My analysis of Ron Paul

[Mike Renzulli]

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

[Chris Grieb]

Mike; You are rejecting the good for the perfect.

[Mike Renzulli]

Exactly

Mike; You are rejecting the good for the perfect.

[Roger Bissell]

... 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.

Isn't there a huge difference between ~accepting~ federal money for his district and ~actively pursuing~ federal money for his district? While more details would be helpful in evaluating this, it seems likely to me that Paul was simply accepting the usual routine federal funds allocated for highways and the like, not pursuing funds for bridges to nowhere (as in Alaska).

Rand argued in "The Question of Scholarships" that people are justified in taking scholarships and grants for education from the government, as long as they are opposed in principle to people being taxed to fund such things. Same for government jobs, as long as the job isn't something that no one should be doing.

I note that the Social Security Death Records list Ayn Rand as a recipient. That does not surprise me; nor does it seem to be a contradiction with her stand against the welfare state and taxation.

I agree with Chris. The good is not the enemy of the perfect. Paul is a good guy, one worth supporting, in my opinion.

REB

[Mike Renzulli]

Roger,

Paul has actively worked to get the money for his district. According to a June 26th interview of one of his aides done by NBC affiliate KCEN Texas television news, Paul " has always asked for spending for his district in response to local government requests."

Additionally, the report states:

Among the written requests [Paul] submitted to the House Appropriations Committee, Paul asked for eight-point-six

million dollars for the Army Corps of Engineers to maintain the Texas City Channel.

He also asked for ten million dollars for the Galveston Rail Causeway Bridge.

This despite Paul's voting against the final appropriations bill presented on the floor.

There is a representative in Arizona named Jeff Flake who did a C-Span televised speech reeling against federal earmarks. It wasn't until one House member pointed out Flake's lobbying for and accepting federal ear marks for his district that Flake stopped the practice.

In my view, such hypocrisy should not be rewarded by anyone. Aside from the fact that Paul is a hypocrite for support such things as restrictions on abortion, immigration and allowing school prayer, his actions on federal pork while lobbying for it speaks volumes of the seriousness of his cause which is: not serious at all.

I realize this maybe nitpicking. However, if Paul isn't going to practice what he preaches and pick and choose what issues he will embrace freedom when it suits his purpose what good is he?

... 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.

Isn't there a huge difference between ~accepting~ federal money for his district and ~actively pursuing~ federal money for his district? While more details would be helpful in evaluating this, it seems likely to me that Paul was simply accepting the usual routine federal funds allocated for highways and the like, not pursuing funds for bridges to nowhere (as in Alaska).

Rand argued in "The Question of Scholarships" that people are justified in taking scholarships and grants for education from the government, as long as they are opposed in principle to people being taxed to fund such things. Same for government jobs, as long as the job isn't something that no one should be doing.

I note that the Social Security Death Records list Ayn Rand as a recipient. That does not surprise me; nor does it seem to be a contradiction with her stand against the welfare state and taxation.

I agree with Chris. The good is not the enemy of the perfect. Paul is a good guy, one worth supporting, in my opinion.

REB

[galtgulch]

<<<"I agree with Chris. The good is not the enemy of the perfect. Paul is a good guy, one worth supporting, in my opinion.">>>

Gentlemen,

Coming at it from the side of someone starving for a decent candidate for whom to work, to admire, to vote, it is too easy to try to ignore the blemishes on the countenance, the indiscretions of youth, minor differences and the like.

I am not completely happy to be gearing up to support a religious person, although at least Paul is not a fanatic, but I do share your concerns about his distress with the tradition of separation of church and state as he finds no Constitutional grounds for it. Likewise his antiabortion antichoice position is fraught with angst for me as well.

So I am reduced to ask you guys for whom does it make more sense to vote out of the present field of candidates?

I hadn't noticed anyone else likely to advocate a return to the gold standard, to abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax. At least we know Paul has reread and reread the Constitution the others just pay lip service to and swear an oath to uphold they know not what.

I am off to listen to the WGAT Conference Call so I will return to see your replies if any.

galt

[Mike Renzulli]

Galt,

With my posts on Paul, please let me make it clear that I do not belittle anyone who has decided to support him for President. However, from my vantage point, it would seem that Ron Paul is nothing more than a wolf in sheeps clothing.

If Objectivists and libertarians are to support a candidate for office, I would recommend that you back a candidate that is consistent about upholding individual rights and is also honest and truthful about what they want to do.

Its very possible that if Paul gets elected (which I think is highly unlikely) that he might actually do a lot of good to restore our nation's economy if not lots of the freedoms Americans lost after 9/11.

However, any of the things he does will be overshadowed by the fact that he wants to restrict personal liberty in many areas of people's lives and weaken church-state seperation.

I will say this much, out of the Presidential candidates, one that has caught my eye is Christine Smith who is running as a Libertarian. I have exchanged e-mails with her and talked to her on the telephone and she is very articulate and passionate about freedom.

While I do not endorse her since I am an officer of the Maricopa County and Arizona Libertarian Parties, she is the most consistent out of all of the candidates running so far.

<<<"I agree with Chris. The good is not the enemy of the perfect. Paul is a good guy, one worth supporting, in my opinion.">>>

Gentlemen,

Coming at it from the side of someone starving for a decent candidate for whom to work, to admire, to vote, it is too easy to try to ignore the blemishes on the countenance, the indiscretions of youth, minor differences and the like.

I am not completely happy to be gearing up to support a religious person, although at least Paul is not a fanatic, but I do share your concerns about his distress with the tradition of separation of church and state as he finds no Constitutional grounds for it. Likewise his antiabortion antichoice position is fraught with angst for me as well.

So I am reduced to ask you guys for whom does it make more sense to vote out of the present field of candidates?

I hadn't noticed anyone else likely to advocate a return to the gold standard, to abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax. At least we know Paul has reread and reread the Constitution the others just pay lip service to and swear an oath to uphold they know not what.

I am off to listen to the WGAT Conference Call so I will return to see your replies if any.

galt

[BaalChatzaf]

Its very possible that if Paul gets elected (which I think is highly unlikely) that he might actually do a lot of good to restore our nation's economy if not lots of the freedoms Americans lost after 9/11.

I must have been asleep since 9/11. I am unaware of any freedom that I have lost. Can you tell me what I have lost? I am still free to criticize the gummint. My right to travel abroad has not been any more abridged than it was prior to 9/11. I can even visit a Mosque (although I have no desire to). So what are my Lost Freedoms?

On the other hand, I am still paying taxes which I was prior to 9/11. Hep' me, hep' me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Its very possible that if Paul gets elected (which I think is highly unlikely) that he might actually do a lot of good to restore our nation's economy if not lots of the freedoms Americans lost after 9/11.

I must have been asleep since 9/11. I am unaware of any freedom that I have lost. Can you tell me what I have lost? I am still free to criticize the gummint. My right to travel abroad has not been any more abridged than it was prior to 9/11. I can even visit a Mosque (although I have no desire to). So what are my Lost Freedoms?

On the other hand, I am still paying taxes which I was prior to 9/11. Hep' me, hep' me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

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.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[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.

My calls were tapped prior to 9/11. So what has changed? And anyone on the "no fly list" can charter a private flight if he has the where with all. The no fly list is maintained by the airlines, not the government. It is a way of protecting the bulk of their passengers. What civil rights have been lost. There is no civil right to fly. You can fly if a private carrier will carry you, otherwise you won't. Flying is a privilege, not a right. Search the Constitution and find me a Right to Fly, would you?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

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.

My calls were tapped prior to 9/11. So what has changed? And anyone on the "no fly list" can charter a private flight if he has the where with all. The no fly list is maintained by the airlines, not the government. It is a way of protecting the bulk of their passengers. What civil rights have been lost. There is no civil right to fly. You can fly if a private carrier will carry you, otherwise you won't. Flying is a privilege, not a right. Search the Constitution and find me a Right to Fly, would you?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al, thank you for clarifying a decision that I have been struggling with. Your insanely "religious" litmus test that you "feel" you are justified in utilizing to evaluate the Paul campaign convinced me to get invovled in the campaign in Virginia.

Keep up the good work, you assist in creating commited persons with your dogmatism.

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al, thank you for clarifying a decision that I have been struggling with. Your insanely "religious" litmus test that you "feel" you are justified in utilizing to evaluate the Paul campaign convinced me to get invovled in the campaign in Virginia.

Keep up the good work, you assist in creating commited persons with your dogmatism.

My problem with Ron Paul is that he is not a killer. I want a stone-killer monster for President until the Muslim problem is finally solved. If Genghis Kahn were running he would get my vote in a thrice.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Ba'al, thank you for clarifying a decision that I have been struggling with. Your insanely "religious" litmus test that you "feel" you are justified in utilizing to evaluate the Paul campaign convinced me to get invovled in the campaign in Virginia.

Keep up the good work, you assist in creating commited persons with your dogmatism.

My problem with Ron Paul is that he is not a killer. I want a stone-killer monster for President until the Muslim problem is finally solved. If Genghis Kahn were running he would get my vote in a thrice.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Let's try that again. You really need some help my friend. Even Richard Nixon cautioned against that type of "hatred" because it eats you up inside.

[Mike Renzulli]

Okay,

How about the banks who are now REQUIRED to keep recored of your bank transactions or the fact that if you protest against the Prez at one of his appearances that you have to do it in a Free Speech Zone like many did during the Republican National Convention in 2004.

Read the ACLU's analysis of the PATRIOT act and look at all of the things gummint can do to monitor and track you. I wont go into the National ID card coming soon to a DMV near you fitted with an RFID chip that will make it easier to track your whereabouts.

Also, lets not forget Section 215 of the PATRIOT act that required libraries and bookstores to keep records of your book purchases and check outs. An FBI Agent can show up and look at them without a warrant and the bookstores or libraries are not allowed to tell you if your information has been requested.

Ever wonder why bookstores now have these discount cards? It isn't just to give you points towards a book, CD or DVD purchase, it is also a way to keep track of your store purchases in case the FBI shows up and wants to look at them. Any book purchase deemed suspicious and you can be dragged in for questioning.

Feel free now?

Its very possible that if Paul gets elected (which I think is highly unlikely) that he might actually do a lot of good to restore our nation's economy if not lots of the freedoms Americans lost after 9/11.

I must have been asleep since 9/11. I am unaware of any freedom that I have lost. Can you tell me what I have lost? I am still free to criticize the gummint. My right to travel abroad has not been any more abridged than it was prior to 9/11. I can even visit a Mosque (although I have no desire to). So what are my Lost Freedoms?

On the other hand, I am still paying taxes which I was prior to 9/11. Hep' me, hep' me.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Mike Renzulli]

The airlines are required to keep a list as per directives of the Dept of Homeland Security. I believe the good ol' PATRIOT Act enabled this to happen. You do any activities deemed questionable by the feds and you can end up on their too. Once you are on, its nearly impossible to be removed even if its a mistake. 60 Minutes did a news report on this last year.

While there is no right to fly in the constitution, there is a right to privacy via the 4th amendment regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. I would guess people who have been blacklisted like this even if they are innocent would be considered unreasonable, wouldn't you agree?

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.

My calls were tapped prior to 9/11. So what has changed? And anyone on the "no fly list" can charter a private flight if he has the where with all. The no fly list is maintained by the airlines, not the government. It is a way of protecting the bulk of their passengers. What civil rights have been lost. There is no civil right to fly. You can fly if a private carrier will carry you, otherwise you won't. Flying is a privilege, not a right. Search the Constitution and find me a Right to Fly, would you?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited November 13, 2007 by Mike Renzulli

[BaalChatzaf]

Ever wonder why bookstores now have these discount cards? It isn't just to give you points towards a book, CD or DVD purchase, it is also a way to keep track of your store purchases in case the FBI shows up and wants to look at them. Any book purchase deemed suspicious and you can be dragged in for questioning.

Feel free now?

As free as I have ever been. I buy what I like for cash or with a credit card. I even look up the Anarchist's Cookbook online. I have never been bothered because of my purchases or downloads. Not once.

However none of us are all that free. We are compelled to pay unjust taxes (we work for Uncle until the middle of May) and we are subject to insane regulations.

Feel free now?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Mike; Ayn Rand wrote an essay on " How to Judge a Political Candidate". I have not read it in a while but I think you might look at it in your comments about Ron Paul.

Ba'al;

I think your comments that people can charter a plane if they are on the no-fly list are silly and offensive to vast majority who can afford to do something like that.

Edited November 13, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[BaalChatzaf]

Mike; Ayn Rand wrote an essay on " How to Judge a Political Candidate". I have not read it in a while but I think you might look at it in your comments about Ron Paul.

Ba'al;

I think your comments that people can charter a plane if they are on the no-fly list are silly and offensive to vast majority who can afford to do something like that.

O.K. Then they can take a bus or rent a car. In any case, a -private- carrier can formulate any policy it pleases to promote the perceived safety of its customers. As I said, there is no Right to Fly in the U.S. Constitution and one cannot be found, even using the 9th Amendment.

I find being told how I am now rightless and bare since 9/11 not only offensive, but silly. I have no fewer rights since 9/11 than I had prior to 9/11, when I had few enough rights then. We are at war, and when we are at war, corners can and no doubt will be cut. The solution: win the war and then we can get back to figure out how to be just to and with each other. It happened that way after Sept. of 1945.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is some food for thought written in 2006 by a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. Unfathomed Dangers in Patriot Act Reauthorization by Paul Craig Roberts.

A provision in the "Patriot Act" creates a new federal police force with power to violate the Bill of Rights.

. . .

Like every law in the US, this law also will be expansively interpreted and abused. It has dire implications for freedom of association and First Amendment rights.

Frankly, this kind of thing scares the hell out of me. I have seen up close the power of political precedent, where temporary emergency measures become not so temporary, then abused to eliminate political enemies, then further bused to "keep order," then finally people start disappearing in the middle of the night.

I have no wish to have a run-in over a misunderstanding with this new kind of police. Just knowing they are there with the power they wield gives me the creeps.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

I believe Ron Paul was one of the few members of Congress to vote against the Patriot Act. I have heard aides for Congressman say that the Congress did not have of copy of the bill they were voting when they passed the original act. Any member of Congress who voted the Patriot Act with these conditions should be removed from office

Mike: When you introduced yourself you said you where from Goldwater country. Barry Goldwater was a strong supporter of the Central Arizona Project. Support of the Central Arizona Project did make Barry a bad guy. Some of Dr Paul's earmarks don't make him one either.

[Mike Renzulli]

Its very possible that you may never be bothered about anything. Then again, you might (which I hope never happens). For example, soon after speaking out against the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the owner and webmaster of Raise the Fist dot com got a visit from FBI agents who seized all of his computer equipment and files.

This kind of conduct is legal as per The PATRIOT Act and I believe the FBI did this without a warrant too.

In instances where you have no choice to pay taxes or follow regulations then in order to live many times you have to. However, do you feel comfortable living in a society or living with a government that once used to believe that you are innocent until proven guilty but those who make it up now feel otherwise? I know I don't. You should not either.

Ever wonder why bookstores now have these discount cards? It isn't just to give you points towards a book, CD or DVD purchase, it is also a way to keep track of your store purchases in case the FBI shows up and wants to look at them. Any book purchase deemed suspicious and you can be dragged in for questioning.

Feel free now?

As free as I have ever been. I buy what I like for cash or with a credit card. I even look up the Anarchist's Cookbook online. I have never been bothered because of my purchases or downloads. Not once.

However none of us are all that free. We are compelled to pay unjust taxes (we work for Uncle until the middle of May) and we are subject to insane regulations.

Feel free now?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited November 14, 2007 by Mike Renzulli

[Mike Renzulli]

Agreed on Goldwater and the CAP. While he was not consistent, I like Barry Goldwater because he mostly said what was on his mind and was principled enough to stand up for what he believed in.

I will look up the Ayn Rand article you speak of. However, my opposition to Ron Paul is solid since I think it is time for Objectivists and libertarians to no longer back candidates that do not exactly match our principles and philosophy.

I will say this much Johnathan Hoenig owner of CaptialistPig.com endorsed Michael Badnarik for President in 2004. As many of you may know, Hoenig is a supporter of ARI but seems to have some tolerance for Libertarians. His book Greed is Good was sold at Laissez Faire Books for sometime, respectfully.

I am taking from Hoenig's example and would urge you all to consider doing the same.

I believe Ron Paul was one of the few members of Congress to vote against the Patriot Act. I have heard aides for Congressman say that the Congress did not have of copy of the bill they were voting when they passed the original act. Any member of Congress who voted the Patriot Act with these conditions should be removed from office

Mike: When you introduced yourself you said you where from Goldwater country. Barry Goldwater was a strong supporter of the Central Arizona Project. Support of the Central Arizona Project did make Barry a bad guy. Some of Dr Paul's earmarks don't make him one either.

Edited November 14, 2007 by Mike Renzulli

[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

[Chris Grieb]

Brant; You are exactly right on rights. Rights exist before government.

[BaalChatzaf]

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