What exactly is so terrible about having a libertarian in office as opposed to a conservative. Is it that he would stop a drug war that has worked by no accounts, implement a voucher system to stop the near monopoly grip of dream-crushing public schools, or maybe that he doesn't want to get tied up in a foreign conflict every time something goes wrong in the world? If it's any consolation, he's a pro-lifer.
Unlike that RINO Mitt Romney, who's policies on the economy have been all over the place. He claims to be fiscally conservative, yet proposes more spending on an already bloated defense budget, more government subsidies, higher minimum wage, etc. He's been very vague and topsy-turvy in what he's said, which has mostly been due to his unabashed liberal pandering. =
I'm not saying that his policies are any better. He would, however, attempt to do nearly everything he said he would in his campaign, unlike 95% of politicians. Ron Paul is more genuine than most politicians. Whether or not you agree with his policies, you have to admit he is a force to be reckoned with and he will not stop until his policies are implemented.
While I affiliate with the majority of Paul's stances on social issues, his economic policy is even worse than Romney's, but I'll still give him an edge due to the weight of importance of civil liberties and foreign policy changes.
Aside from his objection to the Federal Reserve, I couldn't disagree more. Deregulated free market capitalism is not the answer. I consider right libertarianism inherently inefficient and destructive (physically, socially and environmentally). It leans heavily on dramatic over simplifications of popular concepts such as individualism and personal responsibility. It sounds great on a bumper sticker, but leaves out externalities. If it is cheaper to dispose of toxic chemicals in a river, as opposed to proper disposal, the profit incentive and market competition inherently encourage it. Suggesting that a greater emphasis on property rights will discourage it is mere lip service.
Moreover, is it really realistic to put the responsibility on the consumer to alter such practices with selective purchases?
First, they need to care enough to take their duty as a consumer seriously and be thorough in the products they endorse with purchases. That means knowing with what materials it was constructed, possible health effects, environmental consequences of mining for said materials as well as in production, who these activities might displace, how their workers are treated -- all on top of the pre-existing matter of quality and reliability. Most people can't even get that last part right, buying more on impulse and popularity than evidence.
Next, they need to find out about said abuses. Private property precludes critical observation without regulatory measures. How are you to know if the cooks wash their hands or clean the utensils? You can't vote with your dollars on matters unknowable.
Then, they need to get the word out to a significant proportion of other consumers. In a world of privatization, finding a sympathetic media outlet with no financial conflicts of interest in sponsorship may be difficult.
Does the consumer have a right to know that his/her water is polluted, or is it their responsibility to conduct scientific tests on each glass of water before they drink it? (and have the knowledge to interpret the results accurately) How is the average consumer to know and understand the source and method of every ingredient of every product they purchase? Consider the supplement industry, which is very lightly regulated compared to most other industries. Laboratory tests have recently shown wild dosage fluctuations in a handful of brands compared to what they are advertized to contain. You could get 2,000 IU vitamin D and have the actual vitamin D content be 0 in some and 5,000 IU in others! How is the consumer supposed to have time to keep track of all of these variables in order to contribute in a meaningful way to a healthy and sustainable market economy?
Also, competition and incentives do not produce innovation. They actually (surprisingly) hinder it! That is what the peer reviewed evidence has unanimously demonstrated for decades.
Ron Paul is a huge libertarian. First of all, the Republican party must remain on its principles and that means remaining socially Conservative. We are fighting liberal ideologies and left-wing policies and what's really scary is that we got a libertarian pretty popular within the Republican party. The Republican party needs to remain their grounds and not flip-flop here.