Dr. Ron Paul - Libertarian in Republican Clothing

[ParanoiA]

Has anyone seen or read much about Ron Paul? I've read some stuff on this website and watched the video and was quite impressed. But I don't know enough about him, so take my post with a grain of salt.

 

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

 

I'm really liking this guy, and I appreciate the way he explains himself and his views. Seems like he'd have the potential to really shake up the republican debates, but I haven't watched to see if that's what happens or not. Per that video it certainly looks like it. The only issue I have with him is it seems like he just wants to get out of Iraq without any sense of responsibility for the mess we leave.

 

Here's the cool part...towards the end of that video (about 10 mins long I think), he gets called out about his comments concerning 9/11 - that our policies contributed to the hatred that drove that act. Take note on how all of the conservatives are just fit to be tied and completely confused, befuddled, on how anything we have done could possibly contribute...

 

That's our leadership folks. They can't fathom how we are responsible for how we behave around the world. Ron Paul is being portrayed as an extremist to local radio around here, and I just don't see anything extreme about the man - other than maybe extremely realistic. What a breath of fresh air...

 

I think he comes from a very down to earth, non-political like attitude and approach. I'm not sure he belongs in the republican primary and I doubt he'll make it, but it would so awesome to have a straight talking, ethical person in office instead of all of the political drones with fake smiles and showmanship. I don't know that he's for real, but I'm willing to bet he is.

 

Ok...you can beat me up about it now...

[Pangloss]

I got on his mailing list somehow. Have you been getting those emails? I suspect he got a list from the RNC, since I get their email as well. (I also get email from various Dems, but not from the DNC.)

 

I like him as well, and I agree with many of his positions. He does have some drawbacks and shortcomings from where I sit. He's pro-life, for example, which is not consistent with most libertarians (but not unheard-of or actually contrary to libertarian ideals, IMO). That will help him with the religious right and not hurt him too much with moderates, so that's probably a smart position to take.

 

Giuliani made a mistake attacking Paul over the 9/11 thing. It was misplaced and erroneous, and what Paul is saying resonates very well amongst conservatives, as exemplified by the low poll numbers enjoyed by both the President and Congress.

[ParanoiA]

I got on his mailing list somehow. Have you been getting those emails? I suspect he got a list from the RNC, since I get their email as well. (I also get email from various Dems, but not from the DNC.)

 

No, I don't get his mailings at all. And I don't get anything from the RNC or anything like that. I'm fairly reluctant to sign up for things like that. I don't know why. Old habit of rejecting solicitation I guess.

 

I like him as well, and I agree with many of his positions. He does have some drawbacks and shortcomings from where I sit. He's pro-life, for example, which is not consistent with most libertarians (but not unheard-of or actually contrary to libertarian ideals, IMO). That will help him with the religious right and not hurt him too much with moderates, so that's probably a smart position to take.

 

Yeah, that kind of threw me for a loop when I heard him say he was pro-life. Now, his explanation was thoughtful and consistent, but certainly not typical. Another thing that has sat real well with me, is his insistance that a president not try to do too much, too far reaching. Keeping things managable sounds quite practical to me, and can help eleviate concerns with his views on things you don't agree with, like pro-life. If he isn't trying to rewrite the entire constitution in one term, then it may not matter so much that we disagree on a few important things.

 

Giuliani made a mistake attacking Paul over the 9/11 thing. It was misplaced and erroneous, and what Paul is saying resonates very well amongst conservatives, as exemplified by the low poll numbers enjoyed by both the President and Congress.

 

Oh, that was such an obvious cheap shot to get an easy applause. He had to stretch what Ron was saying to make that work. And anytime I see Giuliani start sporting his 9/11 experience I get sick to my stomach...

[PhDP]

From what I've read about him, he's quite radical about taxes and the constitution. I'm pretty sure he's not the right politician in this age of compromises and mixed economies. Pragmatism is the new motto.

[ParanoiA]

From what I've read about him, he's quite radical about taxes and the constitution. I'm pretty sure he's not the right politician in this age of compromises and mixed economies. Pragmatism is the new motto.

 

Well it's only radical when you don't consider the decades of incremental erosion of the constitution and exploitation of taxation.

 

But perception is reality, so I'm sure you're right.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure I agree, Phil. It's pretty hard to defend the current system of taxation on an objective basis. I do agree that we have more important problems to solve right now, but I can't dismiss him for being "radical", at least on the subject of taxation.

[PhDP]

First I'd like to ask if you believe Ron Paul is representative of modern libertarianism ?

 

About Paul's radicalism. As much as I dislike the Canadian system, I like ONE thing about our constitution; it's recognized that interpretations can evolve with time. The US constitution was established in a very different era, how can Ron Paul possibly ask a strict interpretation of the US constitution to be still relevant in every matter? When I heard him say "it's not in the constitution", as if it was an unbeatable argument per se, it makes me wonder if he can lead the US people in the 21th century. I just don't think it's possible to keep the same constitution for so many years if it's not allowed to evolve.

 

About taxes, I think he's a radical but I heard him say only one thing about it (without much details) so I might be wrong. I heard him say he wanted to abolish income taxes (I really hope his main argument is not the constitution). It's always the same scenario; on the right some people think income taxes should be abolished, because it's against personal freedom or something like that. On the left, some argue we should abolish sales taxes, because it's regressive. In practice, both systems work very well together and they can easily serve both progressive and more conservative fiscal policies. On most occasions, the case to abolish one system is purely based on an ideological argument without much consideration for the practical issues, and IMO it's both radical and unpractical to abolish one system or the other.

[ParanoiA]

Well, keep in mind that many of us believe the constitution is timeless. And there is a thin line between evolution and mangling. In fact, the erosion of the constitution is supposed to trigger alarm. Consider the controversial gun rights. The removal of those rights would be a logical first step of any government heading towards oppression. Oppression is not an evolutionary step from freedom - it's the opposite.

 

Could you provide an example of where the constitution needs to evolve?

 

Also, the idea that the abolishing any current tax structure as a radical idea is not very well thought out. Tell me what is sensible about having taxes spread all over the conceptual playing field to the point that people can actually make a living just interpreting it?

 

If a politician declares he lowered taxes, it would take a team of CPA's to determine whether or not he really did, and then it would still be debatable. This is absolutely ridiculous.

 

This is also how you hide money. This is how you create a corrupt system - you make it so complicated and convoluted that no one can figure it out.

 

I could go on and on, but it should be obvious to everyone that a complicated tax structure is BAD BAD BAD!

 

A flat sales tax, or any other consolidated, single point of reference type system will fix a ton of problems.

[Pangloss]

First I'd like to ask if you believe Ron Paul is representative of modern libertarianism ?

 

I don't know and I don't care. Not that I object to the question, it just doesn't matter to me as a voter.

 

 

About Paul's radicalism. As much as I dislike the Canadian system, I like ONE thing about our constitution; it's recognized that interpretations can evolve with time. The US constitution was established in a very different era, how can Ron Paul possibly ask a strict interpretation of the US constitution to be still relevant in every matter? When I heard him say "it's not in the constitution", as if it was an unbeatable argument per se, it makes me wonder if he can lead the US people in the 21th century. I just don't think it's possible to keep the same constitution for so many years if it's not allowed to evolve.

 

"Strict constructionist" is a misnomer in most cases. It doesn't mean that they're opposed to all interpretation of any kind. If it means that in the case of Ron Paul I'd be surprised. It's my understanding that he applies the term primarily to display his opposition to pork barrel spending and out-of-control taxation.

 

But I share your concern in the area of wondering whether he'll oppose all forms of compromise. Compromise is an important part of good government. Just because he's not a hardcore right-winger doesn't automatically make him a good moderate candidate, IMO.

 

 

About taxes, I think he's a radical but I heard him say only one thing about it (without much details) so I might be wrong. I heard him say he wanted to abolish income taxes (I really hope his main argument is not the constitution). It's always the same scenario; on the right some people think income taxes should be abolished, because it's against personal freedom or something like that. On the left, some argue we should abolish sales taxes, because it's regressive. In practice, both systems work very well together and they can easily serve both progressive and more conservative fiscal policies. On most occasions, the case to abolish one system is purely based on an ideological argument without much consideration for the practical issues, and IMO it's both radical and unpractical to abolish one system or the other.

 

I disagree that it's a purely ideological argument. There are perfectly reasonable arguments against income tax. But I agree with your assessment about its (income tax's) compromise and moderate ways-and-means value to society.

 

I agree that most people see it as a pure benefit without scratching beneath the surface. Floridians are a good example of that -- always boasting of the fact that we have no state income tax. Meanwhile we pay property tax rates that are just insane. As you say, an income tax would balance that out, sharing the burdon with citizens who don't own property, for example (though that's probably the reason why we won't see an income tax here any time soon -- Jesse Jackson would be down here in a heartbeat).

[Haezed]

Listening to the clip of the debates, he seems to be a kind of Ross Perot X factor kind of candidate. He very well may stir things up.

 

He needs to figure out how to make the "blow back" argument without suggesting we invited 9/11.

[ParanoiA]

He needs to figure out how to make the "blow back" argument without suggesting we invited 9/11.

 

Why does it matter? I mean, you're right in that people are and will make a big deal out of it, but why deny reality? He's exactly right about what he said and it needs to be said and understood.

 

It's like 9/11 is considered so "sacred" that it's blasphemy to even ponder otherwise. That's all emotion. Nothing but an emotional appeal. Look at Guiliani jumping on the "offensive" bandwagon - like he speaks for all who were offended at the notion that the great America could be responsible for anything less than total love and admiration.

[Pangloss]

It's not like he said "655,000 Iraqis have died -- who are the real terrorists?" (something Rosie O'Donnel said).

 

Man I wish she would run for president. That would just be FUN.

[Haezed]

Why does it matter? I mean, you're right in that people are and will make a big deal out of it, but why deny reality? He's exactly right about what he said and it needs to be said and understood.

 

1. It's stupid politically and our next president shouldn't be stupid politically.

 

2. It is falacious reasoning. The suggestion in that clip was that because these zealots were willing to commit suicide to rearrange our skyline and in the process kill thousands, that must mean we did something wrong. Maybe some of our policies are incorrect but the suggestion that any of our policies somehow caused, or justified, 9/11 is inane.

 

Further, the "blowback" view of the world is as if we are the only ones on the planet with the responsibility to act rationally. It suggests that the problem is entirely inside of the US and not in the Islamic world. That's just back arsewards.

 

It's like 9/11 is considered so "sacred" that it's blasphemy to even ponder otherwise. That's all emotion. Nothing but an emotional appeal. Look at Guiliani jumping on the "offensive" bandwagon - like he speaks for all who were offended at the notion that the great America could be responsible for anything less than total love and admiration.

 

When did I say it was sacred. You have now entered strawman city.

[Haezed]

It's not like he said "655,000 Iraqis have died -- who are the real terrorists?" (something Rosie O'Donnel said).

 

Man I wish she would run for president. That would just be FUN.

 

Heck yes.

[ParanoiA]

1. It's stupid politically and our next president shouldn't be stupid politically.

 

I'll take truth over politics any day. If he believes what he says is true, why shouldn't he stand up for it regardless of politics? Isn't that what we call a backbone?

 

2. It is falacious reasoning. The suggestion in that clip was that because these zealots were willing to commit suicide to rearrange our skyline and in the process kill thousands, that must mean we did something wrong. Maybe some of our policies are incorrect but the suggestion that any of our policies somehow caused, or justified, 9/11 is inane.

 

No it's not simply looking at 9/11 and assuming we did something wrong, it's looking back on decades of meddling and directly, as well as indirectly causing the deaths of thousands, if not millions of people in the middle east. Then coupling that with their irrational political theocracies that have amazing control over their people. Not to imply there aren't plenty of other guilty parties here, including their own governments.

 

And what about the obvious point that we would also behave the same way if incrementally invaded by other countries?

 

If nothing else, it's the mere recognition that to not consider how your behavior is perceived is to your own perile. How does that not make sense?

 

Further, the "blowback" view of the world is as if we are the only ones on the planet with the responsibility to act rationally. It suggests that the problem is entirely inside of the US and not in the Islamic world. That's just back arsewards.

 

No it doesn't. It's the common sense analysis that we will likely anger somebody when we mess with them - particularly when messing with their country's politics and leaders. If you punch some guy in the face you have to expect him to hit you back. That's what Ron Paul is saying. If you don't want to have to block punches, then stop punching.

 

That's not to say there isn't a time or place for punching, but you would still measure and anticipate getting hit back. Again, why does that have to be controversial?

 

When did I say it was sacred. You have now entered strawman city.

 

I'm sorry, that part wasn't directed at you. That's why I mentioned the Giuliani bit. I get to rambling on...

[Haezed]

I'll take truth over politics any day. If he believes what he says is true, why shouldn't he stand up for it regardless of politics? Isn't that what we call a backbone?

 

There is telling the truth and then there is being stupid. Presidents should not be politically stupid but they should also be honest. See, e.g., Ronald Reagan.

 

No it's not simply looking at 9/11 and assuming we did something wrong, it's looking back on decades of meddling and directly, as well as indirectly causing the deaths of thousands, if not millions of people in the middle east. Then coupling that with their irrational political theocracies that have amazing control over their people. Not to imply there aren't plenty of other guilty parties here, including their own governments.

 

The last sentence of your paragraph is what Paul was missing. It is a wild assumption that the Islamists wouldn't hate our guts if the US & British hadn't taken various actions post-WWI. The Islamic world's decline from being the pinnacle of scientific progress and even freedom started centuries ago. Scapegoats must be found.

 

And what about the obvious point that we would also behave the same way if incrementally invaded by other countries?

 

Who did we incrementally invade?

 

If nothing else, it's the mere recognition that to not consider how your behavior is perceived is to your own perile. How does that not make sense?

 

Sure you should consider the impact of your own behavior. That's obvious but Paul was putting it all on us in this segment. I assume he knows better and just was being politically stupid and THAT is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

 

No it doesn't. It's the common sense analysis that we will likely anger somebody when we mess with them - particularly when messing with their country's politics and leaders. If you punch some guy in the face you have to expect him to hit you back. That's what Ron Paul is saying. If you don't want to have to block punches, then stop punching.

 

It is a wild and dangerous assumption that if we "stop punching" we won't get hit. Should we not have "stopped punching" when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Should we not have punched back against the Taliban? If the policy of being a doormat worked (not saying this is your position, but using the tool of reductio ad absurdum), the world would be a marvelous place but it doesn't have a great history except when directed as non-violent protests against Western democracies, e.g. Ghandi.

 

That's not to say there isn't a time or place for punching, but you would still measure and anticipate getting hit back. Again, why does that have to be controversial?

 

Paul's statement had none of these nuances and it is dangerous to speak in generalities. You have to talk about which "punch" and which "counterpunch." Osama's purported primary beef was our presence in Saudia Arabia. Would Paul have had us withdraw forces or fundamentally alter that alliance prior to 9/11? Paul's statements were lazy and stupid although, in fairness, the debate format does not allow a lot of details.

I'm sorry, that part wasn't directed at you. That's why I mentioned the Giuliani bit. I get to rambling on...

 

No worries.

[ParanoiA]

There is telling the truth and then there is being stupid. Presidents should not be politically stupid but they should also be honest. See, e.g., Ronald Reagan.

 

Maybe I'm just a little grittier? I don't care for sugar coating, nor exacerbating the truth - just say it. I don't understand why this obsessive focus on 9/11 and this "blame" exists. I would associate what he said with every terrorist act we've suffered. It's not about whether or not we deserved it, it's about whether or not we should have expected it.

 

Who did we incrementally invade?

 

The world – with military bases and operations and American business. And when their ideology, or religion names an infidel, rightly or wrongly, and this infidel roles tanks in their neighborhoods with shiny shoe businessmen nosing into their governments and economies then they’re going to feel threatened – period. That’s obvious. This feeds the terror machine.

 

Is that rational? Of course not, they could be using us for a lot of aid right now and just drain the hell out of us with welfare…but maybe that’s not rational either…

 

Anyway, perception is reality and that allows a very black and white, good versus evil depiction that compliments the nature of their religion quite well. Now, I’ve always argued the superpowers get the blame more by being a superpower than actual responsibility, but that doesn’t erase the duty of critically thinking out how we are perceived by our friends and foes. It’s a strategic necessity, to say nothing else.

 

It is a wild and dangerous assumption that if we "stop punching" we won't get hit. Should we not have "stopped punching" when Iraq invaded Kuwait?

 

We won't be the focus of their hatred when we're not integrating ourselves with their markets and governments. They're not up for it. Their governments are not up to the challenge of controlling their people, or their people are not up to the challenge of controlling their own, in order to keep from breeding and raising terrorism. The only reason why we give a crap is because of oil.

 

And while I realize the reality and impact of oil on my life, I still think it's crappy and I'm wishing for a huge energy revolution in the coming years...and a fishing boat...

 

War sucks, our toys weren’t designed for this. People are more and more appalled by killing, particularly collateral damage. This is a cool sign of humanity really, in my opinion. Let’s regroup and fight this a different way.

 

I’ve always wondered why they didn’t make a video of Osama making a deal with Cheney or somebody, using digital engineering, something disgraceful that would discredit him and take away from the movement. I’d like to see more fighting like that.

[ecoli]

I’ve always wondered why they didn’t make a video of Osama making a deal with Cheney or somebody, using digital engineering, something disgraceful that would discredit him and take away from the movement. I’d like to see more fighting like that.

I agree with most of what you say, but this seems a tad hypocritical to me... didn't you say that you wanted your politicians to stand for truth?

[Haezed]

Maybe I'm just a little grittier?

 

I.E. you are unelectable. That's okay, so am I.

 

I don't care for sugar coating, nor exacerbating the truth - just say it. I don't understand why this obsessive focus on 9/11 and this "blame" exists. I would associate what he said with every terrorist act we've suffered. It's not about whether or not we deserved it, it's about whether or not we should have expected it.

 

 

 

Paul resisted stating unequivocally that the US was not to blame. That is a pretty revealing ommission.

 

FWIW, I think the government did expect a 9/11 style attack and I think the terrorists are to blame.

 

The world – with military bases and operations and American business.

 

Would you not have "invaded" Western Europe to stand against the soviets in the cold war? You would have no presence in the middle east? Would you dismantle our air craft carriers so we do not project/invade power into such areas. What abou S. Korea? Has our presence there been a mistake for several decades?

 

And when their ideology, or religion names an infidel, rightly or wrongly, and this infidel roles tanks in their neighborhoods with shiny shoe businessmen nosing into their governments and economies then they’re going to feel threatened – period. That’s obvious. This feeds the terror machine.

 

US military presence overseas is but one element that creates terrorism. Do you think terrorism would disappear if went completely on defense?

 

Is that rational? Of course not, they could be using us for a lot of aid right now and just drain the hell out of us with welfare…but maybe that’s not rational either…

 

So we must kowtow to the most dysfunctional, least rational elements of the world? Sorry but at some point Islamic countries are simply going to have to deal with these people internally or they will continue to suffer.

 

Anyway, perception is reality

 

I'm not sure we can afford to give into this cliche in this area.

 

and that allows a very black and white, good versus evil depiction that compliments the nature of their religion quite well. Now, I’ve always argued the superpowers get the blame more by being a superpower than actual responsibility, but that doesn’t erase the duty of critically thinking out how we are perceived by our friends and foes. It’s a strategic necessity, to say nothing else.

 

Again, I think you are vastly oversimplifying. There is a centuries old evolution of tension towards Western culture.

 

We won't be the focus of their hatred when we're not integrating ourselves with their markets and governments. They're not up for it. Their governments are not up to the challenge of controlling their people, or their people are not up to the challenge of controlling their own, in order to keep from breeding and raising terrorism. The only reason why we give a crap is because of oil.

 

A wild assumption. Despots need enemies and the West will remain their enemy even if we ... what? Give up their oil?

 

And while I realize the reality and impact of oil on my life, I still think it's crappy and I'm wishing for a huge energy revolution in the coming years...and a fishing boat...

 

 

Well, I wish your wishes for fishes come true. In the meantime....

 

War sucks, our toys weren’t designed for this. People are more and more appalled by killing, particularly collateral damage. This is a cool sign of humanity really, in my opinion. Let’s regroup and fight this a different way.

 

Specifics, please? Disengagement?

 

I’ve always wondered why they didn’t make a video of Osama making a deal with Cheney or somebody, using digital engineering, something disgraceful that would discredit him and take away from the movement. I’d like to see more fighting like that.

 

You sure that's not on Moveon.org?

[ecoli]

A wild assumption. Despots need enemies and the West will remain their enemy even if we ... what? Give up their oil?

 

That, in itself is an assumption, however. How do we know that the terrorists will follow us home? What is the cost of this assumption?

[ParanoiA]

I agree with most of what you say, but this seems a tad hypocritical to me... didn't you say that you wanted your politicians to stand for truth?

 

Well yeah, but I don't want them to wage an honest war. War isn't about fairness. I don't know that I'd consider any sneaky actions by CIA or what not as hypocritical. Or maybe it is, but doesn't matter? We're hypocrites about nuclear arms possession but it doesn't therefore make all legislators dishonest, nor does it change the fact that rogue states can't be trusted with nuclear weapons. Just an example.

 

Point taken though, I had to wrestle with that one a bit.

 

Would you not have "invaded" Western Europe to stand against the soviets in the cold war? You would have no presence in the middle east? Would you dismantle our air craft carriers so we do not project/invade power into such areas. What abou S. Korea? Has our presence there been a mistake for several decades?

 

Irrelevant. I didn't say I agreed with the world's perceptions at all, I said their perceptions matter. Right now, I believe there is some stock in anti-american sentiment around the globe. I also believe there is class envy and self oppression, propaganda, human nature to externalize blame, etc.. It's not black and white. We are not great people serving the world. Neither is anyone else. We are all driven by self interest. I make no apologies for outperforming nations that insist on backwards, archaic governments, broken theocracies and etc.

 

We would also be lying to ourselves if we didn't admit we take advantage of poor countries - we help, no doubt, but we also take advantage. We do this militarily and economically. Both are resented by the citizens of the middle east and welcomed by their governments...well at least the money anyway. Irregardless of our intent, or anyone else's, we still have to accept our perception in considering our fate.

 

If you're going to go "global" and topple and install governments and etc, then you DO have responsibility and blame to share. This is why I prefer non-intervention in other country's affairs. Perhaps this is also why Ron Paul won't back off on the 9/11 comment. I don't want to be responsible for the fall of Saigon. I don't want to be responsible for Sudan.

 

US military presence overseas is but one element that creates terrorism. Do you think terrorism would disappear if went completely on defense?

 

It wouldn't disappear, but we wouldn't be the focus of it and the excuse for it. What's with this argument? I've heard people ask this before as if there's a point to be made. As if it doesn't matter whether or not our behavior is ethical or righteous, only if it will yield a certain outcome.

 

It matters that we don't screw people over. If we don't lose a single enemy, but we can stop screwing someone over, we should. Do you disagree with that? I think we can maintain superpower status just fine without dotting the globe with our war toys.

 

So we must kowtow to the most dysfunctional, least rational elements of the world? Sorry but at some point Islamic countries are simply going to have to deal with these people internally or they will continue to suffer.

 

Or ALL will continue to suffer - that's how your last sentence should have read. Because your answer is to keep feeding the terror machine. You can make excuses and complain how unfair it is all you want, but that's not going to stop poor, war torn, terror conditioned little kids from aspiring to blow us all up.

 

They can't and won't deal with them internally. Time to take our business elsewhere. They have not demonstrated a level of maturity necessary to integrate with other humans.

 

A wild assumption. Despots need enemies and the West will remain their enemy even if we ... what? Give up their oil?

 

Not wild at all. They haven't declared war on the 194 countries in the world - just the west - which does comprise of a nice list nonetheless. They don't bomb Mexico last I checked...

 

Specifics, please? Disengagement?

 

I was just wrapping up some thoughts on the matter. The war on terror has been unfairly pitted against us, in my opinion. Seems we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. However, we seem to be too much on the defensive and too inclined to "stay the course" on every military decision, that we have lost the ability to simply regroup and try other things.