Liberty Maven

What follows is a list of 10 common criticisms of Ron Paul and his candidacy for President with rebuttals for each criticism. The rebuttals include links to Ron Paul’s own words on the issue to support the rebuttal and for further research.

10. He is a racist.

In a newsletter published under Ron Paul’s name in the 80′s and 90′s he is quoted with some what most people would deem as racist remarks. It didn’t necessarily mean that they weren’t true, but they certainly were racist by definition. Ron Paul has defended himself by saying that he didn’t write them, but a ghostwriter for his newsletter did. He also said that he regrets them appearing in his newsletter. If this rather feeble explanation doesn’t convince you, then the mere fact that he has never been quoted in the many years since as saying anything near these type of remarks. He’s even spoken out against all forms of racism. See Government and Racism by Ron Paul.

9. Abolishing the IRS is crazy. How can we pay for running the government?

The federal income tax proceeds make up approximately 1/3rd of the federal budget. With all of the reductions in government under a Paul administration the federal income tax is unnecessary. Certainly we can reduce the federal government by 33%, at least. See The Case Against the Income Tax by Ron Paul.

8. What? How can he be against Net Neutrality?

He is against all federal government Internet regulation. Net Neutrality is Internet regulation. See his appearance on G4 – Attack of the Show to hear him answer why he is against Net Neutrality.

7. An isolationist foreign policy is extremely harmful to the safety of the United States.

An isolationist believes in both a non-interventionist foreign policy and protectionism (no trading with other nations). Paul believes that trading with other nations is vital; therefore, he is not an isolationist. See my previous blog post on this subject for more details and Ron Paul’s own words.

6. Going back to the gold standard will cause all sorts of catastrophic problems in banking and the stock market.

He is not an advocate of going back to the gold standard necessarily. He would foster competition in hard money (money backed by gold or silver) along with the federal reserve notes (fiat money) we have today. He has stated that eliminating the Fed and fiat money immediately is irresponsible and believes passing laws to legalize other forms of currency would foster competition that would end up eliminating fiat money in a slower and safer fashion. See What the Price of Gold is Telling Us by Ron Paul.

5. He would leave those currently dependent on the government out in the cold.

He has stated that he wouldn’t get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid overnight. He would use the savings from enforcing a non-interventionist foreign policy (current price tag of over $450 billion) to help phase those dependent on these programs off of them. In a period of a several years, these government programs would be phased out. No one would be left “out in the cold”. See Ron Paul’s interview with the Kaiser Family Foundation for his answer on this issue.

4. How can he be against a national health care plan like many of the Democrats propose?

He’s been a doctor since the 1960′s and has seen the health care system deteriorate over the years while costs have risen. There is no Constitutional authority to regulate health care at the federal level. If someone is going to be a believer and follower of the Constitution then he/she cannot support a national health care plan, even if they wished to do so. Ron Paul believes in true free market economics and deregulating the current regulations on health care that force us into a 3rd party payer system. It is this system that causes costs to rise year after year. The deregulation will promote healthy competition which we know from basic economic theory will reduce costs, allowing almost everyone to be “covered”.

Those that are still too poor to be covered will be able to turn to free clinics (funded by the states) and other charity funded hospitals. These “free” options for health care would crop up for several reasons. For starters, people will now know that the federal government will not be involved. This coupled with the fact that they will be taking home almost their entire paycheck, since there would be little if any federal income tax anymore would create a culture of benevolence. This would also help weed out the more corrupt organizations because the consumer/philanthropist (ie. the market) could decide where to send their money rather than the monolithic federal government deciding at the behest of special interest groups.

Yes it does seem like a bit of a leap of faith that this will happen, but we already have several examples in the world where socialized medicine seems to be failing and no true examples of free market health care. Why not give it a try? There’s already a bit of this happening with certain pharmacies either giving away certain drugs for free or discounting prescriptions heavily in order to attract more business (like Walmart and K-mart). This with no government involvement, just free market tactics to build business. See Lowering the Cost of Health Care by Ron Paul and watch his recent YouTube You Choose ’08 video on Health Care.

3. I disagree with him on abortion.

Yes, he is personally very much pro-life. How could a former OB/GYN not be? However, there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, therefore he would leave the abortion issue up to each individual state. So under his presidency he would push for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned because it is unconstitutional and some states will outlaw abortions and others will allow them. In short, he believes the federal government has no authority to regulate abortion one way or another. See Federalizing Social Policy by Ron Paul.

2. He is too extreme to get anything done if he wins.

His extremism will be tempered by the checks and balances within the government system. He’s a Constitutionalist so there should be no worry about him “Executive Ordering” us into unjust wars and meddling in our private lives like the current administration. If he were to be elected though, Congress would be forced to try working with him if they wish to be re-elected themselves. This is especially true if he wins by a large margin like Ronald Reagan did in 1980.

1. He doesn’t have a chance of winning the GOP nomination.

Well not if you have an attitude like that! If you register Republican (where required) and vote for him he has a chance.