…and this is a 
Why is Ron Paul so popular?
Category: Politics
Posted on: December 29, 2007 8:20 PM, by PZ Myers
OK, 'fess up — some of you know that I thoroughly detest libertarianism, that reactionary political movement that seeks to elevate greed and selfishness as a ruling principle, and I suspect one of you got me a subscription to Reason magazine a few months ago, just to taunt me. If your goal was to persuade me to come over to the side of unbridled anti-social self-centeredness, you failed. The issue comes, I glance through it, find a few little bits and pieces I can agree with, but because they're all imbedded in this thick tarry fecal sludge of libertarianism, I end up throwing the whole thing away in disgust.
The issue I got today was no exception. The cover story: Ron Paul. Bleh.
I disliked Ron Paul before I learned he was a quack, before I heard him deny evolution, before I learned he was an enabler for neo-nazis. I rejected him when I first read about his proposed policies, the ones he isn't embarrassed to make public, and saw that he was promoting the same garbage my relatives in the John Birch Society were peddling when I was a young man: isolationism, anti-government, anti-immigrant, generalized hatred of the other and a blind refusal to recognize that culture matters.
The mostly laudatory article in Reason confirms my opinion.
…it's all classic Ron Paul: Get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing; find the money to support those dependent on Social Security and Medicare by shutting down the worldwide empire, while giving the young a path out of those programs; don't pass a draft; have a foreign policy of friendship and trade, not wars and subsidies. He attacks the drug war … one of his biggest applause lines, to my astonishment, involves getting rid of the Federal Reserve.
I actually approve of some of that, like ending the drive to empire and the drug war. The John Birchers of my youth pushed the same agenda, but then you dig a little deeper, and you find the rotting core of their reasoning.
He wants tougher border enforcement, including a border wall; he wants to eliminate birthright citizenship; and he wants to end the public subsidies that might attract illegal immigrants.
Ron Paul isn't just a small-government obsessive: he's a no-government radical. And at the same time he wants every positive function of government to vanish, he wants what amounts to a police state in place to keep the rest of the world out, all out of fear of those strangers with different customs and ideas.
So, please, whoever you are: don't renew my subscription to that awful magazine, and please, please don't make me live in a Ron Paul America.
Politics
Comments
I've never understood the appeal of Ron Paul.
Who supports him?
Republicans who are against the war! Who else?
Posted by: The Science Pundit | December 29, 2007 8:28 PM
Pretty much anyone with an extensive collection of tinfoil hats.
Posted by: Martin | December 29, 2007 8:33 PM
I really hope that the Ron Paul mania is driven by his positions on the War On Terror/Drugs. I think people love him because of that, and kind of excuse the crazy libertarian shit. I'm sure those selling points are used by libertarians to dupe otherwise smart people into supporting such a wacky candidate.
As much as I would love to be out of Iraq and have a sensible drug policy, Ron Paul is not the way. Thankfully he has no shot.
Posted by: Abbie | December 29, 2007 8:39 PM
Very brave PZ to risk the wrath of the Paulistas by impuning the sanity of their savior. I recently read Naomi Klines's Shock Doctrine which gives you a taste for what life would be like under Dr. Paul's libertarian nightmare.
It is shocking the number of people I know who are normally for pretty progressive politics that have fallen under the Ron Paul spell.
Brace yourself for an invasion of Paul defenders.
Posted by: peonista | December 29, 2007 8:39 PM
His actual supporters seem to be John Birch Society types, neo-nazis, neoconfederates, and deluded techies who are somehow blind to whom they're jumping into bed with.
Posted by: silence | December 29, 2007 8:42 PM
Who supports him?
As far as I can tell:
1. Liberals who are so flabbergasted that he dares to criticize the War on Drugs and that he comes out so strong against the War on Terror bullshit that they are blinded and don't see the rest of his platform.
2. Selfish twats.
Posted by: Abbie | December 29, 2007 8:43 PM
There must be something like an internet bat signal that tells them all where to gather. They are organized, I'll give 'em that.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 29, 2007 8:45 PM
So far my post on Ron Paul's support for quackery has avoided the Internet Bat Signal. I must not be "worthy" of the Paul-bots' notice.
Posted by: Orac | December 29, 2007 8:49 PM
Ron Paul is popular because he is against waterboarding, personally suffered from second-hand smoke, was circumcised, and can prove the existence of God in 89 ways by denying global warming and having sex with squid. Oh yeah -- and abortion.
The comment count has to make it to at least #200 or PZ feels unloved. Just doing my part.
Posted by: Sastra, OM | December 29, 2007 8:51 PM
Yes, for a bunch of "each to his own" folks, they are surprisingly organized.
Posted by: Coturnix | December 29, 2007 8:52 PM
Should we start a pool on what post number the first Paul apologist will appear? I call #14.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | December 29, 2007 8:54 PM
From Firedoglake, via Jeff Fecke at Shakesville:
Vox Day endorses Ron Paul. 'Nuff said.
Posted by: Carlie | December 29, 2007 8:54 PM
I would never support Ron Paul if he had an actual chance of winning. That being said, the message his campaign has come to be associated with is an important. So I support him in raising the issues about our runaway militarism, the war on drugs, etc. But I'll never be able to bring myself to support him for actual public office when he advocates lunacy like a return to the gold-standard and eliminating just about every public sector function adopted since the turn of the century.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 29, 2007 8:54 PM
Ron Paul is just one festering pustule on the Republican ticket. The whole field is fecund. These are the results of Republican pandering to the lowest denominator for the last 10 years. they have reaped what they sowed (just to be a little biblical about it,they understand this far better than I do;).
Rove's legacy is I will never vote republican, and never have, in my life.
Posted by: Dennis | December 29, 2007 8:56 PM
Scary as Ron Paul is, his zealots are even scarier. I am deeply suspicious of any candidate that provokes that level of mouth-foaming fanaticism.
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | December 29, 2007 8:57 PM
Can anyone tell me what does the "war on drugs" consists of? I am ignorant about it, and you know, I want to know more.
Posted by: Inbok Yea | December 29, 2007 8:57 PM
"Can anyone tell me what does the "war on drugs" consists of?"
For starters, in consists of no knock warrants, mandatory minimum sentencing laws, drug informants about about a bazillion other violations of civil liberties and invitations to law enforcement corruption. That and the insane policy of locking people up for voluntarily ingesting certain substances.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 29, 2007 9:00 PM
I don't understand what you mean by asking why he's 'so popular' - current opinion polls put him on 2-4% nationally and 1% in Iowa.
http://www.pollingreport.com/
Posted by: Ian B Gibson | December 29, 2007 9:11 PM
People like Ron Paul because they hate politicians - all of them - and both of our political parties. He's got so little political savvy going for him it's actually a positive asset, because it makes him look human and rational.
Enthusiasm for Ron Paul is, in reality, a direct outgrowth of hating everyone else in our politics.
Posted by: Dan | December 29, 2007 9:15 PM
Hey,
My two favorite blogs (Ed and P.Z.) disapprove of the same person! Hurrah! Finally I know what it's like to be a Rush Limbaugh listener. This "not having to think" thing is kind of nice.
Posted by: Monsignor Henry Clay | December 29, 2007 9:18 PM
Ron Paul is just one festering pustule on the Republican ticket. The whole field is fecund.
Uh, fecund?
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 9:18 PM
Not to defend libertarianism, but a lot of Paul's positions don't seem so, well, libertarian. Most of the libertarians I have ever read are pro-choice and open borders (or more accurately, unlimited cheap labor) types.
Posted by: Cain | December 29, 2007 9:20 PM
And whatever institutions and actions constitute the "war on drugs," the consequences are abundantly clear: The United States of America, "home of the free," has a documented per capita prison population than any other country in the world.
WOO HOO! We're Number One! We're Number One!
(If anyone missed the sarcasm in that cheer, please go have some sort of neurological work-up. You ain't right in the head.)
Posted by: G Felis | December 29, 2007 9:22 PM
Er, somehow I left the word "higher" in that linked sentence. But I'm sure y'all get the point.
Posted by: G Felis | December 29, 2007 9:23 PM
Who supports Ron Paul? According to Rack Jite, in addition to the core group of bat-shit crazy libertarians and "racist organizations, right-wing militias, NRA Life Members, and above all, those who hate paying taxes so much it should scare the Hell out of you", much of his surge is due to the intertubes in a Dean-like webroots campaign. And THAT means his support comes from "stupid ill informed clueless children". Twenty-somethings who can't or won't think for themselves. The DUH Generation. Best description of the current crop of young-uns I've seen. More apt than "Me Generation" and not as stupid as "X-Generation".
Posted by: shiftlessbum | December 29, 2007 9:25 PM
... techies who are somehow blind to whom they're jumping into bed with.
Beggars, choosers...
Posted by: J Myers | December 29, 2007 9:30 PM
If you want to see the kind of wingnuts that support him, go here, I'm sure dozens will show up shortly:
http://politics.reddit.com/info/644m4/comments
Posted by: Dan McKinley | December 29, 2007 9:30 PM
Of course you want to end the drug war: you're one o' them no-good, slinking Red Atheists, and
Don't tell me that The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible is lying to me!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | December 29, 2007 9:35 PM
I can tell you why he's popular, but you probably still won't get it.
Libertarianism ISN'T when a few corporations use government power, tax loopholes, and subsidies to reduce competition and set the national agenda. Libertarianism ISN'T an invitation to unlimited polluting, it respects property rights and allows you to sue someone who trashes your land or air (rather than allowing polluters to hide behind EPA loopholes).
You may see the government and imagine its holding us back from anarchy. I see a government that protects the ones who are dumping toxins in our rivers and even rewards them with contracts and tax cuts. Maybe you see the income tax and think its progressive, because that's what they call it in school. I look at the actual effective rates and I realize its the poor and middle class who are paying the most while the investors walk away with a stack of cash from their tax lawyer's office.
Libertarians have the same goals as many liberals. The only difference is that we trust normal people like you and me to achieve the progressive society. Liberals think some government ruling-elite is the best way to achieve that. I'm waiting for a shred of historical proof that a government created a free, prosperous, and fair society by taking more power and wealth from its people.
Posted by: independent | December 29, 2007 9:37 PM
He's got so little political savvy going for him it's actually a positive asset, because it makes him look human and rational.
That is exactly right. He is popular because he's the atypical politician, one that doesn't seem to be bought and sold by corporations and lobbyists. People are so keen for a real person who says what he thinks without regard for the political consequences that they are willing to overlook the kookery.
Digg.com has been promoting him like the next Jesus, but that may be starting to change. There was actually a negative story dugg on him when he came out saying he didn't believe in evolution--the diggsters aren't very sympathetic to creationists. Their still in love with him but they seem to be throwing a lot of support to Obama and Kucinich lately.
Posted by: RamblinDude | December 29, 2007 9:38 PM
I thought the same thing, then I actually started looking at his [Paul] voting record and what his campaign promises were. I think he may be the real deal: honest. That makes a lot of difference to me.
I don't agree on all the issues he supports (I'm pro-choice for instance) but you have to remember, he won't try to push his personal agenda through the way GWB has done.
He really truly is a constitutionalist and will work with the Congress. And I think we all know the Congress will soften or totally dismiss some of his more extreme Libertarian ideas.
I'm voting for him simply to bring a little truth, honesty and integrity back into politics.
Posted by: Mike | December 29, 2007 9:46 PM
Sure independent.
I am going to be able to hire a lawyer and beat a company with an army of lawyers and billions to spend.
Posted by: spurge | December 29, 2007 9:46 PM
@ Dan McKinley,
Viewing that thread as it is, I'm thinking they need to find a way to idiot proof Reddit comments.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 29, 2007 9:48 PM
The hardcore supporters are: Neo-Nazis. Natavists. Tax protestors. The K-Ration circuit guys (Posse & Freemen movements). Nut jobs.
There are fringe supporters who, I suspect, don't really realize that they'll be on the outside, not the inside, in Ron Paul's "ideal universe."
Posted by: Moses | December 29, 2007 9:48 PM
ibertarians have the same goals as many liberals.
Yeah, like dismantling the Department of Education. And repealing Roe v Wade. Lots of liberals gunning for that.
Posted by: Abbie | December 29, 2007 9:49 PM
Full blown libertarianism might work in a country that restarted everything at zero. That is every cent of value in the country would be tabulated and gathered together, and then every citizen would get an equal share of the value, after which minimalist government would come into force and you'd be on your own. But in the real world, where competing groups never have equal resources it really won't work. It doesn't matter if I can sue corporation X for polluting my individual plot of land when they have the resources to hire far better legal representation than me, buy off the weaker willed land owners around me to not participate in a lawsuit alongside me and so on.
Posted by: tim gueguen | December 29, 2007 9:53 PM
It seems to me that a lot of the internet support for Ron Paul (basically his entire base) stems from a misunderstanding of him. They see some issues that they agree with, his position on the war, his views on drugs, that they don't really understand where he's coming from, and the reasons behind his positions. I have a friend who is an intense Ron Paul zealot, and every time I point out some of the crazy things Paul does, he just says "Well, I don't agree with that." I am a proponent of free thinking, but when you basically disagree with the majority of your candidate's actions/positions, there's a problem. I mentioned that Ron Paul's policies would not be feasible in America, it would ruin the country, and my friend claimed that it was alright, because Congress wouldn't implement too many of his policies anyway. Pretty scary to think that we would elect a President, relying on the fact that he's going to be ignored.
Posted by: Tswift | December 29, 2007 9:55 PM
You know why they called it Reason?
'cuz WANK was taken already!
Anyhoo, this:
find the money to support those dependent on Social Security and Medicare by shutting down the worldwide empire
caught my eye. We're spending $600B this year on the wwe. Divided by $100k, that's SIX MILLION JOBS in this sector. That's a lot of unemployed people should we spin down our foreign entanglements biz.
And how the fuck is one "dependent" on Medicare? I mean, who's got the ready cash in this country to be able to pay for a heart bypass or hip replacement out of pocket?
Posted by: Troy | December 29, 2007 10:00 PM
Yeah, like dismantling the Department of Education. And repealing Roe v Wade. Lots of liberals gunning for that.
Well, the Dept. of Education - does it help? Have our students become better informed over the last 20 some years of its existence? We both want better education, but we disagree on how to achieve it. I think it has to be local, and you can't expect a great result from any top-down system homogenized for 300,000,000 people.
We could completely abolish the federal government, and there would still be state and local governments - the ones who actually fund the vast majority of the schools, hospitals, police, and roads. Federal libertarianism isn't anarchy, and it doesn't preclude local liberalism and community-based socialism.
If anything, the federal government has become the major roadblock to any state or local progressive policy.
Posted by: independent | December 29, 2007 10:01 PM
No, it's about a complete lack of regulation and laissez faire capitalism. Like during the gilded age when people were worked to death in dangerous factories and poisoned by their food and water while the industrialists became obscenely rich.
And they would stop dumping toxins in the river if there were no government? Do you not realize just how incredibly stupid your argument is? Especially in light of the vast improvement in air and water quality we've had since the 1960's?
Sure, there are still some pretty bad rivers and other waterways, like the poisoned beaches in Prince William Sound, but that's because the irresponsible Corporations refuse to be accountable and drag it out in court. And you'll note that, GE (PCBs in Eastern Rivers) and Exxon (PWS) aren't cleaning up their messes. But fighting the government tooth and nail to avoid their just responsibility.
And, regardless of your masturbatory fantasy's of individual actions roping in big corporations, it doesn't happen in real life without the government to back it up.
And let's be clear about criminal - in the old laissez faire days of the wild west, the murder rate was well over double what it is now. Because government came and civilized the frontier.
Bullshit. You want unfettered capitalism and no social obligation. Liberals understand that there is more to life than putting as much money in your pocket. Such as helping your fellow man who is in need of help.
In short, you've repeated the same tired old bullshit. Comeback when you get a clue instead of trying to ram the stupidity of Libertarianism up our asses.
Posted by: Moses | December 29, 2007 10:02 PM
Lookit, there's nothing hard to understand here. Paul is by far the most palatable of the Republican candidates. Which is like saying that anthrax is by far the most desirable of the fatal bacterial diseases.
On a couple of (fairly big) points, Paul is OK, or at least not actively a madman. But there are lots of other points, and there Paul's take varies between unsatisfying and abominable. So: mad props, Ron, for the few limited points where you set yourself apart from the rest of the Republican pack by being a human; but still and all, don't expect our votes.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | December 29, 2007 10:02 PM
"who's got the ready cash in this country to be able to pay for a heart bypass or hip replacement out of pocket?"
Libertarians?
Posted by: spurge | December 29, 2007 10:02 PM
I definitely don't want Paul to be president, but he's playing a crucial role in the next election. We need him, quackery or not, to take votes from the fascists like Guiliani and Romney. We know he's not going to get the republican nomination, but you can bet your tentacles he's not gonna sit out the election. Things will work out even better if Huckabee does the same, since he'll take some of the fundy vote away from the Republifascists.
Posted by: Josh | December 29, 2007 10:08 PM
I work very closely with a woman who underwent, a month or so ago, what I can only say was a quasi-religious conversion to Paul. She is a lesbian, a daughter of Middle-Eastern immigrants, and well-educated (more-or-less...not like many of us, who are philosophers or scientists). She is now browbeating people in the office and has become very disruptive. From what I can tell, the key for her is the notion that all of our problems--war, the uber-rich overclass, racism, etc.--stem from the income tax.
No, really. Abolish the government, and everything else falls into place. (She concedes that the individual states will have to, severally, impose enormous levies on purchases and implement statewide police-states--but claims that I'd be happy to take home $8,000 more a year in exchange for wholly regressive taxes in support of state violence against the less fortunate.)
Scary, yes. But not a racist.
Posted by: jeff | December 29, 2007 10:08 PM
Since you asked, I'm one of the people who supports Ron Paul.
I am an atheist, a software developer, writer, entrepreneur, and a (gasp!) libertarian. I don't agree with everything Ron Paul stands for, of course, but I believe he is an honest man in a den of thieves (who is now, thankfully, well-armed with plenty of cash to keep the liars and thieves at bay through the rest of the campaign).
To get specific about where I disagree, I think his position on abortion is distinctly un-libertarian...but I trust him to not overstep the bounds the constitution imposes on the President on this issue or any other (unlike any of the other frontrunner candidates in either party). I also know his position on abortion is an informed one--he has performed abortions in his ob/gyn practice to protect the life of the mother. He is not a knee-jerk jackass making pronouncements from a position of ignorance, and I can respect his views while disagreeing with them. Unlike the Huckster or Romney.
I also don't like his immigration stance...but I do think he's right when he says that Americans will become less afraid of immigrants (legal or otherwise) when the economy improves, and I can't help but agree that as long as we have a system of entitlements that is broken badly by non-contributing users, like Welfare, public education, the medical system, etc., a lax approach to illegal immigration can't work. I'd rather fix the problem at its source than blame immigrants for every problem in America, but that discussion has been put off the table by both Republicans and Democrats.
Now that the negatives are out of the way, let's talk about the positives:
Ron Paul voted against the war in Iraq. Every time. From the beginning. He spoke against it, from the beginning, in clear and certain terms. He was a lonely voice of sanity in a nation whipped into an ideological fervor based on lies and misdirection. Hillary Clinton either took an active role in the deception, or was foolish enough to fall for it. All of the other front runners who had the chance to speak against the war failed to do so.
Ron Paul brings up interesting and useful questions about the economy and the Federal Reserve practices that gave us the current credit crisis. I don't know enough to know if returning to the gold standard is wise (I lean towards not, but that may be uninformed bias), but I do know that we need to be talking about our monetary policy in a serious way. It is clearly broken and being used to fund an unconstitutional war with the bill made out to our kids and grand kids. If that doesn't piss you off, we're unlikely to agree on anything.
Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget. Continuing the theme of writing checks the current generation can't cash...we've been running a massive deficit since Clinton left office, and that's a disaster waiting to happen. No one else is talking about this problem, and no one has a record of voting for only balanced budgets.
In short, we have a crapheap of candidates to choose from, or Ron Paul. I don't have to agree with everything he says to know that I'd rather have him in charge than Hillary, Rudy, Mitt, the Huckster, Barack, McCain, or Edwards.
Posted by: Joe Cooper | December 29, 2007 10:08 PM
No, Mike, he's not. He picks and chooses what he supports and ignores what he doesn't. He ignores much of Article 1 (regarding the Treasury and money). He ignores the 14th Amendment because it interferes with unlimited "States Rights." He ignores the 16th Amendment (allows income taxation).
I'm a Constitutionalist. But not a strict Constructionist. Or a Pick-and-Choose Constructionist like Ron Paul.
Posted by: Mike | December 29, 2007 9:46 PM
Sorry, but he's anything but honest. He's done a good job in burying his racist past and lying about it. But those newsletters were his. He's good at presenting an "aw shucks" demeanor, but he's neck-deep in crankdom and walks hand in hand with the worst groups in America.
Posted by: Moses | December 29, 2007 10:09 PM
Paul is OK, or at least not actively a madman.
I quite disagree. I even disagree that he's the most palatable of the Repubs -- I would prefer opportunist flip-flopper Romney over demented fuckwit Ron Paul, Iraq war or no Iraq war.
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 10:10 PM
I am going to be able to hire a lawyer and beat a company with an army of lawyers and billions to spend.
This would be the point of contention I have with the libertarian worldview. It's not applicable to real life. We are not all on the same page. It's throwing everybody to the wolves- fuck you if you weren't in a privileged position when the anarcho-capitalists took over. Too bad.
People with extra money to throw around gained the money by living in a society that allowed them to gain it. There's a shitload of contingency involved. They don't "deserve" it any more than a hard-working Thai farmer deserves his pittance. They should be glad to pay taxes to live in a country that can afford to give everyone a good standard of living.
Posted by: Abbie | December 29, 2007 10:13 PM
Let me also remind libertarians of something rather important. I'm older than many here, and am from the deep South. Do you think it would have been "OK" for the Feds to have kept out of the South, as Dr. Paul suggests? If, as you claim, you revere the US Constitution, then you're not a Pauline Libertarian, because, you would agree with me that Federalizing the National Guard was the only way to enforce the Constitution...or, what, should full-US citizens (blacks) have been more patient with State's Rights and the invisible hand?
Posted by: jeff | December 29, 2007 10:13 PM
You guys know what's really nuts about Ron Paul?
The guy has a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy nuts supporting him. I noticed this on my facebook and/or myspace account the other day.
I could not believe it, but apparently even she-devil Michelle Malkin has posted about it:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/
I live in TX, and now that I know these things about the guy, I don't even like in the senate... hell, not even as a dog catcher.
Posted by: E. Beck | December 29, 2007 10:14 PM
If anything, the federal government has become the major roadblock to any state or local progressive policy.
Gee, what is it about the federal government of late -- say, the last seven years -- that might have caused that?
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 10:14 PM
If economic libertarianism-socialism is viewed as continuous independent variable, there appears to be an inverted U-shaped function of quality of life (economic robustness and stability, socioeconomic inequality, pollution, oppression, healthcare access). At the Gilded Age extreme of libertarianism, people live in servitude in company towns, smokestacks spew toxins, sweatshop labor in awful conditions, women are forced into prostitution and so on. (Late 19th-early 20th C US + UK, contemporary Russia.) At the state socialism extreme of socialism, ecological disaster zones are regularly created, the Nomenclatura live in dachas while the rest live in slave-like drudgery and squalor, ordinary citizens give birth in miserable conditions and rely on abortion for birth control, women are forced into prostitution etc. (USSR, Cuba, North Korea.) Some would argue that the northern European social democracies are near the "sweet spot" of the function, with the proper blend of socialism and market forces, as well as distribution of power.
Posted by: Colugo | December 29, 2007 10:17 PM
Actually, the answer is "yes." Actual peer-reviewed, solidly-grounded studies have clearly demonstrated that if you stratify educational performance by income level of the parents, there is no difference between Public and Private Schools.
So the solution isn't destroying public education, but raising the wealth of all Americans. So they have the resources (time and money) to invest in their children's education. Instead of working 12-hours a day and not being able to provide essential tools, like computers, printers, reference materials, etc., because they can barely afford food.
Bullshit. If the Federal Government didn't hold many of the "Red States" accountable, they'd not be anywhere near to where they are now. And even then, they're still suffering from a hundred years of neglect and institutionalized racism.
Imagine Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, etc., if they were allowed to have their way with curriculum. Already weak states, the kids would come out knowing nothing about important subjects like biology and astronomy. As it is, those schools tend to spend more money on football than science.
Posted by: Moses | December 29, 2007 10:18 PM
And you'll note that, GE (PCBs in Eastern Rivers) and Exxon (PWS) aren't cleaning up their messes. But fighting the government tooth and nail to avoid their just responsibility.
I'll look past that and see that GE doesn't really pay taxes, they receive more tax money FROM the government than any other company, and they donate heavily to politicians in both parties who end up becoming presidents and party "leaders."
I'll notice that its media arm, NBC, only favors Democratic politicians who promise more subsidy for alternative energy and green ideas that may not be so green after all (like GE's big contract for "environmentally friendly" mercury bulbs.
You see a government pressing those most evil corporations, I see corporations that could never survive in a "free market" that didn't come with billions of annual guaranteed sales and powerful political allies passing anti-competitive legislation.
Like I said, same concerns, different perspectives & solutions.
Posted by: independent | December 29, 2007 10:19 PM
I can tell you why he's popular, but you probably still won't get it.
Yeah, if we disagree it must mean we don't understand.
Libertarians have the same goals as many liberals. The only difference is that we trust normal people like you and me to achieve the progressive society.
You forgot to mention CEOs.
Posted by: truth machine | December 29, 2007 10:19 PM
The Science Pundit asked:
Two people who made comments on my blog if you want to argue with them about it.
I wrote a post called "Are Republicans stupid?" and a Paul supporter showed up. Then I wrote "Christopher Hitchens is stupid" and another one showed up:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/christopher-hitchens-is-stupid.html
I haven't really been following Paul's campaign, he's too low in the polls to matter to me.
Posted by: Norman Doering | December 29, 2007 10:20 PM
A group that collectively sees the state as either useless or a profit center should not be put in charge of it.
Posted by: MAJeff | December 29, 2007 10:20 PM
To get specific about where I disagree, I think his position on abortion is distinctly un-libertarian...but I trust him to not overstep the bounds the constitution imposes on the President on this issue or any other (unlike any of the other frontrunner candidates in either party). I also know his position on abortion is an informed one--he has performed abortions in his ob/gyn practice to protect the life of the mother.
Do you mean he himself performed them, or that he allowed someone at his practice to?
I think his stance on abortion is scary.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called "population control."
From his "statement of faith", on his website.
Posted by: Abbie | December 29, 2007 10:22 PM
a friend of mine recently posted a choice Ron Paul rant regarding the LA riots that astounded me:
www.nizkor.org
"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer."
Posted by: katura | December 29, 2007 10:25 PM
Some would argue that the northern European social democracies are near the "sweet spot" of the function, with the proper blend of socialism and market forces, as well as distribution of power.
Exactly. And IMO, the major lesson to be learned from this is the power & innovation of relatively independent states acting in cooperative competition.
Is France's health system better than Germany's? Is there a *best* system in Europe that all the other states should be forced to adopt? No, its the competition and flexibility of independent states that creates the boom of progress. This is what put America to the top, and its the increasingly totalitarian top-down system that will take us down like the Soviet Union fell.
Posted by: independent | December 29, 2007 10:29 PM
I think his position on abortion is distinctly un-libertarian
The big-L Libertarian party is riven on this issue, since it's a civil rights issue about the "unborn" with no clear moral answers.
Posted by: Troy | December 29, 2007 10:30 PM
anti-competitive legislation.
you say anti-competitive, I say anti-trust.
let's call the whole thing off.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 29, 2007 10:34 PM
In my opinion, the people who support Ron Paul are the ones who refuse to believe that the federal government is here to take care of it's citizens.
They seem to believe that people can care for and generally govern themselves. And that the responsibility of the federal government is to provide a safe environment for them to do so.
If people are scared of actually being fully responsible for themselves and their children, then we need to re-evaluate the whole reason America was formed in the first place..
Posted by: Torquewrench1969 | December 29, 2007 10:45 PM
Anyone doing political theory knows that the fundamental questions of politics boil down to power and money: What the structure of the state ought to be and what the regulatory powers of the state ought to be? Anyone who believes that Ron Paul wants weak government is an idiot. In reality if we had a weak a government, then anyone could take it over. At the very least the structual powers of the state can only be moderate. If he really wants a weak government then he's essentially an anarchist - and if that's the case why run for power only to have it taken away from him. it's all a ruse. What liberterians want is extrodinary strong structural powers {read Hobbes' Leviathan} Myers, you're dead on the money with this quote {Ron Paul isn't just a small-government obsessive: he's a no-government radical. And at the same time he wants every positive function of government to vanish, he wants what amounts to a police state in place to keep the rest of the world out, all out of fear of those strangers with different customs and ideas.} In Hobbes' Leviathian, Hobbes states that sovereign can treat anyone as badly as he wishes if they do not comply with the laws and the customs of the particular nation. This means that under a Ron Paul government you will have limited legal rights and a copious amount of legal obligations. In fact, your rights stem from whatever is not black letter law. So beware of Ron Paul.
Posted by: Jason Gordon | December 29, 2007 10:47 PM
btw when Paul says this:
This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
he's absolutely right that many morons in this country will indeed come to an unfair, but entirely unavoidable (in their warped minds) conclusion about what caused the riots in LA.
that he puts this up as something to be lauded is sick.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 29, 2007 10:55 PM
Holy crap, a lot of people who dislike Ron Paul! Finally!
For the people who only support him for his policies on drugs and the war, please look into more reasonable candidates like Kucinich or Gravel, who have the same positions except being less crazy with the libertarianism.
Posted by: Saint Gasoline | December 29, 2007 10:58 PM
Thank FSM! I should have known you'd know better than to drink the Ron Paul Kool-Aid, PZ.
If you're looking for a positive change in government, minus all the crazy, I'm recommend you check out Dennis Kucinich. He's on the same page as Paul about ending the drug war and that whole chest-thumping nation-destroying thing, while also standing for a woman's right to choose, repealing the PATRIOT Act, and abolishing the death peanalty, for starters. I'm voting for him, at least.
Posted by: Samuel | December 29, 2007 11:00 PM
Haha! Great timing. Disclaimer: I'm not a Kucinich troll, I don't know Saint Gasoline, we aren't here to comment spam. Pure coincidence! Promise! :D
Posted by: Samuel | December 29, 2007 11:04 PM
Ron Paul can probably best be described as a pure, balls-to-the-walls Republican.
Money is his master and blissful ignorance his mistress.
Plain and simple.
Posted by: kb9aln | December 29, 2007 11:29 PM
>Should we start a pool on what post number the first Paul apologist will appear? I call #14.
Did anyone pick #29?
Posted by: Mark S. | December 29, 2007 11:34 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Libertarianism is philosophically incompatible with atheism, at least the right wing libertarianism tradition Paul comes from. The whole tradition is based around the Lockean arguments about liberty and the state of nature and property, and every single one of these arguments is based on scripture, every one. The liberties of the libertarian have a purely religious basis as does the argument for property. Of course there are other arguments for liberties, like Mill's argument for free speech in On Liberty, which don't derive from scripture.
I'm rather sympathetic to the Anarchist arguments against government, but those are generally based on wholly different principles than libertarianism.
Posted by: coathangrrr | December 29, 2007 11:35 PM
Why does everyone equate illegal immigration with legal immigration?
If we don't agree with the immigration laws we should change them, but until that time they are changed we should enforce the existing laws and take measures to prevent illegal immigration (and bust businesses which support that illegal activity).
Posted by: wildlifer | December 29, 2007 11:40 PM
Why does everyone equate illegal immigration with legal immigration?
If we don't agree with the immigration laws we should change them, but until that time they are changed we should enforce the existing laws and take measures to prevent illegal immigration (and bust businesses which support that illegal activity).
Why should unjust laws be followed? I get extra sick of the hypocritical libertarians who refuse to let others, you know the brown masses, have liberty on the grounds that they will just vote it away.
Posted by: coathangrrr | December 29, 2007 11:44 PM
Why does everyone equate illegal immigration with legal immigration?
obviously not EVERYONE does, but by and large the "they tuk 'r jobs!" clique seems to view it that way.
perhaps it has something to do with not wanting to take responsibility for one's own job performance or adaptability?
I have run into quite a few people in Riverside County who firmly believe they or their friends have lost or not gotten jobs because they were unable to speak Spanish.
of course, their conclusion, rather than thinking they just might want to expand their horizons a bit and learn a new language, is that "foreign speakin' mexicans took our jobs from us!"
that's the best I can figure, based on speaking with the kind of people you seem to be describing.
Posted by: Ichthyic | December 29, 2007 11:44 PM
I said this on another scienceblog already and it's disappointing to see this now on a blog I have come to enjoy for it's reasoned thought.
The positions listed here are not a real analysis about his political positions and purely a superficial look at a few things before dismissing him outright. I suppose the idea of voting for a Republican was already dismissed by many here and they were just looking for an excuse to to bother themselves too much. People criticize him for things like his view on abiogenesis (evolution) and then put forward Kucinich who believes in UFOs. Please that is not how you pick a leader!
If anyone wants to consider his ideas and positions seriously, they first need to drop the idea that he's a libertarian. He himself will tell you that it was a mistake for him to have changed parties for that one year and now people point to that almost exclusively. For people that want to think they are reasoned and fair in their assessments, take a few hours to educate yourself on what traditional liberalism is about (not libertarianism, but liberalism).
You see, Paul is a traditional liberal and if you compare his position to a liberal/capitalist then you'll see he is not a libertarian. He's never ever said that he wants zero government, his positions have always been to have a federal government as outlined by the Constitution. That is not a zero government position. On top of that he advocates for the states to take over governing their local people, that again is not libertarian position because