Ron Paul way more libertarian than Dennis Kucinich

I can illustrate this in a simple way that's backed by common understanding of the public positions of the two candidates.

Let's take a look at the typical gay San Francisco male. He is overtaxed, has many of his rights violated on a daily basis by the federal, state and local governments, and seeks more freedom for himself and his family.

How do Paul, Kucinich, and a typical Libertarian candidate stack up on his liberties?

Ron Paul:

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

2) Ron Paul would vote to overturn Supreme Court rulings eliminating sodomy laws, claiming that states have the right to imprison the gay San Franciscan for "immoral activities" if they so choose -- regardless of the Bill of Rights. Civilly authoritarian, with a pastiche of "constitutionalist" gobbledygook.

3) Ron Paul supported the DOMA law that ruled that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution does not apply to marriage licenses, and that created a federal definition of "marriage" that permanently excluded the San Francisco gay man. Civilly authoritarian.

4) Ron Paul supports a state's "right" to revoke parenting credentials upon crossing a state line. If the unlucky man was to cross the Oklahoma border, he and his partner would both be declared legal strangers to their son. Civilly authoritarian.

5) Ron Paul would vote against a single-payer socialist medical system. Economically libertarian.

Dennis Kucinich:

1) DK certainly likes high taxes. Economically authoritarian.

2) DK supported the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence vs. Texas. Civilly libertarian.

3) Kucinich voted against DOMA. Civilly libertarian.

4) Kucinich upholds the full faith and credit act of the Constitution in parenting as in other areas. Civilly libertarian AND more "constitutional" than Ron Paul.

5) Kucinich supports a single-payer socialist health system. Economically authoritarian.

Typical Libertarian Party candidate:

1) Would of course vote against higher taxes. Libertarian all the way, baby!

2) Supports the SCOTUS ruling out of an understanding of the Constitution, but also out of a commitment to get government at all levels out of the business of dictating people's lives. Thus more libertarian in outlook and rationale than either Paul or Kucinich.

3) Opposes DOMA for the same reasons as #2, and supports equal marriage treatment as a step to getting government out of the marriage business altogether -- thus more libertarian than either of the prior two.

4) Opposes Oklahoma's "right" to revoke parental rights by fiat, regardless of "states' rights" concerns. Puts individual rights first and wraps them in a full-faith-and-credit rationale. More libertarian than RP or DK.

5) Opposes a single-payer socialist health care system -- once again, libertarian.

Now, where would all three likely agree on issues of importance?

1) Wars -- all three want out of Iraq (and likely, Afghanistan). All three support major drawdowns of forces deployed in overseas bases.

2) USA Patriot Act -- all three opposed it.

3) Ending the Federal drug war.

Obviously, the Libertarian Party candidate is differentiated and closer to the "pure" libertarianism than Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. However, 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, 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. And these are in areas where Ron Paul is "unlibertarian."

Cheers,

Brian

Brian,

  I may not agree with Ron Paul's strictly Constitutionalist approach, but it is a consistent philosophy and hardly "gobbledygook." I also note that your civil liberties examples below highlight just one narrow area of civil liberties -- gay rights -- rather than looking at civil liberties across the board. And I don't think it's true at all that Ron Paul would have "no opinion" about state or local taxes. I am fully confident that he favors drastically cutting them, and that if he were in a position where he was constitutionally authorized to cast such a vote, that he would do so in a heartbeat.

  However I'm not really interested in trying to research and write a full rebuttal of what you say below. Brian Holtz has amply shown that you've failed to address many of the detailed points he has already raised on similar questions. Until you are able/willing to credibly answer his well-documented arguments, I see no particular need to raise additional ones here.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

I'm sorry, Starchild, but Ron Paul's so-called Constitutionalist
belief that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is
"imaginary" is really best described as "gobbledygook." Either you
support a literal reading of the entire Constitution, or you don't.
The Equal Protection Clause is in plain English, just as plain as the
Second Amendment or any other bit of the Constitution that statists
from both major parties prefer to ignore.

I see no difference between Ron Paul ignoring the Fourteenth Amendment
and Hillary Clinton ignoring the Second.

Rob

Rob Power wrote:

Rob) Ron Paul's so-called Constitutionalist belief that the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution is "imaginary" is really best described as
"gobbledygook." (Rob

Sigh. At least you managed to put quotation marks around one word that Paul
actually said, so that's an improvement over the usual zero that you and Mr.
Miller muster. Here's the actual context:

RP) Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The
Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for
private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the
14th amendment "right to privacy." Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there
clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the
Constitution. There are, however, states' rights - rights plainly affirmed
in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of
Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like
sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real
Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the
Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on
the people of Texas. (RP

It's simply ludicrous to pretend that Paul believes the 14th Amendment is
"imaginary".

Rob) Either you support a literal reading of the entire Constitution, or
you don't. (Rob

Ron Paul does; see above. It would be untenable to say that no two people
can ever honestly disagree on constitutional jurisprudence after they both
assert they support a "literal reading of the entire Constitution".

Rob) The Equal Protection Clause is in plain English (Rob

That clause says "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Where is sodomy mentioned
in this "plain English"? I personally think it's the Privileges and
Immunities clause that should be interpreted as applying the Bill of Rights
to the states.

But in fact, it's the Due Process Clause that has been used to justify this
Incorporation Doctrine. I guess you didn't read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_doctrine when I referred Mr.
Miller to it. Too many "terabytes
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/13312> ", I guess. If
the "plain English" of the 14th Amendment enjoins the states from outlawing
sodomy, why is it that you can't figure out which part of that Amendment is
claimed to do so by the jurisprudence with which you think you agree?

The answer seems to be that you have an a priori agenda of opposing Ron
Paul, and the more you argue against him, the clearer that becomes. Again,
I'd like to know if anybody on lpsf-discuss is even considering buying what
you and Mr. Miller are peddling. I'm desperate for an excuse to withdraw
from a debate that is so lop-sided that it surely must look like bullying by
now. It's against my own interests to continue this, because you are one of
the more informed and reasonable voices on PlatCom even though you're an
alternate. I realize I'm running a risk of having you oppose any Platform
reform I support -- except for my advocacy of including and prioritizing gay
rights -- simply because you don't like my support for Ron Paul. However,
my devotion to truth and principle doesn't allow me to let your distortions
go unchallenged. I would hope that you have enough similar devotion to
fairly consider any Platform recommendations I happen to support.

[cc'ing OutrightLibertarians, so they know how their leaders are treating
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/13142> a gay-rights
supporter on the Platform Committee]