Hello this is my very first thread, and I might need some of your help. I'm a fairly recent convert (middle of last year) and I was wondering if any of you with better and more experienced insight into the issue of Ron Paul's ideology could help me develop a strong argument for what I see as an equally strong argument against. I'm not sure about this forums policy regarding linking to other forums, so I'll just copy paste (for lack of knowledge i'll use) "their" argument. I put a paragraph break for every question he answers that I pose.
ME: hey i brought up Ron Paul in this thread a while back, and i got the typical response from most people I try to engage in a thoughtful political discussion with; disregard. And many arguments for that are that he's a waste of time to even speak of. But it would be against my character to not question things that i am told to believe. I'm wondering if anyone has any weight to their argument against. tell me, because everything this guy is saying makes sense to me. Tell me what is wrong with paleoconservatism? what is wrong with libertarianism? What is wrong with giving the state back it's power over federal intervention? Why does it seem alright to every liberal and neoconservative that we give the federal government so much power? Is it hard to believe that the 17th amendment basically ruined the bicameral legislature we have? If you have good answers to these that i can't refute i'll shut up and admit i'm wrong, but just saying that ron paul people are crazy is not a very fruitful argument. oh, and before anyone gets into the whole "he's racist" thing, his voting record should be all I need to point to to prove that logically weak argument wrong. *note* he did vote against the civil rights act because it had provisions telling people who they could and couldn't accept as patrons, though he was against the jim crow laws. He doesn't want to vote for legislation that is contradictory to the constitution. If you want to change the constitution, amend it. declare wars. end the fed that steals money from your wallet by artificially inflating the money supply.
THEM: Let me just say that my journey through libertarianism began with Ron Paul, so I am very sympathetic towards him. That being said, much of what he believes I no longer adhere to. I know many new Paulites find their way to Lew Rockwell's site, where this term really comes to fruition. I will answer this in a pithy manner: Even right libertarians like Rothbard (at least pre 1980 anyways), Hayek, and Kinsella have stated clearly that conservatism is not the torch bearer for freedom, nor has it ever been. I know that the forefathers of paleo-conservatism, Menken, Chodorov, Read, etc. never really embraced "conservatism". They were considered leftists before FDR's administration, and were only thrusted rightward by external forces (A major victim of this was Henry Hazlitt). Why anyone would title themselves "conservative" (as Paul does), is beyond me, since conservatism is the modern day version of tyranny, oppression, and inequality.
Nothing, though I don't believe anyone here is suggesting that. Of course, this is a vague question, since libertarianism is a vast political philosophy.
Why would you want 50 rulers? This is only a difference in degree, not in principle.
Why is alright to give any external entity any power?I don't believe a bicameral legislature could have saved us. It certainly helped to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Indian Removal Act, the Fugitive Slave Act, and hey, even the 16th Amendment (which libertarians abhor much more). But more fundamentally, why would going backwards (a very conservative stance) be progress? Why not something more radical, like, say... abolish the state altogether?
I believe the problem is more fundamental than this. Yes, the Fed does inflate the money supply. But the federal government, under constitutional rule, legally allowed such a thing to happen. So Paul's solution is to...keep the Constitution? I don't see how this makes sense. I suggest you read Lysander Spooner's "No Treason". The Constitution is meaningless.
I know you're referring to the state itself, but corporations/banks are just as much to blame, if not more.
Competing currencies mean Gold and Silver. And if you've read any of the gold bugs that support Paul, yes, he wants a gold standard. But once again, why should the state be involved in monetary affairs whatsoever? I think agorism and counter-economics are a worthwhile effort to undermine the state. But for me, there's no particular options. Anything that's non-violent works for me. Unfortunately, voting is ultimately based on the same force as any other hierarchical entity. As the bumper sticker on my car reads, "Voting is just changing the paint job of your prison cell."
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us