Comments on Philosophy Blog: Ron Paul: More Robertson than Goldwater

Shawn,

My position re: Cato was in referenc...

2007-11-09T09:00:00.000-06:00

Shawn,

My position re: Cato was in reference more to Al Qaeda. I haven't brushed up on their current positions on Iran, but I have, I think, seen them take more of a position of deterrence.

I'd have to brush up on that specific aspect though. You make a fair point. If it is a matter of interpretation and reasonable people can disagree, I have no trouble leaving it at that (then again, I could end up agreeing with you since I have some brushing up to do).

Hey Tim...good to hear from you.

Regarding ...

2007-11-08T08:05:00.000-06:00

Hey Tim...good to hear from you.

Regarding Free Trade: it does appear that his view on free trade is one of liberty. Whether the agreements are protectors or destroyers is another matter, one I do not know enough about.

I still think it is odd that Paul isn't more forward about this on his official campaign website.

Gay Marriage. I'm not sure that article helps me like Paul on this front. Being against the Federal Marriage Amendment is good start; however, I don't think his position on state's rights is correct.

1) I don't think marriage should even be a state issue.

2) Federalism doesn't mean state's can violate individual rights with impunity from the federal government.

3) His position is that gay marriage should not be allowed.

4) He introduced a bill to block court challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. This undermines a key part of checks and balances. Some one with the professed love of the constitution shouldn't do that.

And since Blogger doesn't appear to give me any wa...

2007-11-07T23:00:00.000-06:00

And since Blogger doesn't appear to give me any way to set a signature, this is Tim Lee; we met at the Liberty Fund seminar this summer.

Hey Shawn,

Interesting post. I agree with y...

2007-11-07T22:59:00.000-06:00

Hey Shawn,

Interesting post. I agree with you on the immigration and abortion issues.

However, I've followed Paul's views pretty closely and I think that, as some other commenters have noted, you're being unfair to him on the trade angle. Paul is a free trader who simply doesn't consider the WTO, CAFTA, et al to advance the cause of free trade, preferring unilateral reduction of trade barriers. I think he's wrong about that, although to be fair to him, recent "free trade" deals have been cluttered up with a variety of requirements that have little to do with trade such as changes to patent and copyright laws. I think it's perfectly consistent to support free trade but oppose these sorts of agreements.

I think you're also being a little bit unfair to him on gay marriage. Here's more detail on his views:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

He appears to want to allow each state to decide how to deal with marriage, and to prevent the federal courts from forcing one state to recognize another state's gay marriage. I'm in favor of gay marriage so this is hardly my ideal position, but it's better than the Federal Marriage Amendment, and you're not likely to find a more gay-friendly position in a GOP primary.

I have the feeling that foreign policy is the real deal-breaker for you, and since I come from the Cato non-interventionist camp I'm probably not going to change your mind about that. I don't really understand how attacking Iraq was an effective strategy for fighting Islamists, given that Iraq was run by a secular dictator with no significant ties to the 9/11 attacks or Al Qaeda. But I'm sure that's an argument you've had before, so I won't belabor it.

Hey Pat:
I do not prefer any candidate. I'd vo...

2007-11-07T20:04:00.000-06:00

Hey Pat:
I do not prefer any candidate. I'd vote for you!

I can't speak for all libertarians, but most peopl...

2007-11-07T17:44:00.000-06:00

I can't speak for all libertarians, but most people expressing this view don't want to leave the Islamic world alone -- they just want our interactions with the Islamic world to be in the form of trade and commerce rather than in the form of the military and force. Certainly it would be unwise to not engage in one way or another a segment of the world lead by people who see worldwide theocracy as a good thing.

East Coast Libertarian:

The idea that if w...

2007-11-07T16:32:00.000-06:00

East Coast Libertarian:

The idea that if we leave the Islamic world alone, then they won't attack us may not be the official, explicit viewpoint of CATO writers like Carpenter and Logan, but I think it is there.

I listen to CATO podcasts of events and panels, and occasionally read commentaries on their websites. In these I see this view lurking. For example, in some of the discussions on Iran, they have argued, in part, that we can live with a nuclear Iran if we don't have a "grandiose and radical foreign policy." One might disagree on what counts as a grandiose and radical policy, but underlying this view is that we only have to fear Iran if we are bothering them. This looks to me like, leave them alone and we don't have to fear them.

Paul: Thanks for the link. Paul comes off a lot b...

2007-11-07T15:41:00.000-06:00

Paul: Thanks for the link. Paul comes off a lot better in this piece in terms of trade. He is more clear that free trade is good.

As I said in the original post, I am going by what is on his campaign website. I don't have time to read everything Paul has written, so I am focusing on his campaign statements on this issues on his website. And there, he does not say free trade is good, lower tariffs and taxes and let people trade without government interference. His focus is solely on the agreements. Read alone, he looks like a protectionist.

Thanks for providing more information on his view on this front.

J.: 1) I do not have the time to thorough research...

2007-11-07T15:30:00.000-06:00

J.: 1) I do not have the time to thorough research Paul, his history or detailed views on each subject. I went with what is on his official campaign website on evaluated those issues.

2) In fairness to Paul, there are aspects of those laws that are not liberty-friendly. This is not to call for going back to segregation or subjection of women. One can be against those laws as a whole and not be racist or sexist.

That said, the tone of what I read in Paul smacks of, as you say, hostility towards the 'other'.

Robertson just endorsed Guiliani, so I suppose the...

2007-11-07T12:56:00.000-06:00

Robertson just endorsed Guiliani, so I suppose there are other candidates that are even more Robertson than Paul.

I share your opinion of Paul (for many of the same reasons) but I wonder, which candidate do you prefer?

Personally, I find them all pretty disappointing.

Since I'll turn 35 this year, I've decided to cast my vote for myself.
(That wouldn't mean I'm hostile to the 'other' would it?)

J.,

I think people should take pause and lo...

2007-11-07T09:32:00.000-06:00

J.,

I think people should take pause and look at some of the aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and try to challenge themselves on the constitutionality of those sections: Title II and Title VII.

While I think the text, history and meaning of the 14th Amendment clearly show the erroneous nature of a ruling like Plessy v Ferguson and can support civil rights legislation that protects individuals against government discrimination, the fact is that, through a rather insidious and vague concept of "public accommodations law", Title II and Title VII interfere with private relationships (or lack thereof) among individuals.

I don't like white supremacists or other bigots any more than most people I know, but it is not the federal government's business to impose standards on them as to who they serve in restaurants or who they rent rooms to, etc. etc. It is very unlibertarian to suggest that the government should have the power to interfere in private relationships of any sort (perhaps it's somewhat of a contradiction on the part of liberals who look to keep gov't out of the bedroom yet look to regulate who associates with who).

Shawn,

I appreciated your analysis, although I disagree with your characterization of the Cato's views on foreign policy. While their views do originate from a principle of non-intervention, and we can certainly debate the merits of non-interventionism in dealing with a terrorist threat, there is nothing in the literature I've read that suggests that if we leave them alone, they'd go away. Perhaps that's the position of some on the left and perhaps some of the more radical libertarians. I do not think that is a fair characterization of The Cato Institute's position.

I think you've restricted yourself by only respond...

2007-11-07T06:08:00.000-06:00

I think you've restricted yourself by only responding to issues Ron Paul himself discusses. One of the most revolting aspects of Paul is his decades long ties to white supremacists, segregationists and secessionists. He has written that the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act should be repealed and appears to be hostile to the Fourteenth Amendment as well. Officially rendering women and minorities second-class citizens again would be utterly reprehensible. The goal in 2007 should not be returning to 1807.

You are right in picking up on how Paul sees the world. He thinks of himself and those like him as an ideal, and is hostile to the 'other,' including foreigners and the U.S.' own out-groups. The man is strangely free of an iota of insight about our multiracial and multicultural society. His hostility to the 'other' is also a motivation for his views on foreign trade, immigration, the United Nations, etc.

Shawn, you say "he does not say that free trade is...

2007-11-06T23:03:00.000-06:00

Shawn, you say "he does not say that free trade is great but the trade deals aren't about free trade." Interesting. How do you read this? http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html

Your reading of Paul's statements strikes me as not very careful or nuanced. On his website, he refers to these agreements as "so called free trade agreements" -- he criticizes them for restricting the way we trade with people, and he specifically cites the example of how the WTO could require that no Americans buy vitamins without a prescription. Right or wrong, he is not coming at this from a "trade is bad" angle, but from a "this is not free trade" angle. His comment about jobs is there, true -- but if you pay attention to tone, he is saying something along the lines of 'given all these restrictions, the fact that we will lose jobs is bad.' As a matter of principle, he is probably right because if trade is not actually free, then the transfer of jobs is not motivated by a more rational balance of opportunity cost but rather by force. This is not to say that the trade agreements are not net-good (i am agnostic on this question), but I mean, come on... Paul's rhetoric is not protectionist. The same can be said for his rhetoric on immigration. He has said, for example, in interviews that he would not be opposed to immigration if entitlement programs were eliminated. None of his rhetoric on immigration focuses on jobs.

You may be of the opinion that the consequence of his policy proposals is more protectionism, but that is not his rhetorical stance. Or at least I come to that conclusion because "I have to go with what Ron Paul says" and not how you read his website.

Paul: He couches his comments in terms of job prot...

2007-11-06T22:07:00.000-06:00

Paul: He couches his comments in terms of job protection and other protectionist terms. He does not say that free trade is great but the trade deals aren't about free trade. Since I have to go with what Ron Paul says on his website and not what you say, I'll stick with my criticism of Paul as a protectionist.

You kind of miss the point of Paul's opposition to...

2007-11-06T20:31:00.000-06:00

You kind of miss the point of Paul's opposition to free trade agreements. It has nothing to do with "protecting American jobs" or any such nonsense. He is so pro-trade that he thinks the current free trade deals are unconstitutionally restrictive on free trade.