Ron Paul vs. Liberty

Ron Paul has attracted attention from many Democrats due to being the only Republican candidate who makes any sense at all when discussing Iraq. Unfortunately, despite calling himself a libertarian, a victory by Ron Paul could result in less liberty than we currently have.

The following post on this subject is from Liberal Values. See the original post for multiple links (including references to the atatements on Paul's beliefs).

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2121


Ron Paul And The Loss of Liberty

The Agonist shares many of my reservations that a victory for Ron Paul would have the effect of reducing rather than increasing liberty in the United States. While Ron Paul has libertarian ideas in some areas, ultimately he is a social conservative which places him on the wrong side of many of today’s most important issues. As I’ve previously written:

While I sympathize with Paul’s opposition to the war and some of his other positions, his absurd claim that “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers” prevents me from considering him as a candidate, or believing his rhetoric of being a strict defender of the Constitution. Paul has supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn. As with the other Republicans, Paul shows that he will cite the founding fathers and the Constitution when convenient, and ignore their principles when not.

With the balance on the Supreme Court tilting to the right, and with the religious right increasingly imposing their views on others through legislation, it is essential that we have political leaders who are willing to defend the ideas of separation of church and state which this nation was founded upon.

Today’s post at The Agonist is actually the second of two.The first post (which I missed while I was on vacation) concentrates on Paul’s opposition to abortion rights. This may be the most clear cut example of where the election of a social conservative such as Ron Paul could result in the loss of a liberty we now possess, assuming he picks Supreme Court justices who agree with him.

Today’s post at The Agonist is more broad based. Both stress a problem seen both by Paul and many more mainstream Republicans of arguing based upon federalism as opposed to considering outright restrictions upon the power of government. In order to guarantee liberties it is necessary that this be done at the national level. The same principles of defending liberties against the will of the majority at a federal level must apply at all levels of government. Allowing fundamental liberties to be decided by a majority on a state or local level viiolates the rights of the individual no less than if this was imposed from Washington. As The Agonist concludes:

I believe that the people’s rights should be secured at the highest level and maintained with ferocity. When you send decisions on issues such as abortion down to lower levels, you encounter greater and greater amounts of variation in outcomes. This is actually an inherent property of statistics: The smaller a given sample size, the larger the standard deviation. Some states will exercise petty tyranny over the lives of their citizens, while others will become bastions of freedom…

As decision making on basic rights devolves to lower levels, petty tyranny has a very good chance of taking hold. It’s often better to solidify our gains at the highest level (in our case, the federal government) and then use that as a springboard toward further liberty.

As I’ve mentioned previously, Ron Paul is not really on the side of liberty. He is on the side of strict constructionists who adhere to a literal reading of the constitution. Much of the rest of his politics flows from that. It’s mostly accidental, in my opinion, that some of his policies may bring the people more liberty.

I have no doubt that Paul believes he is “really on the side of liberty” and in some areas his policies would intentionally, as opposed to accidentally, result in more liberty. Unfortunately Paul defines liberty too narrowly, concentrating primarily on economic liberties and opposing “big government” at the federal level. Paul’s social conservativism and failure to differentiate between infringements on liberty at the local as opposed to the federal level would result in a decrease in individual liberty for many Americans.

he'll decide to run as a Libertarian candidate for Prez.

That'll peel off a LOT of Republicans and do to them what Nader did to us.

I don't know how likely it is, but it would be simply divine.

I doubt they'll run ol' Harry again. And it's virtually certain that he won't get the Republican nod. Despite their stated position as the "Party of Principle" (a load of shit if I've ever heard one, considering their support for the change in the primary voting system here in Washington State based on the idea of "Party Rights," as if the Libertarian philosophy even acknowledged such a thing), they'd jump at the chance to nominate a candidate that had a chance of getting better than 10% of the vote. And there are a LOT of Repugs who like him enough to switch parties for the vote.

I think it all comes down to whether Paul wants to run as the Libertarian Party candidate. Paul is by far their best chance of having a candidate who gets media coverage and some votes, although I doubt he'd get 10% in a general election.

Especially if the average Republican is as generally disenchanted with the Republican lineup as they seem to be already. The fact that he's anti-war will sway those who aren't hypnotized by the neocons anymore, and the fact that he seems to embrace "traditional" anti-interventionist policies and economic ideals won't hurt him either.

Even the religious nuts might jump his direction.

It wouldn't shock me if he didn't end up splitting the vote in half if he went that way.

He did win it in 2006 with 60% of the vote. Would he be likely to let a seat go he's held since 1997 for a long shot at being president?

I don't know the answer, but I'd like to see him give it a shot.

Of course, he could sway the vote anyway if the Libertarians pick someone he'd personally endorse. Less likely to be that influential overall, but still a stick in the Republican Party's eye.

not relevant, but intersting


30 found. Displaying all:
Plan Our
Lunar Op
Ulnar Op
Ulna Pro
Opal Run
Opal Urn
Polar Nu
Oral Pun
Nap Lour
Pan Lour
A Lorn Up
A Pol Run
A Pol Urn
A Lop Run
A Lop Urn
A Purl On
A Purl No
La Nor Up
La Pun Or
La Run Op
La Urn Op
La Nu Pro
Alp Nu Or
Lap Nu Or
Pal Nu Or
Ran Lo Up
Pa Lo Run
Pa Lo Urn
Par Lo Nu
Rap Lo Nu

Seriously, ask him what he'd want to do with the Departments of Education, Transportation, Health, Commerce, Labor, etc, including the EPA, HUD, FEC, and hundreds more, and his answer would be "Sell 'em!"

I would just like to see him switch to the Libertarian Party just to screw with the Repug candidate.

I alluded to this briefly when noting how Paul equates liberty with opposing big government. I didn't think it would be particularly noteworthy to have a post on Democratic Underground opposing Paul because he wants to get rid of these departments. On the other hand, there could be members here who believe that Paul is more pro-freedom on other issues than he actually is.

without stopping to take into account that money makes its own rules and the market wouldn't be free if those with the power and influence were manipulating it to their own advantage without government oversight.

he or she may face a recalcitrant and rebellious congress.

The Dems must develop a spine, and if Pelosi and Reid aren't interested in spine regeneration, I hope the Congressional dems find others who will.

Libertarians are Conservatives.

There is so little difference between a Libertarian and a Republican that it can't be measured. That's why Ron Paul can call himself a "Libertarian" while he is running for the Republican nomination for president.

"Dr." Paul is a crank who scored 5 out of a possible 100 from the League Of Conservation Voters. His platform is Pro Big Business and Anti Labor and Anti Environment right down the line.

God save us from "Libertarians."