Did I Give Paul a Pass?

David Weigel | January 10, 2008

Virginia Postrel has some critical words for reason's coverage of Ron Paul:

I do fault my friends at Reason, who... scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn't do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. For starters, they might have asked my old boss Bob Poole about Ron Paul; I remember a board member complaining about Paul's newsletters back in the early '90s. Besides, people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul's populist appeals... I suspect they did but decided it was more useful to spin things their way than to take Paul's record and ideas seriously.

I can only speak for myself here, and I knew about the newsletters, and wrote that I did, way back in May 2007. Older, more experienced libertarians were telling me that they would be a problem for Paul. I asked Paul back then about the letters and have asked him (and the campaign) since then about support from Don Black. I wasn't ignorant of these problems and I wasn't covering them up. As Paul's campaign grew this stuff just lost importance to me. Paul disassociates himself from the newsletters (although not from all the people who wrote them) and the people running his campaign have no connection to that older, nastier iteration of his career. The campaign was growing so much larger and more interesting than the conspiratorial Paul circle of the late 80s and mid-90s.

In any case, the Paul pile-on is starting to get ridiculous. You can blame Paul and the ghostwriters for some of this, for keeping what was in the newsletters so quiet, but simply because so many of them are now out I'm seeing "damning" quotes that pad the lists without making Paul look out of line. The excitable Dan Koffler compiles some that wouldn't sound out of place, frankly, in a conservative blog or in National Review. For example:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country.

This is something Herman Cain says once or twice every hour.

The Earth Summit is the creepiest meeting of politicos since the first gathering of Bolsheviks. Officially known as the UN Conference for Environment and Development, it will be held in Brazil in June; bad guys from all over the globe will attend.

Silly, but sounds like something John Bolton would say.

I agree with Virginia's first response to the controversy: Libertarians have known for a while about Paul's more right-wing flashes. I was expecting a controversy like this to arise if Paul stayed in the race and made waves.

Comments

|1.10.08 @ 9:35AM|#

Again I wonder why there is all this "cosmopolitan" vs. "populist" bs. Am I the only regular libertarian who is neither "elitist" NOR friendly with racists?

|1.10.08 @ 9:42AM|#

I agree with John. What the fuck other than "I don't like Lew Rockwell & company" does "cosmopolitan Libertarian" even mean? There's Libertarian & not-Libertarian. And to determine if you are a Libertarian are not things like the Non-aggression principle are much more important than what your social views are or in which part of the county you live.

Peter|1.10.08 @ 9:43AM|#

This stuff was on Wikipedia for shits sake if you didn't know about it your an idiot. I mean seriously you either accept his response the one has given for years or you don't, your ignorance is no excuse for your outrage. For me I give Paul the benifit of the doubt it is no worse than seeking the endorsment of Farakon, Sharpton, or Robertson who have all said and some continue to say hateful things about jews, mormons, gays, and others. It was negligent and stupid and he should of known better but it isn't going on now and I trust it won't happen again.

DavidS|1.10.08 @ 9:43AM|#

Nice way of highlighting what turns to have been a very prescient article from May...

|1.10.08 @ 9:45AM|#

Agreed. My respect for Virginia is fading fast with all her coded speech. Seriously, what does "cosmopolitan" mean to her? And where specifically does it differ from Ron Paul's 2008 campaign?

Off the top of my head, abortion and immigration are the obvious ones. Where else?

Episiarch|1.10.08 @ 9:46AM|#

Being called "cosmopolitan" is like being called "metrosexual". It's kind of like someone saying that you're not gay, but they could understand you being mistaken for being so.

"We're here! We're not queer! But we're close! Get used to it!"

penxv|1.10.08 @ 9:47AM|#

It's probably good that this stuff came out now. It doesn't substantively change anything though.

Paul is still as close to an ideal candidate as libertarians are going to get.

|1.10.08 @ 9:47AM|#

Tell me again about how thing were so much better when VP was in charge.

|1.10.08 @ 9:47AM|#

So Nick and Matt are almost gay? I'm so confused...

Brian Carnell|1.10.08 @ 9:48AM|#

"For me I give Paul the benifit of the doubt it is no worse than seeking the endorsment of Farakon, Sharpton, or Robertson who have all said and some continue to say"

Exactly. Paul is just like Farrakhan/Sharpton.

Libertarians FTW.

It is interesting to see the full-on denial from libertarians about just how odious Ron Paul is.

|1.10.08 @ 9:48AM|#

She totally should have written "That magazine has really gone downhill since I left."

BTW, "cosmopolitan" means "hip, urbane, and at home in at atmosphere of cultural diversity."

|1.10.08 @ 9:48AM|#

"This stuff was on Wikipedia for shits sake if you didn't know about it your an idiot"

Does that go for everything on Wikipedia or just stuff about Ron Paul?

the future and her SSRIs|1.10.08 @ 9:48AM|#

It differs in Postrel's advocacy of genocide against the people of Iraq for various made-up bullshit reasons that anyone with half a brain could see through. Harsh, but true. No matter how much more useful it is to spin things her way than to take Postrel's record and ideas seriously.

|1.10.08 @ 9:52AM|#

Postrel advocated genocide in Iraq? I didn't know about this. I mean, I seem to recall when she was advocating for genocide in Rwanda, but not Iraq.

Dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 9:53AM|#

I am very troubled by the newsletters but the effort to turn Paul into some sort of Nazi monster is getting to be a scandal in its own way. TNR trolled through seventeen years of WEEKLY newsletters and only found a few (all linked at reason) to cross over the line into racism.....others, like the UN, piece were more common. The piece on Duke was not "praise" for him but merely urged candidates to recognize that he had successfully exploited certain issues such as taxes.

Are there more than those linked by TNR? If not, Paul does not deserve this kind of grief, especially since he he HAS APOLOIGZED, for the really bad ones.

|1.10.08 @ 9:53AM|#

It is interesting to see the full-on denial from libertarians about just how odious Ron Paul is.
Even at his worst, he's ten times less odious than any other candidate for president in the past forty years.

penxv|1.10.08 @ 9:53AM|#

Plus, most normal people haven't even started paying attention yet.

DavidS|1.10.08 @ 9:54AM|#

Classic passive aggressive link from Instapundit:

"VIRGINIA POSTREL posts a rare criticism of Reason magazine over the Ron Paul affair. Actually, I think it's the only time she's criticized the new regime; the only time I can remember, anyway."

GILMORE|1.10.08 @ 9:54AM|#

In any case, the Paul pile-on is starting to get ridiculous.

Im sorry, but you made your bed, and now you have to sleep in it.

Many readers here have pointed out the unequivocal, 24/7, RON PAUL IS TEH SHIZNORZ! coverage here was silly by itself, and now that the picture has some spots on it, the caveats and backpedaling is even more silly.

next time around, maybe a grain of salt or two will be in order

|1.10.08 @ 9:55AM|#

David,

Not all the Paul quotes are equally repulsive, and there is nothing objectionable about taking exception to the earth summit, nor necessarily about observations of black political uniformity. But the former comes in the context of heaps of crazy rambling about one-world government conspiracies --- indeed, in the context of speculating that a literal "Trotskyite-Maoist" conspiracy is poised to take over the world. Therefore it seemed fairly clear to me that the term "Bolshevik" was not merely a hyperbolic rhetorical point, but another datum of paranoid conspiracy-mongering. In context, remarks about secretive one-worldist meetings are not benign.

Likewise, the claim about black political uniformity comes in a discussion of the feral qualities of blacks and how they are brainwashed by their leaders to commit violence. Furthermore, the repetitive incantation of the word, 'black' this, 'black' that, 'black' the other thing, is indicative of an attitude in the same way that saying 'Jew,' 'Jew,' 'Jew' would be.

In any case, there are many, many more pages of material every bit as disgusting as what you'd acknowledge is disgusting in the material I reprinted. And this all comes from a tiny sample of the 20 years of Ron Paul reports. Your claim is that, because one or two remarks could be interpreted as merely insane, and not hateful (though I say the context clarifies the right interpretation), it's piling on to want to disassociate your own beliefs from this trash?

Ali|1.10.08 @ 9:55AM|#

I can only speak for myself here, and I knew about the newsletters, and wrote that I did, way back in May 2007.

But something like this should not be just mentioned once. It should be used as a reminder every now and then just like Reason writers do almost every thread. They refer back to older stuff that matters. And this isn't something trivial to not be referred to (and revisited) every now and then.

With that said, and with the fact that the statements written in Ron Paul's reports are truly appalling, I still think that all the rest of his ideas are worthy of support. He has repudiated them and should keep doing what he's doing. It is not like the other candidates are angels and non-populist.

Martin|1.10.08 @ 9:56AM|#

Postrel jumped on the war bandwagon, and I don't think has got off it yet. I wouldn't have said 'genocide' though, despite the fact that I can't stand her. It does really make a mockery of all this 'cosmopolitanism' nonsense.

|1.10.08 @ 9:58AM|#

"Paul is just like Farrakhan/Sharpton."
Brian Carnell

Brian, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. *No one* has *ever* heard Dr. Paul say *anything* remotely resembling the filth that reportedly was printed in those newsletters, so what evidence do you have for your outrageous and over-the-top statement.

ed|1.10.08 @ 9:59AM|#

"scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously"

That sums it up rather nicely I think. Would anyone claim that Reason is as serious as, say, Cato? There's nothing wrong with fun and games, but libertarianism rarely gets to the root of things.

|1.10.08 @ 9:59AM|#

Good for you, David! I am shocked at the shocked reactions of many of the H&R commentators! The Gays and Lesbians for Ron Paul don't give a good goddamn about them, either.

Like I have said, these comments are certainly un-PC, but are nothing more than what you heard from Rush or G Gordon Libby at the time. Pat Buchanon was AGAINST the first Gulf War. Rothbard and others felt the LP was not focused on foreign policy. They courted the right wing. Welfare was a big issue. Black on black crime was a big issue. Black preteens had committed horrible murders that were on the news.

The difference in culture between the Korean immigrants and the rioting blacks was a hot topic. A working class man was dragged from his truck and murdered in those riots. The line about the riots stopped when the welfare check arrived to me was actually quite funny in a sharp, sad way.

I am glad everyone has moved on beyond those days. We are over the MLK backlash. By the way, lest you think by my tone that I would go around saying these things, that is not true either. I despise racism. I am from NYC and LA and I don't want to proclaim MY cosmopolitan bona fides at all, no one is perfect in this regard. But, although I laughed at some of it and was put off by some of what I heard from conservatives and some libs in those days, I couldn't help but see the kernel of truth in what was said.

The NEOCONS are infiltrated into the right and left largely because they are seen as cosmopolitan. Those conservatives are different, they don't hate the jews, and so on. But, they kill, kill, kill, whomever they target for destruction. Virginia Postrel and her husband and some of the Cato crowd who proclaim their "tolerant cosmopolitan" nature have supported the wholesale unnecessary slaughter of hundreds of thousands and have helped let loose the dogs of war to what end we know not.

Dr Paul, whatever his shortcomings in the period in question, as well as the paleos at LRC have consistently been anti interventionist and anti war. Libertarians have admitted that they erred in supporting McCarthy for a while. I am sure, as Dr Paul has already, they will acknowledge their lapse into this rhetorical style was excessive and sometimes went beyond the pale. But, they were right, right, right on the horrors of war, and that is more important to me.

R C Dean|1.10.08 @ 10:00AM|#

Postrel jumped on the war bandwagon, and I don't think has got off it yet. I wouldn't have said 'genocide' though, despite the fact that I can't stand her. It does really make a mockery of all this 'cosmopolitanism' nonsense.

Because no one could possibly be hip, urbane, and at home in at atmosphere of cultural diversity and in favor of getting rid of a genocidal psychopath like Saddam Hussein as the first step in draining the toxic swamp that is the Middle East.

I mean, all the folks at the cosmopolitan cocktail parties were against it!

Episiarch|1.10.08 @ 10:00AM|#

BTW, "cosmopolitan" means "hip, urbane, and at home in at atmosphere of cultural diversity."

I must be losing my touch if I can't even get joe riled up any more.

Shane Brady|1.10.08 @ 10:01AM|#

Does apologizing somehow make it all go away? And for the record, I haven't heard much of an actual apology. I've read that he takes "moral responsibility" for the newsletters, but big deal. How could he not take responsibility for something with his name on it, and often written in the first person as Ron Paul. So big deal.

His response has been so muted, with so little passion, it seems he treats this as a minor annoyance. I've yet to see a repudiation with as much passion as he has when he talks about wanting to ban abortion.

He's a just pathetic, old, angry, white man.

Peter|1.10.08 @ 10:02AM|#

Wikipedia is not a good source but if you read about the newsletters in wikipedia you could have easily found stuff our about it.

As for the Farrakan/Shapton/Robertson thing the difference is some candidates these days are still accepting their support as apposed to Paul who if you beleive him never had these view but instead was just grosely negligent just like those who didn't know about the newsletters. He made a big mistake and a stupid one but he isn't still making it.

cat\'s pajamas|1.10.08 @ 10:03AM|#

i had to google this feral "Koffler" person to fnd his "piece". Why doesn't Koffler offer a substantive rebuttal to what he calls "crazy"?

Answer -- he can't.

The neocon leaders who have brainwashed him into advocacy of war crimes have their roots in the Trotskyite movement. He needs to step up and own that.

drink your ovaltine|1.10.08 @ 10:04AM|#

Following the link to Postrel's site, she says "cosmopolitan" is code for "Jew"? I thought neocon was supposed to be code for "Jew"? Why is Postrel engaging in this coded speech? Or is it just conspiracy theorizing on her part? Or both?

|1.10.08 @ 10:05AM|#

It could have been worse. In a previous thread, twv noted that Rockwell, Rothbard, Paul took a turn to the darkside in the late 80s. As I recall, the Rothbard/Rockwell candidate for National Chair of the LP was narrowly defeated at the 1989 convention in Phila. (Thanks to Rothbard totally embarrassing himself in the nominating speech). They then stomped out of the LP.
Imagine if they had won and used a controlled LP to peddle their views? {not that the LP has gone on to greater glory in the meantime)

|1.10.08 @ 10:06AM|#

Arnold Shwarzenegger says he admires Adolf Hitler...he is cheered as a great conservative. Bill Clinton and George Bush applaud and expand a drug war that imprisons two billion non-violent blacks adn look the otehr way at CIA coke trafficking and they are compassionate people.

Clinton-Bush regime kill one million innocent Iraqis that had nothing to do with 9/11 and they are fredom fighting saviors of mankind.

Ron Paul talks about a foreign policy of peace and you guys dig up stuff he never even wrote and claim he is a racist...your a joke.

yes lets get back to bombing aspirin factories in Sudan and show the world how cosmopolitan we are.

Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 10:07AM|#

It seems to me that the "cosmopolitanism" argument that seems so trivial to some is important to others because it raises the question of exactly whom libertarianism is supposed to benefit, and exactly whom the current statist climate is benefitting.

Paul's sort of rural, populist libertarian thinks that the current statism benefits entrenched corporate interests, including the banks.

Urbane, elitist libertarians think that corporations and the upper class are actually the victims of a statist regime that intrudes upon their liberty.

The two sides can't stop arguing about it, because of what you could call the Wesley Mouch paradox - both sides are right at the same time, and so each cannot see why the other does not see that they are right.

Jennifer|1.10.08 @ 10:08AM|#

people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul's populist appeals

What a magnificently diplomatic way of saying "Libertarians are snooty snobs who should know better than to trust a politician who's popular with the great unwashed."

Thing is, when cosmopolites like Gillespie and Welch drink their sophisticated adult beverages that Little People like me can't afford, their extended little pinkies blind them to the populist masses their peripheral vision would otherwise detect. Or something like that. Jesus, this would make sense if I were drunk.

Episiarch|1.10.08 @ 10:08AM|#

Postrel's comments strike me as part and parcel of a rush to claim the moral high ground.

OH NOES SOMEBODY COULD HITZ ME WITH "RACIST SUPPORTERZ"

Certain "cosmopolitan" types are terrified of being tagged certain ways, and will scramble for rhetorical cover at the merest threat of it. I previously lamented that anyone who had pushed Paul now would have to deal with smug recriminations from lefties and righties about that.

People like Postrel would rather throw this whole movement to the wolves than have to deal with that amongst their oh-so-tolerant "cosmopolitan" circles. Unsurprising; they are, after all, Beltway libertarians. It's a corrupting atmosphere.

Martin|1.10.08 @ 10:08AM|#

'Because no one could possibly be hip, urbane, and at home in at atmosphere of cultural diversity and in favor of getting rid of a genocidal psychopath like Saddam Hussein as the first step in draining the toxic swamp that is the Middle East.'

How is unleashing a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, displaced several million of them, destroyed the Iraqi Christian community, strengthened Iran, and wasted over half a trillion dollars 'hip and urbane'?

Episiarch|1.10.08 @ 10:11AM|#

Bill Clinton and George Bush applaud and expand a drug war that imprisons two billion non-violent blacks adn look the otehr way at CIA coke trafficking and they are compassionate people.

Wow, Gabe, that's a lot of people in jail.

|1.10.08 @ 10:12AM|#

But something like this should not be just mentioned once.

Ever see Reason bring up Robert Byrd without mentioning that he was a Klansman back before he wasn't?

Ever see Reason mention Al Sharpton without a link to his nasy past?

Reason writers seem to find it incredibly important to tell us that John McCain was involved with the Keating Five.

I think you're onto something.

The other double standard is found in the phrase "of the earnestness that takes politics seriously." Ha ha, look at all the liberals and conseratives who actually get excited about politicians as if they are people to be admired, just because they like their political philosophy. What a bunch of easily-manipulated tools. Why must they be slaves to their partisan blinders?

And then, suddenly, the people who spent all those years leaning against the wall, blowing out a stream of smoke, and saying, "It's all just bullshit, man" turn into ZOMG!!! fanbois.

I think there's a lot of lessons in this episode, and the very real, not imaginary link between the libertarian movement and the nastier precincts of the right is one of them. Realizing that adhering to libertarianism isn't a vaccine against partisan blinders is an important one, too.

Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 10:12AM|#

What a magnificently diplomatic way of saying "Libertarians are snooty snobs who should know better than to trust a politician who's popular with the great unwashed."

I think the more charitable interpretation would be that some libertarians are wary of populist appeals, because populism is so often the weapon deployed against libertarianism.

Episiarch|1.10.08 @ 10:13AM|#

Thing is, when cosmopolites like Gillespie and Welch drink their sophisticated adult beverages that Little People like me can't afford, their extended little pinkies blind them to the populist masses their peripheral vision would otherwise detect. Or something like that. Jesus, this would make sense if I were drunk.

What you have been missing is that Welch, who you don't normally hear, actually talks just like Thurston Howell III from Gilligan's Island. Nick used to but conceals it in interviews.

Dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 10:13AM|#

Dan Koffler:

You are quite worried about conspiracy mongering (hardly a federal crime). Fair enough. Are you equally worried about Rudy's crazy theory that a few thousand outcasts will establish a "World Caliphate" if we don't support him? That is crazier and more conspiratorial than anything said in the newsletters.

BTW, when do you intend to denounce your guy Rudy for PUBLICLY EMBRACING support from Pat Robertson, a man who still says Americans were to blame for 911?

|1.10.08 @ 10:14AM|#

I take responsibility for the content of those newsletters.

I take moral responsnibility for the content of those newsletters.

Does the word "moral" in the second sentence mean anything? It seems to me that it is there to minimize the responsibility, as if he's suggesting that his responsibility is limited to some areas, and implicitly suggesting that there are other types of responsibility he does not take.

Episiarch|1.10.08 @ 10:16AM|#

And then, suddenly, the people who spent all those years leaning against the wall, blowing out a stream of smoke, and saying, "It's all just bullshit, man" turn into ZOMG!!! fanbois.

joe with the ZING

|1.10.08 @ 10:16AM|#

Paul's campaign, to me, has always been more about ideas than the man. I'm not too concerned about Paul's past because he is more of a protest vote than a viable candidate. I think its important to support the message, hopefully the GOP or DEMs will listen. Somehow, if the message of libertarian dissatisfaction gets through to one of the parties, I suspect the message heard won't have anything to do with racist pamphlets.

|1.10.08 @ 10:16AM|#

What a magnificently diplomatic way of saying "Libertarians are snooty snobs who should know better than to trust a politician who's popular with the great unwashed."

Ron Paul's popular?

Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 10:20AM|#

I have to agree with Dodsworth.

What's the big whoop about "conspiracy-mongering"?

I think people who believe that the Moon Landing was faked or that the government was behing 9/11 are stupid, but not immoral. But there is this hysteria about "truthers" out there in the right wing blogosphere that seems a bit overblown to me.

The only reason I can see for the hatred - absolute hatred - out there for the frankly pathetic truther community is that there are people who want 9/11 to be the moral justification for an ongoing series of anti-Muslim atrocities, and anyone who doubts that 9/11 was the opening round of a 1000 year Caliphate war is undermining that marketing message.

Since I don't really care about the ability of Bushites to market their wars, truthers don't really agitate me that much. They're no more harmless than the huge number of dumbasses out there who think that Jesus personally intervenes to decide the outcome of their high school football games.

|1.10.08 @ 10:22AM|#

Ron Paul, turned on my red light some time ago. Some of his exclamations were just a bit too weird and off the wall. Take the paper money thing, for example. Conflating it with tyranny? Give me a break! The guy must know what true tyranny is and this ain't it.
Nonetheless, I was willing to live with his strangeness, given the alternatives.
But this newsletter stuff is over the edge. Unexcusable. Whether he wrote that drivel himself or not. His name is on it. He's responsible. And he wouldn't even let the buck stop here. He's out and rightly so.
So David, you knew about it and didn't see fit to inform us? I disagree with you, it is important. The movement, as you call it, is now suffering as a result of putting trust in a profoundly flawed character.
Dammit, isn't there any way to break the statist crowd before they self-destruct with the attendant long-lasting damage?
It will have to be done the long way, by the "march through the institutions", to borrow a phrase, anf nothing but the phrase, from socialist revolutionaries. If we can just get rid of the fruit-cakes giving libertarians a bad name!

Michael McDonnough|1.10.08 @ 10:25AM|#

There is not a good man or woman in political life today that is in a position to make this run as Paul is. I say it again if you have a better candidate that will bring this nation back towards liberty and freedom more than Paul will then trot him or her out here. I have not seen anyone with the track record or sticking to their guns for the cause of freedom more than this man Paul.

I have also not seen a man or woman with substance that is willing to speak truth to power that does not then get run down like a dog by the press and the paid liars for the establishment who call themselves pundits. It happens every time. If you can not be bought or bowed you get blasted every time. People should get a thicker skin and soldier on in my opinion. Use your brain and see you are getting hustled by the establishments hustlers.

|1.10.08 @ 10:26AM|#

I was never impressed by Virginia Postrel. I preferred Reason during Bob Poole's tenure and after Postrel left. This whole "cosmopolitan" obsession is frankly getting to be stupid.

|1.10.08 @ 10:28AM|#

Oh yes: Weigel did NOT give Paul a pass. The reports were rather fair.

Jennifer|1.10.08 @ 10:30AM|#

Oooh, look at me, everybody! I'm Matt Welch! I'm cosmopolitan and sophisticated! My wife is FRENCH! I own a beret! If you don't support Ron Paul, I suggest you read the Constitution before you embarrass yourself further.

Wild, irresponsible observatio|1.10.08 @ 10:30AM|#

A cosmopolitan libertarian is libertarian out of selfishness. "Nobody is going to tell me what to do, dammit!"

Ron Paul's [campaign] libertarianism is more pragmatic. He thinks it will really create a more smoothly running society. There are also behaviors Ron Paul doesn't approve of. He just isn't in the business of using force to make anyone stop doing it unless it harms another.

To a cosmopolitan libertarian, it's all cool. Just do your thing. I won't pass judgement.

BakedPenguin|1.10.08 @ 10:31AM|#

Ron Paul's popular?

With all those smoking punks leaning against the wall, anyway...

Fluffy - it's not just high schoolers.

highnumber|1.10.08 @ 10:31AM|#

Therefore it seemed fairly clear to me that the term "Bolshevik" was not merely a hyperbolic rhetorical point, but another datum of paranoid conspiracy-mongering. In context, remarks about secretive one-worldist meetings are not benign.

Conspiracy paranoia about conspiracy paranoia.

SRS|1.10.08 @ 10:34AM|#

"This stuff was on Wikipedia for shits sake if you didn't know about it your an idiot"

You should consult Wikipedia on grammar and punctuation.

|1.10.08 @ 10:36AM|#

SRS -
Hear, hear!

your an idiot

One of my all-time favorite internet phrases.

|1.10.08 @ 10:36AM|#

Weigel's just a shill for Big Paul?

|1.10.08 @ 10:36AM|#

You're right, David. This IS getting ridiculous. Where are we to find a perfect candidate with a perfect past? Ron Paul is about as close as it will ever get. And when you take on the status quo like he has, they will do whatever it takes to discredit you.

Postrel has always hated the Mises crowd, so she attacks Paul to get back at them. What is being achieved by this?

I have met right-wingers who had never even considered the possibility of bringing our troops home until they heard Paul argue for it in the debates. I have met A LOT of teenagers and college kids who have had their entire political views shaped by the Paul campaign. Think of what this will mean for the future.

If you care about liberty, you must recognize this campaign has been the greatest event on the history of libertarianism, whether you like Paul or not. But I suppose if all you care about is writing blurbs on being "cosmopolitan" and "dynamist", then none of it ever mattered in the first place.

svf|1.10.08 @ 10:36AM|#

I find it instructive and curious that no major media outlet has picked up on these "bombshell revelations" about Ron Paul yet. Not AP. Not Reuters. ABC, CBS, NBC -- nothin'. Not even the Ron Paul-hating FOX NEWS network has mentioned it, as far as I can tell.

Other than those of us lost souls scouring the blogosphere 24-7 for Ron Paul stuff and the small and unsympathetic readership of The New Republic, nobody is hearing about this story.

Perhaps the "MSM" has higher standards of reporting than "TNR." Perhaps it's just not that "newsworthy." Perhaps they see it for what it is : "Old News".

In any case, three days later Kirchick's hit piece simply does not have legs. Put a fork in it. Move on.

|1.10.08 @ 10:37AM|#

Has Ron Paul actually done anything to implement policy that furthers the racist views supposedly expressed in his newsletters?

|1.10.08 @ 10:41AM|#

"Your an idiot" is the Platonic ideal of joez law of teh internetz.

Peter|1.10.08 @ 10:42AM|#

To SRS
You got me their.
;-)

|1.10.08 @ 10:43AM|#

svf,

This story is getting exactly the same amount of attention from the mainstream media as every other element of the Paul campaign.

A brief, highly critical mention on Fox Nooz, and that's it.

|1.10.08 @ 10:43AM|#

The truth is irrelevant. The intent is to sway the vote. All a detractor has to do is scream 'racist' long enough and people will believe.

Ali|1.10.08 @ 10:44AM|#

I find it instructive and curious that no major media outlet has picked up on these "bombshell revelations" about Ron Paul yet. Not AP. Not Reuters. ABC, CBS, NBC -- nothin'. Not even the Ron Paul-hating FOX NEWS network has mentioned it, as far as I can tell.

Wait until the debates tonight. Remember when they used to put him in a corner and asked wacky wacky questions? I hope he will be ready to answer questions on racism. This debate could potentially be the nail in the coffin of the campaign --depending on how nice Faux wants to be. I do not expect them to be nice.

|1.10.08 @ 10:44AM|#

That's it exactly, RM. Right now, in Rudy Guiliani's headquarters, a senior strategist is saying, "Screw McCain, what are we going to do about Ron Paul?"

Bingo|1.10.08 @ 10:45AM|#

joe:

I'm a fan of "your retarted" [sic]

|1.10.08 @ 10:46AM|#

Oh yeah, Ali. Fox is going to get payback tonight for the dustup in New Hampshire. Knifing their enemies is what they are there for.

|1.10.08 @ 10:47AM|#

Oh, Bingo. Don't make me choose. They're like my children, and I love each one in their own special way.

|1.10.08 @ 10:51AM|#

In any case, the Paul pile-on is starting to get ridiculous.

Er, no. It isn't. I'm not particularly a Paul-basher, but it is sort of pathetic to see how quickly the apologists here have adopted a tone of, "Look, we all knew about this stuff all along. And we took our medicine and made serious statements about how disappointed we all are, so now stop being so shrill about the whole thing."

Quit your whining.

|1.10.08 @ 10:56AM|#

I think
your an idiot
your stupid
and
your retarded
all should fit in the same category

|1.10.08 @ 10:56AM|#

the racist views supposedly expressed in his newsletters?

Belive me, there were racist views expressed in the newsletter. Your level of denial is astonishing.

DavidS|1.10.08 @ 10:58AM|#

Isn't Postrel's post partly driven by her differences on issues like trade (she seems to support the WTO; Paul would abolish it); finance (she's hardly a supporter of the gold standard); immigration (she's pro, he's comes across as usually anti); evolution (he's pretty lukewarm, she's practically a new species) etc?

These are real differences it seems to me...

Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 10:59AM|#

Please, please, please let Fox attempt to use this story to humiliate Paul. Please, please let it happen, High School Football Baby Jesus, please grant my wish.

When Fox attacks Paul it builds him up, because 1) they're inept and 2) they're so loathsome that the argument is polluted the moment it passes Chris Wallace's lips. If Fox chooses to address this issue at all, they will almost certainly take it too far and do so in an unfair way, which would enable Paul to crawl out from under this disaster rhetorically.

If Paul has to argue this thing on TV, it would be far, far better for his opponent to be the dirtbags at Fox than someone with actual credibility.

|1.10.08 @ 11:00AM|#

Shane Brady's description of Ron Paul at 10:01 is the same one my kids use on me. Wait a damned minute !! I represent that remark !! Just 'cause Ron and I are the same age and.....

Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 11:03AM|#

it is sort of pathetic to see how quickly the apologists here have adopted a tone of, "Look, we all knew about this stuff all along. And we took our medicine and made serious statements about how disappointed we all are, so now stop being so shrill about the whole thing."

I heartily agree that it is unfair and wrong that our hummingbird media society develops amnesia about scandals within seconds of hearing about them.

I propose that we resurrect all scandals, working backwards from now through the time of their occurence. That means that we should start with the Bush administration's contempt of Congressional subpoenas, move on to the parade of perjury Justice Department officials presented the Congress with last year, then move on to the billions unaccounted for in Iraq and Pakistan, then move on to the whitewashing of Abu Ghraib, etc. etc. etc. Don't worry, we'll work our way back to Ron Paul Survival Report newsletters from 1992 eventually.

Jennifer|1.10.08 @ 11:05AM|#

Considering how many modern government evils are inflicted by people who really think they're helping those whom they make suffer, I actually might vote for Paul even if he were an unabashed racist, because he'd still be better for all Americans--including minorities--than the non-racist Nanny Stater alternatives.

Think of this: the huge sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine mostly hurt minorities, right? The laws resulted in lots of imprisoned black people and shattered black families: a black guy goes to jail for 20 years for possessing X amount of cocaine, while a white guy with the same amount in powder form gets a slap on the wrist.

And yet, these powder-vs.-crack laws were NOT passed by racist white legislators seeking to destroy black communities; they were pushed through by black community leaders filled with a drug warrior's confidence that imprisoning drug users is a kind and compassionate and helpful thing to do.

So now let's say you're a black American looking to vote for the candidate who will do the least harm to the black community. You have two choices. Who should you vote for: the candidate who says "I love black people, which is why I am going to continue imprisoning any of them foolish enough to use unhealthy drugs," or "I hate black people, so I'm going to make drugs legal and I damn well hope they all overdose and die?"

I'd pick the racist, because I know--even if he doesn't--that legalizing drugs won't result in mass overdoses, but WILL go a long way toward ending the law-enforcement corruption that has been shattering the black community.

|1.10.08 @ 11:05AM|#

Fluffy- shouldn't everyone be held accountable for their action and their words, regardless of the actions and words of more terrible people?

Sam Grove|1.10.08 @ 11:06AM|#

Tempest in a Teapot. Teapot being the formal aspects of the libertarian movement.

This all helps me reaffirm my acquired view that there will be no political solution.

Libertarians (big L) are too damn political...compromising and contentious, to bring actual liberty into the world.

The dirt bomb thrown by TNR has had its desired effect.

So many reactionaries.

Explains why I lost interest in the LP. So many struggling so hard to prove that THEY have the solution. "Dammit, if only I were in charge."

Like a bunch of fucking Marxists, always self limiting by their factionalism.

Too smart to see how ineffectual they actually are.

I challenge anyone on adherence to libertarian philosophical purity, but I think Ron Paul, with all his baggage and kookiness, is much preferable to many of you.

A Giuliani supporter took a shot at the RP campaign and you all responded perfectly, predictably, as he hoped.

pause

Here's what you do. If you supported Ron Paul, remember why. If that still applies, then stick with it.

If you didn't support Ron Paul, state why, then go about your own business.

If you've decided that you can't handle the heat, shut up and get out of the kitchen. Your moaning and groaning are worth zero.

|1.10.08 @ 11:06AM|#

A local GOP bigwig told me they are really concerned that RP will run third party and siphon off 5% of the vote and "spoil it" for whomever is the GOP candidate. So what should the GOP do? Attack Paul with these revelations and piss him off enough to go independent? Or stfu and let his campaign stumble to its conclusion after Super Tuesday?
What would Karl Rove do?

|1.10.08 @ 11:08AM|#

If we're considering effects vs. intentions, it might be worth remembering that President Ron Paul's Drug War Elimination Bill would lose 430-5 in the House and 99-1 in the Senate on its best day.

Reinmoose,

I think your being rediculous.

stephen the goldberger|1.10.08 @ 11:08AM|#

Virginia should come off it. The Ron Paul story was/is a critical story involving libertarianism. Reason covered it fairly, as they had to. For her to be this condescending is ridiculous.

Ron Paul did much for the cause of libertarianism, much more than Virginia Postrel has done (even though i do respect her work greatly) whether she wants to admit it or not.

|1.10.08 @ 11:13AM|#

It is interesting to see the full-on denial from libertarians about just how odious Ron Paul is.

Ron Paul is by definition odious, because he is a Congressman; you don't get elected to Congress by accident. It requires pandering, lying, coded messages to various fringe constituencies, and making promises which you are neither able nor willing to keep. And it requires convincing strangers to give you money, based on an orgy of winking and nudging regarding what they can expect in return.

Happy now?

And Ron Paul, in all his horrific odiousness, is still, in my opinion, the least odious contestant in the Presidential sweepstakes.

Sam Grove|1.10.08 @ 11:15AM|#

And any so-called 'libertarian' who bought into the neo-con rationale and fabrications for the invasion of Iraq and justification of preemptive war has no credibility with me.

I certainly won't hold them up to my friends and associates as examples of libertarians.

And they are worried about Ron Paul's baggage tainting libertarian philosophy?

Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 11:15AM|#

Fluffy- shouldn't everyone be held accountable for their action and their words, regardless of the actions and words of more terrible people?

Yes.

I was merely snarkily saying that since the media and public forget all about the scandals I want them to remember just because "it's old news", then I am not going to get all bent out of shape if the Reason editors decide that this story is "old news", too.

If we're considering effects vs. intentions, it might be worth remembering that President Ron Paul's Drug War Elimination Bill would lose 430-5 in the House and 99-1 in the Senate on its best day.

True. But liberal use of the pardon power at the federal level would be a significant blow to the enforcement regime at all levels. The states can't manage an anti-contraband system all on their own, and if the President keeps springing nonviolent drug offenders from federal jails, the pastiche of enforcement is badly eroded.

Also, just having someone drag the leash of the Justice Department away from abusing the states when they try to liberalize their own drug regimes would accomplish a world of good.

If Paul was President, two or three states would probably pretty radically decriminalize at least marijuana, both because the JD wouldn't stop them, and because without the threat of federal incarceration preventing interstate transport of the stuff is just about impossible anyway.

|1.10.08 @ 11:17AM|#

I think your being rediculous.

well, you are to!

Sam Grove|1.10.08 @ 11:17AM|#

Anyone willing to predict there won't be a democrat in the White House this time next year?

|1.10.08 @ 11:19AM|#

I don't have time to read all of the comments, so I may be repeating the sentiment, but, the answer is "no, you didn't give Paul a pass." In fact, this was the only place I read anything about the Ron Paul newsletters and I tempered my support for Paul accordingly. Thanks Weigel.

Ali|1.10.08 @ 11:21AM|#

Jennifer-

Think of this: the huge sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine mostly hurt minorities, right? The laws resulted in lots of imprisoned black people and shattered black families: a black guy goes to jail for 20 years for possessing X amount of cocaine, while a white guy with the same amount in powder form gets a slap on the wrist.

Walter Block tried to make that point in New Orleans, and watch how his ideas were received.

Jennifer|1.10.08 @ 11:23AM|#

If we're considering effects vs. intentions, it might be worth remembering that President Ron Paul's Drug War Elimination Bill would lose 430-5 in the House and 99-1 in the Senate on its best day.

So we may as well vote for someone who supports the drug war, is what you're saying? Okay, and we may as well also vote for a candidate who says we will never, ever leave Iraq, because we're still there despite all the Democrats who got themselves elected on a "we'll leave Iraq" platform.

Vote a straight Republican ticket, y'all; Joe's logic shows there's no point doing any different, because the status quo WILL NOT change.

|1.10.08 @ 11:24AM|#

But Jennifer!
Don't you understand?!
If a poor but working single-mother black woman is taking her children to government-subsidized daycare and there's a drug dealer on the street who intimidates her into taking drugs, or convinces her it will make her feel better, and she gets addicted, that's bad! She'll spend all of her money on drugs and her children will have to be put in foster-care, and they'll grow up to be the same way!

Don't you care about the poor working single-mother black women!?

(this is actually how it was portrayed to me amongst some of my liberal friends)

dpotts|1.10.08 @ 11:25AM|#

Here's what you do. If you supported Ron Paul, remember why. If that still applies, then stick with it.

I supported Paul, donated money to a campaign for the first time in my life, etc. - and I still feel the same about the core of the message. I'll probably still end up voting for him too, but not without the same mistrust and contempt I have for anyone else in the field. And it's not whining - it's an important discussion to have if you actually give a shit about what liberty means and how it's best represented and implemented. It doesn't have as much to do with a tainting of the philosophy as it does with tainting the future of any "movement" organized around it. Young people have become interested and excited about politics again... it's not much fun thinking about how many of them will potentially be alienated, as unfair as that might or might not be.

|1.10.08 @ 11:30AM|#

"The excitable Dan Koffler compiles some that wouldn't sound out of place, frankly, in a conservative blog or in National Review. For example:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country.

This is something Herman Cain says once or twice every hour.

The Earth Summit is the creepiest meeting of politicos since the first gathering of Bolsheviks. Officially known as the UN Conference for Environment and Development, it will be held in Brazil in June; bad guys from all over the globe will attend."

I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees a difference between suggesting that black people are all alike and that green people are all alike.

"Libertarians have known for a while about Paul's more right-wing flashes."

Is that "[All] Libertarians.."? "[Some] libertarians..."? "Libertarians [from the eighties...]"?

I've been a Libertarian since the eighties, and I didn't know about it.

P.S. Why would anybody pay attention to the election in May?

|1.10.08 @ 11:32AM|#

What a luxury it must be to spend your time considering what constitutes cosmopolitanism and who qualifies and who doesn't. Ron Paul however is the one who sticks his neck out to tell hostile audiences things they don't want to hear. Postrel once again plays the role of Court libertarian. Yawn.

|1.10.08 @ 11:45AM|#

Frankly, cosmopolites, I have been bothered for a long time by Reason's general disinclination to examine Paul's close and continuing links with some of our nation's nuttiest. I share a hometown with Alex Jones, as it happens, and listen to conspiro-radio quite a lot for its horror/amusement value. Either Paul or his son appear on Alex Jones' radio show every freaking week! They're regulars! And Alex is a man who not only believes that 9/11 was an inside job, he also believes that it was part of a millennia-old pagan conspiracy that plans to exterminate 80 percent of the human race Real Soon Now. And that there are giant holding pens under the Denver airport for dissidents. And that the nation's social workers are part of a massive conspiracy that sell thousands of American children to the Saudis as sex slaves, every year. And that… but you get the idea. He is, in short, a fucking loon, and he makes no attempt to hide his unique theories-he pounds them over and over, every day! If Paul is unaware of the World of Alex Jones, he is the single most incurious man who ever lived.

And it's not just Alex Jones. Paul is the darling of the entire freakshow world. Just yesterday, Mark Koernke (who just yesterday informed us, once again, that 9/11 was an Israeli job) loves Paul and boosts him. As does Badnarik, who (also yesterday) had a fellow on who explained, as Badnarik lapped it up, that the consulting firm KPMG pulled 9/11 as part of an insurance fraud scam.

Either Paul endorses this kind of crap or he is monumentally cynical. Either way, he's lending legitimacy to some very ugly thinking.

|1.10.08 @ 11:46AM|#

No one's yet mentioned the significance of this:

A linked article from Virginia Postel's blog says this about an earlier questioning of Ron Paul about the newsletters:

"In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything." (my emphasis)

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2001-10-01/feature7-2.php

|1.10.08 @ 11:48AM|#

His first response is to own and defend comments from the newletters.

His second response is to deny that he said them.

|1.10.08 @ 11:54AM|#

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.

|1.10.08 @ 11:55AM|#

Plus, most normal people haven't even started paying attention yet.

Actually, most normal people are forgetting it already. Do a search on Ron Paul in Google news, and what little attention it got is already starting to drop off the results page. The top story returned is a new article in the NYT, and it doesn't even mention the matter.

In fact, virtually the only coverage it's getting is from - guess where? those "cosmopolitan libertarian" sites like - uh, help me out here....

|1.10.08 @ 11:57AM|#

In fact, virtually the only coverage it's getting is from - guess where? those "cosmopolitan libertarian" sites like - uh, help me out here....

Oh, like you got away with it and we should all just STFU?

Ali|1.10.08 @ 12:02PM|#

Pig Manix- Wait until the debate tonight. It could be amusing (and sad). I hope he'll be prepared.

Edward|1.10.08 @ 12:02PM|#

The real flaw in Weigel's argument is implication that the racist shit has come out because Ron Paul was making waves. Coming fifth twice and losing in Wyoming doesn't even constitute a splash. The mainstream press has hardly commented on the racist newsletter scandal. The kooky old fart is such a zero that nobody even gives a fuck if he's a crypto Nazi.

|1.10.08 @ 12:03PM|#

Oh, like you got away with it and we should all just STFU?

What "got away with it"? As has been pointed out numerous times, this information has been out in public for years. Believe it or not, the bottom line just might be that not much of anyone else really gives a shit.

But if you want to STFU, I don't think much of anybody is gonna complain...

Roach|1.10.08 @ 12:04PM|#

The paleolibertarians actually think a bit about history. They realize there are connections of federalism, government power, and therefore what one thinks of the Civil War, FDR, WWII, foreign policy based on human rights, etc. Hoppe, Rockwell, Rothbard, Nock, Babbitt, von Mises, and DeLorenzo all have a lot of intelligent things to say.

The new wave of youngsters wants to forget the various ways that the government has created a world they genuinely like living in, i.e., one with widespread education, little overt racism, clean food, multiculturally engineered population growth, and a nonexistent USSR.

Say what you will about Rockwell, but could I recommend reading him before attacking him. I don't totally agree with him or anyone I read, but he's certainly not dishonorable. His views on race don't make him so. I think some of this hyperbole exposes an ideological conflict at the heart of today's libertarianism. These folks are also socially liberal and thus obsessed with equality. But to preserve equality requires substantial restrictions on liberty. Every libertarian until recently understood this; thus, in the name of liberty, they mocked and attacked equality. Rand wrote The Virtue of Selfishness. Randolph said, "I hate equality." On balance, I think the harms to liberty are usually not worth the cost, but I think there's no reason to be dogmatic about it, and I'm glad laws like Title VII got rid of various crude forms of private discrimination.

Racism to me is like liberalism: an intellectual error, sometimes fueled and made ugly by resentment about inequality, but not the worst thing in the world. Like most extremes, it has the opposite, the counterfactual belief in equality of ability, which every day experience confirms is not true. Instead I favor legal equality, basic fairness, a certain magnamity to the poor and the dull, but at the same time I don't think cops should, for example, not use sensible profiling to find criminals, just as they profile sensibly against the young and the male sex. Affirmative action, of course, is the worst of all worlds: overt discrimination, a renunciation of excellence, and a Marxist importation of class results and class outcomes.

The new wave of libertarians are good for applying their handy-dandy slide rule formulae, but like ideological Communists, can always project their fantasies of a perfect world into the future and ignore and refuse to defend the actual results of real, historical liberty: a world more unequal and discriminatory than anything permitted under today's less-than-libertarian legal regime. What ever happened to libertarians crying "freedom of contract" and "freedom of association" in the face of nondiscrimination laws? Whatever happened to their willingness to let people starve in the name of opposing social welfare programs for the poor . . . after all these programs only reward laziness?

We're told this old world wouldn't return, the world of say 1865-1913 America, which I concede, but if libertarianism were good always and everywhere, there is no doubt this world would have continued, otherwise these laws were (and are today) totally superfluous. If this is the case, then how would libertarians feel about the very different world we'd live in today but for the statist interventions that crafted a totally different world that most of them happen to like. Would they, like 19th Century Republicans, have opposed the Freedman's Bureaus? Would they oppose disaster relief? Would they oppose public schools, public parks, homeless shelters, government-funded mental health institutions, etc.? This is libertarianism, folks, and the losers under this world are easily identified.

It seems that a bit of historical perspective and thoughtful exceptions to lock-step consistency might make libertarian views a bit more palatable. Then again, if that happened, they'd no longer be libertarian but a kind of liberty-leaning conservative pragmatism. Paul arguably did this, but he has shown bad judgment throughout his career, including indefensible conspiracy theorizing that make his expressed views on race appear positively bland. Reagan, by contrast, was a true liberty-loving conservative, who also knew that there are other important philosophical commitments besides consistency.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 12:06PM|#

Cosmopolitan means, ironically enough, libertarians who drink PBR.

I think the opposite are the guys drinking the colloidal silver and wearing sky blue polyster suits when Sam Francis used to roll in during a speaking tour.

Adolf|1.10.08 @ 12:07PM|#

David Duke: What Ron Paul Must Do to Win

The first two Republican delegate contests are over and in spite of an unfair playing field created by the political and media establishment, Ron Paul's vote has been very disappointing. After all, as he himself has pointed out, no one, no Republican or even Democrat candidate has raised more money in the last quarter. Even more tellingly, Ron Paul's fund raising has been similar to my own major political races in that he had many more contributors than the other candidates, but like me, not as many big ones. Yet, his campaign has not nearly generated the much higher percentage of votes I received in my major races. More contributors generally mean more grass roots support and an army of committed volunteers. Yet, all of Ron Paul's support has resulted in far fewer votes for Congressman Paul than what one would expect.

Remember, that in Louisiana, outspent 50 to 1 in political advertising, and with a media establishment pulling out all stops to paint me as irredeemably evil, somewhere between public perceptions of Attila the Hun and Adolf Hitler, and after I endured the most vicious media attack campaign in American history, I still received over 60 percent of the White vote in elections for Louisiana's two highest elected offices, Governor and Senator. Although it might surprise many reading this, even before I began my political rise in Louisiana, I actually won the New Hampshire primary for Vice-President of the United States with over 65 percent of the vote. Here is a direct quote the January 8, 2008 Toronto Globe and Mail on my successful electoral foray into the far northern state of New Hampshire:

More here: http://www.davidduke.com/

|1.10.08 @ 12:08PM|#

Pig Manix- Wait until the debate tonight. It could be amusing (and sad). I hope he'll be prepared.

I don't think there will be anything to see. I think one of the reasons the MSM is letting this slide is that they've dredged this up many times before, and got burned on it every time. I really don't think much of anyone is in a get yet another pie in the face.

See here...

|1.10.08 @ 12:08PM|#

I'd take nutty Ron Paul over warhawk Virginia Postrel any day.

|1.10.08 @ 12:09PM|#

s/in a get/interested in getting/

Oy!

dhex|1.10.08 @ 12:09PM|#

i'll repost this:

cos·mo·pol·i·tan /ˌkɒzməˈpɒlɪtn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koz-muh-pol-i-tn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-adjective
1. free from local, provincial, or national ideas, prejudices, or attachments; at home all over the world.
2. of or characteristic of a cosmopolite.
3. belonging to all the world; not limited to just one part of the world.
4. Botany, Zoology. widely distributed over the globe.
-noun
5. a person who is free from local, provincial, or national bias or attachment; citizen of the world; cosmopolite.

here's the deal - you can't be in favor of closed borders and be cosmopolitan. i think postrel was actually using this term correctly, rather than derisively. populism and world comfort exist on opposite ends of the worldview spectrum, after all.

postrel's core point is pretty obvious, and i'm a bit surprised myself that more people weren't playing attention to this. i got a lot of rather hostile questions from folks about it back whenever zmag or some other left wing site had run an article on it earlier this year.

ed|1.10.08 @ 12:15PM|#

Ron Paul did much for the cause of libertarianism

Like what? Aside from telling the True Believers here what they already knew, how has he expanded the principles (such as they are) of libertarianism to mainstream (yes, stupid) America? Seems to me his rhetoric has fallen mostly on deaf (if not dumb) ears.

|1.10.08 @ 12:20PM|#

The kooky old fart is such a zero that nobody even gives a fuck if he's a crypto Nazi.

I know of one person who seems to care A LOT.

|1.10.08 @ 12:21PM|#

So, did Virginia threaten to cancel her subscription? Cause, I'm thirsty. ;-)

|1.10.08 @ 12:21PM|#

The way I have it modeled, mostly for rhetoric, is that there are two major camps to the libertarian rank and file. The "navel gazers", and the "assholes who don't want to pay their taxes".

As a navel-gazer, Virginia Postrel is more than a little alarmed at the way her assholes-who-don't-want-to-pay-their-taxes brethren have reacted to Ron Paul's GOP candidacy.

From where I sit, navel-gazer talking points break down to:

Paul's not pure enough for us. Liberty would be better served by going back to our traditional spot, deep on the sidelines, to conduct a more thorough examination of our navels rather than to carry water for such an impure libertarian candidate (with an outside shot at winning). Instead, let's carry water for the New Republic's faulty broadside made up entirely of old news, repackaged with fresh, albeit faux, outrage.

As an asshole who doesn't want to pay his taxes, I'm not buying it. Ron Paul may not be libertarian Jesus, but he's close enough for this anarcho capitalist to come in from the cold for an election cycle.

Gosh, I hope the navel gazers'll still talk to me when this whole optimism thing blows over.

|1.10.08 @ 12:23PM|#

I still don't know why Reason allows Eric Dondero to post here. He's now a profession mud-raker for Giuliani following his own political failure - not a Republican or a Libertarian. He's a Trotskyite in the same vein of all the "GOP front-runners".

|1.10.08 @ 12:23PM|#

ed,

He got over 10% of the vote in a Republican primary election. The LP would be creaming in their collective pants if they ever got more than 2% of the vote in a state.

So, yes, it seems he has expanded the shadow of libertarianism.

|1.10.08 @ 12:26PM|#

Gene,

Well, if they're going to call the magazine Reason, you'd expect them to believe in the power of rational debate to defeat bad ideas, rather than resorting to censorship.

Plus, making fun of the D O N D E R O is one of the few joys I have left in life.

|1.10.08 @ 12:32PM|#

Would they oppose disaster relief? Would they oppose public schools, public parks, homeless shelters, government-funded mental health institutions, etc.? This is libertarianism, folks, and the losers under this world are easily identified.

I think the POV here could be contested, libertarians have tried just opposing this and that based on principal alone, without much luck. Today's libertarians(a generation i'm proud to be a part of) are bit smarter and a bit less selfish in my opinion. It's not a matter of just opposing government schools but also proposing the better alternatives, same with parks and shelters and the like. it's a shift from "i don't want to, the State can't/shouldn't make me" to "we can do it better, faster, cheaper than the State can, here's how and here's why". I think it ridicoulous to just assume that people would starve in a libertarian world, that buys into the concepot that the only reason more people are not starving is because of State interventionism and that's not true, the reason more people are not starving is because of technological progress (such as in agriculture) and a social evolution. It's the paleolibertarianism that keeps us from getting off the ground, always looking back to a golden era that never existed, life was shitty for a lot of people and the State alleviated some of that, but that doesn't mean we couldn't have gone further faster without the state, and that doesn't mean we will not go further and faster without the state now and into the future. free market economics increases prosperity. You want to end poverty don't subsidize it, eliminate it through free market economics and personal altruism. The only thing the paleos represnt is the ugly caricature of libertarianism used by our enemies to undermine liberty. Hell in Las vegas the police tried to stop non-state groups from handing out sandwhiches to homeless people in the park. The State isn't nessecarily what keeps us poor and divided, but it certainly benefits from poverty and divisions. libertarians should be agents of tolerance and altruism and they should continue to try and keep the State from enforcing it's own flawed nature into the realms of social justice and social ills.

Paleolibertariansim is a dead philosophy because it seeks to protect culture not just from the State but from itself and that's a suicidal philosophy.

my opinion anyways.

ed|1.10.08 @ 12:35PM|#

He got over 10% of the vote in a Republican primary election.

Too bad all of America is not like New Hampshire.

Derek|1.10.08 @ 12:35PM|#

"Aside from telling the True Believers here what they already knew, how has he expanded the principles (such as they are) of libertarianism to mainstream (yes, stupid) America? Seems to me his rhetoric has fallen mostly on deaf (if not dumb) ears."

Have you been living under a rock for the last year? Paul has practically MADE those principles mainstream. He's the most popular Republican candidate on youth-orientated sites like Facebook and MySpace, and the man raised $19.5 million the last quarter, for crying out loud.

From The Keystrokes of John Q.|1.10.08 @ 12:36PM|#

Some racist newsletters from whenever have nothing to do with Constitutional governing. What anyone things, nomatter how ignorant, has nothing to do with the infringing on our liberties. Lincoln was deeply racist. So was FDR and people worship the ground he couldn't walk on.

*sneers* It's because we have so many damn white people worried about being politically correct!

From The Keystrokes of John Q.|1.10.08 @ 12:37PM|#

Thinks*

|1.10.08 @ 12:38PM|#

Another example would be abolitionist like Spooner. They critized the State for it's extra-constitutional behaviour, but they didn't apologized for the South and they didn't accept slavery, they worked to change lives and better the fortunes of their fellow man outside of and despite State intervention on both sides.

|1.10.08 @ 12:42PM|#

Isn't it telling that Ron Paul's first response to any controversy about the newsletters is to defend comments from them and say that the comments were his?

Why believe Ron Paul now if he himself tells us that he lied back then? Doesn't his own story tend to undermine his credibility on that particular issue today?

alan|1.10.08 @ 12:42PM|#

Some of the discussion above cause a personal conundrum for me. Whether or not I supported Ron Paul became increasingly irrelevant because the nominee will be decided by the time my state rolls around, and it wont be Ron Paul.

There was really no means of getting around the ugliness of the newsletters. I don't see how you can't be offended by both the racism and the scato-logic in them worthy of a lefty college student (even if the sentiments expressed are of the polar
opposite).

So, I can't support Paul's presidential bid, and that is irrelevant because he is not going to
be the president but can I support a third party bid where Paul is the spoiler, and helps put a stake in the Republican warmongary heart?

The GOP establishment has treated Ron Paul shabbily, they have treated the libertarian aspect of their base shabbily, and they have treated the non-interventionist wing of the party as if they flew on mammalian wings across the lunar surface.

As revenge, a strong third party movement may be even more satisfying than actually winning the presidency.

PS David, don't take any crap from Postrel.

|1.10.08 @ 12:53PM|#

I think the biggest difference between "cosmos" and "paleos" is that the former want "the State out of the way", while the latter want "the State of their backs", the latter will never sell, never has and never will, it comes off as too selfish and shortsighted.

|1.10.08 @ 12:54PM|#

Too bad all of America is not like New Hampshire.

I was talking about Iowa, which, being heavily evangelical and economically dependent on federal farm subsidies, is one of the more libertarian-hostile states out there.

|1.10.08 @ 1:00PM|#

Did anyone actually read the entire newsletter outside the quotes? I did, and I don't even think it was a racist article in general. It was very poorly worded, but I thought the point of the article was pointing out how unfair and biased social crimes were towards minorities, and the logical consequences of those policies.

The man fired the writer, and still took responsibility for it, and appologized. What more do people want here?

And while on the topic of racism, why is it that this is what is being talked about, rather than his spot on, and best explanation of the problem of racism I've ever heard in my life when he talks about collectivism. That quote was so great, I've actually used it towards racists to get them to change how they think, but that is ignored and the man is falsely painted as a racist.

You know what I find racist? People throwing the issue around as a political assassination tool, and using a serious problem for their own personal gain rather than trying to help the problem. People should seriously be ashamed of themselves.

ed|1.10.08 @ 1:03PM|#

Paul has practically MADE those principles mainstream.

You and I have a different understanding of the word "mainstream", Derek. "Mainstream" is what will be elected this November, and it won't be Paul.

Derek|1.10.08 @ 1:06PM|#

You have to start somewhere Ed. 10 percent in the Republican primary is better than 0.5 percent in national elections.

|1.10.08 @ 1:07PM|#

To continue about actually reading the article, and the consequences of the unfair social crimes. I thought it was referring to the fact that because of these social crimes, it further leads to even more crimes, which in itself leads to more problems.

If people would do a bit of research, they would see the article in question is actually true, and not racist. Because it talks about the problems facing inner city minorities it's automatically racist? Not even close.

Because of social crimes, the cops become the enemy of the people, rather than the protectors. Because of social crimes, resources are spent towards those, then the real crimes, and because of social crimes, it becomes socially correct in the population to not help the cops in solving crimes. In a society where people aren't hiding from social crimes, the exact opposite effect occurs.

These are real problems. The real crime in that article IMO was the extremely poor wording that didn't do the issue justice.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 1:09PM|#

Like I said, there is an ideological conflict at the heart of today's libertarianism. Cosmo-libertarians are also socially liberal and thus obsessed with equality. To be against equality and to discriminate is a great evil in their eyes, far more worthy of opprobrium than having designs on other people's liberty in the name of "government healthcare" or "protecting gays." To preserve equality requires substantial restrictions on liberty. Every libertarian until recently understood this; therefore, in the name of liberty, they mocked and attacked equality.

The 19th Century Classical Liberals became today's liberals. The cosmo-libertarians will too. If you think something's really bad--like private violence--then you'll demand the state ends it. The same logic will ultimately apply to government laws to end racial discrimination. And then the government will be off to the faces, because "fighting discriminatio and inequality" is a neverending story.

Do you really see anyone at Reason or Cato going to the mat to defend the liberty of the Michigan Militia or an all-white-club? For God's sake, Institute for Justice constantly seeks out minority clients, as if it might sully their purity to have white clients.

I don't think laws against discrimination are the end of the world, but I'm not a liberal or libertarian either. Libertarians say every enchroachment on liberty might make one a slave, but they are too darned liberal and utopian on social equality to fight this fight, and their slippery slope arguments are kind of ridiculous. Sweden and Germany and today's United States may have governments that are too big, but they're not tyrannical by any stretch of the imagination, and that dog won't hunt. So, realizing this, and when their supporters realize this, equaity will always trump liberty until you end up like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Happy trails.

|1.10.08 @ 1:17PM|#

And to determine if you are a Libertarian or not things like the Non-aggression principle are much more important than what your social views are or in which part of the county you live.

Hee...I always got a kick out of the NAP. It really is meaningless.

|1.10.08 @ 1:18PM|#

One thing I see missing from most of the discussion here and elsewhere is the fact that *every* political movement of any ideological stripe attracts a kook element. It's human nature.

In one of my 'previous incarnations,' I worked for conservative-oriented political nonprofits back around the time these newsletters were being published (pre-Internet, in other words). Every day we received mail and telephone calls from the purest kinds of kooks. Some were out-and-out nutters. Others sounded just like your sweet old grandmother until they started talking about the Council on Foreign Relations. And many of them were well-organized into small groups. They sound little different than the bunch of goofballs that was writing the bad stuff for the "Ron Paul Newsletter."

The thing I liked best about Tim Cavanaugh's L.A. Times take on this issue is that kooks and nuts are a feature, not a bug, of the libertarian world. Folks, I happen to like living in a world filled with various kinds of kooks, even those I vehemently disagree with. Maybe this comes from many years of living in Washington DC, filled with the earnest and boring political wannabes. I tried to play that role myself for awhile, but I ultimately had to let my inner kook out. I don't endorse stupid racist ideas, but I'm not going to go into a fit of mock outrage that such people exist.

|1.10.08 @ 1:21PM|#

Wow, you people let emotion rule your minds.

Expectation rules outcome. How come no one is asking "Que Bono" of this circumstantial evidence.

I would suggest that you people do some evaluation on the essays of Ron Paul that are verified of his own hand. Another is listen to a few of his speeches on the floor of congress.

To use only a few statements that may, or may not be, of his own volition as your entire basis of character judgment is foolery. I still have yet to see the full context of these statements.

Those who let others opinions make judgments for them are easily led.

The greater amount of character data for Ron Paul runs contrary to the alleged statements. I find it suspect that the Implied meaning of the phrases is congruent with his character.

Your future is at stake, as well as your neighbor, critical thinking is imperative.

Do Not suffer from "Brown Dog Syndrome".

If you exclude data you can arrive at any conclusion.

If you allow yourself to see only Brown Dogs, you will conclude that All Dogs Are Brown. It is your perception of reality; however, it is not true reality. In judgment cases, All Dogs Must Be Considered to reach valid conclusion.

Emotion is for guidance; rational and reason are for decision making.

Views Untested Are Worthless.

Ron Paul is a noble man, in my conclusion, based upon a greater data set.

I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul.

Brandybuck|1.10.08 @ 1:21PM|#

BTW, "cosmopolitan" means "hip, urbane, and at home in at atmosphere of cultural diversity."

Especially if that diversity is mostly from western Europeanss. French expats are preferred. Blacks are very tolerated if they're African blacks with accents. But by all means, no poor American blacks! That goes for the white trash too. Hell, while we're at it, let's ban everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line from emigrating to our Georgetown neighborhood. Can't have that, it wouldn't be tolerant.

Yup, real libertarians are tolerant cosmopolitans at home in the atmosphere of cultural diversity and rigid neomarxist groupthink that is the Washington D.C. upper class neighborhoods.

dhex|1.10.08 @ 1:24PM|#

If people would do a bit of research, they would see the article in question is actually true, and not racist.

ahem.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

you are a fuckface, sir.

dhex|1.10.08 @ 1:26PM|#

let's ban everyone south of the Mason-Dixon line

ok!

also can you get me another latte? i'm not yet done with the sunday times.

ed|1.10.08 @ 1:27PM|#

You have to start somewhere

Agreed. But it will take nothing short of a philosophical revolution in this country to divert our slow descent into depressing statism. I don't believe we Americans have it in us, but I may be wrong. It's also quite possible that, given the right circumstances, that revolution could land us our own personal fuehrer.

|1.10.08 @ 1:28PM|#

Yup, real libertarians are tolerant cosmopolitans at home in the atmosphere of cultural diversity and rigid neomarxist groupthink that is the Washington D.C. upper class neighborhoods.

As if being wealthy and upper-class is a bad thing.

you're just making shit up (like strawmen) to beat up now, Brandybuck.

dhex|1.10.08 @ 1:30PM|#

someone you've never met somewhere is sneering at you, though they've never met you either and don't know you from a hole in the wall.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 1:33PM|#

Dhex is a good example of the rigid refusal to make generalizations that characterizes upper middle class respectable opinion. I'm sure Dhex is well aware that black teenager criminals are very slow, which is why they rob people on foot and run away, no doubt.

|1.10.08 @ 1:33PM|#

The greater amount of character data for Ron Paul runs contrary to the alleged statements. I find it suspect that the Implied meaning of the phrases is congruent with his character.

Brad, I'm sure most people posting here agree with that statement. The most damning thing about the bad newsletter stuff is that RP let that material go out under his own name, apparently sight unseen, not that he actually believes or endorses it.

Having dealt before with the kooks that tend to orbit political movements, maybe I'm a bit immune to the impact that this is having on some younger libertarians. The issue is bad for RP, certainly, but I think anyone having a fit over it needs to step back and take a deep breath. Politics ain't beanbag.

|1.10.08 @ 1:33PM|#

Jennifer, dear, take a civics class.

So we may as well vote for someone who supports the drug war, is what you're saying? Okay, and we may as well also vote for a candidate who says we will never, ever leave Iraq, because we're still there despite all the Democrats who got themselves elected on a "we'll leave Iraq" platform.

A Democratic president can end the Iraq War. A libertarian president cannot end the Drug War.

|1.10.08 @ 1:35PM|#

But it will take nothing short of a philosophical revolution in this country to divert our slow descent into depressing statism.

Jay-sus...dhex i'm going to bite your style for a second...

oh yes, ed, it's the eschaton. the end times. we need some massive revolution to cure this country before the buildings fall into the lake of fire.

and guess what, everyone? ed is such a special snowflake that he knows how to avoid the eschaton but nobody will listen to him.

/end dhex

Guess what, ed? Society has gone on without libertarianism for a long, long time. Harboring some fantasy that humanity will slide into massive misery and worldwide totalitarianism without it is a serious display of exaggerated self-worth.

Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 1:36PM|#

Brandybuck -

The problem is that those class distinctions matter to people and will always matter to people, and wishing them away won't accomplish anything.

For example, I could never have joined a militia, because I refuse to grow a fucking mullet. It's that simple. Is this rational of me? Perhaps not.

|1.10.08 @ 1:37PM|#

yes i know "like you said", that doesn't mean your bias against socially tolerant libertarians doesn't need to be defended.

Cosmo-libertarians are also socially liberal and thus obsessed with equality.

Depends on your definition of socially liberal, and "thus obsessed" seems unsupported. Classical liberals were just as concerned with social equality as they were with State intervention, it was one of the reasons they were concerned about State intervention. Just because there are now those who embrace State intervention in the name of social equality doesn't mean the other reasons for concern about State intervention have evaporated, and that even assumes that State intervention is the driving force behind any betterment of social equality or that it's actions have produced a better outcome in regard to social equality than would otherwise exist without such intervention but with a continued concern about social equality.

To preserve equality requires substantial restrictions on liberty.

This is the statist arguement and one that i feel is unsupported. The state is not a given in regard to promoting and maintaining social equality any more than it is a given in regard to child sacrifices or voodoo medicine. And equality doesn't equal lack or restrictions on liberty, liberty has historically gone hand in hand with equality, it is those who wish to maintian inequality(even while publically denouncing it) for social/political/cultural/religious purposes who use the tool of the State to restrict liberty.


Every libertarian until recently understood this; therefore, in the name of liberty, they mocked and attacked equality.

again depends on your opinion as to who qualifies as a "libertarian" and your definition of "equality".



The 19th Century Classical Liberals became today's liberals. The cosmo-libertarians will too.

No, they became libertarians after the socialists appropriated the term "liberal", that doesn't mean that there exists a natural progression from Classical liberalism to modern socialism.


If you think something's really bad--like private violence--then you'll demand the state ends it.The same logic will ultimately apply to government laws to end racial discrimination. And then the government will be off to the faces, because "fighting discriminatio and inequality" is a neverending story.

another statist arguement used by them to justify their existence. Equality can be promoted and racial discrimination eliminated without a State, hell i seem to remember a sect of jews centuries ago opening their arms to Samaritans and Gentiles, i don't remember them going to the State to use force and coersion in the process.

Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 1:41PM|#

oh yes, ed, it's the eschaton. the end times. we need some massive revolution to cure this country before the buildings fall into the lake of fire.

I don't anticipate Armageddon, but the way I read the calendar, the butcher's bill for a number of statism's greatest hits of social engineering will come due at approximately the same time.

The problem will arise when the shit hits the fan simultaneously on 100 years of statist transportation policy and land use policy and 50 years of health policy and retirement security policy - and when mainstream politicians portray the failure of all of these as "market failures" and "the evils of capitalism".

|1.10.08 @ 1:41PM|#

If you think something's really bad--like private violence--then you'll demand the state ends it.

See kids, 'cause violence is in the same category as "private enterprise".

you're an asshole, Roach.

|1.10.08 @ 1:43PM|#

you're an asshole, Roach.

I get the feeling he's a racial seperatist.

dhex|1.10.08 @ 1:55PM|#

Dhex is a good example of the rigid refusal to make generalizations that characterizes upper middle class respectable opinion. I'm sure Dhex is well aware that black teenager criminals are very slow, which is why they rob people on foot and run away, no doubt.

you fucking ding-a-ling, have you ever met a class of foot-based teenage male robbers who weren't fleet footed? or at least thought they were?

i mean, read that sentence again. and stop masturbating this time!

|1.10.08 @ 1:57PM|#

I don't care if this story has "legs" or "gains traction" with the "MSM" or not. The simple fact of the matter is that Ron Paul owed his many thousands of contributors and volunteers -- and that includes me -- better than his "non-response response" to this important and serious matter. He blew this off as if it was a non-issue, leaving many of his supporters holding a rancid-smelling bag with family, friends, and neighbors whom they tried to recruit to the "R3VOLUTION."

Have any of you read the posts over at Ron Paul Forums before this story broke? People with modest incomes were running up their credit cards to give the maximum $2,300 contribution. Others asked people not to give them Christmas gifts, but to contribute to Paul instead. Lawrence Lepard paid $85,000 to purchase a full-page ad in "USA Today," and then did it again with "The New York Times" and major New Hampshire newspapers. Of course, each of these persons must take personal responsibility for his or her own actions, but the fact remains is that many people have made a huge investment in Paul. And his campaign tells Reason "he doesn't want to talk about it"? The arrogance is breathtaking.

For what it's worth, I believe Paul when he says he didn't write the offensive passages. So who did? Eric Dondero says that "80%" was written by Lew Rockwell. If true, and there's no reason to believe it isn't, that proves that Rockwell is intellectually dishonest, because he attacked TNR -- the messenger -- rather than admitted his personal participation in this fiasco. In addition, it confirms the strong criticisms that others in the libertarian movement have made about Rockwell playing footsie with Klansmen, Nazis, and others on the far right fringe.

Cynicism takes over at this point. Just what is Rockwell and, by extension, Paul trying to accomplish? Apparently in the late 1980's and early 1990's they were simply trying to make money by pandering to the lowest and worst human instincts in their publication of the newsletters. That breathless and humorless solicitation letter is one of the most disgusting I've ever read, and I'm unfortunately on more than a few right-wing mailing lists. What's their goal now?

I still don't agree with Mr. Dondero on the Iraq War, and I could never vote for Rudy Giuliani, but Mr. Dondero's reputation has geometrically improved in my estimation. He finally reached the point where he could no longer ignore the many problematic issues presented by Paul and left with his integrity intact. No, I don't believe Paul is a racist. But to say that is hardly an adequate defense of him in this situation.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 2:00PM|#

Shane, your arguments are facile beyond belief. If I'm rich, and your poor, and that seems like an injustice to you, how do you propose we be made equal (not just both richer, but equal) outside of some scheme of wealth redistribution? And how does such a scheme come to pass without the state? Charity's always marginal compared to government wealth redistribution.

People are not naturally equal. They have different talents, IQs, discipline, drive, etc. That's why some end up rich and others poor. Lots of people rail against this as a great injustice, and they're always trying to get the state to undo it. This has been so since the French Revolution and that asshole Mazzini ran around saying "property is theft."

The 19th Century Liberals--as in the actual human beings--did become today's liberals. Just read the history a little bit, particularly in the UK and the baleful influence of Keyenes.

Incidentally, how were Sir Henry Maine, James Fitzjames Stephens, Bastiat, Nock, and Jefferson in favor of social equality, which I'm going to define as a commitment to nondiscrimination in dealings with others on the basis of race, sex, ancestry, wealth, religion, sexual orientation etc., and a commitment to greater material equality between all of these various social groups.

As for the Jewish sect, they were powerless for 300 years until they hopped on board the great Emperor Constantine's bandwagon, and he made the Catholic Church the official religion of the empire. Before that they were mostly dodging Roman and Jewish assassins.

dhex|1.10.08 @ 2:06PM|#

jefferson owned slaves - how was he in favor of liberty again?

Edward|1.10.08 @ 2:08PM|#

So wait a minute. It is simply not believeable that Ron Paul didn't know anything about the racist garbage that was coming out in a newsletter that bore his name. Does anybody think he never read a single issue? How do we know he didn't write some of it himself. Tell me again why he's not a racist?

Roach|1.10.08 @ 2:09PM|#

John Locke favored slavery and wrote a slaveocracy constitition for North Carolina. Does he have anything to do with libertarian ideas and ideals?

Brandybuck|1.10.08 @ 2:12PM|#

you're just making shit up (like strawmen) to beat up now, Brandybuck.

I'm not making strawmen, I'm doing something far far worse. I'm making absurd generalizations in an attempt to mock "cosmolibertarians". In popular usage, the word "cosmopolitan" is very elitist. And so I mock the elitist wing of libertarian movement.

I am miffed by Postrel's implication that Ron Paul is a provincial populist. He is the ONLY candidate in either of the two major parties who is promoting free trade and friendship with all nations. That meets the traditional definition of "cosmopolitan".

|1.10.08 @ 2:14PM|#

Thanks for that, Roach. Still, us "cosmos" believe in equality before the law and equal rights, not necessarily economic egalitarianism.

You're outdated, old man.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 2:15PM|#

Dhex, I know about 20 people in my life who were robbed, some at gunpoint. 100% of the offenders were black males. Funny how that is. I'm sure it's a fluke, as are the NCVS data.

Edward|1.10.08 @ 2:15PM|#

Roach

In John Locke's time, slavery was widely accepted. Today racism is openly embraced only in marginal racist and neo-Nazi circles. Nice try--no, actually a stupid stab at sophistry--but Ron Paul is no John Locke.

There's probably an opening at David Duke's website. You should apply.

dhex|1.10.08 @ 2:15PM|#

John Locke favored slavery and wrote a slaveocracy constitition for North Carolina. Does he have anything to do with libertarian ideas and ideals?

so what you're saying is that even broad generalizations often have huge problems with them?

hmmmm.

hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

hm.

the real question is this: was jefferson or locke was more fleet-footed?

|1.10.08 @ 2:17PM|#

I am miffed by Postrel's implication that Ron Paul is a provincial populist.

He is a provincial populist, dude.

The thing is, this cosmo-libertarian recognizes that it's his policies as a legislator and possible executive that matter, not his Old Right status.

Like I said, I'm electing a President, not a philosopher-king.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 2:17PM|#

Randian, I'm sure the libertarians will be going to bat any day now to preserve the rights of all white country clubs becuase they're all principled and shit, you know. Just look at IJ's client base. And I'm sure they're really offended over programs like food stamps too.

No, libertarians today pick and choose their causes, make no effort at dealing with some of the costs of their odd viewpoint, and bury their heads in the sand the rest of the time.

Edward|1.10.08 @ 2:20PM|#

Roach,

Yeah, what libertarians need is more neo-Nazi apologists like you.

|1.10.08 @ 2:20PM|#

Dhex, I know about 20 people in my life who were robbed, some at gunpoint. 100% of the offenders were black males.

So the fuck what?

Let me ask you this: how dark were they? Were they that light-colored black or really dark? Somewhere in between? Were they African, Jamaican, American, Mexican, English, German...what?

so, Roach...what did you mean by the descriptor "black", again, really?

Spy Barbie|1.10.08 @ 2:21PM|#

I suspected the MSM has been sitting on this until tonight's debate.

RCP : It's a good bet that the good doctor will get one if not more questions regarding this article by James Kirchick in The New Republic.

It's probably the only reason why FOX let him in the damned thing in the first place.

(Hold me. I'm scared.)

Roach|1.10.08 @ 2:22PM|#

Duke, please. That's your guy remember.

I just think you all are hypocrites, ignorant, naive, unserious, unrigorous, and generally lame. You were not on the brink of accp,[;osjomg jack shit with Ron Paul. Read my comments above, I don't believe in racism. I don't believe in racist laws. I just don't believe in race unrealism that is so common among "edcuated" people today. And I don't believe in all but the most minimal equality, social, economic, or otherwise.

PS Did I mention I was a Koch Fellow. I spent a whole summer listening to a handful of bright speakers, some boring ones, and the most boring and formulaic bullshit from my peers. I'll take the ISI or von Mises people any day.

PPS I'm like 32. Does that make me an old man?

|1.10.08 @ 2:22PM|#

"libertarians today pick and choose their causes"

OH NO! You mean, they're people with limited time and resources and might want to help those they view as most victimized by the State.

What bastards they are!

|1.10.08 @ 2:27PM|#

For God's sake, Institute for Justice constantly seeks out minority clients, as if it might sully their purity to have white clients.

What color skin did Susette Kelo have, you total asshole?

ed|1.10.08 @ 2:27PM|#

oh yes, ed, it's the eschaton. the end times.

I believe the term I used was "depressing statism," Randy Ayndy. You may wish to pick up a history book. It has happened before to great nations and it will happen again. And if you think we have more rights now than ever before in our history, you might want to put down that crack pipe.

dhex|1.10.08 @ 2:27PM|#

Dhex, I know about 20 people in my life who were robbed, some at gunpoint. 100% of the offenders were black males. Funny how that is. I'm sure it's a fluke, as are the NCVS data.

the three people in my life who attempted to rob me where white, black and white respectively. this plus two dollars will get me a ride on the bus.

of course the bus may driven by a black man so i'm going to lose to those two dollars to his fleet-footed driving skills. such is the curse of upper class cosmopolitan living!

highnumber|1.10.08 @ 2:32PM|#

PPS I'm like 32. Does that make me an old man?

What do you mean by "like 32," whippersnapper?

|1.10.08 @ 2:34PM|#

Here's hoping that this finally purges the silliness and plain nuttery that has infected Hit and Run (and its more recent converts).

Can you guys become a serious publication now?

dhex|1.10.08 @ 2:34PM|#

i would have said "similar to or sharing characteristics with 32" myself, highnumber.

|1.10.08 @ 2:35PM|#

And if you think we have more rights now than ever before in our history, you might want to put down that crack pipe.

I didn't say that either. We could do the give-and-take on what rights we have versus the ones we don't as compared to other times in history. We have less taxes than we did in the 1940s and '50s, but more than we did the 1830s. So what's your point?

The Roman Republic and later Empire wasn't libertarian in the least, and it managed to kick around for 1000 years.

Likewise with Britain.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 2:37PM|#

Not most victimized. Most sympathetic to liberals. You've decided your future is among young people and Democrats. Oh yes, and the "natural libertarians" among blacks. Good luck with that.

The Paleolibertarians had something to do with Reagan and represented a goodly demographic swath. There is no constituency for what you're selling. At best you'll get some young kids excited about weed. Maybe they'll lean Obama. He'll throw you a bone of sorts: Fags can screw and lead our kids on Boy Scout campging trips. Yipee. Meanwhile I'll be paying 40% in taxes and watching my health care get taken over by the feds to pay for the parasites. Good job.

Geotpf|1.10.08 @ 2:38PM|#

Anybody who wrote, or who allowed his name to be attached to like he wrote, this document should not be president (or a congressman, for that matter):

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

Pay particular attention to page six, third paragraph from the bottom.

This isn't even a close call. I used to defend Ron Paul; I can't any more.

|1.10.08 @ 2:39PM|#

Roach-

My apologizes, i've confused social equality with tolerance, pluralism and altruism.

Overworked and lack of sleep aren't really much of an excuse for the bungle, but i'll throw them out there anyway.

|1.10.08 @ 2:42PM|#

Roach, what color skin does Susette Kelo have again?

Fags can screw and lead our kids on Boy Scout campging trips.

Yeah, go back to your cave you bigoted fuck.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 2:43PM|#

Ayn, blacks are 8X more like to commit robbery than the general population. Hispanics 3X more likely. Your anecdotal data, unlike mine, is not matched by statistics. Look at NCVS and UCR data if you don't believe me.

These are real problems that concern normal human beings. Libertairans are more concerned however that we'll all be slaves to the state if NASA puts a man on the moon or gives a poor kid a free school lunch. You all need to get a reality check.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 2:47PM|#

I think it's funny how libertarians resort to the crudest foul langauge as soon as they encoutner a social conservative. I've been called "asshole" "fuck" "fucking ding-a-ling." You do realize that we, and not the parasitical urban underclass, are a more natural constituency for what you're selling, in spite of yoru pretentions. And, unlike you, we make up a good 40% or more of the electorate, so you might want to play a little nicer if you ever want to have a movement that can't fit on Gene Healy's couch.

Anyway, have a nice day.

|1.10.08 @ 2:47PM|#

Ayn, blacks are 8X more like to commit robbery than the general population. Hispanics 3X more likely. Your anecdotal data, unlike mine, is not matched by statistics. Look at NCVS and UCR data if you don't believe me

you're not that old, as you just told me, so learn how to google "HTML" and provide the links to your specious 'evidence'.

Also, even if all that's true, what is your point, exactly? That libertarians should...uhh...what exactly?

Blacks and Hispanics are also more likely to join the military, on average, than the white population.

Guess what? just as meaningless.

highnumber|1.10.08 @ 2:48PM|#

I may vote Obama just to spite people like Roach. No, I may vote Obama to spite Roach.

Most of my votes aren't for one candidate as much as they are against another candidate. This way they can be against whatever asshole the Repubs nominate AND against Roach. Rather than a win/win, it's like a fuck you/fuck you.

|1.10.08 @ 2:51PM|#

You do realize that we, and not the parasitical urban underclass...

Sorry, I don't seat racist assholes like you at MY lunch counter, no matter how much business you bring.

More serious point: anybody who thinks that blacks are "parasites" doesn't deserve the pleasure of NOT being called a fuck. A fuck is a fuck, and you are one, sir.

Go feel free to fuck off.

|1.10.08 @ 2:54PM|#

So Nick and Matt are almost gay? I'm so confused...

Or, re: Clinton I, "almost gay" means "I blew him but didn't swallow".

highnumber|1.10.08 @ 2:56PM|#

I figured out what cosmopolitan is code for.

It means civilized.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 2:56PM|#

I don't think blacks are "parasites."

I think a parsitical urban underclass exists, it probably is mostly black, and it is not a natural constituency for you. I don't know if it's half, 2/3 or 1/3 of blacks. It does not includes the likes of Thomas Sowell and other decent black people, let me assure you. It does include white people like the Eiminem family and many Hispanics such as the lovely gangs of Los Angeles. It's different even from poor rural whties and blacks.

It is, however, who the Balkos and IJs of the world are always reaching out to, avoiding generalizing about, and, to their chagrin, being rejected by to the tune of 90% at election time.

Vote for Obama. Who gives a shit. Liberal socialist that he is, he's probably the least objectionable Democratic Candidate in 40 years. I kinda hope he wins so we don't hear for the next four years: this country wasn't ready for a black president due to its underground racist sentiments; Archie Bunker won tonight, etc.

Dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 3:00PM|#

Ayn:

You said you want to elect a president, not a philosopher king. Who is your favorite candidate in this election?

dhex|1.10.08 @ 3:01PM|#

so sodomy laws are pro liberty or something?

very interesting.

You do realize that we, and not the parasitical urban underclass, are a more natural constituency for what you're selling, in spite of yoru pretentions.

wow. you're one of those guys.

you might get called names because you defended a generalization about black males not only being thieves but being FLEET FOOTED. that's like LONG NOSED israelis or PETULANTLY DRUNK irish.

Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 3:01PM|#

Randian, I'm sure the libertarians will be going to bat any day now to preserve the rights of all white country clubs becuase they're all principled and shit, you know. Just look at IJ's client base. And I'm sure they're really offended over programs like food stamps too.

Are you fucking retarded?

Libertarians absolutely, positively go to bat for white country clubs.

And they absolutely, positively advocate getting rid of the food stamp program.

They do this every day.

In case you missed it, Ron Paul got himself ass-raped by Tim Russert over the public accomodations requirements of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 like three weeks ago. Libertarians all over the blogosphere leaped to Paul's defense.

If by "race realist" you mean "I want everyone to clap my back when I tell people that niggers and spics commit all the crimes" well, I have to disappoint you. I am biased against retards so I don't clap their back, ever. Hey, you have your discrimination, and I have mine.

Martin|1.10.08 @ 3:02PM|#

Adopting crude racism isn't a good direction for libertarianism, but neither is trying to be more left-liberal than left-liberals.

I don't share the disdain for the Old Right like a lot of the 'tolerant cosmopolitans' do. H.L. Mencken, Garet Garrett, John T Flynn, Bob Taft, and so on had their faults, but they were a lot more intelligent and interesting than the likes of Postrel or Brink Lindsey. They weren't warmongers either.

Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 3:03PM|#

Dhex,

Most Irishmen I know are happy drunks.

|1.10.08 @ 3:17PM|#

I'm disdainful of Mencken because he was a dour ass who basically thought everybody but himself was stupid. He was a misanthrope of the worst degree.

Dodsworth - Ron Paul most closely conforms to my political beliefs. I'm hoping he makes a third-party run in the likely event he doesn't get the nom.

It is, however, who the Balkos and IJs of the world are always reaching out to, avoiding generalizing about, and, to their chagrin, being rejected by to the tune of 90% at election time.

Let me spell it out for you: Kelo was probably the most prominent case IJ took, and that was for a white lady.

You're a bigot. This is 2008, you don't just get to go around saying "fags" and expecting to get titters about how edgy you are. You're a bigot, and I don't have time for folks as irrational as you.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 3:17PM|#

You all are so afraid of generalization. Good luck figuring out how the world works.

dhex|1.10.08 @ 3:17PM|#

that's cause you haven't gotten their irish up, fluffy.

har har get it?

|1.10.08 @ 3:22PM|#

"The case against the Jews is long and damning; it would justify ten thousand times as many pogroms as now go on in the world."

H.L. Mencken

dhex|1.10.08 @ 3:22PM|#

You all are so afraid of generalization. Good luck figuring out how the world works.

yup statistics scare me!

OH FUCK THAT STANDARD DEVIATION IS COMING RIGHT AT US

not all generalizations are alike, but since you belong to the statistical underclass, i'm not going to bother to explain it to you, silly white man.

Martin|1.10.08 @ 3:24PM|#

'He was a misanthrope of the worst degree.'

Wasn't Ayn Rand? And she didn't even have a sense of humour to boot!

|1.10.08 @ 3:27PM|#

You all are so afraid of generalization.

Generally speaking, people who talk like you are assholes.

Thanks for confirming my generalization! I confess, I cherry-picked my data to serve my own ends, but I guess you and I are alike in that respect, no?

|1.10.08 @ 3:27PM|#

Well, I'm not prepared to dedicate my entire afternoon to reading this whole thread. My points:

These newsletters represent a very poor lapse in judgment for Dr. Paul, at best. I do understand the situation, working full-time as a doctor and most likely tired of writing for the newsletters. This seems legitimate.

We should also compare these writings to his others on the subject, I think you will find that they are very much outside his usual stances on the issue of racism. At least I have found that.

I support the calls that Dr. Paul should immediately come out and give full details on the situation that led to these letters being written, but that said I don't think he deserves to be lynched over it. He has publicly apologized for the newsletters more than once now, and maintains that he didn't write them nor edit them. At best maybe he should produce the fools that did write them.

|1.10.08 @ 3:29PM|#

It does not includes the likes of Thomas Sowell and other decent black people, let me assure you.

Calm down, boy! You're one of the good ones.

Martin|1.10.08 @ 3:29PM|#

It should be noted that Ayn Rand admired Mencken. She wrote to him in 1934 praising him as 'the greatest representative of a philosophy to which I want to dedicate my whole life.... I have always regarded you as the foremost champion of individualism in this country.'

|1.10.08 @ 3:35PM|#

Wasn't Ayn Rand? And she didn't even have a sense of humour to boot!

well, no.

Although it's true she tended to lack a sense of humor in her writing, the Brandens confirm that she was pretty light-hearted in person, humorous and benevolent.

And nobody who enshrines humans the way she did could ever be called a misanthrope.

|1.10.08 @ 3:39PM|#

It should be noted that Ayn Rand admired Mencken.

Um, and?

She also was an adulterer and I have no inclination to imitate that either.

Martin|1.10.08 @ 3:40PM|#

'And nobody who enshrines humans the way she did could ever be called a misanthrope.'

I don't know. I've read some of the screeds from the Ayn Rand cultists at ARI, particularly the ones about the Middle East. If anything, they are far more racist than this Ron Paul stuff. I'm guessing folks who believe nuking Arabs to be morally justified are real people lovers and have been mightily enshrined!

Jennifer|1.10.08 @ 3:40PM|#

And nobody who enshrines humans the way she did could ever be called a misanthrope.

I disagree; the humans she enshrines in her books were not humans but near-flawless demigods. It's like saying a 14th-century monk can't be a misogynist because he has such huge respect for the Virgin Mary.

dhex|1.10.08 @ 3:41PM|#

mencken has made me laugh, but he still was what he was. much like everyone else in history.

yes, even the fleet-footed types. :)

Mike Laursen|1.10.08 @ 3:47PM|#

I can only speak for myself here, and I knew about the newsletters, and wrote that I did, way back in May 2007.

Your warning may have been ignored partially because of Internet rot. Your May 2007 post links to a latestpolitics.com article which links to a Houston Chronicle article that is no longer there. The other quotes in the latestpolitics.com article seem to talk about a single 1992 newsletter.

The new revelation for many of us is that there were several offensive newsletter articles over several years. It could be that we just misunderstood what you had said back in May 2007.

highnumber|1.10.08 @ 3:50PM|#

Lay off Mencken. That ten thousands pogroms quote was clearly meant to shock. If you have read more than a paragraph of his writing, you know that he never advocated anything like that.

And don't somebody try to tie Mencken and RP together now, either. That's weak.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 3:50PM|#

I do want to say something on the specific subject of Paul. I feel I've exhausted my points early on above the tension of liberty and equality and got into an unfortunately nasty side battle.

But consider this thread as a microcosm of something we're all familiar with from the internet. People write more aggressively and angrily online than their in-person personality would suggest. It's easy to be an armchair asshole, because no one knows you, you're not looking anyone in the eye, and you can't really read them. It's like playing online poker and reading all the nasty chat crap.

I'm willing to bet everyone on this thread, literally everyone, is polite, would be interesting to have a beer with, and is much more affable, likeable, less confrontational, more inclined to give-and-take, and just generally fun to be around than they appear on this thread. And why? Because in prson it's harder to be an asshole; it's easier to give someone full credit for their humanity; and, we can detect tone, such as when someone's light-heartedly smiling, even as he or she writes something very harsh.

Isn't it possible that the very likeable and affable Paul also had a harsh, mean, somewhat nutty streak in him when he employs the written word? Isn't it possible he really believes these things that were written in the Ron Paul Report, but is too polite and too classy to say these things in polite company.

That is, could he be the candidate you love and also be the guy that said the LA Riots ended because people had to pick up their welfare checks?

|1.10.08 @ 3:53PM|#

I think it's funny how libertarians resort to the crudest foul langauge as soon as they encoutner a social conservative. I've been called "asshole" "fuck" "fucking ding-a-ling."

Roach,

I completely agree that libertarians shouldn't call you those names just because you're a social conservative.

Of course, you're also a bigoted racist, so here's a hearty "fuck off, you goddamned worthless pile of shit!"

Are we still pals? :D

Mike Laursen|1.10.08 @ 3:54PM|#

Following the link to Postrel's site, she says "cosmopolitan" is code for "Jew."

Re-read what she wrote. She said she wasn't using the word as code for anything.

|1.10.08 @ 3:55PM|#

I don't know. I've read some of the screeds from the Ayn Rand cultists at ARI, particularly the ones about the Middle East.

what, exactly, does that have to do with Ayn Rand?

Oh, I get it, some jacked-up bootlickers misinterpreted Rand and now you're free to take to retrofit their views to Rand's.

Uh-uh, not on my watch, doodles.

the humans she enshrines in her books were not humans but near-flawless demigods.

Jennifer, she enshrined the productive over the non-productive. She rolled up the best productive traits into individual people. It's a common plot device to have one character represent a whole segment of society.

"A nation's productive-and moral, and intellectual-top is the middle class. It is a broad reservoir of energy, it is a country's motor and lifeblood, which feeds the rest. The common denominator of its members, on their various levels of ability, is: independence. The upper classes are merely a nation's past; the middle class is its future." - Ayn Rand

She took a whole class of people and made individual heroic characters to represent them. Everybody recognizes that Toohey of The Fountainhead is a shot at all collectivists, but for some reason people don't make the connection that Rand anthropomorphized the other side, too.

Mike Laursen|1.10.08 @ 3:55PM|#

Arnold Shwarzenegger says he admires Adolf Hitler...he is cheered as a great conservative.

No, he wasn't. He got tons of shit for his father's Nazi past.

dhex|1.10.08 @ 3:56PM|#

roach, i can guarantee you that if you busted out the fleet-footed thing while we were chilling, i would crack on you so hard that your childrens' childrens' dna would be permanently altered.

that's my personal guarantee!

[quote]Isn't it possible that the very likeable and affable Paul also had a harsh, mean, somewhat nutty streak in him when he employs the written word?[/quote]

of course; it's part of the historical package to some degree.

it doesn't make it a good thing, especially in light of how badly they've handled it thus far.

well we'll see at the debates just how badly he handles it on his feet, won't we?

|1.10.08 @ 3:56PM|#

And don't somebody try to tie Mencken and RP together now, either. That's weak.

Um, why would that be weak again?

So it's OK to say terrible shit if your intent is to shock, but it's ok to say terrible shit if you really mean it?

Huh?

Roach|1.10.08 @ 4:01PM|#

Dhex, I'm pretty sure their DNA is safe. I'm pretty fleet-footed myself.

highnumber|1.10.08 @ 4:02PM|#

A_R,

Short answer: Yes.

Longer answer (but still really short): Context means a lot.

Long answer: Not forthcoming at this moment. Some of us work, you know. Go back to kicking back in the sand, you lazy sod!

|1.10.08 @ 4:04PM|#

whoops, should read "it ISN'T OK to say...when you really mean it."

stephen the goldberger|1.10.08 @ 4:06PM|#

Roach had a well written last message, but I just have to say I have problems with Paul's newsletter mostly because it makes him look bad, and makes the libertarian cause look bad. If you want to be a serious politician you cannot have these statements attributed to you, end of story. (And to indulge ourselves say Paul were to have a chance at being president I do not someone so poor at writing diplomatically in charge of the presidency, or some guy who has no control over his peers)

In other words Roach, I don't want some asshole like us who talks shit on the internet to be president.

highnumber|1.10.08 @ 4:06PM|#

My answer stands. I misread your comment correctly.

Martin|1.10.08 @ 4:08PM|#

'what, exactly, does that have to do with Ayn Rand? '
ARI was founded by Leonard Peikoff, Rand's heir.

dhex|1.10.08 @ 4:12PM|#

"crack on" is urban cosmopolitan slang for "make fun of" or "mock."

and this has been your latte update with dhex!

|1.10.08 @ 4:17PM|#

ARI was founded by Leonard Peikoff, Rand's heir.

Martin, again...what does that have to with Ayn Rand the person?

Short version: Rand went a little bit nutters as she got older and went on Objectivist purges. Peikoff was the one who stuck around and sucked up the longest. Meh.

But, Martin, I mean some writers at an Institute founded by her "heir" (whatever that means) ties directly back to Rand's views on humanity?

To you, the misanthropy goes: subpar writers at ARI ---> Peikoff ---> Rand.

I mean, she's was dead before I was born, but what other people write right now shows her views somehow?

|1.10.08 @ 4:22PM|#

Martin, let me make it simpler.

Martin is a bang-up philosopher. Martin dies, and I found the Martin Institute. I attach my own agenda, mix it up with my lack of intellectual abilities, and voila! I've managed to completely distort what you taught when you were alive. To further this, there are some writers who take, at face-value, my "interpretation" of Martin's views, and compound the errors I already started.

Would it be fair, given all that, to say that my writers and I represent your views?

|1.10.08 @ 4:35PM|#

Cosmopolitan, huh? Meaning, "I'm sophisticated and you are a country bumpkin."

I have always enjoyed VPostrel's writings, but she does have a lightly arrogant way of brushing of those who don't see things her way.

I don't know her personally. It's just the vibe I get sometimes.

|1.10.08 @ 4:37PM|#

"I'm sophisticated and you are a country bumpkin."

There really, really is something to be said for being sophisticated, and how it is better than being a yokeltarian*.

* - credit Jake Boone

Martin|1.10.08 @ 4:46PM|#

'Would it be fair, given all that, to say that my writers and I represent your views?'

If it was people who had little if anything to do with Rand while she was alive, that would be one thing. But Peikoff was her heir. Considering how easily she 'purged' somebody (she broke with Murray Rothbard merely because his wife was religious), I'm guessing Peikoff was either a total sycophant or that he and Rand sincerely agreed with each other on everything.If it's the former, it just shows she preferred the company of ass kissers. If it is the latter, I don't think it is that unfair to suggest that what Peikoff et al bang on about now has something to do with Rand.

|1.10.08 @ 4:54PM|#

OK, Martin, I want you to provide Ayn Rand quotes and passages, not ARI ones, that validate your belief she was a misanthrope.

I mean, it's on you to prove, not me to disprove.

Anywho, towards the beginning of her life she was more charitable to counterarguments; towards the end, not so much. Peikoff just held on at the right time.

And besides:

he and Rand sincerely agreed with each other on everything.

Does that sound like the more reasonable explanation to you? That they really agreed on everything, and therefore, 30 years later, writers at Peikoff-run ARI are misanthropes, so it necessarily follows that Rand herself was a misanthrope?

Come on man. Own up or admit you have an axe to grind with Rand.

Roach|1.10.08 @ 5:04PM|#

I think Rand is a weak writer and a messed up, materialist, one-dimensional thinker whose philosophy by its nature will alienate and make no provision for 80% of humanity. Plus, she's a home-wrecking whore with no sense of honor.

|1.10.08 @ 5:05PM|#

Considering how easily she 'purged' somebody (she broke with Murray Rothbard merely because his wife was religious)

Also, this is a myth and a lie propagated by Rothbard and Samuel Frances to smear Rand. He barely associated with Rand and was never considered "in", so it would be impossible to "excommunicate" him in the first place.

Also, Rothbard's a plagiarist from Rand, and that's the real reason the Objectivists chose not to deal with him anymore, not because of Joey Rothbard's Christianity. Nathaniel Branden was there and can tell you all about it still.

|1.10.08 @ 5:06PM|#

Roach, throw your little-boy temper tantrums all you like, you pathetic, ill-tempered racist little fuck.

Scream into the wind, monkey! Dance for my amusement!

Martin|1.10.08 @ 5:07PM|#

Well, I'll have to give Peikoff some credit. He must be a master sycophant. Considering how she broke with people over complete trivialities, he must have been very good at kissing her butt. But even if that is the case, it hardly suggests Rand was much of an admirable human being. And her writings are dull, devoid of humor, and I'm glad I got into libertarianism through other books than hers.

Jennifer|1.10.08 @ 5:08PM|#

I think Rand is a weak writer and a messed up, materialist, one-dimensional thinker whose philosophy by its nature will alienate and make no provision for 80% of humanity. Plus, she's a home-wrecking whore with no sense of honor.

And worstest of all, she was a JOOOOOOOOO!

|1.10.08 @ 5:15PM|#

Considering how she broke with people over complete trivialities

Prove this, please. Links aren't tough, you know.

it hardly suggests Rand was much of an admirable human being. And her writings are dull, devoid of humor, and I'm glad I got into libertarianism through other books than hers.

Well, uhhh, she wasn't exactly just about politics, either. And this confirms you were just looking to express your ill-formed views on the woman rather than have a discourse on her.

whatever man...go 'way.

Martin|1.10.08 @ 5:22PM|#

'Also, this is a myth and a lie propagated by Rothbard and Samuel Frances to smear Rand.'

'Also, Rothbard's a plagiarist from Rand'

'Prove this, please. Links aren't tough, you know.'

Roach|1.10.08 @ 5:38PM|#

Jennifer, what's your point? Are we all not supposed to criticze Rand now because she's Jewish? She's a mediocre writer, even though she had a good idea or two. (Yes, I was a huge Randian in HS; I confess.)

My God, you'll fit right in with the neoconservatives trying to stop any war debates with this anti-anti-Semitic knee-jerk spasm they're alway having.

And Ayn Randian, I'd say you're a bit dyspeptic yourself. Just read your comments from the beginning.

Paul Ron|1.10.08 @ 6:15PM|#

What's worse, Ron Paul's comments, or the general behavior a of a black airport employee?

|1.10.08 @ 6:27PM|#

How can one not think of conspiracy theories having just observed an improbably simultaneous media attack on Ron Paul the day of the New Hampshire campaign? A remarkably successful attack that made him plunge from 14% in the polls to an 8% actual vote? After weeks where we heard very little about Paul from the mass media and beltway "libertarian" bloggers? TNR from the left, Fox News and talk radio from the right, and piling on from beltway "libertarians" who made a point of loudly repeating the TNR smears and dumping Ron Paul on the day of the primary. Your eyes did not deceive you, all this happened. It is not the result of a criminal conspiracy, but if one uses "conspiracy" as a metaphor for social networks of vast complexity, there is a strong sense in which conspiracy theories accurately, if metaphorically, explain what happened.

The reality behind the conspiratorial metaphor is the social networking between denizens of the Beltway, who sport a wide variety of political labels but are, relative to the rest of the country, a monoculture. These denizens range from the journalists who report the mass media news to various think tank and university scholars at the Cato Institute, George Mason University, and so on. Vast amounts of federal money, that stuff that is taken out of your paycheck with such automatic ease, flow into the Beltway area. Directly and indirectly, almost every person who lives in or near the Beltway depends on the very income tax that Ron Paul declared he would abolish -- with no replacement!

Many of these paycheck vampires call themselves "libertarians" and inspire us with their libertarian rhetoric to support them with our attention, our blog hits, and our tuition money as well as the tax money that already funds them or their friends. But at the first sign of political incorrectness, all these below-the-Beltway "libertarians" have dumped Ron Paul like yesterday's garbage. Now they can rest easy that they will still be invited to the parties thrown by their lobbyist and government employee and contractor friends, who for a second or two got worried by all those Google searches that Ron Paul might have some influence, resulting in some of them losing their jobs (end the income tax with no replacement?! The guy is obvioiusly a kook, and we don't invite the supporters of kooks to our parties!). Now everybody around the Beltway can go back to partying at the taxpayer's expense. All the money will keep flowing in, hooray!

The lesson millions of young libertarians have now learned from our beltway "libertarians"? Libertarian electioneering is futile. Voting is futile. Democracy is futile. Anybody who actually wants liberty is a kook, as can be proven by their association with kooks. Beltway wonks posing as "libertarians" are happy to write things to inflame your hopes for liberty that they don't really mean. Then they make sure that we elect the politicians their friends want -- the ones that will enslave your future to pay for full social security for Baby Boomers. The ones that will send you off to foreign lands to kill and die. Our Beltway "libertarians" are happy to sell a whole new generation of libertarians down the tubes in order to keep their Beltway friends happy.

|1.10.08 @ 6:42PM|#

Wow, the stuff in the newsletters seems moderate and pleasant compared to some of the comments on this thread.

Chill, people. Try to be cordial, or at least polite.

|1.10.08 @ 6:43PM|#

How can one not think of conspiracy theories having just observed an improbably simultaneous media attack on Ron Paul the day of the New Hampshire campaign? A remarkably successful attack that made him plunge from 14% in the polls to an 8% actual vote?

All the more remarkable since the "scandal" wasn't picked up by the MSM at all before the primary was over. There were other polls that had Dr Paul in the range he actually finished in, anyway.

|1.10.08 @ 6:46PM|#

In case the meaning of the previous post is unclear, I mean that I don't think Dr Paul finished where he did in NH because of this dustup. If there was a conspiracy, it wasn't a very effective one.

Gene Berkman|1.10.08 @ 7:58PM|#

It is safe to say nobody will read this, so let make a few points:
(a) Reason has really improved since Virginia Postrel left.
(b) If anybody has ever read the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, they have seen rhetoric similar to that found in the Ron Paul newsletters at issue. I think Ron Paul's biggest problem has been his association with Lew Rockwell.
(c) It is widely known that Murray Rothbard became more & more bitter in his old age, and racially charged remarks as well as extreme hostility toward Israel were reflective of his bitterness.

I have never believed Ron Paul's campaign for President had any chance of electoral success, and was intended to lay the foundation for an antiwar libertarian/conservative network, and there has been progress toward that.

Ron Paul has distinguished himself by having a more positive attitude toward Israel than the Rothbard-Rockwell circle, and having a more humane attitude concerning people who have become dependent on the welfare state.

I support Ron Paul, the person I know, not the person who let Lew & Murray misuse his name in the 1990s.

Jennifer|1.10.08 @ 8:28PM|#

Jennifer, what's your point? Are we all not supposed to criticze Rand now because she's Jewish?

I was merely lonely and trying to be your friend, Roach. Given your previous comments about the proclivities of certain non-white groups, I figured you'd find Rand's Jewishness important.

|1.10.08 @ 9:20PM|#

Postrel supported the Iraq War. That's all anyone needs to know. She crossed over into the NeoCon orbit long ago

|1.11.08 @ 12:42AM|#

Martin, you have like, five things to prove and links to provide.

I already quoted a source for my explanation of what happened to Rothbard re: Rand. Now, you tell me where you got yours, other than as hearsay from Lew Rockwell.

|1.11.08 @ 5:30PM|#

Could it be that Lew and company have ripped her for her twists on libertarianism (i.e. dynamist)that she has a woman hard on for attacking Ron Paul?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman46.html


She indicates that she has known since the 90's about Ron Paul and tries to blame Reason for not mentioning this before...meanwhile where does she mention it before this???

Oh and her backing of the war (while Lew Rockwell and company knew full well it was a mistake) proves she should be ignored.