On Ron Paul’s Positions of Freedom

May 19, 2011 in Uncategorized

Every so often I see a comment on a news article that just prompts me to write a dissertation. Afterward I often feel well that was a waste of effort on some comment stream that will disappear from site in couple hours so I post it here to make myself feel better. Here is the link to the original article Ron Paul Questions Mitt Romney

Here is the Comment to which I was responding:

Ron Paul knows that when you conduct a fund raising marathon, you only “get” commitments. No one actually gets all of the bank transfers that day. So what is the meaning of Ron Paul’s “speech acts” here? He knows full well that this is how fund raising works. So why is he making it appear that Romney has done something out of the ordinary? It’s a cheap shot. It speaks to the core of Ron Paul. Paul is desperate to get attention. He claims to be a man of HIGH integrity, yet his actions speak louder than his words.

Paul loves to make speeches about “freedom and tyranny.” It makes us feel patriotic. But then he speaks in general and vague principles of “freedom” when having to address complex problems. Its much “easier” to say that you’d die for a cause rather than saying, “I’ll stick around and solve complex problems.”

Take for instance, health care reform. What is Paul’s solution for the states to reduce health care costs? In Paul’s state of Texas, there are millions of people who are uninsured. In fact, Texas is the WORST in the nation. Out of these millions of people, children are the hardest hit. Wow! Let freedom ring!

This is the real difference between Romney and Paul. Romney is willing to use the mandate to address personal responsibility. It is a mistake to suppose that simply becuase we have libertarian freedom, that we are all free from personal responsibility within a society. Yes, if you lived on an island, then you get to do whatever you want. but, when you join a modern and thriving society, these responsibilities change.

Romney is the only conservative willing to “ACT” on this reality. Romney is the one for personal responsibility.The other Republicans can only say they are for the “status quo.” We don’t want or need status quo candidates.

Ron Paul likes to propose radical changes, but they are untested and unmeasured. He wants to gamble with prostitution (in the day of high pornography use) and legalization of drugs with personal responsibility is at an all-time low. in short, Paul is for radical social experiments that will cause a lot of harm and damage – all for the sake of claiming that we are “more” free.

You’re all for more freedom until you have to bone of your children for “legalized” drug overdose or a daughter who chose to “legally work” as a prostitute.

In short, Ron Paul has given up on the tough issues and proposes that we just become more free by abandoning laws to protect “modern” societies.

No Thanks Ron. Our country won’t survive your experiments.

Here is My Response:

You make a lot of assumptions in your argument here. You are correct in saying “It is a mistake to suppose that simply becuase we have libertarian freedom, that we are all free from personal responsibility within a society.” But you are projecting that onto Ron Paul’s position and the libertarian position in general. This is simply false. Just because someone is not forced to give their money over to help others does not mean that person does not feel responsibility within a society. This is where collectivism differ from individualism. Individualists believe in the voluntary giving of one’s own money, this is called charity (and the USA is the most charitable nation on earth). Collectivists believe in the giving of other people’s money, taken by force, this is called welfare. So when you say that “Romney is willing to use the mandate to address personal responsibility.” What you are really saying is Romney is willing to use the mandate to force people to compulsively hand over their money so it can be given to the group of his choosing”. How does being forced to give your money equate to personal responsibility I wonder. If Robin Hood came to your door and put a gun in your face and said “give me your money, I want to give it to the poor people or the uninsured or the oil companies or to Pakistan or to Lockheed Martin to build the latest drone” how can you say that you give this money out of responsibility? Giving money out of responsibility is when someone who has been blessed by their intellect and their community in which that intellect thrived to have an excess of capital and a comfortable enough life that they feel indebted to that community which fostered it. Feeling responsibility is when one’s own heart is touched by the needs of others and those funds are voluntarily given and utilized in accordance with the giver’s wishes. What is responsibility when one bureaucrat’s heart bleeds so he steals the capital of others to put toward that cause and then takes personal fulfillment and accepts the pravda for doing so. He has sacrificed nothing, he has not toiled and given of his labor. He is only a modern day Robin Hood who violates the rights of one group to provide for another and keeps the fame (and a portion of the stolen goods) for himself.

“Ron Paul likes to propose radical changes, but they are untested and unmeasured.” regarding prostitution and legalization of drugs.
This another false statement. It has been tested and measured. It’s called the 18th and 21st amendment. Alcohol, a drug (the most widely used and problematic one in our society, even today), was prohibited. This gave rise to an immense black market which gave birth to large illegal trafficking syndicates (sound familiar?). Corruption and illegal activity became so rampant that it was repealed and thus “legalized”, now Alcohol is widely available and is a big business with quality standards and open competition. There are still problems with alcohol abuse, but there are voluntary, free organizations all over the nation to help people with the disease. Prostitution, where legal and out in the open, is where the prostitutes are screened for diseases weekly and there are institutions with rules to defend their prostitutes’ rights etc. Prostitution is everywhere and will be everywhere no matter how hard you try. Most prostitution rings in most cities are run by tyrannical pimps who are the scum of the earth. Modern day brothels, where they are legal, have much better conditions for the prostitutes and customers. I’m not saying I’ll ever go to one or condone its use but your arguments that they are untested and unmeasurable are ABSOLUTELY FALSE!

Furthermore: This argument which has been placed in your mind by FOX news is a psychological ploy to make liberty seem like some evil thing. Ron Paul’s philosophy extends to the entire economy, no bureaucrats picking winners and loser. That, in turn, means that prostitution and drug must be de-prohibited, but that is only a totally fringe issue used to debase his philosophy by playing on people’s emotions. When you heard a pundit say that about Ron Paul’s position did you react emotionally to it? Probably, because that is was the media does. In never appeals to your higher reasoning only your emotional hot buttons. The fact is that large companies actively seek regulation on their respective industries. The large companies depend on their government regulators to restrict entry into a market and stifle, through expense of compliance, competition. Do you really think that with the million and billions these companies spend in congress that these regulations could not be in their favor? This is why Ron Paul wants to legalize the free market. From oil to prostitution. Equality under the law is supposed to be a calling card of our republic. But then why are these large companies so favorably treated, even bailed out with tax payer funds. Why is one man’s specialty outlawed while another’s is subsidized? Legalizing equality under the law is not radical! Promoting inequality under the law is radical and I’d venture to say against the very fabric of this Republic. The inequality is so interwoven to the cloth of the law now though that it may seem radical to rip it out. But it is no more radical than pulling the weeds from a choked flower bed thus allowing the flowers to flourish.