Well sith and people who want to use science to arue a point, rather then argue a point due to science.

I very much like Ron Paul.  He seems like an honest man who won't bend over for corporate lobbyists like 90% of the rest of Congress.

He wishes to end the War on Drugs, which will decrease government spending by not having our police forces waste time arresting non-violent drug users and by not having federal funds go towards fighting the drug trade overseas, and which will increase revenue by turning products like marijuana into controllable and taxable commodities.

He wishes to end the War on Terror and American Imperialism.  Bringing our troops hope and closing our foreign bases will further cut our spending considerably, and we can then invest part of those funds into projects that will help people here at home instead of those in foreign countries.  Our military spending currently outpaces a country like Russia's by a factor of 10.  We can cut a considerable amount of that and still be the "best".

However, there are a few things I dislike about the man:

He wishes to cut back the role of government in all areas of life, which is not always a good thing.  For example, I think healthcare is a necessary service that should be provided by the government, like defense, law enforcement, fire protection, and roadways.  This is obviously something Ron Paul disagrees with. And we are actually the only major western power that does not provide universal healthcare to its citizens.  For some reason we choose to spend our money on soldiers and bases instead of doctors and hospitals.  

I actually think the government should start funding post-secondary education for its citizens as well. I believe an equal opportunity meritocracy is best for its people, and in our current society healthcare and a college education are necessary to do well in life.  Those who can't afford such things are going to be inherently disadvantaged vs those who can.  Any two people with equal intellect, physical ability, and work ethic should be able to make it similarly far in life (barring the impact of random chance), regardless of their ability/inability to afford such things.  Publically funded post-secondary education, however, is also something he would be against.

He's proud of having never voted to raise taxes.  Fuck that, I say.  Cut military/drug spending and increase taxes, then spend that money on paying down our debt and heavily improving our infrastructure (healthcare, education, internet access, mass transit).  This will provide jobs, improve our economy, and make life better for all Americans.

And lastly, there are his economic policies.  His favor of the Austrian school of economics scares me, given the power "too big to fail" corporations have over us already. We should never allow any non-government entity to have that much sway.  At least the government is kept somewhat in line through elections.  Or revolution, if need be.

Plus, he wants to return us to the gold standard.  When will people realize that gold, just like paper money, is only as valuable as we perceive it to be?  Anything we might want to use as a universally accepted payment for goods is going to have a relative value, and basing our money on gold doesn't change that.

In the end, the economy is the current most important issue on the table, and I don't think he'll handle that well, as much as I love his other ideas.

I would love to have him get the Republican nomination, however, just so his thoughts on the War on Drugs and the War on Terror can get some national attention.  I think if the other candidates start dropping out, he could pull a surprise upset on Super Tuesday, if he pulls in enough support from the people that don't like Romney.  And that's a large group of people, looking at the number of candidates that managed to take first in the polls for a few weeks as they became popular with the "Anybody but Romney!" crowd:  Perry, Cain, Gingrich, and then Santorum in Iowa.

Ron Paul is self consistent (more than you can say for most politicians) but his political views are very different to mine and occasionally are reprehensible to me. Also I doubt he has the ability to compromise required from a president.


Also can anybody explain to me how a libertarian can be essentially in favour of banning abortions? (which he would do through allowing states to ban it) The woman's right to her own body seems like such a libertarian ideal.

It all depends on one's understanding of life.

A Libertarian believes that any intrusion against a person's body, property or possession is wrong, and government must ensure that such intrusion is not allowed by another party.

Therefore, if a libertarian believes that a fetus is a human being, living inside another human being, then it has rights as well, and that the termination of such life is as wrong as if someone terminated the mother, or a child having been born of the mother.

You can read up on the viewpoint at: http://www.l4l.org/

I find it inconsistent that a libertarian would force their personal (or religious) view of when life begins upon another person, because that is all the view of when life begins is.

Edit: And as much as I'd like to argue about global warming (which is certainly happening - that much is observed - and I think based on the evidence is highly likely to be anthropogenic) this thread seems to be getting very sidetracked away from the OP. Maybe a new thread is in order?

I disagree. The issue is when does it become a human life? I would argue that it is from conception, not because of religion, but because if you let it continue to develop, you will get a human child from that. If you let sperm/unfertilized eggs sit around, nothing will happen and they therefore are not human life. I don't support abortion because the idea that it's the woman's body is absurd. The fetus is connected to (and inside) the woman's body, but it is not actually part of her in any way. The result of pregnancy is that a child is born, not that some minion controlled by the woman is spawned (as in she can control it the same way she controls everything else that is her body). So how it is the woman's body escapes me.

Also, I believe that sex is the choice. When a woman consents to have sex, she makes the choice knowing that pregnancy is a potential outcome of that, and she has to deal with the responsibilities of that. It's like this; if a teenager is angry at a parent for not being able to stay out later at night, it's not that they can't, it's that they don't like the consequences of choosing to do that. They can stay out as late as they want, but they will most likely be punished in some form by the parent. Thus, it makes sense to me that using the same form of logic, when a woman chooses to have sex, she does so knowing full well that pregnancy could result from it. In the case of rape, I am still against it because of the first paragraph; I believe that it is life.

However a fetus does not have any of the things that make a person - it does not initially have a brain of any sort (and as such does not have a mind). There are strong arguments against it being a human being with all the rights that entails essentially based on that fact. I don't think a libertarian should, as Ron Paul wants to, say 'my definition of this is the only correct one and should be backed by the state, not based on scientific backing but on my personal beliefs'.

Lol, after watching that video I'd definitely not vote him if I could.

The video is free of virtually any substance and just filled with some people saying "he is the one", seasoned with some smear parts.

That'd be a stronger arguement if it wasn't for the fact that abortions are permitted well past the time the brain develops, and brainwaves are detectable... as it is, no opinion on abortion is actually based on any particular science. 

Generally the law for abortions everywehre aren't based on when it becomes a person, but when it becomes a person who can live on their own via resperators and such.  Essentially that you become a person when you stop becoming a parasite. (Insert your own joke about aborting politicians here.)

I'd also somewhat disagree that such a thing is a strong argument that means it isn't a human being. (Even though I am pro-abortion).

Afterall, does that mean living wills should be ignored as soon as someone goes into a coma or goes braindead?

Are you ok with cloning brainless bodies to be frozen for organ harvesting?  (I am, most people aren't though.)

The Anti-Abortion "scientific" argument "Being a Fetus is the first stage of life.  No different then anything else, and if left alone, a baby and person would result in the end.  Therefore being a Fetus is the first step of a person's life."

Essentially, how a Larva is a stage of life for a Butterfly.