A daily dose of philosophical food for your noodle!		NoodleFood : RSS Feed | via E-mail | Recent Comments | Archives NoodleCast : M4A via iTunes (MP3) | via Feed Reader | via E-mail Diana Hsieh : Rationally Selfish | PhiloFiles | Explore Atlas Shrugged OList Mailing Lists | FIRM | FRO | Secular Government

Wednesday, November 05, 2008 A False Friend of Liberty By Diana Hsieh @ 12:06 AM Note: I meant to post this some weeks ago, but the bailout derailed that plan. While it pertains to the just-past election, it's still relevant. The absurdity that Ron Paul is a defender of liberty should now be at an end, given his endorsement of the worst possible candidate for president, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin. The Constitution Party seeks to impose Biblical law on America. I was going to quote some relevant sections of their platform, but the Preamble says it all: The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States. This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here. The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries. Let's consider what that would mean in practice. On abortion: The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born. ... We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all unborn human beings, without exception. As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father. No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification, including the life of the pre-born; abortion may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government - legislative, judicial, or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body. ... In addition, we oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research involving human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells. Finally, we also oppose all government "legalization" of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide. On drugs: The Constitution Party will uphold the right of states and localities to restrict access to drugs and to enforce such restrictions. We support legislation to stop the flow of illegal drugs into these United States from foreign sources. As a matter of self-defense, retaliatory policies including embargoes, sanctions, and tariffs, should be considered. On marriage: The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted. ... Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions. ... We affirm the value of the father and the mother in the home, and we oppose efforts to legalize adoption of children by homosexual singles or couples. Gambling: Gambling promotes an increase in crime, destruction of family values, and a decline in the moral fiber of our country. We are opposed to government sponsorship, involvement in, or promotion of gambling, such as lotteries, or subsidization of Native American casinos in the name of economic development. We call for the repeal of federal legislation that usurps state and local authority regarding authorization and regulation of tribal casinos in the states. On immigration: We favor a moratorium on immigration to these United States, except in extreme hardship cases or in other individual special circumstances, until the availability of all federal subsidies and assistance be discontinued, and proper security procedures have been instituted to protect against terrorist infiltration. On the judiciary: We commend Former Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court for his defense of the display of the Ten Commandments, and condemn those who persecuted him and removed him from office for his morally and legally just stand. On statehood: We acknowledge that each state's membership in the Union is voluntary. By endorsing a candidate from the Constitution Party, Ron Paul has clearly shown that he's no friend of liberty. Instead, he's endorsed a theocratic government in which Christians would force everyone to comply with the demands of their faith at the point of a gun. The fact that Ron Paul is still regarded as a defender of liberty within libertarian circles shows -- yet again -- the effects of rejecting any philosophical foundation for liberty. The word "liberty" loses all of its meaning, such that statists (and kooks) of all stripes are regarded as pro-liberty friends and allies. Labels: Election, Libertarianism Share |    E-mail Diana Hsieh     PermaLink ()    Comments (New Page)   Subscribe to NoodleFood Blog Posts via Feed Reader   via E-mail Subscribe to NoodleCast Podcasts M4A via iTunes (MP3)   via Feed Reader   via E-mail

Comments
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 0:55:12 mst Comment ID: #1 Name: subzero but look at this (*)! Montana results McCain (R) 109,723 48% Obama (D) 112,800 49% Paul (C) 4,785 2% (*) just kidding
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 7:00:31 mst Comment ID: #2 Name: SurahAhriman E-mail: SurahAhriman(at)gmail.com Yeah, I liked Paul a lot, but he died to me the day he endorsed the freaking Constitution party.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 7:04:14 mst Comment ID: #3 Name: js5 E-mail: js5(at)aol.com you would be saying the same thing if he endorsed the Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr. I still think he himself is a respectable person, and about the only representative with his head on right apropos economics.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 8:05:32 mst Comment ID: #4 Name: Jason Head Yes, I wouldn't rally behind him to lead us to liberty. However, I agree with js5 that he does have a lot of good things to say on economic issues. The economic battleground is usually the only one I ever see him fighting on. Since he is probably the only member in congress that understands the Austrian theory of the business cycle, I like when he is interviewed on the networks about the economy.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 9:40:31 mst Comment ID: #5 Name: Burgess Laughlin E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com Economics is the caboose of cause and effect in history. If I hear someone like Ron Paul say, "I support a free market," and then I hear an Objectivist say the same thing, I don't assume they mean the same thing. Economics is the effect. Politics is the cause--and it in turn stands on ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. Support for the free market requires capitalism, which requires egoism, which requires reason, which requires one, natural world.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 10:39:59 mst Comment ID: #6 Name: Jason Head Burgess, I agree with you. However, there are many people who haven't been exposed to Objectivism that implicitly believe in reason, selfishness, and freedom (vaguely). Witnessing the financial crisis and seeing it interpreted through the lens of bad economic theory, it is easy for them to become confused and think, "Maybe capitalism isn't practical after all." Economics is simply the study of the other side of the equation "The moral is the practical." To whatever extent either side can be strengthened in someone's mind in any given context I believe is a good thing. For example, my roommate has admitted that he agrees with me in theory and morality, but he thinks capitalism somehow rewards evil-doers more than honest, productive people and we need government to actively regulate against that.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 10:55:18 mst Comment ID: #7 Name: SurahAhriman E-mail: SurahAhriman(at)gmail.com Jason, maybe point out that he is correct: Capitalism requires an objective judicial system to "regulate" the market by enforcing contracts, and punishing fraud and coercion.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 11:55:02 mst Comment ID: #8 Name: Ryan C If you think ROn Paul is a principled defender of even the economy, take a look at his protectionist, anti-globalist tirades and positions. He's one of the NWO nuts who thinks free trade will ultimately lead to a tyrannical one world government. This stems directly from his belief in the return of Jesus Christ. He's a whackjob, and it's good to see people like Diana pointing that out.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 13:19:06 mst Comment ID: #9 Name: Dave B E-mail: Blankenstein0582(at)aol.com Burgess, that is a brilliant summation of the conceptual chain of command regarding free markets! Amazing how so few people are able (or unwilling)to understand it.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 13:21:35 mst Comment ID: #10 Name: Michael Labeit E-mail: logician169(at)yahoo.com URL: http://unit-perspective.blogspot.com Ron Paul says he supports the free-market and he does have a very good record with the National Taxpayer's Union. However, he is simply not consistent. In his mind, he has reconciled Christianity and capitalism. His religious convictions seriously taint and even dominate many of his political beliefs. He believes capitalism is moral because it serves society best, and it does. But the fact that it serves society best is a result of the fact that it facilitates, encourages, and rewards individual selfishness. The day a mainstream politician can proudly assert his belief in "individual selfishness" is the day we should truly become excited.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 15:08:36 mst Comment ID: #11 Name: Jason Head Ryan C, Could you provide references to Ron Paul arguing in favor of protectionism? I am not trying to defend Ron Paul across the board, but I haven't heard or read him advocating protectionism.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 15:09:51 mst Comment ID: #12 Name: Jason Head Ryan C, Could you provide references to Ron Paul arguing in favor of protectionism? I am not trying to defend Ron Paul across the board, but I haven't heard or read him advocating protectionism.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 15:56:17 mst Comment ID: #13 Name: Chris Cathcart E-mail: cathcacr(at)gmail.com URL: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com I think the question of fundamental importance about Ron Paul is which of the following two better describes his worldview: Faith-based or Reality-based As a libertarian-ish figure in Congress he says a lot of the right things but he also comes off as a crank-ish figure when he says them. In terms of his voting decisions he might be alright (I haven't been interested enough to follow his voting record to be sure) but the damage he does arguably outweighs it. And I cannot help but think that in the ever-unlikely scenario that he ever became President, his approach would be so non-reality-based and ideological (in the bad sense) that it would be a disaster in the making. He doesn't look like a person who would be swayed by facts over his "adherence to principle." On subjects of more fundamental philosophic importance, he is definitely faith-based. He has lent his recommendation to utterly lousy literature criticizing Rand (I have in mind John Robbins' _Without a Prayer_), and he doesn't accept evolution, denigrating it as only "a theory." I would recommend reading Ayn Rand's "How to Judge a Political Candidate" from a 1964 _Newsletter_, keeping caveats in mind. I just don't see Goldwater and Paul in the same category. This endorsement of the theocratic "Constitution Party" candidate is just more of the Ron Paul I had come to expect. I just wrote more on the faith-based/reality-based opposition here: http://chriscathcart.blogspot.com/2008/11/reality-based-vs-faith-ba ... Note that there are people of faith who hold a basic worldview of reasonableness and accountability (I'll have a separate blog posting on that in the near future), but those folks are to be distinguished from those of what I call a faith-based orientation, which is nonresponsive to facts and where devotion to faith/ideology is an overriding factor in their mindset.
	Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 21:39:17 mst Comment ID: #14 Name: zhu liu If you endorse a candidate, are you necessarily endorsing all of his positions; or worse, all of his party’s positions? I don’t know, but I don’t see how it can be the latter �" since RP has stated that he would abolish the DEA and keep the federal government out of the abortion issue. If so, I agree that such an endorsement appears to present contradictions; but my optimistic side figures that RP would have an explanation if asked about it. “Dr. Paul: Can you explain how you can endorse a member of the Constitutional Party when its platform contradicts many of your stated positions and principles?”
	Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 17:13:25 mst Comment ID: #15 Name: Doug One of the worst aspects of Ron Paul is his foreign policy of non-interventionism, which essentially would morally forbid the U.S. from taking any military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran until an attack was imminent. I am ecstatic that he went nowhere this election.
	Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 22:12:18 mst Comment ID: #16 Name: Jason Head This discussion has forced me to re-examine the way I go about intellectual activism. I wholeheartedly agree that cultural and political activism needs to revolve around the morality of selfishness and reason as an absolute. I suppose I get a little too excited whenever I hear economic truisms from even people with a fundamentally flawed philosophy because I have a personal interest and fascination with the study of economics. I suppose I am just better at explaining the economic consequences of government interference than I am at getting an average listener to understand the philosophic groundwork of reason and egoism.
	Friday, November 7, 2008 at 17:30:04 mst Comment ID: #17 Name: Josh E-mail: gojosh(at)ymail.com URL: http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/jffella At least the Constitution Party is honest about their bigotry, and is far from being harmful yet.
	Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 0:22:29 mst Comment ID: #18 Name: Sam Marsh E-mail: lareth(at)diefledermaus.org URL: http://www.myspace.com/screwthebastards I spent a lot of time researching Chuck Baldwin, and his views are significantly different than the platform of the CP itself. I would have never voted for Howard Phillips, but Mr. Baldwin proved to be a quite different animal. Baldwin may be a preacher, but he is a Constitutionalist with virtually identical positions to Paul's. The only exception is that Baldwin is a protectionist, and Ron Paul is decidedly not. Get past the CP platform. It's not what Baldwin was saying himself. That explains why the CP in California broke off and supported Keyes instead. I'm an agnostic who honestly believed Baldwin was the best option. I couldn't stomach Barr.
Post Your Comment
Name or Handle: E-mail: URL:   Remember Me   Comment:   No HTML is allowed. URLs will be automatically converted into clickable links. Commenters are welcome to clearly state their own views, as well as to criticize opposing views and arguments. Unjust personal attacks are not welcome. The NoodleFood comments are not a general discussion board. Do not post random questions or comments, except on the designated "open threads" posted on Wednesdays and Sundays. To weed out spammers: 5 plus 3 equals 5714015530260518885