So what do you DISAGREE about with Ron Paul?

[Uriel999]

So I have been thinking about posting this for a few months but have been hesitant to do so. I debated whether or not this would be controversial but have come to the conclusion this thread could be most interesting. The question is simple, as far as Ron Paul's stands in your opinion what do you disagree with him about?

Me personally, since I started the post will offer my criticism's:

seriously, no disagreements over political issues whatsoever that I have heard him comment on, not saying we may not disagree on some minor issues that I have not heard since I started following the man roughy 2 years go but I don't know them. that being said, I disagree with how the man ran his campaign...or rather didn't run his campaign. Especially with what we the grassroots did with the money bombs and a freaking blimp. Where was his campaign?! Say all you want about how the media screwed him over (and I don't necessarily disagree with much criticism towards the Ministry of Truth) but as far as the press goes RP could have had much more exposure if his campaign had been run better. That is my only criticism I can think of, but what is yours? Be honest, do you disagree with him on abortion? How about Capital punishment? Chuck Baldwin endorsement? Campaign for liberty? Perhaps your a broad constructionist Hamiltonian bastard? etc, etc?

 

[Mini-Me]

On a personal level, I disagree with Ron Paul about:

• The email he sent out in support of Michele Bachman.
• His tendency to support people through the Liberty PAC that are not really deserving of such support...I understand why it's necessary to compromise, but sometimes it seems that he supports some politicians that are hardly better than average (especially depending on what your priorities may be). Then again, as some others have said, I understand why he might want to reward those politicians who steadfastly opposed the bailout.
• His endorsement of Chuck Baldwin. I understand why he did it, but the problem is, Baldwin is no Ron Paul, and right or wrong, he scares a lot of people that Ron Paul doesn't scare.
• His "Dumbledore-ish" tendency to put too much trust into people who work for him or do things in his name...this bit him in the ass with the newsletter fiasco, and it bit him in the ass with his poorly-run campaign.
• The fact that he rarely gets angry and fired up, even though that's when he's at his best (in my opinion)
• Finally, I don't actually care, but it would have been more convenient if he acknowledged the validity of the theory of evolution, since his religious views gave some people an additional excuse to dismiss him (mostly based on the prevailing assumption that he'd legislate such views, like most politicians do ).

On a political level, I disagree with Ron Paul on the following issues:

• While some of the legislation he sponsors, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to strip federal jurisdiction from social matters entirely, their titles and wording usually have a "family values" bias that I'm uncomfortable with. I think that bias clouds the issue, diminishes support for such legislation, and could potentially be dangerous by itself. For instance, the Sanctity of Life Act is a bit contradictory, since it supposedly strips federal courts of all authority to hear abortion-related cases, yet it defines life to begin at conception, which could be construed to imply that all states must ban abortion (even if their failure to do so cannot be challenged in a federal court). Although I'm pro-life, the way it reads makes me wary of Christian social conservatives who might seek to interpret it abusively and bring jurisdiction back to the federal level...which of course would make it once again a divisive federal wedge issue that enrages single-issue voters and prevents us from addressing more fundamental issues.
• Ron Paul supports the Christian Just War theory, and technically speaking, I do not believe it is truly the "correct" just war theory. For instance, I completely disagree with the criteria that only "legitimate authorities" can wage a just war, since that rules out revolutions against tyrannical governments.
• He believes that the incorporation doctrine is wholly invalid, yet he believes states should not be able to ban or restrict gun ownership. Unless the precise wording of the Second Amendment makes it uniquely applicable to states in a way that others aren't (a dubious argument), that seems quite contradictory to me. If states were theoretically allowed to violate free speech, institute state religions, violate habeas corpus, search and seize with impunity, use shredded baby meat as fertilizer, and be otherwise entirely tyrannical to their own people with no federal intervention...why should the federal government specifically and exclusively restrain the individual states from violating gun rights in particular? In other words, this seems to be a rare inconsistency in Paul's views. Personally, I too doubt the incorporation doctrine is legally valid as well...the Fourteenth Amendment wasn't really ratified properly, and the wording is not entirely clear. I'm not sure whether such a doctrine is actually necessary, either. However, I do personally feel that, as a condition for belonging to the union and enjoying the protection thereof, member states should be Constitutionally bound to also respect the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (with the exception that, as far as the states are concerned, libel and slander are not protected under the First Amendment). In that sense, I do wish there was an unquestionable "real" incorporation doctrine.
• In general, I've also become more libertarian than Ron Paul, and I'd advocate not only a return to limited Constitutional government but further reductions in federal powers...along with some very strong checks and balances to help the people prevent the government from ever growing again. In fact, if enough support could be found for a new Constitution (one that's better than the old one, not worse), I'd advocate starting from scratch and forming a new Constitution based on a confederate model of republican government instead of our current federal model (which has become a national model ).
• Back in the day, when I first started supporting Ron Paul, I was more of a liberal than a libertarian. At the time, I had a LOT more disagreements with him, since I had economic misconceptions combined with a weak understanding of liberty. I supported universal healthcare, universal education, trade barriers, heavy regulations on business, and "responsible" fiat money with a fixed or slowly increasing supply (which I've since realized is an oxymoron anyway, considering the tendencies of those with the power to manipulate money ). Over time, after a lot of reading and a lot of thought, I've reversed my positions on those issues for both principled and practical reasons, and I've since become pretty thoroughly libertarian in my views.

 

[Kludge]

Taking a picture with Don Black...

 

[Truth Warrior]

Favorite founding father, Constitution, politics, religion, voting, statism, 9/11, "Freedom, Peace and Prosperity", that government can be "fixed", optimism, etc.

Though I gotta say Ron does seem to be coming around to REALITY, nicely, if somewhat slowly.<IMHO>

What's a good, smart and nice guy, like Ron, doing in a sleazy snake pit, cess pool like D.C.?


"The system is corrupt, beyond redemption, and is not worthy of my support!"

 

[Spider-Man]

I can't think of anything.

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

-Starting off a debate by saying he'd get rid of the dept. of education (yes, I want to get rid of it, too, but he should have shifted his focus to th DHS or something)

-Tightening borders and support for the redneck patrol. All that needs to be done is to cutoff welfare for illegals.

-His criticizing congress for "ousting McCarthy before the job was done"

-support for the electoral college

-denial of the existence of separation of church and state

-getting himself pegged as another chuckabee for his stance on evolution

and the biggest one: not accepting the libertarian/constitutionalist/green nomination, or putting together an independent ticket across party lines

Actually, most of my complaints involve him not doing what was most politically expedient. As much as I want to applaud him for not mincing words and always standing up for absolute truth, but anyone involved in politics should know better than to have faith in the intellect of the american people.

 

[Dieseler]

Only thing I can disagree with Dr. Paul is,

Starting his plans for Presidential Campaign so late... I know, I know, he was talked into it. Whatever.
Not being prepared to run Third Party when he didn't get the Rep. Nomination.
Then telling me to waste my fucking vote on one of the four pre determined losers.

Other than that, I'm all good with him.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I can think of a couple of things I disagree with:

1. Not overseeing whoever is giving him bad advice in campaign AND in C4L.

2. Not endorsing the GOP in this VERY important election...pushing the movement to vote 3rd party which splintered the movement. Endorsing Chuck Baldwin because he was mad about Bob Barr not showing up....SEE #1. I chalk it up to BAD advice and Ron Paul doens't seem to be suspicious of it..he kinda lets others tell him what to do.

3. He's not addressing the blatant communism coming from the left. This upsets me.

Things I like about Ron Paul:

****He is a Conservative Christian Constitutionalist. I love Ron Paul . TONES

 

[angelatc]

Free trade. I am more closely aligned with fair trade, and therefore a bit of a protectionist.

 

[John E]

On most things, I agree with Ron Paul and on the few I don't - I understand where he is coming from and the good doctor backs that position up with sound points. I "respectfully disagree".

On International intervention -- there are a lot of atrocities going on around the world, like in dafur, where we could be using our military strength for strictly humanitarian needs. I don't believe you can "hand" people freedom because, like most things, people don't appreciate what they didn't have to work for. I agree with Dr. Paul about using our economic engine to introduce a better way of life as that would be my first choice as well, but in a hell hole where innocents are suffering, I feel we do have a moral obligation to help out.

Roe vs Wade: I don't necessarily believe this is a states issue. I also don't believe that the government should be involved with it at all. Ron Paul wants the government out of the markets because its too complex a situation to be regulated by a court of law and through legislation. In the same way, I believe that the decision of abortion is far to complex, with too many factors, for legislature and if that is the case, then the default is to neither approve or deny but to leave the decision to the people, in this case the mother to be.

Regulation: Ron Paul strictly believes that the markets will take care of everything but I am not so trusting that people will do the right thing and I believe at least some regulation is needed to keep big corporations honest. I dont believe current regulation works because everyone is in bed with everyone else.

So... there are a few things where I have a slight disagreement with Ron Paul's stated positions. In a perfect world, we would have a congress full of people with Ron Paul's integrity and these differing view points could be discussed at length, with reason, without political jocking or special interest considerations so the best solutions could be reasoned out for the many and the few.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

I have to agree with the lassiz faire market also...i agree with the fair trade idea. If there was a moral society..free markets would work..unfortunately as we can see...we don't have a moral society..so there must be some protectionism. tones

 

[nickcoons]

• His endorsement of Chuck Baldwin. I don't think there are any great candidates, but if anyone was deserving of his endorsement it would be Charles Jay.
  
• His views on the border. In a free society, peaceful people have the right to move about as they please. If you're concerned with violence crossing the border, then go after people creating the violence. Don't punish the entire group because of a few bad apples (yes, a few). Additionally, the term "illegal immigration" was concocted by the far right to demonize immigrants. Crossing our borders without documentation isn't a felony or even a misdemeanor, but more in line with getting a speeding ticket. And lastly, I don't like the idea of a wall or "securing the border." The Berlin Wall was built (or so East Germans were told) to keep out evil Western influence. As we know, walls don't just keep people out, they keep people in too.
  
• His views on the Constitution. I'm sure this one might be a bit controversial on these forums. I'm a libertarian purist, so I don't believe the Constitution legitimately gives the federal government any jurisdiction over me because I never agreed to it. I'm all in favor having a Constitutionally-limited government because that's much more libertarian than what we have now, and I believe that the federal government should be limited to what the Constitution says it can do. But these are upward limits, not downward limits. I don't think that the federal government can legitimately do everything (like tax) just because the Constitution says it can.

 

[nickcoons]

I have to agree with the lassiz faire market also...i agree with the fair trade idea. If there was a moral society..free markets would work..unfortunately as we can see...we don't have a moral society..so there must be some protectionism. tones

I'm not sure where this idea that comes from; that we need a moral society in order for free markets to work. Free markets work because everyone everywhere always does whatever is in their best interest when left to their own devices. And what is in one's best interest, in a free market, is beneficial to others.

Briefly, if I want to be filthy rich, then I need to get lots of money. The easiest way to get lots of money is for people to give it to me. I could try stealing it and accumulating it that way, but that's far too risky and historically it's far easier to get lots of money by people giving it to you voluntarily than it is to try and take it by force.

So, for people to give me money, I need to give them something of value in return; a value-for-value exchange. That means I need to produce. Perhaps I start my own business, and for me to be successful, the business would have to provide a good or service that the community needed. The better my good or service, the more successful I would be. So it is in my own best interest to provide the highest quality goods and services that I can.

In pursuing my goal of becoming rich, I would be acting in a selfish manner, and yet I would be benefiting those that chose to do business with me. This required no feelings of "moral obligation to society", only the pursuit of my own self interests. This is why the free market works.

On the other hand, if you agree with John Ridpath that "a moral society is not one in which all behavior is moral" (which I agree with), then we can agree. Rather, a moral society is one in which immoral behavior is not tolerated. If you tolerate immoral behavior (the initiation of force such as theft, slavery, and murder; and this includes taxes), then a pure free market does not necessarily work. A free market works best when institutionalized force (i.e. government monopoly on the initiation of force) is removed from society.

 

[klamath]

His belief in third parties.

 

[priest_of_syrinx]

His endorsement of Chuck Baldwin wasn't such a great idea. Some of the stuff he says is just going to drive people away from Ron Paul and the whole liberty movement. He said that the south was right in the war between the state, and that scares a lot of people. I am not very informed about the Civil War, so I can't make any comment, but that doesn't help his status to say that.

 

[SWATH]

I think chocolate cookies with walnuts are superior to just plain chocolate chips. Ron Paul is so wrong on this issue that it cast doubt on everything else he says.

 

[angelatc]

Free markets work because everyone everywhere always does whatever is in their best interest when left to their own devices.

Free markets don't work for the exact same reason.

 

[mport1]

Well, he wants a government.

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I think yellow shirts are just plain ugly.

 

[UnReconstructed]

ron paul is basically against the federal government. anything that the state wants to do is fine with him.

the state intrudes on my life more than the fed does.