September 10, 2007

Ron Paul for president?

A friend of mine, who wishes to remain anonymous, posted this on a different forum and requested that I post it here. It's quite good, although I don't agree with it entirely...


Brownback or Thompson would be pretty good. Let's say that for starters. That said, I'd go further...

Political theorists are always concerned with limiting the power of the government in order to limit the damage of corruption. However, I have only ever heard one politician of our day ever concern himself with putting this crux of political theory into practice.

Dr. Ron Paul.

Now, Dr. Paul's libertarian philosophy might be dangerous in a situation where it would actually move us from a balanced government to anarchy. Government is a particularly helpful thing when it comes to maintaining good order. I've often noted that monarchy is not necessarily as bad as its opponents make it out to be. However, in the present situation of the government, Ron Paul is the perfect antidote to corruption. When the judiciary (the Supreme Court) is declaring "rights" to evil things (such as abortion) that should never have been within the federal government's jurisdiction (has anyone ever actually read the Constitution with a functional brain?), we need to cut back Federal power. Ron Paul is the champion of the Constitution, would do all in the President's legal power to prevent such twistings of the system. He also would cut back on government agencies that are not part of the government as envisioned by the Constitution (everthying from the IRS to the FBI and others some of us have never even heard of - "Haven't we been told that if you sacrifice liberty for sceurity you lose both?!"~him), and is the one candidate I know of who realizes that to reduce taxes (which is another huge goal of his) one must remove things that need them (hence his anti-government-agencies thing). He also considers inflation "the tax nobody talks about" because it lowers the value of everyone's money (in effect taking money from us) and gives money to whomever the government is paying: Ron Paul proposed a bill to prevent the US government from issuing more paper money than it has real money in gold, effectively outlawing inflation, so though the rest of the government might not go along with it at least we know he's serious about the issue. Ron Paul is Christian and takes a serious Christian stance on moral issues such as abortion and homosexual "marriage", though he often believes we are better off keeping the issue simply out of Federal jurisdiction and nearer the local governments' where your and my say can make more of a difference.

Of course, all his anti-tax stuff has one drawback if you trust the Bush-style Republicans: war must be kept to a minimum if for no other reason than funding. Ron Paul, who is a Congressman for Texas, did vote to authorize the war in Afghanistan after Osama. However, he doesn't think the current extension of the War on Terror is well enough justified. When asked what to do about Iran last night he began by pointing out that it's not the President's authority to go to war, it's the Congress'. Agree or disagree with his opinion of the current war, you have to admit his principles make sense (don't they?). He also happens to think that the present war being a mistake and the decision to go into it having been made mainly by just the current President and his staff there is no reason (of "honor" or otherwise) that we must continue to pay the price of that mistake by staying in Iraq. Plus, so he says, the best way to motivate the Iraqis to get their act together would be to remove our support so they're on their own. Again, you have to admit he's got a point.

All in all, though his actual chances are far-fetched, I think Ron Paul is the best candidate for President this time around. If the likes of Giulianni (totally un-pro-life) get the Republican nomination I would strongly advise anyone with a sense of values to vote for Ron Paul if only to weaken the two-party stranglehold that is now giving us stupid, meaningless choices like "Hillary or Giulianni?"

If, on the other hand, the Republican pair is Brownback and Thompson, I suppose we'd best take what we can against the likes of... whomever the Dems throw at us this time.

But for now we can hope, right?


Anonymous Linda Robinson said...

Hey Ambrose, thanks for letting me know about your blog.

Wanted to say that I'm not sure Dr. Paul is a thoroughgoing libertarian but even if he were, I think you're right in that he is an antidote to the freight train of corruption that most candidates ride. He definitely has my vote. And by the way, his "libertarianism" does not extend to allowing abortion - I heard him say that libertarians are not in favor of aggression and if there was ever an act of aggression, killing an infant in untero is just that.

I think he would disagree with your post about the radical Muslims hating us just because we are Americans; they hate us because of our foreign policy, of which most of us are abysmally ignorant. That's what he was trying to say when Rudy Guliani tried to trash him but Dr. Paul stood his ground. The little guy has real guts.

If you would like to get rid of the "next blog" field in your blog's nav bar (highly recommended as the next blog could be a real cess pool), I have a hack you can install in your template. Let me know if you want it.

God bless,

September 11, 2007 3:10 PM  
Blogger ~Ambrose said...

Hey Mag!

I didn't write this post, my friend did...Not sure I agree with him either. I liked his next post on Darwinism much more.

I'd like that...I personally despise those ads and stuff at the top, but hey, it's a free blog...


September 12, 2007 9:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anyone who would give up a little liberty, to gain a little security, will deserve neither and lose both" - Thomas Jefferson (thats where that came from =D)

I am for Condelissa Rice if I can ever find a voting station with a write in ballot, but thats just me...

And I kind of disagree with the notion that "if we leave Iraq it will force them to handle stuff on their own." Quite personally, I think that they have not had the experiance or formed the attitudes to form a proper government. Look at us - it took us no less than 150 years of salutory neglect in the wilderness and then 20 straight years of having that freedom challanged in order to get around to declaring independance. It took another 11 years of experimentation and negotiating before we figured out how best to govern our country in line with the ideas of "liberty," and then another 180 hard, bitter years to finally admit that liberty applies to everyone, not just the majority. Now it has taken no more than 40 years to decide that it is uncle sam's responsibility to pamper us and take care of our every need.

It takes a lot of time and effort to develop and maintain a true republic, which is what Bush decided to steamroll in and dump into the hands of the Iraqi people 5 years ago. Add on top of this that the people were in the hands of a repressive regime under which no less than three religious groups who hate each other with a passion were held partily in check. I am sorry, but I really don't think that Iraq is ready for a non-tyranical, stable government at this time, no matter what anyone else says.

- Louis

August 07, 2008 12:15 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home