-15 votes

Ron Paul Is A Neoliberal? I thought he was a conservative

I have used wikipedia for years as a resource:

I consider wikipedia nuetral, because it can be edited as long as the edits are backed up with references from established resources, encyclopedia, dictionary, thesaurus, the horse's mouth.

I believe it's important to have a NEUTRAL resource to make or defend one's position.

I also use wikipedia as a learning tool. Many times when someone posts something on DP I will check wiki for reference.

The other day in a conversation about, "what is a neocon", I thought I would use a wiki reference about what is a neoliberal, because personally, long before I ever heard of a neocon, I had heard of a neoliberal: Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was all for a global government, and a global government was THE NEW NEO WORLD ORDER.

When Ron Paul began his campaign in 07, I clearly recall him refering to himself as a CONSERVATIVE. He talked about Austrian Economics. I NEVER heard Ron Paul ever say, Austrain Economics was NEOLIBERAL. Neoliberalism BTW is the ONLY ism that has any economic base.

So I go to wiki and do a search on NEOLIBERAL and Ron Paul and Autrain Ecinomics is all over it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

So then I checked out CONSERVATISM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism

I had to search to find CONSERVATISM IN THE UNTIED STATES to find Ron Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States

On NEOCONSERVATISM, read under: critcisms, and you'll find Ron Paul mentioned, but what's important to be is Buchanann's, because he mentions globalization, which is what it meant. Neoconservative was NOT about supporting Israel, yet, now, that is ALL it is about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

I've heard Ron paul called a PALEOCONSERVATIVE and wiki lists: PALEOCONSERVATIVE as a new entry and there you will see some friends, Ron Paul is mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolibertarianism

LIBERTARIANISM: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism There is NO RON PAUL

So then I decided to look at Ron Paul in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Paul&action=hi... He's all over the political map (one man for all parties).

And why not Rand Paul since he's not mentioned anywhere?

Oh My BREAKING NEWS Rand's wife KELLY PAUL just left her job at SGM GOP consulting firm http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/kelley-paul-leaves-gop...

Back to wiki: RAND PAUL Rand has NO ISM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul

Ron Paul quoted Victor Hugo when he said: "no army can stop an idea that's time has come". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victor_Hugo&diff=...

I feel like there is a "book burning" going on with these wiki edits, and that there is an army that is changing ideas.

It was suggested that I spend a couple hours editing wiki. It would take me years and I doubt I could beat the army.

It was also suggested that I stop using wiki.. and that's fine.. except.. where do I go for a nuetral online reference?

Any suggestions?

And William Jefferson Clinton, the guy I was looking up as reference to NEOLIBERAL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

I just learned the Bill Clinton is now known as a NEW DEMOCRAT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

I never heard of a NEW DEMOCRAT before, though I did know that Obama came from a third party called THE NEW PARTY http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_(United_States)

And this article shows that there's a lot of editing and cover ups going on, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/07/Obama-Cau...

Looks like wiki needs another edit.

So Ron Paul is a NEO Liberal, and some here say a NEOLIBERAL is the opposite of a NEOCONSERVATIVE.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He is socially liberal,

He is socially liberal, economically conservative. In my opinion, libertarians are the opposite of Republicans and Democrats, in that both parties choose to have government rule on either issue. Whether one is socially liberal or conservative, how the decision is carried out (or even the fact that a decision is being made) usually relies on government.

Libertarians should register

Libertarians should register as republicrats.

As my YAL shirt says.

As my YAL shirt says.

Classically Liberal, Constitutionally conservative.

Libertarianism is the modern form of classical liberals and to the same extent a modern form of constitutional conservatives. Best of both worlds.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

Nice new profile pic, do tell

Nice new profile pic, do tell us about it, Granger love ;)

(((((((((((((Stonewall Jackson)))))))))))

Well, since the new crowd of my perpetual downvoters that like to tell me what to do and think call me a troll (I think I'm one of the oldest longest members on DP at this point) I decided that they needed a reality check.

It was not such an easy pick to find. There were a lot of cool mean nasty troll pics.. but they didn't really look like me. I couldn't find one dressed in red white and blue.. and then the MASTER CHEF troll came up.

I'm not a Master Chef, but I am a certified, licensed, awarded sous chef, and she is kinda cute.. nose is kinda big.. but still, I thought, if I post a pic of a troll, then what's the point of calling me a troll to hurt me? So far, I've only had compliments, and I THANK YOU for yours

many of Granger's complaints stem from ignorance

Conservatism means different things in other parts of the world than in the US. The wiki is an English wiki, which includes the Great Britain, South Africa, Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, India, etc. It is not a US wiki. That's why you have to go to "Conservatism in the US" to find Ron Paul. He is not conservative based on how the word is used in other parts of the world. Also, he is in the libertarianism article, so I don't know if you missed it or what.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

The original aim of the conservative movement

Was to keep the historic royal families of Europe in power after the Napoleonic wars jumbled everything up (read about the House of Bourbon to learn more).

Not ignorance

I'm not ignoring anything, it could be from stupidity and in inability to learn, but not becasue I am ignoring.

I posted the libertarianism and he is associated, not refered.

Post Ron Paul's reference to libertarianism and see.

Some things must change and some things must stay the same.

War forces things to change with murder, vandalism and theft.

Liberty gives men the choice of choosing prosperity for all.

Free includes debt-free!

that being the case

I'd say we just got ripped off by a volunteer army at wiki.

Wikipedia is decentralized

By definition, that by itself ought to appeal to the volunteerist in this freedom-loving society. It only works because people who care voluntary add their knowledge to the database. Of course, mistakes are made, but mistakes happen in centralized organizations, too. And sometimes vandalism happens on wikipedia (such as the infamous addition by a fan of Steve Colbert about elephants), but vandalism can be cleaned up and removed once someone notices it. It's not like deliberate disinfo isn't spread by more centralized means, too.

(For all ye scoffers of wiki, I believe you fell into a liberal trap. Centrists recognized that Wikipedia is run by volunteers, and so automatically mock it for its inaccuracies. Nevermind that there are inaccuracies everywhere one looks when doing research on anything. Even in official publishings of encyclopedias that took years to compile, there are mistakes (in scientific entries, an average of 3 mistakes per entry, vs 4 mistakes average for scientific entries in Wikipedia). So if you are serious about wanting a society that encourages volunteerism, don't scoff wikipedia. It depends on volunteers.)

I think you're doing the right thing in trying to combat this blatant vandalism. We just can't do these things on our own. I hope you can find some likeminded people who can help you.

Sorry I'm being a weenie and not volunteering myself '~'

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

I'm wondering

There is a massive amount of edits in the past month..

So, If we are in a war of ideas, and history of wars are written by the winners.. If I had some tax payer funds, educational grants, and I contrinuted to wiki.. contrinuted to schools, contributed to students.. and had this info army rewritting wiki.. what looks to be a four month start.. then wiki would no longer be decentralized, and just because it says it's volunteer, doesn't mean if I pay someone to help me, reward them for their efforts.. it's still vilunteer to wiki..

And that is the idea that occured to me looking at the edits and when they were posted.

I thought he was a

I thought he was a constitutionalist.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

good one ramico

Did you read the wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalism

It's a sub category of Liberalism, and most definately what kind of governmment we have or tptb want for us to have.

Wow, wikipedia. Anyone can

Wow, wikipedia. Anyone can write anything and link to anything supporting that view, so it must be unbiased truth!

Our country was founded by liberals and conservatives compromising. A constitutionalist is therefore both and is neither. It's its own thing.

Please come join my forum if you're not a trendy and agree with my points of view.

Not that kind of

Not that kind of Constitutionalist, but the sort that supports the US Constitution specifically, not because he thinks constitutions in and of themselves give legitimacy too government, but because he loves the ideals of God given Liberty, which the US constitution(attempts) to protect.

Much like if you say "I am a Republican" on the Daily Paul, you are generally referring to the Republican Party, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_Stat... , NOT the idea of a Republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism

for Ron Paul and Rand Paul supporting the Constitution is the means, not the end goal, which is Freedom, am I making sense?

Yes, you are making sense

Everything is an "ism" now.

Ralph Nader told me once, "people make a big deal about the constitution, which empowers the state. They should be more concerned about the "Bil of Rights" because that is what protects them from the constitution."

I wonder if wiki has a Bill of Rightist.. or maybe it's Bill of Rightism? I think Ron Paul was saying he's a constitutionalist to draw those in the constitution party.

Ron Paul talked about

Ron Paul talked about Constitutionalism long before his (late) friend Howard Phillips founded the Constitution Party (originally known as the US Taxpayers Party) like I said he (and the Constitution Party) meant something different than what the wiki page says.

Com’on man, really

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism.

And now I know

I sometimes wonder where I've been. Seems I'm on DP nearly everyday learning something new, and it's amazes me how much I don't know.

woo hoo!

finally :)

Now will you finally learn the difference between volunteering and voluntaryism? Pretty please? :)

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Since I can't depend on wiki

and you have refused to answer that.. tell me how I should learn since 4 decades of being a volunteer isn't the answer.

Granger if you want to search

Libertarian thought (classical liberalism) use……vonmisesinstitute.org, learn this stuff and then you can discern what on wiki is worth your time.

Thank you Goldspan

I appreciate the reference.. I'm actually hoping to find something that is suitable for a wide political/ alternative reference span.. but that is a keeper, so THANK YOU!!!

You start from a seriously flawed premise

Wiki is absurdly biased. It is known.

I disagree

I find wikipedia the most objective source out there, as far as that is possible. By objective, I don't mean closest to our view of thinking. I mean able to present all sides of an issue. Whenever I read something from a biased source, whether it be left-wing, right-wing, or even libertarian, whether it be pro-alternative medicine or pro-conventional medicince, I often check it against wikipedia. The footnotes make it easy to check the source.

Wikipedia is as free market as you can get. I love wikipedia.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Well free market if you don't

Well free market if you don't count government funding and funding from government protected enterprise. But I do. You can't take money from Google or GE and think we're talking about a free market.

Anyway I'm not saying it's not a resource that should be availed upon. I'm saying it's anything but objective. They regularly scrub and slant when the issue is political or the truth is counter to the statist, progressive, or socialist narrative.

Anyway we don't need wikipedia to know Ron Paul is an austro-paleoconservative with libertarian/anarchist leanings.

If wiki says otherwise they are wrong. If they say otherwise it's because they have a bias and an agenda.

Did this really need another

Did this really need another thread????

God you're fucking annoying.

You sure walk right into these downvotes, don't you Granger

Wikipedia is a reliable source? It requires being backed by sources?

Have you ever edit a Wikipedia page? it's literally two(or more) random people changing it back and forth until the other person gives up.

Rofl @ reliable sources. There is nothing credible about wikipedia AT ALL.