My analysis of Ron Paul

[Chris Grieb]

Baal; I think we are on the same page. The no fly list is a government list which the airlines enforce. If an airline decided that no Islamic young men from Saudi Arabia could fly on their airline how soon do you think the cilvil rights law suit would take. I have no objection to an airline doing that.

[Brant Gaede]

Rights in the constitution are not granted by government, only protected, supposedly, plus all the unenumerated rights. I refer to the ninth amendment. This isn't ever Objectivism 101.

--Brant

Even with the 9th amendment you still won't find a Right to Fly in the constitution. No private carrier has a duty to carry anyone they do not wish to carry. If it were otherwise, the owners of the private carrier would be slaves.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I am not arguing about a "right to fly." That right doesn't mean an airline should be compelled to fly you. I am only talking about the fact that the constitution doesn't create rights, only makes some references to some of them.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I am not arguing about a "right to fly." That right doesn't mean an airline should be compelled to fly you. I am only talking about the fact that the constitution doesn't create rights, only makes some references to some of them.

--Brant

That is correct. However a plaintiff may claim some liberty as an unenumerated right and the courts may disagree with him. The 9th is not a permission slip for any old liberty. The claim of a generalized right to privacy (for example) may be more than the courts will agree to. So if a person complains in court that he was imaged on a security camera and that violated his right to privacy, the courts would make very short shrift of that claim. On the other hand a person can claim privacy within the walls of his home. The courts will probably go along with that. The fourth amendment adumbrates such a right anyway. That, probably, is how the right to privacy discovered in Griswald v. Connecticut come about. Likewise another variety of privacy was discovered in Roe v. Wade.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

With all of the hoo-hah about Rep. Ron Paul, I have been suspicious of him for quite some time. While Paul is anti-abortion, there are a number of other issues he supports that social conservatives love, but libertarians and Objectivists would loathe. I did an analysis of his voting record and, while Paul has been critical of earmarks (i.e. pork barrel spending) for members of Congress, the man has accepted federal money for his district.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian nor is he the freedom-loving candidate that he makes himself out to be.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Editorial-P...m?InfoNo=021896

Ahh! Then it's over, please everybody who has even considered that a twenty (20) year Congressman is not pure, but might be worth listening to immediately withdraw from the campaign and any independent thought.

The Great God of Ba'al has spoken. And, as our Muslim brother's state, "God is Great!"

Dispatch them all I say, into the Gentile pit!

Anyone, have a chance to read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" recently?

[Greybird]

I finally read the linked essay, and I don't believe it rises to the level of being serious "analysis."

Just one example: Paul passes along requests for earmarks, and has said repeatedly that he sees this as being constituent service (and only to constituents, not lobbyists) — yet he makes it absolutely plain, to everyone, that he will neither work to see them enacted, nor vote for them.

You can see this as breathtaking cynicism, as Renzulli implies, with the likelihood of their being enacted anyway — or you can see a man of integrity conscientiously working at arm's length within an utterly flawed system. I'd say the choice says much more about the philosophic tenor, and realistic judgment, of the observer than it does about Ron Paul.

[...] I think it is time for Objectivists and libertarians to no longer back candidates that do not exactly match our principles and philosophy.

Then you're proposing to not work within the existing constitutional system at all, because the institutions in place work strenuously against this. Much more so for going through third parties, but against anyone who speaks plainly.

Especially when it's about the war-making pillars of the regime currently in charge, at least since 1940. Ron Paul does NOT shy away from using the appropriate word: "empire." That is what we have. That is what we've had since, again, at least 1940, the last year the U.S. was essentially a peacetime economy.

In any event, you're never going to get an "exact match." Even leaving to the side the whole issue of what "our principles" includes. I don't see any common ground between rational Objectivist types and ARI ... or should I say, AEI? eh, what's the real difference? ... calling for Tehran to be turned into radioactive glass.

What you're calling for, in practice, is extra-constitutional action, either resisting or ignoring or bypassing or monkey-wrenching the system — most likely, all four paths. That brings Objectivist action, in relevant practice, far closer to the "anarchists" who are unjustly dumped upon routinely, here and in every other Rand-related forum.

The closest we're going to get — within this system, and its favoring of the two wings of the Statist Party — is a fiercely principled man, whether you agree with every position of his or not, who approaches every issue from the viewpoint of reducing or eliminating government power.

We have that with Ron Paul, at least for this primary season. Even for the publicity value of his making a good showing, and leaving a remnant for further agitation and change, I'd advise not throwing it away.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Greybird

[Roger Bissell]

I finally read the linked essay, and I don't believe it rises to the level of being serious "analysis."

Just one example: Paul passes along requests for earmarks, and has said repeatedly that he sees this as being constituent service (and only to constituents, not lobbyists) — yet he makes it absolutely plain, to everyone, that he will neither work to see them enacted, nor vote for them.

You can see this as breathtaking cynicism, as Renzulli implies, with the likelihood of their being enacted anyway — or you can see a man of integrity conscientiously working at arm's length within an utterly flawed system. I'd say the choice says much more about the philosophic tenor, and realistic judgment, of the observer than it does about Ron Paul.

[...] I think it is time for Objectivists and libertarians to no longer back candidates that do not exactly match our principles and philosophy.

Then you're proposing to not work within the existing constitutional system at all, because the institutions in place work strenuously against this. Much more so for going through third parties, but against anyone who speaks plainly.

Especially when it's about the war-making pillars of the regime currently in charge, at least since 1940. Ron Paul does NOT shy away from using the appropriate word: "empire." That is what we have. That is what we've had since, again, at least 1940, the last year the U.S. was essentially a peacetime economy.

In any event, you're never going to get an "exact match." Even leaving to the side the whole issue of what "our principles" includes. I don't see any common ground between rational Objectivist types and ARI ... or should I say, AEI? eh, what's the real difference? ... calling for Tehran to be turned into radioactive glass.

What you're calling for, in practice, is extra-constitutional action, either resisting or ignoring or bypassing or monkey-wrenching the system — most likely, all four paths. That brings Objectivist action, in relevant practice, far closer to the "anarchists" who are unjustly dumped upon routinely, here and in every other Rand-related forum.

The closest we're going to get — within this system, and its favoring of the two wings of the Statist Party — is a fiercely principled man, whether you agree with every position of his or not, who approaches every issue from the viewpoint of reducing or eliminating government power.

We have that with Ron Paul, at least for this primary season. Even for the publicity value of his making a good showing, and leaving a remnant for further agitation and change, I'd advise not throwing it away.

Well said!!!

REB

[galtgulch]

I finally read the linked essay, and I don't believe it rises to the level of being serious "analysis."

The closest we're going to get — within this system, and its favoring of the two wings of the Statist Party — is a fiercely principled man, whether you agree with every position of his or not, who approaches every issue from the viewpoint of reducing or eliminating government power.

We have that with Ron Paul, at least for this primary season. Even for the publicity value of his making a good showing, and leaving a remnant for further agitation and change, I'd advise not throwing it away.

I met Ron Paul in 1988 when he ran as a libertarian party candidate. We were busy getting him to interviews with the press so I didn't have a chance to speak with him about anything. He was quite impressive in the interviews.

I just watched a youtube video of Ron Paul Tea Party 07 and it looks like they are gearing up for another fund raiser which I expect will out perform the attention getting $4.2 raised on November 5th. I expect there will be more fundraisers each month or so. April 19th is sure to be one of them for the British attack in Lexington and Concord. Bunker Hill day is early in June and is likely to be another date chosen. February has Ayn Rand's birthday but I find it hard to imagine that day will be chosen. Maybe Washington's birthday of February 22nd instead.

Check out the youtube video about the Tea Party. IT is a happening which might evolve into his nomination as unlikely as that is to imagine given Romney and Guiliani ahead of him now.

Still Paul will have the money to appeal to the populace with all the money these fundraisers bring in one after another.

galt

Edited November 15, 2007 by galtgulch

[Mike Renzulli]

It is unfortunate that you do not consider my commentary serious analysis since it based almost exclusively on Paul's voting record.

As far as the earmarks are concerned, the way I see it is that rather than putting in the requests is that he should stay true to his principles and bluntly tell the local officials or people making the requests for the earmarks that it is not the proper function of government to fund such projects.

What good is it going to do to elect someone who reels against an empire in the United States but then turns around and use government force on doctors who perform abortions? Let alone gay and lesbian adult couples who want to adopt orphaned kids in DC? How about businessmen who hire an illegal immigrants? Based on Paul's voting record and the stances he has taken running for President it doesn't seem like he is too friendly to letting these things alone.

Like I said, I have no doubt that if he is elected that Paul could scale back the federal government in many areas. However, if his stance on social issues is any indication, people's civil liberties could still be on the chopping block.

The point I am making with this whole article is that Paul is not a defender of freedom nor serious about its defense anymore than his opponents of both parties are. If freedom-lovers like us are to back candidates for elected office, it should be for candidate(s) that consistently uphold people's rights and not pick-and-choose like Paul and other politicians like him do.

Much of the arguments in libertarian and Objectivist circles make are vaguely reminiscent of the lesser of two evils argument. That doesn't set well with me.

My attitude towards Paul is no different than it is towards Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney. However, I would pose the question: Is it really cynicism to see Paul or a politician for who he/she really is?

As far as working within the system to enact change, it does not have to be just limited to electing people to office. I would point out that Ayn Rand worked outside the system quite well with publishing her books. Matter of fact, it can be argued that if the sales and influence of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are any indication that one can have a bigger influence outside the system than in it.

I would also dare to argue that Objectivists themselves can have a much larger impact on American culture at large since they are a vital forum to persuade the culture back to the Aristotelian-oriented principles the country was founded on.

I also distinctly remember reading something written by Ayn Rand stating something along the lines of how disappointed or frustrated she was that there was no political party or candidates truly dedicated to defending capitalism. Fortunately, there is one in existence and, despite recent events, I need not tell you the party's name.

Such arguments to work outside a system that has become very corrupt and now exists to inhibit the very rights of people it was implemented to uphold aren't arguments for anarchism as much as they are rooted in common sense.

I finally read the linked essay, and I don't believe it rises to the level of being serious "analysis."

Just one example: Paul passes along requests for earmarks, and has said repeatedly that he sees this as being constituent service (and only to constituents, not lobbyists) — yet he makes it absolutely plain, to everyone, that he will neither work to see them enacted, nor vote for them.

You can see this as breathtaking cynicism, as Renzulli implies, with the likelihood of their being enacted anyway — or you can see a man of integrity conscientiously working at arm's length within an utterly flawed system. I'd say the choice says much more about the philosophic tenor, and realistic judgment, of the observer than it does about Ron Paul.

[...] I think it is time for Objectivists and libertarians to no longer back candidates that do not exactly match our principles and philosophy.

Then you're proposing to not work within the existing constitutional system at all, because the institutions in place work strenuously against this. Much more so for going through third parties, but against anyone who speaks plainly.

Especially when it's about the war-making pillars of the regime currently in charge, at least since 1940. Ron Paul does NOT shy away from using the appropriate word: "empire." That is what we have. That is what we've had since, again, at least 1940, the last year the U.S. was essentially a peacetime economy.

In any event, you're never going to get an "exact match." Even leaving to the side the whole issue of what "our principles" includes. I don't see any common ground between rational Objectivist types and ARI ... or should I say, AEI? eh, what's the real difference? ... calling for Tehran to be turned into radioactive glass.

What you're calling for, in practice, is extra-constitutional action, either resisting or ignoring or bypassing or monkey-wrenching the system — most likely, all four paths. That brings Objectivist action, in relevant practice, far closer to the "anarchists" who are unjustly dumped upon routinely, here and in every other Rand-related forum.

The closest we're going to get — within this system, and its favoring of the two wings of the Statist Party — is a fiercely principled man, whether you agree with every position of his or not, who approaches every issue from the viewpoint of reducing or eliminating government power.

We have that with Ron Paul, at least for this primary season. Even for the publicity value of his making a good showing, and leaving a remnant for further agitation and change, I'd advise not throwing it away.

Edited November 19, 2007 by Mike Renzulli

[Greybird]

Mike Renzulli wrote:

> It is unfortunate that you do not consider my commentary serious analysis since it [is]

> based almost exclusively on Paul's voting record.

It also takes a host of instances out of reasonable context. I'm getting tired of this, especially from Objectivists who have been rhetorically keelhauled from others' doing so (mostly, again, other Objectivists).

> As far as the earmarks are concerned, the way I see it is that rather than putting in the requests[,]

> he should stay true to his principles and bluntly tell the local officials or people making the

> requests for the earmarks that it is not the proper function of government to fund such projects.

What makes you think he doesn't? I know of more than one instance where he has — in private. (The person involved, at NASA, told associates, and it got back to me in another forum where I know one of them.) Paul doesn't think that embarrassing some such petitioner in public is appropriate. This seems to have entirely gotten past you, along with his refusing to trash his opponents, in or out of his party.

Is the inter-Objectivist fighting making you forget, as I believe it has with some others here, about the possibility of some people still being civil?

If you want to remove constituent service, as such, be plain about it. No appointments to West Point. No assistance in getting veterans medical care for their war injuries. No fighting the IRS bureaucracy over an unwarranted tax lien on one's house. Nothing. Should all of that be stopped, as well?

I'm inclined to give someone of evident and thorough principle the benefit of the doubt on details, and not inclined to tear into pointless specifics when someone like you takes them out of context, but I'll do a few.

> What good is it going to do to elect someone who reels against an empire in the United States but

> then turns around and use government force on doctors who perform abortions?

He is neither doing nor proposing any such thing. He is saying that this is none of the business of the federal government, and leaving it to local decisions. That used to be a widely recognized, if unhonored, principle, codified by the Tenth Amendment, which almost no one else seems to have looked at fully in the 215 years since.

Empire is what it is, and of, well, a bit more consequence. It's not pregnant women in the U.S. who are being killed. It's pregnant women, and other women, and men and children who are being slaughtered and tortured in Iraq, from the effects of the mess we've made.

> Let alone gay and lesbian adult couples who want to adopt orphaned kids in DC?

Congress is the legislature for D.C., under the Constitution, and he's taking it seriously. No, I don't think this is proper, and if his particular values on the subject are driving this, I don't care for it. Yet I also know how he's almost incessantly taken up the point of marriage — and adoption — not being the proper business of government, period.

> [...] if his stance on social issues is any indication, people's civil liberties could still be on the

> chopping block.

Such as with how he'd stop implementation of REAL ID? Of domestic warrantless surveillance? Of National Security Letters, which gut the Fourth Amendment? Yeah, right.

> [...] If freedom-lovers like us are to back candidates for elected office, it should be for

> candidate(s) that consistently uphold people's rights and not pick-and-choose like Paul and

> other politicians like him do.

Anyone who doesn't see how this man is, by orders of magnitude, less of such a "pick-and-chooser," and on explicit philosophical and economic grounds, than anyone in political life since at least Goldwater, and probably since Grover Cleveland ... well, to me, he or she is beyond persuasion. You're clearly among them.

> As far as working within the system to enact change, it does not have to be just

> limited to electing people to office. [...]

And who here ever said it was thus "limited"? I said that the opportunity of Paul's record, ideas, consistency, and example should not be thrown aside in any cavalier way, as you are doing. You're going against a non-argument. Nobody I've seen here has said that efforts should be "limited" to electoral politics.

> [...] Objectivists themselves can have a much larger impact on American culture at large

> since they are a vital forum to persuade the culture back to the Aristotel[e]an-oriented

> principles the country was founded on.

I'll try to remember that, the next time Yaron Brook or Leonard Peikoff gets on Faux Noise and suggests that we should turn Tehran to ashes, or that the Israelis should be abetted in doing so.

Some Objectivists throw away sanity and Aristotelean moderation with both hands, when it comes to their trying to effect practical consequences, and they use how they benefit from Rand's name to thus blacken everything she stood for. When those people start being ignored, we might see a real difference.

> I also distinctly remember reading something written by Ayn Rand stating something along

> the lines of how disappointed or frustrated she was that there was no political party or

> candidates truly dedicated to defending capitalism. Fortunately, there is one in existence

> and, despite recent events, I need not tell you the party's name.

You should, again, provide context. Rand was enthusiastically supportive of Barry Goldwater in 1964, almost blindly so, far more than I've seen for nearly any prominent supporter of Paul today. She put all her personal confidence in him. She got personally disappointed by him — and how Johnson, a master at the art of the smear, stomped on him — and she concluded that this ruled out principled political parties as such.

An astounding piece of political reasoning-by-inessentials, and Rand put it all in The Objectivist Newsletter — but only the unexpurgated, Branden-inclusive edition — for anyone to see. She jumped from the belief that the Republicans of '64 were incapable of acting on principle to the conclusion that no one was thus capable, in or out of a party, a classic fallacy of composition.

As for "the party's name," you should be plain. Are you talking about the Libertarian Party? That, unfortunately, has become problematic. It's had severe institutional problems. Most are inflicted by the ballot-access and organizing restrictions that weigh upon it, but some are self-inflicted — such as a (hopefully temporary) gutting of its own platform, some of which I helped write over my 30 years of LP activism.

Yes, the LP is consistent. It has unheralded successes both in education and in local and state electoral (and appointive) politics. It also, though, is not enough in strategic and tactical terms to press through in a concentrated media age, which this society still largely exhibits, despite the Internet's beneficial effects in the other direction. Those respecting genuine liberty need Paulist insurgents in both of the larger parties. They complement what the LP can do at its best, which is far from where it is at this moment.

I think it all comes down to two implicit points, really, as I and others have suggested: You're making the perfect the enemy of, not merely the good, but the good coming from more principled people than we have any historical right to expect. And you're calling for withdrawing from electoral politics, as such, without admitting it. I can understand both viewpoints, at arduous moments I can sympathize with them, but I can't abide those who hold them not being plain about them.

[BaalChatzaf]

I would also dare to argue that Objectivists themselves can have a much larger impact on American culture at large since they are a vital forum to persuade the culture back to the Aristotelian-oriented principles the country was founded on.

Be careful of what you wish for. Aristotle was pro-slavery(1254b27-1255a2 Politics I,1). He also consider politics and statecraft the best science (see Nichomachean Ethics). He was a Statist.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited November 19, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

Ba'al; You are not on the no fly list.

Are you totally comfortable that the government maybe listening to your phone calls.

I am not as upset as some people are but I am not happy.

Flying is a privilege, not a right. Search the Constitution and find me a Right to Fly, would you?

Maybe it's not obvious. Liberty is the freedom to travel, the thing that slaves, serfs, and occupied subject peoples have not.

Geez.

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al; You are not on the no fly list.

Are you totally comfortable that the government maybe listening to your phone calls.

I am not as upset as some people are but I am not happy.

Flying is a privilege, not a right. Search the Constitution and find me a Right to Fly, would you?

Maybe it's not obvious. Liberty is the freedom to travel, the thing that slaves, serfs, and occupied subject peoples have not.

Geez.

He who is on the No Fly list can:

1. Drive a car, either his own or a rental.

2. Take a bus

3. Take a train

4. charter a private flight.

5. ride a bike

6. walk

A serf or slave could not:

1. drive a car

2. take a bus (unless guarded)

3. take a train (unless guarded)

4. charter a private flight

5. ride a bike

6. walk.

So who is a serf or a slave here?

Denying a fanatic the opportunity to turn a commercial flight into a Chariot of Fire is hardly a denial of liberty. It is pro-active self defense.

We are currently as war. Defense is necessary. Greater restrictions were put on U.S. citizens during WW2 and they did not whine or complain.

Bob Kolker

[Brant Gaede]

You have a right to try to fly and the airline has the right not to fly you. It's the airline's airplane.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

You have a right to try to fly and the airline has the right not to fly you. It's the airline's airplane.

--Brant

Well, no. Airlines are common carriers. They have to fly everybody, in wheelchairs, unaccompanied minors, guys in turbans, etc. It's the government 'no-fly' police power and 14th Amendment doctrine that's at issue, not airline policy IMO. Airlines can choose cities and flight schedules, but everything else is FAA and other govt regs.

W.

[Brant Gaede]

You have a right to try to fly and the airline has the right not to fly you. It's the airline's airplane.

--Brant

Well, no. Airlines are common carriers. They have to fly everybody, in wheelchairs, unaccompanied minors, guys in turbans, etc. It's the government 'no-fly' police power and 14th Amendment doctrine that's at issue, not airline policy IMO. Airlines can choose cities and flight schedules, but everything else is FAA and other govt regs.

W.

In this case the problem should be reduced to essentials: In a free society what I say is true; in this society you are correct.

--Brant

[Wolf DeVoon]

Brant,

Uniformly uninterrupted pleasure reading your posts. Sorry if I'm a cranky jerk too often. No disrespect intended.

Mr Renzulli,

Your view of Ron Paul not blank of blank.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Wolf DeVoon

[emb021]

FWIW.

The Wendy McElroy site seems to take a (perverse) delite in trying to find issues with Ron Paul. http://www.wendymcelroy.com They seem to feel they are the 'only libertarian site pointing out why RP is not libertarian', and (I guess) why l'ists shouldn't support him.

Personally, I find most of thier 'proof' a bit lacking.

The LewRockwell site (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) is un-ashamingly pro-Ron Paul (not surprising, as LR knows Paul thru the LvMI). They have been making a lot of his articles available, and pointing out some of the attacks on Paul by the media (and others), AND pointing out how they are incorrect. I believe some of the stuff that WME's site has tried to use to attack RP, the LRC site has shown to be wrong or misinterpreted.

So if this is the sort of thing you are looking for, I recommend you check out those sites.

[edited to fix a glaring typo]

Edited November 29, 2007 by Michael Brown

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

In times of election, I have noticed that the noise ratio increases stridently and irrationally, even among the most rational among us. Suddenly American politicians like Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul (to give a two good opposite examples) are equated with Hitler and so forth. From the sounds of things, depending on who is writing, these are moral monsters the likes of which mankind has never seen. Ditto for Bush from others.

Or it goes the other way. These politicians have defects in the same manner that ARI defends Rand and they are some of the greatest, most wonderful and heroic human beings who ever lived.

I don't want to sound above it all, but I find all this boring. Everything is slanted and the tolerance for lies against opponents is too great for me to stomach. Once time passes, hardly anybody ever remembers this stuff. And almost nobody remembers election losers 50 years down the road unless they become famous for something else.

Michael