theJoKell

laliberty:

Some criticisms against Ron Paul have been brought forward in a popular post today. Considering it includes - amidst some fair concerns - a number of misleading and misunderstood claims, I thought it’d be worthwhile to address. Let’s jump right in.

paxamericana:

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, 

This is arguably the trickiest and most controversial issue of our time. I won’t get into it, except to say that there are truly earnest opinions on either side of this sensitive subject. Your established opinion will inform your reaction here.

(Out of fairness, I should note that even the legislation above leaves the “authority” to legalize/criminalize abortion to the individual states. The only crime mentioned in the Constitution is treason, and as such even murder falls under state jurisdiction.)

build a fence along the US-Mexico border, 

While I generally am not in full agreement with his immigration positions (as I mention later), Ron Paul is actually not supportive of a fence. Plus, there was more to this bill than just the fence, and he has admitted that the fence was not the reason he voted for the bill.

During a debate in September, Ron Paul said: “The people [who] want big fences and guns, sure, we could secure the border. A barbed wire fence with machine guns, that would do the trick. [But] I don’t believe that is what America is all about. Every time you think about this toughness on the border and ID cards and REAL IDs, think it’s a penalty against the American people too. I think this fence business is designed and may well be used against us and keep us in. In economic turmoil, the people want to leave with their capital and there’s capital controls and there’s people controls. Every time you think about the fence, think about the fences being used against us, keeping us in.”

prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), 

Fearmongering aside (“permitting the return of sodomy laws”), this is simply reducing the scope of federal purview over the lives of individual citizens. It enforces the style of federalism established in the Constitution in which the federal government had very limited areas in which it had authority, and returns greater autonomy to the states (and, by doing so, grant some greater control to individuals since they’d be one vote in a state instead of one vote in a nation, and also since it would be easier to move to another state than to another country). One who finds a bigger government more comforting may be concerned with the implications, but this is about bringing control of domestic policies down closer to individual control.

As Bastiat said: “[E]very time we object to a thing being done by government, the [statists] conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the [statists] say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the [statists] say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the [statists] were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” So because Ron Paul considers something to not be the role of government, it doesn’t mean that something is unimportant. In fact, I’d argue that the more important the issue, the less it should be left to the corrupt and wasteful bureaucracy of the state.

pull out of the UN, 

Right. Should one be surprised that Ron Paul, who wants “smaller government” is against paying into and ceding authority and sovereignty to a de facto world government? As if it is not enough to have local, state, and federal governments creating self-serving rules and meddling in our lives, we need to submit to any even greater authority?

Ron Paul makes his case: “American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. … The UN is neither wise nor neutral. All of the member nations have national interests that don’t simply disappear when their representatives enter the UN general assembly hall. Like any government or quasi-government body, the UN is rife with corruption and backroom deals.“ 

And as a Cuban, I must also point out that the UN has Cuba in its human rights council. Such preposterousness should clearly demonstrate the unseriousness of the U.N.

disband NATO, 

Ron Paul has rightly pointed out that NATO has, at best, outlived its usefulness. This military alliance is merely more foreign policy folly that allows the U.S. to determine winners and losers in foreign nations, all while providing cover for the U.S. Just this weekend, NATO forces killed the most Pakistani forces in over a decade. NATO is often an instrument to instigate war, challenge the sovereignty of foreign nations, and protect the interests of political and corporate cronies. To the average American, NATO represents endless conflict and expense. We don’t need it for the same reason we don’t need unnecessary interventionist wars.

end birthright citizenship, 

I disagree with his position here, but he has stated that he only feels this policy is necessary because of the incentivizing nature of the welfare state.

deny federal funding to any organisation which “which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style” along with destroying public education and social security, 

There was A LOT more to this bill than this one line. Among many other things, it would have abolished the freshly established (and unconstitutional) Department of Education, repealed the Selective Service Act (military draft), exempted Social Security benefits from taxation, provided tax credits and deductions to those with elderly dependents, repealed the estate and gift taxes, increased tax deductions for dependents, prohibited the federal government from imposing any regulations on the internal affairs of religious institutions, allow child- and spouse-abuse centers to be tax-exempt, recognized state authority over various domestic issues, etc. 

I won’t excuse this one line among many, but merely point out that it was over 31 years ago and he is against federal funding of anything not explicitly listed in the Constitution (and in some cases would even be against funding things mentioned in the Constitution, like the post office).

and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard.

Absolutely! This is an argument for greater liberty and economic prosperity. I discuss the Federal Reserve, the gold standard, and fractional reserve banking - and the implications to liberty and prosperity - here, here, here, and here.

He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

This is horribly misleading, as it interprets his position as apathetic, or worse, to genocide. To this, I must quote Ron Paul himself:

“No one denies that the humanitarian situation in Darfur is dire, but the United States Government has no business entangling itself in this situation, nor in forcing divestment on unwilling parties. Any further divestment action should be undertaken through voluntary means and not by government fiat. 

“H.R. 180 is an interventionist piece of legislation which will extend the power of the Federal Government over American businesses, force this country into yet another foreign policy debacle, and do nothing to alleviate the suffering of the residents of Darfur. By allowing State and local governments to label pension and retirement funds as State assets, the Federal Government is giving the go-ahead for State and local governments to play politics with the savings upon which millions of Americans depend for security in their old age. The safe harbor provision opens another dangerous loophole, allowing fund managers to escape responsibility for any potential financial mismanagement, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Would the Congress offer the same safe harbor provision to fund managers who wish to divest from firms offering fatty foods, growing tobacco, or doing business in Europe?

“This bill would fail in its aim of influencing the Government of the Sudan, and would likely result in the exact opposite of its intended effects. The regime in Khartoum would see no loss of oil revenues, and the civil conflict will eventually flare up again. The unintended consequences of this bill on American workers, investors, and companies need to be considered as well. Forcing American workers to divest from companies which may only be tangentially related to supporting the Sudanese government could have serious economic repercussions which need to be taken into account.“ 

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas,

Hyperbolic use of the word “war” aside, this was mostly about being against political correctness. I would probably be closer to Thomas Jefferson’s take on separation of church and state than Ron Paul’s, but since he would drastically shrink the scope of the state, there would be that much less for religion and state to entangle themselves in.

he’s against gay marriage, 

Ron Paul on marriage: “I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.”

He says that it is at most a state issue (which is what the above piece is about), but ultimately the government has no authority in marriage whatsoever: “I have my standards, but I shouldn’t [be able] to impose my standards on others. Others have their standards and they have no right to impose their standards on me. … Just get the government out of it. It’s one area where [government involvement] is totally unnecessary.”

And for the record, he is also against DADT.

is against the popular vote, 

And rightly so. Not only is democracy not freedom, but it was the states that created the federal government. The electoral college allows for a persevering of such state autonomy by forcing presidential candidates to win states instead of simply a plurality of citizens in certain populous regions, thereby keeping states themselves (particularly the smaller ones) from being marginalized. In addition to the link you provided, here’s another that gives Ron Paul’s case. 

opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

This is a bit unfair. Most of the provisions of the civil rights act overturned Jim Crow laws and other forms of discrimination that amounted to government restricting liberty of individuals - these provisions that grant greater liberty, he of course supports. He only has a problem (rightly) with the provisions that overturn the fundamental freedom of association while expanding federal power by misinterpreting the power of Congress to “regulate interstate commerce.” Just as individuals can choose who to allow into their homes, so too should they be able to choose who to allow in their business… and they are free to suffer the consequences of such decisions.

As Ron Paul said: “The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.”

wants the estate tax repealed, 

Which means he is against double taxation. Money that was already taxed as income - and then later taxed as capital gains, not to mention depreciated by the Federal Reserve’s inflation (the “invisible tax”) - should not also be taxed when it is being passed on to loved ones (who then are taxed again when they spend it). No person or group of people - even if such a group calls itself “government” - has a right to another’s justly acquired property simply because said individual died.

is STILL making racist remarks,

This links to nothing that discusses race. I’m sure what you meant to link to has something to do with the newsletters of decades ago, of which some were undeniably politically incorrect, inflammatory, and even bigoted. Although the columns in question were not written by Paul, he accepts responsibility for not being more careful with what others published under his name: “I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines. [I want to] make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it’s obviously wrong.”

Here’s Ron Paul in his own words, from his chapter on Racism in Liberty Defined: “[R]acism is a problem that begins with a denial of individualism. A racist believes that some group trait always trumps all individual traits. This is the first error, and it stems from a desire to simplify the reality of group heterogeneity (people really are different) for the sake of convenience or quick thinking. ...”

From his book The Revolution: “[Racism] is a particularly odious form of collectivism. … [T]he only way that racism can be overcome is through the philosophy of individualism, which I have promoted throughout my life. … We should not think in terms of whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other such groups. That kind of thinking only divides us. The only us-versus-them thinking in which we might indulge is the people - all the people - versus the government.”

He reiterates elsewhere: “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.  The true antidote to racism is liberty. … [I]n a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”

believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States,

This is kind of an odd one to throw in since its relevance is questionable. Still, let’s provide a bit of historical context. In 1978, Jimmy Carter signed over the Panama Canal to Panama (incrementally until complete turnover in 2000). Ron Paul objected at the time, and then when this bill was proposed in 1999 (just before the 2000 deadline). Considering the significant American taxpayer wealth spent in acquiring and building the canal (going back all the way to the days of Ulysses S. Grant), and the legally dubious way in which the canal was turned over, Ron Paul’s objections aren’t outrageous. (Of course, the contentious way in which progressive warmonger Teddy Roosevelt strong-armed control of the Canal Zone in the first place is another matter…)

and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories,

It’s not a conspiracy theory about Bush I’s aspirations of global governance through the U.N. if he is just literally using Bush I’s own words: “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.’s founders.”

What is so bizarre about acknowledging the publicly held positions of a world ‘leader’?

not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control.

This is pure hysterics. Paul uses the word “indoctrination,” which is both accurate in context and not the same as mind control. Paul objects to the Department of Education, because it is literally an unconstitutional, expensive and inefficient use of taxpayer money. If it is inappropriate, impractical, and foolish to set the curricula of schools in Fayetteville (AR), Juno (AK), and San Francisco (CA) from Washington, D.C. in which the needs, demands and shortcomings of an entire nation must be considered, how much more so would it be from some global entity even if the scope of subjects may be smaller?

-

Hopefully, this clears up some of Paul’s positions so that areas of genuine concern may be properly addressed. Of course, some will always disagree on ideological grounds, but it’s best to deal in truths.