The Ron Paul Family Saga, and Paul's Newest Hit on Gingrich

Beneath a strangely reductionist headline focusing only on his intention to not take a huge salary as president, Allen G. Breed at Huffington Post delivers a meaty Paul profile with focus on Paul's younger days and family. Some highlights:

Paul's grandfather, Casper, fled the economic wreckage of post-World War I Germany and went to work in the Pittsburgh steel mills at age 14. Ron Paul grew up on stories about rampant inflation and the dangers of paper currency.

"I remember my grandmother wanting to hang onto some property my dad thought she should sell," he says. "And she said, `No. The money might go bad.'"

Casper eventually saved up enough to buy some land outside the city. He started a small vegetable and chicken farm, then opened a dairy, which his sons eventually took over and relocated to nearby Carnegie. Ron Paul's first job was making sure no dirty bottles made it to the filling crates. He was paid a penny per bottle; when they were old enough, the Paul boys – all five of whom shared one bedroom – took over the summer milk routes to give the drivers some time off.

His brother Jerry says Ronnie was no goodie two-shoes. In fact, he was kicked out of school – twice. The first time was for allegedly bribing a grade school chum "two bits" to throw a baseball through a window. The second was for bringing firecrackers to Dormont High – and that time he ratted on himself.

"He couldn't stand the principals who were dictatorial," Jerry says. "He would call them fascists."

Paul also served in the armed forces, unlike most of his opponents who want to use them profligately:

Paul went on to attend Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, N.C. During his second year of residency in Detroit, Paul got a letter from the Selective Service. He could be drafted into the Army as a "buck private," or join as a physician and receive an officer's commission.

"I volunteered immediately," he says, chuckling.

Paul served two years in the Air Force as a flight surgeon and three more in the Air National Guard. While he did not see any action, he says he's seen enough of war's aftermath to convince him "the way we go to war so often is the reason that we have difficulty getting out of war.

"My firm belief is that the founders were absolutely correct in going to war very, very cautiously, very, very rarely," he told [a] Greenville [North Carolina] crowd. "And NOT by one individual deciding."

A nice bit that sums up something very real about Paul's appeal--and, via the voice of one of Paul's own brothers, the reasons he lacks appeal to some:

By speech's end, Todd Bennett, 45, of nearby Farmville, is sweating and hoarse.

"He's not the most charismatic man, by any stretch," says Bennett, a hospital supply courier and father of 10-year-old twin boys. "He's not got the greatest delivery by any stretch. But the words he says lights a fire in my soul. I'm ready to run through a brick wall for him."

Paul inspires that kind of devotion. But there are many naysayers, even among those who know him best. Jerry Paul, a retired Presbyterian minister and registered Democrat, says his brother "does not appreciate the depth" of human sinfulness and selfishness. He goes as far as to call Ron Paul's philosophy "kind of naive." Life is complicated, he suggests.

"Freedom, to me, really comes with responsibility ... to work together with others in the political realm, to work on behalf of the governed," he says. "That we're going to have a safety net ... Who else is going to do that, other than our political structure?"

The candidate freely acknowledges that the free market "is not perfect." But he says it adjusts for its mistakes.

"I think the people who assume that a few people in Washington, the bureaucrats and the politicians, know what's best for us, and we can trust them, that's being REALLY naive," he says.

In other Paul campaign news today:

* Paul's campaign introduced today its second web video attacking Newt Gingrich explicitly. The look is all cybersleek and cyberominous, with all the somewhat antique-future feel that implies, as we see a viewer make those computer-age gestures to sweep images and clips in and out of view, images dedicated to convincing us Newt Gingrich is selling out principles for access and lucre.

As someone (and I'm not alone in this, I know) who loved Paul (among many other reasons) for his lack of the hoary old political opponent attack gene, I can't say I'm thrilled with this ad, or its predecessor, or its focus on the notion that Gingrich making lots of money makes him a corrupt insider. (Not that he isn't a corrupt insider.) Still, this is the sort of thing that marks a campaign as "serious," and I'm sure I'm in a minority. Here it is:

* Speaking of Gingrich and Paul, even Christian Zionist Glenn Beck is so down on the Newt he would be willing to vote for a third-party Paul over Gingrich (despite his disagreements with Paul on the U.S. role in defending and supporting Israel).

U.S. News joins the self-regarding campaign of "the media is taking Ron Paul seriously because the media is taking Ron Paul seriously" stories, but its sure better than the self-perpetuating years of not taking Ron Paul seriously. Some highlights:

Paul's vision of libertarianism is probably the clearest of all the candidates' messages, an important asset at a time when many voters are upset with politicians who compromise their principles and break their promises. His backers are probably the most passionate of anyone's in the race, and people are volunteering for him in droves. And he is getting some of his most positive news coverage since he entered the campaign.

On NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday, Paul said Republican front runners Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney "come from the same mold" because they have both changed their minds on fundamental issues so frequently. He said all his opponents for the GOP presidential nomination "fit into the status quo."

Paul is tied for second place with Romney, behind Gingrich, in Iowa, the first state to hold a nominating contest with caucuses on January 3. according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll.

Beyond that, he is in third place in New Hampshire, which holds the first primary on January 10. A good showing in Iowa should lift Paul there and in other early-voting states.

While it isn't out for five months and the cover hasn't been designed yet, my forthcoming book about Ron Paul and the Ron Paul Revolution is now listed on Amazon.

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.

  • Hobie Hanson||

    "Paul's grandfather, Casper, fled the economic wreckage of post-World War I Germany and went to work in the Pittsburgh steel mills at age 14. Ron Paul grew up on stories about rampant inflation and the dangers of paper currency."

    Great, so a bumper crop of Ron Pauls are probably being produced among children in low-information teabagger households. I shutter for the future of our country.

  • Sevo||

    "Great, so a bumper crop of Ron Pauls are probably being produced among children in low-information teabagger households. I shutter for the future of our country."

    I'd bet you're stupid enough to think that meant something.
    Other than you're an idiot.

  • The Adventures of Hobie||

    Hobie, holed up in the couch seat cushion "fort", hangs his "No Gurlz Allowed" sign and starts his evening ritual of masturbating to the latest Paul Krugman column.

    Suddenly, his mother - already into her second bottle of Old Overholt Whiskey - stumbles across the living room and knocks over the carefully-placed couch components at just the wrong moment.

    Temporarily blinded in one eye by her son's premature ejaculation, she proceeds to rub her face in the litter box, much to the dismay of the family ferret.

    ...to be continued...

  • Warty||

    Terri finally got the front door unlocked and opened. But as she turned to run outside, the sight of dozens of dead cats in the front yard stopped her cold. They had not been there two hours ago when she had run out to buy cigarettes, but now they blanketed the lawn, quiet and still. Terri turned back around.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    How the fuck do you "shutter"[sic] for the future of anything?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Just find things that can be shuttered (ie camera lens), and shutter the hell out of them. For the future of America.

  • Hobie Hanson||

    I'm an arrogant prick!

  • Max||

    Wanna give each other handjobs, Hobie?

  • Sevo||

    ""Freedom, to me, really comes with responsibility ..."
    Fail.

  • flacid tuna||

    It's as if he doesn't understand America at all.

  • Sevo||

    Correct: "Unalienable".
    That means I do not negotiate for my freedom.

  • Tony||

    Okay... so you don't agree not to murder people in exchange for your freedom?

  • ||

    Tony translated:

    Selling 100 watt incandescent light bubs is murder.

  • ||

    It's "inalienable" and that's not what it means. And the D of I has as much legal standing as Sweatin' With The Oldies anyway.

  • robc||

    Bullshit. Its the document that makes our separation from Britain legal.

    That and winning a war.

  • ||

    The Declaration is much, much, much more important than laws and legalities. It provides a conceptual and philosophical framework for our country. And the US, being the Great Experiment, is not a political entity with citizens who share a common language and heritage and lineage with each other. If we all shared a common birthplace with all other countrymen, we would need no conceptual framework for a country and a governmnet. In Europe,these nations had governmnets that evolved over time and citizenries that coalesced through centuries. We created a governmnet and a country, so our underlying philosophy, morals and goals for our new nation were stated in the Declaration. The Declaration stated who we were and who we wanted to be, and therefore undergirds all our hopes and guiding standards for our new country. It is much more important than any list of rules in a legal system.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Ya, that.

    Plus, I consider the Constitution a subsidiary document to the Declaration of Independence.

  • ||

    I'm sure he has a more "positive" sort of responsibility in mind, but at the very least freedom comes with a responsibility to respect others' rights, no?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    You have the responsibility to respect others' rights whether or not you're free.

  • Rebellious goth teenager||

    Agreed.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Sevo,

    Fail


    Paul meant responsibility for your own actions, S. Freedom does not mean a free pass for everything you do, as your freedom is limited by the freedom of everybody else: That's where the boundary lies.

    People like Tony the Pederast believe that free people would act as animals, being an unthinking animal himself whose ass belongs to pimps in DC (as he himself implied at one time.) I believe, instead, that a free people would act with responsability, with the few exceptions of criminals and the insane, although that is what a Smith and Wesson is for.

  • Warty||

    Jerry Paul, a retired Presbyterian minister and registered Democrat, says his brother "does not appreciate the depth" of human sinfulness and selfishness. He goes as far as to call Ron Paul's philosophy "kind of naive."

    What kind of prick tries to sabotage his brother's campaign? What a useless fuck.

  • Sevo||

    "What kind of prick tries to sabotage his brother's campaign?"

    Nope.
    If I were, say, Stalin's brother, I'd do my damndest.
    Problem is (see ""Freedom, to me, really comes with responsibility ...") his brother isn't real bright.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    … his brother isn't real bright.

    That became self-evident as soon as I got as far as "retired Presbyterian minister".

  • anarch||

    Stalin is the new Godwin totem?

    'Bout time we traded up.

  • Sevo||

    Ya know, I avoided what's-his-name to avoid godwinning it.
    And I have to believe Stalin *isn't* godwinning it to lefties; they still think he was sorta 'misunderstood'.

  • Tony||

    You avoided calling everyone Hitler just because it would make you look like an idiot?

    Ever consider that simplistic hyperbole was stupid all by itself?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Bushitler" ring a bell?

    Anyway, it's stupid to use the Hitler reference these days, as it takes a LOT to get to that level of evil.

    Mussolini, OTOH...

  • ||

    hyperbole is always funnier and more thoughtful then irony....and I say that as a card carrying member of generation x.

  • Tony||

    What exactly is your problem with that sentiment?

    So you expect everyone else to graciously permit you maximum freedom, and in exchange you don't have to do anything, and hence your system is morally superior?

  • TONY||

    YOU ARE PROPERTY OF THE SYSTEM NOW AND FOREVER

  • JEP||

    Tony,

    At some point, you need to realize that the only thing that's keeping someone from killing the person next to them is self control...not government, not consequences, not laws.

    No one "grants me freedom." As Heinlein said, "I'm free because I know I'm morally responsible for everything I do."

    Government doesn't give or take away freedom. Government is simply a ruse society buys into that determines consequences.

  • Tony||

    You are granted freedom because people are forbidden from enslaving or murdering you. Without police, it would happen sooner or later. "Morally responsible" is technically still responsibility, the thing sevo has such a problem with, but it's hardly as potent as the actual responsibility that comes with living in a civilized society.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Gotta disagree on one thing, JEP... government can and does take away freedom.

    Right now, Team Blue is in charge of doing that. Someday, Team Red will reclaim that power.

  • ||

    Throughout history, governmnet does the enslaving or codifies the enslavement. (example: U.S) Slaves can really only be held by the elite,and the elite (whom you hate so much) make the laws and then set up the system that enforces those laws (police) What country are you thinking of whre the ruling class is not the class that owns the slaves and ensures that they cannot escape their servitude through the legal system enforced by the police? In the US, there is still only one form of involuntary servitude, and it's enslavement to the governmnet: Selective Service.

  • ||

    "Selective Service"

    Or the prisoners in prison work camps.

    http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/.....labor.html

    2 million prisoners(slaves) more than most countries.

  • ||

    In 1860 we had 3.9 million slaves...now we have 2 million AND we have the love/admiration and goodwill of all the regular sheeple because we aren't racist any more. It is a wonderful thing to be a overlord.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Question Begging Pederast,

    You are granted freedom because people are forbidden from enslaving or murdering you. Without police, it would happen sooner or later.


    You are not free to kill because you're forbidden from being free to kill. Nice going, Aristotle.

    By the way, since government did not give me a mind, government did not grant me freedom. I am free because I have a mind, not because there's government. You should have stopped looking at young lads during these alleged "philosophy" classes you took during the "best years" of your life, pederast.

  • ||

    Tony believes you are free because "someone" grants you freedom. If you must be granted freedom, then you are simply not free. To need permission to have something is the antithesis of freedom.

  • Hobie Hanson||

    "If I were, say, Stalin's brother, I'd do my damndest."

    So would he. and he would win.

  • Hobie Hanson||

    God, I am SOOOO full of shit.

  • ||

    Right, because it's completely the opposite of naive to believe that the "sinfulness and selfishness" (talk about letting your loaded Christian morality dictate your political views) of some humans can be cured by giving a lot of power to some other humans in Washington, DC.

  • ||

    But God is on his side, Graphite. So he wins...or something.

    Seattle up 13 to 3...I am waiting to see in what spectacular way they'll blow this lead.

  • ||

    Beast Mode!

  • ||

    And they didn't blow it. 30-13. I'm surprised. And Lynch is a fucking steamroller.

  • Cytotoxic||

    "Freedom, to me, really comes with responsibility ... to work together with others in the political realm, to work on behalf of the governed," he says.

    Jerry Paul quote patched for bullshit.

  • Butts Wagner||

    "That we're going to have a safety net ... Who else is going to do that, other than our political structure?"

    You're a Christian minister FFS! I thought you guys traveled the world preaching to the poor and giving them support.

  • ||

    Sibling rivalry never goes away, apparently.

  • SIV||

    The Unabomber's bro' comes to mind.

  • ||

    And his name isn't even Roger!

  • ||

    On the flipside, Newt's sister is a lesbian gay rights activist and said she'd do everything in her power to keep him from being elected.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Ron Paul: "Arn Shitty!"

  • robc||

    I think I agree with Brian a bit about the ads. They look good, high quality, but Im not sure I fully support the entire direction of the attack on Newt.

    But its a minor nit (or newt).

  • Sevo||

    Did the ad make inaccurate claims about Newt?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Newcular is attempting to cast himself as a tea-party conservative. He intruded on Ron Paul's home turf.

    Romney's not pretending to be a principle-driven conservative.

  • LuLu Rockwell||

    I think Ron Paul is running, like, for real, this time. You know, trying to win- not just an exercise in spreading philosophy. This Newt dude has gotten a pass and is now the anointed Republican conservative leader. If something doesn't bring him down in the next 3 weeks he's going to have an easy road to the nomination.

  • Clevelandite||

    I definitely see merit in this argument. It'd be best, obviously, if Paul could get his message across without resorting to mudslinging, and the new ads feel discomforting at times. But at the same time, if he's going to savagely attack someone, that someone ought to be a reprehensible douchecanoe like Newt Gingrich.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Sometimes you have to shame people out of voting for turd sandwiches which I think is the ultimate goal of the ad. Ron is shaming them, and they fucking deserve to feel ashamed supporting any of the establishment hacks. If they don't feel ashamed, they must still think deaths of 4,000,000 Vietnamese are still worth it (Yes, we all know Ann Coulter wishes that number was somewhere north of 10 million).

  • ||

    And if Newt gets the nomination, it makes it all the more likely he'll run as a third party candidate, as he's made his utter revulsion very publicly known. Of course, the others have no redeeming qualities either.

  • chris||

    You want a fight over principle, or do you want a nice guy whose cause is long forgotten because he didn't even leave a mark or bruise on the establishment? In reality, who keeps their dignity intact?

  • Cytotoxic||

    He said all his opponents for the GOP presidential nomination "fit into the status quo.

    Really doctor? Johnson all status quo? Huntsman too?

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Johnson kind of hit status-quo territory when he announced his support of FairTax, and Huntsman is just another ivory-tower egghead.

  • Cytotoxic||

    FairTax is not remotely status quo, and Huntsman is proposing some real meaningful changes.

  • ||

    dude your attitude makes ppl dislike rp

  • ||

    Isn't Huntsman out?

  • SIV||

    No, that's that Johnson fellow. Huntsman is testing the waters for an independent run.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Wait what? Johnson's not out yet.

  • JC||

    I think Huntsman announced yesterday he wouldn't go third party

  • ||

    Betting he'll drop out and endorse Romney.

  • ||

    Poor Johnson, but throwing a caveat in every speech where you're trying to stand out from the crowd is a bit awkward.

  • ||

    This is my real beef with Paul's campaign. In any other circumstance I'd be more than happy to vote Paul in the primary, as Johnson probably won't be around by the time Texas gets here.

    But the fact that Paul's campaign acts like Johnson doesn't exist and does not distinguish him from the rest of the field as far as principles are concerned makes me disgusted, especially when the Paul campaign complains about how the media is "ignoring" him. They should offer the same defense for Johnson and ask for his inclusion in debates (having been there in 2008), but obviously they don't want Johnson stealing some of his constituency. I understand the maneuver, but it seems like they're burning bridges needlessly and making Johnson's supporters not feel welcome.

  • ||

    yes paul should be campaigning for other libertarians as well. What does he think he has been the only one campaigning and organizing for 6 years?

  • ||

    I don't think he should campaign for Johnson, just that Paul and his campaign should acknowledge Johnson's existence, give him credit for not being like the rest of the pack and request that he is in debates.

    If Paul truly cares about liberty, another voice onstage giving him credence doesn't hurt him. Even if Paul were to lose the libertarian constituency to Johnson and drop out (unlikely), Johnson would pick him up as VP if he got the nomination. More voices for liberty = more win. And if Johnson were onstage attracting a broader audience than Paul did but still losing and dropping out, he'd send Paul a bigger following than he currently has. As Johnson's likely to drop out after NH, you'd think Paul would be courting those voters instead of insulting and marginalizing them.

  • Max||

    If Ron Paul had the slighest chance of winning the nomination, journalists (real ones, not hacks like Brian Doherty) would be digging into his rightwing extremist past and coming up with all kinds of disgusting shit. As it is, the boring old fuck and his faithful halfwit followers are can bask in irrelevancy. The anti-Newt ad is pretty good, though.

  • LuLu Rockwell||

    Didn't people dig last time around? I know there were empty threats by some unstable Stormfront-types that they had bigger dirt and were going to unleash it in 2008. Never happened.

  • Max||

    There's that truckload of racist newsletters and his connection to the John Birch Society, for starters. There's bound to be more. You don't muck around in the gutter and stay clean.

  • Sevo||

    Max|12.12.11 @ 10:58PM|#
    "There's that truckload of racist newsletters and his connection to the John Birch Society,..."

    Gee, Max, the same horseshit and, oh boy, a lot of innuendo!
    How surprising from such a shitstain!

  • Max||

    Inuendo? The newsletters exist and have been read and commented on, including here, you fucking dimwit. Pull your head out of your ass and take a breath.

  • Sevo||

    "Inuendo?"

    Yes, shitstain:
    Max|12.12.11 @ 10:58PM|# "There's bound to be more."
    BTW, don't bother to pull you head out of your ass; the world will show a gain in average IQ when you suffocate.

  • Max||

    Okay, idiot. Do you deny the existence of the fucking racist newsletters?

  • Sevo||

    Max|12.12.11 @ 11:48PM|#
    "Okay, idiot. Do you deny the existence of the fucking racist newsletters?"

    No, shitstain, I don't deny their existence.
    Do you deny that RP has addressed the issue?

  • Hobie Hanson||

    We need him to name names.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hobie, would you give half a shit about these newsletters, if Ron Paul were a Democrat?

    I think we know how Max would answer...

  • Jeesum H. Crowbar||

    Attacks and namecalling aside, I think folks are living in a fantasy world if they think Ron Paul will survive for ten minutes once coverage and dissection of those newsletters become mainstream media fodder. He's never explained them away satisfactorily, as frankly no such explanation exists.

    Folks like him because they're fed up with the status quo. Liberally inclined independents think Paul's far better than the average conservative, in terms with which they sympathize. Once things like the newsletters become the stuff of extensive CNN stories, you can kiss that perception and a huge chunk of independent voters goodbye.

    I'm an "Atlas Shrugged and Human Action on my nightstand," real-deal libertarded kook, who genuinely likes Dr. Paul, and I'd be reluctant to vote for him as a result of his past (reluctant, as I'd still vote for him almost certainly). And regardless of whether or not you feel the same, you have to acknowledge that many others will when those newsletters become the stuff of media fixation, which they will if Paul keeps doing so well.

  • chris||

    Okay, idiot. Do you deny the existence of the fucking racist newsletters?

    Who really the fuck cares in 2011 about racism beyond the fact you can use it as a bat to score points with, you disingenuous piece of shit.

    I could not give three shits to the wind
    whether or not Paul would let me fuck his daughter, or spits past me when I walk by, so long as he keeps his promise to leave me the fuck alone, we're square.

  • The Angry RPh||

    I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that none of the morons who keep mentioning the newsletters have bothered to, you know, ACTUALLY READ ANY OF RON PAUL'S FUCKING BOOKS!

    He makes it pretty clear what he thinks about racism.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why are you so fixated on this, Max? Surely you have something better to do.

  • ||

    Considering that Paul worshippers have thrown out the "if your name is on it and you were paid for it you wrote it" standard, how do we know he even wrote any of the books bearing his name?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    One need not "worship" Paul (which is a bit hyperbolic, seriously) to not really want to give a shit who wrote a bunch of newsletters back in the day.

    It's just not that important, in the here and now. Paul, himself, doesn't display the kind of David Duke-y hatred necessary to be an actual racist - and let's not get into that nebulous "subtle racism" and "dog-whistle" psychological gim-crackery on display four nights a week on MSNBC... that shit's old and tired.

    More important stuff awaits.

  • chris||

    I don't blame you for liking Romney. I have nothing negative to say about him beyond policy matters because he is personable. However, he'll never win because he is too nice of a guy, and the democratic machine is evil incarnate.

    Not saying the Republicans aren't evil, they are just a more traditional kind of evil, graft and nationalism, and they are still quite worthy of hating for the limitations they place on our political choices. However, at this point in our history, the democratic machine has morphed into something entirely different. A goddamn Borg.

    Witness their reaction in Wisconsin last Spring. It is a Goddamn Borg and only their more traditionally evil elements motivated by human degrees of sin really reigns that in to any degree.* How long does that last? As their policies produce worse and worse results their commitment to those policies only grow.

    Some well placed Dems (by a Republican administration, no less) managed to pull off a doozie of an October surprise in '08, and they had most of the cards (though the polls were shakey for Obama in the weeks leading up to the Palin reveal. What are they willing to do when their record has produced a busted flush?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Max,

    There's that truckload of racist newsletters.


    You're nothing more than a liar, pet yorkie. The young idiot Kirchick only found a few sentences out of thousands that could be labeled as "offensive" and they were not even writen by Paul. That is why the Media (which is still populated by people smarter than you) have not taken this story at all, because there's nothing there to see.

    You are grasping at straws or simply trying to piss off people, but you come out as a sad little pip of a person. I pity you.

  • Max||

    Maybe you can't count with Ron Paul's dick in your mouth, asshole.

    "I've got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning."--Nick Gillespie

  • ||

    "Jerry Paul, a retired Presbyterian minister and registered Democrat, says his brother "does not appreciate the depth" of human sinfulness and selfishness. He goes as far as to call Ron Paul's philosophy "kind of naive." Life is complicated, he suggests."

    "That's why *I* believe in supernatural beings," he went on to say...

  • Joseph Zrnchik||

    Dr. Paul was asked how it was he could consider getting rid of Social Security. The announcer said people need that "program". Dr. Paul pointed out that leaving retirement in the hands of government will eventually (with mathamatical certainty), result in nobody having any retirement money after having paid into it a lifetime. Dr. Paul pointed out that the free market is not perfect, but in every respect it is better than what the government can provide. Consider this in light of the fact that what has essentially happened is that the government has already given everyones' retirement money to the banking industry. Still want them to be in charge of your retirement? The only hope your children will have is if their retirement is left in their hands.

  • ||

    Even though he has no chance at the nomination, Paul has definitely done the nation (and the GOP) a great service by destroying Rick Perry and now starting to chip away at Newt.

    Mitt better offer him the treasury secretariship next year.

  • Mitt Romney||

    Mitt better offer him the treasury secretariship next year.

    OH GOD MY SIDES is what I would say if I were capable of human emotion. Anyways: no.

    How does it taste down there btw?

  • The Angry RPh||

    "Mitt better offer him the treasury secretariship [sic] next year."

    You're assuming that Romneybot will win in RP's stead. If the GOP doesn't nominate RP, I hope he runs as an independent, blows the GOP to pieces, and Obama gets ushered right back in. Screw 'em. I'm nothing if not a vindictive sumbitch. And it really doesn't matter which of the other bloodthirsty psychopaths sits at the controls of the war machine for the next four years.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I increasingly favor this. Operation Fuck Everything.

  • ||

    That's not very enlightenedly self-interested of you.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Can't speak for RPh, but it's in my self interest because its fucking hilarious to hear the wailing and gnashing of Neocon teeth, as the Democrats prove(beyond a shadow of a doubt) that they can drive this shitbox of country just as bad as Bushie Jr. and Darth Cheney if not worse. Seeing the fucking train wreck brought on by people like you makes me laugh, hence self-interest. And hell, if I killed in the chaos, at least I won't have to pay taxes again so people like you can harp about fictions like the Social Contract and other assorted horseshit.

  • ||

    Speaking for myself, self interest means that I would would sacrifice current happniness for future generations...so I'd be happier having a bad 15 years now if I thought it would make things better for my children as they get older and start to hit their 20's. So yes I do see the fuck the rpublicans contigenent as being at one with enlightened self-interest...much more so than the "please don't let the government stop giving me other peoples money" self-interest crowd.

  • Tony||

    It's understandable why Paul and his flock never admit to the more horrific implications of their system--if they acknowledged them they'd be forced to find a better system. It must be just a big self-serving blind spot. I hate to think what the moral sentiment must be behind a libertarian who is actually aware of the negative consequences of his beliefs. Probably something like: if you're poor it's your fault, fuck you. At the very least it's not politic. Though it is in keeping with the anger behind every other one of Paul's political beliefs, which apparently originated in childhood with Paul being angry that a school principal punished him for bringing explosives into a school.

    "Fuck you and your burn wounds children I want to play!" --Libertarianism

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Beats the fuck out of starry-eyed neo-socialist "everyone gets a trophy" bullshit theory.

  • Tony||

    A perfect example of the mind-muddling abstractions of libertarians. It's not trophies, it's food and shelter and maybe, god forbid, healthcare security. Sorry if that makes you feel like less of a winner. Don't worry, there will likely always be poor children you can mock and blame for their problems to feel better about yourself. Because all of life is apparently like primary school.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There is NO way to have the egalitarian wonderland your Team espouses, Tony.

    The "trophy" reference, apparently, went over your head. Figure it out on your own, or don't... I give half a shit.

    You might want to consider what would happen if you got your wish, and the top tax rate went back up to that miracle-inspiring 39.6% level:

    In that case, I would predict in less than three months, your Team would demand another tax increase, after finding out the hard way that extra nickel on the dollar isn't going to fix Jack Shit.

    Just to make you and your fellow Team Members feel better over a pyrrhic victory.

    Keep telling yourself we can tax our way to prosperity. Keep convincing yourself we can spend people out of poverty. God, this shit is funny.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What's wrong tonight, Tony? Several posts on this thread, and you have yet to mention "throwing grandmothers out to live in poverty on the streets" or whatever the fuck your latest fetish is.

    You're off your game, Sparky.

  • Tony||

    So it's okay that you want to cut poor people off from all possibility of being upwardly mobile because we can't achieve an egalitarian utopia, so why bother?

    No convoluted mental blocks here. I imagine it takes some work to defend as the most moral possible system one that leaves the most possible people vulnerable, sick, and dead.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Uh, yeah, okay... you got me. I *want* poor people to die. It's a fair cop.

    Are you really that dense? Even with that college education?

  • Tony||

    No, I don't think you want poor people to die. I think you refuse to think about it. You distract from that reality with abstractions or fantastic suppositions such as that poor people would all do better under your system because the lack of food would be extra motivating.

  • Brandon||

    What the hell are you talking about? Are you arguing with your own strawmen now? In a free market, what incentive would there to let people starve? Now, under a government monopoly or restricted market, I could see the motivation, since one party could cause the price of food to skyrocket by restricting its supply, but do you honestly think that someone in a free market would purchase every single parcel of land on earth just to make food more expensive? Is that really a possibility in your mind? In a free market, if the price of food starts to go up, more people will start producing food, coming up with better ways to produce more food and better ways to distribute it to reduce spoilage, because that is where the profits will be, for the most part. Jesus Christ, at least come up with some bullshit that isn't self-contradictory.

  • Tony||

    I don't think free market actors have any incentive at all to ensure universal access to basic needs. If you think so, can you at least explain how that works, because I know you can't give any examples of it working.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    At least you acknowledged the futility of egalitarianism... you have redeemed yourself by one point.

    Millions to go, though.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    How many billions have we spent on the War on Poverty, Tony? How many decades has this futile battle been fought?

    What do we have to show for all that effort and expenditure?

  • Hey...||

    ...fuck you!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hey... thanks for the backup, stranger.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Anyway, off to bed... some of us have to work for a living.

  • Brandon||

    Is it possible that Tony is just another Rather alter? He seems to be going fairly manic in this thread, ignoring actual responses and slaughtering his own strawmen about libertarians with reckless abandon. Oh, I see, he just forgot to change the name to White Indian.

  • ||

    You guys need to listen to Tony. He is right, I am very thankful that the government has given me many many homes, first I bet on some bond prices and that didn't work out. I was helping bid up the prices of homes across the country by issuing shit mortgages with zero documentation. But the governemnt helped me out because I sold all those mortgages to the government! Who else would have been so thoughtful and kind?!

    Then I started a fund to buy up mortgages that were in the foreclosure proccess(the government helped spot me the money for hat too!) and now that their are a bunch of vagrants in the homes my group now owns the government is helping me again as I need someone to kick these vagrants out of my homes.

    Then I bought a was left holding the title to a bunch of homes at least

  • TONEY||

    FUCK YOU AD YOUR RIGHTS I WANT TO PLAY WITH THEM! - Liberalism

  • The Angry RPh||

    Spoof. C-

  • Fluffy||

    Probably something like: if you're poor it's your fault, fuck you.

    As we've discussed about a billion other times, the issue of the poor person's fault never arises. The question is whether it's MY PERSONAL fault.

    That has always been the question.

    You are obsessed with the idea that the refusal to support forcible redistribution of property or income somehow constitutes a negative moral judgment of the poor, when that's completely unnecessary.

    Your own blind spot is that you completely refuse to see that taking property or income from me to give to someone else constitutes a negative moral judgment of ME. You are saying, "You have committed some immoral act, and we are rectifying that by punishing you and taking away your property or income and giving it to someone else." You blithely refuse to even assert, let alone establish or prove, what that immoral act is.

  • Rich||

    You blithely refuse to even assert, let alone establish or prove, what that immoral act is.

    Fluffy, I'm beginning to think (sorry) that the mindset is something like that of Louis Armstrong wrt jazz (sorry, Satchmo): “Man, if you have to ask what it is, you'll never know.” 8-(

  • Tony||

    You are immoral, not to mention a hypocrite. I have also explained this many times: the only reason you have such a thing called property at all is because you extract taxes from me to pay for police, courts, etc., that secure your claim.

    Why do you have a better claim to my tax money to protect your property than a poor person does to protect his ability not to die of starvation?

    And ignoring the needs of the poor is not morally distinct from disdaining them from the perspective of the poor.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why do you keep bringing morality into this? Government is supposed to be neutral in matters of morality.

    Unless you're reneging on the "separation of church and state" idea...

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Poor Victim,

    the only reason you have such a thing called property at all is because you extract taxes from me to pay for police, courts, etc., that secure your claim.


    I don't need stinking courts. Try to burglarize my house for a quick refresher course on consequences. Go on, I *dare* you.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Pederast,

    It's understandable why Paul and his flock never admit to the more horrific implications of their system[...]


    Like not stealing, for instance - oh, the horror!

    I hate to think[...]


    I know you do.

    [...]what the moral sentiment must be behind a libertarian who is actually aware of the negative consequences of his beliefs.


    You certainly hate to think. At all. There are NO negative consequences with doing nothing, worst case. Consequences come as a result of action, not as a result of nature - that would be an accident, not a consequence.

    You probably were too busy looking at young knaves during those philosophy classes you allege took during your "best years of your life."

  • James||

    By far, the most shocking statement in this article is that Paul bribed someone to through a baseball through a window, this must have definitely been before his awakening to Bastiat and Hazlitt!! :)

    We all do dumb things as kids though, Ron is the man.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He was a Democrat back then. Trying to stimulate the economy.

    Later he decided that he hated glaziers and wanted all of them to starve to death. So he stopped breaking windows.

  • Tony||

    My sphincter is so big and worn-out, that the poop just falls right out of me as I'm walking around during the day. It was disconcerting at first, but everybody at my work seems to be cool with it now.

  • ||

    That is just plain mean.

    You give spoofers a bad name.

  • Old Mexican||

    Indeed. He may be a closet pederast and his ass belongs to pimps in DC (he implied as much), but that was just mean.

  • Brandon||

    Does this mean Dr. Paul can look forward to the coveted Brian Doherty endorsement?

  • DOHERTIE||

    His foreign-policy views are almost at the level of self-sacrifice and blind faith in the rationality of foreign actors that I require.

  • Max||

    The really big question is who gives a flying fuck about Ron Paul's family?

  • Max||

    The REALLY important thing is "how do we make it so Obama can be president for life?"!

  • JEP||

    I'm glad to see Paul going after people, especially Newt. What attracted me to Paul in the first place is that his positions are logically consistent and he doesn't abandon them as soon as the wind blows.

    No one is going to be able to sway Ron Paul towards a policy that doesn't jive with his political philosophy.

    Paul's latest ad isn't trying to criticize Newt for making money, it's painting Newt as a politician who can be easily bought - which he is.

  • Joe E||

    I'd just like to point out that Glenn Beck is a pseudo-Christian.
    Otherwise, great article!

  • Fluffy||

    I find your lamenting Paul's "negative attacks" on Gingrich a little lame.

    He most pointedly is not engaging in personal attacks on Gingrich, but only discussing his policy failings and his enthusiastic rent- and favor-seeking when out of office.

    When you claim that's bad, essentially you are saying that politicians should be able to take lots of contradictory positions - and no one should ever be able to say anything about it. Politicians should be able to sell influence when they leave office - and no one should ever be able to say anything about it. Politicians should be able to campaign as limited government alternatives to the present administration, even though their own history as big government advocates is undeniable - and no one should ever be able to say anything about it.

    Is that really your view?

    Seems to me that view empowers and enables the WORST actors in American politics.

  • robc||

    Politicians should be able to sell influence when they leave office

    The only part I disagree with.

    They dont have any influence to sell. Well, at least not their own. Its the current politicians GIVING it away to the lobbyists to sell that is baffling. Why would you give Newt any of your influence to sell? To get invited to the correct parties?

  • ||

    The only part I disagree with.

    They dont have any influence to sell. Well, at least not their own. Its the current politicians GIVING it away to the lobbyists to sell that is baffling. Why would you give Newt any of your influence to sell? To get invited to the correct parties?

    Given that Congress is a revolving door, influence is peddled like a futures market. Gingrich proved he could get elected and has a sharp tongue. Does a lesser congressman really want to brush that off and ignore him? Only if said congressman is sure Gingrich won't come back to bite him.

  • Thom||

    This is the guy that wrote the racist newspaper articles, right?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Thom,

    This is the guy that wrote the racist newspaper articles, right?


    No. First, it wasn't newspaper articles. Second, Paul has not written anything that can remotely be construed as either racist or offensive.

    Since you committed these two mistakes in one sentence, I can say you are an intellectually lazy imbecile. And yes, I did write that.

  • romulus augustus||

    OM, you are right. But Thom is thinking what a great number of people will be thinking should RP win the nomination. The truth never catches up to lies like this, especially when the media will have no incentive to expose the lie.

  • Max||

    "As someone who has written and commented widely and generally sympathetically about Ron Paul, I've got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning. As former reason intern Dan Koffler documents here, there is no shortage of truly odious material that is simply jaw-dropping.
    I don't think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn't matter--the newsletters carried his name after all--and his non-response to Dave Weigel below is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage."-- Nick Gillespie

    "If Paul didn't write those articles, who did? If he didn't know what had appeared in his newsletter, when did he find out and how did he deal with it? If the candidate is vague on these points, it will only fuel suspicions that he held those beliefs after all (or that he was willing to stay silent despite his disagreements because the newsletters brought in some cash)."--Jesse Walker

  • ||

    Brian,

    Can't wait to get the book. I hope it is as good as Radicals for Liberty.

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