Tag Archives: Philosophy

Reasons to Support Ron Paul for President in 2012

You may have noticed that just yesterday I began a series of daily facebook updates, each containing a reason that everyone should support Ron Paul. I will keep this up as long as I can keep thinking of new reasons (so probably a long time). That said, some issues, such as monetary policy and foreign policy, will inevitably crop up more than once, simply because of their vast importance. At the very least, I’ll try to always provide a slightly different angle rather than just repeating myself.

And that brings us to the purpose of this entry.

I will update this blog post every couple of days or so with my daily “Reasons to Support Ron Paul for President in 2012”. This will hopefully keep me from sounding too much like a broken record (I probably do already) and will also serve as an archive for those of you who may miss the posts when they show up on your feed (most of you, probably). Yes, I’m assuming you’ll be interested enough in what I have to say that you’ll regularly check this blog post. Presumptuous? Yep. But I’ll make it easy for you by reposting each updated version. I’ll tone down all of my other posting so that I don’t inundate y’all. Like that esoteric-word-paired-with-a-slang-word? I’m a jack-ass.

I heartily invite comments, criticisms, arguments, incoherent rants, and the like. The format of these “reasons” is such that I won’t have the space to make a full-bodied argument, but I would be happy to expand on any one of them if anybody shows the least bit of interest.

So, here we go, from #1 – ?

1.) Here’s the first one, and it’s a big one: He is far and away the most anti-war candidate in the race right now, and possibly EVER. He wants to bring literally ALL of our troops back home. Simply put, if you hate war, you should love Ron Paul.

2.) The economy is the key issue in this campaign, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands WHY we have the “boom-bust” cycle. He is the only one pushing for monetary policy reform (read: phasing out the Federal Reserve), rather than proposing piecemeal “balanced budget” bills. I’m looking at you, Paul Ryan.

3.) He opposes any kind of government involvement in marriage. He is the only candidate you should support if you want gay marriage/civil unions/etc. legalized.

4.) He is the only current presidential candidate that has served in the military. If you’re going to make someone Commander In Chief, above all generals, some military experience is probably a good thing to look for on his or her resume, no?

5.) He strongly opposes the PATRIOT Act, one of the most egregious attacks on our civil liberties in the history of this nation. Not to mention that its vast expansion of the executive branch’s powers is the very antithesis of the Constitution.

6.) As a medical doctor (OB-GYN) who has delivered over 4,000 babies, he understands the health care system much better than any other candidate. Health care costs are skyrocketing, and one of Paul’s top priorities would be to help reverse that trend. He holds a principled stance against socialized medicine (i.e. ObamaCare).

7.) He returns a portion of his pay to the U.S. Treasury every year, and never votes for a pay increase. If fiscal conservatism in your politicians is important to you, Ron Paul is one of the few you can count on.

8.) He sticks to his principles when he votes and when he speaks. He doesn’t compromise, mince words, or repeat vague cliches (like… cough… Obama… cough). He tells the truth exactly how he sees it, even when it is painful, and he never votes for any bill that is not clearly in line with the Constitution. Few politicians can say the same.

9.) He kind of looks like Gandalf, the coolest wizard ever. Hey, you can’t be serious all the time, right? : )

10.) He wants to get rid of the IRS. How many of you would like to keep more of your money? Who likes being forced to surrender a chunk of their paycheck to a government that uses it to murder innocent people?

11.) He wants to end absurdly wasteful spending, such as the 20 billion we spent on air-conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is not just a waste of money – it is very dangerous. People have literally been killed transporting fuel for air-conditioners.

12.) He doesn’t conform to the typical left/right paradigm. He’s a Republican only because his views are somewhat in line with what the GOP has traditionally stood for (not anymore) and because the system is rigged against third parties. He has the courage to speak the truth regardless of how his party or supporters might feel about it.

13.) He understands that occupying foreign lands and killing their people makes us LESS safe, not more. The “War on Terror” accomplishes nothing but creating more terror. Today is a good day to research and reflect on our foreign policy over these last 10 years. (10th anniversary of 9/11)

14.) He vehemently opposes the disastrous “War on Drugs”. The U.S. incarcerates a greater percentage of its population than any other country, and most of them are non-violent drug “offenders”. (Only one of many, many reasons to oppose the drug war.)

15.) Everything Tom Woods says in this great video: http://youtu.be/ONBpoZrXSos

16.) He’s not Rick Perry.

17.) He is against conscription. He would never draft you and force you to go off and possibly die in some pointless, illegal war.

18.) He recieves more donations from people in the military than all other candidates combined, and even more than Obama.

19.) He would not occupy, attack, or otherwise mess with other countries without a formal declaration of war from Congress. He would reject the status-quo of pre-emptive war, paranoia, and arrogance. Instead, he would bring the troops home and advocate for a foreign policy of commerce and non-intervention.

20.) He is the only candidate who tells the truth as he sees it, even if it is exactly the opposite of what you would like to hear.


Filed under Meta, Philosophy


I know I’ve been lazy with this thing, but I will be posting some interesting stuff soon, I swear!

In the meantime…

I just had a thought out of the blue, and I want to get some opinions on it. I don’t feel like spending a lot of time developing this idea, but I think you’ll get the gist.

Why is it that intellectuals, skeptics, philosophers, etc., are so keen on rejecting “authority” as a legitimate means of gaining knowledge? Such people, (myself included), often talk about why science is the best way to learn about the world, and why every claim must be researched rigorously before we may deem it worthy of our belief. Of course, it is inadvisable to believe every word that an authority figure tells you, but should that mean that authority is not a legitimate, even valuable, source of knowledge and wisdom? Don’t get me wrong – I greatly value skepticism, and I nearly always take what I hear “with a grain of salt”. But how many times has the experience and wisdom of our elders and authority figures benefitted us? Innumerable times, I have no doubt. In fact, I dare to take this further. What have you ever learned about the world totally on your own? I bet it’s very little, if anything. The vast majority of what we know about all subjects comes from those who came before us, whether it’s Aristotle, your grandma, or that uncle who’s good with computers. We even talk about really good books as being “authoritative”. The world is built upon the trust (dare I say “faith”? <gasp!>) that people put in others whom they see as being in a better position to know what they are talking about. It’s impossible to subject every claim or idea to rigorous scientific investigation, so we take shortcuts like looking up “scholarly” articles or “reputable” newspapers, or simply asking a learned person. We do learn some things from direct experience – the proverbial “hard way” – but that is often terribly inneficient. We must spend our time wisely, after all.

As weird as it feels for a skeptic like myself to say this, my belief system is built largely on authority of one form or another. Not to mention the fact that most of us have some dearly held philosophical, religious, mystical, etc., views that are altogether outside the realm of scientific investigation.

What do you think?


Filed under Philosophy