Just a followup to my post dated Jan. 09 2012 04:03 PM, in which I wrote,
"Has Leonard Lopate _ever_ had Chomsky on the show? I searched and couldn't find any evidence of such having ever occurred."

I subsequently emailed this question directly to the Lopate show and received the reply that Chomsky has been invited to appear on the show many times but has always declined.

My last post on states rights to make law on social activities should clarify the consistency of Dr. Paul's position on prochoice/ prolife positions. While he has been clear about his own personal beliefs on abortion, I believe he has also stated his legislative position clearly which is that states should decide how they want to legislate on the issue b/c the Federal Government does not have the constitutional authority to legislate on matters of a social nature (please refer to my last post). We as New Yorkers have debated law on plenty of social issues. Smoking for example. Other states have blue laws regulating the purchase and hence the use of alcoholic beverages. Californians have weighed in on cannabis use as have New Jersey residents. We accept the states right to regulate these "social" issues yet we panic on the hot button issues. I mean realistically...how many New Yorkers could imagine a New York State where abortion was illegal. If anyone has numbers on this I'd be interested to know how New York State polls on the issue.

What is unconventional about many libertarians is that when they state their personal positions on issues, because of how we weigh the socialist republocrats, there is a knee jerk reaction to say, "Because we know what they believe personally, well WE ALL KNOW how they will legislate." That is how the Republocrats behave. The fact is, contrary to how we grade other party politicians, libertarians understand the distance between our own personal beliefs and appropriate liberty respecting legislative actions. Though we may disagree with others it does not give us the right to implement laws to limit the freedom of others to make what we may see as bad choices (at the Federal level). Local state politicians carry the burden of fostering informative and lively debate on these other issues to help citizens make law (or not make law) on social issues. This is the constitutional position.

@ vulture okay hear me out. Dr. Paul clearly states: "as ridiculous as sodomy laws may be". I think the homophobia you associate with the man himself is addressed there. He thinks those laws are ridiculous. I agree they are merely symbolic and perhaps not of something that is right (people will disagree here), as they are in essence unenforcable considering a citizens right to unreasonable search and siezure. Seems to me to be a ridiculous semi socialist republican ploy to fire up the christian base obviously. Imagine a law against prayer. Would that really be enforcable if unreasonable search and siezure was respected?

He then states as you say that there is no "right to privacy" or "right to sodomy", which is the basis for the supreme court decision. Quite literally, if you read the constitution there is NO right to privacy or right to sodomy. The words are just not there. However other rights are enumerated which act together to effectively protect privacy in the constitution. These are extremely sublte arguments and it would be easy to paint someone who argued against the striking down a law against sodomy as homophobic, but I believe if you examine the argument he is making in the light of his own personal view ie "sodomy laws ridiculous" that he is simply against how the supreme court made its determination.

As for states rights to regulate social matters again, strictly speaking, he is correct as all powers not explicitly given to Feds are assumed granted to the states. He is not saying sodomy laws are a good idea again, "sodomy laws ridiculous" He is simply saying the federal government does not have the authority to strike down laws of this nature with the powers granted to it by the constitution. Hope this helps. If you have anything but ad hominem attacks to share i would be open to debate. Thanks for sharing your feelings and thoughts on this.

Sorry vulture couldn't disagree more. Not a surprise I'm sure. Libertarian philosophy does not see the government as the only threat to individual liberty. It merely identifies that the proper way to handle threats to liberty from any party, corporate or government, is through property rights suits (ie suing parties who damage anyones life liberty or property. Plenty more I think you add to libertarian philosophy but I'll refrain from asserting what I think you mean and give your post more attention in the future. The reason libertarians talk so much about the government threat to liberty now is that currently the government has, through overt tarnishing of our individual liberties, become the greatest threat is all. I will read you carefully and try to clarify more later. Thanks for your post!

Ron Paul is a neo-confederate not a "Libertarian." At the national level he wants to cut taxes for the wealthy (by eliminating the federal income tax) and gut programs and regulations that protect the poor, workers, consumers, women, minorities and the environment. But at the state level he is not a "Libertarian" at all but an authoritarian and a religious extremist who would allow the separate states to criminalize abortion/sodomy and mandate prayer/creationism in public schools.

Ron Paul criticized the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, which struck down an attempt by Texas to outlaw sodomy. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website Ron Paul wrote:

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment 'right to privacy'. Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

Ron Paul couldn't be clearer!

"THERE CLEARLY IS NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY NOR SODOMY FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION"

"TEXAS HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE FOR ITSELF HOW TO REGULATE SOCIAL MATTERS LIKE SEX USING ITS OWN LOCAL STANDARDS"

SCARY!!!

"Modern libertarianism is the disguise adopted by those who wish to exploit without restraint. It pretends that only the state intrudes on our liberties. It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order to protect the freedoms of weaker people. This bastardised, one-eyed philosophy is a con trick, whose promoters attempt to wrongfoot justice by pitching it against liberty. By this means they have turned 'freedom' into an instrument of oppression."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-libertarianism-makes-freedom-oppression

Here is a fairly good examination of why libertarian doctrine can not deal appropriately with environmental problems (and other externalities):

http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/liberty.htm

"[L]ibertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2005/mar/14/00017/

Many critiques of "Libertarianism" from numerous perspectives can be found here:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

"Rep. Ron Paul has a long anti-choice record from his years in Congress, repeatedly voting to make it more difficult for women to access abortion and birth control.

During his years in Congress, Rep. Paul voted 106 times on choice-related issues. Ninety-three of those votes were anti-choice. 1 On the occasions he voted pro-choice, Paul often made speeches on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to explain why and to reaffirm his anti-choice views.
Rep. Paul tried to zero-out all international family-planning funds. 2
In 2009, he voted for the notorious Stupak abortion-coverage ban. 3
Rep. Paul voted for "personhood" rights, which could make abortion and many forms of birth control illegal. 4
Rep. Paul is vocal about his extreme position on choice:

"I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family-planning schemes." 5"

@Noach_from_Brooklyn:

Don't you find this scary?
"A Fine for Not Using a Biofuel That Doesn’t Exist"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/business/energy-environment/companies-face-fines-for-not-using-unavailable-biofuel.html?_r=1
Where was the last place that the government used quotas and punished citizens for not meeting them?
Just askin.

RE: My earlier comment

Ron Paul Defends Romney, Lashes Out at His Critics
". . . “I think they’re wrong. I think they’re totally misunderstanding the way the market works,” Paul told me. “They are either just demagoguing or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/abc-exclusive-ron-paul-defends-romney-lashes-out-at-his-critics/
How refreshing - principled consistency.

@Maria from Brooklyn:
Interesting article. Thanks.

One of the comments at that link:
"This could be interesting, The foreign policies of Paul and the economics of Nader."

Add the traditionalism of Paul, and you would have a candidate that I-- and no doubt many others-- could whole-heartedly get behind.

We may actually be the "silent majority":
Anti-war, economically progressive and traditionalist.

Re the first caller's voting for Ron Paul and then Ralph Nader: Ralph Nader likes many of Ron Paul's positions, particularly on foreign policy. Look it up. Here's an example: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/22/ron-paul-ralph-nader-agree-on-progressive-libertarian-alliance/

@dboy I think we actually agree. We are all getting screwed by the status quo (the people) What is interesting to me is that we agree and somehow you see Dr. Paul as part of the problem. If you read my post carefully, I am saying pretty much the same thing you did. What we disagree on is the concept of the free market. I think you are saying that you see corruption and lack of regulation as inherent to the free market. That is where we depart. Under your line of reasoning it make sense that the free market would need to be regulated hence an unfree market. My point is to say it does not matter what rules you make when corruption is tolerated. No system works not communism, not Monarchy, not anything when there is no prosecution of fraud. What I am saying is different than you in this...a free market, meaning to me, parties freely exchanging goods and services (transparently and both parties being willing) is the best system, our issue in my eyes is the tolerance of a lack of transparency (think credit default swaps) and outright fraud being tolerated by the watch dogs. People blame the free market but I doubt any of us would say...oh I want to be forced to give up my property or time to others for things I dont really want. Again your definition of free market seems to include corruption, mine does not.

As for moral majority turning its back. I think that is an over simplification of the issue. I think as I said many in the moral majority vote on a social conservative agenda and quite frankly on fear (think Iran boogey man out to get us). I argue all the time with them about this: "so your afraid of Iran but your not scared of flushing the bill of rights down the toilet". Frankly, I don't understand that either. What is funny about people who reject liberty is that as far as voting their OWN ideologies and social agendas...well that must be ok cause I'm right but when people who disagree with them vote to promote a social or political agenda they disagree with they get PISSED though really they are just acting in objectively the same way. If you want to live as a communist here in this country, liberty would say fine you are free to live that out and compete in the market place of ideas without GOVERNMENT smashing you. Would there be other kinds of consequences from the private citizens...sure but as Henry said there are pretty much always social consequences from sharing private beliefs. I belive we should still have the courage (and freedom) to do so. Individual liberty is what should be protected by all of us. It is what allows this blog to exist. Though I guess now with the NDAA and all we should all be watching what we say...

@Noach of Brooklyn

Sorry!! I made a mistake!!! I don't think you're psychotic!

Friends??

Noach of Brooklyn = psychotic

communist libertarian = hyperbole

fyi.

... the laws were repealed. Through influence peddling, revolving corporate/government doors (Newt, Paulson, Geithner - to only start), lobbyists etc., the rules that keep the inherent greed in check, were removed.

Case in point:

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which EVISCERATED the Glass–Steagall Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton (and a Republican majority), in 1999.

Subsequently, in a lame-ass attempt to save face, our "esteemed" legislators have come up with castrated measures like The Volcker Rule or The Dodd–Frank Act.

What I don't understand is how, the party of the "Moral Majority", who sit in the pew every Sunday to be well versed in the The Seven Deadly Sins can turn a blind eye to the extreme avarice of our corprate monsters. The fifth of these deadly sins, Avaricia/Cupiditas clearly implies that man, left to his "natural" inclination will follow greed to eternal damnation. The Seven Deadly Sins were conceived to REGULATE human corruption. Why would these same folks then think that the banking industry can get by without effective oversight???? How the kid in the candy store can be left to his own devices?

Corporate influence ($$$) regulates the government. NOT the other way around!

Ed where the hell do you think the corruption comes from?? What the hell do you think a "Corporatocracy" is???

The concept of a "free market" is interrupreted as a market free to regulate itself. Our current economy is the result of this "nobel" pursuit. "Free market" in as close to it's purest form as we've seen in a long time!!

The relationship Korporate Amerika® and our "good" government currently enjoy could accurately be described as "friends with benifits".

NOTHING will change until the banking industry is frog-stepped out of the bedroom of the harlot we call our government.

I, for one, am sore from getting f*d by these scumbags.

@ Joe from Bayside Jan. 09 2012 11:36 AM:

Please note that I appreciated your comment and intended to vote it /up/. Unfortunately, I accidentally voted it /down/ instead and I do not see an option to change it.

(IMHO)
The vast majority of the WNYC audience, indeed of the general population, equate Ron Paul "Libertarianism" with the philosophy of "Objectivism" championed by Ayn Rand (who expressly disassociated herself from the contemporary “Libertarianism” of her day).

To outsiders to both of those groups, the differences may seem to be meaningless quibbles over "market share".
(To view a comic send up of Rand by members of the Libertarian faction, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mGpMpaHGM4 )

I believe the same differentiation dynamic takes place among and between various "collectivist" "schools": think "Jacksonian ('Scoop')Democrats vs. "the democratic wing of the democratic party"; "Trotsky-ism" vs. Stalinism"; the "National Socialists" (Nazis) of Germany vs. the "Communism" of the Soviet Union; and, to some people "Democratics" vs. "Republicans". The nature degree of each of those distinctions demonstrates how a self-confessed "Nader-ite" could easily delude himself into thinking that Ron Paul could be a amicable choice of a candidate to realize his political values.

The Objectivists and Libertarians emphasize the individual person as the primary focus for understanding motivation, initiative, and responsibility. Collectivists focus on devising “means” and / or “programs” to meet the needs or wants of the “group” they conceive as being owed payment for rearing the individual and for allowing the individual to live among them. Invariably, these programs require the individual to "sacrifice" for "the good of the group" or be sanctioned by "the group".

Our lives and treasure are better spent addressing the real problems and challenges we face, rather than moral injunctions imposed by others to meet duties that can best be described as irrationally religious in all the most negative connotations of that word (e.g., see, Jackson's "The Lottery" http://www.americanliterature.com/Jackson/SS/TheLottery.html )

I look forward to voting for Congressman Paul for President because I believe his election would bend us away from, if not totally break, the course to collectivist tyranny our government has been on for near 100 years. Notwithstanding my strong preference for Congressman Paul, I will cast my vote in any way necessary to retire Mr. Obama from his present position.

I do not mean to suggest that adopting a more "Objectivist" or "Libertarian" philosophy of governance will be a panacea that will resolve all manner of human suffering and need. I only intend to assert that it will leave us free to effectively search for, among other things, the means to address those needs.

What we are experiencing now is not an "unfettered free market". Hardly. It is a market absent of enforced justice ie tolerated fraud. How many bankers went to jail for fraud after the housing market crash. lol. Their names are on the documents! Also in unfettered free markets there are no bailouts. Many argued that community banks were in a position to fill in where the large banks had failed. Why because of smart steady investment strategies. We gave the gamblers untold amounts of money to safeguard their lifestyles. I was waiting to see some of those wall street bankers living in the South Bronx trying to pull themselves back up by their proverbial bootstraps.

It is not a Corporatocracy that has us allowed to get here here it is corruption and corporate welfare and fiat currency central banking. The good ol' free market when we win...handouts and socialism when we lose. How people fail to see something so obvious is beyond me. Hate to sound like a Republican but the line used by them on immigration seems to fit better here: we don't need new laws we just need to enforce the ones that are on the books. Nothing works unless those who commit fraud are punished. Dont blame free markets blame the sheriff with his hand in the till.

@ Noach Not trying to provoke you, but if you do believe all that stuff about a man's property belonging to the public...how about giving me what you have except for what you really need! After all I am a member of the public. Wait who gets to determine what you really need? Can we vote on that...see what happens when property rights are subject to public scrutiny...as for the blurb about not paying monies owed I believe it is the responsibility of the debtor to pay the debt period. The writer you quote says that well though I agree do not agree with the second point made. What shall we do then with public officials who put us all in debt? Hmm... If I am misinterpreting your author please clarify.

Idiot.

Blind.

... our current economy in these, great United Korporations of Amerika™ is a stunning example of "successful", unregulated capitalism.

STUNNING!

Millions out of work. Millions of vacant homes. Millions of homeless. Millions of uninsured. Millions in debt way over their heads for being frivolous enough to get an education.

Incredible example.

@Noach of Brooklyn "On the question of 'gay rights', I wish Ron Paul would:
a) point-out what he, as a physician, must surely know to be true: the /public health/ issue with regard to the whitewashing and promotion, by the by the mainstream 'gay' and AIDS establishments, of the anatomically, physiologically and hygienically unsound act of anal penetration -- an act that more than any other factor accounts for an HIV-AIDS rate as much as FOURTY-FOUR times as high as the generation population (CDC study)
and,
b) make the absolutely essential distinction between 'gay' (which, as typified by the signature 'Pride' events, is associated with promiscuity, public lewdness, effeminacy and anal penetration) and /homosexuality/ (same-sex orientation), /per se/
and then,
c) go on to make the case for a middle-ground between the persecution and vilification of homosexuals, at one extreme, and the /dogmatic/ insistence that homosexuality is no-less-than fully, 100%, in every way as wholesome as heterosexuality, at the other (the latter, along with the politically correct tyranny that persecutes anyone who dares to so much as question this assertion, ever increasingly prevailing today)"

^^^ Could you possibly have written anything more hateful and ignorant?

"Wholesome"? I mean, really?

... and I'm the furthest thing from a marxist or even any kind of "evil" socialist.

You'd have to be blind not to see how the current edition of corrupt global capitalism has failed the majority, QUITE MISERABLY!

FAILED.

MISERABLY.

Marx may have been wrong about communisim but, he was spot on about the perils of a greed-based economy.

@CaptainDrG

... of course, you'll be making your argument for unfettered capitalisim to the children of the victims of Milton Friedman's neo-liberal economics run a muck in Pinochet's Chile and the 12 yo girls that are going blind, soldering micro electronics in the techno sweatshops across China or the paraents who go home after 80 hours or grueling hard labor, throughout the developing world, without enough to feed their families...

... right??

GO Kapitalisim®!!!

yeah.

Hmm, let's see who knows the author of the following...

__________Begin Quoted Text____________________

The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

________End Quoted Text_______________

@ D Torres:
"He's an old man, 76 years old."

So if Ron Paul had exactly the same views and positions but were 20 or thirty years younger, you'd have no problem with him?

Think about what you said.

IMO, the Rich should be taxed and taxed plenty.
Oil Companies, making obscene profits, should be paying plenty of taxes.
I think it's disgusting to have tax cuts, like the Bush tax cuts, that
favor those that live in mansions, gated communities, never have to worry
about healthcare, have homes in the USA and abroad, send their kids to
private schools, where tuition is thousands of dollars a year.
I like the way the Germany of today does things, where there is low unemployment,
universal health care and help with university for ALL German citizens.
I like Universal Health Care coverage for ALL American citizens,
healthy Public Schools, Social Security and Medicare for elderly people
and help for people when they need it.
I don't believe the rich should get to keep all their cash,
and have rich only neighborhoods, roads, private armies and get to hire
people as slaves.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/13/news/la-pn-ron-paul-gop-debate-20110913

__________Begin Quoted Text_______________-

“But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die,” Blitzer asked.

“Yeah,” came the shout from the audience. That affirmative was repeated at least three times. Paul, who has always had a reputation for being a charitable man, disagreed with the idea that sick people should die, but insisted that the answer to the healthcare problem was not a large government.

“I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s when I got out of medical school,” Paul said. “I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio. And the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals. And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends; our churches would do it. This whole idea — that's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because we dump it on the government. It becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies, then the drug companies.”

____________End Quoted Text_____________________

Two comments here:

1.) It is disturbing that Paul apparently did not reprimand the audience for such reprehensible and utterly chilling behavior.

2.) Paul seems to overlook the fact that whenever a hospital treats a non-paying, non-insured patient, we /all pay/ for it in higher fees. Furthermore, in the case of emergency rooms being used as primary care, this causes them to be overcrowded and the staff overworked-- both conditions that are not only unpleasant but could actually prove /deadly/ to anyone ever needing emergency care. Also, when people's only access to primary care is going to the emergency room, conditions are only treated once they have become "urgent" (the policy for non-paying, non-insured patients). In many cases, this results in a great deal of misery, death and additional expense that all could have been avoided had the condition been treated early-on, before it had worsened to the point of urgency.

BTW no disrespect to Andy Dick or Arnold. As for Dr. Paul's comments on AIDS and Sexual Harassment...well those issues are bound to draw strong feelings, and bring up uncomfortable questions. I think it is good to wrestle with uncomfortable questions. Sheesh i dont have easy answers either, I think many people want to be compassionate and relieve those who are oppressed or very sick. I think even Ron Paul would admit that it is wrong to see someone suffering or oppressed and do nothing, based on his record as a physician, he probably knows about this better than most.

The issue he brings up, I believe, is should tax dollars be used to alleviate suffering and oppression, and what is the proper role of the Federal Government in these areas if so? Should we spend money in an open ended fashion to make sure no one is harrassed or that sick people recieve treatment. Will commiting tax dollars to these two missions accomplish the purpose set forth? Each of us has to come up with their own answer and vote.

It may seem dispassionate but I think Ron Paul's position is that their are private and personal choices that we can make as Americans to deal with these issues effectively and that government is not the solution. A portion of my tax dollars are used to buy medicine for AIDS victims in Africa. I am glad about that. When I say I am for no taxes, it is not the same as saying that I am for leaving people in Africa without the medicine they so desperately need. Maybe others do mean that, God help them. I cant agree with that but it is THEIR money, respecting that is important. Would I give to charity to do the same thing? I do so now and I might give more if I wasnt paying so much in taxes out of pocket for wars and bailouts and whatever else the government is prioritizing these days...liberty can be scary in that way I get that. But sending the IRS out to collect money with its big whacking stickng to get my neighbors cash to spend on something they may not agree with is a slippery slope. You agree with all the wars? The life blood of those wars is taxes and debt spending.

Not saying I'm right. Just my thoughts.

Wow. And you say Ron Paul supporters have stepped off the deep end? lol. So what the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the Internet Bill...those make you feel safe? BTW Ron Paul is running for POTUS not running for surgeon general. When was the last time you heard anyone running for POTUS talk about medical issues.

I have to give your posts more scrutiny but off the top of my head, corporations would be accountable to property rights suits under a constitutional framework, just as they are accountable to class action lawsuits now. Right now the corporatin are stripping you of individual liberties provided to you by the constitution one lobbiest dollar at a time...sound safe? Why do people think that removing entitlements from corporations and shutting down the lobby system will leave them to be enslaved by corporations? That is what is happening now. It is simple, the more powerful a government gets, the more it erodes civil liberties, the further special interest dollars go as the super muscular government can act in a stronger manner for corporations legitimizing corporate control; the sole act of government should be to prevent ANY actor from marginilizing ANY individual's liberties. If you and a rich dude were in a room with a third guy for hire, who would you rather that third person be Andy Dick or Arnold Schwartzenager! Our government is on steroids right now and for hire...

As far as unions go, I have heard Ron Paul state that individuals have a right to form unions in a free market (group negotiation). As far as I can tell, please give me a reference if I am wrong, he is not against unions negotiating wages but he is against the legal enshrinement of a union wage. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I neglected to mention Ron Paul's global warming denial.

/That/ may actually be the most scary...

Ron Paul with Chris Wallace
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH3Dd4CfJLg

In this video, Chris Wallace, ask Ron Paul, about something he wrote
in a book titled Freedom Under Siege 1987.

Ron Paul wrote in his HIS book,
not a newsletter, there is no
doubt that Ron Paul is the author.

“The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim -
frequently a victim of his own lifestyle -
but this same individual victimizes
innocent citizens by forcing them to
pay for his care.”

To me, listening to Ron Paul's response to Chris Wallace questions,
it sounds like Ron Paul is saying that AIDS Sufferers should either
have the cash to pay for their healthcare or buy their coffins.
The lack of sympathy, human compassion, would Ron Paul drive by
a person struck by a car on the street, because the person didn't have
health insurance, had no money, or crossed against the light, so therefore
it's their fault the car hit them.

I don't like what Ron Paul says, it makes me very uncomfortable.

In the same clip Ron Paul talks about sexual harassment in the workplace.
In his view, RP feels that sexual harassment victims should just submit or
quit. If you work for a living and your boss is harassing you, it may not
be so easy to quit, just like that.
The victim of sexual harassment should have someplace to go and report
the person doing the harassing.

Ron Paul, strip away, all that he says about liberty, and his message
is frightening. I do not like it.

He's an old man, 76 years old.
I do not want someone that thinks like Ron Paul.

"D Torres" wrote:
"According to the NYTIMES Noam Chomsky is the most important intellectual alive, he is listened to by leaders all over the world."

And yet, the NY Times doesn't even deem Chomsky's column fit to print" in their flag ship offering here at home in the U.S.- only in the Times Co.'s International Herald Tribune. How often does the Times even /mention/ Chomsky?

But let's not be too harsh on that classic bastion of liberalism, after all, how much better is our own, beloved, WNYC?

I'm fairly certain that Brian Lehrer has not had Chomsky on the show since June, 2009, when he was relegated to 20 minutes during which Lehrer seemed to be trying to prevent Professor Chomsky from saying anything that would too-much anger too many of the listeners (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/2009/jun/09/noam-chomsky/ ). And, prior to that, how long was it since Chomsky had been on the show?

Has Leonard Lopate _ever_ had Chomsky on the show? I searched and couldn't find any evidence of such having ever occurred.

Ron Paul has said in public, recently,
that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,
are Unconstitutional.
Ron Paul says the Constitution doesn't
say one can set up an insurance program for people
Ron Paul feels the Union Wage is Unconstitutional.
My favorite talk show host Lynn Samuels, died recently, and she was
on medicare, that was her only health insurance, because SIRIUS took away
their health insurance plan from her.

Ron Paul Domestic Policy sound like something from the Third Reich.
What does he want, for millions of people to be without food, medical coverage,
housing, go back to children working in the factories?

The Constitution should be respected, but it was drafted a long time ago,
by people that are long since dead, in a different time.
I like Ron Paul's Foreign Policy, to mind our own business and stop invading
countries, but his want to do away with Public Schools, Medicare, Social
Security, I think are nuts.

@ D Torres: You kind of beat me to it :) I'll have to watch that clip when I get a chance.
......
@ The Webmasters/ Whomever Else It May Concern:

Please, oh please, implement the option to view comments in order of OLDEST to newest!

This is just /painful/!

On the meaning of the terms "libertarian" and "anarchist", as well as the whole question of whether or not unbridled capitalism (as adovcated by Ron Paul and other American "libertarians") and libertarianism can even be compatible with each other, I suggest a blog post by John Caruso at
http://www.distantocean.com/2008/04/chomsky-on-libe.html

The blog post itself consists almost entirely of a quote from Noam Chomsky, which prompts a rather lively discussion in the comments. Here is just the beginning of the quote, which is from Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky (The New Press. 2002)

_______Begin Quoted Text_________

Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.

____________End Quoted Text____________________

Again, that's just the beginning-- see Chomsky continue and the comments at the URL above.

Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkaO12X-h1Y

On around 40:00 says, that in the English speaking world,
Libertarian means ultra capitalist.
The people that call themselves Libertarians
in the U.S., people like Ron Paul,
are advocating Pure Corporate Tyranny.
Just the exact opposite of Liberty.
People who have resources, capital,
should be free to hire other people, hire their own army,
build their own roads, and you go on to some
indescribable horrible form of tyranny.
If you have that here, people have to be talked out of it.
By thinking through what the consequences are.
It's kind of arguing with Neo-Nazis.
-------------------------------------------------

According to the NYTIMES Noam Chomsky is the most important intellectual
alive, he is listened to by leaders all over the world.

Ron Paul wants the rich to have the freedom to keep all their money,
and for everyone else to be their slave or starve.

On the question of "gay rights", I wish Ron Paul would:
a) point-out what he, as a physician, must surely know to be true: the /public health/ issue with regard to the whitewashing and promotion, by the by the mainstream "gay" and AIDS establishments, of the anatomically, physiologically and hygienically unsound act of anal penetration -- an act that more than any other factor accounts for an HIV-AIDS rate as much as FOURTY-FOUR times as high as the generation population (CDC study)
and,
b) make the absolutely essential distinction between "gay" (which, as typified by the signature "Pride" events, is associated with promiscuity, public lewdness, effeminacy and anal penetration) and /homosexuality/ (same-sex orientation), /per se/
and then,
c) go on to make the case for a middle-ground between the persecution and vilification of homosexuals, at one extreme, and the /dogmatic/ insistence that homosexuality is no-less-than fully, 100%, in every way as wholesome as heterosexuality, at the other (the latter, along with the politically correct tyranny that persecutes anyone who dares to so much as question this assertion, ever increasingly prevailing today)

(To preempt the inevitable charges of "homophobia" that I know will come, I refer people to the writings of /homosexual/ dissidents such as Bill Weintraub (a self-described longtime gay activist who pioneered the "Frot" movement) ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_Weintraub ) and (the more moderate) Rob McGee ("I'm a total homo with no apologies, but please don't call me 'gay', because it's a stupid word and an even stupider subculture.") (funfrotfacts.blogspot.com and throbert.blogspot.com ) CAUTION: Although the respective web sites of both gentlemen are highly informative and educational, I would be remiss if I did not warn that they do contain highly graphic and explicit content of a sexual nature-- text as well as images-- as well as some crude and vulgar language. An option for anyone wishing to avoid merely the /images/ might be to disable images in their browser before visiting.)

I'm an Independent. On economic and many other issues, I'm much more in line with someone like Ralph Nader.

Nonetheless, primarily because of Ron Paul's refreshing anti-war position, I'm rooting for him at this point. I'm even inclined to think that it would be worth Paul actually getting the GOP nomination-- if for no other reason than the unique opportunity it would give him to confront President Obama on foreign policy.

I also greatly appreciate Ron Paul's opposition to the insane, immoral "War on Drugs" that squanders countless lives and dollars, and in the case of medical marijuana and pain-management, condemns people to needless misery and criminalizes physicians for having compassion on their patients. (see http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=248&Itemid=60 )

On social and cultural issues, I'm largely a traditionalist and find common ground with Congressman Paul here as well.(see note in post to follow)

Even regarding Paul's economic views, which I generally find nothing short of dreadful and reprehensible, somewhat of a redeeming factor for me is his /consistency/; at least Ron Paul actually opposes the /corporate/ welfare that his "free-market" [sic] colleagues support in any number of forms-- while inveighing against the "cycle of [individual] welfare dependency", etc. (For just one example that comes to mind offhand, Google "Gingrich 'Lockheed-Martin'...)

@Henry Your point is well taken. "Christian conservative" has become one of the most profoundly charged and confusing set of words in our political lexicon. Example: a christian conservative who believes in the use of the Federal Marriage Ammendment in my book, as a libertarian, is not conservative at all. He or she is using the power of the Federal government to promote a "socially conservative" agenda (preventing another citizen from acting on his/her beliefs because he/she believes his/hers are right). I'd say this is more like christian gestapo. When people say they are conservative perhaps they should be required to clarify what precisely they are conservative about. To me it is not a contradiction in terms to say that libertarians are conservatives in the sense that they believe in less/no government involvement in matters of individual liberty, private property and life except to protect them. Therefore, though I count myself both as libertarian and conservative, I could, perhaps should, have identified myself as a libertarian nuff said.

I felt compelled to identify as a Christian because I wanted to demonstrate that believing and defending liberty will allow people who have different beliefs about what is right to peacefully coexist. I AM way opposed to the FMA because it will legislate restrictions upon my fellow citizens. Next comes the Federal You Cant Take Communion Ammendment because Christanity is a Fantasy Act. I'm not interested in that Federal legislation either so why should I let the government take away others right to privacy simply because I think that something is not for me. In short, you are right I identified with a political moniker to break or redefine the moniker. It is confusing but I am not confused.

Value your feedback Henry. You seem a level headed bloke. I'd be open to a well reasoned thrashing here. lol.

Ed wrote:
“We identify ourselves as christians to dispel the idea that there need to be battlelines drawn between people who disagree about how to live their lives.”

So you identify as political Christians in an attempt to combat the ideology of political Christians? Sounds confusing, seems like you would be better off identifying as something else to differentiate yourselves.

Ed wrote:
“I always tell christians the hammer you give to government to smash the people you disgree with can one day be used to smash you.”

No doubt.

Ed wrote:
“I also believe it is okay to share our private beliefs; perhaps you disagree.”

Sharing private beliefs is fine. A place I’ll agree with libertarians in that there is value in the free marketplace of ideas (with reasonable limitations), including religious ones. Of course, most of our private beliefs aren’t really all that private when it comes down to how they play out in our social milieu (which is another reasons I don’t buy into this exaggerated individualism with libertarianism).

However, adding a religious title to a political leaning seems to suggest that the religious motivation is a priority in one’s politics.

A “Muslim conservative” suggests something there.

@Henry We identify ourselves as christians to dispel the idea that there need to be battlelines drawn between people who disagree about how to live their lives. This leads to the temptation to use the government as a hammer to smash the rights of people who disagree with them i.e. Santorum/Bush approach FMA and the like. Many christians are confused about this and personally i was hoping to clarify this matter to WNYC listeners. I always tell christians the hammer you give to government to smash the people you disgree with can one day be used to smash you. lol. I also believe it is okay to share our private beliefs; perhaps you disagree.

I believe, somebody correct if I am wrong, the libertarian position on gay marriage is that the government should not be promoting one kind of union over another. This means the government should not provide benefits or disadvantages to decisions made privately. The idea that so called christian conservatives promote is that heterosexual unions are more equal than homosexual unions and so deserve promotion through tax breaks and other benefits. There is nothing conservative about this. Marriage is a matter of personal belief and the government should stay out of it all. No benefits for either type of union.

As for republicans in libertarian disguise...I cannot and will not excuse that kind of hypocrisy. By this I mean those who want to be free to take others freedom away. Disgusting.

CaptainDrG wrote
“Libertarian Principle: People should be free to do whatever they want, except to initiate force, the threat of force, or fraud against other people or their property.”

Yes, except for the hojillion exceptions to consider when reality rears it’s ugly head and people actually want their government to govern.

Also, there were a few Christian conservatives calling in a supporting Ron Paul, which was very suspect. I wish they stayed off the phones to let libertarians call in.

To label your political leaning with a religious group states that you wish to inject your particular religious views into government and law, which seems entirely contradictory to what libertarianism is supposed to be.

The callers seemed to be claiming that they wanted government to stay out of religious matters, but then why identify your politics with a religious moniker? Just call yourself conservative if you don’t feel that government should be messing around in religion.

Libertarian Principle: People should be free to do whatever they want, except to initiate force, the threat of force, or fraud against other people or their property.

Finally some comments on Paul's position on abortion!!!! It is extremely contradictory, it seems to me, to be against government in out lives and yet want to regulate what women can do with their own bodies.

ISn't Ron's son Rand named after Ayn Rand?

typo

I meant to write:
"These libertarians want the liberty to deny liberty to their fellow citizens."

Rah Freedom! Rah Liberty!

Sigh. Once again libertarianism fails to impress me. The last caller was the most reasonable, but since he doesn’t support Ron Paul and his views are moderated, my guess is most libertarians would call him not very libertarian at all.

eric from ny
“Why are there no women libertarians?”

Well, Ayn Rand is instrumental in advocating libertarianism. I read one of her novels and was like, “Wha?” Like seriously? This is what libertarians are making a fuss over?

Her views seem like an understandable overcompensation against communist oppression that she grew up through. But there’s little reason to run wild with such an exaggerated perspective as a general worldview.

@dboy "Can anyone of these nuts resolve the Libertarian conridiction of smaller govt, individual liberty, protecting our freedoms etc. etc... and spend so much time meddling in peoples bedrooms???"

The contradiction is easily resolved. It's the same issue today as it was 50 or 150 or 225 years ago, as DarkSymbolist pointed out.

States' righters wanted to be free to enslave, to discriminate on the basis of religion, to do whatever they could get away with in their local fiefdoms. They didn't want the Feds coming in to tell them that under our national Constitution, those things would not be tolerated.

Today, they want to be able to discriminate in housing, hiring, serving in restaurants, lending, and education.
They try to leave the public schools for private schools to escape the reach of government rules.
Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul say they would have voted against the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s. Many libertarians dream of repealing the 14th Amendment.

These libertarians want to the liberty to deny liberty to their fellow citizens.

Surprisingly, Adam Smith advocated many ideas that it seems Paulists would denounce as "liberal."

He favored "public works" to create and maintain an infrastructure to promote the free flow of commerce. These works included such things as roads, bridges, canals, harbors, and a postal system that profit-seeking individuals may not be able to efficiently build and operate.

Even in 1776, at the beginning stages of industrialization, Smith recognized that repetitive factory jobs dulled the minds of workers. He said they became "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to become." Smith wanted all classes, even the poorest, to benefit from the free-market system. "No society can surely be flourishing and happy," he wrote, when most of its people are "poor and miserable."

Thus, remarkably for the time, Smith advocated the education of all youth. He believed there was little difference in intelligence between the poor and the rich. Only the social conditions of the poor held them in ignorance, he concluded. He called for a "little school" in every district, supported by public taxes and small parent fees. "An instructed and intelligent people," Smith wrote, "are always more decent and orderly than an ignorant and stupid one."

Smith wrote that paying taxes was "a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty." By this, he meant that a taxpayer was an owner of property rather than the property of a master. Furthermore, Smith was an advocate of setting tax rates according to one’s ability to pay. Taxpayers, he argued, should pay "in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

Smith believed in taxing property, profits, business transactions, and wages. But these taxes should be as low as possible to meet the public needs of the country. He also thought they should not be arbitrary, uncertain, or unclear in the law. Nor should they require home inspections that intruded into the private lives of individuals.

Smith criticized a large public debt, which, he observed, resulted mainly from wars. He believed that the mercantilists encouraged wars so that they could lend money at high interest to the government and exploit conquered lands. Smith viewed wars as "waste and extravagance," producing a "perpetual" public debt that diverted money away from investment in new enterprises and economic growth. Public debt, Smith concluded, "has gradually enfeebled every state which has adopted it."

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-23-1-a-adam-smith-and-the-wealth-of-nations.html

I'm troubled by the 'every man for himself' ideas brought about during the broadcast, especially in terms of the education system. As much as I love my mother, and as much as she is talented in her own career, she is not professionally trained to educate me. It is foolish and shortsighted to believe that every mother should homeschool their children, and that every child that is homeschooled will contribute to the world in an effective way.
As a graduate education student I am finding out how complex the learning process is, and that not everyone can be an effective educator.
Furthermore, education is not a solo race to a certain goal, one goes to schools and universities to surround themselves with like-minded students and professionals in the field. Shutting yourself off in your own home is not an effective long term education strategy. We already are lagging behind Europe and Asia in terms of education, and shutting yourself off from the world is not helpful. If voters want to improve or change their public school state standards, there should be more opportunities for voters to decide what content.

Now, before people assume that I am denouncing homeschooling, that is incorrect. People have a right to choose to homeschool, and that is fine, but to assume that everyone has the time and training to effectively homsechool their children is unrealistic.

I noticed all the callers on the Libertarian/Ron Paul segment were male, very interesting.

dboy said: Is it possible to find a communist libertarian candidate???
Libertarians believe you should be free to join a voluntary commune.
But a Communist economy requires compulsion. To give a government that kind of power, you usually also confer enough power to kill the 180,000,000 people that Communist governments killed in the 20th century. Communist markets aren't free markets and don't work.

Mr. Paul stresses his admiration for the Constitution and the Founders who wrote it. He also stresses his commitment to Liberty. But the Founders were slaveholders, many of them, and the Constitution, originally, upheld slavery. Neither Mr. Paul nor other originalists seem bothered by that, although I am sure that Mr. Paul would not endorse slavery as an institution today. But the entanglement of slavery with the Constitution as originally enacted should give pause to Mr. Paul about the applicability of the Founders' ideas to today's world.

@ dboy

They can't resolve that contradiction because in the end, whatever they want to call it (Libertarianism,etc) it's just the same old right-wing isolationist state's rights garbage in another package

Regarding Ron Paul's position on abortion, his web site says he is in favor of (quotations follow):

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

Ron Paul will also protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.

A comment about putting rights vs. entitlements in same sentence as "fruits of your labor" : People who are rich through inheritance and not labor ( George W. Bush, Paris Hilton, Koch brothers, Trump,etc. ) became, in a sense, rich through an entitlement, not their own work. You can say that because their ancestors worked for it, then they should be entitled and it is justified. Well, we have in this country a large segment of our population who had generations of ancestors who labored and had their " fruits " taken from them; in fact, their labor made other people wealthy. Of course, I'm speaking of African Americans who descended from slaves. I'm not advocating any type of compensation. I'm just saying that this issue is not so clear cut. Too many exceptions and gray areas.
I come from a family of factory workers and coal miners. Yet, they were able to accumulate, over a couple of generations, a modest amount of wealth to leave to me and my brother and cousins. Imagine if slaves enjoyed the same rights to the fruits of their labor. Sometimes govt. must intervene. Look back to ancient tribal history-as written of in the bible and other sources- and you'll find tribal leaders intervening for the good of ALL their people.

Brian, you asked a caller about private property landlord rights. A true libertarian, as you said earlier, would encourage a lawsuit. Our rights include fair treatment without discrimination, all men created equal. But why should a government law enforcement intervene and waste our money? The parties will take it to civil court. Libertarians believe in limited Federal power, that details are worked within communities and within the people immediately involved.

@ elizabeth lyon

Yeah and isn't that funny? That seems like government taking away the liberty of a woman to make her own personal choice....funny that...from a guy who claims to be against government infringing on one's personal private choices

Again, methinks I smell the Ol' south.....

Can anyone of these nuts resolve the Libertarian conridiction of smaller govt, individual liberty, protecting our freedoms etc. etc...

... and spend so much time meddling in peoples bedrooms???

... someone, PLEASE!!

Why are there no women libertarians? Seems like the whole philosophy is just an excuse for insecure couch potatoes to believe they're some ideal of rugged individualism. These people are not serious. they have been weened on action movies, comic books and advertizing that manipulates them into believing they are masters of their own destiny. Grow up!

On the issue of abortion (and contraception)

Look up the Sanctity of Life Act of 2009, which Ron Paul introduced in the House of Representatives.

The bill states, among other things, "The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.... Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercising of the powers of the Congress ... the Congress declares that ... human life shall be deemed to exist from conception ... and the term 'person' shall include all human life as defined ...." and "the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."

thanks molly for posting that link -- i was about to do so myself. i am surprised that brian or his aids didn't check paul's position on abortion. it's appalling how many conversations about paul take place without his pro-life view being mentioned. he will not only repeal roe v wade but he will also fight against any pro-choice judge on the supreme court.

Libertarians should be able to opt out of being taxed, paying social security, etc. But don't use my streets, police services, fire dept., schools, civil defense, or anything else where government has any presence - unless you PAY for it out of your precious private resources. I'm not into freeloading either.

Libertarian believe the courts should remedy damage to any individual's environment in response to individuals' suits.
But:
The anti-pollution act of 1899 gave everyone the right to bring a Que Tam lawsuit against water polluters. It was repealed by big government antipollution subsidies in about 1972.
Individual Nuisance suits penalize air pollution. They were restricted during the industrial revolution, for the "Greater Good" of the economy.
The courts keep barricading themselves against class action suits for small injuries to the commons or to many individuals.
Sorry for the earlier double post. The delay made me think the first hadn't registered.

@John from Inwood "Why would a Libertarian listen to public radio?"

Haha - Great point, John!

If Ron Paul had his way, there would be NO MORE public radio!

I support Ron Paul's view that our military welfare to Israel is what's keeping Israel from going to the peace table with real compromises. Also his views on unfair law enforcement, and the drug war are correct. His views on domestic spying and ending the police state are right on the money.

Should we or shouldn't we end the department of education...maybe , maybe not. It sounds like a bad thing on its surface. But if you think about it all they give us are subpar standardized curriculums and standardized tests.

I agree doing away with the EPA sounds like a bad idea built the point is to me... lets be very selective about what we spend federal tax dollars on and only spend money on things that actually work for Americans. Not Israelis and not corporations and not a bunch of bloated government agencies.

You can use other races Brian..ie jews.

FYI Ron Paul is staunchly Pro-Life: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

@JoeCorrao, He would give men more liberty and women less. I care way more about my reproductive choices than my ability to do heroine, and he would let women in a number of states go back to the 1950s.

There are no women calling in to support him. I'm not at all surprised.

Is it possible to find a communist libertarian candidate???

About racism, why is ending the drug war the solution? Why are blacks affected more by the drug war? Why not address those underlying issues which will not go away once the drug war is ended. I believe we should end the drug war, however, I do not see how this will solve racial inequality issues in this country.

caller: "... I'm a christian conservative... I'm a conservative christian..."???

AHAHAHHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

D_g help us!!

Ron Paul is awesome. I hope wnyc highlights him more often because i'm beginning to think they're anti-paul.

Is STATE GOVERNMENT not government????????
Why does everyone act like they are anti-government and then proceed to advocate for State government??????

State government laws often times turn out to be more oppressive to people's liberties than the federal.

Government is government..it isn't suddenly NOT government just because it's the State running it as opposed to the federal..lol!

What is the Ron Paul/Libertarian view on gay marriage? Are they so "hand off" about this?
Thank you

Government is too big and too centralized and so people feel disconnected. Centralized government (even at the state level) is much more susceptible to big money / power influence compared to the local level. Dismantling the Federal and State governments (not completely) will empower people in government. Reducing legal code will liberate individuals and businesses. Of course, sometimes libertarians take this too far and that is what prevents complete mainstream penetration.

I'm not a Libertarian so I can't call but I was a philosophy major. Isn't libertarianism the belief that the government has NO basis in acting to curtail (or support) behavior that only affects the individual? Compare to paternalism. Why do so many of the callers seem confused?

Brian fell into the right-wing trap when he said Ralph Nader would represent the biggest possible government as opposed to Ron Paul. Nader epitomizes GOOD government, not big government! Mandating seat-belts and protecting the environment is not big government, it is good government! Yet we allow the right wing to frame good government (epitomized by Nader) with a negative connotation, "big government," while framing the strangling and starving of government and the public sector (epitomized by Paul) with a positive connotation, "small government." Don't fall for it, Brian!

Brian, with Ron Paul and racism, it's not just the newsletters. Things have come out of his mouth...Please.

11:16 caller, a poster child for Libetarians, the party of ADD.

Why bother thinking things through, or worrying about ramifications?

@JoeCorrao

Dahlia Lithwick wrote an incisive article in Slate about a year ago, questioning the wisdom, from a libertarian perspective, of increasing the power of state and local governments, at the expense of the national government, in pursuit of greater freedom.
She also questioned how some self-proclaimed states'-rights libertarians fetishize the national Constitution and the Founders, while being perfectly willing to constantly amend the constitutions of the states.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/read_it_and_weep.html

These libertarian callers use the words "freedom" and "liberty" rather casually. I'd like to see a followup question asking what they mean by those words.

Ron Paul- Isolationist, States Rights, racism in his background, sexist ideals

hmmm...sounds like the old south to me...nothing new here, move on

I developed a whole new respect for Ron Paul when he articulated the racism of the Criminal Justice System with respect to blacks. For a candidate to open up like that was amazingly refreshing.

What personal liberties do Paul supporters think they are being denied? They sound as if they are the most oppressed people on earth.

@Brian
SS will eliminate itself eventually...

"Libertarianism is like Communism: a nice idea that is totally incapable of dealing with reality."

I couldn't agree more

Brian the question he was asked was about health care rights not gay rights...he then addressed an earlier question about gay rights....

The unfortunate thing about modern politics is that there is a strong 'either / or' feeling. Why can't we have a socially liberal / fiscally conservative candidate? Paul is close but some of the ideas are just too extreme.

@Alisa from NYC
his position is there shouldn't be a federal law concerning abortion...should be decided at the state level.

I hope the libertarians who call and write in actually present an intelligent and compelling argument.

I would like to be persuaded, but I find libertarian reasoning simplistic and lacking in breadth and depth, but maybe I'm missing something.

Ron Paul - Let him die? No.
It has been alleged that, in a debate, Ron Paul said society should let the uninsured die. That's not true. Here is a transcript:
Q: "Society should just let him die?"
Paul:
"No. I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid. In early 1960s when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa hospital in San Antonio and the churches took care of him.
We never turned anybody away from the hospital.
And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves. Assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea. That's the reason the cost is so high.
The cost is so high because we dump it on the government. It becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interest. It kow tows to the insurance companies and then the drug companies.
And then on top of that you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar.
We have lack of competition. There's no competition in medicine. Everybody's protected by licensing.
We should actually legalize alternative healthcare. Allow people to practice what they want."
Here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T9fk7NpgIU

I don't really understand how Libertarians address issues like the environment. Certainly we cannot expect people without constraints to act in a way that benefits society. What about the ground we are losing to China and even Singapore where government initiatives are giving them the lead in medicine and alternative energy.

How does Libertarianism adress this?

No one mentions that Ron Paul and the Austrian economists were all dead wrong. They predicted runaway inflation after the TARP, Bailouts and then Obama's policies. They were so wrong. He has no idea how the economy works. See Krugman on this issue.

Libertarianism is like Communism: a nice idea that is totally incapable of dealing with reality.

I agree with Paul on the war on drugs and to an extent on foreign policy, but much of his domestic policy is ridiculous at best and dangerous at worst.

Huge Obama supporter here. I do have to say hearing Ron Paul on that stage is refreshing. He is a calm, cool, polite, gentleman.

Corrao,
Stop typing and call in.

Libertarianism if carried out is very simple: we go back to the 1830's of Charles Dickens and we all becaome "Little Dorit" or "Bleak House"

Why would a Libertarian listen to public radio?

How on earth can Ron Paul really consider himself a libertarian if he doesn't think women should have the liberty to control their own bodies? I don't want government small enough to fit in my uterus. It seems like only men support him because he only believes men have the right to liberty.

@Ian Snow Carpenter, a Ron Paul presidency doesn't automatically make us safer. The problem is that the world has a love-hate relationship with United States intervention. For example: for every person that would be happy to see the US out of Afghanistan, there would be another accusing us of abandoning Afghanistan. Honestly, I don't know if there's any way around this, regardless of who the President is.

@Lance from NYC
yup...govern at the local level...we don't need a huge central gvt run from DC.

Many Libertarians, such as Ron Paul, always seem to forget, or choose to ignore, Article I Section 8, which prescribes that, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

That's right, To provide for the general welfare of the United States.

Same language as in the Preamble, to "promote the general welfare."

I think his ideas are fantastic, if we were living in a perfect world without racism and bias and could start from scratch. But knowing what we know (slavery and all) things might not work out for them.

Libertarianism is just another Utopian hope the youth have caught onto at this point, just as Socialism and Communism were the big ideologies that fascinated the youth roughly a century ago. But it is the flipside of collectivism. It posits that we are all on our own, and have to protect ourselves with our own guns and no police to help, and it's every man and woman for him or herself, and every country for itself.

It was once advocated by some our "Founding Fathers" who tried to isolate us from the ongoing conflicts in the world, but it soon failed. Jefferson was forced to go to war in 1801 with the Barbary pirates of North AFrica, and soon came the of 1812, etc.

And of course the old debate of the merits of "hard money" (i.e. gold ,silver, etc.) versus "fiat" money or money backed soley by the creditworthiness and taxing ability of the central government.

Again, it is another grasping at straws, trying to go back to some halcyon era back in history that never existed, but it is the fashon of the day of our youth, and so cannot be dismissed out of hand.

@JoeCorrao
Most of us would agree with the items you list, but if you listen to Ron Paul and others they seem to have no understanding or concern for the consequences. Think of when Ron Paul was asked about someone without insurance needing medical care. We all know that some in the audience thought that person should just die because that's not society's problem. Paul didn't seem to have a good answer for that and I remember him dodging the question.

I think we'd all accept libertarians more if they would sign a document indicating that they want to get billed in full for any assistance from the government, be it medical attention, police or fire dept, education, public transportation, etc. Sure you're paying taxes for it, but the collective contribution of society keeps the cost down for you. You have 2 kids in public school in a good district? Well, you aren't paying $40k per year in property taxes so you aren't paying the full cost of their education. I have a friend that's a libertarian and he always argues that competition will keep prices of tuition down. I see plenty of private schools out there and I don't think any of us have heard of a private school lowering prices because of competition.

The sanctimony with which Ron Paul and his supporters insist on strictly following the Constitution is incredibly annoying. What they really mean when they say 'strictly follow the Constitution' is 'strictly follow the Constitution as *I* interpret it.'

Governing means deciding how to balance competing claims of rights. Doing that fairly according to the rules of the Constitution is often extremely difficult even for the most well-intentioned because, taken as a whole, the text itself is sometimes vague and it's requirements sometimes contradictory.

And appeals to the original intent of the Founders are often of little help. Heck, the Founders themselves couldn't necessarily agree on their intent (witness the Battle Royale that played out between the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians even while Washington was still in office).

Considering how disillusioned Obama supporters are about compromises he's made, I can only imagine how let down Paul supporters would be if he were elected and had to govern. Working in Paul's favor, government shutdowns aren't necessarily bad from a libertarian perspective.

@Unheard from NYC
just cause you define something doesn't mean you understand it...

I fear the continued foreign policy and military intervention adopted by all other candidates other than Ron Paul will lead to a WMD being used in my city - NYC. The threat level drops straight down under a Paul Presidency. Ron Paul is calm, reasoned and compassionate not to mention a Walking Constitution. Let him be President please.

"If actually polled most Americans would agree with Paul and step back from ANY foreign intervention."Simply untrue.

"Libertarianism is just another word for Anarchism." Originally yes, but American Libertarianism has developed into a more right-wing version that is somewhat different.

Ron Paul quite frankly just comes off as a typical classic isolationist right-winger with racist and sexist skeletons in the closet. I don't get what is so "revolutionary" about that- it's quite classic and old school really.

Libertarians seem to be based on an ideal world where corporations always do what's right and everyone is on their own to do whatever they want because they would never do anything that affects others in a negative way.

@Max from Northern New Jersey, You mention "allowing (relatively) free markets and (relatively) expanded personal liberties". Who is to define what how much is enough? Libertarians, including Ron Paul, imply that any regulation is too much.

@ MAX:
P.S. Do yourself a favor and don't assume people who possibly disagree with you or want to shed some uncomfortable light on things you believe are ignorant of the basics of our republic. I've read the constitution thank you.

Sharon, I don't think it is Ron Paul's foreign policy that most people think is that dangerous. What I and my friends find is so dangerous is his anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-women sentiments.

@ MAX:
Libertarianism IS synonymous with Anarchism throughout the world. The definitions diverged in the 1950's only in America. Semantics perhaps, history for sure.

My big question is this, "Why does the media convey Ron Paul's foreign policy as dangerous?" Every major media outlet leads into it with something like "Paul's opponents consider his foreign policy to be dangerous..." The same can be said about every other candidate's foreign policy stance.

If actually polled most Americans would agree with Paul and step back from ANY foreign intervention.

Libertarianism; a few things...smaller centralized gvt, protecting our freedoms (not restricting them with tsa, patriot act, etc), allowing people to be taxed less (smaller gvt would help), protect the INDIVIDUAL over groups, do what you want in the privacy of your own home as long as they don't hurt/restrict others, obey the laws and the Constitution.

Unheard from NYC, I believe you misunderstand the core principles of Libertarianism. The United States was founded because Europe lacked the personal freedoms that early settlers believed to be important. Simply put, the USA was established to allow its citizens to do what they pleased, as long as their actions did not infringe the rights of others.

Please give yourself the gift of an hour to read the United States Constitution. The system that that Constitution defines is minimal, far less expansive than the current Government.

This country has become a world power by allowing (relatively) free markets and (relatively) expanded personal liberties. With ever increasing influence by the state and rapidly eroding personal civil liberties, that position is endangered.

Libertarianism is just another word for Anarchism.