Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Politics

Ron Paul's New Primary Goal Is "Internet Freedom" 948

Charliemopps writes "Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom. From the article: 'Kentucky senator Rand and his father Ron Paul, who has not yet formally conceded the Republican presidential nomination, will throw their weight behind a new online manifesto set to be released today by the Paul-founded Campaign for Liberty. The new push, Paul aides say, will in some ways displace what has been their movement's long-running top priority, shutting down the Federal Reserve Bank. The move is an attempt to stake a libertarian claim to a central public issue of the next decade, and to move from the esoteric terrain of high finance to the everyday world of cable modems and Facebook.' This seems like welcome news to me. Let's see if they can get more traction here than they did with the Fed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ron Paul's New Primary Goal Is "Internet Freedom"

Comments Filter:
  • Re:First thing... (Score:5, Informative)

    by msauve ( 701917 ) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @10:28PM (#40559587)
    And yet, if you read the linked article, they wish "to stop attempts to impose 'Net Neutrality' rules on broadband providers [and] broaden private control of the wireless spectrum," neither of which act to "allow the free flow of information," nor are they supportive of "Internet freedom."
  • Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)

    by Confusedent ( 1913038 ) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @10:29PM (#40559595)
    No, that's more BS media propaganda. Ron Paul voted against Don't Ask, Don't Tell and has said he's in favor of allowing gay marriage at a federal level. He's personally against it just like he's also personally against abortion, but he's consistent in sticking to his beliefs that people (and states) should have the right to decide for themselves. So don't listen to these people who go on about how he's some racist homophobe who wants to pass laws limiting civil liberties. That's a bunch of BS, the guy supports equal treatment for everyone, gay, straight, man, woman, pro-life, pro-choice, whatever. For future reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul [wikipedia.org]
  • Re:Yeah (Score:5, Informative)

    by TClevenger ( 252206 ) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @10:43PM (#40559685)
    Yes, from the VERY SAME ARTICLE on Wikipedia:

    In the same interview, when asked whether he would vote for or against a state constitutional amendment like California's Proposition 8, he said, "Well, I believe marriage is between one man and one woman."

    Paul has also said that at the federal level he opposes "efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states and local communities, and not subjected to "judicial activism."[143] He has said that for these reasons he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, had he been in Congress in 1996

    Paul has been a cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in each Congress since the bill's original introduction. It would bar federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

    The second quote is the best. Basically, "I don't think the federal government should preclude the states allowing gay marriage, so I support the federal law that bans gay marriage." WTF?

  • Re:are you new here? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:21PM (#40559949) Homepage Journal

    Just because people disagree with you (and with the other people who unthinkingly agree with you) doesn't make them "groupthink". Spouting nonsense like "to the left" is groupthink. Calling him "Dr. Paul" when he's "Representative Paul" outside his cult is groupthink.

  • rainbows!

    unicorns!

    for a market to be truly free, as in just, a market must be highly regulated so large and small players operate on the same level ground

    without such government intervention in the market, the largest players collude and squash the little ones, and there is no real market at all, just a few large rent seeking parasites and no consumer choice whatsoever

    but don't listen to me, i only have the entirety of economic history to back me up

    by all means, don't let reality interfere with what are basically religious myths you depend upon to think the way you do

  • Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:50PM (#40560119)

    Ron Paul only GOP candidate to publicly denounce SOPA [slashdot.org]

    “My campaign, and the entire freedom movement, would not be as strong as they are today without a free Internet, and that’s just one of the reasons why the establishment hopes to censor it with SOPA and PIPA. I’m proud to see so many taking a stand today. Contact your representative and senators and tell them to oppose these disastrous bills.”

    I don't expect /. to suddenly fill with voluntaryists, libertarians, or (Ron) Paulbots, but it is truly sad to see the level of false and malicious and partisan attacks against him. His version of freedom will not be the same as yours.

    By way of example, he opposes state licensing of professionals and the state control of the medical industry. He wants you to have more avenues to take care of yourself and even stating in one of the GOP debates he would legalize alternative medicine. Likely, you want to be free from making medical decisions and have it all predetermined by a panel of experts laying out your approved and legal options.

    Different strokes for different folks but your failure to support the most pro freedom candidate to hit the scene is fucking pathetic. No doubt, we will get stuck with another pro-war progressive because that is what Obama and Romney both are. Hundreds of thousands will die in Iran and you'll piss a fit as more stories of the Paul's are posted.

  • Re:Friends (Score:5, Informative)

    by rk ( 6314 ) on Thursday July 05, 2012 @11:56PM (#40560153) Journal

    ITYM Tina Turner.

  • Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 06, 2012 @12:20AM (#40560263)

    The US elected W as their president. So I would say that Texas is good at churning out politicians that have a chance at the federal level.

    Since when is W from Texas? I remember he moved there once for political purposes...

  • Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)

    by TapeCutter ( 624760 ) on Friday July 06, 2012 @12:21AM (#40560271) Journal

    He just signed our digital freedoms away without asking anybody

    No he didn't, Obama can sign what ever treaty he wants (in fact it's common practice for a head of state to do that), however in most non-dictatorships this is simply an "in principle" agreement, it's not a done deal until it is ratified by congress/parliment. You do however have a good point with the transparency thing, I don't see why they can't develop the text of the treaty in public, the IPCC manage to do a similar feat for a much more complex and contraversial subject, and they do for a measly $5-6M/yr.

  • Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)

    by colinrichardday ( 768814 ) <colin.day.6@hotmail.com> on Friday July 06, 2012 @01:36AM (#40560629)

    He wants you to have more avenues to take care of yourself and even stating in one of the GOP debates he would legalize alternative medicine.

    It is neither the nefarious plots of Big Pharma nor the machinations of health-care officials that thwart naturopathy, homeopathy, chiropractic, etc, but objective reality. Besides, much of alternative medicine is already legal.

  • Re:are you new here? (Score:2, Informative)

    by arth1 ( 260657 ) on Friday July 06, 2012 @02:23AM (#40560795) Homepage Journal

    Why? I'm a Romney supporter and I'd call him Dr. Paul. After all, he's done far more as an ob-gyn doctor than he's ever done as a legislator. Even he'd probably tell you that.

    I'd love to ask him "Dr. Paul, have you ever turned away a patient because she wanted an abortion?"

    The Hippocratic oath is an oath/EM., not a guideline to be bent for superstitious beliefs.

  • Re:Yeah (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 06, 2012 @02:37AM (#40560859)

    >how their locally-collected tax dollars should be spent

    Yeah it's not like Congress is actually in charge of the District of Columbia... oh wait, yes they are. And while we're at it, imagine that, a conservative supports conservative ideals to govern a place his governing body has power over. Oh, the horror.

    I don't support Rand Paul or Ron Paul. I just think people like you who get oh, the vapahs every time someone who disagrees with you voices their opinion are pretty much the worst thing ever. Present an alternative, you mincing, cleft-ass wimp! Instead of bitching about how awful their libertarian/conservative approach is, how about offering a progressive vision instead of being a whiny little bitch?

    That is, you know, if you have any ideas.

  • Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 ) <plasticfish.info@ g m a il.com> on Friday July 06, 2012 @02:58AM (#40560951) Homepage

    a lot of military reform (openly gay is a-ok

    Using the military as lab rats for social-engineering experiments is bad defense policy.

    Gee, looks like someone forgot to tell Harry Truman 'bout that... [trumanlibrary.org]

  • Re:Friends (Score:5, Informative)

    by khipu ( 2511498 ) on Friday July 06, 2012 @03:01AM (#40560963)

    "A free market fixes everything" is nonsense. Imagine no rules/laws/regulations. Perfectly free market. To win, I'll murder my competition, and get away with it (until they murder me). There are no laws. It's free and fair, brutal and ugly.

    A "free market" doesn't mean an unregulated market. A "free market" means a market in which prices are set by supply and demand. Free markets require laws and a functioning legal system. Those are sufficient and necessary to prevent monopolies, fraud, harm from products and pollution, and asymmetric info: when these things occur, you (or even the government) can sue the people who caused them.

    A market stops being free, however, when the government decides to go beyond that and implement economic plans through subsidies, price controls, loan guarantees, bailouts, etc.

  • by cptBongo ( 1376805 ) on Friday July 06, 2012 @07:50AM (#40562117)

    khipu put plenty of facts forward, and 2 minutes on google would confirm everything he says.

    Here you go, some facts with references:

    Cut a secret deal to kill the public option, while campaigning on its behalf
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html [huffingtonpost.com]

    Granted waivers for 30 companies, including McDonald's, exempting them from health care reform
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip [usatoday.com]

    Continued renditions of alleged terrorists to countries where they could be tortured
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html [nytimes.com]

    Blocked the release of photos documenting the torture and abuse of detainees by the US military
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/president-oba-5.html [abcnews.com]

    Continued the practice of indefinite detentions for alleged terrorists
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104045.html [washingtonpost.com]

    Extended the Patriot Act without making any reforms
    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms [csmonitor.com]

    Pushed for mandatory DNA testing of those arrested for crimes, regardless of whether they have been convicted
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34097.html [politico.com]

    Dramatically increased government secrecy, blocking more FOIA requests in 2009 than Bush did in 2008
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/obamas-broken-promise-fed_n_500526.html [huffingtonpost.com]

    Cut a deal to exempt abortion services from health care reform
    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/21/deal-struck-on-abortion-clears-path-for-health-care-passage/ [politicsdaily.com]

    Announced a $60 billion sale of arms to the Saudi Arabian dictatorship, the largest arms deal in history
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20016181-503543.html [cbsnews.com]

    About 6 minute's worth

  • by JackieBrown ( 987087 ) on Friday July 06, 2012 @08:33AM (#40562429)

    That is for the first 10 years with the taxes kicking in years before the bulk of the benefits kick in.

    It also involved taking a lot of money away from medicare.

    But don't let that influence your thinking -- liberals are know for half truths with numbers to try to make their point (well all politicians do that but that last line was so condescending I felt the need to sink to your level.)

    And seriously, even with your numbers, this is acting like adding a trillion dollars in new government spending is frugal.

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Working...