*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, January 13th, 2012 10:02pm PST - promote requested by original submitter Auger8.

Why so many people are choosing not to endorse Ron Paul (from reddit)

Ron Paul's beliefs and positions.

He defines life as starting at conception,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

Lies to maintain FUD regarding Abortion by claiming he "saw doctors throwing a live baby away to let it die"...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/03/say-anything-to-take-us-out-of-this-gloom/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/29/the_ron_paul_fetus_rescue_test.html
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/01/01/why-iowa-caucus-is-about-abortion

Denies evolution, "At first I thought it was a very inappropriate question for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter ... I don't accept it as a theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q @ 2:45
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2007/12/22/ron-paul-backs-creationism-denies-evolution/

Does not believe in separation of church and state,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpaulseparation.html

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD8rJCbEVMg

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2613ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2613ih.pdf

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbMly74cZ8

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters,

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/ron-paul-you-dont-deserve-fema-help-also-im-running-for-prez-video.php
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/14/ron-paul-%E2%80%98why-not%E2%80%99-abolish-fema-since-helping-victims-of-disaster-is-compounding-our-problems/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6YQYhk3GRE

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border,

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US",

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/ron-paul-announces-new-run-for-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ArUoyuDd74
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-05-25/ron-paul-defend-the-constitution-not-the-u-n-security-council/

Disband NATO,

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm

End birthright citizenship,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/140490/ron-pauls-views-on-immigration-do-you-agree-or-disagree
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtDZZHrT8mY

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style",

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign,

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/anti-gay-hate-group-chair-is-now-ron-pauls-iowa-state-director/politics/2011/12/29/32460

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan,

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys,

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/U-S-House-votes-to-ban-lead-from-toys-1774056.php

He believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

He's against gay marriage,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

Will even legislate against gay marriage on a federal level and attempted to CRIMINALIZE efforts to overturn such a measure,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/274704/20111230/ron-paul-proposal-severely-curtail-supreme-court.htm

Has even made it a point to base his campaign on Religion and being against Gay Marriage,

http://imgur.com/11Q77

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal,

http://www.politicususa.com/en/ron-paul-sexual-harassment

Is against the popular vote,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html

Wants the estate tax repealed,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:

Believes that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control,

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website,

http://www.freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/RonPaulStormfront.jpg

Keeps their donations,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/

And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

http://patdollard.com/2011/12/white-supremacist-founder-of-stormfront-says-his-followers-are-volunteering-for-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-campaign/

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,

http://www.vice.com/read/ron-paul-is-a-racist-leprechaun
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-denies-writing-coming-race-war-letter-he-signed/46622/

But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/

And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWXnI97DwE

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h106-573

However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5872

AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War,

(Archive.org Mirror) http://web.archive.org/web/20090604122724/http://www.theseminal.com/2007/12/30/ron-paul-lets-spend-240-million-on-commemorative-medals/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_Victory_Medal
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3417ih/html/BILLS-107hr3417ih.htm

But didn't bother to repeat his previous argument those times that such an act would be unconstitutional as he had with the Rosa Parks Medal.

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/ron-paul-no-on-rosa-parks-yes-on.html

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m&

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

http://www.revolutionpac.com/advisory-board/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Faculty_and_administration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Criticisms

Is against Hate Crime laws,

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-07-02/ron-paul-collectivist-hate-crimes-bill-a-serious-threat-to-freedom-of-speech/

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/
http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2011/05/ron-pauls-position-against-civil-rights-act-of-1964-and-against-segregation-laws/

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/ron-paul-suggests-basic-freedoms-come-second-to-property-rights/

He also believes The Civil Rights Act destroyed Privacy,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

Despite always "voting against earmarks," he was only one of four House Repubs to request earmarks in 2011 for over $157mil. (And in FY 2010, was one of the leading House members in requesting earmarks for a total of $398mil.)

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1033&Itemid=68

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-pauls-house-record-stands-out-for-its-futility-and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-not-civil-libertarian-last.html

Want more? Go here.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Ron_Paul

Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

http://rpnewsletter.wordpress.com/

I can see we'll never agree on this Dys, but that's ok I still like you.

It's nice to see someone else who is as determined to opposed him as I am to support him. Though I unfortunately don't have the time to dig up counter arguments to all those links. I think the videos speak for themselves if you agree with me I welcome the support if you don't that's your opinion and I respect that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Ron Paul's beliefs and positions.
[edited to save space - full comment above]

Being mindful of the facts your list presents, @dystopianfuturetoday, who among the GOP candidates do you believe to be better fit for nomination than Paul?

@notarobot

They are all terrible - each with his or her own individual horrors to inflict upon the nation. It's as weak a field as I've ever seen. I think the best choice would be the one that is likely to get the least done - the most boring, uncharismatic and ineffectual. Sooo.... Hunstman, I guess.

It's much easier to pick a worst, and that would be Newt Gingrich. That guy is one of the shiftiest politicians I've ever seen. He seems like a complete mercenary who is only looking out for Newt. Bachman, Perry and Santorum are idiots. I liked Cain's wtf campaign and weird sense of humor, but he obviously lacked even a basic understanding of the information needed to do the job. I don't really feel like I know who Romney is. He is very slick and guarded. It looks like he is going to be the guy unless some tragedy befalls him.

@Auger8

That's nice of you to say. I'm used to being called a statist idiot. I like you too and think that if you dig Ron Paul, you should shout it from the roof tops. He is indeed not the status quo, fairly consistent and more honest than most politicians (though I do believe he intentionally misleads through omission and vagueness) I also like that he brings war, weed and the debt into the dialog.

You shouldn't need to counter any of what I've said if you truly support Ron Paul. He is a states rights guy, an anti-federalist and adherent of 'negative' liberty, which is liberty FROM democratic government, rather than liberty BY WAY of democratic government. If the things I've posted bug you, you should read up on Austrian economics, the Mises Institute, Ayn Rand, anarcho-capitalism, negative vs positive liberty and Ron Paul's homepage (though Ron is smart enough to keep things brief and vague on his own site). If these things appeal to you, then ending federal civil rights protections and letting the states decide should be something you support.

What bugs me is that many liberals are attracted to him based on hearing a few persuasive anti-war and pro-weed soundbites, without realizing that his economics are an extreme right wing form of capitalism. I want to make sure that people see this side of Ron Paul. If you support completely unfettered, unregulated markets, then Ron Paul is the guy for you. I know I probably come off as a little over-obsessive to allies and opponents alike, and I'm sorry to be that way, but that's who I am and how I feel. If I feel strongly about something, I just blurt it out. The internet is my safety release valve, because I'm much more guarded about discussing politics in my real life. Though I can be impulsively drawn to conflict in real life too. Anyway, cheers. I'm curious to know if you support Ron Paul's total package, or just the anti-war, pro-constitution stuff he talks about in the media.

Also, you can edit down my quote or remove it all together from your comment with the edit function. It's pretty darned long in and of itself without being quoted in its entirety.

(note: several edits and additions as to not take up any more comment space)

Why are so many people endorsing Ron Paul?

Because the country is actually that f#*ed up.

Seriously, the Republicans were toying with the idea of President Newt Gingrich for a while there, next to that Ron Paul looks like he only belongs in the 'heavily sedated' portion of the institution.

>> ^notarobot:

Being mindful of the facts your list presents, @dystopianfuturetoday, who among the GOP candidates do you believe to be better fit for nomination than Paul?


Vermin Supreme and Colbert seem better primary choices.

Peter Schiff was also 100% correct about the 2008 crash, but that still doesn't exonerate him as being a complete tool. i do not care for these examples of suitability for office due to correlation, correlation is not causation, and these attempts at power of authority figures to garner support for his cause is just appalling - just because a veteran says it does not make it a fact (& they are trained to follow order, not be free-thinkers) to me the true patriots shun military service 'Think of Muhammad Ali' when he so famously stated (No Vietnamese person ever called me nigger).

Paul may be right about wanting to bring the troops home, but he is very wrong about more broader issues & before of the cultists ask me for what those are read my older posts on my profile, i don't feel like repeating myself to people who close their ears & their minds.

My heartfelt thanks to @dystopianfuturetoday for such an exhaustive and well researched list.

I'd also like to point out that RP can be just as disingenuous as the next politician. Funny how he doesn't mention his attitude towards legalising drugs and prostitution in this ad.

I did my own less comprehensive list a few days ago: http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-why-dont-other-candidates-talk-about-drug-policy?loadcomm=1#comment-1379092 - but this list above was made by a redditor: http://www.reddit.com/r/EnoughPaulSpam/comments/oeay1/inspired_by_a_comment_by_hazel2020_in_that/

This govt is obviously screwed up. I don't know what it needs, but it sure as hell doesn't need Obama (no CHANGE) and OMG it doesnt need Mitt.... needs something significantly different... hmmm, who is significantly different.

p.s. not a dupe... i guess... its been overdubbed and a political spiel has been bolted on the end
http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-For-Pres-Many-Old-Clips-Paul-Predicts-Troubles

Not here but he does here on my other post.

http://videosift.com/video/Ron-Paul-why-dont-other-candidates-talk-about-drug-policy

>> ^ChaosEngine:

My heartfelt thanks to @dystopianfuturetoday for such an exhaustive and well researched list.
I'd also like to point out that RP can be just as disingenuous as the next politician. Funny how he doesn't mention his attitude towards legalising drugs and prostitution in this ad.

@dystopianfuturetoday's list seems somewhat biased to me. I also appreciate him taking the time to provide links to his objections, kudos for that.

This is how I would honestly try to answer each of them, I think most can be dismissed, but some should be looked into.

Abortion

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on abortion, his political opinion is that it's not a Federal issue, it's a state's rights' issue because it's too controversial. So whether people like abortion or not, they have the choice of taking it up with their local governments.

Evolution

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on evolution. If I were a Christian, I'd have trouble dealing with the theory of evolution too, because I'd believe in a book written by God that says the universe was created in 6 days. I don't see how would that negatively influence him as a president or his policies.

Does not believe in separation of church and state

Sounds like total BS to me. That is just a very biased interpretation of the linked article. Libertarians understand separation of church and state because having them together is even more dangerous than fascism (corporations and state together). It threatens many liberties they hold dear, including free speech, religious freedom, sexual freedom and not using laws to impose morality.

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools

Correct, unconstitutional, against libertarian ideals. Even though he'd like to privatize them all, he would have to stop at the Federal level and let states choose whether to run their own schools or privatize.

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones

Correct, probably because it would encroach on guns rights, besides, it's in accordance with the point above: Federal government has no business educating children anyway, and should not impose gun restrictions on state-run schools, that's up to the states themselves.

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

He does believe that global warming claims are a FUD tactic for environmental regulations at the Federal level.

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters

Correct about FEMA being dispensable, but "we" means the Federal government. States can help. Private charities can help. Churches can help. Concerned individuals can help. Insurance companies can help.

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border

Wierd, I mean, it's in accordance with defending our borders, but seems like a costly idea.

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy

I don't know what to say about that, sorry.

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US"

He presented more than one reason to pull out of the UN. I personally agree that the UN is not in alignment with american values. I wish the UN all the best in whatever they want to achieve, but I don't think they should do it with the US' money and military, specially since we're broke and fighting too many wars as it is.

Disband NATO

Link is not working. NATO is a remnant of the Cold War era, it costs us money to outsource our military protection to other countries, disbanding NATO makes sense to me.

End birthright citizenship

Sounds like a reasonable position to me. He's in favor of immigrants entering the country, but birthright citizenship is a legal shortcut that is often abused and imposes an unnecessary burden on American citizens and the welfare system.

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"

If he had his way, a lot of federal funding to all non-essential organizations would be denied, period. When it comes to the issue of homossexuality, regardless of his personal opinions, he seems to be arguing against using taxpayer money to promote or impose lifestyles taxpayers themselves might not approve of.

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign

I don't know, that's a tough one. That might reflect poorly on Ron Paul if this person was hired for being an anti-gay activist. Maybe he's just a good campaign director? I don't think Ron Paul is against homossexuals politically, and he's allowed the same level of homophobia as any other straight christian guy, as long as he doesn't project it into active anti-gay policies.

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard

Correct, even though he mostly talks about commodity-based currencies. He doesn't want to impose the gold standard, but allow competing currencies, in which case, I'm sure many people will prefer to use gold as money since it has been historically preferred for millenia.

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan

I don't understand that sentence and the link is broken, could you elaborate on it, please?

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys

Correct, as the linked article points out, he "frequently votes against measures expanding the federal government's reach". It doesn't mean Ron Paul is in favor of lead in children's toys, only that there are other more effective ways to ensure that children's toys don't have lead in them. Leave the Federal government out of this.

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal

Correct, not at the federal level, that is a states' issue. Whatever else he said on the subject is irrelevant.

Is against the popular vote

Correct, it's a libertarian thing. Libertarians like to protect minorities, namely the smallest and most numerous minority, which is the individual. That's why they always talk about individual rights. Democracy sometimes ignores and tramples over individuals in favor of the majority, so libertarians don't always regard democracy as this unquestionable improvement for civilization.

Wants the estate tax repealed

Correct, it's a useless tax in terms of revenue, most people waste as much money avoiding it than paying it, so it's destroying resources, and its not morally justified. Why would someone have to pay taxes when they die? Why pay taxes to inherit what someone rightfully gives you when they die?

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States

Don't know what to say about that. If it was built with US taxpayer money, maybe it should? Idk.

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website

This is bullshit. A picture of them together just implies they conspired to stand in front of a camera.

Keeps their donations
And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

Also, bullshit. Taking their money means he accepts their support, it does not mean that Ron Paul supports them. Like Ron Paul explained many times, it would be impractical to do a background check on all the hundreds of thousands of people who support him and send him money.

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,
But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,
And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."
...
Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

He didn't write it and they already found the guy responsible for the offensive content. Move on.

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...
Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.
However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts
AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War

Ouch, I don't know what to say, at first it seems inconsistent. Maybe he doesn't have a perfect voting record after all. I'll look into that. I don't buy that he's against Rosa Parks or that there is any race issues involved.

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

Endorsing the removal of federal regulations and the freedom that comes with that is not an endorsement of what people or states do with these freedoms.

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

Bullshit, an exageration of guilt by association. Thomas Woods is not the founder, he was present at the founding. He contributed in a limited capacity and is no longer involved with that group. He also publicly admits to being a textbook neoconservative before changing his mind and becoming a Ron Paul supporter. I only expect Ron Paul to be consistent, not everyone who works for him or endorse him, people can change their minds and their ways.

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

Bullshit, exagerated guilt by an even more distant level of association. The Mises Institute is about austrian economics, most likely they're associated only in regards to their opinions on economics.

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Very easy to misinterpret. He's partly against the Civil Rights Act regarding the regulations on private individuals and businesses that are open to the public because they reduce individual liberties. Makes sense for a libertarian to say such things.

Earmarks

I see it as Ron Paul making the most to get money back to the states and local communities using a flawed system.

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

Can be considered a testament to his innefectiveness, or as a testament to his backbone, and how screwed up Congress and Washington is.

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

And the guy who wrote that article is an Anti-Ron Paul nut.

Want more? Go here.

Maybe Slanderpedia.com would be more appropriate, btw I checked and the domain name is available!

TLDR: i do agree that some things about Ron Paul should be looked into, but for a guy who has been a politician for so long, he's made very few mistakes. Compared to the regular corrupt politician, he's an ANGEL. His most outlandish statements are in line with what libertarians are used to saying, and, likewise, are very easily misinterpreted.

You just named two democrat candidates. Not GOP candidates


>> ^direpickle:

>> ^notarobot:
Being mindful of the facts your list presents, @dystopianfuturetoday, who among the GOP candidates do you believe to be better fit for nomination than Paul?

Vermin Supreme and Colbert seem better primary choices.

>> ^TheJehosephat:

You just named two democrat candidates. Not GOP candidates

>> ^direpickle:
>> ^notarobot:
Being mindful of the facts your list presents, @dystopianfuturetoday, who among the GOP candidates do you believe to be better fit for nomination than Paul?

Vermin Supreme and Colbert seem better primary choices.



Colbert's planning to run in the Republican primary, AFAIK. And Vermin Supreme would've been the best person to vote for in the Democratic primary.

Ah, ok then
>> ^direpickle:

>> ^TheJehosephat:
You just named two democrat candidates. Not GOP candidates

>> ^direpickle:
>> ^notarobot:
Being mindful of the facts your list presents, @dystopianfuturetoday, who among the GOP candidates do you believe to be better fit for nomination than Paul?

Vermin Supreme and Colbert seem better primary choices.


Colbert's planning to run in the Republican primary, AFAIK. And Vermin Supreme would've been the best person to vote for in the Democratic primary.

>> ^renatojj:

TLDR: i do agree that some things about Ron Paul should be looked into, but for a guy who has been a politician for so long, he's made very few mistakes. Compared to the regular corrupt politician, he's an ANGEL. His most outlandish statements are in line with what libertarians are used to saying, and, likewise, are very easily misinterpreted.


When your only choice is the 'least evil' one (on the surface), you know that the representatives you are voting for are not working for you, but against you. Ron Paul is irrelevant to what's going on in America, he may get in, he may not, but the entire system needs to change before the people are represented. Fantastic list btw @dystopianfuturetoday, no need to apologize.

@dystopianfuturetoday: I think a lot of people like Paul because he comes across as the least crazy/greedy/dangerous/moronic/etc. among the major GOP candidates. While being the least bad isn't necessarily the most ideal way gain support, the failings and google problems of the other front runners have me quietly rooting for Paul.

That said, I'm happy Colbert is running. And I've only just heard of smaller candidates like Buddy Roemer. Makes me wonder how many other presidential candidates can only afford to run in one state or another. Are there any lesser-known candidates you like?

>> ^ghark:

>> ^renatojj:
TLDR: ...

When your only choice is the 'least evil' one (on the surface), you know that the representatives you are voting for are not working for you, but against you. Ron Paul is irrelevant to what's going on in America, he may get in, he may not, but the entire system needs to change before the people are represented. Fantastic list btw @dystopianfuturetoday, no need to apologize.


I don't get it. Why would you dismiss him so carelessly? I wouldn't consider him "least evil" at all, the guy deserves a lot more credit than that. Ron Paul certainly holds himself to high standards of consistency that I would never expect from a politician. I think his social, foreign and economic policies, no matter how controversial, or whether we agree with him or not, are very relevant to America's current situation.

whether his ideas are good or bad... could a president paul actually get anything accomplished?

he'd be just the executive in our trias politica - congress would likely ignore his goals of substantive change, as well as override his vetoes that might threaten the status quo... and our judiciary would lock horns with him over the 14th amendment, at the very least

might as well elect a bag of sand, imho

Oh You silly Americans!

>> ^Diogenes:

whether his ideas are good or bad... could a president paul actually get anything accomplished?
he'd be just the executive in our trias politica - congress would likely ignore his goals of substantive change, as well as override his vetoes that might threaten the status quo... and our judiciary would lock horns with him over the 14th amendment, at the very least
might as well elect a bag of sand, imho


That's a good point. I really don't know how a single man would get things done. I'm guessing a worst case scenario would be of constant deadlock, but a worsening economy would put enormous pressure on the opposition, I think we can count on Ron Paul not budging on his positions no matter what just based on his voting record.

>> ^renatojj:

Abortion
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on abortion, his political opinion is that it's not a Federal issue, it's a state's rights' issue because it's too controversial. So whether people like abortion or not, they have the choice of taking it up with their local governments.

Tell that to a woman who gets raped in a state that decides it doesn't like abortion. Or to a husband whose wife dies because the state they live has chosen not to allow a medical intervention that chooses the life of the mother over the child.

Allowing states to make their own decisions on fundamental human rights is tantamount to allowing tyranny of the majority.

>> ^renatojj:

Evolution
Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on evolution. If I were a Christian, I'd have trouble dealing with the theory of evolution too, because I'd believe in a book written by God that says the universe was created in 6 days. I don't see how would that negatively influence him as a president or his policies.

>> ^renatojj:

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."
He does believe that global warming claims are a FUD tactic for environmental regulations at the Federal level.

It displays a lack of critical thinking. It goes to the heart of his decision making process. Do you really want a president that suspends reason when it goes against his beliefs?


>> ^renatojj:

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys
Correct, as the linked article points out, he "frequently votes against measures expanding the federal government's reach". It doesn't mean Ron Paul is in favor of lead in children's toys, only that there are other more effective ways to ensure that children's toys don't have lead in them. Leave the Federal government out of this.


I picked this one because it was the most obvious, but it applies to many of your other arguments too. Here is the central problem with libertarianism.
Libertarians want to protect the little guy (people and by extension, businesses) from the big guy (government). This is a noble proposition, but they have the business and government on the wrong sides of the equation. What they fail to understand is that most people want to be protected by government from the activities of profit-motivated systems.


>> ^renatojj:

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal
Correct, not at the federal level, that is a states' issue. Whatever else he said on the subject is irrelevant.


So it's ok for, let's say, New York to legalise sexual harassment? See comment above re tyranny of the majority.

>> ^renatojj:

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States
Don't know what to say about that. If it was built with US taxpayer money, maybe it should? Idk.


It's not on your sovereign territory. Lots of stuff was built with the help of US tax payer money. Doesn't mean you still own it.

>> ^renatojj:

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website
This is bullshit. A picture of them together just implies they conspired to stand in front of a camera.
Keeps their donations
And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.
Also, bullshit. Taking their money means he accepts their support, it does not mean that Ron Paul supports them. Like Ron Paul explained many times, it would be impractical to do a background check on all the hundreds of thousands of people who support him and send him money.


The fact that he took the money in the first place is not the issue. I fully appreciate the impracticality of checking the origins of donation money.
However, once he was made aware of it, he still kept the money.
There are two explanations for this:
1. He agrees with their message and will use the money to further their goals.
2. He disagrees with their message but will use the money anyway.

1 is hateful and 2 is disingenuous.

>> ^renatojj:

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.
Endorsing the removal of federal regulations and the freedom that comes with that is not an endorsement of what people or states do with these freedoms.
Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Very easy to misinterpret. He's partly against the Civil Rights Act regarding the regulations on private individuals and businesses that are open to the public because they reduce individual liberties. Makes sense for a libertarian to say such things.

Again, why is it ok for some states to allow segregation? Paul is demonstrating he does not regard these fundamental human rights as universal. He is saying that as president he is ok with allowing part of his citizenry to discriminate against other members of his citizenry.

If he feels that he is not in a position to make a call on that (and most people would see this as a solved problem), why the hell does he want to be president? The whole point of government is to make the lives of the people better through legislation (either enshrining or restricting freedoms).

Why doesn't he say that states can decide for themselves about free speech or gun control? And the answer trotted out will be "because they're constitutional rights". You know what? As great as the constitution of the USA is (and I believe it is a fantastic document that is an example to all nations), it's not perfect. Women, black people and homosexuals thankfully no longer occupy the position they did at the time of it's writing. The 4th amendment knows nothing of the internet. It should be a living document, updated with the times.

A man can believe one thing, and be tolerant of others... as well as have faith that people, if given the choice, will eventually do the right thing... even if though that is different for everyone, the most fit and fair system has a chance to emerge




..." the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem." - Ron Paul



-------------------- So how does this translate to the issues:

Defense of Marriage Act: allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States,” Rep. Paul said last week in a statement. “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.”

[[ SEE, there is his OPINION and PERSONAL BELIEFS ]]

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state,” he added. “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”"

He's not saying they SHOULD. He's saying the people have a right to choose. Not that they then have a DUTY to vote as he would. He wants people to decide, because he believes that marriage should ultimately not involve government

I see how his logic may appear convoluted, but it is not when taken to the conclusion: People decide (right or wrong), and everyone should be free.
---

In 2004, Paul was one of only 27 House Republicans who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In 2010, he flipped from a “no” to a “yes” on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," he explained. “To me, this seems like an awful waste.”
------
Eric Dondero is the one telling "eye witness" stories about Ron Paul and he is not exactly credible as a political rival and former staffer...

"After 4yrs of never accusing the Doc of actually knowing directly about it, he comes out full bore accusing he checked off on everyone of them, all the while contradicting himself in the same sentence that he only read about 30% and sent notes off to his staff or ghostwriters to complete the newsletters."

Eric Dondero was FIRED by Paul and wants to run against him for office.

Eric Dondero, a staffer who was fired.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html


So who else did the newsletters? Lou Rockwell isn't of interest to me, MURRAY ROTHBARD is.

I am seriously disappointed that people here can connect the dots to Dr. Paul yet Rothbard is clearly innocent.

He just happened to die in 1995... and we've heard nothing about newsletter content as inflammatory as when he was involved, since.

You don't think Murray Rothbard, is worth looking at?

"Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences." - Murray Rothbard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

he (Rothbard) also wrote film reviews under a pen name (anonymously)

Someone did the newsletters... in a way THEY KNEW would ensure their anonymity (because Ron Paul did not write the racist articles), perhaps by their position of trust in the company, or with tacit approval by one or more people attempting to subvert a cause for their own.

written misinformation is surely not all it takes to win you over

Why is it so hard to conceive that an active conspiracy to hide the newsletters from Paul was successful, when the outcome would be exactly the same as the one we're debating? The one where NO ONE has heard Ron Paul ever, EVER say anything like the things in the newsletters?

Ever. Not even HEARD him say it.

@ChaosEngine, I think it's the opposite. Allowing different sets of rules for smaller communities rather than enforcing them on a larger scale is what counters the inherent injustice of democracy. It gives people more options as to which rules they want to live by and it reduces the potential for damage to society caused by bad rules voted into effect by majorities.

I'm pro-choice on abortion myself, but I'm also pro-choice on communities choosing their own sets of rules. As sure as you are about pro-choice, there are many people as convinced about being pro-life. Who's right? Let freedom sort it out. Btw, abortion is a fundamental human right? Never heard that before, I've heard that life is a fundamental right, but let's not argue. Like I said, I'm pro-choice too but not cool with imposing my pro-choiceness on others.

Also, I'd tell the woman to buy a bus ticket to another state where she can perform her abortion, is that too much to ask? And she can use her compelling story to convince her own community to change their pro-life laws.

I think it takes a lot of critical thinking to challenge the Fed, endorse austrian economics, adopt libertarianism, and dispute our foreign policy. C'mon, what you call lack of critical thinking, is mostly just you disagreeing with his opinions on controversial issues and his christian faith.

Look, I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. My critical thinking saved me from being a christian. However, if I were still a religious person, I'd value the integrity of my christian ideology, and I'd probably reject evolution too (or maybe try to find a way to fit evolution into the whole Adam & Eve story, idk). I value that integrity in Ron Paul.

I'm not sure about global warming, many people aren't, it's controversial, and it's not always just science, the arguments for or against it can be very ideologically/financially motivated. I haven't made my mind about it, but my personal opinion right now is that humanity is probably influencing the climate, but the effort to reverse this change would probably be too oppressive, costly, or not worth any possible benefit.

Liberals see big businesses and corporations as the biggest and most threatening agents of evil in society, while libertarians think that description applies mostly to governments and to corporations that conspire with governments. The motivation, whether profit oriented or not, is not as important as the means by which evil is accomplished.

Maybe you're right about the Panama Canal, idk

Ron Paul's answer to keeping the money from the white supremacists was, (I'm paraphrasing from an interview) "if I gave them their money back, then I'm the one supporting *their* cause, I'd be giving them money so they can do bad things I don't agree with. If I keep the money instead, I can use it to do good things, like supporting my campaign". You're just pushing it when you say he's being disingenuous, the money was donated with no strings attached.

Look, segregation and racism are very touchy subjects that can very easily be misinterpreted. All I'd say is this: if someone speaks in favor of the freedom to discriminate, that doesn't imply an endorsement of bigotry or of the narrow-mindedness of those with questionable criteria. Paul agrees with Civil Rights as it applies to governments, public institutions, public spaces and schools, etc., but thinks it's wrong to apply these same principles to private businesses.

What happens if you walk into a lesbian bar? Chances are you'll be denied service or kicked out for being a man. How dare they discriminate against your gender?? I don't like racism as much as the next guy, but you can't outlaw an idea, and you can't legislate people's motivations.

Ron Paul wants to be president so that he can show us that it's not the role of the president to decide these many things we think a president should decide, he's not "the decider", he's not our tribal leader, this is supposed to be a free society with rule of law, not a dictatorship. He wants to be president to protect our freedoms.

I agree with you that the constitution should be updated with the times, that's why it's amendable. The problem is that many things we allow the Federal government to do today were never properly amended. So it makes sense to set things straight and start by following the constitution.

>> ^renatojj:

@ChaosEngine, I think it's the opposite. Allowing different sets of rules for smaller communities rather than enforcing them on a larger scale is what counters the inherent injustice of democracy. It gives people more options as to which rules they want to live by and it reduces the potential for damage to society caused by bad rules voted into effect by majorities.

I have no problem with smaller communities deciding local issues. But certain things are universal and allowing states to decide them is simply wrong. If you were a minority in the south in the 60s, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think it was a good idea to "let the states decide".

>> ^renatojj:
I'm pro-choice on abortion myself, but I'm also pro-choice on communities choosing their own sets of rules. As sure as you are about pro-choice, there are many people as convinced about being pro-life. Who's right? Let freedom sort it out. Btw, abortion is a fundamental human right? Never heard that before, I've heard that life is a fundamental right, but let's not argue. Like I said, I'm pro-choice too but not cool with imposing my pro-choiceness on others.

Allowing a woman to control her reproductive cycle and to have access to safe medical procedures is absolutely a fundamental human right.

I'm not imposing anything on anyone. FWIW, on a personal level, I hate the idea of abortion as contraception. However, that is not my decision to make, I don't have to carry a child to term and then deal with the consequences. I find it ironic that I have to convince a libertarian that creating a law controlling what a woman does to her own body is a bad thing.

>> ^renatojj:
Also, I'd tell the woman to buy a bus ticket to another state where she can perform her abortion, is that too much to ask? And she can use her compelling story to convince her own community to change their pro-life laws.


And what if every state bans it? What about the case where a woman dies in a hospital because a doctor can't perform a surgery that saves the life of the mother over the child? Should she get out of the operating room and get on a bus then?

>> ^renatojj:

I think it takes a lot of critical thinking to challenge the Fed, endorse austrian economics, adopt libertarianism, and dispute our foreign policy. C'mon, what you call lack of critical thinking, is mostly just you disagreeing with his opinions on controversial issues and his christian faith.
Look, I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. My critical thinking saved me from being a christian. However, if I were still a religious person, I'd value the integrity of my christian ideology, and I'd probably reject evolution too (or maybe try to find a way to fit evolution into the whole Adam & Eve story, idk). I value that integrity in Ron Paul.

The "Christian" excuse doesn't cut it. It is not a "get out of jail free" card that allows you to suspend your faculties. Obama is a christian and he accepts evolution. Hell, Huntsman is a mormon and he doesn't have a problem with it. How would you feel if he said he didn't believe in gravity?

>> ^renatojj:
I'm not sure about global warming, many people aren't, it's controversial, and it's not always just science, the arguments for or against it can be very ideologically/financially motivated. I haven't made my mind about it, but my personal opinion right now is that humanity is probably influencing the climate, but the effort to reverse this change would probably be too oppressive, costly, or not worth any possible benefit.

I'm not going to get into an AGW debate here. I will simply say that I have yet to meet a global warming skeptic who actually understands the science. Hell, I don't understand the science, but I tend to believe the people who actually researched it over the oil companies.

>> ^renatojj:
Liberals see big businesses and corporations as the biggest and most threatening agents of evil in society, while libertarians think that description applies mostly to governments and to corporations that conspire with governments. The motivation, whether profit oriented or not, is not as important as the means by which evil is accomplished.
Don't get me wrong, governments need limits on their powers too. There must be balance, but given the choice I would rather the power reside with the elected representatives than the private sector.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul's answer to keeping the money from the white supremacists was, (I'm paraphrasing from an interview) "if I gave them their money back, then I'm the one supporting their cause, I'd be giving them money so they can do bad things I don't agree with. If I keep the money instead, I can use it to do good things, like supporting my campaign". You're just pushing it when you say he's being disingenuous, the money was donated with no strings attached.

It's not really about the money. In the grand scheme of things $500 is nothing and I'm pretty sure RP can live without it. It's the principle of the thing. Keeping the money sends a message (rightly or wrongly) of tacit approval. If he doesn't want to give them back the money, fine, give it to an anti-hate charity or something. Anything to make the point that you do not agree with these weak and frightened bigots.

>> ^renatojj:
Look, segregation and racism are very touchy subjects that can very easily be misinterpreted. All I'd say is this: if someone speaks in favor of the freedom to discriminate, that doesn't imply an endorsement of bigotry or of the narrow-mindedness of those with questionable criteria. Paul agrees with Civil Rights as it applies to governments, public institutions, public spaces and schools, etc., but thinks it's wrong to apply these same principles to private businesses.
What happens if you walk into a lesbian bar? Chances are you'll be denied service or kicked out for being a man. How dare they discriminate against your gender?? I don't like racism as much as the next guy, but you can't outlaw an idea, and you can't legislate people's motivations.

Nope, but you can outlaw actions. As for your lesbian bar example, I would say they are just as wrong for kicking me out for being a man as I would be for kicking them out for being a lesbian.

The freedom to put up a "no blacks, jews or irish" sign is not a freedom I want to protect.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul wants to be president so that he can show us that it's not the role of the president to decide these many things we think a president should decide, he's not "the decider", he's not our tribal leader, this is supposed to be a free society with rule of law, not a dictatorship. He wants to be president to protect our freedoms.

Thing is, he wants to do the opposite of protecting freedom. Protecting freedom is an active position. RP wants government to get out of the way. Historically, that never works out for the little guy.

edit: btw, props to you for defending your position rationally and eloquently. Nice to be able to debate this without name-calling or screaming matches, and if I've said anything you take as ad hominem, that was not my intention.

@ChaosEngine I agree with you it wouldn't be nice to see smaller communities abused by state laws, but that's what the constitution is for, it protects individuals from government abuse, both state and federal.

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).

If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell

The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?

I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:

a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property

b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve

c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

Thanks man, same can be said about you, I also really appreciate your civility and open-mindedness. My experience so far is that it's easier to talk Ron Paul with liberals than with neocons lol

>> ^renatojj:

I think we're arguing semantics, what you consider rights of a woman is what I think libertarians would call an entitlement. Not all libertarians are pro-choice, e.g., Ron Paul. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue, there's the right to life involved too. When does life begin and right to life should protect the unborn? etc. Ron Paul doesn't think the federal government should legislate it because it's too controversial (and outside federal jurisdiction anyway).
If every state bans abortion, wouldn't that be the same as banning it at the federal level? I don't think you have an issue with states rights, but with the scenario where all 50 states approve legislation you don't want and it's a reasonable concern. However, wouldn't that be less likely to happen?

Given that libertarians are all about private property rights, what could be more private property than your own body? I get that some people don't like abortion. Fine, don't have one. But to say that "Not all libertarians are pro-choice"; isn't "pro-choice" (i.e. the freedom to make the decision yourself, not to have government interfere) a core libertarian principle?

As to the right to life of the unborn.... there's really no good answer here. An abortion is never a cause for celebration, it's always done as the lesser of two evils. I would say that the right to life of the mother trumps that of the unborn in all cases (i.e. where the mothers life is in danger) and that it should take place as early as possible.

>> ^renatojj:
Look at the NDAA that Obama signed for this year, everyone in America is subject to indefinite detention now. Great. If it were only approved in New York, a lot less people would be subject to this injustice and you could at least avoid it by just staying the hell out of there (besides, such law would likely be overruled for violating the 4th Amendment).

You get no argument from me here, the NDAA is a terrible law. I would actually use it to argue against the right of states to enact laws such as this, as the freedoms it violates should be universal (or constitutional I guess). To turn your argument around. why should only the people in New York have to suffer under it?

>> ^renatojj:
Ok, maybe you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Then I can argue Obama is probably not a very good christian, which doesn't bother me, but means he lacks integrity in his faith, right? He's probably religious for appearance's sake, because America would never vote for a non-christian President. Show me a bible that explains how man evolved from the apes and we're good

It's hard for me to defend this position as I'm an atheist too. All religious people, including Ron Paul, cherry-pick which parts of their holy book to adhere to in their day to day lives. I don't see Ron Paul arguing for the banning of pork or shellfish, yet they are clearly stated to be abominations in the bible. If he can work his way around that, why can't he accept evolution?


>> ^renatojj:
I agree businesses can do evil, but they're more directly accountable for their actions than elected representatives, they seem to have more to lose, and more direct incentives to do good. Besides, the power of businesses is purely financial, whereas governments have money and armies. Give governments less powers over the economy, and businesses will be less likely to lobby and seek leverage from government. That's libertarianism is a nutshell



>> ^renatojj:
The interviewer suggested Ron Paul reject the money to make a statement against the white supremacists, and Ron Paul said, (paraphrasing), "Yes, I disavow that organization and what they stand for, there's my statement". No tacit approval, I don't think he needs to give them money to make his point. Actually, if you think about it, it would be disingenuous of him to give them money after openly declaring that he disavows them, don't you agree?
I admire Ron Paul for his backbone and common sense on this issue, for not bending to social pressure, if he wants to make a statement, he opens his mouth and does it. Giving money back not only contradicts his statement, it's also weak to conform to other people's somewhat self-indulging and irrational expectations. I mean, who in their right mind would give money to white supremacists?

Fair enough.

>> ^renatojj:
I'd like to understand you not wanting to protect certain freedoms. Which one (or more) of these restrictions do you approve of:
a) a business open to the public can't ask someone to leave its property
b) a business open to the public can't select which customers to serve
c) a business open to the public can do both of the above, but not based on certain criteria

Easy C. I'm all for discrimination based on actions or abilities. I disagree with affirmative action (I feel it is patronising to minorities).

Now could this be used by a business to discriminate against an ethnic group on an individual basis? I guess so, but at least it makes it clear that the spirit of the law does not allow this.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul sees the government and the Fed as major oppressors of our freedoms, based on their laws. Freedoms are usually taken away by force, and libertarians will argue that businesses can't take away our freedoms because they can't use force (unless they're criminals), we're not entitled to anything they can give us, and they can't break contracts. I think that's a major source of confusion in a society where, unfortunately, the lines between governments and corporations are blurred

Easy, right to life > property rights

Indefinite detention on the state level, being unconstitutional as it is, would hopefully be overturned. When the President signs it though, there's not much authority anywhere to overturn it (maybe if the Supreme Court wasn't such a pussy?), which is why it would be so nice to have a constitutionalist president.

Christians are a mystery to me too. Honestly, if I were Ron Paul, and asked about evolution, my answer would be "I don't know, it's a solid theory, but I believe in creation, so I sincerely don't know". Would make it more acceptable if he didn't dismiss it. It might go to his critical thinking, even though I still argue it's irrelevant in terms of policy.

About option C, the problem with letting people do something, but not if they have this or that reason to do it, is that it's outside our reach to legislate people's motivations, what goes on inside their heads that leads them to take action.

However, you do have a point on the spirit of the law. As much as I agree with RP on principle that the Civil Rights Act is an infringement on the private sphere, back in those days, that behaviour was too widespread, and so were the riots, a lot of political pressure as well, etc., and it all had to be stopped. Today, most businesses would understand that such behaviour would be bad or even suicide. It would take too long for businesses back in the 60s to realize that, even though, I believe eventually they would.

So yeah, I guess its silly for RP to say he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act, given those circumstances, but to me it makes sense for him to oppose it on principle and because this kind of legislation sets a bad precedent.

>> ^renatojj:

>> ^ghark:
>> ^renatojj:
TLDR: ...

When your only choice is the 'least evil' one (on the surface), you know that the representatives you are voting for are not working for you, but against you. Ron Paul is irrelevant to what's going on in America, he may get in, he may not, but the entire system needs to change before the people are represented. Fantastic list btw @dystopianfuturetoday, no need to apologize.

I don't get it. Why would you dismiss him so carelessly? I wouldn't consider him "least evil" at all, the guy deserves a lot more credit than that. Ron Paul certainly holds himself to high standards of consistency that I would never expect from a politician. I think his social, foreign and economic policies, no matter how controversial, or whether we agree with him or not, are very relevant to America's current situation.


Yes I agree that he's consistent, but consistency only matters so much, his tax policies would widen the already-disastrous income maldistribution problems in America, the consequences of his education policies would further destroy the education system - go research Chile's education system if you want to see how much of a disaster privatizing an education system is. And that's just the beginning. He's a trojan horse my friend.

>> ^ghark:


Yes I agree that he's consistent, but consistency only matters so much, his tax policies would widen the already-disastrous income maldistribution problems in America, the consequences of his education policies would further destroy the education system - go research Chile's education system if you want to see how much of a disaster privatizing an education system is. And that's just the beginning. He's a trojan horse my friend.


Well, his tax policy is mostly "less taxes", which seems like a good idea for a battered economy. Why would you use taxing to solve "maldistribution of income"? What is maldistribution of income anyways? Is income something supposed to be distributed? In a market, aren't people usually paid on a supply/demand basis or depending on how productive they are to society?

I'm guessing you're a progressive taxation guy, which I happen to think is not a very fair tax policy. Whenever you tax the rich by a larger percentage, you discourage or punish them for being more productive to society, which is a moral hazard and bad economics (according to austrians anyway).

What I could gather from Chile's education system (Wikipedia) is that it's pretty hybrid, a lot of private and public schooling and many gradations in between, mostly with state funding of education at many levels. I don't think Ron Paul is proposing anything to that effect.

To my knowledge, he'd probably shut down federal student loans as a way of directly lowering college tuition costs. While in Chile, everything education, whether public or private, seems to be state funded. So I fail to see the comparison sorry

@renatojj It's nonsense that lower taxes on the wealthy means they become more productive, that's simply a rumor spread by the rich. The problem with low/no corporate taxes (which is what RP wants) is that over time more and more wealth accumulates in the top bracket and less and less is available to the middle and lower classes, the wealthy then use this money to influence policy making and the problem becomes worse - which is exactly what is happening now. Yes, this is going to happen anyway, but poor tax policy exacerbates it.

If you don't believe me then just look at history: Coolidge became president in 1923 and signed into law the Revenue Act of 1924, the tax rate for the those earning above $10,000 (about $120,000 by today's standards) was only 6%, there was a surtax added to higher incomes but it only crept up very slowly. Guess what happened? 10 years of economic hell for America - otherwise known as the great depression. Guess what kick started the economy? In part higher taxes. For example the highest period of growth for America was when it had the highest tax rate for the upper bracket (91%) - which was during WWII. Once the tax rate's started coming down again, guess what happened to economic growth - right, it slowed.

If you look at one specific person that makes a lot of money, and you double there taxes, it's easy to make the assumption that you are harming them - but a countries economy is far more complex than that and works in ways most economists don't even understand. To assume that you know what is best for American tax policy is ridiculous unless you happen to know more than every other economist on the planet (and same goes for me). What is clear from history though is that lower tax rates on the wealthy do not help the economy grow, that is pure myth that has been perversely thrown out there to misdirect the general population while the wealthy accumulate more and more money.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

As far as the RP - Chile connection - RP's 'free market' approach to education is exactly what has already happened in Chile - this privatization of higher education has resulted in Chile's technical schools, colleges and universities having the "highest costs of higher education of any OECD country and the lowest public expenditure" (from the doco I link below). And the quality of the education? Very poor according to an October Economist article:
http://www.economist.com/node/21531468

Is that what you want to happen to American education?

More info about the issues and protests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Chilean_protests

And I've sifted a documentary on the issue if you want to watch:
http://videosift.com/video/Chile-Rising

And lastly, maldistribution is simply uneven distribution - e.g. according to the NY Times "The current maldistribution of wealth is also scandalous. In 2009, the richest 5 percent claimed 63.5 percent of the nation’s wealth. The overwhelming majority, the bottom 80 percent, collectively held just 12.8 percent"

Please justify that to us.

@ghark, thanks for the links, I read all of them, very informative.

I'm sure you know that economics has more than one school of thought, which often times are very opposed to each other not only in theory, but also in their interpretations of important historical events like the Great Depression or even the Industrial Revolution. It seems straightforward that, given all historical evidence we have, there should be only one account of what went down in history, right? It's too bad that's not the case Historians are, themselves, often influenced by their own ideological bias. At least we both know it would be naïve to think all historians agree exactly on everything in history! Ask economists from different schools what happened during the Great Depression and they will invoke very opposite historic accounts.

A quick google search gave me an article stating almost the opposite of your 1st article (which is no surprise given its purpose to dismiss an alleged economic myth):
http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/taxing_growth.htm

That being said, I'd like to address your statement that "higher taxes is bad for our economy" being a rumor spread by the rich. I could just as well state the opposite is a rumor spread by those with a vested interest on taxing other people: the government and those who aren't being taxed. Wouldn't you agree that's more likely, given there are more people with that vested interest than rich people in the world? Also, wouldn't it be more likely that, maybe, a socialist ideology would be behind an effort to spread such a statement? I'm not questioning socialism, just saying, it's very likely a socialist would take a biased interpretation of economic growth and higher taxation and state that they're related in direct proportion (socialists usually want bigger governments that require higher taxes).

Economists say controversial things like "war is good/bad for the economy", "inflation is good/bad for the economy", "when you break a window, that helps/hinders the economy", so it's no wonder that something like "higher taxes is good/bad for the economy" falls into that category.

We cannot solve all economic fallacies here, I'm just trying to point out that we should be aware of the underlying economic schools of thought to better understand the ideological bias motivating their own sets of conclusions.

Chile's approach does not seem free market to me, even if it appears to be closer to that because of privatization. All education there seems to be state funded. When the state comes into a market providing easy money, costs go up, it's supply and demand. If every student has X amount of money provided by the state, private schools stop competing over price, so tuition costs go up (at least that's what I could gather, I'm sorry if I'm not exactly an expert on the Chile situation!)

About the uneven distribution, what I was stating is that not much moral judgement can be made on distribution itself, but on how this distribution is happening. If you have more money than me, I don't have enough information to judge whether that situation is unfair or whether you're undeserving of that money.

When I consider those who benefitted from TARP bailouts though, it pisses me off , because they got money from the taxpayer, money that they're not legitimately entitled to, they didn't have to work for, they didn't deserve. That particular kind of uneven distribution is scandalous IMHO, and it's the kind of injustice that more often results from misallocation of taxpayer money that is more likely to happen with higher taxation.

>> ^renatojj:

@.


Np, glad you liked them. I'm not saying there is only one account of what went down, I'm saying that it is fact that America was most prosperous when taxes were the highest. You don't need to be a historian or theorizer to use Google and check that for yourself.

Your quick Google search brung up an article that deals only in theory, and the argument they use is that people that are taxed 0% are more motivated than people that are taxed 100% - so that the imperitive becomes to cover Govt. expenses while keeping the taxes as low as possible to maintain motivation. That makes perfect logical sense and doesn't disagree with the facts I bought to the table, that America has been most prosperous during periods of high taxation, it simply proves that low is subjective. Taxing someone who earns $10,000 50% of their income means they take home a tiny amount of money, the same tax rate on a billionaire means they still take home five hundred million dollars, more than enough don't you think? If all income was related to productivity then my argument would be different, but quite simply it's not. Look at derivatives trading or inheritence funds as a couple of examples.

Fixing tax rates is also just the beginning, there needs to be a complete overhaul of your taxation system, there is plenty of information out there that details how dozens of your fortune 500 companies are paying no tax at all (e.g. GE and Boeing), Pepco Holdings Inc had a negative 57.6% tax rate for 2010 according to this article:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103

So not only are the tax rates poorly thought out, the tax system allows companies that rake in billions in profits ways by which to avoid paying any tax at all (and even get refunds).

The same goes for individuals as well, Mitt Romney, who made over twenty million in 2010, and has at least thirty million stashed in over 138 investment funds in the Caimans paid close to 15% tax in that same year. That's the same tax rate that someone earning $10,000 would have to pay.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-parks-millions-offshore-tax-haven/story?id=15378566#.Tx-lKm_9PUd

Is he using this additional money he's making from not paying his taxes for productive purposes? It would appear not... His motive is profit, and to that end he's closed plants, cut employee wages, laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries, all while he and his partners have made tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, while the companies he's invested in have often ended up going bankrupt:
http://www.romneygekko.com/mitt/

So my point is that it's a pipedream to think that lower taxes on the rich has only one effect, to make them more productive, it also carries with it a myriad of negative consequences as I've illustrated, the worst one being lobbying, which is rampant in your country. In terms of Chile, you say that all education there is state funded? Have a look at this report and you will see that the total investment in tertiary education Chile makes is probably close to about half a percent of their GDP, which is indeed lower than any other country surveyed, they are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to actual dollars invested in public education. Meanwhile the cost of education for students is the highest of any OECD country.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/45/48/37864432.pdf

The reasons for that come full circle back to your economic theories. Have you heard of Augusto Pinochet? America installed him as the dictator of Chile after the CIA organised a successful air strike on the palace of the existing democratically elected leader - Allende, which resulted in his death. It's well known that Pinochet relied on the Chicago boys for economic policy, who in turn were trained by Milton Friedman. Friedman was ... the major free-market economist of his time, and it's these exact same policies that still linger around today in the education system thanks to Patricio Aylwin and others. It's clear evidence that your model has flaws, and it's also clear who benefits the most from it.