Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ron Paul

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The analogy he used on NHPR was a good one. When one tries to discover the motive of a crime (say murder), they are not trying to blame the crime on the victim. He thinks that bad US foreign policy can be used to explain the terrorists motives. It is the reason why terrorists hate America.

I am not fully in favor of his isolationist policy because sometimes, like with Iran currently, it is necessary to "nip it in the bud". I will admit that I did/do not favor the war in Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were truly the reason why terrorists hate America, why are so many of them middle-class and rich educated men? This is hardly the class of people who is adversely affected by American international policy. I'm not saying that our foreign policy had nothing to do with it and, specifically, our relationship with Al Qaeda was perversely misguided and led directly to 9/11. However, that history alone is grossly insufficient to explain the attack, and Ron Paul very tellingly neglects the eastern hatred for Western economic and cultural dominance, a hatred that has existed since the first metropolis in history, Babylon. It is rooted in a conservatism that is violently reactionary against any modernization, a conservatism that is not new even in its militancy when one looks at the histories of Germany, China, and the modern Islamic world.

Now if Ron Paul conveniently missed this most important factor of anti-U.S. sentiment and cause of anti-Western violence, he is a poor communicator at best. If he doesn't know about it, he is thoroughly unfit for the presidency.

As for addressing the matter head-on (rather than proxied through a conversation about Ron Paul), I agree that we should not have invaded Iraq and that the war has been embarrassingly mis-managed from the beginning. Instead, we should have taken the utmost action against Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Syria (in that order of priority, and completely neglecting the issue of Afghanistan), and we should have had--and we should right now get--a much higher level of accountability for the private businesses we employ at the moment. Our leader and military officials should have been more cognizant of the religious differences and societies in the east, in order not to fall victim to the same kinds of disasters with which we are now faced.

So yeah. I agree with you on that. But I see one and only one candidate whom I trust to overhaul our military today. He's the only one with the practical experience and proven dedication that is necessary for the kinds of problems we have. In fact, it's almost supernatural how America has never been more in need of a candidate so perfectly tailored to today's issues. I still need to do more research, but I believe I will be voting Rudy Giuliani. And I can guarantee that I'm not voting Ron Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, that history alone is grossly insufficient to explain the attack, and Ron Paul very tellingly neglects the eastern hatred for Western economic and cultural dominance, a hatred that has existed since the first metropolis in history, Babylon.

Maybe so. But it is much easier to gain support for a terrorist organization if your 'arch enemy' sits at your doorsteps. By removing occupying forces the terrorists loose their argument and will turn against their next-best enemy (probably a neighboring country).

I suggest reading some of Ron Paul's articles on this subject. For example from 2005: Ending Suicide Terrorism

And a whole bunch of other articles: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so. But it is much easier to gain support for a terrorist organization if your 'arch enemy' sits at your doorsteps. By removing occupying forces the terrorists loose their argument and will turn against their next-best enemy (probably a neighboring country).

Although this might temporarily discourage attacks on the United States, it will not solve the problem of Islamic Totalitarianism and therefore will ultimately not keep the citizens of the United States safe in the long run. This cartoon summarizes my sentiments precisely, but in the context of World War II.

I suggest reading some of Ron Paul's articles on this subject. For example from 2005: Ending Suicide Terrorism

Ron Paul's article claims:

The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland."

If this is true, were the occupations in Vietnam by the United States, Afghanistan by the Soviets or Algeria by the French vexed with suicide bombing? Are these occupations just not recent enough? I think the driving force behind suicide bombing is fanatics committed to a dogma that forces its stalwarts to choose between their philosophy and their life. Suicide bombers obviously choose the former. The other factors are just circumstantial, while the aforementioned is a necessity. If such an ideology was eradicated, the suicide attacks would be almost non-existent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, on principle, hate libertarians, so on prejudice I don't believe I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul.

Why, on principle, then would you vote for Giuliani, a Republican? Why, on principle, vote for any Republican? Why not have, as you say, a "prejudice" against Republicans as such? Candidates, schmandidates... It's all about party affiliation...like the last election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rudy Giuliani performed an egregiously evil act by stomping all over business giants of the 1980s to make a political name for himself -- most notably by destroying business genius Michael Milken. Rudy Giuliani deserves to be ostracized not lionized.

I agree, what he did was wrong. At the same time, that was in the 80s. 20 years ago. A lot has happened to Giuliani since then--he's run for mayor and lost, run for mayor and won. Then he had the most successful mayoralty in New York City history, launched the largest privatization program in municipal history, modernized and organized the police force, went a long way toward neutralizing organized crime, replaced welfare with workfare, and then used workfare recipients for government services. In his first term. In his second term, he broke the spines of unions, initiated more ranging privatization schemes particularly with respect to NYC public education, continued his previous programs, dealt with cancer and a messy divorce in the middle of a bid for the Senate, prepared the city for terrorism, and then managed the crisis on 9/11 with sweeping success. Then he became a businessman.

I can hardly believe that a person who has been through all that is the same man he was 20 years ago. 20 years ago he had no political philosophy--he just had a job to do, and believed in doing it. After being mayor, he began espousing the principles of capitalism, down-sizing government, and deregulation. Moreover, his actions speak volumes to support his rhetoric. I think it's on these more recent actions that he should be judged for the presidency. Based on that, he's still not perfect, but he seems damn good and the best out there.

Maybe so. But it is much easier to gain support for a terrorist organization if your 'arch enemy' sits at your doorsteps. By removing occupying forces the terrorists loose their argument and will turn against their next-best enemy (probably a neighboring country).

I suggest reading some of Ron Paul's articles on this subject. For example from 2005: Ending Suicide Terrorism

And a whole bunch of other articles: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

By removing the occupying force, it will give the radical Muslims the time and resources to organize an attack on our soil. It will also mean that we will no longer have a strong central base in the east from which we can conduct intelligence operations. Certainly they will attack each other, but that is certainly not all they will do. If the mere lack of our presence would quell all violence, 9/11 would never have happened, nor the attack on the Cole, the '93 WTC bombing, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul’s stand on abortion is unfortunate, but as a practical matter it’s as irrelevant as Ronald Reagan’s was. Anti-choice is an idea whose time has gone. The public is overwhelmingly pro-choice, and so is the Supreme Court.

(His position on abortion seems to be minor compared with his support of more or less laissez-faire economics and an America First foreign policy.)

I wouldn’t fail to support Ron Paul for president just because of his anti-choice comments.

He’s not perfect, but reasoning like this:

... 1. Libertarian bad.

... 2. Ron Paul Libertarian.

... 3. Ron Paul bad.

is the sort of rationalistic nonsense that gives Objectivism a bad name (undeservedly so, it’s only allegedly Objectivist).

Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but we are not talking perfect here, we are talking good and best. Recall that Ayn Rand once supported Barry Goldwater for president (against Johnson) and he was far more un-ideal than Ron Paul.

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Guru Kid wrote:

> When one tries to discover the motive of a crime

> (say murder), they are not trying to blame the

> crime on the victim. [Ron Paul] thinks that bad

> U.S. foreign policy ... explain the terrorists

> motives. It is the reason why terrorists hate America.

and Aleph_0 replied:

> If it were ... the reason why terrorists hate

> America, why are so many of them middle-class

> and rich educated men?

If we translate “hate America” into

“hate the U.S. government for propping up the Saudi monarchy, propping up Israel (especially militarily), inadvertently blowing up a commercial Iranian airliner while supporting Saddam in the war against Iran, later defending a brutal dictatorship (namely Kuwait) against another (Iraq), later blockading Iraq, etc. etc. and mucking around in the Middle East generally"

then a good reply to Aleph_0 (assuming what he says is true, it’s the first I’ve heard of it) is rhetorical:

Why not? Indeed, why not _especially_?

It’s not that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are the good guys, but those who support what the U.S. government has been doing in the Middle East the last fifty years are not the good guys either. 9/11 was an incredibly stupid way to fight the U.S. government’s hated foreign policy, but as ‘The Guru Kid’ pointed out, one can understand the motivation for the crime.

If you engage in a war – say by furnishing Israel with bombs and bombers to drop them – don’t be surprised when you eventually get treated as a combatant. This “they hate us because we are free” is Neocon propaganda that should be laughed out of any discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lazlo Walrus wrote

> The fact that Paul writes for Lew Rockwell’s site ...

Dr. Ron Paul doesn’t write for Lew Rockwell. He does, evidently, allow Lew Rockwell to reprint the articles (with possibly changed titles) he writes for his own website. It’s like a syndicated column, only non-commercial. See www.house.gov/paul .

I don’t like Lew Rockwell either, but glibly calling him a pacifist (for opposing the Neocons?) is less than studied criticism.

Mark

Edited by MarkH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot has happened to Giuliani since then--he's run for mayor and lost, run for mayor and won. Then he had the most successful mayoralty in New York City history...

Rudy Giuliani destroyed more wealth and jobs in America than Osama bin Laden could hope for. It was not merely all the jobs at Drexel that Giuliani destroyed; he destroyed Milken, who was spearheading a financial overhaul of the American economy to make it competitive with the world economy. But incompetent businesspeople in New York were fearful of Milken's financial revolution, so they made a tacit agreement with Giuliani: "You destroy Milken for us and we'll give you the mayoralty of New York City."

Ron Paul’s stand on abortion is unfortunate...

As a medical doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies, Dr. Ron Paul understandably is pro-life; it makes sense considering his profession as an obstetrician. But his political views trump his professional views as he said on C-SPAN recently that he adheres to the US Constitution and that document does not give the federal government the power to regulate a woman's body, so he would defer the issue of abortion to the states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a medical doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies, Dr. Ron Paul understandably is pro-life; it makes sense considering his profession as an obstetrician.

How does one follow from the other? I know a fantastic obstetrician/gynecologist, in practice for over 40 years, a top billing physician in BC, who is pro-choice.fa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He’s not perfect, but reasoning like this:

... 1. Libertarian bad.

... 2. Ron Paul Libertarian.

... 3. Ron Paul bad.

is the sort of rationalistic nonsense that gives Objectivism a bad name (undeservedly so, it’s only allegedly Objectivist).

How is this line of reasoning inherently bad? Suppose that we replaced "libertarian" with nazi, communist, anarchist, nihilist, islamic fundamentalist or odinist would you still agree that this line of reasoning is bad? It sounds as if you are insinuating that we should not judge individuals based on their openly stated philosophy.

Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but we are not talking perfect here, we are talking good and best. Recall that Ayn Rand once supported Barry Goldwater for president (against Johnson) and he was far more un-ideal than Ron Paul.

Perhaps you would like to make a case for why Ron Paul is "far more ideal" than good ol' AuH20?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul is no longer associated with the Libertarian party and i think that is a lesser evil than destroying business as Rudy did.

I don't see any reason in hating his libertarian views since most of them (if not all) are consistent with an Objectivist notion of a legitimate government.

If the argument is that America is "not ready" for such a candidate, it is wrong because he has said that he understands there will be a transition period. And it is too early to guarantee that he won't be nominated from his party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

--so is there a candidate of principle, whom we should vote for?

First of all, change the "we" to "I". Objectivism isn't a political party, and there is no organized Objectivist movement to endorse a particular candidate.

Secondly, throw out "principles" - not that one shouldn't use them, but very few candidates espouse any principles that one could gauge with any consistency. For example, Clinton is a closet socialist, not an embodiment of socialist doctrine - she would most likely deny such a charge, but continue to make unconscious or semi-conscious nods to socialist doctrine as part of her personal patch-quilt of disparate, unconnected, and expedient political ideas.

Third, you must decide for yourself which is the most important standard upon which to judge your vote. In the last Presidential election, Leonard Peikoff announced he would vote for John Kerry, on the basis that Bush would continue inserting evangelical Christians in government offices (which he has done) - his concern was one of preventing the more dangerous of the mystics from retaining political power. Other Objectivist thinkers threw their support to Bush, since his leadership in the "war on terror" would be potentially more effective than Kerry's leadership, which could have resulted in all manner of compromises with our enemies (as it turns out, Bush is doing that anyway).

Personally, I'm pragmatic when it comes to elections. Given that there is no major movement to restore freedom in America along rational lines (only one among Constitutional, or Founders' lines, i.e. the reckless Libertarians), I can only look to the immediate future of our country, and pick who would be best given limited parameters.

What issues are important to me that are actually going to be affected by legislation? Which candidate will do the most good when faced with those issues?

Example: Evolution vs Creationism is not an issue will not come across the President's desk. No candidate (so far) has been bright enough to turn the question into one of making decisions between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence - so, outside of the character such answers reveal, asking a candidate which he believes in is meaningless vote-pandering.

For me, it's about concrete issues that the President will face such as ...

Iran - Will the gov't finally retaliate against them, or will they buy them off like they did North Korea?

Immigration - Will anyone with a pro-freedom agenda lead legislative change?

Taxation - Will there be income tax cuts or raises?

Corruption - Can a wedge between government and industry be driven without socialist controls, and can this candidate make it happen?

Government power - Who will rescind the unjust laws and lay down unjust powers that have been assumed under the Bush Administration?

Again, I hate thinking in such concrete terms, but these are extensions of abstract political values. There's no guaruntee that any candidate who met the bill would get these things done, or that the next Administration won't just reverse them. Given that even the most (seemingly) principled of Presidential candidates is still largely thinking in terms of "concrete particulars", it is only concrete particulars upon which I can make a decision.

[Right now, I'm on the fence; it's far too early to decide, especially with a few unannounced candidates still out there. Besides, a lot can happen in 16 months to change the priorities of these issues. I may still be scratching my head the night before Election Day.]

Edited by synthlord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this one:

1. Republicans are affiliated with Christianity.

2. X is a Republican.

------------------------------

. Therefore, X should not be voted for, even if X is "good"...

That is not bad although Dr. Peikoff's chain of reasoning is much more preferable on this issue. Although the conclusion is the same to that above, his reasoning is not deductive. Instead, it requires a complex chain of induction while using philosophic principles to integrate a prodigious amount of evidence from the history of religion, governance and the United States as well as recent events and current trends.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but we are not talking perfect here, we are talking good and best. Recall that Ayn Rand once supported Barry Goldwater for president (against Johnson) and he was far more un-ideal than Ron Paul.

Mark

No. We are talking poor and dreadful. There are no good politicians and there never has been a good government. There are only bad ones and worse ones. Choose the lesser of evils. And if you are tired of voting for the lesser of evils then vote C'thulu in 2008!

Bob Kolker

Edited by Robert J. Kolker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote:

>> [Ron Paul]’s not perfect, but reasoning ...

>> ... 1. Libertarian bad.

>> ... 2. Ron Paul Libertarian.

>> ... 3. Ron Paul bad.

>> is the sort of rationalistic nonsense that

>> [undeservedly] gives Objectivism a bad name ... .

DarkWaters asks:

> Suppose that we replaced "libertarian" with nazi ...

> would you still agree that this line of reasoning

> is bad?

Let me explain. "Nazi" (root: "national socialism") is fairly specifically defined. Even granting some ambiguity, all the senses of "Nazi" are bad. On the other hand, "libertarian" (root: "liberty") is not well-defined. Properly construed "liberty" is a good word, and in fact many good people call themselves politically libertarian. The trouble is, there are some nutters who call themselves libertarians too.

DarkWaters suggests I was saying:

> ... we should not judge individuals based on

> their openly stated philosophy.

My point was that calling someone a "libertarian" is meaningless unless you go into the real world details. I say judge individuals based on those details, not on a label that's been demonized by Peter Schwartz.

In the case of Ron Paul, I pretty much like the details.

Peter Schwartz would have you believe that all libertarians are like Murray Rothbard. That's his problem.

I wrote:

>> Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but we are not talking perfect

>> here, we are talking good and best. Recall that Ayn

>> Rand once supported Barry Goldwater for president

>> ... and he was far more un-ideal than Ron Paul

Bob Kolker disagrees, calling Dr. Paul "poor and dreadful" and slinging the generality: there are no good politicians. It looks like some here disagree in the case of Dr. Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

Border/Immigration: He is anti-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.

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

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

Property Rights: He opposes eminent domain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that calling someone a "libertarian" is meaningless unless you go into the real world details. I say judge individuals based on those details, not on a label that's been demonized by Peter Schwartz.

Yes, and until the real world members of the Libertarian Party and other notables such as Ron Paul distance themselves from their typical unconditional non-interventionist foreign policy, there is no reason to not judge all individuals who voluntarily affiliate themselves with the Libertarian Party on such an important issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, far more relevant, he opposes the various agreements that are attempts to open up trade: NAFTA etc. Evidently a protectionist.


Ron Paul is not a protectionist in the economic sense of the word. From my limited understanding of his opposition to NAFTA and the WTO he is opposed to placing control over any individual American, American corporation, or America's legislative decisions into the hands of foreign entities. NAFTA has inevitably led to aligning of "labor standards" for the signatories (the NAALC). Instead of having the effect of freeing trade, I agree with Paul when I think that these agreements are a step in the direction of subjecting American corporations to the anti-capitalistic rule of foreign governments. Instead of further consolidating government power and joining in these treaties in an attempt to somehow free trade, I'm sure Paul would rather check his premises, eliminate any American governmental interference in foreign trade, and encourage other governments to do the same.

I'm iffy on Paul because of his refusal to answer the question on how he intends to protect America. His speaks of "blowback" quite often--that the Islamist threat is a result of American interference in Middle Eastern affairs. He may even be correct in this assessment of the situation, but I see it as a non-issue, because these jihadists are trying to kill us now and if we withdrew our military from the Middle East tomorrow, it would not deter these people from wanting to destroy us. Therefore, we must proactively protect ourselves against the threat; not simply withdraw our forces from the Middle East entirely and hope for the best, which is what Paul proposes. Edited by softwareNerd
-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of having the effect of freeing trade, I agree with Paul when I think that these agreements are a step in the direction of subjecting American corporations to the anti-capitalistic rule of foreign governments.
Of course all these various "managed" free-trade agreements aren't ideal. However, they have not replaced a more-free regime but a less-free regime. Going from "no trade allowed" to "free trade allowed" is great but politically impossible. So, agreements like this end up being "trade allowed under certain conditions". The bottom line is that these types of agreements have increased rather than decreased international trade.

The more I read about Ron Paul, the less I like him. On the NAFTA issue, he seems to fear some type of one-America government (in the same vein as the UN-run new world order conspiracies).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron Paul’s stand on abortion is unfortunate, but as a practical matter it’s as irrelevant as Ronald Reagan’s was.

And Regan's stance was an abomination.

Anti-choice is an idea whose time has gone. The public is overwhelmingly pro-choice, and so is the Supreme Court.

I'm not so sure about the Supreme Court, and pro-lifers have made some progress with their agenda lately, but it's all irrelevant. I am simply not going to vote for a man who believes the government can rightly invade the body of an innocent human being and dictate one's life. That kind of political principle is inexcusable. I will never vote for somebody who describes himself as pro-life.

Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but we are not talking perfect here, we are talking good and best. Recall that Ayn Rand once supported Barry Goldwater for president (against Johnson) and he was far more un-ideal than Ron Paul.

I'm not asking for perfection, I'm asking for at least adequacy, and at best, a superiority over the other candidates. Ron Paul has reached neither.

Why not? Indeed, why not _especially_?

It’s not that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are the good guys, but those who support what the U.S. government has been doing in the Middle East the last fifty years are not the good guys either. 9/11 was an incredibly stupid way to fight the U.S. government’s hated foreign policy, but as ‘The Guru Kid’ pointed out, one can understand the motivation for the crime.

If you engage in a war – say by furnishing Israel with bombs and bombers to drop them – don’t be surprised when you eventually get treated as a combatant. This “they hate us because we are free” is Neocon propaganda that should be laughed out of any discussion.

I'm not very clear on what you're asking, but I will respond to some other points in this post. Nobody is saying that bin Laden & Co. are the good guys, nor that the U.S. government's previous policies were right. The point is that 1) nothing excuses the actions the terrorists take (as Ron Paul implies), and that 2) U.S. foreign activities alone does not account for historic anti-Western sentiments that have taken shape in militant Islamist organizations.

As for supplying Israel with bombs, that was at most an act of war against Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. We have not been attacked by any of them, nor have they declared war on us.

"They hate us because we are free" is simplistic but not far from the truth. Just look at history or, to make your research easier, look at Ian Buruma's book Murder in Amsterdam: The Death of Theo van Gogh and The Limits of Tolerance, which details the historic hatred that cultures have felt towards metropolises. In general this sentiment always takes the form of hatred for 1) "loose morals", women and men who are overtly sexual; 2) liberal society, in which people are able to talk, act, and transact freely; and 3) a preoccupation with money. This resistance has often been violent, and the most recent manifestation is militant Islamism. They would have hated us and attacked us even if we had not pursued sloppy foreign policies. If you think that their hatred for freedom is so exaggerated, why do they continue to oppress their own people? Why have they taught their children that Jews are devils who live in the large Western cities, are sexually promiscuous, and will steal your money? Why do they practice routine violence against Jews in their own communities? Why are their nations so predominantly rural? Why are the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, and all of those other radical Islamist organizations so phenomenally successful? U.S. intervention does not explain any of this in any satisfiable way. The only thing that explains this is a cultural resistance to liberalism, to freedom, to prosperity and the profit-motive.

Yes, they hate our freedom, as well as our success. That is a significant but small part of it. The other part is that they are terrified that these same progressive movements will spread to their own communities, corrupt the morals of their families and daughters, and turn their values toward materials rather than spirituality. And they are willing to wage war in order to conserve the values that they hold dear.

Rudy Giuliani destroyed more wealth and jobs in America than Osama bin Laden could hope for. It was not merely all the jobs at Drexel that Giuliani destroyed; he destroyed Milken, who was spearheading a financial overhaul of the American economy to make it competitive with the world economy. But incompetent businesspeople in New York were fearful of Milken's financial revolution, so they made a tacit agreement with Giuliani: "You destroy Milken for us and we'll give you the mayoralty of New York City."

I'd like to see a quantification of your claim.

In any case, I think the matter is more complicated that you make it out to be. Yes, through the white-collar prosecutions, Giuliani got some money backers. But Giuliani failed his first campaign, and some of them decided they didn't want to back a loser the second time around, so they really didn't put him in office. What put him in office was his vast and thorough understanding of New York City and how to get things done, his though-on-crime message, and Dinkins' utter failure.

As a medical doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies, Dr. Ron Paul understandably is pro-life; it makes sense considering his profession as an obstetrician.

I thought doctors were supposed to protect life. If anything, this only makes him more perverse, like a man trying to sustain only a vegetable-like life in human beings.

But his political views trump his professional views as he said on C-SPAN recently that he adheres to the US Constitution and that document does not give the federal government the power to regulate a woman's body, so he would defer the issue of abortion to the states.

What would he do, then, if he were faced with a bill from the legislature attempted to restrict the ability of women to have an abortion?

Paul is no longer associated with the Libertarian party and i think that is a lesser evil than destroying business as Rudy did.

Like I said, Rudy's white-collar prosecutions are 20 years old. If that's all you have against him, it's a fairly weak case.

And, as far as I know, Ron Paul's plan is to run for the Republican primary and, if he loses, run for the Libertarian primary.

I don't see any reason in hating his libertarian views since most of them (if not all) are consistent with an Objectivist notion of a legitimate government.

One glaring contradiction is his pro-life view, and the other is his isolationism.

As for his rhetoric about capitalism, it is unsubstantiated by any philosophy which would give his catechisms any meaning. This is the problem with the whole of libertarianism. It is so empty--and actively refuses to provide any substantive content to the meaning of libertarianism so as to not exclude anybody from the movement--that anarchists, Marxists, mixed-economiers, and everyone else can agree with the philosophy.

First of all, change the "we" to "I". Objectivism isn't a political party, and there is no organized Objectivist movement to endorse a particular candidate.

I didn't claim there is an Objectivist political party, and the pronoun "we" doesn't imply it. If I were talking with a group of Republicans or just to my friend, I would ask "what candidate should we vote for?"

Secondly, throw out "principles"

Like hell.

Personally, I'm pragmatic when it comes to elections.

It shows.

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...