Is Ron Paul much of a libertarian anymore?

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=509

[foofighter20x]

Well, that article doesn't mean anything.

She talks about a rating from the Cato Institute being 76%... Uh, it's pretty well established that those who are familiar with the CI know that the CI isn't really all that libertarian any more.

What irks me the most:

Paul has gone from advocating for abolition of the Border Patrol in 1988 to locking down the border and beefing up the Border Patrol, giving him a 100% rating from the anti-illegal immigration group Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR).

Like that's even a flip-flop! :rolleyes: She totally leaves out that Dr Paul has ALWAYS been for border security (I wonder if that may have been intentional). His call to disband the border patrol was accompanied by a call to use the military to man the border.

His stance has always been the same: Secure the border. The only thing that's changed in Dr Paul's rhetoric is the means of doing it.

Smells like just another shitty attempt at a hit piece.

[PaleoForPaul]

He does come across as a bit Paleoconservative, which is why I've been reading his columns since 2002.

[BillyDkid]

Ron Paul is what he has always been - A champion for individual liberty and limited government. People can call it what they want. As far a immigration goes - Ron Paul opposes illegal immigration as anyone should and thinks we should do what we need to do to stop. There are two obvious reasons for this - it is unfair to those who want to immigrate legally and, if we are in fact in a "War on Terror", it is fundamental that we secure our borders. Personally, I always liked the idea of open borders with Canada and Mexico and I am not convinced closing the borders would prevent terrorists from entering the country, but it stands to reason that if people want to become residents of this country they should do so legally and should not be rewarded for coming in illegally.

[gravesdav]

I know that she uses bad arguments, but she called him a moderate libertarian. What would you rather have moderate libertarianism or Facism/Socialism.

[Slugg]

What kills me is that voting against NAFTA is considered 'anti-free trade." I think misrepresentation like this is just poor bad for everyone.

[Kuldebar]

The writer of the piece seems to have a problem understanding things.

The ACLU, contrary to popular opinion doesn't always follow or endorse strictly Constitutional actions, legislation or programs. Often times the ACLU has worked counter to such principles. The ACLU still does much good, but it is certainly not overly bothered with using the government as a solution.

Concerning libertarians, I don't see Ron Paul parading around calling himself a libertarian, other people might but he doesn't. The 1988 Campaign represented an entirely different Libertarian Party than the one we currently have today in many respects. The "Cato Institutes, and Reason.coms" out there have drifted the LP from what I considered a much purer position on liberty issues.

As for conservative label, if Ron Paul can't rightfully wear that, who can? Was Goldwater not a conservative? Or do such philosophical labels constantly change like interpretations of our Constitution...and so become meaningless?

[nullvalu]

Concerning libertarians, I don't see Ron Paul parading around calling himself a libertarian, other people might but he doesn't.

You're right, he was asked that in an interview and he said he foremostly thinks of himself as a constitutionalist.

[foofighter20x]

The writer of the piece seems to have a problem understanding things.

The ACLU, contrary to popular opinion doesn't always follow or endorse strictly Constitutional actions, legislation or programs. Often times the ACLU has worked counter to such principles. The ACLU still does much good, but it is certainly not overly bothered with using the government as a solution.

Concerning libertarians, I don't see Ron Paul parading around calling himself a libertarian, other people might but he doesn't. The 1988 Campaign represented an entirely different Libertarian Party than the one we currently have today in many respects. The "Cato Institutes, and Reason.coms" out there have drifted the LP from what I considered a much purer position on liberty issues.

As for conservative label, if Ron Paul can't rightfully wear that, who can? Was Goldwater not a conservative? Or do such philosophical labels constantly change like interpretations of our Constitution...and so become meaningless?

I sent the author a firm, short note on just that. Political organizations and institutions are just as vulnerable to ideological drift as a politician.

[pyrazole]

no, no, no. He's an apo-hetero-deutero-endo-hemi-archae-libertarian.

I mean, give up the labels already!

Why worry about the individual's views, when you can incessantly pigenhole everyone? *sigh*

[Original_Intent]

I agree, it is time we dropped the left/right, conservative/liberal, Dem/Rep labels. They have just been used to divide and conquer the American people.

[LibertyEagle]

Like that's even a flip-flop! :rolleyes: She totally leaves out that Dr Paul has ALWAYS been for border security (I wonder if that may have been intentional). His call to disband the border patrol was accompanied by a call to use the military to man the border.

His stance has always been the same: Secure the border. The only thing that's changed in Dr Paul's rhetoric is the means of doing it.

Please help me get his stance straight on this. Recently, someone posted a lot of bills that Dr. Paul voted against that required the military to be used on the border. My take on that was that he believed the Border Patrol should be used and not the military. If that is so, anyone know why he believed differently in '88 and why he changed from that belief?

[DeadheadForPaul]

I tell people that Ron Paul is not a libertarian...He is a Constitutionalist. I honestly don't care what people call Dr. Paul. I like the majority of his views and I am going to support him. He is an American.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I tell people that Ron Paul is not a libertarian...He is a Constitutionalist. I honestly don't care what people call Dr. Paul. I like the majority of his views and I am going to support him. He is an American.

No, he IS a Libertarian. He's a Libertarian that wants to uphold the Constitution, he even has stated that the Founders were Libertarian. Technically speaking, ontheissues site has him down (so far) as a moderate Libertarian.

[hells_unicorn]

Ron Paul is a libertarian, the Cato Institute is the one whose status as such is questionable right now.

[angrydragon]

The Cato Institute has sucked into the big government libertarianism.

[BarryDonegan]

she claimed that ron paul wanted to abolish border guard, but didn't state that he planned to replace it with the US MILITARY! hahaha.

[Hook]

Generally, amassing troops along a countries border is considered aggressive by the country on the opposite side. Canada and Mexico would probably have a big problem with that.

[Kuldebar]

Generally, amassing troops along a countries border is considered aggressive by the country on the opposite side. Canada and Mexico would probably have a big problem with that.

Not really, it's not like we have such poor relations with them that they would think an invasion was forthcoming. But, yes in touchy, cold war style periods of history, such things are viewed as a threat.

But, the Canadians I play Guild Wars with don't really think even Bushie would invade Canada over pot.

:rolleyes:

In this enlightened time in history most countries don't see a distinction between formal uniformed military personnel or Blackwater-esque mercs for hire when it comes to a statement of force.

Regardless, that's not a solution Paul is advocating now.