Is Ron Paul a liberal?

[Brandon H]

Thanks.

(Is it odd I am agreeing with BRTD over Naso?)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

How can he be a fascist when he's strongly opposed to any increase in state power (PATRIOT Act and the like)?

"Not all, obviously" means that he isn't "quite the fascist" on all, or even most, political issues.
I'm thinking more the fact that he (and American "Libertarianism" in general) represents a rather extreme (if unimportant) backlash against both the established political and social order and against the political Left.

I think the problem here is that when people think of "fascist" they think of militarism, authoritarianism and so on... and while these things were all important features of fascist states, by concentrating just on those things I think that we sometimes miss something more fundamental to the ideology itself, or at least why people supported it.
Perhaps I should have been clearer to minimise offense.

O/c what ever Paul is, I'm quite sure of one thing that he isn't a "Classical Liberal". There's nothing liberal about Paul, in any sense of the word.

[David S]

Ron Paul sometimes refers to himself as a constitutionalist. I think that's a good description. He is the most ardent supporter of the constitution in Washington. Every member of congress must take an oath to support the constitution. And that's the only thing the oath calls for. So Paul's adherence to the constitution is definitely a good thing. Most other members of congress don't give a damn about it.

[MaC]

How can he be a fascist when he's strongly opposed to any increase in state power (PATRIOT Act and the like)?

"Not all, obviously" means that he isn't "quite the fascist" on all, or even most, political issues.
I'm thinking more the fact that he (and American "Libertarianism" in general) represents a rather extreme (if unimportant) backlash against both the established political and social order and against the political Left.

I think the problem here is that when people think of "fascist" they think of militarism, authoritarianism and so on... and while these things were all important features of fascist states, by concentrating just on those things I think that we sometimes miss something more fundamental to the ideology itself, or at least why people supported it.
Perhaps I should have been clearer to minimise offense.

O/c what ever Paul is, I'm quite sure of one thing that he isn't a "Classical Liberal". There's nothing liberal about Paul, in any sense of the word.

You've done nothing to explain how he's fascist.

[SPC]

Ron Paul sometimes refers to himself as a constitutionalist. I think that's a good description. He is the most ardent supporter of the constitution in Washington. Every member of congress must take an oath to support the constitution. And that's the only thing the oath calls for. So Paul's adherence to the constitution is definitely a good thing. Most other members of congress don't give a damn about it.

What about Flake and Rohrbacher?

[Democratic Hawk]

No

[David S]

How can he be a fascist when he's strongly opposed to any increase in state power (PATRIOT Act and the like)?

"Not all, obviously" means that he isn't "quite the fascist" on all, or even most, political issues.
I'm thinking more the fact that he (and American "Libertarianism" in general) represents a rather extreme (if unimportant) backlash against both the established political and social order and against the political Left.

I think the problem here is that when people think of "fascist" they think of militarism, authoritarianism and so on... and while these things were all important features of fascist states, by concentrating just on those things I think that we sometimes miss something more fundamental to the ideology itself, or at least why people supported it.
Perhaps I should have been clearer to minimise offense.

O/c what ever Paul is, I'm quite sure of one thing that he isn't a "Classical Liberal". There's nothing liberal about Paul, in any sense of the word.

Classical liberal yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill,[3] and others. As such, it is seen as the fusion of economic liberalism with political liberalism.[4] The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or invisible hand that benefits the society,[5] though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods that the market is seen as being incapable of providing.[6] The qualification classical was applied in retrospect to distinguish early nineteenth-century liberalism from the "new liberalism" associated with Thomas Hill Green, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse,[7] and Franklin D. Roosevelt,[8] which grants a more interventionist role for the state.

Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Milton Friedman are credited with a revival of classical liberalism in the 20th century after it fell out of favor beginning in the late nineteenth century and much of the twentieth century.[9]

Libertarians of a minarchist persuasion use the term "classical liberalism" almost interchangeably with the term "libertarianism",[10] while the correctness of this usage is disputed (see "Classical liberalism" and libertarianism, below). Nevertheless, if the two philosophies are not the same, classical liberalism does resemble modern libertarianism in many ways.[11]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

no.  he is a pawn of the top 2%.

I'm hardly a fan of his economic views, but if that were true you'd be seeing massive support by big business and the super-wealthy for him. You aren't. That's because he's not a corporatist.

or it could be because he has no shot to win?

That and Halliburton/Worldcom/Lockheed Martin don't like the fact that he'd end the war.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You've done nothing to explain how he's fascist.

That would be because I'm not actually trying to

Hyperbole aside, I don't think he's a fascist or anything, but there are certain interesting similarities between American Libertarianism and fascism. That's all.

[MaC]

You've done nothing to explain how he's fascist.

That would be because I'm not actually trying to

Hyperbole aside, I don't think he's a fascist or anything, but there are certain interesting similarities between American Libertarianism and fascism. That's all.

Ok, so you say things for shock, much like BRTD and DWDL.  Got it.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You've done nothing to explain how he's fascist.

That would be because I'm not actually trying to

Hyperbole aside, I don't think he's a fascist or anything, but there are certain interesting similarities between American Libertarianism and fascism. That's all.

Ok, so you say things for shock, much like BRTD and DWDL.  Got it.

Well there is the appeal towards a mythological national past.. the Republicans do this also. But the Libertarians go back further.. not to the 1950s but pre-FDR and the more radical ones back even further.. Pre-Lincoln or the Republican idealists of the Revolutionary war. Libertarianism is of course fundamentally American in character.

Libertarians also don't seem to get the link between disposal income and 'social' freedom (This isn't a fascist characteristic, just an observation).

And the answer is no, obviously. Under any defintion of the word. Gladstone was a Classical liberal, Ron Paul is an intelligent extremist.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You've done nothing to explain how he's fascist.

That would be because I'm not actually trying to

Hyperbole aside, I don't think he's a fascist or anything, but there are certain interesting similarities between American Libertarianism and fascism. That's all.

Ok, so you say things for shock, much like BRTD and DWDL.  Got it.

No, not at all. More a case of drawing attention to a point of interest.

[David S]

You've done nothing to explain how he's fascist.

That would be because I'm not actually trying to

Hyperbole aside, I don't think he's a fascist or anything, but there are certain interesting similarities between American Libertarianism and fascism. That's all.

Ok, so you say things for shock, much like BRTD and DWDL.  Got it.

And the answer is no, obviously. Under any defintion of the word. Gladstone was a Classical liberal, Ron Paul is an intelligent extremist.

Let's go back to the definition of classical liberal from Wikipedia which I posted earlier:

"Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2]) is a doctrine stressing the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill,[3] and others."

What part of that does not fit Ron Paul?

[WalterMitty]

wait, i missed something.

did someone actually compare gladstone and paul?

that is lolz funny.

gladstone actually had some concern for the powerless. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

wait, i missed something.

did someone actually compare gladstone and paul?

that is lolz funny.

gladstone actually had some concern for the powerless. 

I did. But it wasn't positive for Ron Paul.

Read Again:

You must be logged in to read this quote.