Will the Real Ron Paul Please Stand Up?

Ron Paul is a Texas Congressman, former Doctor and Libertarian. He was the last candidate to leave the race for the Republican presidential candidacy. Paul is generally portrayed as an upright, amiable and avuncular critique of the bankers and the war in Iraq. He has a following in the US who seem to regard him almost as Saviour of the Nation. The internet is awash with pro-Paul sites and videos and it is hard to find anything substantial to read about him. The Wikipedia site, linked here, seems to be as good as anything. From Wikipedia, and from his own videos, I find that he is

• Anti-interventionist – Opposes war in Iraq (but not Afghanistan)
  In favour of the “Rule of law”
  Against the Patriot Act
  A follower of “Austrian Economics” -
  Against the Fed – “Stop printing money – back to gold standard”
  Anti-tax – would phase out the IRS
  Would do away with all public services
  Anti-regulation – the crash is caused by interference by the Fed
  Thinks the role of government should be local and minimal – against strong Federal or centralised government
  Trade Unions should not be allowed “closed shops”
  Anti-immigration with some dubious right wing links
  Is alleged to have takem money from Don Black of Stormfront
  Published racist articles in his newletter in the 1980s.

Ron Paul is part of a Republic tradition, of which Bob Taft was the nearest to becoming President. Taft hated Roosevelt and the New Deal and was vehemently anti-Trade Union, as well as anti-inverventionist.

http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs01072008.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

Quote :

These comments were on a Common Dreams blog…
“Ron Paul is a right wing mole. No “libertarian”, once having taken office, does anything but vote along republican lines when it comes to foreign policy. Paul’s stance on immigration is flamingly reactionary, his attitude toward public health is 16th century. He represents people (”libertarians”) who think capitalism works if it’s just run correctly. Like vulgar marxists, they haul out their little schematics, and conveniently ignore what the system has always been- that is to say, a social system that uses the state to subsidize private interest. An administration run by Ron Paul will just be Ronald Reagan over again- Paul himself has never rejected Reagan’s legacy - and people who support him need to do not only their homework on him, but on the Ayn Randian utopian crap most of his supporters represent.

Ron Paul and his campaign, which has overtones of "cult of personality" in its tone, in my opinion are getting a soft ride from left and centre, who should recognise the "flaming reactionary" that he is.

Theres an interview with Noam Chomsky which asks him about his views on Ron Paul and he was quite dismissive if not hostile. That didnt surprise me. There are many in the left and centre, indeed many who supported Bush and now support McCain whose worldview is diametrically opposed to Pauls. The deal with these fella's and most of you probably is this:
"if you only give us more power then we will finally get things working", and that can mean eliminating poverty or eliminating rogue states.

Paul looks at it from an another way, and in this he is in tune with Americans like no one else, and says,
"we are the people, we are all equal and we should all suffer or thrive equally. Why should there be a concentration of power in Washington?" Its slightly anarchical but it goes back to the original idea that the founding fathers had. So far from being a reactionary he is in tune, not only with the people, but also with the constitution. Indeed he complained louder than any democrat at the blatant disregard for the constitution by the current Republican regime.
For example only Congress is supposed to declare War, so Bush got around that by not actually declaring War on Iraq. Did Hillary or Bill speak out about that flagrant breach of the constitution? The most important thing a politcian can do is defend the constitution and in that regard Paul stands head and shoulders above the rest. His voting record speaks volumes.

His economics are hard to swallow at first, I'll give you that, although I do in part agree with them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfyo7cUevwY

Basically he feels that welfare should be dealt with at the states level and not the federal level. The idea being that more local you go, the less impersonal it becomes, and many day to day issues should be decided within the state and not by washington. This was what the founding fathers actually intended.
It all boils down to the question about how free can we be. America is corrupt and does need to return to first principals or else it might collapse.
Ron Paul is not a young man and he is probably never going to be president. I'd say the cult of leadership interests him less than bringing power back to the citizens.
If I was american and he was running for office, I would give him my vote.

Well, here he is. That link looks interesting Respublica, I'll have to listen to it later.

Basically he is no different to Bush and his friends in wanting privatisation of all services. Taking the US back to political structures that worked with a tiny population living amongst the woods. A massive deflation by going back to the gold standard. Wiping out public services. No restriction on drugs or guns. If you want an extreme right wing solution, then you're going to the right man.
It is a desperate solution for a bankrupt country.

Cleaning out corruption is the excuse used by virtually every reactionary "clean sweep" demagogue.

cactus flower wrote:

Well, here he is. That link looks interesting Respublica, I'll have to listen to it later.

Basically he is no different to Bush and his friends in wanting privatisation of all services. Taking the US back to political structures that worked with a tiny population living amongst the woods. A massive deflation by going back to the gold standard. Wiping out public services. No restriction on drugs or guns. If you want an extreme right wing solution, then you're going to the right man.
It is a desperate solution for a bankrupt country.

Cleaning out corruption is the excuse used by virtually every reactionary "clean sweep" demagogue.

Do you think that the US constitution is no longer of any value any more then and if not shouldnt the American people just bin it via referendum and adopt something more modern?

Of course they wouldnt because it still is one of the best constitutions around.

Public services would be provided by the state's and private enterprise. As long as there is no interference and the system is transparent it should be doable.
Regarding guns and drugs, it appears that the governments no longer trust the people with these things, and without self-organisation I suppose that is a valid assumption to make. Should the people trust the governments though?

He may be dangerous, but I would say that Bush and Putin are even more so, only we've got used to them and their system. And Paul is dangerous in a good and honest way(if that makes sense).

Respvblica wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Well, here he is. That link looks interesting Respublica, I'll have to listen to it later.

Basically he is no different to Bush and his friends in wanting privatisation of all services. Taking the US back to political structures that worked with a tiny population living amongst the woods. A massive deflation by going back to the gold standard. Wiping out public services. No restriction on drugs or guns. If you want an extreme right wing solution, then you're going to the right man.
It is a desperate solution for a bankrupt country.

Cleaning out corruption is the excuse used by virtually every reactionary "clean sweep" demagogue.

Do you think that the US constitution is no longer of any value any more then and if not shouldnt the American people just bin it via referendum and adopt something more modern?

Of course they wouldnt because it still is one of the best constitutions around.

Public services would be provided by the state's and private enterprise. As long as there is no interference and the system is transparent it should be doable.
Regarding guns and drugs, it appears that the governments no longer trust the people with these things, and without self-organisation I suppose that is a valid assumption to make. Should the people trust the governments though?

He may be dangerous, but I would say that Bush and Putin are even more so, only we've got used to them and their system. And Paul is dangerous in a good and honest way(if that makes sense).

In a way, I think its not so much Ron Paul that is dangerous as the need that a lot of people seem to have for a new leader they can put faith in. How refreshing it is to see someone take on the lies and cynicism of the "War Against Terror" and the bank bail out. Someone who says bring the army home, in an era when the country is bankrupted by military spending, must have an appeal.

Ron Paul's politics are not at all open and honest. I have found it very difficult to get a clear picture of his political positions behind the cult hero, fuzzy portrayal of his career put out by his promo videos. What I do know is that he works with people who have far right and racist views. He promotes the break up of the US and of health and education services that would drive down peoples living standards. The tax policies he promotes would benefit the very wealthy. I've looked at the crowds following Ron Paul and all you see is a sea of white faces.

I haven't read his book and am not looking forward to it, but I suppose if I'm going to post about him, I'll just have to face into it.

There is not much point in talking about Ron Paul at this point in time with Irish people because the entire country is living a dream back there. This crying over the budget is pathetic.

I will say this though. Paul is not right wing at all and if anyone thinks he is are mistaken. Bush is right wing. Paul is a Constitutionalist and under the Constitution there would be no left wing or right wing.

What Ireland needs is a Ron Paul to pick up the pieces in a few months. The whole place will be wailing by Christmas. I never saw anything like it.

Save the grannies, save the teachers, save the banks, save the waterford glass workers, save the unemployed, save the students, save the Africans, save the Chadians, save the sick, save the planet, save the jobs, save RTE, save Tara, save the children, save the civil service, save the bogs, save the farmers, save broadband for everybody, save my house, save my post office account,

Save everything but the fact is it is every man for himself so save yourself

YoungDan you forgot Christmas is coming; save the turkey.



Says it all really.

Yes it does. I take it this was the entrant from Ireland in the Eurovision. I have not seen it in years. What happened to Johnny Logans nose. It is grotesque and his hair is grey. What is really shocking is to see the pair of Ballybrits on Dana as I remember her as a young woman. Sometimes it is best not to relive the past. What the Hell happened

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Web7izwZJFo

youngdan wrote:

There is not much point in talking about Ron Paul at this point in time with Irish people because the entire country is living a dream back there. This crying over the budget is pathetic.

I will say this though. Paul is not right wing at all and if anyone thinks he is are mistaken. Bush is right wing. Paul is a Constitutionalist and under the Constitution there would be no left wing or right wing.

What Ireland needs is a Ron Paul to pick up the pieces in a few months. The whole place will be wailing by Christmas. I never saw anything like it.

Ah, but you were predicting Ron Paul would sweep away all before him a while ago, if memory serves correctly. I'm disinclined to make predictions myself.

Another point about about Ron Paul I'd like to bring up is his opposition to the 'don't ask don't tell' policy in the US. I'd like to know specifically why he opposes it.

youngdan wrote:

There is not much point in talking about Ron Paul at this point in time with Irish people because the entire country is living a dream back there. This crying over the budget is pathetic.

I will say this though. Paul is not right wing at all and if anyone thinks he is are mistaken. Bush is right wing. Paul is a Constitutionalist and under the Constitution there would be no left wing or right wing.

What Ireland needs is a Ron Paul to pick up the pieces in a few months. The whole place will be wailing by Christmas. I never saw anything like it.

Save the grannies, save the teachers, save the banks, save the waterford glass workers, save the unemployed, save the students, save the Africans, save the Chadians, save the sick, save the planet, save the jobs, save RTE, save Tara, save the children, save the civil service, save the bogs, save the farmers, save broadband for everybody, save my house, save my post office account,

Save everything but the fact is it is every man for himself so save yourself

So how what would happen to the right and left wing under the Constitution?
And exactly what would Ron Paul do in Ireland, or more to the point, in the United States?

905 - I don't have the background to your question. Would you explain?

905 wrote:

youngdan wrote:

There is not much point in talking about Ron Paul at this point in time with Irish people because the entire country is living a dream back there. This crying over the budget is pathetic.

I will say this though. Paul is not right wing at all and if anyone thinks he is are mistaken. Bush is right wing. Paul is a Constitutionalist and under the Constitution there would be no left wing or right wing.

What Ireland needs is a Ron Paul to pick up the pieces in a few months. The whole place will be wailing by Christmas. I never saw anything like it.

Ah, but you were predicting Ron Paul would sweep away all before him a while ago, if memory serves correctly. I'm disinclined to make predictions myself.

Another point about about Ron Paul I'd like to bring up is his opposition to the 'don't ask don't tell' policy in the US. I'd like to know specifically why he opposes it.

I found this site that reviews all the Presidential candidates records on different issues.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

Ron Paul emerges as anti-homosexual and opposed to Civil Rights and affirmative action - everyone should be able to do it on their own, seems to be the line, and nothing should be done socially to rectify disadvantage. He is anti-abortion (as he was a gynaecologist, I'd give him some leeway on that one). He is opposed to all taxation and wants to abolish the IRS. He wants to abolish Social Security. Against gender-equal pay law. On the economy, Friedman doesn't go far enough: zero deficit spending and back to the gold standard. Anti death penalty due to the many mistakes. Opposes hate-crimes legislation. Thinks pornographers should not be prosecuted. Against the "War of Drugs". For legal hemp. On education, pro private and homeschooling. Abolish the Department of Education.

On the environment, he says property rights are the foundation of all rights (but is opposed to "minority rights"). Has a low rating on environmental votes.

On Foreign Relations is against external wars and against foreign aid. Opposed thaw with China. Against Law of the Sea Treaty. In general in favour of the US obeying international law. Sponsored Bill to withdraw from Unesco. Has said many times that the military costs of running an empire is what has finished empires off.

On trade - speaks against Free Trade but has generally voted for it.

Never supported a tax increase - voted to make Bush's tax policies permanent

Received the most campaign donations from the military.

Speaks in favour of small government/federalism and against central government. No voting record either way.

Pro-gun

Abolish Medicaid - private of charity medical care only

War - voted for SDI (nuclear) and is against US troops and bases abroad.

On immigration:
End all incentives and amnesty for illegal immigrants. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
Sponsored bill banning student visas from terrorist nations. (Jan 2003)
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)

On jobs - right to join union, but with "no special rights" ?
boss should have right to "interfere in union organising".
Against minimum wage.

Opposed to Church/State separation.

Full details here:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm#Social_Security

The conclusion of the very thorough linked voting record and views analysis is that Paul is a Conservative/leaning Libertarian.

The 'don't ask don't tell' policy is the US army's handling of homosexuality. Basically they don't want to know. Clinton brought it in in his day. Ronh Paul opposes it for some reason.

Like cactus flower I would like to know what exactly Ron Paul would do to sort out Ireland's woes.

You are not ready for the medicine yet because the pain of the illness has yet to sink in.

youngdan wrote:

You are not ready for the medicine yet because the pain of the illness has yet to sink in.

You will be sharing the pain youngdan. I'll take that as meaning you either don't know what he would do, or you realise people would not be impressed.

It is clear what he would do but people would at this moment not be impressed. They can not even stomach a mild budget. They are dreaming back there.

First thing an Irish Ron Paul would do is get out of the EU. The Irish people would rather starve than stand on their own two feet though. They believe in The Easter Bunny.

Just look at the fus over peanuts so far. Everyone wants a handout and nobody wants to pay. What a laugh

youngdan wrote:

It is clear what he would do but people would at this moment not be impressed. They can not even stomach a mild budget. They are dreaming back there.

First thing an Irish Ron Paul would do is get out of the EU. The Irish people would rather starve than stand on their own two feet though. They believe in The Easter Bunny.

Just look at the fus over peanuts so far. Everyone wants a handout and nobody wants to pay. What a laugh

Unfortunately that's a fairly true description of how it is here - I note your other similar post which I like 'cos it's largely true. We're way too passive and expectant a people and I'd like to know why that is. We want it on a plate, by and large, and people with some get up and go and proactivity are often frowned upon ... I think I heard someone recently saying that the Government shouldn't be taxing the poor they should be taxing the Entrepreneurs ... I think they meant the rich. If anything we should be throwing money at Entrepreneurs but I think the person has the idea that if it doesn't fall out of the sky to you then both you and it are evil.

Auditor #9 wrote:

youngdan wrote:

It is clear what he would do but people would at this moment not be impressed. They can not even stomach a mild budget. They are dreaming back there.

First thing an Irish Ron Paul would do is get out of the EU. The Irish people would rather starve than stand on their own two feet though. They believe in The Easter Bunny.

Just look at the fus over peanuts so far. Everyone wants a handout and nobody wants to pay. What a laugh

Unfortunately that's a fairly true description of how it is here - I note your other similar post which I like 'cos it's largely true. We're way too passive and expectant a people and I'd like to know why that is. We want it on a plate, by and large, and people with some get up and go and proactivity are often frowned upon ... I think I heard someone recently saying that the Government shouldn't be taxing the poor they should be taxing the Entrepreneurs ... I think they meant the rich. If anything we should be throwing money at Entrepreneurs but I think the person has the idea that if it doesn't fall out of the sky to you then both you and it are evil.

We spent the last ten years throwing money at entrepreneurs and it created a catastrophic bubble and unprecendented social division. Government put the icing on the cake by creating a whole layer of fat cat bureaucracy with temporary property money. Most people in Ireland work very hard and always have. Ron Paul would do away with health and education services and leave it down to charity. That's exactly the way it was here until not that long ago and it was not productive and it was not good for people.

To me Ron Paul starts of with a good set of ideas and then makes the mistake of trying to apply them to everything.

I wonder how care for the weak fits into evolution. A plus or a minus. Does it improve our chances of survival as a species or lessen them? Does it discourage genetic change?

Squire wrote:

To me Ron Paul starts of with a good set of ideas and then makes the mistake of trying to apply them to everything.

I wonder how care for the weak fits into evolution. A plus or a minus. Does it improve our chances of survival as a species or lessen them? Does it discourage genetic change?

Interesting point. Does it have a community/social value assuming we're a social animal which occupies and relies on a community system primarily? A pack, tribe or clan. Expelling the weak wouldn't be socially acceptable in a community-based grouping where participation and co-operation were valued.

This is also assuming the weak, old etc. are 'affordable'.

Another aspect of this is the role of the elderly. Because human children, when compared to other animals, are born immature then having an elderly portion of the population to help raise children may have been a distinct advantage at a time when we as a species were viewed as potential dinner for some of the large predators. Now such structures are breaking down and life is more individual. Or is it?

Auditor #9 wrote:

Squire wrote:

To me Ron Paul starts of with a good set of ideas and then makes the mistake of trying to apply them to everything.

I wonder how care for the weak fits into evolution. A plus or a minus. Does it improve our chances of survival as a species or lessen them? Does it discourage genetic change?

Interesting point. Does it have a community/social value assuming we're a social animal which occupies and relies on a community system primarily? A pack, tribe or clan. Expelling the weak wouldn't be socially acceptable in a community-based grouping where participation and co-operation were valued.

This is also assuming the weak, old etc. are 'affordable'.

How we do as a species depends not only on the individual but also on society, and how effective humans are as groups of mututally supportive people. The idea that a species of Arnold Schwarzeneggers would be more successul is fundamentally flawed. Ron Paul's approach would lead to plenty of deaths of sick people, but unless you are happy to go along with a lot of infant, child and teenage deaths, that would have no impact on inherited genes, as older people have already had children.

Ron Paul seems to me to lobby for a return to barbarism, in an era when we have the science and technology to ensure that no one should have to do without.

Barbarism versus a system that supports a class where no one has worked for several generations. Children learn from their parents, they learn their skills. In parts of the UK you can actually see a downward spiral where this generation is less skilled than the last and so on.

What is the balanced position?

Ireland spends more, 17 billion euro, on health than it would cost to cover everyone with private health insurance and fly them out here when they get sick for decent care.

Until you figure out why the likes of Merck make billions you will never understand health care. Health care is an industry.

Paul is a doctor and knows the system well. Here is what he says

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWLwJyc0ZqI

These plans by barack etc are just blather because the money to pay for them does not exist

Squire wrote:

Barbarism versus a system that supports a class where no one has worked for several generations. Children learn from their parents, they learn their skills. In parts of the UK you can actually see a downward spiral where this generation is less skilled than the last and so on.

What is the balanced position?

Barbarism means plenty of people unemployed, but perhaps they are roped into some gang of militia or thieves.

Capitalism needs a "reserve army of labour" available for work and to keep wages down. Why have everyone working if industry can produce enough/too much with only a proportion? When Britain under Thatcher abandoned any idea of remaining a manufacturing power, the Government abandoned a whole class of people whose lives had previously revolved around work.

What happens when a factory or a mine closes is that maybe two or three thousand people who are expert in attaching widget A to widget B, or in drilling deep underground, are suddenly all looking for work in the same immediate geographic area. Simultaneously the value of their house goes down and it becomes virtually unsaleable.

Mines are usually remote from business centres. A lot of unemployed miners move as soon as possible on to somewhere else in the world where a new mine is opening up. Welsh miners came to the Galmoy lead mines in Ireland in the 1990s. These mines are closing now and a lot of the miners move on again. Some can't move for family reasons, or are too old, or injured and they are stuck living in a mining area where there is usually no alternative employment. Manufacturing workers are much worse off. They are much less likely to have transferrable skills. Because they live near towns there is the illusion that they will find work. Their children have grown up in an area in which no one stays on in education and the schools are poor anyway. Before too long there are children who have never known anyone in a job. Try digging out of that one easily.

The Jared Diamond book the Book Club here read took a good look at hunter gatherer society and I been looking more at that - there is great stuff on the television, with subtitles. People have short lives, there is high child mortality and few make it far into old age, but they only work two or three hours a day and are very fit and healthy in their adulthood. They don't destroy the natural resource on which they rely. Surely to goodness we know enough now to be able to achieve sustainable well-being for the population we have now, including our children and old people?

Britain and the other western countries could afford to pay dole in the past as they had massive profits accruing from colonies. So the factory owner/shareholder, if he got out in time, went away with accumulated years of profit, and the workforce were f'd. The game is up now and I heard that the Labour Government has brought in measures to limit unemployment benefits and now we have the same in the Irish budget. This time a lot of the shareholders are banjaxed too. If we are to have production in the next few years it is likely that much of it will have to be nationalised.

First of all, the evolution stuff sounds a little off-topic to me. There was a perfectly good evolution thread not so long ago which could be bumped.

youngdan wrote:

Ireland spends more, 17 billion euro, on health than it would cost to cover everyone with private health insurance and fly them out here when they get sick for decent care.

Until you figure out why the likes of Merck make billions you will never understand health care. Health care is an industry.

Would you care to provide a source for that 17 billion euro statement youngdan?

As for health care being an industry, that's a matter of opinion not a bare fact. I would have thought health care was about caring for health myself.

Pulling out of the EU would still leave us subject to the EU's trade regulations, like Norway. In other words, we would be still have to comply with the restriction while having no say in their application. Ron Paul's supposed idea (and did he say it, or is it what you think he would say) sounds more workable in the absense of the EU itself. In other words, unpractical, unrealistic etc.

From what I can gather, Ron Paul's utopia sounds a bit like mdern-day Somalia. Plenty of guns, plenty of drugs, no taxes or government. It hasn't worked a treat for them.