USA - American Libertarianism - Dr. Ron Paul

[machine_elf]

I hear that Dr. Ron Paul (currently running for leader of the republican party) is a libertarian. Is it just me or does it look like the constitution might at last be payed attention to? Is drug relegalisation for 2008 a real possibility or just a pipe dream?



"There is but one special interest that we should be working for, and that would solve just about all of our problems, and that is our Liberty."

[Shiacmkmleer]

Speaking as a future Ron Paul voter... Damn right! We're going to take back this nation. Guess who had the most postive view in MSNBCs poll after the republican debate? Ron Paul appeals to a part of the Republican base that has been negelected for so long...While the other canidates are all the same he offers something different... I would be supprised if he didn't at least finish second or third in the primary (although sadly that wouldn't win it I still feel first is a possibility)

[bob_arctor]

Doesn't it seem a little bit contradictory for a libertarian to partake in the self-defeating carousel and circus of parliamentarism?

[Shiacmkmleer]

Originally Posted by bob_arctor

Doesn't it seem a little bit contradictory for a libertarian to partake in the self-defeating carousel and circus of parliamentarism?

Perhaps in Europe you have a different defintion of a Libertarian? They are not anarchists! They belive in a small government that tends to stay out of things.

[Nagognog2]

That's the claim made by Republicans as well. Small government. Leave well enough alone. And now they are tapping every single phone call (and keeping digitized recordings), reading and keeping copies of each and every email, And expanding police powers to allow warrantless searches, copying hospital records, and sneaking into ANYONE'S home for little good 'ol American "look-see."

Yep. I believe 'em. Anyone got room for my new bridge I bought in New York (that's a state, public School graduates)?

[Shiacmkmleer]

Originally Posted by Nagognog2

That's the claim made by Republicans as well. Small government. Leave well enough alone. And now they are tapping every single phone call (and keeping digitized recordings), reading and keeping copies of each and every email, And expanding police powers to allow warrantless searches, copying hospital records, and sneaking into ANYONE'S home for little good 'ol American "look-see."

Republicans don't even pretend to be about small government anymore. Hell everyone knows they've made the government bigger if anything.

[El Calico Loco]

Beware collectivist reality-tunnels. One can't talk about "Republicans" or "Democrats" in any meaningful way - the parties are so large that there are numerous factions within them. It's best to judge each individual according to their merits.

Republicans are a mix of free-marketeers, social conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, and - only in recent decades - the neocons (a bunch of former Troskyites who, by the way, originated in the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic party). The Democrats are a mix of old New Dealers, progressives, environmentalists, union supporters, and outright socialists.

Most politicians are liars who will say anything they have to in order to increase their power, but there does occasionally appear a statesman who believes in principle and speaks truth to power. Of the current crop of candidates, I believe only Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) qualify.

Ron Paul has been consistently pro-liberty throughout his career. He has introduced bills to legalize cannabis. He voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. He's voted against Bush more often than most Democrats. He ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988.

Mike Gravel I know less about, but he impressed me in the Democratic debate. He seemed to be the only consistently anti-war candidate. From what I can gather, he's been a consistent progressive and environmentalist throughout his career in politics.

Both, incidentally, want to end the income tax.

Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hfa7vT02lA
Gravel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gMlHv2lDqA


ECL

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for the background info.

[BEEKSc1]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

Beware collectivist reality-tunnels. One can't talk about "Republicans" or "Democrats" in any meaningful way - the parties are so large that there are numerous factions within them. It's best to judge each individual according to their merits.

Republicans are a mix of free-marketeers, social conservatives, constitutionalists, libertarians, and - only in recent decades - the neocons (a bunch of former Troskyites who, by the way, originated in the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democratic party). The Democrats are a mix of old New Dealers, progressives, environmentalists, union supporters, and outright socialists.

Most politicians are liars who will say anything they have to in order to increase their power, but there does occasionally appear a statesman who believes in principle and speaks truth to power. Of the current crop of candidates, I believe only Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) qualify.

ECL

Really great point, further books such as "None dare call it conspiracy" among other reliable sources
The Communist Manifesto in Sociology and Economics
Joseph A. Schumpeter
The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 57, No. 3 (Jun., 1949), pp. 199-212

The Historical Background of the Communist Manifesto
George R. Boyer
The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Autumn, 1998), pp. 151-174
provide significant evidence to clearly indicate that communism was funded by German bankers to put out the socialistic propaganda.
Ron Paul talks about facing the New World Order because it is an obvious attack on the people's individual freedom.

[El Calico Loco]

I don't read much NWO conspiracy stuff, but I think there's plenty of evidence that there is a group of wealthy, influential individuals who want to implement a worldwide mixed socialist-mercantilist police state style of government.

Some seem to believe that it's the way to world peace and prosperity, while others simply state (out in the open) that common human beings are fools who need to be managed like cattle for their own good and for the good of society. And the wise, benevolent managers must be rewarded with vast wealth and power, of course.

One thing the more paranoid don't realize is that there are other conspiracies as well, and subconspiracies within each one. It's really just a bunch of egoistic gamesmen/women who enjoy the pathetic political struggle for money and glory. They go along with the game for as long as it rewards them and then switch sides and stab backs at opportune moments.

I am paranoid enough to believe that a true reformer (like Dr. Paul) might be in mortal danger should they ever have any success. Businessmen have been known to kill their partners over a few thousand dollars, and there are trillions at stake in this card game. I don't believe we've found "angels in the form of kings" to govern us, and I think anyone who believes politicians to be above mafia-style behavior is a little naive. What type of personality do you think is most attracted to rulemaking and power and control?


ECL
(Sure, they'll try to destroy someone with the media or the courts first...but they won't all stop there.)

[BEEKSc1]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

I am paranoid enough to believe that a true reformer (like Dr. Paul) might be in mortal danger should they ever have any success. Businessmen have been known to kill their partners over a few thousand dollars, and there are trillions at stake in this card game.

No doubt, it has been proposed:
Estulin: Elitists consider assassinating Ron Paul
http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/...ssinate_rp.htm

Books by Daniel Estulin
The Bilderberg Group
http://www.amazon.com/True-Story-Bil...9070196&sr=8-1
Los Secretos Del Club Bilderberg/ the Secrets of Club Bilderberg
http://www.amazon.com/Los-Secretos-C...9070196&sr=8-3

[Nacumen]

As you can tell from my profile picture, I'm a big supporter of the good doctor. In fact I don't even refer to him as congressman because I think it's somewhat disgraceful, and he'd probably agree. I've met Paul a couple times and he's a real down to earth guy who doesn't spew bullshit like Obama and Hillary who pretend to offer change to the country. I listened to Barack give a speech, and it was awful, 100% feel-good fluff. I've listened to Bill give a speech for his wife too, and that was almost as bad, but at least he was able to back up his rhetoric with some facts, although they were severely misleading.

Even John McCain, who's also running for the Republican nomination, once called Paul "the most honest man in Congress." After meeting McCain in person, he's a nicer guy than he seems on television, but I still can't agree with his stance on the war. In fact he just recently said we could stay in Iraq for 100 years if it was necessary, like we've stayed in Korea for 50. The guy is a warmongering neocon, just like the neolibs who are anti-war only to get elected, but wont commit to a pullout within their presidency. Paul on the other hand would bring the troops home, ALL of them across the world, within a year, and put them on our borders instead of trying to police the world and destroying our economy by running the empire's coffers far too thin. In fact, our coffers ARE empty, that's why the federal reserve keeps printing out more paper money and inflating our currency. The empire is on the verge of collapse, and the signs are everywhere.

Paul was on the cover of High Times back in '88 and was called the only "Pro-pot" candidate. This is however somewhat misleading, because he only believes that the federal government has no right to regulate the drugs of each state. That means that he'll work to abolish the DEA, but that also means that each state can make substances contraband as they see fit, so in some areas it will seem like they're still at square one. But instead of the federal, state and local police being after SWIY for drugs, only the state and local police will be (if they so choose!)

But if you live in, say, California, Denver, (or at one point Alaska) you'll never see the feds raiding another SWIM's house again for using medical marijuana or any other drug if Paul gets elected and removes the DEA. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the only step in the right direction that's in the feasible political cards right now.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Good points, thank for sharing.

[mouthwater]

I consider myself economically conservative and socially liberal. Dr. Paul is, in my opinion, the best choice in this election. However, even if elected, I'd be surprised if much of the 'progress' he would make in office wouldn't be overturned by future presidents. Your vote won't determine the outcome of the election. There will still be uneducated voters and politicians and corporations acting as kings and pawns in the system.

Our political system (among others) is a wreck, unfortunately.

[enquirewithin]

Paul is an right wing libertarian, maybe better than a neo-con, but he has some very dubious ideas. Here's Chomsky on Paul:

Questioner: Hello Mr. Chomsky. I’m assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I’m also assuming you have a general idea about his positions. Here my summary of Mr. Paul’s positions:

- He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).

Noam Chomsky: Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.

- He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)

Noam Chomsky: “Dismantling of big government” sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded — like what we’re now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,….? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.

- He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).

Noam Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you’ve already mentioned.

There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power — itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.

- He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).

Noam Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultra-nationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.

I really can’t find differences between your positions and his.

Noam Chomsky: There’s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being “broken” are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based — the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).

So I have these questions:

1) Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of “Libertarianism”?

Noam Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion — on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.

2) Can you please tell me what role “private property” and “ownership” have in your school of “Libertarianism”?

Noam Chomsky: That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.

3) Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate…and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?

Noam Chomsky: No.

http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/dis...1986/index.php

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Nice quote/post, thanks for posting.
	Thanks for offering that perspective.

[mouthwater]

Besides, the constitution was a compromise. I personally think he holds it on too high of a pedestal, but many of his points are still valid.

[Nature Boy]

I would have thought Dennis Kucinich was a far more appealing candidate being a Democratic libertarian. Ron Paul is a chump with few redeeming qualities.

[enquirewithin]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

I would have thought Dennis Kucinich was a far more appealing candidate being a Democratic libertarian. Ron Paul is a chump with few redeeming qualities.

Without a doubt! Shame Kucinich hasn't a hope in hell!

[Bajeda]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

Most politicians are liars who will say anything they have to in order to increase their power, but there does occasionally appear a statesman who believes in principle and speaks truth to power. Of the current crop of candidates, I believe only Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) qualify.

I feel that Kucinich would also fit into that grouping.

Originally Posted by Nacumen

Paul on the other hand would bring the troops home, ALL of them across the world, within a year, and put them on our borders instead of trying to police the world and destroying our economy by running the empire's coffers far too thin.

It is doubtful that he could achieve a full withdrawal within a 12 month time frame, nor would I consider it advisable. Iraq is still fractured and weakened, and the US needs to encourage a multilateral discourse on Iraq's future and help build the political infrastructure for the state to survive. Depending on how things go this year, maybe it would include Iran. Whatever the case, an abrupt pullout would induce chaos in Iraq and heighten stability in the region, threatening our already weakened economy should oil prices react accordingly. I would agree that the US should withdraw its troops in the near future, but it has to be tempered, and matched by enhanced regional and intrastate cooperation. Rash policy changes made in response to domestic sentiments could end up doing as much damage as the invasion itself, and touch much closer to home too. Some politicians appear more trustworthy than others, but keep in mind that they may not be able to hold their promises if the circumstances don't permit them to.

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

Without a doubt! Shame Kucinich hasn't a hope in hell!

Its sad, many people I've talked to haven't even heard of him yet they say they are following the election campaign. I don't know if its the media coverage overall or if they don't watch or pay attention to any of the debates.

[Nature Boy]

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

Without a doubt! Shame Kucinich hasn't a hope in hell!

Ron Paul's hardly setting the world alight either though.

[Shiacmkmleer]

Originally Posted by Nature Boy

Ron Paul's hardly setting the world alight either though.

10% in Iowa? With the amount of media coverage he receives compared to McCain and his 13% that ain't bad. Watch today. NH is a more libertarian state... Is he going to win?? I doubt it. But this grass roots movement is huge and has only gotten bigger and bigger.
The media has hated him so far and he just keeps going and going. I know the tone on this board has been, at least with the veteran members , to believe that change can not come around through voting and that all of America's citizens are just sheep who don't want to hear the truth. But Ron Paul will shatter your world view, everyone is coming out of the cracks for him and damn it y'all should to if you really want change.

[Nature Boy]

He opposes universal healthcare, the separation of church and state and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Don't be fooled by his perfect impression of functional state government. He's a conman.

[enquirewithin]

As Chomsky (a true libertarian) says, Paul is an ultra nationalist. True change can be achieved by voting but Paul is not the solution to any problems.

Small government may be desirable in the long run, but right now that would mean that corporations would enjoy unfettered power.

[BEEKSc1]

Chomsky is groovy
The man is like a sponge; he knows so much

Is Ron Paul against universal healthcare?; it would seem like he would be, but I though I remember him talking of "ensuring healthcare for all"

[Coconut]

I'm not sure if it even matters who wins the US presidential election. The position of President is also the position of Puppet.

Ron Paul seems to be the most favourable of all of the candidates - the least of the many evils.

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

Small government may be desirable in the long run, but right now that would mean that corporations would enjoy unfettered power.

Corporations often do enjoy unfettered power. Governments and corporations are one and the same in much of the Western World, especially in the United States. This is corporatism, also known as fascism.

[El Calico Loco]

It's unfair to call him a con-man, Nature Boy. Persons of high morals and intellect can still disagree on issues without one of them having to be corrupt or insane. I'd bet real money that his voting record is more consistent over time than any other Congressman; you might disagree with his philosophy, but he's not pretending.

Bajeda: Sorry, I forgot to mention Kucinich.

Chomsky is a brilliant man, but damned if he isn't a mess of contradictions in his dotage. He's supposed to be some kind of socialist anarchist, believing in small, local communitarianism, yet he never fails to oppose decentralization or to push for large government bureaucracies dedicated to solving social problems. He should be smart enough to know that the Social Security trust fund is the biggest lie in DC - the politicians spent the money as fast as they got it.

(The trust fund consists of nothing but US Treasury bonds, which basically amounts to an IOU from one branch of the government to another. Today's workers are paying for today's retirees, and the same will be true tomorrow. And that's just one issue.)

I don't agree with Ron Paul - or other libertarians - on everything. He's from the conservative wing of the libertarians, while I hail from the progressive side. I disagree with the paleolibs on immigration, resource taxation, and the gold standard. All in all, however, I agree with Dr. Paul far more than I agree any of the other pandering salesmen currently running for President.

And he would do his damndest to end the Federal War on Drugs. We'd still have to change state laws, but that would be a huge step in the right direction. That's a bit stronger than Obama's musing that maybe we ought not to lock up medical marijuana users.


ECL

[enquirewithin]

Originally Posted by El Calico Loco

It's unfair to call him a con-man, Nature Boy. Persons of high morals and intellect can still disagree on issues without one of them having to be corrupt or insane. I'd bet real money that his voting record is more consistent over time than any other Congressman; you might disagree with his philosophy, but he's not pretending.

Bajeda: Sorry, I forgot to mention Kucinich.

Chomsky is a brilliant man, but damned if he isn't a mess of contradictions in his dotage. He's supposed to be some kind of socialist anarchist, believing in small, local communitarianism, yet he never fails to oppose decentralization or to push for large government bureaucracies dedicated to solving social problems. He should be smart enough to know that the Social Security trust fund is the biggest lie in DC - the politicians spent the money as fast as they got it.

(The trust fund consists of nothing but US Treasury bonds, which basically amounts to an IOU from one branch of the government to another. Today's workers are paying for today's retirees, and the same will be true tomorrow. And that's just one issue.)

I don't agree with Ron Paul - or other libertarians - on everything. He's from the conservative wing of the libertarians, while I hail from the progressive side. I disagree with the paleolibs on immigration, resource taxation, and the gold standard. All in all, however, I agree with Dr. Paul far more than I agree any of the other pandering salesmen currently running for President.

And he would do his damndest to end the Federal War on Drugs. We'd still have to change state laws, but that would be a huge step in the right direction. That's a bit stronger than Obama's musing that maybe we ought not to lock up medical marijuana users.


ECL

I'm not sure whether Paul is sincere or not. Whether his ideas are useful or not is another matter. As for Chomsky, as far as understand him, he is an anarcho-syndicalist. I think if you read his ideas further, he is really contradicting himself. As c0c0nut rightly says, corporations do enjoy almost unfettered power (Chomsky calls them 'tyrannies'). Currently we need more government intervention to curb their power, but small government should be the aim. Right wing advocates of small government such as Milton Friedman (who also believed in legalizing drugs) wanted to give everything to corportaions. When he was allowed to put his theories into practice in Chile, the results were horrendous (see Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine).