I'm not a libertarian, and neither is Ron Paul

[Madison]

Not entirely, anyway.

I'm not a pure libertarian, never have and never will be. I think the government can and should be used in some ways that libertarians would never agree with. I support Ron Paul and I would never vote for the libertarian party (unless Paul was the candidate, which will never again be the case). I don't believe Paul is - he is libertarian leaning to be sure, but doesn't qualify as a pure libertarian. He is more accurately paleoconservative in my opinion, or at least a combination of the two.

States rights - I think this area most accurately depicts his paleoconservatism. I don't think if someone is a libertarian on the federal level it means they are necessarily a true libertarian. He isn't opposed to vast governmental powers on the state level if the people choose them. I happen to agree with this since the people have the right to manage their local and state governments as they see fit. I just don't see it as something a libertarian would wholly endorse and have no problem with.

Abortion - his position can by no means be considered libertarian. He opposed government funding for abortion, which is libertarian, but goes further than that. He consistently votes for federal legislation defining life at conception - which I do support. He has no problem with the states passing laws entirely against abortion, which I also have no problem with if the people want that. But this is not in step with most libertarians. There definitely is a pro-life libertarian faction, but in general libertarian ideology is against government involvement in this matter, whether at a state or federal level, which Dr. Paul doesn't agree with in either case.

Immigration/Borders - Ron Paul and pure libertarians have nearly opposite views on this. Paul very much supports border security and proper restrictions on immigration, while libertarians generally endorse the "we're a nation of immigrants" position and have a very positive view of immigrants and their necessity in this nation. Some shared views but definitely not the same overall position.

Drug laws / Sex laws - More libertarian leaning than paleoconservative in this regard, to a point. Sees drug use and prostitution as wrong and immoral, but doesn't support laws against either - on a federal level. Doesn't oppose them on a state level.

I recommend everyone use Wikipedia or other sources if you wish to look at the differences, and see if you agree with me that Paul falls more in line with paleoconservatism than libertarianism. Endorsing states rights and being anti-federalist is not the same as being libertarian, since Paul does not have any problem with a state government being completely at odds with libertarianism should he be president - well maybe he wouldn't agree with it personally, but legislatively he wouldn't stop it of course.

I hope it is clear here that I'm not criticizing Paul for not being libertarian. I like that he's libertarian-leaning, but he does hold conservative positions that are not truly libertarian. And like I said, I'm in favor of that. Libertarians are too extreme, on the immigration issue for example which I would never support, among other things.

[Dripping Rain]

This post describes me and like i always told libertarians im also hardly one but i have a lot in common with them and im also here because of Ron Paul
thanks Madison
i hereby give you the post of the Day award
http://www.bagnallandmorris.com/Images/714_Business_of_Year_Awards.jpg

[Kludge]

Idunno, I'd argue that Ron Paul is both a libertarian and a conservative.

Obviously, he isn't a pure libertarian (anarchist), but he also isn't purely conservative.

(honestly though, I don't have a clue what exactly a pure conservative is supposed to believe in -- less small government and rule of law)

http://freedomdemocrats.org/files/2006%20Nolan%20Chart.GIF<-- Ron Paul is the most libertarian dot on the chart among Representatives.
http://www.freedomdemocrats.org/node/812

[sailor]

If Ron Paul is a paloconservative then why did the paleos not throw their full weight behind him? They like him, but generally they don`t percieve him as "their" candidate.

And it is really easy to see that he quite apart from people like Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan or Thomas Fleming. He keeps his patriotism, religion and social conservatism much more private. He also doesn`t do flag waving and was never a cold warrior, never talks about issues of ethnicity or race either. And never supported the automaker`s bailout.

Paul is just a smart guy who read austrian economics.

[Xenophage]

Wow. Republicans own it up at the bottom of the chart.

Sigh.

[Emmitt2222]

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7356/ronpaul3.png

Nothing to really add other than <3 Ron Paul and his ridic placement on that chart. What an individual!

[AuH20]

If Ron Paul is a paloconservative then why did the paleos not throw their full weight behind him? They like him, but generally they don`t percieve him as "their" candidate.

And it is really easy to see that he quite apart from people like Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan or Thomas Fleming. He keeps his patriotism, religion and social conservatism much more private. He also doesn`t do flag waving and was never a cold warrior, never talks about issues of ethnicity or race either. And never supported the automaker`s bailout.

Paul is just a smart guy who read austrian economics.

Its the 9/11 stuff he's associated with. The mere mention of it was toxic to his campaign, even if he doesn't fully subscribe to it. Unless there's hard evidence, it sounds ludicrous as much as I'm distrustful of the government. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mossad was involved but to implicate several wings of the federal government is quite the statement.

[sailor]

Madison, there is no such thing as a libertarian position on abortion. There are pro-life as well as pro-choice libertarians. Also there is no libertarian position on immigration/borders. Even among fully blown anarcho-capitalists there is a fierce debate over it. As for the states rights, libertarians (as well as palecons) favour decentralisation. So state`s rights are preferable to federal rights. Also keep in mind that Ron is a congresman and a part of the federal government. There is no way of knowing what he would work for on a state level, because he does not participate in politics on that level.

[sailor]

Its the 9/11 stuff he's associated with. The mere mention of it was toxic to his campaign, even if he doesn't fully subscribe to it. Unless there's hard evidence, it sounds ludicrous as much as I'm distrustful of the government. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mossad was involved but to implicate several wings of the federal government is quite the statement.

Yeah, but I mean the paleocon opinion makers. I read a few palecon publications and the writters just aren`t that much of his fans.

The people over at Lew Rockwell get behind him way more.

[brandon]

lol silly labels

[LibertyEagle]

If Ron Paul is a paloconservative then why did the paleos not throw their full weight behind him? They like him, but generally they don`t percieve him as "their" candidate.
I'm a paleoconservative and I did. There is a reason why Barry Goldwater, Jr. endorsed him and it's because Paul aligns perfectly with libertarian-conservative principles (aka traditional conservatism).


And it is really easy to see that he quite apart from people like Paul Gottfried, Pat Buchanan or Thomas Fleming. He keeps his patriotism, religion and social conservatism much more private. He also doesn`t do flag waving and was never a cold warrior, never talks about issues of ethnicity or race either. And never supported the automaker`s bailout.
Never even heard of the other 2, but Buchanan agrees with Paul on quite a lot. Not everyone agrees on every, single, point. Ever seen his blog? It's like Ron Paul Central.


Paul is just a smart guy who read austrian economics.
Yeah, he's that too.

[AuH20]

Yeah, but I mean the paleocon opinion makers. I read a few palecon publications and the writters just aren`t that much of his fans.

The people over at Lew Rockwell get behind him way more.

Perhaps, they don't see Ron as a culture warrior. However, I think they miss the point of his platform. Its a constitutionally based philosophy where everything else will fall in line. You don't necessarily have to be an ardent culture warrior to accomplish some of these goals indirectly.

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, but I mean the paleocon opinion makers. I read a few palecon publications and the writters just aren`t that much of his fans.
Like what? Ones I've seen, love him.


The people over at Lew Rockwell get behind him way more.
Yes, but not even all libertarians support him. As I recall, the CATO crowd was pitching Giuliani for Pres. :p

Look, really the only thing that confused some paleocons was the whole national defense thing. The media tried their best to paint Ron as weak on national defense.

[jmdrake]

Its the 9/11 stuff he's associated with. The mere mention of it was toxic to his campaign, even if he doesn't fully subscribe to it. Unless there's hard evidence, it sounds ludicrous as much as I'm distrustful of the government. I wouldn't be surprised if the Mossad was involved but to implicate several wings of the federal government is quite the statement.

That wouldn't matter. Ron Paul didn't buy the whole "Iraq war" and the idea that 9/11 was "blowback" sounds like "blame America first" to some of these folks. Also there is plenty of hard evidence about 9/11. Hell forget 9/11. There is 100% uncontroverted evidence that the FBI was behind the 1993 WTC bombing. (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPuwnvwTVNU) Yet no one from the FBI was ever prosecuted. Go figure.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Madison]

Madison, there is no such thing as a libertarian position on abortion.

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."


Also there is no libertarian position on immigration/borders.

"Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders."

Source (http://www.lp.org/platform)

[sailor]

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."



"Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders."

Source (http://www.lp.org/platform)

Those are "beltway libertarians". They are phony sellouts. They don`t represent us. Neither does CATO.

[sailor]

Perhaps, they don't see Ron as a culture warrior. However, I think they miss the point of his platform. Its a constitutionally based philosophy where everything else will fall in line. You don't necessarily have to be an ardent culture warrior to accomplish some of these goals indirectly.

I think you hit the nail here.

_________________

@LE I`ll get to some of your questions tommorow.

[GunnyFreedom]

Idunno, I'd argue that Ron Paul is both a libertarian and a conservative.

Obviously, he isn't a pure libertarian (anarchist), but he also isn't purely conservative.

(honestly though, I don't have a clue what exactly a pure conservative is supposed to believe in -- less small government and rule of law)

http://freedomdemocrats.org/files/2006%20Nolan%20Chart.GIF<-- Ron Paul is the most libertarian dot on the chart among Representatives.
http://www.freedomdemocrats.org/node/812

Meh. I don't think this chart has enough data really. I usually get plotted around the same place as Dr Paul on this chart, but I am decidedly a Constitutionalist rather than a Libertarian. It is only because our nation has gone so very far off from our Constitutional foundation into mainstream authoritarianism, that Constitutionalism *appears* like Libertarianism from where we sit currently.

I am a radical Constitutionalist, and I am not ashamed of it. Politico-philosophically I consider myself an "American Originalist" which means that I believe the Framers were fully correct. I can understand why American Originalism appears like Libertarianism from our current perspective, but really they are not the same; and these diamond charts fail to account for such philosophies.

[jmdrake]

"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."


<sarcasm>
Recognizing that slavery/cannibalism/child-sacrifice is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
</sarcasm>

If you are TRULY going to allow everyone to have his view then you have to accept that a legitimate view is the government SHOULD ban abortion. Here's the basic logic.

Murder is the illegal killing of a human.
Unborn fetuses [X] human. (The X is either "are" or "are not".)
Therefore it is [Y] to kill a fetus. (The Y is either "ok" or "not ok".)

Depending on where you fall on "X" shapes (or SHOULD shape) your view. Pre U.S. civil war the same logic went this way.

Murder is the illegal killing of a human.
African slaves [X] human. (The X is either "are" or "are not".)
Therefore it is [Y] to kill an African slave. (The Y is either "ok" or "not ok".)

I'm not saying that everyone should be against abortion. But it's unconscionable to say "I understand you think abortion is murder, but because other people don't think so the government should stay out of it." People who think abortion is murder have every libertarian right to advocate for its abolition as did people who thought slavery was wrong.



"Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders."


I think the OP oversimplified Ron Paul's view on immigration by ignoring his point that it wouldn't be a problem if we didn't have the "social magnet" of the welfare state.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Kludge]

Meh. I don't think this chart has enough data really. I usually get plotted around the same place as Dr Paul on this chart, but I am decidedly a Constitutionalist rather than a Libertarian. It is only because our nation has gone so very far off from our Constitutional foundation into mainstream authoritarianism, that Constitutionalism *appears* like Libertarianism from where we sit currently.

I am a radical Constitutionalist, and I am not ashamed of it. Politico-philosophically I consider myself an "American Originalist" which means that I believe the Framers were fully correct. I can understand why American Originalism appears like Libertarianism from our current perspective, but really they are not the same; and these diamond charts fail to account for such philosophies.

I understand, but wouldn't you agree that the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) is itself libertarian (and conservative)? Surely you wouldn't have faith in the Constitution if it demanded all citizens have RFID implants and commit 80 hours/month toward assisting approved national charities, would you?

If natural rights founded the Constitution, then natural rights must supersede the Constitution's authority. If a person were to tell me that an unconstitutional law is not a law, I'd respond by saying that a Constitution which violates natural rights is no Constitution. I believe it is because the Constitution supports these natural rights that you support the Constitution. Am I wrong?

[BillyDkid]

Ron Paul himself has said he is a libertarian. It may not fit your strict definition of what a libertarian is, but he has described himself as a libertarian.

[Zuras]

A libertarian is someone who has accepted certain priori of thought, self-evident truths that need no formal or empirical proof. It's an idealogy, not a political party. The idea of a "libertarian" party is, frankly, absurd, other than being libertarian in name alone. Minarchist are libertarians, anarchists are libertarians. Anarchist are the "purest" form of libertarians, and of course RP is not an anarchist and I personally reject the terminology of "pure" libertarian(someone else in the thread was using it).

[Invalid]

1) Smash the Central government

2) Smash the States.

[Invalid]

Zuras,

Are you here campaigning for McCain and Palin again?

[Truth Warrior]

Ron sure hangs out with a lot of libertarians. ;) :D

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul himself has said he is a libertarian. It may not fit your strict definition of what a libertarian is, but he has described himself as a libertarian.

Yes and he has also said he is the most conservative member of Congress. Traditional conservatives are libertarian-conservatives.


1) Smash the Central government

2) Smash the States.
Ron Paul believes in a constitutional federal government and states' rights. So, your view doesn't have much at all to do with his.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron sure hangs out with a lot of libertarians. ;) :D

He hangs out with a lot of traditional conservatives too. ;) :D

[Invalid]

Depends how you measure it. One study had him as the most conservative member in the 20th century (only went back to 1937 though)

One scoring method published in the American Journal of Political Science[141] found Paul the most conservative of all 3,320 members of Congress from 1937 to 2002.[142] Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[143] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty. He supports free trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He supports tighter border security and ending welfare benefits for illegal aliens, and opposes birthright citizenship and amnesty;[144] he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists.

[Truth Warrior]

Ron Paul: A Most Unusual Politician by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard187.html)

[Zuras]

Zuras,

Are you here campaigning for McCain and Palin again?

Is this troll ever gonna get banned? Or you going to blame me for his trolling again?

[Elwar]

I think it's best that we put everyone into their groups.

That way we don't have to actually think of them as an individual with their own unique thoughts and ideals.

[Invalid]

Is this troll ever gonna get banned? Or you going to blame me for his trolling again?

I was just asking so don't take offense. I assumed you were a McCainiac.

[Zuras]

I was just asking so don't take offense. I assumed you were a McCainiac.

WTF does McCain have to do with this god damn thread? Take your ass back to the Daily Kos.

[Truth Warrior]

I think it's best that we put everyone into their groups.

That way we don't have to actually think of them as an individual with their own unique thoughts and ideals. Folks identify and tend to group, USUALLY by choice. It's helpful to the understanding of them.<IMHO>


"By their fruits, ye shall know them."

[Invalid]

WTF does McCain have to do with this god damn thread? Take your ass back to the Daily Kos.


Uhhhh....it's just that last time I saw you, you were here advocating for McCain and Palin so that's why I said don't take a offense.

[Madison]

Anarchist are the "purest" form of libertarians...

Anarchists are definitely not libertarians.


I think it's best that we put everyone into their groups.

That way we don't have to actually think of them as an individual with their own unique thoughts and ideals.

That's not my intent. But to people out there who don't know of Dr. Paul or don't know much about him, simply calling him a libertarian can be very misleading as to what he is truly about.

[Truth Warrior]

Anarchists are definitely not libertarians.



That's not my intent. But to people out there who don't know of Dr. Paul or don't know much about him, simply calling him a libertarian can be very misleading as to what he is truly about.

Who are the the libertarians? Certainly NOT the members of the GOP-lite LP oxymoron. :rolleyes: Ever hear of the NAP?

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

[Zuras]

Anarchists are definitely not libertarians.


Yes, they are. They are libertarians completely unobstructed by pragmatism, hence the purest.

[LibertyEagle]

Who are the the libertarians? Certainly NOT the members of the GOP-lite LP oxymoron. :rolleyes: Ever hear of the NAP?

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

So, in your mind, only Anarchists should be calling themselves libertarians?

[Truth Warrior]

So, in your mind, only Anarchists should be calling themselves libertarians? I'd say that's in your mind along with a bunch of other garbage.

[sailor]

I understand, but wouldn't you agree that the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) is itself libertarian (and conservative)? Surely you wouldn't have faith in the Constitution if it demanded all citizens have RFID implants and commit 80 hours/month toward assisting approved national charities, would you?

Well to be exact constitution is a classical liberal document. And libertarianism is an outgrowth of classical liberalism.

It is not "conservative". The word "conservativism" in American political discourse is no older than some 60 years.

The people who adopted the constitution would have under "conservatives" likely imagine royalists and tories.

[sailor]

Yes, but not even all libertarians support him. As I recall, the CATO crowd was pitching Giuliani for Pres. :p

Ron Paul is much more libertarian than CATO. CATO wants to wage war on Russia and all sorts of shit.


Like what? Ones I've seen, love him.

The American Conservative, Taki’s Magazine and Chronicles.


Never even heard of the other 2, but Buchanan agrees with Paul on quite a lot. Not everyone agrees on every, single, point. Ever seen his blog? It's like Ron Paul Central.

Gottfried and Flemming are long time palecon writters. Buchanan favours protectionism over free trade and he was for the automakers bailout. Then there is the whole culture war thing, the Mexican scare, history of cold warriorism... And he is a big, big fan of Hamilton. But yes Buchanan was supportive of Paul.


Look, really the only thing that confused some paleocons was the whole national defense thing. The media tried their best to paint Ron as weak on national defense.

I don`t think that was the case. Paleos are very good on foreign policy and tooth and nail against the patriot act. There is a small difference they tend to favour foreign policy of national interest rather than formal non-interventionism like Ron Paul, but in practice, considering what they understand under national interest, it amounts to nearly the same thing.

____________

I think if you think Ron Paul is a paleo you are fooling yourself. He is socially conservative, but that alone does not mean much. So is Rockwell and for the most part so was Rothbard. I think some people just have a prejudice that libertarianism means you must be "socially liberal", so he can`t possibly be one being socially conservative.

I won`t dispute Paul is a conservative. He certainly is the way conservatism is understood in America today. But his is a different brand of conservatism than that of paleos. His conservatism is much tighter, with less filler.

Ultimately the most correct description of Ron Paul is probably a classical liberal who is socially conservative. His influences are mostly classical liberals after all. "The founding fathers" were classical liberals, as were many of the Austrian economists...

Of course in the distinct flavour of politics in America the word "liberal" has been hijacked to now mean a "social democrat", so he instead gets to be known as conservative leaning libertarian, or a libertarian leaning conservative.

But ultimately Paul is a pragmatic (in a good sense) who wants to work to get things done rather than worry about taxonomy so...

[Madison]

Yes, they are. They are libertarians completely unobstructed by pragmatism, hence the purest.

Okay, let me rephrase that: Libertarians are definitely not anarchists. At least not in the modern sense. They believe the government should still exist to serve some basic functions (basic services like fire department, police, public schools (reserving the right of every citizen to homeschool/attend private school)), and in the broader sense many believe, if you would call Ron Paul a libertarian for instance, it should be used to protect life (regarding abortion) and even some would say to protect our borders (immigration - understanding Ron Paul thinks the welfare state is the primary problem with illegal immigration, he does support using government to enforce our sovereignty and protect our borders, which I contend is at odds with the libertarian idea of minimizing government as much as possible, but some here don't think that is at odds with libertarianism).

Libertarianism may have its roots in anarchist ideology to a degree (although others here have argued, and I would agree, classical liberalism is where libertarianism as we know it came from), but I don't believe the two are synonymous in our time and they certainly do not have the same goals overall, which is why the distinction exists today. I do agree that with a large segment of people there is gray area and overlap - but going back to my original argument, Ron Paul is definitely not in this area. [revised]

[Truth Warrior]

Okay, let me rephrase that: Libertarians are definitely not anarchists. At least not in the modern sense. They believe the government should still exist to serve some basic functions (basic services like fire department, police, public schools (reserving the right of every citizen to homeschool/attend private school)), and in the broader sense many believe, if you would call Ron Paul a libertarian for instance, it should be used to protect life (regarding abortion) and protect our borders (immigration - understanding Ron Paul thinks the welfare state is the primary problem with illegal immigration, he does support using government to enforce our sovereignty and protect our borders, which I contend is at odds with the libertarian idea of minimizing government as much as possible).

Libertarianism may have its roots in anarchist ideology to a degree (although others here have argued, and I would agree, classical liberalism is where libertarianism as we know it came from), but I don't believe the two are synonymous in our time and they certainly do not have the same goals overall, which is why the distinction exists today. Of course it is, but it made my point.<IMHO> ;) Libertarians are NOT libertarians. What's your take on the NAP? :)

[GunnyFreedom]

I understand, but wouldn't you agree that the Constitution (and Bill of Rights) is itself libertarian (and conservative)? Surely you wouldn't have faith in the Constitution if it demanded all citizens have RFID implants and commit 80 hours/month toward assisting approved national charities, would you?

If natural rights founded the Constitution, then natural rights must supersede the Constitution's authority. If a person were to tell me that an unconstitutional law is not a law, I'd respond by saying that a Constitution which violates natural rights is no Constitution. I believe it is because the Constitution supports these natural rights that you support the Constitution. Am I wrong?

I can certainly go along with this, including the point wherein natural rights supersede the Constitution's authority, wherein the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments violate the principles of the framers and therefore should be repealed.

And yes, the original principles of the Framers of the Republic are libertarian in nature -- no argument there. They are, however, decidedly NOT anarchistic, which philosophy today is beginning to consume libertarians. Perhaps a better description of my political leaning is less "Constitutionalist" and more "American Originalist" though I have avoided that monkier as it sounds kinda pretentious to me. :o

[hotbrownsauce]

LMAO @ this pic


http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/7356/ronpaul3.png

Nothing to really add other than <3 Ron Paul and his ridic placement on that chart. What an individual!

[jmdrake]

I can certainly go along with this, including the point wherein natural rights supersede the Constitution's authority, wherein the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments violate the principles of the framers and therefore should be repealed.

And yes, the original principles of the Framers of the Republic are libertarian in nature -- no argument there. They are, however, decidedly NOT anarchistic, which philosophy today is beginning to consume libertarians. Perhaps a better description of my political leaning is less "Constitutionalist" and more "American Originalist" though I have avoided that monkier as it sounds kinda pretentious to me. :o

Parts of the 14th amendment were absolutely necessary. Namely the equal protection and due processes clauses. I'm not interested in my "state" being able to restrict my freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the press etc. Also considering that slavery had been abolished by this point the "3/5s apportionment" question had to be addressed (although it could have been addressed in the 13th amendment). However the clause about "not questioning the federal debt" needs to go. The "birthright citizenship" clause wouldn't have been a problem if the courts hadn't started liberally interpreting it. But then that could have been easily covered by a clause making all freed slaves residing in the U.S. as of date of ratification citizens.

[Invalid]

How do you know which red dot is Ron Paul. I've seen that pic before.

Flake and Paul are the only two in the libertarian quadrant.

[constituent]

proper restrictions on immigration

...and the constitutional basis for this position is what, exactly?

[LibertyEagle]

I think if you think Ron Paul is a paleo you are fooling yourself.
Well, since I am a traditional conservative, a paleo, a Goldwater-Conservative, or whatever you want to call it, I think I know what I'm talking about. That, and the fact that I've been reading Ron Paul's stuff for over 25 years. Ron Paul's principles align perfectly with traditional conservative principles.


He is socially conservative, but that alone does not mean much.
Bite your tongue. No he is not. Social "conservatives" believe in using big government force to push their agendas and by doing so, means they are not conservatives at all. They differ very little from their leftist counterparts on the other side of the aisle, or neocons, for that matter.


So is Rockwell and for the most part so was Rothbard. I think some people just have a prejudice that libertarianism means you must be "socially liberal", so he can`t possibly be one being socially conservative.
I don't agree. I think the problem here is because we're trying so hard to put people into little slots. These guys promote liberty-oriented principles and because they do, it means that they do not believe government should be dictating how we should live our lives, if we are not infringing on anyone else's liberty.


I won`t dispute Paul is a conservative. He certainly is the way conservatism is understood in America today.
No, in fact, Paul is nothing like the way conservatism is viewed today.


But his is a different brand of conservatism than that of paleos. His conservatism is much tighter, with less filler.

Paul is a REAL conservative. And it is the old-time conservatives, the paleos, traditional conservatives, libertarian-conservatives, or whatever term we're using, that his principles closely align with.


Ultimately the most correct description of Ron Paul is probably a classical liberal who is socially conservative. His influences are mostly classical liberals after all.
Again, Paul is not a social "conservative".


"The founding fathers" were classical liberals, as were many of the Austrian economists...
Yes, and what I don't think you're understanding is that there is a lot of overlap between traditional conservatives and classical liberals. That's probably why traditional conservatives have often been referred to as libertarian-conservatives.


Of course in the distinct flavour of politics in America the word "liberal" has been hijacked to now mean a "social democrat", so he instead gets to be known as conservative leaning libertarian, or a libertarian leaning conservative.
Again, you're missing the overlap. People often don't fit in the little constrained categories that we seem to want to put them in.


But ultimately Paul is a pragmatic (in a good sense) who wants to work to get things done rather than worry about taxonomy so...

Agreed. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could somehow realize that most of us here share a lot of common fundamental principles and got back to working together?

[sailor]

Bite your tongue. No he is not. Social "conservatives" believe in using big government force to push their agendas and by doing so, means they are not conservatives at all. They differ very little from their leftist counterparts on the other side of the aisle, or neocons, for that matter.

You`re forgeting we are on a libertarian (leaning) forum. When I say he is socially conservative I am refering to his own private outlook on life and his own personal social values and am not talking about what legislation he favours. Thats why I also said that is something that ultimately doesn`t really mean much.



Yes, and what I don't think you're understanding is that there is a lot of overlap between traditional conservatives and classical liberals. That's probably why traditional conservatives have often been referred to as libertarian-conservatives

No, I am very much aware of that. I think it is conservatives themselves who don`t quite realise that. Instead conservatives generaly pride themselves on not being an ideology. But I think that just has as a consequence to make them less principled in defense of certain liberties than you would expect doctrinarian classical liberals to have been in their place.

[Madison]

Of course it is, but it made my point.<IMHO> ;) Libertarians are NOT libertarians. What's your take on the NAP? :)

Acronym decrypter does not compute. Are you referring to the non-aggression principle or something else?


...and the constitutional basis for this position is what, exactly?

I don't know what the Constitution says or implies about open borders and illegal immigration. I know the libertarian position of limited government doesn't support strongly policing our borders and favors free flow of immigration, which Ron Paul and I both would not agree with. I would tend to think the Constitutional position would be to enforce the rule of law and our sovereignty. Perhaps this is why Paul preferred Baldwin over Barr (personal issues notwithstanding), <tangent> along with the abortion issue, both of which are issues in which the government is used to protect life and our nation as a whole but still does not infringe on our personal liberties (depending on how you view abortion). </tangent>

However, I don't know what your point is, since I was not arguing the constitutionality of the issue.

[robert4rp08]

Get over the obsession with labels, groups, and categories. I'm fed up with it. People are too focused on defining 'their group'. Who the f!@*# cares? Do you believe in inalienable rights? Do you believe in the Constitution? Do you believe in freedom? Forget about the labels, forget about the issues-- focus on the principles-- focus on the philosophy. All of these damned labels just create division. Complex issues become polarized by two extreme groups that bicker amongst themselves, unwilling to be pragmatic and comprise, while the politicians stab you in the back. Labels- words- they have meanings-- and when they're used as broadly and ill-defined as they are today, they just cause more harm than good. We saw how labels were used to marginalize Ron Paul. By defining yourself with a label, you are marginalizing your principles.

I am not a republican, conservative, libertarian, paleoconservative, liberal, socialist, blah blah blah. I am a rational individual with free thought. Period. If you ask me a question, I will explain my ideals and beliefs to you with a thorough explanation rather than a silly phrase like 'pro-life'.

The only person that I agree with 100% is myself and therefore no label can adequately describe me other than-- an individual. I would hope other people feel the same......

[constituent]

I don't know what the Constitution says or implies about open borders and illegal immigration.

Were I you, I'd start w/ Article 1 Section 8

Control of naturalization, not immigration, is the only constitutional authority granted to Congress



I would tend to think the Constitutional position would be to enforce the rule of law and our sovereignty... However, I don't know what your point is, since I was not arguing the constitutionality of the issue.

Simple, do you support "the rule of law" or not? If so, then why would you support policies that show a further callous disregard for the "supreme law of the land?"

That's exactly the point.

[constituent]

I am not a republican, conservative, libertarian, paleoconservative, liberal, socialist, blah blah blah. I am a rational individual with free thought. Period. If you ask me a question, I will explain my ideals and beliefs to you with a thorough explanation rather than a silly phrase like 'pro-life'.

The only person that I agree with 100% is myself and therefore no label can adequately describe me other than-- an individual. I would hope other people feel the same......


Hear Hear!

[Truth Warrior]

Get over the obsession with labels, groups, and categories. I'm fed up with it. People are too focused on defining 'their group'. Who the f!@*# cares? Do you believe in inalienable rights? Do you believe in the Constitution? Do you believe in freedom? Forget about the labels, forget about the issues-- focus on the principles-- focus on the philosophy. All of these damned labels just create division. Complex issues become polarized by two extreme groups that bicker amongst themselves, unwilling to be pragmatic and comprise, while the politicians stab you in the back. Labels- words- they have meanings-- and when they're used as broadly and ill-defined as they are today, they just cause more harm than good. We saw how labels were used to marginalize Ron Paul. By defining yourself with a label, you are marginalizing your principles.

I am not a republican, conservative, libertarian, paleoconservative, liberal, socialist, blah blah blah. I am a rational individual with free thought. Period. If you ask me a question, I will explain my ideals and beliefs to you with a thorough explanation rather than a silly phrase like 'pro-life'.

The only person that I agree with 100% is myself and therefore no label can adequately describe me other than-- an individual. I would hope other people feel the same...... Posting here makes you an anarchist is the eyes of the GOP rank and file.<IMHO> ;) "Less government!!?" :eek:

[Madison]

Simple, do you support "the rule of law" or not? If so, then why would you support policies that show a further callous disregard for the "supreme law of the land?"

That's exactly the point.

How do you have any control over naturalization of people coming into your country if they are coming in without your knowledge and not becoming citizens? If you do not mind our borders being open it does not make sense to me that you would care about naturalization.


Get over the obsession with labels, groups, and categories. I'm fed up with it. People are too focused on defining 'their group'. Who the f!@*# cares?

Most people care (most people overall, not most Ron Paul supporters). Most people know little to nothing about Ron Paul and view people by labels and groups, and first impressions of candidates do matter. How else do you think the MSM destroyed Paul's chances of winning in 2008? Not a thorough analysis of the facts, but by tying him to conspiracy theories, calling him the "libertarian candidate from Texas" (turning off many Republican voters in the primaries), etc. Most people react to short sound bytes. Most voters aren't the best critical thinkers. This is what we are up against.

[Mesogen]

I'm not a pure libertarian, never have and never will be.

What's a pure libertarian?

[Kludge]

What's a pure libertarian?

An anarchist. Of course, a libertarian does not have to be an anarchist.

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertarian)

[Mesogen]

So if you're not an anarchist, you're impure?

[Truth Warrior]

So if you're not an anarchist, you're impure? The litmus test is the NAP.<IMHO>

[Kludge]

So if you're not an anarchist, you're impure?


The litmus test is the NAP.<IMHO>

(IOW, yes)

[constituent]

How do you have any control over naturalization of people coming into your country if they are coming in without your knowledge and not becoming citizens?

sigh.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalization

[NationaliseIt]

Ron Paul and certain elements of his supporters claim to be libertarians however there are too often times where instead of the usual "it's no place of the government to be involved in X" becomes replaced by "it should be the job of the state to be involved in X not the fed".

Usually comes up in regards to homosexuality.