There are some of presidential candidate Ron Paul’s Libertarian beliefs that I’m all for. For one thing; I agree concerning most of his foreign policy; I think we should bring our troops home from many of these permanent bases we’ve made all around the world. It seems to me, our foreign policy has been guided by our own self-interest in oil and not to the security of our allies, or even our own.
Secondly, I agree mostly about his stand on drug policy. I do know that the current drug policy is a failure; anyone who doubts that, I challenge to give me one good instance that it’s working.
What I don’t agree with is his bias concerning personal liberty, for some but not all Americans. Mostly I refer to gay rights but his view on other minorities concerns me a great deal.
In a newsletter, Ron Paul back in August 2003 stated “Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.” He went on to say that “There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards”
Most recently, Ron Paul told Candy Crowley in an interview on CNN “State of the Union” “If you try to improve relationships by forcing and telling people what they can’t do, and you ignore and undermine the principles of liberty, then the government can come into our bedrooms,” He then went on to say “And that’s exactly what has happened. Look at what’s happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses … And it was started back then.”
It sounds to me as though Ron Paul is all for personal liberty, including the right to privacy when it comes to heterosexuals but not for gays. For gays, such as the Supreme Court ruling he pointed out; Lawrence vs. Texas, the Justices were at that time “Activist Judges” going against the state’s rights of Texas.
Why is it that Ron Paul believe it’s the right of a state to go into someone’s home and arrest them for a consensual sex act between two adults but yet he defends the rights of others to the privacy of their homes?
Newsletters from the past that allegedly were written by Ron Paul that he now is trying to disclaim, has shown his disregard for the rights of black people and other minorities. It seems that Paul’s view is somewhat distorted and leans heavily in favor of personal liberty for white people who are heterosexual but then has a bias view of rights for anyone who doesn’t fit into that narrow category.
I’ve met my share of Libertarians in my day and many of them are decent people who strongly believe in the principles of personal liberty. But Ron Paul’s view of personal liberty is tinged with racism and homophobia and is limited because of that prejudice.
Would not true Libertarianism not also be the same when it comes to the rights of a gay couple to have sex in the privacy of their own homes? Or that black people have the right to the same protections under the law as white people, or is by giving them that same protection; such as in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which he disagrees with, somewhat different from what it should be for white people?
If he walked into a black restaurant and was asked to leave because of the color of his skin, would that be okay to him? Would it be okay to limit his children’s or his grandchildren’s education to certain poorly funded schools because they happen to be white? Would that be called “Liberty”?
What he doesn’t seem to understand is that some laws are meant to protect the liberty of everyone, and that allowing a business or a state or any other entity the right to arrest, to block, to limit the freedom of any individual, is not liberty but a limit to liberty.
There is one thing I do know; I do not want a president that pledges to uphold the Constitution yet feels that same Constitution should not protect my rights as a gay man, or the rights of other minorities. I want a president who represents me and all Americans without limitations.
What is even more frightening to me at the prospect of a Ron Paul’s presidency is an endorsement he got from the Reverend Phillip G. Kayser. His Iowa chairman, Drew Ivers, recently said on Ron Paul’s website “We welcome Rev. Kayser’s endorsement and the enlightening statements he makes on how Ron Paul’s approach to government is consistent with Christian beliefs,”
Reverend Kayser is known for his belief that homosexuals should be prosecuted with the death penalty.
It’s very clear to me that Ron Paul’s so-called Libertarianism is just a big cover up of someone who is a bigot and as president; he would not represent all Americans, just those who happened to fit into the category of being white heterosexuals. The rest of us would be on our own it seems because a would-be President Paul would not feel our Constitution protected the rights of gay people and other minorities.
I only hope that other Libertarians will see Ron Paul for who he is and realize that this is not the man they want to represent them and their views. It’s true that none of the other candidates seem to represent the views of Libertarians but this man is surely not the right one to represent them either.