Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rand Paul

Rate this topic


Seanjos
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul Krugman and about a million other economists of that kind.

Judging by what he advocates he has a deeper knowledge about the fundamentals of economics.

Interesting. I thought he was what, a gynecologist if I'm not mistaken?

When did he become an economist? My impression of Ron Paul is that he's spouting nonsense, confusing terms left and right when talking about the economy. I will admit, many of the specific measures he promised would move us toward a more free economy, but I could never trust a man who has the right catch phrases, without the fundamentals to back it up.

In other words, what he advocates doesn't speak to deeper knowledge of the fundamentals. In fact that he avoids talking about the fundamentals, and backing up his claims, betrays a lack of knowledge.

So, as far as how good an economist he is, I'd just say this: he isn't one.

Now, you could claim that he's a better politician than some others, which has been his main occupation for a few decades now. If we look at what he ran for president on, we'll find a few scattered ideas that would, perhaps, help the economy. I say perhaps, because without knowing what he's basing his ideas on, I can't know how he will deal with the various unforeseen events and details one cannot address in a youtube video, during a campaign.

And at what price would that supposed economic freedom come about? One fundamental principle he made very clear is in the field of international relations: he basically claims that 9/11 was brought about by American interventionism, and the proper way to defend this country would be to withdraw within our borders, abandoning our allies: presumably including Israel.

Another fundamental he made clear: he's deeply religious.

Another one: a fetus is a baby, abortion is murder.

I will give him a few areas on which he's right, for instance drugs, and I'm not sure about his immigration policies. If he's for open borders, I'll give him that too, but I 'm not all that sure he's unequivocally for that.

Overall, my honest evaluation is this: I would need to do a lot more research, and have every piece of information I find out from now on about him be in his favor, for me to place him above Obama for instance on a list of favorites. And believe me, Obama ain't to high on the list.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came to Objectivism through Ron Paul. I was deeply moved by his presidential campaign and became interested in Austrian economics, which in turn led me to Objectivism. As a result of reading Objectivist literature, I now understand Paul's errors, but still consider him vastly superior to all other candidates, and do not regret voting for him. Those who say that Paul is not fundamentally sound on economics are betraying their objectivity. He is GOLD on economics, firmly grounded in the Austrian school, and has a 30 year congressional record to back it up. His stance on abortion is regrettable, but that does not negate the fact that he is the world's premier advocate of limited government and rational economics. And if you have anything in the way of a contrary opinion, you are simply allowing your hatred of religion to cloud your judgement on the subject.

Edited by cliveandrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came to Objectivism through Ron Paul. I was deeply moved by his presidential campaign, which inspired an interest in economics, which in turn led me to Objectivism. As a result of reading Objectivist literature, I now understand Paul's errors, but still consider him vastly superior to all other candidates, and do not regret voting for him. Those who say that Paul is not fundamentally sound on economics are betraying their objectivity. He is GOLD on economics, firmly grounded in the Austrian school, and has a 30 year congressional record to back it up. His stance on abortion is regrettable, but does not negate the fact that he is the world's premier advocate of limited government and rational economics. And if you have anything in the way of a contrary opinion, you are simply allowing your hatred of religion to cloud your judgement on the subject.

Is limited government protectionism? Is limited government a blurring of the lines between church and state? Militarization of the U.S/Mexican border? And what about the objectivity of the statement that the U.S brought on 9/11?

These are extremist policies. It wouldn't be as bad if these were minimal and persuadable with Dr. Paul, but they aren't. He is a zealot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if you have anything in the way of a contrary opinion, you are simply allowing your hatred of religion to cloud your judgement on the subject.
That's a fairly zealotous statement. I suggest that you look at the actual arguments against Paul and decide whether you really mean to say that Paul's opponents -- within Objectivism -- are irrational.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came to Objectivism through Ron Paul. I was deeply moved by his presidential campaign, which inspired an interest in economics, which in turn led me to Objectivism. As a result of reading Objectivist literature, I now understand Paul's errors, but still consider him vastly superior to all other candidates, and do not regret voting for him. Those who say that Paul is not fundamentally sound on economics are betraying their objectivity. He is GOLD on economics, firmly grounded in the Austrian school, and has a 30 year congressional record to back it up. His stance on abortion is regrettable, but does not negate the fact that he is the world's premier advocate of limited government and rational economics. And if you have anything in the way of a contrary opinion, you are simply allowing your hatred of religion to cloud your judgement on the subject.

He also wants to get rid of the federal reserve which is a big plus.

The general response to this guy by Objectivists boggles me a bit, and I wonder if some of his detractors could clarify some things for me. I am aware of his faults and departures from Objectivism, but as office holders go, he seems like a prize compared to the religious socialists we almost always get. The fact that someone is in the house of representatives arguing(alone) explicitly against central planning and socialism is one of the few things that gives me hope that the US is not set on an irreversible downslope economically, politically, and culturally.

He doesn't claim to be an Objectivist so he is not misrepresenting himself or objectivism. He's out there, "in the arena," and still manages to stick to his principles well. And further, most of his principles are solidly pro-laissez-faire. So what gives? Why does he generate such a negative emotional response as compared to any of conviction-less democrats or republicans who have been so busy espousing their own rancid combinations of socialism and theocracy on the grounds of political expediency?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I came to Objectivism through Ron Paul. I was deeply moved by his presidential campaign and became interested in Austrian economics, which in turn led me to Objectivism. As a result of reading Objectivist literature, I now understand Paul's errors, but still consider him vastly superior to all other candidates, and do not regret voting for him. Those who say that Paul is not fundamentally sound on economics are betraying their objectivity. He is GOLD on economics, firmly grounded in the Austrian school, and has a 30 year congressional record to back it up. His stance on abortion is regrettable, but that does not negate the fact that he is the world's premier advocate of limited government and rational economics. And if you have anything in the way of a contrary opinion, you are simply allowing your hatred of religion to cloud your judgement on the subject.

I think he's pretty good on economics. What he is bad on are issues such as defense, abortion and immigration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also wants to get rid of the federal reserve which is a big plus.

The general response to this guy by Objectivists boggles me a bit, and I wonder if some of his detractors could clarify some things for me. I am aware of his faults and departures from Objectivism, but as office holders go, he seems like a prize compared to the religious socialists we almost always get. The fact that someone is in the house of representatives arguing(alone) explicitly against central planning and socialism is one of the few things that gives me hope that the US is not set on an irreversible downslope economically, politically, and culturally.

He doesn't claim to be an Objectivist so he is not misrepresenting himself or objectivism. He's out there, "in the arena," and still manages to stick to his principles well. And further, most of his principles are solidly pro-laissez-faire. So what gives? Why does he generate such a negative emotional response as compared to any of conviction-less democrats or republicans who have been so busy espousing their own rancid combinations of socialism and theocracy on the grounds of political expediency?

I don't remember where this quote came from, but somebody once said "the most destructive opponent to a philosophy is not to be defeated but improperly defended." or something along those lines. The point is, Ron Paul earns the most criticism among Objectivist specifically because he comes so close and yet strays away on other issues thus misrepresenting Individualism and basically doing to Capitalism what Bush did to Conservatism; Ruined it! If Ron Paul is going to be the popular spokes person of Lassie-faire, then he better do it right or else he'll give people the wrong impression that'll wind up lumping Objectivists within the kookie, bible thumping, "New World Order" conspirators for at least the next couple decades. I don't think anybody on this forum wants that regardless of how tempting his monetary and fiscal policies are.

Edited by Miles White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

aequalsa: I know plenty of moderate democrats who are very open, philosophically, to Objectivism, precisely because they require some degree of evidence and logic to accept something. They have trouble with their epistemology, but they do at least look at things with a critical eye.

Ron Paul, and a lot of his supporters, on the other hand, seem just irrational to me. (he's what most people would call extremist-in the crazy 9/11 conspiracy theorist sense of the word)

As for the idea that I'm somehow rejecting him on an emotional level, I assure you it's quite the opposite: emotionally, I was rooting for him, especially before I became acquainted with some of the details of his platform, precisely because I hate the other guys even more. However, when I look at him rationally, I realise that the differences are insignificant, and my positive emotional reaction to some of the sentences he throws around and I like hearing was completely misguided.

P.S. I do realize extremist is not necessarily a bad thing to be, but when it is a bad thing, then it's really bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just how is supporting someone like Ron Paul (as individuals) going to mean a compromise of Objectivism? It's not like someone is going to discover that the various people on here voted for him and since they are Objectivists then Ron Paul's faults and inconsistencies will be connected directly to Rand's philosophy.

That's like saying that since people on this board voted for Obama that we agree that his particular brand of socialism is better than LFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember where this quote came from, but somebody once said "the most destructive opponent to a philosophy is not to be defeated but improperly defended." or something along those lines. The point is, Ron Paul earns the most criticism among Objectivist specifically because he comes so close and yet strays away on other issues thus misrepresenting Individualism and basically doing to Capitalism what Bush did to Conservatism; Ruined it! If Ron Paul is going to be the popular spokes person of Lassie-faire, then he better do it right or else he'll give people the wrong impression that'll wind up lumping Objectivists within the kookie, bible thumping, "New World Order" conspirators for at least the next couple decades. I don't think anybody on this forum wants that regardless of how tempting his monetary and fiscal policies are.

I don't know...I'd say conservatism has been ruined since long before bush got his hands on it.

My concern is that if we are to wait around for a perfect candidate then it will likely be an extremely long wait. I doubt very much that many who are opposed to Paul would be any more likely to support Jefferson, Adams, and Madison were they running for office because of their inconsistencies, and they seem to have had a great positive affect on liberty. To wait for an ideal candidate seems dangerously close to rationalism.

My second issue is that in spite of all of his differences, I fail tot see how he is worse then say Mccain or Obama.

I do not mean to say that we ought not oppose particular opinions of his or support him all out. Just that our energy might be better spent opposing the consistently bad people who our countrymen consistently do elect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember where this quote came from, but somebody once said "the most destructive opponent to a philosophy is not to be defeated but ineptly defended."

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."

-The Law by Frederic Bastiat, 1850

It was in my bank of quotes. :pimp:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a matter of getting wrong, it's a matter of what you get it wrong on.

In Paul's case he drops the ball on some very vitol issues. So much so that it contradicts his positives. He's a good congressman, but wouldn't be a good president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just how is supporting someone like Ron Paul (as individuals) going to mean a compromise of Objectivism? It's not like someone is going to discover that the various people on here voted for him and since they are Objectivists then Ron Paul's faults and inconsistencies will be connected directly to Rand's philosophy.
It is kinda exactly like that. Even though Paul is actually, factually pretty far from Objectivism, an uneducated public will have a mighty struggle to grasp the fact that his philosophy is unrelated to Objectivism, and were the Paul train-wreck actually to gain any greater prominence, he would inflict substantial harm on Objectivism simply by proximity. If Paul were packaged as a "good old-fashioned conservative" who abjured Objectivism the way god-fearing conservatives do, we would be better off. What makes Paul dangerous to Objectivism is that he poses as someone vaguely associated with Rand's ideas. With friends like him, who needs enemies?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is kinda exactly like that. Even though Paul is actually, factually pretty far from Objectivism, an uneducated public will have a mighty struggle to grasp the fact that his philosophy is unrelated to Objectivism, and were the Paul train-wreck actually to gain any greater prominence, he would inflict substantial harm on Objectivism simply by proximity. If Paul were packaged as a "good old-fashioned conservative" who abjured Objectivism the way god-fearing conservatives do, we would be better off. What makes Paul dangerous to Objectivism is that he poses as someone vaguely associated with Rand's ideas. With friends like him, who needs enemies?

I see what you are saying but it seems to me that the current Objectivist aversion to political office (in their own sake and in their own name) has left people like Paul with no philosophical base to speak for them anyway.

Activism will counter some of the libertarianism=Objectivism BS but most won't even read the OpED of a front page WSJ article two days after it was published.

I think the focus needs to shift from how much worse Ron Paul is than say a political Ayn Rand would be to the other side of the question...

How is Obama's socialism better for LFC than Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism?

Could McCain have stood up for rights better than Paul would have?

I'm thinking that the USA is headed for a polarized political system with the new-age socialists heading the Democratic Party on one side, and born again fundamentalists in charge of the Republican Party on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the focus needs to shift from how much worse Ron Paul is than say a political Ayn Rand would be to the other side of the question...
So there are two forks to pursue. One regards the next president. Ron Paul isn't such a person so there's no point spending time on that "option". When we're looking at actual candidates in 7 years (assuming Onyango doesn't screw up seriously or get snuffed), then we have to ask, which of these jokers -- with a realistic hope of getting elected -- is the best? The other fork is, what political actions can we undertake now, to position a good candidate in the future? For example, are there any actually Objectivist politicians worth grooming? Paul is not worth that effort either, because he's a loose canon and not an Objectivist. Instead, we should be looking for people like Kendall who might run for office.
How is Obama's socialism better for LFC than Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism?
But why is that a question at all? It doesn't relate to any actual choice. I just don't see why it's worth talking about Paul at all.
Could McCain have stood up for rights better than Paul would have?
Another non-issue: McCain was a credible candidate, as was Obama, so the only rational comparison is McCain v. Obama. Paul does not enter into the equation. I refer you to the zillions of McCain v. Obama threads for opinions on that particular choice.
I'm thinking that the USA is headed for a polarized political system with the new-age socialists heading the Democratic Party on one side, and born again fundamentalists in charge of the Republican Party on the other.
Possibly. The question is whether the elephant leadership will realize that their embrace of socialism and their embrace of religion is a strategic mistake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I'm thinking that the USA is headed for a polarized political system with the new-age socialists heading the Democratic Party on one side, and born again fundamentalists in charge of the Republican Party on the other.

We are pretty much there.

As to Ron Paul/whoever....it seems that we (Objectivists) tend to let the perfect be the enemy of the good sometimes. It is simply a political reality that an Objectivist President (even as a candidate) is highly unlikely anytime soon. Should we then be reduced to either voting against Brand X vs. Brand Y (or vice versa) or abstaining until an Objectivist "Messiah" comes along to liberate us? Face it, we are destined to be voting for the lesser of evils for the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Face it, we are destined to be voting for the lesser of evils for the foreseeable future.
Yes, but it does not follow that one should vote for or support Ron Paul. I think the case of Alan Greenspan is illustrative here. Someone who ends up doing enough bad in the name of a particular intellectual movement can create bad press for that movement.

For me, it is not about wanting perfection. I'd be happy to vote for and support many an imperfect candidate.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but it does not follow that one should vote for or support Ron Paul. I think the case of Alan Greenspan is illustrative here. Someone who ends up doing enough bad in the name of a particular intellectual movement can create bad press for that movement.

For me, it is not about wanting perfection. I'd be happy to vote for and support many an imperfect candidate.

This is more specifically what I do not understand. Your position(and many others') seems to be that even though he is not an objectivist, his similarity is close enough to ruin objectivism's good name. So rather than vote for or support someone who is somewhat similar, you will support someone far removed from anything remotely similar to your beliefs.

From my point of view, this seems to leave you in the uncomfortable place of either voting for a perfect objectivist or voting for someone not similar enough to objectivism in anyway, so as to avoid any possible association.

So on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being Stalin and 10 being Rand, you can vote for 10 or anything below 6. 7,8, and 9 might misconstrue the public's view of objectivism so no votes for them. So there is no "good." There is only evil and perfect.

I fail to see how these standards leave any hope at all of moving in a positive direction.

edit: for the record, I did not vote for Paul. Just trying to understand the thought process of his fierce opposition.

Edited by aequalsa
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...