Some additional information on Mr. Paul's unlibertarian record on free trade issues:
1) He is an active member of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, which has two goals -- increasing border blockades (including fences) and reducing overall immigration (including skilled worker visas). Labor is an economic commodity -- one cannot be "pro free trade" yet favor tightened restrictions on the free exchange of labor.
2) He is a cosponsor of Congressional Resolution 40, which calls for the abandonment of all discussions between Canada, the USA, and Mexico of reducing or eliminating border controls and controls on the free movement of US, Canadian and Mexican citizens within and between those three countries. That's anti-free-trade.
3) He voted for House bill 6061, the border fence act, which reduces the number of border and trade crossings by over 50%. Anti-free trade.
4) The *only* activity he's undertaken come vote time that is consistent with free trade has been his consistent refusal to support militarization of the border with active army troops. This isn't exactly a laudable small-l libertarian record, let alone a big-L Libertarian one.
On social issues:
1) Paul, who claims to be an ardent "states' rights" adherent, supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion. Even if you accept the tenuous proposition that abortion is "murder," it would represent an egregious violation of so-called "states' rights" for the federal government to seize domain of the definition (and penalties for) murder. Of course, if you take the common-sense position on abortion, his position is even crazier.
2) Paul, who claims to be an ardent "states' rights" adherent, was a co-sponsor of the Congressional Marriage Protection Act that would have forced states to recognize a federal definition of marriage. So much for "states' rights" there too, huh? (Not that state rights are a libertarian proposition -- we're supposed to be about individual rights).
3) Paul, who claims to be a "constitutionalist," introduced a bill in reaction to the Supreme Court's overturning of state sodomy laws that would have voided that ruling and that instructed the Supreme Court to never again rule on privacy, free speech, marriage, or other matters. Paul asserted that the SCOTUS stripped the "rights" of states to regulate morality, and that it has no authority in those matters. This is a laughably absurd position on his part -- not only is it not a libertarian position that states should be regulating "morality," but no "constitutionalist" would seek to violate the separation of powers doctrine through such legislation, nor would he/she ignore the 14th Amendment (which requires all levels of government to abide by the Bill of Rights). Imagine the shitstorm that Paul and his fellow far-right-wing Republican colleagues would have started had the Supreme Court deigned to follow his example and attempt to order Congress to pass certain laws --
or never pass laws related to certain areas.
So while many Ron Paul supporters are good libertarians (and even good Libertarians), our challenge is to land an actual Libertarian on our ticket. Ron Paul is not a libertarian (though he supposedly remains a paid-up member of the LP).
Cheers,
Brian
"Christopher R. Maden" <crism@...> wrote: On Wed, July 4, 2007 12:52 pm, Derek Jensen wrote:
> Why do you believe Ron Paul opposes Free Trade? I must assume you're
> referring to more than his opposition to NAFTA and CAFTA, which in my
> opinion have very little to do with Free Trade and more to do with giving
> away US sovereignty.
I am aware that so-called "free trade" agreements rarely are.
However, I was under the impression that Ron Paul supports protectionist
policies to protect "American jobs," but I could well be wrong about that.
I'm not the only one; _The New Republic_ had this: "Correction: This
article inaccurately reported that Ron Paul has referred to himself as
'sort of' a protectionist." And <URL:
http://www.creativedestruction.com/archives/000712.html > says, "After the
talk he gave I went over to talk to his campaign manager to point out how
the web page made Ron Paul look like a protectionist and someone who
thinks that congress needs to run the central bank. The manager (I think
his name is Lou-something) apologized and said how it was a work in
progress and that they are working on getting his actual speeches and
video up on-line etc., which seemed fine, but then he went and said that
he doesn't mention free trade on the web page because many of his
supporters are protectionists."
So I retract my statement on that point - though I still think Paul ought
to extend his libertarian principles to marriage equality and immigration
- but I also think he could do more to make the consistency of his
principles regarding international policy in general known.
~Chris