I figured that taking a few shots at the internet’s favorite candidate would draw some criticism, and it did indeed. Here I will address some of these criticism.
First, it’s not that I’m out to get Ron Paul in particular. However, I don’t understand the enormous online support for him compared to other political candidates based on his positions. Lets have a closer look at some of these positions.
One of Ron Paul’s major principles is that the ignoring the constitution is bad. This sounds perfectly reasonable to me. My worry is that several parts of the constitution are in dire need of change because it was written a long time ago. So when Ron Paul argues that the US Government has to come back to the constitution, but makes no mention of updating that constitution, I’m duly concerned. Several comments on my last post went on about how the US is a republic, not a democracy, and the constitution represents freedom (hmmm, somebody’s been watching too much propaganda), etc. So what? All I’m saying is that if the legal super-document of your country doesn’t make sense anymore, you ought to change it, and Ron Paul doesn’t seem to be in the fix-the-busted-ass-constitution group. If you don’t think it’s broken, best read this.
So summarize, the original rationale for the right to bear arms was because it was necessary for the security of a free state. I argued that this was no longer true, since the US has such military dominance. Mike responded:
- “The biggest reason to guarantee the right of people to bear arms is as a defense against democide (when governments mass murder their own people like in the Soviet Union or China). If you think the US couldn’t become a police state then you are dillusional.”
I completely agree that the US could become a police state or a de facto dictatorship for that matter. The question is, do you think that a bunch of rednecks with semis could orchestrate an armed revolt against a leader who controls the military? You know, those guys with the tanks and the F15s and such? You have got to be kidding.
Separation of Church and State
Ron Paul introduced a bill, called the “We the People Act,” which would basically take religious cases (including abortion and same-sex marriage, which aren’t religious in my view but whatever) out of the purview of federal courts. In other words, Ron Paul would let the states decide. Whatever your constitutional take on this, I think its pretty clear that if you let each state make its own decision on something like same-sex marriage, you may not be explicitly screwing the minority group, but you’re letting it happen. As I recall, it used to be up to each state whether slavery was permitted, and that didn’t go so well.
My point is, Ron Paul seems to be in favor of a “robustly christian but tolerant america.” I submit that this is impossible. You want evidence? Look at the latest Pope. Yes, yes, I know not all Christians are catholics but that’s not the point. The point is religions are intolerant, and allowing religious brainwashing in schools promotes that intolerance. Now, if some kid wants to pray in school of his or her own accord, then fine. But anything approach teacher-led prayers has to be banned to protect freedom of thought. It’s a very slippery slope, and many countries have slid down it before.
It seemed to me, based on my reading, that Ron Paul was against gay marriage. Based on the comments, I may have been mistaken. Has Ron Paul explained his position thoroughly? If so, where? Please let me know in the comments if you have a source.
In a comment on the last post, Jordon pointed out that “Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is ‘an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.’” That sounds pretty ant-gay to me…