Ron Paul Retiring

[ipscshooter]

Apparently, he won't be seeking reelection to Congress in 2012.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43727803?GT1=43001

[The Rev]

Thank God!!!

[cr422]

I think I read that he's quitting so he can devote full time to his presidential campaign.

[Alsatian]

I don't recollect precisely what I've heard Ron Paul advocate, but something was completely impracticable. I guess that is part of my beef with Libertarians generally -- too many impraticable ideas. Just to take an example -- and I'm deliberately choosing an idea that I have not heard them advocate (they may in fact advocate this, I just am not well enough informed to say one way or the other) -- hypothesize that the Libertarians advocate getting the US government and state governments out of education. That is a private matter not a public matter. Let the market decide. Let individuals manage this themselves. This to me sounds like it is consistent with Libertarian philosophy.

At one level, this idea might be plausible, but it is not enough. If you would actually propose to do this, I think you would need to have a detailed transition plan. You aren't going to just fire all the teachers, board up the windows to the schools, and send the students home. What is the realistic transition plan? Any unintended consequences? Do we need to revise the voting laws to require demonstration of a baseline level of education before allowing someone to vote? This kind of recognition of reality often seems absent to me when looking at Libertarian candidates. I think Ron Paul fits into this category. But I admit that is not based on a lot of definite knowledge of Ron Paul.

[kansasdeerhunter]

Originally Posted by Alsatian

hypothesize that the Libertarians advocate getting the US government and state governments out of education. That is a private matter not a public matter. Let the market decide. Let individuals manage this themselves. This to me sounds like it is consistent with Libertarian philosophy.

At one level, this idea might be plausible, but it is not enough. If you would actually propose to do this, I think you would need to have a detailed transition plan. You aren't going to just fire all the teachers, board up the windows to the schools, and send the students home. What is the realistic transition plan? Any unintended consequences? Do we need to revise the voting laws to require demonstration of a baseline level of education before allowing someone to vote? This kind of recognition of reality often seems absent to me when looking at Libertarian candidates. I think Ron Paul fits into this category. But I admit that is not based on a lot of definite knowledge of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is for most everything (ie education, health care, abortion, prohibition, etc) being a states rights issue, get the federal government out of it & let the states & local governments decide. SMALL GOVERNMENT. Some call his foreign policy "nuts", or actually call him "nuts", but fail to provide any evidence of anything he's presented as being nuts. Usually they don't fully understand his position and hear some idiot MSM anchor present him as nuts. Paul consistently votes according to his well publicised beliefs, he can't be bought like most the other politicians, which means he often gets attacked for voting a certain way on a bill, when in reality he voted that way because there was something in the bill he couldn't vote for. In a nutshell he is for running the country as it was originally founded, which is IMO the best option, however the problem is we have strayed so far from it that it will be difficult to get back there.

If you want to better understand his views read his book "Liberty Defined"

[Alsatian]

Originally Posted by kansasdeerhunter

Ron Paul is for most everything (ie education, health care, abortion, prohibition, etc) being a states rights issue, get the federal government out of it & let the states & local governments decide. SMALL GOVERNMENT.

If you want to better understand his views read his book "Liberty Defined"

I don't want to read his book or understand him better.

It is an interesting point that he favors such things as being handled by states. That may be a level of nuance I was unaware of. I do agree that the federal government ought to be severely cut down to size. Over time there has been an untoward growth of federal power, to the extent that we have figurative expressions conveying this idea. "Let's not make a federal project out of this!" I would agree with that.

At the same time, I have voted for an independent, third party candidate in the past -- Ross Perot -- and the result was Bill Clinton being president for 8 years. I'm not making that mistake again. Ron Paul WILL NOT BE the Republican nominee, and hence is not electable as president.