Is Ron Paul a Lesser Evil?

Do you know very much about right-"libertarians" or "anarcho"-capitalists? Is there any doubt that their ideology is worse than the status quo?
Are you aware of the (several, well-reasoned) anarchist critiques of so-called anarcho-capitalism?

"There are self-styled "anarcho-capitalists" (not to be confused with anarchists of any persuasion), who want the state abolished as a regulator of capitalism, and government handed over to capitalists."

-Donald Rooum in What is Anarchism

"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever
implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few
counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that
its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would
quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free
contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke,
perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences
of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with
people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of
issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I
also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do
not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their
profound moral failings."

-Noam Chomsky


Also, Section F of the anarchist FAQ: Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism?

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html

Personally, I don't think he is a lesser evil.

I see a lot of IMO, gullible and enthusiastic young leftists and radicals who buy in to his "Rage Against The Machine" talk without looking in to him, and I think it's a shame.

However, I'm a fallible human of course, maybe I'm wrong. That's why I'm asking the question.

In closing, when you think "anarcho"-capitalism or right-libertarianism (oxymorons if ever I've heard them,) think "Cheney's Wet Dream," because that's all it is. It's the wet dream of some very small amount of privileged people, and absolute tyranny to everyone else. Fiscal Fascism, loyalty only to the bottom line.

-personman

either, he is economically, which is bad enough, but not socially, what with his stance on church and state, etc. The guy is a loon, period, mixed bag at best, and the ONLY thing I agree with him on is foreign policy, but that's it. And I'm NOT a single issue voter.

He is no friend of the working man. Libertarians (the right wing party) and Anarchists may agree on social issues about things such as abortion and gay marriage, but on economic issues, they are as far apart as night is to day. Anarchists would have more in common with socialists of the more democratic persuasion than with anybody hailing from the neoliberal right.

x(

though Im open to having my mind changed on this. I even found myself blurting "yeah!" at the tv during the R's debate the other night. The comments he made on wars for oil.... and the biggest moral dilemma being *'s preemptive war policy... it was really were nice to hear, imho. Perhaps Im infatuated with the fact that he has the sack to speak the truth on these things. Like when he schooled Giulani on why 9-11 happened in the first place. Its his honesty.... not his policy that appeals to me... Ill admit. Does that make him a lesser evil? :shrug: All I know is that I wish our Dems were saying some of those things. I really, really, really, do.

edit to add: I love Rage! :evilgrin:

I dunno, except to guess that maybe they owe favors to the same Wall Street that put Bush into the White House.

He's dead on with what he's said on this topic. And the fact that a Libertarian/Republican is the ONLY one saying it really bothers me. Do you think any other candidate would admit that the US has waged wars for oil? Of course I cant say for certain... but my money is on.. NO. WTF?

The one sure way to find the answer to this question is if by some miracle Paul was to get the repuke nomination. Then Paul could debate the dem nominee on real issues, in length and we could see who was more convincing. As it is we get nothing but sound bites. Some of Paul's ideas are at least worthy of a full public hearing.
Who would I vote for in the general .... is yet to be decided ....

I actually think he has a chance. And personally, Id love to see him get the nod. I think it would make for the most interesting general we've had... perhaps ever. Here in NH.. an Independent can vote in whatever primary they want. And though Im a registered Dem now (& always have been)... Ive been thinking that if one Dem is winning by a landslide in the polls at primary time, that I might go Indy just to vote for Paul in the R primary, such as yourself. But truth be told, part of me is afraid he could actually win. The one saving grace? No war with Iran. No war. Period. sigh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsXgP0xweIA

I posted it on the video thread, wonder if it will stay ..:)

brilliant to address the "wasted vote" meme. Kucinich would be wise to take a play from Paul's book. I'm so sick of the "unelectable" crap. You?

I think Paul getting the nod is just the beat-down politics-as-usual needs. Paul & Kucinich. Actually, Shhh... I would support that ticket.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

Wonder why?

BTW - great info. More people blabbering on about the guy should read that.

No social spending bills left without a veto for the entire Paul Administration...

No Environmental regulations or bills passed without veto for the entire Paul Admin.

No "tinkering" with the Free Market (ubber alles) during the Ron Paul Admin. No regulation of capitalist activity under lib-Ron.

A return to the gold standard anyone?


Be careful what you wish for.

That is a point on which I will agree without hesitation. :)

And also Rage rocks! :)

:toast:
fingers crossed for a real reunion.

He'll never be the nominee but it sure is fun seeing him stick in Rudy's craw.

Debating with your garden variety fascistic right-wingnuts is not anywhere as obnoxious as right-wing capitalist libertarians, as a left-libertarian anarcho-socialist they are utterly infuriating to confront.

In my experience they are nothing less then Ayn Rand worshiping greed-idealists who must have never had to hold down a shit job in their lives to be so utterly naive.
Kick for DU's A-S community, Ron Paul and his fanbois can kiss my ass.
There is nothing progressive and left about some types who share a few ideas, nor is he a lesser of two evils.

Did you get Pauls take on immigration ... its actualy more to the point then I hear from any Dem ... about people being individuals and not members of groups and how we need to be careful not to SCAPEGOAT workers .... He gets it, I dont know which of our guys do.

They love Paul and Tancredo over there.

I assumne "stormfront" is some bogus group and if they like Paul fine ... Maybe they are mistaken, or maybe some part of their warped vision aligns with my personal one. Regardless... bring on the open public debate of actual ideas ... I dont see anything creative in this campaign year to date and I assume you share my displeasure with the general direction our currently accepted ideas have taken us.

And this is why

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

As for Paul and any alleged connection to Racism try this link for his actual viewpoint


http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=508

Government and Racism

April 16, 2007

The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.

It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”

Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

Diversity perpetuates racism?

You sure you're on the right board?

That is a paraphrased statement which has been in dispute as to who actualy said it ... you know this; so quit wallpapering it if you cant attribute it ...

Your response was "Ever been to Washington" implying agreement with it.

Here's the link again in case you didn't see it

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

"That is a paraphrased statement which has been in dispute as to who actualy said it "

There is no dispute as to who said. Here's Paul's responses.

"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

"A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime. "

More lovely chestnuts from Paul

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

In later newsletters, Paul aimed criticism at the Israeli government's U.S. lobbying efforts and reported allegations that President Clinton used cocaine and fathered illegitimate children.

That was the part that stuck out ... It was written in something called Liberty Report which is some newsletter linked to Paul ... He denied having knowledge of who actualy wrote it and denied ever saying such a thing .... When I find my glasses i will hunt for the link but what you are posting is an 11 year old editorial that has been debunked eons ago ...

"He denied having knowledge of who actualy wrote it and denied ever saying such a thing"

Weakly.

I'll save you the trouble of posting his lame ass defense because here it is

"Getting much attention: A 1996 Houston Chronicle story that says a newsletter Paul published in the early 1990s "highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues." That newsletter was called the Ron Paul Political Report, and according to Kos, Paul told Texas Monthly magazine in October 2001 that "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. ... It wasn't my language at all.” Kos points out, though, that the newsletter was eight pages long and "whether he employed other writers or not, it beggars belief that Paul would not have had full control and approval over its contents."

His diversity perpetuates racism ain't that a far a branch on the bigot tree and you proudly posted that nonsense.

Lets leave that at face value ... Yeah, its weak .. its old, I dont care ...
Now to today ...
He didnt say "diversity perpetuates racism" ..
He said so called "proponents of diversity perpetuate racism" ..
That IMO should be a valid issue ... The entire affirmative action quota scenerio is a serious topic for debate, wouldnt you think? Noone else will go there but what does it actualy accomplish ... I dont claim to be able to sort through the mixed messages but they are mixed unlike what most would have you believe ... Isnt that worthy of debate?
Personaly I think the entire "death of individuality" deserves viewing ... Our problems our societal and engrained and anyone looking for the root causes deserves a listening ....

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

I could elaborate a little more, however then I'll get my post deleted.

That says a lot about YOUR argumentative abilities.

By the way, the OP edited his title AFTER I replied.

Why would you wish to split the left and send them into the arms of such a jerk as Paul?

Anyhow, I do not see it happening, leftists want nothing to do with his capitalist-libertarian hate of workers.
*taps sarcasm meter (Is this thing on?)

By the way, the OP edited his title AFTER I replied.

Ok, time for a sarcasm meter overhaul. :crazy:

:evilgrin:

I happen to agree with Pat on the war. Virtually Nothing else. Same deal with RoPaul.

Paul could be useful to have up there on the Teevee saying bad things about our imperialism, I guess, but on the other level he propagates the illusion that the GOP is a "big tent" party with a rich diversity of ideas, so he might be a net negative.

Mostly, he's useful for us to quote out of context and spread bad vibes and paranoia amonst conservatives, who know that the wheels are falling off. Which is a good thing. Enough to counterbalance that aforementioned illusion? You got me.

So we could exclude Kucinich and Gravel, or screw it, throw em in anyway, for fun.

Which candidates should he be compared to? It's an open question, do with it what you want. :)

He ran for President as a Libertarian.
He is very sincere in his beliefs.
Libertarians are close to Republicans in Ideology.

I do not mean to sound harsh but one issue voters bring
us terrible congressmen. Think about all the Pro Life
Voters(the one issue Pro Lifers.) If they looked at
a person's whole record, we would not have many of
the Republicans we have now.

The war is probably going to be over before the election,
anyway.

He would make the world safe for the corporations. Anything entrusted to the public will be privatized.

Oh but he's against the war, so it's ok. :banghead:

Is questioning the 9-11 official story common with libertarians?

This is an interesting topic lately ... I heard rumour that the debates last week in NH were overrun by a group calling itself "9/11 truthers" and that the Paul people were really upset that the two groups were being linked by the media ... I dont know about Libertarians in general but the RonPaul camp is doing everything it can to distance itself ....

The two are linked. Those crazy Alex Jones tinfoil-hat-wearing idiots love Ron Paul. He even appeared on his radio show.

It just depends on what your priorities are.

His social policy is regressive. But it's worth pointing out that the President doesn't write bills.

-lie

You might want to read this from Firedoglake. Some snips:



Go read the whole thing Lots of info about Paul there.

Are you a big fan of the North American Union?
IMO most of these "theories" have not been debunked, they have instead been largely proven correct with time ... Wouldnt you say putting them out into the mainstream has done us some service?
Or would you have preffered to have been givien the info on a "need to know" basis?
What bothers me is why we know so little about things like the "worldbank" and the "import export bank" and how we can be told so little about what we pay so much for.
Doesnt that make you pause and scratch your head?

It's amazing Paul's detractors have to go back to something written 11 years ago to dig up dirt on him. As his detractors know quite well, it's very hard to prove or disprove something that old.

Paul opposes all free trade agreements, and has voted against 100% of them. And he's voted every single time to withdraw from the WTO.

Paul opposes giving amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Paul ALWAYS opposed the Iraq war, and still does.

Paul is a strong advocate of civil liberties.

Paul voted against the Medicare Prescription/Pharmaceutical Company Welfare Bill, and voted FOR allowing the government to negotiate prices with Pharmaceutical companies.

Paul voted against a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.

Paul is a fiscal conservative, and believes in a balanced budget, to reduce inflation, which hurts the poor and middle class more than the rich.

I don't like every one of Paul's positions. But his positions on the above are enough to make him better than any other candidate at present.

Paul may talk like a Libertarian, but he acts (and votes) like a Populist. And actions do speak louder than words.

.... pure libertarians like Paul, whom I agree with on most "keep the government out of it" issues, fail on the economics front.

Under the libertarian ideal, it wouldn't be long before one corporation ran the entire world. No thanks.

but as a possible President, he's one of the WORST of the EVILS...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html (A Conversation With an Unusual Man)

CD: Congressman Dennis Kucinich is kind of similar in that he is one of the more vocal antiwar critics on the Democratic side of the debates. I know you guys probably disagree on a load of things, but you’ve come together a lot to work on issues of war and peace. So could you talk about your relationship with Congressman Kucinich over the past couple years, what it’s been like, what you think of him?

RP: We’re close friends, and we certainly agree . And I think we may end up voting closely all the time on the war issue. Sometimes some of these funding bills are a little bit complex, and even Walter Jones and I will disagree even though we agree on what we’re supposed to be doing, but the interpretation will be a little bit different. But I think Dennis and I usually come down on the same side of it. That is, if you don’t want the war you quit the funding, and that’s our responsibility and it’s not the president’s authority to do what he wants because we have the purse strings, so you have to vote against the spending. So we get along very well on that, and since it’s such a major issue I think I will continue to work with him the best we can. And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I’m not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I’m not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that’s not my goal. I’ve never run for office with the goal of slashing even though philosophically I don’t think it’s the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people.

CD: So can we look forward to a Paul-Kucinich 2008 ticket?

RP: Not likely, but I think that Paul and Kucinich will continue to work together and do the kind of work that we’ve been doing for a couple years now.

CD: Finally, I was talking to Congressman Duncan (R-TN) and he told me that, more than anyone in Congress, he probably agrees with Ron Paul the most. But yet he still says he’s going to endorse Fred Thompson because he has a chance to win. How do you combat that mindset that says "well, you know, I might agree with you but these other people have a better chance?"

RP: We have to convince them by our campaign getting bigger and more credible, and that we go up in the polls. So only time will tell.

So it depends on what issues matter most to you as to whether Ron Paul is a lesser or greater evil than the other Repubs.

The environmental area is one that is so large that it takes government intervention and laws to do something about it. The Libertarian movement is mainly about NOT having governmental intervention.

As someone who cares deeply about environmental issues, I could never in good conscience consider voting for Ron Paul at any time, for anything. But he is an interesting guy, and is a lesser evil than some of the others. I think McCain is better on environmental issues than Ron Paul is, though. Not sure about that.