Who, exactly, is Ron Paul?

[TimCallahan]

He's supposed to be a Libertarian. This would seem to imply no government interference such issues as reproductive choice and availability of birth control technology. However, according to Wikipedia, he's strongly pro-life. At the same time, he favors stem cell research. So, how does he reconcile these positions? Further, Wikipedia says the following:

Paul has asserted that a right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects the use of contraceptives[169][170] and that the Interstate Commerce Clause protects the sale of contraceptives.[169]
However, legislation which Paul has repeatedly introduced into Congress [see the We The People Act] has been criticized for potentially freeing states to ban the prescription or use of contraception, by stripping the federal courts and the Supreme Court of the authority to rule on the constitutionality of such bans.[171]

So, again, how does he reconcile states having the right to ban birth control with Libertarian ideals of individual freedom?

Consider also Pau's ties to Christian Reconstructionists, also known as Dominionists. According to this site:

Nevertheless, Paul’s support among the country’s most committed theocrats is deep and longstanding, something that’s poorly understood among those who simply see him as a libertarian. That’s why it wasn’t surprising when the Paul campaign touted the endorsement of Phil Kayser, a Nebraska pastor with an Iowa following who calls for the execution of homosexuals. Nor was it shocking to learn that Mike Heath, Paul’s Iowa state director, is a former board chairman of “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality,” which the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a hate group. Should Paul win the Iowa caucuses, it will actually be a triumph for a fundamentalist faction that has until now been considered a fringe even on the Christian right.

How does he reconcile Dominionism with Libertarianism?

 

[Donal]

Simple, he supports state sovereignty further than individual rights.

 

[TimCallahan]

Simple, he supports state sovereignty further than individual rights.

Okay, but isn't stat sovereignty a bit far from Libertarianism?

 

[Donal]

I guess it depends on who the Libertarian you're talking to is. A lot of it is the paranoia about "Big Government" and how them politicians all the way over there in Washington are trying to screw us and tell us what to do.

If the good people of Whatever County decide democratically to ban interracial marriages, well, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically stops them from doing so.

 

[steve s]

However, legislation which Paul has repeatedly introduced into Congress [see the We The People Act] has been criticized for potentially freeing states to ban the prescription or use of contraception, by stripping the federal courts and the Supreme Court of the authority to rule on the constitutionality of such bans.[171]

He's a little late. The Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of such bans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

Steve S

 

[hgc]

Simple, he supports state sovereignty further than individual rights.

And thus the fatal flaw at the heart of libertarianism. Within human civilized society, no matter what else, some government is going to make use of force to make people conform to the rules, just or unjust, of that society. For some things it's better enforced at the local level, and for other things at the national level (or somewhere in between). There's no way around it, as exhibited in the entire history of human civilization.

Fake libertarians, like Ron Paul, apply arbitrary judgments as to which rules ought to be enshrined and enforced at the highest level (anti-abortion) and which ought not to exist at all (anti-discrimination).

Bunch of hooey.

 

[WildCat]

Ron Paul has no problems with states restricting rights, only the federal government. States could institute slavery and Ron Paul would have no problems with it.

 

[trustbutverify]

I can understand the confusion concerning Dr. Paul. I would refer you to the "The Ron Paul Report" from the late 70's through the early 90's. Quite helpful in clearing things up.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

What, not who.

He's a pushmi-pullyu.

 

[mortimer]

Ron Paul is all about what will make him money and increase the size of his flock.

 

[Chaos]

I can understand the confusion concerning Dr. Paul. I would refer you to the "The Ron Paul Report" from the late 70's through the early 90's. Quite helpful in clearing things up.

Is that the one he now says he didn´t write and didn´t read before publication, in order to disavow the racist crap in it?

 

[trustbutverify]

Is that the one he now says he didn´t write and didn´t read before publication, in order to disavow the racist crap in it?

As a matter of fact- it's that very one!

 

[Chaos]

As a matter of fact- it's that very one!

Then I´m sure reading it - and Ron Paul´s more recent statements about it - will serve show people that he is a fine and upstanding example for the kind of openness and honesty that voter expect of someone running for President.

 

[Donal]

I'm surprised the thread has lasted this long with no John Galt references.

 

[daredelvis]

I can understand the confusion concerning Dr. Paul. I would refer you to the "The Ron Paul Report" from the late 70's through the early 90's. Quite helpful in clearing things up.

Is that the one he now says he didn´t write and didn´t read before publication, in order to disavow the racist crap in it?

As a matter of fact- it's that very one!

It has its own twitter page, The Ron Paul Newsletter. They were tweeting some gems from the Ron Paul Report a few months ago. I wish they would get back to it.

Here is a small sample of tweets:

On the streets, black crime against whites is the norm, with some of it even justified as "fighting the power."

Order was only restored in LA [after the riots] when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.

Middle-class blacks & black political activists hold opinions not markedly different from the Crips and the Bloods.

I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

In fact, David Duke never said anything of the kind. He was called Hitler for opposing black privileges.

Our country is being destroyed by a group of actual & potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin.

What party is he a member of again?

Daredelvis

 

[TimCallahan]

I'm surprised the thread has lasted this long with no John Galt references.

Who is John Galt?

There, are you happy nowhttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/icons/icon7.gif?

One really big problem I have with Ron Paul's weirdness is that Romney could choose either him or his son Rand Paul as a running mate, as a sop to the Tea Party.

 

[GreyArea]

He's supposed to be a Libertarian.

I think you nailed it with the second word there.

Paul is better described as a right-wing populist. He is more in line with the views of the Patriot Movement, the John Birch Society, and the Constitution Party than the Libertarian Party. He also endorsed Pat Buchanan in 1992, as opposed to the Republican incumbent, George H.W. Bush.

In 1988, Paul got the Libertarian Party's presidential nomination by the barest of majorities, while his opponents split the remainder. I don't think that was much of a mandate. Apparently even this small party has its internal differences.

 

[trustbutverify]

Paul is better described as a right-wing populist. He is more in line with the views of the Patriot Movement, the John Birch Society, and the Constitution Party than the Libertarian Party. He also endorsed Pat Buchanan in 1992, as opposed to the Republican incumbent, George H.W. Bush..

Be careful here. I believe telling the truth about Ron Paul on the internet is strictly forbidden.

 

[GreyArea]

Be careful here. I believe telling the truth about Ron Paul on the internet is strictly forbidden.

Oops. I won't let it happen again.

 

[Galileo]

He's supposed to be a Libertarian. This would seem to imply no government interference such issues as reproductive choice and availability of birth control technology. However, according to Wikipedia, he's strongly pro-life. At the same time, he favors stem cell research. So, how does he reconcile these positions? Further, Wikipedia says the following:

Paul has asserted that a right to privacy in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects the use of contraceptives[169][170] and that the Interstate Commerce Clause protects the sale of contraceptives.[169]
However, legislation which Paul has repeatedly introduced into Congress [see the We The People Act] has been criticized for potentially freeing states to ban the prescription or use of contraception, by stripping the federal courts and the Supreme Court of the authority to rule on the constitutionality of such bans.[171]

So, again, how does he reconcile states having the right to ban birth control with Libertarian ideals of individual freedom?

Consider also Pau's ties to Christian Reconstructionists, also known as Dominionists. According to this site:

Nevertheless, Paul’s support among the country’s most committed theocrats is deep and longstanding, something that’s poorly understood among those who simply see him as a libertarian. That’s why it wasn’t surprising when the Paul campaign touted the endorsement of Phil Kayser, a Nebraska pastor with an Iowa following who calls for the execution of homosexuals. Nor was it shocking to learn that Mike Heath, Paul’s Iowa state director, is a former board chairman of “Americans for Truth About Homosexuality,” which the Southern Poverty Law Center classifies as a hate group. Should Paul win the Iowa caucuses, it will actually be a triumph for a fundamentalist faction that has until now been considered a fringe even on the Christian right.

How does he reconcile Dominionism with Libertarianism?

as a medical physician, Ron Paul considers unborn people to be people. If you believe that, then being pro-life is libertarian. If you don't believe that, then being pro-choice is libertarian.

 

[elbe]

as a medical physician, Ron Paul considers unborn people to be people. If you believe that, then being pro-life is libertarian. If you don't believe that, then being pro-choice is libertarian.

If I believe that the government should tell me, and everyone else, what to do every minute of every day then does that also make me libertarian? I mean, if I really believe it and everything.

 

[Galileo]

If I believe that the government should tell me, and everyone else, what to do every minute of every day then does that also make me libertarian? I mean, if I really believe it and everything.

if this was an attempt at humor, I'm sorry, you missed.

 

[Juniversal]

Would be interesting to see how he'd contend with the bureaucracy present in most of Gov't if he were to hypothetically win the Presidential nomination and election.

Not to sound overly vindictive but it would be somewhat humorous to see his cult of personality realize he can't just snap his fingers and end all wars, bring all troops home, remove our military presence and bases from the many countries we inhabit, legalize marijuana, ect. over the course of a term or even two.

 

[elbe]

if this was an attempt at humor, I'm sorry, you missed.

Humor? No. That was what I like to call a "question".