Ron Paul

[Ex-Cyber]

I'll note that the railroads are mainly privately owned.

They are mainly privately owned, but were also mainly built with massive government assistance in the forms of land grants and loans, and that legacy has a lot to do with the rollout of national power and telecommunications infrastructure as well.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who stands for something other than the status quo. On the surface, I consider this a good thing.

So you are in favor of anti-system parties on principle? That's not a good enough reason. After all, if Lenin was running we could also say he was standing for something other than the status quo.

One of the criticisms that I have seen frequently is regarding his favoring of states' rights in favor of federal power. I`m not clear on why so many people are against this (unless they happen to hate the state that they live in).

How familiar are you with your state politics? Lots of things fly under the radar in individual states that won't get attention from the national news outlets, so you are already at a disadvantage in understanding the issues. Wisconsin only hit the news because it was such a huge overreach - but if the story starts to bore the media, they won't cover it. Haven't seen much coverage of the "right to work" push in states, for example.

louisg mentioned the history of it; state's rights have been invoked in areas that we today like to think of as fundamental rights, including freedom of religion (the Constitutions of eight states would prohibit atheists from holding office - except for the Supreme Court ruling they are unenforceable). State's rights should be used as a way for various states to operate with their unique differences from other states - not as a way for fly-by-night politicians to try to roll out a national plan without having to have it debated nationally.

A great example of this sort of campaign has been the Republican War On Voting this year. A lot of people without photo ID in states might find they are being turned away from the polling places, simply because some Republicans argue that any person's right to vote is less than the right of the fewer number of votes to not be "diluted" by some supposedly large number of fraudulent votes. In fact, the poor and disadvantaged will find their ability to vote severely impacted by this initiative, which may be the real reason for demanding people buy photo IDs to vote.

Wait a moment - weren't Republicans supposedly against making people buy things they don't want? Guess that's not a principle after all.

but as for Obama. Didn't he just sign a bill into law that the government can detain ANYONE even US citizens indefinitely and without trial if they are linked to terrorism (I forget the exact language of the bill)?

Having looked at a brief writeup of the Defense Authorization Act 2012 (the NDAA louisg mentions), I see that the White House and other sponsors contend the powers to indefinitely detain subjects are held. This is, for better or worse, the status quo. What's the President supposed to do, anyway? Say "we don't have the authority to detain people" and give the issue over to the Republicans to make a campaign issue, from which to build a case to change all the other things that the President is doing right?

As I see it, the basic question there is this: How are you going to deal with terrorists? They're not the common criminal, and they're not combatants in war. It's a tricky subject, but I don't see it as a slippery slope because we are dealing with a "third category" of conflict, one that is more focused and persistent than common crime and most wars.

I'd like to see something better on that front, but looking at burgerkingdiamond's post, I see how some issues that aren't pressing (gay rights) are a wash, but other issues that aren't pressing (terrorism detention) are a negative. Which I think is a nice demonstration of an earlier point - how about focusing on the big issue this election season - are the Republicans going to fix the economy? Terrorism and rights are an issue which does not interest most people, unfortunately, so it is one which I think is going to be fought out by human rights campaigners, regardless of the party in charge. I also should note that there's no sign that a Paul Administration would get any help from Republicans on trying or freeing terrorist subjects, so again there's the practical side of things holding up an executive solution.

[louisg]

As I see it, the basic question there is this: How are you going to deal with terrorists? They're not the common criminal, and they're not combatants in war. It's a tricky subject, but I don't see it as a slippery slope because we are dealing with a "third category" of conflict, one that is more focused and persistent than common crime and most wars.

Like every other argument made in favor of draconian anti-terror laws, this has the following problems:

- It assumes guilt until innocence. That is, if an American is shipped off to GitMo, it's because they're a terrorist. You haven't considered the possibility that they are not a terrorist and they shouldn't be shipped off. This is why trials are a good idea.

- It assumes that laws such as this will be used only for their stated purpose. Anyone who's been around knows this isn't true: police (and related) forces use powers where convenient, not where applicable and appropriate.

- You've stated that common crime isn't persistent or focused. You should probably ask people living in areas with serious gang problems about this (it's called 'organized crime' for a reason!).

I don't see how this is anything but a slippery slope. Of course, it'll make idiots living in the middle of nowhere feel safer, and that's what counts come election year.

[burgerkingdiamond]

As I see it, the basic question there is this: How are you going to deal with terrorists? They're not the common criminal, and they're not combatants in war. It's a tricky subject, but I don't see it as a slippery slope because we are dealing with a "third category" of conflict, one that is more focused and persistent than common crime and most wars.

Like every other argument made in favor of draconian anti-terror laws, this has the following problems:

- It assumes guilt until innocence. That is, if an American is shipped off to GitMo, it's because they're a terrorist. You haven't considered the possibility that they are not a terrorist and they shouldn't be shipped off. This is why trials are a good idea.

- It assumes that laws such as this will be used only for their stated purpose. Anyone who's been around knows this isn't true: police (and related) forces use powers where convenient, not where applicable and appropriate.

- You've stated that common crime isn't persistent or focused. You should probably ask people living in areas with serious gang problems about this (it's called 'organized crime' for a reason!).

I don't see how this is anything but a slippery slope. Of course, it'll make idiots living in the middle of nowhere feel safer, and that's what counts come election year.

agreed.

[Ed Oscuro]

As I see it, the basic question there is this: How are you going to deal with terrorists? They're not the common criminal, and they're not combatants in war. It's a tricky subject, but I don't see it as a slippery slope because we are dealing with a "third category" of conflict, one that is more focused and persistent than common crime and most wars.

Like every other argument made in favor of draconian anti-terror laws, this has the following problems:

- It assumes guilt until innocence. That is, if an American is shipped off to GitMo, it's because they're a terrorist. You haven't considered the possibility that they are not a terrorist and they shouldn't be shipped off. This is why trials are a good idea.

Well, that wasn't part of my original argument (I explicitly said, a couple times, that Obama wanted domestic trials but was thwarted, and I agree it is a good thing), but it's good you mention this. Ditto the rest.

All that being said, laying this at Obama's feet is really misguided for a variety of reasons - wasn't his initiative (he ran against this, remember?) and it would be a poor tactic to try to fix it now. If he wins a second term and gets some more Democrats in Congress then we ought to expect it to change.

- It assumes that laws such as this will be used only for their stated purpose. Anyone who's been around knows this isn't true: police (and related) forces use powers where convenient, not where applicable and appropriate.

There's a bright line in the Constitution about this, so if you are right that it is a slippery slope, all it takes is a court challenge to have it declared unconstitutional. In other words, the Constitution prevents this from being a slippery slope to losing habeas corpus and other due process rights, and the controversy over the 2012 NDAA reflects this. I wouldn't consider this a settled matter. So far, I suppose that the foreigners (not all terrorists or criminals, of course!) in detention have not had standing to make this claim.

There is a parallel, in the way the compromise NDAA legislation was written, with the War Powers Resolution: The legislature and Presidents (going back to the Vietnam War) have been at odds over attempts to limit the President's authority. The NDAA compromise states explicitly that it is not intended to increase or decrease the President's powers to detain people. Certainly Obama doesn't intend to use it the way its reading suggests; I think it's just a way to make the status quo (with indefinite detention for people that, remember, the President can't bring to the U.S. or hand over to other countries to deal with) more tenable. Another Bush-style Administration would find it very easy to keep using this in the way people fear, and those eight years definitely demonstrated that Administrations can flaunt the Constitution and never have to worry about it, which is very troubling.

I suppose I ought to clarify what I meant when I appeared to give a total "third category" approach, mentioned earlier, about dealing with terrorists. I am against the "24" style "torture for good" argument (makes no sense, although apparently a local professor found it defensible in a recent book, using the rare and generally absurdly abstract "ticking time bomb" thought experiment), and the domestic courts do have a proven track record of getting prosecutions. Where this definition starts to break down is in dealing with terrorists in actual police or military style actions. That said, it seems that police and military can adapt to these circumstances, and once in custody the legal system can take over smoothly. In authorizing strikes or different rules of engagement, there does need to be some court oversight - perhaps all that is needed is an analogue to the wiretapping court (which, of course, the Bush Administration ignored as well).

[ED-057]

The roots of states-rights sentiment has to do with the opposition of the civil rights movement

Well, that seems to be a pretty bold generalization. So, people who are in favor of reduced power at the federal level hold that position because they are racist? What about the tenth amendment? What about people who think Californians should be able to buy/sell medical marijuana according to California law without harassment from the feds? And how exactly would the feds minding their own business for a change necessarily translate into state governments having free reign to trample constitutional rights?

Sorry, but the allegation that Ron Paul and his camp are racists does not address the question of why the federal government should continue its course of doing whatever it pleases whether it has the constitutional authority or not.

So you are in favor of anti-system parties on principle?

Not exactly. Considering that Ron Paul is currently running as a Repub and not as a third party, this is kind of going off on a tangent. The Ds and Rs (and the MSM) would have everyone believe that they are the only legitimate choices because anyone else is "not serious," "nutty," "too extreme," or "unelectable." But given the track record of the Ds and Rs, I think it is they who should be immediately suspect, and anyone who is willing to stand up and say something other than the old, tired BS that comes from the Ds and Rs, should be paid at least as much attention, and be judged without double standards.

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2008, 2004, and 2000. AFAIK he is not running this year.

Lots of things fly under the radar in individual states that won't get attention from the national news outlets, so you are already at a disadvantage in understanding the issues.

Relying on national news outlets for local news would be a mistake, that is true...

(the Constitutions of eight states would prohibit atheists from holding office - except for the Supreme Court ruling they are unenforceable)

I don`t think the argument being made is that "states' rights" means states can ignore SCOTUS or the US Constitution. At least that is not an argument that I would make.

How are you going to deal with terrorists? They're not the common criminal, and they're not combatants in war. It's a tricky subject, but I don't see it as a slippery slope because we are dealing with a "third category" of conflict

This category needs to be defined. The way the term "terrorism" is being tossed around right now, a kid who brings a hammer to school could be a "terrorist." That is why it is a slippery slope.

[Ed Oscuro]

Lots of things fly under the radar in individual states that won't get attention from the national news outlets, so you are already at a disadvantage in understanding the issues.

Relying on national news outlets for local news would be a mistake, that is true...[/quote]
That's a cute way of saying "I see the problem!"

(the Constitutions of eight states would prohibit atheists from holding office - except for the Supreme Court ruling they are unenforceable)

I don`t think the argument being made is that "states' rights" means states can ignore SCOTUS or the US Constitution. At least that is not an argument that I would make.

True, but that's just meant to illustrate an example of the sort of dumbness you get at the state level that doesn't fly at the national level.

How are you going to deal with terrorists? They're not the common criminal, and they're not combatants in war. It's a tricky subject, but I don't see it as a slippery slope because we are dealing with a "third category" of conflict

This category needs to be defined. The way the term "terrorism" is being tossed around right now, a kid who brings a hammer to school could be a "terrorist." That is why it is a slippery slope.

I agree with that.

[evil_ash_xero]

(seriously, why in heaven's name is Guantanamo still open?)

because Republicans in Congress did not allow him to do anything else with the people interned there!

You're absolutely right. I get so frustrated at people not getting that. I mean, people bitch about health care. Remember all those town meetings, with pissed off conservatives? You can't just railroad over everyone. And if you don't have the votes, what can you do?

[Michaelm]

I'm not an American so I could be wrong but from what I've read and seen it seems that all presidential candidates are pro war except Ron Paul.
Also Ron Paul knows his history which the others don't or simply deny.

There may be stuff you don't like about the guy but the above 2 points are in my view more than enough reason for every American to vote for him.

[MadScientist]

As an evolutionary biologist, I have some concern that Paul's stated goal of eliminating the Dept of Education and giving control to each state would lead to several states redoubling their efforts to prohibit the teaching of evolution so they can replace it with intelligent design. Also Paul has said he doesn't accept the theory of evolution which means he's a total bust as far as I'm concerned.

[Ex-Cyber]

I'm not an American so I could be wrong but from what I've read and seen it seems that all presidential candidates are pro war except Ron Paul.
Also Ron Paul knows his history which the others don't or simply deny.

There may be stuff you don't like about the guy but the above 2 points are in my view more than enough reason for every American to vote for him.

He apparently had a raging hard-on for our nuclear arsenal a few decades ago. I suspect he's only "anti-war" to the extent that any current enemies insufficiently resemble Communists with ICBMs.

Also Paul has said he doesn't accept the theory of evolution which means he's a total bust as far as I'm concerned.

At the very least, it seems like that should dampen any credibility that he gets from being a doctor. Isn't that like an astronomer rejecting relativity, or a semiconductor engineer rejecting quantum mechanics?

[louisg]

I'm not an American so I could be wrong but from what I've read and seen it seems that all presidential candidates are pro war except Ron Paul.
Also Ron Paul knows his history which the others don't or simply deny.

There may be stuff you don't like about the guy but the above 2 points are in my view more than enough reason for every American to vote for him.

He apparently had a raging hard-on for our nuclear arsenal a few decades ago. I suspect he's only "anti-war" to the extent that any current enemies insufficiently resemble Communists with ICBMs.

Also Paul has said he doesn't accept the theory of evolution which means he's a total bust as far as I'm concerned.

At the very least, it seems like that should dampen any credibility that he gets from being a doctor. Isn't that like an astronomer rejecting relativity, or a semiconductor engineer rejecting quantum mechanics?

Obama ran as anti-war to a degree as well, if you remember. And Bush 2 ran on isolationism, railing against Clinton's nation building (and how did that turn out?). With that in mind, Ron Paul is good in these debates when it comes to the Iraq war. But, he's a crackpot on everything else, sadly. It's amusing that a lot of atheists who tend towards libertarianism seem to see Paul as "their guy" when he's really yet another racist, conservative, Christian fundamentalist Republican. Of course, if you define libertarian as "Republican who can't put down the bong", it makes perfect sense!

This is a pretty decent Wikipedia article actually:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... f_Ron_Paul

[CMoon]

Again, not so much into politics or pretending I know a lot about something that is so easily skewed, however:

His 2012 "Plan to Restore America"[18] would eliminate five Cabinet-level departments: Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education. He has called for elimination of other federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,[19] and the Internal Revenue Service,[20] calling them "unnecessary bureaucracies". Paul would severely reduce the role of the Central Intelligence Agency; reducing its functions to intelligence-gathering.

All this sounds good on paper, but I ask again, would this really work? Because a lot of these agencies are necessary in one form or another, what Paul is really doing is dumping the responsibility on the states. Something that might or might not work. Smaller, smarter, local agencies could potentially reduce waste, but is it enough to compensate for the redundancy? The major issue however is whether the states (many of which are already broke or nearly broke), actually could create these new agencies? Poorer states might suddenly find themselves lacking in a lot of the social services.

It's this sort of thinking that makes me think Libertarianism is a sort of fantasy; it sounds great (just like Anarchy), but there's nothing to really support the notion that it would in fact work. That said, I do support ideas like smaller government (with a smaller role), but I don't think cutting human services or the EPA is really the way to go.

[Mischief Maker]

As an evolutionary biologist, I have some concern that Paul's stated goal of eliminating the Dept of Education and giving control to each state would lead to several states redoubling their efforts to prohibit the teaching of evolution so they can replace it with intelligent design.

My money's on the stork theory:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3wSuSF8-hI

[BulletMagnet]

That said, I do support ideas like smaller government (with a smaller role), but I don't think cutting human services or the EPA is really the way to go.

If you think that modern conservatism, libertarianism included, has anything to do with giving individuals more control over their own lives without powerful vested interests exploiting them along the way, you need to look again. - it's about replacing one overlord with another, and granting the new one even less means of restraint than the one we've got.

[CMoon]

That said, I do support ideas like smaller government (with a smaller role), but I don't think cutting human services or the EPA is really the way to go.

If you think that modern conservatism, libertarianism included, has anything to do with giving individuals more control over their own lives without powerful vested interests exploiting them along the way, you need to look again. - it's about replacing one overlord with another, and granting the new one even less means of restraint than the one we've got.

And this is why I stay the hell out of politics. It's more about choosing the set of lies your the most comfortable with.

[CMoon]

As an evolutionary biologist, I have some concern that Paul's stated goal of eliminating the Dept of Education and giving control to each state would lead to several states redoubling their efforts to prohibit the teaching of evolution so they can replace it with intelligent design.

Need to chime in and say I have a massive problem with this too. As a biology teacher in the public schools I'd fight the intelligent design issue tooth and nail (I've been fortunate enough to never teach in a state where this came up), but I'm honestly more concerned with the notion of electing anyone to a position of authority who doesn't give priority to evidence. As with all other things, RP is more about principles than reality or consequences.

Well I had similar problems with Sarah Palin, only RP is much smarter; unfortunately his personal views are disgusting.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm not an American so I could be wrong but from what I've read and seen it seems that all presidential candidates are pro war except Ron Paul.
Also Ron Paul knows his history which the others don't or simply deny.

There may be stuff you don't like about the guy but the above 2 points are in my view more than enough reason for every American to vote for him.

He apparently had a raging hard-on for our nuclear arsenal a few decades ago. I suspect he's only "anti-war" to the extent that any current enemies insufficiently resemble Communists with ICBMs.

It may be that he likes the Ayn Rand night watchman state which protects its liberties with defense. Of course, nuclear matters tend to cost a lot more than people admit, and given the reality of nuclear weapons, deterrence did us pretty well in the Soviet era (considering what we were up against, which perhaps was self-inflicted to some degree - I'm not sure if we had held off on nuclear weapons that the Soviets or some other power wouldn't have developed them, faith in technology is not something libertarians do not share with other Americans).

I'm not an American so I could be wrong but from what I've read and seen it seems that all presidential candidates are pro war except Ron Paul.
Also Ron Paul knows his history which the others don't or simply deny.

There may be stuff you don't like about the guy but the above 2 points are in my view more than enough reason for every American to vote for him.

As I said before, this is a reasonable point and I've seen libertarians make it before, so it's good that you mention it.

I have a few concerns about it though:

1.) What sort of anti-terrorism strategy would he have? Would it still be workable? His previous dealings on race seem to show that he is not exactly a fair arbiter when it comes to people who aren't white.
2.) More importantly, if he wins, where is his backing? I totally get that Ron Paul (and to some degree Rand Paul) are trying to remake the Republican party, but even more interested in trying to bring about a libertarian renaissance in politics; they don't have the votes to make it work. They might someday.

Even absent all the other points of Ron Paul's that I don't like, I don't think I hold him to an unreasonable standard to say that on these points I need to see something more believable than what he's given.

If he could show that he was able to end all our wars, then it would be a point in his favor - but if he could end wars, the other candidates could too. Beware of unrealistic promises.

That said, I do support ideas like smaller government (with a smaller role), but I don't think cutting human services or the EPA is really the way to go.

If you think that modern conservatism, libertarianism included, has anything to do with giving individuals more control over their own lives without powerful vested interests exploiting them along the way, you need to look again. - it's about replacing one overlord with another, and granting the new one even less means of restraint than the one we've got.

Did I post that "On Neoliberalism: An Interview with David Harvey" earlier? Because this is more or less bang-on.

I have to stress, though, that in my reading and (short) conversations with libertarian / Austrian economists, they are very much interested in the same sorts of things we are interested in. I don't think they succeed but they bring a number of worthy arguments and considerations to bear. I think that, regardless of how politics is shaped (something most economists are less interested in, although Paul Krugman has seen that policy matters more than abstract "rightness"), you can't just view politics as being about compromise, and it's not a bad thing to ask for a candidate who gets things right without pandering or giving up on principles.

[Mischief Maker]

I have to stress, though, that in my reading and (short) conversations with libertarian / Austrian economists, they are very much interested in the same sorts of things we are interested in.

[Acid King]

Libertarians who take a consequentialist position generally are saying "we want more liberty, and we prefer liberty to other goods if there is an apparent conflict." That is fine. Deontologically-minded libertarians are saying "it doesn't matter what's happening, push for liberty even to the exclusion of other values." This is the libertarianism familiar to most of us from the Internet, from Ayn Rand generally, and so on.

As someone who conducts public policy research, I have to say that these people really chap my ass. Gary Johnson has taken a lot flak for making consequentialist arguments for drug policy reform and other issues and they get in a tiz because he's not arguing from first principles. They'd rather make a moral/ethical argument than an evidence based one and it drives me nuts. There a thousand and one libertarian-leaning reforms that could improve public policy but because they don't amount to "get rid of the Department of Education/IRS/Regulatory Agency because it shouldn't exist" they dismiss it out of hand.

I think that's why so many of them love Paul so much. He makes simple arguments that are easy to understand and his message is one that resonates with people. He's great when it comes to making impassioned speeches against government excess but he falters whenever he's asked about policy details and outcomes (re: the aforementioned statements on healthcare). If you really want to get rid of an agency, especially a regulatory agency, you need to be able to articulate what's going to happen beyond saying the private sector would take care of it, which is simply an article of faith, not a coherent policy proposal.

[Michaelm]

1.) What sort of anti-terrorism strategy would he have? Would it still be workable? His previous dealings on race seem to show that he is not exactly a fair arbiter when it comes to people who aren't white..

Well, by now I think the whole terrorism story is more of a story to create fear than a real threat.
Especially since the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization happily worked with al-Qaeda in Libya and is now supplying them in Syria.
And from what I've read on the NDAA it seems the US government is making itself up for treating it's citizens as the new terrorists.
And to be completely honest, I don't think the American citizens have a real choice anyway.
It's more a choice of picking who's least bad and having the end result the same no matter who wins.
It does give the voter the idea of having more chance to win though, just like betting on a color in roulette.

[Ed Oscuro]

I have to stress, though, that in my reading and (short) conversations with libertarian / Austrian economists, they are very much interested in the same sorts of things we are interested in.

lol, no, I meant that their policy goals are things like reducing unemployment and eliminating taxes. Of course, tje liberal-leaning are less interested in eliminating taxes than in ensuring employment, although I have mentioned earlier that some liberals don't believe these two goals need be at opposites - MMT particularly would like to eliminate taxes and provide funding solely from the government's money creation.

I have to say, though, that a lot of the details seem to be at cross purposes. There is a lot of hysteria about how bad Paul Krugman apparently is; a bunch of economists (some Keynesian, some Austrian) spent a couple weeks two weeks ago doing a "young Eddy has 100 apples, we give three to Old Bloke, etc." to try to shed light on the idea of a debt burden to the future. So Krugman might have totally blown them off (then and at other times when they try to engage him) and they lament that Krugman either isn't up to snuff or he is too skurred to tangle with them. But Krugman's one of the few economists who's also a politician and is sick of lies and poorly understood policy formulations, so his goal is a wide audience and (if it takes it) he might have attacked a few straw men (from the perspective of the Austrians, not from the perspective of the man on the street who may be more likely to run into the utter garbage he usually tears apart on his blog).

Meanwhile, the Austrian economists love to call deficit spending a "ponzi scheme" even though it cannot, in fact, be a ponzi scheme (it is not a fraud but they won't listen).

You still bring up an interesting point - I've been trying to figure out what it is that some of these guys really want, beyond the simple ethical arguments. I think, though, that a lot of what we see as odd is merely the outgrowth of believing that "markets fail - use markets" and similar beliefs.

[DEL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo
Ron Paul mainstream media blackout.
I even saw the BBC Worlwide News do it tonight.
They fear him. He MUST be voted in!

[Ed Oscuro]

Is this a policy from the land of Old Mills to regain the science crown from us wayward colonies? Media blackout (lol) or no, I don't see how he is going to ramrod any fixes through - that would be rather in disagreement with libertarian principles, which is a fact lost on too many libertarians: "Those evil STATISTS are enforcing their ILLEGITIMATE laws and ORDER on us, so let's push for (enforce) a more legitimate NATURAL ORDER (as opposed to the natural order that involves states) that everybody (including the evil statists?) would agree is correct from PRINCIPLE!"

[antron]

he gets plenty of media coverage

[ncp]

when he's really yet another racist, conservative, Christian fundamentalist Republican. Of course, if you define libertarian as "Republican who can't put down the bong", it makes perfect sense!

Even though he is in the House as a Republican, and is currently running for Republican candidate, his politics are actually nothing of the sort. The Republican Party is essentially corporate+imperialist and favor military action to further American trade and influence . Ron Paul favors nothing of the sort. Republicans are willing to sacrifice freedom for security. Ron Paul is not. "But he's against abortion and he's Christian! That makes him exactly the same as every other Republican ever!" It doesn't, though. And as for those questioning why a man with generally libertarian stances would oppose abortion, with no intention of starting an abortion argument, I will just say that if you see abortion as murder, you would be a hypocrite to not oppose it.

The accusations of racism are reasonable but ultimately insignificant, basically being limited to things that other people wrote in a publication that he owned, never anything actually said by him. Accusation of being a stoner is laughable.

My concerns about him are that he is quite radical in his belief of reducing government, which (given the nature of change's effect on the markets) could cause economic instability, especially in the stock market which flips out over everything. Also, there would be a lot of conflict between his goals and what congress is willing to allow. His plan to abolish several federal departments is pretty wild, but I think he gets a lot more criticism for this than he deserves. The dept. of Education is not a huge loss like it might seem, curriculum is set (largely) by the states already, and almost all funding (over 90% I want to say) for schools is from the states or lower.

He's not perfect, but to me, he's the best candidate that's in the race, at the moment. edit: and like others have mentioned, seems to me to be the only candidate that actually stands up for what he believes in rather than what would be most likely to get him elected.

[BulletMagnet]

And as for those questioning why a man with generally libertarian stances would oppose abortion, with no intention of starting an abortion argument, I will just say that if you see abortion as murder, you would be a hypocrite to not oppose it.

As you yourself said, though, libertarian sorts "don't trade freedom for security (or, I'd add, the furthering of their own personal beliefs)" - if nothing else, they (or at least a fair share of them) are certainly willing to tolerate plenty of other morally questionable/deplorable things in the name of keeping government out of people's daily lives, most visibly in the rash of recent proposals to repeal the Civil Rights Act. To revisit your perspective from this angle, most every laissez-faire advocate who supports this position has taken great pains to make clear that they "don't support" racial discrimination or even find it "repugnant" - could it be said, then, that "if you see bigotry as a rash on the human condition, you would be a hypocrite to not oppose it"?

Shorter version: How strict of a standard should we hold guys like Ron Paul to when it comes to the "I disagree with what you say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it" doctrine?

[ncp]

Seeing as he probably sees abortion as the murder of a human (regardless of the fact that it's still in the womb), I would say this is pretty much in line with the libertarian view that government should still provide protection to its citizens. In other words, it's commonly accepted that libertarians won't give you the "liberty" of murdering someone, and Ron Paul just applies that same concept to abortion (seen as the murder of a young human).

[BulletMagnet]

I would say this is pretty much in line with the libertarian view that government should still provide protection to its citizens.

Again, though, where exactly does one draw the line on this? Yeah, most libertarians would agree that shooting someone in the head probably ought to be prohibited under most circumstances, but at the same time heatedly oppose other "protections" like food purity standards, workplace safety regulations, and even the required disclosure of basic product information (let alone financial figures or business practices) by corporations, shrugging their shoulders with a curt "caveat emptor" and/or "the market will sort it out; if people get sick or die in the meantime, well, that's just too bad, that's how it has to be." As the saying goes, the right will fight tirelessly for you right up until the moment you're born, but after that you're completely on your own as far as they're concerned (you were born alive, same as the guy next to you, so you've both been given a completely equal opportunity at life, and anything else would be tipping the scales, right?).

Maybe I'm too much of a doubter when it comes to stuff like this, but I'm still not convinced that "anomalies" like Paul's are much more than a matter of personal convenience.

[DEL]

I was just Googling Daniel Estulin and came across this old news in the Wikipedia entry:

In December 2007, Estulin appeared on the Alex Jones Show, and claimed that he had "received information from sources inside the U.S. intelligence community which suggests that people from the highest levels of the U.S. government are considering an assassination attempt against Congressman Ron Paul because they are threatened by his burgeoning popularity"[3][8] as a presidential candidate. Estulin has worked with American journalist Big Jim Tucker who has a similar interest in the activities of the Bilderberg Group