National Review Wonders Who Ron Paul Is

The framing introduction to this National Review chat with Ron Paul does a fairly good job summing up the set of beliefs that Ron Paul combines that give all sorts of folk who are apt to be with him on one thing reason to be against him on another. He's an anti-abortion and anti-open borders libertarian, an anti-interventionst far-right Republican, a fiscal conservative for earmarks, a hyperindividualist dogged with a racism scandal, a man the progressive left frequently loves for his views on war and privacy and the drug war who promotes free-market capitalism.

Strangely, though, this has not led him to be universally despised; for the most part, as near as I can tell, from libertarian to left to right to middle, it is more common for people to love Paul by focusing on the parts they love about him and ignoring (in some cases, being genuinely ignorant) about the rest. (For an example, see mainstream middlebrow men's mag Esquire on Paul here and here.)

Of course, the ability to just love Paul for what's lovable about him is more prevalent among the "people" such as they are then political professionals or pundits; certainly National Review itself has given him far less love than his positions on fiscal policy, abortion, immigration, and the general size of government should theoretically have deserved from the flagship conservative mag.

Some quotes from the interview itself of interest:

[Re: his new position heading the subcommittee on monetary policy]: I won’t have many new powers. It’s not about power for me. I’ll have a better position from which to publicize and get attention for my ideas....I don’t expect [his committee colleagues] to agree with every single thing, but I think they’ll be cooperative in letting me run my hearings, propose alternatives, and so on. And I expect them to support the effort to get more information from the Fed. The new people coming in certainly should be very supportive, because a lot of them ran on these issues — more transparency in the Fed....

NRO: Are you going to try to use your influence there to, as per your book title, “End the Fed”?

PAUL: Not directly. Indirectly, though, yes. The Fed will end because the system we have is not viable. All printing-money systems always end. So my goal in the book as well as in the committee is to expose the Fed for what they do, how important it is economically, why they don’t achieve what they pretend to achieve, and why they need to have more transparency. I would just like to legalize competition, legalize the Constitution, and allow people to use gold and silver as legal tender....

The remainder of the interview has Paul speaking on why he thinks the Federal Reserve and government housing policy and not deregulation are more to blame for the economic crisis; the fecklessness of QE2; what's wrong with inflation:

It’s wrong to deliberately devalue the currency, because prices go up and if your purchasing power goes down, then somebody is stealing from you. So to me, it’s theft....Bernanke brags that he can turn off inflation in 15 minutes. He can’t. There’s so much money out there, which is going back into use — commodities are going up. This idea that there is no inflation is absurd. One thing they do is they want everyone to talk about inflation as the CPI. Austrians say that inflation is when you increase the money supply — sometimes some prices go up, sometimes it starts out in land, but eventually it can be everything.

Why claiming he's trying to shift monetary power to Congress is a red herring:

I don’t want Congress to do it. People who we call Greenbackers are the ones who say Congress should print the money and pass it out and help the people they want to help. But that’s not what I want, that’s not what is in the Constitution. Nobody is supposed to regulate the money and set interest rates. I want the marketplace to set interest rates, and that means the market decides how much gold and silver circulates.

....and that he isn't committed to running, or not running, for president in 2012; and explains the nuances of his position on immigration:

The welfare state encourages our people not to work, and so then we need workers. And when immigrant workers come in, there are welfare benefits, education, and Medicare for those who come who are not legal. If there wasn’t that, I’d be pretty generous with illegal immigration.

I’m writing a book for next year, and I’m going to say I support neither amnesty for everyone nor guns and shooting people when they come over. I want immigration to be legal, but I would argue that there should be no federal mandates to provide services for illegal immigrants. Maybe immigrants would go back, then, to their families, on their own. I think it’s virtually impossible to send back 12 million people, but I don’t think we should give them citizenship. So the Left will be unhappy because they want immediate citizenship, and the Right will be unhappy because they want to send them all home. But the other day, we had that DREAM Act vote — a lot of things there I was sympathetic to. But they wanted to give them tremendous welfare benefits. I don’t like that kind of stuff.

He ends reiterating his firm defense of Julian Assange and his insistance that the GOP cannot be a party of fiscal responsibility without cutting defense spending.

My Reason cover story from 2008 on the burgeoning Ron Paul movement; I wondered in June 2007 if a libertarian Republican could appeal to Democrats.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SIV||

    I wondered in June 2007 if a libertarian Republican could appeal to Democrats.

    Well, only if they want to live in a roadless Somalia piled high with the corpses of women, the poor, minorities, the LGBTG, the elderly and former government employees ruthlessly not-ruled over by spact-clad, monocle-sporting,cigar-smoking, silk top hat wearing,slave-holding, robber baron white males. Or so I've been told...

  • SIV||

    "spat-clad"

  • SIV||

    Shit! I left out the corpses of the "differently-abled" or whatever they're known as now.

  • Desperately seeking...||

    ...new material.

  • Almanian||

    Damn - no roads? That's a deal breaker.

  • SIV||

    Lefty progs really mean "no government-subsidized rail" but as nearly everyone hates money-losing-trains-to-nowhere they substitute the universally loved "roads".Liberals are thw real road haters. They always want dedicated gas-tax funded road money for gay bicycle paths and heavily subsidized passenger choo-choo trains.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    People take publicly subsidized infrastructure for granted, not realizing that private infrastructure including publicly accessible private roads came first.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Sure. The Founder of the town I live cleared most of the roads himself, along with hired workers, with his own money. He then sold the lots he created. (1861)

    http://tinyurl.com/297swwy

  • ||

    How many men have you turned gay, rectal? Be honest.

    Ha! Trick question. The answer is of course zero as you are far too insane for any man to get with in the first place.

  • Old Mexican||

    You know how I know you're gay? Because you ride your bike in a bike path... with no seat!

  • ||

    Yep, Somalia is a libertarian utopia obviously! Aside from, you know, the U.S. bribing Ethiopia to invade them.

  • ||

    But isn't it?

    I am tired of the trope myself but Somalia has guns everywhere and a total lack of regulation.

    It mirrors the H&R mindset 100%.

  • marlok||

    I am tired of the trope myself, but Nazi Germany had gun-control everywhere and a total presence of regulation.

    It mirrors the shrike mindset 100%.

    See, anyone can make a moronic equivalence!

  • ||

    Fail. Liberals are the opposite of conservative warmongering, racist, Christian/Catholic Nazis.

  • marlok||

    You missed the point.

    Why do any of us try?

  • ||

    You lied and proffered a straw man. Nazis didn't introduce gun control - the Weimar did.

    And I fully support the 2nd - I own guns myself.

    Total fail on your part.

  • ||

    So you agree the nazis had a total presence of regulation. What a sucker, biting on the fake.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    Liberals are the opposite of conservative warmongering, racist, Christian/Catholic Nazis.

    So you're the opposite of Nazis (of the conservative warmongering, racist, Christian/Catholic type). No? But basically kindred to other nazis, like the rest of the Statist fucks. Are you not?

    By the way, nazis weren't catholic. They were pagans. And "liberals" are as warmongering as they come, especially when "their guy" does the warmongering, like Bill "Belgrade-bombing" Clinton.

  • l0b0t||

    No, Nazi Germany was very much a Christian nation. True, the Wehrmacht did replace the Eisernes Kreuz (iron cross) with the Balkenkreuz (Greek cross), but they kept Gott Mit Uns (God is with us) on their belt buckles. Also, the very 1st treaty promulgated by Schicklgruber's regime was with the Vatican. The Roman Catholic Church celebrated Hitler's birthday as a feast day until the allies made them stop in 1946 and the church did more than anybody but the US to smuggle war criminals out of Europe. There were elements within Himmler's Schutzstaffel that tried to tie modern Germany to some mythical (and wholly made up) proto-Germanic pagan past but the 3rd Reich was most certainly a Christian nation.

  • mr simple||

    Look, I've played multiple Castle Wolfensteins and seen the first three Indiana Jones movies, so I'm kind of an expert on all the mystic shit the Nazi's were into. They were not Catholic.

  • UN Man in Blue||

    Stop with the lies about Somalia, all of you. We are in charge, and we are doing a damn good job of running that country. It is well on its way to being a model of progressive governing and progressive ideas put to the task. You all will eat crow ye of little faith!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Whats the downside?

  • ||

    Printed money is theft? Once you get a bundle of dollars, you can turn right around and convert it into whatever you want if you are so afraid of inflation: gold, pearls, a bag of rice, a box of bullets, a share of Google stock -- whatever. You are only vulnerable to the "theft" of inflation if you choose to keep your dollars as currency.

    This sort of loony equivalency between some relatively subtle and complex policy problem like inflation and a debate-killing pejorative like "theft" is exactly why guys like Paul stay at the fringe, and belong there.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Danny,

    Printed money is theft?

    World - meet yet another nitwit who believes that money = wealth.

    Hey, nitwit: You cannot have money if you don't produce anything. Printing money and then pretending to exchange it for goods as if you had created goods yourself is THEFT, it's FRAUD.

    Once you get a bundle of dollars, you can turn right around and convert it into whatever you want[...]

    Yes, just like magic...

    This sort of loony equivalency between some relatively subtle and complex policy problem like inflation and a debate-killing pejorative like "theft" is exactly why guys like Paul stay at the fringe, and belong there.

    Actually, there's quite a simplistic theory behind money printing and easy credit, nothing complex about it: Mo' money = mo' production. Like magic.

    Before you even dare opine in matters you understand only superficially, it would be better for your reputation to at least read about a few economic terms or laws, and leave the adult conversation to us adults.

  • ||

    Printed money doesn't look like "theft" on April 15. Around that date the libertarian propaganda calls it "hard-earned money," or words to that effect.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Mark Plus,

    Printed money doesn't look like "theft" on April 15. Around that date the libertarian propaganda calls it "hard-earned money," or words to that effect.

    Riiight... Just like burglarizing an already ransacked house is not really burglarizing... so one should not complain!

    Mark plus logic, ladies and gentlemen.

  • ||

    The libertarian rhetoric would start to make some sense the day the IRS refused to accept fiat money for taxes, and demands payment in beaver pelts or other commodities instead. In the meantime, revel in your incoherence.

  • ||

    Excellent!

    Paulians yearn for "fiat" money while attacking a Fed they do not understand.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    Paulians yearn for "fiat" money while attacking a Fed they do not understand.

    "Yearn"? It is illegal to pay debts in anything else.

    Do YOU understand the Fed? You seem to think YOU do yet nobody else.

  • ||

    I stand by your creditor who wants US dollars.

    Which currency do you want to pay in, beaver pelts?

    Grow up.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    I stand by your creditor who wants US dollars.

    You stand by the person holding the gun on my creditor's head. Let's be clear about where YOU stand, you statist fuck.

    Become an adult - for a change.

  • sevo||

    "Paulians yearn for "fiat" money while attacking a Fed they do not understand."
    Shrike yearns for a concept shrike can understand.

  • ||

    Suck my dick.

  • .||

    What dick?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Mark Plus,

    The libertarian rhetoric would start to make some sense the day the IRS refused to accept fiat money for taxes, and demands payment in beaver pelts or other commodities instead.

    Why would libertarianism be contingent to whatever the IRS chooses to do?

    In the meantime, revel in your incoherence.

    Mine? Don't be so hard on yourself, pal.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Mark Plus,

    The libertarian rhetoric would start to make some sense the day the IRS refused to accept fiat money for taxes, and demands payment in beaver pelts or other commodities instead.

    Why would libertarianism be contingent to whatever the IRS chooses to do?

    In the meantime, revel in your incoherence.

    Mine? Don't be so hard on yourself, pal.

  • sr7||

    The libertarian rhetoric would start to make some sense the day the IRS refused to accept fiat money for taxes, and demands payment in beaver pelts or other commodities instead. In the meantime, revel in your incoherence.

    That was beyond stupid.

  • smartass sob||

    "Printed money doesn't look like "theft" on April 15. Around that date the libertarian propaganda calls it "hard-earned money," or words to that effect."

    That's because it is "hard-earned" for everyone except the Feds, who can print more of it at will. If the rest of us try printing money or writing checks that are unredeemable, we'll be told right away that it is either counterfeiting or theft by check.

  • ||

    Printed money is theft?

    To be precise, it's a means to carry out theft. That is the only purpose that fiat money has ever served: to rob the productive through counterfeiting.

    -jcr

  • robc||

    Once you get a bundle of dollars, you can turn right around and convert it into whatever you want if you are so afraid of inflation: gold

    Bullshit. If I buy gold and then later use the gold to buy rice, I get taxed on the increased (due to inflation) value of the gold.

    So the inflation hits me regardless of what commodity I try to store the value in.

  • Brian Doherty||

    Indeed, Danny. And if they don't want to worry about fluctuating currency values, they could just use those piles of stuff they turned the money into and find someone who wants some of that stuff and simultaneously has some of whatever they need, and make a trade. And eventually, in a free market, some commodity might arise that people find has certain qualities like divisibility, durability, and near universally recognized value and begin using THAT to trade with to avoid the very annoying problems of the mutual coincidence of wants....

  • ||

    I'm one of those who hasn't totally looked into Paul, but like him for what little I know.

    What racist scandal?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ray,

    What racist scandal?

    Had to do with some newsletters named after him, written by several authors, that featured some opinion pieces supposedly laden with politically incorrect content of a racial nature... or not. Depends on who tells the story. The matter was rehashed by the New Republic (of all mags) and, for some reason, gleefully "exposed" aggain by Reason.

  • SIV||

    The newsletter "scandal" was nothing. Those cosmotarian votes were always going uncast or for Obama regardless.

  • This Dave||

    "Some newsletters named after him"

    OH, COME ON! You make it sound as if some stranger were publishing a newsletter in Paul's name, unbeknownst to him! You can argue over how much, if any, responsibility he bears for those essays appearing in his newsletter, but your comment smacks of the "mistakes were made" school of bullshit taken to the next level.

  • Colonel Klink... Paul||

    "I hear nothing, I see nothing, I know nothing!"

  • AlmightyJB||

  • blubi||

    Newsletters ranting about blacks and jews. Although carrying his name, he claims someone else wrote his newletters on his behalf, which somehow excuses him.
    There´s team blue, team red and team Paul.

  • ||

    Printed money is theft?

    Let's say you loan money to the government, and they subsequently print so much new paper money it becomes devalued. When the paper you receive is worth less than you were led to believe it would be worth at the time of repayment, some people consider that to be pretty similar to theft, yes.

  • ||

    The government doesn't even "print" much money these days. Money now resembles ebooks: Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other ebook vendors can produce and sell an unbounded quantity of ebooks without cutting down trees for paper or running out of stock. Yet the price of ebooks, typically around $10-$12 per download, hasn't mysteriously collapsed despite the quantitative easing in their supply.

  • Wikiphilia||

    [Citation Needed]

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Mark Plus,

    The government doesn't even "print" much money these days.

    People don't use much printed money these days...

    Both are irrelevant when it comes to the money supply. Keep trying, Mark+... one of these days, you might actually get it.

  • ||

    Bullshit - you are out of your league. M1 is on its usual supply pace.

    Bernanke is Credit Easing which is far different than expanding currency in use.

  • jester||

    The big beef isn't what the fuck he's doing, easing or uneasing, but that he has the authority to ease or unease. Many of us respect that he is unusually smart (smarter than most of us). What we question is: Does he have ALL of the information? We doubt that and therefore 'trust' the inherently imperfect markets which despite their inherent imperfections still trump the regulators with all of their human imperfections.

  • ||

    Senate reconfirmed him about 75-25 so our system of checks and balances is at work.

    And he is on the 10-1 majority side on Fed decisions so nothing would change if he left suddenly.

    The Fed acts as a Board does with no single vote as a superior weight.

    Ron Paul is just a dunce on the topic.

  • sevo||

    shrike|12.29.10 @ 9:32PM|#
    "Senate reconfirmed him about 75-25"
    And it takes a level of ignorance only shrike can manage to conclude"
    "so our system of checks and balances is at work."

    "Ron Paul is just a dunce on the topic."
    Wooo-woooo....

  • ||

    Suck my dick.

  • .||

    What dick?

  • jester||

    Reconfirmation, even at high percentage, does not mean that checks and balances are intact. It could just as well mean anything you wished it to mean. I can see that you are passionate about your position but you don't have to assert illogical positions to assert it. Illogic: Majority assertion doesn't make something correct. Instead it may or may not be tyranny of the majority.

  • ||

    Look - with this Senate a consensus like 75-25 is rock solid in reality.

    Of course the "argumentum ad popularism" is a logical nip-twist.

    Who cares?

  • Contrarian P||

    Sort of like how the Alien and Sedition Acts passed with a majority vote.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: shrike,

    Senate reconfirmed him [Ben Bernanke] about 75-25 so our system of checks and balances is at work.

    So you follow your queues from 75 people that may not even represent you? Fascinating... like watching a child being lured to a strange van with a piece of candy.

    And he is on the 10-1 majority side on Fed decisions so nothing would change if he left suddenly.

    You don't say? Would it matter if the Federal Reserve Act was repealed? Would that change things, shrike, huh? Huh? Huh?

    Ron Paul is just a dunce on the topic.

    A case of the pot calling the kettle black.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    Bullshit - you are out of your league. M1 is on its usual supply pace.

    From when to when, Shrike???

    http://www.shadowstats.com/alt.....ply-charts

    Bernanke is Credit Easing which is far different than expanding currency in use.

    Of course! If uncle Ben says he's "easing," then it must be true! Actually, "easing" is just an euphemism.

    http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff297.html

  • ****||

    Ok, now you are just making yourself look like an idiot. M1 has increased at unprecedented levels over the last couple years (about doubled). Its MZM that has been relatively steady, because the fed is paying banks not to lend money (interest on reserves).

  • jester||

    you are metaphor-deficient. fair-enough. Comparisons to e-book discounts make that fact clear.

  • cynical||

    ebook sellers don't produce an unlimited quantity of ebooks. The ebook market still has scarcity, in the form of limited competition, in the form of copyrights. If anyone could sell any ebook, the price would indeed bottom out, making it more difficult to profit from books.

    In fact, it's more likely that books would be freely traded, and the price would be null. Anyone that wanted to profit would have to rely on old-fashioned social mechanisms like guilt, fame, and patronage to survive.

  • ||

    I just bought the Complete Works of William Shakespeare at less than a penny per play.

  • ||

    If you paid anything, ANYTHING, you got ripped off. Gutenberg.org has it for free.

  • Name Nomad||

    A slight thread-jack: http://blog.internetcases.com/.....injunctio/

    Does this ruling mean we can now reveal certain parties' sexual congress with sheep... with impunity?

  • ||

    Ron Paul represents the 19th century - bank scrip and failures, isolationism, provincialism, Creationism, Luddites, pro-monopoly conservatism, and the stupid solid South.

    More power to him - he is a party of one and best left as such.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    Ron Paul represents the 19th century[...]

    So do Fed proponents - central banking is soooo 18th Century. What's your point?

    - bank scrip and failures, isolationism, provincialism, Creationism, Luddites, pro-monopoly conservatism, and the stupid solid South.

    You make so much sense, Shrike, that I almost went through a paradigm shift. Almost.

  • ||

    C'mon - I wish RP could win the GOP nomination.

    But the SoCons and NeoCons hate him with a passion - about 80% of your party.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    But the SoCons and NeoCons hate him with a passion - about 80% of your party.

    World - meet a nitwit who, despite all my anarcho-capitalist posts, believes I subscribe to the Republican party.

  • ||

    So are you ready to denounce Jim DeMint and Jim Inhofe for the lying scumbags they are?

    If so, I will join your monkey-wrench gang.

  • sevo||

    shrike|12.29.10 @ 8:56PM|#
    "So are you ready to denounce Jim DeMint and Jim Inhofe for the lying scumbags they are?"
    have you *ever* offered an argument that didn't include a strawman?

  • ||

    Suck my dick.

  • .||

    Suck my dick.

    Suck it yourself, if you have one.

  • marlok||

    I think it would be best if you stayed in your monkey-wrenching gang of one.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    So are you ready to denounce Jim DeMint and Jim Inhofe for the lying scumbags they are?

    You mean you want me to call the lying scumbags that they are, "lying scumbags"? What would be the POINT, Shrike?

    And I work alone - a true individualist. Fuck off.

  • Contrarian P||

    Define isolationist and explain how Paul's policy is such. Last time I checked, he was for free and open trade, even with those countries we currently treat as pariahs, like North Korea and Cuba, which appears to be the exact opposite of the traditional "isolationism". He is for bringing our military home from far flung outposts and stopping overseas wars with only ephemeral connection to American security, so I guess maybe that's what you are discussing?

  • sr7||

    Isolationist to a neolib, bible of the New Republic thumper like shrike/underzog means Paul is not interested in nuking Arabs.

    He's just a typical, North Eastern tool, worshiping at the feet of status symbols that are, like the Quaalude your kid found cleaning out your mother's Gremlin, thirty years out of date.

  • Frothing Hawk Dictionary||

    i•so•la•tion•ism (º”s…-l³“sh…-n¹z”…m) n. A national policy of abstaining from invading other countries in order to install "freedom and democracy" at the point of a gun.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Assholes like shrike, and some on the right, intentionally mislabel non-interventionism with isolationism.

  • .||

    "...and the stupid solid South.

    Not too terribly bigotted, are you? And you have the nerve to accuse Paul of racism? Fucking hypocrite.

  • Mr Whipple||

    We had Free Banking and competing currencies in the 19th century? I thought we had Legal Tender Laws and The National Bank Act. Then there was that thing in 1814 to cover up the fuck-ups of the funding of the War of 1812.

  • blubi||

    and rants about blacks and zionists.
    Maybe he´s outgrown it, and he may be right about other policies he now publicly advocates, but the sun sure doesnt shine out of his arsehole the way youd think of judging by the glowing references on this site.

  • ||

    Actually, the National Review article is pretty inaccurate, as when it says that he thinks gay marriage and the death penalty should be states' rights issues, but personally "leans right;" in point of fact, Ron Paul opposes the death penalty and has said he would vote against it in any legislative body he was a part of, and believes that government at any level should not define marriage, though the states (as opposed to the federal government) have the constitutional authority to do so.

    Secondly, in response to the article on this page, Ron Paul's abortion and earmark positions are fully consistent with libertarianism and fiscal conservatism. The pro-abortion libertarian argument has to rest on the very shaky contingency that the unborn do not have rights, and not one earmark Ron Paul has ever written has had the effect of increasing net federal spending by so much as a dime; it has only redirected existing spending, which Dr. Paul voted against.

    It is hardly "strange" that Ron Paul is not universally hated; a true man of principle and defender of liberty such as he, once seen as such, will always attract the love and admiration of many.

  • ||

    I will laugh like a hyena when the GOP smacks down this "true man of principle" if he were to run for president again.

    And the sad thing is - he is better than any conservative.

    (yes - I am a Hayek liberal)

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    I am a Hayek liberal

    I am a Marxian conservative.

    Wee! This contradiction in terms game is fun!

  • ||

    except that Hayek wrote a great essay "Why I am not a conservative".

    I like to rub it in.

    I am a Buffett/Hayek capitalist who will never vote GOP.

  • sevo||

    shrike|12.29.10 @ 8:54PM|#
    "I like to rub it in."

    No need. Your ignorance is obvious without a bit of reinforcement.

  • ||

    go back to Free Republic - you fucking idiot.

  • sevo||

    You never fail to demonstrate your ignorance; thank you for being the public cess-pit at H&R.
    Pissing on you is so easy.

  • ||

    Suck my dick.

  • .||

    What dick?

  • jester||

    I don't vote for anyone. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. Does that make me amazing? Or even unamazing? Not at all. Enjoy your hubris.

  • ||

    I am a Buffett/Hayek capitalist

    The Road to Margaritaville?

    Fatal Cheeseburger: In Paradise?

  • Canadienne||

    Ignore Scott, he's a dick.

  • ||

    I have no idea what that means, but as a penguins fan it is good to see the l'habitue pk soupcan have his season turn to merde.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    except that Hayek wrote a great essay "Why I am not a conservative".

    And he wrote one where he indicates in no uncertain terms that he's no socialist [i.e. "liberal"] either:

    "Individualism And Economic Order"

    http://mises.org/books/individualismandeconomicorder.pdf

  • ||

    I am a Buffett/Hayek capitalist

    What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

    If it hadn't been for Ben Graham and Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett would probably be selling used cars.

  • ||

    Taking shots at Hayek and Buffett capitalism?

    for Munger?

    You are truly a partisan GOP hack.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: shrike,

    Taking shots at Hayek and Buffett capitalism?

    You cannot even argue coherently - P Brooks only mentions Buffet in HIS post; it was YOUR comment that he posted and replied to.

  • sevo||

    "I am a Buffett/Hayek capitalist"
    What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

    A brain-dead lefty who hopes that silly claims might fool someone.

  • ||

    Suck my dick.

  • .||

    Suck it yourself, bend-over boy.

  • .||

    Creativity? Who in hell was attempting to be creative? His retort doesn't merit the effort of that. Just being insulting is sufficient.

  • sr7||

    Rather displays Blakean levels of creativity in her every post, nay, her every word and phrase, and she expects no less of anyone else.

  • ||

    For some reason I've never considered "suck my dick" to be a reasoned and intelligent reply to any criticism. Am I missing something?

  • Bobby "McFerrin" Libertarian||

    Don't worry. Suck my dick.

  • ||

    Of course they hate Ron Paul. He's willing to setback by about 200 years the power grab both parties have built.

  • smartass sob||

    Yeah, well...I don't think Ron Paul is looking for any absolute power. On the other hand, I'm not sure I can say the same for the present administration.

  • creech||

    Because men aren't angels, eternal vigilance - even of Ron Paul - is the
    price of liberty. Can you name even one politician you'd completely trust??

  • robc||

    Calvin Coolidge. But only because he is dead.

    Most of the other dead politicians I still dont trust. Zombie Cal would only want my brains and he would be honest about it.

  • l0b0t||

    Yes, I can name four: Thad McCotter, Justin Amash, Jeff Flake, & Dennis Kucinich. While I disagree with just about every opinion Rep. Kucinich holds, he is thoroughly honest & upfront about his socialist/collectivist goals. Also, Coolidge rules; he was a very underrated POTUS.

  • ****||

    Agreed about Coolidge, but too bad he didn't kill the fed.

  • ||

    ""Absolute power corrupts and you can bet your ass that if Ron Paul had it he'd be absolute corrupt too.""

    Paul isn't seeking power, well, none that isn't authorized by the Constituion anyway and that's the difference.

    When asked by Cobert if he would do away with the IRS, Paul responded, I can't, but I will work with Congress to do so.

    People who are power grabbers would have said they will do so without caring what the Constitution says. That's the difference.

  • CJ||

    Do you ever wonder why such opposing philosophies are engaged in the same pursuit?

    What opposing philosophies?

  • Leverage Poodle||

    "My Reason cover story from 2008 on the burgeoning Ron Paul movement;..."

    Free beer tomorrow!

  • ||

    I appreciate, respect, and support Ron Paul. I don't agree with all his positions, but I am forced to admit that *all* his positions are grounded in adherence to the Constitution and unwavering support for personal liberty and freedom.

    So in the cases where I disagree with Ron Paul, I am forced to admit his position is backed up by adherence to Constituional principles, and sometimes my own positions fall short of this standard.

    Ron Paul was the right choice in 2008, he started the tea party movement, and he is still the right choice in 2012!

  • ||

    What I like about RP is that he is VERY genuine and optimistic when he talks about other people. He always seems to see the best in people and focuses on the issues. He is really a gentleman and very modest.

  • ||

    ""He is really a gentleman and very modest.""

    Sadly, there is no room for those folk in politics. You need to make the citizenry think you're an over the top do gooder. People vote for those who claim they will fix thing using power that is not granted to them. They want superman, not Clark Kent.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement