After researching further, I accept that he voted for the amendments to the bill and not the actual bill. This is actually consistent with the philosophy he holds regarding the Federal Government, that since the constitution does not expressly give the Federal Government the right to establish national holidays, that power is reserved to the state and the people. It is also similar to his stance on earmarks, where he doesn't agree with Congress spending as much as it does, but if they are going to pass the bill anyways, he's going to get as much as he can back for his constituents, and not leave it up to the executive branch to spend the money as it pleases. So he requests the earmarks so he can represent his district adequately, then votes no on the spending measure because he disagrees that Congress should be spending the money in the first place. The principle here is that he would vote yes to a change in day to make the holiday less disruptive - a Monday holiday is usually more beneficial than a mid-week holiday - but vote no on establishing the holiday since that is not one of the powers given to congress by the constitution. A quirky stance, true, but still principled. And I acknowledge that that weakens the argument I made in favor of Ron Paul not writing the newsletter passages.
He explained, and I'll accept, although you are free not to, that he was advised not to deny the statements when they first surfaced because it would cause confusion for his campaign at the time.
I've listened to hours of him speaking and read several of his books that he does not deny writing, and I can adamantly say that the statements are extremely uncharacteristic, and do not have the same rambling nature that what he does write and say has. He goes all over the place when he speaks and writes, and doesn't always finish a thought - characteristics of someone whose mind is always one step ahead of his mouth. The articles and statements of offense read nothing like that, and use tons of wordplay and other literary tricks that Ron has never used in speaking or in writing what he has acknowledged writing. Being a medical doctor and not a literature major, it is unlikely he has taken creative writing classes and the rough unpolished nature of his books is evidence of that.
See above. It is clear from your take that the AIDs example is homophobic that you do not understand the line of reasoning that leads to the statements. He also, as I mentioned, expressed why establishing special rights for groups is problematic. Treating any group of people different than any other, or specifically granting "rights" to that group is a collectivist idea - it puts the group ahead of the individual, and the libertarian principles are that the liberty of the individual is inviolate. Rights cannot be given, because giving rights presupposes that they are not already yours. Your right to life, liberty, and justly acquired property are rights that exist even if no government exists. The role of government therefore is to protect those rights against the aggression of others, including the aggression of the government itself. The individual has rights, and excessive government restricts those rights, often in the name of protecting what government should not be in the business of protecting.
"In a free society, the individual cannot be forced into serving the state, and the property he owns cannot be confiscated for any reason, even that of a humanitarian nature. The needs of one person cannot be used to justify the victimization of another by robbing him of the fruits of his labor."
"Victims of the disease AIDS argue, with no qualms of inconsistency about rights, for crash research programs (to be paid for by people who don't have AIDS), demanding a cure. And it's done in the name of rights. Victims demand health care as well and scream "discrimination" if insurance companies claim they have a right to refuse to issue a policy to someone already infected with the AIDS virus. The rights of the insurance company owners are not considered, while legislation is passed forcing insurance companies to provide the insurance demanded by the victims. The individual suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim -- frequently a victim of his own lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care. Crash research programs are hardly something, I believe, the Found Fathers intended when they talked about equal rights.
The Supreme Court, in 1987, ruled that persons with contagious
diseases are "handicapped" and are entitled to protection under affirmative
action rules. If a person is fired because he has AIDS, typhoid fever or
hepatitis, he can now pursue his case in court.
Recently an alcoholic who developed cirrhosis of the liver demanded
a liver transplant, in the name of "equal rights." The state welfare program
assumed the obligation to provide care for the man, but insisted he quit his
alcoholic ways. The man refused, and the state held up on his liver transplant.
For this reason he sued the state, demanding his rights.
With confusion regarding rights, the end of constitutionally protected
liberty cannot be far off."
There's a lot more. The whole chapter on Individual rights, while it rambles a bit, taken as a whole in context shows that all mentions of AIDS and minorities are examples of the fallacies of grouping people rather than treating them as individuals with individual rights.
Those of you who haven't read this book can read it free online, complete with typos, and errors in editing, and Ron's signature rambling way of talking, here: http://www.ronpaul.com/ron-paul-books/RonPaul-FreedomUnderSiege.pdf
He explained, and I'll accept, although you are free not to, that he was advised not to deny the statements when they first surfaced because it would cause confusion for his campaign at the time.
I've listened to hours of him speaking and read several of his books that he does not deny writing, and I can adamantly say that the statements are extremely uncharacteristic, and do not have the same rambling nature that what he does write and say has. He goes all over the place when he speaks and writes, and doesn't always finish a thought - characteristics of someone whose mind is always one step ahead of his mouth. The articles and statements of offense read nothing like that, and use tons of wordplay and other literary tricks that Ron has never used in speaking or in writing what he has acknowledged writing. Being a medical doctor and not a literature major, it is unlikely he has taken creative writing classes and the rough unpolished nature of his books is evidence of that.
See above. It is clear from your take that the AIDs example is homophobic that you do not understand the line of reasoning that leads to the statements. He also, as I mentioned, expressed why establishing special rights for groups is problematic. Treating any group of people different than any other, or specifically granting "rights" to that group is a collectivist idea - it puts the group ahead of the individual, and the libertarian principles are that the liberty of the individual is inviolate. Rights cannot be given, because giving rights presupposes that they are not already yours. Your right to life, liberty, and justly acquired property are rights that exist even if no government exists. The role of government therefore is to protect those rights against the aggression of others, including the aggression of the government itself. The individual has rights, and excessive government restricts those rights, often in the name of protecting what government should not be in the business of protecting.
"In a free society, the individual cannot be forced into serving the state, and the property he owns cannot be confiscated for any reason, even that of a humanitarian nature. The needs of one person cannot be used to justify the victimization of another by robbing him of the fruits of his labor."
"Victims of the disease AIDS argue, with no qualms of inconsistency about rights, for crash research programs (to be paid for by people who don't have AIDS), demanding a cure. And it's done in the name of rights. Victims demand health care as well and scream "discrimination" if insurance companies claim they have a right to refuse to issue a policy to someone already infected with the AIDS virus. The rights of the insurance company owners are not considered, while legislation is passed forcing insurance companies to provide the insurance demanded by the victims. The individual suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim -- frequently a victim of his own lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care. Crash research programs are hardly something, I believe, the Found Fathers intended when they talked about equal rights.
The Supreme Court, in 1987, ruled that persons with contagious
diseases are "handicapped" and are entitled to protection under affirmative
action rules. If a person is fired because he has AIDS, typhoid fever or
hepatitis, he can now pursue his case in court.
Recently an alcoholic who developed cirrhosis of the liver demanded
a liver transplant, in the name of "equal rights." The state welfare program
assumed the obligation to provide care for the man, but insisted he quit his
alcoholic ways. The man refused, and the state held up on his liver transplant.
For this reason he sued the state, demanding his rights.
With confusion regarding rights, the end of constitutionally protected
liberty cannot be far off."
There's a lot more. The whole chapter on Individual rights, while it rambles a bit, taken as a whole in context shows that all mentions of AIDS and minorities are examples of the fallacies of grouping people rather than treating them as individuals with individual rights.
Those of you who haven't read this book can read it free online, complete with typos, and errors in editing, and Ron's signature rambling way of talking, here: http://www.ronpaul.com/ron-paul-books/RonPaul-FreedomUnderSiege.pdf
