Posted on 12/30/2011 4:25:13 PM PST by grumpa
We did a series back in February on libertarianism. Ron Paul’s ascendency in Iowa begs that we revisit this issue.
I recently told a friend that I might hold my nose and vote for Ron Paul because he is the only one talking about drastically cutting the federal bureaucracy. I take it all back! The more we learn about this guy, the more troubling are his views.
We argued in our series that libertarianism is based on a moral foundation of sand. And that is exactly what Paul’s views reflect. On the surface, conservatives ought to like him. He says he is for the Constitution and for smaller government. But let’s see where this leads us.
He says he is against the federal government making laws on morality. But this is a sham. Every law reflects somebody’s ideas of right and wrong, and thus all laws are in some sense moral statements. For example, Paul says that the abortion question should be left to the states because there is no authority for a pro-life law in the Constitution. Would he vote for a law in his own state of Texas that outlaws abortion? We doubt it, if his libertarian views are consistent. He claims to be pro-life, but on what moral basis does he say that and to what extent should it be fixed into law? Should murder not be a federal offense?
Ron Paul also has stated that there should be no “age of consent law” in the federal statutes. In other words, Paul says that it should be OK by federal law for a 24 year old man to convince a 10 year old girl to have sex. When pressed on this issue and other similar issues, Paul says that the states should have no such laws either!
We presume that Paul thinks that the federal government should not have outlawed polygamy. This would be consistent with his libertarian views. Would he vote for a state law against polygamy? (Any such laws for a libertarian would be completely arbitrary.)
What about slavery? Should that be a state-only issue too?
Here are some other things about Ron Paul:
•He left the Republican Party to run as a Libertarian in the 1980’s because he did not like Ronald Reagan.
•He was the only member of the House of Representatives to vote against a 2005 resolution condemning Ahmadinejad's call to "wipe Israel off the map" and a 2009 resolution "expressing support" for Iranian pro-democracy demonstrators.
•He has intimated, on more than one occasion, that the United States is to blame for the 9/11 massacre.
•In the 1990’s he wrote a newsletter that had multiple vividly racist statements, a fact for which he acknowledges he holds “some” responsibility. (Some responsibility? These letters came out under his signature.) Apparently the American Nazi party supported Ron Paul.
•He has said that the United States had no business being in World War II.
•He is an active pork obtainer and sees this as consistent with his other views.
•He is for legalizing all drugs.
•He is weak on traditional marriage, and even though a professing Christian he is unwilling to acknowledge homosexuality as a sin.
Folks, this guy is NUTTY, and a very dangerous man. It is pretty hard to tell this man’s ideas apart from liberals like Michael Moore! I have been listening to various talk shows lately. The Paulites are calling in droves to support this nut. It is amazing how blinded they are to the facts when presented to them.
To see the original article on libertarianism, just scroll down on our website.
And Republicanism boils down to progressive light, NOT heavy.
Libertarianism all boils down to free sex and drugs.
_____________________________________________________
No it boils down to the Bill of Rights, for which we can thank our Libertarian founders for.
You don't have yo agree with it but it doesn't hurt to understand it a bit.
So nomad, did you read the article?
So nomad, which part of the article do you agree with?
So nomad, do you agree that the US was responsible for 9/11, WWII?
So nomad, do you agree that a child should be able to have sex with adults?
So nomad, do you agree that transporting minors across state lines for abortions their parents know nothing about is ok?
So nomad, do you agree with the homosexual agenda?
So nomad, do agree then that Paul’s $135 million in earmarks is ok?
We know you don’t like Republicans, and you support Paul....wait that would mean you do agree with the above. (sad oh so sad)
Remember Ross Perot’s “Crazy Aunt in the Attic”? I’ve a feeling Ron Paul is Perot’s uncle and he lived up there, too.
Not really, before my time. I do think someone crazy is living up in Paul’s attic (where his brain used to be).
No matter what your source of moral authority, it best not be government for government holds no good, just a gun.
Government is designed to protect your rights, moral principles are up to you.
There has also been a great deal scope creep in American governance. It applies to adult citizens that ascribe to our creed only. It does not have any control over children be they school-age or unborn. That is within the purview of the states' police power.
Do you think the founders would approve of children having sex with adults?
Do you think the founders would agree with the homosexual agenda?
Do you think the founders would have blamed the US for WWII and 9/11?
Do you think the founders would approve or transporting minors across state lines for abortions or for abortions?
Do you think the founders would approve of multi millions in earmarks?
paulbot are always trying to compare Paul to the founders, he is nothing like those men, nothing.
I haven’t decided who to support yet, but I view with great suspicion these unsupported emotionally driven neo-alynsky like statements that are not supported by facts.
Maybe you should read the man’s official positions as oppossed to some blogger’s opines, that are presented without factual evidence.
And I did not compare Paul to founders, I stated that Libertarian thought gave us the Bill of Rights.
The Obama/Cass Sunstein libertarian paternalism
I don't want to miss the opportunity to mention what the behavioral economists loosed upon us by Obama are doing; to wit, the czars and their fetters.
Obama's regulatory czar Cass R. Sunstein writes:
"The idea of libertarian paternalism might seem to be an oxymoron, but it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice."
more..
"Often people's preferences are ill-formed . . . In these circumstances, a form of paternalism cannot be avoided [to overcome the decision-makers' limited knowledge and just plain stupidity otherwise known as] bounded rationality . . . libertarian paternalists should attempt to steer people's choices in welfare-promoting directions without eliminating freedom of choice . . . It is also possible to show how a libertarian paternalist might select among the possible options and to assess how much choice to offer." [End of quotes]
IOW Cass R. Sunstein and the Obamanists decide the options from among which you are permitted to choose. You get to be a libertarian! and they get to be the slave masters. What a deal!
BTW, Sunstein has in the past specifically condemned Free Republic as bad for democracy.
For a none defender of Paul you are defending him. anyway I have read his position papers and I have read nearly all he has written, and spent hours listing to him. His position papers are not a reflection of what he says or has written beyond that. Really, you have to look at how he has voted, what he says in his speeches, who supports him, who he supports....the whole package.
Paul is not who his supporters seem to think he is.
If this is true, then Ron Paul is a NAMBLA man. Any Paul supporters have any comment on this charge?
No I defended Libertarian Thought from hysterical innaccurate labels.
If you have read up on him than please provide 2 pieces of evidence supporting your contention that he is Pro-Abortion and supports transporting teenagers across state lines for abortions. Something other than what some blogger’s post.
That’s what I am saying, you don’t know him. He was only one of a few in congress to vote against a law to criminalize the transportation one minors across state lines for abortions.
k?
Just because some Marxist decides to use the term “Libertarian” to label on his Marxists beliefs doesn’t mean that Libertarian thought is Marxists in nature or even remotely similar. It just means the Marxist utilizes Newspeak to fool the useful idiots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.