Posts Tagged ‘ron paul’

Michael Farris, Homeschooling, and Ron Paul Redux

studying2
No Gravatar

Research and argumentative challenges can do amazing things. As a result of writing my first rebuttal to Mr. Farris, I have learned quite a bit about Ron Paul, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Incorporation Doctrine. I have even come to believe a couple of things that, even just a few days ago, I would have completely disagreed with (some of what I wrote in the original post demonstrates this). I am not afraid to admit when I am wrong, and I was definitely wrong about a couple of important things here. So, let me restate my argument according to what I now understand to be correct. I felt obligated to write this because I believe I misrepresented Dr. Paul’s positions on some critical points regarding constitutional authority. This was unintentional, but it’s still inaccurate, and I wanted to set the record straight.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle to overcome is to realize that the Bill of Rights was never intended to rewrite each individual state’s constitution. If it had been, the states never would have signed on in the first place, since in general they were extremely concerned with maintaining their own sovereignty. The Bill of Rights was crafted to make sure that the new federal government would not be able to exert its own control over the citizens of each state; it was not created as a universally applied set of rules which all states had to adopt themselves. If this had been the case, state constitutions would not need to include separate but similar provisions of their own, especially the states that joined the union after the Constitution was ratified. But it is easy to see that this is not what happened.

The rights recognized and protected by the Bill of Rights are important, and it would not be a bad thing if each state recognized and protected the same rights. The Incorporation Doctrine has largely allowed this to happen, and Mr. Farris thinks this is a good thing. Dr. Paul sees it as a problem because the 14th Amendment doesn’t actually say what the Supreme Court has interpreted it to say, and this has opened up the door for arbitrary laws giving power to the federal government that it was never supposed to have. The 14th Amendment’s “due process” clause was one of the primary legal bases for the Roe v. Wade ruling, and it is one of the arguments used to allow birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.

The main question is whether the due process required of the states by the 14th Amendment is merely procedural, as the wording indicates, or substantive, which includes a whole lot more than just ensuring equal protection and keeping within a common and unbiased legal system. The substantive due process debate is pretty serious, and the answer has significant implications about the real scope of government power. Ron Paul virtually always tends toward the small government side of any argument, and the Incorporation Doctrine debate is no exception.

There are a number of core questions to answer here, and the simplest way to highlight the differences between Michael Farris and Ron Paul is to explore how each of them has answered these questions. The first half of the questions I’ve included below has to do with a philosophical ideals (largely irrelevant in the legal world, but important to understand their opinions), and the second half has to do with the actual legal authority. This “Should vs. Does” side-by-side comparison will demonstrate some rather critical differences in what each each of these two men believe about the optimal scope of government power.

  1. Should the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution apply to the states?
    • Farris: Yes. That’s one the primary uses of the 14th Amendment.
    • Paul: Not as written, maintaining the correct view of separation of state and federal authority. That’s not what the states signed up for, and for the Supreme Court to use the 14th Amendment selectively as a lever to expand federal authority beyond what is clearly written (including the federal protection of some “rights” not recognized or specified anywhere in the Constitution) is a usurpation of power, even if the pragmatic outcome is favorable in some cases. “The ends justify the means” is a very dangerous line of reasoning to defend such actions.
  2. Should the rights recognized and protected in the Bill of Rights also be recognized and protected in each individual state?
    • Farris: Yes, and using federal power and Supreme Court precedents is a fine way to make sure that happens.
    • Paul: Yes, but the states have their own constitutions and legal systems to bring this about. All of the rights recognized and protected in the US Constitution are good, and in many cases they are mirrored by individual state constitutions. But arbitrarily forcing federal restrictions onto state governments is outside of legitimate federal authority. If state constitutions are inadequate in some cases, they should be changed on a state-by-state basis. Alternatively, if the states wish to ratify a federal amendment that clearly applies some or all of the Bill of Rights as written to their own state governments, that is also fine. But using the 14th Amendment to this end is not safe or desirable.
  3. Should homeschooling be a legal option for parents?
    • Farris: Yes.
    • Paul: Yes.
  4. Should the federal government be able to specifically prohibit homeschooling?
    • Farris: No.
    • Paul: No.
  5. Should the federal government be able to specifically legalize homeschooling?
    • Farris: (Unknown. He may agree with Dr. Paul here, or he may believe the federal government has more authority that what Dr. Paul believes.)
    • Paul: No, at least not without an amendment. The US Constitution is silent on the issue of education as-is, and therefore has no authority to pass laws explicitly focused on education. Any action not specifically prohibited by the Constitution is, at the federal level, already legal. To legalize homeschooling at the federal level in such a way that it has legitimate specific power over the states would require an amendment.
  6. Should individual states be able to specifically prohibit homeschooling?
    • Farris: Definitely not.
    • Paul: Technically yes, but only if there is not sufficient protection against this (e.g. right to privacy) in their governing documents. If there is no such protection, this should be fixed with an amendment to the state constitution, effected by the people of that state, not through a power grab by the federal government. [Note: this opinion directly contradicts something I wrote in my original post about Dr. Paul's application of the federal 4th Amendment.]
  7. Should individual states be able to specifically legalize homeschooling?
    • Farris: Yes. (Qualifiers not assumed; he may agree with Dr. Paul on this point.)
    • Paul: Yes, provided that power is specified in their constitution and there is no legitimate federal control over the states in this area (which there currently is not). For states that have no authority over education specified in their governing documents, then such a ruling would be largely pointless—since the default assumption for any action not expressly prohibited is that it is legal—but it would also be an unconstitutional expansion of state authority.
  8. Does the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution apply to the states?
    • Farris: Most of it does, through the precedents established by the Incorporation Doctrine and the 14th Amendment, and this is good.
    • Paul: Most of it does, through the precedents established by the Incorporation Doctrine and the 14th Amendment, but this is very dangerous because it is an arbitrary and selective expansion of federal power by means of Supreme Court rulings, which is not the correct way to change the scope of federal authority.
  9. Does the federal government have the authority to specifically prohibit homeschooling nationally?
    • Farris: No.
    • Paul: No.
  10. Does the federal government have the authority to specifically legalize homeschooling nationally?
    • Farris: Yes, through clever applications of the 14th Amendment. (I believe this is an accurate representation of Mr. Farris’ opinion, based on his post.)
    • Paul: Legally yes, because of the precedents established by the Incorporation Doctrine. But this is unconstitutional and a bad interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and constitutionally this is still outside of federal jurisdiction. For or against, the federal government has no legitimate authority in the area of education.
  11. Do individual states have the authority to specifically prohibit homeschooling?
    • Farris: No, the 14th Amendment means this is not possible.
    • Paul: Constitutionally yes, but practically no, due to the precedents set by the Incorporation Doctrine to fully incorporate the federal right to free speech and right to privacy to the states. If state and federal powers are separated according to the original intent, then if the state’s constitution gives them the power to control education in this way, they can do it—but not if there is no specific power given, or there is another state-level provision that more generally prohibits control of this kind. [Note: this opinion partly contradicts something I wrote in my original post.]
  12. Do individual states have the authority to specifically legalize homeschooling?
    • Farris: Yes. (Qualifiers not assumed; he may agree with Dr. Paul on this point.)
    • Paul: Yes, if such provisions for specifically controlling education exist in the state constitution.

So, let’s revisit the statements that Mr. Farris makes about Dr. Paul, and analyze them in light of these new clarifications.

“Ron Paul is an enemy of the legal principles that the homeschooling movement has used successfully to defend our freedom to teach our own children.”

Analysis: Ron Paul believes that using the 14th Amendment to expand federal authority beyond what is written in the Constitution is the wrong approach, even if it has been done in the past to bring about the protection of things (like homeschooling) that he would like to see protected. Mr. Farris has used this very argument in his cases, so Dr. Paul’s view that it is technically an unconstitutional approach that actually opens the door to even bigger government does put him at odds with Mr. Farris. However, to say that Ron Paul is an enemy of the legal principles is disingenuous. He is in complete agreement with the desired outcome, but he is an enemy of an argumentative technique that by definition expands the scope of federal power beyond what was originally intended.

“In the 1920s, the State of Oregon banned all private education. This Oregon law was challenged as a violation of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause prohibited states from banning private education because this overrode parental rights in an unconstitutional fashion. If Ron Paul’s philosophy were applied to this case, then Oregon’s law would have prevailed under the 10th Amendment.”

Analysis: Ron Paul’s view of the US Constitution would indeed have prevented the 14th Amendment from overruling the 10th Amendment, and based only on that argument, the Oregon law would have remained intact. However, what’s to say that a different challenge based on the limited authority of the state government wouldn’t have succeeded? I am not a lawyer, but a cursory search through relevant sections of Oregon’s state constitution does not indicate that they have the right to impose such a law, particularly in light of the rights guaranteed by Sections 1, 3, 8, 9, and 20, which respectively guarantee natural rights of citizens over their government, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of speech, privacy, and equal protection under the law. Are these really not enough? Is it truly necessary to run to the arbitrary and dubious expansion of federal authority to get what you want?

Mr. Farris lists two more examples of court cases that leveraged the 14th Amendment to protect homeschooling, one in Michigan and one in California. Although the state constitutions are different, the fundamental argument is the same. When something is going wrong within a particular state, the constitutional and safe long-term solution should not involve using arbitrary interpretations of a specific clause as a wedge to get just enough extra federal power to force the state to comply with rules that were originally written specifically for the federal government alone.

“Home schooling would be legal in about 3 states in this country today if Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution was actually practiced by the Supreme Court.”

Analysis: Mr. Farris is engaging in blatant hyperbole. There is absolutely no way of knowing that what he predicts would happen, little evidence to suggest it, and a great many arguments to be made for the opposing view. A comprehensive understanding of Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution combined with his obvious desire to remove government from education wherever possible suggests that Mr. Farris’ frightening hypothesis is, at best, extremely unlikely.

“Do you agree with Ron Paul that the states have the exclusive authority over the legality of homeschooling and the 14th Amendment provides no constitutional right to homeschool?”

Analysis: Ron Paul does believe that the 14th Amendment provides no constitutional right to homeschool, or at least that it shouldn’t, since I’m sure he recognizes the legal precedents already in place along these lines. This much I will readily admit now, in stark contrast to what I wrote before. But on this topic, I cannot come to any other conclusion in light of a strict reading of the Constitution, combined with a firm belief in small government on all levels. However, Ron Paul does not automatically believe that the states have exclusive authority over the legality of homeschooling. He only believes that the federal government has no authority over it, for better or worse. It is simply outside of federal jurisdiction.

But just because the federal government doesn’t have the power to legalize (or prohibit) homeschooling, that doesn’t mean that states by definition do have that power. As in the case of Oregon, most states have their own significant list of rights recognized and protected within in their own constitutions. Whenever a legal issue arises concerning education in a particular state, that is where the battle should be fought.

Running to the federal government for protection when doing so requires an inherent expansion of power is the epitome of nanny-statism. This concept is diametrically opposed to Ron Paul’s entire platform.

“How can you support a candidate who denies the very constitutional principle that our movement used to win our freedom?”

Analysis: if that candidate decries this “constitutional principle” on the grounds that it’s not actually constitutional but is instead a dangerous move towards expansive federal power, it’s actually not that difficult. Mr. Farris’ position on this, right or wrong, is not a settled issue. Ron Paul’s argument against it is completely consistent with the rest of his views on the Constitution. He believes that the ends do not necessarily justify the means, and the means in this case are legitimately worrisome.

“Supporting Ron Paul in the name of homeschooling is like supporting Barack Obama in the name of reducing the national debt.”

Analysis: that’s just low. Straw man, guilt by analogy, and invalid premise all in one sentence. It’s entirely unfair and he must know it. Obama has demonstrated very little desire, absolutely no ability, and no reasonable intent to reduce the national debt (though a tremendous ability to do the opposite).

On the other hand, Ron Paul clearly believes that homeschooling not only should be legal, but is actually desirable. He clearly believes that parents have the ultimate right and responsibility to train their children. He clearly believes that getting the government completely out of education, and parents back into it, is the best solution. But he also clearly believes that the government “solution” to any problem of this nature usually just makes a bigger problem, and looking to the federal government to solve a state problem is not only unconstitutional, but it is also dangerous. Mr. Farris does not hold this view, and seems content to manipulate a vague federal law to exercise authority over states—as long as the argument agrees with his morality, anyway. I’m sure he is not happy that the same line of reasoning was used to allow abortion on a federal level.

Michael Farris is still wrong about Ron Paul.

Why Michael Farris is Wrong about Ron Paul on Homeschooling

studying
No Gravatar

I just came across this particular Facebook post from Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) and Patrick Henry College. It doesn’t surprise me at all given his previous posts regarding his belief that Ron Paul is dangerous and unsuitable for the presidency. While he has done great things for home schooling in this country, Farris is someone who believes that Lincoln was justified in his position and actions against the southern states before and during the Civil War (which seems difficult to comprehend in light of the way Lincoln trashed the Constitution, judicial system, due process, and the 10th Amendment during his presidency). I say this based on personal correspondence that my dad had with him a few years back, along with his own published writings.

[1/12/2012 @ 10:45pm: I have learned some new things about Ron Paul, the Constitution, and my arguments over the last 72 hours. If I were to write this article right now, I would change some of it in a few significant ways. But since a couple thousand people have already read this and many have linked to it, it wouldn't be fair to simply modify the article, even if I no longer agree with everything I wrote. So, for the most complete view of my argument along with its history, feel free to read this including the two updates at the bottom, but please also read the revised analysis and rebuttal, Michael Farris, Homeschooling, and Ron Paul Redux. It is more thorough and deals with other underlying legal issues. I do still believe Michael Farris is wrong about Ron Paul on Homeschooling.]

Now, I am admittedly a very big fan of Ron Paul, and I think he is consistent, honest, and full of integrity. But lest you think I am blindly biased or only trying to kill the messenger, let’s look thoroughly at Mr. Farris’ argument.

The core of Dr. Paul’s supposed heresy is this:

“Ron Paul is an enemy of the legal principles that the homeschooling movement has used successfully to defend our freedom to teach our own children. He recently said that he does not believe that the 14th Amendment trumps the 10th Amendment. He said this is an abortion context (which proves that he is not politically pro-life) but, let’s examine what this means in a homechooling context.”

He then explains that this means that Dr. Paul believes that the 10th Amendment gives states the right to prohibit or regulate homeschooling, by virtue of the fact that Farris has leveraged the 14th amendment to win some of his cases:

“The case I won before the Supreme Court of Michigan for homeschooling freedom was based on the 14th Amendment. The federal constitutional principles of religious freedom and parental rights overrode the power of Michigan to require homeschoolers to all be certified teachers.”

Then, he makes this patently false claim, presumably to scare us:

“Home schooling would be legal in about 3 states in this country today if Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution was actually practiced by the Supreme Court.”

And finally, he asks this very loaded question, which sums up the straw-man argument:

“Do you agree with Ron Paul that the states have the exclusive authority over the legality of homeschooling and the 14th Amendment provides no constitutional right to homeschool?”

Yikes. How could any self-respecting homeschooler, or any advocate of civil liberties for that matter, support such a horrific concept? (I say “loaded question” in this case because the wording only allows him to be correct, and he’s actually asking us whether or not we are misguided idiots.)

The problem is that he has either twisted or misunderstood what Ron Paul actually believes and clearly says. First, let’s examine the particular part of the 14th Amendment in question, known as the “due process” clause:

“No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

And here’s the full text of the short and sweet 10th Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

And now, Dr. Paul’s 10th vs. 14th Amendment quote that serves as the basis for the argument:

“The Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to cancel out the Tenth Amendment. This means that I can’t agree that the Fourteenth Amendment has a role to play here, or otherwise we would end up with a ‘Federal Department of Abortion.’ … We should allow our republican system of government to function as our founders designed it to: protect rights at the federal level, enforce laws against violence at the state level.”

This was a written statement offering clarification, included as an addendum to his recent signature of the Personhood Pledge. It was clearly written with respect to abortion and not homeschooling, though at least Farris does admit that much. Ron Paul clearly believes that life begins at conception and therefore that abortion is killing a child. The individual rights of the unborn are no different from the individual rights of any other person. Abortion ought to be subject to the exact same laws that “regular” killing is, and these laws are written and enforced on a state level. However, the federal government DOES exist, as he stated, to protect rights, including the right to life. Therefore, no state can make a law that allows murder.

Farris would have us believe that Ron Paul thinks the choice for whether to allow homeschooling should be left up to the states. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here’s Dr. Paul’s official position.

Notable excerpts:

“Ron Paul believes no nation can remain free when the state has greater influence over the knowledge and values transmitted to children than the family does. … Congressman Paul wants parents to have the freedom to choose the best educational options for their children, and his commitment to ensuring homeschooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any other Presidential candidate. As President, he will veto any legislation that encroaches on homeschooling parents’ rights. Returning control of education to parents and teachers on the local level is the centerpiece of Ron Paul’s education agenda.”

This is consistent with the volume of material written and spoken by Dr. Paul. Remember that he wants to (and has always wanted to) completely shut down the Department of Education, without delegating any of its roles to the states (as he would do with some other federal departments).

In Ron Paul’s view of the Constitution, contrary to what Farris says, any attempt whatsoever by either the state governments or the federal government to try to limit or otherwise control the legality of homeschooling is a clear violation not of the 14th Amendment, but of the 4th Amendment: the right to privacy. While the 14th Amendment is not bad, the 4th Amendment makes it mostly irrelevant in the case of homeschooling. The Constitution provides absolutely zero authority for the federal government to affect education. Presumably, individual state constitutions do not either, but if they do, that is a separate issue to be addressed as that would put states in violation of the 4th Amendment as well.

The 4th Amendment provides a strong foundation for keeping government entirely out of our personal lives until and unless we violate the rights of someone else (which, as Dr. Paul states, it is the role of the federal government to prohibit nationally and of the state government to punish locally).

Simply stated, with respect to homeschooling, the 14th Amendment says this:

“We can’t tell you not to teach your kids at home unless we do it in a way that maintains equality under the law.”

…while the 4th Amendment says this:

“We can’t tell you not to teach your kids at home.”

Which one is more reassuring?

As to Farris’ claim that, with Dr. Paul’s interpretation, homeschooling “would be legal in about 3 states,” it is easy to see that with Dr. Paul’s interpretation homeschooling would be legal in every state, with zero government restrictions. The 4th Amendment is extremely important to Ron Paul.

And as for his final question:

“Do you agree with Ron Paul that the states have the exclusive authority over the legality of homeschooling and the 14th Amendment provides no constitutional right to homeschool?”

Ron Paul clearly does not believe that the states have any authority, let alone exclusive authority, over the legality of homeschooling. And, strictly speaking, the 14th Amendment provides no such right to homeschool. That’s what the 4th Amendment does, combined with the utter absence of educational authority specified in Article 1, Section 8. The 14th Amendment, on the other hand, merely says they can’t take away any rights without due process. [Note: see Updates #1 and #2 below for further discussion of this point, which I would clarify differently, having done more research.]

However, I believe that Mike Farris also opposes Ron Paul on his drug policies, which indicates that perhaps he does not appreciate such a comprehensive, all-encompassing understanding of the 4th Amendment in the first place.

For some additional arguments and perspectives, check out these posts from others:

Update #1 – 1/9/2012 @ 8:30am

Michael Farris makes the following argument against using the 4th Amendment:

“The 4th Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures. It is the 4th Amendment that we use to stop social service agencies from invading people’s homes. But, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, the 4th Amendment does not apply directly to the states. It only applies through the 14th Amendment. Anyone who claims that the 4th Amendment will protect homeschooling against state governments but that it is improper to use the 14th Amendment is simply and totally wrong and demonstrates that they know absolutely nothing about this area of law. Moreover, the 4th Amendment has nothing to say to any level of government about issues arising from compulsory attendance laws. That is straight up 14th Amendment issues with a bit of 1st Amendment thrown in on the side.”

This is misleading, particularly with respect to homeschooling. The 4th Amendment has indeed been incorporated against the states. Much, but not all, of the Bill of Rights are forced against the states via the Incorporation Doctrine. This is not the same as using the 14th Amendment as a legal basis (let alone the only legal basis) for applying the 4th Amendment to the states. From the linked page about the Incorporation Doctrine:

Rep. John Bingham, the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, advocated that the Fourteenth applied the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to interpret it that way. Until the 1947 case of Adamson v. California, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent that the framers’ intent should control the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and he attached a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from Bingham’s congressional testimony. Although the Adamson Court declined to adopt Black’s interpretation, the Court during the following twenty-five years employed a doctrine of selective incorporation that succeeded in extending to the States almost of all of the protections in the Bill of Rights, as well as other, unenumerated rights.

This is not at odds with Ron Paul’s position on the 4th, 10th, and 14th Amendments with respect to either homeschooling or abortion. However, it is at odds with Mr. Farris’ position on the 14th Amendment.

However, it is admittedly true that a plain, logical reading of the 4th Amendment does not indicate anything about compulsory attendance. This is a separate issue. The federal government has no Constitutional authority in the realm of education, and so cannot force you to attend school any more legitimately than they can force you to purchase health insurance. However, there may be room in this area for individual state constitutions to require some kind of compulsory public education, as long as that is clearly specified as part of that state’s authority. They still may not prohibit homeschooling (the core of the argument here), but if the state does include compulsory public education as part of their governing document, then it is up to the citizens of that state to change that legally, or move to a different state where there is no such requirement.

On a different note, Mr. Farris has said that he is pursuing a possible debate/discussion directly with Dr. Paul, which is an excellent way to resolve (or at least clarify) this whole thing. I hope they actually do it.

Update #2 – 1/9/2012 @ 1:15pm

I am continuing to learn here, and I have to be up-front with what I have discovered about the previously mentioned Incorporation Doctrine. Ron Paul apparently does not believe this is a wise approach to expanding federal power, even though in many cases it has been used in ways where I (and he) would agree in principle with the outcome. If individual rights (life, liberty, property ownership, free speech, privacy, etc.) are universal and unalienable, then it seems like a good thing to enforce them universally. But doing so by reinterpreting the federal Bill of Rights so as to apply them to the states, which the states clearly did not sign up for in the beginning, may not be the right way to do it. It is still an expansion of federal authority beyond what was written, effected by the Supreme Court. I believe this is not allowed, given logically and thoroughly consistent reading of the Constitution as written.

It seems that many of the states have their own equivalent Bill-of-Rights-style language in their governing documents, and this is where the true authority is. The federal government has limitations on itself, while it has virtual no limitations on the states from a strict literal reading. The Incorporation Doctrine is a bit dangerous in this light, since it allows for an expansion of federal powers beyond what was written—even if, in many cases, this has been used in an arguably good way.

This does not change the constitutionality of federal interference in education, but it does affect the scope of what individual states can theoretically do (depending on their own respective state constitutions). My argument is largely the same, but leaves more potential for fighting battles on the state level. Federal legislation regulating, allowing, or prohibiting homeschooling still has no constitutional authority.

This is largely a moot point at this time, since the Incorporation Doctrine is alive and well—whether or not it should be from my or Ron Paul’s perspective. But it is important to note that this doctrine will not be used as a central part of a Ron Paul administration, at least not if he has anything to do with it. Given his strong pro-homeschooling perspective, the precedents that already exist, his desire to eliminate the Department of Education, and the growing social acceptance in general of homeschooling, I don’t believe this will be a significant problem.

2011: A Year of Worldview Discovery

2011-orange
No Gravatar

2011 was definitely a year of personal development and introspection for me. Over the last 12 months, I’ve been able to clearly solidify what I believe is well-defended viewpoint controlling my own actions and my interpretation of the actions of others. This is most clearly manifest right now in my political position, which is based on the same core libertarian principles that stem from my understanding of natural laws. I started to care about politics specifically because of these principles. I developed strong views on intellectual property both alongside and as a result of the same principles.

The most significant part of all this is not so much that I think any particular way, but instead that because of the research and debate I’ve gone though over the past year, I feel very confident in my ability to defend my viewpoint with a strong logical argument. I’m not pretending to be 100% correct; in fact, I’m sure that I am not. But rather than holding vague or merely pragmatic values, my intellectual journey over the past year has allowed me to land solidly on a particular spot, and here I stand with reasoned conviction. This reasoned conviction is the key.

The nutshell-in-a-nutshell version of the worldview is known as the non-aggression principle, or the golden rule depending on how you want to look at it. It comes from an equal application of two very basic inherent rights: the right to life, and the by extension, the right to private property ownership. The non-aggression principle states that it is not okay for me to violate those same rights belonging to anyone else except in cases of defense, and only as much as necessary for adequate defense against aggression from others. In other words, more colloquially, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

This fundamental rule clarifies many political positions that might otherwise be hard to decide. The bottom line is that I now can only favor a very small government whose only responsibility is to make sure that the non-aggression principle is applied universally, and that those who would violate it are prevented from doing so or punished accordingly. This allows for national defense, domestic police, and transparent and equal justice system. It does not allow for entitlements, subsidies, privileges, bailouts, loans, scientific research, charity, healthcare, economic manipulation, anti-discrimination laws, drug prohibition, education, and a large number of other things that the government currently has their hands in.

While certainly not everyone would agree with this position, I am confident in my ability to argue for it on principle down to the very foundation without any cognitive dissonance. This is a new experience for me. I’ve never been especially confused, but I’ve also never been especially sure until 2011.

I’m looking forward to 2012, and I hope this trend continues. I anticipate many more Facebook debates, internal consideration, and long explanatory blog posts as I further develop my worldview.

A Personal Endorsement for Ron Paul 2012

ronpaul
No Gravatar

Please vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming primary election, and again in the general election in November.

Even if you have already decided who you want to vote for, even if you are predisposed to think Ron Paul is weird, ridiculous, or crazy, please take 20 minutes to read what I have written here to see if it makes you think. He is not just “the least bad option” among mostly poor choices, as we usually see every four years; Ron Paul is fundamentally and unequivocally different in very important ways.

Update 12/10/2011: William Stearns has provided some excellent additional resources in the Comments section. Be sure to check them out as well.

In short…

More detail is given for each of these points below, but here they are:

  • He’s been totally consistent in his principles and his message over the last 30 years.
  • His actions invariably follow his words.
  • He stands ready to give a well-reasoned, principled answer to even the most difficult questions.
  • He does not pander to voters or special interests.
  • He predicted the housing crisis years before it happened.
  • He predicted the 9/11 terrorist attacks years before they happened.
  • He has no dark past or flip-flops for the media to dredge up.
  • He has specific plans for how to deal with every one of the problems listed below.
  • He firmly believes in a small government strictly bounded by the Constitution.
  • He has the strongest grassroots support of any candidate by far, and his supporters throw their heart and soul into spreading his message.

It will be exceedingly difficult to lay out a complete argument in an easily digestible form, but I will do my best to keep each point brief without sacrificing clarity, and simply provide links for you to read more on any particular topic if you would like more info. Watching or reading all of the additional linked material will likely take a couple of hours, but it is absolutely worthwhile if you are interested in more information. You may not agree with all of Ron Paul’s positions, but if you are willing to read through all of this, ask yourself how any other candidate stacks up against Ron Paul in the areas where the President actually has power to do anything. I can only see one truly beneficial choice.

We have some big problems to fix

I’ll start with something we probably all agree on: there is something wrong with this country. Regardless of why you think that is, or exactly what you think is wrong, there are problems to deal with, and they are not insignificant. Here are some of the most critical ones from my perspective:

  • Massive and rapidly increasing national debt
  • Undeclared and economically draining endless wars
  • Extremely high unemployment
  • Potential terror threats to the US
  • Housing market crisis
  • Rising costs of healthcare
  • Illegal immigration
  • Corruption in government

Depending on your focus and how specific you want to be, I’m sure you can come up with many more to add to that list. None of these problems arose overnight, and they cannot by solved overnight either, but unless they are dealt with, this country will continue its downward spiral. Some analysts claim that the 2008 recession is over, that we’re on the road to recovery; however, I see no real reason to believe that’s true while we stay on the course we are on. We are far more likely to fall into an even deeper depression, because the government and Federal Reserve are both doing the same thing they did before and during the Great Depression, and it isn’t going to work any better this time around.

Why Ron Paul?

Ron Paul certainly gets the short end of the stick from most media outlets. It has been a tremendous uphill battle for him to get his views out to the general public, and he has only had some success recently due to a huge concerted effort from his rapidly growing individual support and the technological wizardry that is the internet. So, it is very likely that whatever opinion you have of him has been either entirely or primarily shaped by people who don’t like him, his opinions, or his supporters. I cannot pretend to be unbiased myself, but I will say that I have learned not to take anything at face value, and my own defense of Ron Paul here comes from a whole lot of research, debate, and critical thinking. Even so, I am willing (eager, even) to be challenged on any point, for the sake of learning and spreading the truth.

Please note that my reasons for supporting him have absolutely nothing at all to do with his party affiliation. Don’t let the fact that he’s trying for the Republican nomination preclude any further consideration; he is certainly not a “Republican” in the contemporary sense. That being said, here are my own reasons for believing that Ron Paul is hands-down the best candidate:

  • He’s been totally consistent in his principles and his message over the last 30 years.
    (Watch Ron Paul: The Consistent Candidate on YouTube, length is 1m 10s)
    Ron Paul has always advocated small government and individual liberty and responsibility. He has been in Congress (with short gaps) since 1976, holding office for 12 two-year terms. He ran for President in 1988 on the Libertarian ticket, and his message then was the same as it is today. He does not hold simultaneous mutually exclusive views (cognitive dissonance) as many politicians do, and he does not change his mind or his message to suit his audience or the political climate. He supported Reagan when Reagan promoted deregulation, spending cuts, and a reduction of the government (which was unpopular at the time), but he even cut off that association (!) when Reagan started reneging on his own campaign promises. He is still saying exactly the same things he said when he first entered politics, for exactly the same reasons, only now he has a lot more history proving the validity of his message. No other candidate can touch this record.
  • His actions invariably follow his words.
    (Watch Who is Ron Paul? In 2 minutes on YouTube, length is 2m 1s)
    Ron Paul is opposed to the expansion of government power, meddling in foreign affairs, wasteful spending, subsidies, bailouts, and entitlement programs. While he ran his own OB/GYN practice, one of the very few rules was that patients who could not afford to pay would still be served (for free!), but none of the doctors on staff were allowed to take any government funds even when they were available. This is the epitome of integrity. (Read Before He Delivered For Voters, Paul Delivered Babies on NPR)

    He has never voted to raise taxes.
    He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    He has never taken a government-paid junket (an excursion for the purpose of pleasure at public or company expense).
    He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

    He voted against the PATRIOT Act (which is unconstitutional and unnecessary). (Watch Reality Check: Has the Patriot Act thwarted 42 terror attacks?, length is 4m 29s)
    He voted against regulating the Internet.
    He voted against the Iraq war.
    He wants to abolish the TSA, a reactionary and corrupt group that has completely failed to improve our safety and has utterly shredded the 4th Amendment.
    He wants to abolish the IRS and income tax entirely (which is possible budget-wise after government spending is significantly reduced).

    He does not participate in the congressional pension program.
    He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

    He has been the lone “No” vote against all 434 of his colleagues in the House numerous times, voting on principle against things that the government does not have Constitutional authority to do, regardless of how nice it might sound on paper. Ron Paul holds strongly to a very specific set of principles, and everything he does is filtered and bounded by those principles without compromise. Try finding anything close to this level of integrity among any other candidate running today (or in recent history for that matter). You won’t be able to do it.

  • He stands ready to give a well-reasoned, principled answer to even the most difficult questions.
    Ron Paul does not need a teleprompter. He can answer just about any question you throw at him, in any situation, provided both you and he have the time. This is the result of having a clear set of core principles from which you can easily extrapolate at least the basic structure from any viewpoint–even the ones that you haven’t already spent time thinking much about (though I am pretty sure that Ron Paul has spent a considerable amount of time formulating many detailed answers to previous and potential questions).

    He believes firmly in individual liberty, the self-ownership principle, and the non-aggression principle. (Watch The Philosophy of Liberty on YouTube, length is 8m 16s) In a nutshell, he believes that property rights are paramount, each person has the highest claim of ownership (among other people) of their own body and life, the initiation of force (a.k.a. aggression) is wrong, and defense against aggression is justified. These basic principles are further augmented by a strict interpretation of the Constitution and its role in limiting the federal government. From this foundation, questions about whether government should or should not do any given action in any specific case are usually relatively simple to answer.

    In the exceptionally rare cases where Ron Paul does not have an answer ready, he will not hesitate to tell you so. He does not give his opinions when he does not actually have reasons to back them up.

  • He does not pander to voters or special interests.
    Ron Paul has kept to his principles in the face of absolute opposition from his colleagues in Congress. (For clarity, note that “pandering” is the act of expressing one’s views in accordance with the likes of a group to which one is attempting to appeal.) As mentioned before, he has frequently been the only “no” vote against bills that had otherwise full congressional (and even popular) support, because he firmly believed those bills fell outside of the jurisdiction of the federal government. He has also clearly stated very unpopular views on national television, namely in the GOP debates during the 2008 election cycle and the current 2012 cycle, which have resulted in boos from the audience. He does not apologize for these statements afterwards because he holds to their being solidly grounded in reality, logic, and principle.
  • He predicted the housing crisis years before it happened.
    (Watch Ron Paul Calls the Housing Collapse in 2003 on YouTube, length is 5m 39s)
    This is absolutely critical because it demonstrates a clear understanding of economics, far beyond that of people who didn’t see the crash coming. It was his study of the Austrian economic theories of Mises and Hayek during his time as a doctor that first got him interested in politics, and his particular concern with the consequences of moving completely away from the gold standard in 1971 which made him run for Congress in the first place. (Watch Nixon Ends Bretton Woods International Monetary System on YouTube, length is 4m 6s) He has been warning of the “boom and bust” business cycle for decades, something which is primarily brought about by the manipulation of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. None of the other candidates saw this coming despite the many warning signs to those who knew enough to look. Ron Paul clearly articulated exactly why such a crisis was inevitable given the current monetary policy, and exactly what had to be done to keep it from happening (or at least to keep it from being as bad as it has become). Nobody listened.

    When the Federal Reserve creates easy credit by keeping interest rates artificially low, it is natural that investors throw caution to the wind and create bubbles (or “booms”) in a particular market sector. Interest rates are supposed to be a market-regulated level of the time-value of money. If lots of people want to borrow, then interest rates should go up. If nobody wants to borrow, then interest rates should go down. These fluctuations are normal in a free market. People need to compete for investors’ funds by coming up with projects that promise a very good return. If you don’t have a very promising project, then you won’t be able to find investors. But the Federal Reserve suppresses this by creating more money out of thin air, which increases the supply and lowers the price (a.k.a. interest rates in this case). This makes lots of people invest this newly printed money in projects that are much, much more risky than they would normally accept. This is what ultimately caused so many Americans to go crazy buying houses that they couldn’t afford–the credit was too easy to get.

    If the Federal Reserve had not manipulated the interest rate, then the banks would have had a harder time getting funds to loan out, and subsequently would have been much more reluctant to loan their funds to customers who might not be making wise investments. Construction companies wouldn’t have directed so many resources to building new homes that people couldn’t really afford, since the demand wouldn’t have been there. This is how the market is supposed to work. Instead we had government intervention that pushed housing prices artificially high. This can only be resolved by letting the bubble “pop,” so to speak. The malinvestment needs to settle and be re-valued at real market prices. This is not a fun process, but it is the only real solution.

  • He predicted the 9/11 terrorist attacks years before they happened.
    (Watch Ron Paul Predicts Terrorist Attacks in 1997, 1999, and 2001 on YouTube, length is 2m 47s)
    This is also absolutely critical because it demonstrates a clear understanding of the effects of our foreign policy. Whether or not you believe that what we are doing in foreign countries is right, Ron Paul was at least correct about the consequences. The concept of “blowback” is well-documented and vetted by the CIA and the findings of the 9/11 Commission. It also makes perfect sense. If we continually meddle in the affairs of foreign countries, our actions will make enemies. These enemies might not like us in the first place anyway due to ideological reasons (fundamental Islam is anything but perfectly peaceful), but it is far, far more likely that our ideological enemies will turn to acts of terrorism if we invade their lands, topple their governments and replace them with US-friendly puppets, sanction their trade, tell them what they may and may not do, and of course repeatedly kill innocent civilians through carelessness, bad intelligence, or even vindictive reaction. (Watch Just Imagine video on YouTube, length is 3m 11s)

    This should not be a difficult concept to grasp, and plain logic (with vast historical supportive evidence) is what enabled Ron Paul to warn for years that we were inviting a terrorist attack. He plainly stated (and continues to state) that people will attack us because we don’t mind our own business. (Read Covert United States foreign regime change actions on Wikipedia) In virtually every case, the plainly stated reason directly from those who are attacking us is that they do it because we don’t mind our own business. Coincidence? No. This should be obvious by now, but Ron Paul still got booed by the audience and patronized by a condescending Rick Santorum at a recent GOP debate for saying so. None of the other candidates are willing to say this, despite the fact that other government agencies have already admitted as much, and the rest of the world seems to see it plain as day. (Read Dying to Win by Robert Pape, or at least the Amazon.com short description of the book)

  • He has no dark past or flip-flops for the media to dredge up.
    Ron Paul was a flight surgeon in the Air Force for five years, and then an OB/GYN afterwards, delivering over 4,000 babies (even continuing through some of his congressional career). He has been married to the same woman for over 50 years. There are no scandals to be found in his personal history that I am aware of, and you can bet they would have come to light by now with the way so many people vehemently oppose him. He has so much honesty and integrity that it’s hard to believe he’s been involved in politics for many decades. I have seen more than a few claims that he has changed his message or been inconsistent, but these are invariably actions taken out of context, misinterpreted, or based on a misunderstanding of his message. And no, I don’t dismiss these claims off-hand because I can’t believe they might be true. I eagerly look into such claims when I come across them, because I want to know what really happened, and I don’t want to blindly support anyone, even Ron Paul. So far, I have not found any dirt that sticks.
  • He has specific plans for how to deal with every one of the problems listed above.
    Ron Paul has already introduced his Plan to Restore America, which cuts $1 trillion (with a T) from the federal budget within the first year of his presidency and produces a truly balanced budget within three years. This is accomplished primarily by returning federal spending to 2006 levels and eliminating five cabinet-level departments: Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, and Education. It also repeals Obamacare, fully audits the Federal Reserve, closes down the empire-like spread of 900 bases we have all over the world to bring our troops back home, implements a spending freeze on most non-eliminated departments, and privatizes many portions of others (including the horrific TSA). The truly necessary functions of the eliminated departments would be handed back to the states.

    This plan itself deals with debt and excessive spending, which is a major contributing (or enabling) factor for five of the main problems listed above (debt, wars, unemployment, housing crisis, and healthcare). This move alone will free up vast resources that allow us to focus on defense at home (including illegal immigration) as well as to provide a transition phase for entitlement programs like Social Security that would otherwise run out of funds in short order. Corruption cannot be cured by change in laws, but its effects can be mitigated by simply removing the ability of corrupt politicians to make good on corrupt promises. If there is no expansive federal political power to be bought, then corporations can no longer benefit by paying lobbyists to get what they want.

    I realize that it may not immediately follow why that huge spending cut and department reorganization is a good solution for so many problems, but the reasons are there and I would be happy to give them if you would like. Many of the linked videos explain as well. I am only trying to keep this message as short as possible. There is far too much to go into here to deal with every follow-up question on these topics, but they are good to ask. Look up these topics online to find more details on Ron Paul’s specific positions. The important thing is that he does have very specific plans and logical reasoning to back them up, which is once again far more than you’ll find with any other candidate.

  • He firmly believes in a small government strictly bounded by the Constitution.
    (Watch Ron Paul’s Electability on YouTube, length is 2m 17s)
    Neither Republicans nor Democrats are generally known today for wanting to shrink the scope of government. Honestly, there is very little practical difference between the two parties. We are given the illusion of choice between them, but we’re really only choosing between minor differences in how government power will be expanded at any given time. Politicians typically hate the prospect of giving up either money or power for any reason. But Ron Paul is not like most politicians. I would normally be very hesitant to make such statements about what any particular politician will do if and when he wins an election, but Ron Paul’s record speaks for itself. He has already had numerous opportunities to compromise his principles, and has not done so even in ways that everyone else believes would be perfectly harmless. Ron Paul is running for president for the specific purpose of cutting government down to size, and if he wins, that’s what he will do. (Watch Ron Paul: Why I Want To Be President on YouTube, length is 12m 5s)
  • He has the strongest grassroots support of any candidate by far, and his supporters throw their heart and soul into spreading his message.
    I saw a comment online recently that said, “You claim to be a fervent Ron Paul supporter. Is there any other kind?” Logically, I will be the first to admit that the simple fact that people cling tightly to a given message does not mean that message is correct. However, the fact that Ron Paul has managed to raise nearly $35 million for his two presidential campaigns, from hundreds of thousands of individual donors, suggests that his support is not merely a small or narrow cult following. Ron Paul supporters tend to have a more thorough understanding of the issues at stake than any other demographic I have come across. Some of them can be aggressive, rude, or demeaning in their communication, and this is both wrong and unfortunate since it reflects poorly on the campaign. However, the majority of Ron Paul fans I have observed or communicated with have been diplomatic, patient, educated, and eager to further the cause of liberty in an open and inviting way.

    Ron Paul makes a great figurehead, but I have seen a remarkable number of people who expressly state that Ron Paul himself is not even that important, that it’s the message he communicates that makes all the difference. People are latching onto the ideas, not just the messenger. Even many mainstream media outlets and campaign spokespeople from competing campaigns have made statements about the massive, efficient, and motivated grassroots support that he has. They clearly wish they had the same kind of backing. So many GOP candidates rise and fall; we are currently experiencing the rise of Newt Gingrich, which is inexplicable to me given his record. I and many others think his fall is inevitable. Romney’s support has never been very vocal or committed, but people seem to think he’d be a tolerable President, and leave it at that (again, inexplicably so). But Ron Paul’s support, while it started small, is constantly growing at an ever-increasing rate with no sign of any shrinkage.

    Also note that it is primarily individuals or non-politically-connected businesses that support him. Other candidates often get huge donations from well-positioned corporations who stand to benefit by political favors. Ron Paul gets none of those, because he is explicitly running to eliminate any possibility of political favors, subsidies, bailouts, or other deals that enable corporatism. (Read Corporatism Is Not Capitalism) His support instead comes from many thousands of small donations. His supporters will make personal sacrifices to their own lifestyle to be able to afford giving him financial support. They will eagerly volunteer time and resources to contribute to his campaign. They will make phone calls, organize town hall meetings, attend straw polls, and above all do everything possible to get his message out to as many people as they can–all because they believe it’s the only way to help the US regain prosperity.

    People who come to believe that Ron Paul is right typically find that the entire political landscape shifts into a totally new and clear frame of reference. There are people who love liberty, and then there are people who love the State. Whether there is a D, R, I, or any other letter next to any politician’s name is immaterial. Ron Paul’s message, the philosophy of liberty, self-ownership, non-aggression, and sound money together bring in supporters from every demographic, and when people join the party, they rarely leave–not because they can’t, but because leaving would involve compromising their integrity and retreating back into a mess of ineptitude, power grabs, flip-flops, and corruption.

Every single one of these reasons does not apply to any of the other candidates. They most certainly don’t apply to either Romney or Gingrich. Ron Paul may not be the most physically appealing candidate or the smoothest talker, but the above 10 qualities make him vastly more “presidential” than anyone else running. He has every necessary qualification.

What about a isolationism, Israel, a nuclear Iran, drugs, religion, gay marriage, abortion, and letting grandma die?

Most people who don’t approve of Ron Paul bring up at least one of these points, so it would be unfair to leave them out of this discussion. I will not address them at length here, but merely provide counterpoints and invite you to follow up with me, visit the supplied links, or look into his actual positions online. His statements and his record speak for themselves.

  • Isolationism
    Many people claim that Ron Paul’s foreign policy is one of isolationism because he wants to bring all of the troops home, close down all foreign military bases, quit our nation-building actions, and stop providing government-supplied foreign aid to anyone. But this is not isolationism at all; it is non-interventionism. It’s the difference between “everyone must stay away” and “everyone should take responsibility for themselves.” Ron Paul completely supports free trade with all countries (even including Cuba, which is still inexplicably closed off). He wants to freely and voluntarily trade products, resources, and knowledge with any willing foreign country, without sanctions, subsidies, or tariffs. He is entirely supportive of private donations or even private groups going to foreign countries to provide aid directly. He only wants to avoid any and all political meddling and military alliances. When the government gets involved, there are always unintended consequences, and they are usually bad. (Watch Ron Paul: I’m a Non-Interventionist on YouTube, length is 4m 43s)
  • Israel
    Many people say that Ron Paul hates Israel, or he is anti-Semitic, or other similar claims. These are entirely unfounded. Most of this sentiment comes from his desire to end all foreign aid, including that given to Israel. But Netanyahu has recently claimed that they don’t need or want our help. We have already armed them to the teeth. Ron Paul’s position is simply that we should end our entangling military alliance and interact with them only through open and voluntary trade–including trade of intelligence and security information, if desired, but not beyond that. Israel should be free to do what they want to without answering to the US–they are a sovereign nation, after all–and they should accept the consequences of whatever actions they choose. In the long run, foreign aid is just as bad as domestic welfare; it creates a state of dependency on others. This is not in Israel’s best interest, or ours. We give $3 billion of aid to Israel yearly, and twice that much to other nations who explicitly hate Israel. That doesn’t make sense at all logically, and we don’t even have the money in the first place. In addition, our seemingly blind support of Israel is another thing that causes other countries in the region to be wary or angry with us. Leaving Israel to themselves would be a good move for our own national safety. (Watch Ron Paul: Foreign Policy & Israel on YouTube, length is 6m 57s, and read Ron Paul Tells Newsmax: I Support Israel)
  • Nuclear Iran
    This is one of the biggest issues for dissenters right now. Some people claim that Ron Paul wants Iran to have a nuke, or that he is weak on defense, or that he is naive not to want to do everything in his power to keep Iran from getting a nuke. All of these ideas are wrong. There has been a tremendous quantity of fear-mongering propaganda produced by the US government and many media outlets on this topic, eerily similar to that which got us into the unconstitutional and undeclared Afghanistan and Iraq wars we are still fighting. The reality is that Iran is not close to being able to build a nuke, and there is no overwhelming evidence even in the recent IAEA report that they are trying to achieve that goal. (Read IAEA On Iran: A Colossal Non-Event) The oft-quoted anti-Israel remarks from Ahmedinejad about “wiping Israel off the map” were mistranslated and taken out of context, and Ahmedinejad is not even the person ultimately calling the shots. The real authority keeps him on a relatively short leash and has even threatened to eliminate the position he currently holds.

    Ron Paul’s strongest argument on this point is that we have absolutely no Constitutional business exercising control over a sovereign foreign government, even if they don’t like us. This is actually the exact same argument that applies to Israel, with the small difference that Iran is not nearly so friendly towards us. If Iran actually attacks us, then Ron Paul would certainly do everything possible to defend our nation (which would be much easier with all of our troops back home in the first place). But we have absolutely no right to impose our will on foreign countries who are not actually violating our own sovereignty. It is dangerous at best, unjustified, and hypocritical for a country that claims to represent freedom in the world.

    Additionally, there are many antagonistic countries surrounding Iran which have nuclear weapons of their own. This highlights two things: first, Iran would be exceedingly dumb to even consider using a nuke against anyone, since there would be immediate retaliation from multiple sources if they did. The entire country would be turned into a wasteland. Second, they are surrounded by legitimately dangerous enemies who vastly outmatch them in terms of firepower. Any sane person (or country) in the same situation cannot be blamed for wanting to improve their own defensive posture. Practically speaking, Iran has the exact same rights to possess nuclear arms as any other country does. (If you disagree with this statement, see if you can come up with a reason why that doesn’t involve a Minority-Report-style preemptive conviction of a crime that has not been committed.) We have no authority to control others simply because we are afraid of what they might do. To do this is the height of hypocrisy.

    It is very significant that Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which Israel will not sign) and has at all times allowed the IAEA inspectors to have total access. All of their fissionable material has been accounted for. There is just no credible evidence that they are trying to build a bomb. And if they had one, what could they really do with it? One prototype, low-yield atomic bomb, 1945 vintage–against what–the Israelis, with hundreds of nuclear weapons, including hydrogen bombs. Or against us, with our atomic subs right off their coastline? And how would they even launch a bomb? They have no delivery systems in place, certainly not anything long-range.

    It would be like building a Civil-War-era powder-and-shot rifle out of a kit and then taking it to attack a modern military base, where they have an infantry battalion with automatic weapons. What would happen when they reached the front gate at the base and started shooting? Not hard to guess, right? No matter what angry rhetoric the Iranian president spews, they aren’t crazy enough to really try to attack either us or Israel. They don’t want to give us or Netanyahu an excuse to obliterate their country.

  • Drugs
    Ron Paul wants to completely end the so-called “war on drugs.” It is an abject failure. It is the wrong solution to a problem that, while it is very real to a small number of people, has been twisted and misrepresented for decades. It is exactly as misguided as the alcohol prohibition movement was nearly a hundred years ago. The drug war has created a lucrative, hidden, dangerous black market for controlled substances, which is far more damaging than open markets. It has also created an enormous burden on the entire country due to skyrocketing prison populations. (View the first few graphs from November.org) The dangerous yet financially enticing black market for drugs is also in large part funding the ongoing strife in Mexico. If the drug market weresuddenly legitimized, drug sales would no longer be able to financially support the various factions involved. It wouldn’t solve all of their problems, but it would certainly have an effect.

    The majority of people do not wake up each day and think, “You know, if it weren’t illegal, I think I’d go smoke some weed (or shoot up heroin, or snort cocaine).” We do not stay away from drugs because they are illegal. We stay away from drugs because we are not interested in them, or we don’t want to risk suffering from possible adverse effects. The people who decide they want to use drugs anyway don’t care about the laws in the first place. That is precisely why drug laws are ineffective. They are the wrong solution to addiction problems. The reason most people are not alcoholics is obviously not because alcohol is illegal, and the reason alcoholics are alcoholics is obviously not because alcohol is legal. This same reasoning applies to drugs.

    Further, even ignoring its failure, the federal government has no authority to do what they are doing. Back during the prohibition era, politicians and anti-alcohol groups realized that they would need a constitutional amendment to try to control the private purchase and consumption of alcohol, since that power was clearly not in the Constitution. In 1920, they managed to get one (the 18th Amendment), which was no small task. This was repealed in 1933 with the 21st Amendment, after over a decade of a completely failed “war on alcohol” that produced the same kind of lucrative, dangerous, illegal black market for booze as we have today for drugs. Today, politicians have utterly disregarded the limitations on their authority and simply gone ahead without it. The reasoning and methods are the same as before; only the substances in question have changed. The Constitution certainly hasn’t. What they are doing is not only ineffective, it is also outside of their jurisdiction.

    Ending the war on drugs would bring the market back into the light, cut off funding for drug lords, clear out a significant portion of entirely non-violent inmates from our prison system, and increase sales tax revenue for many states. It would not solve drug addiction problems, but it would remove some of the stigma and all of the illegality, which would make it less socially difficult to deal with real drug addiction problems than it is today. This is Ron Paul’s position.

  • Religion
    Ron Paul is a Christian. This may be seen as a positive thing for some of you, or neutral, or negative, depending on your own views. He does not pretend to be anything else, and he is not ashamed of his beliefs. He has a short but clear Statement of Faith page right on his official campaign website. Most importantly though, his words and actions, the way he interacts with others, and his honesty and integrity are not at odds with his professed religion. He is not a fake Christian, or a “convenient” Christian. His principled approach to both life and politics are aligned with his moral convictions and religious beliefs.

    He does not, however, want to use the Presidency as a means to impose a self-interpreted theocracy on us (which at least Bachmann and Santorum seem to want). He believes that religion is a very important personal matter, and that as important as it is to share it with others, it is equally important not to legislate it onto others using government, since that is both impractical and counterproductive. People do not change their beliefs because of laws. While Ron Paul will readily talk to you about his faith if you ask him, he makes a specific point not to use it as leverage to get elected.

    If this position seems wrong to you, imagine how you might feel about someone with a different religion winning the election and then using their new power to push that religion. It is unwise to want an elected official to wield power beyond that intended for their office simply because they agree with you, since their time in power is temporary. What happens when someone who holds different views takes that newly empowered office? If a government has power to help spread a particular religion, then it most likely has power to help spread any religion. The Constitution was plainly worded to prevent this. Ron Paul understands this.

  • Gay marriage
    Some people claim that Ron Paul is pro-gay-marriage. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing to you, it is a misinterpretation of his position. Ron Paul believes that the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. It is simply not within their jurisdiction. The government doesn’t regulate baptism; why should marriage be different? (And since he also wants to abolish the IRS and the income tax, don’t believe it’s because of tax benefits either.) Marriage as an institution is truly defined by religion. Different religions ascribe different meanings to it, but marriage without religion is nothing more than a particularly strong commitment or friendship (which is not a bad thing in itself). The only reason a government should get involved is because marriage is (in some cases) also a legal contract. The enforcement of that legal contract is as far as any government should be allowed to go. Ron Paul is not pro-gay-marriage, he is merely anti-state-marriage. There is significant difference.
  • Abortion
    Ron Paul delivered over 4,000 babies as an OB/GYN. He is pro-life to the core. The one specific view that defines his position on abortion is that he believes that life begins at conception. Combined with his existing principles on self-ownership and individual liberty, his views on abortion make complete logical sense. If life begins at conception, then abortion is, simply put, killing a child. But pay special attention to the reasoning here. Ron Paul disapproves of the Roe v. Wade ruling not because he is pro-life, but because it is an unconstitutional expansion of federal power. Given the opportunity, he would certainly not replace it with a similar but opposite ruling that said all abortion is illegal. Why not? Because criminal manslaughter laws are not the business of the federal government. Those laws are enforced on a state level, and to take that authority away from the states is a violation of the Constitution. This is Ron Paul’s position. If life does begin at conception, then the abortion question is over since it then falls under the existing set of state laws concerning exactly when it is okay to kill another person (practically never, except in self-defense). If life does not begin at conception, then Ron Paul would not support a federal law either permitting or banning it. The specific answer to when life begins is not something the President can provide in a legal capacity. Ron Paul is, as always, merely trying to keep the role of the government within its very tight bounds.
  • Letting grandma die
    Some people claim that Ron Paul is a cold, heartless person because he wants to end Social Security and Medicare, and that he believes everyone should be on their own for their healthcare. This is, again, totally wrong. It is true that Ron Paul wants to end Social Security and Medicare, because they are entitlement programs that are not only inherently detrimental to society as a whole, but also impossible to pay for in their current state. He plans to phase them out gradually, allowing alternative competing options on a private basis to pick up the slack. Part of his $1 Trillion in budgeted spending cuts is to allow the federal government to actually make good on its promises to people who are currently dependent on these systems without going into more debt or printing more money. Younger people will have the opportunity to opt out. He most definitely does not intend to end the entitlement programs overnight, but the reality is that they will simply implode on themselves in a much more destructive way if we don’t take steps to dismantle them gradually.

    Also, Ron Paul doesn’t believe for a second that everyone should always be on their own when it comes to health care (or any other financial hardship). He merely believes that the government should not be involved in the forced redistribution of wealth, and that private charities, other groups, or even the doctors themselves should be responsible for providing low-cost or no-cost service to those who truly need it (which will be more feasible if the health care market is actually opened up to real competition). His own actions while running his OB/GYN practice are an example for the rest of the industry.

    Many people say that private charity is insufficient to solve this problem. It is true that we currently don’t give as much as would be necessary to support medical costs right at this moment, because costs are so high and because everyone is used to letting insurance companies or the government pay for everything. If the health care market were a truly competitive field, however, costs would go down. While this happens, people who typically have to pay through the nose will have more money to work with, increasing the possibility that they will be willing to give to charitable organizations or friends who need it.

    Charity is voluntarily giving people money to solve problems that they didn’t prepare for. Whether out of real inability or negligence, the consequence is the same. By definition, the alternative is precisely this: Involuntarily giving people money to solve problems they didn’t prepare for. Or, in other words: they take your money, without your consent, to solve problems they didn’t prepare for. This doesn’t fit with any sustainable model of property rights that I know of. Random kindness is certainly not a solution, but charity is not the same as random kindness. Charity is targeted kindness. If it is okay for people to take your money without your consent to solve problems they didn’t prepare for, then what incentive is there to prepare? This is the problem with government welfare and entitlement programs. No matter where you set the bar for who “deserves” the money (forcefully taken by the government in the form of taxes), there is some marginal group of people who can take advantage of it simply by doing just a little less than they were before.

    Private charity, which does not have an endless supply of taxpayer funding, presents a much clearer motivation for the down-and-out person to do whatever they can get to back on their own feet, because they know that any reasonable private charity will not continue to support them if they don’t improve. This is Ron Paul’s position.

I would be happy to directly address any other specific objections, if you have them.

Why not any of the other candidates?

In short, because they can’t even begin to compare with Ron Paul and his record and integrity. There are definitely distinct reasons not to vote for the other candidates though. I did not compile these lists in this format, but they are the most concise, centralized collections of short points that I have seen anywhere.

  • Newt Gingrich
    • Is quite the hypocrite.
    • Supported the TARP bailouts. Stated in 2008 that he would have voted for TARP bailouts if he were a member of Congress.
    • Advocated socialized health care. Supported the idea of an individual mandate in his 2008 book “Real Change” and confirmed that position in early 2011.
    • Has raised taxes.
    • Advocates preemptive war.
    • Supports the Patriot Act.
    • Condones the use of torture.
    • Supports the federal war on drugs. In fact, Newt believes that we should have Singapore-style drug tests for Americans.
    • Earned between $1.6 and $1.8 million for doing next to nothing for Freddie Mac – he’s the epitome of Washington insider.
    • Propped up the ethanol lobby with taxpayer dollars, tariffs, and mandates.
    • Advocated cap and trade.
    • Voted for NAFTA and is a staunch supporter of the WTO.
    • Pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants, a policy which would lead to more illegal behavior.
    • Supported the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 restricting the 2nd amendment rights of gun owners.
    • Voted for the creation of the federal Dept. of Education in 1979.
    • Has been unable to manage his personal or campaign finances.
    • Fined $300,000 by the House Ethics Committee.
  • Mitt Romney
    • Flip-flops like you wouldn’t believe: Mitt vs. Mitt: The story of two men trapped in one body
    • Supported TARP bailouts. Watch him say it himself.
    • Advocated socialized health care. His socialized health care in Massachusetts was used as a model for Obamacare.
    • Has raised taxes. Government spending also increased during his time as governor of Massachusetts.
    • Advocates preemptive war.
    • Supports the Patriot Act.
    • Condones the use of torture.
    • Supports the federal war on drugs.
    • Has flip-flopped on abortion.
    • Advocated cap and trade. In fact, he wants it for the entire world.
    • Incredibly soft on illegal immigration.
    • Supporter of gun control laws.
    • Major campaign contributions from lobbying organizations and Wall Street insiders.
  • Rick Santorum
    • Is not really very conservative at all.
    • Supported bailing out the airline industry.
    • Advocates preemptive war.
    • Supports the Patriot Act.
    • Condones the use of torture.
    • Supports the federal war on drugs.
    • Has supported excessive government spending.
    • Voted to double the size of the federal Department of Education.
    • Named as one of the 3 most corrupt Senators in 2006. Read the report.
    • Says that the Pursuit of Happiness is harming America. See for yourself.
    • Required taxpayer dollars be used to collect weather data, but only distributed to specific private companies. Read for yourself.
    • Voted for the Medicare prescription drug entitlement in 2003 – the biggest expansion of the program since it was created in 1965.
    • Has campaigned for pro-abortion candidates including former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman and former fellow Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter.
    • Voted in support of the Lautenberg Gun Ban in the 90s and for mandating locks on handguns in 2005.
    • Supports the idea of foreign aid.
  • Rick Perry
    • Supported the TARP bailouts.
    • Advocated social health care. He even praised Hillary Clinton’s socialized health care plan.
    • Advocates preemptive war.
    • Supports the Patriot Act.
    • Supports the use of torture.
    • Supports the federal war on drugs.
    • Forced young girls in Texas to receive an HPV vaccine.
    • Incentivized illegal immigration by providing in-state tuition subsidies.
  • Barack Obama
    • Supported the TARP bailouts.
    • Advocates socialized health care. Championed the unconstitutional, socialist health care bill ObamaCare.
    • Has raised taxes.
    • Advocates preemptive war. Obama has started more wars than even Bush including bombings in Pakistan, Yemen, and Libya without Congressional approval.
    • Supports the Patriot Act.
    • Condones the use of torture.
    • Supports the federal war on drugs.
    • Tried to extend the Iraq war, but was forced to follow Bush’s exit plan.
    • Allowed the torture of American citizen Bradley Manning.
    • Authorized the targeted murder of American citizens without trial.
    • Participated in and authorized illegal domestic surveillance.
    • Implemented restrictions on free speech and the free Internet.
    • Supportive of NAFTA and similar “free-trade” agreements.

With records like that, is there even a question who is most qualified? Bachmann and Santorum cannot possibly win the nomination at this stage, but they have their own sets of points as well (many of which are very similar to the ones above). Huntsman would be a better choice, but he is still nowhere near as committed to Constitutional government as Ron Paul is. Gary Johnson is pretty much completely sidelined, which is unfortunate because he and Ron Paul agree on most critical points. If you like Johnson though, you should really like Paul. Perry would be like Bush Part 2–not an encouraging thought. I can’t believe people would actually bring themselves to vote for Romney, and I can’t believe that so many conservatives are actually supporting Gingrich at this stage. Both of their records are atrocious.

Ron Paul is the only one who has real answers that are actually based in reality, not political maneuvering.

Well, that was long.

Yes, it was. Sorry about that. Thanks for reading though! Please feel free to reply directly to me for any reason. Here are a few online resources if you want to research for your self:

Update 12/10/2011: William Stearns has provided some excellent additional resources in the Comments section. Be sure to check them out as well.

Look into what I’ve written. Don’t just take it at face value. If you would like to, please feel free to share this with your friends. You can leave my name on it if you want, or you can send it as though you wrote it. I don’t care either way. My goal is simply to expose more people to this message, which they are unlikely to hear if they aren’t looking for it. This coming presidential election is likely one of the most important we’ll face, specifically because of the rapidly declining economy. We cannot sustain what we are doing for much longer; we need to change. Not Obama-style change, mind you. Real, specific, logical, effective change.

Please, please vote for Ron Paul in the primary election, and in the general election. If he wins the GOP nomination, there is absolutely no doubt that he will win the general election. Obama cannot compete with Ron Paul on any level–except possibly charisma, but people are becoming disillusioned with that. Contrary to what so many media outlets say, Ron Paul truly is electable. His support is substantial and growing.

Many states have open primaries, so that you can vote in them even if you are not registered as a Republican. (Visit http://www.bluerepublican.org for details about requirements and deadlines for each state.)

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.

Jeff Rowberg