I first read about Ron Paul when I was looking for articles on Libertarianism. He professes to be a Libertarian and his most publicized opinions are undoubtedly Libertarian; a good example is:
All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals.1Ron Paul impressed me, but there was something characteristic of a certain American political party in his photos: American flags in the backgrounds. That overbearing Americanism is something I've come to expect from Republicans and a quick check revealed Ron Paul to be a Republican.
I dislike the Republicans - I think they should call themselves Bigots - but Ron Paul's statements about freedom convinced me to give him the benefit of the doubt. I couldn't let him off the hook without a quick background check, so I pointed my browser at Wikipedia2 and found the following text in one of the Wikipedia sources3:
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.Pause here for a moment. Opponents of gay marriage are not opposed to the ceremonies, but to the legal status of gay marriage. This is a big deal, because it denies gay people rights which are enjoyed by married people. Think about this: if you are not married to somebody, the state does not recognize you as family of that person. This influences the transfer of property of deceased individuals, medical aid accounts, insurance etc.
Denying people certain privileges counts as a violation of their rights. This is for the benefit of the bigotry of other people. This is not Libertarianism.
Ron Paul opposes centralisation and big government. This is a necessary condition of the Libertarian outlook. A constant theme in Ron Paul's political messages is that most power should lie with the states (with regard to gay marriage, he believes that every state should individually decide whether it recognizes gay marriage).
I do not know whether Mr. Paul thinks that making the state a unit of policy enforcement makes him a Libertarian. As far as I know, the only unit thought important in the Libertarian outlook is that of the individual. Allowing individual states to enforce bigotry does not create a free system. In a Libertarian society, people should be able to live where they choose - and incidentally, Ron Paul is very much for keeping illegal foreigners OUT2, whilst Libertarians think that borders should be open - and not have to move to a state that grants them the "right" to be what they choose to be.
An American once told me that the American civil war was more about the Southern States' desire to remain autonomous than about slavery (as I was always told). While I know too little about this war to comment on the truth of the statement, it certainly looks to me as if Ron Paul would prefer a return to the old way.
And you know what? I would prefer that too. The conservative states don't really see eye to eye with the liberal states. I have little love for the conservative states and I think they are a net loss to the more progressive states.
Long live Ron Paul. Long live the unity of the states.
