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
You Got Yr. Moneybomb
Jonathan Allen reports on the blossoming of the Ron Paul fundraising network. The candidate isn't hoarding his list of donors...
Murray Sabrin, a New Jersey Senate candidate who has been endorsed by Paul, is expecting a “moneybomb” from his own backers and Paul’s this Friday. Sabrin has raised $194,260 since launching his campaign last month, according to a calculator on his Web site.
“We’re working hard to cultivate his previous donors and Murray’s previous donors and donors across the country,” said Sabrin consultant Adam Alonso.
Republican Rep. Walter B. Jones, a fellow Iraq war critic who faces a tough primary challenge in North Carolina coastal 3rd District, has rented access to Paul’s list of donors in the state.
But Paul’s imprimatur was not limited to the list itself: He sent out an e-mail soliciting help for Jones last week.
Jones said he already has raised about $5,000 from Paul supporters, which is not an insubstantial figure in a relatively inexpensive market. Jones had raised $192,185 through the end of December, and his rival for the GOP nomination, Joe McLaughlin, had collected $78,278.
Paul says lending a hand to his friends is old hat but acknowledges it’s a bigger hat these days.
“I’ve been helping people for a long time. Nothing new about it,” he said during a brief interview in the Capitol on Tuesday. “The degree might be different but the principle’s the same.”
The anti-war right was clearly spooked by the Gilchrest defeat this month, but Paul's belatedly crafting something that hasn't ever existed: an organic fundraising community for likeminded pols. I'd be shocked if one of them attracted the personality cult that Paul has, and plenty of the Paul moneybombers are waving off politics now that they know lightning won't strike and make him the GOP nominee. But how many of them are sticking around to tweak the GOP? We're finding out now.
Christopher Monnier|2.28.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Man, are so many otherwise libertarians (e.g. Murray Sabrin) seemingly so afraid of foreigners? Open the borders! More people = better country.
|2.28.08 @ 12:48PM|#
I'm glad RP is doing this.
If Paul endorses someone and they endorse him
I'm willing to donate.
That mutual back scratching gives Paul a lot
of influence in D.C.
And hey, he could run for Pres at 76 years old.
|2.28.08 @ 12:59PM|#
You people who want open borders should set up a fund. You can
pay directly for the medical, dental, welfare, schools, colleges,
crime, courts, and restitution to families that lose loved ones to
illegal immigrants. You can also pay for an interpreter for
non-english speaking.
It's not the tax payers responsibility to support the entire
world.
If you want it.....PAY for it or shut up!
Luke Mroz|2.28.08 @ 1:02PM|#
The 2008 election cycle is the first one that the internet is
having an impact now. Grassroots supporters, from the comfort of
their own homes, can create and share media that espouses their own
views, or those of the candidate they support. It is so easy to
reach a large amount of people in such a short amount of time -
never has the average Joe had the power to influence an election so
strongly.
Please visit murraysabrin.com and support this Ron Paul endorsed
Republican! When elected as a U.S. Senator he will be going
toe-to-toe with the likes of McCain, Obama, Clinton, Kennedy, and
Lieberman!
murraysabrin.com
Christopher Monnier|2.28.08 @ 1:03PM|#
> You people who want open borders should set up a
fund...
What about all the economic and cultural benefits immigrants
bring...should all those things go into a single fund? Plus, isn't
it just a bit selfish to, having been lucky enough to be born in a
nice, wealthy, peaceful country, exclude those people who didn't
have the same birthluck?
|2.28.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Relax, highnumber. I'm sure Spanky Hernandez is just some nuclear dick with a dialect drawl.
jj|2.28.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Some of the good coming out of the revolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pMYlyxI_44&eurl=http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
It's just starting, baby!
|2.28.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Plus, isn't it just a bit selfish to, having been lucky
enough to be born in a nice, wealthy, peaceful country, exclude
those people who didn't have the same birthluck?
You're damn right it's selfish.
"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for
the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for
mine."
It's not my responsibilty to financial support anyone based on
their unfortunate "birthluck".
John Cosmotarian jackson|2.28.08 @ 1:36PM|#
What about Murray Sabrin's close association with racist nutjobs? Has he repudiated the racist criminals from his previous campaigns?
|2.28.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Plus, isn't it just a bit selfish to, having been lucky
enough to be born in a nice, wealthy, peaceful country, exclude
those people who didn't have the same birthluck?
Of course, the identical argument can be made for any country that
doesn't completely the level the income and assets of its citizens.
What is it but "birthluck" that separates those of us not born into
the Kennedy or Buffet clans from those who were?
jj|2.28.08 @ 1:42PM|#
What about Murray Sabrin's close association with racist
nutjobs? Has he repudiated the racist criminals from his previous
campaigns?
Murray's parents were holocaust survivors who fought in the
resistance in Poland. So, yeah, his father had some "close
association"s with nazi racist nutjobs. He repudiated their
existence with his rifle, I believe.
highnumber|2.28.08 @ 1:47PM|#
R C Dean,
Of course, then you would be making an argument for the use of
force to redistribute wealth, as opposed to making an argument
against the use of force to restrain the freedom of both the
immigrants and their prospective employers.
|2.28.08 @ 2:01PM|#
You people who want open borders should set up a fund. You can pay directly for the medical, dental, welfare, schools, colleges, crime, courts, and restitution to families that lose loved ones to illegal immigrants. You can also pay for an interpreter for non-english speaking.
Hey, you're the one who apparently wants to attach all that other
stuff to the immigration package. You pay for
it.
|2.28.08 @ 2:01PM|#
Of course, then you would be making an argument for the use
of force to redistribute wealth, as opposed to making an argument
against the use of force to restrain the freedom of both the
immigrants and their prospective employers.
When public services come into the picture how can we obstain from
restraining the illegal immigrants(uninvited, unsanctioned =
trespassers?) and their employers without using force to
redistribute wealth (from legal citizens and residents to illegal
residents)? If your neighbor broke into your house because it's
nicer and wealthier than yours is that justification to forcing you
to provide him with free health care and free education at your
expense?
|2.28.08 @ 2:10PM|#
If your neighbor broke into your house because it's nicer and wealthier than yours is that justification to forcing you to provide him with free health care and free education at your expense?
That analogy would work really well if it were at all
analogous.
First, it's not my house; I don't own the United States. I only own
my stuff. So he's not breaking into my house; he's just renting the
place down the block, let's say.
Second, I'm being forced to pay for everyone's health care
and education, regardless of who it is that's living down
the block. Seems like my real beef is with the folks doing the
forcing, not the poor shmoe who just moved into the
neighborhood.
Seriously, if that's your rationale for the government restricting
immigration, do you also support government restrictions on
reproduction for citizens? If no, why the hell not?
|2.28.08 @ 2:29PM|#
First, it's not my house; I don't own the United States. I
only own my stuff. So he's not breaking into my house; he's just
renting the place down the block, let's say.
I guess that's debatable at least, i would argue that in a
representative democracy that I pay for, it is my house.
I'm involved in the decision making process as a citizen, in it's
upkeep as a taxpayer, and in it's quality of life as a resident. Do
those not constitue partial ownership in the United States of
America?
Second, I'm being forced to pay for everyone's health care and
education, regardless of who it is that's living down the block.
Seems like my real beef is with the folks doing the forcing, not
the poor shmoe who just moved into the neighborhood. The blame
can't be shared? going back to my analogy the man breaking into my
home might not be the one forcing me to care for him, but does he
not still bear responsibilty for the act of breaking in and for
staying without my blessing?
Seriously, if that's your rationale for the government restricting
immigration, do you also support government restrictions on
reproduction for citizens? If no, why the hell not?
Please expand on the connection between the two. As far as I know
entering my home without my permission is tresspasing, but that
doesn't entitle me to abuse those who reside in my home, i have
sovereignty over my property but not immunity in regard to
violating the rights of those who reside there, especially when, as
they are also partial owners of that property.
|2.28.08 @ 2:36PM|#
CORRECTION:
especially when, as in you example of reproduction of
citizens they are also partial owners of that
property.
|2.28.08 @ 3:18PM|#
I want back all my tax money that's gone toward Shane's
public education.
Shane didn't go to government schools, so that would be $0.00, the
check is in the mail.
|2.28.08 @ 3:30PM|#
My parents are saints, they left my education in my hands, i think i've done fairly well. Is there a specific point of contention where you think my knowledge is lacking?
|2.28.08 @ 4:02PM|#
Of course, then you would be making an argument for the use
of force to redistribute wealth, as opposed to making an argument
against the use of force to restrain the freedom of both the
immigrants and their prospective employers.
Of course. I just don't think that class envy is a very sound basis
for policy, or, once unleashed, has ever been constrained to
enhancing rights rather than violating them.
|2.28.08 @ 4:04PM|#
First, it's not my house; I don't own the United States. I only own my stuff. So he's not breaking into my house; he's just renting the place down the block, let's say.
I guess that's debatable at least, i would argue that in a representative democracy that I pay for, it is my house.
I recently purchased a fine, historic home in a lovely
neighborhood. You can argue that it's also your house,
because you're paying for a representative democracy or some such
nonsense, but I assure you if you tried to enter it uninvited,
you'd soon find that it's not actually your house at
all.
And that's just one tiny bit of America that doesn't belong to you.
There's a whole continent's worth out there, and very, very few of
them belong to you in any way whatsoever.
Seriously, if that's your rationale for the government restricting immigration, do you also support government restrictions on reproduction for citizens? If no, why the hell not?
Please expand on the connection between the two.
1) There were X people in various ways benefiting from money the
government took from you, and someone walks across the border, and
now there are X+1.
2) There were X people in various ways benefiting from money the
government took from you, and someone has a kid in Des Moines, and
now there are X+1.
Why, in your philosophy, is 1 offensive, but not 2?
(Also please abandon the silly "they broke into my house!"
metaphor. It's a false analogy.)
|2.28.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Seems to me that the citizens of a country, through fair and
transparent decision making processes, should have the discretion
of deciding who should be allowed access to their respective
country, state, county, city, township, and homes. It also appears
to me that their elected government, as dispute arbiter and
enforcer of the decided laws rules and regulations, is charged with
enforcing what those citizens decide in regard to who is granted
access and who is not. We have private trespassing laws, if someone
violates those laws by trespassing onto my property it is the
governments role to enforce those laws and protect my property
rights from someone violating those rights, same goes to city and
state, why not national boundaries as well? If the citizens and
residents of the U.S.A. want to know who is entering their nation,
so as to discern whether those indivduals should be granted access
or not, i don't see it as an undue burden upon the government to
enforce it, and i don't see it as an undue burden upon the traveler
to have to identify themselves and to be answerable to those whose
land they wish to tread upon. the indivdual decides who is allowed
into their home, the townsfolk decide who is allowed into their
town and the citizens of the country get to decide who is allowed
into their country.
That's just my opinion of course, but i have not heard or read an
arguement yet that has convinced me that the people do not have a
right to dicriminate who has access to their property, that the
alien should be granted unrestricted and unwelcome access to
anyone's land but his own, or that the state is not the current
arbiter of such disputes. So the feds, or the states, should
enforce the border and know who is crossing it.
i could be wrong, but few seem interested in convincing me of such
outside of guilt trips about the wealth of our country and the
poverty of theirs, which i find to be irrelevant.
|2.28.08 @ 4:09PM|#
I hearby give illegal immigrants the right to cross the tiny bit of boundary between the U.S. and Mexico that I, as a U.S. citizen own. (I think it's somewhere just east of San Diego. And I think they'll have to cross sidewise.)
|2.28.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Jake Boone we are either having two different conversations or
you are purposely misunderstanding me.
The opinion you have expressed in regard to uninvited trespassers
into your personal home is an opinion i share and extend
to uninvited trespassers into our country, why is your
view valid and mine is not?
|2.28.08 @ 4:15PM|#
I hearby give
Access to your home, you can give to whomever you wish, access to
your neighbors home you should work out the details with your
neighbor, access to your country you can negotiate upon in a
democratic fashion. right?
|2.28.08 @ 4:25PM|#
Then how do they get access to my home -- or my rental property
or the job I'm trying to fill? (Not that I own rental property or a
business - just sayin'.)
I dispute the notion that a gang of voters should have the ability
to deny me the right to offer up those things to anyone, even a
Mexican.
|2.28.08 @ 4:26PM|#
The opinion you have expressed in regard to uninvited trespassers into your personal home is an opinion i share and extend to uninvited trespassers into our country, why is your view valid and mine is not?
Because you're trying to equate your right to exclude people from
your property with a right to dictate the exclusion of
people from everyone else's property. You do not
have that right.
|2.28.08 @ 4:29PM|#
First, it's not a false analogy simply because you deem it
so.
1) There were X people in various ways benefiting from money
the government took from you, and someone walks across the border,
and now there are X+1.
2) There were X people in various ways benefiting from money the
government took from you, and someone has a kid in Des Moines, and
now there are X+1.
Why, in your philosophy, is 1 offensive, but not 2?
i find them both offense, but adressing #1 does not violate
anyone's rights, no one has a right to access to another's
property, the geographic area that constitutes the U.S.A. is our
property (u.s. citizens) granted to us by birthright or
naturalization, the state has a responsibility to keep our property
rights from being violated, restricting the access of non-citizens
is not vioplating their rights it is protecting ours. While #2 also
offends me, restricting or regulating reproduction would violate
our rights, we all have a share in the country, but not with each
others bodies.
|2.28.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Because you're trying to equate your right to exclude people
from your property with a right to dictate the exclusion of people
from everyone else's property. You do not have that
right.
No i'm equating my right to exclude individuals from my property to
our right as a representative democracy to exclude anyone and
everyone who isn't a citizen/owner from our collective property,
the collective property that exists in reality and law, our nation.
And we've already made that desicion, now we just need for the
state to enforce our property rights by dispelling and expelling
uninvited trespassers..
Matt Drollette|2.28.08 @ 4:41PM|#
The "collective property" argument is ridiculous as a defense of closed borders. If all of the libertarian principles were followed and in place in our government, as our founding fathers had intended, then we could have open borders. But to advocate open borders with our current system would only drive us more in the hole. Ron Paul recognizes this fact. The problem is that our government is dramatically anti-libertarian in its current practices and to advocate open borders in this current state would be even more damaging and counter productive to ultimately having a free and prosperous country with open borders.
|2.28.08 @ 4:49PM|#
The problem, Matt, is that I don't seen any substantive, moral
difference between some random illegal immigrant from Mexico and my
neighbor up the street(except the illegal immigrant is less likely
to be on welfare).
We shouldn't justify one injustice - closed borders - because of
another - non-libertarian economic policies.
|2.28.08 @ 5:00PM|#
our right as a representative democracy
There are no collective rights. You don't have any rights in a mob
that you don't have as individuals.
enforce our property rights by dispelling and expelling uninvited trespassers..
But they are invited. If your roommate invites me into your shared
apartment, you don't have the right to shoot me as a trespasser.
Likewise, then, if you got 100% of the landowners in the US to
agree to exclude outsiders from US public lands, well, that'd be
okay, I suppose. But somebody hires these people. Somebody provides
them with housing. They're clearly not universally unwelcome. At
least some of your three hundred million roommates want these
people here. They're invited.
But as far as privately-owned land goes, if you're not the owner,
you don't have the right to dictate exclusion. Period.
|2.28.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Oh no! Dondero, Michael Young, Chapman...how can we get our dream world of mandantory $1000 ignition lock devices on cars and nuclear bombs raining down on islamic folks if we allow these racist libertarians to gain traction in the freedom loving republican party?!? where will our modern day Buckley come from? we must purge these racist who want to stop giving 30 billion dollar weapons aid packages to the House of Saud! the patriot act = spreading freedom aroudn the world....everyone knows that removing aid to radicalizing regimes in the mid-east is just another anti-semitic trick!
|2.28.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Citizen you have to understand that sometimes even us overlords
make mistakes. When we ginned up this whole war on terror thing we
thought it would be good to get martial law in place and create
trillions in military industrial complex pork. However we never
anticipated that on ligcal inconsistency in our actions could cause
so many problems.
It seems that some reptilian logic still exist in the redneck
human's brains and he cannot be brainwashed enough to believe
both
A:
there are millions of radical islamic jihadist who hate our
freedoms, just as much as the sniper hated the cans surrounding
steve martin in the jerk
and
B: there is no inherent danger in having a open border where
practically ANYONE in the world can walk straight into the country
and have absolutely no record of being in the country.
it seems that because our war on terror propaganda has been so
effective that people actually believe 5 million random folks
entering the country undocumented might present a terror risk. You
and I know that the terror risk from jihadist coming across the
mexican border is zero...but we have to think of a better way to
shut these people up. Don't argue with them about it, just call
them racist-isolationist.
Once we purge these people from serious intellectual circles we can
play up our sinophobic fantasies to get the idiot masses to fund
more military funding....AAAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH....you people are
doomed!
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|2.28.08 @ 5:47PM|#
I could be wrong, but I believe that you'll find more
anti-illegal sentiment on the pro-Iraq war side than the anti-war
side. I know I'm certainly a pro-immigration (including open
borders) and anti-Iraq war person.
I don't know whether that makes me a cosmotarian, overlordly or
otherwise. Then again, I suspect that the term cosmotarian is
nearing obsolescence, even among the .03% of internet nerds who
know what it (roughly) meant in the first place.
|2.28.08 @ 5:47PM|#
But as far as privately-owned land goes, if you're not the
owner, you don't have the right to dictate exclusion.
Period.
And if the guy you are hiring trespassed on my land to get to your
factory? Stole my ssn/credit history, so that he could be employed
by you? stole my money to get a flu shot and a math book? You don't
have any sense of national identity? As long it's it's not your
rights then it doesn't matter?
|2.28.08 @ 5:53PM|#
But they are invited. If your roommate invites me into your
shared apartment, you don't have the right to shoot me as a
trespasser.
i don't know about shooting, but i do have a right to bar him entry
and i do have a right to contact the police and have him forcibly
removed if he doesn't leave voluntarily, because though it might be
my roomates property, it's mine as well. Not allowing him to enter
or stay is not a violation of his or my roomates rights, but
allowing him to stay against my wishes is a violation of
mine.
If i'm wrong let me know.
|2.28.08 @ 5:58PM|#
by him of course i mean the person who is on my property against my wishes but at the co-owners invitation.
|2.28.08 @ 6:04PM|#
question:
If my wife and i co-own a house, we're standing in the doorway, she
invites someone in, i tell that someone they are not allowed to, he
enters the premises. Is he trespassing?
|2.28.08 @ 6:29PM|#
And if the guy you are hiring trespassed on my land to get to your factory? Stole my ssn/credit history, so that he could be employed by you? stole my money to get a flu shot and a math book?
Then your rights have been violated. And if he doesn't do those
things, then your rights haven't been violated.
If i'm wrong let me know.
See below.
If my wife and i co-own a house, we're standing in the doorway, she invites someone in, i tell that someone they are not allowed to, he enters the premises. Is he trespassing?
No. If he has a valid invitation from someone who has legal
possession of the property (your wife, your roommate, whatever), he
can't be considered a trespasser. You don't get to unilaterally
infringe on your wife's right to use her "share" of the
property.
Which is why it's not a good idea to co-own property with people
with whom you don't see eye-to-eye.
|2.28.08 @ 6:31PM|#
No. If he has a valid invitation from someone who has legal
possession of the property (your wife, your roommate, whatever), he
can't be considered a trespasser. You don't get to unilaterally
infringe on your wife's right to use her "share" of the
property.
Yeah, i just read that on another site.
damn, that kind of shoots my arguement down doesn't it...
|2.28.08 @ 6:44PM|#
i still think we should be able to say yay or nay, before california becomes the new Kosovo.
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