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.
I’ll check that, weird they didn’t come through.
First, you have know idea what my party is or is not or if I have one.
Second,I have only one Savior and His name is Jesus Christ.
I will repeat it because may not have as yet seen my response.
You have know idea what my party is or is not or if I have one.
You for some unknown reason assume that I do not have faith in the American people.
You for some reason assume I support progressive ideas (with the exception of the progression of technology and scientific discovery which I do support) you do not know who/what I beleive or do not beleive in that area. (Just letting you know about tech/science because there I love the progression of ideas)
Really, honey you just need to stop assuming so much about me.
Ok, I tried to figure the links out. Best I could figure is that you have to go to the main page http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.phpand put in any bill number, actually a good resource.
Sorry about that.
Jeez, oh Pete! Tell me thats not rationalizing! I mean the expression IS "THE LESSER of TWO EVILS", isn`t it?
Reminds of Noam Chomsky describing himself as a “libertarian socialist”. The lefties really, really want to think of themselves as lovers of freedom while at the same time wanting to boss everyone around.
What party am I defending, just to start.
How did Jesus feel about the government, hum let me think.....
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him. Mark 12:17
They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. Matt 22:21
Finally, you are assuming again. If I disagree with your stance (which has never been agreed upon), does not in anyway make my choice evil (according to you). I always vote for the best alternative. I always vote for the person I believe will advance what I find important and valuable.
If you disagree with my vote, then so be it. It does not make me evil, it does not make your vote brilliant.
Trying to reason with a Paul supporter is a fruitless endevor as they cannot see Pauls using the Constitution and speaking the Constitution to deceive his followers and the public. It's a front he masks himself with and hide his true intentions, and He's a counterfeit in every sense of the word.
We're not voting for states rights....we're voting to stop the trajectory our country is on and the peril it is in under the Obama administration... and for someone who can and will do what's needed to get the job done of stopping this slide. Ron Paul will put this nation in as much danger as Obama has.
The people are who put Obama in office....how you can even imagine the people who support Ron Paul will even care about the nation is beside me. Let alone restore anything. Ron Paul has deceived and deluded his followers beyond belief...and if any indication of the mindset of the public as a whole we have already lost this nation.
Much better, infer do not assume.
I will try harder at making my implications more clear.
I am not going to get into a theology discuss about the Golden Rule, which by the way has zero to do with our discussion.
Giving you credit whoever for changing the discussion from what we had been talking about to something not brought up before and not relevant.
Enjoy the afternoon, get out into the sun shine and go for a walk. Bye Bye
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.", and I think a Republicrat dictator is every bit as bad as a RAT.
Personally, I`d rather see someone like Bachman or Palin win, I think they "get it", and want to begin the monumental task OF dismantling the Federal beast that's threatening our Republic, but "Wish in one hand and crap int the other", is a more realistic view.
Further...Ron Paul will fold before any debate with Obama and come off like the bubbling nitwit we've seen so many times. He is an embarrassment in that respect...and nobody would want to imagine him before International Leaders without cringing of how he will come off then. He's a nutcase pure and simple.
At some point the survival of our nation has to be the priority of who we vote for...and seen for the dire straits it is in. Ron Paul does not see it...nor do his followers.
BTW...Bachman is pretty much in the past and Palin isn’t running....we’re going to have to decide on whoever has the ability to do the job and win against Obama in the debates....the answer to that is clear...Newt is the only one who can do this when his feet hit the ground in WAshington and pull the levers that need to be pulled to put the breaks on...and he knows where those are.
Do you believe that Newt or Romney would dismantle that engine? Both are progressives, either by declaration or actions (Romney Care?) or do you not see that? Neither have proclaimed ANY desire to put the Federal monster back into it`s Constitutional cage. If they`ve said so, then how WOULD they do that with out reducing the Bureaucracy`s size and footprint? Especially since most of it is extra Constitutional "living document" cr@p of progressive construction anyway.
I think they`d love to get their hands on the beast to push their own agendas, not acceptable to me. I no more want a Republicrat dictator then I want a Rat. Give us back our Republic and let “We the People” decide our course at the state level, or do you disagree with the 9th and 10th amendments?
Short of Newt falling to his knees in some epiphany of freedom, I don`t trust him to do the job of dismantling the Federal monster, he`s become a Washington insider, its that simple. Nothing he`s said has convinced me he will have that epiphany on reaching the Whitehouse. He`ll just be another business as usual Republicrat, I`m not supporting any more of those. No more lesser of two evils, McLame was my last turn at that cr@p sandwich.
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.