Friday, April 29, 2011

Ron Paul And Libertarianism - Deadly For This Country

About six weeks ago, I posted my opinion that Ron Paul's position on abortion makes him unacceptable as a presidential candidate.  I've no doubt that he personally abhors abortion, but he is of the libertarian mindset that the federal government has no say in the matter.  In that earlier post, I explained why that mindset doesn't pass the "smell test".

It now turns out that Paul voted to repeal the "don't ask don't tell" policy.  In other words, he would compromise the effectiveness of our military and allow gays in the armed forces.

The man is a libertarian, not a conservative.  The two are NOT equivalent by a long shot.  The true consersvative recognizes the indispensible role that morality plays in public life and in the government whereas the libertarian will turn a blind eye to all sorts of depravity as long as he/she perceives that his/her parade isn't getting wet.

Some of the Tea Party seem to be of the libertarian mindset.  Some have gone so far as to advocate the setting aside of "social issues" in favor of "economic issues".  They are dead wrong.  As long as we fail to put God and His laws before all else, including our wallets, our nation will continue its slide towards oblivion.  The libertarians of the Tea Party - and of anywhere else - had better wake up and do some serious soul-searching.  If the Tea Party embraces libertarianism, it will have consigned itself to the dungheap of irrelevancy.


  1. With all do respect, Ron Paul is the only moral choice for president! He is honest and has great integrity which is almost nonexistent in politics. He is pro-life because he believes that everyone has a right to life and would vote to over-turn Roe v. Wade. He is a physician and took an oath to do no harm. He has never performed an abortion and delivered over 4000 babies. Libertarians just believe one adult should not force another adult to do something, unless they are hurting another. We should wholeheartedly advocate for morality, but not force one person's will on another. Imagine being a Christian forced to live under Sharia law. It doesn't sound like such a good idea then. Liberty does not mean embracing just gives that power to the Church, where it belongs!

    1. Where you stray from the reservation is here..."but not force one person's will on another". Government does have some role in determining behavior. That is to say, government has the role to prevent unjust aggression of one person against another. Abortion is unjust aggression. So yes, the government does have a role in forcing the aggressor to cease his aggression. Merely leaving the matter up to the states is a morally unacceptable cop-out.

      As for this election, Ron Paul is not going to be the president. The votes simply aren't there. Now the question becomes one of facilitating the conditions by which we can be more hopeful that four years from now we will be able to have free elections. Such may not be the case if Obama retakes the White House as he is showing distressing signs of assuming dictatorial powers to himself. He must be defeated. That won't happen if we go about splitting our votes in a self-righteous snit.


Please be respectful and courteous to others on this blog. We reserve the right to delete comments that violate courtesy and/or those that promote dissent from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.