Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Run, Ron, Run!
Via antiwar.com : libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas has formed a presidential exploratory committee for 2008, for the GOP nomination. (He previously ran for president in 1988, as the candidate of the Libertarian Party.) Developing, I can only hope....
rover saurus|1.11.07 @ 4:13PM|#
I've voted for every Libertarian Presidential Candidate since
... What 1984? In that time
I've only voted against any Libertarian running
anywhere only a handful of times.
I'd vote for Ron Paul. His running would
devestate an LP presidential candidate.
|1.11.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Are there enough pro-life, anti-war, gold bug fiscal cons in the
GOP to let him cause a little havoc?
Kevin
|1.11.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Win-win. Ron locks in my vote now, I don't have to spend time determining the least bad major party alternative. I'll even sell Ron door-to-door in my D stronghold Chapel Hill...
|1.11.07 @ 4:24PM|#
I don't agree with him on abortion or the gold standard, but I'd still gladly vote for him. As far as I know, he's the best libertarian politician in any branch of the federal government.
|1.11.07 @ 4:35PM|#
I don't know anything about him. If Chris S is right and he beleives in the gold standard (is he? does Paul want to go back to the gold standard?) Paul is economic whackjob of Lyndon Larouche proportions. Unless Paul knows where there are gold deposits in this country the likes of which God has never seen, he might want to reconsider going back to the gold standard while the country is running an enormous trade deficit. Of course doing so, would end the trade deficit problem, if you can call putting the country into a depression a sollution.
Christopher Monnier|1.11.07 @ 4:39PM|#
I hope he runs, but I'm worried that Ron Paul's association with
the LP will kill him in the media.
I'm sure he voted against the Iraq War resolution, though, which is
a plus.
Did he always vote against the Patriot Act?
|1.11.07 @ 4:40PM|#
I haven't voted since 1996, but I'd show up for Paul. Poor
bastard doesn't stand a snowball's chance of getting the
nomination, though.
John,
I'm pretty sure you could phase in a gold standard over time by
introducing gold-backed currency alongside the fiat notes we've
got.
True economic whackjobbery was deciding to go off a metalic
standard in the first place.
|1.11.07 @ 4:47PM|#
If by some freak chance he came to be nominated I would lift my ban on voting. But as it is I'll be buying a lottery ticket that day instead.
Duckman|1.11.07 @ 4:47PM|#
I'd change my party affiliation to Republican just so I could
vote for Ron Paul in the primaries!
My main concern, though, is that Ron Paul has zero name recognition
in the national news media. That's got to be a big negative for
launching a presidential campaign.
|1.11.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Hell yeah !!!! This is the Best News I've read all day. Hell
this week.
Run Ron Run !!!
Jesse Walker|1.11.07 @ 4:50PM|#
I'm pretty sure you could phase in a gold standard over time
by introducing gold-backed currency alongside the fiat notes we've
got.
Paul has called for something like that. See here:
"It is not really my position to close the Fed down. It would
require too much adjustment to do that overnight. I advocate
competing currencies--to legalize another currency that we can work
in. That means repealing legal tender laws and repealing all taxes
on gold and silver. If people want to use another money, then they
can, and if not they can use paper."
|1.11.07 @ 4:51PM|#
I'm with John. If he wants to go back on the gold standard, then he doesn't get much about econ 101 and has already lost my vote. I'm disappointed, because it's not like anyone else has won it yet.
|1.11.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Good news -- Run Paul Run! He won't get the nomination of course
but he'll be a message candidate like Kuchinich with a loyal
following of activists.
I'd like to see him run for the Republican nomination, lose of
course, then get the LP nomination bringing some of the support he
garnered within the GOP over to the LP.
And who cares where he stands on the Gold Standard -- I'd only be
disappointed in that if he ran on that issue and not the war and
civil liberties...
I hope he could get included in some of the Repulican primary
debates...I could see him getting 5% or so in the NH primary.
|1.11.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Paul's largest hurdle would be getting the Republican
nomination. He doesn't tow the party line and probably isn't
supported by the big money Republicans who make the choices of
who's going to win.
He'd be to the Republican Party what Dennis Kucinich (the
communist) is to Democrats.
Though if he won the Republican nomination, there's no doubt in my
mind that he would win.
Taktix|1.11.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Not to throw cold water on the whole thing, but I think he has
to many Religious nutjobs in the party to get the nomination.
Are you telling me some housewife in Iowa who thinks Indie Rock
comes from India is going to vote for him?
|1.11.07 @ 5:02PM|#
"It is not really my position to close the Fed down. It would
require too much adjustment to do that overnight. I advocate
competing currencies--to legalize another currency that we can work
in. That means repealing legal tender laws and repealing all taxes
on gold and silver. If people want to use another money, then they
can, and if not they can use paper."
I don't even know where to begin. Without boring anyone with macro
econ 101 and highjacking the thread, I would like to know if there
is one serious monetary economist who would endorse that idea,
because I have never heard of one. Granted it has been 10 years
since I was econ student, but that is really crazy stuff. I
wouldn't vote for this guy if he offered me the abassadorship to
the Bahamas or a seat on the Supreme Court.
tomWright|1.11.07 @ 5:03PM|#
i'll take vacation to work for him.
let me know when he needs someone to help out in NJ with it, sign
planting, floor sweeping, whatever.
The first candidate I ever worked for was Ed Clarke, that last was
Murray Sabrin, with few in between.
Ron I will work for.
tomWright|1.11.07 @ 5:06PM|#
I'd vote for Ron Paul. His running would
devestate an LP presidential candidate.
Isn't devastating an LP presidential candidate kind of like beating
Stephen Hawking in a foot race?
Sir Disgrace|1.11.07 @ 5:08PM|#
Who cares what his crazy thoughts are on the gold standard? It's not like he's going to get elected, after all. Vote for him because he opposes the war and the welfare state. Don't do the normal Libertarian thing and let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Sir Disgrace|1.11.07 @ 5:09PM|#
In the interest of grammar, that should be:
...the normal Libertarian thing of letting the perfect...
|1.11.07 @ 5:14PM|#
From Paul's website, his "Freedom Principals":
Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
Property should be owned by people, not government.
All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and
social.
The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the
monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or
to grant special privileges.
The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not
the government's.
The sounds a little crazy - how can groups have no rights but
voluntary associations are always permissable? How can the
government not own any property and still function? Why do we need
government to protect liberty if our lives are our own
responsbility?
Timothy|1.11.07 @ 5:36PM|#
Let's see...pro-life and for the gold standard verses wanting to take virtually every freedom I have for one reason or another. Hmm...you know, I can live with the gold standard thing. RON PAUL '08!
|1.11.07 @ 5:36PM|#
I'd like to see him run for the Republican nomination, lose of course, then get the LP nomination bringing some of the support he garnered within the GOP over to the LP. - spur
I don't know if that's doable. States have these things called
"sore loser" laws, that are meant to thwart candidates who
participate in one party's primaries getting on the ballot under
another line. Not all of them, of course, or there would have been
no "Connecticut for Lieberman" line on the 2006 ballot.
As for competing currencies, didn't Mises play with that idea? I
think it's a great idea, especially if the damned gubmint stays out
of the currency marketplace.
Kevin
|1.11.07 @ 5:37PM|#
Econ analysts: Ron Paul writes about the Fed quite a bit. You
should read his article, "Federal Reserve Policy Destroys the Value
of Your Savings"
I'm surprised to see that many here seem to have accepted inflation
as a natural trend, when the natural trend should be deflation as
market/production efficiencies emerge.
Wouldn't surprise me too much if the party-of-principle, of which i
am a member, would agree to not field a candidate where Paul to win
the nomination - i believe this has been the practice in Paul's
Texas district for years - in 2000 the LP proudly proclaimed to
have candidates in each Texas congressional district but one -
Paul's
Jesse Walker|1.11.07 @ 5:38PM|#
I doubt he'd seek a place on the LP's ticket. Presumably he would run for the Republican nomination, make his point, and then run for reelection to Congress.
|1.11.07 @ 5:39PM|#
how can groups have no rights but voluntary associations are
always permissable?
Who is freely associating? (C'mon, that's an easy one...)
How can the government not own any property and still
function?
Rent.
Why do we need government to protect liberty if our lives are
our own responsbility?
I dunno. But, my neighbors keep giving me shit about my police
force, standing army and court house that I have in my back
yard.
|1.11.07 @ 5:45PM|#
Without boring anyone with macro econ 101 and highjacking
the thread, I would like to know if there is one serious monetary
economist who would endorse that idea, because I have never heard
of one.
Um, Alan
Greenspan serious enough to suit you?
|1.11.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Let's see...pro-life and for the gold standard verses
wanting to take virtually every freedom I have for one reason or
another. Hmm...you know, I can live with the gold standard thing.
RON PAUL '08!
Well, when I've heard him speak on abortion, he's generally said it
was an issue that should be left to the states. That's pretty much
my position as well, and I'm decidedly pro-choice.
|1.11.07 @ 5:52PM|#
To be honest, Paul's "Freedom Principles" sound like exactly the kind of purist claptrap that usually makes it impossible for me to vote for the LP. I appreciate some of his positions, but ultimately I can't see ever seriously voting for Paul either.
Angela Keaton|1.11.07 @ 5:56PM|#
Glad Pig Mannix stepped in on that one. The little boys frightened of the gold standard were making my eyes roll so hard I lost my contact lense.
|1.11.07 @ 6:01PM|#
I'm not sure why so many people seem to be anti-gold standard.
Is moving the entirety of U.S. currency to a gold-standard doable?
Probably not. In a liber-topia would mony be backed by
some tangible good? Probably so.
And anyone (particularly John) want to tell me why Macro 101 makes
it so obvious that metalic backing is a ridiculous idea?
Hell, it was the bedrock of money until 40-50 years ago. I'd like
to know why money backed by force is such a better idea than one
backed by gold. (I can think of one answer, but I'm not sharing
until I hear some original thought.)
|1.11.07 @ 6:05PM|#
I'd love to know from the people nit-picking Paul's "Freedom Principals" which major party's platform they agree with 100%. I highly doubt I could ever agree with Ron Paul on every issue, but I am certain that I agree with him on more issues than I agree with the Elephants or the Donkeys.
|1.11.07 @ 6:06PM|#
To be honest, Paul's "Freedom Principles" sound like exactly
the kind of purist claptrap that usually makes it impossible for me
to vote for the LP. I appreciate some of his positions, but
ultimately I can't see ever seriously voting for Paul
either.
If you couldn't possibly bring yourself to vote for those, why
would you bother reading a libertarian website?
|1.11.07 @ 6:08PM|#
John, yes, maybe there are large gold deposits, but guess how
many fucking trees there are in the world to print fiat currency
on?
Christ, it just goes to show that going off the Gold standard and
deflating the dollar for decades was the craftiest act of theft in
all of history. If a generally capitalist board isn't jumping up
and down screaming for the gold standard, then I have lost all
hope, regardless if Paul runs...
|1.11.07 @ 6:11PM|#
If a generally capitalist board isn't jumping up and down screaming for the gold standard
We've got bigger problems than the gold standard right now.
|1.11.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Eric,
Agreed. But going off the standard in the first place gave the gov
so much more power to limitlessly fund (through fiat currency
inflation) endless wars and social welfare, that many of our
current problems can be seen as stemming from that.
What I was bemoaning wasn't the state of our current problems,
rather the state of the understanding of basic capitalism.
|1.11.07 @ 6:18PM|#
Man, it would be great if he ran. Even assuming the nomination
would be out of reach, a Paul campaign would get libertarian
principles some major press.
As for the quibbles about the gold standard, um, so what? I doubt
the POTUS could switch us back singlehandedly, and I, for one, am
much more interested in having someone in office who believes in
civil liberties, limited government, and in having principles.
Naturally, he'd be impeached within a few months if he were
elected.
|1.11.07 @ 6:20PM|#
Eric the .5b,
Actually, I read an interesting article stating that the reason
Bush began planning an attack on Iraq long before 9/11 was that
Saddam was threatening to only accept Euros in exchange for oil,
instead of the longstanding OPEC agreement that dollars be the
currency of exchange. The line of reasoning is that with the threat
of the dollar being supplanted by the Euro as the currency of
trade, the dollar would face a collapse.
Guess who is now only trading in Euros instead of dollars? Iran.
|1.11.07 @ 6:41PM|#
Stipulating for a moment that Ron Paul could (a) win the nomination and (b) win the presidency, there's no way he'd be able to impose a gold standard. Congress would never let it happen. Likewise dramatic change in national abortion law. What he COULD do, is veto every damn thing Congress passes, and run the Executive Branch like it's NOT entitled to control every aspect of our lives. Sounds like a pretty good arrangement to me.
|1.11.07 @ 6:43PM|#
What he COULD do, is veto every damn thing Congress passes,
and run the Executive Branch like it's NOT entitled to control
every aspect of our lives. Sounds like a pretty good arrangement to
me.
You're right, and I almost forgot about Paul's great congressional
nickname: "Dr. No".
|1.11.07 @ 6:50PM|#
Guess who is now only trading in Euros instead of
dollars?
Guess who is now trading only in Euros instead of
dollars?
Place "only" properly, please.
|1.11.07 @ 7:00PM|#
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12346/digital_gold_and_a_flawed_global_order.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F9%2Fgeoeconomics
|1.11.07 @ 7:01PM|#
"...pro-life..."
Oooooooh, this could be the deal breaker for me. Antiwar?
Definietly. Still clinging to the "Gold Standard?" He should tone
it down, but it's tolerable. Anti-abortion?
That depends on how he defines it, if he means that he morally
opposes abortion, but doesn't think the state should ban it, fine.
But if he's thinking of slapping abortion bans left and right to
appease the JEEZ-us fucks, then I'm staying home in 2008 not matter
how good the rest of his platform looks.
|1.11.07 @ 7:42PM|#
Just to add fuel to Akira's fire:
Being Pro-Life
Is Necessary to Defend Liberty
by Congressman Ron Paul
|1.11.07 @ 7:45PM|#
And being libertarian but anti-abortion is like being libertarian but pro-drug-war. Don't you dare mess with my property rights - but the government can regulate my actual body as much as it wants!
|1.11.07 @ 7:48PM|#
Iron Lungfish,
Actually, Ron Paul has an interesting passage in the essay I
linked, which I don't necessarily agree with, but it should be
considered when judging his anti-abortion stance:
A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for any reason.
|1.11.07 @ 7:50PM|#
Such conclusions should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.
We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such an abridgement of the right to live free is unconscionable.
I had to add this to finish Mr. Paul's thought on the matter.
|1.11.07 @ 7:52PM|#
NoStar | January 11, 2007, 4:12pm | #
I'd vote for him, again!
Me too!! You were only the first to post this. I'm glad to see
agreement on this.
I did what I could for the Paul campaign in '88 as a County chair
for the LP in Fla.
Akira, Ron Paul opposes abortion as a moral issue. He believes that
it is not a Federal matter. Hence, as President he would take no
position (other than to state his own personal beliefs) in the
matter. I would assume he would veto any Federal anti-abortion
law.
|1.11.07 @ 8:00PM|#
jf, an embryo isn't an "unwanted child." It's an embryo. To
characterize it as such, as though an ovum magically gains
personhood when penetrated by a sperm, is either ignorant,
disingenuous, or positively deranged.
I understand the libertarian love for Ron Paul - he was one of the
only ones in Congress who was anti-War-on-Terror who wasn't a
proponent of the great big evil welfare state, so there's slim
pickings there to begin with - but to attempt to cast his belief
that government has a right to regulate when and how a woman
decides to have children as libertarian is just
delusional. You don't have a libertarian here, you have a throwback
to the nineteenth century.
|1.11.07 @ 8:10PM|#
Jesus H Christ.
Arguing about whether Ron deserves a vote based on his musings
about the gold standard, something he might support, but ultimately
realizes ain't got a snowball's chance in hell of doing, when he
comes close to being as centrist and intelligent a guy as ever
competed for the nations highest office, along with having the most
libertarian friendly platform by a viable candidate out there. If
you're a libertarian, you almost owe it to the party to vote for
Ron, and the party owes it to Ron to disassociate themselves as
best as possible from him if they want any traction. If Ron ran in
the primaries, I'd volunteer for his campaign and maybe, just maybe
he'd have enough of a following to do extremely well in New
Hampshire, though probably not Iowa. If he came close to winning or
won New Hampshire, you can pretty much guarantee he'd be the
media's golden boy for a reinvigorated primary race. He'd have my
vote and everyone elses vote I could badger some sense into.
|1.11.07 @ 8:14PM|#
Hence, as President he would take no position (other than to
state his own personal beliefs) in the matter.
This is silly. The president takes a position on abortion every
time he appoints a new judge to the federal bench. Beyond that,
Paul appears to hold the pro-life dogma that "life begins at
conception," which is patently absurd; sperm and ova are alive, as
are the cells from which they're generated, and are every bit as
alive as the embryos that pro-lifers work up such a sweat about.
There is no extra magical change that happens at fertilization to
make a zygote "more alive" than an ordinary sperm cell, no chemical
formula for the soul. The question is as what point that embryo
becomes a person, and we intuitively gauge personhood by
cognition. Embryos and zygotes don't think or feel, but Paul wants
us to give them the same rights as full-grown human beings who do.
I utterly fail to understand how this issue, of all issues, could
be seen as trivial to people nominally describing themselves as
"libertarians."
|1.11.07 @ 8:30PM|#
Iron Lungfish,
Whatever dogma Mr. Paul might believe about life, he'd vote to
uphold the constitution on anyone he appointed to the bench. Above
all, Ron believes in the sacrosanticty of the constitution and
upholding the beliefs with it. I have no doubt he would appoint
vastly better judiciaries than any other president, as they would
be people that believed in the limitations of congress and rule
accordingly. Roe vs. Wade might be overturned, but any
congressional attempt to ban abortion would likely also be
overturned by Ron Paul appointees.
|1.11.07 @ 8:30PM|#
jf, an embryo isn't an "unwanted child." It's an embryo. To
characterize it as such, as though an ovum magically gains
personhood when penetrated by a sperm, is either ignorant,
disingenuous, or positively deranged.
I am totally on the fence when it comes to abortion, so anything I
can say to represent my beliefs has to be loaded with disclaimers.
I can go everywhere from "if abortion had been legal in Akron, Ohio
when I was conceived I wouldn't be here" to "I completely agree
with a woman's right to choose", which is why I rely on something
different.
Last time I checked, Roe v. Wade is still the law of the
land, and even a Supreme Court comprised of 9 Samuel Alitos is
unlikely to change that. I can overlook any candidate's position on
abortion (no matter if it's pro-choice or pro-life) because I know
that it won't matter unless a large number of intermediary steps
are taken. Thus, there is no way that a President Paul could
seriously affect the abortion issue one way or the other.
Again, this is just how I look at it, your mileage may vary.
sr2|1.11.07 @ 8:43PM|#
"You could also mention Friedrich Hayek, as well."
And, IIRC, Ludwig Von Mises and pretty much most Austrians.
Isn't the inflation/deflation scheme pretty much relegated to the
Chicago/Keynes schools of thought in the first place? Sounds to me
like people are more afraid of admitting their econ lessons are
from flawed perspectives. The Gold Standard only looks bad
according to folks that advocated the formation of the Fed. in the
first place.
|1.11.07 @ 8:49PM|#
Since people want to be so nasty about it, fine we can highjack the thread to econ 101. Going back to the gold standard means that the value of currency is pegged to the value of gold. Both the value of gold and the value of currency is kept constant. This pins the amount of currency available in the economy to the amount of gold avaialable to back it up. Currently, the US runs a huge current account deficit. If we were to suddenly go back on the gold standard one of two things would have to happen; either the US would have to somehow some where have to come up with a huge new supply of gold to make up for all of the currency leaving the economy because of the trade deficit, or the amount of currency in the economy is going to have to decline until people no longer have enough money to buy more imported items than exported items. Deprived of its ability to float the currency, the U.S. economy would have to contract until the demand for imports equaled its exports. Since we don't have any unknown gold reserves I know of, the economy contracting is the only option. Going back to the gold standard would be the quickest way to throw the country into a depression. The economic price of the adjustment would be enormous. You cannot run a long term trade deficit under the gold standard. At the same time, the only way to increase the currency supply is either to find gold or sell products overseas.
|1.11.07 @ 8:51PM|#
I hope to God he runs. I live in Iowa. I would work for his campaign in a second. If anyone knows more information, please post it.
Jennifer|1.11.07 @ 8:59PM|#
Eeeew, I didn't know Paul was anti-choice regarding abortion.
I've posed this question to pro-life "libertarians" before:
assuming abortion were outlawed, how the hell do you expect this
law to be enforced without demolishing individual rights? It's the
same problem as with the drug war: neither the woman getting the
abortion nor the doctor giving it to her will call the cops, so
with no victim to report a crime to the police, how will the cops
know a crime has been committed?
By spying. Sneaking around. Invading people's privacy. Encouraging
people to rat on each other. Demolishing trust in the name of the
law.
We already live in a society where harmless cold medicine is
outlawed because it MIGHT be used to make meth. Where every driver
on the road is stopped at a checkpoint because some of them MIGHT
be drunk. Our government has already shown in multiple ways how
ready it is to infringe upon the innocent in hopes of catching the
guilty.
So seriously, O Freedom-Loving Pro-Lifers: how do you expect the
government to enforce a ban on early-term abortions without
violating the hell out of women's rights?
|1.11.07 @ 9:00PM|#
John,
That is why the concept of competing currencies has been proposed.
Obviously a drastic shift to the gold standard would be
devastating, so a transition is needed. I for one would welcome the
hardships that might follow the gradual return to the gold standard
to the inevitable:
a) Wars that will be waged to maintain the supremacy of the
dollar
b) Indescribable suffering that will result when the dollar, which
is backed by nothing more than wood pulp and cotton, is exposed by
a more accepted currency (like the Euro), to be the worthless rag
that it is.
Which of those options do you find preferable, or do you truly
believe it will never come to that?
|1.11.07 @ 9:02PM|#
rdkarus,
Amen to that, brother. People can always find a reason to vote
against someone, but, especially on this website, can't find enough
reasons to actually vote for someone.
|1.11.07 @ 9:04PM|#
Confession time: I like Ron Paul. But he's no Aristotle. His
success in politics, such as it is, reminds me, a bit, of George W.
Bush's success: how can such a simpleton get away with his
feather-weight intellect?
Paul, like Bush, can barely take criticism. I remember an interview
with E. Van Den Haag and W. F. Buckley. Van Den Haag's acute,
pointed questions completely floored Paul, reduced him to
stumblebum incoherence, and Buckley had to take up Paul's positions
to save them from utter destruction. It was an embarrassing
sight.
It says something about both the libertarian movement and modern
America that the only truly successful libertarian politician is a
person like Paul. Americans, I hazard, don't trust intelligence.
But libertarianism is so off-the-charts that, to succeed as a
political program, a lot of intelligence would have to be directed
towards any decent and lasting transition to a freer society.
So, Paul must be the Token Lib in modern politics, and he has
achieved that because there are enough Americans in one district to
find him charming, and his politics congenial. But were he
brighter, they would almost certainly turn on him.
On the national level? He will almost certainly be laughed off the
stage. His only hope might be to run against truly intelligent
Republicans who scare the Inner Bejeesus out of the bulk of
small-minded Republicans who vote in the primaries. There's some
evidence that Americans now prefer a low-level of intelligence in
their leaders, the better empathize with, than an awe-inspiring
intelligence, which they "know" leads to disaster.
|1.11.07 @ 9:06PM|#
That essay that was linked to before was written in 1981. Well before stem cell research was on our radar screen. Is he still a life begins at conception guy? 26 years is a long time.
|1.11.07 @ 9:14PM|#
ARGH! Goddamned server software killed my post!
Ron Paul's
writings at LewRockwell.com.
Hardly the writings of a "feather-weight">
Jennifer|1.11.07 @ 9:19PM|#
A case in point is a young libertarian leader I have heard
about. He supports the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted
child from her body (i.e., her property) by killing and then
expelling him or her. Therefore, he has consistently concluded, any
property owner has the right to kill anyone on his property, for
any reason.
Only if you assume that your property and your body are identical.
A man who spray-paints my property, like a house or car, against my
will is guilty of vandalism. If he spray-paints my body against my
will, is he still guilty of mere vandalism? If he deliberately
breaks a window in my property, is this no different than if he
deliberately breaks a bone in my body?
No sane person would advocate such nonsense.
|1.11.07 @ 9:21PM|#
Jennifer,
As a pro-life congressman, I would expect Ron Paul to vote in favor
of bills limiting abortion.
As a pro-life president, I would expect him to have the same
success that Reagan and the two Bushes have had in restriction
abortion, which is zero.
|1.11.07 @ 9:29PM|#
Jennifer,
From my reading, Ron Paul was using that example to demonstrate the
fallacy of one libertarian's thinking regarding abortion. Paul
wasn't making the comparison between a woman's body and property,
the person he was using as an example was.
Like I have said, I am on the fence regarding abortion, but
consider the following:
Which would be worse: A pro-life libertarian president, or a
standard Republican?
Furthermore, to clarify what I posted above, legalized abortion has
survived some 21 years of purportedly "pro-life" presidents with no
serious challenge; I am not worried that a President Paul could do
much to change that.
|1.11.07 @ 9:29PM|#
The dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the productivity of the American economy. As long as the American ecnomony remaims productive and continues to inovate and grow and is not strangled by socialism, the dollar will be fine. It is just not true that is backed up by anything. Further, the euro isn't backed up by anything either if your idea of being backed up is the gold standard. Once, the fed figured out how to manage the money supply in the 1980s the current monetary system has worked wonderfully; nearly decades of growth and low infaltion. Yes, there are dangers to inflation, but there are also dangers to deflation as well. William Jennings Bryan didn't give the 'cross of gold' speech for nothing. A gold stnadard and zero or negative inflation screws debtors. But, it is wonderful for bankers who can then charge 18% on credit cards and also recieve the benifit of the deflation. It is funny how the same people who tend to rail against the big bankers and speculators seem to more often than not want to go back to the gold standard. No thanks.
Guy Montag|1.11.07 @ 9:36PM|#
Perhaps I should form one of these committee thingies as the only TRUE small L libertarian, kick ass, end drug crimes, property rights candidate?
Guy Montag|1.11.07 @ 9:37PM|#
How about those Yale boys getting the crap beaten out of them
for singing the National Anthem?
Perhaps that will make the front page tomorrow.
|1.11.07 @ 9:38PM|#
John,
Your doomsday scenario only occurs if prices of all goods and
services are somehow fixed. If people are allowed to set the prices
they demand and offer, the flow of gold out of the economy will be
accompanied my monetary deflation.
The deflation then makes exports more attractive to
foreigners.
True, as gold flows out one does get a contraction because
fractional reserve banks have start calling in $5 in loans for
every $1 they have in reserve. However that contraction is
inevitable: The credit expansion that occured when the bank
fraudulently loaned out $4 it didn't have will occur at some point
when someone somewhere cannot find the money to pay back those
$4.
In other words, the contractions you fear are inherent to
fractional reserve banking, and should not be laid at the feet of
commodity moneys.
People like to think that the Great Depression proved that gold was
a bad form of money. It was the policies of the Hoover, Roosevelt
and Truman administration, with their price controls and attempts
to freeze the economy in 1925 levels of prices and production which
caused such a long depression.
(Disclaimer, I am not a gold bug: I support the idea that people
should be allowed to do business in whatever form of moeny they
wish to use. Furthermore, I think the idea that the Federal
Government should be given the sole power to define money is a
really, really bad idea. In the end, I am convinced that if people
were free to trade however they wish, eventually they would settle
on some metallic currency because of the useful properties of
divisibility, compactness and maleability that they possess
Furthermore, I think the great depression did not truly end until
the late 40's when Truman finally began to abandon Roosevelt's
disasterous fiscal policies)
Useful reading:
Rothbards "What has
government done to our money?"
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.11.07 @ 9:43PM|#
This is great. Possibly the first true libertarian candidate since Goldwater and you fucks are sniping about abortion.
|1.11.07 @ 9:47PM|#
The dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the
productivity of the American economy. As long as the American
ecnomony remaims productive and continues to inovate and grow and
is not strangled by socialism, the dollar will be fine. It is just
not true that is backed up by anything. Further, the euro isn't
backed up by anything either if your idea of being backed up is the
gold standard.
John, I think you may be missing two very important concepts here,
one of which you brought up yourself.
1) Globalization
2) Competing currencies.
Right now, China owns a huge amount of U.S. debt. In other words,
they have purchased securities from our government with the
expectation that they will be paid back in U.S. dollars the same
amount they bought, plus interest, when they redeem those
securities.
What do you think will happen if China loses faith in the dollar?
Will they sit and wait for their bonds to expire, or will they
decide to cash in them in immediately? If the latter, what impact
do you think that will have on the American economy?
Jennifer|1.11.07 @ 9:52PM|#
From my reading, Ron Paul was using that example to
demonstrate the fallacy of one libertarian's thinking regarding
abortion. Paul wasn't making the comparison between a woman's body
and property, the person he was using as an example was.
Ah, thanks.
I'm still planning to vote for him if he makes it onto the ticket;
I'm just very disappointed to hear about his "woman-as-incubator"
attitude.
And I'm genuinely curious to know how pro-life "libertarians"
expect an early-term abortion ban to be enforced without violating
a woman's rights in multiple ways. But I suppose that's another
issue.
Possibly the first true libertarian candidate since Goldwater
and you fucks are sniping about abortion.
Some people would say that anyone who'd want to force a woman to
remain pregnant against her will is not truly libertarian. When a
lot of people criticized the LP's giving a leadership position to
Bob Barr, did you complain about all the fucks sniping about the
drug war?
|1.11.07 @ 9:54PM|#
jf,
It wouldn't even take bonds to be due before the effects would be
felt. If China simply stopped buying securities, the value of the
dollar would stumble quickly. I'm not an economist, so I can't
fortell what will happen beyond that, but finances don't change
just because they're super macroscopic.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.11.07 @ 9:57PM|#
Some people would say that anyone who'd want to force a
woman to remain pregnant against her will is not truly
libertarian.
Read his position and stop screeching. He wants to leave it to the
states, libertarian enough for me, CONSIDERING ALL OF HIS OTHER
FUCKING POSITIONS.
Jennifer|1.11.07 @ 10:03PM|#
Read his position and stop screeching. He wants to leave it
to the states,
Ah, so it's okay to force women to serve as incubators so long as
the enforcement is done at the state rather than federal level.
(State prison = fine. Federal prison = teh suck.)
By the way, it looks a tad hypocritical when you accuse someone of
screeching AND THEN POST THE REMAINDER OF YOUR SENTENCE IN ALL
CAPS.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.11.07 @ 10:14PM|#
Ah, so it's okay to force women to serve as incubators so
long as the enforcement is done at the state rather than federal
level.
Considering the other crap that needs fixed? Yes. And you,
specifically, should be forced to incubate for everyone else.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.11.07 @ 10:15PM|#
By the way, it looks a tad hypocritical when you accuse
someone of screeching AND THEN POST THE REMAINDER OF YOUR SENTENCE
IN ALL CAPS.
It's normally the only way to get through the prattle of a
banshee.
Jennifer|1.11.07 @ 10:17PM|#
Now, now, TPG. Surely a wise non-screecher like yourself can restrain your temper rather than resort to insults. I'm sure you're capable of self-control.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.11.07 @ 10:18PM|#
Now, now, TPG. Surely a wise non-screecher like yourself can
restrain your temper rather than resort to insults. I'm sure you're
capable of self-control.
Considering the complete lack of discourse you wish to have on the
topic, you can incubate.
Next.
Jennifer|1.11.07 @ 10:20PM|#
Now, now, TPG, did you not notice where I said that, despite my disappointment over his abortion stance, I'd still vote for him if he made it onto the ticket? You should try screeching less and reading more.
Jennifer|1.11.07 @ 10:24PM|#
It was 9:52 p.m., by the way. Same post where I quoted your
"fucks sniping about abortion" comment.
My, you are short-tempered tonight, aren't you?
|1.11.07 @ 10:31PM|#
Jennifer,
You have been volunteered for Axlotl Tank duty. Thank you for your
service to the Bene Geserit.
TPG, are you a Dune fan?
Sorry for the derail, I've had a glass or thirty of Reunite
Lambrusco
Jennifer|1.11.07 @ 10:35PM|#
Watch it, Lurker Jack. TPG had it wrong: I don't screech; I talk with The Voice.
|1.11.07 @ 10:37PM|#
" Once, the fed figured out how to manage the money supply in
the 1980s the current monetary system has worked wonderfully;
nearly decades of growth and low infaltion."
Is that why the fed stopped releasing M3 figures last year (m3=the
amount of unbacked fiat currency they are printing). The US economy
has been surfing a bubble that began with tech stocks and quickly
switched to real estate when tech stocks tanked. Real estate is
about to tank as well. How will the fed manage that?
If the fed is so adroit at managing our currency, why has the
dollar lost 30% vs the euro in the past 5 years? The only reason it
hasn't lost against the yuan and the yen is because the Chinese and
Japanese governments have debased their own currencies to keep
their export based economies afloat. This can only go on for so
long. Look for the dollar to collapse once Asian domestic economies
ramp up consumption to meet their production. Then they'll have no
need to export.
Commander|1.11.07 @ 10:42PM|#
Jennifer,
Don't worry your pretty li'l head Miss Incubator!
I'm somewhat agnostic about abortion.I agree that any attempt at
enforcement of a Constitutional Right to Life for "early term
citizens" is going to be problematic to say the least.Particularly
in regard to abortifacient drugs.The only workable solution for a
libertarian pro-life society would be some sort of "don't ask don't
tell" policy.As for a "pro-choice" libertarian society at what
point does the bambino gain rights? Conception ? Quickening?
Viability ? Term ? 2 weeks? 3 months? Two years? first grade?
Puberty?
Majority? It is all somewhat arbitrary.
Life begins at conception-that is fact-not ideology.
Personally I would be comfortable with a culture in which it is
acceptable that a woman may privately kill her own baby shy of
viability with only non-state moral sanction.
Of course the above is all theoretical. Pragmatically I don't give
a Rat's Ass where a candidate stands on the issue unless it
involves tax payer funding or infanticide on the one end or
prosecutions for RU 486 murder and smoking /drinking during
pregnancy on the other. I expect if taken out of politics we would
have some middle ground in which abortion is available in the first
trimester but strongly disaproved of as immoral
Jennifer|1.11.07 @ 10:45PM|#
Once, the fed figured out how to manage the money supply in
the 1980s the current monetary system has worked wonderfully;
nearly decades of growth and low infaltion."
Low inflation? I was digging through a pile of old newspapers from
1983 and looking at the store advertisements within; the price of
foodstuffs, clothes and other things are more than double what they
were in the early 80s. I second the question asked by another
poster earlier in this thread: why should there be inflation at
all? Why not deflation, considering how productivity keeps growing
every year?
|1.11.07 @ 10:48PM|#
Once, the fed figured out how to manage the money supply in
the 1980s the current monetary system has worked wonderfully;
nearly decades of growth and low infaltion.
I'm with the witch on this one. I've got 15 years of quicken
records that tell me my personal inflation rate is quite a bit
higher than the gub'mint records would indicate.
|1.11.07 @ 10:50PM|#
And btw, my personal records do include those pesky volitile food and fuel prices. I just can't seem to pull the Fed magic and have them disappear from my basket of goods.
Jennifer|1.11.07 @ 11:03PM|#
Prices more than doubling every 20 years counts as "low"
inflation? At that rate, by the time I retire milk will cost around
13 dollars a gallon.
[Voice] Go to my blog and click on every ad you see. Go through the
archives and click, click again. Linger when you click. Tell the
Googlebots to pay me in gold rather than fiat currency.[/Voice]
|1.11.07 @ 11:14PM|#
As a pro-life congressman, I would expect Ron Paul to vote
in favor of bills limiting abortion.
No, Ron Paul has voted against federal abortion laws on
the grounds that the federal government has no authority in this
area.
He did however speak out in favor of FDA approval of RU-486.
violent_k|1.11.07 @ 11:20PM|#
Jennifer,
If I am "against" some action it does not necessarily follow that I
want a law prohibiting said action. For example, I think smoking
meth is a tremendously bad idea. That doesn't mean I think it
should be illegal. I think sleeping with the wife of the guy next
door would be wrong. I have no interest in a law regarding who
people sleep with. I see no problem with being a "Pro-Life
Libertarian". Except for the fact that the term "pro-life" is
normally associated with statist asshats.
Folk Inflation|1.12.07 @ 12:09AM|#
Twenty years ago, a new Ferrari could be bought for the then eye-bugging sum of $17,000. Or so Bill Cosby: Himself would have us believe.
|1.12.07 @ 12:57AM|#
Props to Bob for making me look up what the hell the M3 actually
is:
M3: M2 + all other CDs, deposits of eurodollars and repurchase
agreements.
Eurodollars, eh? So, dollars held by European banks, and
"repurchase agreements" (aka U.S. Treasury Securities, which are
the little things that China has been buying like mad, and in an
article I read from 2002 Japan held 15% of) are no longer counted
officially?
I'm really starting to think that Operation Iraqi Freedom really
was about maintaining the value of the dollar, as opposed to what
the major parties would like their bases to believe (Oil!
Terrorism! Halliburton!).
Jesus we are fucked if I am right.
|1.12.07 @ 1:05AM|#
I'm really starting to think that Operation Iraqi Freedom
really was about maintaining the value of the dollar...Jesus we are
fucked if I am right.
Ding! Ding! We have a winner Bob!
|1.12.07 @ 4:18AM|#
I don't get all the Dr Paul "bashing" myself. Look at the man's
record. He votes "no" on pretty much everything that comes his way,
and people are bitching about going back to the gold standard
(nearly impossible for Dr Paul to do on his own) and abortion (same
deal - good luck him having any effect on it).
The man is the closest thing we have to a libertarian serving in
any significant area of the gov't. He's the kind of guy we want in
the president's chair.
Oh, I did forget that he's also not a big fan of "illegal
immigration", which I also shake my head at, but at least it's for
pretty much the right reasons, imo.
Anyway, I'd vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat.
sarcasmo|1.12.07 @ 7:04AM|#
Reason hasn't done a particularly-good job of noticing, but the
competing currency Ron wants exists. It's called e-gold.
http://www.e-gold.com/e-gold.asp?cid=9
Now the government has attacked it (on dubious grounds...) so it's
my sincere hope that Reason sends Radley Balko to cover the story.
The Maye case proves he's good enough to be up to a substantial
journalistic task on a subject -- money -- where ignorance is
widespread.
What Paul understands is that fiat money allows big government to
flourish while the mass hallucination functions, but eventually
it's all Weimar-Germany all over again unless it's possible to
enforce a contract -- and that's why governments make PARTICULARLY
poor issuers of currency. IMO. But I'm "biased," because I sell the
stuff.
JMR
|1.12.07 @ 8:45AM|#
jf, an embryo isn't an "unwanted child." It's an embryo. To
characterize it as such, as though an ovum magically gains
personhood when penetrated by a sperm, is either ignorant,
disingenuous, or positively deranged.
so when does the magical transition from living matter to
"personhood" occur? is it when the fetus begins to take on a human
form, or is it during that magical trip through the birth canal. or
maybe it's when the child leaves for college...?
who cares: as Ron Paul correctly points out, abortion is an issue
for the individual states, no the federal government. As president,
he would have very little impact on this issue.
|1.12.07 @ 8:57AM|#
bob was right on target with his recent post. The idea that the
Fed has recently kept inflation low is laughable. M3 is a very
important monetary statistic and is closely watched by the Euro and
Sterling central bankers. Thanksfully, there are a few smrt people
out there who are calc-ing a decent shadow M3 to follow. It has
been rising at a pretty high pace (just like before) and is the
reason why people's real expenses don't come anywhere near CPI. I
wish my bank acount was hedonically adjusted. Ha!
The only thing CPI is good for is keeping down social security
payments lower than what they should be. If you read the right
financial newsletters put out by people who really crunch out the
step-by-step methodologies of BLS statistics, you realize quickly
that they are quite flawed and very often fall on the politically
favorable side of things.
|1.12.07 @ 9:41AM|#
I don't think there can be a reasonably smooth transition from
fiat to gold money--at least without exteremly authoritarian
measures.
If there was ever any serious talk about a competing gold currency,
the value of paper receipts would rapidly approach their actual
value as everyone and their brother rushes to exchange them for
gold.
Brian Defferding|1.12.07 @ 9:41AM|#
I'll gladly contribute to this man's campaign, and will offer my cartooning services for free if it deems helpful to spread the word.
|1.12.07 @ 9:57AM|#
tarran,
I don't think it is publicly available, but i could be wrong. I see
it referenced from time to time in a daily newsletter I get, but I
don't recall the exact source. When I get a chance I will try to
find out. Shoot me an email reminder so I can send it to you when I
do find out.
|1.12.07 @ 2:18PM|#
"The dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the
productivity of the American economy. As long as the American
ecnomony remaims productive and continues to inovate and grow and
is not strangled by socialism, the dollar will be fine."
We used to make fun of all the stupid economic planning practiced
by the Soviet Union; like a committee meeting in Moscow to decide
what the best price for movie tickets was. In the US we have a
committee that meets in Washington DC and decides what the best
price (interest rate) for money is. Socialism?
|1.12.07 @ 4:34PM|#
["The dollar is not backed by nothing. It is backed by the
productivity of the American economy. As long as the American
ecnomony remaims productive and continues to inovate and grow and
is not strangled by socialism, the dollar will be fine."]
Yeah, I've always just loved that. What makes anyone think that the
productivity of America belongs to the con artists that are issuing
the "hot checks" normally refered to as dollars? Would you like it
if someone put your home up as collateral for a loan without your
permission?
" Once, the fed figured out how to manage the money supply in the
1980s the current monetary system has worked wonderfully; nearly
decades of growth and low infaltion."(sic)
BULLSHIT!!! What happened is that the country got flooded with
cheap consumer goods from China and cheap labor from south of the
border. If it were not for those, Americans would have found out
very quickly how little their money is worth.
The financial establishment and the federal government have been
ripping off the American People (and anyone else who held dollars)
for nearly one hundred years. You want to believe official
statistics on the amount of inflation? LOW inflation?! I'm old
enough to remember when the prices of most things were ONE TENTH
what they are now...and that was only in the 1960's. Low inflation?
Oh, my raw, rosy-red ass!
|1.12.07 @ 4:36PM|#
Assuming Ron Paul can get the Republican nomination and be aware he is not well liked by many Republicans so, it would be an uphill battle. But should he do so I think it's imperative that the LP back him as he will be the only chance to get a Libertarian friendly in the Whitehouse in the forseeable future. For those "L" who have their noses up their butts, remember, half a loaf is better then no loaf. I'm behind Ron 100% as he's the only light on the horizon!
|1.12.07 @ 9:16PM|#
Maybe the LP cl=ould skip the whole ordeal of nominating a
cnadidate of their own and endorse Ron Paul. If Ron does not make
the cut in the Republican Party (which is very likely) he could
STILL be on the ballot as a Libertarian.
To the person who displayed near total economic brainwashing,
undoubltedly in goverNMEnt schools, in denigrating the gold
standard, may I suggest reading Sennholz, Rothbard and Mises on the
subject, then getting back to us? The boom-bust cycles we have
"enjoyed" including the great depression were the result of the
legalized counterfieting of the fractional reserve system. A
serious depression is more likely if we do NOT have a gold
standard.
maggie|1.12.07 @ 11:15PM|#
I think many underestimate Paul's potential attraction in the
grass-roots of the GOP and many others...he's a limited government,
lower taxes, advocate - two issues that have the grassroots irate
with their leaders in DC. Further, he's gotten the highest of
ratings from such groups as Citizens Against Government Waste and
the Taxpayers Union...
He may be the fiscal conservative that so many gop'ers have been
hoping for.
Eric Dondero|1.14.07 @ 9:30AM|#
Jesse,
I seriously doubt Ron Paul will run for reelection to Congress.
There were already heavy rumors here in his District, south of
Houston, that he was planning on retiring after this term. And he's
quite old and in somewhat ill health.
One guy has already announced for his seat. Not 12 hours after the
story started hitting the blogs, some guy named Mark Henrry,
Republican Pilot and former GOP Congressional candidate from
Galveston announced that he would be running for Ron Paul's
seat.
It's already insane down here in CD-14. Everyone is scrambling to
see who will step forward to run for RP's seat.
My money is on a Young Republican who leans heavily libertarian. If
he doesn't run for some reason, we NEED TO FIND some other
libertarian Republican to run for this seat.
Eric Dondero, Former Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
Angleton, Texas
|1.22.07 @ 11:28PM|#
Eric, I thought YOU were running for Ron's seat!
I may differ with him on a few things, but these are things on
which reasonable people can disagree and they aren't his pet
issues. He's someone both social conservatives and social
libertarians can appreciate. I think he's quite courageous for
standing up against the Neocon quagmire in the Middle East. See, he
can get away with it without being branded as a traitor and someone
like Hagel can't. He has what Gingrich called the "Ron Paul
dispensation."
I just hope the peanut gallery doesn't come out and ruin his
potential campaign. On the other hand, Ron is quite articulate and
knows how to couch his message to a more mainstream audience too,
which he will need to do.
Personally, I liked Steve Forbes a lot, but he was a bit too geeky.
Ron is a more forceful speaker.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245