A libertarian I follow just compared Ron Paul to Jackie Robinson. Yeah, that’s how stupid libertarians are.
from LIBERTARIANISM: A NOVEL
Ron Paul supporters need to register/change to the Republican party. I am NOT a Republican, I am a Libertarian and Ron Paul is the only candidate that I (and many others) seriously think has a chance to take on Obama. He wants to legalize drugs, gay marriage, minimize Federal government power, increase states rights, end the Fed, and end the War. About the states rights, remember that is it easier to influence governors and mayors than presidents and vice presidents. If you want serious change, vote Ron Paul.
Guys please reblog this! It’s incredibly important.
Actually… Ron Paul doesn’t support Gay Marriage. Check your facts.
He’s also a racist. And he wants to “legalize” drugs (all drugs) for the sake of “liberty,” not because our drug war is costly, harmful to minorities (and other countries and our economy), and to keep people out of jail needlessly.
ALso, when are we going to realize that the President doesn’t write law, Congress does.
No, it’s true that the president doesn’t write law but by your logic, we shouldn’t vote for president at all. Also, he has said many times before (look it up on Youtube) that people should marry whomever they please and that government should not dictate who somebody should marry. Personal liberty is a great reason to legalize drugs and he has also said several times that it will be hugely beneficial to our economy and get people out of jail who don’t deserve to be in jail. Have you even listened to a Ron Paul interview?
How in the world did I say we shouldn’t vote for President? It’s a pretty damn important position, but we also need to temper our expectations and see that they won’t magically do everything they promised just because they were elected. It takes congress actually getting something done for the President to factor into law making.
Let’s just let these quotes speak for themselves: “Government is totally unnecessary for gay marriage laws.” (May 2011); “No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough.” (Sep 2007)
Yeah, I actually have, and the entire time I wanted to vomit. He has a one sentaence economic policy: “Blame the Fed.” It makes me wonder if he actually knows what the Fed is/does.
It’s funny that he said that he supports a lot of things, but his voting record says the exact opposite.
Let’s list a few OTHER things Ron Paul is for/against, se we can fairly judge him as a candidate:
- Completely anti-choice. Says abortion in all cases is wrong and that is is murder. “(Human) Life begins at contraception.”
- Amendment’s Mr. Paul is against: 16th,
- Pro-Gold Standard (because that worked out sooooo well last time)
- Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
- Has a 38% rating by the Human Rights Campaign
- Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009)
- Voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. (Apr 2009)
- Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
- Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
- Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
- Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)(Contrary to what he has said on wanting to end such subsidies, so he is a confirmed liar, LIKE EVERY OTHER POLITICAN)
- Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
- Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010)
- No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011) (We like to call that a contradiction.)
- Supported tax incentives for US-based alternatives. (Sep 2010), BUT he has voted against Tax insentives everytime. (So, he’s a hypocrite)
I must say that Ron Paul is the one of the least crazy GOP candidiates right now, but let’s not pretend he is something he isn’t. Also, I’m not saying Obama, or any other Democrat, isn’t a hypocrite, or a liar (or what ever.) All politicans lie, but actions speak louder than rhetoric.
Not to pile on, but it’s not true you must be registered in a certain party to vote in a primary. It’s only true in some states. Check your local laws and regulations.
“Nonetheless we do favour individuals with authority, in the form of a natural elite.”
“If the parents wish to use force, then so be it. The child consents by continuing to live off his parents.”
“Libertarianism doesn’t support equal negative rights, a child does not have the same rights as…
And this right here is one of the reasons I stopped being an Austrian libertarian.
Leszek Kolakowski (via fuckyeahemergence)
Hayek was wrong about just about everything he predicted. And this crass libertarian switcheroo of totalitarianism for socialism is a cute cold war trick, but stupid. It lost its luster post 1980. Capitalism is the new totalitarian system, it turns out. Corporations the new citizenry and the US military and NATO its police force.
It takes a certain kind of person to be presented with the information that a corporation let people die due to tainted cantaloupes and then say “We don’t need an FDA.” In his imaginary (and I must stress, completely imaginary) world, corporations would compete to be the cleanest because magazines would report on which ones were unhealthy. Here’s an experiment to prove why this is total bullshit: Go pick up a copy of GQ. Look at the ads. Then look at the photo shoots. Notice an overlap in the companies that advertise and the companies that show up in GQ’s recommended clothing photo shoots?
Good economic breakdown of why the gold standard is foolish. It’s something libertarians think would be awesome because it’s “not controlled by the government.” Instead, it’s controlled by mining discoveries. Also, assuming we go to some kind of system where X amount of dollars equals X amount of gold, that’s a fiat currency too. It’s an idiotic idea that prolonged the Great Depression and the only reason it’s come back is that people are so desperate they’re listening to cranks like Ron Paul. /rant
So the writings of Ayn Rand really resonated with me; the idea of breaking the world into two groups, the ones who are actually contributing, and those who are parasites and leeches. I felt that I deserved to be rewarded for my intelligence, that I deserved to be free from the petty restrictions of my parents, and, most of all, that my classmates didn’t deserve the stuff that they were provided for by their parents.
I had a history teacher that year who was also a fan of Ayn Rand, and I got along famously with him. I read a lot of the more respectable glibertarian thinkers during that time, and became very competent with the standard arguments that you’ve probably seen repeated over and over in threads on LGF and elsewhere.
I was convinced that rational self-interest should be the guiding light of civilization, government, and society, and that pure capitalism was the best mechanism to make sure this happened.
To the many obvious cases where rational self-interest had not been followed— to the Exxon Valdez spill, fraud and embezzlement, etc, I handwaved those aside with the idea that it was because the system wasn’t pure enough, that if we just got rid of government involvement and depended on the self-regulation of the market, people would rely on themselves, educate themselves, and avoid purchasing from companies that, say, polluted, or didn’t hire black workers, or refused to serve gay people.
Then I went to college, and met a wide variety of people from a diverse set of backgrounds. I was exposed to some of the great thinkers being analyzed closely in my classes. The combination of these two things— actually meeting and understanding people of a different background, and learning the tools of critical analysis of texts— led to me quite quickly dropping, ashamed, my previous glibertarian Randian stance.
A really good piece on the failures of capitalism and Ayn Rand. If you were ever an Ayn Rand fan, this will bring back memories.