I heard someone say “Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian, he’s a dixiecrat theocon” as a comment on an article about Gary Johnson.
How could Ron Paul be considered a Dixiecrat theocon? While he may have been a Democrat in the 18th Century, I don’t think he’s a dixiecrat.
Also, does anyone here know if he recognize the superiority of the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution? Why does he always mention the tyrannical Constitution as a libertarian document? i don’t think it would cost him his career to say that the Constitution is tyrannical or that is needs to be replaced. Or do he and Peter Schiff really believe that the Constitution is a libertarian document?
On the internet, everyone has a megaphone, and the idiots are the most prone to use it.
Don’t believe everything you read, or expect to have to confirm it. There is a deluge of BS, it’s better to do your own research and draw your own conclusions.
There’s no way Paul should be considered a Dixiecrat. Not even close. Although he is a Confederate sympathizer I’m sure, but only along the lines of Llysander Spooner in that he obviously thinks the practice of slavery is grotesque. I’m not sure if Paul has ever noted the superiority of the AoC compared to the Constitution, but really the Constitution is a proxy for him to spread Austrolibertarian ideas. The Constitution doesn’t really run in line with libertarian beliefs as it glorifies republicanism and social democracy at the same time. Obviously the Constitution has allowed for a giant expansion of the federal government, so it hasn’t done its job.
The constitution had good intentions when it first was written, but through the years, it has turned to crap… I think Paul supports the constituition on the condition that it should just have its basic set of rules, as when it was first written
the constitution’s initial purpose was not list governmental powers, it was to list the governments limits… but throughout the years, it has turned to crap.
Actually I’d say it’s fair to argue that the Consitution was definitely purposed to expand the power and scope of the Federal government, but only in ways that they Founders thought were “good and proper” in order to maintain the Union and a free society. Heck, read some of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. There was a great deal of dissagreement. They believed in a limited State, but the Constitution was definitely designed to increase the power of the centralized government. Of course then you have people like Hamilton who were obviously very statist.
"the constitution’s initial purpose was not list governmental powers, it was to list the governments limits… but throughout the years, it has turned to crap. "
No, wrong actually. The constitutions intitial purpose was to list governmental powers… ONLY later to appease the Anti-Federalists were the Bill of Rights added in. You do understand what “amendments” mean, right?
It’s sort of ridiculous, no matter what Paul believes.
People shouldn’t use words like that like
it’s an actual position people call themselves
it’s a term that anyone uses in political science
it has any meaning.
Usually, when people make up new words, it’s because they have a tough time taking apart concrete arguments logically and separately. So dixiecrat means ‘states rights’ which is the same as slavery or racist state’s rights. And ‘theocon’ means he has a religion and isn’t liberal, which is the same as Fred Phelps or the Ayatollah Khomeini or whoever.
Just remember that Iraqis are religious, probably have conservative opinions on some social issues, and do not like to be subject to US state/corporate interests either. They support state’s rights and religion. And yet it would be absurd to call them dixiecrat theocons. But, since there is a magical line around Americans, we have to fit within frames made up by US political history. (most of which comes from people’s limited terminology with regard to political history). Rather than the actual ideologies held by the people themselves.
Of course, many people also make the vulgar argument ‘if you hate the state so much… why not go to Iraq then ya idiot?’ Ignoring that there, as in here, the government’s ultimate destructive quality. The military has destroyed their whole country, but you see, it’s their fault and their ideology. Not the bombs. Iraqis just don’t know any better than to live in rubble.