Funny. He votes against unconstitutional bills, even when he agrees with them.
To Paul voting to reduce the waiting period legitimizes the existance of a waiting period.
If you’re going to reference Bills, please include their number or a link so we can understand exactly what was in the legislation, not a summary.
LOL, you hate this attitude. How do you think other people feel about your arrogance and hyper-aggressiveness?
If I want spice and venom, I will go out for rattlesnake curry. I’ve got to agree with Imperator03. The name calling and histrionics get tiring. Is it a substitute for substantial discussion.
Niccolo could almost understand this. If he wasn’t trying to earn respect by constantly attacking Paul.
That 's why I said the Bill#s would help. Paul has made votes he said made him sick, because he took principle over even his own moral convictions.
Right, because Ron Paul’s not voting to reduce government; he’s not fighting government. Ron Paul is fighting this government, not because he disagrees with the concept of government, but because he disagrees with the way this government is running.
If he were truly fighting government power, he wouldn’t vote yes to appropriate money for this and that department every year.
I’m not interested in the headache of the United State Congress’ library of bills and orders.
Look for yourself. I’m more than happy to skim through the websitee, ontheissues.org
Hence, he’s not a libertarian reformist, but rather a constitutionalist.
To Paul, voting to reduce taxes legitimizes the existance of taxes, which is why he does it, he’s a statist, if not to an as concentrated degree as his fellow politicians.
Excellent points, banned.
boinks the right-wing marxists [H]
Ok, I got it now. And I agree.
Yeah, Paul is a big time statist. Am I the only one who sees the irony that perhaps the most libertarian Congressman is the most reviled on the forum?
I mean how dare he not be a total statist pig? Why can’t he just be a faceless scumbag like the rest of the gang of 535?
I don’t find it ironic at all; I myself find it absolutely frustrating that Ron Paul is being called a “dark horse”, “maverick”, a “rebel”, when in principle, is a Constitutionalist Paleo-Libertarian, which is what I suppose passes for “radical” nowadays in politics (although I guess you could rationalize, “it’s a start”? Meh…).
The fact that many in the mainstream may find RP to be too radical I also find unnerving, as he essentially selling the brand of what conservatism used to be, then more & more may be confusing conservatism as being a form of libertarianism (or vice versa), and that in comparison to what is the republican party nowadays, the Libertarian Party is growing comfortably into it’s new form as the new “hip” conservatism that, imo, Buckley & co. had been advocating for years to convert “libertarians” to conservatism.
The only absolutely good thing I can see out of the entire RP event, (there are shades of grey concerning his co-opt of libertarianism, and he did manage to mention austrian economics on Leno, which, at the moment of witnessing such, was like witnessing a surprise eclipse), has been the near spontaneous order his supporters have utilized to campaign, and subsequent tools in which they are using (Internet, etc.).
This was the prime reason I supported him in the past, aside from his (in comparison to other candidates) more consistent anti-war & civil liberties: the method in which his supporters used, which reminded me greatly of emergent behavior as RP repeatedly stressed he was not responsible for his supporters (thus the absence of a leader, where RP is simply a vehicle/meme/message in which the supporters co-opt for their own agenda).
Ironically, my search for consistiency lead me elsewhere in a fairly short amount of time, especially after I read more into the origins of the newsletters (which also brought to my attention the later-life stances of Rothbard, dissapointing as that was.)
That’s my view at least. I don’t think it’s so much as “how dare he not be a total statist pig”, so much as, “how dare he further word soup via co-opting libertarianism for his own platform, which diverges greatly from libertarianism, and further confuse individuals about libertarianism”.
Honestly though, I’m more frustrated with the Libertarian Party’s inevitable decent into a more palatable for politics “hip conservatism” than RP; at least RP’s supporters are going on to do other things than simply spamming Reddit: they recently are getting together a competing cable channel, Basic Media Inc., which I hope (but am not holding my breath) will advocate alternative political thought in a more traditional medium that would increase exposure beyond the Internet using population.
I get that. But i think the “libertarianism” has been projected on him much more than he has projected it himself.
Great post btw.
As for projection, I would say, yes, there’s been quite a bit due misconceptions. Although I remember a number of times where RP would admit to sharing some ideas of libertarianism, or other little hints (such as the picture of Rothbard in his office, etc.), I also admit to not hearing him explicitly spelling it, or his platform out, in terms of labels; this is where you could probably see the more populist aspect of his candidancy, as he makes no qualms about mentioning the recent meetings over the NAU in Canada &, recently, D.C., as well as the idea of taking back “our” country for the “people”.
In hindsight though, I think he’s been careful as to not label himself such, whether for political (most likley, seeing as he’s running as a Republican), or for the sake of consistiency of his own views (he has repeatedly made referrence to “The Old Right”), so I suppose he gets some credit for that. The co-opt I referred to earlier, on his behalf, might very well be unintentional, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if to some extent it weren’t.
But yes, there has also been a huge deal of projection of labels onto RP by both both opposing & agreeing sides; both with their versions of what libertarianism is, what it isn’t, etc. This effect is also seen within the libertarian community(ies), with many actually going so far as to desginate users according to the sites they frequent.
That is primarily why I’m wary about the entire situation, as it currently looks like the political word soup is being sitrred-up again, this time involving libertarianism in mainstream politics as a means for reform (more than usual), and the end result will most likley mean more confusion, and right when the Internet is on the verge of being controlled (completly) by either The State or the corporations (thus, putting hopes of access to clarification of terms at risk).
The fact that debate is occurring would usually never be seen as bad, but I think that some of it will slow progress down towards actual action with regards to mainstream politics vs. ron paul supporters vs. libertarians (paleo, cosmo, vulgar) vs. libertarians (radical libertarians) vs. anarchists vs. minarchists etc. etc. etc.
The entire situation is rather bleak & vexing, honestly.
The two are exclusive why?
I should have phrased that differently.
Paul holds gun control to be beyond the scope of congress authority, so voting in favor of a 1 day waiting period is just as bad as voting in favor of the three day one.
Acting in accordance with the government’s charter is more volunteeristic than destroying the federal government against the will of the people. And arguably more productive.
Of course, by Brain Police’s definition of anarchist, belief in secession, Ron Paul is one.
Thats absurd. Ron Paul is pre-marxist. Perhaps sharing some of Paine’s and Jefferson’s naivety towards government.
More conspicuously Marxist are the Ron Paul detractors.
Marxism identifies the state as an abusive institution, then opposes it along with other potentially abusive institutions: marriage, churches, and employment, among others. But we do not oppose the state because its abusive, we oppose it because it is not voluntary.
Anarchy means I can declare myself free from government’s authority(secession), but I can not prevent my neighbors from accepting its authority over them(invasion).
Actually Marxism proposes a takeover of the state in the name of a future stateless classless utopia, which is self-defeating and contradictary in principle. It is in that strategic context that I call some libertarians right-wing marxists, since they too propose a takeover of the state in the name of abolishing it. Bakunin saw the error in this long ago and ironically presented one of the most smashing criticisms of Marxism that I’ve seen, while still being a communist himself.
Also, if something is not voluntarily, quite likely it is abusive or exploitative.
I believe you misunderstand me. I never defined anarchism simply as belief in secession. More specifically, I think that a fundamental of anarchism is the right of individual secession. Ron Paul does not support individual secession to my knowledge. Perhaps he does support state secession, which is certainly a step in the right direction, but that is hardly consistant.
Ron Paul most certainly is not an anarchist, since (1) he believes that some level of government is a necessary evil (2) worshops at the altar of the social contract (3) supports politically defined borders, the very embodyment of the state’s dominion (4) fully supports the individual state’s “rights” and (5) even supports some “limited” role for a federal government.
’
Anything involuntarily is necessarily abusive. The point is that something abusive can be voluntary, like a bad marriage. But no outside party has authority to declare the marriage ended.
Well what exactly do you mean by a “bad marriage”? One which is abusive towards one member, presumably the wife? I wouldn’t call abusive relationships like that voluntary, since the abused person is kept in a state of asquiesence by the threat of force. It would be absurd to argue that the wife implicitly consents to her own abuse by continueing to live in the same house as her husband. That is the exact same logic often used to legitimize the state: “since you don’t move, since you continue to live within the state’s borders, you implicitly consent to the state”.