Posted on 12/30/2011 4:25:13 PM PST by grumpa
We did a series back in February on libertarianism. Ron Paul’s ascendency in Iowa begs that we revisit this issue.
I recently told a friend that I might hold my nose and vote for Ron Paul because he is the only one talking about drastically cutting the federal bureaucracy. I take it all back! The more we learn about this guy, the more troubling are his views.
We argued in our series that libertarianism is based on a moral foundation of sand. And that is exactly what Paul’s views reflect. On the surface, conservatives ought to like him. He says he is for the Constitution and for smaller government. But let’s see where this leads us.
He says he is against the federal government making laws on morality. But this is a sham. Every law reflects somebody’s ideas of right and wrong, and thus all laws are in some sense moral statements. For example, Paul says that the abortion question should be left to the states because there is no authority for a pro-life law in the Constitution. Would he vote for a law in his own state of Texas that outlaws abortion? We doubt it, if his libertarian views are consistent. He claims to be pro-life, but on what moral basis does he say that and to what extent should it be fixed into law? Should murder not be a federal offense?
Ron Paul also has stated that there should be no “age of consent law” in the federal statutes. In other words, Paul says that it should be OK by federal law for a 24 year old man to convince a 10 year old girl to have sex. When pressed on this issue and other similar issues, Paul says that the states should have no such laws either!
We presume that Paul thinks that the federal government should not have outlawed polygamy. This would be consistent with his libertarian views. Would he vote for a state law against polygamy? (Any such laws for a libertarian would be completely arbitrary.)
What about slavery? Should that be a state-only issue too?
Here are some other things about Ron Paul:
•He left the Republican Party to run as a Libertarian in the 1980’s because he did not like Ronald Reagan.
•He was the only member of the House of Representatives to vote against a 2005 resolution condemning Ahmadinejad's call to "wipe Israel off the map" and a 2009 resolution "expressing support" for Iranian pro-democracy demonstrators.
•He has intimated, on more than one occasion, that the United States is to blame for the 9/11 massacre.
•In the 1990’s he wrote a newsletter that had multiple vividly racist statements, a fact for which he acknowledges he holds “some” responsibility. (Some responsibility? These letters came out under his signature.) Apparently the American Nazi party supported Ron Paul.
•He has said that the United States had no business being in World War II.
•He is an active pork obtainer and sees this as consistent with his other views.
•He is for legalizing all drugs.
•He is weak on traditional marriage, and even though a professing Christian he is unwilling to acknowledge homosexuality as a sin.
Folks, this guy is NUTTY, and a very dangerous man. It is pretty hard to tell this man’s ideas apart from liberals like Michael Moore! I have been listening to various talk shows lately. The Paulites are calling in droves to support this nut. It is amazing how blinded they are to the facts when presented to them.
To see the original article on libertarianism, just scroll down on our website.
So post the evidence then, it can’t be that hard for you. Or am I supposed to just blindly accept you as an authority on the issue.
The bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00748:
Voted NO, April 27, 2005
The bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:H.R.1218:
Voted NO: June 30, 1999
Don Feder suggested that Walt Disney's Goofy cartoon character would vote libertarian if he could.
Horsehockeys
Where in the Bill of Rights are 24 year old men guaranteed the right to seduce a 10 year old free from prosecution? Where are they guaranteed access to herio?
It’s all a big scam to dilute the R vote
Inventing incendiary hypotheticals isn't a very productive way to discuss political ideas. Can you provide any documentation to support your implication that Ron Paul or any Libertarian actually supports the hypothetical you posit?
I doubt it.
Libertarian paternalism is part of "nudging" -- another of czar Sunstein's fetters.
The regulatory czar intends us to be "nudged" into choosing the "correct" option from the limited options presented to us by the government. Both Parties will love this, I am sure.
Aided by the MSM and all aspects of "the Establishment" -- they will not publicize unacceptable options. So if we do not hear of them do they exist? No.
And I remember. It was pretty much that way in the days of the "Fairness Doctrine" with three TV networks being the source of "news" for the major portion of the public. I have read many comments wishing to return to those days when there was very little "divisiveness."
That kind of Sunstein "democracy" is prevented by talk radio and the Internet -- and Sunstein has named Free Republic as a threat.
Maybe you should read the man’s official positions as oppossed to some blogger’s opines,
I’ve read his official positions for a number of years. I’ve seen him in person, on tv and such. The man is an idiot and not much above his followers
Ditto Romney and Newt ;)
Sorry for the typo - beat Obama.
The Ron Paul supporters I’ve met are heavy drug users.
Why wouldn’t they like him?
Like I thought you’re not a serious poster. All mudslinging and not one piece of substance. I’m done corresponding with you.
Please provide the substantial evidence this is what he supports. I’ve seen lots of hysterical claims but not one piece of actual evidence.
empty links.
Between the Marxists and the hysterical rantings of alleged conservatives you’d think it was criminal to have a libertarian thought.
But then I shouldn’t be surprised, Tyrants always rely on the useful idiot class.
Why didn’t you simply read the original post?
Failing that, I’ll be glad to do your research for you, at my usual retainer of $650/hour
VISA/MC and AMex gladly accepted
The 9th and 10th amendments clearly give the States the right and power to decide and if you don`t like the decisions made at that level then you simply move to one thats more amenable to your beliefs.
Do you agree with the progressive dictatorship that BOTH parties have set us on a road towards?
Your party did vote for the Defense Appropriations Act that repeals the Posse Comittatus Act, calls for indefinite detention, and makes America a battle field, didn`t it?
How do you feel about your saviors` in that light?
You make the same mistake the progressives in your party make, and thats NOT having ANY faith in the ability of people to govern themselves.
Restore the Republic and let the people at the state`s level decide.
THATS WHAT I SUPPORT!
Hysterical.....that’s rich coming from a Paul supporter.
Paul always has reason.
The bottom line is he has no problem with the transportation of minors across state line to have abortions.
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.