Ron Paul's Crazy Libertarianism

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.)

•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 is an active pork obtainer and sees this as consistent with his other views.

•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.

•He is an active pork obtainer and sees this as consistent with his other views.

Could be a problem if sharia law is ever imposed here ...

Otherwise, this could have been phrased differently.

" don`t trust him to do the job of dismantling the Federal monster"

The monster cannot be dismantled because there are too many constituencies that defend it.

I think it can, BUT, not by a Beltway insider. You see to do so would cost that person their “political career”, it would be an act of political suicide and thats why an insider, like Newt, would never do it. I honestly believe he simply values the job more than the principle of Constitutional government.

I think someone who would have the courage to sacrifice their career for the principle would have an uphill battle to get there, sad too, since someone like that is the only one who really could be entrusted with the power that position now wields. Pity the only ones with the sense of honor to do it, are excluded from the "game" since they won`t play by the corrupt rules required to win. Talk about a cr@p sandwich!

Newt's/he`s become a Washington insider, its that simple.

We need an "insider" or the work will take months and months to even get off the drawing board with any other candidate..... We don't have the leizure of time for that.

When you can get to the point where you understand how bad off this country is right now....and the time Obama still has left for it's distruction...then you might consider voting for the one who can take the wheel, know where it is, and knows how the ship operates as well as it 's crew and who needs to go. Then you might vote for America over that of who is more conservative...who isn't another McCain...who this and that and any other excuse for not understanding the peril we are in and the need for a "seasoned " warrior who will fight for this nation. Newt is the only one among them able to do the job........and he has no other politcal asperations to stand in his way as the others do.

Like I thought you’re not a serious poster. All mudslinging and not one piece of substance.

Not one ounce of mud was slung. You can’t defend your candidate when his beliefs are brought out for all to see in all their ridiculous glory. I’m well acquainted with the mad doctor from his first days in national politics. He is a certifiable nut and his supporters are worse.Sorry you’re done corresponding, not like you’ve been here long enough to establish a reputation other than being a troll

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.