He is a fake Libertarian who is supported by Fundamentalist Evangelicals and is interested in nothing but promoting their savage and barbaric beliefs:
When GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul was asked today about Tuesday’s federal court ruling upholding an aggressive new sonogram law in his home state of Texas, the congressman said the requirement that women seeking an abortion first get a sonogram “should always have been a Texas state position.’’
What are the chances that the guy who supports the governmental intrusion into your body will be opposed to the governmental intrusion into your bed, your bank account, your smoking, drinking and reading matter, etc.? Seriously, how clueless do you have to be not to notice that this Ron Paul character supports an extremely powerful state apparatus that will police your body parts like there is no tomorrow?
Yes, he pretends he will legalize pot. And that makes him yet another candidate who lies through his teeth to get elected. Just think about it: how likely are his Fundamentalist backers to allow him to move even an inch in that direction? And if he is in favor of the government controlling what happens inside of your body, how can he possibly be against, say, mandatory drug tests? It isn’t logical, folks. You want to mandate sonograms, you can’t oppose mandating drug tests. Nobody would be able to make an argument supporting the former but opposing the latter.
It is so annoying to see smart, well-read, politically conscious people swallow Ron Paul’s lies and not see that he is in no way different from the fanatical Huckabee, to give just one example.
So whenever you are tempted to take this Evangelical clown seriously, ask yourself the following: Ron Paul wants the government to rummage in women’s vaginas. What does this tell us about his general attitude to an extremely powerful and intrusive government?
Don’t start typing out a response immediately. Just think about it for a moment. And now consider the following question:
Brian Williams should ask him tonight at the debate whether he would agree that a state government has the right to demand pat-downs at its airports. I’d be curious to hear the answer.
If Ron Paul says no, he is a hypocrite of enormous proportions. If he says yes, then he recognizes he favors an all-powerful government whose right to police your body is inviolate.
It makes a lot more sense to support a candidate who is both pro-sonogram and pro-drug tests because such a candidate is at least trying to be consistent.
I just had a grad student offer me a long rant on how Ron Paul is a good candidate because he supports withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. I agree that Ron Paul may attempt to stop waging a war in Afghanistan. (And we all know that he will fail completely in that effort, don’t we?) I also know, however, that he will wage a war against his own people. Women, you know, are people, too. And I consider invading women’s uteri an act of aggression.
39 thoughts on “And For the Especially Clueless: Ron Paul Is NOT a Libertarian”
There was a great article in Al-Jazeera today which called Paul’s particular brand of “libertarianism”, “the Liberty of Bullies”. It was spot-on in explaining how Ron Paul is no friend to civil liberties, and seems to be bloody clueless about the concept of equal protection under the law.
It’s scary how many people buy into the completely erroneous idea that Ron Paul is in any way different from any other religious right candidate.
The idol worship of Barack Obama in 2008 is today’s cult of personality of Ron Paul. Both men have the “correct” positions on a number of important issues, but looking to either of these politicians as some sort of single-handed panacea is foolish and potentially risky. Ron Paul simply is not a libertarian (despite is past affiliations with the Libertarian Party) — at least, he certainly isn’t at this point in his career. He of course won’t even get the Republican nomination, but it’s still irritating and perplexing to see so many otherwise intelligent, informed, and often young potential voters so convinced that Paul could actually win the presidency, and step in to fundamentally reorder American society and government.
“Like his father, Rand Paul is a strict libertarian…”:
Rand Paul is a Libertarian? The same Rand Paul who is endorsed by every fundamentalist group in existence? Yeah, right.
Why wouldn’t the Republicans let Buddy Roemer participate in the debates? http://www.buddyroemer.com/
He’s a lot more rational than the other Rethugs – isn’t evena thug, that I can tell – and would be a much more interesting opponent for Obama.
Did you see Obama talk back about the booing about that gay soldier? He really is the only candidate being considered that even seems grown up.
I agree. Buddy Roemer was the only sensible and reasonable candidate that the Repubenron party has on the roster. The fact that he is being so srtongly suppressed is most disturbing.
My view of Ron Paul is that he wants to replace the “tyranny” of the federal government with a thousand little “tyrannies” consisting of every state government and, of course, every employer, housing authority, and corporation who will be give liberty to discriminate at will. He is a libertarian in precisely the same sense that I am an ostrich; not at all.
Exactly. So why are people failing to see this? Is everybody so desperate for anybody who sounds anti-establishment that they would support even this kind of a quack?
Well, I have to admit that I will probably be voting for Paul delegates in the Illinois primary, but only as a protest since I don’t imagine him getting nominated or elected. Obama is a complete tool of the Administrative State bureaucracy, and Romney, et al, while they may talk a good game of cutting government down to size, probably aren’t able to overcome the considerable resistance which the apparatchiks of the Administrative State will mount.
BUT, I have to question, can a person be a ‘real Libertarian’ and not recognize the rights of unborn children? So far as I know, Libertarianism isn’t about some kind of Hobbesian ‘every individual for him/herself’, yet some abortion advocates seem to think that because unborn children can’t vote, that they have no legal rights at all.
“Unborn children” do not exist so they cannot have rights. If we start recognizing the “rights” of those who aren’t there, why not recognize the rights of ghosts and vampires?
In this country, even the rights of children who do exist are not recognized. The US has not signed the Declaration of the rights of children. Care about kids? Militate about those who actually exist.
That was pretty mild. I was expecting fireworks.
As a ghost dracula, I am offended. I ask that you consider the feelings of bloodsucking ghouls next time, before you go off all half-cocked with this marginalizing speech. Bleh. Boooo.
Ron Paul is being consistent. He is consistent (more or less) in his opposition to your 14th Amendment applying your Bill of Rights to your states. His position is pretty similar to the one Sandefur likes to call “doughface libertarians”. Their view is that the states should have unlimited power to violate anyone’s rights, and that if the federal governments prevents them from doing so the federal government is evil and oppressive. Basically, they think that not preventing the states from violating anyone’s rights, in some perverse leap of Orwellian doublethink, increases our freedom. This pretty much means that Paul’s views on any particular subject are irrelevant. He would allow states to do something he opposes and would render your constitution and your federal government unable to do anything about it.
That’s why there is a bizarre collection of reactionaries, paleocons, fundamentalist theocrats, and Neo-Nazi’s all united in opposition to your 14th Amendment. They want to take over and control other people. Via incorporation, the 14th Amendnent prevents them from doing that. Since it is easier to take over a country subdivision rather than the whole country, they are against incorporation because it prevents them from doing what they want to do. That’s why so many fundamentalists support Paul. Regardless of what his other views are, his position on your 14th Amendment will allow (say) fundamentalists to (for example) basically install theocracies, institute creationism, execute gays and lesbians, and on.
The position that states have unlimited power is ridiculous for several reasons. First of all, it is morally relativist. Many doughfacers argue that is was wrong for the north to fight your Civil War and end slavery. Similarly, one of the advocates of the doughface position, Lew Rockwell, celebrated the fall of Saigon(!) because he got pleasure out of witnessing “the death of a state”. Second, the doughface view raises the question of what exactly the point of having a bill of rights is, if any government but the federal can violate it at will. A better approach is to hold that no level of government should violate rights.
It is sometimes argued that if the doughface position is enacted, someone should just “pack up and leave” if they don’t like what their state is doing. That is also ridiculous for several reasons. First, the “vote with your feet” has often been used as an excuse for reactionaries to continue being able to oppress people. Second, the first thing every authoritarian does is prevent people from leaving. That’s because allowing them to leave prevents them from controlling others. After all, the doughface view would also prevent the right to freedom of movement from being incorporated (current US case laws makes freedom of movement a state responsibility [see WP]) Third, some people for whatever reason can’t just pack up and leave. They might be too poor, for instance, or they might need specialized medical treatment that is only available in a state that would oppress them. Basically, it pretty much means that only the privileged won’t oppressed, while everyone would have to shut up and bear it, an appalling position.
“Their view is that the states should have unlimited power to violate anyone’s rights, and that if the federal governments prevents them from doing so the federal government is evil and oppressive. Basically, they think that not preventing the states from violating anyone’s rights, in some perverse leap of Orwellian doublethink, increases our freedom. This pretty much means that Paul’s views on any particular subject are irrelevant. He would allow states to do something he opposes and would render your constitution and your federal government unable to do anything about it.”
– You formulated it in an absolutely brilliant way. That’s exactly the problem with Ron Paul’s position.
“Third, some people for whatever reason can’t just pack up and leave. They might be too poor, for instance, or they might need specialized medical treatment that is only available in a state that would oppress them.”
– Or a tenure-track job. The very idea that we should express our opposition to oppressive state legislation by fleeing from one state to another is pretty bizarre.
It’s like all these Ron Paul supporters didn’t pay attention in seventh grade American history. We HAD a toothless federal government trying to knit together a bunch of angry self-interested sovereign states under the Articles of Confedearation almost two and a half centuries ago. If I remember correctly, it didn’t fucking work.
“Unborn children” do not exist so they cannot have rights. If we start recognizing the “rights” of those who aren’t there, why not recognize the rights of ghosts and vampires?
I love this quote, but seriously, whether “unborn children” exist or not is a purely semantic question; it depends on the precise definition of ‘children’. It is also not an overwhelmingly important question, since even if one were to stipulate that “unborn children” do in fact exist, it does not give them the right to demand support from other humans (such a pregnant women, for example) any more that the fact that your next door neighbor needs a kidney or heart transplant requires you to donate an organ to her or him. It is, rightly and legally, your choice, just as whether or not to support a human fœtus for most of a year in her uterus is rightly the choice of the woman involved.
Very good points!
Also, when I think about all those babies stuck in Catholic limbo because of their unbaptized status, I worry how little we are doing for them! How about their rights, eh?
It’s a slow day. 🙂 🙂
Yeah! Where’s David Gendron when we need him?
How is defending the rights of people who do not exist different from hearing voices or thinking you are Napoleon? At least, Napoleon did exist. And the voices might be telling you something smart. Like “the unborn aren’t there, doofus.”
Defending the rights of people who don’t exist will make it awfully difficult to write fiction, at the very least.
I nearly just inhaled hot chocolate at that, if only because I know someone who is so invested in Twilight that this is kind of their emotional position on literary criticism of the series. Equal parts sad, funny and horrifying.
I tried hot chocolate, but I didn’t inhale.
So, your whole argument that he is not a libertarian is that he is pro-life? You don’t have to be pro-choice to be a libertarian.
He is also a bad pro-lifer because, unlike the other Republican candidates, he wants to get the Federal government out of the abortion issue. As in he would not stop New York or California from legalizing abortion on their own. Do you still think he is an extremist pro-lifer? If so, you don’t know what extremist pro-lifers are like.
I personally don’t agree with him on this issue, but I would not consider his position extreme and it is not a big enough factor for me to pull my support for him.
A Libertarian who supports the Big Brother government rummaging in people’s bodies and policing it? Really? That’s some Libertarian for you. If he think it’s fine to police people’s bodies, you really think he will not be in favir of the government policing every aspect of your life?
This makes absolutely no sense.
Think about it. The guy wants the state in your bed. Is that what you call a Libertarian?
So you think it should be perfectly OK to abort at say 8 months or 9 as long as the baby is not yet born? Is it your position that a fetus is a tumor that can be removed at any point? I don’t think I understand your position here.
I mean, I agree there is a point where it is just a zygote and hardly human at all. However, once a brain, heart, etc, has developed, it’s hard to say that is not a human being.
I find it extremely annoying when people try to retell my texts in such a careless manner. I have NEVER referred to a foetus as a tumor. And I find it beyond insulting that you try to put this idiotic comparison into my mouth. I resent that deeply.
My position is that people should decide what happens inside their own bodies. What’s there not to understand?
I see where you are coming from Clarissa. But the issue is not so clear. It’s not black and white.
Pro-life libertarians view the fetus as a human being with equal rights as you and me. If you took that position, then you would see abortion as denying a human being the right to life. I don’t have to explain why denying the right to life is contrary to libertarian ideology.
“Pro-life libertarians view the fetus as a human being with equal rights as you and me.”
– And this makes them Evangelical Fundamentalists. If it walks like a duck. . . You can only “view” a cluster of cells located inside a person as a “human being with equal rights” if you are fanatically religious. By the way, how come nobody views a living and breathing child as a human being with equal rights? has Ron Paul advocated for the rights of actual children at any point?
I guess not, eh. It’s just clusters of cells he sees as “people.” Actual people are of no interest to him.
Sorry about that. I’ve seen that comparison been used by pro-choice people and I was not sure if that was you position.
I’m just confused about the whole “unborn children” cannot exist and do not have rights. I mean, an 8 month old unborn is a child and a human being. The fact that he/she has not been born does not make it any less so, in my opinion.
Now, Ron Paul definitely takes it too far and I don’t agree with him on this issue. But he is not nearly as bad as you make him out to be. I mean, reading what he actually says about this:
“My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one. If we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her moral choice. ”
^I believe that is a very pragmatic way to look at the abortion issue and I don’t find it in any way to be extremist or religious.
” I’ve seen that comparison been used by pro-choice people ”
– This is a lie. This comparison is ALWAYS used by anti-choicers. ALWAYS.
” I mean, an 8 month old unborn is a child and a human being. ”
– And how do you see a woman inside whom this fetus is located? Is she not human? How about her rights? I wonder how in your desire to defend fetuses you forget that there is an actual human being involved who is undisputedly human and alive and whose rights are being trampled on.
I also don;t see how 8-month fetuses are relevant if what being discussed is Ron Paul’s suggestion that women’s uteri be invaded in the first trimester. Because later term abortions are not legal in Texas anyways. Why are you trying to derail the conversation and steer it away from Ron Paul’s religious fanaticism and barbarity??
Actually, the quote of his you give is completely egregious and nobody who has even sat next to a Libertarian once in their lives would say anything like that. “. If we are ever to have fewer abortions” – who are this royal WE? He wants fewer abortions, let him have fewer abortions. Who the hell is he to decide that anybody needs fewer or more of them? It’s not supposed to be his business.
And pregnancies can be treated by the day-after pill? Does he have any education at all? The morning-after pill does not terminate pregnancies. People are specifically directed not to take it if they are already pregnant.
And what about “his” moral choice? Who is “he”? A man who will need to abort?
What a quack he is.
Personal autonomy is a cornerstone of libertarian philosophy, and this society at least pays lip service to the notion as part of the idea of individual liberty. Since it’s a woman who must undergo the pregnancy, and all the inherent medical risks of pregnancy and delivery, and since even now, even in marriages and relationships where two parents are present and involved, it’s the woman who still most often bears the majority of the burdens of raising children, I believe ultimately it’s the woman who should decide at what point the organism growing inside her body becomes a “child” or “person.”
It’s one thing to advocate the elimination of federal funding for abortions, or even for organizations such as Planned Parenthood — that’s consistent with typical libertarian thinking. But I contend that to support the notion that individual states should be left to decide if abortion should remain legal within their jurisdictions is akin to allowing each state to decide the legality of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, freedom of speech, or any other Constitutional issue. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the foundation of the entire United States of America — not À la carte options for 50 separate “customers.”
Beyond that, I don’t really even know what this is supposed to mean:
“We must follow the Biblical mandate of using honest weights and measures – not printing money out of thin air in almost complete secrecy and then handing it over to oppressive dictators.”
So the US should adopt biblical edicts in regards to monetary policy???
Libertarian policy also includes open borders and very few immigration obsticles — no politician would dare advocate that now, rightfully concluding it would mean almost certain political suicide.
Ron Paul does have some very sensible and appealing stances on a number of issues. So does Barack Obama. But Paul isn’t a Libertarian, and it’s so often the case that too many politicians want to glom onto some degree of libertarian credibility in an effort to garner a certain segment of independent votes — but most of them just cannot go all the way to standing on a fully libertarian platform — on ALL issues. If Paul were truly a “Libertarian,” why not run as the candidate of the Libertarian Party? Why cling to the Republican label, perhaps beyond the obvious: financial support from Republicans, and the ballot and media access the “R” brings, as opposed to staking a claim as a true independent.
As with Ralph Nader, I think both of them have more to offer as social activists, or members of Congress. But I wouldn’t want either as President of the US, regardless of what political banner they’re running under.
I agree completely with Psilomelane.
“So the US should adopt biblical edicts in regards to monetary policy???”
You scoff but according to the Word of the Lord the shekel is quite strong. Only four hundred for the cave of Machpelah PLUS the entire field? Abraham made out like a bandit on that plot, even if Ephron hadn’t just wanted to give it to him. [Gen. 23]
I agree to a certain extend. However, unless there is a pressing medical reason, I don’t see why someone would need to wait more than 3 months to decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy.
Also, there are plenty of contraception options available to women. So a woman does have a choice whether or not to get pregnant without having to use abortion as contraception.
Because this is a two party system that makes it much more difficult to run as a third party candidate. How many third party candidates have been giving exposure in the media? How many have been allowed to debate in a nationally televised debate? If Ron Paul had stuck to the Libertarian party we probably would not even know about him.
From “Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday” on Feministe:
” He calls public education “socialist” (which we actually agree with, but he, unlike us, doesn’t think that’s a good thing) and says, “I preach home schooling and private schooling.” ”
– I SAID he was a religious fanatic! He “preaches” home schooling, of all things? A stupid fundamentalist who can’t even control his language for two seconds to avoid sounding too preachy.
Thank you, el. I think after this article, there is nothing else to say about Ron Paul. He should keep preaching to his fellow fundamentalists.
I cannot believe how many Liberals bought into his lies.