Ron Paul for President?

It's a slow process but I think John Q. Public is begining to realize that he has been getting lied to, taken advantage of and screwed by the people he elected to manage the country with the best interests of the people in mind. Well, somewhere it got all tangled up with this party nonsense and we've been pawns for the parties to use to stay in power. Everything that happens is for the best interest of the parties and the corporations that support them. I'm an independant now. I'll never cast another vote for the party. If the candidate isn't talking issues and principles he/she is nor geting my vote. I've had all I can take of this nonsense... going through a campaign and there is no discussion of the issues, just a bunch of sparring over stuff that happened 20 years ago. Great for the politicians if we let them get away with it. They don't have to commit to anything.

Ron Paul is a traditional conservative - in every sense of the word. At least, he is portraying himself that way. Of all the Republican candidates for President of the USA I like Ron Paul the best - and I am not even a Republican. I am a Socialist and proud of it! I am no fan of the GOP, but Ron Paul just may be your savior. The RNC would be foolish not to accept Ron Paul as their candidate because indeed Doctor Paul must just save them from themselves - something Republicans throughout the USA should feel grateful for.

Please forgive the emotion in this post, but I am seriously on edge of late when it comes to the current state of the world and the US...

I will not be voting for ANYONE in the "Council on Foreign Relations" EVER again... They are nothing but a front for the WTO and unending war posing as peace and sanity.

Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul are the only three running that aren't in it.

Which ever one is doing best in the primaries when my state comes up will have my vote. (Luckily I live in an open primary state that hasn't taken that away from me yet.)

If any of the three make it to the General Election, I will vote for them.

NOW FOR THE "EMOTION" PART... WAKE UP PEOPLE, THIS IS NOT A "SHADES OF GREY" ISSUE!!! >>>>>

I am NOT against helping the poor (The ultimate test of our convictions is how we treat the least among us), but we need major house cleaning FIRST.

The following "Candidates" all voluntarily joined the fascist CFR think-tank that forces unending war and slave labor around the world... They Will Never Try to End The "War on Drugs", "War on Terror", "War on Education", "War on Workers" or "War on Civil Liberties", Or Any Other Corporate Atrocity Because... IT'S AGAINST THEIR 'REAL' MISSION STATEMENT!

This is WHY the corporate media allows ONLY people from this VERY SHORT list to be considered "Top Tier"

Rudolph Giuliani
Hillary Rodham Clinton
John McCain
Barack Obama
Mitt Romney
Joseph R. Biden
Tom Tancredo
Christopher J. Dodd
John Edwards

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2008/meetings.html

I have a fantasy...I confess I sometimes like to imagine the impossible:

My favorite lately, since listening to Ron Paul in the debates, is for Progressives of "every stripe and flavor" who are against President Bush's "Pre-Emptive" Interventionist Foreign Policy to all join together and "dumped the Democrats" by registering as Republicans. Shocking yes, I am sure gallons of pink Pepto Bismol had to be swallowed down hours before registering as a Republican, but Progressives know a good sacrifice when they see one and are visionary. I like to imagine African Americans as the first group to go and register Republican, thus spurning on the Greens, independents, environmentalists, feminists, to all soon register as republicans days later. (Now doubt store shelves would be empty of the "pink stuff" and mylanta would soon sell out too)

THEN amazingly, the PROGRESSIVES actually succeeded to vote someone into office, hell I don't care, let it be President Ron Paul into office....Ok, after the nausea subsides, here comes the fun part.....Lets ask ourselves "just what would happen?"

We have all seen a House and Senate with both a Democrat majority and a Republican majority, so we all should know now that it matters little. There is not a dimes difference really, just more of the same sell outs from each side (depending on your side) screwing it up for everyone.....

But one thing is for sure, what we would be seeing is one very frustrated Constitutionalist-libertarian President! lol...

First he could not abolish anything, dissolve departments of education or rid us of the IRS or anything else on his wet-dream list of "to do's".

So what would happen?

One thing we could be sure of, lots of Vetos...."Dr. No" as he is called in Congress, would Veto every tax increase and spending bill.

So where is the good news fantasy of a Ron Paul presidency? The good news may be this...the President does set the foreign policy, does he not? And on this, we all could sit back and smile as we watch the wrench in the Military Industrial Corporate Complex Machine just GRIND and GROAN ...and we could enjoy every minute of it.

Ron Paul would make a huge directional change in America. His voting record makes it amazingly easy to predict that he would veto every Spending bill and veto all tax increases.

So how would that change Congress? What would the dems and reps do? I submit that the House and Senate, (either republican or democrat controled) would be forced to take monies out of the $500 Billion dollar Defense budget, and use it for other things.

Perhaps then, President Ron Paul (and progressives, independants, Greens, and antiwar types alike) would get our wish. Ron would "be forced" to withdraw our troops from the Middle East, Korea, Japan, Germany etc. We would be a more peaceful American nation, certainly, the military-corporate subsidazion of the carbon polluting oil industry would would halt. That should make Greens happy on the Global Warming issue at least.

Furthermore, Israel, our "special friend" would see their situation change too, without Big Brother Washington at their beck n call, they just might finally accept the "Saudi Peace Plan". You know, the one that calls for full recognition of Israel's right to exist by Arab Countries.

I for one would like like to see Palestinians and Israeli all getting along....Hey I did say it was a fantasy didn't I?

SkySonja:
The primary reason that Dr. Paul wishes to "abolish", actually he wants to transform it into a private voluntary system without government abuse and misuse is because it is currently not a viable system. This government has racked up between 60 and 80 Trillion dollars in future unfunded obligations...do you have any idea just what that means? It means that we are a bankrupt nation, borrowing ever single penny we have in circulation.

In fact, think of a Trillion Dollars in this way: If you started borrowing 1 Million Dollars in the Year 1 A.D., and borrowed a Million Dollars each day, 365 days a year, every year, year after year, you would finally have borrowed just One Trillion Dollars in the year 2037. Now imagine what this government has borrowed. The debt is no longer manageable in any realistic terms. In fact, it can never be repaid even if the government taxed us at 100% with an economy that had quarterly growth rates of over 30%...last quarter the adjusted GDP was 0.06%. Only periodic interest and principle payments are made. Of course, the owners of the Central Banking System loves that fact.

Not to mention the fact that the current system of fiat currency is almost reaching its practical maximum lifespan, meaning that the economy, based solely upon debt, is starting to have a difficult time servicing the overwhelming debt load upon it and can no longer sustain growth sufficient to maintain the debt. In such a system, the amount in circulation is exactly the same as the debt; one does not exist without the other. Every single dollar in circulation was borrowed, either by the government or by business or an individual.

Every time a portion of the periodic principle and interest of the debt is paid by the government, it must turn around and borrow that same amount from the Federal Reserve, usually more because the government is the government and since it is no longer limited by an Honest Weight and Measure of Constitutional Money (i.e. gold and silver), it grows uninhibited.

The one thing that you rarely hear about is the so-called Social Security Trust Fund...there isn't one! Congress, in all its wisdom, has spent every single dime and provided the "Trust Fund" with very special non-negotiable securities. In other words, those non-negotiable securities that make up the Social Security Trust Fund are worthless on any market and are only backed by the "Full Faith of the United States Government"...a Bankrupt Faith if the truth be known.

Back to the fiat system that has heavily contributed to this sad and sorry state of affairs. The entire system is build and energized by debt. In other words, there is not one single dollar in circulation that has not been borrowed...there is nothing backing it but debt. Everytime the government states that it has paid down the debt, it must turn right around and borrow that money again to keep the now pitiful growth rate going. Its a mess, one that has no real solutions under the current system of banking and government intervention into the market. It is non-sustainable and it does have a maximum lifespan that is rapidly approaching this country.

Back in the Reagan Administration, a "Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission" was formed to study the system of fiat curreny and it was found that the system would become overly burdened with debt between the years 2010 and 2020. In other words, as history has teaches us, every single fiat currency system has always ultimately collapsed. Believe me, Medicare, Medicade, Social Security are not the only things you have to worry about...

Now, what about those taxes? The whole purpose of taxation has nothing what so ever to do with the creation of revenue for government operations or programs. Its primary purpose is to force you and I to use Fiat Currency pumped out by the Federal Reserve Bank.

It was a strange coincidence, don't you think, that the Federal Reserve Act and the introduction of the modern Income Tax were introduced around the same time, then you add the passage of the 17th Amendment to the mix and you have a witches brew of socio-economic tyranny. Speaking of the 17th Amendment, it was used to eliminate the potency of the States and to bring the Senators into the national political market, where they are easily bought and paid for, and taking them out of the hands of the State Legislatures. So, now instead of having a House of Representatives representing the People's Rights, and Senators representing the State's Rights in Congress, you have a system which can easily be manipulated by the federal political machine's money and corruption.

So, underneath all the pretenses used by the government, we were forced into a system, which would eventually use Fiat Currency and institute a Progressive Income Tax to support its acceptance.

In the Federal Reserve's own publications you will find the following:

"In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely bood entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount. What, then makes these instruments: checks, paper money, and coins acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such money for other financial assets and services whenever they choose to do so. THIS IS PARTLY A MATTER OF LAW; CURRENCY HAS BEEN DESIGNATED "LEGAL TENDER" BY THE GOVERNMENT, THAT IS, IT MUST BE ACCEPTED."

"Modern monetary systems have a fiat base, LITERALLY MONEY BY DECREE with depository institutions, acting as fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base acting in part as RESERVES. The DECREE appears on the currency notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." WHILE NO INDIVIDUAL COULD REFUSE TO ACCEPT SUCH MONEY FOR DEBT PAYMENT, EXCHANGE CONTRACTS COULD EASILY BE COMPOSED TO THWART ITS USE IN EVERYDAY COMMERCE. HOWEVER, A FORCEFUL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY MONEY IS ACCEPTED IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES IT AS PAYMENT FOR TAX LIABILITIES. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a demand for the pure fiat dollar."

Now why does the government enforce the payment of Income Taxes, simple to maintain the system of Fiat Currency, but that is not the only reason? Another, more insidious reason is found in the writings of another Federal Reserve Chairman named Breadsley Ruml in 1946. He states, in no uncertain terms the reason behind the Progressive Income Tax:

"The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years, which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements. The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks. The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold."

"Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity."

"The United States is a NATIONAL STATE, which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose, which is served, should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue."

Concerning the use of Taxation for the Distribution of Wealth, Ruml was very clear:

"The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes, which are effective for this purpose, are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income. It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures."

As you can see, the purposes of the Progressive Income Tax are little more than an instrument of Socio-Economic Construction by the State. The government does not need Tax Revenue in order to function. In the Fiat Currency system the government simply allows the Federal Reserve to "lend" it money, doesn't matter how much, at least not to the government.

Now, the only problem with the whole system is that there is a nasty side affect by the unlimited printing of Fiat Currency and placing it into circulation: it's called INFLATION. There comes a time when the pressure of Inflation eats up the wages of the People and the whole economic market begins to suffer, as we have all seen.

So, they take massive amounts on income away from the People in the form of Income Taxes in order to maintain some degree of control over the Inflation they create, which is just another form of taxation. Our tax rate, counting the percentage of Income Tax we pay, plus the massive amount of Inflationary Tax we pay, leaves us with precious little to live on and in fact, it makes the People of the United States one of the heaviest Taxed peoples in history.

Our money is debt; it is created and backed by nothing more than debt. Now since it is nothing but debt, and there is no value to it, why would the government want to decree its usage? Simple, it is a system that controls you and I; it makes each of us compliant to the various laws imposed outside of the framework of the Constitution.

So, what are you and I going to do about it? We have another swing in Congress, once again we have placed the Democrats in office in hopes that they might thwart the abuses of power found in the Bush Administration. We take this action every so many years, flipping the coin to see if the other side is any better then the one we just had in office. We let one Party take their respective turns at the helm of government only to find that neither Party appears to be able to do anything worth while. Both Political Parties have taken their turn at driving this Nation to the place we found ourselves today, do we think this time around will be any different?

We are a Flip-Floppy Nation and guess what, we have been conditioned to be Flip-Floppy, apathetic and compliant. In a very few years, to our horror, we will once again be anxious to flip the political coin over again to see if the other Party has any ideas to come to Our Beleaguered Nation's rescue. The Republican and Democratic Parties have proven their flecklessness and obsolescence.

If there is even the smidgen of hope that someone like Dr. Paul can begin to change the hideous status quo that has been embedded within this government, then I am all for it! Until the People of this country stand up and FORCE this government to change the manner in which it operates then we will be at the mercy of an increasingly Statist regime that cares little for the true welfare of this dying Republic.

Ron Paul wants to abolish Medicare and I assume also then Medicaid. In other words, our elderly and disabled would no longer have healthcare. As one who worked with the chronic mentally ill, I would really hate to see that. And so would he. They get practically no care now.

Jimsenter...Obviously you are not very well read. In fact, read the Congressional Record and you will see that not only has Ron Paul not been silent for the last 7 years, but he has been one of the few speaking out against the abuses, incompetence, and absurdity of this government since the mid 70s when he was elected. If you value an honest assessment of anyone like Ron Paul I suggest that you do a minimum amount of research on the subject before smacking the keyboard.

Jimsenter goes crazy...

"Let's do a reality check people. Mr. Paul was silent for the last 7 years, as the Bush juggernaut trashed the constitution, our individual freedoms, the rule of law, the very concept of government in the service of people — MR. PAUL WAS SILENT. Only after Mr. Bush's approval rating tanked and it lost the GOP control of Congress, only then did he start to criticize Bush and the neoCONS. Either his silence then or his speech now is political edxpedience pure and simple. Either way, it proves he is totally unsuited for the white house and the challenges which face us now. DON"T TRUST THE SOB"

Ron Paul has always been on the money regarding American foreign interventionism. You could refresh yourself by getting acquainted with classic Ron Paul speeches dating back to his original presidential candidacy in 1988 via YouTube or you could get acquainted with these memos Dr. Paul wrote for Lew Rockwell's web site:

Ron Paul on plans for a possible draft, dated December 3, 2001:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul6.html

Ron Paul expressing concern over the possibility of 2002 being a "war year", dated January 12, 2002:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul8.html

Ron Paul elucidating the sad legacy of American foreign expeditions culminating in 9/11, dated October 27, 2001:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul8.html

Ron Paul positing peace and freedom as the foundation for defending America, not expeditionary warfare nor imperialism, dated January 25, 2002
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul11.html

Ron Paul urges Congress not to attack Iraq, dated March 1, 2002:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul16.html

Ron Paul urges Congress not to escalate in and to retire from immediately intervention in Colombia, dated March 8, 2002:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul19.html

Ron Paul urges the government to extricate itself from the Middle East, dated April 3, 2002:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul26.html

Ron Paul reiterates his call for no entangling alliances, dated April 12, 2002:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul27.html

I think you get the picture. Ron Paul has stuck to this philosophy since he entered public office in the 1970s.

Perhaps you're thinking of Chuck Hagel.

Next time, bother to do the research.

I never liked the Republicans- You can't trust criminals that are making law and steeing policies for the upper 2% of the country.......BUT- if you look at Ron Paul's voting record, and go to YouTube and look at speeches this man has made since before the war in Iraq began, you'd see he's not out to help the wealthy (by tax cuts like Bushy) or out to dismantle the constitution (by suspending habeus corpus, among other laws that protect freedom) or anything else anti-american. Just give this man a chance, and compare him to that crook Hillary, or that tool Obama-
Ron Paul has my vote.....he'll have yours too, if you just pay a little attention to him.

Let's do a reality check people. Mr. Paul was silent for the last 7 years, as the Bush juggernaut trashed the constitution, our individual freedoms, the rule of law, the very concept of government in the service of people --- MR. PAUL WAS SILENT. Only after Mr. Bush's approval rating tanked and it lost the GOP control of Congress, only then did he start to criticize Bush and the neoCONS. Either his silence then or his speech now is political edxpedience pure and simple. Either way, it proves he is totally unsuited for the white house and the challenges which face us now. DON"T TRUST THE SOB HE"S A REPUBLICAN@@@@UH(RTF@!TR77

Robert Breager,

We have a fundamental disagreement about whether all actions in the market are voluntary. You think it is, I do not think so.

As I stated before, in our current society, the free market concept has a limited range of applicability and its realm is that of "wants." I am yet to see a society wherien there is no "coercion" of one kind or the other that limits choice, and will venture to say that a society where there is no coercion is unlikely, if not impossible.

If anyone really has an interest in the thoughts of Dr. Paul then you should definitely read his speech before the House dated September 19, 1984. It was after he had spent his first 4 terms in office and made some incredible observations about our government. It is one of the most shocking, sobering and disturbing anaylsis of the State that I have ever read. The most disturbing thing is that it was written over 20 years ago, so one can only imagine the condition of our government now.

Dr. Paul is RIGHT ON TARGET!!!

"I apologize for this formulation; I meant to say "current society" instead of "setup."

What's the difference? Society or societal "setup", the impression that I receive is the same.

"I am not convinced that all trades are "morally voluntary" (a precept associated with a Free Market economy)."

"Morally voluntary"? I don't know what it is that you think you're getting at. From my philosophical point of view, if we can leave it at that, the only transactions I view as legitimate and thus moral are precisely those that absent any initiations of coercion. Ergo, from my point of view, the only moral transaction is the voluntary one.

"As far as "needs v/s wants" being subjective, while this is an area of debate..."

Is it? I suppose anything can be an area of debate then. "The sky is red." "No, it is not, it is blue." "Well, I say it's red." No doubt, this is a debate, but not one worth having. Further, I am not presenting a "needs versus wants" paradigm, I see no conflict between the two. Provided they inflict no coercion upon another individual, your own subjective appraisal of what it is you "need" or "want" is perfectly legitimate.

"I disagree that society cannot come to some agreement on what constitutes "needs"."

I do. Society as it is commonly understood has no role here. What I want or need is not any of society's business. It is mine alone, the only elements of society which need enter into it are those that can satisfy this need or want. The busybody state is what's got us into the messes we find ourselves in up to our necks.

"Using an extreme example of a sociopath as a counter does not invalidate the concept."

A sociopath still has his or her own subjectivity that cannot be usurped by a centralized locus.

"…relying on your "the market is big business" fallacy…"
"Once again, the market is not "all businesses.""

"I never made these claims or assumptions."

I offer an explanation of markets as being the aggregate subjective appraisals and actions of individuals. You counter by speaking of the concept solely as the appraisals and actions of corporations. I have no other alternative than to take you at your word.

"The closest is "corporations dominate our current marketplace." On the other hand, I reread my first post and I realized that I made a mistake while editing, which may have given you an incorrect impression. I was discussing "a business in the market" as opposed to the other entities such as individuals. Again, I apologize."

No problem.

"…the primary goal of each marketplace entity is to fulfill its individual subjective desires."

"By subjective, I hope you do not mean 'voluntary.'"

By subjective, I mean subjective. However, I imagine a person's individual subjectivity to be arrived at voluntarily. Unless there is a "war within the self", which seems unlikely and is hardly relevant.

"My objections to the free market concept are narrow."

Hither to now, I have yet to see your objection to the free market "concept". Your objections have to now and so it appears to remain been to the fascist, corporativist paradigm. Something we're in agreement on. Where we part ways is where you appear to insist on referring to the latter as a free market, which it so definitely is not. The presence of corporations in an economy does not necessarily indicate a free market, I would say obviously because a corporation is defined by the limits bestowed it by a state.

"I do not see how our society in its current state can implement the idea without it being skewed in practice"

It is not the role of society to do so, society's only role per the concept is to step out of the way. In a free market, individuals can socialize at will. What they'd be unable to do is force any other individual to join them. If socialism does have a moral foundation to it then this shouldn't be a problem. If the foundation of socialism, however, is predicated on the initiation of force, then it's bound to have problems of morality and legitimacy. The only legitimate and moral socialism so far as I am concerned is socialism formed by voluntary consent, such as you would find in a - gasp! - free market.

"(Chomsky discusses these, methinks)"

I have a profound respect for Professor Chomsky, but when he strays into the realm of pure economics, for some inescapable reason, he is purposefully disingenuous. "Who are these free marketeers?", he asks, "I've never met any."

When a career neo-conservative bureaucrat speaks of the need to "free" markets and presents a proposal for a "free trade pact", Chomsky may be on to something. But, of course, he knows what a genuine free trader is. They're the people who originally published him when the rest of academia tried to confine him to linguistics.

Notice in all Chomsky's years of writing, he's never once tried to mount a counter to the anarcho-capitalists and libertarian minarchists of the Austrian school, preferring instead to restrict his criticisms to the political classes who speak of "free markets" as if they had any clue as to just what they are or mean. Because he can't. Best to stick to easy targets who, to be fair, certainly have it coming.

"... and thus my attempt to identify its practical range of application – the realm of "wants" wherein all trades could (would?) be voluntary."

Um, that's what I'm talking about. If there's a third party poking guns, either figuratively or literally but always the threat thereof lurking underneath, then it very likely isn't a free market.

Which is why Rep. Paul votes against NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA. Despite the clever insertion of free trade in their titles, these political agreements offer nothing of the like.

republicae:
Thanks for your post..Have always been a fan of the "20th Century Motor Co"..Have tried to run a couple of companies with this idea in mind, but have to admit the idea does not fly..
Greed rules
Anyway for now..

Robert Brager,

"The notion of "Free Market as the best mechanism for delivering solutions to the public" will never work in our current setup."

I apologize for this formulation; I meant to say "current society" instead of "setup." I am not convinced that all trades are "morally voluntary" (a precept associated with a Free Market economy). I brought up the "needs v/s wants" differentiation to underscore this aspect.

As far as "needs v/s wants" being subjective, while this is an area of debate, I disagree that society cannot come to some agreement on what constitutes "needs". Using an extreme example of a sociopath as a counter does not invalidate the concept.

W.r.t.
"…relying on your "the market is big business" fallacy…"
"Once again, the market is not "all businesses.""

I never made these claims or assumptions. The closest is "corporations dominate our current marketplace." On the other hand, I reread my first post and I realized that I made a mistake while editing, which may have given you an incorrect impression. I was discussing "a business in the market" as opposed to the other entities such as individuals. Again, I apologize.

"…the primary goal of each marketplace entity is to fulfill its individual subjective desires."

By subjective, I hope you do not mean "voluntary."

My objections to the free market concept are narrow. I do not see how our society in its current state can implement the idea without it being skewed in practice (Chomsky discusses these, methinks), and thus my attempt to identify its practical range of application – the realm of "wants" wherein all trades could (would?) be voluntary.

OK. Just a practical observation. Ron Paul's primary objectives as President are to craft a non-interventionist foreign policy and end militarism.

He is a strong civil libertarian, opposes the War on Drugs, supports allowing individuals to make their own medical decisions including medical marijuana, opposes NAFTA, GATT and the WTO.

Effecting these changes will consume far more than one presidential term. An alliance of Progressives and ethical libertarians (not the Neil Boortz phony variety) would further assure that the dismantling of the welfare state would be a low priority in a Ron Paul presidency.

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are all we've got. Let's work together to achieve whatever positive changes we can, and at the same time, let the philosophical debate continue.

Ken:

I think Dr. Paul readily appreciates the expression of Collectivist misery behind the question "Who is John Galt?". If you read the Congressional speeches of Dr. Paul, you will see that Dr. Paul has struggled for years against an overwhelming push toward Statism, Corporatism and Collectivism. As I have said, while I am not in total agreement with all of the stances he takes, I do recognize something familiar, something comforting and strikingly close to Jeffersonian Republicanism within his Statesmanship.

He has my support and my vote, besides just look at the line-up that passes for political statesmen on both sides of the party line, they all follow the corporate party line and fully support the State above the People.

For decades, the populous of this country have been conditioned into believing that we continue to live in the Land of the Free and yet with every passing election, with every Presidential Administration and every new Congress more and more of our Constitution is relegated to a state of fecklessness. We have been taught the words of Liberty and Freedom, but have never enjoyed the full meaning of those words, nor have see experienced the prosperity that Liberty and Freedom bring the People. We have only witnessed and lived in the afterglow of the Liberty and Freedom this Nation once thrived upon…a fast-fading glory in the midst of a power-hungry State intent upon allowing the People only a measure of Contingent Liberty based upon compliance to the States coercive power.

Such a coercive Statist government will always extort concessions from the People in increments so small that few realize they have lost a portion of their Liberty and Freedom, and it does so without the slightest regard to justice or the Common Rights of man. There comes a time, in such a system, when the People will always be compelled to surrender some, and generally a large portion of their Freedom in order to live, day to day, within such a society.

As long as we continue to imagine ourselves subservient to the will of the government, to live and function at the pleasure of the government, we will never see the purpose Liberty and Freedom, nor shall we ever reap the benefits of that Liberty and Freedom! We must realize that the Liberty we are entitled to enjoy is not derived from this government, nor does this government create it. Government cannot create it, manage it, or export it, the only thing government can do is protect it, nurture it or destroy it through it's policies.

Lest we forget, the Banner of Liberty does not rest within the bowels of government, but in the hearts and minds of the People. Ideas have, as always, been the most effective weapon for any revolution; the one we now face is no different. 

If men of disloyal inclinations, covetous and filled with avarice are allowed to govern with impunity, as they are now, they will naturally violate the Rights of their fellow Citizens, and under every pretense of good government they will increase their holdings of power to the point that it will cease to regard the Citizen as anything more than a resource for their use. 



Men are often deluded into an opinion, that they must endure and therefore maintain the present order as it now stands, that either no change is possible or that to resist the present order will bring only suffering. Men have forgotten the power that the Blessings of Liberty bring, not only to an individual, but also to a Nation. 



For decades, the Liberty and Freedom of this Nation have been abridged, mangled in the workings of the growing machinery of government. 

As always, when men of questionable character and ambition, who through their covetousness grasp at the reigns of power will promote more and more encroachments on the People's Liberties until the People can no longer discern the meaning of Liberty. Those with such nature will always endeavor to establish themselves in a state of permanent superiority over the People, and in doing so they will always betray the trust of the People.

For over a century, these types of factious men have, through their artifices, deceived and misled the People through assuming the façade of Patriotism. They have long strayed from the Path of Liberty and Freedom, and thereby they have led this Nation down a path of eventual despair and destruction. 

It is a violation of all that is Right and Good for a man to use the guise of Patriotism to encourage, through legislation and deed, the violation of the Law and the Rights of his fellow men. How can a man call himself a Friend of Freedom, and yet set himself up as what amounts to nothing short of a dictator and tyrant over the People, ignoring the Law as though it was a meaningless piece of paper? It is amazing that the People can still abide those who would use secret practices, and indeed violence to achieve their goals of domination, taking advantage of the unsuspecting security of others, to deprive them of the Free exercise of their Rights. 



We have failed to discern that an Honest Man, a real Defender of Freedom, will always openly declare what he has to propose and allow the People to judge the validity of his proposition. He need never hide behind deception in order to promote his proposition, nor the exercise of that proposition. Should we not find it extremely strange the manner in which such men vindicate their position as the cause of Freedom when they seek to first deprive others of their Freedom to establish such a position? 

When a man acts in such a manner to promote such claims under the cloak of Patriotism, seeking to gain influence over the People, he becomes the enemy of the People as well as the Nation, a Traitor to the Ideals of Liberty.

We, as a People, have through the decades, lost the traits which once made us a Great Nation, for it takes the most earnest dedication and vigilant exertions to firmly establish and maintain the condition in which Freedom can thrive and flourish. Yet, we have allowed those with sinister views to be entrusted with the powers of government, and in doing so, we have facilitated our own demise and the marginalization of the meaning of Freedom and Liberty.

I sincerely believe that Dr. Paul is just such an Honest Man, a real Defender of Freedom and Liberty. I believe he still believes in the dream that was America even though he has seen the vile underbelly of this Statist government first hand.

republicae:
I am at a small disadvantage here as I have not seen any politician on tv for over 30 yrs..A small question: What do you suppose the good Dr. Paul would think of John Galt, Dagny Taggart, Hank Reardon and there adventure published in the late 40's..I did register one time and vote for Ross Perot cause I heard him say on the radio that he would sell Air Force 1 and 2..Should Dr. Paul have an idea of "Who is John Galt" then I might be willing to reprise the voting action one more time..
Ken

"Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water."

The argument is so weightless it doesn't hold air.

"In addition, Fascism (National Corporatism) requires a massive State apparatus to function"

So too, according to the conventional wisdom found here, do "free markets".

Illustrating quite well how little understood the concept of actual free markets is.

"The notion of "Free Market as the best mechanism for delivering solutions to the public" will never work in our current setup."

Our "current setup" isn't free market based. If the idea is to preserve the status quo then, quite obviously, any alternative to it won't "work". The idea is to abolish the status quo. Do you read what you write? I don't like the current setup. Which is why I propose an alternative to it. It is a convenient line of argument that you trace. You can demolish anything at all disruptive to the current state of affairs merely by dismissing it as being incompatible with the current state of affairs.

That's the point, genius.

"The notion is a utopian ideal that can only work if the needs (as opposed to wants) of the populace are independent of such forces."

Interchangeably, "wants" and "needs" are subjective valuations. Even in regards to sustenance. I assure you, a suicidal individual has no "need" for food, air, and water, per his or her own subjective appraisal of what constitutes their "needs" and "wants".

"Corporations and even bigger corporations dominate our current marketplace."

Yes, they do. You don't seem to know nor understand why, however. The amount of dominance a corporation enjoys in almost every circumstance stems directly from the amount of state power that reinforces their position; whether it be through subsidies, partnerships, regulation imposed on competition, licensing imposed on competition, price controls, quotas, tariffs, targeted tax breaks, so on, and so forth. With the almost fawning assistance of so-called "progressives", corporations have been amassing this economic weaponry for far too long now.

What few exceptions to this model exist derive their success from how well they succeed in fulfilling the "wants" and "needs" of their consumer base.

"For those libertarians who do not think that increased shareholder value (typically in the form of money) is not the primary goal of the dominant entities in the market today"

Once again, you appear to have ignored that which you're responding to.

I explained to you what the "market" is. You ignore this and insist on relying on your "the market is big business" fallacy. Once again, the market is the aggregate sum of the individuals that comprise it, individuals such as yourself and myself. It is not the aggregate sum of boardrooms. And, once again, the primary goal of each marketplace entity is to fulfill its individual subjective desires. Last I looked at the world around me, individuals possessed of money as their only or primary desire are few and far between; I would be so bold as to venture that such creatures are non-existent.

"I would advise them to take a second look."

I would advise you - you alone - to take your own advice and, further, to brush up on your reading comprehension. It may well pay off.

"I am quite aware that not all businesses have profit as their primary motivation."

Once again, the market is not "all businesses". It is all individuals. Each and every human being on the face of the Earth.

"However, such entities do not possess enough influence to significantly affect the rules and regulations."

Indeed. And the dominant blocs in large part have so-called "progressives" to thank for their enduring dominance, now don't they?

Fascism is nothing more than Corporatism, or didn't you know. How can Dr. Paul be against Corporatism and yet a Fascist? Fascism is nothing more than Corporatism, or didn't you know? How can Dr. Paul be against Corporatism and yet a Fascist? In addition, Fascism (National Corporatism) requires a massive State apparatus to function…Dr. Paul has spent his years in Congress fighting against the expansion of the State, limiting its power and scope. You simply can't have "Fascism" or Corporatism without a huge State. Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water.

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water.

"Concerning Dr. Paul's stance, read many of his speeches before the House and I think you will find that he is on the side of the People, not Corporatism and its so-called "Free Market Agenda"."

Same kind of right wing fascist populism that let the nazis flourish and Hitler come to power. Sell it some place else, Pauliacs.

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/014604.php

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/022289.php

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html

Ron Paul is a fascist. Don't listen to these Pauliacs from LewRockwell.com. That place is a fever swamp of right wing populist fascism. Molly Ivins warned us about him over ten years ago.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/man-of-hour.html

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/six-impossible-things-before-breakf...

I also found the following alleged quote from Ron Paul at this website - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbirchS.htm - but have not been able to source it to see if if is authentic or not

The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it's pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it.

Thought Shaman:

I think you will find that not only does Dr. Paul oppose individual welfare provided by the State, but he also opposes the Corporate Welfare State that has promoted itself over the last century. If you read any of his writings you will find that he is totally opposed to the extremely cozy relationship between big government and big corporations. The "Free Market" as it is being presented and thus implemented is anything but FREE; it is a highly controlled activity of the State in this country and others. The WTO with its so-called "Free-Trade Agreements" promote an agenda, which is not only opposed to the Free Market place, but to individuals attaining freedom or prosperity through those agreements. Those agreements are socio-political tools built upon the very same premise as the graduated income tax and fiat currency systems: a social construction through a re-distribution of power and wealth.

If you look at the history of the present system, it is evident that none of it could take place without the "coup d'état" of 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act, as well as the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution were "enacted" by Congress. Taxation was shifted from Corporations to the individual Citizen and it was done for a particular reason. That reason can be found in the Federal Reserves own publications, which is, in itself, amazing!

"The United States is a NATIONAL STATE, which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose, which is served, should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue."



Concerning the use of Taxation for the Distribution of Wealth, Former Fed Chairman Ruml was very clear: 



"The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes, which are effective for this purpose, are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income. It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures."

"The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years, which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements. The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks. The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold."

All of these factors, including the creation of the Welfare/Warfare State and State Corporatism that began in earnest during the Roosevelt Administration have brought us to where we are today.

The State and Statism always nurtures a synergy with Corporatism because they are of the same parasitic bloodline seeking to oppress a population under both political and economic controls.

Concerning Dr. Paul's stance, read many of his speeches before the House and I think you will find that he is on the side of the People, not Corporatism and its so-called "Free Market Agenda".

Corporations and even bigger corporations dominate our current marketplace. For those libertarians who do not think that increased shareholder value (typically in the form of money) is not the primary goal of the dominant entities in the market today, I would advise them to take a second look. I am quite aware that not all businesses have profit as their primary motivation. However, such entities do not possess enough influence to significantly affect the rules and regulations. Recent efforts to create B corporations (I may be wrong on the letter classifier) that try to include in their charter non-monetary benefits to society encounter stiff opposition, if not derision.

The notion of "Free Market as the best mechanism for delivering solutions to the public" will never work in our current setup. The notion is a utopian ideal that can only work if the needs (as opposed to wants) of the populace are independent of such forces.

This does not mean that I think big government is the solution (in fact, I do not), but there are instances where I would support a larger role for government as in the case of health/sick care (a needs v/s wants argument). I am merely not in favor of a market free of government interference when the needs of the populace are involved, and when power gets concentrated in the hands of a few individuals and entities.

If Dr. Paul can step back from his "free market as the 'best' mechanism" philosophy, and articulate a pro-individual position on social issues, he would be someone worthy of consideration.

Obviously there are some who have either never studied the history of this country prior to the era of "big government" or who just fail to understand what the real motives of the Welfare/Warfare State. During the period in this country, before the "something for nothing" attitude that now pervades our society took root, there was a period of unprecedented prosperity and individual growth that was unmatched in the history of man. With political freedom came economic freedom that promoted such an incredible decline in poverty within this country that we became the envy of the world.

Proportionally, the level of poverty was nothing compared to what it is in this modern American "big government" Welfare State. Never had so many people risen from poverty with such rapidity as they did during that period in our history. Imagine, allowing the people to become prosperous through the incentives of Liberty. There is only one way to help the poor and it doesn't involve welfare. Welfare has done more to create more poor people in this country then anything else the government has devised in its socialistic agenda.

Not only was the poverty level far less, but also the willingness of the people to come to the aid of others in distress was also unprecedented in the history of man. Prosperity is a promoter of good deeds. We have seen almost a century of Welfare/Warfare State failures because it simply doesn't work and in most cases it cause more problems then it solves. During the 19th Century, there were many cases where people came to the aid of those who had suffered natural disasters; in those cases you will find that not only was the aid prompt and efficient, but it was also overwhelming. In many cases there was a huge surplus of financial aid to communities that suffered such disasters. Today we see the total lack of not only efficiency, but also accountability within our society when it comes to just about every aspect of the dealings of "big government". "Big Government Social Constructionism" is and will always be a failure…all you have to do is look at the last 70 or so years to see that it is and will continue to be a failure.

This "big government" has proven itself, over and over, to be totally inept in providing solutions to society, and the reason is that it is not the responsibility of government to do so. Government, as least as was founded in this country, was never intended to be the "big nanny" for the ills of the individual or to take it upon itself the responsibility of the individual beyond the defense of our Liberty. That Liberty is not meeted out or granted by the State apparatus, it is Providential in nature and the Right of every Citizen within the scope of individual responsibility.

In viewing the last 50 years or so, one must come to the conclusion that the U.S. Government is taking the same domestic policy as it does its foreign policy: interventionism. The ills of the world and indeed the ills of individuals or even classes of people will never be solved by the intervention of the government and that fact has been proven time and time again with failed wars, failed policies, and failed programs. The State Apparatus is incapable of sustaining itself as the ultimate support group for the world or for that matter, its own citizens because it was never intended to do either. The only valid utility our government has is limited to defending our own borders and protecting the Rights, Freedom and Liberty of the individual. The government does not have the responsibility to make decisions for each individual any more than it has the responsibility for any other nation or group of nations around the world.

Its scope of responsibility is extremely limited and yet it has taken upon itself the role of overseer and sovereign demanding obeisance, not only from the citizens of this country, but in many cases its demands are global in scope.

If we review both the domestic and foreign policies of this government over the last few decades, it becomes apparent that it doesn't have the military might or the intellectual prowess to do either with effectiveness or efficiency. The choices that this government has made, under both Democratic and Republican Administrations, have proven to be wrong in many cases and disastrous in most. The list of those choices is long and notorious; needless to say we can now add the current war on terror, the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq to that list.

On the domestic front, the list is just as long, just as notorious and just as dismal. Yet, the government continues to assert its power in areas of people's lives where it neither has any business or expertise. Its failures mount up like its debt, yet no one in Congress seems to have the foggiest idea about what is actually happening in this country; they simply set on their royal rumps, give themselves pay raises and take their five week vacations to the dismay of the citizens of this nation. It is obvious that they have shirked their responsibilities to the people, and in doing so they have allowed The State Apparatus to become more important than the people themselves. 

One would think that someone would look at the failures and realize that perhaps there is a better way. A course that could be taken which would once again allow this nation to become not only the Highest Beacon of Liberty and Freedom for its citizens, but also a nation who stands for something more than Global Imperialism. 

The goals of this government are clear and yet no one in government seems to have clarity about what those goals actually mean for this country and the disastrous consequences that will follow if we continue down this ill-conceived path. As the government continues with such plans, schemes, wars, interventions, programs, odious Acts and Laws, it will become obvious, at some point, that the government will eventually have no choice but to turn its power upon its citizens or finally surrender to their consent. 

We see a push toward more and more authoritarianism in this country because without it the government cannot maintain it supremacy over the growing unrest among the people. As it becomes evident that this government can no long sustain its ruse, the people will begin to resist and there will be no other option left to the government but to implement draconian measures intended to pacify the people. 

Our Liberty, Our Freedom and Our Rights are Our Responsibility

While I don't support every single stance that Dr. Paul takes, his record, his integrity and his ideas are as close to the intent of the Founding Fathers as I have heard in the last 50 some-odd years.

Gosh - there are so many posts here that I can't discuss every point I'd like to without writing a term paper. Discourse is wonderful!

Libertarians differ from anarchists is two significantly different ways. First and foremost, they do not believe in the use of force to promote social agenda. (For progressives, this is a double edged sword, because he doesn't believe in forcibly relieving people of tax dollars either. That's where the abolishment of the IRS thing comes in.) Second, they believe that a limited government role is essential, and in America they believe that role is clearly defined by the Constitution. They believe that if it is time for change, then the Constitution should be amended, not re-interpreted.

I don't agree with Dr Paul either. For example, I don't like his abortion stance, and I don't like the fence. I think that the fence will eventually be used by the neo-cons to keep us in, and it frightens me to see my "free" country being reduced to a police state. I think that the environment *must* be controlled by the Feds, because it crosses state lines.

As far as social policies go, please read this quote, because I think it illustrates that he is absolutely realistic about the horrible effects that yanking our entitlement rugs out would have: "And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I'm not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I'm not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that's not my goal. I've never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don't think it's the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people." (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html)

Ron Paul is not going to let anybody stone anybody. The Constitution absolutely protects us from cruel and unusual punishment, which makes it a Federal issue. If anything, the Christian right should fear him, because if he were king, while he would not condone gay marriage, he would take away the Federal government's recognition of any marriage.

But he isn't going to be king. He wants to be President, and he is running on a platform of stripping the Executive Branch of the powers (like "executive orders" it has grabbed over the past 4 administrations.

Look at Wikipedia, under "Free Speech Zones" and notice that the pictures of the barbed wire fenced areas are from the Democratic National Convention. That's a Bush policy that the current "progressives" don't seem to mind, because they can use it to stifle opponenets too. I don't know about you, but I think the whole country is a "Free Speech Zone."

His goal is to return more power to the people, and let the individual issues shake themselves out from there.

I think that Ron Paul is our best hope at returning our country to the freedoms we are entitled to, by birth right.

"Otherwise, he is a "dismantle the government and let the corporations rule as they see fit" kind of guy."
======
"If that is the case, he should be swamped with contributions from corporations. He isn't. Something like 95% of his contributions come from individuals."

I'd say check his opinion on any kind of regulation, period. If he's a true conservative, he isn't for it, and with a Libertarian background, I think you'll find his opinions border on reactionary.

"Do you think states should be able to stone homosexuals if they want? Under President Paul's flawed interpretation of the constitution, that could happen."

Suppose the religious right resurges and controls the federal government and enacts legislation to "stone homosexuals." What is your recourse?

Look at an actual situation. For years the federal government has become increasingly involved in education often for ends deemed progressive. The right has given up fighting that trend and has decided to join it. Thats why we have No Child Left Behind. Oh and make sure your kids register for selective service and are available for recruitment propaganda.

He was on Jon Stewarts Daily Show the other day! As far as I could see, it's not much better than what's in office. I personally am sick to death of Conservative's! They have screwed this country up so badly I am not certain we will ever recover from their rule! They have drug us backwards into the dark ages of ignorance. So, don't hold your breath until I vote for him!

"Otherwise, he is a "dismantle the government and let the corporations rule as they see fit" kind of guy."

If that is the case, he should be swamped with contributions from corporations. He isn't. Something like 95% of his contributions come from individuals.

Corporations hate the free market. Check out Gabriel Kolko's (a progressive) work and you will see that much of the progressive legislation from the late 19th-early 20th century was actually written by big business to restrict competition. Particularly the Federal Reserve system.

It's always been interesting to me how the "fringes" of both parties are so often in agreement about American foreign policy. (In much the same way the the "mainstream" of both parties are in similar agreement.) I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because of his views on social issues, but I respect the man for his consistency and integrity, which is more than I can say for almost all of the Democratic contenders (excepting Kucinich and Gravel). His answers to the Iraq question at the debate brought to mind one of the nation's original progressives, Robert Lafollette.

"The underlying reason indeed why both parties have failed to take the people's side in the present crisis is that neither party can openly attack the real evils which are undermining representative government without convicting themselves of treachery to the voters during their recent tenure in office."

RE: "Ron Paul for President?"

At this point I don't care if the President is Dem. or Rep. or any other quality, as long as (s)he is honest and competent at factual reasoning, and acting on it. Ron Paul does seem to fit that bill.

In a contest between Ron Paul and sly player Hillary Clinton? - As it looks, Ron Paul any time.

Ron Paul is not a "real conservative". Whatever the hell that might even mean today. Eisenhower was a real conservative. Ron Paul and his freaky little friends in the John Birch Society thought Ike was a commie mole. Ron Paul is a kook. A dangerous kook. And a racist. Probably an anti-semite. Lew Rockwell.com is a freak show and that's what the right wing libertarian Cato institute thinks. If you think Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have anything in common, you must be hanging out at websites that do stories on UFOs and Sasquatch. Here are some links to start you off:

You google the John Birch society. Try Wiki. William F. Buckley, Jr. purged them from the conservative movement in the 50s and 60s because they were too wierd and radical even for him.

Proof from their own mouths that Paul was still in that far out orbit as late as the 70s.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north536.html

http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html

You'd have to be incredibly ignorant of history and politically unsophisticated to think that any liberal or Green would have anything in common with Ron Paul. Do you think states should be able to stone homosexuals if they want? Under President Paul's flawed interpretation of the constitution, that could happen.

Don't buy the fear-mongering that claims Ron Paul is just going to cut the government programs and let people "die in the streets".

He realizes that he can't just cut medicare and social issues immediately.

From a recent interview (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html)
"...And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I'm not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I'm not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that's not my goal. I've never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don't think it's the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people."

The comments of Ron Paul in the debate and in other venues are an example of how far the Republican Party has drifted toward extreme rightest positions and behaviors.

True Conservatism in the American context is not a polar opposite of Liberalism.... the foundational context for the Constitution itself. It is more a moniker for prudence, deliberation and restraint....not extremist bellicosity, arrogance and militarism.

Ron Paul is a traditional Conservative in terms of his idea for foreign policy.... an advocate of adherence to the Liberal American Contitution; Liberal Democracy at home.... but devoid of reactionary militant muscular ambitions to proselytize the American model abroad.

A true American would likely pick his fights wisely, then prosecute them to his advantage. This Republican administration does neither, even with the benefit of living in an era where the problems of Vietnam and other historical misadventures are themselves an historical retrospective on poor judgement.... they choose instead to deliberately repeat the mistakes of the past.

There is irony and blatant hypocricy in what modern Republicanism has become.... and what it has become is indeed not Liberal.... not American at all.

Geopolitical blowback is a demonstrable historical phenomenon.... to prosecute war in a way that is blind to the prescription from Sun Tzu to "Know Yourself" is not only folly, it is in this day and age deliberate incompetence.

Sun Tzu, the Art of War. "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."

"Does anyone seriously argue that the myriad of government programs have made a significant dent in the plight of the poor?"

I know during the Reagan "Greed Is Good" era, there was a homeless family begging on every street corner on my way to work. Yeah, I think government programs help MILLIONS of people eat, every day.

His thoughts on the war are very valuable. Otherwise, he is a "dismantle the government and let the corporations rule as they see fit" kind of guy. No vote from me, though yay for a refreshing breath of fresh air on foreign policy.

Who IS Ron Paul? They still need to know!!
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com

Ron Paul, regarding the motives behind the 911 attack, pointed out to Giuliani that in 1953, dubbed operation Ajax, the United States and British Petroleum, orchestrated the covert overthrow of Iran′s popular and overwhelmingly elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mosedec and installed the Shah. An intervention the people of Iran still resent to this day(blowback).That was the mistake of a long gone administration. We don′t do that stuff anymore.
Do we?
Take one hour of your time and watch this 2003 Irish documentary film.
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/TheRevolutionWillNotBeTelevised2003....

It seems to me that much of the contention between some of the progressives/ liberals and some of the libertarians/conservatives on this board stems from the presupposition that the other disagrees with us on ends when actually what they question is the means to achieve those ends. Just because I find the government to be an inefficient and ineffective tool in providing assistance to the poor does not mean that I do not care about assisting the poor. Quite the contrary. If I did not care about the poor, I would simply wash my hands of the problem and let the government handle it. Does anyone seriously argue that the myriad of government programs have made a significant dent in the plight of the poor?

As far as Dr. Paul goes, am I the only one who heard him say that if we were not spending almost $3 billion a day on the warfare state and the empire, we would have those funds available to address significant domestic problems like poverty, healthcare and education?

It is my feeling that a distinction needs to be made between philosophical Libertarians and "people who listen to Neil Boortz."
People who listen to Neil Boortz are just that--people whose world view is shaped by some jack ass on the radio. Actual
philosophical Libertarians are a different animal. They are what Sean Gonsalves refers to here as "real conservatives." Alliances
can be made with these folks. Markos Zúniga and others at Daily Kos have clearly shown that philosophical Libertartians are
receptive to arguments demonstrating that totalitarianism under corporate rule is just as real a threat (and just as dangerous) as
totatitarianism under governement rule. Some of the Democratic inroads in the mountain west can be attributed to this.

I don't want Ron Paul to be president because I want this country to take a hard left turn. That said, I do respect the man and it
is hard to ignore that he unapologetically nailed a basic truth in the debate on national television that few Democrats are willing
to touch. It has been a strange thing to watch the Republican side during this campaign. The Republican rank and file are screaming
for a candidate with better conservative credentials. Not only do they already have a candidate with impeccable conservative credentials,
but they have one with impeccable integrity. They don't even seem to recognize what conservatism is any more.

A related point that I would like to make is that sometimes true conservatives such as Ron Paul complain that their story
is not being told in the national media narrative. I've seen such complaints met with harsh ridicule from the left. Really, though, they have
a point. Their side of things isn't represented any more than ours is. The mainstream media have been dominated by neoconservative (not
conservative) philosophy. In some ways, we actually have it better than they do. At least the Democratic Party knows who we are.

"They also, arguably, draw a false dualism between public/private, whereas in the modern world (if not always) private elites basically OWN governing public elite, or that the real situation is hybridized."

In point of fact, libertarians are all too aware of this fact. I would venture that they who fail to appreciate this point fully are those who argue for further centralizations of state power.

I confess in my experience with, say, Objectivists or "vulgar libertarians", there is far too much sympathy for corporativist paradigms, whereby private entities enhance their market positions by the use of public patronage. But to level that charge at libertarians is disingenuous and reflects, I would say, an ignorance of libertarian scholarship. When a libertarian argues for the free market and for the abolition of state intervention, a libertarian is not arguing for hybridization or any other public/private partnership and to argue that our hypothetical libertarian is indeed arguing for such things strikes me as a full-blown case of a lack of reading or listening comprehension and not any deficiency in the libertarian argument.

Nice try, though.

As a libertarian, permit me to assure you, the corporativist paradigm is not a libertarian paradigm. Also, as a libertarian, permit me to assure you that it's far more than "a bit old" to constantly be confronted with this objection as if it had any basis in fact.

I would advise anyone not familiar with this libertarian tenet to get acquainted with Murray Rothbard. Not only he is a joy to read, his prose is quite clear. Decidedly clear on this particular objection.

Also, in closing, Rep. Paul and Rep. Kucinich are quite close, personally and professionally. Their departure stems from differing views of economics. Nonetheless, Rep. Kucinich is quite sincere in his anti-war position and the war(s) are so vital an issue, it's far past time for this kind of bickering. We need to build a coalition and find common ground. Common ground is our opposition to American imperial, hegemonic foreign policy.

"Be very wary of any republi-nazi…. sounds like a Trojan horse to me."

Rep. Paul is sincere, his record speaks for itself.

"If you don't see any immorality in free markets and don't care that someone wants to overthrow roe vs. wade and dissolve the welfare state then there is really nothing for me to say to you."

But there is something for you to say. A truly free market is one absent coercive force. Propping up a welfare state requires coercive force. Explain to us why you feel the initiation of coercive force is legitimate and moral.

Per Roe v. Wade, Rep. Paul is personally pro-life in his outlook. However, he recognizes the corrosive consequences of prohibitions. Rep. Paul would not eliminate legal abortion access, he would decentralize the mode with which it is regulated. The Federal Government usurped state power when it legislated this court decision, that is where Rep. Paul's objection stems from.

"But those here who actually are progressive should be aware that this person is nothing like Kucinich, and does not share our interests."

Nothing like? Ever heard of the warfare state? I guess not.

Be very wary of any republi-nazi.... sounds like a Trojan horse to me.

Some of the criticisms of Ron Paul here are sound. I will rethink. But please do watch Russo's film. Russo and Paul are close and Paul appears prominently in the film. There is no "666" printed across his forehead, nor do people around him seem to be put-off by a sulphurous smell, so it would seem he's not much of a conventional Republican (though he may be a traditional one).

Don't jump to conclusion's about Paul's anti-income tax position. Watch Aaron Russo's film "America: From Freedom to Fascism" if you want to better understand the illegality of the current income tax system. I'm not sure what would be legal ("apportioned" is a qualifier used in the constitution apparently). But, what if, what IF... we replaced income taxes on individuals and replaced them with corporate income taxes, taxes on capital gains and dividends and "green taxes" (on pollution and other unsustainable activities. This could fund all the necessary government functions (including a safety net), especially if we reduced military spending. We could also balance the budget (and save nearly half of annual expenditures) by defaulting on the national debt and abolished the Federal Reserve. If wishes were fishes... maybe some truly interesting and radical idease would come from a Paul/Kucinich ticket-- but I don't think we should jump to the conclusion of people dying in the streets.

Sorry, but don't let Ron Paul's antiwar views get in the way of this ugly fact: As a "libertarian", he would, as president, work for the abolition of all environmental, land use, social welfare, labor, wage, consumer, and workplace safety laws on the books. He would sell-off all public land parks and facilities into private hands.

Now the whole idea from the "libertarians" that this would be a good thing ignore that it has already been tried and its results are well documented by writers like Dickens and Sinclair.