Rep. Ron Paul, naughty or nice?
I am impressed by Rep. Ron Paul because of his willingness to stop the war in Iraq, his support for the Constitution, and his concern that our country be ruled by laws iunstead of by people with their own agendas.
I'm concerned, however, that Rep. Paul carries a lot of baggage that we don't hear too much about. Here's Mahablog talking about her concerns about Paul's position on abortion,
"...Libertarians will disagree, but I say the essential difference between liberals and libertarians is that the latter define oppression as something only the federal government can do. If state governments violate the rights of its citizens and treat women and minorities like chattel, that’s OK with them. Liberals, on the other hand, think oppression is wrong no matter who or what is doing the oppressing. We think, for example, that if a state is denying its African American citizens equal treatment under the law, it’s a legitimate use of federal power to force the state to stop the oppression. Libertarians generally disagree, and would rather allow states to discriminate than concede any part of state sovereignty to Washington or federal courts.
Thus, to most libertarians, liberty and equality are less important than maintaining a weak federal government.
Justin Raimondo asks why “neocons and sectarian leftists” have united to “smear” Ron Paul. I can’t speak for everyone, but I do want readers of this blog to understand what Ron Paul stands for. And he stands for the political oppression of women. His followers seem to think it is enormously significant that Paul wants to keep the federal government out of abortion law and give the states total authority in the matter. I, on the other hand, think Womb Nazis are Womb Nazis, no matter what branch of government they report to.
I have seen people show up at liberal/progressive gatherings with Ron Paul T-shirts and buttons who don’t seem to know anything about Paul except that he’s against the war in Iraq. Well, folks, educate yourselves.
If you agree with Ron Paul’s views (meaning you aren’t one of my regular readers) then vote for him. That’s what republican government is about; you vote for the candidate you think will best represent you. My intention here is to be sure we’re all clear that Ron Paul is no liberal.
Yes, the Iraq War is a vital issue, but it’s not the only vital issue, and Ron Paul is not the only anti-war candidate. The struggle for liberty and equality in this country will continue long after the Iraq War has scrolled off the page into history..."
http://www.mahablog.com/2007/11/19/boxes/
I take from this that Paul is against slavery, say, only insofar as it would be a federal issue. His problem with slavery, if his position on abortion tells us anything, is that he is against any federal government involvement. So, his solution would be to let the states regulate it. This is how the Founders would want to deal with it.
As for abortion, he is against the federal government regulating it. That is, he would have the federal "Womb Nazis" be disbanded but would see nothing wrong in having the Alabama state "Womb Nazis, or the Washington state "Womb Nazis" carry out whatever state regulations their legislators would see fit to enact.
I think the question of whether slavery was a state issue or not was supposed to be a question that had to be solved by civil strife, as I understand it, because the issue of slavery wasn't something that could be decided by a mere majority vote in a local legal jurisdiction.
I understand Paul's position on the war in Iraq to be based on similar considerations. If the Congress thought it was a good thing to drop bombs on France, or Ottowa, then Rep. Paul would be alright with that because his only concern seems to be the proceedural one of whether the Constitutional provisions for starting wars is followed.
That would be crazy, though. There has to be more to our opposition to the war in Iraq, or abortion, or slavery, than whether or not we've been following the rules set down by the Founders. The Founders had slaves for Christ's sake!
There's more to Rep. Paul's position on the war than just whether we're following the rules when we invaded the country. He thinks the hostility in the world has something to do with our having unwise entangling alliances. The Islamic world has a problem with us because of what we've been doing to them in their countries. This makes sense and it gives me the impression that Paul's opposition to the Iraq war or slavery would be more than just about proceedural questions.
Mahablog gives me the impression that Rep. Paul sounds pretty good to liberals because he's against the war but, if you look into the reasons and the why nots of his opposition, we would find scariness and a hint of political nonsense.
I am not wanting to accept this suggestion about Rep. Paul without getting his side of the story.
I understand he has a pretty grim position on abortion. He's agin' it.
This is troubling to me, but it is not a deal breaker for me as yet.
I want to know, in addition to his rejection of a woman's ability to choose to end a pregnancy, if he's for reducing the size and scope of the federal government, is he going to eliminate what protections of the people the federal government provides against the predatory activities of business. Or, is he thinking have to fend for ourselves alone against the immortal and all powerful international corporations already too much in charge of our lives even without Paul's help?
Is he going to roll our society back to the 1800's to some feudal existence just so we can have limited government over business?
I am concerned that Ron Paul has an attractive message based on our concern for a few issues only so long as we don't look too closely at the full package.
against the predatory activities of business. The federal government IS a buisness. It's there to protect the predatory activities of buisness, not protect the citizens from it. At least not in America.
I believe the assumption by liberals has been that in the fight against the interests of big avaricious business, the federal government in empowered to monitor the work place, for example, to make sure there is some effort to make them safe for workers, or to make sure products are not made so poorly that they do more harm than good.
Yes, the federal government, as well as any other kind of government, does a poor job many times in protecting people. But, that's because the governments have been taken over by people interested in undermining this role of government.
The thought is, sensible people with a mind to have government do its job, will create governments that work efficiently and fairly.
I understand the claim that they don't, but they're supposed to. The problem with many people is that Paul seems to want to remove the guardians from the chicken coop and leave the chickens to fend for themselves in the face of ravenous foxes.
..all part of the plan, the right to have two Americas, or three..
That chicken coop analogy. The same people in the federal government are on the board of directors of weapons manufaturers & media conglamerates. Paul wants to end government subsidies to corporations & bankrupt the military industrial complex. Right now the laws from the federal government go against the intestests of small buisness & to the benefit of monopolies & it's state controlled capitalism for the benefit of the elitists, not a free market.
although I don't share your concern about abortion.
I am against abortion, except under very narrow circumstances - none of which have anything to do with lack of money.
Coming from a woman, that should say at least a little more than it does coming from a man.
It's not that I want people to interfere in my decisions, it's that the interfering takes place from both sides and it happens no matter what the government legislates.
What's happening now is that it's open season on women by abortionists, pushing them to consider executing "their right to abort" their baby almost in defiance of other people's desire to stop them from doing it.
Defying other people's belligerence or hypocrisy is not a good reason to abort your baby.
The fact remains that most women who abort their babies do so because they are afraid that no one will help them care for their baby, in other words we're back where we started - it's all about money. And who benefits from seeing poor women abort their babies?
I do share your concern about Ron Paul being okay with business as usual by corporations at the state and municipal level against citizens.
However, I believe (and I'm just hoping here) that he thinks that people have more control and influence at the local level and more likely could better protect themselves against predatory corporate practices, unlike if that same practice was taking place at the federal level, logistically out of the average person's reach and control (the perfect feeding ground for corporate criminals, i.e., lobbyists).
This is a complicated issue but should definitely be raised with Ron Paul.
On my part, I will try to raise the issue with him by email or letter, but if someone out there has a direct channel by which he or she can raise the issue before him, please do and let us know.
---------------------------------------
"Money" has no value - people do.
Truth Seeker-- The abortion is a non--issue for me as it seems to be very big to others..why someone would get pregnant then get rid of the fetus baffles me, just don't get pregnant theres ways around that..anyway...Dr.Paul will end the war, bring most of our troops home from around the world and stop protecting corporate profits..let the ceo's hire blackwater to send around the world and pay for it out of their immense profits, he would end support of the terror state of zion and others, he will abolish the irs and fed..the only other candidate talking about ending the war is kucinich and gravel..
I believe that a woman has a right to control her own body, just as a man does. But although I have a right to control my own body, I don't have a right to hurt someone else.
When a baby is aborted, it obviously involves more than just a woman's body. The body of the baby is protected by the state, just as the body of any person is protected by the state.
It is my own opinion that life begins at conception. The Supreme Court in Casey cut back on Roe, and said that the state may impose restrictions on abortion that do not impose an undue burden on a woman's right. Also, the state may prohibit abortion after the fetus has become viable.
Viability as a definition would trend toward conception as science becomes more able to provide a surrogate womb for the unborn. Viability, to me, is not a satisfying definition of when life begins because it is almost a tautology to say, "Life begins when it is viable." Also, I believe that life is a divine gift, and to say that it begins when our technology has enabled it to begin seems to miss the mark.
Since I don't believe a woman has a "right" to kill her unborn baby, I don't believe the supreme court should have any say in a state's ability to outlaw abortion. If the states could outlaw abortion today, there were be some states that would do so (bible belt states), and other states that would have abortions legalized (CA, NY, etc...). It would be up to the people of the state to elect legislators who decide what the laws should be in that state. I don't think our Founding Fathers intended that our country should be governed by 9 unelected judges who would decide when life begins.
To the point at hand, I believe that Ron Paul's stance on abortion is Constitutionally correct. I am also with him as to the war in Iraq, our country's meddling in foreign affairs, our bloated defense budget, and the Fed.
Where I don't trust Ron Paul has to do with his view of the Federal Government as a whole. There are certain things the Federal Government can do that states cannot. The environment, specifically the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act come to mind. It may not come as a surprise that water and air do not stop at the border of a state. If one state is foolish enough to allow harmful toxins to be released into the air and water, it will not only be the inhabitants of that one state who suffer.
Similarly, the federal government in the past has imposed restrictions on business practices that are unfair and harmful to competition. For example, the SEC has rules that prohibit insider trading and other evils. The FCC used to prevent corporations from owning more than one television station or radio station in a single market. It has been the relaxation of these and other federal regulations that has done great harm to our country.
My concern about Ron Paul, and Libertarians in general, is that there is a failure to understand that "free market capitalism" will not solve all our problems. Business left to its own devices will inflict a multitude of evils upon the people. Even the market itself will disappear, because businesses can make more money through monopolization than through competition.
While I see that our federal government needs a thorough overhaul, I am concerned that Ron Paul would though out the baby with the bathwater, and in some circumstances leave us worse off than we were before.
-----------------------
"Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly."
Nice post and comments!
Vital commodities
There are some things I don't think could ever be managed by free markets. Things like energy, land and water could pose a great risk to the people if they would be in the control of companies. Especially foreign companies indifferent or even hostile to your own country. Even more so when hostile take overs enter the equation.
Food supply
Many countries give subsidies to their own farmers and place taxes on food imported into their countries. Ensuring that a country is self-reliant in your vital needs like energy, water and food is essential for its sovereignty.
On the one hand I am convinced that water and energy can not be in the free market but I have mixed thoughts about food supply.
Most of you here probably already know the Jewish trade blockade against Germany before WW2 which cut of 2/3 of its food supply, which illustrates the danger of not having enough food production yourself. But which country in reality does produce enough food or energy for own consumption?
And how can you survive by sticking to the free market rules, when everybody else is cheating (subsidies and import-tax)?
Mike Gravel is the only good choice for peace, freedom and an unfractured America (as we know it).
Would you let Kucinich take your gun, in today's day and age? Would you let Ron Paul turn your FRN's into confederate over night? How about a little disparity between states, it's good for the union! to divide and conquer (join).
You don't want to see what I'm thinking.