Ron Paul, on Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell: "They enjoyed antagonizing people, to tell you the truth, and trying to split people"

On Monday, Jacob Sullum noted a New York Times front-pager about Ron Paul's relationship with his supporters that had a bizarre characterization of libertarianism's alleged two essential camps (basically, economic freedom types backed by monocle-wearers, and personal-liberty Constitution fanatics). The article also contained long sections that re-stated long stretches of reporting in a January 2008 Reason.com article by David Weigel and Julian Sanchez that focused on the context of Ron Paul's notorious newsletters: a short-lived early-'90s "paleolibertarian" political strategy laid out by Paul associates Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. Weigel and Sanchez have now both dinged the Times for adding little (besides obfuscation) to their original reporting. From Sanchez:

It cites exactly the same essays and materials we did, takes for granted the identity of Paul's chief ghostwriter and newsletter editor (which our article spent a fair amount of space publicly establishing for the first time), and even interviews exactly the same sources on the same subjects. (I'll buy that any reporter would have phoned Ed Crane up; I'll eat my left shoe if the authors had the first idea who Carol Moore or Mike Holmes were before they read our piece.) [...]

I still probably wouldn't have bothered with a post just to lob a brickbat at some lazy journalism, but in this case it's actually germane to the substance of the story. The implication, after all, is that even though the newsletters were a focus of national attention four years ago, Paul's fellow travelers were content to gloss over this ugly history—quietly complicit in this pandering to racism—until the bold bloodhounds at the Times sniffed out the scoop. It looks rather different if the Times is just rehashing the highlights of what a libertarian magazine explored in greater details years ago. [...]

So readers got this mangled account—including an incredibly confused idea of what the faultlines in contemporary libertarianism are about, assuming anyone cares about these internecine pissing contests[.]

Oh God, do we care about internecine pissing contests. Especially those of us with urine on our shoes. But the average Ron Paul voter in Iowa, or on college campuses all over the country, or just the average humanoid who cares about politics? That's a bit tougher to imagine.

I share Sanchez's critique of the Times' ham-fisted coverage of libertarianism (a recurring theme at the paper), if not quite his venom. But the Times article actually contained one of the most relevant sections of reporting on libertarian cat-fighting (and Ron Paul's position vis-a-vis) I can remember reading. It is:

[Cato Institute founder] Crane, a longtime critic of Mr. Rockwell, called Mr. Paul's close association with him "one of the more perplexing things I've ever come across in my 67 years." He added: "I wish Ron would condemn these fringe things that float around because of Rockwell. I don't believe he believes any of that stuff."

Mr. Paul said in the interview that he did not, but he declined to condemn Mr. Rockwell, saying he did not want to get in the middle of a fight. "I could understand that, but I could also understand the Rothbard group saying, Why don't you quit talking to Cato?" he said.

Mr. Paul described Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Rothbard as political provocateurs. "They enjoyed antagonizing people, to tell you the truth, and trying to split people," he said. "I thought, we're so small, why shouldn't we be talking to everybody and bringing people together?"

So many faultlines (and blurs between) suggested in those three short paragraphs.

For those interested in such history, Todd Seavey has more. And for a clearer accounting of libertarian camps, featuring some of the same characters, see Brian Doherty's 2010 essay "A Tale of Two Libertarianisms." Or better yet, just buy his 2007 book, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement. You can also pre-order Doherty's forthcoming Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

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.

  • chris||

    Thanks Matt. On the day after I ran out of nog, and my kid has learned to scream. I'll be back from the store with a few bottles. Nobody start without me.

  • chris||

    You can also pre-order Doherty's forthcoming Ron Paul's rEVOLution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

    I hope he is as good a guesser about who'll be the 2012 nominee as you were for the '08.

  • Newt Paul||

    Contracts are sacred.

    Just not signatures.

    Things happen, scro'!

  • Ted S.||

    I didn't read to the end; therefore I didn't realize this post was nothing but an ad to shill for some reason staffer's crappy book.

  • Beloved Rev. Blue Moon||

    I was just thinking "thank galt I'm at a bar"

  • ||

    The funny thing is after all the smoke clears Ron Paul will get 16 percent in Iowa. 10% of that is what all pro reefer candidates get in every election, and the other 6% will be Democrats trying to stir up trouble. His Iowa showing will be his best and by the time S. Carolina comes around he will get about 7% and fade into history.

  • ||

    I will vote for Ron Paul in our March primary for sure.

    Newt + John Bolton = War in Iran. Fuck that shit.

    I want to monkey-wrench the GOP.

  • ||

    I wouldn't mind the GOP collapsing and making room for a new party, but I find the Dems just as deserving, especially after the festival of bad governance we have been witness to the past few years, that can be summed up as follows:

    Not. One. Budget. Passed.

    Seriously, this is just a total and abject failure to even pretend to take a break from thugging and stealing to, you know, do your fucking jobs, Dems.

  • ||

    I would love to see one election cycle where politicians are forbidden from naming a party affiliation and those affiliations are left off the ballots.

    I would predict some lulzy results.

  • Tonio||

    The person listed first on the ballot would win. Every. Fucking. Time.

  • ||

    If it happens, I'm changing my name to Aaron A. Aaronson,* and running for President.

    *The A. doesn't stand for anything.

  • Dylboz||

    As Ayn Rand always said, A=A.

  • ||

    Like Harry S Truman. Only the S actually did stand for something. It stood for "Suck it." He was too polite to tell people that.

  • Apatheist||

    Well can you at least tell me one thing. What does the 'S' in his name stand for?

    Sod off.

    Well. I guess it's none of my business really.

  • SIV||

    Vote for AAAA AARDVAARK. That Aaronson fellow hates babies and the Flag.

  • peachy||

    Pish. I knew kids in high school whose family name was 'Aal' - Aaronson and Aardvark ain't got shit on that.

  • ||

    I remember a book published by Mad magazine where a character starts reading the phone book, and the first name is "Aaron A. Aardvark".

    I believe it was "Murder by Death", and I can't believe those neurons have hung on all these years.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I believe its the tallest, after anyone named Kennedy.

  • Fletch||

    I would love to see one election cycle where politicians are forbidden from naming a party affiliation and those affiliations are left off the ballots.

    Sloopy is a racist!

    Them darkies might not know who their proper Democratic masters are...

  • #||

    some localities do this - the local parties just hand out flyers that say who is really the party guy and the yard signs all say the party. Voters in these areas are used to looking for these signals. My local government school boars races are technically "non-partison" but they have been all dems for years.

  • Brett L||

    I still haven't figured out why the House doesn't just refuse to consider new legislation until the Senate passes a budget right now. There's no brinkmanship -- they have several months. Just refuse to take up any business besides budgets. And when the Dems scream, remind everyone that the Senate hasn't passed a budget in 3 years. That would require Boehner to irritate his golfing buddies, so I guess this is just a pipe dream, but I'm not voting for Romney/Gingrich/Obama or anyone else who will go along with the CR bullshit until it becomes "the way things are done in Washington".

  • ||

    On the occasions that they have threatened to do so, it has immediately been painted as "cruel extremist Republicans refusing to compromise and shutting down the government" (even though the scale of proposed cuts have been tiny), and the polling has generally shown that the public agrees with the Dems' spin.

    Of course, I've seen claims that some 60% of people polled right now think that the Republicans control all of Congress.

  • Brett L||

    Usually, they did this with less than a month to go before "government shutdown". That's why the timing is important.

  • ||

    What you want are too new parties. The GOP is never going to collapse. Any new right party will just split the vote. Now what would be interesting would be a far right party and a far left party with the socons and the unions left for the GOP and DNC. That would split both sides and make for some interesting results.

  • GW||

    Maybe that's not a bad outcome. Split the vote and put the Dem's in power long enough that so many people get sick of them that the Democrats become the "third wheel" in politics for a change.

  • ||

    Budgets don't mean anything without fiscal action.

    Cut spending = fiscal action, raise taxes = fiscal action.

    Copying last years budget + 2% and passing it is a waste of time. It just means we issue 2% more in debt.

  • ||

    Bullshit. Budgets mean responsibility. They won't pass a budget because they don't want to answer for the things they are doing.

  • ||

    Ah, so you're praising the Republicans and insulting the Democrats for once, shrike?

    Since, after all, the Republicans did pass a House budget that cut spending (though not enough), whereas the Democrats insisted on only "copying last year's budget" in the CRs and omnibus?

    Might be the nicest thing you've ever said about the Republicans.

  • ||

    Budgets don't mean anything without fiscal action.

    Oh, sure. But a budget at least forces some political pain. With continuing resolutions, the only political pain is applied to those voting against it. With budgets, decisions have to be made.

    Basically, the Dem strategy has paid off brilliantly. The massive "one-time" stimulus spending of Obama's first year has become cemented in stone with two years of CRs. In one stroke, they grew the size of the federal budget by, what, 20%?

    Permanently. At least until the wheels come completely off.

  • ||

    Obama's stimulus had no effect on the budget!

    It did on the debt to the tune of $787 billion. That is so 2010 and over with.

    Spending per the budget has remained constant from Bush to Obama at $3.6ish billion.

  • Um||

    WRONG

  • WONG||

    Mu.

  • ||

    What you really want is a voting system that encourages actual competition between parties and eliminated gerrymandering. What you want is a Mixed-Member Proportional voting system. It's what De Germans use at the Federal level.

    Each citizen gets two votes, one for a candidate, and one for a political party.

    Mixed Member Proportional Explained

  • ||

    Yeah Shrike because it is not like Obama won't get us into a war with Iran before the election. But when he does you will still be voting for him you crazy stupid fuck.

  • Maxxx||

    Newt + John Bolton = War in Iran. Fuck that shit.

    Obama will take us there first.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Great article, Matt. I look forward to reading the thoughtful and amicable debate in the comments.

  • Brett L||

    Wait. Do I have to drink if this actually occurs?

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Do I have to drink if this actually occurs?"

    Doubles. Until it subsides.

  • ||

    *consults the H&R Drinking Game Manual*

    Yup.

  • sarcasmic||

    For the first time ever I will actually enroll in a political party so I can vote for the guy with two first names.

  • ||

    Paul Ryan?

  • sarcasmic||

    The other one.

  • Tonio||

    Rick Perry?

  • sarcasmic||

    I've never known anyone with Perry for a first name.

  • Perry Ellis||

    Ahem.

  • sarcasmic||

    Do I know you?

  • ||

    Send in the Clowns

  • ||

    Murderer Perry Smith ring any bells?

  • Matt Damon||

    Nope. I guess I should climb out from under my rock.

  • sarcasmic||

    Who?

  • ||

    Perry Farrell

  • Ozzie Osbourne||

    Who can we get for the case?

  • Perry King||

  • ||

    Perry Como

  • sarcasmic||

    Not the guy with a last name for a first name and a first name for a last name either.

  • ||

    That used to be a common way to identify comedians. Two first names. Kind of like large-breasted women once tending to have names ending in "a."

  • Shmenge||

    John King?

  • AlmightyJB||

    So is that a reliable cold call strategy?

  • ||

    Which one?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Womens names ending in "a" = large breast of course.

  • ||

    My sister-in-law whose name ends in an "a" has small breast, I have large. I would say it is an unreliable method.

  • Prove it.||

    Or it's not true.

  • ||

    It's not everyone with a name ending in "a", and it's not 100% accurate.

  • db||

    Couldn't we call you "Banjosa" just to keep it straight?

  • ||

    Sure, why not, if it helps remind you that I have big tits.

  • ||

    I have big tits.

    I think we have found the source of rather's hatred of you.

  • Ted S.||

    Banjos = Victor Mature?

  • AlmightyJB||

    "if it helps remind you that I have big tits"

    Yeah, I don't think were going to forget that that going forward:)

  • db||

    Thanks. Hey, those of us with large primary sexual characteristics have to stick together, know what I'm sayin'?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    ... just to keep it straight?

    Keep it straight? Settle down, db. Settle down.

  • Ted S.||

    Jane Russell? Mamie Van Doren?

  • yonemoto||

    Barack Obama?

  • AlmightyJB||

    I bet Paul Ryan is wishing he ran right now.

  • yonemoto||

    I once knew someone named Julia Jack-Scott.

  • sarcasmic||

    I went to high school with a girl named Nancy Cutter who had a brother named Forest.

  • ||

    The superintendent at my school was Don Dick. His wife was named Anita.

  • ||

    I said, her name is Anita Dick.

    Jeez. Tough crowd.

  • Brett L||

    Why do you waff when I say the name 'Biggus Dickus'?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I know a girl named Freda Love Boner.

  • ||

    so I can vote for the guy with two first names.

    Oh, and I almost missed SEEEEEXIST!!!!!

  • Velcro Bootstraps||

    Gary John.....son?

  • yonemoto||

    there are definitely people whose first name is "johnson", although "johnston" is more common. After all, it's too close to the slang term for the male member, "Lyndon B"

  • CalebT||

    Before the newsletter scandal re-emerged, it was downright hilarious watching the anti-libertarians try to claim that Ron Paul was the least desirable Republican candidate, even going so far as to say that they would prefer George W. Bush receive the nomination.

    Now, I guess they finally got something legitimate to hate Paul for, but still, how do these Team Purple assholes not see Paul as at least 100x better than either a Gingrich, Romney, or Perry nomination?

  • ||

    They would have hated him anyway. These are the people who convinced themselves that George W. Bush was a radical conservative bent on destroying the government. I don't care how many nice things they said about his views on civil liberties and the war. They were never and are never going to vote for him.

  • Cytotoxic||

    That would be one benefit of the RP nom: when he loses the presidency and EVERY liberal has voted for Obama, 'liberaltarianism' or whatever the fuck it's called today will (should be) incinerated.

  • sarcasmic||

    Because Paul's take on 9/11, and terrorism in general, triggers an emotional reaction.
    Same thing with drugs.
    If people thought things through they might see that he has a valid point, but many get stuck at the emotional reaction and any mention of him makes them upset.

  • ||

    I don't think the left cares about those issues. They agree with Paul. But they really don't consider them that important. They consider economic and social issues more important. So, their disagreement with Paul on those issues prevents them from voting for him.

    I have no doubt, if Paul had leftist social and economic views, he would be a hero of the left.

  • sarcasmic||

    The left feels that libertarians are anarchists because we don't want to control everything.
    I was speaking of the right's aversion to him.

  • sarcasmic||

    I don't think the left cares about those issues. They agree with Paul.

    No they don't, or the Bush war protests wouldn't have ended.
    They don't give a shit if our government kills people as long as it's their guy calling the shots.

  • ||

    They give Paul's position lipservice. But they don't care about those issues enough to actually do something about it if doing so does any damage to a fellow member of the tribe.

  • yonemoto||

    so, murray rothbard and lew rockwell were basically proto-reason commentariat during the era of snail mail?

  • ||

    Well we tend not to be full blown racists in our antagonizing.

    But yeah you are spot on otherwise.

  • cynical||

    We've moved on to sexism, you cunt.

  • libcon||

    Why aren't you in the kitchen?

  • Mike M.||

    Let the trouser unzipping commence!

  • Cytotoxic||

    If Ron Paul called R&R provacateurs in public I wonder what he says in private or thinks to himself?

  • Ron Paul||

    "Fuck, I should have never started a newsletter with those assholes."

  • FTFY||

    "Fuck, I should have never started a newsletter met with those assholes."

  • Newt Paul||

    Things happen, scro'!

  • ||

    If he's going to make that kind of statement about Rothbard and Rockwell and if they wrote the newsletters, what is stopping him from naming names?

  • affenkopf||

    Still being friends with Rockwell.

  • I always feel like||

    somebody's watching me

    And I have no privacy

  • affenkopf||

    Paul also says LRC.com is the first site he reads every day.

  • affenkopf||

    And he has a picture of Rothbard in his office.

  • chax||

    that anti-semite!

  • Cytotoxic||

    That's actually disturbing but does explain his myopic foreign policy views.

  • affenkopf||

    Myopic meaning non-imperial?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: affenkopf,

    Myopic meaning non-imperial?


    For bloodthirsty brown people-bombing assholes like Cytotoxic, yes - it would seem myopic.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Bereft of any actual argument, OM goes straight for the race-action. Because it's okay when we do it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    OM goes straight for the race-action.


    Really?

    "Myopic meaning 'Islamic terrorism is just blowback'!"

    First, it IS blowback. Second, what do you want to do about "Islamic terrorism"? There's nothing else besides bombing Muslims that could comply with your "not myopic" standard.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Myopic meaning "Islamic terrorism is just blowback"!

  • AlmightyJB||

    No one is saying that killing innocent civilians is justified for any reason. However, you have to be an idiot to believe that 19 Saudis (at a time when US troops were in Saudi Arabia, including women soldiers) just decided they would go on a suicide/homicide mission because they just hate our freedoms. Probably just sitting around saying some prayers on 9/11/2010 and said hey this fun, we should get toghther next year, maybe kill ourselves in a violent attack on the US. Why the US? Because they're free.

  • tarran||

    Cyto's cult actually believes that they are altruistically sacrificing themselves to promote a world governmetn with their religion at the head.

    Reading between the lines of some of their holy writings, hi cult wants a world government with them at the head and is pissed at the competition. There appears to be a fair bit of projection going on.

  • tarran||

    Cyto's messiah also decreed that libertarians were evil monsters, so he is required to hate libertarian politicians like Ron Paul.

  • tarran||

    Crap, that was unclear. Trying again:

    Cyto's cult actually believes that the hijackers were altruistically sacrificing themselves to promote a world government with their religion at the head.

    Reading between the lines of some of Cytos's cult's holy writings, the latter cult wants a world government with themselves at the head and are pissed at the competition. There appears to be a fair bit of projection going on.

  • Shorter tarran||

    Pay attention to me!

  • Ron Paul vs Prisoner's Dilemma||

    Foreign Policy is driven by the Prisoner's Dilemma:

    Compete and eat thy neighbor, or be conquered.

    That's what the whole Middle-Eastern thing is about, get the oil, keep it from the BRIC clan, or watch the petro-dollar go to hell.

  • cynical||

    Prisoner's dilemma is a situation manufactured by a more powerful authority, which doesn't exist in international relations. Foreign policy is just like dealing with other people in general, except that most of the people (heads of state and state functionaries) tend toward the asshole side of the spectrum. America doesn't have much to worry about on the conventional warfare front, with complete control of most of a continent. We're mainly after hegemony, not security. If anything, our state's pursuit of power reduces the security of our people.

  • yonemoto||

    exactly. "understandable" does not mean "justified".

  • Cytotoxic||

    Except other countries-such as, I believe, India-have troops in SA and America had troops in their for a long time without problems. You can laugh at the 'they hate our freedoms' line but it actually explains far more of the Islamist behaviour than the blowback line. My model explains why the Danish cartoonists and Jewish Synagogues in Turkey were targeted but not the neo-Imperialist French (their foreign policy is extremely meddling. America can't hold a candle).

    Even if AQ attacked America solely because of the presence of US troops, RP's response is wrong. You cannot solve that (just) by withdrawing those troops. Will that kind of response be our answer for any violent group disgruntled at US foreign policy?

    FWIW I never wanted US troops in SA.

  • Shake||

    Cyto's cult actually believes that the hijackers were altruistically sacrificing themselves to promote a world government with their religion at the head.

    Because religious fanatics must have rational reasons for behaving the way they do! An anti-war libertarian of all people should realize that most wars throughout history are not waged for rational reasons, but rather over perceived grievances. The Rothbardian tendency to see every conflict only through the lens of the totalitarians is even more dangerous than neoconservatism.

    Except other countries-such as, I believe, India-have troops in SA and America had troops in their for a long time without problems. You can laugh at the 'they hate our freedoms' line but it actually explains far more of the Islamist behaviour than the blowback line. My model explains why the Danish cartoonists and Jewish Synagogues in Turkey were targeted but not the neo-Imperialist French (their foreign policy is extremely meddling. America can't hold a candle).

    Even if AQ attacked America solely because of the presence of US troops, RP's response is wrong. You cannot solve that (just) by withdrawing those troops. Will that kind of response be our answer for any violent group disgruntled at US foreign policy?

    Also very true. Other secular democracies have been dealing with the problem of Islamic fundamentalism just as long (or longer in the case of India) than we have, and even in those cases, the Paulians (for example, Michael Scheuer) instinctively blame the free nations and side with the terrorists.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Please help me with them more often.

  • ||

    " the Paulians (for example, Michael Scheuer) instinctively blame the free nations and side with the terrorists."

    This shows that you are not interested in rational discourse. A Straw Man fallacy is a nice tool of misinformation. It's sad that you vote without using logic and evidence. Discounting a CIA chief without evidence... discounting the whole CIA research without an argument. These are not defensible positions.

  • Borscht Belt Tonio||

    Wait, Ron Paul had newsletters? Who knew?

    Thanks, folks, I'll be here all week...

  • ||

    Wouldn't be the ultimate irony if the whole newsletter debacle was Rothbard and Rockwell doing the whole thing for lulz back in the day as a form of some sort of drinking game. Trolololol lolololl.

  • A Serious Man||

    What I don't understand is why Rockwell won't just come out and admit to writing the newsletters. Surely he can take one for the team by implicating himself and Rothbard.

  • ||

    I don't know. Maybe he really does believe no one important cares about the newsletters or that it will hurt Paul more to bring his I'll into it.

    Or possibly he's too self righteous to give anyone the satisfaction of telling him off.

    Libertarian politics is akin to herding cats, often crazy cats.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Libertarian politics is akin to herding cats, often crazy cats.

    No TRUE libertarian would say this.

  • chris||

    I don't think any of the known principles wrote those given their styles are not reflected in the writing. However, Lew could just take one for the team anyway by claiming that he did.

  • Brett L||

    Funny thing. I don't really see Rockwell as that kind of team player.

  • Lew Rockwell||

    I'd love to take a hot from the team but-Oh look at the time gotta go and prepare for to bitch about how wretched the world is for not giving it all to Paul.

  • chris||

    It's Team Libertarian. No water boys, just running backs.

  • Sudden||

    More like Wide Receivers. Running backs aren't diva enough to be libertarian.

    On a side note, I am convinced that Epi and Warty are T.O. and Ochocinco.

  • chris||

    I'm more of a Reggie Bush than a Wes Welker or Steve Smith. Good call on our pals, though.

  • Sudden||

    My wife, who is a Pats fan, actually thinks I look like Wes Welker. In fact, that might be how I managed to marry outta my league.

  • Jerry Sandusky||

    I prefer Tight Ends

  • ||

    I'm Joe Thomas. For realz.

  • Sudden||

    No wonder the Browns suck. You guys spend all day commenting on H&R. Turns out Alex Mack is one of commentators too.

  • ||

    No QBs or coaches either, obviously.

  • darjen||

    Perhaps because they didn't actually write them? So far I haven't seen any real evidence.

  • ||

    Anyone who suggests Rockwell plead mea culpa is by definition part of the smearbund.

    p.s. I used to be in the LRC camp, until they invented the term "smearbund". At that point the cognitive dissonance was too much and I had to get out.

  • libcon||

    Partly because Rockwell's a dick, but keep in mind that his website is a big publishing hub for libertarian authors. If he admits to writing the incendiary stuff in the newsletters, it'll color not just him badly, but also everyone on his website and the movement at large, too.

    But, yeah, it's mostly because he's a dick.

  • rho||

    "I thought, we're so small, why shouldn't we be talking to everybody and bringing people together?"

    Q: What do you get when blacks, whites, racists, Jews, anti-semites, conspiracy nuts, economists, pacifists, the military, cops, Crips, hipsters and the hoi polloi all agree on a political platform?

    A: Libertarianism. And then everybody stops speaking to each other and goes home mad as hell.

  • chris||

    You left out NAMBLA.

  • rho||

    - and the hoi polloi
    + , hoi polloi, NAMBLA and nerds

    - hell
    + hell and/or applies for open position at Penn State.

    boomshakalaka

  • CalebT||

    OT: What denomination of money will receive Barry Obama's portrait? $1 googol note, maybe?

  • Lewis H||

    Mormon.

  • rogue linguist||

    you mean mammon

  • A Serious Man||

    The $10,000 bill that Americans will soon be using in order to buy bread.

  • Lewis H||

    DRINK!@

  • ||

    I think they should name the next bankruptcy reform bill after him. Instead of fling under Chapter 7, you could file an Obama, meaning you are dead broke.

  • ||

    naming a process for not paying one's bills after a black man. that's like Racism^2

  • AlmightyJB||

    But it's funny so it's ok

  • Sudden||

    The Official Bankruptcy Accounts Management Administration: OBAMA.

  • ||

    For the win.

  • Apatheist||

    I'm canceling my support for the Paul campaign! How dare he say anything remotely critical of them!

    I'm also canceling my subscription for even reporting on what the media is saying about it!

  • ||

    Mr. Paul described Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Rothbard as political provocateurs. "They enjoyed antagonizing people, to tell you the truth, and trying to split people," he said. "I thought, we're so small, why shouldn't we be talking to everybody and bringing people together?"

    That's one of the contemporary fault lines in libertarianism right there.

    Like Ron Paul himself, we all have a foot on each side of the fault line to some extent, but there is a lot of tension between big tent libertarians and the ideological purists.

    That gem of a fault line has a number of facets. Paleotarians vs. cosmotarians, for instance, is really just an argument about keeping libertarianism as broadly appealing as possible, isn't it?

    Oh, and having the New York Times, by omission, make like libertarians didn't condemn Paul back in 2008? Makes me feel a lot better for refusing to support Paul since I found out about those newsletters here at Reason back in 2008.

    Those of you who continued to defend Ron Paul despite the newsletters can wear the NYT's shoe if it fits, but many of us stand falsely accused.

    Being falsely accused feels good. I'd hate to actually be guilty on that count.

  • Apatheist||

    I'm sure it was the NYT intent to falsely accuse you and kick some more sand in your vagina.

  • ||

    It's not just me.

    It's libertarians everywhere.

  • ||

    Does it feel good to shit upon those working for change or do you just do it reflexively?

  • ||

    I don't think Ron Paul put that stuff in the newsletters himself intentionally...

    So, I don't think it's fair of you to accuse Ron Paul of shitting on the rest of us libertarians who are working for change--you should take that back.

  • Juice||

    Can't we all just get along?

  • ||

    but there is a lot of tension between big tent libertarians and the ideological purists.

    Bullshit. Anyone can get in a heated debate one second and the next shrug it off to pursue a common goal.

    Also lets say there was this "tension" and lets say it blows up...

    Not one voter will give a shit let alone even know about it.

    Fuck man people don't care when the gaping rifts in the progressive or conservative camps show, why would they care about little old us?

    This is all nerd baseball garbage...fun but of absolutely no consequence.

  • ||

    Dude, I'm talkin' about within the libertarian movement--not voters.

    And, yeah, it may be nerd baseball--until somebody like Paul gets some serious consideration for president.

    At which point, it stops being nerd baseball.

  • ||

    Ken,

    The libertarian internicine war is still nerd baseball.

    Voters in general don't care what libertarians think about the candidates, so we're still just arguing amongst ourselves.

    Might as well get on board with a candidate that might help somewhat than once again take our toys from the beach and play in the pretend sandbox in our minds.

    Of course that does go against the libertarian philosophy of no compromise, ever.

  • ||

    That's probably a big chunk of the problem Paul's dealing with today.

    Back in the '80s and '90s, he thought he was playing nerd baseball.

  • ||

    His position was catcher.

    *swish*

  • Ken E.||

  • ||

    How many Free Staters are there actually living in New Hampshire?

  • Brett L||

    11 of 17.

  • affenkopf||

    981

  • ||

    Last I heard, there were a little over 2,000, with another 5,000 committed to move there.

  • ||

  • ||

    Any free state people here?

  • AlmightyJB||

    So if Ron Paul would win the GOP nomination, would the ex-trotskyite neocons slither back to the left and try and hijack and DNC?

  • chris||

    Remember when they threatened to do just that in '98 if the Republicans prevented Clinton from bombing Serbia? As if the republicans were serious!

  • AlmightyJB||

    I remember the discussion about it now that you mentioned it.

  • CalebT||

    So, is this paleolibertarian shit the libertarian equivalent of the the Southern strategy (both the Democrat and Republican versions)?

  • chris||

    It was really about letting socons have their way than it was feeding red meat to racist and conspiracy theorist. Actually, the former is worst. Racist and CT's are mostly harmless. SoCons will put your kid in a school uniform and regulate your spirits if given half a chance.

  • Fred||

    I love all of this fucking excuse making. "Their racist strategy was/is worse than ours." Give me a fucking break.

  • chris||

    Give somebody who doesn't know what he is talking about a break? You have any other request? A participation trophy, maybe?

  • chris||

    So we should be worried about Alex Jones and David Duke, but Mike Huckabee is not a threat to our way of life?

    It's a shame the CIA did not have your threat assessment skills working for them in early 2001. Would have saved us all a world of grief.

  • Jerry||

    Not really, it's more like the Opus Dei version of libertarianism.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    They want to restore the Mergov...Meron...Romeringian...whatever you call those guys, to the French throne.

  • guy in the back row||

    >golf clap

  • ||

    [Cato Institute founder] Crane, a longtime critic of Mr. Rockwell, called Mr. Paul's close association with him "one of the more perplexing things I've ever come across in my 67 years." He added: "I wish Ron would condemn these fringe things that float around because of Rockwell. I don't believe he believes any of that stuff."

    That would sound a lot more convincing if it wasn't coming from one of the tentacles of the Kochtopus.

  • Trespassers W||

    Doesn't it make it more convincing coming from one of the tentacles of the Kochtopus?

  • Apatheist||

    Why don't you go make a anime short film showing us where the kochtopus touched you with his tentacles.

  • ||

    Is Rothbard even alive anymore?

  • affenkopf||

    Please give away your libertarian decoder ring.

  • CalebT||

    Don't worry, Adan, I'll let you share mine.

  • ||

    No. He died in '95.

  • Dylboz||

    Nope.

  • Max||

    "Oh God, do we care about internecine pissing contests. Especially those of us with urine on our shoes. But the average Ron Paul voter in Iowa, or on college campuses all over the country, or just the average humanoid who cares about politics? That's a bit tougher to imagine."

    What's really hard to imagine is anybody with a brain buying Ron Paul's explanation of the newsletters.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Fuckface,
    Ron Paul: Secret Homophobe or Misunderstood Ally?

    Over a decade later, that formerly obscure candidate starts to matter in politics. And in an attempt to deflect attention from that letter, the candidate's communications director suggests that the document from the 1990s was a fake, "filled out by someone else," not the candidate.

    Ron Paul?

    Hardly.

    The candidate from 15 years ago is now President Barack Obama.

    Specifically, the letter, dated Feb. 15, 1996, addressed by "Friends of Barack Obama," signed by "Barack Obama, Candidate for State Senate, 13th District," supported equal marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples.

    But as recently as June 17, 2011, President Obama's communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, stated, "If you actually go back and look, that questionnaire was actually filled out by someone else, not the president."

    Regarding Rep. Paul, a number of people are implying that Ron Paul may be racist for what was written years ago under Paul's name.

    Yet history shows that in 1979, Rep. Paul was the only Texas House Republican to vote in favor of making Rev. Martin Luther King Day a national holiday -- hardly a racist use of political power.

    Compared Rep. Paul's vote with that of the most recent GOP presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain. Despite no racist newsletters appearing under his name, John McCain voted against recognizing a national holiday for Rev. King.

    Which matters more: newsletters or votes that carry the force of law for millions of people?
  • Old Mexican||

    Ha-ha!

  • ||

    Yes, his clear history of not being a racist is a little hard to reconcile with the newsletter meme.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Pro Libertate,

    ^^ THIS ^^

    Still, how can one explain the false outrage and clothes-ripping and wailing from Nick, Matt, David and Jesse?

  • Cytotoxic||

    You can explain it by pointing that it doesn't exist anywhere except in your head. Their 'false outrage' is grave concern that Paul is handling this incident badly and it will hurt him. You'd see that if you'd just take the blinders off.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    Their 'false outrage' is grave concern that Paul is handling this incident badly and it will hurt him.


    It hans't and it hasn't, so that "concern" was unwarranted. Plus, Nick put it unequivocally that Paul had a lot of explaining to do, sounding like Ricky Ricardo.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Sounded like Ricky Ricardo? Was he calling for Stiegerwald?

  • chris||

    Isn't that the woman whose eight year old girl was being bullied by some ultra-orthodox rabbis? My pride in being a man never fell lower than when I read about that.

  • ||

    I've gotten the impression that they want him to address the issue more forthrightly. I don't think the general feeling here is that he's actually a racist.

  • Shake||

    But I thought you claimed the newsletters weren't racist anyway? And besides, no one likes a snitch!

    I swear, your line on the newsletters has changed more times than Paul's. You're terrified that he might actually implicate Rockwell and/or Rothbard if it becomes a big enough liability.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shake,

    But I thought you claimed the newsletters weren't racist anyway? And besides, no one likes a snitch!


    If you read the article carefully you will see that it does not mention the newsletters but a letter supposedly signed by him and not the newsletters, you worthless piece of waste of human skin.

  • Apatheist||

    Good article, though unfortunately unlikely to mean anything to most Republican voters.

  • Fred||

    I don't believe the facts are right on this. I thought he voted against MLK day. Anybody fact-checked this?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Fred,

    I thought he voted against MLK day.


    No, this is incorrect.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congres.....=h1979-624

  • yonemoto||

    actually, that's a vote on whether or not to move observance from Jan 15th to the third monday, which would be the first step in clearing it to become a national holiday under the "monday holiday law"

  • Max||

    I mean, the old fuck has to have known about the content of the stupid newsletters and was fine with it, or he's one fucking incompetent asshole, letting all that shit go out under his name for all those years. No one told him?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Fuckface,

    Over a decade later, that formerly obscure candidate starts to matter in politics. And in an attempt to deflect attention from that letter, the candidate's communications director suggests that the document from the 1990s was a fake, "filled out by someone else," not the candidate.

    Ron Paul?

    Hardly.

    The candidate from 15 years ago is now President Barack Obama.

    Specifically, the letter, dated Feb. 15, 1996, addressed by "Friends of Barack Obama," signed by "Barack Obama, Candidate for State Senate, 13th District," supported equal marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples.

    But as recently as June 17, 2011, President Obama's communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, stated, "If you actually go back and look, that questionnaire was actually filled out by someone else, not the president."


    Were sayin', fool?

  • Fred||

    So...to wrongs make a right now? Is that the kind of logic that Rockwell teaches over at mises.org?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Fred,

    So...to wrongs make a right now?


    What? Are you jesting?

    Read the article again. Neither Obama nor Paul wrote those documents. Paul's assertion is thus plausible as this kind of thing has happened to other candidates. This is no "two wrongs make a right" argument - you're being foolish.

  • ||

    So...to wrongs make a right now? Is that the kind of logic that Rockwell teaches over at mises.org?


    Only if the first person to do the wrong openly got away with it.

  • ||

    Crane's antagonism towards Rockwell goes back to his original feud w/ Rothbard, a co-founder of Cato that Cato's website doesn't even acknowledge. www.mises.org has an article with the complex details of the feud. Everything since then is Crane and Koch ordering their minions at Reason to slam Mises supporters.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If Reason is so evil, why do you increase site traffic number here? Why don't you just fucking stay at Mises.org?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Cytotoxic,

    If Reason is so evil, why do you increase site traffic number here?


    You sure make a lot of stupid questions, C.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    No one can resist the call of the Kochtopus!

  • chris||

    Who says I'm resisting? I'm playing it down the middle. Pays better this way.

  • Fred||

    ANY antagonism toward Rockwell should stem from the fact that he is a hollow, hate-filled ideologue that has built his "influence" by cavorting with those who adhere to racism and idiotic conspiracy theories.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    But...Kochtopus!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Fred,

    ANY antagonism toward Rockwell should stem from the fact that he is a hollow, hate-filled ideologue


    I want to imagine you can show actual proof for your assertion...

    .... You can, can't you? I can wait.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Even Old Mex, the most interesting man in the world, is lured here by the siren song of the Kochtopus.

  • chris||

    To me, much of this internecine libertarian squabble reminds me of why I hate baby boomers and their never ending fist fights going after all of these years. I don't care if Rothbard and Crane double wedgied each other. Who has the ideas that will get us out of the Middle East, and impose fiscal discipline on Washington, DC?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Yeah, 'cause, like, Gen X never disagrees about anything.

  • chris||

    Yeah, but you guys still fight about 'nam. We fight over more substantial things like how bad Cobain sucked. Let it go, grandpa!

    PS. I don't really hate you. Just the ones of you who tried to flunk me in high school for not kissing up.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Cobain didn't suck, dude.

  • chris||

    You see, CN. Stuff that matters!

  • Shake||

    Oh bullshit. The proof is all over the fucking place: Tom Palmer's website, the Weigel/Sanchez article, insider accounts from ex-Mises scholars, even articles on Rockwell's own website. If Rockwell doesn't want to be called a racist, he should remove the shit promoting David Duke and stop associating with people like Sam Francis, Pat Buchanan, etc.

  • chris||

    Need some Lysol to shine up that gate you're trying keep there, son?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shake,

    The proof is all over the fucking place:


    Listen, asshole - it an't my job to go out and fact-check this clown who calls himself "Fred." Mind your own fucking business.

  • Shake||

    You always get pissy when called out on your paleo tribalist bullshit. Proof of Rockwell's bigotry, conspiracy mongering, and general obnoxiousness isn't particularly difficult to find. Why does it matter who presents the evidence?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shake,

    Proof of Rockwell's bigotry, conspiracy mongering, and general obnoxiousness isn't particularly difficult to find.


    Then show me it isn't difficult to find by actually finding it, or fuck off.

  • Repairman Jack||

    Well I followed shake's first suggestion of Tom Palmer by googling 'tom palmer rockwell racist' and after reading a few posts of his hyperventilating PC garbage, I actually feel sympathetic to the morons at vdare and amren.

    So fuck you for that Shake.

    I didn't see any evidence of Rockwell being racist beyond some weak guilt by association either.

  • Mr Whipple||

    KOCHTOPUS!

  • Old Mexican||

    The article also contained long sections that re-stated long stretches of reporting in a January 2008 Reason.com article by David Weigel and Julian Sanchez that focused on the context of Ron Paul's notorious newsletters


    If rehashing an issue brought up by fellow Buckleyite Kirchick is now construed as "reporting," then we will need a new and more accurate word for actual reporting.

    Just like we had to create the word "libertarianism" after the previously-used word (liberal) was hijacked by Progressives.

  • Old Lying Mexican||

    "Libertarian" was in use in Europe long before right wing nuts like you stole it for abuse in America.

  • chris||

    He. He. He. I knew the shit was going to get stupid up in here. Thanks, mystery man for out dumbing us all!

  • chris||

    In case you don't get it -- Austrian economics is the rock on which modern libertarianism was built.

    Austrian, as in, do I have to draw you a fucking map?

  • ||

    That's the place next to New Zealand, right?

  • chris||

    Yep, Fosters, Kangaroos, brauhaus coups and shit.

  • ||

    It's always bugged me that Australia got off scot-free after sending Hitler to rule Germany. Where's the accountability? The justice?

  • Fred||

    That picture alone reinforces my hate of Rockwell and Rothbard. Crane hit it right on: There is no good reason why Paul has associated with POS Rockwell all these years. There ARE reasons. Just none of them seem like they can be GOOD.

  • chris||

    Yeah, that image is just so horrible. How could you possibly vote for a guy with friends like that? This is more like it:

    http://www.google.com/imgres?q.....29,r:5,s:0

  • Cyotoxic||

    Deflection.

  • chris||

    It's only legitimate when you war pigs are on the offense; I see how that game is played.

  • chris||

    But, still, deflecting the only point that matters -- it's either Romney, Obama, or Paul.

  • ||

    Cytotoxic, one of those pictured murdered a woman in 1969 and another is now serving time in a federal pen.

    Yeah, but its still deflection, right?

  • ||

    Wow, Paul. Way to gently place them near the path of a bus which was stopping anyway.

  • Fred||

    Pull your head out. Rockwell has thrown Paul under the bus all these years by refusing to be a man and admit that he wrote the letters. That cowardice tells you all you need to know about that "man." Under a bus is where he belongs.

  • affenkopf||

    Still no proof except a Weigel article.

  • ||

    And the articles themselves. Along with the accumulated writings of Rockwell and Rothbard. The writing sure as hell wasn't Paul. It was either Rockwell or Rothbard. I think it was Rothbard, but I can't say for sure. It fits more nicely into my suspicion that Rothbard's sacred cow status is the reason this is all still a mystery.

  • chris||

    The DC crime stat one gives it a way to me that it most likely wasn't Rothbard. He prided himself on having a more firm background in mathematics than the Keynesians. He would have not been that sloppy.

  • Max||

    What the fuck would it matter? Ron Paul never objected to the racist shit anyway. How fucking stupid can you be? I mean, fuck!

  • ||

    Never, Max? Not even after he found out about them?

  • Max||

    Fuck you, asshole. You really think he found out about only recently? Never in the ten years they that shit appeared in the newwsletters under his fucking name? Stick it up your ass.

  • ||

    You said he never objected to the racist crap. I just wondered how you were going to prove that negative.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It's where they belong and it would be good for all of us.

  • ||

    My point was that if he's going to throw them under a bus, then give them the heave-ho. Don't just say they're a couple of rabble rousers.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I gotta know: Is there one of those busts of L. Neil Smith?

  • If you pay for breathing Air..||

    ...on Pallas.

  • AlmightyJB||

    In that picture, Lew Rockwell looks like Marty Culp. Will Ferrells SNL charactor.

  • NEWTARD+PAULARD=FULLTARD||

    One thing about the Republican Party: It's FULLTARD.

  • chris||

    When are we going to see the oceans stop rising? Same plan you had to lift the Pentagon through group telekinesis?

  • ||

    Ok that was funny.

  • romulus augustus||

    They look like a couple of Woody Allen nebishes - act tough and insulting in print but wouldn't say "boo" to you in person.

  • Max||

    One thing for sure, that racist bag of shit Ron Paul will be just another doddering old fuck by 2016. You libertoid dimwits need a younger hero.

  • ||

    Can Ron Paul count on your vote? For freedom?

  • chris||

    Of course he will. He's just playing hard to get.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Maxipad,

    One thing for sure, that racist bag of shit Ron Paul will be just another doddering old fuck by 2016.


    The pet yorkie, out of desperation and especially faced with the evidence that people really don't give a shit about these old newsletters, now resorts to pointing out that Ron Paul is old.

    Pet yorkie, have your Thorazine, because you're almost to the point of writing hieroglyphics on your room walls.

  • RyanXXX||

    Why does everyone think Rockwell coming out and naming himself as the author publicly would be "taking one for the team"??

    The media would then jump on Paul even harder, since he has repeatedly said that he and Rockwell are friends and that he loves LRC.com

    Shifting the blame to Rockwell or even Rothbard for that matter does nothing to help Paul media-wise. It just reinforces the "RP associates with racists" idea. I think they should try to find a way to pin it on Dondero, just for the lulz

  • tarran||

    It wouldn't be plausible to pin it on Dondero; dude can't write for shit.

    The guy is a caricature of a Republican who wants to smoke pot and snort coke off a Mexican hookers ass.

  • affenkopf||

    NTTAWWT

  • ||

    What's wrong with snorting cocaine off a Mexican hooker's ass?

    Man, spoil my vacation plans for this year. Geeeezzzzz.

  • tarran||

    There's nothing wrong with it...

    it's just not the basis for a political philosophy.

  • juris imprudent||

    snort coke off a Mexican hookers ass

    More like bath salts off his sister's toes.

  • chris||

    You're plan sounds better than my Lew takes one for the team even if he didn't do it. Give me ED's address, I've got some old floppy disk straight from '91 that I can reprint the newsletter pdf on, edit in an old Wordpress format to give it a false history, sneak them into his place and pay his next hooker cause a scene that gets him kicked out. Lo, and behold, the manager 'finds' some interesting old documents. Might cost a pretty penny. Who's up for it?

  • chris||

    Come on now, we can all agree to hate Donderooo, right?

  • RyanXXX||

    I might know a guy who might know a guy who can help you

  • chris||

    Is he in New Orleans? I'm no longer allowed to do business there.

  • ||

    Junior Soprano and Ned Ryerson certainly do enjoy antagonizing people.

  • Mr Whipple||

    I always thought that this libertarian "in-fighting" was about economics. Austrian School vs Chicago School, or at least, that's how it started. Charles realized that he wouldn't be able to maintain his [EMPIRE] under an Austrian system, so he brought in Chicago School economists to Cato who supported central banking.

    (You liked the Herc reference, didn't you?)

  • Hercule Triathlon 9000||

    KNEEL BEFORE ME!!!

  • Tncm||

    The "in-fighting", as stated above, is a result of a split between Murray Rothbard and the Cato Institute some thirty or forty years ago (I don't remember the exact details, but the Mises Institute has an article on it).

    To my knowledge the many disagreements between Austrians and monetarists constitute "disagreements among friends" rather than a feud per se. Really the dispute involves areas of methodology and theory that are so esoteric and dry that the typical libertarian would be unaware or unaffected by it.

  • johny cosmos||

    I didn't know Rockwell was such a fat fuck.

  • squishua||

    I seriously don't get the affected need to know the author some people demonstrate. I mean, whoever it was wrote a few passages that were racially insensitive or insulting over 15 years ago, and in the wake of the Rodney King riots, which resulted in, among other things, the horrific beating of Reginald Denny.
    Rt
    As for Lew Rockwell, the only thing I don't care for are the blog posts about JFK conspiracies, Velokovsky "science," and some of the natural remedies, since they don't quite pass my BS detector. Still, he remains firm in keeping the State out of such things, so it really doesn't bother me.

    I've even read a few "OJ was framed" type posts on LRC, which made me think quite a bit more about the case than any of the news coverage did back when the trial was underway. Still, I'm not sure one way or the other.

  • Tncm||

    I never really understood why Rockwell advertised the conspiracy theory nonsense so much. It's like when Rothbard when tried to reach out to the New Left and then the conservatives; it sends mixed signals to potential libertarian converts and necessarily involves a disgraceful amount of pandering.

  • johny cosmos||

    He did it all for the Nookie.

  • ||

    "I never really understood why Rockwell advertised the conspiracy theory nonsense so much."

    I know, right? As if governments would ever do bad stuff in secret that they wouldn't admit to. Anyone who thinks they would is probably also a racist.

  • Karl Marx||

    lol

  • ||

    Michele Bachmann's struggling presidential campaign saw her Iowa chairman defect Wednesday to rival Ron Paul's side, an embarrassing blow that came as some called for her to leave the race to free up her supporters for other candidates. Digitally Undivided, digitalundivide

  • jt||

    paul hates antagonizing people but i have to say this--he moved on from LP years ago and libertarians don't possess monopoly on founders' ideas.. they go back to john locke's era.. anybody can study history and read the federalist papers and skip the 'libertarians' altogether and save themselves all the hassle..

    look at you bantering amongst yourself for entertainment on serious topics and get this bloated sense of self importance because one exception among you happened to make it.. there is a lack of word to describe how pathetic it is, i can't imagine what it must be like knowing you in real life. you remind me of those smart-mouths of my generation who always talked with a smirk on their faces while i built my career. 4 years after graduation, they are still working the baselines while my career progress has been leaps and bounds.. just like paul's.

    many liberals and neo-cons will never ever be libertarians. they are voting paul because they like him. quit flattering yourselves.. you aren't that important. you act as if you monopolize ideas descended from a long line of thinkers including our founders, as if you invented them--you didn't.

    after all these years of intellectual advantage, you didn't achieve squat-- do you have constipation or something? crap or get off the toilet. you want to be a part of something that actually brings achievement larger than pea sized libertarian chitchat, help him win. or don't. nobody is going to trip over you staying nobody. i don't expect libertarianism to make a come back until many years of another financial crisis, should paul's run this cycle become a non-event.

  • ||

    Geez,now I see why other sites make you register to post. What a bunch of irrational garbage. If there were a couple dozen sensible comments I just didn't have the patience to wade through the crap to get to it.

  • ||

    Use reason and logic to guide you. Learn about logical fallacies. Identify propaganda tactics. You'll learn the truth if you follow those general guidelines.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement