On Second Thought Maybe You're Not a Nazi

David Weigel | December 27, 2007

The New York Times' blog The Medium was the only big-media news organ to repeat the "Ron Paul hangs with nazis" smear. And it just retracted that post.

A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.

No, it shouldn't have. What is it about Paul that made The Medium so ready to believe the smear? If a confirmed fraud and liar like Bill White accused a frontrunning GOP candidate (or Dem candidate) of having brunch with him in 1997, does anybody think the blog would have reported on that straightaway? Or would the bloggers have checked out the rumor and debunked it? It's all about the benefit of the doubt, and Paul didn't get it.

Megan McArdle snickers:

I'm slightly bemused by the fact that the Nazis are so eager to claim Ron Paul as one of their own. I mean, not that Ron Paul isn't a perfectly nice guy, and so forth, but isn't claiming that you're friends with famous people who've never met you something you're supposed to grow out of in high school?

I guess I'm surprised that the Don Blacks of the world would chase Paul around for snapshots and autographs. The logic of racist endorsements in politics was explained pretty clearly in the 2000 South Park episode "Chef Goes Nanners."

Jimbo:    I thnk we should switch sides!
Ned:    Me too. Nnn-that's a good idea.
Jimbo:    Look, we have to accept the fact that most people in the world hate us, right?
KKK Members:    Yeah, m-hm.
Jimbo:    So, whatever side we're on is the side that's gonna lose, right?
KKK Members:    Right, yeah.
Jimbo:    So why don't we all say that we want the flag changed. That way, most folks'll vote to keep it the way it is.
KKK Leader:    That's a great idea, brother!
KKK Members:    Yeah!
KKK Leader:    Alright, it is decided! We will officially tell everyone that we want the flag changed, so that they will all vote against us!
KKK Members:    Hooray, yeah!

More South Park here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

x,y|12.27.07 @ 3:07PM|#

Uninteresting blogger overload.

Dave Weigel|12.27.07 @ 3:08PM|#

Thanks, x,y.

|12.27.07 @ 3:12PM|#

This kind of stuff happens all the time. Media outlets know that retractions never get read nearly as much as the initial story.

They just let the damage happen, wait a few days, print a retraction buried in the rest of the content, and (rightly) assume no one notices...

Middle Class Worker|12.27.07 @ 3:16PM|#

Its a fact that Ron Paul is pro-segregation and anti-choice.

He believes in freedom for white males, but not for women or people of color.

|12.27.07 @ 3:16PM|#

What is it about Paul that made The Medium so ready to believe the smear?

That old newsletter with Paul's (or, perhaps, "Paul's") opinions about black males?

The confirmed fact that he received and kept Black's donation?

jimmydageek|12.27.07 @ 3:16PM|#

It would be nice if the retraction used an attention grabbing headline in proportion to the one used originally. However, we know that isn't going to happen.

Why does it keep doing that with my name?

Brandybuck|12.27.07 @ 3:22PM|#

I flipped through the radio station yesterday, only to hear Medved take a cheap Nazi shot at Ron Paul. Totally classless. It only showed the shallowness of Medved's views that he feels the need to defend them with puerile attacks.

|12.27.07 @ 3:22PM|#

Great, so trolls have gone from jamming words together to randomly highlighting them in bold.

At least the old way was easier to glaze over...

|12.27.07 @ 3:23PM|#

"Its a fact that Ron Paul is pro-segregation"

Not true. He's opposed to civil rights legislation that violates property rights, but he isn't for forced governmental segregation that I know of.

Middle Class Worker|12.27.07 @ 3:25PM|#

"
Not true. He's opposed to civil rights legislation that violates property rights, but he isn't for forced governmental segregation that I know of."

Being opposed to Civil Rights legislation is de-facto in support of institutional racism. Freedom for priveleged white males, no ones else. Its the libertarian way.

It's a fact that I can't make a point without using bolded words.

Derrick|12.27.07 @ 3:27PM|#

This is the part where I post a blatant plug for my latest site, Faces of the Ron Paul Revolution. The site was started expressly to counter myths about who Ron Paul's supporters are, such as the ones spread by the NYT.

Here's the site: http://facesoftherevolution.com/

Thus concludes my blatant plug. The End.

|12.27.07 @ 3:27PM|#

"
Not true. He's opposed to civil rights legislation that violates property rights, but he isn't for forced governmental segregation that I know of."

Being opposed to Civil Rights legislation is de-facto in support of institutional racism. Freedom for priveleged white males, no ones else. Its the libertarian way."

Wow, positivist much?

Middle Class Worker|12.27.07 @ 3:28PM|#

I speak like I'm bolding every other word, so I'm really getting a kick out of some of these replies.

|12.27.07 @ 3:28PM|#

"Being opposed to Civil Rights legislation is de-facto in support of institutional racism. Freedom for priveleged white males, no ones else. Its the libertarian way."

He would also say that a black has the right to serve whomever he wants to as well. If the owner of a black night club only wants black patrons, that's his business. Should the government legislate morality?

Libertarians care for nothing except greed, pot and, sodomy.

MCW|12.27.07 @ 3:29PM|#

"He would also say that a black has the right to serve whomever he wants to as well. If the owner of a black night club only wants black patrons, that's his business. Should the government legislate morality?"

Only the majority culture can be racist. Power+Prejudice=Racism.

VM|12.27.07 @ 3:29PM|#

MCW (DanT?):

"Being opposed to Civil Rights legislation is de-facto in support of institutional racism"

please expand on that - what examples can you think of (and how the examples are relevant to RP)?

Taken in that light, do you think AA needs any reforming? And do you think Title IX was (for the most part) successful?

Jennifer|12.27.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Virtue only exists when legislation forces it to, which explains why the existence of the Civil Rights Act is the only reason I am a believer in racial equality rather than the sexy Grand Dragon of our local Ku Klux Klan chapter.

M|12.27.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Megan McArdle snickers:

I'm slightly bemused

Someone doesn't know what bemused means.

x,y|12.27.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Not you Dave. McArdle.

|12.27.07 @ 3:30PM|#

Here is my letter to times after the Articles was run.

With the primaries so close and REAL information so limited about the candidates I was extemley dissapointed to see that the editors allowed Virginia Heffernan article on Ron Paul's alleged ties to a Nazi group to be distributed. The article was full of innuendo and factually disproved information.

How could the Times editors allow such a libelous hit story be published?
I have always counted on the Times to do quality reporting and to substantiate the facts, obviously this was not done or even worse, perhaps the Editors allowed this to story to run knowing the story was incorrect and libelous to some degree.

Personally I would like to believe that the Editors let this one slip by and if thats the case a follow up article explaining the articles was incorrect would be in order. If it was done purposely we readers can only suspect that other stories that the Times runs are also poorly investigated and substantiated articles, which I assure you does nothing for the Times credibility,

It is one thing to inform us about legitimate information and a whole other (bad) thing to supply us with mis-information. The Times is an Icon in the Media world, why step down to the practices of the National Enquirer?

Much Regards
Avid Times Reader in Florida

PS. How about some real, fair and unbiased info on Candidates positions and what it means to us?

|12.27.07 @ 3:31PM|#

Libertarians care for nothing except greed, pot and, sodomy.

Your point being?

MCW|12.27.07 @ 3:31PM|#

"Taken in that light, do you think AA needs any reforming? And do you think Title IX was (for the most part) successful?"

Affirmative Action helps address institutional racism, its a fair way to do so. Title IX is successful. If you are against the former, you're a (de facto) racist, and being against the latter makes you a (de facto) sexist.

Guy Montag|12.27.07 @ 3:31PM|#

who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White.

[sarcasim]
Yea, but he like takes his Nazi goose-stepping orders from his unknowing meetings with Bill White and the others. Wasn't he an unknowing member of the KKK AND the National Socialist Workers Parties?

Another know-nothing Nazi walks among us . . .
[/sarcasim]

|12.27.07 @ 3:32PM|#

Being opposed to Civil Rights legislation is de-facto in support of institutional racism. Freedom for priveleged white males, no ones else. Its the libertarian way.

MCW, you really need to wake up. Have you heard of affirmative action? That is legal racism. Your friends may tell you otherwise, but they have their head up in the clouds. And I bet even knowing this, you'd support it to save your own ass.

|12.27.07 @ 3:33PM|#

So what you're saying, MCW, is that Paul is "objectively pro-segregation."

I think that formulation is despicable whenever it's used, and I was the first one to take a racial shot at Paul on this thread.

My take is that Paul's - let's call it "racial traditionalism," which is very common among white men of a certain age - rescues him from the dilemma of bring torn between a desire to see racial inequality brought to an end a principled commitment to libertarian ideas about the proper role of government.

x,y|12.27.07 @ 3:34PM|#

Now if only I could find a way to get paid for doing my bf while smoking some hippie lettuce.

|12.27.07 @ 3:35PM|#

MCW | December 27, 2007, 3:31pm | #

>Affirmative Action helps address institutional racism, its a fair way to do so. Title IX is successful. If you are against the former, you're a (de facto) racist, and being against the latter makes you a (de facto) sexist.

Guy Montag|12.27.07 @ 3:35PM|#

I practice sexual segregation with my pr0n collection every day. No males allowed!

Same when I enjoy the local dance theater.

That was supposed to also say:
Blanket generalizations are always wrong.

VM|12.27.07 @ 3:36PM|#

MCW:

in that vein, what do you think of Becker's dissertation and subsequent work (expansions, extensions)?

joe - also his pro DOMA stance. Seems unlibertarian to this citizen.

|12.27.07 @ 3:36PM|#

"Only the majority culture can be racist. Power+Prejudice=Racism."

Wrong. Anybody who generalizes about individuals on the basis of their race is a racist as far as I'm concerned. Members of minorities can also be guilty of this. People who hate others because of their race are also racists. Members of minorities can also be guilty of this as well.

Guy Montag|12.27.07 @ 3:36PM|#

Blanket generalizations are always wrong.

Not when they are about filthy Nazi Bastards!

|12.27.07 @ 3:37PM|#

"Being opposed to Civil Rights legislation is de-facto in support of institutional racism."

Simply labeling a law that requires racial discrimination a "civil rights" bill doesn't make it so. Affirmative Action laws do not secure anyone's civil rights, they reward or punish people for their race, which is wrong no matter whose ox is being gored.

-jcr

highnumber|12.27.07 @ 3:38PM|#

I think MCW is having a laugh at the lot of you. I am enjoying it myself, but it is difficult to type this many bolded words without hearing this crazy voice in my head.

VM|12.27.07 @ 3:39PM|#

d'oh... sorry - hit post too soon.

MCW:

and do you feel that Holzer and Neumark (2000) is a fair assessment of AA?

|12.27.07 @ 3:40PM|#

"Affirmative Action helps address institutional racism, its a fair way to do so. Title IX is successful. If you are against the former, you're a (de facto) racist, and being against the latter makes you a (de facto) sexist."

Or you're a supporter of property rights.

Libertarians care for nothing except greed, pot and, sodomy.

Fair enough...

MCW|12.27.07 @ 3:41PM|#

Oh dear. My arguments are falling apart.

Guy Montag|12.27.07 @ 3:41PM|#

Speaking of labels, when can we get those stupid "MPG" stickers on the sides of new cars to show something useful, like 1/4 mile time or 0-120 time?

ed|12.27.07 @ 3:42PM|#

The rain in Spain falls mainly on the...oh, forget it.

|12.27.07 @ 3:43PM|#

So, what up with this "Megan McArdle" bint? Is she a knee-jerk leftie, or a right-winger looking to scuttle Ron Paul the way that the country-club republicans tried to scuttle Reagan?

-jcr

Guy Montag|12.27.07 @ 3:43PM|#

The rain in Spain falls mainly on the... Fascist Bastards!

"Affirmative Action laws do not secure anyone's civil rights, they reward or punish people for their race, which is wrong no matter whose ox is being gored."

And by emphasizing a person's race is not my idea of a color blind society. People should be hired and promoted on the basis of their qualifications.

|12.27.07 @ 3:44PM|#

If we were to follow the Constitutions most famous phrase "All men are created equal"
Segregation would be a moot point and a non-issue. Unfortunately we do not follow the Constitution and we create rights for groups even though we have already been given these rights as individuals under our Constitution.

Laws and Regulations have segregated this country into groups and subgroups making us a Nation of groups, not individuals.

Protect the rights of the individual using the Constitution and quit segregating us using federal law.

VM|12.27.07 @ 3:44PM|#

Highnumber:

don't listen to the voices. Get off the babysitter.

MCW - srsly.

MCW|12.27.07 @ 3:44PM|#

"Or you're a supporter of property rights."

Human Rights, not "Property Rights".

"People who hate others because of their race are also racists. Members of minorities can also be guilty of this as well."

Hating someone because of their race is prejudice. When a group that has all the power in the United States (whites) use their position of priveleged power to discriminate, then it becomes racism.

I think MCW is having a laugh at the lot of you. I am enjoying it myself, but it is difficult to type this many bolded words without hearing this crazy voice in my head.

It is the crazy voice which compels me to write with bolded words. My medication doesn't seem to help.

|12.27.07 @ 3:45PM|#

Back to the original topic, there is a tendency to lump together all fringe groups on either end of the spectrum together. Sometimes, as with the oddly common belief that Lyndon LaRouche was a libertarian, you see fringe ideologies from opposite ends of the spectrum lumped together as well.

"Affirmative Action helps address institutional racism, its a fair way to do so."

That is 100% unmitigated bullshit. Racial discrimination is not a remedy for racism.

-jcr

MCW|12.27.07 @ 3:47PM|#

Lyndon LaRouche was for the common man. Plus, he hated the libertarians.

|12.27.07 @ 3:49PM|#

Larouche has never been anything more than a less-competent version of L. Ron Hubbard.

-jcr

I've been saying MCW was a clown since he first showed up on the Singapore thread. One of the better clowns, though.

Ron Paul believes in one minority ... the individual

The individual should receive equal treatment under the law as any other individual.

The Federal government should hold this view as well instead of subsidizing rasicm, "group think", and bigotry with unconstitutional mandates like AA and enforce exisitingrule of law under the Constitution.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to mandate morality. They have no right to tell me what I can smoke, drink, take for medicines, what I do on my property, in my home, in my bedroom, on my computer.

If people want the government to do so then do it the right way.

Ammend the Constitution.

Otherwise keep your morality to yourself and I will keep mine to myself. Your views and freedoms have no more weight then mine and that was how this country was meant to be.

A lot of progressives and neo-cons have great ideas about how they should run people's lives .. They should keep their own house in order first and leave the rest of us the hell alone and go readthe Constitution and refernce Article 1, Section 8 to see if it passes Constitutional muster.

Peace out

Cawdor
Ron Paul Precinct Captain
Nevada

|12.27.07 @ 3:51PM|#

Anti-affirmative action arguments run into the same problem as pacifist arguments.

"You can't end racism by making decisions based on race. We should be color-blind."

"You can't end war by shooting people with rifles. We should stop fighting wars."

Well, sure, in hippie-dippie land. I'd rather live in society where people's race didn't matter, too. I'd also rather live in world where nobody went to war. We're not there, and the good guys have no responsibility to lay down their arms and be routed.

|12.27.07 @ 3:52PM|#

It is my understanding the Ron Paul said that he opposed the civil rights act of 1964. That is the act that ended Jim Crow. Affirmative action came later. I will argue until the cows come home that affirmative action is terrible but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a different matter. The fact is that the Southern States were never going to give blacks equal rights if left to their own devices. The only way to end Jim Crow was through federal intervention. As distasteful as they may have been, it beat the alternative. Jim Crow could not go on anymore in this country.

Ron Paul seems to love states rights and principle more than he loves people. Yeah states rights and a limited federal government are generally a good thing. But when several of the states are using their power to oppress a large segment of the population, something has to be done. To say that states rights is more important than ending Jim Crow laws is either to be downright racist or just live in la la land.

Paul does the same thing when he talks about the Civil War. He talks about how horrible Lincoln was for launching an aggressive war and how slavery could have solved itself. Bullshit. Slavery had to end. At some point principle has to give way to reality and Paul doesn't seem to see that.

Brandybuck|12.27.07 @ 3:52PM|#

And hookers! Don't forget the hookers!

dhex|12.27.07 @ 3:54PM|#

Larouche has never been anything more than a less-competent version of L. Ron Hubbard.

now THAT'S a fucking t-shirt waiting to happen!

|12.27.07 @ 3:56PM|#

Hey, any body check out the Corner?

"The BBC Endorsement of Ron Paul [Michael Ledeen]

Sure sounds right to me. Birds of a feather, big-time. They're both blame-America-and-Israel-firsters; it's a perfect match.

12/27 03:06 PM"

|12.27.07 @ 3:57PM|#

It's my understanding, John, that Paul's opposition to the Civil Rights Act is based on the provisions which ban racial discrimination in places of public accommodation, like lunch counters and motels.

But however one feels about that provision, to denounce and oppose the entire bill because of that demonstrates, at a minimum, a stunning lack of appreciation for the evils of segregation and an odd, for a libertarian, willingness to put up with the State putting its boot on people's necks.

I think it's cultural with Dr. Paul - when forced to pick sides between "outside agitators," "troublemakers," and "leftists" on one side and "old-fashioned folks like me" on the other, his judgement gets blurred.

MV|12.27.07 @ 3:58PM|#

Cawdor -

but the states are perfectly free to set the legal-moral code? Is that it?

dhex - awesome!

REASON Commenter|12.27.07 @ 3:58PM|#

"Amazing! Much like that celebrated mathematical Horse that passed through town last week!

Someone give Megan McArdle an apple or a sugar cube. Hear! hear! Yes, She deserves it!"

.|12.27.07 @ 3:59PM|#

oops

|12.27.07 @ 4:00PM|#

"They're both blame-America-and-Israel-firsters; it's a perfect match."

Ron Paul isn't blaming America. He's blaming American foreign policy for making Americans less safe because our meddling foreign policy is promoting terrorist acts against American citizens.

Guy Montag|12.27.07 @ 4:01PM|#

RJ,

Um, that IS blaming America first, rather than blaming the terrorists first.

|12.27.07 @ 4:02PM|#

Joe,

I am not old enough to remember segregation but my parents were. I just can't believe that anyone who actually saw segregation and how nasty it was thinks it was a bad thing to end it. If anything, Paul's age ought to mean he should know better. You had to end discrimination in public accomodation. If you didn't, most of the South would have remained segregated.

|12.27.07 @ 4:03PM|#

When the National Review ran multiple columns endorsing the Iraq War as a way for us to relocate our military personnel from their "provocative" bases in "the land of the two holy cities," they were Blaming America First, and advocating a policy of acceding to terrorists' demands.

Personally, I don't pay any attention to such unpatriotic, cowardly appeasers as that bunch.

|12.27.07 @ 4:08PM|#

John,

I agree with you about ending segregation, but old-school "small government conservatives" like, say, William F. Buckley did not.

Segregationists were traditionalists upholding the "wisdom of the ages" against an assault by "elitist leftists." They were just defending "their way of life" againt "outsiders" - northernerns, no less! - who "thought they knew better."

Like I said, there's a cultural element here. You can see how it could make someone who is on board with 20th century American conservatism sympathetic towards segregationists, or at least less-than-enthusiastic about opposing it, and eager to make sure that things didn't go too far.

|12.27.07 @ 4:11PM|#

OT: I see the new issue has Ron Paul on the cover. I'm going to guess this is one that won't make it to my mailbox. The last issue that didn't make it had John Stossel on the cover. And Reason couldn't replace the issue.

Would it be wrong that blanket generalizations are always wrong?

"Ron Paul seems to love states rights and principle more than he loves people."

If he loved people more than the rule of law, he would be a Democrat.

|12.27.07 @ 4:12PM|#

Barry Goldwater, the now-darling of liberals, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ronald Reagan opposed California's 1966 Fair Housing Act.
They did so because they believed the unquestionalblygood intentions of government inevitably would be perverted to grab enormous swaths of power.

What idiots.

|12.27.07 @ 4:13PM|#

"Like I said, there's a cultural element here. You can see how it could make someone who is on board with 20th century American conservatism sympathetic towards segregationists, or at least less-than-enthusiastic about opposing it, and eager to make sure that things didn't go too far."

I have no tolerance for the confederate wing of the conservative movement. It is a wierd vane running from paleocon morons like Pat Buchanan to more mainstream conservatives who ought to know better bemoaning the end of states rights. If you want to blame anyone for the end of states rights, blame the South and its racial problems. Take those issues away and states rights is a lot stronger today.

|12.27.07 @ 4:14PM|#

Libertarians care for nothing except greed, pot and, sodomy.

Hey! What about cocaine and crack and meth? And gambling and molesting minor minorities? Oh, and our favorite -- mocking asshats with PeculiarPostingHabits who live in their mother's basement?

Jackson|12.27.07 @ 4:15PM|#

I'm so relieved. A nobody joke of a candidate isn't a Nazi too. Nazis just like him. Who the fuck cares?

|12.27.07 @ 4:15PM|#

"Barry Goldwater, the now-darling of liberals, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ronald Reagan opposed California's 1966 Fair Housing Act.
They did so because they believed the unquestionalblygood intentions of government inevitably would be perverted to grab enormous swaths of power.

What idiots."

They were not idiots and they were right. The problem is that the alternative of doing nothing was worse. I am not going to defend big government, but given a choice between having the small government of yesteryear at the price of large portions of the country being segregated or what we have today, I will take today every time.

I guess you could argue that segregation would have ended itself and federal action was unneccessary. Considering the resistance to ending it, I don't see how that is true.

|12.27.07 @ 4:18PM|#

I forgot -- also rum, sodomy, and the lash?

And batin'!

And whacking trolls like a pinata ... mmm, trolls R fun.

x,y|12.27.07 @ 4:22PM|#

Anti-affirmative action arguments run into the same problem as pacifist arguments.

That might be the case, but "anti-affirmative action" arguments do not run into the same problems as non-initiation of force arguments. Most libertarians, myself included, are not pacifists. We believe in the use of force as a response to actual or imminent force in our direction.

REASON Commenter|12.27.07 @ 4:24PM|#

Clever Hans:

Clever Hans (in German, der Kluge Hans) was a horse that was claimed to have been able to perform arithmetic and other intellectual tasks.

Clever Meagan

The world's tallest female econoblogger delivers her opinions on economics, business, and other moral hazards

|12.27.07 @ 4:26PM|#

"The world's tallest female econoblogger delivers her opinions on economics, business, and other moral hazards"

She is like 6 feet two or something and if the pictures I have seen are acurate, fairly easy on the eyes.

|12.27.07 @ 4:31PM|#

Or, John, you could have done what should have been done in 1898 when Plessy v. Ferguson was before the Supreme Court, and disallowed any governmental discrimination based upon race. (Plessy was one of the great "wrong turns" in US history regarding race, the Three-Fifths Compromise being the other). If government was truly colorblind, you would not need the coercive force of government to get private citizens on board generally; the change would be inevitable, some laggards (i.e. history's losers) notwithstanding.

This would have meant desegregated public schools (and not just "with all deliberate speed"); integrated police forces; and integrated governmental workers at ALL levels. Jim Crow would be impossible under such circumstances, yet the rights of private citizens would not have to be infringed to get there. Instead, to obtain "civil rights" by legislative fiat, we accepted an even greater Leviathan state than FDR envisioned. Hooray!

They were not idiots and they were right. The problem is that the alternative of doing nothing was worse. I am not going to defend big government, but given a choice between having the small government of yesteryear at the price of large portions of the country being segregated or what we have today, I will take today every time.

John -- WTF? First you argue that Goldwater and Reagan were right, then you make the de facto case that they were wrong, saying you're in favor of expanding government rather than letting things sort themselves out?

You're presenting a false choice. The choice was between:

1) expanding the government by imposing a new form of racism favoring a different set of individuals, and then having the chutzpah to claim that the government sponsored racism caused less racism, or

2) leaving the situation to private action and the marketplace of ideas, letting individuals realize that the racism they were raised to believe in was wrong.

|12.27.07 @ 4:32PM|#

"I guess you could argue that segregation would have ended itself and federal action was unneccessary. Considering the resistance to ending it, I don't see how that is true."

I think that television and movies have done a lot in improving relations between races. Interacting of the races on television and the movies encourages the same in the real world.

|12.27.07 @ 4:45PM|#

"Ron Paul seems to love states rights and principle more than he loves people."

He loves states rights and principle because he loves people. People benefit from states rights. Big government infringes on idividual rights.

superconnected|12.27.07 @ 4:45PM|#

I'll just go start my own government! With blackjack, and hookers!

On second thought, forget the blackjack.

alan|12.27.07 @ 4:45PM|#

Over the last two decades in my city there have been and still remain two employers of one hundred plus employees who are well known in the area to have policies that discriminate. Do they do so for the advancement of whites? No, don't be silly, that is old school thinking. No, the businesses are owned by homosexuals and the discriminated party are heterosexual males particularly those who have non-effeminate dispositions.

One is a call center, the other is a restaurant chain. Every few months I'll notice one or the other has picked up another award from one 'progressive' institution or another, and the local paper dutifully prints the company officer who is giving the acceptance speech on that given occasion.

Those who support affirmative action on this board speak of it in purely theoretical terms and pretend it is 1968, and that my friends is pure unadulterated bullshit.

|12.27.07 @ 4:54PM|#

"but the states are perfectly free to set the legal-moral code? Is that it?"

If it's not stated in Article 1, Section 8 or otherwise prohibited by the Constitution , then yes, the states can legislate on it. That was the premise of the Constitution. A weak federal government and strong states rights.

If people don't like it then ammend it .. that's the constituional way to change the constitution.

Just a lesson, last time morality was ammended to the Constitution was Prohibition and the consequences were horrible and was repealled.

Now government wages an illegal war on Drugs and gues what

IT STILL DOESN'T WORK!!!!

The more complicated a problem is the more the solution needs to be local .. The one-size fits all solution mandated by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT never works

It is more expensive, less efficient, and comes at the cost of rights from another group thus subsidizing more racism and bigotry.

|12.27.07 @ 4:55PM|#

RJ,

"Um, that IS blaming America first, rather than blaming the terrorists first."

If the government is America. I happen to believe that the people are America. I blame our government for the type of foreign policy that makes us hated in the world. It's time for the American people to say "enough is enough". "Stop making us less safe by promoting policies that provoke terrorist acts against us." Blame should go where it belongs and it is our government that has provoked this terrorism. That's not to say that the terrorists are justified in their actions, but why does our government have to keep promoting it?

VM|12.27.07 @ 4:57PM|#

hmmmm. still a government legislating morality...

|12.27.07 @ 4:58PM|#

x,y,

That might be the case, but "anti-affirmative action" arguments do not run into the same problems as non-initiation of force arguments. Most libertarians, myself included, are not pacifists. We believe in the use of force as a response to actual or imminent force in our direction.

And I believe the continuing legacy of racism and segregation is comparable to actual or imminent force.

And you don't.

This, in my mind, is precisely the difference that exists between liberals and libertarians on this issue, and it goes back to the most fundamental differences in our political outlooks, such as the role of government, the definition of freedom, and the meaning of equal opportunity.

|12.27.07 @ 5:03PM|#

prolefeed,

leaving the situation to private action and the marketplace of ideas, letting individuals realize that the racism they were raised to believe in was wrong.

How'd that work for you from 1870-1960?

Segregation wasn't about feelings and ideas, it was about power. It continued because continuing was in the interests of people seeking to maintain their power, their privilege.

People are reeeeeeaaaaaaaaallllllllyyyyyyyy good at not realizing things when it's in their interest not to realize it.

|12.27.07 @ 5:04PM|#

Libertarians care for nothing except greed, pot and, sodomy.

I like greed...i can do without the pot and sodomy (other people can do what the hell they want)...plus I like kittens and pizza.

Brandybuck|12.27.07 @ 5:06PM|#

A woman puts on a miniskirt and ultra-tiny tubetop, and goes walking down a dark street in a bad section of town. After a few days of this, she gets raped. Do you blame the woman or the rapist?

The same thing happened to America. We paraded our sweet asses around the Middle East thinking that nothing would ever happen to us. But it did. Whose fault was 9/11? Most certainly the fault was that of the terrorists. But we do have to level some amount of blame at our stupid policies of wearing miniskirts and tubetops in a bad neighborhood.

|12.27.07 @ 5:08PM|#

And I believe the continuing legacy of racism and segregation is comparable to actual or imminent force.

Actually joe I do think the use of force and threat of violence can be used in such circumstances....Its just that simply because in the past we used such a justification does not give justification for the use force to enforce land use zoning laws or income tax

Fluffy|12.27.07 @ 5:11PM|#

How'd that work for you from 1870-1960?

Actually, from 1870 to 1960 vigilante groups in the South used terroristic violence to prevent individuals in the marketplace from choosing to desegregate their own establishments.

I would have supported a federal effort - even an armed federal effort - at imposing order in southern states where the rule of law was compromised by terrorist organizations, to unequivocably protect persons and organizations that wished to voluntarily desegregate. I would not have supported and still do not support a "You have to hire me and/or sell to me or the Feds can break you" law.

|12.27.07 @ 5:11PM|#

You dropped the transmission on that one, jc.

Could you fill in a few steps in the middle there?

|12.27.07 @ 5:50PM|#

I can see the arguments for states rights: people in Texas have different cultures and concerns than people in Oregon, why make them have the same laws? However, its just a fact that many times "federalizing" something made things much more fair and, yes, free (like the "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights for example).

There has been a restriction of some people's freedom, like the freedom of the hotel owner to tell black folks to go to hell when they stop tired and looking for a place to stay, but this restriction also "frees up" a lot of folks, like those black folks who now know that as long as their behavior is reasonable they can't be denied a place to stay that night.

With any given restriction it must be analyzed whether the restriction has some net gain to people's opportunities or whether it closes more doors than it opens for more people...

|12.27.07 @ 5:53PM|#

"Actually, from 1870 to 1960 vigilante groups in the South used terroristic violence to prevent individuals in the marketplace from choosing to desegregate their own establishments."
fluffy, I agree with that, but only partly. I think those old Citizen Councils and KKK etc., used a lot of "economic violence" to enforce segregation (boycotts and secondary boycotts, contract interference and other "restraints of trade"). I think segregation could have coasted in many, many areas without any force used by the locals. In fact, it often did...

Anchorage Activist|12.27.07 @ 6:01PM|#

Middle Class Worker - You are an anti-racist troll. Your assumption of Ron Paul providing de facto support for so-called "institutional racism" by his opposition to civil rights legislation is ridiculous. Ron Paul is merely opposed to unnecessary coercion. Try reading something other than ADL and SPLC propaganda once in a while.

Anti-racist fascists pose a greater long-term threat to our liberties than Osama bin Laden.

Jennifer|12.27.07 @ 6:05PM|#

Anchorage, you do know that "anti" isn't considered an insult around here, right?

x,y|12.27.07 @ 6:11PM|#

And I believe the continuing legacy of racism and segregation is comparable to actual or imminent force.

IOW, you don't understand what "actual" or "imminent" means.

MCW|12.27.07 @ 6:11PM|#

I've been saying MCW was a clown since he first showed up on the Singapore thread. One of the better clowns, though.

The only clowns are you sodomite greed monger libertarians who wish to rip away the only thing keeping families from being homeless and children from starving: the government safety net.

America must raise taxes on you ungrateful libertarians.

|12.27.07 @ 6:12PM|#

AA-I feel you believe it or not. The SPLC and ADL are indeed authoritarians posing as "anti-racists." But you can be for the CRA et al and against those fools, as I am.

Hate crimes laws, and their extension "hate speech" laws, are despicable.

|12.27.07 @ 6:15PM|#

Could you fill in a few steps in the middle there?

Pretty simple joe...

Libertarian: you can't steal people's money and take their land!

Lefty: Yes i can....we did it for civil right so now we can do it to save desert turtles and stop people from eating fatty foods and so if you disagree with me you area a racist.

|12.27.07 @ 6:16PM|#

x, y
I'm not joe, but I would put forward that what he is getting at is that the application of economic pressure can make life as bad, if not worse, than the application of physical force.

I may tell some young woman "give me a b.j. or I will smack you silly" or I may say "I'm your boss, I know your kids are sick and your rent is past due, and that you have worked hard to get where you are here, so give me a b.j. or you are gone." Both are coercion, and I'd be willing to let the government do something about both. That's the liberal/libertarian distinction (but since I really don't think I am a liberal I would say that is the "normal person"/libertarian distinction).

|12.27.07 @ 6:17PM|#

Hey Edward! Where are you? Your crow is prepared.

Ron Paul's advocacy of an end to the War on Drugs and privatization of Social Security (the most effective institution for the transfer of wealth from poor minorities to whites since Jim Crow) belie the idea that he filters his policy proposals through a racist worldview, and make him a much bigger friend of minorities than the Democratic candidates, who cowardly pander to American middle-class centrist sensibilities on both these issues.

|12.27.07 @ 6:18PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy,

If my wallet is "opened up" to black people, isn't the net result more income and thus freedom for them? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the extent that it dealt with private property constituted nothing but naked theft by the government. Whether some people might have their lives made easier as a result is hardly the point. A libertarian can't take a utilitarian view about government violence, because everybody's personal utilitarian scale is different and the government's scale is nailed to the floor on the side of doing whatever the hell it wants whenever it wants. Goldwater himself noted that Negroes have as much stake in Constitution Rights as anybody, and probably more need for them. Did sacrificing their rights for some short term convenience really leave them better off? Just walk through any major inner city and see what the principles behind the 1964 CRA have wrought.

|12.27.07 @ 6:19PM|#

"Libertarian: you can't steal people's money and take their land!"

Actually most intelligent leftists would just say that while property rights are important they are not the ultimate measure of whether something is good or not. To the extent that protection of property promotes more opportunities for more people, then it is good. To the extent it does not, it is not.

|12.27.07 @ 6:22PM|#

To the extent that protection of property promotes more opportunities for more people, then it is good. To the extent it does not, it is not.

Whether such protection does indeed "promote more opportunities" than blatant violation of property rights will be settled, of course, by brilliant Washington technocrats with degrees from the finest Ivy League institutions, who have everyone's best interests at heart and an the remarkable ability to discern individuals' interests even more clearly than those individuals themselves.

|12.27.07 @ 6:24PM|#

"Did sacrificing their rights for some short term convenience really leave them better off? Just walk through any major inner city and see what the principles behind the 1964 CRA have wrought."
This strikes me as insanity. Before the CRA a black would have to walk down that street deferentially, keeping his eyes averted from any white women, and on his way to the handful of jobs that were open to him and that he was in fact, under such a regime, lucky to have (and so had to put up with much shit).

How does the CRA lead to the plight of the inner city? I hate to tell you this but black poverty rates and crime and imprisonment rates were high BEFORE the CRA...

The "short term convenience" you mention entails being able to stop at any restaraunt/hotel/resort/spa/hot dog stand/automotive repair/barber/state park/supermarket/record store/nightclub/concert/pharmacy/, well, you get the picture, and actually GET SERVICE (not to mention the employment provisions).

|12.27.07 @ 6:25PM|#

Give it up, libertoids.

You only support color-blindness so people can't tell you're blue.

;-)

|12.27.07 @ 6:26PM|#

Graphite-I guess you'd prefer good ol boys machines of Souther Politicans and "community leaders" who ran things at many state levels, eh? Talk about elitism...

|12.27.07 @ 6:28PM|#

x,y,

IOW, you don't understand what "actual" or "imminent" means.

No, you simply don't understand what "comparable" means.

And aren't even remotely interested in making an attempt to.

Which is why you lose the thread, and I get to go to bed feeling superior to you.

|12.27.07 @ 6:30PM|#

To the extent that protection of property promotes more opportunities for more people, then it is good. To the extent it does not, it is not.

I would agree with them, only that in all real world cases the benefits that private property provides nearly always out weighs public ownership....so it is sort of a useless point for the left to make.

Again restricting the sale of fatty foods is not of the same caliber as closing down white and black schools.

Anyway this is all mute...the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law...jim crow was clearly unconstitutional and the federal government is justified in protecting the constitution.

|12.27.07 @ 6:32PM|#

If anybody wants to know how shitty an individuals rights were BEFORE the evil Warren Cout incorporated the federal Bill of Rights to the states, read anything by Dashell Hammett (The Maltese Falcon). Before that move States were not restricted to the federal Bill of Rights. It was pretty AWFUL. And many states would really have never got around to providing what we consider to be basic rights today (thanks to the Warren Court).

Bottom line: many times federalizing something provides more liberty for more people

|12.27.07 @ 6:33PM|#

Graphite,

I'd say the black southerners who supported the CRA by just about 100%-0% understood their interests perfectly well, even if they agreed with a class of people that you clearly hold in contempt.

Why is it that only the segregators are presumed to know what's best for them?

Fluffy,

Don't delude yourself that the businessmen yearning for desegregation in the Jim Crow south were a substantial body. Segregation served to funnel power and wealth into the hands of the privileged racial caste. People can be counted on to know their interests well enough on an intuitive level, in such circumstances.

|12.27.07 @ 6:36PM|#

You only support color-blindness so people can't tell you're blue.

Libertarians are liberals? Wow joe that is almost a profound statement.

Here are some real profound statements. You are not a liberal. Socialism is not a subset of liberalism. Fascism is a subset of socialism. Government enforced segregation is a socialist action.

|12.27.07 @ 6:39PM|#

Bottom line: many times federalizing something provides more liberty for more people

Huh?

What the fuck does this have to do with anything?

OMG.

Remove the stick from your ass, joshua.

|12.27.07 @ 6:40PM|#

Somebody please explain the joke to the guy with the red face.

I'm too embarrassed for him.

|12.27.07 @ 6:43PM|#

"However, its just a fact that many times "federalizing" something made things much more fair and, yes, free (like the "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights for example)."

It was ammended to the Constitution not ratified by Congress unconstitutionally .. Nice try though

"There has been a restriction of some people's freedom, lik....."

hence the subsidizing racism and bigotry by pitting two "groups" at one another. The hotel owner has a right to his property. If he chooses to excluse a subset of customers he is hurting himself and will be replaced in the free marrket by a hotel who will take that business he chooses to ignore and compete at the business he chooses to accept.

"With any given restriction it must be analyzed whether the restriction has some net gain to people's opportunities or whether it closes more doors than it opens for more people..."

NO NO NO .. any restriction must be applied evenly and farily on all INDIVIDUALS .. otherwise it government sponsored racism and bigotry and that's unconstitutional

"Hate crimes laws, and their extension "hate speech" laws, are despicable."

Agreed they suborn the 1st Ammendment and suborn existing laws that can deal with this. It is just more government-sponsored racism to pit groups at one another and forgetting the only minority that needs to be addressed is the individual.

Segregation existed for one reason ... A LACK OF SPINE IN THE FEDEWRAL GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE THE 14th Amendemnt ..

The CRA and AA are overkill and promote government sponsored bigotry and racism becuase it's something they can get money from the taxpayers and a measure of power over Americans. PERIOD.

The same exists now in Congresss's lack of spine to uphold their power to stop the war and the power to control currency.

Bill White|12.27.07 @ 6:45PM|#

Hey Jew Wiegel:

I'm neither a confirmed fraud nor a confirmed liar.

What I am is someone who tells uncomfortable truths that makes Jews like you squeal in pain.

Ron Paul is tied into Taylor, Black and company. They think its great Jews like you support them -- and I've met enough sucker Jews at these paleo-meetings to know that kikes like you do exist.

What makes me different from them is that I'm not willing to believe in "the good Jew". I know you're all the same -- and Singleton is lying in the New York Times.

He attended a dinner where I spoke and he invited me to come to Paul's office and speak to Duncan McAdams about the Zionist occupation. I have his business card and McAdams', and probably some other paperwork around here.

So, that's the truth. No surprise a Jew is oblivious to it, but spare your readers your lies.

|12.27.07 @ 6:48PM|#

Uhh, Cawdor, I'm referring to the application of the Bill of Rights to the States via the 14th Amendment due process clause by the Warren Court. Before that the Bill of Rights was NOT thought to apply to the states through or not through the 14th...

"What the fuck does this have to do with anything?"

Because we are talking about the propriety of the federal government intervening on civil rights, correct?

Suddenly, making fun of Cawdor seems beside the point...

|12.27.07 @ 6:51PM|#

WTF? Bill White, meet the modern era. Modern era, meet Bill White.

Now maybe the grown-ups can get back to talking?

|12.27.07 @ 6:57PM|#

The CRA and AA are overkill and promote government sponsored bigotry and racism becuase it's something they can get money from the taxpayers and a measure of power over Americans. PERIOD.

Agreed...Equal rights is an essential part of liberalism...it is no wonder to me that the socialists leading the country in the 60's fucked it up wildly. It is a celebration of liberalism that jim crow has ended...that Blacks are still poor and still second class citizens if not in law but in fact is the fault of the Democrats and their socialist buddies like joe.

|12.27.07 @ 7:05PM|#

Hey Jew Wiegel:

I'm neither a confirmed fraud nor a confirmed liar.

What I am is someone who tells uncomfortable truths that makes Jews like you squeal in pain.

Well fuck...

White...I don't want joe to crawl in a hole and die...i just want to call him an idiot on a blog.

You on the other hand, and I say this with all sincerity, i hope you will go into your bath tub and put a gun in your mouth and end your miserable life. The world is better without you on it.

Brandybuck|12.27.07 @ 7:17PM|#

OMG! Bill has a business card! We're doomed, doomed!

|12.27.07 @ 7:42PM|#

Graphite-I guess you'd prefer good ol boys machines of Souther Politicans and "community leaders" who ran things at many state levels, eh?

The nice thing about false dichotomies is, you're more in the right by declining to choose rather than picking one of two crappy options.

|12.27.07 @ 7:45PM|#

It is always wrong to say that blanket generalizations are always wrong?

|12.27.07 @ 7:54PM|#

Uhh, Graphite, it WAS incorporation of the Bill of Rights and things like the CRA that overruled those Southern Machines...It's nice you have a third alternative in your head, but at the time, between the two choices, I know which I prefered...

|12.27.07 @ 8:09PM|#

MNG--I think you are unintentionally blurring two different debates above.

Since "we libertarians" are the ones who believe it's so important to draw distinctions between governmental and economic power, you're kind of trying to steal a base by substituting an argument in one realm (the CRA was good in that it ended government-backed segregation and state violations of blacks' rights) for another (the provisions of the CRA which abridged freedom of association and property rights were necessary to open up new economic opportunities for blacks).

Now, since you clearly disagree with or don't recognize the distinction between economic and political power, you're free to reject the terms and definitions libertarians typically employ in the debate. But to try and make it look like we're all arguing that Dashiel Hammett-type laws should have been preserved is ridiculous.

I am willing to posit that the problems of economic discrimination in the South can not be so easily dismissed with typical libertarian handwaving--"employers and businesses that discriminate will be less competitive and ultimately go out of business." And if I were to use a simpleton's utilitarian calculus, I would say that the "libertarianly pure" parts of the CRA (incorporating the Bill of Rights, ending state-sponsored segregation) outweighed the more troublesome provisions which expanded federal control of private property and association.

But I don't think that kind of calculus makes for good lawmaking, as 40-odd unbroken years of expansion of federal power over voluntary economic relationships demonstrates. It's the _principles_ underlying these provisions of the CRA that I'm objecting to. How many times in the past 40 years has the CRA's precedent for federal enforcement of individual rights on a state level been employed to benefit of liberty, versus the number of times the expansive interpretation of federal power was used to abridge it? (Growing pot for your own medical use in a state where it's legal? INNERSTATE COMMURCE CLAUZ!!!)

jtuf|12.27.07 @ 8:16PM|#

The New York Times has a blog?

VM|12.27.07 @ 8:29PM|#

joe @ 6:48

qft, my man. QFT.

|12.27.07 @ 8:31PM|#

Mr. Black, Mr. White?

WTF is this, "Reservoir Dogs"?

highnumber|12.27.07 @ 8:40PM|#

Weigel's Jewish?

|12.27.07 @ 8:43PM|#

Bill White:

I'm not willing to believe in "the good Jew". I know you're all the same

That hateful nonsense is the essence of racism. What about Jews in Israel who bravely oppose the Israeli government's thieving and murderous occupation of Palestinian land? What about Jews here in the US who actively oppose our government's funding of that occupation?

I didn't know that Dave is Jewish but whatever, writers should be judged by what they write, never their ethno/religious background.

Dave,

I trust that you wouldn't let Bill White's ridiculous crap get you down. I, and I know I'm not alone in this, quite enjoy your coverage of the campaigns and your other writings as well.

...

|12.27.07 @ 10:03PM|#

Let's just keep in mind... Virginia Heffernan has just been publicly dressed down as a LIAR by the newspaper of record. One would think that the NYT would have learned their lesson from Jason Blair... the lesson about giving column space to known prevaricators. As such, I would hope the NYT would ask Ms. Heffernan (once again, now a known LIAR) to do the right thing for the paper and resign.

Just to repeat one more time... Virginia Heffernan = KNOWN LIAR!!

|12.27.07 @ 10:13PM|#

[quote] John C. Randolph | December 27, 2007, 3:43pm | #

So, what up with this "Megan McArdle" bint? Is she a knee-jerk leftie, or a right-winger looking to scuttle Ron Paul the way that the country-club republicans tried to scuttle Reagan?[/quote]

-jcr

You mean there is a difference?

|12.27.07 @ 10:46PM|#

Bill White said:

"I have his business card and McAdams', and probably some other paperwork around here."

PROBABLY???
You flunk Nazi camp!
Keeping track of paperwork is de riguer at Nazi camp!

Guy Montag|12.27.07 @ 10:57PM|#

RJ,

No matter how much you or I do not like how some of our elected representitives act, the government of America IS America for all of us and for those outsiders who they meet. I suffered the embarassment of James Earl Carter, Jr. being my president, but I can not go into psychatric mode and pretend that he was not my president while he was "boycotting" the Soviets, resisting Rep. Wilson of TX, running from a rabbit, kicking Iranian students from the US for not agreeing with him (or me on that issue), calling for a "windfall profits tax" on US oil firms or getting the Congress to make businesses set thurmostats at 68 degrees in the winter.

Sorry, dude, our representitive government is "us", even when we do not personally agree with them. Even when GWB wants to give illegal aliens the keys to the emergency room, he is still our president.

You might have a good argument in Venezuela, but you ain't got one here.

Franklin Harris|12.27.07 @ 10:59PM|#

He actually took two cheap shots. There's the first one (repeated on radio), which everyone is talking about, and there's the second one, in which Medved said Paul supporters probably liked the blip idea because of the Nazi Hindenburg. There's no limit to Medved's know-nothing jackassery. As if his movie reviews weren't awful enough.

Happy Jack|12.27.07 @ 11:20PM|#

Weigel's Jewish?

I thought Charlie Sheen was Galician.

|12.28.07 @ 1:04AM|#

Just to repeat one more time... Virginia Heffernan = KNOWN LIAR!!

She works for the NY times.

I knew she was a liar before I read the article.

|12.28.07 @ 2:45AM|#

"Libertarians care for nothing except greed, pot and, sodomy."
I object to that statement. I also care about my motorcycle.

Hey, you moron|12.28.07 @ 4:36AM|#

It's spelled Joos, dammit.

New Theme Song Here|12.28.07 @ 4:37AM|#

"You'll Never Wack Alone."

|12.28.07 @ 6:58AM|#

What to do after Ron Paul??

If Ron Paul gets into the White House, even if that happens--and the odds are 6 to 1 according to the professional bookies--we still have work ahead of us. That work will consist of getting other limited government Jeffersonian libertarian minded way travelers into all of the offices that we can, from dog catchers to the Supreme Court. Democrat,Republican, Libertarian, these are merely titles, what is paramount is that we--those of us that are on fire for, thirst after what Dr. Paul offers--get as many ALLIES into offices to assist ourselves with Freeing ourselves from the near on dictatorship that we labor under at this time.

Think about it for a minute now. If even 1/10th of the effort that we all put into this primary to get Ron Paul into the limelight of the GOP where to be keep alive and reused to get say 500 city councilmen, or county commissioners or what not at the local level, then we would have a true real and solidly based revolution of ideas that could not be stopped.

I am not poo pooing Dr. Paul at all, on the contrary I believe that his chances are fantastic at this time; however if he loses or once he is gone--8 years tops--we need a back up plan to ensure that the gains that we have made are not ephemeral. I believe that the MySpace and MeetUp Groups that have formed around the ideas that this mild mannered man can be the kernel that will sprout into the solidity that we will need to ensure that Freedom is more that just a word.

I am not really the guy for this. I am a two time loser convict, and not the most eloquent person; however some of you MAY just be the ones that can bring this to fruitation for the betterment of us all. I urge you to think about my idea, of using the energy that has been built up here to build a political foundation that can not only put Ron Paul into the Presidency of the United States of America, but that can put you into what ever local, or state offices that you can do the most good from for the advancement of the ideal.

Thank You for your time.

x,y|12.28.07 @ 10:32AM|#

joe,

Just because you use the word "comparable" doesn't make the two things you're comparing any more or less alike than they are. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

R C Dean|12.28.07 @ 11:47AM|#

Bottom line: many times federalizing something provides more liberty for more people

Depends on what you're federalizing, I guess. If "federalizing" means using the feds to outlaw state restrictions on freedom, sure.

If "federalizing" means aggregating, say, police power, at the federal level (such as the WOD), then I would say no, not so much.

On the whole, over the last couple of generations, I would say that the vast increase in the size and scope of the federal government has mostly not increased liberty in this country. The Regulatory State, the Nanny State, and the Redistributionist State are all creatures of "federalizing", and all are anti-liberty.

|12.28.07 @ 12:12PM|#

joshua corning, way upthread, attributed eminent domain and zoning laws to the expanded government powers given to the government in the 1960s.

Zoning was created in the 1920s, based on a tradition of land use law that went back to the late 1800s.

The expansion of the use of eminent domain began with the Urban Renewal programs of the 1950s.

|11.2.09 @ 7:28PM|#

Facinating joe. but when progressives use examples to promote government action they use Civil rights as the holy grail that defeats all comers.

Jim Crow was hugly destructive and justified government action. Stong action. Zoning laws and eminent domain are also strong actions. The difference being that unlike Civil Rights the government does not have the moral imperative to use such actions.

Anyway you won't ever read this and even if you did you would simply point out some odd fact that has nothing to do with my argument all in the hopes that it will go away.

Plus why is this thread linked at the reason wiki as the reason joe left?

I am pretty sure joe left a year or so after this...he left about the time Obama was elected if not a little after he was sworn in.

|12.28.07 @ 6:52PM|#

"I'm neither a confirmed fraud nor a confirmed liar."

Bill, you seem to have missed a subtle difference between the 1930's and the present day. Goebbels' "big lie" technique only works when your brown-shirt thugs are able to take over all mass communication. In the USA in 2007, this is not possible, and the upshot is that your lies are trivially exposed, making you look even more ridiculous than you already were.

You are a fraud, you are a liar, and you are a blithering idiot. Under Hitler, you'd be dead: he started by gassing the mentally handicapped.

-jcr

|12.28.07 @ 6:56PM|#

" Do you blame the woman or the rapist?"

Well, the woman was stupid, but the perp is still the perp. The stupidity of the victim isn't a mitigating circumstance.

-jcr

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements