There are many reasons I like Ron Paul including the fact that he’s the only candidate who opposes war, doesn’t want to use the state’s gun to enforce behavior, and recognizes the right of self-ownership. He’s also the only candidate who doesn’t cover in fear at the name Lysander Spooner and is willing to admit that the Constitution isn’t perfect but merely an effective tool available at the moment to reclaim liberty:
12 thoughts on “Why I Like Ron Paul”
Comments are closed.
The constitution while not perfect is as close to man has come while still preserving the state, and as Paul said most of our problems came from ignoring it.
As a woman gun owner, and strong 2a supporter, the ONLY problem I have with Ron Paul is this: if he really “recognizes the right of self-ownership” then why is he anti-choice when it comes to the abortion issue?
My bodily integrity isn’t just affected by my right to own a gun. It is also affected by laws that want to allow the government make my personal medical decisions for me. And RP is a physician! He should know better.
Or am I wrong about him? Give me a reason to believe he isn’t so willing to throw women under the bus, please!
I understand Paul’s position as he has delivered some 4,000 children as an OB/GYN. Although I recognize both arguments for and against abortion, I personally take a Rothbardian view on abortion, which is to say I see the issue from the perspective of property rights. In the end this is something I don’t agree with Paul on but would have little worry about him affect the abortion game if he were elected president.
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist and the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government the power to regulate abortions. Therefore the issue would be one for the states to decide on individually if Paul became president. I would rather have 50 states deciding on such an issue than one giant federal government. At least when states decide on issues you can move to another state if you don’t like the decision of the one you live in (I realize that’s not a great comfort, in fact it’s not a good argument at all, but it’s better than the alternative). If the federal government makes a ruling then you’re stuck with it unless you leave the country.
This is why I put the self-ownership axiom above all else, and that is why I’m a strict voluntaryist. There is no justification for the state’s existence, and there certainly isn’t any justification for the state making medical decisions for individuals. The fact that the state has extended its power so far as to determine medical decisions for individuals demonstrates how opposed to individual liberty it is.
Then perhaps could you please run for president instead?
Thank you in advance. 🙂
All kidding aside, unfortunately for me the abortion issue is just as much about freedom as the gun control issue is. The trouble is, the two issues are often diametrically opposed in politics: pretty soon the way things are going I will have to make the choice BETWEEN the two – having a gun OR having my own reproductive freedom – and I utterly refuse to give up either one. I truly do not understand someone (RP) who is all about freedoms and liberty, throwing half the population’s bodily integrity under the bus. I cannot vote for him for the same reason I cannot vote for Democrats!
The position of president requires one to initiation violence against other people so I am unable to apply for the job in good conscious. Although issuing an executive order to abolish the issuance of executive orders would make for a pretty epic State of the Union address.
This is the problem with the state, some want to use it to control one set of behavior while others want to use it to control another set of behaviors. Eventually individuals find themselves between a rock and a hard place and their only option, as far as supporting a candidate, is to forego one thing they love for another thing they love.
The situation you’re in demonstrates this fact beautifully. There really isn’t any political candidate that stands a chance of winning this is willing to keep their mits off of your guns and your uterus. Traditionally the Democrats offer you the option of having an abortion but want to restrict your gun rights while Republicans offer you the option of having your guns but want to restrict your self-ownership rights.
Many people will see such an conundrum as a fork in the road and demand you pick one or the other. Personally I decided to go a third option, I just left the road and started making my own trail. If I want to go to Libertopia but the splits in the road only lead to Tyranotopia or Tyranapolis why would I keep following the road? I forewent the state entirely as I’m no longer willing to accept the options its willing to give me.
Good on you! Never be willing to surrender any right.
Ron Paul does subscribe to the libertarian non-aggression principle, which states initiating violence is not acceptable under any circumstance. Abortion could be seen as an initiation of violence against the fetus. In my opinion preventing the abortion requires an initiation of violence against the mother and, as the mother is the rightful owner of her body, that initiation of violence is being used to coerce her into an action she doesn’t want to take.
In the end I don’t venture into the abortion debate very often. It’s not because I’m afraid to explain my position but because I’m not a woman and therefore feel entirely unqualified to even enter the debate. Trying to dictate behavior I can never experience seems egotistical to me.
You’re following your principles and that is ultimately the only noble route for one to take. Many people will demand you support one candidate or another for one reason or another. I ask only that you support your beliefs and if that means supporting a candidate I oppose or supporting no candidate at all that’s perfectly acceptable, in fact that’s the only right thing to do. I still don’t understand how somebody can demand another person throw something they cherish under a bus for something else they cherish. Fight for everything you cherish and if that means going against common beliefs so be it. Nothing great was accomplished by following the status quo.
That would make an epic State of the Union address indeed! Maybe when this whole house-of-cards economy crashes down around us all we will get to see it…unfortunately I fear our country apparently feels the need to explore the delights of Fascism first.
I wish you would enter the abortion debate more often. A reasoned response is a reasoned response, no matter where it comes from, and there is precious little reason happening in abortion “debates” out there. Similarly, I feel I can have an opinion regarding the invasion of foreign countries even though I am not a soldier. But I understand your reluctance. It’s no fun arguing with people who cannot work past their emotions.
For now I must choose look at this whole thing in a somewhat pragmatic way: which of my rights is more in danger in a given election? And in which circumstance do I have more influence over the hearts and minds of my “opponents”?
At the moment, it appears to me that women’s personal rights (don’t know if you follow the news on that) are literally being attacked on many fronts – religiously-based laws are popping up in states all over the place. (Thankfully not in my state, Vermont.) For that I do as I have always done: write my senators and threaten them with my scorn if they even think about doing the same thing. Not all that effective, but also not as much brain damage as trying to argue with anti-choicers directly.
On the gun control side, the gun lobby is pretty strong right now, and laws have finally been coming around. However there is still this HUGE block of blind, shrieking, hysterical anti-gun people out there, big enough to consistently create headaches for all of us, and they have the press on their side. I figure the best way for me to fight this is to simply begin bringing as many people as I can to my backyard gun range, let them try out shooting, and make it fun and safe for them. It has been the one consistent way that I have found that pulls them out of that shrieking, fearful denial.
Well from a federal level your Gun rights are at much more risk than your reproductive rights, unless you count the limiting of funding to certain groups, I don’ t but hats only because the government should not be funding 95% of the groups that they do.
On the actual issue of abortion I have no real opinion but feel its not the government’s choice. Though I tend to avoid the issue for the same reason Chris does. Interestingly enough I wrote a ethics paper on the subject that placed the issue so far into the moral grey zone you forgot there were black and white somewhere on the scale.
Look it’s Ron Paul. The guy who is 5x more “homophobic” than Rick Santorum. Not badmouthing him, in fact, when i realized that he is very homophobic (aka insaneophobic) i liked him even more!
PS – You do know that “heavy metal” like all “against The Man” cultural phenomenons is nothing but a big load of artificial bullshit created by the very same “The Man” they claim to be against right?
@ Sarah:
That’s, basically, 90% of the people I debate sadly. That’s another reason I avoid the abortion issue, I already spread myself pretty thing when debating gun rights, voluntaryism, online privacy, etc. I simply don’t have the time requires to research the abortion issue in great detail and therefore avoid debating it unless somebody else brings it up first.
I have only been following the religious nuts a bit, they’re nothing more than amusement for me. Honestly, I mostly just sit by and wait to hear the next crazy thing to come out of their mouths then blog about their idiocy.
That is the single best strategy one can employ. Once people hit the range they usually realize that guns aren’t scary evil devices that have minds of their own. Upon such realization they usually stop supporting the rabid anti-gunner agenda. Good on you.
@Zerg539:
I agree with you on that, I don’t want the government funding any group. Then again I’m a voluntaryist so I really just don’t want the state existing in the first place. 😛
@Pete:
LOL, what?
@Chris and Zerg: I haven’t thought as much as you have about the distinction between the state and fed. I will be doing some more reading here about that – it looks like a very interesting perspective, and I am always willing to think outside of the box. Especially these days…
@Pete, like Christopher I was wondering the same thing… what?
I should clarify a bit. “The state” is a general term I use to define an entity that holds a monopoly on the use of force over a geographic area, not an individual state in the United States. When I’m referring to an individual state in the United States I will use it’s name such as “the state of Minnesota.”
When I say “the state” I’m using in the same sense as Murray Rothbard did in his book Anatomy of the State (which is a short read and freely available, legally, at the link).