Ron Paul appeals to the UN

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

http://gawker.com/5983066/ron-paul-calls-on-united-nations-which-he-doesnt-believe-in-to-confiscate-ronpaulcom

A question for the libertarian/constitutionalist/Ron Paul fan escapists. Do you think Ron Paul's actions here are consistent with Libertarian views? There might be more to this story than I've seen, and I'll be looking, but on the face of it I don't think this is a very flattering incident for Ron Paul.

The article if you don't want to click the link.

Wow... just wow...

I mean, seriously, I guess if you're going to screw over your fan base, you best do it in a way that screws them over in the most ironic and totally hypocritical way possible...

http://gawker.com/5983066/ron-paul-calls-on-united-nations-which-he-doesnt-believe-in-to-confiscate-ronpaulcom

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Sounds to me like he just decided to give up. America isn't electing him, so why not just submit to UN global governance? American national sovereignty isn't worth very much if it isn't electing Ron Paul, obviously.

Eh, c'est la vie.

Libertarianism is such a galactic grab bag worth of stuff anyway it's hard to tell who's a libertarian anyway, right?

I think Ron Paul is a perfect litmus test for how Libertarianism works in real life. In theory everyone having the 'freedom' to do everything within the single law that no other persons rights should infringe upon anyone else's is... Well, honestly that never sounded viable but let's call it so for the sake of example. In reality, your rights don't infringe upon anyone elses until, in Ron Paul's case here, it's in their interest for it to be so. Suddenly we have a group of people with the same interest and very little governing body or regulation to oppose them, so they become a regime. Ironically, this will likely be the same Anarchists and Libertarians who supported reducing or even removing government power.

Honestly, Libertarianism has some merits in theory and when applied in parts to a separate whole but on it's own it is a farce of an ideology.

Jux:

Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN's own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren't interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

Oh for god sake am I going to need to weigh in on this again? How can so many people say so much about the UN while knowing so little about it? It boggles my mind.

Nevermind the couched rhetoric.

Danny Ocean:

Jux:

Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN's own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren't interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

Oh for god sake am I going to need to weigh in on this again? How can so many people say so much about the UN while knowing so little about it? It boggles my mind.

Nevermind the couched rhetoric.

You do realize that was what Ron Paul said about the UN right?

Jux:

You do realize that was what Ron Paul said about the UN right?

Yes, I do know that's what Ron Paul said about the UN. It's more an expression of exasperation at the group of heads I often argue with about the UN on here, who are no doubt already nodding.

Danny Ocean:

Jux:

You do realize that was what Ron Paul said about the UN right?

Yes, I do know that's what Ron Paul said about the UN. It's more an expression of exasperation at the group of heads I often argue with about the UN on here, who are no doubt already nodding.

Ok, was just checking. The response kinda appeared like you were responding to me as if I had said it ^^; Sorry, it's almost 5 am here, tired.

Jux:

Danny Ocean:

Jux:

You do realize that was what Ron Paul said about the UN right?

Yes, I do know that's what Ron Paul said about the UN. It's more an expression of exasperation at the group of heads I often argue with about the UN on here, who are no doubt already nodding.

Ok, was just checking. The response kinda appeared like you were responding to me as if I had said it ^^; Sorry, it's almost 5 am here, tired.

Oh wow that's late. No worries bud. :)

Jux:

Danny Ocean:

Jux:

Those bureaucrats are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes, however. The UN increasingly wants to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. Its global planners fully intend to expand the UN into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these facts are readily promoted on the UN's own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are actively hostile to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren't interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

Oh for god sake am I going to need to weigh in on this again? How can so many people say so much about the UN while knowing so little about it? It boggles my mind.

Nevermind the couched rhetoric.

You do realize that was what Ron Paul said about the UN right?

Oh thank god, for a moment I thought you'd gone insane and I'd need to hose you with cold water.

OT: Not surprised, nor do I care that much. US politics, eh?

Well, it's typical. *shrugs*

That's deeply hypocritical from Paul.

So sounds like it's very consistent with libertarian views to me.

I wonder if Paulites will finally realize how much of a hypocrite Ron Paul is.

I could easily see this falling under libertarian principles, after all you own you, and part of you is your name. Libertarian ism allows for a lot of government albeit one based on rule of law with a huge focus on negative rights and the creation/protection of markets. Anti cybersquatting would surely fall in that realm of libertarian belief in markets.

Blablahb:
That's deeply hypocritical from Paul.

So sounds like it's very consistent with libertarian views to me.

Heh, more or less what I was going to say.

I think I have said a dozen times on these forums that Ron Paul is probably one of the few politicians in the world that can maintain their positions on things for decades worth of activity in politics... Shit. It does feel like the world is coming to an end, I wonder who the libertarians are gonna cling to next. It definitely isn't going to be his son.

Hopefully the motherfucker is ruined by this. He was always more obsessed with the US constitution than actual liberty. I never liked him and this just reaffirms my reasons for doing so.

It's very hard to have a 'national' libertarian candidate. Libertarianism by its nature is a grab bag, it focuses on individualism. So what one person says is a libertarian is not what another one says. For example, some people think all libertarians are homophobic racist hiding behind states rights. Others call bullshit on that.

Either way this is not very libertarian at all.

Ahhh, the smell of hypocritical. It smells lovely.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, not a libertarian. It is a common mistake to make, as they look much the same to most people with more authoritarian leanings, but it is a mistake nonetheless.

randomsix:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, not a libertarian. It is a common mistake to make, as they look much the same to most people with more authoritarian leanings, but it is a mistake nonetheless.

More importantly he is not an anarchist. As such he believes in appealing to the appropriate legal entity when he feels his rights are being violated. The fact that the international organization responsible for dealing with complaints of cyber-squating falls under the UN is ironic but it does not mean that he supports the UN as a whole all of a sudden.

randomsix:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, not a libertarian.

The wall isn't blue you silly liberals, it's blue.

Blablahb:

randomsix:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, not a libertarian.

The wall isn't blue you silly liberals, it's blue.

And you prove my point quite brilliantly. Thank you for your service.

sneakypenguin:
I could easily see this falling under libertarian principles, after all you own you, and part of you is your name. Libertarian ism allows for a lot of government albeit one based on rule of law with a huge focus on negative rights and the creation/protection of markets. Anti cybersquatting would surely fall in that realm of libertarian belief in markets.

An interesting take, but then you need to ask which Ron Paul has the rights to RonPaul.com?

A quote pulled from one of the responses at gawker:

randomsix:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, not a libertarian. It is a common mistake to make, as they look much the same to most people with more authoritarian leanings, but it is a mistake nonetheless.

My mistake then. Only seen him run for office for the Libertarian and Republican parties, was unaware he ran for a Constitutionalist party.

Jux:

randomsix:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, not a libertarian. It is a common mistake to make, as they look much the same to most people with more authoritarian leanings, but it is a mistake nonetheless.

My mistake then. Only seen him run for office for the Libertarian and Republican parties, was unaware he ran for a Constitutionalist party.

There is no constitutionalist party. But constitutionalist veiws with respect to federal governance are much more closely aligned to the libertarian party than to either the democrats of republicans, so there is an obvious-if imperfect-alliance to be made between the two minority philosophies.

randomsix:
-snip-

Ah, I see. Well, I wasn't really aware of the nuanced positions. And most Paul-ites I know self identify as Libertarians. So yea, I guess there's that. Still, I find it a bit amusing, Libertarian or not, that Ron Raul reviles the UN so much, but is quick to ask for their help when it suits his purposes.

Original post has been editted to encompass constitutionalists and Ron Paul fans as well. I left libertarians in there as well, as it was pointed out earlier, that libertarianism is sort of a grab bag, and there are many Ron Paul fans that consider him a Libertarian.

randomsix:

Jux:

randomsix:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist, not a libertarian. It is a common mistake to make, as they look much the same to most people with more authoritarian leanings, but it is a mistake nonetheless.

My mistake then. Only seen him run for office for the Libertarian and Republican parties, was unaware he ran for a Constitutionalist party.

There is no constitutionalist party. But constitutionalist veiws with respect to federal governance are much more closely aligned to the libertarian party than to either the democrats of republicans, so there is an obvious-if imperfect-alliance to be made between the two minority philosophies.

There actually is a constitutionalist party. Ron Paul endorses it after he inevitably loses in the primaries.

Edit- though to be fair, it is unlikely that Ron Paul actually would agree with the constitution party on most issues, as they are much further right on a number of issues and, humorously, don't really care about the constitution that much. A core part of their platform is that we should just ignore some of the ammendments.

I read the claim, it mentions multiple times that all evidence points towards the administrators running the website only to sell it back to him.

Way to shit all over your biggest fans in the most disrepectful way possible Ron.

Revnak:

randomsix:
snip

There actually is a constitutionalist party. Ron Paul endorses it after he inevitably loses in the primaries.

Edit- though to be fair, it is unlikely that Ron Paul actually would agree with the constitution party on most issues, as they are much further right on a number of issues and, humorously, don't really care about the constitution that much. A core part of their platform is that we should just ignore some of the ammendments.

Color me corrected.

Is the endorsement thing ongoing or historical? I can't recall mention of it during the last election cycle.

What a surprise, Ron Paul doing something hypocritical. And here I thought he was "uncompromising".

You know, he's done a lot of hypocritical things, but the most astounding thing seems to be this cognitive dissonance he speaks of where there should be no federal government, but large government is perfectly fine - as long as 51% of voters in a state vote for it. He also thinks its okay to ban homosexual intercourse if 51% of people vote in favour of criminalizing it as well. For somebody who claims to be about "liberty" and "freedom", he seems to misunderstand the fact that just because something was done democratically doesn't make it right to do so, and that such a thing as "rights" exist. He's a "Constitutionalist" who doesn't understand what rights are - I think he might actually be a bit senile.

I can't respond, I'm too busy snickering.

Ron Paulites, it ain't like people didn't try to tell you.

I think one aspect of the criticism of Ron Paul here is a little cheap.

One may disagree with the existence or influence of a body, but still work with it. For instance, a Scottish/Irish nationalist may stand for office in the United Kingdom parliament. An anarchist may disagree with the existence of the state, but pay taxes and call on its police force if a victim of crime. It is not hypocritical to do so, because one must deal with things as they are whilst wishing they were - and working towards making them - different.

Where Ron Paul is behaving dishonourably and deserves enormous criticism is attempting to use the law to launch an uncompensated takeover of someone else's property. This website has existed for some years to Ron Paul's own presumed benefit, and almost certainly with his and his team's knowledge and perhaps co-operation. The owners have not dishonestly pretended to be his official channel. They have been very accommodating offering him a good domain name they also own, and offering to sell a site they have invested a lot of time and effort into for what is presumably a reasonable valuation (RP has millions of dollars net worth, he could certainly afford $250k without denting his retirement, never mind that a website with thousands of people in regular traffic and a 170k mailing list possibly offers useful income potential.) Ugly conduct indeed.

randomsix:

Revnak:

randomsix:
snip

There actually is a constitutionalist party. Ron Paul endorses it after he inevitably loses in the primaries.

Edit- though to be fair, it is unlikely that Ron Paul actually would agree with the constitution party on most issues, as they are much further right on a number of issues and, humorously, don't really care about the constitution that much. A core part of their platform is that we should just ignore some of the ammendments.

Color me corrected.

Is the endorsement thing ongoing or historical? I can't recall mention of it during the last election cycle.

After looking at things a little closer it appears he only did this once in 2008, and he endorsed other third parties too.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked