Hey! Anarchists/Libertarians!

Points of emphasis. I prefer Paul because he hits hard on the wars, PATRIOT Act, and libertarian philosophy in general. Johnson is more focused on presenting issues that will help him get elected.

Since neither is likely to win the Republican nomination, Paul is better for bringing the entire philosophy to the forefront. He follows Murray Rothbard's blueprint of using high profile races (especially a presidential run) as educational campaigns.

That said, I'd be thrilled if Johnson ended up winning the nomination, obviously.
 
To add to my earlier post, I've become aware that Gary Johnson is in favor of militarily aiding and protecting Israel, and has recently "been woo'd to the side of keeping it open," talking about Gitmo.

Count me as being less than thrilled if he were to win.
 
You know there are a lot of people I admire and respect, but not enough to name a kid after one of them. Wtf kind of name is "Rand" for a kid anyway....
 
[quote name='Clak']You know there are a lot of people I admire and respect, but not enough to name a kid after one of them. Wtf kind of name is "Rand" for a kid anyway....[/QUOTE]

Named by his mother, his name is Randal. Rand is a nickname.

In any event, Ron Paul started with F.A. Hayek and Von Mises before getting to Ayn Rand. He agrees with her on individual rights, but disagrees with her foreign policy and views on charity and virtue. In short, he's an Austronut, not a Randbot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Named by his mother, his is name is Randal. Rand is a nickname.

In any event, Ron Paul started with F.A. Hayek and Von Mises before getting to Ayn Rand. He agrees with her on individual rights, but disagrees with her foreign policy and views on charity and virtue. In short, he's an Austronut, not a Randbot.[/QUOTE]

Austronaut? What is that.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']A follower of Austrian economics.[/QUOTE]

I really don't feel like wading through the info on Paul, but I know that Hayak supported a minimum socialist society (things like the state supplying unemployment insurance and helping the destitute and orphans financially to an extent) what is Paul's stance on this?
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I really don't feel like wading through the info on Paul, but I know that Hayak supported a minimum socialist society (things like the state supplying unemployment insurance and helping the destitute and orphans financially to an extent) what is Paul's stance on this?[/QUOTE]

Paul just wants a time machine to take us back to the 1820's or earlier.

It isn't anymore complicated than that.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Named by his mother, his name is Randal. Rand is a nickname.

In any event, Ron Paul started with F.A. Hayek and Von Mises before getting to Ayn Rand. He agrees with her on individual rights, but disagrees with her foreign policy and views on charity and virtue. In short, he's an Austronut, not a Randbot.[/QUOTE]
Well you can't blame me for assuming who he was named after.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I really don't feel like wading through the info on Paul, but I know that Hayak supported a minimum socialist society (things like the state supplying unemployment insurance and helping the destitute and orphans financially to an extent) what is Paul's stance on this?[/QUOTE]

Ideally, he would at least make them voluntary. Practically, he offers that he would cut foreign policy by half immediately, and further as time wore on (other things would be added, like war on drugs, numerous federal departments, corporate subsidies...), and use that help the destitute.

To achieve the conditions necessary for that scenario to be feasible (elimination of mandatory aspect of the safety net), we would need to first adhere to a non-interventionist foreign policy, end the war on drugs and other police state activities, eliminate all corporate and business subsidies, reduce our yearly budget to an extent that would allow us to pay down our debt and eventually remove the income tax (people can't reasonably save for themselves if part of their income is taken), and either limit the Fed or end it (nor can they save if their currency is debased). While he would have authority to pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy and end the drug war immediately, the other items are under direct authority of the legislative branch, and would take decades, if not generations, to complete. In his own words:

...Of course, just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days, it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency. While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. ...

Now, this need for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare. For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts, right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the CEO's of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs. ...

Reduce overall federal spending
Prioritize cuts in oversize expenditures, especially the military
Prioritize cuts in corporate welfare
Use 50 percent of the savings from cuts in overseas spending to shore up entitlement programs for those who are dependent on them and the other 50 percent to pay down the debt ...
Click to expand...
In short, the basic safety net would stay intact.
 
He's not a fan of either, but police state activities would include indefinite detention, PATRIOT Act, torture, military commissions, papers please type laws, crackdowns on whistleblowers, extreme government secrecy. Mostly the joys of the Bush era. CIA and FBI would also get the axe.

Basically speaking, a Ron Paul presidency would produce the dismantling of our empire, the closing of Gitmo, the elimination of the CIA and FBI, directive to the DOJ to ignore the PATRIOT Act, the end of the war on drugs, pardoning of non-violent offenders, repealing past executive orders... the rest would depend on what Congress would come up with. Figuring doing the above would make him an iconoclast, I can't imagine much else would happen.

Way late edit: DHS, DEA (war on drugs casualty), TFI = also gone
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I assume that would include the U.S. Marshalls too? Lets just eliminate any agency with the ability to move independently of states. That way if you cross state lines you're free.
 
Hell lets eliminate the USDA too while we're at it. We don't need those food inspectors telling us what's safe to eat dammit.
 
[quote name='Clak']I assume that would include the U.S. Marshalls too? Lets just eliminate any agency with the ability to move independently of states. That way if you cross state lines you're free.[/QUOTE]

No.

[quote name='willardhaven']Haha no EPA or FDA... I understand this dude is pretty old but doesn't he have grandchildren?[/quote]

Not on the immediate chopping block, reforms removing the insulation corporations have from liabilities related to pollution and malfeasance would have to come first. Would have to go through Congress first anyhow. He could, however, not nominate complete lobbyists and corporate cronies from those fields to rig the game for their former businesses and friends.

What it comes down to is this: priorities. If you want to end the wars, open up lines of communication with Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and other blacklisted countries, you want to stop supporting tyrants and dictators, close Gitmo and end indefinite detention/secret prisons, stop the Jim Crow of our time (war on drugs), get out of Free Trade agreements... Ron Paul is the best shot at doing it this go-round. Those are things that can be done from the WH, most everything else would need to be done through Congress (ie, isn't happening).

For context, I'd be thrilled with Obama had he done the previous paragraph, even though I strongly disagree with the majority of his actions during his term.
 
I agree that a lot of those things that I agree with ROn Paul on he could actually accomplish from just the WH.

Don't you think he would try to make the EPA/FDA/etc. stop doing what they're doing, given that they're part of the executive branch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top