Kassad
14th April 2009, 20:31
Ever since I've been here, one topic that always comes up in the 'Opposing Ideologies' forum is Ron Paul and his general ideology. For those of you who don't know who Ron Paul is, Ron Paul is a congressman from Texas. He is a gynecologist, thus why he is referred to as 'Dr. Paul.' Ron Paul engineered a highly successful campaign in the 2008 presidential election in regards to money; shattering multiple records for the most money raised in a day, defeating even candidates like John McCain and Barack Obama in fundraising quotas at times. Notably, Ron Paul is known for receiving more money from active duty troops than any other Republican candidate. Ron Paul is described as a libertarian, a conservative, a free-market advocate, a laissez-faire economist and a constitutionalist. If your eyes aren't bleeding already, let's see how long you last. In this post, I will address some of the major issues I have with Ron Paul, his fallacious ideology and the supporters he has somehow managed to rally.
I. Against the War for All the Wrong Reasons
Congressman Paul is known for being the only Republican at the debates to oppose the Iraq War. All the other candidates said that the war was initially for the right reasons, with almost all of them saying that it was still a necessary war. As commendable as this may be, we can address Ron Paul's statements on the war and realize why he deserves no praise for this.
Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. [...] It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.
Source: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr022602.htm
Addressing this statement, we see that Ron Paul is not opposed to war in the slightest. It is much like the War on Drugs, in his opinion. It isn't that war is wrong, used to manipulate or maintained for imperialist control. War is wrong because it is illegal. Does this assume that if there was a declaration of war, this war would be that much more justified? We see Dr. Paul's consistent logical fallacies again as he says that Iraq has never 'initiated aggression' against the United States. Though this is a true statement, what if they had? Would it not be justified for years of colonial occupation, sanctions and the deaths of millions, with the displacement of hundreds of thousands more? Ron Paul does not oppose war because it is wrong and murderous. Ron Paul opposes the war because the United States cannot afford it. I wonder if Dr. Paul would change his mind, say the United States did have the monetary ability to invade other countries?
Ron Paul is not only opposed to the War in Iraq. Generally, he is opposed to all intervention because it is not economically feasible. Regardless, this did not stop his support for the imperialist occupation of Afghanistan, but here is Ron Paul on Sudan.
Can anyone tell me how sending thousands of American soldiers into harm’s way in Sudan is by any stretch of the imagination in the US national interest or in keeping with the Constitutional function of this country’s military forces? I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to reject this dangerous resolution.
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul195.html
Invading Sudan would benefit imperialist interests. Occupying Sudan would be profitable for corporations that reap profits off of military occupation, as well as those that would profit from control over the Sudan's massive oil supply. Regardless, does Ron Paul mention the killing that is currently happening? Does he mention the destruction? No, for all he cares about is America's 'national interest.' Ron Paul does not care about anyone else besides the United States and her national interests.
As we can see, Ron Paul is not opposed to war because it is destructive. Despite his support for the Christian Just-War Theory, does he actually apply this to the situation? Does he truly observe the core meaning behind the United States and its imperialist hegemony across the globe? Does he oppose war because it is murderous or because it costs the taxpayers a pretty penny?
II. The Constitution
Ron Paul is a self-described constitutionalist, which means he strictly interprets the Constitution of the United States of America. This means that if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do it, then it cannot. Let's address the earliest fallacy in this reasoning.
Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.
Source: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm
Dr. Paul infers that liberty is preserved in a Constitution. I feel I don't need to spend more than a couple sentences here and just say the simple statement: what if a nation passes a Constitution that decides freedom of speech is not a right? Constitutions are not morally infallible, so why should we be so closed off to the fact that the world evolves. So must our political identity and ideology. A Constitution, whether written today or in 1776, will become obsolete. Nothing should be read totally strictly, as we as humans evolve to suit ourselves and our environment. We cannot cling to a decadent past and hope to be saved by it.
Dr. Paul also supports the Bill of Rights, claiming that they are God-given rights. Well, let's think of it this way. If God gave us the Bill of Rights, was he slacking off? We've had to amend the Constitution over a dozen times. Did God forget a few things? George Carlin once did a skit where he laughed at the idea of god-given rights. All nations claim they have god-given rights. If the Constitution and Bill of Rights lays out liberty and rights, why do we have ten in the United States, whereas England has thirteen? Why do some countries have none? Does God favor nations now? I feel nothing else needs to be said.
Let's look at the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. It states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That means, no need for broad overview, that anything now laid out in the first nine rights is left to the state governments. So... what about rape? Murder? Slavery? Can a state legalize these things with the proper support? What about the Civil War era? Had slavery not been forcefully abolished, would it still exist, as the federal government does not have that duty laid out in the Constitution? Can Georgia pass a law today that says minorities are inferior, and as such, should be paid $3.55 an hour? Do you see what strict interpretation could bring?
III. Regulation
Ron Paul, being a laissez-faire conservative, does not support corporate regulation. He claims consistently that regulation allows big business to exploit tinier businesses and government bureaucracy impedes technological and social development.
What about the current economic crisis? Wild overproduction and speculation was the prime cause for the current economic meltdown. What could have prevented those things? Regulation of the private sector. What would allow more of it? Deregulation. When a company is allowed to speculate however it wants and is totally aware that they are 'too big to fail', they will manipulate the system. The companies currently being bailed out were very aware of this scenario.
What about wages and benefits? By deregulating a corporation, they are allowed to pay whoever they want whatever they want. Now, defenders of Ron Paul will say something along the lines of 'competition for jobs will make wages rise.' That's absurd. Do you truly think that corporate entities, that have been trying to forge monopolies for decades, will not simply work together to make sure that they pay the most miniscule wages possible, as to make more profits? And without regulation, who's to say that corporations must provide health benefits? Who's to say that a corporate office or factory is 'unsanitary?' Who's to say that a five year-old cannot make insulation and work around hazardous chemicals? Damn that government bureaucracy; impeding corporate innovation.
And what about the environment? Ron Paul states that private property and the consistent protection of that right would allow the masses to hold corporations accountable for their arrogant dumping of waste and excretion of toxic chemicals. That sounds swell, but look at the broader picture. Even in a semi-regulated market, corporations still own the government! They pay fat bonus checks to politicians who vote the right way and they make sure their men get elected. What if we totally removed that regulation? Corporations would not only own the government. They would be the government. Good luck pressing charges against corporations when they are the supreme entity and law of the land.
IV. God is Tyranny
Ron Paul does not believe in evolution.
'Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018118.html
What more needs to be said? Ron Paul is totally ignorant towards science and reason; being nothing more than a creationist promoting fallacious claims.
What is even worse, referring back to the Constitution section, is that Ron Paul is opposed to abortion, but he thinks the government should have no say in it. First of all, I am very pro-choice and think anyone claiming that abortion is 'murder' to be delusional. Regardless, he morally believes abortion is murder, but he claims that unless a state bans it, it should be legal! This shows once more the Ron Paul would ignore any atrocity and accept it, just because a state decides it is rational. This is what would pave the way for a total lack of judgment in today's society.
Ron Paul would also view prayer in school or any other type of manipulative practice to be up to the state governments, thus paving the way for generations of ignorant and manipulated children.
Ron Paul also supports dismantling the Department of Education and he supports home schooling; rejecting bureaucratic control of children. Though we realize that education must be used to promote critical thinking, Dr. Paul is promoting an isolationist environment where thousands of children will be forced into home schooling environments, many left isolated from society where they will not properly develop social skills. All of this in the name of God and country? For the Constitution?
V. Can This Really Be the End?
Those of you who choose to support Ron Paul must ask yourself. Are your rights truly provided by paper? Do you really support total corporate deregulation? Do you really support the system that leaves millions without food, millions without shelter and millions without proper, unbiased education? Ron Paul advocates military isolationism, but not only that. He advocates social isolationism; isolation of children from society and proper schooling, alienation of workers from their passion and their labor value, isolation of the people from eachother.
Ron Paul's entire reactionary ideology is the antithesis of progress. With every step we make, Ron Paul and the laissez-faire right wish to take a step back. They believe money and profit are the solution to the world's ails; supporting free trade the destructive policies that have left millions to starve and countless others to die from occupation; not because it is morally wrong, but because it is costly. It's one thing to put a dollar sign on your healthcare, a dollar sign on your education and a dollar sign on your job. But to put a dollar sign on humanity is disgusting. And that's what capitalism is. That's what Ron Paul is. A disgusting example of placing profit over people with total negligence towards the detrimental effects it will have on society. Ron Paul is a puppet of the bourgeois political machine, as only slight tweaks in his ideology make him appear 'separated' from the ruling class apparatus, when in truth, he is their figurehead! His movement is manipulating the current crisis and promoting solutions that will, of course, make the rich even more rich as social inequality increases.
In his advocacy for corporate and religious control, we are left with that all-important question. We are left with a choice between fear and love. A choice between liberation and shackles. Do we allow ourselves to digress into the past and pray that it saves us, or do we live for today and realize that there are no gods. There are no masters. There is no middle ground anymore. We must resist that which binds our life, liberty and happiness and shackles us to nothing more than text on a piece of paper and the green ink on their dollar bills.
I. Against the War for All the Wrong Reasons
Congressman Paul is known for being the only Republican at the debates to oppose the Iraq War. All the other candidates said that the war was initially for the right reasons, with almost all of them saying that it was still a necessary war. As commendable as this may be, we can address Ron Paul's statements on the war and realize why he deserves no praise for this.
Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War is illegal. [...] It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us.
Source: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr022602.htm
Addressing this statement, we see that Ron Paul is not opposed to war in the slightest. It is much like the War on Drugs, in his opinion. It isn't that war is wrong, used to manipulate or maintained for imperialist control. War is wrong because it is illegal. Does this assume that if there was a declaration of war, this war would be that much more justified? We see Dr. Paul's consistent logical fallacies again as he says that Iraq has never 'initiated aggression' against the United States. Though this is a true statement, what if they had? Would it not be justified for years of colonial occupation, sanctions and the deaths of millions, with the displacement of hundreds of thousands more? Ron Paul does not oppose war because it is wrong and murderous. Ron Paul opposes the war because the United States cannot afford it. I wonder if Dr. Paul would change his mind, say the United States did have the monetary ability to invade other countries?
Ron Paul is not only opposed to the War in Iraq. Generally, he is opposed to all intervention because it is not economically feasible. Regardless, this did not stop his support for the imperialist occupation of Afghanistan, but here is Ron Paul on Sudan.
Can anyone tell me how sending thousands of American soldiers into harm’s way in Sudan is by any stretch of the imagination in the US national interest or in keeping with the Constitutional function of this country’s military forces? I urge my colleagues in the strongest terms to reject this dangerous resolution.
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul195.html
Invading Sudan would benefit imperialist interests. Occupying Sudan would be profitable for corporations that reap profits off of military occupation, as well as those that would profit from control over the Sudan's massive oil supply. Regardless, does Ron Paul mention the killing that is currently happening? Does he mention the destruction? No, for all he cares about is America's 'national interest.' Ron Paul does not care about anyone else besides the United States and her national interests.
As we can see, Ron Paul is not opposed to war because it is destructive. Despite his support for the Christian Just-War Theory, does he actually apply this to the situation? Does he truly observe the core meaning behind the United States and its imperialist hegemony across the globe? Does he oppose war because it is murderous or because it costs the taxpayers a pretty penny?
II. The Constitution
Ron Paul is a self-described constitutionalist, which means he strictly interprets the Constitution of the United States of America. This means that if the Constitution doesn't say the government can do it, then it cannot. Let's address the earliest fallacy in this reasoning.
Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.
Source: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm
Dr. Paul infers that liberty is preserved in a Constitution. I feel I don't need to spend more than a couple sentences here and just say the simple statement: what if a nation passes a Constitution that decides freedom of speech is not a right? Constitutions are not morally infallible, so why should we be so closed off to the fact that the world evolves. So must our political identity and ideology. A Constitution, whether written today or in 1776, will become obsolete. Nothing should be read totally strictly, as we as humans evolve to suit ourselves and our environment. We cannot cling to a decadent past and hope to be saved by it.
Dr. Paul also supports the Bill of Rights, claiming that they are God-given rights. Well, let's think of it this way. If God gave us the Bill of Rights, was he slacking off? We've had to amend the Constitution over a dozen times. Did God forget a few things? George Carlin once did a skit where he laughed at the idea of god-given rights. All nations claim they have god-given rights. If the Constitution and Bill of Rights lays out liberty and rights, why do we have ten in the United States, whereas England has thirteen? Why do some countries have none? Does God favor nations now? I feel nothing else needs to be said.
Let's look at the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. It states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." That means, no need for broad overview, that anything now laid out in the first nine rights is left to the state governments. So... what about rape? Murder? Slavery? Can a state legalize these things with the proper support? What about the Civil War era? Had slavery not been forcefully abolished, would it still exist, as the federal government does not have that duty laid out in the Constitution? Can Georgia pass a law today that says minorities are inferior, and as such, should be paid $3.55 an hour? Do you see what strict interpretation could bring?
III. Regulation
Ron Paul, being a laissez-faire conservative, does not support corporate regulation. He claims consistently that regulation allows big business to exploit tinier businesses and government bureaucracy impedes technological and social development.
What about the current economic crisis? Wild overproduction and speculation was the prime cause for the current economic meltdown. What could have prevented those things? Regulation of the private sector. What would allow more of it? Deregulation. When a company is allowed to speculate however it wants and is totally aware that they are 'too big to fail', they will manipulate the system. The companies currently being bailed out were very aware of this scenario.
What about wages and benefits? By deregulating a corporation, they are allowed to pay whoever they want whatever they want. Now, defenders of Ron Paul will say something along the lines of 'competition for jobs will make wages rise.' That's absurd. Do you truly think that corporate entities, that have been trying to forge monopolies for decades, will not simply work together to make sure that they pay the most miniscule wages possible, as to make more profits? And without regulation, who's to say that corporations must provide health benefits? Who's to say that a corporate office or factory is 'unsanitary?' Who's to say that a five year-old cannot make insulation and work around hazardous chemicals? Damn that government bureaucracy; impeding corporate innovation.
And what about the environment? Ron Paul states that private property and the consistent protection of that right would allow the masses to hold corporations accountable for their arrogant dumping of waste and excretion of toxic chemicals. That sounds swell, but look at the broader picture. Even in a semi-regulated market, corporations still own the government! They pay fat bonus checks to politicians who vote the right way and they make sure their men get elected. What if we totally removed that regulation? Corporations would not only own the government. They would be the government. Good luck pressing charges against corporations when they are the supreme entity and law of the land.
IV. God is Tyranny
Ron Paul does not believe in evolution.
'Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it's a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don't accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [it probably doesn't bother me. It's not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin. I think] the Creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.
Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018118.html
What more needs to be said? Ron Paul is totally ignorant towards science and reason; being nothing more than a creationist promoting fallacious claims.
What is even worse, referring back to the Constitution section, is that Ron Paul is opposed to abortion, but he thinks the government should have no say in it. First of all, I am very pro-choice and think anyone claiming that abortion is 'murder' to be delusional. Regardless, he morally believes abortion is murder, but he claims that unless a state bans it, it should be legal! This shows once more the Ron Paul would ignore any atrocity and accept it, just because a state decides it is rational. This is what would pave the way for a total lack of judgment in today's society.
Ron Paul would also view prayer in school or any other type of manipulative practice to be up to the state governments, thus paving the way for generations of ignorant and manipulated children.
Ron Paul also supports dismantling the Department of Education and he supports home schooling; rejecting bureaucratic control of children. Though we realize that education must be used to promote critical thinking, Dr. Paul is promoting an isolationist environment where thousands of children will be forced into home schooling environments, many left isolated from society where they will not properly develop social skills. All of this in the name of God and country? For the Constitution?
V. Can This Really Be the End?
Those of you who choose to support Ron Paul must ask yourself. Are your rights truly provided by paper? Do you really support total corporate deregulation? Do you really support the system that leaves millions without food, millions without shelter and millions without proper, unbiased education? Ron Paul advocates military isolationism, but not only that. He advocates social isolationism; isolation of children from society and proper schooling, alienation of workers from their passion and their labor value, isolation of the people from eachother.
Ron Paul's entire reactionary ideology is the antithesis of progress. With every step we make, Ron Paul and the laissez-faire right wish to take a step back. They believe money and profit are the solution to the world's ails; supporting free trade the destructive policies that have left millions to starve and countless others to die from occupation; not because it is morally wrong, but because it is costly. It's one thing to put a dollar sign on your healthcare, a dollar sign on your education and a dollar sign on your job. But to put a dollar sign on humanity is disgusting. And that's what capitalism is. That's what Ron Paul is. A disgusting example of placing profit over people with total negligence towards the detrimental effects it will have on society. Ron Paul is a puppet of the bourgeois political machine, as only slight tweaks in his ideology make him appear 'separated' from the ruling class apparatus, when in truth, he is their figurehead! His movement is manipulating the current crisis and promoting solutions that will, of course, make the rich even more rich as social inequality increases.
In his advocacy for corporate and religious control, we are left with that all-important question. We are left with a choice between fear and love. A choice between liberation and shackles. Do we allow ourselves to digress into the past and pray that it saves us, or do we live for today and realize that there are no gods. There are no masters. There is no middle ground anymore. We must resist that which binds our life, liberty and happiness and shackles us to nothing more than text on a piece of paper and the green ink on their dollar bills.