Disagreements with Ron Paul

Che Bob has twelve of them:

Abortion Rights, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Kyoto, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Border Fence, Net Neutrality, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, and the biggie: Universal Healthcare!

Since I'm a big Ron Paul guy--no!--I thought I'd do my best to explain, in a paragraph or two, why Paul's position are substantially correct. From the list of complaints, as well as his handle, it's obvious that Che Bob is a left-leaning fellow. Notice, however, that he's taken enough time to disagree with Paul. This is a fairly good illustration of why Paul is more electable than any of the other Republican party presidential candidates. I dare say Che Bob would never vote for Rudy or any of the other Republican contenders.

To the points:

1) Abortion Rights: Paul is a firm believer in the Constitution; since that document nowhere mentions--or even alludes to--abortion "rights", the correct position is to let the states decide what to do about abortion; this is how things used to work before Roe v. Wade. Allowing the
states to decide is far more democratic than allowing unelected judges to write national policy. And while Paul is in favor of banning abortions at the federal level, he wants to do so through the Congress, though, depending on the makeup of the high court, this could require an amendment.

I've written time and again about abortion--most recently here--so there's no need to rehash any of that presently; Che Bob knows the arguments on both sides. I clearly believe that abortion is immoral, as does Paul. The important point, however, is that regardless of what one thinks about abortion, Paul's position is constitutional, and anyone with any respect for that document--which should be all of our representatives, given the oath they must take to enter office--should have no trouble accepting, and in fact advocating for, such a position.

2) Embryonic Stem Cells: First, recent developments have rendered the utilization of embryonic stem cells unnecessary. This is good news for everyone; science can continue to attempt to make our lives easier and more pleasant without having to wade around in morally murky waters. Second, what does the federal government have to do with stem cells? I'm being serious. We don't have the federal government involving themselves in other technologies--or rather, we shouldn't. This is plainly an issue for the private sector, at least if we want any real progress to be made.

3) ANWR Drilling: Drill away, I say. Nature is a means whereby man may communicate with his God, but it's also been given him to improve his condition. We've started an immoral foreign war, in part because we needed the oil; how profoundly idiotic historians will think us given that we had our very own supply, in the most thinly populated state, but chose to leave all of the land to the caribou. I'm not one of those rape-and-pillage-mother-earth folks, and I don't think Paul is either, but it strikes me as absurd to the nth degree that we're going to refrain from drilling in a very minuscule portion of a very large reserve, that is so far removed from the rest of the country that few of us even bother to visit it.

4) Kyoto: I can't wait until we can all look back on the global warming scare and have a good laugh about it. Of course, by then, we'll be worried about global cooling, so laughing will be verboten. Anyway, it's very silly to inhibit our ability to produce things, so that we can attempt to slow down a process which might not have much of anything to do with our actions. The predictive models, which folks like Al Gore use to demonstrate that we're all going to die, aren't accurate enough to anticipate the changes we've seen in the last couple of years. By all means, conserve energy on your own, start a movement for like-minded folks even, but don't use the federal government as a weapon of social control. I note in passing that the hubris of global-warming types--we puny humans are going to destroy the planet!--is matched only by the neo-cons and their global democratic revolution.

5) Assault Weapons Ban: Constitutionally speaking, this should be another issue of states' right. In any event, it's largely irrelevant, given the propensity for laws of this type to be ignored.

6) Guns - Background Checks: See number 5. As numerous studies have shown--I'm fairly certain John Lott deals with this in More Guns, Less Crime--the only impact these laws have is to reduce or eliminate the ability of owners of gun shows to make some money.

7) Citizenship Path for Illegals: It makes no sense for a nation, any nation, at any time, to allow any people who come marching across its borders, to become part of that nation. A nation is a people with a common history and language, and a shared culture. While there is something to be said for pluralism--it seems unavoidable in a post-Reformation west--diversity, is, in the long run, destructive. Only a relatively homogeneous society can exist in a stable state; a nation which only exists as an abstraction of blurry lines on a map is no nation at all, and will soon disintegrate. Allowing illegals to stay will destroy this county as it did imperial Rome.

8) Border Fence: I'm not actually one hundred percent sold on this one. A fence is useful in keeping the barbarians out, but it's also useful in keeping potential expatriates, such as myself, in. Clearly, though, some border security is needed to prevent problems like number 7 from reoccurring. Moreover, sufficient border security is the best way to combat terrorism; it is not immoral like invading foreign countries, and it is not only cheaper, but should also prove much more effective.

9) Net Neutrality: I had to look this one up. My guess is that Paul thinks, as I do, that allowing the government a hand in regulating any part of the Internet will give the government a better chance to regulate the content of the Internet. I'd like to believe that: 1) the government knows where to draw the line; and 2) the First Amendment would prevent them from threatening our free speech rights, which we daily exercise here on the Internet, but neither assumption is reasonable, especially given the current state of government. I pegged Che Bob for a free-speech advocate, so perhaps he can clarify for me on this one.

10) Minimum Wage Increase: I just finished Hilaire Belloc's The Servile State--which I highly recommend, by the way. Therein he notes that "the effects of Socialist doctrine on Capitalist society is to produce a third thing different from either of its two begetters - to wit, the Servile State." In the last section, he notes that a minimum wage law was precisely the type of legislation which would further our road to serfdom. The divide between those who control the means of production and those who do not is ever-growing. However well intentioned, minimum wage laws have been wholly ineffective, not only at mitigating the plight of the proletariat, but at allowing him to take some small hold of the means of production. In fact, the rise of "the servile state" has ensured that he is far more worried about becoming unemployed than he is about becoming a genuine owner. It makes no sense to continue policies which will only force us to march ever onward on this lonely road.

11) Same-Sex Marriage: This is another one of those issues for the states. I happen to think that the Religious Right is tremendously misguided on this one; the tide of public opinion is moving against traditional morality. Further, allowing the state to define marriage is senseless; marriage is primarily a religious construct. I won't say that the non-religious shouldn't be allowed to get married, but I'm unclear as to what the benefits for such folk might be. And, of course, it goes without saying that the Constitution has nothing to say about the matter.

12) Universal Healthcare: One of the central problems with the Federal Government is that they do almost everything badly. Outside of the military, which is rather good at fighting--but only against traditional enemies like the Nazis or the Russian Communists--the biggest objection to government is that it doesn't work as intended. Granted, our healthcare system is screwed up--I would argue, largely because of government interference in the private sector; why should we let the same people that couldn't get us out of the depression without a world war; that waged a war on poverty whose only result was the solidification of the servile state; that can't keep drugs off the streets despite billions upon billions of dollars allocated for that end, to run a healthcare system. The only argument for universal healthcare is that it will be be run so poorly that it will invariably force a few liberals to rethink their position on the role of government.

That was fun, now wasn't it? Of course, I'll be glad to do my best to handle any feedback thrown at me.