Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Ron Paul’s candidacy is proving the irrelevance of libertarianism"
So sayeth National Review anti-homosexualist and hot-babe connoisseur John Derbyshire, while yet again defending the content of Paul's old newsletters in the white-girl fanzine VDare. Much discussion ensues about "forward-thrusting 'dynamists'" and the like. As is typical of the genre, there is no attempt to explain the conundrum of why the candidate he defends so vigorously disagrees so vehemently with The Derb's own enthusiasms for the newsletters' content and fondness for pre-MLK race relations.
Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez investigated the Survival Report operation a couple of weeks back.
Jacob|1.28.08 @ 5:09PM|#
I fail to see how $30 million raised and the most successful candidacy of a Representative since the House was expanded to 435 members signifies the irrelevance of libertarianism. For all his limitations, he is kicking ass. If he were a young, well-spoken Senator or Governor and was stilling pulling only 10%, then we could talk.
Matt Welch|1.28.08 @ 5:16PM|#
And this is worth posting why?
One of Paul's best-known supporters in the commentariat thinks his
campaign's success is some kind of refutation of libertarianism?
I'd wager some readers here would find that interesting.
Urkobold™|1.28.08 @ 5:18PM|#
JACOB SPEAKS THE TRUTH. IF RON PAUL HAD APPEARED THUS, HE WOULD ALREADY BE THE NOMINEE. IN FACT, HE WOULD ALREADY BE PRESIDENT.
x,y|1.28.08 @ 5:19PM|#
And this is worth posting why?
Over/under = 234 posts. I'll take the under as it's late in the day
already (East coast).
Episiarch|1.28.08 @ 5:19PM|#
It's good to know that not only is Derbyshire an idiot, but his taste in women sucks too. Jesus, he thought that chick deserved special notice? He must be used to real dogs.
|1.28.08 @ 5:20PM|#
Odd. It took me a sec to sort out what Derb meant in Matt's
headline.
I thought, okay, the candidacy collapsed thereby proving
libertarian's irrelevance.
Then I saw, ah, Derb is a Paul supporter. Instead of focusing on
the failure of his candidacy as an indication of libertarianism's
irrelevance, I should focus on the, er, success(?) of Paul's
campaign as an indication of libertarianism's irrelevance.
I'm still not sure I have it all straight, but I seem to lose no
matter what, so maybe I shouldn't put too much thought into it
...
x,y|1.28.08 @ 5:21PM|#
I can get down with Derb sometimes, but not this time. If anything, Paul's success (however limited) signifies the relevance of libertariaism. As Paul himself notes, he's not the best messenger for the ideas. It stands to reason that the ideas, and not the candidate, are keeping the campaign afloat.
Brandybuck|1.28.08 @ 5:24PM|#
I would say the LP is irrelevant because Ron Paul has shown we
don't need them to bust past the 0.5% barrier. If anything, Ron
Paul has shown that libertarians need to start running as
Republicans and Democrats.
But despite the Dynamists' claims to the contrary, Ron Paul is most
certainly a libertarian. In that sense libertarianism is not
irrelevant.
|1.28.08 @ 5:28PM|#
VDare? And you linked? No thanks! I guess I won't RTFA. At least you gave us a head's up.
jj|1.28.08 @ 5:29PM|#
If anything, Ron Paul has shown that libertarians need to
start running as Republicans and Democrats.
Preach it brutha. The Libertarian Party IMHO serves only to sap
money from fruitful avenues, and to enable idiot debate moderators
to ask ad nauseam: "You're a libertarian; why are you running in
the Republican Party."
|1.28.08 @ 5:29PM|#
Derbyshire's comments support my own pet theory that Ron Paul
has more support from paleocon Buchananites than from
libertarians.
Granted, some of those paleocons may call themselves libertarians
but that is another matter.
|1.28.08 @ 5:31PM|#
Just so everyone knows, Derbyshire
supports Ron Paul.
But Derb is right on one thing: libertarianism hasn't exactly set
the world on fire this election cycle. That doesn't make this cycle
different in any way.
(Neoconservatism, au contraire, has set the actual world on actual
fire.)
jj|1.28.08 @ 5:31PM|#
I'm all for paleocon Buchanites who vote for an anti-prohibitionist anti-tax pro-realfreemarket candidate. Go paleocons!
|1.28.08 @ 5:31PM|#
Welch, you'll always be remembered as nothing more than a nickel
and dime beltway hack. Running with a story from some kid at Marty
Peretz's kill all the Arabs rag the New Republic is only a
reflection of how bad Reason truly is.
Hating Ron Paul: Nazis Join the Anti-Paul Popular Front
jj|1.28.08 @ 5:33PM|#
William R, Welch won't be running that article because it doesn't fit his Kramerotarian views.
Rhywun|1.28.08 @ 5:36PM|#
He's an ass, but he's still the only writer there worth reading. He's even right on occasion.
BakedPenguin|1.28.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Over at URKOBOLD, we have the illustrated adventures of the greatest libertarian hero ever (in addition to pictures of Angie Cepeda.) He will surely take us to the promised land...
Taktix®|1.28.08 @ 5:38PM|#
URKOBOLD is right (of course).
The next libertarian-ish candidate for president should be a hot
libertarian chick.
As individuals free from the trappings of political correctness,
one would view physical attraction as simply an additional positive
attribute, and therefore cast aside some sexist stigma that is
indicative to the decay a patriarchal society.
Please send applications to P.O. Box...
|1.28.08 @ 5:38PM|#
I read Derbyshire's piece and it is right on the money. Between CATO and Reason, libertarianism is more or less a joke.
Taktix®|1.28.08 @ 5:44PM|#
Hating Ron Paul: Nazis Join the Anti-Paul Popular
Front
Between CATO and Reason, libertarianism is more or less a
joke.
Must be happy hour.
DRINK!
Matt Welch|1.28.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Kramerotarian? Did I miss a thread?
Anyway, shouldn't it be Kramer vs. Kramerotarian?
|1.28.08 @ 5:49PM|#
That thing's hard to follow. But where he quotes himself on
Postrel's book, he makes what should be, and might be, his point.
I'll change a couple words:
We are not [lacking a candidate] advocating liberty, wealth
creation and open-mindedness. What we are short of is any large
public sentiment in favor of those things.
What percentage of Paul supporters give a fuck about that stuff?
The same who make up that less than .5% of America that could
reasonably be called libertarian. The rest are just confused idiots
(Derbyshire included).
It's a bad mess of a column, but he wins on his characterization of
Reasonites as needy dweebs. Their desperately shifting
relationship to Paul's campaign has shown that. As does this
post.
My previous defenses of Welch against right-wing dumbasses feel
like my own personal Ron Paul newsletters now. No one who calls
that Weigel and Sanchez did an investigation can be defended.
A Reason Reader|1.28.08 @ 5:50PM|#
When I go to your website, I don't want some freakin' ad talking to me. How tacky!
GILMORE|1.28.08 @ 5:52PM|#
while I am no Paulista, it's a hard argument to make when the
dude regularly creamed Giuliani in the polls, the ostensible 'front
runner' in not so distant memory
If anything, it's a cue that libertarians are a constituency far
more worth appealing to compared to say, racist-lite snobs. VDare
is a huge piece of shit in my opinion. If ever i find myself there
by accident it takes about 10 seconds before i want to throw
burning bags of shit at the posters
BakedPenguin|1.28.08 @ 5:53PM|#
The next libertarian-ish candidate for president should be a hot libertarian chick.
Didn't Donna D'Errico endorse Paul?
The Wine Commonsewer|1.28.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Ink, I may agree with you. Most of the people I know, and there
are many, who support RP didn't come from libertarianism. They are
what I call "Second Tier". They are the true grassroots of the
movement, that hopefully, will carry forward with another
torchbearer after RP loses the nomination.
The Second Tier don't have any idea what a paleo-con is and don't
care neither.
some of those paleocons may call themselves libertarians but
that is another matter.
There's a lot of that going around. I've seen a lot of strange
birds with a patch on their shirt that says
libertarian.
some dude|1.28.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Thank you for introducing me to the term "anti-homosexualist." I didn't know it existed.
|1.28.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Taktix® | January 28, 2008, 5:44pm | #
Nope, cocktail hour is still a couple hrs away.
FWIW, I've been reading Ron Paul's newsletters since the mid to
late 80s. Were they politically correct by todays standards? Of
course not, but there just wasn't any racism in them. No
anti-semitism either. At 54 years young, I've never seen so much
garbage thrown at the best pro freedom candidate since Taft or
Goldwater. This truly has been disgraceful
|1.28.08 @ 6:00PM|#
The Derb is going to have to make peace his own desire to have another man's cock in his ass. Maybe then he'll be able to break with the conservatives and fully accept libertarianism.
|1.28.08 @ 6:00PM|#
When I go to your website, I don't want some freakin' ad
talking to me. How tacky!
Couldn't agree more. Talking banner ads are tasteless and
intrusive.
|1.28.08 @ 6:01PM|#
I vdared to go ahead and read the Derbyshire article. What a
moron.
For example...
There is of course a difference of sensibility between the anarchist and the libertarian, resting mainly in the anarchist being hostile to money, private property, and markets, while the libertarian does not object to those things, but only wants them freed from state interference. Your anarchist believes that private property is the enemy of liberty; your libertarian, that it is liberty's guarantor.
Anyone who does not know there are libertarian anarchists has no
credence writing anything about libertarians.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.28.08 @ 6:02PM|#
When I go to your website, I don't want some freakin' ad
talking to me. How tacky!
Especially when it steps all over JJ Cale doing Call Me The
Breeze live with Clapton.
Ah shit, she did it again! Sorry, Babe, none of us just fell of the
Turnip Truck. We know TANSTAAFIN
I hate them dam pump top TV ads blaring at the gas station too. I
avoid those like the plague. Unless there's a sledge hammer in the
truck.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.28.08 @ 6:04PM|#
Mike, there are lefties who claim libertarian cred who are 100% against private property
|1.28.08 @ 6:07PM|#
They claim the libertarian word. I have never met or read one who uses the word the same way as the conventional definition used in these quarters.
BakedPenguin|1.28.08 @ 6:07PM|#
Instead of talking ads, couldn't they just have some Javascript
to bring ads all the way down the threads or something? I agree
with TWC, I like to listen to tunes, and IPod girl is (ironically)
making that much harder.
How about if I buy a subscription?
|1.28.08 @ 6:10PM|#
It stands to reason that the ideas, and not the candidate,
are keeping the campaign afloat.
I think you're underestimating Ron Paul. Voting consistently on the
side of the American taxpayer and (almost flawlessly) on the side
of the Constitution for 20 years in Congress buys a lot of
credibility.
Being right about the Iraq war, and consistent in his opposition to
it from the beginning helps too, as does being a plain-spoken
country doctor and former Air Force captain who has been married
for 51 years and has raised two generations of all-American-type
offspring.
Compare his success to that of Harry Browne or Michael Badnarik,
who were even more direct and consistent in their presentation of
libertarian ideas, but lacked Ron Paul's political credibility and
life story.
Peter|1.28.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Matt: The problem I have is that Derb is and idiot and I don't
care what he says or anyone who supports the candidate I support
says or why they do it. I freely choose not to associate myself
with the 9/11 truthers and other jerks that support Paul but I
support him for me and my reasons. I feel like we missed a great
opportunity here. Instead of focusing on all the things that we do
agree with Paul, we focused on the 20% or so of things we didn't.
Here is a man who is by no means perfect but is singing our song
and all we do is complain it is slightly out of tune.
Brandybuck is right when he posted "If anything, Ron Paul has shown
that libertarians need to start running as Republicans and
Democrats."
We need to fight the beast from the inside where it weak not the
outside where it has all its armor. We looked at Paul and instead
of seeing the things we liked we focused on all the dirt and wounds
the man has. We could have embraced him as a fellow brother of
truth and liberty who has slightly fallen off the path, but so many
of us were too worried that the dirt and the blood the man has on
him would tarnish us as well. We didn't help him up and carry him
into battle with us a leader that would lead to newer and better
leaders, ones who could sing our song in our tune. We left him and
as a result no one is singing our tune, instead we all quietly hum
it ourselves to ourselves our own way.
Some men will take the tools they have and build a house and some
will sit in the cold begging to be let in while others ask for
better tools and do nothing. I always thought libertarians were the
people that built the house with what we had because in the end we
have a house, it may not be perfect but we can always make it
better, while the others remain waiting in the cold unwilling to
use our less than perfect tools.
The more I see this race and the reactions of libertarians the more
it pushes me to charge into the beast of Republicanism and change
it from the inside, like Paul does. If you want to quietly hum your
tune outside in the cold you can and I respect your right to do so.
Real change comes from within and instead of letting this new
republicanism push us out and out sing our song we need to be
rushing in singing loud and proud and slightly out of tune.
|1.28.08 @ 6:16PM|#
Taktix® and BP,
Well, as I've noted before, Salma Hayek would be the perfect
libertarian candidate if she'd been born in the U.S. She gets an A+
in attractiveness, of course, but she also has one of the best
names in libertarianism.
Add my voice to the talking-ad-sucks contingent. Nice to have
sounds blaring out of your speaker at work from a heretofore silent
web site.
SIV|1.28.08 @ 6:17PM|#
They claim the libertarian word.
I believe Sandefur made some noise about reclaiming
"libertarian"(and denying it to us) from the evil paleos and
an-cappers in his crap on the newsletters. Perhaps this is what
derb' is referring to in the "irrelevance of libertarianism.
I mailed my absentee vote for Ron Paul today.
Can I now expect some courageous journalist to unearth copies of a
Ron Paul Animal Welfare Activism Report or even a Ron
Paul Vegan Cookbook to make me regret it?
|1.28.08 @ 6:24PM|#
My wife and I both voted for Paul in early voting here in Florida. That's despite the number of McCain phone calls we've been getting. I think Paul will do surprisingly well here, though McCain and Romney will finish one and two, respectively (it'll be close between them, I suspect).
|1.28.08 @ 6:25PM|#
"One of Paul's best-known supporters in the commentariat
thinks his campaign's success is some kind of refutation of
libertarianism? I'd wager some readers here would find that
interesting."
If Ron Paul's candidacy is indicative of something here, it's the
irrelevance of Derbyshire's support.
Tom Walls|1.28.08 @ 6:26PM|#
Paleos like him; what else is news? The revolution isn't about
Paul Gottfried or Sam Francis or St. Patrick of Buchananomics. It's
not about paleo-penned newsletters that slam MLK or ridicule Act Up
activists.
It's all about da youts, and da peeps out pulling for Paul are not
paleos.
My question is what are all the meetup groups and campaign offices
going to do after the primaries? They sure seemed to have opened
quite a few in recent weeks.
|1.28.08 @ 6:29PM|#
I really think the Paul campaign will accomplish one major feat--getting a Mark Sanford or Jeff Flake to run for office next time around. A less on the fringe, more charismatic spokesman for libertarian views clearly can win. Not easily, but it's not impossible. That's something that was more debatable before this election.
|1.28.08 @ 6:34PM|#
Tell the beltway hacks to shove it and help Ron and Carol Paul celbrate their 51st wedding anniversary on FEB 1
|1.28.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Every post I see by some kind of paleo-paulite slamming the cosmatarians or whatever turns me further away from Paul.
|1.28.08 @ 6:57PM|#
As is typical of the genre, there is no attempt to explain
the conundrum of why the candidate he defends so vigorously
disagrees so vehemently with The Derb's own enthusiasms for the
newsletters' content and fondness for pre-MLK race
relations.
This is totally irrelevant to the point of the piece you linked to.
Did you even read it, Matt? Do you have any commentary on the
substance of the article?
And not only did you fail to provide any evidence that Derbyshire's
racial/sexual *politics* (as opposed to racial/sexual sensitivity)
are different than Paul's, you try to support the suggestion with a
link to a Paul press release that you yourself demonstrated was
100% bullshit!
http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html
Amazing.
|1.28.08 @ 6:58PM|#
"Tell the beltway hacks to shove it and help Ron and Carol
Paul celbrate their 51st wedding anniversary on FEB 1"
You call them "beltway hacks", I call them the Illuminati.
Nash|1.28.08 @ 7:05PM|#
"Derbyshire's comments support my own pet theory that Ron Paul
has more support from paleocon Buchananites than from
libertarians.
Granted, some of those paleocons may call themselves libertarians
but that is another matter."
I voted for Buchanan in 96, Browne in 1996 and 2000, Badnarik in
2004 and I'm voting for Ron Paul this year. Other than someone who
votes for candidates that don't win, am I not also libertarian?
|1.28.08 @ 7:06PM|#
He is correct - the LP is dead.
The LP I joined in 1986 has been overrun by Christo-fascists -
those who join the LP strictly as a tax protest and bend to the
will of the same authoritarian monster wearing a cross instead of a
burka. Nothing less than a COMPLETE separation of church and state
will do.
This is much like a Muslim saying they are Libertarian - there is
no such thing. One cannot be free and wear the chains of religious
dogma simultaneously.
The Republican Party is filled with these hypocrites. But - even
with these charlatans the LP cannot muster more than 5%
support.
Sad - but true. Death is final.
Eric Dondero|1.28.08 @ 7:10PM|#
The UK Guardian just called French Super Model and fiance' of Sarkozy a "libertarian." Alas, she's native born French, so we can't run her in 2012.
Eric Dondero|1.28.08 @ 7:12PM|#
Yes, Mark Sanford or Jeff Flake would be great. But of course,
Sarah Palin would be even better.
Ironically, a GOP loss in 2008 with tired old grey guy McCain,
makes a Palin run in 2012 even more likely.
LevStrauss|1.28.08 @ 7:28PM|#
To both sides whining about Paleos and Cosmos, I find it hilarious that people are complaining about our impotence when it comes to gaining traction when 50% of the 1% of the population can't stand the other 50% of 1% of the population. How will we ever become relevant when we are so touchy?
Eric Dumbdero|1.28.08 @ 7:30PM|#
Clearly, the real Libertarian-Republican ticket in 2008 is Patreus/Watts.
LevStrauss|1.28.08 @ 7:33PM|#
How about if we pool all our money together and bribe Barack Obama to become a libertarian? He really doesn't have to change his campaign strategy since he never really discusses issues. We can "Hope" our way to the White House.
Brandybuck|1.28.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Every post I see by some kind of paleo-paulite slamming the cosmatarians or whatever turns me further away from Paul.
And every post I see by some kind of
cosmotarian/dynamist/TrueLibertarian™ slamming Ron Paul sends me
further into his camp. Like the bozo above who asserts that Muslims
cannot be libertarian. WTF?
highnumber|1.28.08 @ 7:35PM|#
FWIW, I've been reading Ron Paul's newsletters since the mid
to late 80s. Were they politically correct by todays standards? Of
course not, but there just wasn't any racism in them. No
anti-semitism either.
Word to the wise, kiddies:
Don't listen to a racist like commenter William R tell you what is
and isn't racist.
|1.28.08 @ 7:41PM|#
"This is much like a Muslim saying they are Libertarian -
there is no such thing. One cannot be free and wear the chains of
religious dogma simultaneously."
Yeah, nobody will ever take us seriously until we expel everyone
with religious convictions--then and only then will people start to
vote the way we want them to...
...and while we're at it, why not bash Mom, baseball, hot dogs and
apple pie too?
|1.28.08 @ 7:44PM|#
"FWIW, I've been reading Ron Paul's newsletters since the
mid to late 80s. Were they politically correct by todays standards?
Of course not, but there just wasn't any racism in them. No
anti-semitism either."
But did he try to warn us about the Illuminati? ...'cause I
understand they're tryin' to screw up his 51st wedding
anniversary.
Joe Allen|1.28.08 @ 7:45PM|#
It wasn't Lew Rockwell and the Paleolibertarinas who started the
civil war in Libertarianism. It was the willingness of Matt Welch
and Nick Gillespie and their ilk to be used by the PC thought
police on the left.
Chicago school and Austrian school people need to stick together to
get anything done. CATO and Reason need to bury the Hatchet with
the Von Mises institute because more is at stake than our petty
little factional squabbles.
|1.28.08 @ 7:47PM|#
politically correct by todays standards?
Drink!
he PC thought police
Double shot! Bonus for using "PC" and "thought police" in the same
sentence.
|1.28.08 @ 7:48PM|#
Damn Illuminati, why can't they just leave us alone!? ...I think they were trying to screw with my sister's birthday party last week too!
Malt Liqour n Rimz|1.28.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Don't listen to a racist like commenter William R tell you
what is and isn't racist.
I would add: don't listen to what joe tells you is and isn't racist
either.
Taktix®|1.28.08 @ 7:59PM|#
Hey guys, I've just been selected to receive two free IPod
Nanos. (Nanoes?)
Thanks reason!
Joe Allen|1.28.08 @ 8:04PM|#
I fail to comprehend how ridiculing a previoulsy banned
non-entity like myself is promoting free minds and free
markets.
Libertarianism isn't about promoting or attacking homsexuality or
any other lifestyle. It is about freedom. Do whatever you want as
long as you don't hurt anybody.
Matt and the gang have allowed their hatred of Paul's conservative
cultural position outweigh the political position he has
taken.
There is no libertarian culture. There can't be. It is all
politics. Reason has decided that promoting a cultural position
(one that many Americans regard as little more than hedonism) is
more important than promoting a political position of freedom.
Dan Warner|1.28.08 @ 8:29PM|#
Why in the world would anyone think that Ron Paul is bad for libertarianism. The guy is bringing EVERYONE together, repubs, dems, and yes even libertarians. HORRORS! If all you are gonna do is run around worrying about your 'image' then you may as well stay home on election day and let us adults vote. There is no shame in supporting someone who you MOSTLY agree with. If anything, this purist attitude is the downfall of libertariansm, not Ron Paul.
Joe Allen|1.28.08 @ 8:30PM|#
A racist is not a threat to anyone unless he acts on that racism
in an way that violates someones's natural rights. A racist or a
"anti-homosexualist" is no more a threat than an atheist or a
polytheist is to a Christian. As Jefferson said: ":He neither picks
my pocket nor breaks my leg."
Government enforced tolerance is just as tyrannical as government
enforced intolerance.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.28.08 @ 8:30PM|#
They claim the libertarian word. I have never met or read
one who uses the word the same way as the conventional definition
used in these quarters.
Point taken, Mike. :-)
The Wine Commonsewer|1.28.08 @ 8:34PM|#
... bribe Barack Obama to become a libertarian...
Nope. Go look at his website. Not much there to make me throw him a
vote.
I am not voting for someone who plans to shoot me in the gut in
order to keep someone else who has promised to stab me in the eye
from getting elected.
Joe Allen|1.28.08 @ 8:51PM|#
Winey said "They claim the libertarian word."
Aye, that I do proudly. The progressives stole the term "liberal"
from the Jeffersonians. The Neocons stole the term "conservative"
from Taft, Goldwater and Reagan." Nobody is going to steal the term
"libertarian" from me.
|1.28.08 @ 9:06PM|#
Joe Allen,
Are you an anarcho-syndicalist? Because that is the 'They' who we
are noting claim the
libertarian word...
Welcome to the first issue of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, continuing the Libertarian Labor Review.... The name change reflects our desire to avoid confusion with the laissez-faire capitalist Libertarian Party in the U.S., none of whose values we share, and to more clearly communicate our political tradition.
And, incidentally, whatever stripe of free market laissez faire
libertarian you are, the leftist anarchists had the word first.
Modern day libertarians own the word now because, thankfully, there
are political positions that are even less popular than classical
liberalism.
|1.28.08 @ 9:13PM|#
"Government enforced tolerance is just as tyrannical as
government enforced intolerance."
If a candidate allows his name to be used in a newsletter that
panders to racists and bigots and I refuse to support him because
of it, what does that have to do with government enforced
intolerance?
|1.28.08 @ 9:27PM|#
# Brandybuck | January 28, 2008, 5:24pm | #
# I would say the LP is irrelevant because Ron
# Paul has shown we don't need them to bust
# past the 0.5% barrier. If anything,
# Ron Paul has shown that libertarians
# need to start running as Republicans
# and Democrats.
I'm all for libertarians getting into office however they can. But
if the LP goes away (and is not replaced by another, hopefully more
vigorous and effective third party), that will be a sad thing,
because you can bet that, unless there is a viable third party out
there with the ability to deny victory to the GOP and Demos, they
will fall back on their colluding, bi-partisan ways and play
good-cop, bad-cop with us until the bus we're all on together falls
right over the cliff.
# Brandybuck | January 28, 2008, 7:34pm | #
# ...And every post I see by some kind of
# cosmotarian/dynamist/TrueLibertarian™
# slamming Ron Paul...
My email address has been TrueLibertarian for years, so be careful
with that (TM) unless you want me to sue you to enforce my prior
usage! :-) And that goes for all of the cosmotarian dynamists
LibertarianGOPNeoCons, too.
Go Ron Paul! Let's see how far he can get!
|1.28.08 @ 9:30PM|#
# Joe Allen | January 28, 2008, 8:51pm | #
# Winey said "They claim the libertarian word."
# Aye, that I do proudly. The progressives
# stole the term "liberal" from the
# Jeffersonians. The Neocons stole the
# term "conservative" from Taft, Goldwater
# and Reagan." Nobody is going to steal the
# term "libertarian" from me.
What Joe said. A line must be drawn. Here and no further. Posers
take a hike.
Joe Allen|1.28.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Ken said:
"If a candidate allows his name to be used in a newsletter that
panders to racists and bigots and I refuse to support him because
of it, what does that have to do with government enforced
intolerance?"
Plenty, Ken. Government power and therefor abuse of power increases
when you let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Ron Paul is
far from ideal, but he is also by far the best of the available
choices we have right now.
Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate left in the race. The only
one even addressing the issues of civil liberties and limited
government. Paul is more for free minds and free markets than any
other candidates, yet he is rejected by the Reason/CATO guardians
of libertarian purity. Matt and Co. sanctimoniously choose "none of
the above."
With friends like these, Freedom needs no enemies.
|1.28.08 @ 9:42PM|#
That's all fine and dandy there, Joe. ...but if you can't tell
the difference between me refusing to support a candidate and
government enforced tolerance, then we've got nothing to talk
about.
...and from that comment up yonder, quite frankly, it looks like
you've got an issue there.
Joe Allen|1.28.08 @ 10:13PM|#
Ken wrote:
"That's all fine and dandy there, Joe. ...but if you can't tell the
difference between me refusing to support a candidate and
government enforced tolerance, then we've got nothing to talk
about."
Silence implies consent. You critcize and wail and moan, but you
offer no alternatives. No solutions. Nothing but condemnation and
judgement.
If you have a better plan or a better candidate to put forward, we
are all listening. If you do not, You would do well to shut the
hell up.
highnumber|1.28.08 @ 10:20PM|#
Silence implies consent...You would do well to shut the hell
up.
What?!
Joe Allen|1.28.08 @ 10:30PM|#
"Silence implies consent...You would do well to shut the hell
up."
I thought that might cause some confusion. In this context I was
saying Ken's silence regarding the government enforced tolerance
implies consent.
Sorry I didn't make that more clear.
|1.28.08 @ 10:52PM|#
Derbyshire's still defending the contents of the newsletters,
because most of them are fully defensible. Kirchick omitted
context, cut pieces of sentences, presented cited material as
Paul's own opinions, and otherwise tampered with the material to
put Paul in the worst possible light. A quick read of even just the
pieces of the /Reports/ that he chose to give confirms that.
Even discounting that, I'm sure that what's actually there is still
enough to shock Kirchick and his after all that, I'm sure it's all
just as shocking to Kirchick and his fellow "urbane, cosmpolitan
libertarians"; but other libertarians (I suppose older ones, like
Derb and me), who don't share the liberaltarian sentiments of the
Beltway crowd, find them tolerable enough even if they don't agree
with many of them. (Putting them in a newsletter or a blog
certainly doesn't constitute a sin that must be expiated only by
sacrificing a scapegoat, as some liberaltarians seem to
believe.)
As for why Paul repudiated the quotes rather than defend them, I
think the reason is simple; they have nothing to do with his
campaign, so he doesn't want to talk about them. After 30 years in
public service, at 72, this campaign may be his last and best
chance to change the world; it's succeeded beyond anyone's wildest
dreams so far; and he wants to give it his best shot by staying
focussed. He can do that only by staying on message; not by
defending old quotes about limp wrists and plagiarizing Nobel
laureates.
Joe Allen|1.28.08 @ 11:01PM|#
Paul's alleged pandering to racists, homophobes and sexists,even
if true, is no worse than Matt Welch's pandering to leftists,
statists and libertines.
The difference is that Paul's goal is to promote liberty while the
effect of Welch's actions is to promote statism and Welch.
|1.28.08 @ 11:07PM|#
That comment doesn't merit a response. ...other than me not
shutting up.
But for the record, there are an awful lot of us libertarians who
would rather other self-described libertarians would refrain from
arguing against, what, the government being too tolerant?
...um, no, we wish they wouldn't argue against the government
enforcing tolerance? No, wait, I think I got it this time--it's
we'd just as soon they kept it to themselves if they think the
government shouldn't enforce tolerance on private citizens.
...but that's only because we keep coming across self-described
libertarians of a certain stripe who can't seem to tell the
difference between people refusing to support Ron Paul and the
government enforcing tolerance.
sv|1.28.08 @ 11:19PM|#
1. derb is a weird old english guy who, in my opinion, has
sometimes taken justifiable white pride (i'm non-white, but i
admire your race as far as that goes) too far. so among other weird
positions he's taken, the not-so-hot chick in the ron paul video he
shouted out is 'hot.' (well he's an old guy i guess.) he's still
really interesting, though. wrote a great book about the Reimann
Hypothesis. and i think he's married to some asian woman. (!)
2. (Neoconservatism, au contraire, has set the actual world on
actual fire.) HA!
Joe Allen|1.28.08 @ 11:37PM|#
Ken again:
"...but that's only because we keep coming across self-described
libertarians of a certain stripe who can't seem to tell the
difference between people refusing to support Ron Paul and the
government enforcing tolerance."
There is no difference in the outcome. If you harm the greatest
enemy of the leviathan state you are de facto aiding statism.
Critcizing Paul is easy. Defending Liberty is hard. I have not seen
you do the latter.
If You want to fight racism, great. That is a noble calling. If you
want to fight statism, that is a noble and libertarian calling. If
you think racism is a bigger threat to the world than statism, you
may be right, but you are not a libertarian.
If you condemn Paul for pandering to racists to fight statism,
justify that on libertarian grounds. You have not yet done so, nor
have you offered a viable alternative course of action.
We have warmongering totalitarians on both sides of the isle, as
tonights SOTU demonstrated. I see Dr. Ron Paul doing something
about it. I see beltway cosmotards wringing hands and pointing
fingers.
|1.28.08 @ 11:48PM|#
Yeah, Derbyshire is married to an Asian woman, I believe Chinese, he lived in Hong Kong for a while and was in a Bruce Lee film, he was some random thug guy or something, and to Donna D'errico, she's got a sex tape out, well she didn't put it out, it leaked or whatever, would that tape be her RP newsletter? I wouldn't mind if the tape got covered as much as the newsletter though ;) (that face winks at you!) And yeah, the girl in the RP vid, for starters there was one, the rest of the people were men and little boys, and she wasn't that great looking, cute but nothing I would BLOG about, but whatevs :) (that face just smiles at you)
|1.28.08 @ 11:52PM|#
I didn't really care about Ron Paul either way anyway. ...at
least until I found out about those newsletters--whoa! Was that
embarrassing or what? ...calling all those people and telling 'em
how wrong I was? Ouch! But I couldn't let 'em think I, or
libertarians in general, were a bunch of racists or bigots,
right?
That's why it's so important that we leave the nuanced arguments,
like the difference between being against state enforced tolerance
and racism, to people who can tell the difference between state
enforced tolerance and refusing to support Ron Paul.
Kolohe|1.29.08 @ 12:00AM|#
RE: 'hot libertarian chick'
Wasn't there a blog a few years ago by "libertarian girl," or some
name like that, who turned out to be just some dude who was just
using some Ukrainian mail-order site for photos?
[cue Peter Townshend]
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 12:02AM|#
Ken:"I didn't really care about Ron Paul either way anyway.
...at least until I found out about those newsletters--whoa!
"
You don't appear to care about freedom and less government either
way also. You don't seem to care about civil liberites either way
as well.
What exactly DO you care about, Ken? Inquiring minds want to know.
Again, who's your candidate? What's your plan to make the world a
better place?
That's the third time I have asked. Still no answer. You are a
gutless coward.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.29.08 @ 12:36AM|#
Epi, have to agree, that chick was not special. No barking, but just ok.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.29.08 @ 12:38AM|#
Joe Allen,
Winey said "They claim the libertarian word."
No, Mike P said that, I just agreed. And he was talking about guys
like Kos claiming the term.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.29.08 @ 12:40AM|#
You are a gutless coward.
Wonder if you would say that to Ken's face at a cocktail party in
my fireplace room.
|1.29.08 @ 12:50AM|#
"What exactly DO you care about, Ken? Inquiring minds want
to know. Again, who's your candidate? What's your plan to make the
world a better place?"
I'm starting a write in campaign for Barry Goldwater's corpse.
|1.29.08 @ 12:51AM|#
I contend that as of today, Barry Goldwater's corpse would make a better president than any candidate running.
|1.29.08 @ 12:55AM|#
Seriously, I think there's an argument to be made that if there really is a definition of a true libertarian, it's someone who doesn't think politicians are the solution to our problems.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.29.08 @ 1:04AM|#
I'm starting a write in campaign for Barry Goldwater's
corpse.
Already been done
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 2:16AM|#
Sgt Shultz writes:
"Seriously, I think there's an argument to be made that if there
really is a definition of a true libertarian, it's someone who
doesn't think politicians are the solution to our problems."
You don't get to decide who's a real libertarian, Kenny. You still
(now for the 4th time) have refused to offer any solutions of your
own. Until you do, you are not qualified to define liberatrianism
or to criticize anyone.
You can be glib. You can be coy. You may even occasionally be
clever, but that doesn't make you any less pathetic.
It's easier to destroy than to create. The second law of
thermodynamics shows that it's the naturural order of things to
break down. The two-bit beltway Neros are fiddling and Rome is
burning.
Dr. Paul is a flawed man, but he has shown more courage, more
character and more honesty than anyone I have ever known.
Historians will discuss and debate his impact long after your own
progeny (if you have any) will have forgotten you. Maybe that's why
you hate him, despite your pretense of apathy.
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 2:32AM|#
It's cosmopolitans who are dependent on politicians. Us yokels
out here in flyover country are the rugged individualists. If/when
the shit hits the fan, we will be able to find our own dinner. You?
Well, you're likely to become dinner.
Dr. Paul is trying to save your ass more than mine. I'm not sure
you are worth the effort.
|1.29.08 @ 4:22AM|#
One of Paul's best-known supporters in the commentariat
thinks his campaign's success is some kind of refutation of
libertarianism? I'd wager some readers here would find that
interesting.
What's peculiar about it? Given that the Reason and Cato crowd have
pronounced Paul as "unlibertarian", why would they turn around and
promote his relative success as a sign of libertarianism's
relevance? That's a bit like claiming Obama's success as a victory
for conservatism.
Libertarianism does not have a monopoly claim on political liberty
(in fact, I strongly suspect if implemented as per Reason and Cato,
the results would be the opposite). Paul and Derb may very well not
be libertarians in the sense Reason would care to define it. All to
their credit, given that a political order that preserved
individual liberty in any practical sense would be unlikely to
resemble Reasonista-style libertarianism. Pro-Liberty, yes!
Pro-Libertarianism, no!
For my money, Derb called it exactly right. Paul's relative success
is a victory for liberty. Libertarianism, however, is an
irrelevancy.
|1.29.08 @ 5:04AM|#
I quit reading after the first sentence. Multiple attacks on a
person, rather than addressing the issue at hand, combined with
blatant use of the irrelevant attacks as reason for you being
right.
If you can't address an issue without the use of such personal
attacks, then your opinion just isn't worth reading.
Either pick up the bar on your writing, or continue to be ignored.
While a person may be wrong on homosexuality, it doesn't make them
wrong on ever issue by default. It's an insult to your readers
intelligence when you try to pass it off as such.
|1.29.08 @ 6:25AM|#
Are you trying to keep the smear alive to bring hits to your dying site that does nothing real to promote liberty? Enough already, lets see you actually motivate a considerable movement to restore and defend freedom and the Constitution. Please let us know when you can actually identify a human who meets your criteria as the perfect candidate. Until then, please stop assisting the neoCons with your unrelenting attacks on Ron Paul. Don't worry, we will remember how you distanced yourself from his candidacy - you can stop now.
highnumber|1.29.08 @ 9:18AM|#
Hey, Kira,
If your guy wins, by chance, maybe you could have a pogrom, you
know, in the name of liberty.
|1.29.08 @ 9:51AM|#
"It's cosmopolitans who are dependent on politicians. Us
yokels out here in flyover country are the rugged individualists.
If/when the shit hits the fan, we will be able to find our own
dinner. You? Well, you're likely to become dinner.
Dr. Paul is trying to save your ass more than mine. I'm not sure
you are worth the effort."
What are you talking about now? ...RaHoWa?!
If the enemies of libertarianism got together and stayed up all
night trying to think up new ways to discourage people from
supporting libertarian ideas, I'm not sure they could have come up
with anything better than you.
Ever see Christians sometimes try to explain how that "God hates
fags" guy is not representative of Christianity, that he
is not what Christianity is about?
Well to the rest of us libertarians, you're that guy.
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Sgt Shultz:
"Well to the rest of us libertarians, you're that guy."
"Us libertarians"? In what way do you consider yourself a
libertarian? I haven't seen you state or defend a point of view
that could be considered libertarian by any stretch of the
imagination.
As for me, I am not narccistic enough to think I am worth a fuss
either way, but I am not surprised to see you resort to ad hominum
attacks.
B|1.29.08 @ 10:19AM|#
By blasting Derbyshire and his positions, you are turning the
gun on yourself. After all, it is this site that has continued to
cheer the Paul candidacy, even after the vile newsletters were
publicized. And what is even worse is that the idiots at this site
tried to legitimize the absolutely hysterical bullshit excuse that
Paul didn't write those newsletters. Yeah, sure he didn't.
"It's good to know that not only is Derbyshire an idiot..."
Yeah, you are right about that. He proves it every time he posts
something in support of Ron Paul. As dumb as you claim he is, I bet
he still didn't fall for the "Paul didn't write those newsletters"
bullshit excuse.
|1.29.08 @ 10:32AM|#
B, I think you're wrong about Hit & Run continuing to
support Ron Paul after the newsletters came out. ...and they did an
exposition, Sanchez and Weigel as I recall, about how even if he
didn't write them himself, he apparently knew who did--despite him
saying on national television that he didn't.
...most of the pro-Paul people you see here are mad at Reason and
Hit & Run for pulling the rug out from under Ron Paul on the
eve of New Hampshire. I think you've just got it wrong. Check the
threads in the archives in the week of New Hampshire.
B|1.29.08 @ 10:33AM|#
As far as libertarianism being irrelevant, this site is helping to ensure such an outcome by continuing to embrace a candidate who's writings are interchangeable with those of Tom Metzger.
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 10:34AM|#
"If your guy wins, by chance, maybe you could have a pogrom, you
know, in the name of liberty."
That's not the way it works. We'll keep you around for amusement,
like Biff who waxes George McFly's car.
|1.29.08 @ 11:04AM|#
That's not the way it works. We'll keep you around for
amusement, like Biff who waxes George McFly's car.
Arbeit Macht Frei
Rhywun|1.29.08 @ 11:28AM|#
If you condemn Paul for pandering to racists to fight
statism, justify that on libertarian grounds.
Racism, homophobia, and sexism are anti-freedom. Funny how people
who don't grok that are always crusty old white guys who've never
been the victim of any of them.
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 11:37AM|#
I wonder if the Reason Foundation has enough money to continue
subsidizing a money-losing magazine and website indefinitely.
I hope so. Reason does serve a useful purpose: everytime I see
another news source site Reason or Cato as a credible libertarian
organization, I know they are not to be trusted.
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 11:48AM|#
"Racism, homophobia, and sexism are anti-freedom. Funny how
people who don't grok that are always crusty old white guys who've
never been the victim of any of them."
A victim! Thank goodness we have a real, honest-to-goodness victim
to tell us all how to think and vote!
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/01/pick-pockets-leg-breakers-and-bigots.html
It is not defending bigotry, sexism or racism to say that statism
is a much bigger problem than any of the others. That's the
libertarian position.
Rhywun|1.29.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Thank goodness we have a real, honest-to-goodness victim to
tell us all how to think and vote!
Why would you automatically assume I was a victim?
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 12:08PM|#
"Why would you automatically assume I was a victim?"
Why did you assume I was writing about you? Why do you assume that
the victims of racism or sexism or anti-homosexualism are more
numerous or deserving than the victims of statism?
Click the link I posted. Read the article there. You'll have a
better Idea what I think then.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/01/pick-pockets-leg-breakers-and-bigots.html
T|1.29.08 @ 12:28PM|#
It is not defending bigotry, sexism or racism to say that
statism is a much bigger problem than any of the others. That's the
libertarian position.
Since you've been busy telling everyone else, I'll hand it back to
you.: Don't fucking tell me what the libertarian position on
anything is. You no more get to decide what a libertarian position
on racism is than you get to decide who I vote for, i.e. not at
all. I'll rank order problems in any fashion I desire and you can
piss off about whether or not it's libertarian. Standing up on your
hind legs and thumping your chest about what's libertarian based on
your incoherent opinion isn't an argument, it's an assertion.
On the plus side, you've quit posting huge cut and paste chunks, so
that's something. Maybe there's hope for you yet.
Rhywun|1.29.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Why did you assume I was writing about you?
Because you quoted me, asshole.
Why do you assume that the victims of racism or sexism or
anti-homosexualism are more numerous or deserving than the victims
of statism?
Why do you assume that I make that assumption? You're just full of
prejudices aren't you?
For the record, I get your point. But let's not pretend that in
today's America, some people value certain freedoms over other
freedoms - usually those that have a more immediate impact on their
lives. They make trade offs. You want to be the absolutist, go
ahead. You clearly have little understanding of human nature.
highnumber|1.29.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Because you quoted me, asshole.
Call VM - he awarded the ownership of the internets for the week
prize
too early!
Rhywun|1.29.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Ah shit, I meant to say "let's not pretend that some people
DON'T value certain freedoms over others".
Damn contorted sentence structure.
|1.29.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Lots of racists are married to people of other races. That doesn't make this idiot Derbyshire a better person. Wonder how his racist philosophy will be viewed by his own children.
|1.29.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Yeah, right. Next you'll be saying lots of sexists are married to people of other sexes.
Mitchell Young|1.29.08 @ 1:41PM|#
VDare? And you linked? No thanks! I guess I won't RTFA. At
least you gave us a head's up.
Ah, yet another libertarian shows the open mind, the sense of
inquisitiveness, the hunger to engage with ideas they disagree with
that are so typical of the breed.
|1.29.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Goldwater bandwagon
Goldwater opposed the major civil rights bills of the 1960s, on the
grounds of freedom of associate, private property, states' rights
and the like.
|1.29.08 @ 2:16PM|#
"Goldwater opposed the major civil rights bills of the
1960s, on the grounds of freedom of associate, private property,
states' rights and the like."
Perhaps, but my understanding is that his corpse has nothing to say
on the subject.
Rhywun|1.29.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Were they politically correct by todays standards? Of course
not, but there just wasn't any racism in them.
A statement such as "opinion polls consistently show only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions" is the very epitome of
racism. Unless the context removed was something like "It is a
ridiculous thing to say that...." there's just no way around
it.
VM|1.29.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Rhywun, High#:
wow. "JoeAllen" is the front runner for "Twaddlenock of the
Week"
You'll have a better Idea what I think then
we have a good idea of just how you "think", there, pal. For all of
your whining and accusations and fecal-matter-and-mucus spewed
rantings about 'statism', it's clear that YOU are
the one who feels like a victim.
Although, you are looking a bit tired. Would you like to head to
Stevo's bunk? I saw there's a reservation for "tuff gai of teh
internets". Must mean yoooo.
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 3:03PM|#
VM-"it's clear that YOU are the one who feels like a
victim."
Aye, but no more than you or anyone else. We are all victimized.
The difference is I am not advocating special previledges for or
rights for some group to compensate for past mistreatment.
Statism is an equal opportunity destroyer. If we have to enlist the
help of people we disagree with on other issues to fight a common
adversary, that's just politics.
Still no support of a more libertarian candidate? Still no
proposals for a better plan to restore constitutional freedoms? I
think it wise to discount the words or opinions of anoyone
anti-Paul who doesn't first demonstrate that they are
pro-freedom.
I used to give reasonoids the benefit of the doubt, but y'all have
demonstrated that you are unworthy of such consideration.
Mitchell Young|1.29.08 @ 3:20PM|#
Here's the quote in context, according to Justin 'Antiwar'
Raimondo
"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only
about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support
the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and
affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally
and they deserve credit-not as representatives of a racial group,
but as decent people."
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/
Take a look at that i.e. Of course, not that many whites have
sensible opinions either.
|1.29.08 @ 3:21PM|#
A statement such as "opinion polls consistently show only
about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions" is the very
epitome of racism
So 'the epitome of racism' is to communicate factual but
unflattering sociological data?
Um, ok. I thought the 'epitome of racism' would be something like,
oh, discriminating against an individual based on their racial
appearance instead of relevant criteria. You know, the meaningful
definition.
A great example of how Reason libertarians tend to be absolutely
retarded about race. They define 'racism' in obscure, irrelevant
ways that have more to do with parroting inane liberal taboos than
protecting and upholding liberties.
In the inverted libertarianism of Reason mentioning IQ differences
is a bigger sin than supporting affirmative action. Because it's
not about the politics and economics but looking cool for
liberals.
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 3:24PM|#
"For the record, I get your point. But let's not pretend that in
today's America, some people value certain freedoms over other
freedoms - usually those that have a more immediate impact on their
lives. They make trade offs. You want to be the absolutist, go
ahead. You clearly have little understanding of human
nature."
ROTFL! That's quite a non sequitur. Start off calling me an
asshole, move on to general (admittedly true) platitudes that don't
support your position at all, and then cap it of by concluding that
it's my lack of understanding of human nature that's responsible
for your hostility! Wow.
I honestly don't know if your problem is a lack of brains or a lack
of courage or both. I'm just glad I'm not you.
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 3:33PM|#
"Reason libertarians tend to be absolutely retarded about
race."
Now that's not nice. I would say that Reason libertarians tend to
be brain dead about race.
I wouldn't want to unfairly insult retards.
VM|1.29.08 @ 3:45PM|#
No. Just thinking about soups. Much more interesting than some unreal, made up, silly bullshit that "joeallen" says. Although I oscillate between he's really cute and extra-crispy batshit insane. But then I start thinking about soups again.
|1.29.08 @ 3:49PM|#
I appreciate the applicable quote, but my issue with the
newsletters isn't any particular instance of this or that, it's
more the whole idea of using libertarianism to pander to racists
and bigots.
It's the difference between saying that the government shouldn't
force businesses to hire black people and encouraging racists to
embrace libertarianism as a means to achieve the bigoted society of
their dreams.
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Sgt shultz wrote:
It's the difference between saying that the government shouldn't
force businesses to hire black people and encouraging racists to
embrace libertarianism as a means to achieve the bigoted society of
their dreams.
Libertarinaism CAN'T be used to achieve a bigoted society any more
than government can be used to achieve egalitarianism. The only
reason someone would think that it's possible is by listening to
idiots like you, not by reading Ron Paul's old newsletters.
Rhywun|1.29.08 @ 4:57PM|#
I'm just glad I'm not you.
Very much likewise. Shooting down straw-men from my level of
rarefied purity just gets boring.
In the inverted libertarianism of Reason mentioning IQ
differences is a bigger sin than supporting affirmative
action.
When did libertarianism become all about pigeonholing and group
characteristics? God damn, paleos are even more annoying than
liberals. I wish they would go away.
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 6:33PM|#
"When did libertarianism become all about pigeonholing and group
characteristics? God damn, paleos are even more annoying than
liberals. I wish they would go away."
Another straw man. It's not about pigeonholing, it's about free and
unfettered discussion. It's about presenting an unpopular view
without getting one's I.P. banned (again).
I don't see the paleos acting as threatened by the neos as the neos
are threatened by the paleos. Paleo's reject social determinism
which you seem to embrace.
|1.29.08 @ 6:34PM|#
"The only reason someone would think that it's possible is
by listening to idiots like you, not by reading Ron Paul's old
newsletters."
This from the observation that the authors of the newsletters were
apparently pandering to bigots?
How? ...no, wait! I don't want to know.
Joe Allen|1.29.08 @ 7:38PM|#
The newsletters only appear to be pandering to racists because
that is the way they were presented by Kirchick, Nick, Matt and
Radley. A reading at face value and they are somewhat provocative,
but benign.
The newsletters were written form a point of view that rejects
social determinism. I can see how someone who embraces social
determinism would consider them racist.
That type of writing appeals to a certain survivalist type, which
includes some racists, but that doesn't mean it's inherently racist
material, only politically incorrect.
If David Duke eats broccoli, does that make broccoli a racist
food?
This is all much ado about nothing. Even if newsletters were
pandering to racists, that doesn't mean the author was racist. Even
it the author was a racist, that doesn't mean it was Ron Paul. Even
if it was Ron Paul, that doesn't mean he isn't the most libertarian
candidate in the field.
Ron Paul's message was more clouded by Reason than by the
newsletters. The spin was unlibertarian and unethical. They damaged
not only Dr. Paul, but themselves, libertarianism and the whole
nation.
Rhywun|1.29.08 @ 7:50PM|#
It's about presenting an unpopular view
I have no problem with that, nor with pointing out that your ideas
are shit.
Paleo's reject social determinism which you seem to
embrace.
I don't reject or support it. When it comes to IQ, in fact, I find
the entire concept irrelevant. Rather, I see people as individuals
who have their own responsibility to improve themselves. What use
is it to categorize one group as having a lower IQ than another, as
paleos are always doing, if not to denigrate? Who is it helping?
Such an activity is a mean-spirited, childish exercise that solves
*nothing*.
|1.29.08 @ 8:31PM|#
"The newsletters only appear to be pandering to racists
because that is the way they were presented by Kirchick, Nick, Matt
and Radley. A reading at face value and they are somewhat
provocative, but benign."
Read it and weep.
"During the period when the most incendiary items
appeared-roughly 1989 to 1994-Rockwell and the prominent
libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of
exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with
populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and
manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary
mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by
The New Republic."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html
They quote a lot of people in the know in that piece. They wrote
that piece just after Gillespie appeared on national television to
champion Ron Paul's cause. They put out that piece even while Ron
Paul was on the cover of the magazine...
I see no reason to doubt but that the newsletters were intended to
pander to bigots and racists, and that that's what they do.
I find it no wonder, considering what was apparently in the
newsletters and who they were meant to pander to, that unsavory
groups seem to be championing Ron Paul's cause now...
And if you found their content "benign", I gotta wonder about the
company you keep, buddy-roe, 'cause I saw enough to make me feel
nauseated.
Do you really think this is all about nothing? ...all about
something "benign"?
|1.29.08 @ 10:50PM|#
"If a candidate allows his name to be used in a newsletter that
panders to racists and bigots and I refuse to support him because
of it, what does that have to do with government enforced
intolerance?" -- Ken
It means you put anti-"racism" ahead of anti-statism. The
ineluctable implication is that you are willing to use state
aggression to attack "racism".
|1.29.08 @ 11:12PM|#
"Racism, homophobia, and sexism are anti-freedom. Funny how
people who don't grok that are always crusty old white guys who've
never been the victim of any of them." -- Rhywun
No, racism, homophobia, and sexism (as the terms are commonly used)
are not "anti-freedom". They are pro-freedom. They describe the
attitudes of people defending themselves against aggression.
By the way, everywhere "crusty old white guys" live, they are
victims of State-sponsored racism.
|1.29.08 @ 11:43PM|#
"It means you put anti-"racism" ahead of anti-statism. The
ineluctable implication is that you are willing to use state
aggression to attack "racism"."
Are there any other stupidities I need to support, in order not to
be a statist in your eyes, or is racism the only one?
|1.30.08 @ 9:15AM|#
Shultz, you're just some pathetic PC Stalinist. The Newsletters were nothing out of the ordinary. If calling the rioters in Los Angeles animals is racism then I guess people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams would be considered racist.
|1.30.08 @ 10:01AM|#
"Shultz, you're just some pathetic PC Stalinist."
Again, you guys can't seem to tell the difference between the
government supporting PC and me refusing to support a
candidate.
...and the more it happens, the funnier it gets!
|1.30.08 @ 10:06AM|#
"All these findings related to IQ tests make we wish I were
Chinese. So sad."
It doesn't surprise me that underachievers look to bell curves to
explain their lot in life.
Joe Allen|1.30.08 @ 3:33PM|#
Sgt Shultz again gets it completely backwards.
Bellcurves are used by the social determinists to say "we can't
help being prone to violence and crime. We're stupid."
The paleos reject that argument. They are those annoying theists
that still adhere to the quaint concept of free will. I have to
side with the old fogies on this. Success in life comes in spite of
circumstances, not because of them.
Joe Allen|1.30.08 @ 3:53PM|#
Sgt Shultz:
"Are there any other stupidities I need to support, in order not to
be a statist in your eyes, or is racism the only one?"
You can't have it both ways, Kenny. You say opposing racism is not
de facto supporting statism, but that supporting Paul is de facto
supporting racism!
If you think racism is a bigger problem than statism, and that's
where you want to make you stand, great. That's a valid position to
take, but is is not a libertarian position. It is not the position
of free minds and free markets.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245