The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul

In 1964, Ayn Rand endorsed Barry Goldwater against President Lyndon Johnson. See:
Presidential Elections, Part I.
Practically all Objectivists agree with her decision.

Today, regarding consistency with Objectivism, Ron Paul is better than Goldwater and Romney-Obama are worse than Johnson. So today Objectivists are fighting for Ron Paul, right? Well, no, many are not. See:
The Ayn Rand Institute vs. Ron Paul.

(Edited by Mark Hunter on 6/03, 7:06pm)

Post 1

Monday, June 4, 2012 - 11:03am

I think a lot of objectivists are pro war. Sorry I haven't taken the time to look into the link you provided.

Post 2

Monday, June 4, 2012 - 11:33am

In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:

�I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.� http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

In 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have defined life as beginning at conception at the Federal level.

Paul was one of 12 representatives to vote against the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, and said, "Sanctions are literally an act of war."

Sanctions against Iran are an act of war?

In May 2011, Paul said he would not have ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, calling the operation "absolutely not necessary". Instead he would have done it differently, stating that America should have worked with the Pakistani Authorities who in the past had arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists who were then tried in court. Paul also stated that other alternatives were viable that were less of a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty.

Pakistan's sovereignty? Pakistan had a "right" to shield Osama bin Laden?

On September 30, 2011, Paul said, of the operation to kill Anwar al-Awiaki, "If the American people accept this blindly and casually � have a precedent of an American president assassinating people who he thinks are bad. I think that's sad."

So, according to Paul, we have no right to kill known terrorists.

Do we really want this guy as our president?

Post 3

Monday, June 4, 2012 - 1:36pm

The "Sanctity of Life Act" is a muddled bill which, in addition to legislating a scientific (non) fact about personhood, would forbid the Supreme court from reviewing state laws concerning abortion.

So we are back to the argument given in the second link above. Practically speaking the Act isn�t much of an issue. Even if it passed � and it won�t � some states will remain pro-choice. Roundtrip airfare to one of them wouldn�t cost much compared with the cost of the doctor.

Again, consider the background of 2012. The presidential race is not Ron Paul vs. someone halfway reasonable, it is Ron Paul vs. Romney-Obama. In that context � even I can use the word � I�m willing to ignore some flaws such as his position on choice. (I don't consider a flaw Ron Paul�s opposition to the extra-judicial drone killing of al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son and a friend. About bin Laden, I doubt he was the man killed in 2011, but if he was he should have been taken alive and given a public trial � his former U.S. handlers need the embarrassment.)

If I had to name only one reason to support Ron Paul it would be that he would dismantle the TSA. Obama obviously won�t, and since Romney chose Chertoff along with a dozen other neocons as his advisors it is very doubtful he would either.

Do we really want Obama or Romney as our president?

(Edited by Mark Hunter on 6/04, 2:06pm)

(Edited by Mark Hunter on 6/04, 2:08pm)

(Edited by Mark Hunter on 6/04, 2:11pm)

(Edited by Mark Hunter on 6/04, 2:46pm)

Post 4

Monday, June 4, 2012 - 1:45pm

I'm strongly opposed to Ron Paul's pro-life position. People who take a religious position as to when individual rights attach to a human being and when a fetus becomes a human being, and their position is there are both the case at conception... Those people just can't be argued with and they will advocate for laws that violate a woman's right to her own body. When you understand that these people see the zygote and fetus has having rights, then it is understandable they will fight to protect those rights. It's a stupid position, but at least they are earnest in fighting for what they see as individual rights.

I also don't like his positions on Iran - Iran has killed Americans, actively supports terrorists, and is a real danger to our future. But that doesn't mean that Paul isn't right about some things. Some forms of sanctions are an act of war - but I think that is a technicallity since Iran effectively declared war on us. And if congress were worth more than a warm glob of spit, they would have declared war on Iran. Our being in the middle east does cause blow back (and my answer to that is, "So, what? Any given intrusion into the middle east should be justified on its own, and the consequences anticipated as well as possible, then dealt with." We don't pretend blowback isn't a fact, but we also don't let it be the deciding factor in fighting terrorism in the middle east.

But I really like Paul's insistence on due process. It isn't that we don't have the right to kill terrorists, but that we need a judicial procedure to make the determination that they ACTUALLY ARE terrorists. The Attorney General should have instituted a special judicial process of some sort where evidence was put before judges and verdict rendered - that is the way to create a kill or capture list.

Sure, there is no question that Bin Laden was a terrorist but we needed some judicial procedure to pass judgment or else we are a government that kills people it wants to kill and there are no checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial brances.

He is completely right about the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad - it isn't that Anwar al-Awaiki shouldn't have been assassinated, but that there needs to some judicial procedure that preserves objective law and lives within the constitutions demand for due process.

I might disagree with a lot of the things that Paul says, but I find that our principles are much closer to his than anyone else that was running, and he one of a tiny, tiny handful of congressmen with free-market principles and integrity. He is the ONLY candidate that seems to understand that we will never have a truly small and limited government until we take away the power of the federal government to tax individuals (which government didn't have till 1913) and the power to borrow great sums, and the power to print money.

Ron Paul is the strongest defender of liberty in Washington and it is unfortunate that he has that religious position, and doesn't do a better job of articulating that we need judicial review instead of just pointing out that assassinations are wrong (they are only wrong because they were preceded with the proper judicial procedure.)

Post 5

Monday, June 4, 2012 - 2:07pm