Posted on 12/06/2009 9:15:17 AM PST by Anarchydeluxe
As a former conservative turned free-market libertarian, I have always been intrigued by Ron Paul's strong advocacy for the free market. After all, conservatives claim to stand on the same principles. So, I found it quite odd during the Republican presidential debates of 2008 when all of the other candidates actually had answers for how they would better "run" the economy. Having lived in Russia, China, and Europe, each candidate's answer scared me to death. Had they somehow missed the memo about how planning economies doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work? Cold War, anybody? The proper answer should have been that no president can or should try to "run" the economy, which Paul thankfully pointed out. It was at that moment, combined with hearing a Republican presidential candidate bash the free market and greed on Wall Street (failing to mention, of course, the government's own role in that) and watching George W. Bush abandon any pretense of a free market ideology, that I had a revelation about the modern Republican Party. Paul was the only true free-market representative on the Republican stage, and other Republicans viewed him as a threat. Fox News certainly treated him like a joke. But why? And what happened to the Republican Party, the natural home of free-market principles?
(Excerpt) Read more at anarchydeluxe.com ...
Looks good on paper...And there was a time when this applied...However, the world has gotten much smaller since the founding Fathers conceived the beautiful idea of staying out of international affairs...
I think one has to take a broader look at what constitutes the 'defense of the U.S.'...
Were we defending the U.S. by getting involved in the 2nd World War??? I'd say yes...Are we defending the U.S. by installing missles in allied countries in Europe??? Again, I'd say yes...
Korea may be up in the air but you can bet there are a lot of S. Koreans who are happy we got involved...
And Israel??? From a Biblical perspective we MUST protect Israel...The Founders of course had no idea that a couple hundred years down the road God would move His people back to the land He promised them...
That situation is meaningless to Ron Paul and apparently his supporters...So no Ron Paul for me...He's the most pro Constitution politician out there...But he needs to get outside the box and take a look around...
This is simply not true. If anything the U.S. was less "isolated" at the time of the founding that it is now. It was surrounded on all sides by hostile or potentially hostile powers throughout most of the nineteenth century including possessions of the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, and the French.
Goldwater was a founder of the Phoenix NAACP.
Apologies. My language was imprecise. He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the major piece of Civil Rights legislation that continues to control our interactions to this day.
From Wikipedia:
Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964[12]. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.[13]
Isn't this excactly what the libs say: medicine has gotten much more complex since the time of the founders, transportation has gotten much more complex since the time of the founders, education has gotten much more compmlex since the time of the founders, citis have become much denser and the second ammendment no longer makes senese like it did in the time of the founders, etc.
Free trade agreements threaten national sovereignty I opposed both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, both of which were heavily favored by the political establishment. Many supporters of the free trade market supported these agreements.
Nearly six decades ago when the International Trade Organization was up for debate, conservatives and libertarians agreed that supranational trade bureaucracies with the power to infringe upon American sovereignty were undesirable.
Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 96 Apr 1, 2008
You disagree with this? As a conservative are you not repulsed by the ever greater power we give to foreign bureacrats?
Well the role of Congress it to talk (debate) and vote. He does both of those. Hope we can find another big-military, inteverntion-loving, Islam-obsessed candidate for 2012. I mean McCain did so well by holding the opposite positions to Paul on all these things.
That's why I admire Rep. Paul like I do. From what I've seen about Rep. Michele Bachmann, I have been positively impressed as well. The FREEDOM INDEX of The New American magazine is an important source of info for me. I wish that more of our fellow FReepers would begin to use it as well.
I disagree with Ron Paul on isolationism, both in trade and foreign policy.
Say what???? Rep. Paul is by far the most pro-free-trade Member of Congress...& how can you call him an "isolationist" when he has the non-interventionist foreign policy of the Founding Fathers: one that believes that our military should be used for the DEFENSE of the United States, instead of chasing demons world wide?
The "isolationist" whining is getting very dull after all of these years.
He asked. I answered. You certainly have the right to disagree, as do I.
In other words, you either can’t (or won’t) answer my question. I guess some folks just can’t handle the truth.
I can’t recall now what the issues were, but I do remember when I heard them at the time I was like “What the?” It has to do I think with his views on dealing with rogue nations & there was another issue too thqt his answer stunned me- As I said- he has soem really good points, but then wanders into wierd positions on certain issues- I can’t recall the issues right now, but remember that I didn’t take him seriously as a candidate after hearing his answers
Ron Paul’s a libertarian. But he’s a dogmatic, rather than a pragmatic or empiricist libertarian. That means he doesn’t always think things through, and that’s not good.
“In other words, you either can’t (or won’t) answer my question. I guess some folks just can’t handle the truth.”
Not exactly. I answered your question, and theirs and you simply refuse to recognize that fact. I don’t argue with zealots of any variety. I expressed my opinion. You don’t like it. That’s ok by me.
Can't defend your position so you're on the attack, eh???
He couldn’t be a Republican, he believes in the US Constitution.
No state seceded before Lincoln's election.
You didn’t respond to anything. You just repeated your line after it was shown to be false.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.