Gumbeau, I am personally a centrist with libertarian leanings. I don't believe in Anarchy as a valid political model, as some libertarians do. Neither does Dr. Paul, apparently. While he is still a "bit" too extreme in his short term goals (it will take a lot of work and education to significantly turn back big government) he offers more of a strong libertarian flavor than a pure libertarian manifesto.
However, a lot of his detractors are overstating his positions as part of the usual attack process.
The most obvious example is his stance on free trade. He strongly opposes free trade agreements.
Personally, I agree with his views on free trade. For free trade to actually be free there has to be a level playing field. Current globalization is not. We hold thing like fair labor, human rights and environmental consciousness to be important, yet we allow our manufacturing base to be outsourced to countries that blatantly disregard these moral positions. How can you compete with prison labor in China? Here are Paul's views:
No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty .
Paul adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus Position Statement:
As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
The US government should inhibit neither the exportation of US goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.Current globalization only favors a select, bipartisan few with major stock holdings. The only exports globalization has netted for the US are manufacturing jobs while the trade deficit blooms. Again, good for some, IMO bad for the rest of us.
A true libertarian also would be all for amnesty for illegal immigrants. A true libertarian would proclaim the current immigration laws as bad law.
Which is why it's good that Paul isn't a pure libertarian in the anarchist sense. As related to the above, cheap Mexican workers benefit business interests by providing labor for jobs that Americans don't want to do for $5 per hour and no benefits like carpentry work, plumbing, roofing, factory work, hotel work, etc. Good for some subset of Americans, mind you, but bad for anyone without an MBA.
Ron Paul does not stand up to the true libertarian test on many issues yet he refers to himself as a libertarian.
If he did I wouldn't be nearly as interested in what he has to say. And, there is no "one" libertarian pigeonhole.
There is a lot more wrapped up in the New World Order conspiracy theory stuff than I can possibly cover in one post. Ron Paul has stated his belief in public to some of this stuff and his campaign is attracting a lot of these fringe conspiracy theorists who fantasize about being libertarian.
Where there is smoke there is fire.
Gun ownership attracts a lot of fringe and stereotypes too. So does immigration. Don't support it you must be part of the Klan because the Klan doesn't support it. The people who would like Paul to go away and who are surprised he got this far will make sure there is plenty of rumor, spin and innuendo to get you to pull the lever for Rudy in 08.
From what I've read that he actually stated on the subject, he seems to note that we are moving towards a globalization model where nationalism will be less important, where the power will be held in the hands of like minded elites and where we will have a fairly socialized international environment. It good for business, after all. And since we no longer have those pesky commies to worry about, we can ramp it up a notch. Here's what he has to say:
"I think even our first President Bush said that the New World Order was in tune and that's what they were working for. The U.N. is part of that government. They're working right now very significantly for a North American Union - that's why there are a lot of people in Washington right now who don't care too much about our borders. They have a philosophic belief that national sovereignty is not important. It's also the reason that I have made very strong suggestion that we need not be in the United Nations for our national security," Congressman Paul said.Nothing there that I generally disagree with. In fact, I don't have a problem with a New World Order as long as it respected the U.S. BOR and lacked the heavy socialism
Charon
