Dr. Paul refers to the Federal Reserve System -- America's central bank. He wants to abolish this non-competitive banking system and return to free-market money and banking (i.e., objective money & banking).

Yes, I realize that. It's common for right-wing conspiracy theorists to refer to the Fed as a private bank.

Dr. Paul is anti-illegal-immigration.

That's exactly the wrong policy, though I'll admit it is becoming the majority policy. For a politician though, it is a non-policy. He has a web site and all, so why doesn't he say: the U.S. should allow foreigners to come to this country unimpeded by the current terrible laws that keep them out. Why doesn't he insist on undoing the injustice of criminalizing 12-million people?

Dr. Paul is an Austrian School of Economics advocate, thus he is not a protectionist. He simply does not want governing bodies dictating who Americans can trade with and how.

Perhaps he is a closet Austrian. Why then does he not address the fundamental issue and say: The U.S. should open its own trade to all countries of the world, and let them sell and buy as they please, without any U.S. government restriction, regardless of whether those countries impose tariffs and controls on U.S. goods. Instead, he chooses to focus on a fiction of a North American country as some kind of threat.

Dr. Paul is reflecting America's Founder Fathers' view: laissez-fair or hands off foreign nations' affairs. His solution to Islamists is to leave the Middle East, regroup/recoup the US military and then firmly protect US borders from Islamist terrorists entering/attacking America.

The U.S. did not go to war unprovoked. Historically, the U.S.'s role has been related to U.S. interests and U.S. property (like oil-industries). Rather than avoiding such a role, the U.S. should take that role more seriously -- and defend the property of its citizens, as was done with the Barbary pirates.

[Clawg]

He has a web site and all, so why doesn't he say: the U.S. should allow foreigners to come to this country unimpeded by the current terrible laws that keep them out. Why doesn't he insist on undoing the injustice of criminalizing 12-million people?

He says that at first the welfare state has to be dismantled so that immigrants do not get any benefits from the state.

If you open the border having an existing welfare state you will have a swift breakdown of services.

Edited June 18, 2007 by Clawg

[softwareNerd]

He says that at first the welfare state has to be dismantled so that immigrants do not get any benefits from the state.

If you open the border having an existing welfare state you will have a swift breakdown of services.

How horrible that would be

Why would he be against the breakdown of welfare?

Edited June 19, 2007 by softwareNerd

[Clawg]

How horrible that would be

Why would he be against the breakdown of welfare?

Well, at first - if only a minority supports the plan to reduce the government - there would be an increase in taxation and reduction of services. In that case the welfare system would break down eventually but only when a large number of corporations left the country.

In addition a gradual decrease of government has more support from the voters who made themselves dependent on government services. In the end you need their votes, whether their position is justified or not.

In addition the market needs a little time to adjust, thus reducing government over a (short) period of time is a better solution than a sudden stop.

[The Guru Kid]

Forgive the bullets, but i wanted to make a few quick points:

1. There isn't a single candidate who on principle believes in open immigration. Illegal immigrants did break the law and therefore i would not criticize Paul for blocking any bill that would grant them amnesty. As to whether he likes legal immigration, he voted YES on increasing the visa quota for skilled workers in 1998.

2. He is wrong in that he wants immigrants to speak English and "assimilate culturally".

3. The welfare state is an incentive for many people to come over illegally. Despite what clawg said, I don't think the system would "break down" but there would be more money poured into it to hold it.

4. The only time Paul's anti-choice position would hurt is if a series of events take place in the next 4 years: Roe v. Wade is overturned. There is enough majority in the House AND the Senate to pass an amendment BUT not enough to override a veto from Paul.

The only legitimate reason I would consider Guliani over him is because Guliani would be willing to attack Iran. But because of the mismanagement of the war in Iraq, it is unlikely that Congress will grant anyone the permission to do so.

[softwareNerd]

I don't want to turn this into an immigration thread, because we have a few of those already. So, on the specific question of Ron Paul's stance versus other candidates: yes, it is true that no candidate is for open immigration.

Any candidate supporting open immigration would stand no chance of being elected. Each one of them puts forward some set of arguments that they think can be defended politically, and use that to justify their bottom-line argument. For Paul, that bottom-line ends up being: anti-immigration. From the little I've heard, a majority of other candidate would be for some way of letting the 12 million current illegals become legal. If one is against that, that's fine -- something for another thread perhaps. For me, personally, if a candidate can demonstrate that they have a way of not merely wanting legalization for those 12 million (as Bush has done), but of actually convincing the public to go along with it, it would be a strong reason for me to vote for such a candidate.

As for abortion, the next President's main role will be in the appointment of SCOTUS judges. This single factor can bring out the Christian-right to vote even for a person like Giuliani, rather than put a Democrat in the White house.

Truth is that Ron Paul has zero chance of being elected. I can understand that temptation of wanting to support someone who talks about drastically lowering taxes, and drastically cutting government (as all libertarians do). However, supporting people like Ron Paul, who believe some military-industrial complex is taking over the world isn't the correct route to political change.

[aleph_0]

1. There isn't a single candidate who on principle believes in open immigration. Illegal immigrants did break the law and therefore i would not criticize Paul for blocking any bill that would grant them amnesty. As to whether he likes legal immigration, he voted YES on increasing the visa quota for skilled workers in 1998.

First, I wouldn't say that there isn't a candidate who believes in open immigration on principle. I don't know of anybody who has stated that he believes in it on principle, though I think Giuliani has come damn close, but that doesn't mean they don't believe it. They might not be saying it because, to say it would be political suicide. I expect honesty from a candidate, but not political stupidity, so I can sympathize with that kind of policy.

Secondly, illegal immigrants broke a law that shouldn't have existed in the first place. I don't believe judges should be allowed to "legislate from the bench" because they are not entrusted with that office, and to do so de facto and not de jur would be a violation of their office and of ex post facto. However, I don't think it is a violation of either ex post facto or the rule of law when you go through the legislative process to repeal wrong laws and their corresponding punishments.

2. He is wrong in that he wants immigrants to speak English and "assimilate culturally".

Maybe he is wrong, I'm not certain. I could see programs requiring English proficiency and cultural assimilation as a means of testing immigrants to see if they will be threats to this country. For instance, a person who wants to just come here, rob a few people or places, then run back south of the border isn't going to want to go through the trouble--and will probably be too stupid to make it through. Also, would-be terrorists will probably have a hard time getting through a program for cultural assimilation, and if they did get through it, they might come to appreciate American values and doubt his terrorist mission. In short, such programs could serve as national self-defense.

I don't know. It's a thought.

4. The only time Paul's anti-choice position would hurt is if a series of events take place in the next 4 years: Roe v. Wade is overturned. There is enough majority in the House AND the Senate to pass an amendment BUT not enough to override a veto from Paul.

Why would you need to have not enough votes to override a veto? Are you saying Paul would veto an amendment? If so, then you would want enough to override. If he would not veto an amendment, then you can have as many as you want over two-thirds of Congress.

And what about something weaker than an amendment? Would he pass a bill that restricts choice, with the hope that it will go to the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade? Or would he pass such a bill with the hope that nobody will take it to court because people won't want to go through the hassle, and so act as an effective law until somebody finally does take it to court?

The only legitimate reason I would consider Guliani over him is because Guliani would be willing to attack Iran. But because of the mismanagement of the war in Iraq, it is unlikely that Congress will grant anyone the permission to do so.

Giuliani has a specific plan to reduce crime, which is similar to his plan for NYC, and that worked like a god-send. Giuliani has served in the executive branch for two terms in arguably America's most important city. He has operated the largest municipal privatization program in all of history. He has a history of destroying taxes and forcing the government to meet strict demands on efficiency. He has proposed specific plans on various subjects, which I don't think any other politician has been so brave to do. Some of those subjects are Social Security, Health-care, immigration, abortion, gay marriage, gays in the military, the War in Iraq, and education. And as much as people like to deride it, we should never forget his heroism and leadership during 9/11. Not even for political reasons should we deny that he was the single best mayor the city could hope for, on and before that day, and that should also serve as a reason to believe that he would be an effective president. (In the same way, I don't deny that Ron Paul was a great patriot who served our country's armed forces. From his record, it seems like he displayed bravery and fidelity to the United States, and just because I don't want him to be my president doesn't mean that I would deny or besmirch that record. I even admit that it is a decent [though somewhat wanting] testament to his leadership abilities and his ability to serve in the executive branch.)

So the Iran thing is really not that important in light of other reasons to vote for Rudy.

[The Guru Kid]

As for abortion, the next President's main role will be in the appointment of SCOTUS judges. This single factor can bring out the Christian-right to vote even for a person like Giuliani, rather than put a Democrat in the White house.

Good point. Although we already had an anti-choice president choose a judge this presidential term. The senate will also have to approve any nomination.

[Fireball]

Truth is that Ron Paul has zero chance of being elected.

If so, it is because the left-leaning mainstream media glorifies left-leaning candidates Hillary/Obama/Edwards while ignoring Ron Paul.

However, supporting people like Ron Paul, who believe some military-industrial complex is taking over the world isn't the correct route to political change.

Electing a Hillary/Obama/Edwards candidate will result in a virulent command-in-control economy as seen in the USSR. Democrats of their ilk are proposing legislation that dictates what industry can produce, how much and at what prices they can be sold. As an example, Democrat Carl Levin is proposing a bill amendment that requires auto manufacturers to produce cars that get an average of 52 mpg by 2030 (link). The problem is politicians and bureaucrats cannot even run their own lives competently; how can they run the United States automobile industry?

As a staunch adherent of the Austrian School of Economics, Dr. Ron Paul vows to dismantle the welfare state, abolish the IRS, burn fiat money, dissolve cartel banking, terminate invasive government, strengthen property rights and end wasteful foreign policy. Will he win? Who knows, but the message he delivers to the voting public is a refreshing contrast to the same stale message of increasing taxes, jailing producers, regulating industry, debasing currency, financing Islamic states, socializing medicine, expanding bureaucracies, redistributing wealth and the entire panoply of anti-Enlightenment collectivism.

[softwareNerd]

Truth is that Ron Paul has zero chance of being elected.

Why bring the Democrats into it when Ron Paul has zero chance of winning the Republican primary? It isn't as if a majority of GOP voters want him there, but think he is unelectable.

[The Guru Kid]

I think it is too early in the season to give up on a candidate because he has little chance (not zero since he definitely has more chance than you and me). When it comes time to vote, i would understand if you voted for the lesser of the evils so that your vote counts.

[Fireball]

Why bring the Democrats into it when Ron Paul has zero chance of winning the Republican primary? It isn't as if a majority of GOP voters want him there, but think he is unelectable.

I thought you were referring to the general elections in 2008.

As a side note, here is Ron Paul's view on the separation of 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...."

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war." (source)

[softwareNerd]

As a side note, here is Ron Paul's view on the separation of 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.

Wow! That's some side note!

Thanks, for the info. I suspected he was religious-nationlaist, from the hints at xenophobia and his anti-abortion stance, but I didn;t realize he was this bad.

[DarkWaters]

As a side note, here is Ron Paul's view on the separation of 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.

I am no fan of Ron Paul but this quote should be supplemented with the following statement which summarizes his view succinctly. This is also from the same source as what Fireball quoted.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

[softwareNerd]

What would you guess he means by "public life"?

Edited June 22, 2007 by softwareNerd

[DarkWaters]

What would you guess he means by "public life"?

Being only aware of Dr. Paul's position for a few days, I surmise that he thinks individuals should be free to express their religious preference without being obligated to pay homage to the traditions of other faiths, even while working in a government office, driving a public bus, working in a public school, working for a private corporation, decorating one's front lawn and the like.

I honestly do not know if this is merely his support of free speech or if this is the libertarian mentality that individuals should be free to say whatever they want in the workplace regardless of what the employer prefers or even contractually requires.

[MarkH]

From an interview with Ron Paul 28 June 2007:

... American foreign policy in the Middle East has stirred up enormous anger among Muslims, our support for Israel included ... . Also, the sanctions in Iraq during Clinton’s presidency, which killed nearly as many Iraqis as have died under the Bush presidency, and the presence of our military bases in Saudi Arabia – together with the situation in Israel, these actions are used by extremists and jihadists as justification for killing Americans. Just look at bin Laden’s public statements throughout the nineties. Can you imagine what it would be like if ... China was building military bases the size of the Vatican in Kansas? People would be up in arms!

This isn’t to say that we “invited” the attacks of 9/11, or any other terrorist attacks, but simply that our policy decisions have certain consequences that we might wish to avoid. The CIA has given a name for this – “blowback.” ... ... deeds can have a way of rebounding on the doer, which is why the older imperial powers tended to be very cautious in their dealings with strange peoples in foreign lands. The Clinton and Bush administrations have been absolutely incompetent in comparison.

This doesn’t mean that I’m against the idea of spreading the concept of freedom, just not with the barrel of a gun. Like I said, my solution would be to follow the wisdom of the Founders, which means a non-interventionist foreign policy, getting rid of foreign aid to all nations, including Israel. We ought to lead by example, not by coercion or special interest: this was what the Founders had in mind.

rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrakerreport.com%2Fid447.html

[Statesman83]

For those of you considering Rudy Giuliani for President, here is a quote from one of his speeches, as reported by the New York Times:

We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. [italics added]

Ellsworth Toohey, anyone?

[softwareNerd]

Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. [italics added]

I think what he really means is: Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to Rudy Guliani a great deal of discretion about what you do.

[DarkWaters]

From an interview with Ron Paul 28 June 2007:rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrakerreport.com%2Fid447.html

I would still be more comfortable with Ron Paul if he would identify Islamic Fundamentalism as an enemy in itself and not simply a "reaction" to U.S. misdeeds and indiscretions. I would not want to support a leader who would remain meek during another hostage crisis, if one ever were to occur.

For those of you considering Rudy Giuliani for President, here is a quote from one of his speeches, as reported by the New York Times:

We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. [italics added]

This belongs in the Rudy Giuliani thread and not the Ron Paul thread.

Nevertheless, this is obviously unsettling. Has Rudy Giuliani uttered any statements to this end recently? Has he said anything contrary to this?

Edited June 30, 2007 by DarkWaters

[Statesman83]

I would still be more comfortable with Ron Paul if he would identify Islamic Fundamentalism as an enemy in itself and not simply a "reaction" to U.S. misdeeds and indiscretions. I would not want to support a leader who would remain meek during another hostage crisis, if one ever were to occur.

This belongs in the Rudy Giuliani thread and not the Ron Paul thread.

Nevertheless, this is obviously unsettling. Has Rudy Giuliani uttered any statements to this end recently? Has he said anything contrary to this?

My apologies. I found this blog a couple of days ago and, while reading through this thread, noticed some statements of support or potential support for Rudy Giuliani. I was a bit alarmed to hear objectivist expressing support for a man who's political philosophy is based partially on the rule of authority, so I posted the link in this thread (not knowing there was a Giuliani thread).

I have not been able to find any further backing, or disavowing of Giuliani's statement on authority. I do vaguely recollect him saying something similar during his speech at the 2004 Republican National Convention, but I haven't had time to go through the transcript and double check. His actions while being Mayor of New York City, however, do show that he aggressively supports his own statement. Among other things, Giuliani sued several companies that advertised against visiting, or doing business in New York City (as well as criticizing the current Mayor).

As for Ron Paul and foreign policy, he is not a pacifist. His position on the issue of war is similar to America's Founding Fathers: only Congress can legally declare war and wars should only be declared when America is unjustifiably attacked.

Concerning the current situation between the West-Muslims-Jews, all parties have been at guilt for abusing human rights in the middle east. Both the Arab states and Israel are either authoritatively socialist as worst (Iran), or democratic mixed-economies with a strong socialist leaning (Israel). Both the Arabs and the Israelis have supported terrorist type of attacks against each other. America have bulstered some dictatorial regimes when it suited any of the administrations purposes (such as the Shah in Iran, then the Baathists during the 1980s and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan) by giving largesse of weapons, money, etc. and then deposed of such governments when it no longer served a purpose.

It is partially for America's support of dictators in the Middle East that the general populace hate America. What Ron Paul's wishes are is to take America's role out of the Middle East and away from supporting dictatorships, monarchies, or socialistic democracies and focus on protecting America from future, unprovoked attacks. Once America is no longer perceived as being a moral crusader for the Arabs or Jews welfare, the terrorists will no longer have a scapegoat to blame and the wind will be taken out of their sails. They'll have to find some other excuse for violence, because people aren't going to back them in evicting an invader that does not exist.

Paul is no adherent to objectivism, despite claiming to be an admirer of Ayn Rand's works. However, you won't find any objectivists in any of the major or minor parties. I find it very appalling that objectivists complain about their freedoms being taken away, yet none of them come forward as candidates in order to protect their freedom. Instead, they vote it away by voting for the lesser of two evils, which is actually a declaration of support for that evil's policies. History shows that example, since this nation continues to slide towards socialism, despite voting for someone who is less socialistic then the other. Capitalists were encouraged to support Bush over Gore, since he talked like a fiscal conservative, but our government's budget has ballooned to almost double since Bush took office in 2001. How in the world is capitalism suppose to not only be defended but enshrined, when you consistenly vote for it's destroyers, simply on the fact that the other guy might kill it off quicker?

I am supporting Paul, because despite not being ideal, his political philosophy is similar to a few great political minds (i.e. the Founding Fathers) who were also not idealistic, but they don't apologetically denounce capitalism while using it's maxims like McCain or Romney, or vociferously attack it like Edwards and Obama.

[LaszloWalrus]

It is partially for America's support of dictators in the Middle East that the general populace hate America. What Ron Paul's wishes are is to take America's role out of the Middle East and away from supporting dictatorships, monarchies, or socialistic democracies and focus on protecting America from future, unprovoked attacks. Once America is no longer perceived as being a moral crusader for the Arabs or Jews welfare, the terrorists will no longer have a scapegoat to blame and the wind will be taken out of their sails. They'll have to find some other excuse for violence, because people aren't going to back them in evicting an invader that does not exist.

This passage, in my view, demonstrates the generally Libertarian rejection of the role of ideas in shaping a culture and in driving history.

As to Ron Paul: America was attacked unjustifiably. Ron Paul doesn't recognize it for some reason. The other candiates don't really either, but they are at least not avowed pacifists. Paul is against abortion and against immigration. He is openly against the separation of church and state.

There is no reason for Objectivists ("Objectivism" is a proper noun, and should be capitalized) to enter the political arena: they would be ripped apart. It is far better to work on spreading ideas.

Voting for the "lesser of two evils" is not to sanction the evil. It is recognizing that 1) there is no way, at present, to have a good candidate who is also electable, and 2) a lesser killer is not as bad as a greater killer.

Finally, please give an example of Israel committing terrorist acts.

[Thales]

Finally, please give an example of Israel committing terrorist acts.

At the risk of seeing this thread split (but it's pertinent here), David Horowitz has had a slide show put together on the history of Israel, making it clear how the Arabs have been nothing but thugs wanting to wipe out the Jews. This is well worth watching. It's very clear and educational.

History of Israel