addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwchatcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgoogleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinmagnifying-glassmailminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonplusprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

North Texas Objectivist Society (NTOS) Message Board › What do you think of Ron Paul?

What do you think of Ron Paul?

Plano, TX
Post #: 520
This past Saturday, I guess there was a discussion regarding Ron Paul, one of the candidates for president. I wasn't really aware of who he is, but heard that at least one person that goes to NTOS that I really like and respect thinks he is the bomb, so I figured I would check out Ron Paul's website to see what he is about.

There seems to be a lot of positives about this candidate. He has always voted against unbalanced budgets, as well as anything that couldn't be supported by the constitution. He supports property rights, and either he or whomever dresses him has really good taste in ties.

However, the biggest negative, for me, was his desire and work to fight to allow states to make up their own laws regarding abortion, effectively making Roe vs. Wade moot. Now, I guess technically one could label me as pro-choice, since I believe that it is a woman's decision. However, let me stated that I abhor the thought of abortion, but I don't think it is right to say that it is wrong in all cases. I would hate to ever have to make that decision, would hate for any of my kids to ever find them in a situation where they would have to make it, but I believe that under many circumstances it may be the best decision.

You can view his website at http://www.ronpaul200...­
There are some interesting videos, as well as details as to what he believes.

Anyway, I was curious as to what others here thought about Ron Paul?
A former member
Post #: 45
I do disagree with his views on abortion and immigration. However, I strongly support his otherwise libertarian outlook, especially on foreign policy, civil liberties and taxation.

What most excites me about his throwing his hat into the ring under the Republican party (he was drafted by supporters) is that he is finally getting a platform under which his positive ideas can be heard and spread, much more rapidly and effectively than during his run as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988. He is also creating a lot of excitement among his growing grassroots following.

This is the first time in my adult life that maybe, just maybe, I will have a major party candidate I can support (fingers crossed), who can actually start to change things for the better and curb the power of the state.

I am uncomfortable with his abortion views, but I don't think this part of his platform has much chance for success anyway should he be elected.
Mesquite, TX
Post #: 44
I was introduced to Rep. Paul decades ago, and he's one of few politicians I respect, although I too disagree on some issues. He isn't an Objectivist (I think he's Catholic), but politically he's light years closer than 99% of the others.

I think he's the only politician appearing in the film, America: Freedom to Fascism, which is about the illegality of the IRS and the Federal Reserve, among other things. (I recommend this film as an eye-opener; I rented it via , but I don't know whether the stores have it.)


On the abortion issue, I try to remember that, though related, ethics is distinct from politics:

Ethically, there are many circumstances where abortion is immoral, just as would be the case with tearing up a garden or blowing up a building or whipping a pet. If aborting my 24-hour-old zygote/embryo/fetus with a morning-after pill is not in my long-range rational self-interest (existentially and spiritually), then it's immoral for that reason alone, even if not for other reasons.

Politically, however, we can not properly create a law that is based on the false view that a potential person has RIGHTS which supersede the RIGHTS of an actual person (its mother). The sharpest point of this debate, I believe, is about when the fetus/child acquires the right to life. I can't think of a more sticky issue, even for Objectivists.

I read several years ago about a Congresswoman up in one of the northern states who utilizes in detail Ayn Rand's writings on the right to life and its foundation - to orate on the congress floor in favor of anti-abortion laws! I believe she's blurring the distinction between morality and law.
user 4147989
Dallas, TX
Post #: 1
Ditto on the other replies regarding Ron Paul's good qualities. Any disagreements I have with him I also have with all the other candidates. Someone mentioned to me that Tom Tancredo is more of an objectivist, but has as yet not explained why.

On the abortion question, it could be argued that, prior to the point of viability, that the fetus is essentially a parasite (I know how bad that sounds), and therefore one is under no obligation to allow it to utilize one's body. Using the same logic, after the point of viability one should be able to have the fetus removed at any time with the intention of preserving its life.

Legally - using the above explanation - outlawing abortion would violate the 9th amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."), not the 4th as in Roe. For the same aforementioned reason, I disagree with Ron Paul based on the 14th amendment, section 1 ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"). This assumes that one has the "privilege" of not being forced to allow another person to attach him or herself to one's body, even if removal results in the death of said person.
A former member
Post #: 37
Abortion is a hard question. Except in the case of rape there was a choice made on the part of the host. Consequently the parasite argument does not ring true with me. Having said that, I don't think that abortion should be a government issue. I think that parents willing to abort a child would not likely be very willing to parent that child if forced to do so. Consequently forcing that parent to bring the child into the world inevitably results in a shift of the burden from parent to civilization as a whole, either through government or charity sponsored orphanage, through government effort to broker an adoption, or through law enforcement, welfare, or mental health aid that child is likely to need if raised by unwilling parents.

I'm not a proponent of abortion, but I see no benefit to me in forcing an unwilling parent to bring an unwanted child into the world.

I understand that there is an agrument that the unborn child has a natural right to life. For that I have no answer.
A former member
Post #: 9
Ron Paul (republican and former libertarian presidential candidate) has many good things to say on domestic issues, and, overall, he has one of the best pro-freedom voting records in Congress.

BUT all of this is negated by his views on foreign policy. He wrongly believes, like most libertarians, that the world hates us, especially the Muslims, because of our "interventionist" foreign policy over the decades. And he is totally opposed to ANY military action against Iran, period. That last point alone causes me to question his sanity.

Of course, these views on foreign policy are the standard LEFTIST position. It's no wonder Ayn Rand called libertarians the "hippies of the right."
A former member
Post #: 110
Politics is a concretized expression of Ethics. This is why Politics FOLLOWS and does not preceed Ethics in the hierarchy of knowledge. It (politics) is distinct from, but related to, Ethics.

As I understand Mr. Paul's position, and that of his followers, they regard American foriegn policy as too interventionist, and too dedicated to acheiving American objectives. They seem to regard 9/11 as our just due. They seem to desire to wait until a nuclear Iran explodes an atomic device in an American city BEFORE the United States takes any action. He and his team seems to want America to hide behind walls and cower in the darkness before we meet our inevitable fate.

Ron Paul is a perfect example of why we don't let children run for office.

Mr. Paul doesn't seem to understand the world is a dangerous place. America has enemies, both within and outside our borders. Mr. Paul and his supporters seem to want America NOT to defend itself. They seem to want to wash themselves in an ocean of self-hating hyperbole. Pointing an accusing finger at the past as a justication for abject surrender in the present without the slightest regard for the human lives they CLAIM to want to protect. And they don't seem to want to protect American lives at all.

In my OPINION, this is nothing more than adult children playing at being "grown-ups". Their failure to understand the nature of the enemy would lead us all to destruction. Their inability to act to confront that enemy plays right into the hands of the haters of America within our borders. It is Mr. Paul's views on American foriegn policy that matters most at present and he seems to think that if America just withdraws inside our borders, doesn't defend America interests and wraps itself in some imaginary cloak of moral supremecy, that our enemies will simply dry up and blow away.

How sophomoric!

These adult children should read more history, learn a few things, and continue their D&D game and leave the running of important affairs to those of us who know what we're doing.

Hippies of the right indeed.
A former member
Post #: 42
"What do you think of Ron Paul?"

I don't think of Ron Paul at all. He has no chance in the election and requires no thought.

I think we should try to choose the least offensive among the viable canididates. Even if it is between a giant duosch and a turd sandwitch.

Plano, TX
Post #: 533
I appreciate all the replies - there are some good points here to think about.
A former member
Post #: 1
his views on foreign policy. He wrongly believes, like most libertarians, that the world hates us, especially the Muslims, because of our "interventionist" foreign policy over the decades.

Ron Paul is correct in his understanding of foreign policy -- consider Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars" and Daniel Yergin's "The Prize" for an excellent overview of our history of interaction with the Middle East. You'll be surprised.

Ron Paul is, so far, the only candidate that I have been excited about. He adheres to the principles of the Constitution. He's a self-made man that does not require the money/power that might normally be associated with a man in office. He is a practicing doctor (Ob/Gyn curiously enough, for you folks debating abortion) that flies home twice/week to deliver babies. He resonates very strongly with me because he resembles the vision I have for my own self-development (USNA grad entering medical school with a vision for entering public office when I don't need to; being objective in all things as a component for honesty and self-knowledge, which should be required of anyone asserting sound leadership).

Despite his popularity, he is being censored (ommitted and/or spun-against) by the major media.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy