Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I, on principle, hate libertarians, so on prejudice I don't believe I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul. One thing that I know about him in particular that I dislike is his demand to immediately withdrawal U.S. troops from Iraq, and another is his Marxist account of the history of war. Does anybody else have information about him?

Also, I might as well bring up a topic that should be on the table: The evil in libertarianism, largely, is that it claims to be a political philosophy, but in reality it avoids moral judgement, philosophy, and principle in order to garner members. Does this make a Republican or Democrat candidate any better? On what principle does Clinton or Obama run? Clinton, if you believe her campaign statements, runs on the principle of "protecting the American family", whatever the hell that means. Obama, if anything, runs on the principle that business is bad. McCain? In the thread about (I think) 2008 presidential hopefuls, we've eliminated that guy on principle. Giuliani? I think he runs on the principle of minimizing government and keeping it a well-oiled machine (cutting out corruption, red tape, not pandering to pressure groups, etc.). But that's arguable--so is there a candidate of principle, whom we should vote for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama, if anything, runs on the principle that business is bad.

What are you basing this on? Do you perceive Barak Obama's agenda to be more anti-business than those of Hillary Clinton or John Edwards? Just curious.

Edited by softwareNerd
Tested fix of 'snapback'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm basing it on his 07/24/07 speech to the Democratic National Committee in support of John Kerry. You can find it free in iTunes, in I think the audio-books section.

And no, I certainly don't take him to be more anti-business than Edwards. As for Clinton, I'm ambivalent because I don't know that much about her economic ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm basing it on his 07/24/07 speech to the Democratic National Committee in support of John Kerry. You can find it free in iTunes, in I think the audio-books section.

And no, I certainly don't take him to be more anti-business than Edwards. As for Clinton, I'm ambivalent because I don't know that much about her economic ideas.

Hillary Clinton is a socialist. She recently gave a speech where she talked about what she was going to do with the profits of oil companies, and it seemed not to even cross her mind to ask the question if she had the right to. She's also the one who tried to shove socialized medicine down our throats circa 1994. She's also exceedingly dishonest and very close minded, not that that's unusual among democrats, and you know she buys into all of the environmental pabulum, given she's a democrat.

Regarding Ron Paul, he was my representative when I lived in Texas. He even came to my door campaigning. In terms of making the government smaller, and increasing freedoms generally he has been good, probably the best in Congress. In terms of self-defense, he's been atrocious. IIRC, he may have been "pro-life". I believe he’s honest and a man of conviction, but fundamentally wrong on self-defense, which is a major weakness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with Thales sentiment, I don't see how Ron Paul could possibly do any worse than the mainstream candidates or our current president.

The difficulty with even considering Ron Paul as a presidential candidate is that it would take a vast philosophical change for him to have a chance of being elected. If, by some miracle, he were magically elected today, his views are at such odds with the political system, that he would just continue to function as a laughingstock. If a philosophical revolution did happen, we would surely have better candidates than Ron Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm basing it on his 07/24/07 speech to the Democratic National Committee in support of John Kerry.

A transcript of this speech is also available here.

He definitely made some anti-free trade statements. For example:

And fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, I say to you tonight: We have more work to do -- more work to do for the workers I met in Galesburg, Illinois, who are losing their union jobs at the Maytag plant that’s moving to Mexico, and now are having to compete with their own children for jobs that pay seven bucks an hour.

[John Kerry's] values and his record and affirm what is best in us. John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded; so instead of offering tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas, he offers them to companies creating jobs here at home.

This next quote is more blatantly anti-business.

John Kerry believes in energy independence, so we aren’t held hostage to the profits of oil companies, or the sabotage of foreign oil fields.

He also made some statements that were vaguely supportive of taking personal responsibility:

Now, don’t get me wrong. The people I meet -- in small towns and big cities, in diners and office parks -- they don’t expect government to solve all their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead, and they want to. Go into the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don’t want their tax money wasted, by a welfare agency or by the Pentagon. Go in -- Go into any inner city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can’t teach our kids to learn; they know that parents have to teach, that children can’t achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white. They know those things.

People don’t expect -- People don't expect government to solve all their problems.

Most importantly, I think Barak Obama's campaign will pivot around altruism (with a Christian flavor):

It is that fundamental belief -- It is that fundamental belief: I am my brother’s keeper. I am my sister’s keeper that makes this country work. It’s what allows us to pursue our individual dreams and yet still come together as one American family.

I believe that we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity.

I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair.

After re-reading his speech, I still do not think that a primary description of Senator Obama should be "anti-business." However, I expect his campaign to operate under many other principles of statism and of altruism. I expect to hear more Obama soundbytes centering around how the government can best serve the poor, the tired, the needy, the malnourished, the unemployed and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, like I said, if he is to be characterized by any principle, it should be anti-business. I'm not committed to the idea that he runs on any principle at all. But you might be right--it might be better to characterize him as running on state-imposed altruism which naturally lends itself to anti-business policy. In any case, I think it's understood that his principle, if any, will not be a desirable one. That was the essential point I was making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree with Thales sentiment, I don't see how Ron Paul could possibly do any worse than the mainstream candidates or our current president.

He might not be per se. However, it's a bit of a moot point, since he has two chance of winning, slim and none. I'm strongly leaning toward Guiliani right now.

...John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone ever catch the part where politicians say "Our jobs", as if those jobs are a right of the American people? THose jobs belong to the companies moving them overseas, and they are doing so because it's become such a farce in paperwork, wages, and bending over for the unions, to hire an American worker.

Those jobs are not ours, nor do they belong to the people trying to get them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree with Thales sentiment, I don't see how Ron Paul could possibly do any worse than the mainstream candidates or our current president.

The difficulty with even considering Ron Paul as a presidential candidate is that it would take a vast philosophical change for him to have a chance of being elected. If, by some miracle, he were magically elected today, his views are at such odds with the political system, that he would just continue to function as a laughingstock. If a philosophical revolution did happen, we would surely have better candidates than Ron Paul.

I agree with Thales sentiment too. That is, Ron Paul is and will be atrocious on national defense as Commander in Chief.

However, I disagree with your statement. Ron Paul will be a considerably worse President if someone moved into the oval office in 2009. Ron Paul is probably the most principled of all of the major presidential candidates that I have listed on this poll. While many other of the candidates might not take some necessary military actions for national defense for pragmatic reasons, Ron Paul would oppose almost any sort of action on principle. The last thing this country needs are regular Presidential addresses where President Paul lectures on Libertarian political philosophy and preaches the "immortality" of any sort of military policy that exceeds tit-for-tat warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a legal immigrant on a valid visa to the US, I don't totally disagree with Ron Paul. I especially like the no amnesty for illegal immigrants as I think that is unfair to the millions of legal immigrants in the US who have to go through a lot of pain to gain citizenship.

Having said that, I would rather see a complete overhaul of the immigration system that would allow for anyone (who does not have a criminal record) to gain a US visa and stay as long as they'd like. I would also like to abolish the welfare system and income taxes so the debate over whether illegal immigrants should get welfare is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a legal immigrant on a valid visa to the US, I don't totally disagree with Ron Paul. I especially like the no amnesty for illegal immigrants as I think that is unfair to the millions of legal immigrants in the US who have to go through a lot of pain to gain citizenship.
I disagree that the illegals have been unfair to you, though I understand why this is a common mistake. (Rather than divert this thread, see this post.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a lot of Objectivists may not favor him because of his view on immigration and abortion (which is not as bad because i think he favors state rights on that issue but he did vote for the ban on "partial birth" abortion), but i'm starting to think he is the best reuplican candidate out of the bunch.

Granted he will likely not make it through the primary. I wonder if he will, as he has before, run as a libertarian or an independent when he loses the primary.

Guru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hillary Clinton is a socialist. She recently gave a speech where she talked about what she was going to do with the profits of oil companies, and it seemed not to even cross her mind to ask the question if she had the right to. She's also the one who tried to shove socialized medicine down our throats circa 1994. She's also exceedingly dishonest and very close minded, not that that's unusual among democrats, and you know she buys into all of the environmental pabulum, given she's a democrat.

Regarding Ron Paul, he was my representative when I lived in Texas. He even came to my door campaigning. In terms of making the government smaller, and increasing freedoms generally he has been good, probably the best in Congress. In terms of self-defense, he's been atrocious. IIRC, he may have been "pro-life". I believe he’s honest and a man of conviction, but fundamentally wrong on self-defense, which is a major weakness.

Weak on personal self-defense? LOL He is ranked highest by groups such as the NRA and GOA on gun ownership and freedom of firearms issues. He is the most vorocious defender of the Second Ammendment in Congress. He consistently calls for the abolition of all gun control laws, and consistently defends a citizen's right to carry and own firearms. He may be anti-war, but he is not anti-self defense - at least not on an individual or domestic societal level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this bizzare:

http://race42008.com/2007/06/04/race-4-200...h-rep-ron-paul/

KWN: Has your pro-life position ever brought you into conflict with other libertarians?

Rep. Ron Paul: You know, it’s surprising, not a whole lot. I mean, they disagree but there is a Libertarian for Life organization. Ironically and interestingly enough it is run by someone who claims to be an atheist. Yet the woman is very friendly and we talk a lot and have worked together. She actually uses Ayn Rand as a defense for her position — individual responsibility argument. My defense of pro-life as a libertarian is that killing a live fetus that is viable and can breathe and has a heartbeat and brainwaves; to kill that fetus is an act of aggression, and that [is against] the whole principle of libertarianism.

Bold Mine

Libertarians really don't understand what they read, do they?

Edited by Myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Libertarians really don't understand what they read, do they?

From what I've read of Ron Paul, it sounded as though he was against abortion at all times, in all cases. Yet here he specifically talks about a viable fetus with brain waves and such. Does anyone have any recent info on his exact position regarding abortion?

His position on abortion is my main stepping block in considering him the most palatable candidate so far (other than the fact that he'll never win the election, but why get caught up in details...), but I'd be much less concerned if he was against particularly late abortions, though I'd want to know the reasons why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what I've read of Ron Paul, it sounded as though he was against abortion at all times, in all cases. Yet here he specifically talks about a viable fetus with brain waves and such. Does anyone have any recent info on his exact position regarding abortion?

I was mainly astounded by the libertarian justification of "pro-life" via Ayn Rand's non-existent "individual responsibility" argument. That's a new one for me. How anyone who knows anything about Rand's non-fiction could confuse her position on abortion is beyond me. If they disagree with her, then fine, but don't use her name to support ideas she specifically rejected. The fact that Ron Paul holds a person like that in high esteem is a worse sign than any one particular position he has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul gave an impressive radio interview that was televised on C-SPAN. He talked about how his political thinking was influence by reading Mises and Rand. His views on objective money, non-interventionism, free-market environmentalism, ending violent taxation, reducing spending, honoring the separation of church & state and the system of federalism, upholding the constitution, and even a possible return to state-elected Senators sound good. Is he John Galt? No, but in an age when Hillary is talking about mixing religious faith with politics to collectivize America, Ron Paul is sounding better and better...

Radio interview: http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/ron_paul_2008/...aul_on_new.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He might sound "better and better" but the man is a Libertarian in the worst way: against US self-defense, strangley anti-immigration and anti-abortion, and an apologist for Islamic terrorists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that particularly bothers me about so many of the presidential candidates is that almost none of them have any experience in the executive branch. They might be able to sit back with their finger in the wind and figure out which laws to vote for and which to vote against. They might be able to coalition-build and do all kinds of legislative politicing, but they have no experience taking an idea or a goal and putting it into effect. Give him the project to defend America. What's he going to do? Who is he going to appoint, what will his diplomatic policy be, when will he issue force? Give him the task of overhauling the national intelligence. What steps will he take? He's never been in a situation where he has to answer these kinds of questions. The most leadership he has had to exercise is as a doctor in the military and as a businessman. Now both are respectable and good work experience, but nowhere near sufficient for President and Commander in Chief of the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He might sound "better and better" but the man is a Libertarian in the worst way: against US self-defense, strangley anti-immigration and anti-abortion, and an apologist for Islamic terrorists.

1. US self defense: He said on the show that he thinks the American defense is weaker than ever and should be boosted. He is not like the leftists who respects the Islamic culture but rather argues the effects of "blowback". I don't see how his foreign policy is any worse than the current administrations non-war in Iraq.

2. He is anti illegal immigration. In this regard his positions are the same as any other republican candidates.

3. He does not think Roe v. Wade is a good idea but would likely leave the decision up to individual states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) He has blamed the U.S. foreign policy for 9/11 rather than having blamed the terrorists. He has called for precipitous withdrawal from Iraq.

2) Giuliani has a clear plan for a rational immigration policy--one that would protect us from dangerous immigrants while welcoming those who seek to earn a living and contribute to this country.

3) Less than one would want, but about as much as one can get. I would, however, like to know whether he would veto any limitations at all on first-trimester abortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...