So, yes, Ron Paul is all about liberty. Well, unless the person seeking liberty is: non-Christian, a woman, a racial or sexual minority, an immigrant . . .
Beware of people talking about “liberty”. The more often a figure uses that phrase, or any variation on it such as “freedom”, the more they want to take it from you.
If you’d like to try and justify why the Constitution Party doesn’t represent what it says it does in its platform, feel free. While you are at it, explain why Ron Paul isn’t a Christian Dominionist, when the facts clearly show he is. That is what “states rights” is a keyword for, you do know that right?
I knew Ron Paul was a nut case or senile. The Constitution Party should always have been called the Theocratic Party. So you’re right so what? Your straw man is a scarecrow singin’ your song; because then you had to go and add “Beware of people talking about ‘liberty’. The more often a figure uses that phrase, or any variation on it such as ‘freedom’, the more they want to take it from you.”
So Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams and above all Paine et al, were merely using condescending demagoguery and plotting the overthrow of the new government to set up a monarchy or something? Who you gonna convince of that, yourself?
It was a rhetorical jab at many of the so-called “Libertarians” who are merely ardent rightists. I don’t much care for libertarianism as an ideology, but I’ve always been shocked by how self-described libertarians violate their own principles. This is a good example of that, the most popular libertarian in America is a theocratic wack-job. If libertarians are, indeed, theocratic wack-jobs, that is fine but they should drop the pretense. That way they can be shown to be idiots by their own merit and their horrific ideology can be ground into the dust.
As for the people you listed, you’ll note that all of them who were engaged in political life owned slaves. Paine was the only one who understood that slavery and the so-called ‘liberty’ the new America promised were irreconcilable. So I do think my statement holds.
Most popular is highly debatable, and there has been a major schism since 2001 when LP members, including Paul, stated sounding like Democrats, shouting war for oil etc. I think the most popular true libertarian is Neal Boortz, although he isn’t a politician.
I think even official party members are truly shocked by his endorcement.
Paine, Franklin and Adams didn’t own slaves, and Washington freed his. Jefferson and Madison are indeed problematic, but their stated desire to abolish slavery is somewhat understandable. It’ like social security. I think it ought to be abolished, but as long as it’s being withheld and everyone is drawing on it (pitiful though it is) when they retire, I am at a disadvantage if decline it. Yes slavery adds another dimension, but if Jefferson and Madison give up their status to others who were staunchly for slavery, its abolition would have been that much more difficult to achieve.
Suffice it to say that it is all easy for us to judge now. I’m sure you’d prefer we’d waited under a monarchy until a great socialist revolution some 150 years of slavery later. Hitler could have started from Washington, using blacks as his scapegoats instead of Jews. Being over here, he’d have had a much better chance. In any case none of them were looking to take freedom away as you accused.
Oh, and Franklin owned at least two slaves after he became an abolitionist! And Adams spoke out against emancipation, so while you are technically correct that he never owned any slaves he did seek to perpetuate the system. That is entirely in keeping with what I said.
I was kind of stunned by the OP. I told a libertarian friend about it. Here is his response:
“Cant pull the lever for Baldwin either. Some of his views I totally agree with such as the globalists running the dems and reps, stopping the new world order, and investigation into govt involvement in 911. I also agree with his stance on limiting federal govt and adhering to the constitution. However his social stances are very radical and way too far right for me. His anti abortion, anti gay, and just general radical interpretation of the constitution and where this country needs to go are over the edge. This is where I have problems too because I am very conservative in my view of govt and fiscal policy but very liberal on social issues. Ron Paul represented both even though he did not agree with abortion ect, he also recognized that it is not the governments place to intervene.In my book that is the best policy is for the govt to stay out of things, This is where Baldwin turns very sharply to the right due to his religious background which seems to blind his view of the constitution and how the founding fathers wanted things to be. I think Ron Paul was looking for a anti globalist candidate that would fight against the New World Order which is the main issue facing our planet right now and chose to overlook his other radical views. I just can not do that anymore. I may pull for Barr but can not for Baldwin. Possibly Nadar. Although Baldwin is light years ahead of Obama or McCain in my book and even with the radical views would make a much better president than the other two puppets they have running. I honestly cant believe people continue to fall for this crap when the end result is the same. Obama/McCain either way we are screwed and at the mercy of the bilderbergers and global elite. They will have their candidates in there every time and we really have no choice. What a sham this whole thing is.”
Sorry Xunzian, but your attempt to make Ron Paul or the Constitution Party look like a bunch of fanatical drug warriors has failed. Read the preceding, and following paragraphs in that section of their party platform:
There is a 2004 book titled The New Prohibition: Voices of Dissent Challenge the Drug War which has an essay by Ron Paul. What he say’s in that essay is that “Federal” drug prohibition should be abolished and that the “states” should be able to set their own regulations, which is the same thing that occured in 1933 under Franklin Roosevelt when they repealed federal alcohol prohibition. He also states in that essay that federal drug prohibition is mainly a government job creation program for bureaucrats, and that there have been usurpations of citizens constitutional rights due to our drug prohibition policy.
If you want to see the real drug warriors then take a look at this party:
Compare that to this DRCNet article from two years ago:
seriousy is beyond me.