Ron Paul for President - Can't Quite Make It
We all know Ron Paul is not a Republican. He is indeed, a member of the Republican Party and will try his luck as a Republican nominee because, sadly, that is the only way a person can take a reasonable shot at the Presidency. The question is, of course, all about what he is if he isn't a Republican. On many issues, Paul lines up nicely with the Libertarian Party. Some of those positions are impractical, but seemingly better than what we have gotten from our party in the last 7 years. On other issues Paul is lined up with the most anti-freedom elements of the Republican Religious Right. It makes little sense to me, but that is where he is. I suppose it has to do with an assessment of what will bring in the most votes - a little like the Hillary thing - (sorry Paul).
The Confusion Is In The Issues
Over in the not-republican and not-democrat corner is the nearly perfect position of libertarianism. Many Republicans brag that their roots are in libertarian principles, emphasizing that as a good thing. It does make me want to ask, "If it was so damn good, why did you abandon it?" Back to Ron Paul. Libertarians, conservatives and Ron Paul all stand first and foremost on personal freedoms.
Ron Paul hammers away at privacy and personal freedom as a cornerstone of a free society. I agree. Ron Paul says, "The biggest threat to your privacy is the government." I agree. He believes in personal freedom. While taking these admirable positions, Paul still finds it acceptable for the government to force a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy. He ignores the point that a government that has the power to force a woman to have a child also has the power to stop a woman from having a child. There is no way to justify Ron Paul's arguments for personal freedom and privacy in light of his arguments for banning the rights of women.
Ron, the philosophy of Libertarianism is individual choice and always has been. The philosophy of political conservatism (in the United States) is individual choice and always has been. Here is how individual freedom works; if you don't like something, don't be party to it. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. If you believe in a powerful central government that can control everyone's lives, join the Democrat Party. Don't pretend to be conservative and hang on to anti-conservative anti-freedom positions, even if you do think they will bring you religious votes.
Still Not Quite There
Ron Paul claims to believe that individual choice and freedom are central to the spirit of the Constitution. I have to agree with him as any real conservative must. Let's take the right to bear arms; if it is a right, consistent with the word and/or spirit of the Constitution, local governments should not have the power to deny citizens the right. They simply shouldn't. The basic freedoms set forth in the Constitution overide the quest for power that is the practace of local governments.
What then, do we say for gay marriage? Ron Paul says it is not the business of the federal government. He is right on target there, but he also says it should be up to the states. A more conservative and libertarian position would be, marriage is not the business of government, period. That is not Ron Paul's view on the issue. He believes it is fine for States to regulate individual freedoms in this case. Now that's curious. What happened to individual liberty? People either have the right to live with the freedoms the Constitution meant to guarantee or they don't. Individual freedom is so much a part of the founding arguments for the Bill of Rights that it is undeniable that it was intended to be the foundation of liberty. If the Constitution plays one most important role, it is to guarantee individual freedom from the tyranny of the majority and government. Conservative values are based on that very libertarian principle and so is the Constitution. Let's respect it. Ron Paul, you can't have it both ways.
Return to Main Page
There is no such thing as individual freedom when the extent of that freedom can be readjusted at the whim of government. - Jenny Jerrome
