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....

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Thomas Paine\'s Goiter||

    Holeeeeeee crap

  • ||

    I'd vote for him, again!

  • rover saurus||

    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.

  • ||

    Are there enough pro-life, anti-war, gold bug fiscal cons in the GOP to let him cause a little havoc?

    Kevin

  • ||

    kevrob,

    I'm not terribly "pro-life" but I'd vote for him in a second.

  • ||

    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...

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    Hell yeah !!!! This is the Best News I've read all day. Hell this week.

    Run Ron Run !!!

  • Jesse Walker||

    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."

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    He doesn't stand a chance in Heck.

    But, he's got my vote.

  • ||

    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.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Ron Paul is the Man.

  • ||

    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||

    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?

  • ||

    "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||

    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||

    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?

  • andrew||

    Here's a slogan:

    Ron Paul: Freedom For All!

  • Sir Disgrace||

    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||

    In the interest of grammar, that should be:

    ...the normal Libertarian thing of letting the perfect...

  • ||

    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?

  • Jennifer||

    Oh please oh please oh please oh please. . . .

  • Timothy||

    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!

  • ||

    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

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    If he runs he's got my vote.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "Let's RE-elect Ron Paul POTUS (2012)!"

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Pig Mannix,

    You could also mention Friedrich Hayek, as well.

  • Angela Keaton||

    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.

  • ||

    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.)

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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...

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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".

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    http://www.cfr.org/publication/12346/digital_gold_and_a_flawed_global_order.html?breadcrumb=%2Fissue%2F9%2Fgeoeconomics

  • ||

    "...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.

  • ||

    Behold:

    the one-issue voter.

  • ||

  • ||

    Behold: the one-issue voter.

    Says the libertarian.

  • ||

    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!

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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."

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    "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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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?

  • ||

    Wouldn't it be nice to be able to vote FOR someone?

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Guess Who,

  • ||

    ARGH! Goddamned server software killed my post!

    Ron Paul's writings at LewRockwell.com.

    Hardly the writings of a "feather-weight">

  • Jennifer||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    This is great. Possibly the first true libertarian candidate since Goldwater and you fucks are sniping about abortion.

  • ||

    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||

    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?

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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?

  • ||

    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||

    Watch it, Lurker Jack. TPG had it wrong: I don't screech; I talk with The Voice.

  • ||

    " 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||

    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,

    Do it again, witch. It makes me tingle.

    And call me Baron Lurker.

  • Jennifer||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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]

  • ||

    Went to blog...couldn't stop...saw picture...RED!..[TINGLE]...click..click..

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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!

  • ||

    You got my vote Ron!

  • ||

    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||

    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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • Wil||

    Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    Great Ape,

    Where would one find this "Shadow M3"? Is it publicly available?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    I think shadowstats.com and nowandfutures.com have M3 estimates

  • ||

    tarran,

    shadowstats is the one i was thinking of. thanks Kurt.

  • ||

    "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?

  • ||

    ["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!

  • ||

    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!

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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

  • ||

    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.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement