Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Set Your TiVos to "Stun"
At some time maybe around 5:00 or 5:30 p.m. EDT today, I'm scheduled to make an appearance on CNN talking about Ron Paul's old newsletters. It's an edited piece, not a panel bull session, so my 15 minutes will probably end up as 30 seconds max. UPDATE: Or maybe not! If it ever runs, please someone drop a line.
Speaking of newsletters, former reason editor Virginia Postrel had this to say today:
Thanks to The New Republic, libertarians who weren't paying attention in the 1990s, don't read Texas Monthly, and didn't do their candidate research have now discovered that Ron Paul said--or, more likely, allowed to be said in his name (probably by Lew Rockwell)--nasty things in his newsletters. Much reaction can be found at Hit & Run, as well as Andrew Sullivan's blog and The Volokh Conspiracy. The disclosures are not news to me, nor is the Paul campaign's dismissive reaction a surprise. When you give your political heart to a guy who spends so much time worrying about international bankers, you're not going to get a tolerant cosmopolitan.
drawnasunder|1.9.08 @ 3:38PM|#
If I'm a libertarian, and even after this Ron Paul mess (which disappoints me), I STILL don't think it means I just fell off a turnip truck, does that mean I am even dumber than Virginia thinks I am?
javier|1.9.08 @ 3:41PM|#
shit. I guess we can try it again in about eight - twelve years, given the inflationary recession ahead. let's find someone squeeky f***ing clean. at the least maybe he has encouraged some like minded (policy wise, not on race) people to get involve and maybe even run in the future.
K.|1.9.08 @ 3:45PM|#
What's the thing about Lee Rockwell? Anybody know if he has some weird positions?
Brandybuck|1.9.08 @ 3:46PM|#
"Tolerant cosmopolitan"? What the frak does that have to do with libertarianism?
drawnasunder|1.9.08 @ 3:48PM|#
"Tolerant cosmopolitan"? What the frak does that have to do
with libertarianism?
To some, it has everything to do with libertarianism.
To some others, not so much. (They're the problem....)
|1.9.08 @ 3:49PM|#
I don't understand the last sentence in the Ms. Postrel's quote.
Why shouldn't we be worried about bankers who have a
disproportionate amount of power? Also, me knowing a couple of
dozen bankers automatically makes more cosmopolitan? Or is the
implication of this sentence that only city folk should only be
allowed into the Libertarian movement?
Regards,
TDL
Jim Lesczynski|1.9.08 @ 3:54PM|#
I believe the implication is that "international bankers" is a code word for "Jews".
Avi|1.9.08 @ 3:58PM|#
It's good to finally here some libertarians speak out against Paul. While he certainly has some positive positions (smaller government supporter and all), he's ultimately doomed to do more harm than good. Libertarianism is tarred with a false association with Lyndon LaRouche. A real association with Paul and his repulsive and racist views (and it doesn't matter if he didn't author the pieces in the newsletter -- that he allowed it in his name is bad enough) is far more damaging.
Martin|1.9.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Postrel of course supported the Iraq war. I guess that is all we
need to know what this 'tolerant cosmopolitanism' amounts to.
These 'beltway' libertarians just need to admit that they are
really neocons.
TLB|1.9.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Of course, smearing in code would be something I'd expect Reason
to oppose, but I guess I'm wrong.
And, I keep coming back to this interview with the TNR author,
specifically the first part where he puts a happy face on some
interesting groups:
youtube.com/watch?v=Whqtv9D9g-Y
Not to get all conspiracy theory and all, but see also what the
author says about DR in the article, and see his advocate article,
and see also this:
youtube.com/watch?v=wo5qNtflqV0
|1.9.08 @ 4:06PM|#
What's the thing about Rockwell? Anybody know if he has some
weird positions?
He always was pretty paranoid.
twv|1.9.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Yes, many who complain about "international bankers" are,
indeed, targeting Jews, and the horror of the "international Jewish
Conspiracy." I have heard this many a time from those on the
self-described "partiot" end of the right-wing spectrum, and from a
few people tangential to libertarianism. These people generally
despise libertarians for being so soft on Jews and ignorant of
"what's really going on." I was always thankful for their
willingness to distance themselves from us.
Alas, it was to them that Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell were
trying to appeal (in part) in their Paleo Turn, right after the
first Ron Paul fiasco of 1988. Even before then they had begun
using terms like "bankster" to appeal to the far right
cranks.
Remember, the Paleo Turn was an attempt to egg on hate towards the
underclass as part of a class war that would (golly gee whiz,
really?) overthrow the state.
I thought then and think now that libertarianism is not a
philosophy of hate, and can't succeed as such. So I was not
surprised by the failure of the Paleo Turn, or by the recent
brouhaha over the Ron Paul newsletters.
Read them. You can see that they are the Paleolibertarian movement
in Beta version. The general level of nastiness there is
preparation for the general level of nastiness that bubbled forth
amongs the paleos in the '90s. This didn't go very far, of course.
But it was ugly, it was pretty obvious, and it is a sad part of the
history not only of Ron Paul, but also of the late Murray Rothbard,
who sullied himself in hatemongering before he died.
Cosmopolitans accept differences, and don't mire themselves in
talking about the badnesses of a few cultural groups. They stick to
principles, are mostly indifferent to the foibles of others, and,
in so doing, let civilization keep rumbling along.
The Paleo Turn was a failed attempt to try revolution using an
anti-cosmopolitan mindset. It was doomed from the start.
|1.9.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Libertarianism might want to think long and hard before it weds
itself to goofball Austrian Gold Standard economics. There is
nothing necessarily anti-freedom about a floating currency.
Further, on the list of economic sins of the current government,
the existence of the FED and the lack of a gold standard, even if
you buy all that loopy stuff is like 1 millionth on the list. How
about worrying about reducing taxes and regulation and making the
federal government something less than 18% of the GNP before we get
ambitious and shut down the FED? If the Libertarians would run a
candidate who said,
1. I am going to lower your taxes
2. I am going to stop the government from telling you how to
live
3. I am going to government spending so that every year it is a
smaller percentage of GDP than the year before
4. I am going get the federal government out of as many sectors of
the economy as I possibly can
5. I am going to stop wasting time and money throwing people in
jail over drugs.
And dropped all the dopey gold standard crap, they might get
somewhere.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.9.08 @ 4:09PM|#
When I was young, I thought gin was awful. Now I don't.
Things change.
|1.9.08 @ 4:12PM|#
Ron Paul isn't so much a libertarian as a cranky old man. His political opinions seem to dovetail perfectly with everybody's 70-year-old uncle: get the gubmint off my back, those bankers just must be screwing me, and why the hell should I have to push 1 for English?
|1.9.08 @ 4:12PM|#
"Tolerant cosmopolitan"? What the frak does that have to do
with libertarianism?
Think of it as Cato Institute vs. Mountain Dougie.
Guy Montag|1.9.08 @ 4:12PM|#
Just a wild guess here, but for the amount of gold the federal government actually holds wouldn't converting all of the current wealth of the country into so-called 'gold backed currency' make each dollar worth, maybe, about one atom of gold?
|1.9.08 @ 4:13PM|#
There has always been a cultural divide amoung libertarians just as there is amoung the left, liberals and conservatives -- however the cultural divide doesn't necessarily tell you what positions people hold, just who you are more likely to hang out with -- I'd throw myself into the "cosmo lib" side of the argument but have always been anti-war and found Postrel to be rather repugnant when talking about anything other than libertarian advances in type font empowerment for door to door maids and what not. And I still gladly support Ron Paul and will vote for the guy but find Lew Rockwell and most his site to be backwards, paranoid and not serving the advancement of liberty.
Robert|1.9.08 @ 4:14PM|#
But Jim, "cosmopolitan" is another code word
for "Jew"!
I don't know why the furor is worse now on Hit & Run than when
it was brought up about 7 months ago. Is it going to increase in
virulence every time another publication rehashes it, as seems to
be the case when a cold virus is passaged thru young children?
Martin|1.9.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Pat Robertson backs Giuliani. Robertson famously wrote a book
claiming that the Illuminati and Freemasons rule the world. Have we
heard any outrage cosmopolitan denounce Rudy as a Nazi for this? Of
course not! Rudy is an establishment candidate. He can get away
with whatever he likes.
'Cosmopolitans accept differences, and don't mire themselves in
talking about the badnesses of a few cultural groups. '
In Virginia Postrel's case too, they like preemptive wars against
Arabs too. Real cosmo.
The AntiHumanist|1.9.08 @ 4:14PM|#
It implies a double-standard: because libertarians are in the minority, they must behave more wisely than everybody else. Republican and Democrat voters being irrationally exuberant is expected, but libertarians... I admit that I have been deluded by Paul's candidacy--but I am human: when a moment appeared in which my politics might be regarded seriously--even if represented by a dubious character--I leapt onto the bandwagon. Live and learn--but to be derided as exceptionally ignorant or pathological should not be tolerated.
|1.9.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Or maybe 1 oz vodka, 1/2 oz triple sec, 1/2 oz Rose's® lime juice, 1/2 oz cranberry juice vs. Natty Light.
ed|1.9.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Yes, yes, however, "turnip truck" is still funny. Maybe Gillespie-era Reasonoids ride a shorter bus than those of the Postrel era? Just a theory. Carry on.
|1.9.08 @ 4:16PM|#
"Just a wild guess here, but for the amount of gold the federal
government actually holds wouldn't converting all of the current
wealth of the country into so-called 'gold backed currency' make
each dollar worth, maybe, about one atom of gold?"
Not exactly. It would drasticlly reduce the amount of currency
available and keep the government from making more to stimulate the
economy. The government literally could no longer print its own
money. It would have to mine it. The economic dislocations
associated with a switch to a gold standard would be to say the
least significant, which is why it will never happen and
libertarians would do well to stop yammering about it.
|1.9.08 @ 4:20PM|#
"When you vote for a guy who spends so much time worrying about
international bankers, you're not going to get a tolerant
cosmopolitan."
You're anti-semite!
No, YOU'RE an anti-semite!
No, YOU'RE an anti-semite!
No, YOU'RE an anti-semite!
No, YOU'RE an anti-semite!
No, YOU'RE an anti-semite!
No, YOU'RE an anti-semite!
etc.
|1.9.08 @ 4:20PM|#
I think the problem with the currency isn't so much that it isn't backed by gold(or silver), but that it isn't back by gold(or silver) AND only backed by faith in the State to pay it's debts and nothing more. private competing currencies please. preferably backed by more than faith in the issuer.
Guy Montag|1.9.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Not exactly. It would drasticlly reduce the amount of
currency available and keep the government from making more to
stimulate the economy. The government literally could no longer
print its own money. It would have to mine it.
Actually, they would have to declare each "dollar" as worth some
amount of gold. If they stick to that amount, then you are correct.
If they "re-index" the dollar against a different amount of gold
then that is a whole different deal.
Robert|1.9.08 @ 4:21PM|#
twv, I recall one of Roy Childs's last quips -- that Murray Rothbard should run for mayor of New York City: "He'll get the Jewish vote because he's Jewish, and the black vote because he's anti-semitic."
twv|1.9.08 @ 4:21PM|#
I was against this latest war, too, and still find the pro-war
libertarians amazingly naive. Postrel included.
But some anti-war libs seem naive to me, too. I have a hard time
condemning World War II, no matter how much deceit led up to it.
Further, I side with Ron Paul that attacking the Taliban in
Afghanistan was a good idea. (Though I still don't understand why
this wasn't done under a declaration of war, and don't understand
why Ron only talked about such a declaration regarding Iraq.)
I've long had this theory that libertarians need EXTREMELY SMART
advocates up front. But so far, our smart guys and gals stay in the
background, especially in politics. Maybe there's a reason for
this, and the required level of sophistication to handle most
objections to rolling back the state won't be found in people that
voters would feel comfortable voting for.
So we are left with nice guys, not geniuses. Like Ron Paul.
He's still the only one of the Rs and Ds who I'd vote for, failings
and all.
|1.9.08 @ 4:22PM|#
From NRO's The Corner:
" Ron Paul's Newsletter [Rick Brookhiser]
If you live in Further Right World, you may well believe that the
Constitution was a kind of NATO between the states. I think that is
demonstrably wrong, but it is an honorable view (Jefferson, in some
moods, professed it).
Close by that view is the view that the slave power was the
historic defender of liberty, which I think is both wrong and
wicked (Jefferson, in his old age, found himself driven to
it).
Many inhabitants of Further Right World are also gold bugs. That
may be a mistaken belief, but again it is honorable. Gold buggery
goes off the rails when it breeds an unhealthy suspicion of central
banks. ("The necessary secrecy of [bankers'] transactions gives
unlimited scope to imagination to infer that something is, or may
be wrong"-Alexander Hamilton, "Report on a National Bank," 1790). I
was startled, the first time I read Lysander Spooner-and if you
have spent any time in Further Right World, you will know exactly
who that is-to find a little blast at the Rothschilds.
Ron Paul clearly holds the honorable views mentioned above, and
everyone who knows him testifies that he does not hold the wicked
ones. But it requires eternal vigilance in Further Right World to
keep the two apart, and he has not exercised it."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
|1.9.08 @ 4:22PM|#
The war in Iraq has caused hippy anti-war libertarians to somehow decide that their future lies with peleocon parnoids. It was always an odd mariage to say the least. At some point, the war is going to end and the hippies are going to wake up the next morning after going on their anti-war bender in bed with one ugly broad.
|1.9.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Ron Paul is far too threating to rich white guys to ever get elected. Being called a racist will be the least of his problems.
Tom Walls|1.9.08 @ 4:24PM|#
John, so the Ron Paul / paleo ghostwriter newsletter flap calls
Austrian economics into question?
Far as I can tell, Ludwig von Mises wasn't one of the possible
ghostwriters.
Good points otherwise.
|1.9.08 @ 4:25PM|#
twv,
That is a thoughtful, quick recount. That is the kind of assessment
that I would like to see more of instead of the reflexive evil
"beltway libertarians" vs. neo-conferderates vs. "cultural
libertarians" vs. Objectivists vs. (enter name of anyone you want
here.) Yet, I think too many of the personalities involved with
this movement (whatever you want to call it) are too busy battling
over the limelight. Too much he said, she said. I have to imagine
the infighting is taking an increasing toll on existing and future
donors (I know one donor who is getting tired of it!)
John,
If you accept the tenets of free market capitalism how could you be
so dismissive of criticism to a central planning committee such as
the Fed? Too many critics get caught up on gold (simply because
gold has been the default currency for 5000 years of human
history.) In a sophisticated and complex economy like ours a stable
(market created) medium of exchange, unit of account, as well as an
interest rate that allows for the accurate calculation of a hurdle
rate for investment is critical. Money doesn't need to be gold, it
just has to be determined by the market place.
Regards,
TDL
Guy Montag|1.9.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Shane,
Please don't come to me for your next hybrid muscle car. I accept
payment only in US dollars, not some paper printed off of a
computer on an obscure island. I do not accept critters either.
Just US Federal Reserve Notes or verified checks, or maybe an
old-school HEMI 'Cuda :)
|1.9.08 @ 4:26PM|#
"Actually, they would have to declare each "dollar" as worth
some amount of gold. If they stick to that amount, then you are
correct. If they "re-index" the dollar against a different amount
of gold then that is a whole different deal."
That is a good point Guy. I had forgotten about re-indexing which
puts lie to the whole idea that the gold standard ensures the value
of the currency, since there is nothing to stop the government from
devalueing a gold based currency by re-indexing it.
Russ 2000|1.9.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Right on, John.
I hate all that gold talk. Nobody holds cash anyway, they hold
capital investments in stocks, bonds, and other deposits in
financial institutions. We have a better system than a gold
standard - we have a "whatever you want" standard. You can put all
your capital investments into gold if you want, or pharmaceuticals,
or Chinese real estate or whatever you want. Thanks to technology,
these are converted into cash so quickly that most people
essentially consider them cash nowadays. You can choose to hold
your wealth as Federal Reserve Notes if you want, but I think the
vast majority of Americans don't do that - and it doesn't really
matter if they know or don't know WHY they don't hold many Fed
Notes.
|1.9.08 @ 4:27PM|#
David @4:22,
since when does Lysander Spooner(an individual anarchist and
abolitionist) have anything to do with the far-right?
And the Consitution wasn't a "kind of NATO between the States"
until Lincoln? What history book is he reading from?
Robert|1.9.08 @ 4:27PM|#
the required level of sophistication to handle most objections to rolling back the state won't be found in people that voters would feel comfortable voting for.
Is there something intrinsic to being smart that produces
discomfort??
Jean Paul|1.9.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Yeah, the return to the gold standard never struck me as being
all that relevant. I don't really care how the national dollar is
backed if I no longer have to pay a penny of taxes denominated in
it.
Much better would be to permit free banking anyway, rather than
enforcing a single national currency and fighting about it's
backing.
|1.9.08 @ 4:27PM|#
All fiat currencies have, at some point, been worth
nothing.
Gold has never been worth nothing.
Mr. X|1.9.08 @ 4:28PM|#
That is a good point Guy. I had forgotten about re-indexing
which puts lie to the whole idea that the gold standard ensures the
value of the currency, since there is nothing to stop the
government from devalueing a gold based currency by re-indexing
it.
Yeah, but the Congress has to vote for that re-indexing. It's like
voting for raising taxes; Congress can do it, but it's
unpopular.
Mike Laursen|1.9.08 @ 4:29PM|#
I don't know why the furor is worse now on Hit & Run
than when it was brought up about 7 months ago.
Perhaps it is faulty recall on my part, but what was brought up
seven months ago was one article in one edition of the newsletter.
As of yesterday, we are talking about several articles over several
years.
|1.9.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Guy Montag- Laugh if you want, but it's worked before. Politicians shouldn't have anything to do with the economy or the currency, too much power in limited hands.
|1.9.08 @ 4:30PM|#
"Money doesn't need to be gold, it just has to be determined by
the market place."
I can't argue with that. And the number one duty of a central bank
and or government is to ensure that the value of the dollar remains
stable, neither too much inflation or deflation. But, a floating
currency does let the market work it out. Right now, the US is
running a big current accounts deficit, so the dollar is falling
like a rock. As a result, things in the US are cheap and the
current accounts deficit is falling which will eventually bring the
value of the dollar back up and achieve some equilibrium. I don't
see that as a bad thing.
charlie|1.9.08 @ 4:30PM|#
I've become increasingly disillusioned with the Lew Rockwell
crowd (though I think it's unfair to say he's the author of the
newsletters before seeing any actual evidence), but that's not to
say I think Virginia Postrel and her vapid "dynamism" is any
better. As has been mentioned, she endorsed the Iraq war, and I
haven't heard her apologize for it since. To her and the CATO
crowd, libertarians should talk about things like school vouchers
and cutting the estate tax, not uncomfortable things like opposing
American imperialism (that won't get you invited to any Republican
cocktail parties, that's for sure).
And just because Ron Paul might have some personal failings, that
doesn't make his critique of the Federal Reserve and American
monetary policy any less vailid. F.A. Hayek endorsed the idea of
competing legal currencies, but I guess we're supposed to be better
off ignoring things like that because it may currently be unpopular
amongst Postrel's "cosmopolitan" crowd.
Russ 2000|1.9.08 @ 4:31PM|#
I've long had this theory that libertarians need EXTREMELY
SMART advocates up front.
That means people with IQ's over 130 which puts them so far away
from the norm that people feel uneasy about them. In fact, that's
been the exact problem for libertarians.
What libertarians need is someone EXTREMELY AVERAGE. Why do you
think Reagan appealed to so many?
Jim Lesczynski|1.9.08 @ 4:32PM|#
Pat Robertson backs Giuliani. Robertson famously wrote a
book claiming that the Illuminati and Freemasons rule the world.
Have we heard any outrage cosmopolitan denounce Rudy as a Nazi for
this? Of course not! Rudy is an establishment candidate. He can get
away with whatever he likes.
Of course Robertson didn't publish his views anonymously in a
newsletter titled "The Giuliani Report."
On the other hand, Ron Paul never had cops under his chain of
command bugger a perp with a broomstick while yelling "It's Paul
Time!" Racist actions speak louder than words.
Mike Laursen|1.9.08 @ 4:32PM|#
I leapt onto the bandwagon. Live and learn--but to be
derided as exceptionally ignorant or pathological should not be
tolerated.
Good point. Assuming you are a fairly normal person, who has a
life, and don't dedicate every hour of your time to following every
bit of libertarian insider gossip, it's understandable that you
were enthusiastic about the things Ron Paul is saying now, and
didn't know about his history.
Robert|1.9.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Perhaps it is faulty recall on my part, but what was brought up seven months ago was one article in one edition of the newsletter. As of yesterday, we are talking about several articles over several years.
That would make a difference to me. My assumption that the amount
of material was the same then shows that even with the inordinate
amount of time I'm spending on this stuff, I'm still letting people
pre-digest a lot for me.
dpotts|1.9.08 @ 4:33PM|#
but so far, our smart guys and gals stay in the background,
especially in politics. Maybe there's a reason for this.
Libertarians despise government - why would we want it to be our
job when we can blog instead?
Franklin Harris|1.9.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Remember, the Paleo Turn was an attempt to egg on hate towards the underclass as part of a class war that would (golly gee whiz, really?) overthrow the state.
Actually, the paleo turn was an attempt to create a populist front
against statist elites. To the extent that there was a class
element involved, the target was actually a segment of the
rich.
|1.9.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Shane,
Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger.
Ask Mr. Brookhiser.
http://www.richardbrookhiser.com/
|1.9.08 @ 4:34PM|#
What libertarians need is someone EXTREMELY
AVERAGE.
haven't met one yet, i keep running into nerds and rednecks or
sometimes even people who are a little of both(hello), but
average?
The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Been a while since VP graced the pages of her old alma mater.
But today is a fine day to hear from the old boss.
I respect VP (more than you might imagine), but here's the thing,
when Daily Kos made the unsubstantiated allegations I searched the
internet for hours and there wasn't a single source document
presented on any site that claimed the allegations were true. If
that makes me a dumb ass, so be it. But of all those who claim to
have known all along, and VP probably did since she was living in
Dallas, I suspect that very few knew the reality. Not unless they
lived in Texas or subscribed to the RP newsletters. At that point
RP was a long ago phenom and a has-been.
It doesn't have anything to do with paying attention. Otherwise the
Reason staff wouldn't be peddling backwards en masse. They'da broke
the story in the first place.
Jesus Chrysler.
Guy Montag|1.9.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Mr. X,
Yeah, but the Congress has to vote for that re-indexing. It's
like voting for raising taxes; Congress can do it, but it's
unpopular.
Actually, the Congress now votes on the debt ceiling, which is a
(very) rough equivilant to reindexing.
Shane,
I am not laughing at the barterors, I am just making my side of the
transaction clear as to what payment I accept and examples of what
I do not.
Now, when you find a 1970 'Cuda convertable to trade me for a 2008
resto-mod hybrid just let me know and we can avoid all of that
dirty fiat money.
TLB|1.9.08 @ 4:37PM|#
Lincoln says: Ron Paul is far too threating to rich white
guys to ever get elected. Being called a racist will be the least
of his problems.
Leaving aside the card playing, for some reason or other, Reason
has completely ignored that side of this story. Not too many people
seem to be interested in the TNR piece's backstory. It's possible
to oppose both Paul and what seem to be the unseemly underpinnings
of the TNR piece, but apparently doing that is beyond Reason's
grasp.
|1.9.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Now, when you find a 1970 'Cuda convertable to trade me for
a 2008 resto-mod hybrid just let me know and we can avoid all of
that dirty fiat money.
deal. barter works best for me personally, trouble is carry all
those chickens around in my wallet.
seriously though, props to liberty dollars, private currencies work
if you can keep them accountable.
twv|1.9.08 @ 4:38PM|#
By the way, am I the only person who admires the work
(generally) done by Cato, Reason, AND Mises.org?
Every week, if not every day, I turn to each of these sites.
Mises.org alone is to be commended for its publication of
hard-to-find classics. Cato does some great policy work, and gets
mainstream and even centrist people to consider and debate
libertarian ideas. And Reason, of course, is a magazine that keeps
getting better and better.
Whatever indiscretions and follies may have occurred in each of
these organization's past lives (and there are embarrassments
aplenty for all, I'm sure), today these three "poles" of the
libertarian movement offer quite a lot of information and analysis
as well as theory and fun.
charlie|1.9.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Question regarding the National Review excerpt above: I consider myself to be one of those hippy antiwar people first, libertarian second (though obviously they're perfectly compatible)... but is liking Lysander Spooner, a 19th century abolitionist and anarchist, supposed to mark me as some sort of "far right" paleo? I don't know, but I thought the whole vehement anti-slavery thing was pretty progressive for its time... can someone enlighten me?
jj|1.9.08 @ 4:39PM|#
What evidence you or Vagina Postrel have that Lew wrote the
offensive comments?
Racists claim that all members of a certain race are stupid or ugly
or evil. You fuckers are even worse. Some people of every race are
evil. So racists are right 1% of the time. You idiots have no
evidence that Rockwell wrote anything of the sort. Put up or
fucking shut up.
|1.9.08 @ 4:40PM|#
The AntiHumanist,
I couldn't say it better myself.
John,
I agree with you in the intermediate term, but I am not as certain
about the longer term picture of the $. Also, the equilibrium point
might be significantly lower than anyone might realize (except for
perma-bears of course.) Although I'll say you make a good point
about focusing in on tax and spending reductions and keep the more
arcane monetary policy on the back burner.
Regards,
TDL
The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 4:40PM|#
VP headline wins the thread:
Libertarians Fall Off Turnip Truck
I don't agree but I am still LOL
|1.9.08 @ 4:41PM|#
It doesn't have anything to do with paying attention. Otherwise the Reason staff wouldn't be peddling backwards en masse. They'da broke the story in the first place.
Does it? Jesse Walker already
gave his response to that general question, but I'd like to
hear what the rest of the Reasonoids have to say to Postrel's claim
that, essentially, everybody with a brain already knew this.
Matt|1.9.08 @ 4:41PM|#
Id post this on Postrel's site, but no posting available.
Hey Virginia, werent Ron Pauls' mentors Rothbard, Mises, and
Friedman "Cosmopolitan" in your sense of the word?
|1.9.08 @ 4:43PM|#
John:
Your first post is spot on.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124309.html#876069
It's maddening that Paul (or any major Libertarian candidate) can't
seem to enthusiastically embrace the elements of libertarianism
that resonate positively with so many people: Lower my taxes,
control spending and keep the government out of my hair as much as
possible. Your suggested five-part platform is lucid, pragmatic
and, most importantly, accessible. Paul could've finished third in
NH if he ran on it.
I get so frustrated with the wonky tangents that confuse (or worse,
alienate) disgruntled voters looking for alternatives to the blues
and reds. The gold standard? The constitutionality of forced
private-sector integration in the Civil Rights Act of 1964? They
warrant academic discussion, but are these really the issues
libertarians expect to invite and energize people?
The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 4:43PM|#
I take that back, VP was still in LA at the time the offensive newsletters were circulated. But she was paying attention.
BakedPenguin|1.9.08 @ 4:45PM|#
...is liking Lysander Spooner, a 19th century abolitionist and anarchist, supposed to mark me as some sort of "far right" paleo?
Huh? How'd he get dragged into this? Did I miss something?
|1.9.08 @ 4:45PM|#
It won't be too long before all transactions are electronic. It
will be important to prevent terrorist, drug dealers, and other bad
guys from making cash transaction. It will be global credits.
Get with the program! ;-)
|1.9.08 @ 4:45PM|#
TDL,
In my opinion the dollar is backed by the productivity of the
American economy. The more the government meddles with that the
worse things get. No gold standard is going to save you if you tax
and regulate your economy to death and it is not that hard to run a
floating currency if you have a dynamic powerful economy.
charlie|1.9.08 @ 4:48PM|#
BakedPenguin (wonderful name, btw) --
Rick Brookhiser at National Review wrote: "Many inhabitants of
Further Right World are also gold bugs. That may be a mistaken
belief, but again it is honorable. Gold buggery goes off the rails
when it breeds an unhealthy suspicion of central banks. ("The
necessary secrecy of [bankers'] transactions gives unlimited scope
to imagination to infer that something is, or may be
wrong"-Alexander Hamilton, "Report on a National Bank," 1790).
I was startled, the first time I read Lysander Spooner-and
if you have spent any time in Further Right World, you will know
exactly who that is-to find a little blast at the
Rothschilds."
I wrote a major paper in college critiquing the concept of a social
contract that drew heavily on Spooner's "No Treason" writings, and
now I'm wondering if that's supposed to make me a denizen of "Far
Right World"...
dpotts|1.9.08 @ 4:48PM|#
They warrant academic discussion, but are these really the
issues libertarians expect to invite and energize
people?
It's Badnarik all over again, except this time it's the gold
standard instead of ID cards, and we actually had an audience for a
moment.
|1.9.08 @ 4:48PM|#
It's still Daylight Savings Time? Does that mean that I missed it as of this post?
|1.9.08 @ 4:50PM|#
John,
I agree with you there. Although I'm increasingly concerned about
having an accurate hurdle rate (which is driven by interest rates.)
A sharp yield curve might distort the picture at both ends of the
curve and make it hard for entrepreneurs and business people to
make accurate investment decisions. Then again I am talking my
booking since I am coming closing to the funding cycle of a
start-up.
Regards,
TDL
Jean Paul|1.9.08 @ 4:55PM|#
The most important place to eradicate racism is in the
law.
The dreaded racist-next-door is not the guy you need to worry
about. If some person is a racist, you can hate them if you want,
but who cares becuase it's their loss really.
The thing about racism is, it's economically degenerate and will
eventually fade into an impoverished demise over the course of
generations. This you can bet on.
But when the system of LAW that binds us all is racist, well... we
can expect that system to drag us all down with it to a likewise
impoverished demise.
I don't really care if Ron Paul once-upon-a-time, being a younger
and less wise man than he is today, hadn't yet realized the perils
of racism. Clearly he's learned something and his more mature
politics are not racist today. That's far better than I would say
for any of the other candidates.
Martin|1.9.08 @ 4:55PM|#
'To her and the CATO crowd, libertarians should talk about
things like school vouchers and cutting the estate tax'
With all due respect, Cato et al have been doing that for years.
They have barely a thing to show for it. For all their elitism and
cosmopolitanism, the Washington elite don't listen to them. When
offered to choose between school choice and No Child Behind for
example, the Washington power elite will always pick the latter.
CATO are naive if they believe they will ever influence the
Washington elite on anything but trivialities.
Any successful libertarian movement would need a substantial
populist element to it. Paul may have failed, but I'll give him his
due for trying. CATO/Postrel/beltway gang will never achieve
this.
|1.9.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Without speaking in code, let me add one item to John's list of
"sensible libertarian" positions above:
1. I am going to lower your taxes
2. I am going to stop the government from telling you how to
live
3. I am going to government spending so that every year it is a
smaller percentage of GDP than the year before
4. I am going get the federal government out of as many sectors of
the economy as I possibly can
5. I am going to stop wasting time and money throwing people in
jail over drugs.
6. I am going to renounce the use of economic sanctions and
embargoes and maintain open diplomatic relations with all
nations.
Note that there's nothing pacifist, isolationist or even idealist
about that statement. I would add something to the effect of
reducing our global military footprint and stepping back from the
World Police role, but I think anybody who calls themself a
libertarian can agree on the items in #6. Ron Paul's foreign policy
ideas, even if they go well beyond what many libertarians can
stomach, are a huge part of his campaign's success, and his
strongest appeal to me personally.
Peter|1.9.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Whatever one's feelings regarding Paul were or are, and I am
just rephrasing what some others have said, this has done
irreparable damage to Libertarianism. Living in LA, I feel like an
outcast already just having the views I do. Now, the false
associations most left-wingers and progressives etc. harbored
toward us will be cemented existentially. I feel like the momentum
towards having some semblance of acceptance in mainstream civil
society has been abruptly halted and turned backwards. I do
consider myself a conservative by the same token as my
libertarianism, as Reagan put it that conservatism's heart is
libertarian, though conservatism has also been sullied by the reign
of the neocons and the social-religious zealots.
I am also not alone in saying that the best way to revive the ideas
of liberty (social AND economic) is to have a liberal in the white
house. I say this not out of idealogical attachment, but out of the
fact that more perversion of the principles of libertarianism is
the last thing we need to advance those principles. Better yet to
start fresh and give those principles time once more to ferment in
the collective subconscious. I feel we've reached a moment similar
to the McCarthy days, dark ones for conservatism indeed.
Ayn R. Key|1.9.08 @ 4:59PM|#
I was against this latest war, too, and still find the
pro-war libertarians amazingly naive. Postrel included.
But some anti-war libs seem naive to me, too. I have a hard time
condemning World War II, no matter how much deceit led up to it.
Further, I side with Ron Paul that attacking the Taliban in
Afghanistan was a good idea. (Though I still don't understand why
this wasn't done under a declaration of war, and don't understand
why Ron only talked about such a declaration regarding
Iraq.)
That's because WWII is never discussed in context. Seriously it
isn't, and I've had many a warmonger try to trap me on the WWII
issue.
But when I tell them that WWII started in 1914 (which it did) and
that the USA had no business in the 1914 war, they realize two
things. First they realize I'm right, second they realise they
don't know history.
alan|1.9.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Perhaps it is faulty recall on my part, but what was brought
up seven months ago was one article in one edition of the
newsletter. As of yesterday, we are talking about several articles
over several years.
That would make a difference to me. My assumption that the amount
of material was the same then shows that even with the inordinate
amount of time I'm spending on this stuff, I'm still letting people
pre-digest a lot for me.
Same here.Before the Christmas break, I spent August to December
working my ass off. I figured if there was much substance to the
matter beyond some off colored remarks from a staffer whom Paul
fired then it would have came to light before the day of the
freaking New Hamshire primary.
Thanks Reason (though looking back at the Weigel article there were
plenty of lines to be read between). As for Postrel, brrrrr, nobody
likes a snooty, I told you so.
|1.9.08 @ 5:00PM|#
I get so frustrated with the wonky tangents that confuse (or
worse, alienate) disgruntled voters looking for alternatives to the
blues and reds. The gold standard? The constitutionality of forced
private-sector integration in the Civil Rights Act of 1964? They
warrant academic discussion, but are these really the issues
libertarians expect to invite and energize people?
*sigh*
Wanting and expecting are separate, and it's easy to get carried
away, especially when you think you hear sensible things from a
politician.
I know, I know...
*sigh*
Jean Paul|1.9.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Temporary k, agree on the foreign policy world police
stuff!!!!!
What a waste of money! Spending trillions, to cause trillions upon
trillions more in damage. Sickening madness.
Brandybuck|1.9.08 @ 5:01PM|#
To some, it has everything to do with libertarianism.
This must be my slow day, because I still don't get it. The
"tolerant" I can understand, and it's necessary for libertarianism.
But "cosmopolitan"? Hillary Clinton is a tolerant cosmopolitan.
Rudy Giuliani is a tolerant cosmopolitan. Barack Obama is a
tolerant cosmopolitan. How are any of them remotely
libertarian?
BakedPenguin|1.9.08 @ 5:01PM|#
charlie - ah, thanks. I'd consider the source on that one.
Apparently he hasn't noticed that Spooner has a few fans in "Far
Left World," as well. Or else, he has noticed it, but didn't want
to mention it, because it would mess up his theme.
Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas, even if they go well beyond what many libertarians can stomach, are a huge part of his campaign's success, and his strongest appeal to me personally.
Agreed. And bringing back soldiers from all those far-flung bases
would save the taxpayers an asswad of cash.
|1.9.08 @ 5:02PM|#
WTF?
93 comments and no one has said "reason was so much better when
Postrel was the editor" ?!?
I, for one, am disappointed...
charlie|1.9.08 @ 5:05PM|#
For all those bemoaning the great fall of libertarianism I ask,
"have you considered another word?"
I mean, it's just a label, and a pretty clunky and dorky-sounding
one at that. It also hasn't exactly caught fire amongst the
American public, so why the focus on the supposed harm Ron Paul may
or may not do to the "libertarian" movement?
I think we can all continue to argue in favor of libertarian ideas
whether we call it "radical decentralism" or
"neo-whateverthefuck-ism.
|1.9.08 @ 5:05PM|#
temp K,
I don't think many people care about economic embargos and
diplomatic relations one way or another. Outside of lefties who
love Castro and the exile community, who gets that upset about the
Cuban embargo? Not many people. I think you could make more of a
populist appeal by criticizing the US's role as world policeman.
But, the problem is that Ron Paul did it all wrong. He did it as
"we keep doing these awful things and the world hates us for it".
The people who beleive that are not going to generally be lefties
who are not going to buy into small government. The people who will
buy into the small government roll, generally are very patriotic
and will not listen to that kind of criticism. His message should
have been "rouble doesn't make trouble. I am not going to spend one
American life rebuilding anyone's country and if any country
attacks America I am going to bomb them into the stone age, achieve
complete victory and go home. In the mean time I am not going to
spend billions of dollars defending Europe, Taiwan and South Korea
when they won't spend an equal amount to defend themselves." That
message would resonate with a lot of people.
|1.9.08 @ 5:08PM|#
There's a "double standard" because we claim to be principled. Bill at least winked when he uttered "I didn't inhale."
Jaap Weel|1.9.08 @ 5:09PM|#
"Tolerant cosmopolitan"? What the frak does that have to do with
libertarianism?"
Inasfar as modern (and specifically, American) libertarianism is a
continuation of the classical liberal tradition: everything.
Inasfar as modern American libertarianism is a newfangled theory
that is all about rationalistically deriving the whole of political
morality from two or three hifalutin' metaphysical axioms: not
necessarily a whole lot. I blame Ayn Rand for having done so much
to promote the
rationalist school. Virginia Postrel represents the tradition of
Popper and Hayek; her book The Future and its Enemies is
something Hayek might have written if he had been a talented and
experienced American journalist rather than a talented and
experienced Austrian academic, and the title is of course a
reference to Popper.
Anyhow, the classical liberal tradition is quintessentially
tolerant and cosmopolitan. It has been the philosophy of
meritocratic merchants seeking to overthrow the entrenched
privilege of French aristocrats and Prussian bureaucrats in favor
of peaceful voluntary interaction without regard to rank or creed
or other such bullshit. In that sense, it is illiberal to see the
world as an assortment of groups, nations, genders, ranks, classes,
ethnicities, whose interests are irrevocably opposed and who must
fight the class struggle or win the war or kill the Jews or keep
the uppity Negroes in their place or whatever. Instead, it proposes
to stop fighting already and start trading and otherwise
cooperating peacefully. That might sound like starry-eyed idealism,
but in the cases where people have believed in it sufficiently to
give it a try, the results have traditionally been outright
amazing.
As you can see, this is a very different approach to political
philosophy from "you see, the Nature of Man is such that he has a
Right to Own his Body, and therefore ..." (cut 200 pages of
questionable metaphysics) "abolish the IRS!"
But in a sense, it is every bit as libertarian, or at least
classically liberal, and often leads to similar conclusions.
|1.9.08 @ 5:09PM|#
There are 4.18 x 10^24 atoms of gold in a single ounce.
So, I'm not thinking a dollar would be backed by an atom of
gold.
|1.9.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Sorry, that's actually 8.67 x 10^22 atoms of gold per ounce. Multiplication and division is hard...
Martin|1.9.08 @ 5:12PM|#
'In that sense, it is illiberal to see the world as an
assortment of groups, nations, genders, ranks, classes,
ethnicities, whose interests are irrevocably opposed and who must
fight the class struggle or win the war or kill the Jews or keep
the uppity Negroes in their place or whatever.'
This is true. But then why do so many of these 'tolerant' cosmos
really have it in for Arabs?
Derek|1.9.08 @ 5:14PM|#
It's kind of interesting to see how some people seem eager to see Dr. Paul hang for this. There's no point in going over all the specifics here -- we all know he didn't write the stuff or edit the newsletters, but that he should have been much more careful with what was going on under his name. It's just unfortunate that someone who has otherwise lived such a clean life -- delivered more than 4,000 babies, worked in inner city hospitals, served in Air Force, married to one woman for 50 years, tireless defender of liberty and the Constitution -- has to have his name dragged through the mud just when he was finally getting the recognition he deserved after laboring for years in relative obscurity. And the fact that some people here are ready to toss Paul overboard so quickly and show so little appreciation to him is disgraceful.
alan|1.9.08 @ 5:14PM|#
93 comments and no one has said "reason was so much better
when Postrel was the editor" ?!?
Exactly the opposite is true in my view. There was a degree ball
dropping in this matter by the current Reason staff, but I don't
miss the Postrel era in the least. To much gate keeping, and fear
mongering against the yokels that make up the American landscape
made the magazine almost establishmentarian.
|1.9.08 @ 5:14PM|#
"This is true. But then why do so many of these 'tolerant'
cosmos really have it in for Arabs?"
First, they don't have it in for Arabs. They have it in for radical
Islamists who definitely seem to have it in for the Cosmopolitans
and every one else for that matter. Second, there is nothing
unlibertarian about fighting against forces of extreme
illiberty.
|1.9.08 @ 5:16PM|#
joe,
I disagree, emphatically! The big Caddy standard is where it's
at.
Regards,
TDL
Bingo|1.9.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Snoop Dogg should be the LP's presidential candidate
- Heavily invested in gold
- Proud owner of multiple firearms
- Liberal stance on personal lifestyle choices
- Opposed to the drug war
- Against the militarization of police forces
- Pro-choice
- Generally suspicious of any governmental authority
|1.9.08 @ 5:17PM|#
CATO are naive if they believe they will ever influence the
Washington elite
They don't want to influence it. They want to be invited to brunch
with it.
Disdain for us unbrunchable bumpkins is the central plank of
Postrel/Cato "libertarianism."
Egosumabbas|1.9.08 @ 5:18PM|#
What bothers me with NOT having a commodity-backed currency is
that the value of the dollar currently represents the US debt, the
faith in the people and government to pay it back, further backed
backed by the strength of our military.
Since the faith in US government is decreasing domestically and
internationally, and our military is stretched thin (though we
still have a butt-load of nukes), having a faith-based currency
seems like a bad idea in the near-term.
Now if we can only restore faith in the government, then we
wouldn't need a gold standard. But that reminds me of the typical
naïve Democrat argument that if only we elected competent
officials, big government would be competent.
Though I lean more towards a "let the market decide" currency.
Could be gold or belly lint. A central-planning agency like the
Federal Reserve in charge of currency makes me uncomfortable.
Martin|1.9.08 @ 5:18PM|#
'First, they don't have it in for Arabs. They have it in for
radical Islamists who definitely seem to have it in for the
Cosmopolitans and every one else for that matter. Second, there is
nothing unlibertarian about fighting against forces of extreme
illiberty.'
Yeh nothing 'unlibertarian' about a decade of sanctions, tens of
thousands of dead civilians, $500 billion and rising of taxpayers
money pissed down the drain, crackdowns on civil liberties,and so
on.
Great going warmongers.
Martin|1.9.08 @ 5:20PM|#
'They don't want to influence it. They want to be invited to
brunch with it.
Disdain for us unbrunchable bumpkins is the central plank of
Postrel/Cato "libertarianism."'
I stand corrected.
|1.9.08 @ 5:20PM|#
John:
I am not going to spend one American life rebuilding anyone's
country and if any country attacks America I am going to bomb them
into the stone age, achieve complete victory and go home. In the
mean time I am not going to spend billions of dollars defending
Europe, Taiwan and South Korea when they won't spend an equal
amount to defend themselves.
I agree with this as a policy and especially as rhetoric for a US
presidential election. I tried to limit my addition to one
sentence, but this would have been the second one. Opposition to
sanctions and other forms of economic bullying - especially in Iraq
throughout the 90s - is more widespread than I think you realize,
and I think emphasizing it brings in a lot of the independent, even
left-leaning voters that have made the rEVOLution so surprising,
but that stance does need to be paired with a convincing "strong
defense" posture to be most effective.
|1.9.08 @ 5:21PM|#
joe,
I think you just won the thread. Then again I am no authority on
such things!
Regards,
TDL
alan|1.9.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Second, there is nothing unlibertarian about fighting
against forces of extreme illiberty.
Translate: fighting against those Arabs who wont bow down before
their masters and accept the satraps we assign them.
|1.9.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Now, alan, you know the warmongers wait for a semi-plausible reason to believe they've got it coming first.
|1.9.08 @ 5:23PM|#
"To much gate keeping, and fear mongering against the yokels
that make up the American landscape made the magazine almost
establishmentarian."
It is completely establishmentarian now. The entire staff lives in
either DC or LA. What position do they embrace that is not DC
establishment or at least acceptable to the establishment? Legalize
drugs? PHHT. There is nothing radical or subversive about saying
that at a good DC cocktail party. Anti Iraq War? Oh that is a
courageous and unpopular stance among Washington Journalists? Fuck
the police? Never heard that before. Open Borders, that is wildly
radical and unpopular among the Washington establishment.
Not that here are not plenty of very un PC libertarian positions
out there. There are. Gun rights, objection to affirmative action,
Men's rights and reforming our outrageous divorce and child support
laws, workplace censorship and things like sexual harassment law,
censorship and indoctrination on college campuses to just name a
few.
But none of those issues seem to be very important to the Reason
Staff. I read hit and run every day and you rarely see posts on
those issues. You mostly see posts on issues where the libertarian
position is at least palatable to your typical lefty journalist in
Washington.
Basically the Reason staff has no balls and are too worried about
offending their friends and collegues in the media to run a really
subversive magazine.
|1.9.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Brandy,
Will Wilkinson recently quoted Mises over at his blog, in a
discussion about the "ultimate liberal aim." It might help shed
some light on the role of cosmopolitanism in libertarianism.
In "Liberalism," Mises wrote:
"The starting point of liberal thought is the recognition of the
value and importance of human cooperation, and the whole policy and
program of liberalism is designed to serve the purpose of
maintaining the existing state of mutual cooperation among the
members of the human race and of extending it still further. The
ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect cooperation
of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction.
Liberal thinking always has the whole of humanity in view and not
just parts. It does not stop at limited groups; it does not end at
the border of the village, of the province, of the nation, or of
the continent. Its thinking is cosmopolitan and ecumenical: it
takes in all men and the whole world. Liberalism is, in this sense,
humanism; and the liberal, a citizen of the world, a
cosmopolite."
|1.9.08 @ 5:26PM|#
"Translate: fighting against those Arabs who wont bow down
before their masters and accept the satraps we assign them."
WTF? You people are moonbats.
Martin|1.9.08 @ 5:28PM|#
'Translate: fighting against those Arabs who wont bow down
before their masters and accept the satraps we assign them.'
Yeh this kind of liberal interventionism boils down to sending
Americans to die and taxpayers money to be spent to prop up the
Saudis and Kuwaiti regimes.
Fluffy|1.9.08 @ 5:29PM|#
The Paul campaign didn't fall apart because of these
newsletters.
To the extent that it has fallen apart, it's because the campaign
misidentified the issues that had made it catch fire with a part of
the electorate, and conducted a campaign appropriate to Paul's
Congressional district but not to an insurgency against the
Republican party establishment.
Exit polls from NH show that McCain trounced Paul among voters who
wanted an Iraq withdrawal. 49% of the people who voted in the NH
primary said that anger at the Bush administration motivated their
vote to some extent - and Paul got 8% of the vote.
It stupefies me that Paul wasted money on anti-immigration ads and
anti-abortion infomercials and the rest of it. He needed to
campaign as the conscience of the Republican party on the war, on
spending, on civil liberties, and on accountability for the various
scandals of the Bush administration. Full stop. Had he done that,
he would have been more successful. Had he done that, he would have
essentially been campaigning on a "redemption for Republicans"
platform, and he could have snuck his own redemption in there
somewhere at the margins.
It's too late now. The campaign remained convinced that the way to
win was to pretend to be just another Republican. That may work in
Texas, but it won't work anywhere else.
|1.9.08 @ 5:33PM|#
I think we have to put things in perspective. This story isn't "damaging" to the libertarian movement. What a delusional notion. The media doesn't even care about this. Drudge dropped it after 5 minutes and this is the only place that is giving the incident a thorough treatment. I think that's because what these newsletters highlight is, as has been mentioned, the cultural divide among libertarians and two sects that, though they have pretty much the same views, don't much like each other. I'm not invested in the culture wars. I read Lew Rockwell and Reason. Reason is better written. Some of the posters on Lew are borderline hacks. But Lew's site sometimes brings a passion that Reason's "too cool for school" attitude doesn't. Both are important and we as libertarians need to start practicing what we preach and start being more tolerant of each other. The guy in Montana with the shotgun and bible in hand has just as much right to be a libertarian as the hipster in DC shopping at Whole Foods. The reason Ron has had so much success is that he's so darn nice and tolerant that he appeals to Alex Jone's audience just as much as Reason's. Ron has made clear he didn't write the tracts in question nor are they are part of his beliefs. He's taken moral responsibility nonetheless because they were in a newsletter bearing his name. What more can the guy do? This is ancient history. We should be the ones leading the charge to move on, not the ones beating a dead horse that not even the MSM seems all that interested in.
Fluffy|1.9.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Second, there is nothing unlibertarian about fighting
against forces of extreme illiberty.
Except that of the times we've done that [say 5 or 6 times] our
record's just not that good.
WWI - The side we fought against wasn't that much less liberal than
the side we fought for. And the outcomes attained in 1919 didn't do
much to serve liberty, either.
WWII - The good one. Put a check in the "fighting illiberty"
column.
Korea - The government we defended was autocratic and dictatorial
for decades after the war.
Viet Nam - A complete antiliberty clusterfuck.
Gulf War 1 - fought on behalf of monarchies, but not so bad an
outcome otherwise.
Iraq War - A complete antiliberty clusterfuck.
With a success rate like this, eventually you might want to start
to conclude that maybe there's something about wars - particularly
wars of occupation - that makes them questionable weapons for
advancing liberty.
Ben|1.9.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Uhhh, did anyone here watch Matt on CNN (the actual point of this thread), and if so, what was said?
|1.9.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Fluffy,
Agree with you to some extent, but Monday morning quarterbacking is
easy. The campaign was trying to "mainstream" themselves to primary
voters in an attempt to win. Hopefully the back to back 10%
showings demonstrate to the campaign that a change in tact is
warranted. Mainstreaming isn't working, so they might as well use
the rest of the campaign money to talk about the stuff Paul really
believes.
Fluffy|1.9.08 @ 5:41PM|#
Damn right, FDS. They should go over the falls in a barrel
now.
Frankly, if they do that, they probably won't run out of money
because they'll just get more.
Paul's personality isn't suited to it very well, but the campaign
has to go into "J'ACCUSE!!!" mode. That would get a whole lot of
dispirited, alienated supporters to open their wallets again.
|1.9.08 @ 5:42PM|#
"There is nothing necessarily anti-freedom about a floating
currency"
Aside from the state forcing us to accept it in payment of debts
and outlawing competing currencies, and charging capital gains tax
on conversions between the fiat currency and specie, you
mean?
No, no impact on freedom at all. no, sir.
-jcr
Martin|1.9.08 @ 5:48PM|#
'WWII - The good one. Put a check in the "fighting illiberty"
column.'
I'd agree. It should be recalled though that war was as much a
victory for Soviet communism as it was for the west.
Geotpf|1.9.08 @ 5:48PM|#
"Mike Laursen | January 9, 2008, 4:29pm | #
I don't know why the furor is worse now on Hit & Run than when
it was brought up about 7 months ago.
Perhaps it is faulty recall on my part, but what was brought up
seven months ago was one article in one edition of the newsletter.
As of yesterday, we are talking about several articles over several
years."
Yup. Until recently, it appeared the hubbub was about a single
issue of the newsletter. Now, it appears the
racism/anti-semitism/general wackiness was a general, on-going
thing in these newsletters. I used to defend Paul, even at places
like Daily Kos. I'm not sure I can any more.
Inquiring mind|1.9.08 @ 5:48PM|#
How much coverage did Reason give these newsletters when they were originally published? Am I mistaken to believe they were published while Postrel was editor at Reason? If so, I'd like to know why she thinks I didn't do candidate research if she chose to ignore Mr. Paul while she was editor of Reason?
|1.9.08 @ 5:50PM|#
"Much better would be to permit free banking anyway, rather than
enforcing a single national currency and fighting about it's
backing."
That's exactly what RP has proposed. The constitution doesn't place
any restrictions on private parties trading in banana leaves or
monopoly money if they care to; it just prohibits the government
from establishing paper as legal tender.
-jcr
Matt Welch|1.9.08 @ 5:51PM|#
Jesse Walker already gave his response to that general
question, but I'd like to hear what the rest of the Reasonoids have
to say to Postrel's claim that, essentially, everybody with a brain
already knew this.
I guess I never claimed to have a brain? More to the point, I
wasn't spending the 1990s enmeshed in the world of libertarian
publishing (newsletters or magazines); I was editing newspapers in
Central Europe. Many movement people of whom most here know well
I've never heard of, let alone known who was ghost-writing their
investment newsletters.
|1.9.08 @ 5:53PM|#
You idiots have no evidence that Rockwell wrote anything of
the sort. Put up or fucking shut up.
Well, there's this from a thread yesterday:
Eric Dondero | January 8, 2008, 8:42pm | #
The ghost writer was 80% Lew Rockwell.
There were a few others like Gary North from time to time. And even some super RP insiders like Nadia Hayes, Jean McCiver and Marc Elam contributed, and also did some heavy editing out of the Nasa Blvd. 1 office in South Houston and Elam's office on Fuqua.
But I'd say 80% Rockwell.
When I say Rockwell, that also included his interns and helpers like Jeff Tucker, Mark Thornton, and such.
But I remember the faxes of the Newsletter drafts always came from Lew.
and this:
Eric Dondero | January 8, 2008, 9:29pm | #
On Lew Rockwell, please note that Rockwell is explicitly identified as "Ron Paul's longtime ghost writer" in the 1988 post-Election November issue of American Libertarian. AL existed for 5 years. It was edited by former LP News Editor Mike Holmes of Houston.
The phrase appears on page 2, in a front page article about Nadia Hayes and the Embezzlement scandal that engulfed Ron Paul and the Libertarian Presidential campaign the last few weeks of Election '88.
Now I'm not vouching for the accuracy or reliability of the source
(and I utterly disagree with his support of Giuliani and any
contention that Giuliani is any kind of libertarian) but he cites a
publication that is easily verifiable and it is consistent with
what others are saying so I'd say that counts as "some" credible
evidence.
Matt Welch|1.9.08 @ 5:56PM|#
The entire staff lives in either DC or LA.
Except for Jacob Sullum (Dallas), designer Barb Burch (Phoenix),
Ron Bailey (Virginia, in a not-just-across-the-river way), Jeff
Taylor (God knows where), Mike Alissi (Connecticut somewhere) and
one-half of Nick Gillespie (Ohio), you might be onto
something.
Not that here are not plenty of very un PC libertarian
positions out there. There are. Gun rights,
Can I interest you in our August 2007 cover
story? Maybe May 2005?
Men's rights and reforming our outrageous divorce and child
support laws
Maybe you'll find this piece
interesting?
|1.9.08 @ 6:02PM|#
When you give your political heart to a guy who spends so
much time worrying about international bankers, you're not going to
get a tolerant cosmopolitan.
Huh?
I would rather think of myself as a tolerant hick (although being a
hick and liking to think of myself as one are different
things)...and what the fuck are international bankers? I don't like
the world bank does that mean I worry about international bankers?
I think not.
|1.9.08 @ 6:04PM|#
It should be recalled though that war was as much a victory
for Soviet communism as it was for the west.
True, but looking at a map, every country that came under the rule
of Soviet communism would have been under the Nazi boot absent the
war (eastern Europe), while a number of areas that were liberated
and allowed to enjoy democracy (Greece, Italy, France, the Low
Countries, West Germany, Austria, Denmark, and Norway) would have
been consigned to fascism.
|1.9.08 @ 6:15PM|#
"Yup. Until recently, it appeared the hubbub was about a single
issue of the newsletter. Now, it appears the
racism/anti-semitism/general wackiness was a general, on-going
thing in these newsletters."
I agree, and I am a little disappointed that the reason staff
didn't dig into this and reveal the extent of it sooner. Don't
drink- I am NOT going to cancel my subscription. This is just a
little bit of constructive criticism.
|1.9.08 @ 6:17PM|#
I believe the implication is that "international bankers" is
a code word for "Jews".
I thought "Neo-con" was code for "Jews"...you cosmopolitans confuse
me.
|1.9.08 @ 6:18PM|#
Virginia Postrel gets uppity about Ron Paul not being cosmopolitan. Ron meanwhile has the courage to stand up before audiences of Bush loyalists to point out that US foreign policy sows the seeds of hatred in the Middle East. He tells Cubans in Florida that the embargo needs to end. He squares up to Bernanke in Congressional committee. I know who I respect more.
|1.9.08 @ 6:21PM|#
Virginia Postrel gets uppity about Ron Paul not being
cosmopolitan. Ron meanwhile has the courage to stand up before
audiences of Bush loyalists to point out that US foreign policy
sows the seeds of hatred in the Middle East. He tells Cubans in
Florida that the embargo needs to end. He squares up to Bernanke in
Congressional committee. I know who I respect more.
Mohyonahan (or how ever you spell it) got bared from North
Korea.
Ya that has nothing to do with anything, i just think it is way
cool.
Martin|1.9.08 @ 6:30PM|#
'I thought "Neo-con" was code for "Jews"...you cosmopolitans
confuse me.'
Yes one minute you are a racist for being antiwar, next you are a
Jew hater for denouncing fiat currency. Sure love these cosmo
slanderers!
The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Mankind will not be crucified on a Coup de Ville!
You'd talk different if a '59 Caddy backing down a blind alley had
impaled you on one of those bullet taillights.
|1.9.08 @ 6:35PM|#
1. I am going to lower your taxes
2. I am going to stop the government from telling you how to
live
3. I am going to government spending so that every year it is a
smaller percentage of GDP than the year before
4. I am going get the federal government out of as many sectors of
the economy as I possibly can
5. I am going to stop wasting time and money throwing people in
jail over drugs.
Can I agree with John that this is a good message and better then
the gold standard message but not prescribe to the theory that
being anti-fed makes you an anti-Semite?
Or would I stop being a tolerant cosmopolitan?
|1.9.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Let's assume Ron Paul is a bigot (something I don't believe for
a second). What happened to the libertarian principle that you
could hold any prejudice you wanted as long as you didn't act in a
coercive manner towards others -- no matter what their race? Are
you saying that if he hates Jews, and many Jews are bankers, that
it's coercive to eliminate fiat currency? Seems a stretch to
me.
I miss the days when Reason was run by Bob Poole....
Paul|1.9.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Set Your TiVos to "Stun"
Someone watches The Venture Bros.
Gonna watch this... "solo a mano"?
Paul|1.9.08 @ 6:42PM|#
but also of the late Murray Rothbard, who sullied himself in
hatemongering before he died.
That was just gas.
javier|1.9.08 @ 6:43PM|#
I frequent mises.org often and there is
nothing more than academic work. If libertarians are going to
reject mises, bastiat and that line of economics, you may as well
align yourself with chomsky and work towards libertarian socialism
because if we don't win the inflation argument every other gain of
the libertarian is moot and will eventually be taken back by the
state.
Here are the recent controversial blog posts at mises
institute
The Payday Interest Rate Controversy by Jim Fedako
Greenspan gets it? by Max Raskin
Hayek on the Paradox of Saving by Robert Blumen
Mozilla: Meet Sarbanes-Oxley (and Henry Blodget) by Karen De
Coster
Taxes and the Public Servants by Jim Fedako
Last Knight Live Blog 18 - Kraus by Wladimir Kraus
Stockpiles and Speculators by Robert Murphy
Oliva on Objectivists and "Second-hand
Property Rights" by Stephan Kinsella
More from an Old Friend (Book) by N. Joseph Potts
Human Society, by Ludwig von Mises by Weekend
Edition
Paul|1.9.08 @ 6:50PM|#
Are you saying that if he hates Jews, and many Jews are
bankers, that it's coercive to eliminate fiat currency? Seems a
stretch to me.
The reality is it taints the message, and you're done in modern
politics.
It's a bit like saying (forgive me) that Hitler's complaints and
distrust of capitalism could be separated from his hatred of the
Jews.
Hitler's distaste of capitalism came from the fact that capitalism
and international finance was seen as something uniquely
Jewish.
Paul|1.9.08 @ 6:51PM|#
and one-half of Nick Gillespie (Ohio), you might be onto
something.
Which half?
Paul|1.9.08 @ 6:53PM|#
I would rather think of myself as a tolerant hick
Personally, I see myself rather as a bit of an intolerant
cosmopolitan.
|1.9.08 @ 6:55PM|#
Great, now EVERYONE is talking in code.
Am I the last one who just speaks plain English?
dodsworth|1.9.08 @ 6:57PM|#
I don't recall a single case of Ron Paul using the term "international bankers." Since she claims otherwise, Postrel has an obligation to provide a source. Otherwise, it is just a smear. Paul has attacked a national central bank, the Federal Reserve, but, unlike the current adminstration, has opposed the use of this central bank to manipulate credit to exploit other countries.
Where\'s Lew?|1.9.08 @ 7:03PM|#
I'd like to know why Lew Rockwell is refusing to speak up at all. people are pointing fingers at him, but he says not a single word in his defense. If indeed he is the author of those tracts and he knows that Ron's campaign is suffering for it, why won't he defend his friend and mentor? WHY???
Martin|1.9.08 @ 7:12PM|#
In November 1994, Murray Rothbard dismissed Reason magazine as 'a relatively affluent but excruciatingly boring magazine based in Santa Monica, California'. Was too young myself to know, but from what I've read by Postrel, I'm sure he was right.
thoreau|1.9.08 @ 7:16PM|#
John sez:
Not that here are not plenty of very un PC libertarian positions out there. There are. Gun rights,
Matt Welch replies:
Can I interest you in our August 2007 cover story? Maybe May 2005?
Matt FTW! That's some serious pwnage!
Brandybuck|1.9.08 @ 7:17PM|#
My problem is the word "cosmopolitan". The word itself is
elitist. If you're not a cosmopolitan, then you must be a
provincial (and all the negative connotations that implies to those
inside the beltway). Let me clarify by using synonyms from the
dictionary, so that you can see how awful Postrel's definition of
libertarianism sounds:
Libertarians are "tolerant sophisticates".
Libertarians are "tolerant jet-setters".
Libertarians are "tolerant metropolitans".
If Paulites such as myself are not true libertarians, then we must
be the antonyms of cosmopolitan. Ms. Postrel is calling us
provincials, bumpkins, hicks, rustics, and yokels. Despite the fact
that Ron Paul continually stresses the importance of friendship and
trade with all nations, he's still considered by the Beltway
Libertarians to be a country hick unable to see beyond his township
limits.
|1.9.08 @ 7:17PM|#
Lew Rockwell's silence may be an indication of his guilt. If he is responsible for those newsletters then it also helps to explain Paul's unwillingness to name the author. They still have pretty close ties- Rockwell even wrote the forward to his latest book.
|1.9.08 @ 7:28PM|#
I think it's his views on immigration that trigger the country
bumpkin stuff. He seems pretty xenophobic, and the "sovereignty"
talk, and the paranoia about a highway from Mexico to Canada
doesn't seem very cosmo.
And the LRC folks really are "hicks, rustics, and yokels." They
still support the Confederacy...
Eric Dondero\'s non-evil twin|1.9.08 @ 7:33PM|#
For those with low reading skills, "tolerant cosmopolitan" =
urban bullshitter.
PWNED!
|1.9.08 @ 7:35PM|#
The reality is it taints the message, and you're done in
modern politics.
OK, then criticize Paul's political savvy or his laissez-faire
management style (odd for libertarians to attack, but fair enough,
I suppose), but implying his supporters are somehow unsophisticated
seems absurd -- especially from other self-professed
libertarians.
I far more tend to suspect this is all about the libertarian
tradition of attacking the biggest fish in the pond and opposing
anything that might expand the size of the pond. It's far easier to
maintain a big-fish status when the pond stays small.
Martin|1.9.08 @ 7:37PM|#
'I think it's his views on immigration that trigger the country
bumpkin stuff. He seems pretty xenophobic, and the "sovereignty"
talk, and the paranoia about a highway from Mexico to Canada
doesn't seem very cosmo.'
Yet cosmos like Postrel supported mass murder of Iraqis. How
open-minded! How Multicultural! How politically correct!
|1.9.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Yo, I like the "Yeah, well, YOU supported the Iraq War!" line as
much as the next guy, but it really is a dodge.
He seems pretty xenophobic, and the "sovereignty" talk, and the
paranoia about a highway from Mexico to Canada doesn't seem very
cosmo.
How about that ad that promised "no visas for students from
terrorist nations." Entire nations of people are terrorists, right
down to each particular individual, so that we need only know what
nation one is from to determine that one is a security
threat?
That's some pretty collectivist thinking right there.
|1.9.08 @ 7:56PM|#
Two gun stories in two years Matt. Wow, I am impressed. Give me
a break. Name me any issue the Reason staff actually disagrees
about? There is not one bomb thrower in the bunch. For example, who
among the Reason staff is in any way religous or takes an active
interest in Religous freedom issues or if nothing else just to poke
Bailey in the eye once in a while? Where the hell is it written
that no creationist could ever be a libertarian or object to drug
policies or support a small government. Since when does being a
libertarian mean you must be a secular athiest? Libertarians get
kicked around a lot for being libertines instead of libertarians
but there isn't one true libertine on the staff. Where is the guy
who supports polygomy? Where is the guy who actually does drugs
rathe than just rights about them and pretends to have once seen
them in college? All of you lined up against the Iraq War like a
scene out of 1984, how about someone who takes an interventionist
view of things? How about somoene who follows the outragous
decisions of employtment discrimination and family courts in this
country like Balko follows swat teams. Hell I don't know somethign
anything. Anything different from the party line that you all
adhere to now. I can imagine the Reason editorial meetings.
Welch - Gee Ron that was a great article you wrote on those evil
fundees destroying science
Bailey - Thanks Welch. I am just trying to keep up wiht you and
your article on McCain wanting to take over the world and did you
see Jessee's article on how they are over sentencing drug
offenders?
Do you guys ever argue about anything? Is there anyone who doesn't
fit the mold or have a thought on one issue that differs from the
group? Maybe you do, but it sure doesn't come out in the magazine
or the blog.
Read the comments to Hit and Run. It is pretty raucous and
generally pretty well thought out but nobody agrees on much of
anything. You would think a libertarian magazine would be the most
racous and free thinking kind of magazine. Instead, Reason is
completely dogmatic and predictable. Libertarianism means you are
free to think and believe whatever the hell you want. If you want
to believe that we all came from aliens in the moon or that people
should have three wives, you can do that. Yet you guys never seem
to want to use that freedom you claim to value so much.
|1.9.08 @ 8:00PM|#
Yes, Rockwell wrote it. It was an open secret at the time the
newsletter came out. He and Blumert were the "associates" in "Ron
Paul & Associates" the publishers. But Paul knew. He had to. He
signed some of the dam stuff and his office produced it. In
addition it went on for years.
And some people were trying to expose the Rockwell connections to
fringe groups. See Rightwatch.tblog.com. While the site seem to
have had a formatting problem recently articles there go back three
years talking about this. Tom Palmer has written about this on his
blog for years and the Rockwellians spend a lot of time attacking
and smearing him because of it.
|1.9.08 @ 8:01PM|#
If you can't win a debate with someone, you can always call them
a racist instead. It's a quick and easy way to attack a messenger
when you can't attack their message. It worked pretty good with Pat
Buchanan as well.
I got some more dirt on Ron Paul though:
http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/ron.htm
It should go pretty good with the accusation that Ron Paul speaks
in code and that he's a "transmitter".
|1.9.08 @ 8:01PM|#
"Yet cosmos like Postrel supported mass murder of Iraqis. How
open-minded! How Multicultural! How politically correct!"
Paul would have traded with and engaged in full diplomatic
relations with people like Saddam and Pol Pot and anyone other mass
killer in the world and done nothing to stop them killing millions.
If it had been up to Paul, Milosovic would still run Serbia,
Huisain would still run Iraq, Kim Jong Ill would be a respected and
full member of the international community and anyone else for that
matter. Paul loves freedom as long as it doesn't require any
sacrifice on his part and he still free to get rich off of the
blood money of mass muderers by doing business with them.. He is a
tower of morality that Paul.
|1.9.08 @ 8:02PM|#
Cosmopolitan is a mighty fine drink, but that's as close as I
ever associate with that word. I prefer to be eclectic in my tastes
and culture.
Have cold pizza for breakfast, hummus and stuffed grape leaves for
lunch and a wonderful Mexican dish for dinner. I have Slayer and
Ravi Shankar in my CD collection, enjoy trips to the Natural
History Museum and then check out a goth club in Hollywood. The
Creature from The Black Lagoon, Death Race 2000, Rosemary's Baby
and Gandhi are my ideas of good cinema.
Magazines? Reason, Savage Tattoo, Liberty, Rue Morgue & Marquis
rock my world.
Cosmopolitan? Why limit ones self?
|1.9.08 @ 8:07PM|#
Since when am *I* morally obligated to defend trade sanctions ans military action against foreign despots and dictators? Why should MY hard earned money be stolen for those purposes? I like global free markets and cultural exchange, but in the end, I am an American and frankly, the interests of America come first to me since this is where I live, work and play.
Paul|1.9.08 @ 8:10PM|#
The reality is it taints the message, and you're done in modern politics.
OK, then criticize Paul's political savvy or his laissez-faire
management style (odd for libertarians to attack, but fair enough,
I suppose), but implying his supporters are somehow unsophisticated
seems absurd
Let me be more clear. A candidate may have some good ideas mixed
with bad ones. But once you hold a racist (or are perceived to hold
a racist) view, you're done in modern politics.
Mike Huckabee believes in a national sales tax. A national sales
tax is one of the best ideas for federal income tax reform
ever.
It removes the immoral underpinnings of an income tax: the
government knowing and tracking how and who you associate with,
what your profession is etc.
It is perfectly capable of being fashioned in a non-regressive
way.
It is more resistant to policy tampering by hyperactive pols: have
kids! Here's a tax break.
It's a universally existing tax that's already tested and collected
at the point of transaction. Ie, most merchants are already tooled
for dealing with this tax.
It's directly tied to transactions in the economy.
It's difficult to dodge. Drug dealers with no "income" still pay
tax when they buy the Escalade and snake-skin ankle boots.
It's an automatic luxury tax-- people buying expensive items pay
more.
Mike Huckabee is a creepy religious fundamentalist. So I would
never vote for him, even though I love his national sales tax idea.
His message is tainted. He's done.
Derek|1.9.08 @ 8:13PM|#
_Where the hell is it written that no creationist could ever be
a libertarian or object to drug policies or support a small
government._
Speaking as a creationist who objects to drug policies and favors a
small government .... I agree.
There's been a lot of bashing of Lew Rockwell here, much of it
probably justified, but I enjoy reading some of the articles on his
site as well as Reason. The content is more "raucus and free
thinking," as you put it. Having said that, I wish he would've
toned down the bile if he is really the one who ghostwrote those
articles. He should also publically own up to it.
Jesse Walker|1.9.08 @ 8:16PM|#
Except for Jacob Sullum (Dallas), designer Barb Burch
(Phoenix), Ron Bailey (Virginia, in a not-just-across-the-river
way), Jeff Taylor (God knows where), Mike Alissi (Connecticut
somewhere) and one-half of Nick Gillespie (Ohio), you might be onto
something.
Hey! Baltimore isn't a suburb of DC yet, though there are
some real estate agents up here who prefer to obscure that
fact.
SRS|1.9.08 @ 8:16PM|#
Shouldn't all this stuff help win the REPUBLICAN
primary???
Look at Mike Huckabee. He's even more fringe and crazier than the
worst accusations against Ron Paul, and yet he's got a good, if not
the best, shot at winning the nomination.
|1.9.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Out of curiosity -- for all those dumping Ron Paul into the
shark-infested waters -- who are you now planning on voting
for?
All I see for alternatives are big-time statists with an R or D
after their name, or LP party candidates who'll get 0.5% of the
vote, or staying home and sulking.
Seriously, if any of you have a better idea than voting for Ron
Paul, I'd like to hear it, because all the alternatives seem to be
much the worse of about a dozen evils.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 8:22PM|#
Libertarians are "tolerant
metropolitanssexuals".
There, I fixed that for you.
Martin|1.9.08 @ 8:24PM|#
'Paul would have traded with and engaged in full diplomatic
relations with people like Saddam and Pol Pot and anyone other mass
killer in the world and done nothing to stop them killing millions.
If it had been up to Paul, Milosovic would still run Serbia,
Huisain would still run Iraq, Kim Jong Ill would be a respected and
full member of the international community and anyone else for that
matter. Paul loves freedom as long as it doesn't require any
sacrifice on his part and he still free to get rich off of the
blood money of mass muderers by doing business with them.. He is a
tower of morality that Paul.'
Am I to assume that you yourself have volunteered to go on the
neocon crusade to democratise the Muslim world? Or do you feel good
that you can cheer on the troops from the comfort of your TV on
Fox? The joys of being an elitist cosmopolitan. You get to start
the wars, cheer on the wars, while getting some other sucker to do
all the killing for you!
Jesse Walker|1.9.08 @ 8:24PM|#
Two gun stories in two years Matt. Wow, I am impressed. Give
me a break.
In the time I've been here, Reason has invariably run more
than one gun story every year. We regularly cover the ins and outs
of gun issues here on Hit & Run. Jacob frequently
covers it in his column.
Name me any issue the Reason staff actually disagrees
about?
Intellectual property, foreign policy, the death penalty,
abortion.
who among the Reason staff is in any way religous
Dave is a Christian (Baptist, I think) and Jacob is an observant
Jew, or at least he takes off all the Jewish holidays. There may be
others.
Where is the guy who supports polygomy?
I'm pretty sure Jacob wrote a piece defending polygamists' rights
at one point.
Where is the guy who actually does drugs rathe than just rights
about them and pretends to have once seen them in
college?
More than one Reasoner has experimented with illegal
drugs.
All of you lined up against the Iraq War like a scene out of
1984, how about someone who takes an interventionist view of
things?
That would be Ron Bailey (though he's turned against the Iraq war).
Also Michael Young and, when he was around, Chuck Freund.
I can imagine the Reason editorial meetings.
I'm sure you can imagine a lot, John.
|1.9.08 @ 8:28PM|#
OK, then criticize Paul's political savvy or his
laissez-faire management style (odd for libertarians to attack, but
fair enough, I suppose)
Banged Turnip wins the thread! Heck, that handle alone should win
the thread -- or be the name of a heavy metal band.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 8:32PM|#
but from what I've read by Postrel, I'm sure he was
right.
Nah. Reason has always been a good magazine (opinions may vary) and
still is.
Bingo|1.9.08 @ 8:34PM|#
Carrying on the grand tradition of libertarians hating every other libertarian.
|1.9.08 @ 8:34PM|#
I think the bottom line is that Ron Paul expected to lose all
along, was kinda taken by surprise by the success he got, and ran
campaign ads that would help him get reelected to Congress rather
than get a few percentage points more towards a losing presidential
run. He, in other words, behaved in a rational, self-interested
way, which last I checked wasn't considered a bad way for
libertarians to behave -- and may explain the stunning electoral
success we've achieved.
Herding cats, indeed. ;(
The Wine Commonsewer|1.9.08 @ 8:37PM|#
Bingo.
Bingo! As I've said a half dozen times lately, we is cannibals. If
this was St Hill, Rudy, or Huck, the wagons would be circled, the
Gatling guns would be roaring, and the denial and spin machines
would be dialed in to the redline.
thoreau|1.9.08 @ 8:39PM|#
John, just type "For a magazine called Reason..." and get it over with so we can all drink.
Matt Welch|1.9.08 @ 8:53PM|#
Jesse beat me to it, but I don't want to believe that my 20
minutes were wasted, so....
Two gun stories in two years Matt. Wow, I am
impressed.
You're not impressed, you're shifting the goalposts of
your original question, which I answered. Also, you happen to be
wrong -- that's two covers in two years. There is a handy
search function on this site that will show you many more
stories than that from 2007, and far more than our
comments-functionality allows....
Name me any issue the Reason staff actually disagrees
about?
It's actually hard to name an issue that the whole staff agrees
on.
For example, who among the Reason staff is in any way religous
or takes an active interest in Religous freedom issues
How about the people who thought a July 2007 cover story
praising religious fundamentalists was a good idea? How about a
managing editor who celebrates the capitalistic
innovations of U.S. religion? Or an editor in chief who defends
religion in American history to Bill Moyers? I won't peek
into the confessional booths of my colleagues, but there are
multiple faiths and lack-thereofs represented, and I for one
married a Catholic.
Where the hell is it written that no creationist could ever be
a libertarian or object to drug policies or support a small
government.
Not -- ever, I don't think -- in the pages of
reason magazine.
Libertarians get kicked around a lot for being libertines
instead of libertarians but there isn't one true libertine on the
staff.
Who's the one being intolerant here? Not to mention
omniscient?
Where is the guy who actually does drugs rathe than just rights
about them and pretends to have once seen them in
college?
Dude, I saw them WAY more than once in college. And several of our
staff members break the drug laws more than once a year.
All of you lined up against the Iraq War like a scene out of
1984, how about someone who takes an interventionist view of
things?
I never did line up against the Iraq War, to my regret, and I have
supported U.S. military interventions on multiple occasions (for
instance in the Balkans). Moynihan and Bailey are hawkier than me,
probably, and there may be others.
Hell I don't know somethign anything.
You will get no argument from me.
Do you guys ever argue about anything?
Yes.
Is there anyone who doesn't fit the mold or have a thought on
one issue that differs from the group? Maybe you do, but it sure
doesn't come out in the magazine or the blog.
In the magazine and the site we have certainly aired our
differences from time to time, on issues ranging from the war to
presidential politics to this whole newsletters flap. But we made a
conscious decision years ago to avoid turning the blog
into a public, first-name-only bullshitting session among the
staff. I think that decision was wise.
Yet you guys never seem to want to use that freedom you claim
to value so much.
That, and quite a few of your other criticisms, are interesting
food for thought. Thanks!
|1.9.08 @ 8:54PM|#
I imagine the reason Lew isn't saying anything about this is
that saying stuff isn't going to help Paul. He and Paul are
longtime associates, friends, and he's a huge booster to the
campaign, so if this crap bothers you, knowing for sure he wrote it
isn't going to improve the situation now is it?
Best thing politically is to make a statement and let it die (which
it seems to have done other than here at Reason). The only
plausible reason to revisit the issue is the fear it could surface
again in the general election. But Paul isn't going to win the
primary so that's moot. Paul is expanding, energizing, and
organizing the freedom base. And 4 years from now someone else can
ride in with Paul's endorsement and use the movement built this
year to actually be competitive. Maybe somebody like Andrew
Napolitano who has all the charismatic campaign skills Paul lacks
but doesn't have any of Paul's links to the survivalist/gold bug
crowd.
|1.9.08 @ 9:04PM|#
FD&S: Would Rockwell acknowledging he wrote the pieces give
lie to Ron's claim to have fired the author?
Was he ever fired?
Happy Jack|1.9.08 @ 9:15PM|#
An editing mistake
This place is going downhill. That stuff never happened when Nick
was in charge.
Bingo|1.9.08 @ 9:17PM|#
Hahahaha, I love this place :)
Also I think that the reason editors are using this opportunity to
make a principled stand saying that racism has no place in the
modern libertarian movement.
And honestly, I think sacrificing the support of Stormfront-like
groups is probably worth it in the long run. Libertarianism will
never attract people when we have baggage like that.
Jim Treacher|1.9.08 @ 9:33PM|#
Seriously, if any of you have a better idea than voting for
Ron Paul, I'd like to hear it
How about drilling holes in your head and filling them with hot
sand?
|1.9.08 @ 9:34PM|#
Ben,
I'm not really sure Paul ever said he "fired" the person. I've
heard other people say that, but given the arrangement of the
newsletter, which seemed to be more of a simple business
partnership in which Paul just had a minority interest for allowing
them to use his name and making occasional contributions, would he
even have had the authority to "fire" somebody? I would think Lew
probably made the calls on who got to do the writing as well as the
editing. My worry is people seem to be treating this thing as if it
was a professional organization. This was a bunch of guys in a
fringe political movement sending out a little read newsletter to
people on survivalist/gold bug lists in an attempt to make a few
bucks. There is no way you can spin this that isn't going to make
Paul look bad in one way or the other, so best not to even try imo.
Thankfully most people seem not to care.
alan|1.9.08 @ 9:39PM|#
John | January 9, 2008, 5:26pm | #
"Translate: fighting against those Arabs who wont bow down before
their masters and accept the satraps we assign them."
WTF? You people are moonbats.
'Moonbat' means nothing to me as an insult, but in using it you say
plenty about yourself.
|1.9.08 @ 9:58PM|#
You know what bothers me more than the newsletters? How about the straight line from the Libertarian party? They believe that (1)Anyone, including children, should be able to work any job they choose. Fair enough. They also advocate (2) legalizing prostitution. OK. By themselves those are not bad. But couldn't one then come to the conclusion that they advocate that children be allowed to work as prostitutes, or even in porn? That's more bothersome than some redneck racist crap, IMO.
ed|1.9.08 @ 10:22PM|#
Ron Paul Reasonoids ride the short bus. So who is the next
Quixotic savior?
Who is next in line? Anyone? Don't be shy. Speak up.
|1.9.08 @ 10:24PM|#
Sage: such creative interpretation of the LP's old platform is why one has seen NAMBLA members present at party conventions in past years.
|1.9.08 @ 10:30PM|#
The Stormfront guys are NOT libertarian.
Exactly. Perhaps this whole controversy is a good thing. I have
long been bothered by the loose association of racists and
Nazi-sympathizers have had with this movement. For Christ sake: I
saw Mein Kamph being sold by a vendor at the 1994 California LP
convention! he was also pushing copies of The Spotlight. Some of us
banded together to move his booth far away from the other vendors,
so as to minimize his association with us. If I had my way, the man
would have been booted out.
Drink!
After the events of this week, I don't think I need any more excuse
to drink! : )
Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 10:32PM|#
The Ron Paul campaign built the biggest focus group in the world
and chose to ignore it as the primaries approached. The first ad
raised howls of protest from RP supporters, they knew what
attracted them.
It happens a lot with libertarians, the get the idea they have a
shot and start getting all strategic like the big guys...and it
never works.
The anti-immigration ad reeked of manipulation, Americans are
tiring of that.
The Ron Paul campaign staff veered off the course of its original
success.
I perused the Mercury News today and there was no indication that
Ron Paul even existed...just like it has been since the Nov. 5
money bomb.
Libertarians are worried about being tainted by this newsletter
crap, hah, the MSM has been tainting Ron Paul with the
'libertarian' appellation.
Don't you know? We aren't serious. Politics is a serious game and
we don't play it serious. Not like the big guys. They've got it all
sewed up and they really don't have to worry about us.
|1.9.08 @ 10:33PM|#
Sage: Uh...my bad. I had dropped out of LP activity for the past 3 years and honestly, I haven't read the platform lately. I thought the platform purge a few years ago pretty much removed anything remotely controversial. Guess I'll have to actually read the damned thing.
Sam Grove|1.9.08 @ 10:56PM|#
I was canvasing on Sunday and one woman told me she wanted
change, everything changed.
When I suggested Ron Paul, she told me "He's too libertarian."
|1.9.08 @ 10:56PM|#
Don't bother, Gene. My problem is not that they advocate those separately (same as me) but they don't disadvocate (yeah, I know) those together. And to me, that's pretty significant.
|1.9.08 @ 10:58PM|#
The establishment will always elect their man. Whether they have
to smear good people, skew opinion polls, rig elections, or cause
unfortunate "accidents," it matters not.
Prepare, folks. The revolution cometh.
|1.9.08 @ 10:59PM|#
I've read Mein Kampf, Gene. OK, I've read 2/3 of Mein
Kampf.
Mein Kampf is the most boring work of literature I have ever
encountered in my life. You'd think it would provide at least some
visceral thrill of the forbidden, but no. It's like reading a
software manual written by a racist narcissist who smoked meth, got
talkative, and wants to tell you about his childhood.
People ask, "Why didn't the world see what was coming, when Hitler
laid out his plans in Mein Kampf?"
I'll tell you why: because nobody finished reading it.
|1.10.08 @ 12:07AM|#
As a Ron Paul campaign contributor and supporter, I'm
disappointed. Bitterly disappointed.
I'm disappointed, first of at all, with Paul himself. I don't doubt
he's a basically decent, good, and honorable man. However, he must
be totally clueless if he didn't see that this moment of truth
would eventually arrive, particularly as his candidacy drew record
crowds and raised record money. And his "non-response response" is
absolute, complete, total and utter nonsense. I couldn't care less
about TNR and all of the anti-Paul fanatics; his supporters --
those of us who donated and volunteered -- deserved better from
him. Where was his much-ballyhooed "speaking truth to power" when
we needed it most?
I'm disappointed, secondly, by Paul's campaign staff. Even if the
candidate himself was deluded about this issue, he was very poorly
served by those around him, who never developed any kind of
believable, intelligent, and thorough response. The fact that they
attempted to prevent Reason from interviewing him about it was
ridiculous.
Finally, I'm disappointed with Burt Blumert and Lew Rockwell, who
apparently used Paul's good name to make money for themselves with
their stupid newsletters and filled them chock-full of absurdities
and bigotries. And now neither one of them will come forward and
stand behind Paul, revealing exactly who wrote the offensive
portions of the newsletter.
Could that be because Rockwell doesn't want to have the arguments
of those within the libertarian movement who think he plays footsie
with Klansmen, Nazis, and others on the far right side of the
fringe confirmed? His silence on this matter, apart from
dishonestly attacking the messenger, speaks volumes.
At this point, my only concern is that Paul (for all of his faults
and mistakes) and the movement that coalesced around him not go
down in political history as simply a racist who was followed by a
bunch of bigots. He's not going to win the nomination of the
Libertarian Party, much less the Republican...what is to be lost
from full disclosure?
I also think a lot of Paul supporters owe an apology to Eric
Dondero. We may continue to disagree with Mr. Dondero on the Iraq
War, but it is clear that he has been fair and honest in his
criticisms of his former employer. If Mr. Dondero was simply a
disgrunted employee who wanted to hurt Paul, he would not have
spoken up in confirmation of the fact that the newsletters were
written by others.
Paul|1.10.08 @ 12:08AM|#
And honestly, I think sacrificing the support of
Stormfront-like groups is probably worth it in the long run.
Libertarianism will never attract people when we have baggage like
that.
Stormfront isn't and never has been libertarian "baggage". If
stormfront gloms onto one libertarian candidate because that one
candidate is sweet on the gold standard, or some such thing that
happens to intersect with whackos who wring hands over the Jewish
Banking Conspiracy, then while it's unfortunate, it's meaningless
in the bigger picture.
It's a bit like accusing Democrats of being terrorists because they
and Islamic fundamentalists don't like "globalization".
Paul|1.10.08 @ 12:09AM|#
People ask, "Why didn't the world see what was coming, when
Hitler laid out his plans in Mein Kampf?"
I'll tell you why: because nobody finished reading it.
Props, joe. I'm totally with you on this one. No one saw it coming,
because no one cared.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.10.08 @ 12:34AM|#
Thanks TPG!
No problem. Also, I used to hate tomatoes when I was younger. Now I
don't.
Jerry|1.10.08 @ 12:37AM|#
If I had my way, the man would have been booted
out.
If a man can sell Mein Kampf at a LP party convention, there is
something seriously wrong with the LP convention rules /
organizers.
Paul|1.10.08 @ 12:40AM|#
If a man can sell Mein Kampf at a LP party convention, there
is something seriously wrong with the LP convention rules /
organizers.
Yeah, those crazy LP'ers. They'll let people say anything.
What's next, some kind of law guaranteeing freedom of speech?
Guns?
Who knows. Maybe the constitution is a suicide pact...
Jerry|1.10.08 @ 12:58AM|#
@Paul
If you don't like the rules, you can always start a libertarian
party which does allow for the sale of Mein Kampf at its
party convention. This has all to do with freedom of association,
and little to do with freedom of speech.
Alan|1.10.08 @ 1:09AM|#
You want to find out just some of the weird things that spew out
of the Lew Rockwell Machine? According to "Outside" above, "Tom
Palmer has written about this on his blog for years and the
Rockwellians spend a lot of time attacking and smearing him because
of it".
You can find a lot of the discussions at Palmer's blog category of
The Fever Swamp
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php
Check out the back and forth on the comments for each entry.
They're a lot like the outpouring of invective from the Rockwell
camp every time they've been criticized at Reason, The New
Republic, and elsewhere.
What Palmer revealed about Rockwell over the past half dozen years
is enough to make you gag: racism, twisted anti-Americanism,
cultism, and more.
Mike Laursen|1.10.08 @ 1:10AM|#
For all those bemoaning the great fall of libertarianism I
ask, "have you considered another word?"
Yes, some libertarians have tried to come up with a new label for
themselves. It's harder than you may think to come up with
something catchy.
Other libertarians will fight to the death over the word,
"libertarian". They either have too much invested in it, or they
just like to argue.
It's interesting how quickly "cosmopolitan" has been spreading on
this blog in the last couple of days. There doesn't seem to be much
reference to the idea before an article that was written last month
calling the Cato folks "cosmopolitan". It's an interesting label,
but already some here are trying to paint it as being inseparably
tied to being pro-Iraq War.
thoreau|1.10.08 @ 1:21AM|#
I also think a lot of Paul supporters owe an apology to Eric
Dondero. We may continue to disagree with Mr. Dondero on the Iraq
War, but it is clear that he has been fair and honest in his
criticisms of his former employer.
Not quite. The enemy of my no-longer-friend is not always my
friend. From what I know of Dondero, he wasn't raising the alarm
about this ugliness. He was complaining about Paul's anti-war
stance, mostly.
I may be wrong on that. It may be that in some other forum he was
in fact out in front of this, raising the alarm about a pattern of
nutty articles long before anybody else. However, in his visits to
this forum his chief pre-occupation was Ron Paul's war stance. I
judge Dondero on how he acted in going over that issue. He doesn't
get automatic props just because he was critical of Paul from early
on. It depends on the substance of those criticisms.
|1.10.08 @ 2:05AM|#
thoreau PhD:
The enemy of my no-longer-friend is not always my
friend.
Whatdya mean "my no-longer-friend"? Dr Paul didn't even write the
rude stuff. You're kidding, right?
|1.10.08 @ 2:36AM|#
Matt:
When you give your political heart to a guy who spends so much
time worrying about international bankers, you're not going to get
a tolerant cosmopolitan.
Matt, WTF??
Ron Paul didn't write the racist crap. And given that international
bankers have often been in league with government
force (IMF, World Bank), worrying about them is a
quite libertarian thing to do. (Separating them from the government
force is an even more libertarian thing to do)
Dr Paul's vision is to allow capitalism to spread us, our products,
and our ideas all over the globe making friends everywhere. That
sounds pretty cosmo to me.
A share of Ron Paul's political message, both explicit and
implicit, is the advocacy and fostering of tolerance.
If you were kidding, I it's funny. If you weren't, I it's
unfair.
.
|1.10.08 @ 2:44AM|#
...Shoulda been: "If you were kidding, I think it's funny. If
you weren't, I think it's unfair."
(Guess I shoulda included the Preview button in one of my New
Year's resolutions.)
thoreau|1.10.08 @ 2:53AM|#
Rick-
My objections to Ron Paul's involvement in that crap are detailed
at my blog:
http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/08/7697
http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/09/7704
http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/09/7702
Eric Dondero|1.10.08 @ 7:18AM|#
You are of course, very wrong on that Thoreau. One need only
check the recent archives of my blog over at
www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com. We've been running a
regular series on Paul's ties to Radical Groups and how that would
damage the libertarian movement called "Libertarian movement blasts
from the pasts..." At LR.
They featured Rockwell, and some of his more outlandish statements
from old newsletters.
I think you owe me an apology.
I'd prefer it in person (over phone). You can call me on my cell at
832-896-9505.
Eric Dondero|1.10.08 @ 7:24AM|#
BTW, something that hasn't come out yet, which has shocked me,
is David Macko.
Macko is a local Libertarian Party official in Ohio; OH County LP
Chairman - I believe in the Akron area? He's been under
investigation by the OH LP for ties to Nazi groups for the last
year.
Macko is a regular on Libertarian boards - Yahoo Libertarian, Yahoo
Libertarian Republican, Yahoo Cal-Libs.
He is perhaps the single most diehard Ron Paul supporter in the
entire country.
Well, Macko is a Holocaust denier and is on the Defense Committee
for some guy in Austria who was convicted recently of being a
Nazi.
Macko is so out there, that he was actually kicked out of the
Western PA Chapter of the John Birch Society.
Seems Macko was showing up to meetings and handing out Nazi
pamphlets to the Birchers. They quickly showed him the door and
told him never to come back.
But the Libertarian Party still tolerates him in their ranks. To my
knowledge, Mackos has still not been asked to resign as local LP
Chairman.
Eric Dondero|1.10.08 @ 7:28AM|#
Andrew, I'm very heartend by your comments. Thank you.
Note, we may not be as far off on the Iraq War as you may think.
I've been saying for months now, since September, it's time for
Bush to start brining the troops home.
Our difference is on how they come home. Anti-War Libertarians want
to paint them as "disgraced occupiers."
Pro-Defense libertarians see them as Liberators, who have won a
glorious victory. And Bush and the Republican Party deserve great
credit for a masterful Military achievement.
If Anti-War Libertarians continue to hold the former position,
there will never be any chance for reconcilliation with us
Pro-Defense libertarians.
|1.10.08 @ 7:38AM|#
if it weren't so tragic, it would be hilarious that so many here
are so quick to have a go at Lew Rockwell and the folk at LvMI. can
one rule out plain jealousy? ie, Paul's platform is Austrian
economics and real freedom from the federal government -- something
those DC-libertarians (and supporters) seem to get muddled over
from time to time.
i'm not a cultural conservative by any means, but i'd side with Lew
et al over Reason/Cato any day. what a sad few days for the
libertarian movement. but the funny thing is, in fact, that Paul
genuinely brings together people from all cultural persuasions. the
libertines here (some of whom i have great respect for) are
choosing to abandon the revolution at this most critical time, and
it will only be your loss. i urge you to rethink your
reactions.
|1.10.08 @ 7:41AM|#
Eric,
there is a difference between painting the troops as disgraced
occupiers, and asserting that your government are disgraced
occupiers. how can you fail to see this?
Matt Welch|1.10.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Rick Barton -- Thanks for the nice words, and the passage in question was written by Virginia Postrel.
|1.10.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Eric Dondero:
We've been running a regular series on Paul's ties to Radical
Groups...
All your stuff that I've read about these "ties" is far more
shocked than it is shocking. None of your examples is significant
and some of them are ridiculous.
You should be ashamed of much of what's on your site. It's like a
melding of National Enquirer and Fox.
Lastly, your site claims to be in favor of all things American. I
must remind you that intolerance of criticism directed at the
government is quite un-American. President Reagan would have told
you that. Your jingoism has no place in the
libertarian/conservative movement. BTW, Ron Paul's positions in
Reagan's campaigns is a real tie that you seem to have
neglected.
thoreau|1.10.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Eric Dondero-
Your main preoccupation on this forum has been the war, and you've
acted like an utter loon on that point.
Ayn R. Key|1.10.08 @ 12:56PM|#
"WWII - The good one. Put a check in the "fighting illiberty"
column."
Out of context, and ignoring the Soviet victory in Eastern Europe,
it is indeed a check.
In context, the 20th Century war, 1914-1989, it wasn't much of a
victory for anybody. just remember that WWII started in 1914.
Ayn R. Key|1.10.08 @ 1:05PM|#
"Our difference is on how they come home. Anti-War Libertarians
want to paint them as "disgraced occupiers."
Pro-Defense libertarians see them as Liberators, who have won a
glorious victory. And Bush and the Republican Party deserve great
credit for a masterful Military achievement. "
You contradict yourself Dondero. How can anti-war pro-defense
libertarians hold both those views at the same time. I think you're
talking about pro-defense versus pro-war.
Paul|1.10.08 @ 2:12PM|#
This has all to do with freedom of association, and little
to do with freedom of speech.
Jerry, I know. My attempt at subtle humor must have
failed...miserably.
|1.10.08 @ 6:28PM|#
Eric, I propose a deal. Get them out FAST, and we'll call it a "Glorious Victory."
|1.13.08 @ 3:57AM|#
Open Letter To Lew Rockwell
January 12, 2008
Dear Lew,
You have now had three opportunities - 1996, 2001, and 2008 - to
prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have
failed to do so each time.
This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely
un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to
appear in Ron's newsletters over the course of several years have
become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even
higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican
nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions
of supporters, not tens of thousands.
Three times you have failed to come forward and admit
responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed
Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has
been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer
repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on
national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his
millions of supporters is unconscionable.
If you were Dr. Paul's friend, or a friend of freedom, as you
pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed
responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned
from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the
burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you
have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from
Ron's message.
You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in
his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not
yours. Pretty clever. But now it's time to man up, Lew. Admit your
role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.
John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245