Stereotypes associated with Libertarianism and Ron Paul

Actually he's pro-life personally but not pollitically from what I gather. Looking at his voting records he seams to support early abortion but not late-term abortions which seams reasonable.

That's not exactly correct. Ron Paul thinks abortion is an issue to be decided at State level. At the State level, he's pro-life, but he wouldn't use the Federal Government to ban abortion nationwide, he's convinced that abortion simply ain't the Federal Government's job.

Whatever bad things one might say about Paul, at least the guy is ideologically consistent. His default position on issues is "I think the Fedgov shouldn't meddle in that". Federal meddling in personal, economic, or local government affairs is one of the main problems of the country, so I'd say Paul is an above average candidate.

Not perfect by any means, mind ya. But that guy believes in freedom.

I stopped supporting him when he pushed the We The People act, that basically jurisdiction-stripped the SCOTUS on abortion issues. Yes, removing the SCOTUS's ability to rule on something removes the Federal Government's ability to mess with it, but it'd be a dangerous precedent.

edited 10th Mar '11 3:04:18 AM by SavageHeathen

Ron Paul and Penn Jillette are both Right Libertarians whom believe in the right to gay marriage. In Penn Jillette's case, he wants to do away with legal marriage. But he thinks that all the rights bestowed upon the heterosexual contract should be given to homosexuals as well.

As well as for legalizing marijuana and all sorts of other things. And for decreasing the military budget, which is why I state that many Republicans essentially view him as a "Right Wing Liberal". He's most certainly a Libertarian, and not a Conservative. Certainly not a Neo-Conservative, or a Christian Rightist. He's one of the furthest Libertarians in the Right Wing right now. Of course, there are certainly people out there much more Libertarian than Ron Paul, but he's pretty good for a Republican. He's more "liberal" than many Democrats. I don't much like that word "liberal", but that's exactly what mainstream Republicans, Fox News, so forth, view him as, a crazy liberal masquerading around as a Libertarian Republican.

His stances on war and "family values" is completely contrary to many of the ways many Republicans, whom themselves claim to hate "big government", are for controlling the lives of citizens. The Neoconservative agenda is war, enforcing Christian Family Values, of the Conservative Evangelical variety. And to that mind, that nose, that smells like an unpatriotic liberal, that Ron Paul fella.

edited 10th Mar '11 5:36:51 AM by Ukonkivi

But he's opposed a law allowing gay adoptions and has supported DADT, so his position on gay rights is not that clear cut.

Also, he's a creationist.

Well gee, if he supports DADT then that's irrelevant because being the peacenik commie that he is, he wants to completely disband the military!

I've never heard anything of this position on gay adoption. However, in the very video linked here recently it has him saying that he merely means the thought of keeping your sexuality to yourself, and does not think that someone should lose their position in the military due to having their orientation being known. He even mentioned he knew a person whom this had been done to under "Don't ask, don't tell", and that he %100 disagrees with it.

I suspect his position would be more like "It's not the Legislature's job to tell the military what to do." But like I said, he's anti-war. That's why I was jokingly hoping for a Ron Paul/Dennis Kuccinich "We're gonna pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan!" 2008 election :P

I'm not sure if he explicitly wants the government to stop being involved in the military and wants it to completely become private sector, but he's definitely implied at least something approaching that. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what he believe. Some people have also misrepresented his position on abortion. He's kind of flip-flopping on that, but the leaning seems to be that it's a doctor's freedom whom they treat and whom they refuse. And that whom is allowed to give medicine and treatment shouldn't be government controlled. So a person would be allowed to get birth control and abortion from anyone whom wanted to give it.

But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if he supported Don't Ask Don't Tell. As he's one of those Libertarian types who thinks that a business should be able to do whatever it wants without infringing upon the rights of others(so do Socialists, actually, except that they have a different definition of what is "infringing upon the rights of others"). Which means the type that think a person should be able to discriminate personally, and view a personal business as being able to discriminate personally. If the military was reduced to something like a company, it would be like a company turning away a homosexual, which most Libertarians believe in. Or rather, any discrimination that they like.

Far too Anarcho-Capitalist learning for my personal positions, and underestimates Capitalism and power of money in certain ways. However the "Anarcho" part of Anarcho-Capitalism is pretty reasonable. You have a lot in common with a person if you only mostly disagree with them on economics.

Allow me to offer an ammendment to the whole Libertarian position, mind you:

Where the libertarian position explicitly works to fight against fascism, that is, wherein the government is in direct cahoots with private industry, that's a good thing. When libertarianism is saying "WHY ARE YOU GIVING THESE OIL SUBSIDIES?! WHY ARE YOU BAILING OUT THE BANKS WITHOUT ASKING ANYTHING IN RETURN*" "WHY ARE YOU REINFORCING MONOPOLIES INSTEAD OF BREAKING THEM APART?" it's a good thing.

My own position, however, is that because of the nature and connectivity of people these days, power travels more quickly, and, though it's not quite the false dichotomy I am about to present, we ultimately have a choice between fascism and socialism. And I prefer socialism to fascism.

^In the end, yes, I think most people, even if they're not aware of it, are leaning one way or the other, although I wouldn't use the word fascism as it's quite tainted.

So either you have socialism, I.E. a government to set various rules on the market/economy etc. or you create a power vacuum and the most powerful actors in our society (often big business to set the unofficial rules the way they want, and have the government to enforce said rules as needed.

^^ Erm, yeah. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Fascism is a union of corporations and the state. Libertarians are the biggest proponent of eliminating government in favor of privatizing. Their big paranoia is "Statism", a skreed which has gradually lost all context or meaning. Do they mean the nation-state system? If that were the case, they'd be tipping back beers with Chomsky, so no.

What they mean is any government involvement in the lives of its citizens.

That is precisely what I meant by fascism.

The problem is that deregulation in practice means that private uses its power to buy the government, because private interests are no less people-and thus voters-than anyone else. They have the means to acquire control. So you can't have a case where the government is NOT in bed with private industry.

Basically, the true libertarian ideal is self-contradictory and impossible.

edited 10th Mar '11 10:53:17 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

True, but we've been over this earlier in the thread. American libertarianism (of the "Randian" sort) does not adhere to those ideals.

edited 10th Mar '11 10:56:55 AM by johnnyfog

And yet it promotes them. Unintentionally, but it promotes them.

On a sidenote, I would consider Penn Jillette a relatively "left" libertarian, and Ron Paul a relatively "right" libertarian. @ Ukonkivi

I say this because even though I don't consider the "left vs. right" distinction (or even the Nolan chart) very meaningful measurements of ideology, I do tend to notice more views associated with "liberalism" from Penn and more views associated with "conservatism" with Ron.

So, the unfairness of institutional racism wouldn't a problem for them? They would only give attention to the economic efficiency of institutional racism?

Well, obviously, if no one has any problem with racism, then utilitarianism states that racism isn't a problem!

Actually and don't quote me on this but I think Paul actually reversed his choice and voted against DADT.

Yeah, McCain was basically the last man standing on that issue.

edited 10th Mar '11 3:23:50 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

If minorities aren't people.

Well, I don't think most libertarians would argue that the utility of black people doesn't count. And moreover, when you have multiple firms, if they can distinguish themselves from one another, then under game theory, they can eliminate competition between one another by just filling different markets. With discrimination, the free market automatically sets up these oligopolies.

Libertarianism (and capitalism) is anti-racist at its core — just because its anti-human. Everybody is supposed to be interchangeable, working seamlessly together for a common end. The only color which matters is green, basically.

Picking off bits and pieces just throws the whole system out of whack. The fact that "libertarians" want to repeal parts of the Civil Rights Act is a subtle sign that they've merged into the Republican Party.

IIRC, depending on which libertarians you're talking about, I think their opposition is mainly to laws prohibiting private businesses from using race as a basis for discrimination. It seems reasonable enough, but I could understand why some wouldn't want governments having that kind of authority, especially with the implications to freedom of association.

Also, in practice, these laws are often misused, with some people playing the race card for things clearly not about race. Of course, one should really be seeking other ways of combating this, but again, I'm hesitant to judge those who want to take the easy way out by getting rid of those laws.

edited 10th Mar '11 6:27:54 PM by neoYTPism

I always thought it was totalitarianism that reduces humanty to a mass of cogs in the machine who aren't free to explore their own identity. Libertarianism, I suppose, arguably privatizes individuality - it's your responsibility to "find yourself" and "live up to your potential". Government isn't going to help, but they aren't going to get in your way.

edited 10th Mar '11 7:56:27 PM by FrodoGoofballCoTV

But nor will they stop anyone else from getting in your way.

All they wanna do is protect property rights.