Ron Paul for President
Former US Libertarian party presidential candidate Ron Paul is now pitching to be the Republican party presidential candidate in 2008. He currently sits in the US house of representatives. Given Ron Pauls life long involvement with the US Libertarian movement, his long and successful political career and his tilt for the top job, I thought he was worthy material for discussion on ALS.
Here is what I think I know about him:-
1. He has apparently opposed every expenditure bill that he has had a vote on.
2. He opposed the Iraq war.
3. He is an absolute stickler for the US consititution.
4. He is hugely popular amoungst US libertarians.
Some links:-
ON TAX: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1720343/posts
ON IRAQ: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul58.html
ON GOLD: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul267.html
RON PAUL
29 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
jc on Minimum wages frozen 
John Humphreys on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen 
papachango on What Type Of Libertarian Are… 
nicholas gray on What Type Of Libertarian Are… jc on Minimum wages frozen P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen 
DanD on Animals, Morality, and Margina… jc on Minimum wages frozen jc on Minimum wages frozen DanD on Liberal budget response: tax … DanD on Bob Carr on the wrongs of a bi… DanD on Queensland Fuel Rebate John Humphreys on Minimum wages frozen P.M.Lawrence on Minimum wages frozen
-
LINKS
-
Featured Book
Stats
-
ALS elsewhere
Oops. It turn out Catallaxy is already running a feature on Ron Paul. I would have credited them for the inspiration if I had known (and if they had actually been the source of the inspiration). Let me credit them with being topical.
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2653
What a great turn of events. The cloud of the Iraq war may have this silver lining. It is common knowledge that the orthodoxies of the two major parties are tweedle-dee and tweedledum. Ron Paul offers a way forward from the waste and dysfunctionality of ever-bigger government.
I have been roundly attacked on Catallaxy by pseudo libertarians for my support for gun rights and for pointing out Ron Paul’s belief in the right to keep and bear arms.
Liberty and the right to own guns go hand in hand. The first gun control laws were introduced in the US to prevent freed black slaves from gaining access to guns. In Britain, gun control laws were first introduced after WW1 when returned soldiers were considered a threat to the government of Lloyd George in the wake of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Gun control has also been a feature of some of history’s most significant massacres including the Armenian genocide in Turkey, WW2 (Nazi Weapons Act), Cambodia and Rwanda.
I make not apologies for my uncompromising support for gun rights. Australia is not so immune from tyranny that it ought to relinquish the right to resist. It is also not such a safe society that individuals should surrender their right to self defence to the police. It is, at times, violent and dangerous just like anywhere else. Gun ownership is as necessary in Australia as anywhere else – to keep the government in its place and to avoid the need for an overwhelming police presence.
It pleases me greatly that a highly principled libertarian like Ron Paul should acknowledge the relationship between gun control and freedom. I only wish the guy had a realistic chance of getting elected.
Some of Ron Paul’s views can be found here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html and here: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst110606.htm
Reality check, fellow allies- HE’S A POLITICIAN!!!! They are notorious for saying what they think people want to hear! And it’s not even as though we’re going to be able to vote for him! He’s in the American system, not the Australian! If he’s so good, why isn’t he shooting politicians, instead of emulating them?
TEX, what will you do, if the LibDemParty gets the balance of power in the FedElection? You’re a budding polly, so why should we vote for you? (I’ve seen your ‘Whacking-Day’ promises, but I’d like some specifics, please.
No doubt he is a politician. A politician who is known in congress as Dr. No. A politician who has written and sponsored more bills in congress than all of the other candidates combined. A politician who has never taken a vacation at the taxpayers expense. A politician who every year returns a monetary allotment to the U.S. treasury. And now he is a politician feared by the status quo due to his soaring popularity and constitutional stance. He is America’s politician for Americans. He is the Anti-Bush.
Yes I take the point that we are talking about an American and the focus should probably remain largely local. However the fact is the Americans can teach us a lot, and learning from their mistakes is even more valuable, so I think it’s worth mentioning.
Ron Paul is a politician but his track record is amazing, I believe the small percentage of laws he has said yes to are laws that look to reduce legislation, not add to it.
With regards to gun laws I will run the risk of over simplifying the matter by quoting a man named G Edward Griffin who says “Guns are dangerous, the only thing more dangerous is not having them”
As I mentioned at Catallaxy I like everything I have heard fron Ron Paul except his desire to ban fractional reserve banking. I think he has it right on foreign policy, right on taxes, right on guns and right on the constitution. Even on currency his stance on gold is spot on.
The attitude that we should be sceptical of politicians is well-founded, no doubt, but one, of many, things that separate us form the marxist animals is libertarians, in general, believe in change through reforming the system, rather than a bloody revolution. We must trust someone, and a guy who’s had such a long period in congress while maintaining such a minarchist viewpoint throughout is more trustworth than most.
Unfortunately I don’t see him winning the support of anyone from the redneck fundamentalist camp, and as such the GOP’s and the US political system in general’s going to continue its race to the bottom.
You forgot, he doesn’t have a chance. But hey, it’s the principle of it, after all.
Oh, and you know, do you?
Yes it is nice. But I agree he has no chance. Main reason being that even his own party hates him. They would probably rather lose a set to the democrats then have this guy taking it.
Main reason being that even his own party hates him. They would probably rather lose a set to the democrats then have this guy taking it.
He’s been in Congress a long time. Has he only just joined the Republicans?
Even if I concede that he has a great record, what chance does he have of being elected? He sounds more like a Libertarian than a Republican, and haven’t the Libertarians lost when they campaigned for their platform? Americans have had chances to vote for these ideas before, and they stuck with the main parties, and their ideas, so why should this be any different? And, as an Australian, what effect would his win have on us?
If he did win it would effect us in much the same way that Reagan effected the world. Ideas in action are more inspiring than ideas on paper. If he could translate liberal ideas into tangible actions and people could see the effect then he would be significant.
The following article purports to lay out his political views:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Ron_Paul
I found his views on hemp and drugs encouraging.
The article does not mention his views on firearms. However I would have thought that his views on firearms were a reasonably standard republican position in the USA. DavidL might be able to enlighten.
It’s not Ron Paul’s views that prohibit the run. It’s the Iowa cacus system. Rember is a state-by-state primary campaign and the Iowa systems favors electability…Paul will be viewed as big risk by Iowa republicans & they won’t take it. Rember Dean fell apart in Iowa in ‘04 and Kerry won (he was previously at single digit poll numbers). They won’t take the risk. Paul probably knows this…but by entering the race he can force Libertarian issues into the primary, where everyone will move toward them and make promises, and secure leverage for future policies. We’re not going to get a stop the war a drugs promise, because there’s no consituency for it; however, it secures “we won’t raise taxes” and “we’ll fix social security” (socialsim) promises. Which is a good thing for we Americans. And because a lower tax level et al., in the U.S. forces nations to compete for firms and thus marginally lower taxes ect., it’s good for Australians too. Or, vise-verse. I’d be perfectly happy if Australia lowered taxes first, forcing us to address the issue.
I should spell check those first…I’ll “remember” that next time.
[...] of the regulars lament the fact that the anti-war, anti-spending and hard core constitutionalist Ron Paul is running for higher office in the US rather than Australia. Given what’s on offer here, [...]
Pingback by Club Troppo » Missing Link | March 19, 2007
The article does not mention his views on firearms. However I would have thought that his views on firearms were a reasonably standard republican position in the USA. DavidL might be able to enlighten.
The Republicans are broadly more pro-gun than the Democrats but it is much more complicated than that. Many Democrats elected last November are strongly pro-gun while some Republicans (Giuliani being a notable example) are anti-gun.
Ron Paul’s views are pretty consistent with those of the NRA so I imagine he gets a very positive rating. In his case it would be because he means it.
I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, but he is no libetrarian when it comes to;
1) Gay rights
2) Abortion
After googling Ron Paul and Gay Marriage I came across an article in which Ron equates Homosexuality with Pedophelia.
David,
It is not what he thinks of homosexuals that makes him a libertarian or not. It is what he thinks the government should do about it. Mostly he seems to think the Federal government in the US should stay out of it and let the states decide. Which is about as Libertarian as you will get from any US President.
Regards,
Terje.
If Ron gets any reasonable tv time, he will win the presidency, there is no question about it, its simply impossible to not want a man like him to be president. All he wants is to restore and reinforce the laws which increase individual prosperity and safety from big government. That is a winning proposition for the population from every angle.
The big struggle is simply to get him tv time. The second big struggle is for Ron to maintain effective security around himself, because he will be pitted against the establishment during his government reform.
He is a founding father of the 21st century, that much is clear.
Will America, wake up for once and choose the right candidate. How many more decades of total crap will the nation put up with? Having been sedated by the welfare state and the mind numbing media, I dont blame them. At the end of the day, it simply comes down to this, do you want the real definition of liberty and prosperity in your life or not? If you want maximum chance to achieve so called American Dream, then that can only be achieved with minimum government intrusion in your personal and financial affairs. I am not advocating anarchy, simply the correct balance between population and government.
Americans are so slow! While Aussie libers have been drooling over Ron for some time, they’ve only just noticed him at The Blog, in Mises.org! How far behind the times is that? There’s an item extolling his good points at that site. What took them so long?
In America the Republican Party has within it a considerable Libertarian element, many of whom self identify as Libertarian, so the situation is different there. Whereas here Liberals and Libertarians are totaly seperate entities, and likely to remain so, there seems to be a fair amount of cross polination between Libertarians and Republicans, except for the more fundamentalist types among the two groups.
The USA was founded on libertarian principles, and the Republicans tend to echo this, while the Democrats tend to be a fairly standard leftist, nanny-state party.
The group that I involve myself in is Mainstream Libertarian, http://www.mainstreamlibertarian.com/ with a blog at
http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/
This site tends to support Guiliani, who himself seems to have good libertarian credentials, however other candidates, both Libertarian and Libertarian orientated Republican, get coverage.
Another site which may be of interest, is the Republican Liberty Caucus,
http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/li_look.asp
which scores federal politicians on personal and economic liberty, and rates them from libertarian through to authoritarian. I think the cutoff point for “Libertarian” should be higher but the people do lean that way.
If the Republicans wish to win the presidency, and retrieve the senate and house they will have to stand candidates who are fiscally conservative, and against big government, which is as much to blame for their current situation as the war.
Ps I have not been moderated before. If it is a new proceedure i can accept that, if on the other hand, you feel that I have done something to warrant it, please contact me and let me know what it was.
Some more good news- Ron Paul co-wrote a book in favour of the Gold Standard!!!!!! Read all about it at Mises Economic Blog.
Jimunro, being moderated means that someone cares enough about what you write that they will actually read it! Someone, somewhere, is actually reading your writing! If you only reach one person, it’s still been worthwhile! Hasn’t it?
Thank you Nicholas.
Of all the crap we see on TV, all the fake news fake people and misinformed idiots, finally someone comes along that believes in the will of the people, and he’s highly intelligent and educated .. in my 30years on this earth, i’ve only had two heros, one is Jim Garrison, the other is Ron Paul. Both willing to stand up for truth and go against the heard despite what the cost to themselves might be.
I’d love to see Paul/Hagel but I don’t think that’s going to happen. Although if Paul manages to drum up a bit of support during the primaries we may well see Hagel/Paul. That would be pretty amazing despite Hagel’s many flaws. And let’s face it, it’s a lot better than the Bush/Cheney Hegemaniacs or, god forbid, McCain.
Ae least with Ron Paul,I do not have to vote for the lesser of two evils. It will not be a sin to vote for him, so till he says something againsed Gods law, I’m going to get regestered and vote and get others to vote likewise! Everything is starting to happen so fast,(one more”terrorist attack” were done) he may be our last hope for awhile. Get involved this time get three guys to get three guys to commit, I remember in high school, we voted in the biggiest doofis for president, HE DIDEN”T EVEN RUN!!