Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rand Paul

Rate this topic


Seanjos

Recommended Posts

edit: for the record, I did not vote for Paul. Just trying to understand the thought process of his fierce opposition.
Specifically about voting, my thought process is pretty simple: I consider it to be a wasted vote to vote for someone who has no chance of winning.

Hypothetically, if I definitely did not want to vote for another candidate, I could see myself voting for a Libertarian as a type of "statement", but even this would mean making the effort to stop by the polling place... so, I'd only do so if I was there already... say to vote for/against some ballot measure.

Added: To clarify, this does not imply that I would vote for Ron Paul if he had a chance of winning. If he did, that would imply a change in the views of the electorate. Only understanding further details of such a hypothetical would allow me to decide which way I might go. My guess is that if the underlying details as favorable, then we'd have a better candidate anyway. So ,I'm back to square one.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just trying to understand the thought process of his fierce opposition.
Apart from the fact that it's waste of effort to support an unrealistic candidate, his understanding of law and his representations of the facts of law are sufficiently imperfect that he's not just "less desirable", he's actively bad. His position on the (non)legality of income taxes for example is an embarrassment. His "We the People" act is lunatic in declaring violation of the First Amendment in the area of religion to be above judicial review. He generally is confused about the extent to which the Constitution protects individual rights, and seems to hold that as long as the states violate your rights, it's okay, thus he doesn't hold with constitutional protections of rights being incorporated against the states. His anarchist position on jury nullification is an affront to the rule of law. His position on national defense is dangerous. The implication of his "Dr. No" position at the level of him being president of the US is not credible (that is, I cannot believe that he would maintain that stance, and we know from his "Sanctity of Life Act" that he violates his own claimed position on express authorization). He is willing to have a national sales tax. His position against treaties that eliminate punitive tarifs is contrary to free market principles, and his position on immigration is contrary to principles of individual rights. It's not just the fact that he has wrong positions but that he is so fundamentally contradictory. I was struck by one aspect of the incoherence of his position: he opposes eminent domain. What's the problem? Well, it's constitutionally allowed. So his "expressly authorized" position doesn't mean anything, it seems.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Even with Reagans faults, at least for a moment the Republican party actually looked for a while like it was going to succeed at limiting the size of government until Bushs compassionate/neo-big government progressive conservatism became the norm. I do agree that it would be very rationalistic to simply wait around for the "ideal" candidate especially within such a Kantian dominated cultural era, we'd be lucky to even see another candidate come close to Ron Paul again let alone Objectivism. We truly do need a moral revolution before we can hope for a decent political one.

I do not doubt that Ron Paul is an infinitely better choice than Mccain or Obama but that's not really saying much by comparison (It's like saying drinking cough syrup tastes better than drinking ones own urine)- it would be a dangerous thing to give a candidate the passing slip simply because they agree with you on the majority of the issues except for a few critical ones. The quantity of issues he gets right doesn't outweigh the quality of issues he gets wrong.

"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. :dough:

Thanks for that. I should've known it was Bastiat.

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.

Having reflected on this statement, I now realize that I made it in error. I hereby retract it and apologize. Odden, Egoist and others made excellent points.

Edited by cliveandrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having reflected on this statement, I now realize that I made it in error.
Well, if Ron Paul made you aware of something, and that finally led you to Objectivism, bless his heart. The friend who gave me my first Rand didn't even like her, but thought I might... bless his heart!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if Ron Paul made you aware of something, and that finally led you to Objectivism, bless his heart. The friend who gave me my first Rand didn't even like her, but thought I might... bless his heart!

I feel the same way. It's hard to hate him after everything he's done to influence my thinking.

Edited by cliveandrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the name "Rand Paul" was coincidental. His son's first name is "Randall", so perhaps this is just a shortening? Ron Paul obviously doesn't think very highly of Ayn Rand, if
video is any indication.

He says he likes Rand, but thought she was 'too militant'. Typical Paultard pacifism.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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