Ron Paul to lead Libertarians when he resigns from Congress.

1. 48

   Doodleheadposted 11 years ago

   According to Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul has plans to lead the Liberty Caucus Republicans
   when he resigns in December.   Lew says Dr. Paul has kept his typical low profile
   until he is out of Congress.   
   
   What do you think he has planned?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Ms. Doodle. Howzit goin’?
      
      I would be surprised if Mr. Ron Paul has anything special planned. His vision for the country includes races sitting in separate sections of public lunch counters and drinking from different water fountains. This country has already been there and done that.  I doubt the nation is going to move backwards.
      
      On June 4, 2004, when Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Ron Paul cast the ONLY dissenting vote. In a statement from the floor of the House, he said, “The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.” {1} Ron Paul’s idea of a “free society” is forcing me to sit in the front of a public bus when I want to ride in the back. His idea of a “free society” is allowing someone to force me to drink from only certain fountains.
      
      In an interview with Candy Crowley on CNN's State of the Union, Dr. Paul bashed the 1964 Civil Rights Act again saying it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices." {2}
      
      Oh, let’s not overlook the infamous Ron Paul Newsletters. 
      
      Most Ron Paul supporters praise his speeches about individual liberty while ignoring his tolerance for allowing the unrestrained rights of one citizen to deny liberty to another. 
      
      {1} http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
      {2} http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-tel … d-privacy/)

      replyreport
2. 48

   Doodleheadposted 11 years ago

   Quilligrapher-I think if you read why Ron Paul cast the dissenting vote you will start to understand Ron Paul.   Those that do not understand him continue this nonsense.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Ms. Doodle. Nice to see your comments.
      
      Did you say, “this nonsense?” Do you consider opinions different than yours to be “nonsense?” Apparently, you believe everyone who knows Ron Paul but disagrees with his ideology does not understand him. I see no nonsense in my post. It is mostly Ron Paul quotes with citations! Did I misquote Dr. Paul? If I did, I would welcome your corrections.
      
      Feel free to advocate for Dr. Paul, Ms. Doodle, if you think he is so great. However, when you claim the opinions of others are nonsense, you must be ignoring his voting record in Congress and his history of denying responsibility for the racist newsletters he used to finance his campaigns.
      
      Ron Paul clearly said he believes in a “free society” where private property owners, “even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent,” have a right to publicly deny other citizens of their rights to human dignity. Well I don’t agree. This does not mean my opinion is nonsense, it means I do not agree!
      
      Ron Paul is an outspoken isolationist. He has opposed just about every international treaty and nearly every US attempt to participate in the global community. He advocated withdrawal from the UN and NATO. {1} He would have us turn our back to the rest of the world. He does not favor reducing foreign aid; he wants to eliminate it. He pledged to reduce the military budget and abolish the CIA. I am NOT the one saying he is an isolationist. He has defined himself as such.
      
      Ron Paul does not even support the Libertarian stance on abortion. The 2010 Libertarian Party platform on abortion was to have no position at all: "we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration." {2} Ron Paul, however, has a clear non-Libertarian position: "I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there." {3}
      
      My understanding of Ron Paul may make no sense to you, Ms. Doodle, but it is far from nonsense.
      
      {1} http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html
      {2} http://www.lp.org/platform
      {3} http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

      replyreport
      1. 48

         Doodleheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I was not looking to hear from you.  I was looking forward to like minded people who were enthusiastic supporters of the US Constitution.   
         
         I have no interest in your views.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Hi again, Ms. Doodle.
            
            Clearly you are not interested in any views that do not agree with your own. However, other readers of this thread might be.
            
            BTW, it is possible to be an enthusiastic supporter of the US Constitution and still not admire Ron Paul.   
            
            Of course, you own your opinions and you are welcome to them.
            

            replyreport
      2. 64

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Hi Quilligrapher,
         
         Firstly, let's address your first point about segregation and the Civil Rights Act. You assume that since he doesn't want government incursion into property rights that he advocates everything that happens on said property. This is a fallacy. What you are doing is telling us by advocating one position, he is in fact advocating something different because you perceive that that action would be the inevitable result of the first.
         
         Let's look at it in more detail. You're suggesting that with the abolishment of the Civil Rights Act, there will be mass segregation. However, you're not taking into account the societal changes that have occurred since the civil rights movement. Think about this: if you accept that the Civil Rights Act was a democratic action, you have to accept that most people agreed with its premise: that people of non-white races have the same rights as white people. In our developed world, despite its problems, the majority must have only increased, so it'd be rare to see segregation in any large form.
         
         Is Ron Paul forcing you to drink from a different water fountain? One has to ask: if he wanted to do that, why doesn't he just lobby for government to do it? The government is the only institution with the power to enforce segregation country-wide. He only wants private property rights respected - this is an entirely different premise (remember, Paul was in favour of the provisions in the act that stopped segregation in public services). You are not forced to associate with this person who would have you drink from a different fountain if you were on his land, and he doesn't have to admit you or anyone else to his land. Under the rare instance where there is only one water fountain in 50 miles and it just happens to be run by a racist, you might have a point, but since it is so rare it's not worth violating property rights for it.
         
         Why are property rights so damned important? Paul and I agree on this; in his books he argues that violation of property rights sets a dangerous precedent: that the government has the right to dictate what happens on your property. You might argue: "the government only has the right to prevent discrimination". This is a bit too vague to base policy on since there is both wrongful and rightful discrimination. Property owners have to assert the right to prevent people they don't like from getting on their property, otherwise there is no point in calling it their own. If they cannot eject violent or disruptive people, for instance, it's not their property. The civil rights act doesn't argue this, of course, but it's an equally unnecessary probe into private life.
         
         [As an aside, Doodlehead does not have the right to eject you from her thread, since she doesn't own it herself. It is your liberty to disagree.]
         
         Arguing that Ron Paul is racist doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny (I know you didn't outright say it but it's implied). Firstly, as a doctor, he would often treat patients who were denied treatment from other doctors because of their race - there are plenty of testimonies to support this. He lists The Autobiography of Martin Luther King as 'recommended reading' in his books, and as mentioned before, is opposed to government-enforced segregation. There are the unfortunate newsletters, but no politician is in control of everything that is published with his name on it, neither can he stop people from giving money to his campaigns. As it's been said: "Ron Paul took a few thousand dollars from a racist to stop wars, Barack Obama took millions of dollars from corporations to continue them". Where's the controversy?
         
         This leads nicely to the charge of 'isolationism'. Firstly, he has denied he is an 'isolationist' numerous times, so he doesn't "define himself as such". It is, again, a fallacy to assume that advocating the withdrawal from the UN and NATO, and denying treaties, is "turning our back to the rest of the world". Ron Paul does not want to cut off all ties, but to cut off all obligations that reduce the power of the individual. He is in favour of diplomacy, peace deals and free trade deals. He is massively in favour of talking to foreign countries rather than bombing them.
         
         Ron Paul's philosophy is completely consistent: he rejects every motion that threatens or violates liberty. This clearly means that he opposes these treaties and institutions because they violate liberty in some way. If we're talking about the UN and NATO in particular, he mostly opposes those because they tie the country into wars it wouldn't necessarily be interested in otherwise. Remember, that Obama basically got the authority to invade Libya, not from congress, but from the UN. He believes that most serious libertarians are opposed to war so must oppose these institutions. A lot of the treaties also centralise economic power by passing it off to institutions like the IMF and the World Bank that takes away the economic power of the individual. He is opposed to national central banks for this same reason, so would obviously be opposed to world central banks. This is not isolationist at all, it is simply asserting sovereign and individual power.
         
         Lastly, believing that life starts at conception is not an inherently non-libertarian point of view. This is probably the area that libertarians disagree most on, because it entirely depends on your point of view. Clearly murder is a violation of liberty, but abortion not so much because nobody can agree whether it is murder or not. The bottom line is: only if we simultaneously accept that right to life is precious and that life starts at conception can we argue for banning abortion and call ourselves a libertarian. This is Ron Paul's view. He is also opposed to the death penalty. He in actuality wants the states to decide on this issue, which is the sanest solution since it is such a contentious issue that nobody is going to agree on.
         
         Hopefully that has cleared some things up.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            ^5 innersmiff. Thank you for your interesting and extensive comment.
            
            Actually, I was not ejected from the thread. Ms. Doodlehead did complain that I rained on her parade when, in fact, Ron Paul provided the rain. All I did was forecast the weather. Actually, I assumed no such thing. I said earlier that he is in favor of allowing social injustices to happen on private property rather than allowing the law to prevent them. I provided quotes from Ron Paul in which he expressed his ideals in his own words. Let me know if you disagree with the quotes. You immediately got off on the wrong foot by ignoring what both Ron Paul and I said and, instead, you made assumptions about what you think I assumed. You present your assumptions as if they are my assumptions and then vigorously attack the strawman of your own making. I hope you will forgive me if I decline to respond to issues I did not raise.
            
            You know me. I focus on the truth and leave the assumptions to others. My remarks are not intended to represent my opinions regarding what should or should not be. They are just my understanding of the facts.
            
            Ron Paul was not a member of Congress when it enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but he did tell Chris Mathews on MSNBC that he would have voted against it. {1} In 2004, he was given an opportunity to cast a vote in support of its impact on the civil rights of minorities.  He not only voted against the measure but also declared the Civil Rights Act, from his perspective, “did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” {2}
            
            No matter how many coats of whitewash are applied, he said what he said: the law, “did not enhance freedom…while diminishing individual liberty.” We all know how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 enhanced the freedom and increased the individual liberty of African-Americans in a monumental way. It repealed the infamous Jim Crow laws; forced schools, bathrooms and buses to desegregate; and banned employment discrimination. This was the most significant enhancement of freedom and increase in individual liberty for minorities in the South since the Emancipation Proclamation. Ron Paul’s actions and statements almost always placed abstract ideals before real life practical considerations. Had he acknowledged the sweeping social changes brought about by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, at the worst, his only loss would have been his reputation as a contrarian. 
            
            It has been said that our individual liberty ends where the another’s liberty begins. By the same standard, it follows that property rights also end where another’s rights begin. This is why the government intervenes to constrain activities on private property that impinge on the rights of other citizens or have a negative affect on society. Ron Paul opposes such measures because he values the rights of real property owners above all others. “The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.” {3} His extreme position leaves no room to adapt to a balanced posture.
            
            Others disagree with him. For example, Butler Schaffer at the Southwestern University School of Law postulates “whoever gets to make decisions about an item of property is the effective owner, regardless of what legal definitions may have to say about title.” {4} This is a truism that conflicts with Ron Paul’s idealistic theories about unlimited rights of property owners. Combine this with the eminent domain provisions of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and Mr. Paul's position begins to pale even further. “The Supreme Court has held that the federal government and each state has the power of eminent domain—the power to take private property for public use.” {5} It is not a giant step to conclude the rights of property owners do have limits and one of them is when they conflict with the civil rights of others.
            
            Please forgive my lengthy doctorate thesis. I can not refute all aspects of your entire post and I bow to your familiarity with the subject. I sincerely admire the extent of your comments, innersmiff, and I appreciate the effort and time you invested to share them. I abbreviated them here but they deserve to be repeated in full. They can be read at http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/106315#post2267856. I respect the passion behind your opinions although I may occasionally offer facts that challenge them. While we both have different opinions based on our own perceptions, we can agree not everyone sees the world, or the future, from the same perspective.
            
            {1} http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26sprb4V … e=youtu.be
            {2} http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
            {3} Ibid
            {4} http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer22.html
            {5} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amen … ent_domain

            replyreport
3. 48

   Doodleheadposted 11 years ago

   Quilligrapher -Perhaps you could find someone's else's parade to rain on.

   replyreport