Massachusetts Daily Collegian

Wrong Paul

By Mike Tudoreanu

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

Ron Paul is a man of principle. That is what we are constantly being told by his army of loyal fans. I believe them. A question remains, however, as to what his principles are, and what their consequences would be.

Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Let’s leave aside the issue of any letters published in the 1990s and focus only on the statements made by Ron Paul during his current campaign. He said he opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act and supports the “right” of businesses to segregate. He said it is okay to let people die if they don’t have health insurance. He said there should be no public education. He wants to abolish Social Security and Medicare. He said that sexual harassment should not be against the law, and that AIDS victims don’t deserve public assistance. He said that disaster victims don’t deserve public assistance, either. And, most recently, he said that abortion is only acceptable for women who have suffered “honest rape.”

Where is all this coming from? What is the common ideological thread connecting all these views? Again, Ron Paul provides the answer: absolute private property. Like most libertarians, Ron Paul believes that “freedom” means the right to do anything you want with your property. All of his political views come from this one principle.

What would this principle look like in practice? For most people, it means the freedom to do anything you want inside your own home, since most people’s property consists of their home and the things inside it. I am sure that Paul would indeed protect your right to smoke marijuana in your own home, for example. It’s when you step outside your home, onto someone else’s property, that libertarianism stops looking like freedom and starts looking like tyranny.

Most people spend eight hours a day – a third of our adult lives – at work. When you’re at work, you are on your boss’ property. And according to libertarians like Paul, your boss should have the right to do anything he wants on his property. For example, he should have the right to fire anyone for any reason, or no reason at all. Did you just talk to a coworker about unions? You’re fired. Did you disagree with your boss’ political or religious views? You’re fired. Do you have darker skin than your boss likes? You’re fired. Are you gay? You’re fired. Are you an attractive woman? The boss asks you to sleep with him. You refuse? You’re fired. And you know that marijuana that you can smoke at home? Well, if your boss finds out about it and doesn’t like it, you’re fired.

Of course, maybe you won’t get outright fired for those things. Maybe you’ll just get a pay cut, or lose your health insurance. Maybe you won’t get hired in the first place if you’re black, or gay, or whatever else bosses don’t like. Maybe if you want to get a job, you’ll need to sign a contract promising not to talk about unions, or promising to vote a certain way, or that you won’t get an abortion, or that you’ll give your boss lap dances if he asks. All of this could be legal under a Paul presidency.

This is what it means to believe that anyone should do anything they want with their property. You are free at home, but at work (and anywhere else you might go), you are a slave to the boss or local property owner. And if you don’t like it, you can go home. Even your right to free speech only applies at home. Anywhere else, you can get kicked out for saying something the local property owner doesn’t like.

But wait, you might say, surely this will only happen to unskilled workers, who have no choice but to take whatever job is available or starve (since there won’t be any welfare or unemployment benefits). Surely you can escape this if you get a better education and take a higher-paying job, right? Yeah, about that. Paul wants to privatize all education. All of it. This means that your parents will have to pay just to put you through primary school, let alone college. By the time you get to that high-paying job, you’ll probably be in so much debt that getting fired would mean losing your home and everything you have, so you would still be at your boss’ mercy.

And did I mention healthcare? If you are poor or fall on hard times, you don’t get health insurance under Paul, since Medicare and Medicaid would be history. And don’t think about retiring, either, since there won’t be any Social Security. So if you want to be safe in your old age, you have to know exactly how long you’re going to live and how much you’re going to spend until then, and save up that money in advance. If you run out of savings at 90, tough luck. Get back to work.

Paul is a far greater danger to working people, women and minorities than any of the other Republican candidates. Any other candidate could be persuaded to change his mind, pressured into backing down from a particularly horrible policy, or threatened with the loss of countless votes at the next election if he does not change course. Precisely because the other candidates are more interested in personal power than anything else, precisely because they are willing to abandon unpopular principles, they can be kept in check.

But not Paul.

Paul will stick to his principles even if it means that millions of people will be impoverished or will be kicked out of their homes. Thousands will die of easily curable diseases, and most children will not get the same education as their parents had. We will return to the segregation and gender roles of the 1950s, and all of this will become a reality even if it means the end of Paul’s career and the title of most hated president in American history. He will not back down and he will not stop, even if he destroys himself and the American people in the process. Ron Paul, more than any other candidate, is a single-minded right-wing fanatic.

So yes, Paul is a man of principle. But his principles are evil, and he is willing to sacrifice all the social progress made in America in the last hundred years on the altar of his libertarian delusions.

Mike Tudoreanu is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].


47 Responses to “Wrong Paul”

  1. Brian on February 10th, 2012 12:03 am

    Haha, this is brilliant. Cue the whining and outrage from unthinking hordes of Paulbots in 3… 2… 1…


  2. Leni on February 10th, 2012 12:11 am

    Great op-ed, as always. There is only one thing I would add to this otherwise stellar piece of writing: What happens to people who don’t own private property at all? Well, under Ron Paul that means you’re SCREWED. Completely and utterly. No freedom for you!


  3. avideconrad on February 10th, 2012 12:18 am

    Can anyone say….. propaganda?


  4. Mary on February 10th, 2012 12:39 am

    Come on, people. Bring the troops home and give them their due. It’s time to call an end to the profiteering off of American patriotism. Bring them home.

    Veterans for Ron Paul March on Washington…. February 20, President’s Day.


  5. MadMax on February 10th, 2012 12:40 am

    I don’t think anyone in Mass or anywhere else will buy your obvious bias and fairy tale arguments. If I fire someone I don’t have to give any reason why, just as I don’t have to give any reason why they cannot even set foot on my property, or they will go to jail for trespassing, and no Federal government agent will say a word.
    Then you jump to stealing money from others so you can get free health care or free this or that. Hey, maybe free iPads. Nothing impoverish people MORE than that type of thinking. Bad luck and people owe me everything for free. No wonder places like LA are NOW almost endless ghettos that did not exist 50 years ago when people understood you work for what you get and better be real grateful if anyone gave you anything from the sweat of their labor.

    Freedom and Liberty is what Ron Paul offers and if that kind of opportunity and equality and having to stand on your own two feet scares you to death, then that might say more about you then him.

    Ron Paul has no intention of cutting the checks off and actually wants to raise certain ones. It is only in the decades to come he wants to see it all phased out along with the income and social security taxes for more money for the people who’s work gained it and who’s property it is. Oh there is that evil concept of private property again.


  6. John Galt on February 10th, 2012 1:05 am

    So using your logic… how is it fair google employees have such as cush work life? Why don’t we mandate all business offer equal benefits to employees? I mean, how is it fair I work harder than your average google worker but get paid less!…

    Hopefully you see my sarcasm.. You just need to understand economics better, you’d understand how the perversion of property rights leads to most of the negatives we have today.. for example the income tax serves as collateral for the federal reserve which bankrolls our massive debts and is rooted in the price inflation in all government controlled spaces..

    Google does not provide awesome jobs to be nice.. they do it out of competition for employees.. i.e. in an efficiently run market place (which can only most closely be achieved through free markets and free information) employees would leave shitty business like you described above and move to one that had better practices.. if enough people felt as strongly as you did then the business committing bigotry would fail. If not that is a reflection of the values of the society which can not be broken by law (think any prohibition ever)


  7. scott on February 10th, 2012 2:42 am

    Um, I dont consider myself a paulbot but I do plan on voting for him. I would like to say that this op-ed is a good example of hyperbole. The thing that people always forget when Ron Paul opens his mouth about US policies we are talking about Federal laws and policies and state laws(which generally reflect federal law) will still be in place. First off, he is being honest about his views, but he will not become caesar, wave his hands and all his policies enacted. He cant get rid of income tax because he wants to if he becomes president. So why freak out about things that cannot possibly become true. He cannot overturn roe v wade. People freaking out about his right of center views that will never happen are just as dumb as the people that blame Obama for not fixing the economy.


  8. Frank Lee on February 10th, 2012 4:15 am

    Your article is misleading. I wonder if it’s purposeful.

    Mike tudoreanu,

    You seem like you have a lot of hate in your heart.

    If you’re misrepresention is purposeful,
    Then may God have mercy on your soul.

    Review primary sources.
    Commentary is balogna.
    That’s my only advice.


  9. Thomas on February 10th, 2012 4:25 am

    I wish to comment.

    This is one my first times ever commenting
    on an Internet article.

    Here it goes,

    “Author” Mike,

    I can tell you have hate in your heart.
    May God have mercy on your soul.



  10. Cody on February 10th, 2012 5:28 am

    I feel like I’m in a corn field right now, surrounded by straw men…


  11. Grant on February 10th, 2012 6:23 am

    Employers who discriminate on arbitrary grounds that have nothing to do with business success will not be in business very long.

    Medicine and education would both be affordable and available to everyone if they were not subsidized and regulated by government.

    I admire your concern and sympathy for those less fortunate, but I think your indoctrinated world view compromises your reasoning and your argument. Redistributive government is not our savior. It is not a religion and it is not perfect. It is simply one way that goods and services can be provided and it has a long list of disadvantages, many of which we are currently enduring. There are alternatives that will not result in people dying in the street. Please try sampling some Austrian economics so that you can at least acknowledge and intelligently debate those who you criticize. Thanks for reading.


  12. Mike L on February 10th, 2012 7:10 am

    I will be voting for Ron Paul again, just like I did in 2008


  13. Anthony on February 10th, 2012 7:24 am

    I worked for 8 years as management. I did not discriminate against the people who worked for me. Not because of any law but because discrimination is wrong. This was a well written article. However, I feel that the author assumes that people act moral only because the state has written laws saying that they must.


  14. Danielle on February 10th, 2012 8:20 am

    THANK YOU! People hear “oh he wants to end the wear and legalize weed!!!~*~” and jump on the band wagon but really he is terrifying.


  15. Mike Tudoreanu on February 10th, 2012 10:00 am

    I will refrain from replying to any specific comment, as it is generally frowned upon for the writer of an article to do so, but I would like to provide some sources to show that my representation of Ron Paul’s views was indeed accurate.
    Ron Paul said he opposes the 1964 Civil Rights Act and supports the “right” of businesses to segregate:
    Ron Paul said it’s ok to let people die if they don’t have health insurance:
    Ron Paul said there should be no public education (so he opposes the existence of UMass):
    Ron Paul wants to abolish Social Security and Medicare:
    Ron Paul said that sexual harassment should be legal, and that AIDS victims don’t deserve public assistance:
    Ron Paul said that disaster victims don’t deserve public assistance, either:
    Ron Paul said that abortion is only acceptable for women who have suffered “honest rape”:
    And finally, Ron Paul advocates absolute private property and uses it as the basis for all his views, including his support of the “right” to discriminate:

    As a side note, please keep in mind that there is a difference between ABSOLUTE private property (you have the right to do ANYTHING AT ALL on your private property, which is what Ron Paul wants) and the more generic private property laws we have today (you have the right to do most things on your private property, but not quite anything you want).


  16. Dirk Nowitzki on February 10th, 2012 10:56 am

    My takeaways from this article:
    1.) If it weren’t for government, everyone would be racists.
    2.) If it weren’t for government, all sick people would die.
    3.) If it weren’t for government, bosses would fire people like it was bodily function.
    4.) If it weren’t for government, everyone who is lucky enough to get a good education will be in massive debt. (wait, doesn’t that happen already?)

    Conclusion: If it weren’t for government, the country would implode.


  17. Burning_Tyger on February 10th, 2012 11:10 am

    If you think morality should be defined by government, then the position of this makes sense. This article would be consistent with that. Or maybe one could make the argument that government should reflect the morals of the people it governs, and I think that is what most statists believe. But then you must ask, whose morals? Mine? Yours? Those in the Bible? Koran? Book of Mormon?

    The problem is, morality is defined in many ways. And the government should not be used as the ultimate rubber-stamp on which morality is the “correct” one. After all, the government may choose a basis for morals other than your own. Therefore, I would argue the only role of government is to protect individuals right to live as each individual sees fit, and ensure that in doing so, they do not infringe on others’ rights to do the same. Live and let live. Do unto others…, etc.

    So the question is not whether or not it is moral to allow a man who does not have health insurance to die. I think most people, including Ron Paul, would argue that the man should be helped. The question is do you think it is the government’s role to force you to do so? After all, the government is just another word for “you and me”. Should you be required by law to pay for someone’s healthcare? Or should you be allowed to choose who you help, and who you don’t based on your own beliefs? So the libertarian (with a lower-case l) view is that individuals should be free to help that person as their morals dictate, but it should not be required. It is the simple difference between an armed man taking your life or money, and a person asking for your money or for you to sacrifice your life, and you doing so voluntarily. One is a crime, the other is charity, love, self-sacrifice, and concern for your fellow man.

    Let’s not give government the keys to the castle in terms of right & wrong. Let’s leave the definition of morality to families, churches, and/or personal convictions where it belongs. I would rather we leave the government to it’s sole role of defending your and my rights to have those beliefs and live by them, and ensuring that those beliefs do not infringe upon others ability to do the same.


  18. Publius on February 10th, 2012 11:28 am

    “But his principles are evil, and he is willing to sacrifice all the social progress made in America in the last hundred years on the altar of his libertarian delusions.”

    The same social progress that has bankrupted current and future generations. Socialism is the true evil, as it promises a chicken in every pot, but so disrupts the productive means, that bankruptcy is the only thing certain to be delivered.

    Free enterprise, sound money, and liberty are the only way to maximize prosperity and ensure the largest middle class.

    I suggest readers of this article read “Human Action” by Ludwig von Mises if they want a more accurate view of economics and Paul’s beliefs.


  19. Paul on February 10th, 2012 11:48 am

    How can you be so ignorant… Especially people saying paulbots… Sigh our countries in trouble


  20. Burning_Tyger on February 10th, 2012 12:14 pm

    Linking to articles that themselves distort Ron Paul’s beliefs is not proof that you are providing an accurate portrayal. In fact, in referencing such articles, it pretty definitively proves the opposite.


  21. Jessica on February 10th, 2012 12:26 pm

    Dirk (and others), I think you’re missing the point. What I take away from this article is not that companies will necessarily DO all those things the article talks about, but that they COULD. Under a Ron Paul presidency or any other libertarian regime, company bosses would have the power to decide whether you can have a union, whether you can be religious or gay or black at work, whether or not you get sexually harassed, etc. Even if some of them choose not to treat you like garbage, the point is that the choice will be theirs, not yours. They will have the power. Not you. You can decide what you do at home, but everywhere else there is a boss or property owner who can force any conditions they like upon you. And your only way to escape would be to lock yourself in your home.


  22. Jessica on February 10th, 2012 12:29 pm

    Even if your boss was the nicest person in the world, he would still have all the power and you would have none. A nice guy who can dictate what you do is still a guy who can dictate what you do. That’s the problem.


  23. Mark Bruso on February 10th, 2012 12:37 pm

    The logic that if elected, he would totally deconstruct everything is ludicrous. He only has the unilateral power to tell the troops to come home. And in case you were unaware, he is in favor of states’ rights, so once again, they would still exist as is if he were president. This mud-slinging article is rife with ill logic.


  24. garvan on February 10th, 2012 1:35 pm

    You know what, I’m sure I could refute this hyperbolic diatribe disguised as an article, but the people who have commented already have done a great job of it. Arguing with you idiots is pointless, either you’re willfully stupid or you’re on the payroll.

    Since you guys want to keep circle jerking yourselves, I’m going to leave you to your own destruction, and worry about ensuring I can survive through this state insanity you love so much.

    Then, when you old farts are dead or pleading for help, I’ll laugh.

    In the end we’ll win, because you’ll die first.


  25. ratbird on February 10th, 2012 2:26 pm

    Your argument is only valid if there is only ONE job to choose from, or ONE school to choose from.


  26. tannim on February 10th, 2012 3:36 pm

    Oh, where to begin on this pile of falsities, spin, and disinformation? How about the beginning? BTW, my sources are Paul’s own lengthy speech record, his books, and his campaign information, none of which the author has likely read. First, here is the debunking of the litany of complaints the author rants about:
    Paul only opposes the part of CRA64 that imposes upon private property rights. Paul did NOT say it was OK to let people die if they don’t have health insurance. That was a heckler at the South Carolina debate. Paul specifically said that he would not, immediately after the heckler, and there is plenty of video evidence to that. Abolishing the Department of Education has zero to do with abolishing public education. It does have to do with eliminating government waste and ineffective central planning. Paul thinks the Social Security and Medicare programs are unconstitutional, but wants to preserve the obligation to those who have paid in while giving those under 25 an option to opt out. Sexual harassment is not a crime anyway, it is a tort, and while it is most definitely stupid to do, that doesn’t elevate it to a crime. Second, Paul as far as AIDS victims, see above on Medicare, because his position is the same thing. He’s also treated many a patient as an MD for free or reduced fee, and his practice never accepted Medicare or Medicaid. FEMA was inefficient, unconstitutional, and disaster relief is better done at the state and local level. Paul is unabashedly pro-life because he has personally seen the horrors of abortion. “Honest rape” is true forcible sexual assault/rape, not the watered-down definition that exists in the law today. But his personal belief on the issue, being pro-life, is not his political stance, which is to return it to the states to decide.
    Paul does believe in absolute private property, and the opposite is socialism. What the author fails to understand is that the absolute right to private property is actually derived from an even simpler principle: one has the absolute right to own, and responsibility to, their own body, to control it, and all of its actions and the results of its actions. That includes what one injects, ingests, inhales, or otherwise intakes, what one outputs, including their waste and their labor and the fruits thereof, which includes personal property. In the absence of that ownership, all liberty is compromised in the least and lost in the most.
    “What would this principle look like in practice? For most people, it means the freedom to do anything you want inside your own home, since most people’s property consists of their home and the things inside it. I am sure that Paul would indeed protect your right to smoke marijuana in your own home, for example. It’s when you step outside your home, onto someone else’s property, that libertarianism stops looking like freedom and starts looking like tyranny.”
    The author illustrates his ignorance about liberty, and neglects the third part of libertarian principles: respect for the same rights of others. He calls this tyranny, as he continues on a rant about employment, completely missing the point about it.
    It’s not about who is on whose property. When one engages in a work agreement with an employer, the employee agree to abide by the rules of the employer. That is a voluntary giving up of individual rights as part of the agreement, and outside the workplace, they resume as before. The author’s mistaken viewpoint of the workplace reflects on someone who apparently has never had a real job. Employees are always free to search elsewhere for a job, and an employer’s reputation from things like this affects their bottom line anyway, which is why they generally don’t do those kind of things, and if they do, they pay the price. Besides, an employee retains whatever rights they don’t sign away in a work agreement, and as such the employers can and generally are held liable for violations.
    The author also misplaces respect for the rights of others with property rights. The author seems to think that an individual has the right to disrespect the property rights of others while simultaneously demanding respect for their own. It doesn’t work that way. Your rights end at your property line and at the end of your nose.
    Next, the author shows ignorance of the education system. Property owners pay property taxes to fund the public schools, so yes, they are paying. Those that choose to send their children to private school or to homeschool actually pay twice. If that money is not paid to the government and set aside for education separately, then education costs are cheaper year-to-year. Further, it is the government’s involvement in college loans and grants that drive up college costs, which create the debt load the author complains about. (FWIW, Paul worked his way through college and his wife helped him get through medical school.)
    The author then goes on to repeat his lies about Social Security and Medicare again, assuming that people are so irresponsible that they can’t possibly invest in their own retirement without Social Security. That’s not only false, but it is insulting to seniors!
    Moving out of the area of issues and into candidate consistency, the author equates political flip-flopping with being a better candidate, when in fact it just shows the candidate is prostituting himself to the highest bidder. Plus, the author arrives at the erroneous conclusion based on erroneous assertions that Paul is a danger to “working people, women and minorities,” when in fact freeing them up to take charge of their own lives, being more self-responsible, and having more ability and resources to do so is not a danger at all—unless one insists on being permanently stuck to the government teat.
    With one last run of foaming at the mouth and spouting nonsense, the author is taking the wrong conclusion and simply foaming at the mouth over it. He also shows a complete ignorance of people, assuming that if people are more free from government that suddenly they will all become racists, chauvinists, and ignorant fools living in poverty. The conclusion from this is that the author seems to think that government policy alone, and not the people, is what is responsible for moving beyond racism, bigotry, and ignorance. That is a position completely ignorant of history and completely insulting to people.
    The author wraps up his frothy rant with the ridiculous claim that libertarianism is a “delusion” and that it is evil and opposed to social progress. The author would be better off is he got a real education about freedom, liberty, and the nation’s history, and how We the People have grown and succeeded and this nation developed not because of government, but because of the human spirit. Paul taps into that spirit, and that scares people like the author who hates people and hates America.


  27. Cody on February 10th, 2012 3:53 pm

    I feel like I’m in a corn field right now, surrounded by straw men…


  28. Dirk Nowitzki on February 10th, 2012 4:15 pm

    Jessica, let me first point out that my post was poking fun at the author’s article. I don’t believe the author actually believes my “takeaways”. With that said, the article is incredibly hyperbolic in my opinion, for the reasons stated in the previous comments. Yes, people COULD get fired for being gay or some way or another treated like garbage. But consider that the government COULD also be corrupt, favor certain groups of people over another, fail to adequately enforce laws, etc. Each situation could turn out poorly, but at least in a free society coercion isn’t allowed, while a strong government by definition needs coercion to force people to act in “good ways”.
    As eloquently stated by Burning_Tyger, it shouldn’t be up to the government to force people to follow a certain set of morals. In a free society, you have no right to others’ approval or tolerance of your own viewpoints/lifestyle, but you do have a right to others’ respect of your own person and property.


  29. Leni on February 10th, 2012 4:37 pm

    Oh my word… The people who have commented saying Tudoreanu is bias are clearly projecting their own behaviors on to him. There is not a single person who would claim that who isn’t themselves way more biased; especially since they can’t see the truth that’s right under their nose. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is good for this country is delusional.

    So, if you support Ron Paul, let me know and I will get you a referral for a mental health evaluation.


  30. Brian on February 10th, 2012 5:01 pm

    Dirk and Burning_Tyger, what you’re saying is self-contradictory nonsense. On the one hand you say that “it shouldn’t be up to the government to force people to follow a certain set of morals”, but in the very next sentence you say that it SHOULD be up to the government to ensure that you can do whatever you want with your person or property. Guess what? Saying that “you do have a right to others’ respect of your own person and property” IS IN ITSELF A STATEMENT OF MORALS! Anything that starts with “you have a right to…” is a moral statement.
    To use the government to force other people to respect your private property is to use the government to enforce your set of morals. Now, I’m sure you think your morals are the correct ones, but so does everyone else. Forcing other people to respect your private property is no different than forcing them to give to the poor. Both actions involve forcing other people to behave a certain way.
    So what you’re really saying is that you want to force LIBERTARIAN morals on everyone else, but you don’t want anyone else to be able to force any of their morals on you.


  31. Brian on February 10th, 2012 5:11 pm

    For the record, let me make it clear where I stand: There can be no such thing as a society where no one is forced to follow a set of rules or morals. Any society, in order to exist, must have a few fundamental rules that people are required to follow. Any society must use force to coerce people to follow these rules if they don’t like them.
    Examples of such rules include: “you’re not allowed to kill other people”, “you must respect other people’s private property”, “all property is owned in common”, “you must give 10% of your income to the church”, “all people must contribute to the universal health care fund”, etc. Different societies use different such rules. But they ALL use rules, and they ALL must force these rules on everyone in order to exist.
    So we can argue about which rules are the best ones. But libertarians don’t do that. They don’t say “we want to force everyone to respect absolute private property rights, because we think that’s the best rule.” Instead, they LIE and talk as if their rules are not rules at all. This is why I can’t stand them. Libertarians are dishonest frauds, who want to use just as much force as everyone else, but constantly pretend that using force in defense of THEIR laws is not really force at all. They say “liberty” when they really mean “everyone following OUR rules.”
    Since forcing people to follow rules is an inevitable part of living in society, I see nothing wrong with it. The only question is which rules are the best ones.


  32. charles ranalli on February 10th, 2012 9:59 pm

    typical undergraduate marxism.
    charles ranalli


  33. James on February 11th, 2012 8:40 am

    Here’s my take on Ron Paul:

    He gets elected, beats Obama by a narrow margin. Then, a terrorist attack occurs on U.S. soil, 9/11 style. President Paul then informs the nation that we MUST go to war, despite his anti-war stance in the election. Paulbots agree, despite the 180 degree turn in policy, and ignore everyone else who points out Paul’s hypocrisy. Then, all the youngsters who voted for Paul (the ones who said they’ll win because the old people will die off) get drafted under Paul’s new found jingoism and go out and die as their Messiah protects American interests here and abroad.

    I don’t understand why anyone who cares about Ron Paul wants him to be President. The office of the Presidency is not a kingship or a dictatorship or even benign despotism. He is an elected man of the people, and must serve their interests… and if those interests happen to be oil, globalization and trade agreements, then he is at the bidding of his masters. Corporations are run by people too– Americans, at that! And they will make sure that Paul either does what they say or gets a bullet in the back of the skull, JFK style. That is, if you really believe there is a power elite that runs the world. And if you DO believe that, then why put Paul in that position? What are you trying to do, get him killed? He won’t be able to change a damn thing once he’s in office. Not. One. Damn. Thing.

    Contrary to your mass hallucinations, Ron Paul will be forced to go down the middle politically because otherwise Congress won’t work with him. Unless your daddy was a former President/CIA director like Bush, you won’t get anywhere trying to do it your way. Period.


  34. umassgrad on February 11th, 2012 2:03 pm

    This article was both completely over exaggerated and lacking in facts. Your use of imagery with thousands dying of incurable diseases, unable to pay health insurance was especially artistic. I’m not even a Ron Paul voter, but at least I’ve done my research to see what he actually stands for, and if you had done the same, maybe you would see the faults in your accusations. Let me know the next time you’re in the ER and see a single person denied attention because of lack of health insurance. It doesn’t happen. It can’t happen. That’s a little embellished theory people use against those who don’t support socialized health care. Please, at least sound like an informed journalist.


  35. Alex on February 12th, 2012 11:53 am

    This author is an idiot and a statist. Straw men everywhere.

    Why are bosses presumed to do bad things, while the government is presumed to only do good? Typical idiot statist logic. If a boss sucks, you can quit. What do you do if you have an overbearing corrupt central government? Which is easier to fix? Not to mention that bad bosses lose good employees and this hurts business. Bad bosses cease to exist. The system self-corrects. A corrupt government tends to only get more corrupt (until bloody revolutions happen sooner or later).

    I could go on and on. The author is obviously ignorant of all the adverse unintended consequences of the past 100 years of “progress”. Go read Capitalism and Freedom, that addresses most of the issues raised in great detail. I’ve read both statist, libertarian, and everything inbetween. I’ve reached the conclusion that the statists are the most evil, by far. Name me ONE horrible libertarian leader? Meanwhile, the list of horrible statist leaders is virtually endless. You may want to reconsider what ideology is most easily corruptible and inherently evil.


  36. uninstaal on February 12th, 2012 8:52 pm

    This is one of the worst pieces of journalism I have ever read.
    Tell me Mike Tudoreanu, do you get all of your “facts” from the mainstream media? Are you aware that the rich corporations own all the media outlets and therefore control which information is reported? The media is going to continue to lie about Ron Paul’s true beliefs because he represents a drastic change from the status quo where the growth of government is becoming out of control while the rich 1% of the country continue to thrive at the expense of the shrinking middle class. Are you aware of the shrinking purchasing power of the U.S Dollar or of the real unemployment rate that is around 20% when correctly calculated? Dr. Paul may not have the ability to use rhetoric as well as Obama or the other Republicans, but that is because he is not a sociopath and is not running just to boost his own ego. When you actually read his books or read about Austrian Economics, you will understand why the “Paul Bots” are fervently supporting his Presidency. When it comes down to it, returning to a constitutional government that focuses on individual liberty is the only thing that can save this great country. I just find it unfortunate that you used the Daily Collegian to write a factually inaccurate hit-piece instead of using your clout to write about my personal hero who has more bravery and courage than you could ever hope to obtain.


  37. Brian on February 12th, 2012 10:59 pm

    Umassgrad, first of all, you’re forgetting an important thing about the ER. Yes, they do provide care to anyone who walks in, but they ALSO send you a bill for it afterwards. If you don’t have insurance and can’t afford to pay that bill, you’re in serious legal trouble and you can be taken to court for it. Second of all – and more important – the fact is that you can have a life-threatening condition that can’t be fixed by the ER (for example, cancer). What happens if you don’t have insurance then? You die. And since there are tens of millions of people in the US without health insurance, I think it’s perfectly realistic to expect thousands of them to die. Even if only 0.1% of the uninsured die, that still means tens of thousands of people.


  38. futureatavist on February 12th, 2012 11:41 pm

    Ron Paul’s vision of government is a pre-social security and pre Medicare vision; a no safety net vision. To understand what that means look back to the great depression. Most pro-Paul supporters don’t have a sense of how bad things were then – but if you are looking for how life would be without those programs we now take for granted, look back at life without them. Imagine 1933 and 25% unemployment, honest to god starvation in America, bread lines -It was a horror- and not because people didn’t work hard when they could find work. Then ask your grandmother how she would feel about not having her social security check or Medicare. The Horatio Alger myth still drives people today to think they can become rich and to there is some truth to it. It does happen to some people – but the playing field is very far from leve l and getting farther all the time.
    The primary goal of all business is to make money. That’s the top of the pyramid. If treating your staff well helps in that goal then you get Google. If not you get the California Grape pickers in the 1960’s. Government is the definition of the represented will of the people. It is not there to make money but to protect the interests of citizens.The difference between conservatives like Paul and progressives is that conservatives see governments role to protect wealthy peoples money while progressives see it to protect their and the planets well being. Paul’s Libertaian view does little to protect the well being of citizens. After you are done agreeing with Paul that the foreign wars should be ended and marijuana legalized, try to imagine a world where the government really doesn’t give a damn whether you live or die.


  39. Pon Raul on February 13th, 2012 3:54 pm

    I think we should start making a top ten list of the most ridiculous things Paulbots say. The comments here so far are full of hilarious gems. Here are my top three, in descending order:

    #3. “You’re uneducated about economics Go read Ludwig von Mises/the Austrian School/some other crackpot right-winger.” This is a bit like a person who believes the Earth is flat telling you that you’re uneducated about geography. Stupid crackpot theories are just that: stupid. The so-called “Austrian School” of economics isn’t taken seriously by anyone in the economics profession (other than themselves). That’s because all their theory basically amounts to just playing with definitions. They think extreme free markets are good by definition, regardless of the consequences.

    #2. “All the stuff you’re saying about Ron Paul is just lies and hyperbole spread by the evil mainstream media!” …yeah, except Ron Paul himself did say all those things with his own mouth, usually on live TV, no more than a few months ago. Oh, I know, the mainstream media has created a robot double of Ron Paul to discredit him! Geez…

    And the top spot goes to… *drumroll*

    #1. “Private companies will never treat their workers badly, because then the workers can just quit! Bad bosses cease to exist. The system self-corrects.” This one really takes the cake for the stupidest thing ever said by Ron Paul supporters. It really shows them for what they are: privileged rich kids who never had a job at Wal-Mart, or Target, or McDonald’s, or Burger King, or any retail or fast food place or any service job in general. Anyone who has any experience of working in the real world knows that bosses CAN and DO treat their workers like dirt and fire them on a whim. For example, three days before Christmas last year, a guy got fired by Cumberland Farms because he got robbed at work:
    This is what having a real job is like. Under Ron Paul it would get much, much worse. And for all you rich kids reading this, let me spell it out so you can understand: If you lose your job, you’re UNEMPLOYED. Being unemployed is BAD, since you can’t pay the bills any more. Non-rich people are afraid of being unemployed, for good reason. So their bosses can get away with treating them like dirt.


  40. EddieMill on February 14th, 2012 4:20 am

    Hi! I’d love to get in touch with someone in the campaign staff with Ron Paul, can it be Anonymous in California, with Occupy Hillside folks? I think this might be a great media opportunity to expose a few good timely ideas, including good capitalists. Let’s explode a few key ideas found on my site. You’ll have to email.
    -Che but usually the Chepherd or number 2.


  41. Colleen Treado on February 15th, 2012 7:45 pm

    to tannim:

    SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS A CRIME! you’re a moron.


  42. Adapter on February 15th, 2012 10:43 pm

    Great article! However there is one omission. Since virtually everyone who discusses the “entitlement” programs makes the same omission, you are not alone. Cuts, privatization or elimination of so-called “entitlement” programs could devastate many people with disabilities even more than they’d affect senior citizens (because many people with disabilities rely on the programs for large portions of their lives, not just from age 65, and on average, my guess is people with disabilities have lower non-“entitlement” income than the general population which receives Soc Sec retirement & Medicare at age 65). So it would be great if people would start mentioning people with disabilities under 65 when they talk about the impact of cutting/privatizing & eliminating the programs. To compound that financial attack on people with disabilities, as he does not support the Civil Rights Act, so he does not support the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Like with the Civil Rights Act, people with disabilities struggled and even died to achieve that monumental legislation. If Ron Paul had his way, both would be repealed and people with disabilities and non-whites would have to start from scratch, on a state by state basis, with some eventually succeeding and others, in more right-wing states not having equal rights.


  43. Jake McCoy on February 16th, 2012 1:39 pm

    A little bit ridiculous with a few weird assumptions, but thank you for not just focusing on “Ron Paul’s racist newsletters”. I appreciate that.


  44. Lauren on February 24th, 2012 9:21 am

    I agree that this article reads as if Mike believes that regulations are the only thing keeping your job and rights in tact. Unfortunately, for the majority, this is true. Do you know how many jobs I’ve had where my bosses have asked for things that, if reported, would get them fired? I have been sexually harassed, requested to violate HIPA, they’ve demanded I violate labor laws… And not because they are bad people (most), but because they’re ignorant to laws their position dictate they know. Try working in the real world and see how knowledgeable and kind people are.


  45. Really? on March 2nd, 2012 2:14 pm

    I think you have fundamentally misunderstood where Ron Paul stands. Paul believes that the federal government should not play a role in deciding things such as health care, public education, and even property rights. (BTW saying that Paul would support a boss raping an employee is ridiculous).

    Each individual state should have the power to enforce these laws in whatever way they see fit. If Mass. wants a public health care system, they can have one, and pay for it without federal money. If Texas wants a private school system, they can have it.

    SO just because he wants to cut the hell out of the federal government doesn’t mean that he is taking away your rights, it means that he is giving you the power to make decisions for yourself at the local or state level.

    Do we really need the fed’s to dictate our lives? I think not


  46. Edan Samson on March 5th, 2012 11:18 am

    Pretty good article. A little unfair to Ron Paul though. He has said he doesn’t believe in social security and medicare but he wouldn’t get rid of them. He knows no one likes that idea.

    He’s the only honest Republican presidential candidate. The others are all corporate neo-con whores. Plus, he would never get elected anyway.


  47. Brian on March 8th, 2012 3:59 am

    I never understood this strange right-wing obsession with transferring responsibilities from the federal level to the state level. Why are state governments better than the federal government? Why on Earth would anyone think that it’s a good idea to say “Ok guys, you know all those laws that were passed by the federal government after intense debate for the past 100 years? We’re going to repeal them, and then all those issues will have to be re-debated and voted on in every single state.” …?

    Look, it’s pretty obvious that “states’ rights” is just a cover for “we can’t get the laws we want through Congress, so let’s give the states more powers so that we can ram those laws through a few state legislatures instead!”

    And I, for one, DO want the feds to “dictate” things like the abolition of slavery and the end of segregation – things which had to be enforced by the federal government at gunpoint against “states’ rights” advocates.


If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.