Skip to comments.Libertarian Ideas Are Unreasonable (ref: Ron Paul)
Posted on 09/13/2007 9:02:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Last week the Republicans had another debate, this one on FOX News. Not much has changed in the last few months; Rudy Giuliani is still in the lead in the polls and Fred Thompson is still in second despite the fact he didn't announce his intentions to run until a few days ago. What has changed, and changed for the worse, is the surging popularity of a Texas Congressman by the name of Ron Paul. I've been running into normal, intelligent people who support Paul, and it really scares me.
The reason Paul is as popular as he is has to do largely with his sudden support from Democrats and I have to admit, when I didn't know much about him I thought he sounded like a good candidate. He wants to end the Iraq war, have tighter borders, lower taxes and decrease spending, what's not to like? The problem doesn't lie with his policies and ideas, but rather his execution of said policies. How to end the war in Iraq: immediate pullout not only from Iraq, but from the whole of the Middle East. Never mind the slaughter that will occur with our exit. Paul, by the way, denies that this will happen, as the people saying it will are the same that said it would be an easy win. It was a mistake and we never should have been there.
He has more than one unworkable policy. Who else here wants to abolish the FDA? Dr. Paul is your man. His case against the FDA is that they take taxpayer money and are supposed to regulate the food and drugs coming into the country and those produced here, but there are still cases that get by them. Obviously, he claims, we would be better off with no Federal regulation. Corporations should police themselves. Paul is a big fan of the free market and wants to see an end of just about every federal agency that does anything useful or helpful. DEA? Gone. Medicare/Medicaid? History. IRS? The government has no right to take your money.
Paul is such a fan of the free market and letting businesses do whatever they want that during a recent session of Congress he was the one dissenting vote when Congress decided to stop giving tax money to corporations profiting from the genocide in Sudan. It seems pretty cut and dry, companies are making money off of a genocide. Why would you give them money to keep doing that? Paul's answer: We shouldn't tie the hands of corporations by limiting their business dealings. That pretty much covers foreign policy for Paul.
Paul doesn't like the federal tax system and actually signed a document circulated by the National Libertarian Organization a few years ago affirming this belief. Lower taxes is one of the tried and true methods of getting people to vote for you. The problem with Paul saying he'll get lower taxes is that it's not entirely true. Yes, your income will be less taxed, but Paul wants to raise the sales tax to 23 percent at the least. Have fun being poor, because you won't be able to afford anything under Paul's administration. What would be really interesting is seeing how much price gouging we would see with no regulatory bodies, but I'd rather not think about it.
More interesting is Paul's absolute belief in the free market. He wants to see an end of public service agencies and governmental controls. Private post offices, for example, would be bought up by companies and if you're not served by the same post office as say, the people sending you bills, you might never get the bill. Or you might incur a fee when you get the bill. Imagine all roads in the country being up for sale: Paul sees a future where this has happened and thousands of toll booths are being constructed across the country.
We wouldn't have a nutcase presidential candidate without him being a racist, not these days anyways. Paul luckily fits that bill. He's made his case against the African American community known very well, starting with this comment back in 1992, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Later he would say the age to be prosecuted as an adult should be lowered to 13 because "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." It's no wonder White Supremacist Website and forum Stormfront.org has come out in support of Paul, as has former Ku Klux Klan member and politician David Duke.
Here's a list of things Paul wants to end because they have had failures in the past, or he sees them as useless: CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, FDA, IRS, Medicare, FBI, DEA, UN, NATO, NAFTA and CAFTA. That's the short list. This is my biggest problem with Ron Paul. He offers no constructive thoughts, only destructive ones. He doesn't think a single thing can be made to work if it failed even once. Bad intelligence? Cut it out completely, don't try to reform it.
Overall, Paul has no workable ideas. He wants to return to a gold standard, which would destroy the US economy. He wants to cut nearly every government department and build a giant wall (not a fence) on our border with Mexico. I honestly don't understand how people can think he would make a good president.
Run Paul, Ru Paul, he’s a nut.
Correction: his PREFERRED support from Democrats.
This reads more like the conservative case FOR Ron Paul.
Why don't you folks debate why we need to be involved in Medicare, Housing, or the UN, instead of posting the usual knee-jerk cheap-shots.
There’s always room for a Paul-Kucinich ticket.
Has the Paul campaign welcomed the endorsement though?
More guilt-by-association BS.
Fred Thompson voted for NCLB.
I paid real money for my Medicare. If it’s shut down I am owed at least that much, plus interest.
“He offers no constructive thoughts, only destructive ones.”
Pretty sad that nowadays abolishing government programs and actually shrinking government is not considered a viable ‘constructive’ solution by todays faux conservatives...
Ron Paul has the same chance of being elected President as did Ross Perot, as did Pat Buchanan, or any other insurgent candidate.
Harold Stassen had more of a chance.
Ron Paul is and always has been a Big L Libertarian.
Any Democrat who doesn’t understand that and all its implications is too stupid to be voting.
(from a former card-carrying, sometimes paid Libertarian staffer & activist)
I suppose correlation is causation. The FDA is approving fewer drugs, but that is because they are wary of AEs, not because they are tyrants.
Do you think conservatives are for the dissolution of the FBI and CIA (at least in theory)? NATO? The problem with Paul's lists are baby/bathwater types of things, imo.
First of all, most of this post is full of ad-homenims and straw-man BS. Second of all, Paul is right on all of the other issues besides foreign policy, and even then I still agree with half of it. This "deranged" FReeper is proud to support him in the primaries regardless of what others think of him.
Enjoy your delusions.
Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the vote in 1992 and Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary in 1996 (and Buchanan still would have been a better candidate than Bob Dole).
That hardly falls to the level many here use of "no chance whatsoever."
He and I, however, have a major disagreement and it deals with Iraq and Afghanistan. Although there is no "official" declaration of war (and I for one would like to see one), nonetheless the constitutional mandate was met by congress authorizing the war and then allocating the funds for it.
In addition, we have taken the fight to abject enemies who are dying by the tens of thousands as they try and stop us from establishing an allied nation in Iraq and Aftghanistan, where the vast majority of the people in those countries want our help, and where the enemy simply MUST do all in their power to stop us, thereby creating a fly trap where self-admitted enemies of this nation who would otherwise be planning to come here to kill us, and would have safe sanctuaries to do so, now must fight and die by the tens of thousands there rather than here.
Outside of that large difference of opinion and I understand and respect why Ron Paul says what he does, it is out of his very strong and dear commitment to be constitutional...its just a very fundamental disagreement on that point, as I said, outside of that major issue (and a similar one over abortion where we are both against it but he wants no federal action to overturn it, leaving it strictly in the hands of the states...where I want federal action because it is needed to overturn federal action from the courts that gave us Roe v Wade)... I believe Ron Paul has great constitutional ideas and wants a better, more constitutinal America. The fact that so many people cannot see that his policies in most areas are in fact much more in line with what was established in our nation and the constitutinal principles behind them is just more indication how these solcialistic programs and agencies have watered down the teaching of fundamental principle to Americans in the pubbl;ic school system.
Unfortunately, in orfer for PAul to achieve many of his otherwise good ideas, we MUST defeat these abject enemies and take the fight to them. If we fail there, it is very likely that they will bring the war here and make it much, much harder to achieve the other ends that he seeks...therefore, he does not have my support for the Presidency, and that is the reasoning behind it.
Thanks, pass the Valium.
You can rely on the government to be your security blanket but I'll support the guy who'll give me the initiative to be responsible for myself.
Read through that link I posted. The root of it lies with the Congress’ apparent belief that we don’t own our own bodies - that we must answer to government over god before using our free will to determine our medical treatment. A gross violation of all three tennents of ‘life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness’, IMO.
Now, now. Is that any way to talk about those brave, proud patriots over at the nascent Muslims for Paul site, what with all their breathy concerns about "campaigning in Crusader territory" and whatnot...? ;)
Agreed. The more the author bashed, the more attractive a Paul presidency sounds. Of course the big government conservatives have other agendas which involve spending our tax dollars so no wonder this hissy fit of an article.
LOL, your link doesn’t work.
Same to you.
LOL, easily fixed. ;) You were saying...?
Can't say I read this and think what a swell conservative nominee he would make.
Oh my God! Some Muslims support Ron Paul! That proves Ron Paul loves Osama bin Laden and cried when Saddam Hussein was executed and Zarqawi was killed!
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."
Paul may have not welcomed such endorsements, but the question remains: why is his campaign attracting such people as neo-Nazis and 9/11 “Truthers”?
Delusions? And which delusions have I offered up for all to make fun of? I’ve not identified a candidate that I am supporting as yet. Again, it’s way too early to determine who is the candidate who will be capable of leading this nation during these times. The one candidate that I know does not have what it takes with respect to the GOP (Libertarians really) is Ru Paul. Enjoy those delusions of yours as they bring you to your eventual dementia.
“the dissolution of the FBI and CIA”
Seeing as how both departments completely failed the American people with regards to 9-11, SEVERE restructuring shouldn’t be out of the question.
>Can’t say I read this and think what a swell conservative
>nominee he would make.
Can’t say you’re wrong, but I can’t say I’m ready for another 8 years of some other double-talking, deficit-raising, border-leave-opening “president”
Yes, it is. They are reaping what they sow.
Coupled with his preference for organizing meet-ups via Democratic Underground? Try spinning how conservative that is to this "crusader," while you're at it.
His campaign is unprecedented, considering his limited gov't and non-interventionist foreign policy message, in that he's going to unfortunately attract radicals from both the left and right.
Sure. Dissolution <> Severe restructuring. Is Ron Paul for a severe restructuring of the CIA or FBI? Or dissolution?
WHO CARES what they think? I support Ron Paul because he supports small government, a non-nation building foreign policy and secure borders. I'm not changing my vote because of some DUers or 9/11 "truther" nuts.
And which candidate is the only one talking about the real issues? Limiting government, controlling spending....NONE of the other Republican candidates have no concrete plans on what to do with SS and Medicare, for example. Only Paul does.
- Only PAUL is in favor of completely doing away with the IRS, while the other candidates bloviate about tax credits or "making the Bush tax cuts permanent."
- Only PAUL wants to abolish the Education department and let the states deal with it, while the other candidates want to "improve" the department.
The one candidate that I know does not have what it takes with respect to the GOP
Paul doesn't need the GOP establishment he's got folks from all walks of the political spectrum working for him.
Of course not! No one here expects any Paulestinian to turn against his/her own kind, after all.
Ah, the obligatory photo-shopped pic of Paul, when you can’t debate the facts.
Guilt by association? Please. One of these white supremacist groups favored Thompson, and I didn’t go about wailing he was a racist.
They don’t seem to mind conservatives trying to prevent amnesty, and I’m sure as hell NOT a part of that racist organization sharing the same goals they do.
I didn’t quote the group sponsering him only, I included the entire text supposedly stated by Paul himself. That is what I took issue with.
You know how fleet footed “they” can be and some such garbage. Does that make him a racist? Not necessarily, but it denotes prejudice. Just as suggesting we’re not above staging an attack to increase war support suggests he’s a nut.
But, that’s okay. Because Paul by his own admissions is NO conservative. he’s a Libertarian. And so long as libertarians allow guys like Paul to define them with this insanity, any decent ideas they have like small government are going to get lost. That’s part’s not good, but I’ll take the trade off if it keeps guys like Paul away.