Constant Conservative Ron Paul...

[Ben]

[hippifried]

Where Are the Female Libertarians?

They're probably both drooling over some commie with a big bulge.

[Ben]

Ron Paul Bots:

[Ben]

[Ben]

Ron Paul's interview with Glenn Greenwald starts at the 12:23 mark:

[broncofan]

Going back to the origin of this thread, I think I have an explanation for why Ron Paul has been able to maintain consistency in his views throughout his political career. He is an extremist and so it is always very easy for him to know which direction to pull on any policy decision.

He believes in nearly absolute free markets and so doesn't forget to say that he thinks regulatory agencies should be de-funded or abolished. He believes the U.S should be on the gold standard, that the fed should be abolished, and that social welfare programs should cease to exist. He believes in an almost absolute policy of non-interventionism, to the extent that this policy should be adhered to even in the face of genocide. He avoids testing this proposition by calling every humanitarian crisis a "false flag" operation and engaging in crank conspiracy talk when confronted with any complexity.

He thinks the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional but even it were not he has said he would oppose it for policy reasons, as it conflicts with his Libertarianism. His newsletters from the 90's ranted about how the Americans with Disabilities Act forced dentists to treat AIDS patients who are basically no better than murderers for seeking treatment. He has denied knowledge of a great deal of what was written in his publications, but this view attacking legislation that created extra-contractual rights for vulnerable people seems right up his alley.

Yes, he's consistent. He's also a batty extremist.

[Ben]

Going back to the origin of this thread, I think I have an explanation for why Ron Paul has been able to maintain consistency in his views throughout his political career. He is an extremist and so it is always very easy for him to know which direction to pull on any policy decision.

He believes in nearly absolute free markets and so doesn't forget to say that he thinks regulatory agencies should be de-funded or abolished. He believes the U.S should be on the gold standard, that the fed should be abolished, and that social welfare programs should cease to exist. He believes in an almost absolute policy of non-interventionism, to the extent that this policy should be adhered to even in the face of genocide. He avoids testing this proposition by calling every humanitarian crisis a "false flag" operation and engaging in crank conspiracy talk when confronted with any complexity.

He thinks the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional but even it were not he has said he would oppose it for policy reasons, as it conflicts with his Libertarianism. His newsletters from the 90's ranted about how the Americans with Disabilities Act forced dentists to treat AIDS patients who are basically no better than murderers for seeking treatment. He has denied knowledge of a great deal of what was written in his publications, but this view attacking legislation that created extra-contractual rights for vulnerable people seems right up his alley.

Yes, he's consistent. He's also a batty extremist.

I wouldn't say that he believes in absolute "free" markets. Remember absolute "free" markets mean absolutely no government intervention. He certainly supports the military. Which, of course, exists outside the market system. As he would -- and does -- consider it a public good. And, again, that exists outside the market. It's an externality. Or external to markets. And, too, he supports a public police force.
I have disagreements with Paul. But I think he's good on a lot of issues. I consider myself a left-leaning libertarian. I mean, I do support gay marriage etc., etc.

[broncofan]

Hi Ben,
I said nearly absolute free markets. You are right that believing in having a standing army is outside the market system, a public good, a positive externality that would otherwise not be paid for. This is for me one of his few reality based positions.


Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Some of his other positions are not purely libertarian views but have their own little quirk. For instance his views on the first amendment favor the free exercise clause more than the establishment clause on religion. It means he doesn't believe the constitution says that there is even an implied separation of church and state. It allows free practice, but the establishment clause in his view only prevents the government from choosing a religion. The Supreme Court interprets it much more broadly than that.

His views on sodomy, gay marriage, and abortion are not exactly pure libertarian views as I'm sure you know in disagreeing with him there. They are sort of a mixture of state's rights advocacy, strict construction constitutionality, and pro-religion bias. Of course, if I went into it there's quite a bit wrong with Mr. Paul's understanding of the Constitution. He seems to disagree with over 200 years worth of interpretation of the document in favor of his own personal view.

But the biggest indictment of him are his positions linked above. Go through and take a look at them one by one. Here's my caution before doing so. Don't think too much about his justifications for having a position because it's very easy to listen to these rationalizations and pretend there's something deeply principled about them. For instance someone might say, "I'm for genocide, but you don't understand, it's only because I am generally in favor of anything that prevents over-population. I've supported every measure of that kind". Look more at what he supports.

He often supports things for many reasons. For instance, he may say he thinks the civil rights act is unconstitutional (it's not), but he also says he thinks it creates racial disharmony. To believe this last statement is to truly have your head up your ass. Look at what he says about sexual harassment in the workplace. That a female who complains about being subjected to it and does not leave her job is valuing her employment over her morals by not quitting. So again, he may quite quaintly claim that it is his libertarianism, in other words his view that employers should be able to do what they want. But his real reason boils down to something else: he blames the victim.

Other views of his are just plain stupid. That judges don't even have the right to instruct the jury on what the law is. The entire point of the instruction is to tell the jury that they must figure out what happened and then apply it to the law as the Judge explains it. But Paul thinks this somehow usurps the rights of the accused to a trial by jury....that the founders believed that jurors should just sit in a box and act based on whim and caprice. I don't know where he comes up with half this shit.

Some inconsistencies: he believes abortion should be left to the states, but then voted in favor of federal legislation banning "partial birth" abortion. This is why one should pay attention to what he does, because his explanations are a complete fraud. Also loved his lecture upon looking at the bill to consider acting in Darfur, that it was not in the United States' interests.

[broncofan]

More evidence that Ron Paul is homophobic. His position on gay marriage is about as muddled and inconsistent as it could be. At once, he says that he thinks marriage should not be a government function, and so it should be a matter of any two people engaging in a private association.

On the other hand, he believes that states should be able to ban gay marriage. I don't know how to reconcile these two views except to say that maybe in the absence of getting his way (that the government stays out of marriage), he prefers that this legislative power resides in the states rather than the federal government.

However, if he believes that it's ideal for both the state and federal government to stay out of it altogether, shouldn't he prefer that when states do inevitably regulate marriage that they choose the least restrictive definition possible? In other words, if he believes that in his best case scenario individuals decide for themselves, why in his second best scenario does he support a restrictive definition of the institution that excludes gays?

Then there's the issue of him saying he would have voted for DOMA. DOMA basically allowed the federal government to impose its own view of marriage on the states and to thereby disregard the state's definition of marriage. Very odd for such a staunch state's rights advocate to support this legislation except that the government's definition was the exclusive one.

As you can see from his chameleon like views on gay marriage, his constitutional justifications have a sort of heads I win tails you lose logic. And the man who has opposed dozens of pieces of legislation on the grounds that the federal government doesn't have the right to legislate in a particular area, says he would have supported legislation that overrules state definitions of marriage and imposes a uniform federal view for federal administrative purposes.

As for his other views on social issues. He also wants to pass laws that strip the Supreme Court of any judicial oversight when it comes to issues of abortion, marriage, and religion. What he doesn't understand is that this is one of the most important functions of the Supreme Court. The Court makes sure that both state and federal laws do not violate the federal constitution. And it was established very early on that the Court has the final say on matters of constitutionality. This is why banning abortion is unconstitutional. You cannot simply say that it's a matter that should be left to the states, because states are not allowed to violate the federal constitution any more than the federal government can.

He says he thinks the Court was also wrong in ruling that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and that making such laws should be the prerogative of the several states. Yes, yes Dr. Paul, but there's this whole constitution thing and the fact that men in robes decide on issues of constitutionality, not some half-baked wide-eyed demagogue who has never been a judge!!!! For him, the only thing that should matter is precedent...has the Court decided and if so, that's the law!

[broncofan]

Ben,
I realize I've posted up a couple of long-winded objections to Ron Paul's politics. I'm not daring you to respond if you don't want to because I have nothing against people who happen to like some of Paul's ideas, even if I clearly have something against him.

But can I just ask you what it is you find unique about him, or that you like? If I had to guess, I would say it is the non-interventionism, which as a long-term policy would have been a lot better for us and the rest of the world than what we've engaged in. If that's it then fair play.

But there are some things about the rest of the package that I think are appalling. And even if you're a non-interventionist, it doesn't mean that you don't think we might be able to act on occasion in one-sided cases of genocide. It's unfortunate that Ron Paul does seem to be one of the few politicians who wants to pare down our foreign aid and reduce the size of our military, both of which I also think are good ideas.