Secular Voters in Iowa are Supporting Ron Paul November 19, 2011

Secular Voters in Iowa are Supporting Ron Paul

Iowa Caucus voters are still very divided over which Republican candidate to vote for this January, and when you separate them by religious beliefs, the differences are even more striking:

“That’s more the story than who’s ahead,” said Jim McCormick, chairman of the ISU Political Science Department, who coordinated the poll.

“The number of people who are firmly committed to a candidate is really only 16.5 percent,” McCormick said. “A majority of them, 52-plus, are undecided and 30 percent are sort of leaning toward one candidate.”

Herman Cain received the most votes among Catholics (35 percent) and Protestant/born-again (25 percent), but he has very little support among secular voters (10 percent). Secular voters represent a small portion of caucus voters, but they are the most unified with six-in-ten of them backing Ron Paul.

Among religious voters, born-again Protestants are the least supportive of Mitt Romney. Only one-in-eight born-again voters support the former governor of Massachusetts, compared to nearly one-in-four support among other Protestants. Evangelicals are twice as likely to support Rick Perry compared to other religious voters.

A couple other things to note in the image above:

  • Rick Santorum doesn’t even have support among his fellow Catholics. Or the evangelical Christians. That’s good news for everyone.
  • I’m not surprised that Ron Paul overwhelmingly gets the Secular vote, but that much of it? I would’ve thought “Can’t Decide” or “Other” would poll higher…
  • Check out that contrast between Born-Again Christians and Not-Born-Again Christians when it comes to supporting Mitt Romney — it’s amazing how much his Mormonism affects how different kinds of Christians see him.

Does anything else from the poll stand out to you?

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Reginald Selkirk

    That’s secular voters who identify as Republican. Presumably they are Paul supporters for Libertarian economic reasons, because Paul is no secularist. He is as batshit Christian theocratist as any of them.

    Ron Paul Steals the Show at Faith and Freedom Conference

    Ron Paul surprised delegates at the Faith and Freedom Coalition
    conference last week by quoting long portions of the Bible to buttress
    his political views…

  • Reginald Selkirk

    While the poll is apparently of intended Republican caucus voters, this is unstated in the KCRG article you linked, and in the ISU press release it links. Shame on them. Because without that piece of knowledge, it very clearly stands out as odd that in the stats you provide that Obama isn’t even on the list.

  • Anonymous

    I assume the secular Republicans were having a meeting in someone’s Miata? Why didn’t they also poll the Jewish Republicans? They were probably parked nearby.

  • Denis Robert

    I don’t get it. Paul is a Christianist through and through, who has publicly stated that he sees no problem with State governments passing religious laws. In his feverish imagination, the 14th admendment doesn’t exist, and the Constitution only applies to the FEDERAL government. States can do whatever they want, including jailing all atheists. Is that consistent with what he claims are his “libertarian” views? Of course not, but consistency has never been a strong suit of conservatives. So for an atheist to vote for Ron Paul is equivalent to a Jew voting for Hitler…

  • El_perro_patron

    How is Bachmann pulling 18% of the secularists while only getting 8% total? She’s the most blatant Dominionist of the bunch.  Just goes to show that even secularists can be brain damaged.

  • How can Paul be a Bible-thumping creationist AND a libertarian ?

  • Not enough secular voters have heard about Paul’s zealous Christianity. We need to enlighten them.

  • Anonymous

    It’s really hard to justify watching the polls, because political fortunes are often made and lost in less than a week.  The Iowa caucus isn’t until January 3.

  • GodlessIrishman

    There are Jews in Iowa? 

  • Anonymous

    My initial impression that it’s the Republican side.  Not many people think Obama’s nomination for the Democratic party is in jeopardy.

  • Bchamilton77
  • Kingasaurus

    Also, likely caucus voters are more committed types than likely primary voters in other states. It’s not a representative sample of who ends up voting in November. The Iowa caucuses – for  a long time- have been a completely useless barometer in determining who is going to eventually win these things.

    Just do a poll in Ohio instead and just call off the Iowa caucuses.

    —“That’s secular voters who identify as Republican. Presumably they are Paul supporters for Libertarian economic reasons, because Paul is no secularist.”—–

    That’s my hunch, too.

  • Cthuhlu

    How can any secularist support bat-crazy Ron Paul? He believes separation of church and state doesn’t exist. He is also extremely naive and believe companies won’t pollute the environment because they live in it too. Really with his record I don’t get how any secularist can support him. Especially since he says it’s ok for states to pass laws based on religious laws such as banning same-sex marriage and abortion.

  • Not sure why I should give a shit about this. Given the religious dogma that’s saturated the GOP over the last two decades, being secular and Republican is like being African American and supporting the KKK. It’s a bad idea that is not going to end well for you.

    Plus, as others have pointed out, Paul isn’t exactly awash in critical thinking. IIRC, he’s questioned evolution in the past. The man’s a freaking medical doctor. Either he’s as daffy as people like Perry over this, or it’s one of the more egregious cases of pandering to your electorate.

  • Bchamilton77

    Of the conservative Republican secularist/atheists I know, most of them are are such for economic reasons.  Some of them hate Islam more than anything and thus another reason to vote Republican.  

  • Many secular and atheist

  • Becca

    Some atheists will vote for him because of his stance on ending the war on drugs and his foreign policy stance. 

  • Anonymous

    It’s not surprising that secular voters go to Paul. Considering the extreme Christianist bent of the current Republican party, the only secular voters who are going to remain Republican are libertarians, who don’t like Christianists, but hate government even more. Ayn Rand, the closest thing libertarians have to a prophet, was explicitly atheist. Ron Paul is the only game in town for libertarians. I’m guessing that many either don’t know or make a determined effort to overlook the fact that Ron Paul is a pro-life creationist.

    Sadly, I don’t think the lack of support for Romney from born-again Christians will last. Once he’s the candidate, they’ll realize that they prefer a wierd cultish guy who holds their pro-life, anti-gay, anti-secular values (at least as long as it’s convenient) to a guy who some think is Muslim and others think is the anti-Christ outright and who makes unacceptable comments about gay people having rights.

    As for the rest, I’m pretty surprised Bachmann got 18% of the secular vote. I understand that secular Republicans are a pretty peculiar lot, but secular Republican Bachmann supporters? WTF? Are they doing it for the lulz of seeing Marcus Bachmann be first lady?

  • Miko

    Ayn Rand was explicitly anti-libertarian.  She constantly denounced libertarians for not being Objectivists.  Libertarians denounce her for being a crazy cult leader with an insane far-right fantasy world understanding of economics.  These days, a small group of Objectivists is trying to hijack the word “libertarian,” but the majority of people who call themselves libertarians are quite anti-Rand.

  • Miko

    That’s not a reason to vote for Paul though.  One of the few good things about him is that he is consistently anti-war.

  • Miko

    The first thing I notice is that Gary Johnson isn’t on the poll.  I wouldn’t vote for any Republican, but I’d figure that a secularist who was being forced to vote for a Republican would probably opt for Johnson.

  • Kevin S.

    Yeah. Gary Johnson is Ron Paul with a little less crazy weighing him down.

  • Ross

    I’m an atheist and I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 primary in my state and plan to do so again next year.  The sad reality is that both Obama and the eventual Republican nominee will both profess a deep belief in an imaginary sky fairy who loves us all, so why shouldn’t I vote for the only candidate who is right on the issues (anti-drug war and anti-foreign wars) that matter most to me?

  • Rich Wilson

    I’d like to know who among the seculars is supporting BACHMAN?!?!?!  Romney I get.  Huntsman I get.  Paul I even get.  BACHMAN?

  • Anonymous

    It’s embarrassing that Bachmann gets 18% of the secular vote.

  • SeanL

    Ron Paul doesn’t believe in science.  The only Republican candidate that believes in science is John Huntsman. 

    There seems to be a big misunderstanding among conservative secularists about what Ron Paul believes.

  • Rich Wilson

    Romney isn’t as pro-Science as Huntsman, but he’s better than anyone else there.

    Ironic they’re the ones wearing magic underwear.

  • Anonymous

    Maybe most disturbing are 18% of the secular vote for a theocrat like Bachman

  • Given that Bachman and Cain get the 2nd and 3rd highest proportion of secular votes for, as you pointed out, no obvious reason, I’m going to make a guess that it could be “Tactical voting” (or, perhaps, just tactical polling) to try to get the least electable candidates in to the general election (or as far as possible). It’s also conceivable their voters just have no idea what “secular” means.

    Honestly, I’ve thought of donating to both their campaigns just so they can amuse me for as long as possible while publicly revealing how incredibly ignorant many on the far right really are. (IMO nothing damages the anti-intellectual movement more than having them trying to form complete sentences on mainstream television.)

  • Anonymous

    Vote for Romney as the GOP Nominee? He’s less likely to lean on his religion.

  • Rich Wilson

    One word: Dominionism

  • The Vicar

    You are the first person I have ever heard make this argument, while every single libertarian I have ever encountered has been a Rand-worshipper, so I find it hard to accept the argument.

  • The Vicar

    The same way people can be libertarian and have an IQ over 80: massive cognitive dissonance coupled with willful ignorance of evidence.

  • Kevin S.

    Libertarian.  Not a Rand worshipper.  Valuing personal and economic freedoms doesn’t mean you have to be a self-centered jackass.

  • Kevin S.

    The problem with Romney is the only candidate who has any chance whatsoever of winning both the primary and the general.  Romney’s the kind of guy I think I could tolerate with the Democrats in control of the Hill, since he’s more of a pragmatist than a dogmatic Republican.  But I can’t foresee any scenarios where the Republicans take the White House but lose Congress, and Romney with this particular batch of Republicans controlling the legislature would be an utter fiasco.  Thus, I’d rather have one of the crazies win the primary and get smoked in the general.

  • LeMepris

    If he’s the first person you’ve heard make that argument, you know very little about Randian thought, Libertarianism, or Objectivism.

    I’m a socialist, and I find Rand’s views horrific.

  • Kevin S.

    You do know that despite their co-opting of the word that the Tea Baggers and their ilk are not libertarians, right?

  • Romney would be silly putty in the hands of the ‘crazies’.
    He’s a chameleon.

  • Revyloution

    Im a recovering Objectivist. I remember arguing with the Libertarians over what I considered (at the time) to be serious differences in our views.

    Today, I’ve moved far to the left.  Progressive liberal would be a fair enough label for me today.  In hind sight,  looking at the differences between Libertarian and Objectivist thought is similar to trying to decide which religion is crazier, Mormonism or Scientology.    Sure,  there might be some real substantive differences between them,  but once you get out side and look back in, they are all just insane worldviews that refuse to accept reality for what it is.

  • The Captain

    “Is that consistent with what he claims are his “libertarian” views?”

    Actually yes it is. “libertarianism” is not about “protecting individual liberty” as many liberals assume it to mean. It’s really just a philosophy that the “federal government” may not interfere with private actions. Libertarians have no problem with state governments taking away someones liberties, or for private individuals to do the same to others through the rights of contracts. That’s why it’s not inconsistent for libertarians to believe state governments may put atheist in jail, according to them you are free to move out of that state.  And in the private realm, libertarians believe that all the business men in a town are “free” to meet and decide not to hire any atheist, or black people. For libertarians the atheist and black people are “free” to move. Just like a woman if “free” to sell her kids  into slavery to a corporation all in the name of “freedom” of contract.

    Libertarianism is at it’s core social darwinism. It’s a belief that the powerful have an inherently right to push around the powerless all in the name or “freedom”.

  • Revyloution

    It’s so frightening that information is so readily available.

  • InsideTheSkull

    “The same way people can be libertarian and have an IQ over 80: massive
    cognitive dissonance coupled with willful ignorance of evidence.”

    So believing in socialist nonsense would equate to an IQ over 100, right?

  • Revyloution

    Because he is a pro-life creationist that wants to return to the gold standard after abolishing the federal reserve.  I’m no Fed lover,  but basing your economy on precious metals has been shown repeatedly in many different countries to be a sure way to make your markets fluctuate wildly while creating a permanent poverty class.

  • Ross

    Try again.  All the candidates (including Obama) hold views that are awful.  Why should I fear a creationist President more than I fear one who asserts the right to kill anyone, American or not, whom a secret panel has deemed a terrorist? If Paul gets elected, the Fed will still continue to exist, regardless of how much he hates it.

  • Kaydenpat

    I was with you until the last paragraph.  How is libertarianism equivalent to social darwinism?

  • Anonymous

    I have never met a libertarian who had an ill word to say about Ayn Rand. However I’ll admit I’ve only ever interacted with libertarians online and I generally avoid them since they are by turns frustrating and infuriating, depending on the subject at hand, so my experience is rather limited. Just out of curiosity, could you tell me what the main differences between objectivists and libertarians are, or point me to a link that explains it?

  • Anonymous

    Your logic is sound. My only “counter points” are:

    1. If a crazy does get the GOP nomination, there’s always a chance they take it all the way. I’d rather not have to think about it.

    2. I have zero control over any of it, so I don’t know why I bother even being aware of the situation…

  • Revyloution

    If Paul had enough votes to get elected, then he might have enough votes to get the Fed removed.   If the electorate moved far enough to get him elected, I imagine that some of his goals might be within reach.

    As for the goals of ending the two wars and  legalizing drugs,  I think you’d be better off  voting a straight Democrat ticket.  Historically,  they have been more in favor of those things than the Republicans.I do think that Obama deserves your criticism.    He could have done many things differently.  That said,  it doesn’t matter who was president for the past three years.  The congress we have, and the situation of the world has largely dictated much of the course the nation has steered. And in regards to religion,  of all the candidates in the upcoming election, only one has defended the concept of the separation of church and state, and that was Obama.

  • Guest

    I think it’s a bit hasty to assume that Romney’s Mormonism is the (only) reason for his low polling with born-agains.

    It’s a question worth considering, but as-presented you’re making quite a leap by concluding he polls differently for religious reasons.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    As for the rest, I’m pretty surprised Bachmann got 18% of the secular vote.

    Like Bachmann, her supporters also lie.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    The sad reality is that both Obama and the eventual Republican nominee
    will both profess a deep belief in an imaginary sky fairy who loves us

    Obama may believe in the sky fairy, but he will do less pushing his sky fairy belief onto us.

  • Anonymous

    No, you’re right: libertarian philosophy is very similar to Objectivism.  I have heard of modern Objectivists being anti-libertarian (because Rand had denounced the new movement), but not vice versa.  It’s mainly a historical divide.

  • Anonymous

    Libertarianism is precisely about individual liberty.  Libertarianism is not specifically American, so it’s silly to say it’s all about federal/state jurisdiction issues.

    Libertarians want limited state and local government as well as limited federal government.  But if a libertarian is running for a federal position, like President, it is foolish and unconstitutional for him to claim that he’ll be the watchdog of state governments too.

    Most libertarians believe in something called the “non-aggression principle”.  Imprisoning people for a victimless crime (in your example atheism) is anti-libertarian.  Obviously selling your child into slavery is (I hope that was a joke).

  • Anonymous

    Not all atheists are one-issue voters.

  • Anonymous

    You must have heard that there are a lot of Democrats and independents switching to Republican to vote for Ron Paul.  See

  • Anonymous

    The problem with Ron Paul is that he is a straight up anarcho-capitalist. He has some acceptable ideas here and there, but takes them to ridiculous extremes

    Some libertarian positions are nice, but the thing is that libertarianism (the kind I can buy into to some extent) was originally a left-leaning position. Most modern American libertarians are right-wing and they understand something entirely else under the term. They mostly just want a radical free market economy without any restrictions and without rights for the labor force. That’s just not feasible in a modern economy and society. And they neglect the personal liberty aspect of the concept (which contrary to The Captain’s opinion, does exist in some libertarian views). Especially for groups they don’t like

    As said above, there are different libertarian schools that are sometimes radically different. That’s where this confusion comes from

  • Anonymous

    What you describe is right-libertarianism, tending towards anarchism in some aspects.

    Libertarianism is a wide ranging concept with different schools. It includes economic liberty, but also personal liberty. Different schools place a different emphasis on either one. Some are outright anarchists, while others realize that some form of state is needed. Some maximize personal freedom, while others only go for the power of the rich and corporations, which naturally decreases the freedom of some people.

    Ron Paul is an anarcho-capitalist, so in his view, his ideas are consistent with libertarianism.
    I don’t call myself in a libertarian in any way, but as far as I buy into the ideology, I’m more in the middle as far as the role of the state is concerned and see maximum personal liberty as important. So in my views of the concept clash with his. The same is true for other people

  • Anonymous

    When you think of libertarianism, you probably think of left-libertarianism. Or something moderate in the middle of the extremes.

    There are different schools in the movement, with diverse ideals. Ron Paul is an anarcho-capatalist who just wants a free market where the economy is left to its own devices. Consequences for the people be damned. And he doesn’t care about personal liberty. That’s quite compatible with the Bible

  • Not much less. That’s a whole lotta faith-based tax money
    out there and he’s “palsies” with the “vangies”.

  • Other issues won’t seem so important in a theocracy.

  • Tort

     There is a strong libertarian presence in the atheist community, Ron Paul may not be a secularist but he is the most libertarian of the candidates.

  • *headdesk*

    Ugh. Seriously? Ron Paul is, like, the worst candidate ever. Worse than Bush. Worse than Palin. The. Worst.

  • I’m no expert on the differences between libertarianism and objectivism, but I suspect that the passion that some display in talking about the differences is akin to the passions that some atheists and agnostics display in discussing those differences…  or the passions that Northern and Southern Baptists display in discussing those differences… etc.  There being some dividing issue that they view as more important than all the other issues that they have in common.

  • Socialist democracies are fine. The voters can always turn to the right when they choose.

  • Paul Crider

    I hope this conversation isn’t too stale for this libertarian atheist to weigh in. A few things:

    I was depressed reading these comments until I saw Ross’s comments. Some atheists are going to be single issue voters on how theocratic they expect the candidate will be, and that’s fine (these are important issues!). But there are other issues too. Paul as president could not singlehandedly turn America into a theocracy, but he could do a mighty lot to neuter the catastrophic “War on Drugs”, our (in at least some cases illegal) foreign wars, and the expansion of the national security state and executive power. Paul is far closer to the ACLU on these issues than Obama is. These are not explicitly atheist issues, but they’re probably of concern to most atheists.

    That said, I don’t plan to vote for the guy. Gary Johnson has the above advantages but doesn’t have the crazy factor or the shady past of racist connections that Paul has. Gary Johnson is pro-choice and seems to be pretty secular. And he is by far the friendliest candidate to immigrants (radically viewing them as human beings). In fact, he’s far more humanitarian on immigration than Obama, who is worse than Bush.

  • Paul Crider

    Among Republicans, Jon Huntsman is indeed fairly reasonable.

  • GodlessIrishman

    My remark was made in jest, but I certainly didn’t expect such an exact answer:)

  • The Captain

    Well to be fair as others here have pointed out there are different strains of libertarianism. Although I only ever seem to run into one flavor of it here.  The ones I was referring to, which is the dominate one here in the US is also called anarcho-capitalist. Basically they believe in no social safety nets, which is a form of social darwinism, just by another name. For them the economically weak, deserve to die because of their economic conditions.

  • The Captain

    I admittedly only refer to one strain of libertarianism, but it is the strain I see that is dominate in the US by a wide margin. That version is built around the idea of economic liberty, above all else. It’s the founding principle for them, so it overrides all others. So yes, for many of them, you could sell your child (and yourself) into slavery and the right of free contract would trump all ideas of actual freedom, since for them, you where free not to sign the contract. 

    This idea is not on the fringe either. Many so self identified libertarians have called for voting to be restricted by property ownership, and for the poor to be placed into work camps. Neal Boortz comes to mind, and he has spoken at libertarian party conventions, so he (and others) are hardly fringe.

  • The Captain

    Well said. Libertarians do take some positions I can (and most liberals) do agree with. The problem is within the last 20 years or so, the dominate form of libertarianism refuses to acknowledge that an economic transaction between two people, can effect a third. So for them, all economic transactions are “private” and not subject to democratic oversight.

  • cipher

    “Why didn’t they also poll the Jewish Republicans?”

    There aren’t any.

    Seriously, though, when I was growing up, there were hardly any. Reagan changed all of that. I don’t recognize the Jewish community now. It certainly isn’t the one in which I grew up.

    Not a day goes by that I don’t curse that man.

  • cipher

    “Does anything else from the poll stand out to you?”

    Yes – that people are sheep and are entirely incapable of independent thought.

  • Sulris Campbell

     18% secular voting for bachman…  this marks the first time i have been sad to be in the secular crowd!  even if it is tactical voting… if they push an unelectable candidate to the forefront of the republican party it is going to push the party farther right which is going to puch moderate farther right as well.  which means that whole courty gets pushed to the right.  (the overton window)  if they voted for a moderate candidate they could tactically push the whole U.S. toward the left (even if a republican got elected.)  Come on!!! big picture people!

  • Anonymous

    Being a libertarian is almost the only reason anyone secular would identify as a Republican these days, which explains Paul’s dominance within that group, even though he’s hardly a secular candidate.  

    While I was initially perplexed at Bachman finishing second within that group, I then realized that her supporters probably didn’t know what secular meant when the pollster mentioned it.

  • Summer Seale

    I not only vote as an Atheist, but I also vote as a Humanist and a liberal.

    Ron Paul is none of that and, in fact, is a disaster in all those areas.

    He may be right on a couple of issues, but that’s about it. Any village idiot or extremist will agree with you on some issues.

    For example: Stormfront people want to end the war in Iraq – for entirely different reasons than you probably want to end the war in Iraq, but they have the same goal. It doesn’t mean that I support them in anything whatsoever.

    Nazis believe in freedom of speech – to say entirely different things than you or I say, but they still support freedom of speech (until they take power, that is). I believe in Freedom of Speech too, but it doesn’t mean that I support them in any way whatsoever.

    It is curious, however, how Nazis and Stormfront assholes think that Ron Paul is one of them. In fact, if you keep up with what these scumbags think, they’ve thought that Ron Paul has been one of them since decades now – long before Ron Paul started running for President.

    It’s also curious that Ron Paul hasn’t renounced their views about him, and seems to relish the idea that so many “diverse Americans” apparently support his cause.

    I’m sorry, but they’re a group of “diverse Americans” whose support I think anyone here could do very well without in any election.

    But not for Ron Paul. Ron Paul has had close ties with these “diverse Americans” since two decades or more. He also supports 9/11 conspiracy theories which, as we well know by now, has many links to these “diverse Americans” aforementioned. Ron Paul also thinks it would be a wonderful idea to set up a Patriarchy like in the Bible, as well as say that any business could decide not to serve anyone they want – based on any criteria such as, say, the color of their skin or religious affiliation.

    Ron Paul is far too closely tied to these “diverse Americans” for my taste. In fact, I think it is incredibly offensive that he is given any time whatsoever on National TV, but that’s his right. However, I will say that I will never, ever, not-in-a-fucking-million-god-damn-years-with-nuclear-fucking-missiles-raining-down-on-us-and-the-only-fucking-saving-grace-would-be-to-elect-him-to-somehow-cowboy-us-up-and-save-the-day, EVER vote for him. The only gesture that Ron Paul will ever get from me is the finger.

    I’d rather stick to my Atheist and Humanist convictions than elect a ruddy little closet Nazi into power, thank you – no matter what his stance on drugs or prostitution.

    As an Atheist, and as a Humanist, and a liberal, I hope that I have made my position very clear.

  • Hey, The Captain — just so you know:
    The dominANT (thing, eg “one” “form”) is the thing that dominATEs… 
    Hope that’ll help your ideas get through. First time you used “dominate” for “dominant” I assumed typo, but this was the third.
    Best wishes

  • The Captain

    Yea, I was out at a bar with the GF for about 5 hours before I wrote that.

  • Yoav

    The fact that so many atheist support Ron Paul keep mystifying me. Even if we ignore the fact that his economic policy can be summed up as ” the freemarket fairy will do it by magic”, he is openly a theocrat that believe in personal freedoms except for these who don’t follow jeebus.

  • rejistania

    Based on the lot of comments I saw regarding Paul’s christian views… I do not like them, I do not agre with them, but I do trust him not to be an atheist but a libertarian.

  • Rich Wilson

    There was one voice of dissent among the candidates. Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, argued that people should be allowed to make bad decisions, that freedom of choice in religious matters should extend to atheists, and that powers not reserved to the federal government should be left to the states. But in a field of candidates bent on legislating Christian morality and purging uncooperative judges, Paul stood alone. Protecting America is too important to let the Constitution get in the way.

    I don’t like Ron Paul either, but given that, I’d sure take him over Perry, Bachman, Santorum, Cain or Gingirch.  I strongly recommend reading that article to see what some of those candidates said.

  • terrymac

    That explains why you said so much about that which you know so little. Next time, go home and sleep.

  • terrymac

    Ron Paul is not a theocrat; he has made it plain that he has no interest in imposing religious views or laws upon others. Better to speak from knowledge, or not at all, lest you expose your ignorance.

  • terrymac

    I’d rather trust consenting adults to decide what is a mutually agreeable exchange, than trust some magic fairy bureaucrat or politician to decide what is best for those two other people.

    Your assertion about personal freedoms is also batshit crazy – Ron Paul is on record as saying people should be free to smoke or otherwise ingest whatever they like.  Educate yourself before you make yourself look stupid and ignorant.

  • terrymac

    That is this theocracy nonsense? Inform yourself; Ron Paul has never advocated anything of the sort. He has written many books, and is featured in many youtube videos. You have absolutely no excuse for remaining so ignorant.

  • terrymac

    If you never encountered a non-Rand libertarian, you simply need to get out more. Seriously. There is no excuse for remaining ignorant and pontificating about your ignorance.

    The schism between Rand and libertarians is not news; it has been around for decades.

  • terrymac

    You choose to limit your interactions, therefore you learn next to nothing about libertarians or objectivists. Some major differences. Objectivism requires that you learn the One True Philosophy, as handed down by Ayn Rand on stone tablets. No other approach is, in their terms, Objectively True. Ayn Rand objects the concept of polycentric law; there must be One True Objective Law to Bind Them All.

    As you can tell, I’m not a fan of Ayn Rand. As a libertarian, I believe that people need to find their own path; the principles I hold are that people should not aggress against each other, and that having a badge does not make one a better person than others; the same moral rules should apply to all of us, regardless of whether we are “citizens” or “government”. This limits what government may morally do.

    I particularly loathe the One Law To Bind Them All fantasy, as history shows that people have more liberty when they have recourse to competing law than when there is a single law. The elites always tend to capture the One Law To Bind Them All to their advantage. Hence, “sovereign immunity” and “regulatory capture” and the Nomenklatura and so forth.

  • terrymac

    There are some serious divisions. For some reason, Objectivists seem to be all devoted to the idea of bombing people into democracy; non-objectivists seldom make that mistake. An orthodox Objectivist cannot be an anarchist; that would be an unspeakable heresy. An orthodox Objectivist cannot tolerate any form of theism; I suspect that their zeal to bomb Muslims derives from this hatred of theism.

    Which reminds me – if Ron Paul is as “theocratic”, as some of the people here claim, why is he the only one who opposes the war against Muslims? Seriously, do some of you folks even think, or do you just emote whatever nonsense comes to mind?

  • Anonymous

    “Libertarians have no problem with state governments taking away someones liberties, or for private individuals to do the same to others through the rights of contracts.”

    @_@ You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

error: Content is protected !!