ron paul: unelectable but sane
by Levi Crump
Published: February 14, 2008
Of course I have heard many people say that Ron Paul is a “quack” or that his Libertarianism is “scary.” Granted, Ronny-boy isn’t your run-of-the-mill politico. However, the real question is: have his critics considered his actual stances? Or, have they decided that the best way to respond to Libertarianism is to attack the Libertarian?
The most common attacks on Paul have been regarding his stance on personal liberties, the economy and America’s 1984-like foreign policy (oh, come on, I’m a Libertarian… look me in the eye and tell me you didn’t expect an Orwellian reference).
Moral issues easily make an appearance on the list of “The Top Ten Most Important Issues.” However, there are moral issues and there are peripheral moral issues. Societies are not built upon peripheral moral issues. Therefore, if one of those peripheral issues - prostitution, for example - changes in expression, society will not crash. In other words, these issues are not the glue of society; and certainly not the glue of our society. Besides, we learned long ago that sex, drugs and rock-n-roll do not, in fact, destroy society.
Now, on to the economy. Yes, Paul supports the gold standard, and no, it will not be sunshine, roses and pancakes switching back to it. Why would it be? America is not only spending money it does NOT have, it is creating and printing money we are unable to back. What has creating and spending valueless money done to our economy? It has created inflation and further devalues our economic system. Bankruptcy can indeed come in epidemic proportions. We are well on our way there with the spending habits of our government and the “legal counterfeiting” habits of our Federal Reserve.
Spending money we do not have and then making more of it is not the mark of a fiscally responsible government. It is, at best, the mark of an irresponsible and overly powerful, fiscally-uneducated one. Paul seeks change. We are over $9,000,000,000,000 (trillion) - I typed that out so you could see just how many zeros we are talking about - in debt. It is obvious that creating money, using our “good name” to value it, and spending it is not working. If elected, Paul probably would not be able to totally convert us back to the gold standard, but at least he would think realistically about economy as more than a money-in and money-out board game.
Finally, we come to American Imperialism and the War on Terror. Did our constant presence overseas specifically cause such terrorist attacks as 9/11, as Ron Paul claims? I do not know. Is America a proponent of imperialism? (”the policy of seeking to extend power, dominion, or territories of a nation” - Thanks, Merriam-Webster.) You betcha. We insist on it.
Why? Many claim that we are a world super-power and that we should act like it. I would like to point out that we are also, traditionally, a proponent of freedom - as is Ron Paul - but maybe it’s time we start to act like it. Paul is not talking about letting the world slip into anarchy, he is talking about a small, non-interventionist government, lowering expenses, and, above all, using the Constitution for its intent: order, not control and domination by a nanny-state.
I usually refrain from quoting founding fathers as they are often quoted out of context; however, this father and this quote seem particularly appropriate:
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.” - Thomas Jefferson.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
