Why the Libertarians must draft Ron Paul

Discussion
1

Dear Dr. Mike;

How about being registered to vote as a Libertarian - it's called commitment - then he could run as a noiominee for the Libertarian Presidential candidacy - just like all the other candidates for the Libertarian Party Presidential candidacy. He could becomne the Libertarian Ralph Nader and split the vote.

And of course he wouldn't get invited to the Presidential debates of the only candidates for the presidency a democrat and a republican. No others need apply for admittance to the so-called presidential debates or candidate debates.

Not to mention the foul offal like stench already permeating the atmosphere from candidates running around a year and half ahead of time spewing their vile bile and further enhancing global warming from all the hot house gases.

It is estimated the presidential candidates will blow through about $1 Billion before the elections are held and achieving what? Garbage in - Garbage Out.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

2

He addressed the party issue on _The Daily Show_: he explained rather
bluntly that if you run as a third-party candidate you get completely
ignored by the media and never get a chance to put your positions out
there. I think this was good for America to hear.

However, what Brian was referring to is that Ron Paul opposes same-sex
marriage equality, opposes free immigration, and opposes free trade.
These are not libertarian positions, and they are significant ones, IMO.
This isn't an anarchist litmus-test kind of thing; he is simply opposed to
personal liberty on a few key issues.

He is better, to be sure, than any other D or R candidate, but I do not
believe the Libertarian Party (as opposed to individual members thereof)
should support him.

Happy "Independence" Day.

~Chris

3

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

4

Derek,

  It seems to me that *any* binding agreement between national governments inherently places limits on the "sovereignty" of those governments (I put "sovereignty" in quotes because I believe that only individuals are properly sovereign), since it limits their freedom of action in some respect. Do you oppose all treaties between national governments?

  When I've seen opponents of NAFTA, GATT, etc., criticizing these arrangements as eroding U.S. "sovereignty," it seemed to me when I looked at the particulars that they were actually against free trade itself, because they were criticizing things that are vital elements of any meaningful attempt at free trade between independent countries, such as sending trade disputes that arise to a neutral mediating body for arbitration, or the ability of developing country manufacturers to sell many products for significantly less than developed country manufacturers due to their lower labor costs. Without such guarantees, national politicians would have a stronger hand to undermine a free trade agreement by simply ignoring its terms and pandering to protectionist special interests in their respective jurisdictions. Can you describe a hypothetical agreement that would create a sustainable framework for free trade while *not* undermining "U.S. sovereignty" in the way you fear?

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

5

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

6

I'd be in favor of that policy. Making our tariff removals dependent on others doing the same is like saying "I'll stop hitting my thumb with this hammer only if you stop hitting yours".

  - Steve

7

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

8

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

9

I too favor unilaterally scrapping quotas, tariffs, subsidies and so on. Unilateral trade liberalization has some advantages relative to bilateral measures because of the simplicity of it and the lack of potential for mischief in complicated agreements. Perhaps more importantly, advocating this approach helps promote the truth that lowering trade barriers *is* like stopping hitting one's thumb with the hammer -- it's a good idea even when another person continues hitting her own thumb. But in advocating radical policy change, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good: If we can't get the radical approach adopted right away, we should keep pressing for it, but also support what incremental positive change we can get in the meantime, since U.S. government politicians and the public seem unlikely to accept a unilateral approach to free trade any time in the near future. Even those who share our opposition to protectionism might well say, "If the U.S. government is to drop various trade barriers, why not get the most mileage out of this action by using it as an impetus to get other governments to drop some of their barriers as well?" And they'd have a valid point. Not only would the action then become much more politically feasible, but more trade liberalization would be accomplished.

  To say that the U.S. government should only act to liberalize trade if it does so completely unilaterally so there is no threat to national sovereignty, is in practice to oppose trade reform, given the aforementioned small probability of U.S. politicians taking such unilateral measures in the near future. It's like refusing to endorse anti-inflationary measures unless the Federal Reserve is eliminated since the Fed is a threat to national sovereignty, or saying that unfunded mandates from the federal government to the states should be eliminated, but only if done unilaterally and not as part of an agreement that involved the states officially taking on more of their own expenses at the state level, since any agreement that limited the federal "right" to impose such mandates would undermine national sovereignty. After all, increasing the power of state governments within the United States threatens national sovereignty as surely as does limiting the federal government's freedom of action via international treaties. The more power individual state governments have, the more they can do things that undermine the ability of the Feds to unilaterally set national policy (i.e. exercise sovereignty). For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent meeting with new French president Nicolas Sarkozy to push climate policy that is at odds with that of the Bush administration.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>