Ron Paul said in book he doesn't agree with Ayn Rand philosophically

RCA

RCA

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
3,441
If Ayn Rand's primary philosophy is objectivism, why does Ron Paul disagree with it? Isn't Ron Paul's philosophy that each person should take responsibility for their own lives and not depend on the government? This sounds very similar to objectivism in which each person is to focus on their own well-being primarily. Am I missing something?
 
Objectivism isn't libertarianism. Libertarianism is a wholly political philosophy and objectivism is more an all encompassing one. It just happens that the political outlook of objectivism resembles libertarianism. For example, to be an objectivist, you have to be an atheist. In libertarianism, religious beliefs are irrelevant.
 
RCA said:
If Ayn Rand's primary philosophy is objectivism, why does Ron Paul disagree with it? Isn't Ron Paul's philosophy that each person should take responsibility for their own lives and not depend on the government? This sounds very similar to objectivism in which each person is to focus on their own well-being primarily. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Also can you give the quote from the book, I don't have it yet.
 
Ron Paul is a conservative with libertarian streaks, not a "hard" libertarian.
 
MS0453 said:
What does that even mean?
Click to expand...

Ron Paul is not an anarchist - it's arguable that he isn't even a minarchist on the local and state level. Instead, he wants government intervention - but NOT on the federal level, because he feels that will allow greater control over government. IIRC, he also wants to increase defense spending - but a libertarian would argue the dangers of a government monopoly on force.
 
Kludge said:
Ron Paul is not an anarchist - it's arguable that he isn't even a minarchist on the local and state level. Instead, he wants government intervention - but NOT on the federal level, because he feels that will allow greater control over government. IIRC, he also wants to increase defense spending - but a libertarian would argue the dangers of a government monopoly on force.
Click to expand...

1. I'd like to see any sources where he says that any of the government programs now at the federal level would be legitimate at the local or state level. Has he argued that "such and such" an issue should be handled at the state/local level? Of course, but thats just making the case for federalism. I'd like to see an example of him saying that he thinks "X government department" is great and beneficial, minus roads/police/courts.

2. As for his desire to increase defense spending, I'd also like to see a source. I've seen him argue for shrinking the size of our military across the board.

"There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today,” he said in the interview. “I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines."

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...ould+defend+ron+paul&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

And here's an article from him critiquing standing armies.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8893
 
MS0453 said:
1. I'd like to see any sources where he says that any of the government programs now at the federal level would be legitimate at the local or state level. Has he argued that "such and such" an issue should be handled at the state/local level? Of course, but thats just making the case for federalism. I'd like to see an example of him saying that he thinks "X government department" is great and beneficial, minus roads/police/courts.

2. As for his desire to increase defense spending, I'd also like to see a source. I've seen him argue for shrinking the size of our military across the board.

"There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today,” he said in the interview. “I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines."

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cach...ould+defend+ron+paul&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

And here's an article from him critiquing standing armies.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8893
Click to expand...

1. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

" Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system.A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend.
Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them?
A: No, I'm not. It's not in my platform.
QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools.
A: I bet that's a misquote. I do not recall that."



Abolition of public schools would be libertarian. Moving public schools' authority to the local/state level is Conservative.



2. I didn't recall correctly. He calls for continued funding of US defense, but doesn't talk about increasing/decreasing spending while instead asking for an "intelligence overhaul". He does, however, call for tighter border control - another Conservative thought (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/national-defense/).
 
As MS0453 said, while he will say "that's best handled at the State" doesn't necessarily mean he supports it; when someone asked him about greenhouse gases and taxing it, he quickly stated he was against regulating it and having a carbon tax...however, he did say that the States could regulate it and could tax it, if they wanted.

That said, he quickly added that he thought it would be very unwise to do so because neither side has been 100% proven, and the potential to cripple and damage industry in that State is vast.

From general statements he's made over the course of the campaign (and since it's obviously, sadly, that he won't get the nomination), he seems to have become more and more opposed to the idea of global warming in general...my guess is that he was treading lightly when he was attempting to pick up as many supporters as possible in the heat of the battle...but now that things have cooled off, he can air his personal views a little more.

I think the reason he's against abolishing the public school system is for the same reasons he's against abolishing social security, etc...there's far too many people entrenched in it (as of now), and it could cause potential disaster for the nation if it was gotten rid of overnight.

Plus, it truly is a State issue; if you have the Federal government stepping in and saying "no more public schools.", then that unilaterally gives the government the same, exact power to step in and tell a State "no homeschooling or private schools--public schools only".

He does, however support a voucher system...which could increase competition amongst schools....the voucher system isn't perfect, by any means (as it still requires tax-dollars), but I'd much rather have a voucher system in place than what we currently have (and again, it would be a transitionary stage from public schools being the standard to private schools being the standard).
 
Ronald Reagan the Libertarian
Here's a wonderful quote from Reagan in 1975 from Reason magazine.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t.html
 
I admire Ron for quoting so many of the people he did, regardless of religious difference. He even favorably quoted Bertrand Russell, the guy who wrote the book "Why I am not a Christian"
 
Statists most usually have a very strong leaning and tendency to just LOVE the shepherds and flocks . Only as long as they're the shepherds. :D
 
Objectivist are like the neocons of the libertarian movement, let's put it that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Murray Rothbard’s Lost Letters on Ayn Rand
Replies
0
Views
147
PAF
PAF
Brian4Liberty
  • Featured
Why Ron Paul Is the Only Politician World Leaders Should Emulate
Replies
0
Views
691
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
PAF
Libertarianism and Metaethics
Replies
0
Views
160
PAF
PAF
PAF
Defending Individual Liberty
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
acptulsa
acptulsa
Brian4Liberty
Ron Paul Institute (RPI) for Peace and Prosperity Conference 2024
Replies
7
Views
7K
Brian4Liberty
Brian4Liberty
Back
Top