Anyone here like Ron Paul?

[mindstalk]

A review of bills he's sponsored.

Bills to declare zygotes to be people, to ban flag burning, to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of inferior Federal courts, to defend the Electoral College, to repeal the "Motor Voter" act, to put us on a gold standard and ban fractional reserve banking. And I'm just listing things which might give an actual libertarian pause, never mind the other bills liberals/progressives would be horrified by.

[Update: the flag-burning amendments were apparently an attempt to get the Republicans to face up to the Constitution, or something, with Paul himself opposing banning flag-burning. So that's one libertarian point restored.]

Comments

I like Ron Paul

[(Anonymous)]

I like Ron Paul because:

1) He's for peace.
2) He wants to defend the bill of rights
3) He will ensure a low tax environment
4) He will end the war on drugs
5) He will secure the border
6) He has never voted for a unbalanced budget.
7) He doesn't take money from lobbyists
8) His policies would make Washington more accountable to constitutional rule.

Its time to think of the good of the country beyond our own narrow parocial interests.

Re: I like Ron Paul

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

1) He's for peace.

What makes you think that pulling our forces out of Iraq will result in "peace," even for us (let alone for Iraq)?

rhys

[(Anonymous)]

Zygotes are a form of human life, his bill says that, not that they are people. If zygotes aren't human life, what form of life are they?

And, about flag burning, I don't know where you got that. He is against pollution, so he doesn't believe that plastics should be burned. Since most flags are made out of polymers and not natural fibers, I don't think you should be able to burn plastic either.

Fractional Reserve banking is government subsidized big business. I don't want our government subsidizing big oil or big baknks. Since the Fed is private, it is a banking cartel. Are you really a Democrat?

Re: rhys

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

I got the flag burning from the link which I presume you didn't try reading, and which links directly to Ron's proposed amendment (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.j.res.80:), which completely fails to mention anything about plastics.

As for the zygotes, the bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:) says

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

and the amendment (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d097:HR00392:@@@L&summ2=m&) says

Constitutional Amendment - Declares that the right to life vests in a human being from the moment of fertilization.

Banning the Fed would be one, very libertarian, thing. But fractional reserve banking is a centuries-old, private, market-driven practice, which the Fed was created to regulate after all the bank panics of the 19th century; between it and the FDIC it's been pretty successful, at least after the initial fuckup of the Great Depression.

Re: rhys

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

I did some fact-checking, and
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#Influence_of_central_banks) suggests some terminology conflict:

Some political libertarians and some supporters of a gold standard use the term fractional-reserve banking in reference to fractional-reserve banking by central banks in particular, where the nation's central bank holds fractional reserves of gold bullion or specie (gold coin). This occurred before the adoption of irredeemable fiat money in most developed countries in 1971 with the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, when the US government ended the convertibility of the US dollar into gold. This usage is superficially similar to the standard usage in economics, in that the ability of a country to redeem only part of its currency in gold can be seen as analogous to the ability of a bank to redeem only part of its deposits in cash, but referring to partly-reserved currencies as a form of fractional-reserve banking may create more confusion than it alleviates. Mainstream economists do not generally make this analogy.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Thanks muchly, I'm fairly sick of three of the libertarians on my f-list going on about how great he is. With luck, this will cause at least two of them to reconsider.

okay

[(Anonymous)]

Abortion:

The question about abortion's legality revolves around the point at which human life-forms aquire their inalienable rights. There is no single point in the gestation process, which obviously coincides with the aquisition of said Rights. Even if we are to deem that the point at which someone aquires person-hood is the point that they aquire their inalienable rights, then we are still not shown a principled way to determine what this point is.

It can't be when the child is viable outside the womb, because, in principle, that point, with the furthering of scientific progress, will approach conception - ie. scientific progress will make women unecessary for human gestation. So then, in principle the question becomes - at what point in a human's life may it no longer be abandoned by its mother? Children can live outside the womb when they are as small as one pound. Should you be legally allowed to kill 2 pound infants?

Flag Burning:

Paul introduced the flag burning amendment for the same reason he introduced the declaration of war on Iraq. To force his fellow legislators to vote on the issue. He would vote against his own legislation, but the issue was, How can the Congress pass anti-flag burning legislation, and Paul's response was - you can't. It must be an amendment to pass Constitutional muster. Of course he didn't support his own Amendment, and neither did the super-majority necessary to pass in Congress.

Gold:

The dollar has lost over 10% of its value over the last year. This is the result of our government bailing out, not mortgage holders, but banks who used Sub-Prime lending practices. That 10% may not be visible now, but it will be when it becomes reflected in the price of imports like oil and gas and cheap goods from Wal-Mart. In 1910, 1 oz. of gold ($20) could purchase a suit, tie, shirt and dress shoes. Today, 1 oz. of gold ($800) can purchase a suit, tie, shirt, and dress shoes. If you want price stability, the Fed is not your friend. The Fed is just a banking cartel in bed with our government to allow our government to buy supporters on credit. Would you trust your legislators with your credit card? They are borrowing us into indentured servitude. Asset backed currencies would slow that.