Not hot in that way. The man is older than my husband, for goodness sake. And happily married. As hot as I am (DON’T LAUGH), he wouldn’t look twice at me.
I’m talking hot in the way my liberal friends are hot for Obama. Congressman Paul gives me hope. The really amazing thing is that a gentle, intellectual, won’t-use-a-teleprompter,
not-punchy, no-sound-bite geezer like Ron Paul actually started a
revolution! Because of his run for the presidency, people are waking up. More and more people are speaking out on returning to our constitutional roots, on the value of liberty over more government regulation and bailouts, on auditing the Federal Reserve, then getting rid of it.
People are becoming aware that the U.S.’s failed monetary policy is the root cause of the world’s financial troubles, not the subprime mortgage mess. The subprime mortgage mess is a result of that policy. It’s becoming crystal clear to more and more people that smaller government produces prosperity, not bigger government. That states’ rights must continue to have jurisdiction over the federal government’s laws and mandates. That taking federal money – whether a bailout or a grant – makes a state and its people beholden.
It’s also becoming clear to people that Federal tax money is not the government’s money. It’s your money. The Federal government didn’t earn it. They take it from you and they do so by force. Anyway. Don’t get me started.
Here’s John Stossel (who I could be hot for in that way if I were to ever look at another man that way which is highly unlikely) (today) interviewing Ron Paul. Short and sweet, this is my favorite Ron Paul video:
The only issue about which Dr. Paul and I disagree is abortion. He’s pro-life, I’m pro-choice. He will not try to outlaw abortion at the federal level* unless he’s going to turn on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Since he has been the most consistent legislator in recent history, possibly ever, I believe he will stick to his constitutional roots and put the abortion question to individual states. Even if some states outlaw it, some states will keep it legal. That will have to do.
I am 100% in favor or returning to the rule of law, to honoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Everything has a price. If having some states outlaw abortion is the price to pay for the rule of law, I am willing to pay it.
What I expect to get in return, since almost all questions will be returned to the states, are states that get out of the licensing and marriage business, allowing anyone to marry anyone they want. We’ll get states that are pro-small business, states that legalize drugs, gambling and prostitution… states that get out of legislating morality, governing our bedrooms and our bodies and what we do with them. Citizens could vote with their feet, moving to states that suited them. You can’t neutralize that vote!
At the federal level, we’d get no-holds-barred free trade. And no more war. At all. Zero. No more intervention in other governments. Like we should be giving other governments advice on how to run things. And no more occupying other countries. Bring all those strong young men and women home, working in their communities, raising their families and spending their paychecks there.
True freedom gives us prosperity. It’s a harder road to travel, but the rewards are much sweeter. Otherwise, we are just wards of the state.
– Jimmy Dugan, Tom Hanks’ character in A League of Their Own
I’ve yearned to use that quote. I’m happy now. This weekend: Migración Miasma and The Lunada. Pura vida.
*Overturning Roe vs. Wade, which I support, won’t make abortion illegal. It just takes it out of the federal government’s hands. It doesn’t belong there. It is a state decision.
Be careful for what you wish. Free trade under the current manifestation is designed to have the outcome of moving all world workers to a similar level of compensation and focusing more wealth into fewer hands while maintaining national and cultural borders. The ultimate goal is a two class system; rich and poor.
That peskly middle class has been a thorn in the side of the rich and powerful for too long and they are serious about eliminating it.Libertarian politics is just another tool these people can use to achieve their goal. And we have already seen that constitions are easily put aside for “emergencies”. It happens all the time everywhere.
“under the current manifestation”? Not. I mean actual free trade. No strings, just market.
Smaller government yes (preferably shrunk to almost nothing), but the Constitution, while an extremely well-written & conceived document, is not the end all and be all. It was written by men accepted slavery, no?
You are a slave to your current government right now.
There should be some eternal human truths among the constitutional items but I have read that the founding fathers intended it to be a living document subject to change. Ultimatley, the people are encouraged to change their government whenever it suits them. Read Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Payne. Both urged frequent revolution, not ecessarily violent either.
Small government is good for small populations. Perhaps you mean smallER government but if so, how small is good for you? I want a government strong enough to make and enforce laws but not so strong that it can go very long against popular will. That is a difficult balancing act.
I don’t care for libertarian philosophy. It strikes me as immature and anti social. Humans are essentially pack animals and do best when they cooperate for the good of the community. Libertarians falsely believe that you can have a strong community without any infringement on individual rights. Not possible. Community is only achieved with a certain level of compromise of individual rights. Either stay in the pack and cooperate, or leave the pack and move to the outlands where no social contracts can be imposed. You cannot have it both ways.
That the founding fathers intended the Constitution to be a living document doesn’t mean they intended it should be ignored by judges and politicians to suit their political agendas.
The Founders provided a mechanism for altering the document as needed. It is a complex process for good reason. The modern habit of ignoring the Constitution out of political expediency wouldn’t have gathered much support among its authors.
Mr. Jefferson had no qualms about violent revolution. His observation was that the tree of liberty needed to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. My guess is he would have thought the tree needed watering many times in the last century.
As to “popular will,” the Founders lived in terror of democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch. In the republic the Founders had in mind, a well armed sheep could contest the vote.
You don’t understand the libertarian philosophy.
Libertarians are not anti-social. On the contrary, they believe that if people are free to choose they will generally make choices that benefit themselves and their communities. They will voluntarily form the organizations necessary to complete complex community projects.
Libertarians don’t hold their fellow man in the low regard that socialists do. They don’t believe men need to be forced to do the right thing at gunpoint.
Libertarians believe that using force for any reason but self-defense is criminal.
They believe that it is not necessary for any individual to give up any of his rights to form a strong and just society. Compromise on desires, yes. On rights, never.
They believe that a society that must abuse the rights of the individual for any reason is dangerous and tyrannical.
The idea that the state can force an individual to sacrifice his rights for the benefit of the group makes socialist governments very dangerous. That notion lies at the heart of many millions of murders committed by governments against their own people in the 20th century. Once you accept that the individual must sacrifice any right for the benefit of the group, you accept the idea that ultimately he must sacrifice them all, and that his life is not too much to ask.
A man who volunteers to leap from a lifeboat to save those left behind has committed an act of heroism. Passengers in a lifeboat who throw one among them out to save themselves have committed a murder.
Libertarians believe that government has few legitimate roles in people’s lives, but among them are protecting individuals against force and fraud.
Socialists promote government to use force and fraud against its own people and call it social justice.
We’ve become so accustomed to the pious official lies that support scams like social security, drug prohibition, private subsidy, paper money, and foreign wars, that we wouldn’t know the truth if it bit us on the leg.
Ron Paul is freedom’s terrier, getting a hold on that trouser leg and shaking us awake.
Are there any Libertarian governmetns in the world? Have there ever been any? With the exception of the many infamous cults claiming Libertarian style rights that sooner or later go outside the law and use their precious guns and ill-conceived”rights” to murder each other as well as innocent citizens, there are no established Libertarian governments.
It is easy to pick and choose incidents where governments of all persuasions have been used to abuse citizens. Corruption and greed are part of human nature and they must be taken into account in any design of government. But to say that socialists always end up using force and fraud against its people is absurd.
The essence of socialism is to use the tools of government and economies to serve its citizens.
The essence of capitalism is to use its citizens and government to serve the economy (and the rich who benefit from that economy).
The essence of libertarianism and anarchism is that they are both antagonistic to the creation of and manitanance of community. People, being pack animals by nature, have always tended to form communities and have generally expelled small libertarian and anarchistic groups to the outskirts of society.
We have to limit debate to the pros and cons of actual Libertarian vs Democratic philosophies. People who claim they believe one thing, then act out another… history is full of ‘em.
The U.S. government, as based on the Constitution, is a Libertarian government. As long as we held to Libertarian ideals, held to the Constitution, no one was intentionally abused. Socialism has an even more dismal history. Tell me a socialist country in which you would choose to live today. I double dog dare you to move there. Then report back how great it is.
Socialists use only force and fraud to make its people obey, even to make them obey for the common good. Force as in “you must or else.” Libertarians are pro-choice on everything as long as no one else is hurt; power from the people. Socialists are power from above. First you enslave people with taxes. Then you promise to use those taxes “for the common good”… easy formula to take power from the people. Relieve them of the burden of responsibility.
The only choice in a socialist society is if you choose to live in it. Most socialist societies don’t let you get away – they need the tax money. Even the U.S. You cannot denounce U.S. citizenship without the U.S. government’s permission and, even if they grant it, you have to pay taxes for 10 more years.
You and I see capitalism differently. I think you and I see people differently. I believe man is basically good and will take care of his fellow man. It sounds like you believe man is basically more greedy than good and must be compelled via regulation to take care of his fellow man.
You have some ideas about Libertarians that are untrue. Libertarians are not antagonistic toward the creation and maintenance of community. The founders were Libertarians. They sacrificed a lot to create the community we call the U.S. of A.
We are antagonistic toward giving up individual rights for the creation and maintenance of a community. Compromise of individual desires is necessary in a community of human beings. Compromise of individual rights creates a community where the compromised individual is in danger. And if one can be compromised…
You are living in a quasi socialst country. Most of Europe is quasi socialist. Obviously neither of us have a problem choosing a socialist country over the U.S.
I have never heard of the U.S. being described as libertarian but I can see why it might have appeal there. The U.S. has always had the erroneous idea that what is good for the individual is always good for society. The capitalist focus on selfish personal gain at the expense of others fits in well with Libertarian views and we are now seeing the logical out come of this philosophy in the economic melt down.
I see people as having good and bad qualities, neither completely dominating unless the environment favors one over the other. In small communities, people seem to be more socially responsible and, therefor, require fewer limitations in the way of laws to govern their behavior. Application of libertarian principles might do well in tightly knit small communities.
In large societies, like the U.S., sense of community is diminished or lost. This elicits more anti social behavior and requires more regulation. If you want a big, powerful country, you need a big powerful government. Big government in and of itself is neither evil nor good. It depends upon what philosophy and which people guide that government.
It is not that Libertarians are antagonistic toward community. It is that Libertarian attitudes would simply not work in highly populated societies. In fact, they do not work and have never been successfully applied in that venue.
I have spent time in Socialist Cuba, a poor country with its share of problems. But there exists a strong sense of community which seems to come from socialst ideals. They work not just for themselves but for the country as a whole. To some extent, you must see this as well with the Ticos when compared to us gringos.
On abortion: What about the teens who live in states that ban abortion? Or the poor adults? You make it sound so easy. Like these people can just pick up and go to another state to get their abortion. Well, another state might as well be another country for people without the right/ability (teens) or means (poor people) to move freely. On some issues, I think it’s important that the country be at one with a decision. I know you say you are pro-choice (I believe you), but how can you look at the reality of people living in pro-life states and not see how we can’t let those people be victims? Stop talking political stuff for a moment, and tell me how you would resolve this problem for the scared, pregnant women of the U.S., in a practical manner. If you have a solution for this issue, I *might* look a little further at your assertions!
The critical item for me is what is federal and what is state. No federal tax money should be used to fund abortion. Just like no federal tax money should be used to fund arts or K-death education or litter campaigns or sex education, the list is endless. If the states want to fund those things, great! Let them raise their tax money and fund what they like.
Or no tax money. Let the states “give” generously to charities (by way of tax cuts, etc). My personal belief is that no tax money should be used to fund anything other than what is necessary to its citizens – but that is for each state to determine. Then we can each choose our state accordingly.
When the federal budget is slashed because it’s not paying for anything other than national defense and roads, we’ll all have more money in our pockets. Charity will take care of bus tickets and condoms and abortions. You and I and rich people can support Planned Parenthood. Funds will be set up to take care of misc. items like bus fare and plane tickets and hotel rooms for an overnight stay, whether for a rape victim, a pregnant teen or a poor woman.
I believe a woman has the right to make every decision about her own body, including sex, drugs and elective surgery, as long as she is not hurting anyone else (which is exactly where the divide happens with those who believe abortion is murder). I don’t believe abortion is murder. I had an abortion at age 27. Free at Planned Parenthood. I was insanely immature at the time and I am grateful I was able to end that pregnancy, no regrets. My life might have been so very different.
I disagree that a pregnant woman is a victim simply by being pregnant. A victim of her own stupidity, laziness and poor decision making skills (probably brought about by years of public schooling.) Aside from force, she is simply a person in a tough spot having made a poor decision. Bus tickets are cheap, as are condoms. You can get condoms for free at just about a zillion places including public bathrooms and, in many towns, from your high-school counselor!
Abortion is elective. It is a desire. It is not a right. She has the right to make the choice, absolutely. She does not have a right to make me pay for her choices.
I do not wish to pay for anyone’s poor choices or laziness, nor to make her poor decision consequence-free. Particularly not a young woman who definitely needs to learn a lesson about responsible choices. Is that heartless of me? I think not.
By the way, I believe the same thing about people who made poor choices about their mortgages. I sat at too many closing tables to think of them as victims. They knew what was going on and they participated. They made poor choices. Government should not be bailing anyone out. Let the foreclosures and bankruptcies happen, let people lose those overpriced houses. They’ll be able to buy it back in a couple of years for far less than they originally paid. Or better still rent it for less than half their mortgage.
Would I support an abortion clinic? Yes, as long as the customer were subjected to a couple of hours of education on sex (like what happens when sperm enters a vagina unprotected since there is clearly a little confusion here), embryos, childbirth, raising a child, how to prevent pregnancy, etc. I certainly don’t want repeat visitors.
The current governmental solution is to take money by force from one person and give it to another. When that tax money is used simply to pay for another person’s poor choices – whether it be abortion or a mortgage – I find it hard to believe anyone sees wisdom and justice in this.
To accept my solution as viable, you have to believe we will take care of each other. I do.
Good arguments on both sides or all sides if you wish. All I know is that we as a species are breeding ourselves into extinction.
I’d rather we breed ourselves into extinction than bomb ourselves there. Waaaaay more fun.
Yep, but I don’t have to carry to term. HaHa
I haven’t read all the comments, and I don’t pretend to be a brilliant politico, but I will say this: I am an Obama supporter but I have always admired Ron Paul and his supporters, precisely because they are for individual liberties and they think for themselves.
In a world of “dittoheads” where so many Americans let radio and cable shows (I won’t use the adjective “news” to describe any of it) educate them, I feel that Ron Paul supporters in particular educate themselves. I am a bit of a tree-hugging hippie freak, but I also have a streak of independence from everything in me. Ron Paul seriously gave me pause for thought in this election, at least in the primaries.
I love Ron Paul supporters, even if I don’t agree with his platform on everything. I don’t agree with anyone’s platform on everything, and I appreciate those who deviate from what the media tells us to form their own opinions. All RP supporters definitely did that. More power to you!!
Thank you, Cat! Some of what draws me to Ron Paul is his simplicity, his directness. I never felt for a moment that he wasn’t sincere, that he was playing politics or even playing to the crowd. I appreciate that – it got me to really pay attention to him.
If Ron Paul were President, I wouldn’t be in the process of uprooting my family to move to Costa Rica, I wouldn’t be worrying about whether my money is safe in the bank, I wouldn’t be buying bullion (because I know my money is not safe in the bank!), and I wouldn’t qualify as a terrorist (in several categories) on the DHS terrorist list. Over the past two years, since I’ve finally woken up, my life has been turned upside down, literally, on so many levels. Now I sadly understand the depth of the fraud, greed, corruption and deception of the government, the broken healthcare system, the banking system (i.e., the FED), and the big business “profit at all costs” Wall Street gangsters. Ron Paul is a modern day hero for standing up to them all and every other institution/person/idea that harms our country. We are one country, but sovereign individuals within a sovereign state, and the government is supposed to be taking direction from us–not the other way around! I agree with him about letting everyone make their own decisions with their lives (even if they choose to make the wrong choice–they will anyways most likely), and it should be our country’s policy to let every other country do what they want as well, as long as neither is hurting others. Oh yeah, we have a Constitution that already went over that, don’t we?? Sadly, most people don’t even know what it says anymore, and Bush, Obama, all of Obama’s hate mongers, and the admitted members of the NWO are making sure it is destroyed. I do not feel safe any longer here, and as a mother, I will do whatever it takes to keep my children safe, even if it means moving half way around the world if I have to! I no longer want to live in a country with that allows massive socialism (in which only the top layer of society are the benefactors.) I no longer want to live where I have to read every freakin’ food label to make sure there aren’t any GMOs in it, where all the water is flouridated, and children are pumped full of vaccines from the day they are born until they get into the prison we call an education system, where they get more drugs if they can’t sit still! Hopefully, Costa Rica is paying attention and the same nightmares won’t be allowed once we get there. . . Thank you so much Saratica for your wonderful blog. I feel like I have a sister in you!
In response to Caroline, I will venture to say that we will see if Costa Ricans are aware of the dangers of the Central progressive socialist planning in the coming elections.
Otto Guevara is the founder and candidate for the Libertarian Party in Costa Rica.
If he gets a good amount of supporters, that will be in my view the beginning of the end for the socialist agenda in Costa Rica.
I do believe though that all of Central and South America are socialist by default.
Most people don’t have a true sense of what freedom means. I mean, for that matter I think most US citizens don’t know what freedom of choice really is. Most people look to the Gov. for answers to their problems, not realizing that Gov. is the reason for their problems.
Ron Paul in my opinion can be compared to what Thomas Jefferson was in his time.
We need more and truer freedom fights and supporters to hold Gov. Offices to end the tyranny of today central planning for the “Greater Good” of the people.
We need more and truer freedom fighters…..
Thanks, Caroline and Alex, I couldn’t agree more. Caroline, I’m going to use your comment as the basis for a post to say how it is for me here, what I see going on.
Oh, that Otto has a chance!!!