The Anti-Ron Paul Joke by Brad Hanson
The Anti-Ron Paul Joke
Let me start off by saying that Ron Paul has some very unique positions when it comes to how our government should be run. You won’t hear many other politicians even mentioning some of the things Ron Paul says. These ideas include abolishment of the Federal Reserve and an end the US foreign policy of policing the world. While refuting an article that was written in the last issue of Flip Side, I will explain why Ron Paul has these unique positions. The article in the last issue was “The Ron Paul Joke” by AJ Lawton, a Political Science major. I will leave it up to you to form your own opinions; but, only after you have seen the full picture of Ron Paul’s views, not just the media’s painted picture.
Lawton says that “Ron Paul is against the Civil Rights Amendment.” Lawton’s main argument here is that Ron Paul is extremely racist and that Ron Paul thinks businesses should be able to discriminate if they want. First of all, Ron Paul is not racist at all. He has completely denied being responsible for the news letter’s that have racist remarks in them, he has publically stated that Martin Luther King Jr. is one of his heroes, and a simple google search of ‘Proof Ron Paul isn’t Racist’ will provide hundreds of videos that show Ron Paul isn’t a racist man. The news letter’s are the only proof people have on Ron Paul of being racist. People who claim that Ron Paul is racist because he is against the Civil Rights Amendment do not fully understand it and why he is against it. Ron Paul is a strong believer in property rights. By the same right by which you prevent a burglar from entering your home, you may exclude anyone from your home, for any reason. Property rights and freedom of association demand this conclusion. Why should a man's business be treated any differently than his home? Moreover, the same principle which protects the right to exclude protects the right to include or provide service to a person or group. An attack on one is an attack on the other. Both the laws in southern states, that prevented some businesses from serving blacks, and today's anti-discrimination laws, that require them to service arbitrary individuals, are a violation of the same property rights and freedom of association. The difference is the flavor of coercion supported by the state at the time. Also, even if a business was to put up a sign discriminating against a certain group today, that business would perform poorly because of the harsh blowback from the rest of the population. Think about it, would you support a business that discriminated against black people? Lastly, Lawton claims that “you are naïve to think that things would suddenly get better” with “systematic discrimination still in place.” This is completely false. You are naïve if you think that the Civil Rights Act is what caused race relations to change for the better. Lawton’s thinking is a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc, after it therefore because of it. In fact, the seeds of change, now called the civil rights movement, were already being scattered which is exactly why the government passed the act. The reason Ron Paul is against the Civil Rights Act is because of all the extra stuff that was tagged onto it, such as affirmative action, which only fostered resentment from the minority who still opposed such liberties. All the government should have done is protect the right, real rights, not made up ones like a right to healthcare and nondiscrimination in housing and employment, and eventually society would have come along all on their own, since they were already on the way.
Lawton claims that Ron Paul is “off the rocker,” and that he is “out of touch,” because of his strict, one way view of the constitution. Lawton’s first argument is the 2nd Amendment. Lawton claims that “there needs to be serious regulations of weapons” and that this issue has nothing to do with liberty, but common sense. Well, this subject is actually completely debatable. Just because Ron Paul happens to be pro gun freedom, and just because Lawton disagrees with him, doesn’t mean that his views are crazy. Here, Lawton confuses disagreement with “off the rocker.” Lawton’s second, and final, argument is the 10th amendment. Lawton’s description of the 10th amendment is much too broad. The 10th amendment does not mean “states can do basically whatever.” The 10th amendment is there as a check and balance system of the federal government. It is there to prevent an all-powerful central government by giving more power to the states. As for the Slavery, Ron Paul realizes that the war was not just about ending slavery, which is a common misconception. The North did not want the South to leave the Union for several reasons, one of which was the collection of tariff revenue. But to end slavery, the North should have just bought all of the slaves, which is exactly what the British Empire did.
Lawton claims that getting rid of regulation and creating a free market society is a bad thing. Once again, Lawton does not understand the bigger picture here. The reason there are so many regulatory agencies is because the government disregards our own person property rights. As of today, if a company pollutes a stream unlawfully, that company is fined x amount of dollars. They are told to stop polluting by the regulatory agency and then life goes on. Well, if the government actually stood by individual’s property rights, anyone affected by the polluted stream could sue the company for damages. This would be much more expensive than today’s current fine and therefore, companies would have a much higher incentive to not pollute that stream in the first place. This would eliminate the need for any regulatory agencies run by the federal government. As for Dodd Frank, the agency responsible for “regulating” the financial institutions which caused the financial crisis of 2008. Ron Paul says that if they are too big to fail, and they fail, then they should file for bankruptcy and reform their business practice, just like everyone else. They shouldn’t be bailed out with tax payer money, doubling our deficit, just because of some “too big to fail” rhetoric. I will touch on this more when talking about the federal reserve.
Lawton’s final claim is that the federal reserve is a good thing, and that “anyone trying to convince you that the Fed is a scheme to screw us all is a conspiracist, like Ron Paul.” I think it is clear that Lawton does not know exactly what the federal reserve is or how it came to be. Do I think it’s a scheme to screw us all? No. Do I think it’s really shady? Yep, and this is why. The Federal Reserve was secretly created in 1910 by seven extremely wealthy men. Combined, these seven men accounted for roughly 25% of the world’s entire wealth. Why was it secret? Frank Vanderlip, who was one of the men at the meeting, said that it was secret because they were writing a banking bill, and if congress knew this, the bill would never pass. They decided to call it the Federal Reserve System to deceive the public into thinking it is a government institution, when in fact it is a private institution of banks. So why was the Fed created? If you think it is to stabilize the economy and protect individuals you are wrong. Our economy has been anything but stable since the Fed’s birth. Crashes of 1921 and 1929, the Great Depression, recessions in 1953, 1957, 1969, 1975, 1981, etc., Stop Market Black Monday in 1987, Corporate and Personal Debts are greater than ever, Bankruptcies at an all time high, Interest rate on the national debt consumes half of our tax dollars, and almost all heavy industry has out sourced to different countries. The real reason the Fed was created was to maintain banking power in New York, lower interest rates on loans, and to pass on inevitable losses, by the banks, to the tax payers. These objectives have been very successful. All big banks are still in New York, Interest rates are low which cause more people to borrow money, and the tax payers have taken the inevitable losses through bail outs. Without even diving into the way the Federal Reserve works or the process at which the seven men got the bill to pass, it is fairly reasonable to say that the Federal Reserve is not a good thing for America. Especially when the income equality between big bankers and the average person is so great because of it. Ron Paul wants to end the Fed because it causes inflation by printing as much money as it wants, with no restrictions. In Lawton’s article, he claims that inflation is caused by a growing population. This is completely false. An expanding population with a fixed currency would cause deflation, not inflation.
Want to learn more about Ron Paul? Just search online for hundreds of videos that show how he is not just another politician, but a man that has been fighting for our personal liberties for 30 years. Don’t form your opinions of presidential candidates from main stream media because these media sources are owned by extremely large corporations that only want you to hear what they want you to hear. Although online sources can be just as biased, there are thousands of sites which might report on the same topic, so it’s up to you to decide for yourself. I also suggest checking out reddit.com/r/ronpaul for more information. Reddit is a forum based website, with a large community, that can provide many different opinions for any topic. PS: There is even one for UWEC. Reddit.com/r/UWEauClaire.