Ron Paul way more libertarian than Dennis Kucinich

Discussion
1

It depends on what your priorities are. A lot of big-L Libertarians assume that only economic liberties are important -- and thus declare Ron Paul a pure libertarian based on his positions. A few big-L (and lots of "mutualist") libertarians assume that only civil liberties are important -- and thus consider Kucinich, Gravel, etc. pure libertarians based on their positions.

Holistic libertarians look at the balance of both, and note that candidates who have serious deficits in civil liberties -- like Ron Paul -- or economic liberties -- like Kucinich -- probably aren't "libertarian" enough to wear that label without a hyphenated "economic" or "civil" in front of the term.

Cheers,

Brian

2

Brian,

  I do not assume that only economic liberties are important. I'm just as concerned with civil liberties, and I think Ron Paul is more libertarian than Kucinich on those issues and *way* more libertarian on economic issues.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

3

Brian Miller wrote

BM) It depends on what your priorities are. (BM

Thanks for the admission, but this information about you is not really news
at this point. As for me, I've spent a lot of time arguing against the LP's
antiwar obsession, and yet I'm a fan of Ron Paul. So much for the
generality of your thesis.

BM) A few big-L (and lots of "mutualist") libertarians assume that only
civil liberties are important -- and thus consider Kucinich, Gravel, etc.
pure libertarians based on their positions. (BM

Kucinich favors "hate crime" legislation and restrictions on campaign
speech, so anyone who considers him a "pure" civil libertarian is just
ignorant. I'll bet that Gravel is no better than Kucinich.

BM) candidates who have serious deficits in civil liberties -- like Ron Paul
(BM

Paul's "deficits" for a traditional Libertarian are primarily on two of the
Big Three Franchise Schisms in the LP: abortion and immigration. (Paul
sides with the anti-interventionist plurality on the third.)

BM) Ron Paul would vote to lower his federal taxes (but would have no
opinion about his state or local taxes). (BM

That would be close to slanderous if it weren't so ludicrous.

Here <http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul337.html> is Paul advocating
relief from local property taxes:

RP) But as a Texas taxpayer myself, I would like the state legislature to
consider an additional proposal. Specifically, end the practice of annual
assessments. Properties should be reassessed for tax purposes only when sold
or ownership is otherwise transferred. [...] Overall, most Americans hand
over at least 40% of every dollar they make to government at some level. The
appetite for your tax dollars - whether at the federal, state, or local
level - will continue to grow year after year unless we begin to rethink the
proper role for government in our lives. If you think you've been squeezed
for every last drop of taxes, demand that both your representatives in the
statehouse and Washington do something to address spiraling property taxes.
(RP

Here <http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst97/tst120897.htm> is Paul decrying
the nanny state at all levels:

RP) In a free society, social and economic problems are solved through
voluntary and free market solutions. Compassion is real and charity honest
in a free society, where no one is compelled to assist another. But today,
whether the problem is food for the poor, homes for the homeless, or medical
care for the sick, our society endlessly calls upon government to
redistribute resources contrary to the needs of the market and producers of
prosperity. In fact, in government's rush to distribute welfare, there is a
total disregard for the conditions required to produce the wealth. So as
they rob resources to pay for these supposedly humanitarian concerns, the
government "do-gooders" not only harm those who work and save for their own
families, the government hurts all of society by violating the tenets of a
moral, free nation [...] All decisions and systems of government have a
distinct moral base. When we grant government the right to be charitable for
us, we also grant government the right to force us to be charitable when we
otherwise would not. And the use of force to compel an act of charity is, to
borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, "sinful and tyrannical." (RP

Here <http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst99/tst070599.htm> is Paul decrying
the burden of federal, state, and local taxes, without differentiation:

RP) Today, the average American will pay more than 50 percent of their
income in direct and indirect taxes. In fact, most Texans will not start
working for themselves for another week. Texans, like most Americans work
from January until early July just to pay their federal income tax, states
and local taxes, and the calculated cost of regulation. Almost no one in
America has yet begun going to work to pay for food, clothing, shelter or
their children's education. It was just on June 22 that Americans stopped
working to pay for the federal government. The next several weeks will pay
the costs of state and local government. (RP

Here <http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst99/tst072699.htm> is Paul on tax
cuts:

RP) I have often been accused of having never met a tax cut that I didn't
like. I am guilty as charged. [...] I have never met a tax cut I wouldn't
support, even a small tax cut. (RP

It is simply braying ignorance to claim that Ron Paul has "no opinion about
his state or local taxes". And it's sheer folly to try to make that claim
to a Libertarian audience.

Your charges against Paul on sodomy laws and DOMA and "states' rights"
remain a smoking cinder. You don't have to like Paul's position that the
federal government should not be -- and textually isn't -- entrusted to do
for gay rights what it's done for our rights concerning substance use and
political expression and self-defense and "hate crimes". I don't either.
But you don't get to pretend that's not his position -- at least not without
seeming illiterate. The fact remains that you cannot produce a single quote
from Paul saying that he "believes that government -- not individuals --
should be the final arbiters of your sex life and the sexual activities of
consenting adults." You can run from that quote as far as you want, but I've
got a brand-new laptop and its copy/paste keys are a long way from wearing
out.

BM) the gulf between DK and RP isn't as wide as RP supporters would have us
believe. If we can pick-and-choose our libertarian issues in order to
determine who the "real" major-party "libertarian" is in this race (BM

Right, the difference between a 90/10 leftist and a 90/100 libertarian on
Advocates chart is all smoke and mirrors. We Ron Paul supporters rigged the
WSPQ when it was created back in 1987 because we knew that Paul would be
compared to Dennis Kucinich 20 years later. We're THAT good.

BM) then Ron Paul loses points -- particularly with regard to this
hypothetical San Francisco gay male voter -- that neither Kucinich nor the
actual Libertarian Party nominee would (BM

Thanks for admitting that you "pick and choose" your issues when attacking
Ron Paul. Now you just need to admit you distort his positions on the
issues you pick.

This is all good clean fun, but if Miller and Power have not learned their
various lessons here by now, they never will. So I ask: is there anyone
else reading this who doesn't agree with Starchild that it's obvious that
Ron Paul is more libertarian than Dennis Kucinich, and needs to see more
debate on the topic to make up his mind? Anyone at all? Not even one?
Don't be shy. What about Tom Knapp? He reads marketliberal and thinks Ron
Paul is bad for the libertarian movement. Does he agree that Paul and
Kucinich are "equally libertarian"? If he doesn't reply here, I'll ask him
directly.

4

I'm convinced and don't need any more....anyone else?

Mike

5

BH) is there anyone else reading this who doesn't agree with Starchild
that it's obvious that Ron Paul is more libertarian than Dennis
Kucinich, and needs to see more debate on the topic to make up his mind?
Anyone at all? Not even one? Don't be shy. (BH

I suppose my lavender slip is showing, but some of us mainly see two
alpha males way overinvested in winning. It's helpful, in a way, to see
so much industry going into marshaling arguments for both sides, but
also a little exhausting after awhile. I wouldn't step into that arena
for a million URLs.

6

Michael Acree wrote:

MA) some of us mainly see two alpha males way overinvested in winning. (MA

Yes, I'm not surprised people see it that way -- hence my "bullying"
comment. I don't deny that I enjoy friendly competition in this and other
arenas, but I'd desperately like to know: what would an empirically valid
defense against your charge look like? How would someone's behavior differ
significantly from mine if they cared only about seeing the public record
corrected, and had not one iota of ego invested in the discussion? And at
what point does it become unfair to make charges against which there may be
no possible defense in the absence of mind-reading? I suppose I could go
out and create a brand-new anonymous account for every posting I send, but
people would catch on pretty quick, and it would be deceptive to
accidentally create an impression of widespread agreement with me. I could
follow a rule of sending out corrections only after (say) 30 days, but if
the distorters didn't follow suit then that would be giving distortion a
29-day free pass. I could mimic the practice some use of never naming (or
even quoting) a correspondent, but that could be misinterpreted as a petty
slight or as not fully confronting them and their statements. I could
follow a policy (which I in fact try to do) of never debating in a
one-on-one private discussion, but never trying to intimidate anybody
privately doesn't prove that one's public efforts aren't a similar effort to
establish some kind of social dominance. The best idea I've ever come up
with along these lines is embodied in my Atheist
<http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Challenge.html>
Cage Match Challenge, and the much-less-than-one-terabyte limited-size
debate that Rob turned out not to be interested in. An analogous idea I've
used is to challenge people to meet me in Wikipedia and make sure that the
best of each sides' arguments are described there. Unfortunately, people
who broadcast distortions on public forums are precisely the sort of people
who wouldn't dare see their arguments subject to critical review by such a
well-informed community. I guess I could try to enter both sides' arguments
into Wikipedia, but I could easily be accused of bias and self-promotion.
Maybe I'll give it a try in the case of criticisms of Ron Paul by leaders of
the Outright Libertarians, as that might be of broad enough interest to be
considered worthy by the Wikipedia community.

7

Thanks Brian...if we can get past this...I suggest we move the
discussion to Mike Acree's lavender slip...:>)

Mike

8

Such a person would not be interested in a litany of unrebutted posts,
and would be content to state what they believed to be true.

Such a person would also be less interested in another’s record of error
than in continuing to assert the truth.

Such a person would be less apparently emotionally invested in naming
names of those in error, and in reiterating their own unrebutted
statements.

IMO.

~Chris

9

Brian,

  Mike Acree posts a comment critiquing the exchange between yourself and Brian Miller as "two alpha males way overinvested in winning," and you respond with a link to what you say is the best idea you've come up with for proving one isn't seeking to establish some kind of social dominance, a proposal titled "Atheist Cage Match Challenge"(!) which begins by stating, "To any Christian apologist reading this: My best arguments against Christianity are better than your best arguments for it. If you disagree, I challenge you as follows..."

  I surely hope that you can see the humorous side of this, because if you don't, not only is it somewhat of a cause for concern, but you're missing out on some good laughs! 8)

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

10

Christopher R. Maden wrote:

BH) How would someone's behavior differ significantly from mine if they
cared only about seeing the public record corrected, and had not one iota of
ego invested in the discussion? (BH

CM) Such a person would not be interested in a litany of unrebutted posts,
and would be content to state what they believed to be true. (CM

We apparently have different understandings of what "seeing the public
record corrected" means, but I don't have enough ego invested here to
explore this difference. :slight_smile: Suffice it to say that it doesn't suffice for
my purposes that the truth is out there (which of course it alway is), but
rather the truth needs to be parked right next to the distortion every time
the distortion is offered.