RoR: Forum

This poll and, apparently, the Ames ballot itself, didn't give a none option, so I didn't vote here. The straw poll is a self-selecting survey of hardcore enthusiasts and thus a poor predictor of the primaries and the nomination.

Post 1

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 8:36am

Peter,

Maybe you would prefer to have a "write-in" candidate of your own. That's fine. Who would be your "write-in?" Would your "write-in" actually be "none" -- meaning that you do not wish to be federally governed by any kind of a US president (or that you do not think that there is any man fit for the job)?

Ed

Post 2

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 10:35am

Of the serious possibilities, Ryan, though he becomes less a possibility each day. Otherwise Johnson for purity.

Post 3

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 10:46am

Paul Ryan and Ron Johnson -- the Wisconsinites?

Post 4

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 11:16am

I meant Johnson from New Mexico. It avoids a gruesome rhyme.

Post 5

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 11:56am

Gary Johnson, former Gov of New Mexico. I was sorry that the powers that be decided to cut him off at the pass and wouldn't even let him participate in the debate. He appears to be disliked by the conservative, the liberal, the religious and the establishment portions of the GOP. I guess they don't want him to gain in popularity and end up having the equivalent of two Ron Pauls in the party. He would have scored higher, much higher, than Huntsman.

Post 6

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 1:24pm

Paul all but came out and said there are no individual rights worthy of Federal protection. How he consistently manages to win polls on RoR is always a mystery to me.

Post 7

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 2:48pm

Hi Teresa,

We must have been listening to different Ron Pauls - the one that I heard consistently defended all individual rights (but one)- at least that's what I heard.

I agreed with his statement that the military should only be used for self-defense, and that we should not be in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. But I disagreed with him on Iran. He is right on the principle (self-defense), but doesn't grasp that Iran is a real threat unlike the other nations. Iran's lack of ICBMs, or a large army or substantial navy doesn't make us safe once they have the bomb - and if we wait too long, they may use biological weapons, or chemical weapons. It would be crazy to let them have a nuke. He made a big deal of all the other nations that have nukes, but they have them for lots of different reasons, and Iran wants a nuke for only two reasons - to ensure that they are the head of the Caliphate they are working to re-install around the world, and to destroy the little Satan and the big Satan. They have already declared war, and we've done nothing about it. But when they are close to having a nuke we should declare war.

He said that we should try terrorists as criminals. Again, I agree with him on the principles involved: Habeas Corpus and probable cause are legal principles that protect the individual right to freedom of action. But I disagree with how he applied it. In a military action, on foreign soil, all that is needed is a ten minute military hearing to document the probable cause for holding a captured foreign combatant till a more formal military tribunal can do a trial and sentencing.

The other thing that Paul is consistent about is constitutional law. He believes in pushing a great many things to the states. I agree with that. But then the citizens of each state need to amend their constitution as needed - because many of the things that are pushed to the states should be made unconstitutional at that level.

He believes that individual rights attach at conception which is a religious position. I don't agree with him on that and that is the one area where he is not defending individual rights - he is violating a woman's right to her own body.

I would be voting for Ron Paul but I can't because of the danger that Iran poses. Islamic Fundamentalists, some of whom appear to be literally insane, are in charge of a government that is one of the very few active, and energetic, supporters of terrorism and are successfully campaigning to install a Caliphate that will be dedicated to the destruction of Western Culture (Arab Spring, my ass!).

What were the things that you disagreed with Paul on?

Post 8

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 5:39pm

The issue involved health care "reform," not his nutty ideas on Iran.
I can't find the video, and don't feel like wasting time looking for it. Paul's fine with mob rule used in the states to enslave citizens for the sake of other citizens. He's absolutely fine with it, although he poohed the idea that his view would extend to slavery. "Ridiculous" is what he said, as if force in that realm just couldn't translate to force in others.

Post 9

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 5:55pm

Teresa:

I don't know what you are talking about.

Paul's fine with mob rule used in the states to enslave citizens for the sake of other citizens.

Are you speaking about the United States? What citizens? He has always been about the non-initiation of force. What do you find that contradicts this? What kind of slavery?

Your post isn't of the same high calibre that we're used to seeing.

Paul

Post 10

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 6:04pm

I think what Teresa's talking about (correct me, if I'm wrong) is being discussed on Objectivist Living as well, along with the same debate over Ron Paul: "The Republicans versus the Constution."

"Wallace then asked Ron Paul if he thought the states had a constitutional right to make someone buy a good or service. What did this great defender of individual liberty have to say?

"Paul responded by saying that, according to the U.S. Constitution, the federal government can�t prohibit the states from 'doing bad things' (i.e., violating individual rights). Wallace referred to Paul as a 'constitutional expert,' but apparently this 'expert' does not see the Ninth Amendment (or the 14th) as imposing any restrictions on state powers in the name of 'rights retained by the people.' Paul then proceeded to offer purely economic arguments against the government delivery of healthcare services. The bottom line is that this 'libertarian'�if he were president-- would obviously not raise a finger to stop the states from committing the most egregious violations of individual rights while he is in office." (quoted from Dennis Hardin.)

Post 11

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 6:28pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1mUtnB3M8s

Watch from minute 3:50.

"The way I understand the Constitution, the Federal government can't go in and prohibit the states from doing bad things."

Ron Paul

Really?

Post 12

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 6:40pm

I honestly can't believe I'm the only one who caught this gaping hole in Paul's position brought to light in the last debate. Are you kidding me? And I can't accept the idea that this was a misstatement or gaff. Ron Paul really believes the Federal government has absolutely no power to defend individual liberties.

Excuses?

Post 13

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 6:46pm

Dennis Hardin wrote:

The bottom line is that this 'libertarian'�if he were president-- would obviously not raise a finger to stop the states from committing the most egregious violations of individual rights while he is in office.

Let's see them try it. Let's pretend we actually have that situation. Let's say that a state forces its occupants into universal health care. Let's see how many productive folks stick around, and how many productive folks leave. There is a mass-exodus coming out of New York right now. Productive folks are leaving. It is costing the state a lot of money (as taxpayers leave). Let's see how that plays out.

Ed

Post 14

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 6:58pm

Then lets say NY blocks all exits with armed guards and imposes heavy fines and/or prison penalties on those trying to escape.

Another real scenario that I know for a fact New York imposes on people who leave are years of tax audits after they leave the state.

Post 15

Sunday, August 14, 2011 - 9:08pm

Individual rights are moral rights which are different from legal rights which should be how individual rights are implemented.

The job of the Federal government is to protect those individual rights, but only those, that it has been given the legal authority to protect - by the constitution.

That doesn't mean that those rights not mentioned are okay to violate - it means that the job of the federal government is done when it protects those rights it has been given the authority to protect (unless you don't want to have the rule of law based upon the Constitution).

It is the job of a state government to protect the rest of the rights (and no more). This is just like assigning jurisdiction of foreign aggression to the military and the jurisdiction of national crimes to the FBI and jurisdiction over local crimes to local jurisdictions.

Think about the alternative. Almost all laws, certainly all important laws would be federal and the federal government would be large just to enforce them. And the states would be impotent to oppose federal government's growth. Washington is too far from where we live (actually and metaphorically) to be THE ruler.

As Objectivists we look to the moral level to see if the laws is objective, enforced equally and fairly, and protects all individual rights and no more. But a legal scholar might look deeper and decide which jurisdiction is the best to protect a particular right. Property rights for example - some kinds of property might be easiest to enforce at a county level or at the state level (like trespass), and yet others at the national level (like intellectual property rights).

There should be changes to the US Constitution that secure our economic rights - to a separation of economics and state. That would reduce many of the problems and then each state needs to clean up their constitutions.

If people don't like this approach, this division of power between the Federal government and the states, they will be giving up a really great protection against too powerful a federal government - a protection we lost when we took away the states' power to elect the senators. It is very hard, as we are seeing today, for individuals to change the direction of the federal government and not as hard to grab their state government by the short hairs.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 8/15, 8:22pm)

Post 16

Thursday, September 1, 2011 - 12:37pm

None of them, the republican party will be the end of this nation.

Post 17

Thursday, September 1, 2011 - 2:15pm

Jonathon,

I'm no fan of the Republican party, but your response isn't too helpful... If none of these candidates, then who? Or, why none of these?

If you believe the Republican party will be the end of the nation, why is that? And, What should we have in it's place?

Post 18

Saturday, September 3, 2011 - 10:18am