Remember voting as an individual decision?
Bottom line: There are compelling reasons to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary. He's the only viable candidate in years talking about limited government and fiscal responsibility. I'm not going to criticize any libertarian or even an anarcho-capitalist who goes back on a pledge never to vote again.
Bottom line: There are compelling reasons not to vote for Ron Paul or anyone else ever again. The lesser of two evils is still evil. The use of government force by a comparative libertarian is still the use of government force. I'm not going to criticize any libertarian or anarcho-capitalist who takes a pass on Ron Paul.
While Paulistas are wasting time chastising and therefore alienating the small community of libertarians who have not been won over to the cause, they're missing opportunities to work on the vastly larger community of Republicans.
UPDATE: I switched the post time from AM to PM to sneak it to the top and highlight the comments.
Bottom line: There are compelling reasons not to vote for Ron Paul or anyone else ever again. The lesser of two evils is still evil. The use of government force by a comparative libertarian is still the use of government force. I'm not going to criticize any libertarian or anarcho-capitalist who takes a pass on Ron Paul.
While Paulistas are wasting time chastising and therefore alienating the small community of libertarians who have not been won over to the cause, they're missing opportunities to work on the vastly larger community of Republicans.
UPDATE: I switched the post time from AM to PM to sneak it to the top and highlight the comments.
Labels: individualism, Ron Paul
posted by B.W. Richardson at
8:28 PM
5 Comments:
Sometimes your political views confuse me. I'm far from saying that this is a difficult thing. However, you seem to simultaneously admire and fear the implications of empowering Ron Paul. For myself, I am cautious of even seriously mentioning the man in serious political debate because he seems like a closet facist. People respect him for the same reasons they respect(ed) Ralph Nader. He says things that other candidates are unwilling to say. He condemns Washington as the pit of asps that it is. He represents change. I think change is good. I think change is the universal constant.
I would like to change for the better, though. I am afraid that empowering Ron Paul would pnly hasten the decline of civilization and take more of tha humanity away from a world already lacking in it.
Sorry if these points seem ethereal or unfocused, and lack specific references. I am sick as a dog today.
Happy New Year, Mr. Richardson.
Just to be clear, I have no fear of empowering Ron Paul. Any reservations I have are related to the thought that one man cannot scrap the machinery of oppression by himself. Because he plans to follow the Constitution, that means getting Congress to go along, and I expect the usual political suspects to stand in his way at every turn.
Of course, if he were to become president, they would have tens of millions of voters looking over their shoulders saying, "Listen to the man, we put him there."
I am afraid that empowering Ron Paul would only hasten the decline of civilization and take more of the humanity away from a world already lacking in it.
Really? I think Paul is just about the only sane man in Washington today.
Two things about putting Ron Paul in the driver's seat....government won't get any bigger AND he can....single-handedly...bring our men and woman around the world home where they belong.
I've read the arguments against voting but I can't bring myself to agree with them yet. Someone is going to end up in that seat ... don't we have a duty to see that it's the one who will do the least damage?
I am not convinced on the government won't get any bigger and he plans to follow the Constitution comments. I see no way to make sense of how his ideas of
(1) excluding huge collectives of people based only on some undefined designation that they are from a "terrorist nation" from getting student visas,
(2) physically securing the border, and
(3) ending birthright citizenship
could possibly be consistent either with following the Constitution or with not increasing the size/scope of government.
Thanks for responding to my comments. As you may know from my own web page, I am somewhat of an "issue" person with my issues being the environment and inequality (social and economic). Am I wrong when I say that Ron Paul advocates taking governmental control away from almost everything and letting the market dictate the direction that society takes? I have read some stuff about him, but not his own propaganda (I don't use that word in a negative way). If I am not wrong about that, I think it would fairly quickly lead to a feudal system, with ultra-rich "lords", a working class serving them (the merchants and artisans), and a bunch of "serfs". Also, environmental degradation would increase dramatically in the absence of governmental control. I know that free marketers claim that there would be solutions in a truely free market, but I think that the greedy nature of the free market system, without checks always leads to huge inequity.
If I'm wrong about Paul's preachings, please point me in the direction of info that can clear me up.
Thanks again B.W.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home