The Dangers of Ron Paul and Libertarianism

Libertarians value negative rights and reject positive rights— rights that help people – because recognition of such rights would infringe on the freedom of individuals to spend their time and money as they choose. One example is public education. Libertarians oppose public education because it requires everyone to contribute to fund it. It is those crotchety old Libertarians who vote against school budgets, which results in a complete loss of activities and resources and steals opportunity right out of the hands of innocent children.

Here are some of the philosophical fundamentals to Libertarianism:

Libertarians oppose taxation for the creation and support of public schools. However, they somehow recognize the need for an army, police force, and legal system to uphold contractual agreements. Taxation to support these purposes is regarded as legitimate. However, some Libertarians have gone as far as wanting to close law enforcement agencies. Protect yourself they say.

Libertarians strongly support legalization of drugs, even condone it, because individual liberty is more important than safe schools and a safe community.

Libertarians strongly oppose gun restrictions because individual liberty is more important than safe schools and a safe community.

Libertarians oppose taxation for environmental regulations. In fact, they oppose environmental regulation because they claim it infringes on individual liberties and would return to the dirty pre-environmental law era. Individual liberty is more important than safe water, clean air, and healthy food.

Libertarians also oppose the right to healthcare since it is regarded as a positive right, a right to be given certain treatment. This is terrifying because America is lacking affordable healthcare. Regardless of the 50 million Americans who don’t even have it, many people who are insured are still put into debt because of certain insurance requirements. Not only do they get physically sick, but financially too.

It’s just unacceptable when a child dies in this nation because of a simple infection that could have been fought if they had the right to universal healthcare. Many criticize left-wing universal healthcare plans by calling them socialized medicine, but the fact of the matter is socialized is a good thing. The negative tone they put on socialized doesn’t seem so negative when we consider the fact that our public school system is socialized. Should we do away with that because it’s socialized? What about libraries? Waste collection? Road repairs? Fire departments? Unions? Labor laws? Police departments that protect citizens? These are all socialized.

It seems Libertarians just want to do away with society.

Take for example, the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul— a Libertarian candidate in past elections and self-confessed Libertarian at heart. He votes against any legislation that taxes or “restrains” people, even if it is legislation that protects us with environmental regulations. He has even voted against fuel standards and refuses to acknowledge global warming pollution. This is dangerous. To be an individual and go against the grain is fine, but to vote against all that is good is destructive. Ralph Waldo Emerson famously wrote of self-reliance, a trait we should value and aspire after. But Emerson (a nature worshiper) would never have voted against nature (the environment) just for the sake of being a rebel. That would be destructive.

And as he votes against environmental legislation, Paul himself is getting rich on mining and oil: investments http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2006/N00005906_2006.pdf

Ron Paul's Horrendous Environmental Voting Record

07/27/2007 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Farm Bill) NO
07/17/2007 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act NO
09/25/2006New Hampshire Wilderness Act NO
11/21/2003Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 NO
11/20/2003 Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2003 NO
05/20/2003Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 NO
08/01/2001Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001 NO
08/01/2001 Securing America's Future Energy (SAFE) Act of 2001 NO
06/21/2000 EPA Amendment NO
05/11/2000 Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1999 NO
03/22/2000 Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act NO
03/27/1998 Forest Recovery and Protection bill NO
10/30/1997 Nuclear Waste Disposal bill NO
05/07/1997 Endangered Species Act Exemption Amendment NO
11/06/2007 Water Resources Development Act of 2007 NO

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=30&go.x=8&go.y=10

He's not greatest on Animal Rights issues either. He supported the interests of the Humane Society a mere 5% last year.

Most recently: 09/07/2006 Horse Slaughter Prohibition bill Voted NO

He even voted NO to prohibiting animal fighting!http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll188.xml

Ron Paul votes against legislation that protects animals and wildlife because these laws would restrain the liberty of some particular individuals: hunters, dog-fighting groups, puppy mills, circus “trainers,” etc. Obviously, animals are also not entitled to liberty.

And since Libertarians like Ron Paul are also so opposed to providing women with the right to choose, women too, like animals, are not entitled to liberty.

Gays don’t have liberty either. They’re not allowed to adopt children according to Libertarians like Ron Paul who has voted against it.

Children don't even have liberty accoridng to Paul, who voted NO on a bi-partisan child protection bill that John Edwards co-sponsored.

Ron Paul voted NO to protecting children all because he claims an amendment infringes on the rights of… (guess who?)… crack addicts and rave druggies. They have liberty. Maybe they're the only ones. Maybe drug dealers are the ones raising all of that fast cash.

Let’s not forget African Americans and minorities, they don’t have liberty either. Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposes affirmative action, and voted against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which protects the voting rights of minorities.

Libertarianism also doesn’t give fair opportunity to those born into poverty. The poor get schools, healthcare, and housing that is inferior to the rest of the public. Libertarians are against improving schools, healthcare, and housing because these impose minimal taxes on other people, mostly wealthy people. This is the danger with prioritizing liberty over equality. Liberty must come first according to the Libertarian philosophy, but what if Equality never comes? Liberty and Equality should be one in the same and must be equal as priorities. The biggest problem with the Libertarian philosophy is that they put liberty over everything else and they neglect equality, community safety, and societal progress.

So who is entitled to Liberty, Ron Paul? Rich white men with guns?
If it were up to the Libertarians, we’d still be living in the wild west or the industrial revolution, where everyone walked around with pistols, slavery was still the legal norm, women were subjected to their chores, factories polluted the environment with no one to answer to, and children were forced into labor. Miserable. Unrealistic. Backwards.

If that’s not enough:

Ron Paul supported and helped elect Ronald Reagan, the same president who shot the deficit through the roof and wasted millions of dollars on big government projects like the Star Wars program.

In 1988, Paul smeared and slandered his Native American opponent Russell Means.

A 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) included derogatory comments concerning race and politicians. It accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine…it characterized 95% of Washington, D.C., black males as "semi-criminal or entirely criminal" and only 5% of blacks as “sensible.”

Paul also supports looser gun laws, even though there are roughly 30,000 people killed every year due to careless gun use, more than any other nation in the world.

In September 2006, Paul voted No on the Horse Slaughter Prohibition Bill. He’s all right with senseless and brutal horse slaughtering.

In 2006, Ron Paul, with only 32 other members of Congress, opposed the renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He’s ok with discrimination.

On January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415 voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction.

If that’s not enough, Ron Paul also voted against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal.

And then how about his support of a Constitutional amendment allowing school prayer? This is in clear violation of the separation of church and state. So much for real liberty.

George W. Bush wasn’t the only one who didn’t want poor children to have healthcare. On September 25, 2007, Ron Paul voted against the bi-partisan State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization.

Heartless.

Ron Paul stood up to the war, the 9/11 investigation, the Patriot Act. Those are all courageous feats, but when you look at his entire career, his entire philosophy, and his entire plan, he’s the most destructive candidate to run in 100 years.

It's not that he stands a chance of winning the Republican nomination, because he doesn't; come back in two months and pat me on the back. What bothers me the most is the amount of people supporting this guy just because he says a few radical key words and uses the word "revolution" in his campaign. Revolution? Hardly.
It looks like Ron Paul's got one of two things: a lot of people fooled, or he's just got all of the people who don't care about things like health, education, and environment. Um, like things that lead to progress in society. This latter selection of people should concern us too, because it displays the apathetic mentality of Americans.

Ron Paul is also perfect for the religious right, more perfect than Bush was:
● a Protestant Christian and regular churchgoer.
● opposed to giving women the right to choose.
● opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
● opposed to same-sex marriage and has voted to prohibit federal funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.
● opposes federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase "under God" should be included in the pledge of allegiance.

Ron Paul is also opposed to gun control and believes we should be allowed to carry around guns, even onto airplanes, even into schools. He even went on to say that if people were allowed to carry guns onto planes that 9/11 might not have happened.

News Break: if people had guns on planes, there’d be a 9/11 every week.

Paul is also opposed to the United Nations. He has even introduced legislation to withdraw the United States from the UN. Yikes!

But many conservatives in the heartland are now onto him.

The Conservative Case against Ron Paul: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2007/06/15/the_conservative_case_against_ron_paul

Ron Paul does not value public education or any of our domestic programs because he votes against them time and time again. The fact is that without some taxation, there would be no public programs, no public structure, less jobs, no law, no order, no national security, no space exploration, no technology, no control over big corporations, etc. Both Republicans and Democrats know this. You think things are bad now? A Libertarian government would put all of the money in the hands of monopolies, and giant corporations would dictate everything. No, the FDA and other governmental agencies are not perfect; they take bribes on a daily basis, I'm certain of that, but they're also not useless. Government agencies have a purpose, despite the bureaucracy. We should be more concerned about a corporate dominated society than having a government structure. Ron Paul appears to be anti-everything, and that's perhaps why he has attracted so many anarchists to his "revolution" campaign. At the end of the day, Ron Paul will still have his million dollars in the bank, he'll sell a million more books, and he will not have accomplished a single thing for the progress of America.