Ron Paul: Every man, woman, and child for themselves

by on December 13, 2011 · 40 comments

in Civil Rights, Culture, Economy, Education, Politics, Popular

The infatuation of certain segments of American society with the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul has the potential to turn American governance and the very Constitution on which it is founded on its head.

This is part II of a collaborative series written by Doug Porter and Andy Cohen.  You can read part I here.

Ron Paul has built himself quite a rabid following.  The adoration of the 76 year old Texas Republican Congressman is almost cult-like in its voracity, especially among the younger generations.  And it’s reasonably easy to understand why.  Ron Paul is a rarity, particularly in Republican circles.  He favors the legalization of marijuana and other illicit drugs, including heroin.  He is and has been a staunch opponent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is adamant that the administration bring the troops home.  He wants the government of the United States to mind its own business and stop “meddling” in the affairs of every other country in the world.  When younger Americans hear an older, conservative lawmaker express views on such topics that are so similar to their own it’s easy to believe that the guy just might not be all that bad after all.

But there’s a danger in falling for a candidate simply because he shares your views on such a narrow subject matter.  That’s not to say that ALL Ron Paul supporters are ready to rush to the polls and push the button next to Paul’s name based on a limited scope of issues and without taking a broader look at his policy positions and how they might affect society at large.  But many are, and that’s troublesome.

Ron Paul, in fact, is quite unique among Republicans.  Republicans have always believed in small government, or at least they say they are.  However, recent history has shown us that when Republicans are in power, government has a tendency to increase in size.  Significantly increase.  But Ron Paul’s brand of Libertarianism is different, and his voting record generally shows that he’s willing to put his vote where his mouth is, with a few curious exceptions.  His anti-war stance is decidedly un-Republican, as is his eagerness to cut military spending.

The fact that he’s been so willing to buck the traditional Republican Party line made him quite an unlikely rock star on the campaign trail in 2008 and again in 2011.  And while there are certainly a number of areas where progressives and libertarians can find common ground, there are a lot of other areas that should be of concern to those who support the basic premises of equality and fairness.

 Civil Rights

In a May 13, 2011 appearance on the MSNBC program “Hardball” hosted by Chris Matthews, Paul stirred up a hornet’s nest that his son, newly elected Republican Senator from Kentucky Rand Paul, had kicked over the previous year during his Senatorial campaign.  When confronted by Matthews, the Texas Congressman insisted that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, saying that it was unconstitutional and a violation of individual property rights.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Title II of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that since businesses such as restaurants, hotels or inns, theaters, stores, etc. are considered public accommodations, it explicitly prohibits discrimination by a business owner on the basis of color, race, religion, or national origin.  Although Paul feebly tries to talk around it, his position essentially is that discrimination is OK, that Title II of the Act denies freedoms of an individual business owner, while forgetting that the business patron is entitled to those same rights.

Paul is also opposed to the Voting Rights Act, which guaranteed the right of every citizen to vote without being subject to poll taxes, literacy tests, or any other conditions placed on an individual’s right to vote.

The Supreme Court disagrees.  In 1964, the Supreme Court overturned an 1883 ruling in deciding that Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is indeed constitutional, and that business owners cannot discriminate against certain customers.  If a business is open to the public, then it is open to all members of the public.  Government action was necessary to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For nearly 90 years the Civil Rights Act of 1875 went unenforced, yet Paul insists that left to its own devices and without any government intervention whatsoever, society would have ended the ills of racial discrimination.  He believes that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has actually hurt race relations in America by forcing equal treatment, when in fact he has it completely backwards.  Without the not-so-subtle nudge of the law, race relations would never have seen the advancements that have taken place in the last 40 years.  We know this because minorities had been denied their rights as equal citizens until the Act.

Paul is also of the strange notion that Abraham Lincoln should never have started the Civil War; that Lincoln should never have acted to end slavery in the United States.  He says the way it should have been done was “you buy the slaves and release them.”  The question is who would buy them and release them?  What was to stop the slave owners from taking their profits from the sale and simply buying even more slaves, thereby extending the slave trade indefinitely?  Ron Paul apparently believes that slavery is OK; that the slave owners’ rights were violated because slaves were considered property, not human beings, and the 13th Amendment took away that property.  So much for individual rights and liberties.  So much for Ron Paul’s insistence that he’s not a racist.

The Free Market and the Environment

Like most Republicans, Ron Paul worships at the altar of the almighty free market.  Yes, our economy is built on the basic tenets of capitalism and the ability of the “market” to determine the value of a good or service.  Paul, like most Republicans and libertarians, abhors the idea of government regulation.  And it is his stated position that as President he would seek to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (among other federal agencies, but more on that later………and he’s certainly not alone among the other Republican presidential candidates).

The trouble with Paul’s position is that the free market is never really free.  Those with more wealth and more power will always be able to manipulate the markets in their favor.  A certain amount of regulation is necessary to ensure fairness and that everybody plays by the same rules.  Without government regulation you get Enron and Tyco.  Without regulation businesses are free to act in fraudulent manners and bilk consumers.  Consumers, Paul retorts, are free to pursue damages in court.  However, such court battles always favor corporate interests, since they have virtually unlimited resources to draw out any court case for decades.  In Ron Paul’s survival-of-the-fittest world view, businesses/corporations have all the rights and all the power, while consumers have none.

Paul believes that the regulations enforced by the EPA impinge on a business’ right and ability to operate in the most profitable manner possible.  In Ron Paul’s world, Koch Industries would be allowed to run their chemical plants so that noxious gases spewed freely into the air we breathe.

Again, a company’s rights would supersede the rights of the individual since the individual would have neither the time nor the resources to fight to enforce his own rights.  And when a company spews noxious chemicals into the air or toxic waste into our water, we all suffer for it.  It infringes on all of our individual rights.

The FDA would also be a prime target of a President Ron Paul.  He thinks that dietary supplements should be unregulated; that people should be able to buy whatever supplements they want.   But what happens when companies produce products that actually harm the consumers that use them?  What happens when a meat packing company sends tainted meat to the market?  With no FDA and no regulations, companies would be free to flood the market with dangerous goods (as happened with regularity prior to the New Deal); consumers would have no recourse, and no one would be held accountable.  Paul and his supporters claim that the free market would do its own safety testing, but with no independent agencies and no accountability, there is no reason to believe that their products could be guaranteed safe until it was far too late.

Education and Health Care

Paul and his fellow Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachman insist that the Department of education is unconstitutional, as do most libertarians.  He says that “They don’t educate our kids, they indoctrinate our kids.”  While it’s true that education and schools are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it could be argued that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution can be interpreted as allowing for federal regulation of schools.

Article 1, Section 8 states that “Congress shall have the power to………..provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States.”  Since education can and should be considered part of the “general welfare” of U.S. citizens, the Department of Education could easily be interpreted as being granted constitutionality.  Likewise, the department could also be granted its constitutionality through the Commerce Clause, since a well educated workforce is vital to the success and growth of the nation’s economy.

Paul insists that decisions regarding education should be left to state and local governments.  The problem with that is that with no national guidelines there would be no uniformity whatsoever in what can and should be taught in our schools.  Some states could choose not to provide any public education at all.  What would happen if the states of Alabama and Mississippi decided that they should no longer provide a publicly available education?

Not every family can afford or is qualified to home school their kids.  Not every family can afford private schools to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars per year.  Without public education, education is no longer a right and becomes out of reach for millions of American citizens.  Education once again becomes the exclusive bastion of the wealthy and privileged.  Without national standards of science and math and language schools would be free to teach propagandistic nonsense or teach strictly to the Bible.

Healthcare too becomes out of reach.  Ron Paul famously said in the September 12th, 2011 Republican presidential debate that a man without health insurance who is in need of intensive care to survive should be left to die.

The example posed to Paul in the debate was that of an otherwise healthy 30 year old man with a good job who chose not to have health insurance because he was healthy.  But not everyone is able to afford a health care policy.  Not every employer supplies health insurance to their employees.  And without government regulation of the health insurance industry, insurance companies could simply decide that it is not profitable to pay for care to certain policy holders, as they often do.  Those with pre-existing conditions would be unable to find any coverage at any price.  Without Medicare the elderly would be denied access to health care.

Given his libertarian bent, Paul’s stance on abortion is rather curious, opening him up to references as a “selective libertarian.”  Individual freedoms are the very crux of libertarianism, yet when it comes to a woman’s right to choose what happens within her own body, Ron Paul wants to take away that right.  As a means for covering for his own anti-abortion stance, Paul advocates overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing the states to legislate against abortion.

Every Man for Himself

The problem with Ron Paul’s particular brand of libertarianism is the every-man-for-himself nature of his beliefs.  The fact is that there is no such thing as absolute individual liberties.  Our freedom and liberties exist only to the extent that they do not infringe on the rights of others.  When a business determines that it is much more profitable to dump toxic waste instead of properly disposing of it, or to allow noxious gases and fumes into the air, it is a direct infringement on the rights of others to breathe clean air or drink and bathe in clean water.  The rights of a property owner extend only so far as they do not limit the rights of those around him.  If I blast music at 110 decibels, it is an infringement on my neighbor’s right to peacefully enjoy his own property.

The courts have always treated the Constitution as a living, evolving document.  The Founders were brilliant enough to know that they could not possibly account for how society and the world at large would develop.  They could not fathom television, the internet, or space travel, or how technology has facilitated the globalization of the world’s markets.  They left the Constitution sufficiently vague so that it could be interpreted to adapt to a rapidly and drastically changing world.  The Founders also chose a republic with a strong central government instead of a loose confederation of states.  They specifically designed the Constitution so that federal law trumps state law, not the other way around.

A government’s job is to protect the rights of its people; to stand for those who are unable to stand up to the more powerful interests.  Is there such a thing as too much regulation?  Of course there is.  But by the same token, there is also such a thing as too little regulation.

C4LCNCPLS December 13, 2011 at 6:24 am

Ron Paul does not support the legalization of Heroin. This article is full of crap.
Another attack without substance.

You can tell who Obama supporters fear most in the General election!

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who can beat Obama.

ManinNh December 13, 2011 at 7:08 am

How true! No wonder the title of this magazine is “RAG”! lol

KJ December 13, 2011 at 6:29 am

You mistake government for community.

Nathanael James December 13, 2011 at 6:29 am

It should be noted that you quoted Ron Paul as saying that a man without insurance should be left to die. Ron Paul actually answered that question in the negative saying that the man should not be left to die. Some wackadoo in the crowd yelled “yeah!!!” when this question was asked. It was not Paul. Please be accurate on that front, since it is an unfair distortion.

The Federal Farmer December 13, 2011 at 6:30 am

At the risk of sounding pejorative–and I do not mean it that way at all–you folks need a little more training in how to read at a higher level. Your education has left you woefully unable to even read a Constitution.

For example, I’ll pick merely ONE out of many errors in reasoning you’ve put forward: “While it’s true that education and schools are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it could be argued that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution can be interpreted as allowing for federal regulation of schools.” You rely on the clause which discusses the “general welfare of the United States.” From this premise you postulate that the “Department of Education could easily be interpreted as being granted constitutionality.”

If what you say is true, then there is no enumeration and no enumerated powers. The founders who were given to brevity were superfluous when they wrote any other power after general welfare. After all, if the words meant what you said, then there is no other need for any other enumeration–and there is no need for state government. Either the founders failed at federalism under your interpretation or, you have it simply wrong. I promise you it’s the latter.

Even legal historians on the left and the right would agree with what I’ve put forward as the truth. I would recommend that you consider reading Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution. The abridged version for students would suffice.

Individual freedom requires no regulation. I encourage you to try it.

Philip Gibson December 13, 2011 at 6:34 am

I love it….. This is the only so called “DIRT” that anyone seems to be able to accuse Ron with… The best part is it so easily refuted by just a little study on “WHY” Ron voted and talked this way….. It shook me up after the first time I read these accusations, like a year ago, but further inquiry revels a completely different….. In a nut shell( do your own facts research) Ron Paul does not see people as groups Black, white, Asian, American Indian(which is what I am) Purple, Blue, Green….It makes no difference to him……. HE VOTES AND SEE’S ALL OF US AS EQUAL!!!…. You got plenty of Facts straight here but your UNDERSTANDING of the Principles of Freedom and Liberty are extremely Flawed.

azizonomics December 13, 2011 at 6:34 am

You raise a lot of points, I shall just respond to a few.

I wholeheartedly agree with your concluding paragraph. But you fundamentally misread Ron Paul. He understands, and has repeatedly stated that you can’t immediately transform the United States into a libertarian nation. What he will cut and reform is waste — he will slash bureaucracy, taxes and eliminate much of the overseas military spending that makes much of the rest of the world resent America, and that racks up so much debt. The balance can be given back to the people, and spent on things like infrastructure where the government has a monopoly.

The founding fathers specifically noted that on issues not enumerated in the Constitution, the states were sovereign. I believe that there is too much centralisation in government, in business and in life in general, and that localism — local people making local decisions based on local information — is generally superior. There is room for some centralisation, for example banking regulation and NASA, but otherwise. that goes for most things: gay marriage, abortion, education, housing, and many aspects of infrastructure.

Most significantly Ron Paul will hurt the corporatocracy — by ending the things they are most dependent on — favourable government intervention from corporatists like Gingrich and Romney. That means no more bailouts, no more Solyndra, no more free money, favourable legislation and loopholes for GE. That’s why the corporate press are so harsh on him — he scares them. More significantly, I believe from statements made in the past that he will move to end corporate personhood. It is an unpalatable fact to the left, but the reality is that large powerful corporations are an emanation of large, powerful government, and without government rigging the market and printing money for their friends and cronies, that they wouldn’t be half as powerful.

Finally the assertion that Paul is a racist is ridiculous. He doesn’t believe in collectivism — he believes in individuality. He has spoken out numerous times about the disgusting racism in our prison system and legal system — black drug users are far more likely to end up in prison, working for nothing for the corporate elite — and he wants to decriminalise drugs and treat it as a social and medical problem.

Overall, while I do not believe in Ron Paul’s libertarian paradise, I believe he is very consistent, he is a man of his word, and he is the most clear-thinking, bold, courageous and constitutional of any of the major candidates in 2012, and will therefore be by far the best President. No more wars, no more empire, no more bailouts, no more market rigging. Individual rights, liberty and property rights for all.

Rob Baum December 13, 2011 at 6:43 am

Your statement that the founding father believed in a strong central government is totally incorrect. The founding fathers were afraid of strong central government and specifically restricted the power it would have as written in the constitution. This was done on purpose because they knew it could become corrupt if left unchecked. The remaining powers would go to the states were the control would be limited due to being closer the people. Your argument is a argument for socialism not for a free people. Real freedom takes believing that people can make their own choices and does not need government to make it for them.

Pizo December 13, 2011 at 6:43 am

General Welfare clause and the Commerce clause – the two clauses most abused by those in favor of big government. Take a minute to read what our founding fathers had to say about these two clauses, and how they have been used in the past century to pass laws that would have been unthinkable when the republic was founded.

chippedtooth December 13, 2011 at 6:44 am

Silly little kid accurate news is for adults.

Christopher December 13, 2011 at 6:46 am

“The courts have always treated the Constitution as a living, evolving document. ”

Ah, therein lies the rub.

When you do not treat the Constitution as a dead document, which it is intended to be, then there is always some justification to expand the size and scope of government and bureaucracy.

A “living” interpretation of the Constitution only serves to perpetually allow Unconstitutional laws be justified by the courts.

Ever wonder why the Constitution never needs to be amended anymore? Because its easier to just go around it!

Jason December 13, 2011 at 6:55 am

When you’re talking about government, you’re talking about a force. Government creates and enacts laws that create environments in which we all are subject. Laws in themselves cannot distinguish between what is moral and what is not. Therefore, government must force all laws on the people despite a law’s favorability over any group of people, whether that be business, religious, social, ethnic class, etc. The purpose of legalizing liberty is not to create an isolationist-individualist environment, but rather to purge the law books of those laws that give special privileges to any group over another.

Much of the arguments for more government regulation are based on providing a fairer, more moral environment for all parties involved; ask yourself however, why are these situations tainted in the first place? Should the answer to these problems be to break the parties in question into their own groups and create different rights for each? Or maybe should the laws allowing for the injured party be changed? Maybe the law wasn’t followed through?

When I think of government regulation, I think of the government breaking us up and placing us one above or below the other. I find this is not a moral solution. Look around you and you will see we are a great people that need not divided. The true answer is to legalize freedom and liberty, and our moral nature will show through when other’s liberties are violated. Morality need not be dictated towards the people; as hard to believe as it may be, the people can be trusted and innately know what to do. While you may argue historical facts and figures, one must remember that laws are enacted not because of a moral government, but because of social trends that demand the change; therefore, all morality in law begins with the people. However, moral law unfortunately ends with the manipulation of power within government. And who keeps the government in check? THE PEOPLE! We must learn to trust one another again, otherwise our only other option will be to continue to control one another. How moral is that?

TK Jaros December 13, 2011 at 7:00 am

You’re large presupposed premise is that the judicial branch is correct.

JohnMikal December 13, 2011 at 7:08 am

This author makes a common error of thinking that issues which are important require a federal government solution.
Just because an issue is important (like health care or emergency relief), doesn’t mean that the federal government is the one who should handle it. When you want to give money to a non-profit cause, there are many web sites where you can look up items such as: how efficient the non-profit is; how much of your donation goes to overhead and administration salaries; which programs get what kinds of returns and so on. This way, you can decide which organization to donate to in order to get the most bang for your buck.
When the federal government is compared to any other organization, they come up as horribly inefficient. You would be literally throwing away a good percentage of your money that could otherwise be spent on the issues that are important to you. Anyone giving money to an organization functioning as poorly as the federal government, would be considered not really committed to their cause.
Other than the few functions listed in the constitution for the federal government to do, there are always methods to support important causes that don’t involve the substantial list of negatives associated with federal participation. Negatives such as: cronyism, corruption, inefficiencies and forced participation in ‘charity’ work with the implied threat of a gun through tax collection.
I give a substantial amount of my time and money to charity work. I always cringe however at the thought that I am being forced to pay money through taxes for important causes under the pretense of doing good, when in reality, I am predominantly lining the pockets of corrupt politicians and their cronies who have written the laws and regulations for their own benefits.
The author really should consider other options besides the federal government for solutions to important issues.

Obecean December 13, 2011 at 7:09 am

Perhaps not according to you, but according to Ron Paul he does:

You say that the federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, including marijuana, cocaine, even heroin.

RP: It’s an issue of protecting liberty across the board. If you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. We want freedom [including] when it comes to our personal habits.

Q: Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?

RP: Yes, in essence, if we leave it to the states. For over 100 years, they WERE legal. You’re implying if we legalize heroin tomorrow, everyone’s gonna use heroin.

How many people here are going to use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody! “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me. I don’t want to use heroin, so I need these laws!”

A: I never thought heroin would get applause!

Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in South Carolina , May 5, 2011

Elias December 13, 2011 at 7:29 am

Exactly – the FEDERAL government should stay out of it. He would be fine with marijuana legal in, let’s say, California, and illegal in, let’s say, Wisconsin.

Andy Cohen December 13, 2011 at 9:04 am

To be clear: I don’t necessarily disagree with him on the legalization/illegalization (is that a word?) of drugs. I merely used it as an example of why so many people (particularly younger people) have gravitated toward him.

Paltrow Bock December 13, 2011 at 7:09 am

Be afraid, be afraid, be afraid! Um, nope. Still not afraid of living my life freely. Looking forward to it. Thanks Andy, I will vote Ron Paul 2012. The less we hear from fear mongers, fools, and thieves the better.

Joe Mama December 13, 2011 at 7:17 am

There is your problem right there…. you still think we actually went to the moon…

jw December 13, 2011 at 7:28 am

Now is the time for ron paul.
Don’t waste your vote.

Jason December 13, 2011 at 7:31 am

@Obeacean – Actually, it’s right in your post. Ron Paul wants the regulation of heroin to be at the state level. He never says he is for a federal law legalizing heroin.

Don December 13, 2011 at 7:35 am

To pervert Ron Paul’s message that adults take responsiblity for their lives and their actions into “every man for himself” so clearly demonstrates the immaturity and irresponsible nature of people that he is saying is the problem. It’s so kinds of people who want the gov’t to rob Peter to pay for them.

His message is nothing more than: grow up! You make a decision, you bear the consequences of that decision.

FadingTruth December 13, 2011 at 7:36 am

“…Paul and his supporters claim that the free market would do its own safety testing, but with no independent agencies and no accountability, there is no reason to believe that their products could be guaranteed safe until it was far too late…”

The free market would do its own safety testing with independent agencies separate from the government. Much like how vitamins are inspected and rated now.

I would encourage everyone to look at this link:

Chart of Deaths from Marijuana and 17 FDA-Approved Drugs

Also the chart IV. Summary of Deaths by Drug Classification

The following interview with Dr. David Graham (senior drug safety researcher at the FDA) was conducted by Manette Loudon, the lead investigator for Dr. Gary Null. This interview contains jaw-dropping insights about the corruption and crimes that take place every day inside the Food and Drug Administration.

Learn more:

FDA, ADA Conspiracy to Poison Children with Toxic Mercury Fillings Exposed in Groundbreaking Lawsuit:

Consumers for Dental Choice teamed up with Moms Against Mercury ( to sue the FDA and its commissioner whose name sounds like an evil-minded villian right out of a Marvel comic book: Von Eschenbach. The lawsuit, entitled, Moms Against Mercury et al. v. Von Eschenbach, Commissioner, et al was concluded earlier this week with a reluctant agreement by the FDA to both change its website on the issue of mercury and to reclassify mercury within one year, following a period of public comment (which the agency will no doubt try to drag out as long as possible in order to avoid actually sticking to the terms of the lawsuit agreement).

Learn more:

I think we need to ask questions!

Jason December 13, 2011 at 9:07 am

1) Saying that Ron Paul’s foreign policy sets us back 150 years is like saying that the future of our foreign policy is the progress of bombing innocent people in other countries. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist (not an isolationist like much of the media leads us to believe). In my opinion, non-interventionism is progress, and should propel us forward 150 years.

2) Ron Paul is speaking philosophically about Civil Rights. He is correct in asserting that it was American policy that created the segregation of whites and blacks, and the people then followed. This is not the correct way to run a society. The people dictate culture, morals, and social issues and the government reflects it. It is not correct to say that it is the government’s job to mold us into the moral creatures it envisions. This is what the Civil Rights Act did. This is not to say Ron Paul supports a society where there is racial segregation, only that he supports a society where the people make that decision, not the elites.

3) Where did this notion come from, that the bigger the EPA the safer the environment? Ron Paul, again philosophically, believes in property rights. He believes in the people having the power to fight against corporations that pollute their land, air, or water. This idea that we need the government to protect us is naive. Wanting to eliminate the EPA is different than wanting to allow corporations to pollute the environment. Ron Paul wants to eliminate the corrupt, inefficient political institution called the EPA, and restore the power to fight pollution back to the people in the name of property rights. He does not want to eliminate the role the EPA pretends to play.

4) Why do you say that not having one uniform education policy is a bad thing? Shouldn’t we encourage the market to create the best education policy by returning this power to the states? Shouldn’t we give the people options as to what the core curriculum will be in education? What if some parents want to emphasize economics, while another wants to emphasize nutrition. Returning education to the states, as the founding fathers intended, gives parents options. Also, it is ludicrous to believe that any state would abolish education all together. Thinking that returning the power to the states gives them the power to get rid of education in that state all together ignores the fact that the very same argument could be made of the federal government. What if the federal government were to pass a law saying no American should be educated?

5) Health care is the same argument as education, foster competition to improve the quality of the service. Partner state government with the private sector to formulate the best health care system, again, by increases the number of options. This gives the power back to the parents. Keep in mind, Obamacare was not written by Obama. It was written by health insurance companies, hence the forceful purchasing of their product.

6) The author’s of this article are either very misinformed or are intentionally manipulating Ron Paul’s ideas into creating a less than savory image of him. I implore the readers of this article to do your own research, think for yourselves, and please do not fall into the trap of biased propaganda that the media in general has been laying for you.

Ron Paul 2012.

blaw0013 December 13, 2011 at 9:10 am

Without national standards of science and math and language schools would be free to teach propagandistic nonsense

Instead, what we have now with these national standards for “education,” is a more efficient, singular propaganda machine. …”we don’t need no thought control.”

Thank you OBRag for the series on Ron Paul. As I get to understand him better, through his “liberal” opponents’ point of view, the more likely I am to vote for him.

Crayton December 13, 2011 at 10:04 am

Are you saying states would allow propagandist nonsense? And wouldn’t one national standard be more akin to “thought control?”

And what is wrong with propagandist nonsense? Wouldn’t a defective public education system lead to healthy private alternatives… just like now?

Moving education from the federal to state level adds competitive diversity, government (at any level) will still be motivated by economics to have a strong education system.

eddy December 13, 2011 at 9:16 am

it says “promote” the general welfare…not provide for the general welafare like in defense. If a state or coalition of states want more socialist programs like free healthcare then it must be at the state level, not the federal level. To be even more fair, they should offer an opt-out or opt-in choice. That’s the only way socialism will ever work in a free society. Socialism should never be forced from the top down.

Kevin December 13, 2011 at 9:48 am

Civil Rights : From a governmental perspective, the very reason we even needed the whole civil rights movement was because of too much government i.e. Jim Crow laws. Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional and were a case of government outlawing certain aspects of the freedom of the people. So the root of the problem itself, FROM A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE, was too much government. (Of course, from a social perspective, one can talk about slavery, racism, the history of black people, etc). However, getting rid of the Jim Crow laws was a main part of CRA, 1964. That was cutting government involvement in an area where it had no place to be

editordude December 13, 2011 at 10:04 am

Looks like dear readers that the Ron Paul fan club must have set up search bots–not hard to do– and sent out an alert for the Paultards to storm the site. Which they did. This post went up at 6am and by 7 or so there were 59 comments waiting for moderation. All but a couple totally pro-Ron Paul and completely not into discussing the merits of the post itself but into trashing it.

editordude December 13, 2011 at 10:05 am

We asked Andy and Doug to write a series on the contradictions of the Ron Paul candidacy as there are some within the Occupy Wall Street movement who care for him. Several of his libertarian stances are enticing but overall he would be bad news for this country if we elected him.

bodysurferbob December 13, 2011 at 10:07 am

oh wow! who unleashed the dogs of ron paul upon our shores. probably most of these comments are from out of san diego and even out of state. they are delusional and these articles about paul are needed. thank you andy for putting up with the crazies and the others who are not crazy but still like paul.

Jason Gannon December 13, 2011 at 10:09 am

It’s called Liberty and Prosperity. Let’s keep our arguments concise. Long winded droning is tell tale of bias and sophmoricism. Who are these arrogant folks who wish to push their religion of Science and safety on everyone. They are the same who loathe religious groups for doing the same. Like many, I have deep emotional scars from public schooling, and see a more localized and project based model as being more compassionate and effective. Apply this to food, medicine, work, and lifestyle and you have a way to thrive in many fiscal conditions. It’s not humane or American to mandate a certain lifestyle, as being human is beyond any one discipline and is more about cooperation, tolerance, and adaptability.

doug porter December 13, 2011 at 10:11 am

Given the number of responses to both the articles thus far, I have decided to hold off responding tit for tat to the many commenters. We do appreciate that you’ve taken the time to seek us out and defend your cause. I simply don’t have the time or energy to go toe to toe with this many comments–I’d end up writing another 10,000 words and you’d still be calling me a liar or a fool. We (Andy & I) will address many of the points you all have raised in the conclusion of this series. (Except for the one about moon landing being fake–please write Newt Gingrich on that one)
Also, we’ve had to not run many comments due to foul language or other uncool behavior. We might run them someday to make the case that Ron Paul appeals to people with anger management issues, lol.

Anthony December 13, 2011 at 10:34 am

There may have been some nasty things written that I didn’t see (perhaps they were removed?), but there were many people (e.g. Jason) who has made many valid points. I, and apparently some others, see some distortions or misunderstandings of Dr. Paul’s platform in this article. As a co-writer, I’d encourage you to entertain some of the healthy comments at your convenience.

Also, please realize that anger and passion are close relatives. People are passionate in things that they understand and value; they also get angry when they believe those things are mis-represented.

Kind regards,

nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehan perot carter December 13, 2011 at 10:18 am

Andy Cohen would prefer an Obama reelection over Dr Ron

Note from Author: Yup! Absofreakinglutely!

bfkeane December 13, 2011 at 10:24 am

What part of the word “federalism” don’t you understand? Every state has departments of education, commerce, land management, and environmental protection laws. It’s a perfectly good system, but Washington adds corruption and complexity that severely hinder our social and economic progress. Each state is sovereign and makes its own laws. On average each state has the population and GDP of well-functioning democracies like Denmark. You want more wars of occupation, more crony capitalism? Great! Then vote for the status quo and continue to give more power to our imperial capital, Washington.

Effects of Weed December 13, 2011 at 10:32 am

One thing this article presumes is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the savior that brought races together and to our current status today, and without it, we would still be stuck in a nation rampant with discriminatory practices. I find that this thinking undermines the strides made by the Civil Rights Movement and people like MLK and Rosa Parks 10 years prior to the forming of this legislation, and gives the credit to the unification of our nation to the government instead of those who truly sacrificed. It seems to me that this legislation was a reflection of something people were already moving towards and would have continued regardless of the forming of this legislation.

Logan DePover December 13, 2011 at 10:33 am

Wow! Judging by the comments on this article, you guys didn’t fool anyone with this propaganda. Nice try though. Ron Paul 2012!!!

P.S. Ron Paul supporters don’t “set up search bots” and they are certainly not paid by the campaign to comment on these types of articles. We merely use our own PERSONAL LIBERTY and 1st Amendment Rights to respond to disinformation such as this. You have your right to write such falsehoods and we have ours to correct them. Peace.

michaelj007 December 13, 2011 at 10:46 am

Wonderful Federal Regulations didn’t prevent Enron, Lehman, Tyco, MF Global, housing meltdown, etc… it just stuck the middle class with the bill! Stop selling Federal Government as the Panacea of all human suffering! We’ve had enough of it and realize it’s just and overpriced, ineffective, more costly, snake oil substitute.

Patty Jones December 13, 2011 at 10:50 am

Comments are now closed on this post.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Older Article:

Newer Article: