Some fun facts on Ron Paul

[bjackman]

For the European guys with a vague interest in the US elections next year (I'm guessing anyone from the US will know all this shit already):

I've just been looking on his wikipedia page and found out that he:
- voted against the Iraq War Resolution
- opposes the Patriot Act and federal use of torture
- opposes capital punishment
- endorses "revising" the don't-ask-don't-tell policy
- "opposes" the war on drugs
- was one of only four republicans to vote against their budget proposal for 2012.

He may hold these views for reasons that don't really appeal to British ears (e.g it sounds like the reason he opposed the Iraq war was just because he doesn't care about foreigners and knows war is ridiculously expensive) and he may still be a general all round nasty kinda guy by liberal standards, but let's hope he's the one the US risk voting in and not Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry.

Just thought I'd share.

[AxeD]

Obama is a cool guy too.

[Electric_Head]

this is funny because your name is jackman

[bjackman]

(just saying, by the way, i don't at all want him to get in as president, just rather this guy was the republican candidate and not some of the other stnuc)

[kidshuffle]

inb4pkay

[wilson]

Have been following the debates loosely, watched a lot of Ron Paul vids on youtube though. He's consistant you can't argue that. I don't think he'll win but seems to have his head screwed on more than most of the other candidates there do.

[Genevieve]

You won't 'get' Ron Paul from a Wiki article or debate answers. He does care about foreigners, he just doesn't believe it's America's job to police the world and rectify other people's mistakes because it will come back to haunt them, like 9/11.

War being expensive has little to do with greed or materialism, but in his (and my) view, war costs money which comes out of the taxpayer's pockets and taxation is a form of slavery. Other than that, offensive war is the innitation of force and all innitation of non-defensive force is deemed immoral by libertarians.

Ron Paul is anarchist. An anarcho-capitalist to be exact. He's for a fully privated.. well, EVERYTHING and against any form of government or borders whatsoever. Once you understand that, you'll start to see where he's coming from.

Obama is a cool guy too.

Yeah, giving the command to murder 2 American civilians without a fair trial and whatnot.

[Mr Hyde]

Ron Paul is anarchist. An anarcho-capitalist to be exact. He's for a fully privated.. well, EVERYTHING and against any form of government or borders whatsoever. Once you understand that, you'll start to see where he's coming from.
.

[knell]

he's definitely the lesser of all the evils, but he's definitely not without fault:

[Genevieve]

Ron Paul is anarchist. An anarcho-capitalist to be exact. He's for a fully privated.. well, EVERYTHING and against any form of government or borders whatsoever. Once you understand that, you'll start to see where he's coming from.
.

Doesn't quite work like that. Corporations go against the principles of anarcho-capitalists and libertarians anyway. I tried to post something as non-open ended and all inclusive as I could without posting something much longer, heh. But corporations are government creations. OCP is actually closer to what's happening in Europe and America right now than it is to anarcho-capitalism.

[deadly_habit]

yea the man is consistent in his views and his voting track record and doesn't bs about like other politicians. it's why i've always had a great deal of respect for him and ralph nader, yet the media can't seem to understand why he appeals to the youth, veterans, and current active duty service members (he has the most donations of any candidate including obama from active duty military members)
i watched the debate on cnn last night and loved his performance and him using an opportunity instead of speaking to pose a question to the other candidates, i also found it appealing that once again on the post debate show there was no mention of him.

[honey-d]

Ron Paul is anarchist. An anarcho-capitalist to be exact. He's for a fully privated.. well, EVERYTHING and against any form of government or borders whatsoever. Once you understand that, you'll start to see where he's coming from.
.

Doesn't quite work like that. Corporations go against the principles of anarcho-capitalists and libertarians anyway. I tried to post something as non-open ended and all inclusive as I could without posting something much longer, heh. But corporations are government creations. OCP is actually closer to what's happening in Europe and America right now than it is to anarcho-capitalism.

I don't see how corporations are government creations. They're definitely government endorsed, and they're given financial support they aren't really created by government.

Also I don't think Ron Paul is quite an anarcho-capitalist. If he was truly an anarcho-capitalist he would not be running for president. I think he's definitely very close to anarcho-capitalists but he's made a handful of statements about federal intitutions that he thought should stay in effect that pretty much discount him being a pure anarcho-capitalist.


Watching Republican debates and such is really really depressing for me. I'm not even really in line with Ron Paul's ideals BUT I do think the republican party needs to pay more attention to him and he is a vital VITAL part of keeping the republican party from falling of into the deep end of insanity.

[Genevieve]

I don't see how corporations are government creations. They're definitely government endorsed, and they're given financial support they aren't really created by government.

Corporations exist because the American government says they do. I'm not talking about a large business. A corporation is a legal entity, that has personal rights, but no personal responsibilities and consists of a collective of people. This was created by government and goes against one of the core principles of libertarianism which states that you must take individual responsibility for your actions. And then there's the problem where there's virtually no difference between the corporations, the banking cartel (the Federal Reserve) and the government (which is what I meant by OCP being more similar to American society today than anarcho-capitalism).

Also I don't think Ron Paul is quite an anarcho-capitalist. If he was truly an anarcho-capitalist he would not be running for president. I think he's definitely very close to anarcho-capitalists but he's made a handful of statements about federal intitutions that he thought should stay in effect that pretty much discount him being a pure anarcho-capitalist.

He's an incrementalist. The thing about the American constitution is that its essentially minarchism before minarchism even existed. At least, on a federal level. You can bring about a lot of change in line with anarcho-capitalism by following the constitution. Ron Paul (and a number of other prominent libertarians like Andrew Napolitano and Tom Woods) wants to use American constitutionalism to shrink the government fundamentally and I think it's his dream for it be completely disolved one day. All of these guys have called for the privatization of the court system, defense and pretty much anything else you can imagine.

He's also anti-borders, despite his 'secure border' policies, which makes sense. Ron Paul would be elected to serve the American people and he's stealing from them through taxation. By letting illegal immigrants into the country and giving them welfare benefits, he would be burdening the people he's legally responsible for with taxation that'll be received by people he's not legally responsible for.

Contradictory? Sure, but given the situation it makes sense. If anything, I think he's just being pragmatic.

[snypadub]

he's definitely the lesser of all the evils, but he's definitely not without fault:

I don't believe in evolution, am I at fault?

[knell]

no, you're just in contradiction with current science and observation.

[AllNightDayDream]

Prefer huntsman out of all of them. If he actually got nominated I wouldn't mind registering independent and voting for him.

and lol @ people in the 21st century who don't understand evolution

[AllNightDayDream]

Other fun facts about Ron Paul:

-Would outlaw stem-cell research because it's "unconstitutional"
-Thinks the housing bubble was caused by too much construction
-Would have us back on the pre-depression gold standard
-Would abolish the department of education
-Against any tax incentives for renewal energy, thinks recycling is a bad idea
-Voted against outlawing oil cartels like OPEC
-Would rather the EPA simply not exist, and would close the department of energy
-Voted against allowing four-week parental leave for employees
-Voted against disclosure of bundle donations by lobbyists
-Wants to ban gun registration and trigger lock requirements
-Wants to abolish minimum wage
-Voted against extending unemployment benefits during the financial crisis
-Wants to abolish social security
-Voted against net neutrality

He does have some great positions, especially on foreign policy. Auditing the fed was fantastic. But other than that... no thanks.

[Phigure]

dude... ron paul is alright on some issues (ending drug prohibition for example) but he's a nutcase on everything else

he says he would've voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he wants to end all welfare and social help programs, he doesn't believe in separation of church and state, he's for teaching creationism in school, he wants to privatize all schools, he's against the UN, doesn't think education is a human right, thinks business should be able to discriminate against minorities.

he's a fucking nutter

EDIT: didn't see this, big ups AllNightDayDream

Other fun facts about Ron Paul:

-Would outlaw stem-cell research because it's "unconstitutional"
-Thinks the housing bubble was caused by too much construction
-Would have us back on the pre-depression gold standard
-Would abolish the department of education
-Against any tax incentives for renewal energy, thinks recycling is a bad idea
-Voted against outlawing oil cartels like OPEC
-Would rather the EPA simply not exist, and would close the department of energy
-Voted against allowing four-week parental leave for employees
-Voted against disclosure of bundle donations by lobbyists
-Wants to ban gun registration and trigger lock requirements
-Wants to abolish minimum wage
-Voted against extending unemployment benefits during the financial crisis
-Wants to abolish social security
-Voted against net neutrality

[tyger]

A corporation is a legal entity, that has personal rights, but no personal responsibilities and consists of a collective of people. This was created by government and goes against one of the core principles of libertarianism which states that you must take individual responsibility for your actions.

this makes a nonsense of RP's libertarianism. given that power is mainly concentrated in 2 places, government and big corporations, and he wants to reduce government regulation of corporations, that would just hand more power to the corporations (who have too much power already). this only increases freedom if you think corporations are real people (which incidentally is exactly what the courts believe, or pretend to), and that the bigger the corporation/person, the more important their interests should be.

goverment regulation is, at its best (minimum wage, environmental regulation, etc), what removes the wost excesses of the capitalist system, and thereby helps to preserve the system.

we are still completely failing to regulate investment banking properly, and RP wants *less* regulation? R U mad, bro?

Ron Paul (and a number of other prominent libertarians like Andrew Napolitano and Tom Woods) wants to use American constitutionalism to shrink the government fundamentally and I think it's his dream for it be completely disolved one day.

you are too generous. the government will always be needed to protect private property and enforce contracts. the government makes the rules for how commerce works; the question is what rules it should make. RP's answer to that is in practice "whatever suits the 1%", even if he'd like people to think it's "as few rules as possible".

He's also anti-borders, despite his 'secure border' policies, which makes sense.

too generous again. you're actually saying he's pro-borders.

[Genevieve]

he says he would've voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

Not in public matters, but private afairs. He's right. People have the right to refuse service, what that reason is, is their problem, not the government's. People have the right to be assholes. Secondly, there's this case in NY where some dude was selling 'monkey cookies' as a tribute to Obama. That business got boycotted and lost all customers because of it, until he stopped selling them. To say you NEED the government so people won't be racist is just silly. But people have the right to be. Doesn't mean I personally endorse it.

I can't believe how people want to impose 'good behavior' on grown-ups, ugh.

he wants to end all welfare and social help programs,

He wants to give people the option to opt out. Why force people to make use of a social program that they disagree with? Everyone depending on those programs will get the benefit of them.

he doesn't believe in separation of church and state,

You're refering to the article on Lew Rockwell's site, where he said said the seperation of church and state shouldn't be as rigid as some people imply, getting rid of christmas decorations in public property, for example.

he's for teaching creationism in school,

No, he's not 'for' anything. This is what people have trouble understanding. 'What, he's AGAINST X? So he must be for Z!' That's like saying that because you're against the Iraq war, you were for Sadam Hussain. He's constitiutionally bound NOT to impose lesson material federally. Yeah, he's an idiot when it comes to science, but as a president, he legally doesn't have the authority, to impose a lesson plan on the individual states. Would you like it if Brussels one day decided how history was taught in the UK or doyou want the UK to figure it out for themselves?

he wants to privatize all schools

Yes, he 'wants to', but he can't and he won't do that. He does want to make it easier to give parents school choice, but he's not setting out to end anything. He wants to end the department of education because the federal government doesn't have the legal right to dictate what individual states teach.

he's against the UN,

Again, you name that in itself as if it's a bad thing. But the same UN that sent American troops to Libya? Sure. What's the point of the UN? You'd think we'd all break out into a fullblown war if we didn't have criminals talking about how they can leech the most money out of world's population? We're souvereign nations.

doesn't think education is a human right,

It's a "right" that depends on forcing other people to provide a service through the innitation of force. If something is a 'right' or not is not important in this context, because he's not implying that all kids shouldn't get an education, of course he does. He's using Murray Rothbard's natural rights argument as a basis for what is and isn't a right and things like healthcare and education really aren't rights. They are however, basic needs all people should have access to.

thinks business should be able to discriminate against minorities.

Do we force Klansmen to let black people into their homes? No? Then why into their business? This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm the least racist person I know and I wouldn't impose my will on others or their business. You cannot dictate 'good behavior' on a grown ass man. They have the right to be immoral for as long as they don't harm others or infringe on their rights and getting a burger at McDonalds is not a right.

People have gotten so used to imposing their own will on others through government, that the government is a moral compass, but can you really trust the same murderous government that started all these wars to make the 'humane' decision for every member of its population? That's ridiculous.

-Thinks the housing bubble was caused by too much construction

You're wrong on most and mention others as if they're inherently true while refusing to look at the other side of the argument simply because it isn't your, but I'd take too much time arguing. But I don't feel like refuting everything. Would take too much time.

But to answer this one.. he actually, he predicted the housing bubble: