Defining a Libertarian – Ron Paul’s Political Platform

If you are a member of the Tea Party (or is it the Tea Party-Party?) or call yourself a Tea Party Patriot (or is it a Tea Party-Party Patriot?), some of you may be quite excited about the thought of Libertarian-Republican Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas, running for President even though you did not know his name when he ran in the 2008 primaries.

Many conservative blogs claim Ron Paul is the founder of the Tea Party (Party), but this couldn’t be further from the truth. I suppose that Ron Paul could be considered the grandfather of the Libertarian Party. This would not be because of his age, but because he is the epitome of the Libertarian Party.

There also seems to be some excitement among conservative Republicans over the thought of Ron Paul throwing his hat into the ring.

You will not find that Libertarians flip-flop on any of the issues like some Republicans and Democrats. You may find, however, that some Libertarians do not want to discuss some of their more unpopular views, but they will never waver in any of their views.

While Libertarians and Liberals (utilizing sneaky word association) have a number of similar views like civil liberties, freedom of speech and press, and freedom from illegal search and seizure, Tea Partiers and Libertarians only share two somewhat-similar views.

The first issue is gun rights, and the belief that the bigger the gun in your leg holster, the cooler you look.

The second issue is the gripe with paying taxes, although that is where the similarity ends. A true Libertarian wants to abolish taxes because Libertarians want to abolish all of the programs and departments that taxes fund.

If you identify with the Tea Party (Party) or the Republican Party and think that you might have found the right candidate with Ron Paul, prepare yourself.

The Libertarian Party Platform

Let Them Be Gay! 

Libertarians believe that all people have the right to be married, including gay people.

The Right to Choose

Libertarians believe that there should be no laws governing a woman’s body, and there should be no laws infringing upon a woman’s right to choose.

 

Open the Borders!

Libertarians do not believe in borders. They want to tear down the fences and the walls and allow immigrants to enter our country in order to pursue a better life for themselves and their families.

Libertarians do not believe in any sort of identification or verification process for employment or travel. People should be free to come and go as they wish and to apply for jobs without interference. Libertarians are vehemently opposed to Arizona’s SB1070. This law goes against everything that Libertarians stand for.

 

Fiscal Responsibility

No Taxes. No Schools. NO FIREMEN!!!

While Tea Partiers might believe that they are on the same page with Libertarians regarding taxes and fiscal responsibility, the truth of the matter is that you won’t find many Tea Partiers who are willing to eliminate public schools. Libertarians want to replace the public school system with low-cost, private alternatives.

Libertarians believe that taxes should be abolished along with all the programs and departments that taxes fund. Libertarians don’t believe in Medicare. Libertarians don’t believe in Social Security. Libertarians don’t believe that there should be fire departments, police departments, public transportation, grants for education, unemployment, disability, food stamps, and every other type of government system and assistance that you can think of.

Libertarians wish to eliminate taxes in order to eliminate all of the above programs and more. Libertarians believe that without these taxes, individuals will have more money in their pockets and will be able to afford all of these things. If someone is unable to provide themselves or their family with school, healthcare, or food, people need to rely on family members, church, or a private charity.

Civil Liberties

Libertarians believe in freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to peaceably assemble and worship. This would include the right to build a mosque anywhere and without red tape.  This would also include the right to protest at a dead soldier’s funeral. Libertarians do not believe in law enforcement and government officials of all types: police, FBI, CIA. These entities are considered to be intrusive.

 

No Spying, No Torture, No Patriot Act, No TSA

Libertarians do not believe in any of the above.  Libertarians especially do not like the recent ban on poker sites for American poker players or the recent charges filed against the owner’s of the poker websites.

Free and Competitive Markets

Libertarians believe that government’s role in the market should be to protect property owner’s rights. There should be no FDA, equal employment opportunities, unions, minimum wage, payroll taxes, safe food handling requirements, consumer protections, regulations that protect against financial conflicts of interest and fraud, and business licenses.

Libertarians believe that business owners should have the right to deny entry to minorities and/or women and/or people with disabilities, if that is how business owners wish to run their businesses.

Crime

Libertarians believe that all drugs should be legalized and that this would drastically reduce crime and solve overcrowding in prisons. Libertarians view drugs the same way as alcohol prohibition. Libertarians believe that alcohol prohibition created the Mafia and, likewise, drug prohibition created the Crips, Bloods, and drive-by shootings. Libertarians believe that legalizing all drugs would resolve the overcrowding problems in prisons, resulting in eliminating early release for criminals that pose a danger to society.

Who Isn’t Wanted in the Libertarian Party?

On September 10, 2010, Libertarians issued a warning to Tea Partiers that Republicans were trying to fool the people. Executive Director of the Libertarian Party, Wes Benedict, issued the following statement:

"There are two kinds of Tea Partiers. One kind is so blinded by its hatred of Obama and Democrats that it cannot see fault with Republicans. It's the other kind the Libertarian Party is reaching out to."

The warning continues by criticizing a long list of Republican Presidents, including both Bushes and Ronald Reagan.

Ron Paul's Chances for 2012

While Ron Paul is probably one of the most honest of all representatives, it is my personal opinion that Ron Paul will not be one of the front-runners in the primaries if he does decide to run again. Although there may be some initial excitement over his campaign, most Republicans and Tea Party (Party) members will find Ron Paul's views too liberal once they explore Libertarian values.

Democrats will find too many of Ron Paul's views along the lines of a dog-eat-dog world.

Women around the country who love firemen will also find Ron Paul very unappealing.

More by this Author


Comments 60 comments

HSchneider 5 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Very informative Hub Deni. Most people do not know the Libertarian party platform. There is much in it that both Democrats and Republicans will love and hate. Tea Partiers and the Far Right take him in as their own only when they do not investigate his views. His candidacy will make things more interesting. At least he's a more serious and creditable candidate than Donald Trump.


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 5 years ago from california Author

I completely agree with you, H He is a much better candidate than Trump and, quite honestly, better than the rest of them who have decided to have an "exploratory committee" (so they are not held to campaign contribution regulations).

He seems to be an honest guy who is capable of having conversation without bickering and going off into crazy-speak.

Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.


Brenda Durham 5 years ago

Libertarianism shouldn't even be considered a part of the Republican Party, period. Too many things that are totally against the Republican Party Platform.


TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 5 years ago from Camp Hill, PA

I think the site podcast Shared Sacrifice put it best:

"Ron Paul 2012--Because America hasn't tried feudalism yet."


Tom Koecke profile image

Tom Koecke 5 years ago from Tacoma, Washington

Hi Deni! This is a very well written, albeit simplistic and sardonic, look at Libertarian policies. It strikes at it from both major party views, but, because of your statements about gay marriage and women's rights, I'm guessing that you are probably Republican.

Just as not all Democrats are atheistic socialists, nor all Republicans are Christian war-mongerers, Libertarians also span a range of dedication to the party platform. I pretty much have voted Libertarian since becoming disillusioned by Ronald Reagan saying one thing and doing another. The exception was in 2008 when I wrote in Ron Paul.

Despite that, I wrote a couple of articles on another site questioning Libertarian economics. I don't believe a totally free market will work. However, I also remember the days when some old guy could repair bicycles or sharpen lawn mower blades in his garage without being in violation of about 25 rules, and swarmed upon by local and federal agents.

So, while many today are harping for a war on illegal immigration to go along with our wars on terrorism and drugs, both of which have cost trillions of dollars (not to mention the costs in lives) and failed miserably, some of us just want society to be smarter and not fear the boogey man of the moment.

That said, your writing skills made your op-ed hub an enjoyable read!


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 5 years ago from california Author

Tom--

I'm not a republican, but I like to hear them gasp when they read that Ron Paul supports gay marriage and a woman's right to choose. Sometimes, I swear, I can hear the gasp in my kitchen when a Tea Party-Party Patriot reads this hub--and even when my computer is turned off, too!

I do have the utmost respect for Ron Paul. However, I must say that at the last debate, he was stammering and stumbling when speaking about immigration--why? He claimed he believed in building a fence and securing our border. Although he received applause for his answer, Ron Paul was speaking to appease the crowd. I've never seen him do that before--compromising his beliefs to gain popularity--so I was slightly disappointed.

Your sensible comments are greatly appreciated, Tom!


YoungPhilosopher8 profile image

YoungPhilosopher8 5 years ago from Dublin,Ireland

It really does my head in when Ron Paul is associated with the Tea Party. I am not an American citizen but I wanted Ron Paul to be elected in 2008 before the tea party knew him or existed. Good article

The Tea Party is all the Bush supporters who created a movement of ignorance after bush left and McCain lost election.I don't believe in god but if there is one please god get rid off Michele Bachmann her ignorance is sinful


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 5 years ago from california Author

LOL! I'm with you on that one (Bachmann). But, I wouldn't chalk it up to ignorance-that is much too nice of you-rather, it's sheer stupidity!

Thanks for reading and commenting.


YoungPhilosopher8 profile image

YoungPhilosopher8 5 years ago from Dublin,Ireland

yes I didn't want to use stupidity I thought id show her a small amount more respect than she shows me as a gay person and describe her as ignorant LOL . weird she hates gays considering her husband Marcus... LOL


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 5 years ago from california Author

How right you are about her husband! Shhh! She doesn't know...Let's just keep it between us...


meteetse profile image

meteetse 5 years ago from Foxboro ma.

Your Title, Ron Paul’s Political Platform. Ron Paul is unique candidate with his own Platform. He's a man of principals and sticks by them. America is looking for anything but old established politics. Ron Paul isn't a sound-bite oriented puppet that big Corp, and Special Interest Groups use and spit out.

Ron Paul is for the people and can't be bought. He's exactly what the America needs.


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 5 years ago from california Author

Ron Paul is a unique candidate, and he is a libertarian with the views of the libertarian party. He has just recently proclaimed himself to be a republican-libertarian in order to be considered a republican and be included in the debates that are taking place. He did this back in 2008, also.

I'm not bashing on Ron Paul at all. I'm merely stating what his views are on a lot of the issues.


AngloSaxon profile image

AngloSaxon 5 years ago from England

I've been aware of Ron Paul for probably ten years or more, and I must say I am very impressed with this man. He has faithfully stuck to the Constitution and the original intent of the Framers thereof. He has been consistent, of the highest integrity and honest.

The problem exists not with Ron Paul, but with so many who buy into the two-party paradigm. On the one hand the liberals want to protect the welfare state and government programmes, and on the other hand conservatives view him as being loose on issues of a highly moral nature or anti-war. However, anyone who knows Paul will know he is a Christian with very strong moral values. His aim isn't to (for example) make gay marriage legal, his aim is to get government out of marriage altogether.

The role of government is to protect freedom, not to impose values upon people. Communities, individuals and perhaps even local/state government (when done correctly) can provide means for more conservative sections of society to establish the moral environment that reflects their values. It isn't the purpose of central government to impose a belief system on anyone.

Those who reject Ron Paul's views would probably have rejected Jefferson's, Washington's, Madison's and other views from men of equal ilk - because they pretty much all believe the same: limited government, a free market, non-intervention and a strong morality encouraged but never enforced.


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 5 years ago from california Author

Thanks for your comments. I think I touched base on most of what you said in the last part of my hub, so I do agree with you. However, I would have to wonder if Jefferson, Washington, and Madison would have just shrugged their shoulders and said, "Who cares?" at the things that have happened in our country...ENRON, stock-market crash, out-sourcing jobs to take advantage of loopholes, and not insuring people once they actually become ill, etc...I don't think that simply encouraging morality is what gives people ethics...


AngloSaxon profile image

AngloSaxon 5 years ago from England

Well, a person cannot by definition become moral by coercion. A good Samaritan is good because he chooses it, and when government enforces it he loses that choice and must act out of fear. A free and just society *must* allow people to choose or else we can never become anything, for all that is good in a person comes by the exercise of their own volition.


PoliticsNOW profile image

PoliticsNOW 5 years ago from New York

His son Rand paul said on the congress floor th poor are getting richer. That is all I need to know about that family. Great Hub.


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 5 years ago from california Author

lol. Did he say that? Wow!

Thanks for reading!


rachel-adamovsky profile image

rachel-adamovsky 5 years ago from Indiana

This is a pretty interesting post...I never thought about Ron Paul that way. Thanks for informing me.


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

The Tea party and the libertarians agree on restoring a constitutionally limited government and reducing the size of government. Agreement on both of these issues is huge because these are some of the main issues also dividing conservatives and liberals.

The Tea Party is very concerned about the apparent disregard and apathy of the people and the government toward the Constitution.-WBA


MikeSyrSutton profile image

MikeSyrSutton 5 years ago from An uncharted galaxy

I do not care for Ron Paul, but you have a lot of misinfo. in here! Ron Paul is and always has been pro life. He delivers babies and has always opposed abortion rights. He also is not in favor of killing all gov. programs like fire depts. I am not supporting him but the truth is important.

Also, the right to life movement never tells a woman what she can or can not do with or to her body. They simple do not want it to be legal to do whatever you want to someone else's body...like destroy it!


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 5 years ago from california Author

Ron Paul, as an individual, does oppose abortion; however, his party does not believe on infringing on a woman's right to choose. This can be said for many individual democrats as well.

As for fire departments, Ron Paul does believe (and, again, along with his party) that the fire department is something that should be privatized. While he may support the fire department, he believes this is something that taxpayers should not pay for as mandated, but that people have the option of hiring a privatized company.


JustMC 5 years ago

I don't mean to be rude, but in the interest of accuracy, I'm not sure you've captured Ron Paul's position on borders. I would recommend people read it (and his other positions for that matter) for themselves, rather than needlessly go for secondhand information.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/

I will note two general concepts, however, that I think are worth stressing, that ARE CLEARLY Ron Paul's positions.

First is that the government needs to follow the highest law, the Constitution. And thus, some of the issues people are arguing about (is Paul for or against?) are issues he would say are simply out of Federal jurisdiction. This is not only right, but an incredibly important thing to respect. When the states have the sovereignty described in the Constitution, determining most things for themselves (or better yet, leaving those things to the people), the people have real choices that they don't have when clumsy and illegal federal mandates are forced on all of us.

Second, there is a bunch of wrangling (especially among Republican Presidential candidates) about tax policy that is, in my experience, a source of real confusion when people consider Ron Paul. People ask 'what is HIS tax plan?', etc.) The answer is, that's not his focus, other than LOTS LOWER. It's not a dodge, it's just not the right focus.

In short, the BIGGEST problem is not splitting up the bill, it's the size of that bill. It's government control of money. Both directly (spending, borrowing, counterfeiting at the Fed) and indirectly (through laws that only interfere with the willing transactions in which a free people would engage). The problem is that government does not produce much if any value. What little value it does produce comes at FAR greater cost than it should. The producers are carrying far too much weight, and this is destroying the middle class.

Arguing tax policy is important, but is a clear second to this. If the producers are carrying too heavy a weight, bickering about how to divide up that excessive weight is the wrong focus. The point is that the excessive weight has to go. Once it does, arguments about who pays what are a lot easier anyway. I would say (and I think Ron Paul would as well) that the income tax is awful, as is the 16th Amendment, and both should go. Clearly, the Founders drew up the Constitution SPECIFICALLY and EMPHATICALLY BANNING federal taxes that were not proportionate to the population of each state. But I digress from my own priority.

9-9-9, Fair Tax, Flat Tax, etc, are all arguing ‘revenue neutrality!’ Put another way, they're arguing that they will seize just as much money as the Feds already seize. Just less from some and INHERENTLY more from others. This may well be more fair than what we are doing now, but when the total tax burden on the economy is drowning that economy, it's the SPENDING that must change more than anything.

I hope these clarifications are useful,

MC


MikeNV profile image

MikeNV 5 years ago from Henderson, NV

Party labels mean nothing. There is no officially recognized "Tea Party". We have a one party system who reports to the Banker Overlords. During the "Bailout" both sides were lobbying hard and fast to get the money to the Bankers as quickly as possible. Obama was not even in office and was working the phones for a full 6 weeks prior to being sworn in to get the Bankers their money. Romney is a huge supporter of the Bailouts. Hermain Cain is a former Federal Reserve Chairman.

So when people think of Paul they only need to think of one thing. Do you want to continue to be a debt slave or not. It's really that simple.

Paul is the only candidate that can actually fix the current Debt issues. If not elected you can expect further job decline, increased borrowing, then eventually a huge crackdown on the populace as the same type of austerity measures are implemented as the European Banks are trying to put in place in Greece.

Americans have a chance to save themselves, and the person to lead this reconstruction is Ron Paul. Sadly this is the last chance.


Barbara 4 years ago

The Libertarian Party is the party of individualism. I personally have never met any two Libertarians that have exactly the same views. Thus, this entire article is a gross misrepresentation. Libertarians are the opposite of populists; therefore, it is absurd to state that all Libertarians conform ideologically in a populist manner. The only basic and consistent tenant of Libertarianism/libertarianism is less government.


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 4 years ago from california Author

That's entirely incorrect, Barbara. The Libertarian Party does have commonality--visit the website of the official Libertarian party--you won't find any gross misrepresentation in this article. This is all correct, factual information.


spf 4 years ago

I think this article is misleading, if you go to Ron Paul's website, some of his viewpoints, like abortion and borders, are very different than what Deni is implying here.


JustMC 4 years ago

Further, Deni, how about you approve my comment from a few days ago that explains the difference in border/immigration policy, as mentioned by SPF a few hours ago?


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 4 years ago from california Author

Perhaps you should take a look at my latest Hub. At the bottom you will find a Ron Paul interview indicating that he is against abortion during the 8-9th month of pregnancy and speaks addresses immigration by explaining a free market would solve the problem.

Also, I don't see a previous comment of yours.


JustMC 4 years ago

Deni,

I want my comment to be here because your piece above is misleading. It merits correction.

Your piece implies Ron Paul does not "believe in borders." It does so by saying he is a libertarian, and then saying "Libertarians do not believe in borders. They want to tear down the fences and the walls and allow immigrants to enter our country in order to pursue a better life for themselves and their families."

Rather than paint Paul with a clumsy label to ascertain his position, why not look at Paul's actual position?

The full position is available at: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/

But some highlights show his position is ANYTHING BUT what has been characterized here. Ron Paul advocates:

"* Enforce Border Security – America should be guarding her own borders and enforcing her own laws instead of policing the world and implementing UN mandates.

* No Amnesty - The Obama Administration’s endorsement of so-called “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, will only encourage more law-breaking.

* Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.

* End Birthright Citizenship – As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be granted U.S. citizenship, we’ll never be able to control our immigration problem.

* Protect Lawful Immigrants – As President, Ron Paul will encourage legal immigration by streamlining the entry process without rewarding lawbreakers.

As long as our borders remain wide open, the security and safety of the American people are at stake.

As President, Ron Paul will address immigration by fighting for effective solutions that protect our nation, uphold the rule of law, and respect every American citizen’s civil liberties."

Anyone can see that saying Ron Paul does not "believe in borders" is absolutely absurd. Unless you find evidence that he votes other than he advocates. No such evidence has been shown. Further, the only evidence that HAS been shown is to try to take the general label "libertarian" and then apply one definition for that label to Ron Paul, despite his stated positions to the contrary. Deni, this is misleading. It is OBVIOUSLY misleading. And as the author of your hub, you should issue a correction or furnish other evidence to show Ron Paul is lying about what he believes.


JustMC 4 years ago

Deni, thanks for posting my comment this time. Who knows what happened to the one several days ago? I know it made it up on the site and went through the 5 minute editing period. But perhaps it went in the bit bucket from there somehow.

Anyhow, now that it is up, would you agree that your characterization of Ron Paul as not "believing in borders" is incorrect? Or do you have some evidence that the position on borders, which Ron Paul describes in his own words (that I posted), is not what Ron Paul truly believes?

Regards,

MC


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 4 years ago from california Author

I edited the article to include a Youtube video. And, I still disagree with you. His free market idea includes open borders, as he believes it solves economic issues and, thus, the immigration problem.

You may find numbersusa (a website) informative, as this website does a great job on analyzing Paul's position on immigration, and how he addresses a free market and a certain citizenship status that allows immigrants to come and go for work as they please, rather than focusing on border security and/or immigration reform.


JustMC 4 years ago

When you say his free market idea includes "open borders" how do you define "open borders" and how do you attribute it to him?

Further, I see the video dates from the Reagan era, and Paul's immigration/border position is one of two issues I have ever heard him say he changed his position on. (The other is federal capital punishment. Which he opposes not on principle, but because evidence has shown the insane percentage of times we get it wrong and are left with an innocent dead guy we can't even set free.)

So, I think if you asked Paul now, he would tell you his position at the time of the video is one of 2 he has ever changed. I heard him speak of this in the 2007 timeframe, if that gives you any idea.

Regards,

MC


Charles James profile image

Charles James 4 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

An excellent hub. Have rated up.


kathy 4 years ago

This article was o.k. until I read the last paragraph. Women who love fireman would find Ron Paul unappealing? That has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard and an insult to all women. Just pathetic.


Melanie Gladney profile image

Melanie Gladney 4 years ago from Pennsylvania

I could be wrong, but I think the last comment about firemen was intended to be humorous, not to be taken seriously. I like Ron Paul, overall, but getting rid of healthcare and welfare, especially to those with disabilties sounds like a recipe for disaster.


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 4 years ago from california Author

You are correct, Melanie, it was intended to be humorous...

Thanks for the comment. I agree, entirely.


athena2011 profile image

athena2011 4 years ago from Beachfront - In My Dreams:)

Voted your hub interesting. I like some of Ron Paul's thoughts but feel that there is a definite need for some services to be provided free in our society, school being one of the main ones. I think removing the opportunity for kids to get a free education will have a devastating impact on the USA in the long run. For this reason alone I could never vote for him. There are other views as well that I disagree with, but it only takes one major one to help me make up my mind.


Natashalh profile image

Natashalh 4 years ago from Hawaii

Very well put. It's nice to see something illuminating on Ron Paul, as opposed to yet another slam of Paul and his supporters as being ignorant and less than ill-informed, which is what many of the self-proclaimed iconoclast, free-thinkers in the 'conservative' media and radio talk show circuit have been doing.


JustMC 4 years ago

Athena said "I like some of Ron Paul's thoughts but feel that there is a definite need for some services to be provided free in our society, school being one of the main ones."

There's no such thing as "free." These things COST, and they cost FAR more than they would in a free market. What you can't measure, but is HUGE, is all the things we DON'T have because of the waste in the incredibly expensive "free" school system.

People panic and say "it would be awful if we didn't have these things." These things don't disappear in private, free markets. If government didn't run the FAA by force, do you think airlines would just slam planes into each other blindly? In states where government controls the liquor stores, do you think there'd be no liquor stores without government?

If governmnet took over all the grocery stores and made food "free", outlawing private grocery sales, we'd just have lousy grocery stores with higher effective prices, through taxes.

And after a few years, people would say "we can't risk getting rid of the free food--everyone will starve."

But all of us, who have lived cheaper, more plentiful, higher quality food through private grocery stores would know it was BS.

And yet, people fall for this nonsense logic every day.


Steve Patterson 4 years ago

This is a fairly misleading post. Ron is running as a Republican, as he has for decades. In fact, he has been criticized by the Libertarian party for a number of positions mentioned here, because he holds a dissenting view. Being a mild Ron Paul supporter myself, I feel compelled to respond to each claim here:

1."Let Them Be Gay!"

-Ron is a defender of traditional marriage. He has been married to the same woman for half a century. However, his position is that there is no authority in the Constitution for the Federal government to get involved in defining what marriage is. He argues that, if the government (at any level) insists on being involved in marriage, let the states decide these things for themselves.

2. "The Right to Choose"

-Ron is explicitly pro-life. He has said on numerous occasions that life begins at conception. In fact, he is running on his platform that he wants to formally define life beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.” He wants to repeal Roe v. Wade. This is very relevant to Ron, as he is an OB-GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He also wants to eliminate all tax-payer funded abortion, by getting rid of all funding for organizations like Planned Parenthood.

3. "Open the Borders!"

-To claim that Ron Paul "does not believe in borders" is nothing short of a bald-faced lie. Of all the issues, Ron has most likely been criticized the most by the Libertarian party for his stance on immigration. He is very outspoken about enforcing border security. In fact, on the campaign website, here is the very first two lines describing his position on immigration:

"A nation without borders is no nation at all. It just doesn’t make sense to fight terrorists abroad while leaving our front door unlocked."

He is against granted amnesty, and is even for ending birthright citizenship: a stance which no one could consider "open-border".

4. "Fiscal Responsibility. No Taxes. No Schools. NO FIREMEN!!!"

-This is just a misleading smear of both libertarianism and Ron Paul. Again, Ron has never, ever advocated for getting rid of all taxation, fire departments, police departments, Social Security, Medicare etc. Ron wants to end the income tax and the IRS, true, but not "all taxes" or "all government programs".

No sane person of any political ideology wants to get rid of fire departments, not even anarchists. However, this does not mean that the Federal government has a role in bureaucratizing every fire department. This is not even a State issue, but a local government issue. The same can be said of almost all of these claims: Ron Paul does not find the authority in the Constitution for the Federal government for a huge amount of Federal programs. Unless the powers are enumerated, all other responsibilities are to be left to the states.

5. "Civil Liberties"

-"This would include the right to build a mosque anywhere and without red tape."

This is perhaps the first accurate claim of the post. True, Ron Paul does not think the US Congress has any role whatsoever in deciding where people can and can not build religious buildings. This is a city government issue.

Again, to claim that Ron "does not believe in law enforcement of any type" is patently false. However, he argues, as our founders did, that enormous, centralized police power in the hands of the Federal government can be a threat to our civil liberties. In fact, the Revolutionary War was largely started by British military officials who were abusing their power (in ways even less intrusive than today) over regular citizens.

6. "No Spying, No Torture, No Patriot Act, No TSA"

-Partially true, true, true, and true. "Spying" is a very vague term, but Ron absolutely does not support the notion that the US government at, at any time, wire-tap, invade the privacy, or "spy" on US citizens without a warrant. Here is the key part of that: without a warrant issued by a judge. Ron believes that allowing such behavior is just asking for an abuse of power by the government. This is also why is against the Patriot Act.

As we were advised by the Founders, it is unwise to give up our liberties to the state in an effort to gain security. And yes, Ron supports privatizing the airline industry. It is the responsibility of the airlines to provide security to their passengers, and virtually all the historic safety problems in the industry can be attributable to governmental regulations (including 9/11, when pilots were not able to carry guns in the cockpit - a regulation which has only changed after-the-fact).

Phew, only a few left now.

7. "Free and Competitive Markets "

"There should be no FDA, equal employment opportunities, unions, minimum wage, payroll taxes, safe food handling requirements, consumer protections, regulations that protect against financial conflicts of interest and fraud, and business licenses.

Libertarians believe that business owners should have the right to deny entry to minorities and/or women and/or people with disabilities, if that is how business owners wish to run their businesses."

This is partially true. The FDA has an incredible record of incompetence in its history, and the free market can handle "food safety" a heck of a lot better than Washington D.C. Ron does not argue against "unions" per se, but only as they would exist in a free market, not as many exist today - as virtual arms of the state, with enormous power over the fates of workers.

Ron absolutely DOES support laws which protect against fraud and enforce contracts (setting up a judicial system). He has explicitly stated that that is one of the few proper roles of government. And yes, Ron believes that individuals should have the right over their property; if you own land, you should be able to allow or deny entry to whomever you choose. This is no different than if you own a business. It is a property-rights issue, and, as he has argued on many occasions (being a student of economics), the free market has enormous incentives to not discriminate. It has historically been the government which has enforced discrimination by law, not from the free market.

8. "Crime"

This is fairly accurate as well. Ron has advocated the idea of personal responsibility, an idea lost decades ago. Every individual has a right to take control of, and responsibility for, their own lives, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. This includes allowing people to ingest substances which other people would never, as long as that person does not cause harm to others.

It is true that prohibition in the 20's did not work; it caused the exact same problems as drug prohibition causes today, except the Mafia created by drug prohibition (specifically in Mexico), is a lot more violent. Not to mention the enormous amount of people who have been thrown in a prison cell for ingesting substances peacefully in their own basement. This is not only an affront to the notion of freedom and personal responsibility, but it is an enormous burden and cost to taxpayers everywhere.

Finally, number 9. "Ron Paul's Chances for 2012"

I'll just say this: if people continue to misunderstand, misquote, and smear Ron Paul for positions he does not hold, he has a very poor chance at the nomination.

If people understand the message of liberty, and understand what true small-government, Constitutional-conservatism is, I think he has a great shot.


Monica Armella 4 years ago

Hello, I am a Liberal Democrat that respects Ron Paul. I am a small shop owner to be more precise a Smoke Shop. Ten years ago when I first opened my doors, a small framed friendly individual took the time to come into my shop, introduce himself and politely handed me a stack of small flyers that described the Libertarian Party. He did not judge, he was actually working hard to get his message out, at a very grassroots level. Who does that? This is the reason why I respect him but don't agree, with his attachment to the Republican Label.


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 4 years ago from california Author

I, too, have more respect for Ron Paul than almost any member of congress--he ranks high with me. However, since this run, I'm a bit disappointed that he has not been completely honest with his immigration views and abortion views. I have never before seen this man falter on anything to appease anyone. Although, he is pro-life, he believes in a woman's right to choose. So, I'm disappointed that he has taken this stance to fit the republican ticket.

Since you are a liberal dem (like me), you agree that him running on the republican ticket doesn't fit well at all. He better fits with the dems, but even then, he's a bit off the wall. Even my libertarian friends are a p'd about this.


Monica Armella 4 years ago

Yes you are absoloutely correct.

SHAME......we cant`t take the politician out of the guy!


Tami Chapman 4 years ago

Deni, if you're waiting for a saint, you'll be waiting a lifetime.


Joe 4 years ago

This article is total bs. Ron paul is pro life and in favor of strong borders. I stoped reading after i got past those two lies. Do ur own research.


Chuck Bluestein profile image

Chuck Bluestein 4 years ago from Morristown, AZ, USA

Great article! I need to link my article about Ron Paul to this article. Ron Paul is against the IRS with their terroristic, Nazi tactics. Wikipedia says "The Libertarian Party is the third largest and fastest growing political party in the United States."

Ron Paul is against the federal government telling people whether they can have abortions or not. Personally he does not like abortions but as President he will support a person's right to choose. He has said this.


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 4 years ago from california Author

Thank you, Chuck. You are absolutely correct about the abortion issue. He comes off as if he is against abortion since he has been running on the republican ticket; however, this isn't true, as you point out--he is against it personally, but doesn't feel that the government should intrude into this personal issue.

I do hold much respect for Ron Paul, much more than the other republicans who are running for the nomination, and much more than many democrats who have seats in Congress. However, it makes me crinkle my brow that he's running as a republican since his values are more in line with democrats, especially with respect to civil liberties.

Thanks for commenting!


JustMC 4 years ago

It's becoming ever more clear that most generalizations are uslessly vague over-generalizations.

Let's take the statement: "However, it makes me crinkle my brow that he's running as a republican since his values are more in line with democrats, especially with respect to civil liberties."

It would be one thing to say it makes you crinkle that he's running as EITHER a Democrat or Republican. Since both Team D and Team R are for:

The Federal Reserve and taxation through unsound money

Endless undeclared, non-defensive war that is unfair to our troops and ruinous to the treasury

Bailouts of the banks (public risk, private profit)

Massive redistribution programs that are hopelessly unConstitutional

Trashing the 4th/5th Amendments with the Patriot Act

Subsidies for big business cronies

Utter disregard for the 10th Amendment and the whole definition of Federal power as defined by the Supreme Law of the Land

And so on.

But instead, people bristle and crinkle over the false dichotomy of Team D versus Team R. They are essentially the SAME, with mostly the same cronies and a few different ones. They are not opposites, they are simply rivals for the throne of tyranny.

What IS useful to say about Ron Paul is that he's against all these criminal abuses of power, and FOR the freedoms recognized in the Constitution.


drshavaco 4 years ago

As a registered libertarian, I certainly will have no problem writing in ron paul on my ballot in november. He is by far the closest mainstream candidate we have that even remotely aligns with the beliefs of the libertarian agenda. Unfortunately his chances of receiving the republican nomination is virtually zero, but I know myself and countless others will still be writing his name in on election day. Viva la revolution.


the Final Frontier 4 years ago

As a long term libertarian there are both pro life and pro choice members. I have heard some claim a fetus is like a tumor adn can be removed at will and others, such as Dr Paul and myself, that believe it is an indvidual which to us means that it is entitled to the same protections as any other human.


Annoyed. 4 years ago

I'm very disappointed in this article. Not only does it NOT talk about RON PAUL's platform, it describes another platform entirely and says that it is in fact Ron Paul's. Sure, those may be the official views of the Libertarian party (albeit a few are blown out of proportion [they do NOT want to get rid of police and fire services]), but that doesn't mean they're all Ron Paul's stances! For example, he is morally opposed to abortion and would seek to protect the sanctity of life.

I don't know Ron Paul's exact view on everything mentioned, but the author of this article certainly doesn't either, and to state his opinion about Ron Paul's platform as fact is misleading and unethical. What's worse are the commentors who praise the author for "giving them a 'well-put' description of Ron Paul's platform." He doesn't even have his facts straight, nor is it even trying to be objective or unbiased.


Deni Edwards profile image

Deni Edwards 4 years ago from california Author

Personally, yes, Ron Paul is anti-abortion, but don't confuse his stance to mean that he is anti-abortion and puts his views onto others. Quite the contrary, and just like most democrats, he doesn't believe in abortion, but he believes in the right of others to have this choice.

You are not as well informed as you think you are.


JustMC 4 years ago

Annoyed, you are quite correct. Many of us have pointed out that the piece is misleading in many ways.

Consider: "No Taxes. No Schools. NO FIREMEN!!!"

Libertarians do NOT say anything of the sort. They want a free market structure to provide better schools and firemen at more competitive cost. And if you thought the article's fine-print explanation of what that misleading headline meant sufficed, consider the further quote:

"Women around the country who love firemen will also find Ron Paul very unappealing."

This reinforces the notion that firemen somehow disappear in a Libertarian world. It's utter nonsense. It's misleading. There's lots of it in the piece, and for reasons unknown, Deni Edwards never seems to admit any of it.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 4 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

In "Gangs of New York" there are examples of several private fire brigades competing against each other and even sabotaging each others efforts.

Most small towns could not afford to have several competing fire brigades. A marvellous example of the waste inherent in capitalism.


JustMC 4 years ago

Sure Charles, the "waste inherent in capitalism" LOL. Government is OH SO much better than private industry, we see it every day. Look at all those businesses that keep operating at a loss, piling up massive amounts of debt, enslaving current and future generations alike. Thank Heaven governments don't do that. Wait...


JustMC 4 years ago

And by the way Charles, in your multi-fire-department example, you haven't addressed the excessive, ever-upwardly-ratcheting pay of a fire department run as a government monopoly. Take a look at some of the budgets we see over here. Even though you wouldn't HAVE to have multiple fire brigades in a small town to have free-market competition, you actually COULD afford to because the pay would be substantially less. Not to mention they'd end up competitively serving the territory with smaller staffs/resources per brigade anyway. In our extremely efficient (hah) government-monopoly-run departments, we have excess capacity anyway. The only time there is any challenge to that is when the bloated pay and benefits hit a funding crisis.

Further, putting such departments back in private industry would decouple them from the bloated ggoverment monopoly that is going bankrupt. We could afford to pay them "too much" and to have excess capacity if we didn't have all the rest of government bloat crushing our economy.


JustMC 4 years ago

One further point, Charles. Look at the state of fire departments here.

They practically have political wars to decide who gets to be a fireman, because there is a line around the block and down the street of people trying to get their hands on the jobs. (Not just in the recent downturn, but for DECADES.) The competition is POLITICAL, and it is not to PERFORM the job better/faster/more efficiently than the next man but rather, competition to OBTAIN the job, which is HIGHLY compensated and virtually irrevocable.

The fights to get the jobs are very politically ugly, based on various sorts of pull rather than qualifications, and because the pay is fixed artificially high, the competition for spots doesn't drive costs down.

But that deadly capitalism is so inefficient, we'd never survive it. (Try to point to me a fire department on Earth that even has the tools to function without capitalism.)


SpeakUpStandOut profile image

SpeakUpStandOut 4 years ago from Southern California

Ron Paul wanted to make certain illegal substances legal. I would not have voted for him and I never thought he'd really have a good chance. And now, Romney is putting out a good fight, but I doubt the majority of the country is buying what he's selling.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 4 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

I seem to have rattled someone's cage. Sorry!

If an organisation has to generate a profit and a return on investment then a proportion of its income gets diverted straight to the pockets of those who provided the capital.

I agree that some public servants overpay themselves. That is not an argument against some goods and services being provided through collective action. It is an argument for vigilance.


JustMC 4 years ago

Charles, you haven't rattled my cage at all, but your blindness to opportunity cost and the lessons of history are as troubling as your disrespect for private property. You say:

"If an organisation has to generate a profit and a return on investment then a proportion of its income gets diverted straight to the pockets of those who provided the capital."

Yes, and forcible seizure of capital by government means that capital is not available for use by its OWNER, and the opportunity cost of losing that capital is very real. Especially for the OWNER of the capital. Further, history is clear that NO ONE has ever achieved the magic vigilance you recommend. And nearly ALL public "servants" simply help themselves to the property of others.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working