A vegan’s case for Ron Paul

October 19th, 2007

Here in Asheville, NC, there’s an eclectic mix of people and political views. Yes, it is a liberal, new-ager oasis, but it is also up in the Appalachian mountains of North Carolina. In other words, there are all kinds of people here. Equally varied is the type of folks who come to the Asheville Ron Paul meetups, and who give me a wave and big thumbs up when I wear my Ron Paul 2008 t-shirt around town. Peace activists and gun enthusiasts alike, seem to be excited about Ron Paul.

Where I consistently run into opposition is from the animal activist community. “You know, libertarians aren’t supportive of animal cruelty legislation.” Yes, yes, I do know that. But maybe there is a bigger picture here that we’re missing. Namely, that a minority demographic like ours, shouldn’t be so gung ho about the federal government legislating morality.

Consider the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA), which states, among other things, that anyone crossing state lines or using the federal mail system for “the purpose of causing physical disruption to the functioning of an animal enterprise, or any real or personal property of a person or entity having a connection to, relationship with, or transactions with an animal enterprise” is now considered a terrorist. Several activists are sitting in prison and labeled as terrorists for doing nothing more than making a speech or operating a website that talked about illegal actions against animal enterprises.

If you think this doesn’t affect regular mainstream animal rights organizations, think again. Until recently, I was on the board of directors for a 501(c)3 animal rights group, and the AETA came up at many board meetings. We were constantly questioning whether we could openly make donations to certain organizations, what kinds of demonstrations we could organize, and how to phrase messages on our website. It was easy to say “we can’t let these laws scare us out of being effective activists.” But when faced with the very real possibility of going to prison, board members became much more reserved in their approach.

Only a voice vote was taken on the AETA, so there is no record of who voted against it. But Ron Paul is on record for having opposed the Patriot Act, an equally chilling destruction of our constitutional rights, and he continues to speak out against it throughout his campaign. By contrast, every democratic candidate except for Dennis Kucinich, voted in favor of the Patriot Act, despite the fact that it flies in the face of our Constitution, which every member of Congress is sworn to uphold.

Consider also the recent court cases involving children being taken from parents who raise them on a vegan diet, or parents who choose an alternative healing program rather than chemotherapy for their child with cancer. These cases demonstrate that our entire lifestyle is the subject of negative scrutiny. They are reminders that when morality is dictated by the majority or by a vocal minority, it doesn’t always work in our favor. While it may be appealing to ask the federal government to stop animal abuses nation wide, rather than targeting many states or communities on a more local level, it keeps the door open for federal-level abuses of power, such as the AETA and the Patriot Act. We can’t have it both ways. We can’t insist that the federal government uphold the constitution in some circumstances, and ignore it when it is convenient for our particular cause.

Ron Paul has introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, which leaves the choice of what to eat and how to take care of our health in the hands of the individual, not the federal government. He also opposed Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which authorizes forced vaccinations of American citizens against small pox. Maybe you think small pox vaccinations are a good idea. Fair enough. But what happens when the government decides Americans need to be forced to get chemotherapy for cancer, or feed their children animal products, or otherwise dictate what is best for our health?

I should also point out, that unlike all of the other Republican presidential candidates and unlike most of the Democratic candidates, Ron Paul opposes the Iraq war, has opposed it from the beginning, and promises to end the war immediately. I had believed that the Democrats were going to save us from this unending death march in the Middle East, but now most of them talk about staying until 2013, and even discuss the possibility of going to war with Iran.

Ron Paul has been a staunch supporter of the Constitution for his entire 10 terms in Congress. Before every vote, he asks himself whether a piece of legislation is legal under the Constitution. If it violates our liberties, guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, or if it is not authorized by the Constitution, Ron Paul votes against it. He doesn’t just pay lip service to the idea of freedom. His record speaks as loud as his words. I’ve given just a couple of examples among so many, where Ron Paul stands out as a defender of basic rights that specifically affect vegans and animal activists, in hopes that it will inspire you to look further into his candidacy.

Now I know what some of you are thinking. What about Kucinich? He stands on principle. He has opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. He voted against the Patriot Act and spoke out against the AETA. I like Kucinich. I voted for him in the last primary. I like him, not just because he is vegan, but because he is honest and principled. But I’m supporting Ron Paul this time around. For one thing, it seems to me that Ron Paul has a lot more momentum on his side. But for another, Ron Paul believes in small government, while Dennis Kucinich is a big government guy. I firmly believe that Kucinich supports large federal programs only for the most noble of reasons. But at this point, I simply don’t trust our government to make noble decisions. I don’t trust them to use our tax dollars and the power we give them to improve the state of our country or the world, no matter who is in charge.

As president, Ron Paul is committed to decreasing his own power so that we, as individuals, have the power to live our lives as we see fit, and to speak out on behalf of our planet and all of its inhabitants.

If you truly believe that Kucinich can win the Democratic nomination, and you aren’t convinced that we need to restrict the power of the federal government, then stand up for your beliefs and vote for Kucinich. He’s a good guy and I’d be happy to have him as president. But if you’re still banking on the idea that any Democrat is better than anything the Republicans have to offer, take a second look at Ron Paul, and consider switching parties to support him in the Republican primary.

For an in-depth look at Ron Paul’s positions, check out the Candidates@Google Ron Paul interview.

Check out Analysis of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act on greenisthenewred.com for an in-depth look at this legislation.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [Ma.gnolia] [MySpace] [Reddit] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Yahoo!] [Email]

63 Responses to “A vegan’s case for Ron Paul”

  1. mike Says:

    Thank you for your post. I believe your assesment is right on. Many liberals (myself included) want it both ways. We like the constitution when it protects our rights, but will gladly accept handouts from the government, or legislation if it benefits us (even if it is unconstitutional). I think I’m joining many people who thought they were liberal but were actually libertarian.

  2. mike Says:

    Just remember, any legilation used to regulate morality in your favor can also be used in opposition to your personal morals.

  3. Chisel Says:

    “…demographic like ours, shouldn’t be so gung ho about the federal government legislating morality.”

    “Roe vs. Wade must be overturned.” – Ron Paul

    Talk about legislating morality–there’s your hypocrisy. All Dr. Paul supporters have to SERIOUSLY consider whether they are as radically pro-life and right-wing Christian (denouncing the “secular left”) as Ron Paul. So take a little of your own medicine and look in the mirror. He wants corporate anarchy but will legislate my girlfriend’s womb? Whoa…you’d rather have girls with coathangers getting tried for murder than the morning after pill?!? come on…

    I am a vegan (for health reasons) Kucinich supporter. Do I love most of what Paul says? Yes, and I agree he has more momentum. However, all the Ronbots must reconcile their beliefs with his. If you TRULY are a libertarian or constitutionalist, you’ll see that this nation was founded under “nature’s God,” not a Christian one. We are a secular nation, and Ron Paul doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state. “FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!!”

    I’m assuming you’re vegan for ethical reasons. If so, why would you throw your support behind someone who would make it easier for animals to be tortured and slaughtered for profit and unhealthy consumption?!? Your blog title is quite ironic, because there is really no vegan case for Ron Paul.

  4. Barbara Says:

    I know who voted against AETA. Dennis Kucinich voted against AETA. There is no vegan argument in favor of Ron Paul, who is anti-choice, anti-environment, anti-healthcare-for all, and pro-war, so long as in his words, it’s a war that can be won. I prefer my candidate to be decidedly compassionate, fair, just, and for establishing the doctrine of peace as an instrument of policy.

  5. DW Says:


    There’s a few parts your’e confused about here as well.

    You worry about Ron’s decisions being determined by his religious beliefs, but understand that he intends to lay low with his impact on our personal lives.
    His decision on abortion comes from deep in his heart and common sense. You talk in ‘defense’ of your girlfriend’s womb being legislated ~ but he’s also protecting the life that grows within, as a result of that night out after your drunken date. So perhaps that would be the reason why you’d want your kid with her to be aborted, because you couldn’t handle the responsibility to keep it healthy in the first place… perhaps?

    You imply in such a critical way about someone else’s choices of veganism for potential ethical reasons, but I must question your reasons for opposing Ron Paul’s defense of your future child, for his humane, ethical reasons. Doesn’t seem like you have any; even for your own child.
    Dr. Paul actually gives a shit about the youngsters. He delievered more than 4,000 of them, so he might have a clue that life exists in the womb, pre-birth. He’s such a humanitarian that he’s broadening the peaceful enforcement of preventing murders for all walks… or “crawls” of life.

    And don’t worry about “FREEDOM OF RELIGION”… Ron is about small government… So he’s not going to propose a Totalitarian Theocracy.

  6. John Says:

    Chisel, you are missing the point of Ron Paul’s argument against “Roe vs Wade”.

    His point in saying that it needs to be overturned is that it is an example of the federal government (judicial branch) legislating morality by not allowing individual community/states to determine how they are going to handle this issue.

    For a better idea of how Ron Paul feels about the federal government playing a role in the abortion issue you should read his comments about the Partial Birth Abortion Ban: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403.htm

    “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.” – Ron Paul

  7. roben Says:

    A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for freedom that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and our founding fathers fought for and more.

    They couldn’t do everything, but they did everything they could to give the world the most free country of any large size to ever exist.

    Ron Paul is the United States “new” FOUNDING FATHERS rolled into one!

    Who won’t vote for Ron Paul?

    Here is a list;

    The communist’s won’t, the supporters of the NEW WORLD ORDER won’t, the PRIVATE BANKERS that own “THE FEDERAL RESERVE won’t, international bankers won’t.

    Creators of the Security Prosparity Partnership “SPP” , North American Union NAU won’t,(see)

    Supporters of WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, won’t, Top brass in the CIA, IRS, & Homeland security won’t.

    Business’s that borrow money from the export import bank or other government organizations to “move their factory’s” out of the country, won’t.

    Business’s that move to communist china won’t.
    Even tho china still pays their citizens slave labor wage’s,& from unwilling people in the prisons >> removes their organ’s (it is called organ harvesting), eye’s, lung’s,kidneys, hearts, etc. to sell & they will sell to you.

    Contractors that get “no bid contracts” from the federal govt. won’t.

    The CFR (members of the COUNCIL OF FOREIGN RELATIONS) won’t, the members of “SKULL AND BONES” won’t, the Bilderbegers won’t, all would be dictators won’t.

    Drug manufactures won’t, supporters of the United Nation’s won’t, socialist, fascist, and one worlder’s won’t.

    I still believe in freedom and the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights and I will vote for Ron Paul!!!

  8. John Says:


    Ron Paul is not for War at all. He is for Peace and minding our own business. In fact, he is the only candidate who is talking about ending our overseas Empire building. We are losing our rights and privacy in order to support our misguided foreign policy. Our government is justifying torture to keep us “safe.” This is not the America I was raised to believe in.

    The consequences of this election are huge and Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that is speaking about real change. While I personally think a woman should have the right to choose, I think that issue pales in comparison to the challenges facing us now. Living in a country that is bankrupting its future, torturing people, and spying on its citizens – but allows a woman to have an abortion seems like a bad deal.

  9. vegangirl Says:

    I very much appreciate everyone’s comments. I wanted to respond to just a couple of things:

    1 – Chisel – Ron Paul is very much pro-life but is not interested in legislating morality. He believes the federal government should play no role in the abortion issue and that it should be left up to the states.

    2 – Barbara – to say that Ron Paul is only anti-war when he believes we can’t win, is simply untrue. He is strongly opposed to war with any nation unless it is for self-defense, in which case Congress should declare it and we should go in, win it, and then leave. And he does not see any current threat to our nation that we need to defend ourselves against through war.

    I have to agree with John’s post. I believe at this point, our nation is so far down a disastrous path that we desperately need someone who is committed to turning things around ASAP. While I may not agree 100% with Ron Paul’s positions, I believe he can help turn the U.S. back into the great country I learned about in grade school.

  10. stephen Says:

    Ron Paul wants the FEDERAL government out of the jurisdictional process of deciding for the American people what is the best policy to deal with the abortion issue. The more complicated an issue, the MORE reason for LOCAL STATE government to be involved in the decision making process. He is not some bible thumper who wants to decide for us all on a federal level what the correct moral path should be taken by the entire country, (a one decision fits all for every state). Ron Paul belives that this issue is too complicated for the FEDERAL government to decide and should be left to local government in order to better reflect the populace for that particular area. Ron Paul believes that at the very point of conception that fertilized egg has rights just like you and me, and even with this belief he does not want the FEDERAL government to make that decision for the several states or its populace. It is that simple, Ron Paul feels the FEDERAL government is inserting itself in far to many issues thereby creating a bloated FEDERAL government bureaucracy which in turn needs to be paid for with more taxes by the middle class who are already overburdened and being destroyed. I don’t think it is fair to say that Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v Wade for the sake of eliminating abortion but in reality he wants to eliminate the FEDERAL government from claiming jurisdiction over this issue and return the jurisdiction back to the STATE government of the several states so that the populace of each state may determine amongst ourselves what direction we would like for our particular state.

  11. Paul Says:

    The reason Dr. Paul is against Roe v. Wade is that it is not within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The power to legislate such moral decisions is not given to the federal government in the Constitution, so if you’re a Constitutionalist, the only possible stance you could take would be against Roe v. Wade.

    Even more than that, Roe v. Wade is judicial legislation, in which the Supreme Court, which at most is supposed to interpret laws, is actually making them. The argument made by the majority in Roe v. Wade was based on interpretation of the first amendment. Go read the first amendment and see if you find anything about the right to an abortion. You won’t. And more than that, the court laid out specifically the terms and conditions under which abortion could be performed. This is blatant abuse of power by the courts.

    Ron Paul is not against legalization of abortion at the state level, despite his personal views, because the Constitution isn’t against it. And it should be noted that the bill of rights which restrict the federal government are not meant to apply to the states. Connecticut had a state-sponsored church until 1817, and Massachusetts had one until 1834. Neither was ever challenged under the Constitution, they were unsponsored by legislation.

    So in short, Ron Paul does not unilatterally legislate against abortion.

  12. Gloria Says:

    I am a vegetarian, not vegan, and I am a huge Ron Paul supporter for all the reasons you describe as well.

    I seriously think that at some point in the future, this totalitarian government we’re goint to could see fit to force children to have meat in their diet or other such nonsense. They want to decide everything else about a child, after all, and the vegan diet gets horrible media coverage and little support from the government. What Kucinich supports (big government) could eventually allow that to happen.

    That would not happen under a Ron Paul government.

  13. Nut-Uh Says:

    re: Roe v. Wade discussion. Per Ron Paul’s website:

    “The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

    “In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

    “In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.”

  14. Otto Says:

    He believes the federal government should play no role in the abortion issue and that it should be left up to the states.

    Well, then he’s wrong, and he’s also lost any form of support from me because of it.

    No moral individual would ever vote for Ron Paul because he supports allowing the states to take away the freedoms of the individual.

    The correctness of the Roe vs. Wade decision is not up for debate.

  15. DarkDiscordian Says:

    “The correctness of the Roe vs. Wade decision is not up for debate.”
    Excuse me? Not up for debate? I’m pro-choice my self, but to say that something is not up debate is really just saying that you are unwilling to have it questioned. There are serious questions to ask, and anyone professing a clear answer is either a fundamentalist or a liar. Fetal pain is one of these, for instance. And personally, I don’t think a philosophical vegan (I’m not a vegan, BTW) could support late-term abortion, where the infant could survive outside of the womb. And is it alright to eat the meat of a cow fetus, because if it is, that would solve a lot of problems for vegans with meat cravings.

  16. Jen Says:

    “No moral individual would ever vote for Ron Paul because he supports allowing the states to take away the freedoms of the individual.”

    Ron Paul supports freedom, not taking away freedom. Your working definition of “freedom” is “things I think people should/shouldn’t do,” which means that you’re committing the same philosophical crime as the conservatives you hate! Ron Paul wants things at the federal level to be hands-off; neither forcing an ideal nor taking one away.

    In addition, you’re assuming that the states automatically want to take away freedoms. Do you vote for issues/representatives on a local and state level? Don’t you think that it’s easier to change things and be heard on a local or state level than on a national one? [And for the record, I'm pro-choice.]

  17. John G Says:

    Both political parties and most primary candidates, certainly excepting Dr. Paul, are for bigger government. What is funny is that neither party’s core constituency claims to want that.

    You cant have the social welfare state without a big, powerful government. And you cant have a military empire without a strong government. The wants of each party necessitate the federal government we have today.

    The assumption of the party faithful is that it is safe to give their people power because they are their people: they share their beliefs and want what they want. That is not reality.

    Most every politician wants to be a politician for two reasons. They want to exert control over other people. And they want to get rich. Politicians are bribed while in office. If it is not overt bribery they are wined and dined and enjoying nice vacations. Once they leave they go on to enjoy advisory roles for high pay in the industries they once regulated.

    The problem is once you have given up power to the government you aren’t getting it back. Office holders are always being replaced. Even if the guy you gave power to was a good fellow and used his power to the benefit of society there is no guarantee the next guy will.

    The safest bet is to keep power in our hands and if we are to entrust it to others we should have it as close to home as we can. An individual can make a difference at the local level.

    Ron Paul has not personally benefited from his many years in Congress. He is frugal with even his campaign donations flying coach and staying in reasonable hotels while his competitors charter planes and wont consider anything with less than 5 stars. I truly think Ron Paul offers the most hope to people of all politician stripes.

  18. Zeke Says:

    I own guns and I eat a lot of meat. I am always so encouraged when I discover fellow Paul supporters who are at first glance so different from myself. The abortion debate contained in these comments is also refreshing. I believe that a fetus is a person and therefore has certain unalienable rights. However I am always eager to hear others opinions and points of view. I think it speaks well of those interested in Mr. Paul that they can discuss such a touchy issue with relative civility. I believe that when I die I will stand before my maker in judgment. While I do my best I know that I will come up short of perfection. I am therefore always willing to respectfully listen people with whom I disagree and am very careful about condemning the lifestyles of others.

  19. Otto Says:

    Excuse me? Not up for debate? I’m pro-choice my self, but to say that something is not up debate is really just saying that you are unwilling to have it questioned.

    Yes, because questioning the RvW decision is a clear sign of immorality. It is wholly unethical and flat out wrong to even suggest that it is okay to allow women to be forced to have children against their will. Anybody who questions RvW is supporting slavery. Period.

    Ron Paul supports freedom, not taking away freedom. Your working definition of “freedom” is “things I think people should/shouldn’t do,” which means that you’re committing the same philosophical crime as the conservatives you hate!

    False. I don’t care what people actually do. I care about what people are ALLOWED to do. And if you’re saying that not allowing people to do something is supporting freedom, then you’re just as crazy as Ron Paul is.

    Ron Paul wants things at the federal level to be hands-off; neither forcing an ideal nor taking one away.

    In the general case, that’s fine. In the specific case of human rights, it’s not. If a state would take away the right for women to control their own bodies, then the state must be stopped from doing that. Period. It is not within the rights of the state to control the people at that level. And if it takes federal intervention to define exactly why the states are not allowed to do that, then so be it.

    In addition, you’re assuming that the states automatically want to take away freedoms.

    Yes, well, read history.

    Do you vote for issues/representatives on a local and state level? Don’t you think that it’s easier to change things and be heard on a local or state level than on a national one?

    No, of course not, not in the slightest. It’s much easier to decide human rights at a federal level, or even better, a moral level. Why? Because then I get to prevent wrongs across the country, not just in my own little part of it. What’s wrong here is wrong everywhere, it’s not up to the local population to decide. Majority rule is tyrannical rule.

    Furthermore, it is NOT within the power of the state to decide right vs. wrong. And RvW does not decide right vs. wrong, RvW says that right vs. wrong in the case of abortion is to be determined by the individual. Disagreeing with that is inherently immoral.

  20. David Says:

    Life, whether you like it or not, begins the moment the genetic elements come together and form a wee unborn child. Now, the way I see it (as pro-life), is that when you have an abortion, it is no different then physically cutting off the head of a 6 year old because they are an inconvenience to your life. Now obviously, one in their right mind would never do THAT, would they? That would be an act of murder. To define an act of murder as someone who is already born (entered this world from the womb), would be violating the rights of a living being, sentient being that can’t defend itself because the mom went and got knocked up. Harsh? Yes. Truth? Yes. And I know someone will throw in there… “What about rape?”. Still an unborn child, whether you wanted it or not. As soon as that child is born… (see below)

    A good alternative to abortion is adoption (which needs to be restructured). That way the mom gets to be free of the child, but the child has a chance at life, something that abortion takes away without his/her consent. You think a 6 year old would want to die, to be killed because he is an “inconvenience”?

    Think about it…

  21. DarkDiscordian Says:

    The thing is, I agree with you that it should be left up to the individual. But you are over-simplifying the argument. The theoretical child did not get to make a choice either. Just because I was created by someone does not give them the right to kill me. The argument can still be made that by taking the chance of creating a child, you then have responsibility for protecting it until it can take care of itself. If it is a person, then having an abortion is no different than throwing someone off a boat in the middle of the ocean, when you were the one who created the lottery that allowed them to get on in the first place. I don’t think that a fetus is a person. Actually, I don’t think an infant is either. Killing them is no different than killing an animal (which many here would be opposed to, though I’m not personally). But the argument is not as simple as you seem to wish it was. You have to figure out where the line is drawn between something with rights and something without. Intelligence? Pain? Potential?

    Furthermore, it should be noted that Ron Paul simply desires the rule of law. If you wanted to get an amendment passed, he would allow it. The fact of the matter is that this was not one of the powers enumerated to the Supreme Court. It is a violation of the Constition. Me, I’m an anarchist, so if someone wanted to get one anyway, I wouldn’t care. But Paul’s arguments hold up in a Constitutionalist light. Don’t forget that the government that can give you everything can take everything away. Examples: The War on Drugs, that takes away people’s liberty to choose what they put into their bodies; Spiraling Taxation, that allows the State to take half of the fruit of your labor and spend it how they please; Government Spying, that steals our privacy and makes it more difficult to even rebel if we ever have to; Corporate Welfare, that takes our money and hands it over to monopolies so that they don’t have to compete for our dollars; and The Federal Reserve; which through controlled inflation allows the government to spend money before the market has adapted to the increased supply, thus robbing us without anyone even noticing. There are a ton more problems with the federal government, and all of it is only getting worse every day.

    But you are right, from my perspective the moment any government steps beyond protecting our rights, there has been a problem. The government should only rule on crimes, not vices. The question must always be asked whether someone’s rights to life, liberty, or property have been violated. But in abortion, you are dealing with possibly two people, neither of which have aggressed against the other yet. The boat argument remains.

  22. matt f. Says:

    There is definitely a vegan case for libertarianism. A libertarian society is based on voluntary association- we vegans are free to associate with who ever we please and we are allowed to engage in intellectual discourse with people who may disagree with us- we must respect their rights to say it, and they must respect ours.

    Also, vegans in a libertarian society could do much more independently through charity and business to help rescue animals and encourage through capitalism a great reputation for the vegan community.

    Remember my fellow vegans- no one forced you to become vegan. It was your intelligent decision to do so.

    Coercion pushes people away.
    Letting people try yummy vegan food brings us together as a community of individuals. :-)

  23. Brian Ewart Says:

    I am very glad that you realize the trouble that federal regulations can cause for everyone.

    There is definitely room for animal rights and environmentalism and other “liberal” causes within libertarianism, just not within a libertarian government.

    It seems that the people who have come to support Ron Paul are very bright and well-reasoned in their decision. That certainly gives me some hope for the country’s future.

  24. DarkDiscordian Says:

    Actually, it’s really surprising just how many vegan libertarians I’ve met. I suppose the kind of person to look into something deep enough to become a libertarian, is deep enough to consider their responsibilities as a rational being.

    It really is nice to talk to interesting and intelligent Ron Paul supporters from all walks of life. It certainly beats arguing with a lot of messages in YouTube from Ron Paul supporters from the extreme paranoid right wing of politics, who only support him because he wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, and who don’t know anything libertarianism and its diverse roots. It’s really sad when uninformed supporters do more damage for a campaign than good. Luckily, they only make up a small (though unfortunately loud) percentage of his support.

  25. vegangirl Says:

    Yes, there are a lot of us. I even found a myspace page titled Vegans for Ron Paul:

    And the Ron Paul Girl is actually vegan as she mentions here:

  26. Robert M Says:

    As a non-vegetarian, libertarian, Ron Paul supporter, I find this thread to be quite interesting. I won’t dare jump into a debate on the explosive abortion topic, but as one who sees merit in both sides of the argument, I think Dr. Paul’s position is the best I’ve come across. He recognizes it as a very divisive issue on which neither side holds the clear moral high ground and since the Constitution most certainly never authorized the federal government to legislate on such matters, he correctly interprets this as something to be left for the states to decide on independently. As with any contentious issue, it’s always best to avoid creating one-size-fits-all rulings from the top in favor of letting more localized governments deal with them in their own diverse ways.

    For those vegans and left-leaning folks who may be interested in exploring libertarian philosophy, I would highly recommend Mary Ruwart’s classic book, “Healing Our World In An Age of Aggression”: http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Our-World-Age-Aggression/dp/0963233661. The author does a superb job in making the case that a libertarian society is not a cruel, dog-eat-dog society, but a moral and compassionate one.

  27. Joey K Says:

    Yes, because questioning the RvW decision is a clear sign of immorality. It is wholly unethical and flat out wrong to even suggest that it is okay to allow women to be forced to have children against their will. Anybody who questions RvW is supporting slavery. Period.

    From your perspective. You’re asserting that your side of the argument is the right one, and providing no basis for your assertions of absolute morality. And the slavery comment, that’s just flat out wrong.

    It’s much easier to decide human rights at a federal level, or even better, a moral level. Why? Because then I get to prevent wrongs across the country, not just in my own little part of it. What’s wrong here is wrong everywhere, it’s not up to the local population to decide. Majority rule is tyrannical rule.

    So very very misguided. 1, the question was ease of change. It’s easier for people to change things on the local level than the federal level. 2, do you support imposing (y)our morality on the rest of the world as well? If they’re wrong, and choose to be, then democracy is obviously something to be destroyed in that instance. 3, Majority rule is tyrannical? And morality handed down from a central government would be less tyrannical? And you call Ron Paul crazy. From what you’ve said, I can only assume that you’re a very strict imperialist, who would strongly force anarchy upon all the people of the world. That’s what your position says. Also, do realize that morality is relative. And even if it were absolute, who’s to say that your definition of it is right?

    I’m pro-choice, myself. I’m a Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian. I’m not even a vegetarian, though. This blog I think is right on, no matter what your cause may be. Asking for the government to help you, and risking the opposite happening, is a foolish and weak way to support a cause. If you want to get anything meaningful done, do it through political and cultural democracy, not lobbying.

  28. Joey K Says:

    Post got screwed up, half of that second paragraph was another quote.

  29. xondie Says:

    Thanks for your comments, Joey. I fixed the quote problem in your first post.

  30. Katherine/aka Aunt Kathie Says:

    Ok… I’m going to bite the bullet and ask all you nice Ron Paul fans to look at Dennis Kucinich as an alternate alternative to the status quo. I think Ron Paul is head and shoulders above the rest of the Republican field (but then so is a gnat) – and I think he’s a good human being and I wouldn’t hate having him elected. That said, I have trouble with the Libertarian philosophy as I understand it. I think it appeals naturally to young, smart, educated people because they are still in a position to care for themselves and to withstand the minor trials of life. The whole pull yourself up by your bootstraps philosophy of life fails to recognize that there are lots of people out there who don’t have bootstraps or even boots. I live in upstate New York in one of the poorest counties in the country. There’s not a lot of work, there’s not a lot of education. Lots of people around here don’t have teeth. That’s shocking to me in this day and age in a country as wealthy as ours. Lots of people can’t afford medical care. I’m one of those fanatics that think socialized medicine IS the way to go. Even a badly managed government program is better than no health care. Shifting things to the states doesn’t solve the underlying issues of greed that is at the heart of the problem. In fact, I think it abets it. Should people who live in less wealthy states our communities have even less of the national pie than they do now? There are aspects of living in the world which require us to care for one another. That isn’t even selflessness, it’s practical. The whole thrives on the well-being of collective individuality. Empires fell and fall eventually because they don’t believe that.

    There are aspects of life in which we prosper better when we all stand together and support one another. Individualism is fine in it’s place, but take care of number one thinking is part of what has been ravaging our country. Executives bringing home mega millions while the worker bees who make their companies thrive live without insurance or decent wages is not my idea of what I want my country to be. We are fast turning into a nation of rich and poor. Credit card companies are legalized usurers. I could go on and on, but this is already too long.

    As for abortion, I favor legalized abortion. I don’t think we can legislate morality. Those who don’t agree with abortion can opt not to participate but I don’t think they have the right to choose for others. And I don’t think this is something which can sensibly be left to states. That puts too many people’s right to decide for themselves at risk. Should one have to live in the right state to have the option to choose your own destiny? As a nation, we should act to educate and care for the children and adults among us so that abortion ceases to be an issue that we need to argue about.

    Anyway, I’m not expressing myself the way I would like to. Do think about reading what Dennis Kucinich has to say. This PBS conversation was a good interview. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/kucinich_10-04.html They also interviewed Ron Paul for those of you who are interested.

    So, just thought I’d toss in some food for thought and discussion of a Ron Paul alternative and hope that Vegan Girl will still love her old auntie.

  31. vegangirl Says:

    Of course I still love my old auntie! I love you EVEN MORE for stopping by my site and also for your kindness and compassion for all beings!

    But I’m still voting for Ron Paul. :)

  32. Rose Says:

    About Roe v. Wade:
    I’m personally pro-choice, but that’s because I believe that the POTENTIAL for human life is not, and does not deserve the same respect as, human life. I believe that life begins with cognitive function (around the 24th week of gestation), but I understand that there are people who believe that human life (or the potential for it) begins at conception. This is a fundamental difference that, for many, is completely independent of religion. True, most pro-life politicians cater to the religious right, but Dr. Paul does not, and he does not want to make a centralized beaurocratic decision which should be left up to the states. His personal view is commendable, even to an atheist. Don’t forget his experience in the matter, either.

  33. Carmen Says:

    Ron Paul is the best of all worlds. He has Libertarian views but compromises where needed (borders, etc). He truly is the best candidate out there, period. For those here who feel that they shouldn’t support Dr. Paul because you might disagree with one or two issues that he believes need to look at the broader picture. I agree with 99 percent of what Dr, Paul stands for and that’s a heck of a lot more than any other candidate.

  34. Nora Says:

    The destitution you speak of is produced by big government. The more we take care of people, the more dependent they become. If we ever do get back to a government that encourages people to do and think for themselves, it will be a very tough transition but on the other side will be a country of people who don’t need hand outs.

    I’m not a 20-something, I’m 51. My peers who are eating the standard American diet right now will be infirm in a couple decades, but I won’t be joining them in the old folks home because I’m making the right decisions for my future now. Everyone else can do that too. The alternative is continuing to pick up the pieces after people who make stupid choices, and we simply can’t afford to do that.

    Ron Paul isn’t the ideal candidate for a latent anarchist like me, but at least he wants to give people the freedom to make their own choices, and to benefit when they make the right ones (i.e., keep their money). He also wants to make people face the consequences of their stupid choices, because he realizes this is the only way they will finally be convinced to stop making them.


  35. Katherine/Aunt Kathie Says:

    Hi Nora,

    Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. I’m afraid we are simply doomed to disagree. The destitution I speak of has nothing to do with big government or handouts. It has to do with lack of education, lack of health care and lack of available jobs and wages that don’t support survival. The working poor in this country can barely get by on even two incomes. They don’t need to be given tough lessons. They are living the tough lessons of indifference and injustice.

    I was born middle class, I was born into literacy. It was a given for me. Not everyone is that lucky and those of us who are that lucky often don’t realize that THAT ALONE gives us an unimaginable advantage. I was born in a family that could afford to send me to the dentist, so at 60 I still have all my teeth and I don’t suffer the indignity and the attendant illness that comes from not being able to afford to have your teeth cared for. (You might be interested to know that, in defiance of reality and common sense, medicaid considers dental care to be “cosmetic”.) You might find this recent Bill Moyer’s interview interesting: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11022007/profile2.html. He interviews a sociologist who has written a book called THE MISSING CLASS about the “near poor” in this country, those who fall between deep, deep poverty and the middle class.

    The mythology that people love gliding through life on public assistance is just that – mythology. Public assistance may or may not keep you from walking THROUGH death’s door, but it is designed to keep you sitting at death’s doorstep. I don’t think big government is as much the problem. Badly run government is the problem. I say expand public assistance so that it assists in truly meaningful ways. Stop treating people who need help for whatever reason as criminals and treat them as you would want to be treated yourself if you fell on hard times. A friend of mine who worked from the time she was ten became suddenly and profoundly ill a few years back. She was relatively young (in her late 30s), very smart and very pretty. She was so ill that she could barely walk across a room and she was treated like a criminal, forced to jump through absurd hoops and given just enough help to keep her alive, but not enough help to get her the medical care she needed. Ultimately that isn’t help. I personally don’t understand our resistance to socialized medicine in this country. I think it’s obscene that there are haves and have nots in relation to health care or that the poor are not considered deserving of the same kinds of medical treatment as those who can afford more. I find no excuse for it. Society is certainly does not profit from our current system. Hundreds of thousands of people who fall ill either die unnecessarily or fall into poverty from which they will never escape. Why? So that insurance and drug companies can rake in mega profits. The argument that socialized medicine might force people to wait a few weeks for non emegency care doesn’t move me very much. Right now there are people waiting their way into the grave for medical care. A short delay doesn’t seem like such a heavy price to pay so that everyone has access to health.

    A healthy nation is a more productive nation. Those who are chronically ill do not make the best employees.

    Then there’s the whole question of poverty in a profit driven world. Poverty is very expensive and our systems are geared to keeping the poor in poverty. Even little things like the fact that banks charge the poor for checks but not the rich, keep the poor on the outside. The poor who can’t afford banks are forced to do their banking with unscruplous check cashing “businesses.” The poor who can’t afford quality are forced to buy cheap crap, pay for it over time and replace it before it’s paid for. That’s expensive. The poor are often forced to survive on credit debt another unregulated business that is legalized criminality. Until I got sick, I never realized quite how criminal the credit card business was. I never bought anything I couldn’t afford and I paid my cards off every month. After I got sick and ran out of my savings and my pension and was still trying to survive, I turned to my credit card because it was that or starve. I’ve been very lucky, and I’m slowly chipping away at what’s left of those awful debts, but without luck and the kindness of Vegan Girl’s huge heart, I would be homeless and/or dead. And I’m smart and well educated. Life happens to people even when they are doing their best to prepare for the future.

    Right decisions aren’t guarantees. I had a friend who watched every bite she put into their mouths, exercised, didn’t drink, was virtue itself. She spent way more time at the doctor than I have. People who eat right and don’t smoke or drink still get cancer, they still get alzheimers, they can end up in nursing homes as easily as anyone else.

    I feel like I’m ranting at you and I don’t mean to. I could go on and on and on about how much I disagree with the idea of tough lessons. I guess I want to live in a compassionate world where people support each other, where we don’t judge other’s for their bad luck or turn our backs on human suffering. I want to live in a world where there are no have nots, and where multi-million dollar salaries for some are no more acceptable than substandard wages for others. I want to live in a world where peace is more important than war, where the environment is more important than profit, when suffering in any form is not something we turn away from, but something we do something about. I’ll never be a libertarian, even though there are lovely kind people like you and my niece and my nephew who espouse such ideas. I don’t think this is only because I came to a place in my life where I am one of those people who libertarians would – for my own good and to teach me the error of my ways – leave by the wayside. It is because I think the world is a better place when we all care about each other and where we all want the best for each other. Sorry about ranting. If you are going to vote Republican, I’d rather you voted for Ron Paul than anyone else. But Dennis Kucinich is and will remain my man. He has a social ethic similar to mine. And he’s the only one with the courage and the integrity to be pushing to impeach Bush and Cheney. He’s got my vote. Thanks for listening.

  36. patrick Says:

    I too, am often disenfranchised by the mainstream. I have conservative government, military, and fiscal views, but am socially liberal minded (that doesn’t imply welfarism, but civil liberties).

    blue dog dem atheist for ron paul

  37. Capn Mike Says:


    He’s FOR the morning after. He was asked about this at Google (see the video). He even goes so far as saying it should be over-the-counter.

    I think the reasoning is that it’s really contraception (after whoopie, but before fertilization) and he is NOT opposed to contraception

  38. Nathan Berrong Says:

    excellent post, i agree 100%

  39. Jfrank67 Says:

    “Several activists are sitting in prison and labeled as terrorists for doing nothing more than making a speech or operating a website that talked about illegal actions against …”

    Could I get some specifics on these individuals?


  40. vegangirl Says:

    The individuals I was referring to are known as the “SHAC 7.” Someone was just asking me about them in a private email, which got me to thinking that I don’t actually know all the details of the case, other than what I have learned from my admittedly biased sources. So I am currently trying to learn more information about the government’s case against them. I have not yet found the documents listing their charges, but if anyone happens to have a link, please post it here. I think that would be very informative.

    Here is the SHAC 7 website about the case:

    Here is the FBI press release about the convictions, which to me personally, reads like a lot of manipulation and propaganda, but I suppose others might say the same about the SHAC 7 link, so I’ll let people draw their own conclusions:

  41. Katherine/Aunt Kathie Says:

    I read this article at Huffington Post yesterday which seems applicable to concerns about SHAC 7.

    Seems like a bad idea to me.

  42. Anonymous Says:

    Dear Katherine,

    If Kucinich wins his primary and Paul does not win the republican primary, I will support Kucinich.

    Ron Paul and Kucinich are friends, and Ron Paul said that he would support Kucinich if he himself was not a candidate.
    There are even rumors that Kucinich might be Ron Paul’s running mate (unoikely, I think).
    And there is the possibility that if Paul were president, Kucinich would gain more credibility to win the democratic primary the next time around.
    Paul’s 72, Kucinich is still young.

    Also, in Ron Pauls world, individual states could implement all of what Kucinich wants, without forcing other states to do the same.
    A win-win situation.

    If you like Kucinich, your best bet is to support Paul this time around, now that Paul has a chance.
    Register Republican and vote for Paul. And if Paul does not win the Republican primary, you can still vote Democratic.

  43. Katherine/Aunt Kathie Says:

    Hi Anonymous,

    Sounds good to me either way. They are both doing remarkably well despite efforts to keep them from being heard.

    I’ve been spending way too much time of late at Huffington Post. It’s so aggravating and yet oddly compelling. I think I may need an intervention.

    I did phone all the members of the Judiciary Committee yesterday expressing my support for HR333 and the impeachment of Cheney and Bush. Don’t know that it will do much good, but at least I have to try. Next week – or maybe after Thanksgiving – I think I will start calling all the rest of the members of the House and after that I’ll start on the Senate. I hate making phone calls, but you can’t email the folks who aren’t your reps, so phone seems like the only way to do it. I don’t have a printer at the moment so I can’t use snail mail which might actually be the most effective thing to do. In any case, I’m doing what I can.

    On the off chance that anyone else wants to talk to a bunch of secretaries who say “I’ll be glad to pass your message on…,” Only one office – the Republican from Iowa – asked for my name and address to send follow-up reply. (If I’m disappeared, you will know why.) Here are the numbers:

    Chairman John Conyers, Michigan, 14th (202) 225-5126
    Howard Berman California, 28th (202) 225-4695
    Rick Boucher Virginia, 9th (202) 225-3861
    Jerrold Nadler New York, 8th
    Robert C. Scott Virginia, 3rd (202) 225-8351
    Melvin L. Watt North Carolina, 12th (202) 225-1510
    Zoe Lofgren California, 16th (202) 225-3072
    Sheila Jackson Lee Texas, 18th (202) 225-3816
    William D. Delahunt Massachusetts, 10th (202) 225-3111
    Robert Wexler Florida, 19th (202) 225-3001
    Linda T. Sánchez California, 39th (202) 225-6676
    Steve T. Cohen Tennessee, 9th (202) 225-3265 a co-sponsor of H.Res 333
    Hank Johnson Georgia, 4th (202) 225-1605 a co-sponsor
    Luis Gutierrez Illinois, 4th (202) 225-8203
    Brad Sherman California, 27 (202) 225-5911
    Anthony D. Weiner New York, 9th (202) 225-6616
    Adam B. Schiff California, 29th (202) 225-4176
    Artur Davis Alabama , 7th (202) 225-2665
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz Florida, 20th 202-225-7931
    Tammy Baldwin Wisconsin, 2nd (202) 225-2906
    Keith Ellison Minnesota, 5th (612) 522-1212 a supporter
    Maxine Waters California, 35th (202) 225-2201
    Betty Sutton Ohio, 13th (202) 225-3401

    The Republicans:

    Lamar S. Smith Ranking Member (TX-21) (202) 225-4236
    Jim Sensenbrenner (WI-5) (202) 225-5101
    Howard Coble (NC-6) (202) 225-3065
    Elton Gallegly (CA-24) (202) 225-5811
    Bob Goodlatte (VA-6) (202) 225-5431
    Steve Chabot (OH-1) (202) 225-2216
    Dan Lungren (CA-3) 202-225-5716
    Chris Cannon (UT-3) (202) 225-7751
    Ric Keller (FL-8) (202) 225-2176
    Darrell Issa (CA-49) (202) 225-3906
    Mike Pence (IN-6) (202) 225-3021
    Randy Forbes (VA-4) (202) 225-6365
    Steve King (IA-5) (202) 225-4426
    Tom Feeney (FL-24) (202) 225-2706
    Trent Franks (AZ-2) (202) 225-4576
    Louie Gohmert (TX-1) (202) 225-3035
    Jim Jordan (OH-4) (202) 225-2676

  44. cw Says:

    Ron Paul, the Idiot Vegan


    Your comments are always welcome on indymedia.

  45. vegangirl Says:

    Ron Paul is not a vegan.

    While I agree that milk is terrible for you, I also agree with the legislation introduced by Ron Paul that allows people to drink it any way they choose. This is made even more important to me personally as I don’t wish to eat my raw almonds pasteurized but the CA almond board, in conjunction with the federal government, have now mandated that U.S. almond handlers pasteurize all almonds.

    If you’d like to think me an idiot for wanting my almonds to be truly raw, that is certainly your right. But I value my right, as an American, to be an idiot. I value your right to be an idiot as well.

  46. Martin Says:

    I really admire your open-mindedness to to different viewpoints. I think that attitude is very healthy. I think that libertarians and liberals could both gain a lot from each other.

    You talked about how anti-cruelty laws legislate morality. Do you consider anti-child abuse statutes legislating morality? Don’t you believe that animals, just as human children, have a right to freedom from cruelty? Is it legislating morality to outlaw murder? Isn’t it the proper exercise of government to protect people’s rights to physical integrity? If you believe in animal rights then wouldn’t legislation also be a proper exercise of government? I don’t mean this offensively but your argument appears to smack of speciesism.

    I think you could easily reconcile an animal rights view with libertarianism. In some ways, they are very similar in their reliance on a notion of rights.

    However I don’t agree with libertarianism, and here’s why. Basically I think human welfare trumps personal freedom sometimes. In other words, I believe not only in negative rights but positive rights as well. I think every person is entitled to a decent life: clothing, shelter, food, medicine, healthcare, etc. And I think that the initiation of coercion against individuals to assure it is a proper exercise of government.

    I would still believe in ‘human rights’ even if our present society had developed without having violated anyone’s rights. But it is worth noting that our current society’s distribution of existing wealth and power is the result of centuries of massive injustice. In light of this, a good argument could be made that the government has a proper role in remedying some of that injustice.

    If I could be convinced that basic human rights could be assured without government, I would be on board with libertarians all the way. I don’t think there is much evidence to suggest that this would happen. 10% of families own about 70% of the nation’s net worth. 40% of families of own about 1%.


  47. vegangirl Says:

    Thank you for your comments, Martin.

    I should say up front, that I don’t know enough about libertarianism to claim that I am one. So I don’t speak for libertarians.

    Yes, I do believe that animals have a right to freedom from violence and cruelty. But according to our Constitution, the federal government cannot legislate it. In my future utopia, I would like to see some sort of constitutional ammendment that protects animals in some way, but the country is not there right now. Not even close. So for now, it makes more sense to leave animal protection to state or local governments. Different areas will have different animal protection needs, so this makes sense.

    And I would say the same for the other concerns about assuring basic human rights. I don’t have any problem with state and local governments providing services for its residents (as I said, I don’t claim that this is a libertarian point of view). Not only is it easier to relocate if these programs are not agreeable to you, but it is also much much easier to affect change when you have a smaller, closer government to deal with.

    Most of the country can’t get to D.C. to protest what the government does or meet with representatives. This country is just way too big to have one monolithic federal government handle everyone’s needs. That’s why they continuously fail. They try to help by providing medical coverage, social security, FEMA, etc etc etc, and they fail miserably over and over again. It’s a wasteful beaurocracy and our politicians are too easily swayed by special interests. The countries that have successful social programs are much smaller countries – either in physical size or population.

    So I’m not necessarily against social programs. But I have absolutely given up on the idea that our FEDERAL government can manage it. We gave our federal government the power to protect us, and now we have no one to protect us from the federal government.

  48. Martin Says:

    Diana (or Vegan Girl),

    I have a different view of the U.S. Constitution and the Federal government. In short, I think the framers and the ratifiers intended the Constitution to evolve with our society. They undoubtedly understood that American society would change in ways in which they could not foresee. So they framed the language of the Constitution in broad terms to to give basic direction but not exact detail. This seems especially the case after the Civil War when the 14th Amendment expanded the power of the federal government in order to protect the rights of the former slaves. The language used in that amendment is very open-ended. It requires judges to make broad value-judgments about what is “the equal protection of the laws” and what is “due process” and so on.

    Likewise I think the language of the interstate commerce clause (“to regulate commerce… among the several states”) permits a broad conception of the Federal Government’s role in the economy. As early as 1824 in Gibbons v. Ogden, Chief Justice Marshall, one of our founding fathers, declared that among the several states” means “that commerce which concerns more than one state.” This broad conception of Congressional power has, after a long detour, come to dominance. Ours is a national economy; what happens in one state is bound to affect what happens in another. So Congress must have broad power to regulate the economy inside a state

    Note that the Constitution permits the Congress to regulate… among the several states” it leaves it to the Congress to decide how it should regulate. Take, for example, maximum hour laws and minimum wage laws, in United States v. Darby, the Supreme Court upheld these laws, explaining: “congress, following its own conception of public policy concerning the restrictions which may appropriately be imposed on interstate commerce articles whose use in the states for which they are destined it may conceive to be injurious to the public health, morals, or welfare, even though the state has not sough to regulate their use.” Now there may be differing views on exactly Congress should regulate factory farms, but that is not a Constitutional question but one of policy.

    Now you have raised some interesting policy questions. I think historically that the Federal Government has been much more progressive than the states in many matters that touch on basic human rights. Take, for example, the Civil Rights Act which protects minorities from employment, housing, and other discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, nationality. I wonder how long it would have taken much of the South to enact this kind of legislation?

    As far as how effective the Federal Government has been in enforcing its regulations is, in my view, a matter of political will. In some areas the Federal Government has been quite effective: military, FBI, CIA, etc. If the American people elect someone like George W Bush you can expect that he will use his power of appointment to fill the EPA with Timber industry people who will hardly enforce the laws on the books. Congress has the power to adequately fund social and environmental agencies but they often they don’t. Can we really blame the agencies for any of this?

    I strongly suspect that Bush agrees, in theory, with your view of the federal government. In the main he recognizes that teh Federal Government has regulated big business, put regulations on industry to protect the environment, and so on. He probably also understands that it is easier (and cheaper) to bribe a state government than the federal one. But of course the Federal Government can also be used to serve the interests of the powerful (less easily, in my view) and this is where Bush would probably part company with other libertarian-minded people.

    Who protects us against the Federal Government? The Bill of Rights. Voters. We have a say in our government. I could turn it around and ask who will protect us from state government? I would recommend reading James Madison’s Federalist Paper #10. He notes that the Federal Government is useful in preventing a “tyranny of the majority.” How? It is much more difficult to reach a consensus over a large geographical area and among a diverse populace.

    I agree that it is frustrating when the federal government prevents a state like California from legalizing medicinal marijuana. But I guess on balance I think that the federal government has done more good than bad. Some legislation like the Civil Rights Act, I consider very necessary, and legislation I don’t like, I can live with. I just don’t think the freedom to use drugs comes close to the importance of civil rights. As far as the Patriot Act, I think much of it is unconstitutional.

    Anyway thanks for your thoughts,

    Anyway thanks for your thoughts,

  49. Katherine/Aunt Kathie Says:


    You are wonderful. You offer logical, cogent arguments where I just offer enthusiastic passion.

    I so disagree with Vegan girl and Ron Paul about the idea that states can do a better job on things like health care. The Federal government – well run – is capable of doing a more than decent job when it puts it’s collective mind to it. Medicare, even with its flaws, runs pretty well. Give everything to the states and you have the potential for 52 badly (or well) run and unequal programs.

    You’re young, healthy and a free spirit so packing up and moving sounds easy to you if you don’t like what your state is doing, but not everybody has the physical, psychological or financial ability to do that. Do we really want a country where inequality is greater than it already is? Where you can get an abortion if you live in one state but not in another? Where you can have medical care if you live in Massachusetts but not if you live in upstate New York or Arkansas?

    The programs that work worst in this country (as far as I can tell) are the ones where we offer help grudgingly like needing help is a crime committed by the poor and the ill. In those programs we waste more money making sure that nobody gets something they don’t “deserve” than we do helping people. Cutting out some of that kind of bureaucracy would go farther to making the world run better than fragmenting programs even further. Food stamps – the federal program – runs much better than the social service programs which are more localized and have different rules even from county to county.

    Bad as things are now in this country, I think they could be much worse if we delegate everything to the states. They might be better (as they are now) for some people in some states, but on the whole, I think it would multiply rather than diminish chaos.

  50. Katherine/Aunt Kathie Says:

    Just realized that paragraph three of the above sounds like it’s addressed to Martin while it is actually a response to Vegan Girl’s statement that it is “easier to relocate” if progams don’t suit you.

  51. Martin Says:

    Thank you for your insightful comments. I agree that our welfare society has essentially been sabotaged by those who oppose it. How any rational and humane person could oppose basic welfare and health-care to all people in need is beyond my comprehension. But Vegan Girl only disagrees over whether such measures should be implemented on the state or federal level.

    What some libertarians don’t seem to understand is that welfare and health-care provide a bulwark against communism. I just don’t think ‘liberty’ means quite the same thing to someone without decent health-care, housing, etc. Of what value is freedom without the economic wherewithal to exercise it? The poor value liberty less because they have more compelling needs. So they will be more receptive to a Castro figure if one comes along. Communism will not die until the abuses inherent in capitalism are reformed.

    But that’s just my opinion.


  52. Katherine/Aunt Kathie Says:

    Hi Martin,

    I don’t know that I’m so worried about communism as I’m worried about basic human decency and genuine equal opportunity. Unequal entities – and the our states are not all equal, either economically or socially – can’t offer equal opportunity. To tell some unwed pregnant teenager from Alabama to move to New York if she wants an abortion is unrealistic, impractical and perhaps cruel and New York would soon start protesting the influx of unwed mothers from non-abortion states. Or some moron would make laws forbidding abortions across state lines so we would live in a country where inequalities which already exist would become more rather than less pronounced.

    The other thing I would add about public assistance and health care is that being stingy with such things is a false economy. A destitute and ill population is not productive or creative. Lifting people up out of poverty lifts the whole society up. How many great minds have languished for want of breakfasts to nourish the body that holds the mind? How many productive members of our society have become permanently incapacitated or died because they didn’t have access to care early on when they could have been helped? That kind of stinginess causes not just psychological and personal harm, it causes economic harm to the society.

    We are rapidly returning to a society of serfs and kings, where the poor working class are expendable pawns that exist only to enrich those in power. I don’t remember that the middle ages had that much to offer that we should have returning to that way of being as a goal.

    I guess I’d rather live in a world where we spend too much on people who don’t deserve it than too little on those in true need. Inept as I think the federal government sometimes is, I believe over-riding WELL RUN (and it can be done) national system still has the best chance of offering the best and most economical answers for health care and other issues.

  53. Sandy Says:

    When abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will perform abortions. Do you want to go back there? It’s a slippery slope.

  54. Jack McGuirk Says:

    I am so relieved to hear someone else who believes in animal freedom advocating human freedom as well. I read Animal Liberation over seven years ago and it convinced me to give up animal products and pursue a degree in Philosophy. Three years later after the repeated urgings of friends I read Atlas Shrugged and decided to solve the problem described in Animal Liberation through the free market by creating products that can out compete animal products. Over the years as I have continued on my life’s pursuit I have found it astounding that there is no cross over between those influenced by Ayn Rand and those influenced by Peter Singer. It is somewhat common for people to hear that many philosophy professors have managed to avoid any knowledge of Ayn Rand’s contributions to their field. Now that individuals are becoming famous and acknowledging Ayn Rand’s influence on their life (for instance Ron Paul, Marc Emery, Alan Greenspan) I expect a shake up to be in the works for academic ethicists who have worked to silence her voice. As I see things that can only mean good things for veggie food and animals.

  55. holly madison Says:

    holly madison…

    Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !…

  56. Utsahan Says:

    Abortion is murder. Abortion is a crime. How can anyone fight in favor of such a disgraceful act. The fight should be to avoid unwanted pregnancy or how we as a society can support young people and collectively take on the responsibility of being stewards of the earth and our brothers’ keepers.
    It is wrong to kill babies inside the womb or outside. How can anyone justify it or argue in favor of it. It is absurd, ridiculous, and I can’t believe I have to hear it from people.
    Talk about the dark ages.
    I am not a “Christian” in the way most people think. I am a devotee of Krishna. Ron Paul is pretty cool, but he is just one person. We all need to be concerned with being real human beings. And that means being vegetarian and caring about animals and the babies in the womb.
    The Vedic literature ans Srila Prabhupada give guidance on how to bring about a rich and blissful culture. It is possible and those who are sincere are going to do it. Prabhupada says those who commit abortions will be concieved and aborted over and over and will not see the light of day. Karma.

  57. Jordan Says:

    Since you’re a fellow vegan libertarian, you should join this group on facebook, if oyu have an account.


  58. Joe H Says:

    I know it’s three years later, but I just found this today while researching the vegan diet.

    Just wanted to say I agree in full, that I came to similar conclusions about Ron Paul after the same sort of doubts, and that I hope he runs again in 2012.

  59. slugcat Says:

    I havent read everything you wrote, but saw the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act and yeh I think he would get rid of that.
    Animal Activists are in trouble with big corporate government.

    I also saw Ron Paul speak about he wants people to be able to choose alternatie medicine, and I think they would help animals a lot I think.
    Over here in Europe they just got in law to stop and limit herbal medicines, so now they have to be tested etc. Way to go making Drug companies get even more power….

    so giving people choice to use alternatives is important to stop these vivisection drug companies getting more power.

    I hope one day animals get rights but i dont think that is possible while the govt is run by corporations.

  60. David Says:

    It’s true that Ron Paul wants to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on abortion, and turn back the clock on Roe v. Wade.

    As alarming and dystopian as it is to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding a woman’s right, that certainly is not the extent of it.

    “I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception.” — Ron Paul

    “There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.” — Ron Paul

    So, he wants to establish Federal law to declare when life begins, and to declare that abortion is murder. But, to toss a bone to the audience, he wants to “leave it up to the states” on what to do with murderers. How reassuring.

    Ron Paul is as backwards on abortion as he is on civil rights & health care. The more I read about this man, the more frightened I am of him gaining popularity.

  61. Ron Paul for President! Tell the media to stop Ignoring the Man who will challange the status quo! | My Blog Says:

    [...] http://www.vegangirl.com/a-vegans-case-for-ron-paul.html This entry was posted in activism, News by Grand Paradise. Bookmark the permalink. [...]

  62. Emily Says:

    Most liberals are in reality conservatives; conservatives believe in small government and the most individual freedom possible. Most republicans are only so-called conservatives, because they want to take away rights in order to protect their religion under the law.

  63. Attack the System » Blog Archive » A vegan’s case for Ron Paul Says:

    [...] From Vegangirl.Com. [...]

Leave a Reply