Ron Paul just lost my vote (not that he really had it before). See the video below the fold (the question is at about 2:40):
So here's my deal. I'm a libertarian, and Paul does advocate some policies that I agree with. For example, he advocates returning the gold standard. In light of the Fed fiddling with the markets and creating a moral hazard after the sub-prime meltdown, I am beginning to think this is a wise policy. Furthermore, he is the biggest deficit hawk of the candidates at the moment. Therefore, it would make sense for me to support him.
However, I have two objections to Paul.
First, I think that anyone who isn't wise enough to reject money from Neo-Nazis isn't wise enough to run our government. I am not saying that Paul agrees with the Neo-Nazis. For example, he believes we should lose the gold standard because it is wise economic policy whereas the Neo-Nazis believe we should lose the gold standard because they believe the international banking system is a conspiracy run by Jews. I am not saying that Paul is a Neo-Nazi.
However, it doesn't require much common sense to realize that people who take money from the KKK are not taken seriously in our system. Paul showed with that incident that he has neither political acumen nor common sense.
The second and more substantive objection that I have to Paul is this business about evolution.
He is correct to point out in answering the question that analyzing the validity of evolution is not something politicians are expected to do. However, it really boils down for me to an issue of whether you accept reality as it is or whether you want to color reality to suit your personal beliefs. To deny evolution at this point requires a flagrant disregard for evidence and fact. It also requires a sincere belief that scientists have been united in a vast conspiracy over the past 200 years to hide the real truth. It amazes me the level of maliciousness that this belief imputes to scientists.
We expect our politicians to soberly assess situations as they exist and make proper decisions based on the weight of the evidence. This expectation does not just apply to scientific issues. In the future, I hope Presidents will weigh intelligence assessments in order to make foreign policy decisions as well. (Maybe I am being naive about that.) I expect politicians to make sober assessments of economic realities based upon proven economic principles. (This tends to be my primary objection to liberal candidates; they tend to believe that the price system can be cheated.)
For me Paul denying evolution is equivalent to him denying the laws of thermodynamics: it suggests an unacceptable willingness to distort reality to suit his preferences. Thus, for all that I agree with some of his policies, I just cannot support him.
Hat-tip: Derek James
- Log in to post comments
Evolution? Liberty?
Liberty wins. Liberty to believe what you wish should be totally libertarian.
He also thinks volcanoes are behind global warming (Google ron+paul+maher+volcanoes). People in power need to have a firm grip of reality; Ron Paul does not.
Paul believes in no regulation. None. If your neighbor wants to build a garage in his back yard, repair autos with the noisy power tools at midnight, then dump the oil from the oil change in the creek behind his house, that's OK with him.
In fact, that's your neighbor's right.
And it took his stance on evolution for you to not vote for him?
"For example, he advocates returning the gold standard. In light of the Fed fiddling with the markets and creating a moral hazard after the sub-prime meltdown, I am beginning to think is a wise policy."
A gold standard wouldn't prevent an asset bubble. The only real advantage to a gold standard is that it tends to moderate inflation. Today, it would probably limit the growth of the money supply too tightly (there just isn't enough gold) and act as a restraint on the economy.
"Paul showed with the incident that he has neither political acumen nor common sense."
It took you this long to notice?
He makes a pretty reasonable response from the standpoint of someone who is truly religious. It's not like he's saying the dinosaur bones are fake or anything it's just that he by faith believes in creation.
Okay, he's a flake. Call it willful mental illness and be done with him.
Who's left?
I am a hardcore atheist, believe in evolution and support Ron Paul. Religious beliefs held by candidates make no difference to me so long as they respect my freedom. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who will let me have my freedom. All the other candidates can jump off a cliff as far as I am concerned.
And how do you expect this to impact public policy? Every other candidate out there denies everything that Economists have learned since Adam Smith. Ron Paul may be a creationist. I suspect that the former opinion will be rather more important to public policy.
As for the "no regulation" guy, Ron Paul believes that the matter is better handled as a tort than through regulation.
If you regulate, you require people to adhere to arbitrary and frequently destructive standards. If you rely on property rights, and strengthen enforcement thereof, you require people to actually do no harm.
If regulations are violated, which does not harm the government, the government is compensated by fines. If property rights are violated, the victim is made whole.
If regulations are alleged to be violated, bureaucrats who gain nothing by enforcing the regulations are expected to act. If property rights are violated, the property owner harmed is expected to act, and receives compensation if and only if he does so.
Some examples of destructive regulation:
1) Banning of DDT, which may prevent some thin eggshells here and there, but is directly responsible for millions of human deaths in Africa.
2) The new GE Lightbulbs, soon to be mandated, which require more total energy throughout their manufacture/use/dispose lifestyle than normal lightbulbs, contain mercury to harm your family if they break, and cost far more than normal bulbs. No wonder people have to be forced at gunpoint to use them.
It's not a matter of a gold standard preventing asset bubbles. The issue is that asset bubbles are CAUSED by the federal reserve creating fiat money, which has to go somewhere. It first flows to a few politically connected banks and businesses, mostly in the financial sector of the economy. These people actually benefit from the printing of trash currency, since they spend it before the market has reacted to it's existence by raising prices. In the process, interest rates are depressed and inflation increased. As the housing bubble developed, there were actually negative real interest rates, which means that the rate of inflation exceeded the rate of interest. This means that asset bubbles are bound to develop.
This may be in the stock market, where inflationary booms like the "roaring 20's" must be followed either by deflationary busts like the great depression or (if the inflation is too fast and long lasting) by hyperinflation, as Germany experienced in the 20's.
The same applies to the "dot com" boom and bust, and many boom/bust cycles in between, of course.
If people don't trust the stock market, and are not enticed back into it by cheap money, the low interest rates will still entice them into borrowing for SOMETHING. If this something is housing, a housing bubble will result. If this something is simple consumption, which requires insanely low real interest rates, the bubble will be utter disaster.
Ron Paul is America's last best chance to avoid the coming economic collapse. Don't let religious bigotry deter you from voting to save our nation from a danger more clear and more present than any delusional danger from Iraq or Iran.
Ok, here's the thing sport. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with religion. It is a physical reality. Like gravity. Or electricity.
If Ron Paul rejects evolution, he is rejecting one aspect of physical reality. And people who reject one aspect of physical reality don't tend to stop there.
I think we can all agree at this point that we have had enough of leaders who are, uh, unmoored in reality.
Ron Paul has never stated that he does not believe in evolution. He reasonably states that it is not a question that belongs in the realm of politics.
Dr. Paul is the only politician in the race with a background in science.
What's wrong with money that has intrinsic value? Having unelected people create money from nothing and then determine its value based on political expediency doesn't strike me as sound fiscal policy. Of course, they charge us interest on it anyway.
I guess that's something.
In the video linked above, Ron Paul states (quote): "It's a theory and I don't accept it."
In general, I would agree that evolution should not be a political question. But some people have forced it into that arena, as they are unable to accept that creationism has failed all scientific tests.
So, since the topic has been put into play by creationists, and since there have been stealth creationists elected who have managed to cause problems in educational policies and practices, using evolution acceptance as a barometer is not unreasonable. Ergo, my assessment of Mr. Paul above still stands.
You should be voting for him because of this. Supporting ones personal views however unpopular they are is admirable. Ron Paul speaks about freedom; everyone can beleive what they want religiously or personally. Whether hes christian, atheist, muslim, or jew you should respect his personal ideas. Don't not vote for someone based on their religion base it on their political message.
Secondly; Freedom is a strong message? Why would Ron Paul give back 500 to a individual who gave it who just happens to be racist? What do you think that individual would do. More importantly must a politician screen every person who donates to his campaign? would you not vote to him because a creationist gave money to him? Or someone you disagree with any other way gave money to him? Just because one or two people who are racist in this country give money to him does not mean Ron Paul is a racist and its not gonna change Ron Pauls Political posistions. If you knew anything about Ron Paul I would hope you would know that.
"The issue is that asset bubbles are CAUSED by the federal reserve creating fiat money, which has to go somewhere. It first flows to a few politically connected banks and businesses, mostly in the financial sector of the economy."
So if we had a gold standard, the money would not have to go anywhere? It would not go to the banks and the businesses? The money would just sit around and do nothing?
There isn't anything that could be accomplished by a gold standard that could not also be done in policy and legislation. Gold does not have magical economic properties. If people are going to throw out fiscal responsibility, nothing is going to stop them.
You should be voting for him because of this. Supporting ones personal views however unpopular they are is admirable.
Indeed.
But,you need to take into account the fact that by denying evolution, he is not of sound mind. Whatever his policies are... putting a man this willfully ignorant (and/or religious) in control of the country is a bad idea.
If you were voting for a teacher of your kids, I am sure Ron Paul wouldn't be your choice. However - you are not.
"However, it doesn't require much common sense to realize that people who take money from the KKK are not taken seriously in our system. Paul showed with that incident that he has neither political acumen nor common sense."
According to you, Ron Paul should reject money from people who have ideas that are bad. He said in one interview: If I talked only to the people with whom I agree, I wouldn't be talking with you know. It seems to me that you want him him to refuse 90% of his donors, because he is very likely to disagree on some issues with them.
"For me Paul denying evolution is equivalent to him denying the laws of thermodynamics: it suggests an unacceptable willingness to distort reality to suit his preferences. Thus, for all that I agree with some of his policies, I just cannot support him."
Not electing a person a president based on his ignorance of biology seems to me equivalent as rejecting physics teacher based on his ignorance of economy. Or do you suggest that Paul spent several years studying evidence of evolution and after such careful study he rejected it? I doubt so. He didn't study and has an idea that could be easily refuted by a good scientist. He obviously did study lot of economy and foreign relations. I expact that to be more important for president job.
"Paul believes in no regulation. None. If your neighbor wants to build a garage in his back yard, repair autos with the noisy power tools at midnight, then dump the oil from the oil change in the creek behind his house, that's OK with him."
Only that he considers it absolutely prohibited - but not based on regulation argument, rather on strict enforcement of private property rights.
"So if we had a gold standard, the money would not have to go anywhere? It would not go to the banks and the businesses? The money would just sit around and do nothing?"
I would suggest reading Murray Rothbard's "What has government done to our money". Online, free of charge on the internet. You will find the complete underlying argument why commodity money is preferable. Alternatively, the first chapters of "The Great Depression" from the same author describe the theoretical basis how central banks create these bubbles.
Which reminds me of one dialogue I had with a friend, who is an active post-doc researcher in theoretical evolution. Her views on economic theories were startling...after explaining her economic arguments about one particular problem (fair trade), she told me: That's a theory, I don't accept it.
I am not making this up, it really happened. The solution may be to choose biologist as teachers and people who know some economy as politicians - not vice versa. Considering that Paul actively promotes home-schooling and parental choice of education for their children, I wouldn't be botherd by his refusal of evolution. He is NOT going to force this on your children.
OK, one more time, gang.
Evolution is not a preference.
It. Is. Physical. Reality.
Rejecting evolution is not the same as not being fully up to speed (and therefore perhaps a bit naive) on the arcana of a technical field not your own. It is rejecting a fundamental part of reality.
When the vast majority of engineers tell me that I can't build a skyscraper using balsa wood, when the vast majority of oncologists tell me I can't treat cancer with rainwater, when the vast majority of astronomers tell me I can't see the individual stars in M31 with my naked eyes, I accept their opinions. To do otherwise would be bizarre.
Evolution as a topic is a small window into how Ron Paul's mind works. The view should give us all great pause.
Not electing a person a president based on his ignorance of biology seems to me equivalent as rejecting physics teacher based on his ignorance of economy.
No, it's like rejecting a physics teacher because he thought money was invented by aliens and that the $2 bill is part of their phased sterilization scheme.
"I expect politicians to make sober assessments of economic realities based upon proven economic principles."
Right. Like trickle-down. And "war-spending is covered by neocon fairies so we don't have to account for it in the budget".
All of you saying his rejection of evolution wouldn't deter you from voting for him: Would you vote for him if he rejected the idea that the earth goes around the sun, or if he thought the earth were flat?
Rich Paul:
Where to start? Your post is so typical of anarcho-libertarians-stealth neocons (aka, the most annoying people at any given cocktail party). The baseless self-confidence is the giveaway.
1. The tired DDT argument: you might want to refresh your FOX News talking points by reading this.
2. Fluorescents are actually cheaper than incandescents over the lifetime of the bulb. Granted, the mercury issue makes them not as ideal as LEDs, but why do you care? Just carry around your mercury testing kit wherever you go and bring offenders to court one by one. Much more practical than simple government regulation!
You really should read The Marxism of the Right, the most devastating (and entertaining) demolition of libertarianism.
--LFP
I've been a very enthusiastic Ron Paul supporter but that video just took the wind out of me. It is inconceivable to me that he could deny evolution and I'd like to hear more about his position. If he believes that humans were set down on earth fully formed by God then I'm out for sure, but if he believes (the still indefensible view) that God tinkered with evolution as it progressed, I can still find myself mustering support for him.
Unfortunately, choosing a politician to support always involves compromise and in a case where I am voting for someone who's dealings will mostly be in matters of economics and politics, I would rather vote for the candidate with the most reasoned views on these positions. Most other candidates seems to endorse economic viewpoints analogous to the creationism in biology, and given that this is where the majority of their influence will be it is more frightening.
It is possible to believe the right things for the wrong reason. Many of Ron Paul's ideas are commendable, but he really is a bit of a nut-case when you actually listen to everything he has to say. People want him to be their saviour, so instead of facing up to the reality of what he truly stands for, they just pick what they like and ignore the rest. That's exactly how the USA got into the problem it is currently in. Well, that and a whole lot of fraud and manipulation... but there is no doubt the people are fully complicit in the ongoing trainwreck that is the current USA. Than, as now, people are refusing to see the evidence in front of their eyes because it doesn't please them.
The concept of electing someone so out of touch with reality that they deny evolution is staggering. A leader needs to have the clearest view of reality possible. When you refuse to accept reality when it doesn't fit your preconceptions, reality will eventually smack you in the face. A perfect example is Iraq.
Ideologically driven people scare me. It is a form of arrogance and vanity to hold on to your preconceptions despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
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. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are, however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. 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.
-Ron Paul, in the 1992 Ron Paul Political Report
"LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM"
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/…