The New Republic on Ron Paul

David Weigel | May 25, 2007, 10:48am

Michael Crowley's excellent, short profile of the Ron Paul campaign is up at TNR's website, complete with a quote from noted author/journalist/adventurer Brian Doherty:

Paul's candidacy leaves some of his erstwhile libertarian fans cold--particularly the intellectuals who congregate in Washington outfits like the CATO Institute or Reason magazine. "He comes from a more right-wing populist approach," explains Brian Doherty, a California-based Reason editor and author of Radicals for Capitalism, a history of the libertarian movement. "Culturally, he strikes a lot of the more cosmopolitan libertarians as a yokel." (Doherty himself is a Paul admirer.)
And, while some libertarians criticize Paul from the left on social issues, others are swiping at him from the right over the war. "Will Libertarianism Survive Ron Paul?" asked one article on the America's Future Foundation website, before continuing, "Paul's prominence threatens to make his blame-America instincts the defining characteristic of libertarianism in the public imagination. If libertarianism becomes inextricably associated with radical pacifism, will young people with classically liberal instincts be discouraged from serious political engagement?"

The latter quote is from Reason contributor John Tabin. Me, I'm impressed that Peretz didn't insert any innuendos into the piece.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Send this article to:

Comments to "The New Republic on Ron Paul":

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 11:11am | #

Wait a minute! You guys don't like Ron Paul? I am thoroughly confused. How do you treat candidates you do like?

Is this all an illustration of that axiom about the gods noticing those whom they will destroy?

grylliade | May 25, 2007, 11:11am | #

Paul's prominence threatens to make his blame-America instincts the defining characteristic of libertarianism in the public imagination. If libertarianism becomes inextricably associated with radical pacifism, will young people with classically liberal instincts be discouraged from serious political engagement?

Warren | May 25, 2007, 11:14am | #

I feel like an underpants gnome.

Phase I: Collect Ron Paul MSM citations.
Phase II: ???
Phase III: Profit

But hey I'm on board with the Ron Paul express. I think he can I think he can I think he can. Choo Choo!!

______ | May 25, 2007, 11:16am | #

Wait a minute! You guys are "intellectuals who congregate in Washington outfits like the CATO Institute or Reason magazine"

Intellectuals?
Elitist snobs

dude | May 25, 2007, 11:20am | #

Words are powerful:

"blame-America instincts" Sounds like traitor talk. Even while certainly doesn't mean America is evil and deserves it.

"radical pacifism" Sounds like a bunch of ty-dyed wimps holding hands and singing Puff the Magic Dragon. When it really embodies the belief that the best offense is a solid defense.

Unfortunately, people seem make split second voting decisions on these types of quips...

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 11:22am | #

I think NR did a very fine job with the article. The reporter Michael Crowley, most accurately quoted me and portrayed my views.

I was very happy to read the comments from the America's Future Foundation, which reflected my views, as well. That is a very, very real threat we face to our libertarian movement, due to Ron Paul's campaign and his remarks at the debate: Young people who agree with us on Economic conservatism and Social tolerance, may now be turned off to libertarianism, thinking that we're a bunch of Pacifists or "Surrenderists," who don't recognize the rising threat of Islamo-Fascism.

That is the saddest part of Ron Paul's candidacy. We may have just lost a great many recruits to the libertarian movement.

Thanks a bunch, there Ron. Thanks for running people away from the libertarian movement.

dude | May 25, 2007, 11:24am | #

i.e.

Oh, he's the guy who has blame-America instincts and is a radical pacifist.

Cool! I don't have to think anymore. Go Rudy!!

DA | May 25, 2007, 11:27am | #

> "...the rising threat of Islamo-Fascism"

What Paul is suggesting is that we should try to further understand what also contributed to that 'rising threat.'

Warren | May 25, 2007, 11:29am | #

Eric Dondero,

I've worked shoulder to shoulder with libertarians. Libertarians are fiends of mine. You sir are no libertarian.

Gimme Back My Dog | May 25, 2007, 11:29am | #

Eric,

If you are looking for a political movement that strives to tell people what they want to hear, you could always become mainstreamdemocrat or mainstreamrepublican.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 11:33am | #

Dondero:

So you slammed Paul for being a radical pacifist, even though he isn't, so it's clearly his fault that people might now think of him as a radical pacifist. Yeah, okay.

P Brooks | May 25, 2007, 11:35am | #

"Young people who agree with us on Economic conservatism and Social tolerance, may now be turned off to libertarianism, thinking that we're a bunch of Pacifists or "Surrenderists," who don't recognize the rising threat of Islamo-Fascism."

And what will you say to the people who think your Global War on Scary Badguys is driven by hysteria and personal cowardice?

val | May 25, 2007, 11:36am | #

How the bloody fucking hell do people write/say things like this with a straight face?!? Since when is "I think we should only fight when attacked" "radical pacifism"? What are Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, etc., then?

Oh, that's right. Anything other than complete, total support for the war position the Bush administration has farted out this week is evidence of serious moral defect, possibly even mental insanity. If you don't shout support for the administration on the war until you're hoarse, you might as well be a pacifist. No room for moral nuance here; no need for it.

Uhm people can say that with a straight face because they dont need to have only those two choices. And they dont need have complete, and total support for Bush's useless adventurism to realize that Paul's foreign policy position is just as wacky, only polarized to the other side of the spectrum.

People seem to feel that the US foreign policy is made up wholly of Iraq (or middle east). If Paul were president I highly doubt we would have ever been in the Balakans for example. Which to me was a completely necessary and justified 'war'.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | May 25, 2007, 11:41am | #

Islamo-Fascism

Who is responsible for making this word up and getting it in the mainstream?

I want to kick him in the balls.

tarran | May 25, 2007, 11:44am | #

Oh come on, I cannot see how anyone can claim the Balkans was a neccessary and justified war and that Iraq was not.

Please.. The arguments in favor of bombing Yugoslavia were even more tenous than the justification for Iraq.

BTW, weren't the Fort Dix 6 involved with the KLA, the guys we were providing air support for?

Warren | May 25, 2007, 11:44am | #

val,
So what your saying is that anybody who opposes foreign intervention that you (in hindsight have) deem(ed) completely necessary, is "just whacky".

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 11:45am | #

Quick unscientific poll:

Are there any readers here who would ever vote for Dondero?

How about who would want to have a beer with him?

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 11:47am | #

Val:

Uhm people can say that with a straight face because they dont need to have only those two choices.

Wait, what? I've lost track of what you're replying to here.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | May 25, 2007, 11:47am | #

Quick unscientific poll:
Are there any readers here who would ever vote for Dondero?
How about who would want to have a beer with him?

I want to kick him in the balls.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 11:47am | #

highnumber:

No and no.

rdkraus | May 25, 2007, 11:50am | #

I would spill a beer on Dondero !

rhywun | May 25, 2007, 11:58am | #

Which [Balkans] to me was a completely necessary and justified 'war'.

Further proof that there is little real difference between (D) and (R). Both see nothing wrong with sending our boys over to places where we have no compelling interest. That's the real import of Paul here. We've been meddling with the affairs of others for so long that it's inconceivable for a mainstream politician to imagine any other way. It just messes with the whole program. Such people must be silence at any cost.

val | May 25, 2007, 12:00pm | #

Oh come on, I cannot see how anyone can claim the Balkans was a neccessary and justified war and that Iraq was not.

A very good point, and Im sure you know what the difference between the two is. One we 'won' (achieved a preset realistic goal) and the other is an open ended nation building mission which we are 'loosing'.

val,
So what your saying is that anybody who opposes foreign intervention that you (in hindsight have) deem(ed) completely necessary, is "just whacky".

Yes, Warren, Paul opposes all foreign intervention untill we are attacked, and I consider that wacky and unrealistic. His position doesnt come from any consideration of current global politics and power struggles, but of what was written in our constitution, back when America had zero ability for foreign intervention and zero need for it. Gee maybe if the Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor, and the US still got involved in WWII, you would feel that would be unjustified and unconstituional, right?

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 12:02pm | #

His position doesnt come from any consideration of current global politics and power struggles, but of what was written in our constitution [...]

That's a feature, not a bug.

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 12:04pm | #

val,

I think you have oversimplified both America's place in the world immediately following its founding, and the real world applications of Ron Paul's vision for foreign policy.

val | May 25, 2007, 12:06pm | #

That's a feature, not a bug.

LOL, good one. And I realize that many here are strict constructionalists, and that explains some of their positions. Im not however.

James Anderson Merritt | May 25, 2007, 12:09pm | #

Val said, "If Paul were president I highly doubt we would have ever been in the Balakans for example. Which to me was a completely necessary and justified 'war'."

I agree that President Paul would not have committed us to the Balkans adventure, for any number of reasons. On the other hand, I view that as a good thing: I am wondering how that adventure was "completely necessary and justified," as none of the Balkan countries was a credible threat to us -- they weren't aggressing against us first, and we didn't even have bogus "intel" that they would or could, as was claimed in the run-up to the Iraq adventure.

I think grylliade had it right. If anything, Paul and other libertarians say, "hell yes, we'll fight if attacked." Some add "and we'll nuke anyone who tries back into the stone age." I find it hard to describe that position as "pacifism" of any kind, much less "radical pacifism." Yet it is libertarian, by upholding people's (and nations') rights to self-defense, while recognizing their responsibility not to aggress.

Self-described libertarians who would fight aggressive wars are either lying to themselves or to those they would lead: they are no libertarians. Still, you can stand proudly WITH the libertarians without actually being libertarian. But trying to get libertarians to accept and promote non-libertarian views and approaches, solely to allow non-libertarians to call themsevles libertarians without appearing to be either clueless or liars, strikes me as a crazy approach. Let's gladly and gratefully accept the help of non-libertarians who find common-cause with us. But it is not necessary for everyone who contributes to the attainment of liberty to declare himself a libertarian, or be thought of as one. George Orwell, for example, was a self-professed socialist, but opened millions of people's eyes to the dangers of statism in such works as Animal Farm and 1984. By doing so, he struck a blow for liberty and inspired many libertarians, including myself. But I don't think of him as being a leader or exemplar of libertarians, and there's nothing wrong with that.

P Brooks | May 25, 2007, 12:12pm | #

"Are there any readers here who would ever vote for Dondero?

"How about who would want to have a beer with him?"

Paging Mr Montag! Guy Montag! Phone call at the desk for Mr Montag!

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 12:14pm | #

P Brooks,

I said "readers." I don't think he actually reads anything other than what he wrote himself, so he is excluded.

Daze | May 25, 2007, 12:14pm | #

I am a cosmopolitan libertarian who considers Ron Paul a yokel, and proud of it.

val | May 25, 2007, 12:17pm | #

I think you have oversimplified both America's place in the world immediately following its founding, and the real world applications of Ron Paul's vision for foreign policy.

Also true, its pretty difficult to discuss all nuances of complicated topics on these forums (way too much typing). But seriosly I dont think Ron Paul foreign policy is grounded in realty. He is a constructionalist and that explains it. But he attempts to write off our foreign policy completely by continuosly pointing out that our presense in Iraq has made the place worse then before (I would be curious to hear the Kurdish position on this, but argely agree)and that we were the ones who trained Osama (again true). But those are examples of failed (maybe stupid) ventures in a policy that should be examined to seek room for imporvement and adjustment not reasons to completely scrap the existsing policy.

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 12:18pm | #

""Paul's prominence threatens to make his blame-America instincts the defining characteristic of libertarianism in the public imagination. ..."

Heaven forbid libertarianism become associated with having been right on Iraq from the beginning.

James Anderson Merritt | May 25, 2007, 12:18pm | #

Val said, "Gee maybe if the Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor, and the US still got involved in WWII, you would feel that would be unjustified and unconstituional, right?"

You should read more history. There is a very convincing case to be made that we were not necessary to stop Hitler; that the Russian Winter of 1941-42 did that for us. Also, that our entrance into WWI allowed such a crushing defeat of the Germany of the time, that the Allies could dictate intolerable Armistice terms to Germany, making the rise of Hitler and WWII almost inevitable.

That is to say, our participation in WWI and WWII was neither necessary nor very wise. It was, however, Constitutional in each case, because Congress declared war, which they are empowered to do for any reason, whether or not it agrees with libertarian principle.

The Iraq and Balkan Adventures, however, were VERY unconstitutional, never being formally declared. If you read the "Authorization of Force" for the Iraq war, it even seems as if the conditions of the authorization are satisfied. So WHY ARE WE STILL THERE and even ESCALATING our presence?

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 12:21pm | #

Eric "Dondero" wrote:

"Thanks a bunch, there Ron. Thanks for running people away from the libertarian movement."

And yet a completely phony libertarian like you stays around making the rest of us look like warmongering maniacs.

Jennifer | May 25, 2007, 12:23pm | #

Eric Dondero, for the love of God, PLEASE stop calling yourself a libertarian. Smurf Jones was bad enough.

Massachusetts Yokel | May 25, 2007, 12:24pm | #

I like Ron Paul.

val | May 25, 2007, 12:28pm | #

You should read more history. There is a very convincing case to be made that we were not necessary to stop Hitler; that the Russian Winter of 1941-42 did that for us.

My friend, Im from the former USSR, trust me in you have had more history regarding WWII then me(admitedly some of it was propogandstic), then you are a WWII scholar or take a very large interest in the topic. The Russian winter definetely played a large role in this case, as it had a multitude of time through out history, but I dont beleive that it would have been enough to completely wipe out the German army. Worse case scenario would have been Hitler keeping a grip on all of europe and maybe some of USSR and stretching this war into countless years, or even making peace with Stalin.

That is to say, our participation in WWI and WWII was neither necessary nor very wise. It was, however, Constitutional in each case, because Congress declared war, which they are empowered to do for any reason, whether or not it agrees with libertarian principle.

I will concede to you the point about consitutionality of those wars, but will disagree about the wisdom and necessity.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 12:41pm | #

"Islamo-Fascism"

Who is responsible for making this word up and getting it in the mainstream?

I want to kick him in the balls.

According to Wikipedia, it was a French Marxist by the name of Maxime Rodinson.

NoStar | May 25, 2007, 12:42pm | #

Dondero a libertarian?

Hell, he isn't even a Liberty Caucus Republican anymore. He has quit that organization three times and from what I infer from Bill Westmiller, they don't want him back.

Dondero is a run of the mill, war loving, big government Republican who also comes across as a baby who throws man sized temper tantrums.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | May 25, 2007, 12:48pm | #

That is to say, our participation in WWI and WWII was neither necessary nor very wise. It was, however, Constitutional in each case, because Congress declared war, which they are empowered to do for any reason, whether or not it agrees with libertarian principle

Winner of the thread!

sss33 | May 25, 2007, 12:50pm | #

I've watched this Eric Dondero trainwreck for the past 2 weeks, and now I have to speak up.

Somebody, for the love of God, PLEASE make a documentary or write a book on Eric Dondero. This guy is a classic example of the neoconservative brain disease in effect. Neoconservatism managed to poison this guy from being a libertarian (if he ever really was one, but I'll just assume it for now) into being the same kind of neocon political hack as the Bushies or the Giulianites.

Eric Dondero is a classic example of what is wrong with the Republican Party. He is no Republican, nor is he a libertarian. He is merely a Bushie.

Jennifer | May 25, 2007, 12:50pm | #

Do a Google search for Dondero and the second item that comes up is an essay he wrote in 2005, wondering why Bush's critics can't admit that they were wrong and Bush was right about Iraq. Dondero notes how, as Bush predicted, it was a smashing success, caused no problems in the Middle East, and even spurred democracy in the region.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | May 25, 2007, 12:50pm | #

According to Wikipedia, it was a French Marxist by the name of Maxime Rodinson.

Fuck. He's dead. Skeletons don't have balls.

Jennifer | May 25, 2007, 12:54pm | #

While all Anti-War libertarians are incredibly big losers in the recent successes of the Bush Doctrine — Democracy breaking out with lightening (sic) speed in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi and even Israel/Palestine post-Iraqi Elections — it is Lew Rockwell of LewRockwell.com and Justin Raimondo of Anti-War.com and their allies who are the absolute BIGGEST LOSERS.

Just think about this for a second. Rockwell and Raimondo have been saying for years that Bush was going to be a huge failure. That the entire Middle East was going to explode over our invasion of Iraq. That it would NEVER cause democracy and freedom to flourish in other Nations in the Region. (Some would say that it even has had coat-tails outside of the Region, witness Ukraine).

So, why is it that Rockwell and Raimondo and the Paleo-libertarians are not being called on the carpet about all this?

Why is it that they are getting a free pass. Nobody is questioning them to explain why it is that all their predictions were DEAD WRONG???

--Eric Dondero, March 3, 2005

(Jennifer's speculation: Maybe because they were in fact DEAD RIGHT?)

joe | May 25, 2007, 12:55pm | #

It's so cute when Iraq hawks act like they are anything but a discredited minority.

Ohnoes! Conservatives are going to call libertarians "anti-war!" Boy, in an America that is opposed to the Iraq War by a 2:1 margin, that's intellectual death!

Next time one of you libertoids is sneered at by a Republican on Fox Nooz for not falling in lockstep behind Commander Guy and his Really Big Idea That Couldn't Possibly Go Wrong, reply with, "Don't forget, we also think you guys were wrong about Terry Schiavo."

Eric the .5b | May 25, 2007, 12:55pm | #

That is a very, very real threat we face to our libertarian movement

The greatest threat to the five or six guys in your little "libertarian movement" is contact with actual libertarians.

joe | May 25, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Christ, Eric, I'M a better libertarian than you!

Ray Harmon | May 25, 2007, 1:04pm | #

I think it's very interesting to view establishment libertarians wring their hands over Ron Paul. The telling difference is where the rubber meets the road and the challenge is being pragmatic while not selling out the very principles underpinning what you represent.

Ron Paul has found solid ground that resonates.

Yes, I'd love to live in a world of free people without borders where people can intermingle in the spirit of universal harmony, but the practical side of my brain tells me that as long as the welfare statists and global terrorists draw breath, securing our nation's borders and controlling the flow of immigration is a reasonable and constitutionally appropriate task for our government to undertake.

Pig Mannix | May 25, 2007, 1:06pm | #

Are there any readers here who would ever vote for Dondero?

Ummmm......

How about who would want to have a beer with him?

Well, I guess I'd go to his funeral if they served free beer and let people piss in the casket.....

joe | May 25, 2007, 1:10pm | #

"Oh come on, I cannot see how anyone can claim the Balkans was a neccessary and justified war and that Iraq was not."

Hi, Warren!

I agree, if we look at the question purely in terms of ideology and principle, the case for both wars is remarkably similar.

That's why, for a couple of months in 2002, I found it very difficult question. Saddam Hussein really was that bad.

What it came down to, for me, was practicality. Kosovo was a bite-sized mission with many fewer complications, while Iraq was a much larger, more complex problem. This meant that Iraq was going to be a lot more difficult - not only in the sense that it would be more costly (both in absolute terms, and in opportunity costs, such as we saw at Tora Bora), but also in that we would have a much lower chance of success, and the price of failure would be much higher. Add to this the fact that George Bush is a drooling moron and Dick Cheney a deluded fanatic, and it becomes clear which way the scale tips.

I agree, it's tough to articulate a set of principles that endorse our intervention in the Balkins and reject Operation Iraqi Freedom. For me, it came down the judgement that our action in Kosovo was likely to succeed, whie those in Iraq were likely to fail; and that failing in Yugoslavia would have minimal consequences, while failing in Iraq would have terrible consequences.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:11pm | #

"My little libertarian movement" consists of the likes of Neal Boortz, Larry Elder, PJ O'Rourke, Dr. John Hospers, Dr. Jack Wheeler, Tammy Bruce, and other "Goldwaterites" who are strong on free markets, are completely socially tolerant and supportive of civil liberties, yet are also strong on defense.

Oh, how quickly some would like to forget libertarian movement history.

FACT: Dana Rohrabacher is the Founder of the Modern Libertarian Political Movement. (1966-69 when he was the leader of the Libertarian Caucus of YAF.) Dana is Pro-Defense, and always has been.

FACT: Dr. John Hospers, the Libertairan Party's first Presidential candidate was and is now, a Pro-Defense Libertarian. Hospers was even a "Libertarian for Bush" in 2004.

FACT: Dr. Earl Ravenal, the LP's 1984 Presidential Nomination candidate who eventually lost to nutso Leftwing Libertarian Bergland, was hardcore Pro-Defense.

FACT: The Libertarian Defense Caucus headed by Mike Dunn, was an active and well-organized group within the LP for nearly two decades. One of their most prominent members was of all people, REASON MAGAZINE'S OWN BOB POOLE.

FACT: The Nation's Number One Libertarian Radio Talk Show Host Neal Boortz is stridently Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism.

FACT: The Nation's most prominent self-described "libertarian Democrat" Radio Talk Show Host Tammy Bruce is stridently Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism.

FACT: The Nation's Number One libertarian Author of all time (save possibly John Stossell), is stridently Pro-War and has been all along: Cato Institute's darling PJ O'Rourke.

You wanna run that by me again? What was that you said? "Pro-Defense Libertarians are just a tiny small little insignificant group..."

Pro Libertate | May 25, 2007, 1:11pm | #

Well, I don't think Paul is a pacifist, but, even if he were and he made pacifism the first thing people thought of when they thought of libertarianism, so what? It's not like we're winning hearts and minds with our more basic messages. Unless we've reverted to a Constitutional government since I started eating lunch.

Derrick | May 25, 2007, 1:13pm | #

"Culturally, he strikes a lot of the more cosmopolitan libertarians as a yokel."

I consider myself a cosmopolitan snob, and yet I roll my eyes at this.

val | May 25, 2007, 1:13pm | #

joe,

Since you dont describe yourself as a libertarian, Im curious to know what your opinion of R.Paul is?

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 1:14pm | #

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:17pm | #

Would someone here please explain to me how one can call themselves a "libertarian" yet at the same time align themselves with a group of people - Radical Muslims - who want to:

Outlaw all pornography

Outlaw all prostitution

Outlaw all forms of gambling

Stamp out all alcohol use in society

Outlaw marijuana and jail all those who deal in drugs

Censor any depictions of the "Prophet" Muhammed in newspapers, magazines or other media

Cut off the heads of all "Zionist" Jews who do not repent their beliefs in front of video cameras

Have we libertarians forgotten that we are the ones who are supposed to stand up for civil liberties, including sexual liberties?

Why the maddening silence from the libertarian community about the atrocities against freedom committed by Radical Muslims in Western Europe and even right here in the United States?

NEVER FORGET THEO VAN GOGH!!!

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 1:17pm | #

Where Paul's foreign policy goes off track is that he imagines a fantasy world in which there is the degree of global trade that now exists, with a huge percentage of the world that is still not governed by consent of the population, in which a global economic power can avoid meddling in other nation's affairs.

It. cannot. happen.

Inevitably, a trading giant is sucked into lending at least tacit support to despotic regimes, and in the process becoming enemies of the elements of populations that resent said despots. It matters not a whit that those resentful elements may be just as despotic in their desires; the fact that our trade relationship helps keep the current despot in power suffices to make us enemies. Now, when we become enemies of resentful elements who are so poor and downtrodden that they lack the ability to strike, it never rises to any discernable level of concern. When we become enemies of resentful elements who are highly, motivated, and have access to resources, violence proceeds apace.

When Ron Paul begins suggesting that we go back to the trading and economic patterns of the late 18 or early 19th centuries, then his foreign policy will begin to make sense. Of course, this would conflict with other elements of libertarian thought, which is a conclict shared by many libertarians.

Jackson | May 25, 2007, 1:17pm | #

In the CNN Situation Room that Ron Paul took part in, it's very clear in his answer to a very direct question that he supports shifting resources to go after Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden -- which was supposed to be the primary goal after 9/11 -- but he doesn't support the Iraq War and other military adventures.

How the fuck is that pacifist, really? I call it common sense.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 1:18pm | #

You wanna run that by me again? What was that you said? "Pro-Defense Libertarians are just a tiny small little insignificant group..."

I'm a pro-defense libertarian. I'm, also, an anti-offense libertarian.

sss33 | May 25, 2007, 1:18pm | #

Well, Dondero's last post thoroughly convinced me. After all, if talking heads on radio shows and partisan magazines support Dondero's simple-minded world view, it must be the right one.

George W. Dondero for President!!!

Jackson | May 25, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.

Also, Eric, why exactly were you fired by Ron Paul? Inquiring minds would be more than interested in the answer from your perspective. It would seem to me that your bone to pick with Ron runs a bit deeper than you seem to let on.

SugarFree | May 25, 2007, 1:22pm | #

Eric Dondero,

Libertarians [heart] Radical Muslims? Wha?

Is Little Green Footballs having server problems again? Go home, faketarian, go home.

joe | May 25, 2007, 1:24pm | #

val,

I didn't describe myself as a libertarian.

Just a better one than Eric Dondero.

I am also a better Catholic than Pol Pot.

As for my opinion about Ron Paul, I think he makes important contributions to the debates he is involved in, because he articulates a point of view that isn't given enough attention.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 1:24pm | #

RADICAL HOMICIDAL MUSLIMS SUCK!

Happy now, Eric?

joe | May 25, 2007, 1:27pm | #

I agree that people who ally themselves with brutish authoritarians with no respect for individual liberty cannot rightly call themselves libertarians.

So, Eric, how is "Libertarians for Guiliani" doing, anyway?

Would you care to give that question a shot? Or 41?

sss33 | May 25, 2007, 1:27pm | #

Mike -

George W. Dondero does not accept your comments. You forgot to put the word "FASCIST" next to "Radical" and "Muslim".

Also, you forgot to say that they hate us because of our freedom.

Michael Nolan | May 25, 2007, 1:29pm | #

Dondero, you sir are a moron.

Join the Democrats, lefty.

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 1:30pm | #

I agree that people who ally themselves with brutish authoritarians with no respect for individual liberty cannot rightly call themselves libertarians.

So, Eric, how is "Libertarians for Guiliani" doing, anyway?

Joe just won the thread.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:32pm | #

Let me clear something up here. It was touched upon in the New Republic piece from today. But the reporter did not go into detail.

There's a common misperception that Ron Paul is "not a Pacifist" but rather he's just against the War in Iraq. Paul fanatics offer up his support for the War in Afghanistan as an example to back this up.

I am saying this here for the record on Reason.com, (for publication):

I had to beg and plead with Ron Paul, to the point of threatening to resign in October of 2001, to get my former boss Ron Paul to support Bush's resolution to go into Afghanistan. He was not going to vote in favor of it.

I'd like to think it was my threats to resign that finally got him to vote in favor. But quite honestly, it probably had a lot more to do with nearly the same threats from other District staffers, most notably then District Director Jackie Gloor of Victoria.

Jackie was literally horrified at the thought that Ron would not support the President and ousting of the Taliban in Afghanistan. She told him straight out days before the vote, if he did not vote for the resolution he would lose all of Victoria's support (Victoria is hardcore Bush Conservative Country), and that he might as well not even run for reelection.

Addtionally, even Ron Paul's family members strongly advised him to vote in favor of the resolution. I cannot confirm this, but I suspected at the time, that even Ron's own wife Carol told him that he absolutely must vote for the resolution.

On the day before the vote, Ron advised his staff that he would indeed vote in favor. Obviously, we were all relieved.

But for those who think that Ron Paul is some sort of "Strong on Defense, but opposed to the Iraq strategy" sort of guy, you need to consider, that Ron Paul, came within literally hours, of joining Cong. Tammy Baldwin of Madison, WI (Was it her or another Congresswoman from San Francisco, maybe?), in being one of only two Members of the US Congress to vote against War against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

(Note also an aside. Ron Paul is also fiercely opposed to the death penalty for any reason, including first degree murder.)

rhywun | May 25, 2007, 1:33pm | #

Inevitably, a trading giant is sucked into lending at least tacit support to despotic regimes,

I've denounced trade with China in the past, on the grounds that it mostly enriches the party faithful and makes eventual freedom for the common man ever less likely. This might not be libertarian orthodoxy--and I don't really care what the orthodox view is in this case--but in my mind it fits the principles as I see them of pursuing self-interest only while doing no harm to others.

In short, there's nothing "inevitable" about trading with despots. We are perfectly free to choose not to trade with them.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:35pm | #

Just who is Authoritarian here? Rudy or Ron?

Let's see now. Rudy Giuliani supports a women's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. He doesn't think that women who have an abortion in the first trimester should be thrown in jail for choosing to have this procedure.

Dr. Ron Paul does not support a women's right to choose. He takes a more Authoritarian view. He has no problem with States outlawing abortion and even sending women to jail for long prison sentences for having the procedure done.

Which view is more "Authoritarian"?

grylliade | May 25, 2007, 1:37pm | #

Would someone here please explain to me how one can call themselves a "libertarian" yet at the same time align themselves with a group of people - Radical Muslims

When did we do this? Did I miss the memo?

Eric, your buddies in the neo-con movement are the ones who want to do all the things you list above. And they're actually in America, with American votes. So even if, for the sake of argument, I grant that "only defend our interests" is the same as "fight for Muslim extremists," I'd rather align myself with a bunch of people in the Middle East who will never have political power in the US and never be able to put their regressive programs into effect than people who already hold political in the US and have already attempted to put their regressive programs into effect. I think there's a Bible verse to the effect of removing the plank in your own eye before criticizing the speck in others — your fundie buddies could probably help you operate your computer to look it up.

He was not going to vote in favor of it.

Yet in the end he did. Here in the real world what people actually do matters, not what they mighta coulda done had things been different. Get together with Harry Turtledove and write an alt-history novel if you want to talk about what Ron Paul might have done.

(Note also an aside. Ron Paul is also fiercely opposed to the death penalty for any reason, including first degree murder.)

This is what is known as a "principled position." Go look up the definition of "principles" before you embarrass yourself further.

rhywun | May 25, 2007, 1:37pm | #

Ron Paul is also fiercely opposed to the death penalty for any reason, including first degree murder.

Cool, me too. [I don't think there's any orthodox position on the death penalty.]

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 1:38pm | #

Mr. Dondero, I am not only not a pacifist, but actually consider pacifism nearly as evil as totalitarianism, yet I too oppose the death penalty for 1st degree murderers. To be a death penalty supporter, one must have a truly moronic degree of faith in the state. Are you such a moron?

thoreau | May 25, 2007, 1:40pm | #

grylliade-

The only memo I got was about the new cover sheets on the TPS reports.

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 1:40pm | #

Call 911!
Blood vessels are bursting like crazy in Dondero's head.

Hey, Dondero,
I guess we'll find out what PJ O'Rourke thinks of Ron Paul on Maher's show Friday. Should be interesting, eh? What do you think will happen?

SM | May 25, 2007, 1:43pm | #

Thomas Paine's Goiter,

"According to Wikipedia, it was a French Marxist by the name of Maxime Rodinson.

Fuck. He's dead. Skeletons don't have balls."

The next best thing is to bring one to Christopher Hitchens's groin being as he's the one who popularized the phrase beyond all measure.

rhywun | May 25, 2007, 1:44pm | #

He has no problem with States outlawing abortion and even sending women to jail for long prison sentences for having the procedure done.

I have no problem with that either, as long as it's not the state I'm living in.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 1:44pm | #

Dondero -

Would someone here please explain to me how one can call themselves a "libertarian" yet at the same time align themselves with a group of people - Radical Muslims [...]

If you really think that "we shouldn't go halfway around the world to kill innocent people in a country that's never attacked us" equates to "let's ally ourselves with bad, faraway people," you're not qualified to be elected junior high class president, much less to the House of Representatives.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:45pm | #

Jackson asks "Why were you fired by Ron Paul, Eric?"

Geez, I don't really know. This is the first time I've heard that I was "fired."

Ron was praising me the other day in our local paper, the Brazoria County Facts as a "credible candidate."

For three years I've been using Ron (and most certainly my friend Tom Lizardo, Ron's Chief of Staff), as an employment reference.

Two years ago I had to go though an incredibly probing resume check process with AIG (Multinational Insurance Corp.), to be a Translator. It was a month long investigation of my background. Since most of my adult life I've been employed by Ron Paul, I have to presume they checked with him on my past employment status and reasons for leaving. I was hired by AIG. And not only that, they offered me a full benefits package.

Then there's the pesky little detail of my bonus. When I left Ron Paul's employ, I got a $10,000 bonus from him.

Oh, and this little fact: I actually resigned from Ron's employ to pursue a career in Interpreting/Translation in late 2001 (I think I've got the dates right here). I was gone for about 10 months. Carol, Ron's wife, was dismayed and confused. She pleaded with me to stay on. Well, 10 months later, I'm teaching English in Mexico, and I get this email from Tom Lizardo. They want me back. Ron's scheduler at the time, nice young Christian girl named Grace, got herself pregnent (out of wedlock). It was a bit of an internal Ron Paul Office scandal.

I agreed to come back to fill in as Scheduler til they found a replacement. Well, Ron wanted me to stay on longer as his Personal Assistant and Travel Aide. So, one year led to another.

I believe I still have the old email exchanges asking me to come back to work for Ron. Let me see if I can dig those up.

joe | May 25, 2007, 1:46pm | #

If you believe a fetus is a person, then supporting laws against abortion is no more authoritarian than supporting laws against murder.

I disagree with Rep. Paul on this question, and agree with Mr. Guiliani, but that has nothing to do with authoritarianism.

I will also note that Ron Paul's anti-abortion stance is not part of the standard Christianist package, alongside opposition to contraception, dirty magazines, gay sex and other body-control issues.

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 1:46pm | #

Eric, given that you've said that legalization of prostitution is one of your "top three issues" ...

"Legalization of Prostitution is one of my top three issues. Not sure where you got the idea that I don't support legalized prostitution from? I'm an ex-Sailor. I absolutely used the services of Prostitutes overseas in the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Mexico, Spain, all over the world, when I was a young buck Sailor. And each time was worth every penny.

As a matter of fact, it's an absolutely tragedy that the US Military is not allowing servicemen these days to utilize prostitutes in Iraq. There are severe restrictions on prostitution for Military Personnel nowadays. We Libertarian Republicans need to work to overturn that."

... how is it that you are supporting the guy who "cleaned up" New York City's 42nd Street, getting rid of all of the peep shows, streetwalkers, grindhouse theaters, etc. and turning it into Disneylite?

sss33 | May 25, 2007, 1:48pm | #

Just who is Authoritarian here? Rudy or Ron?

Let's see now. Rudy Giuliani supports a women's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

2 things, George W. Dondero:

First, this may just be the most hilarious post you've made yet. I didn't know a single person who has had the sheer gall to call RON PAUL a bigger authoritarian than RUDY GIULIANI until you showed up. That takes some chutzpah, guy. I'll have to give you credit for that one.

Secondly, it is a "woman's" right to choose, not "a women's" right to choose. If you plan on running for office, you better learn to use proper English. Oh wait, you're running on the Bushie like, so I suppose botching common English is part of your campaign strategy.

GEORGE W. DONDERO/ERIC CHENEY in 2008!

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 1:48pm | #

rhywun, the trouble is that in a republic with regular elections, it becomes nearly impossible to restrict trade to nations that have similar practices; there becomes way to many constituencies which will be economically harmed by such restrictions, even not factoring trade in mineral resources which the entire electorate demands.

Look, I'm not saying I have an easy answer to this, but I am saying that Paul's approach is completely nonsensical in a consumer society which demands trade. The days of no-meddling are over, and they ain't ever coming back. It is a contradiction which libertarians have yet to address coherently.

joe | May 25, 2007, 1:48pm | #

'Geez, I don't really know. This is the first time I've heard that I was "fired."'

No, it's not. You answered the very same charge just a few days ago on this very same web site.

You really are a Guiliani groupie, aren't you?

val | May 25, 2007, 1:49pm | #

To be a death penalty supporter, one must have a truly moronic degree of faith in the state.

should that be a moronic degree of faith in the jury of the your peers?

He has no problem with States outlawing abortion and even sending women to jail for long prison sentences for having the procedure done.

I have no problem with that either, as long as it's not the state I'm living in.

Thats pretty fuckin dispicable.

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 1:50pm | #

Geez, I don't really know. This is the first time I've heard that I was "fired."

Is this like Giuliani claiming to have never before heard of blowback during the last debate? Because I definitely saw a post by you in which you were complaining about how Ron Paul was saying you'd been fired (and you were saying you'd quit).

SugarFree | May 25, 2007, 1:50pm | #

joe,

Since Rudy loves the drag, maybe Eric can be his 8th wife.

Jackson | May 25, 2007, 1:51pm | #

Hook, line, and sinker.

Thanks, Eric. You've said enough.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 1:52pm | #

Geez, I don't really know. This is the first time I've heard that I was "fired."

Sure, Eric. Whatever you say. After all, Paul is known for having no principles, whereas you are the epitome of consistency.

"No way, man! They didn't fire me! I QUIT!"

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 1:54pm | #

"Iraq never attacked us..."

Really? How'se that?

1987, USS Starke, Saddam Hussein's forces lob a missile killing 37 US Sailors. (I was on the USS Luce the Starke's sister ship out of Mayport, FL.)

Jayna Davis, former CBS Investigative Reporter for Oklahoma City has extensively documented "Middle Eastern connections" to the Oklahoma City Bombing of 1994. Davis concluded that the most likely connections directly to Terry Nichols from the Middle East were from Iraqi Intelligence. Her book and findings are endorsed by former CIA Director James Woolsey.

Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Richard Miniter, Robert Spencer and other Middle Eastern investigative journalists have extensively documented links between Muhammed Attah and the Iraqis, most notably two meetings in Prague in 2000, before the 9/11 attacks.

Iraq was harboring two Terrorist training camps before we attacked in 2003: Salman Pac and Answar Al-Islam. The latter had direct ties to Al Qaeda; Basically Al Qaeda in Iraq under a different name.

But hey, there were no connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda, right? Ole' Saddam was just a jolly ole' man who liked the ladies, large swimming pools, and gold laced palaces. He didn't have any ties to terrorism. No Siree.

val | May 25, 2007, 1:58pm | #

I havent been on this blog long enough, or followed the Eric vs Ron fight, but why is everyone immediately assuming that Eric Dandero is the one lying about being fired and not Ron Paul. Both would have an equal amount to gain from this. And its not like Ron Paul has the best record of keeping track on what is happening with in his organization. So why all the animocity? Someone want to enlighten me on the history?

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 1:58pm | #

Not really, val , given the degree to which juries can be manipulated by a process in which they often aren't even allowed to examine all evidence, and the degree to which evidence can be manufactured. Now, there's a chance I could reconsider my oppostion to the death penalty, if public defender's offices had their budgets increased by at least a factor of 10. Until then, one has to have a moronic degree of faith in the state to support the death penalty.

val | May 25, 2007, 2:01pm | #

Will, fair enough, nice to see an articulated position on the issue.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 2:01pm | #

Eric,

Do you believe that the President is a good man who only has the best interests of the American people in his heart?

James Anderson Merritt | May 25, 2007, 2:04pm | #

Val said, "The Russian winter definetely played a large role in this case [Hitler's defeat in WWII], as it had a multitude of time through out history, but I dont beleive that it would have been enough to completely wipe out the German army."

We can agree to disagree, my friend. The numbers-based arguments I have read strongly suggest that Hitler was on the way down once the winter of 1941 hit. It wasn't just because of the winter itself. Hitler's adversaries had much more in the way of troops and armament at their disposal, much as the North had in fighting the South during the US Civil War. The German generals were extremely talented and the German troops were extremely motivated, as the South's generals and troops were in our own war. But in the end, the bigger machine won. Accidents and miracles do happen. By simply hanging in there for as long as he could, Hitler might have benefitted from such an accident; on the other hand, he might have suffered from a different one. Who knows? The point is that saying the US had to jump in against Hitler because it was NECESSARY to defeat him, is much like saying that it is necessary for a second high-school senior to help out a classmate who is shaking down the 8th grade bullies for THEIR lunch money.

Incidentally, as you are from from the former Soviet Union, I would like to offer my respect to your ancestors, who poured MILLIONS of men into the "Eastern Front" (your "Western Front") meatgrinder during the winter of 1941 and the several following. The US lost less than a third of a million combatants IN ALL THEATRES. The USSR lost some 18 million, by the best estimates I have seen, while the Germans lost a little over 4 million. Maybe it was necessary for US involvement to minimize the further loss of Soviet lives. But, it seems to me that the USSR and Germany were beating each other to a pulp at the time, and the participation of the US wasn't actually needed. True, we got to be a "superpower" by our efforts in WWII, but we saw that status to be a very mixed blessing in the ensuing decades.

SugarFree | May 25, 2007, 2:05pm | #

Eric,

You really did drink the whole pitcher of Kool-Aid, didn't you. Didn't leave any for your friends or nuthin'.

You got your war, you wasted thousands of American lives, wasted billions of dollars, but you still won't be happy until you convince everybody you were right. Pathetic.

What next bit of foreign adventurism are you buttering us up for, anyway? Where's the next 3rd world shithole you are so eager to spend American lives in? Iran? Syria? What's the endgame? For fuck's sake, how much blood will it take to please you neo-con corpse-fuckers?

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 2:07pm | #

Regarding the military capabilities of the Soviet Union in WWII, was not U.S. material support critical?

joe | May 25, 2007, 2:10pm | #

"why is everyone immediately assuming that Eric Dandero is the one lying about being fired and not Ron Paul."

Because Eric keeps getting caught lying.

Like, for example, his claim that this is the first time he's heard that he was fired.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 2:11pm | #

Val -

Dondero has a long history of being full of shit. As a single example, he claims to:

Speak 10 to 15 languages; including Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, German, Chinese & Filipino. [from his blog info]

He won't name the others, though I seem to remember him referring to his Spanish as "vacation Spanish." Elsewhere, he claims to speak "over 20 languages," so he apparently lost at least six at some point.

He has also spent a long time pretending to be a libertarian (generally posting on H&R to try and get all of us libs to vote for various Republicans), which is clearly not the case.

Frankly, his credibility is at zero. If Dondero were in an argument with a carnival barker, I'd bet money on the carny being the honest one.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 2:11pm | #

Do I think the "President is a good man who has only the best intentions at heart?" I dunno. Why don't you ask that to Ron Paul. After all it was Bush and Karl Rove who essentially got Ron Paul elected in 1996, after he won the GOP nomination. Of course, Ron would never admit to this.

And it was Ron Paul who praised Bush at numerous "Bush for President" functions in Texas in 2000 - Corpus Christi, Wharton GOP Annual Dinner, ect... where Ron Paul introduced Gov. Bush.

Oh, and it was Ron Paul who had Bush's picture (speaking with Ron at a meeting at the White House) PROMINENTLY displayed on the FRONT WALL ENTRANCE to our Congressional office in Freeport for years.

And it was Ron Paul who signed a letter in 2000 (may have been 2002?) for then loyal Bush Republican Congressional candidates Brian Bilbray and Jim Rogan (sorry, I don't think I have this name correct?), against their Libertarian Party opponents that year. In the letter, requested of Ron by the then Bush Appointee at the RNC at the time - and mailed to all registered Libertarian Party members in those respective Districts, Ron specifically asked Libertarians to "Vote Republican for Congress."

Warren | May 25, 2007, 2:16pm | #

Eric D,
Please. Just go away.

joe | May 25, 2007, 2:17pm | #

"1987, USS Starke, Saddam Hussein's forces lob a missile killing 37 US Sailors."

1987, USS Vincennes downs an Iranian jetliner, killing over 100 civilians. Like the Iraqis, whom we were supporting at the time, the cause was the misidentification of the target as Iranian military. Eric, I don't think you should be accusing the United States navy of attacking Iranian civilians like that.

I'm not even going to bother Fisking the claims about Atta in Prague and Iraqis in OKC, as I find it impolite to mock people's religion.

"Iraq was harboring two Terrorist training camps before we attacked in 2003: Salman Pac and Answar Al-Islam. The latter had direct ties to Al Qaeda; Basically Al Qaeda in Iraq under a different name."

Eric knows that the Ansar camp was in Kurdish territory, its organizers having fled the Saddam regime in order to avoid the secret police execution that awaited them. Eric knows this, and writes this crap anyway.

Why do people take Ron Paul's word over Eric Dondero's, val? Because Eric is a transparent liar, that's why.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 2:18pm | #

Joe, you dumbshit. That line about this "being the first time I heard I was fired..." was obviously rhetorical and a smart-allecky remark on my account. It was not meant to be taken literally.

The first time I heard this was two days ago, when Dave Wiesgal here at Reason emailed me the Ron Paul interview.

But it is quite noteworthy that 4 days ago, RP was praising me in the Brazoria Facts, "as credible," and then two days later starts slamming me as "a fired employee." And now today, one of Ron Paul's henchmen is out there in the media calling me a "driver" and a "looney tune."

Something has happened in the last two days to change the official line on Dondero.

I suspect the fact that yet another GOP primary challenger has emerged to Ron Paul. That's probably sent him/them over the edge.

Isaac Bartram | May 25, 2007, 2:22pm | #

Dondero, not everyone who opposes the Iraq adventure is a pacifist. Only a tiny, tiny minority are.

But I know I don't really need to tell you that. You know goddamn well that Ron Paul is not a pacifist by any definition of that word. But then as others have observed you and the truth are total strangers.

And it was Ron Paul who praised Bush at numerous "Bush for President" functions in Texas in 2000 - Corpus Christi, Wharton GOP Annual Dinner, ect... where Ron Paul introduced Gov. Bush.

Since at that time Bush was promoting a "humble" foreign policy (as opposed to the ambitious nation-building policies of the Clintonistas) at the time, this was hardly inconsistent for Ron Paul.

FACT: Dr. Earl Ravenal, the LP's 1984 Presidential Nomination candidate who eventually lost to nutso Leftwing Libertarian Bergland, was hardcore Pro-Defense.

Earl Ravenal has also advised against every interventionist war, including Iraq. Being Pro-Defense and being Pro-Iraq War are not equivalent positions.

And PJ O'Rourke has pretty much dismissed the Bushies as incompetent boobs on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts. Yes, he was in favor of deposing Saddam but he thinks the Administration has seriously mishandled the war.

And neither one of them would give you the time of day. And from now on neither will I.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 2:23pm | #

What the fuck?

Joe, are you honestly saying with a straight face that because Al Aswar-Al Islam was physically located in Kurdish Territory it was "not inside Iraq."

Holy Shit. This is the first time I've heard anyone claim that the Kurds had their Independence under Saddam Hussein's rule.

Why don't you try telling that to the families of the some 200,000 Kurds who were brutally gassed by Saddam from the early 1990s to 2003.

I suppose you're now going to tell us that Pol Pot was the legitamate ruler of Cambodia, and that the over 2 million Cambodians he killed is an "exaggerrated number."

You worthless Anti-War so-called Libertarians will go to any extent won't you to avoid the fundamental point of how to respond to murderous World Totalitarian Dictatorial leaders.

Evil exists asshole. And if we don't confront it, we will all be marched off to the gas chambers.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 2:23pm | #

And it was Ron Paul who praised Bush at numerous "Bush for President" functions in Texas in 2000 - Corpus Christi, Wharton GOP Annual Dinner, ect... where Ron Paul introduced Gov. Bush.

Bush seemed like a very different person in 2000. Hell, in 2000 even I kinda liked Bush. Stuff like "humbler foreign policy" really resonated with me... too bad Bush turned out to be such a lying piece of shit.

Oh, and it was Ron Paul who had Bush's picture (speaking with Ron at a meeting at the White House) PROMINENTLY displayed on the FRONT WALL ENTRANCE to our Congressional office in Freeport for years.

OH MY GOD! A PICTURE OF THE SITTING PRESIDENT IN A CONGRESSIONAL OFFICE! AND THERE ARE WORDS IN ALL CAPS! SOMEONE CALL A SWAT TEAM!

Eric, I hate resorting to the ad hominem, but I must say that you're an absolutely worthless waste of skin. Go lie down until the voices in your head stop screaming.

b | May 25, 2007, 2:25pm | #

To Brian Doherty:

Thanks for the "yokel" quote. Ron Paul rulez, dood. But now that you've branded him as a lame-o, we'll never have liberty in America.

Oh well.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 2:25pm | #

Warren D.

Please, just go away. Leave us real libertarians alone, and stop polluting our movement with your pacifist crap.

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 2:26pm | #

I have no regard for Dondero, but I suppose there is a chance that his characterization of Paul's reluctance to strike at the Taliban is true, and if so, this speaks very, very, poorly of Paul.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 2:28pm | #

You worthless Anti-War so-called Libertarians will go to any extent won't you to avoid the fundamental point of how to respond to murderous World Totalitarian Dictatorial leaders.

Maybe we could start by shipping Eric Dondero to them. It's a win-win!

Evil exists asshole. And if we don't confront it, we will all be marched off to the gas chambers.

Welcome to the post-Godwin portion of the thread!

Warren | May 25, 2007, 2:31pm | #

Leave us real libertarians alone

Those voices in your head, are not other people.

Fluffy | May 25, 2007, 2:32pm | #

Eric -

Look, if you want to advocate Trotskyite eternal war to export the ideals of the American Revolution, I suppose a certain case can be made for that.

But that case only works if you can actually deliver the Iraq war I was promised: the short one with few casualties and minimal fiscal costs. I also demand the rose petals - showers and showers of rose petals.

If you can't deliver that war, then the question becomes a pretty straightforward cost/benefit analysis: Has the Iraq war brought us benefits that are worth the 3500 [and counting] dead, the thousands more wounded, and the $500 billion [and counting] dollar cost? I don't think it has. I don't think it's brought any lasting benefit at all, since the crowning achievement of the war - the Iraqi democracy - will last about five minutes after our ultimate withdrawal, whenever that would be. And there have been other costs to the war as well - increased anger against us in the very regions of the world that produce terrorism, an assault on civil liberties that date back to the Magna Carta, shredding of American capability with the world community, etc.

Our choice isn't between some fantasy war policy where everything is wonderful because it's run by Mr. Dondero, and dhimmitude. Sorry.

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 2:33pm | #

Jake, your remarks interest me somewhat. I KNEW Bush was going to be horrible in regards to domestic policy; how could a guy who made his pile off the abuse of eminent domain and taxpayer subsidy avoid being horrible? Regarding foreign policy, I think his views were derailed and then reconstructed by the VP's office after 9/11, but I had no doubt going in that Bush would be a terrible President in regards to domestic policy.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 2:33pm | #

Look, for those of you who still think Ron Paul is not a pacifist, don't take my word for it. Ask him yourselves.

Specifically, ask he why he opposes the death penalty, even for brutal Serial Murderers.

Ron and I used to argue about the death penalty for hours and hours in the car on the way to campaign events.

I'll give him one thing: He is consistent. He is opposed to Abortion, opposed to the Death Penalty, opposed to Euthanasia (Terry Schiavo stuff), and opposed to all War for any reason.

Doubt this?

Ask him if he feels that our intervention in WWII was justified.

I'll guarantee you that you'll get some long drawn out historial lesson about how FDR knew of the Japanese attacks before hand, rather than a straight out answer, that "Yes, Hitler's Nazis and the Japanese needed to be defeated."

The guy is a total pacifist. Accept that.

I mean he does get an 'A' for honesty and consistency. But don't keep trying to spin this tired-old line that "Ron is not a pacifist, he just opposes the Iraq War" bullshit.

dhex | May 25, 2007, 2:36pm | #

"Young people who agree with us on Economic conservatism and Social tolerance, may now be turned off to libertarianism, thinking that we're a bunch of Pacifists or "Surrenderists," who don't recognize the rising threat of Islamo-Fascism."

thankfully, those who would use terms like "surrenderists" or "islamo-fascism" aren't going to be interested much in economic conservatism or social tolerance, so it's basically a draw.

Ray Harmon | May 25, 2007, 2:36pm | #

Politics of fear versus politics of reason. I choose reason. Understanding is far more constructive than the blind, chest pounding tribalism that I hear spouting from the representatives of the status quo.

In fact, one should realize that the politics of fear is the same tactic being used by the rabid extremists on both sides of this "war".

Both sides are equally wrong and they share the same motivations: the recruitment of followers, blind loyalists.

There is nothing at all new here; if history were television, all the shows would be repeats.

It's time for the grown ups to enter the room and send the less mature to their respective corners.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 2:38pm | #

Leave us real libertarians alone [...]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. [/montoya]

Seriously, Eric, if you find that you're the lone libertarian surrounded by a bunch of people pretending to be libertarians, maybe you should consider that the non-libertarian is probably you.

Fluffy | May 25, 2007, 2:38pm | #

Eric -

There are two questions here:

Is Ron Paul right on war in general?

Is Ron Paul right on the Iraq war?

We can talk about WWII all you like. It doesn't make you right on the Iraq war. The Iraq war has been a strategic, fiscal, human and diplomatic disaster by any reasonable measurement. Lining up with the people who planned it, brought it about, and continue it today doesn't reflect well on your potential as a Congressman. We have no reason - NONE - to believe that an administration that has failed in this war is going to do any better in the future. And we have every reason to believe that the people who were wrong about the Iraq war will continue to be wrong in the future.

Dave W. | May 25, 2007, 2:38pm | #

I'm not even going to bother Fisking the claims about Atta in Prague and Iraqis in OKC, as I find it impolite to mock people's religion.

The Iraqis in OKC one is kind of plausible. Something screwy was going on with that John Doe #2 thing. McVeigh had been to Iraq and seemed to have something of a soft spot for its people. Being suspicious of the official story is not as religious as taking it on faith.

JM | May 25, 2007, 2:42pm | #

The death penalty is a waste of money. Just give them life with no parole and they will die in prison as surely as they would in an execution chamber.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 2:43pm | #

Do I think the "President is a good man who has only the best intentions at heart?" I dunno. Why don't you ask that to Ron Paul. After all it was Bush and Karl Rove who essentially got Ron Paul elected in 1996, after he won the GOP nomination. Of course, Ron would never admit to this.

Boy, you could have avoided this one entirely, but you just walked right into it. Of course, you were careful to say AFTER he won the nomination. The fact that Bush and Karl Rove tried like hell to keep him from winning the nomination by supporting turncoat Democrat and Washington insider Greg Laughlin is successfully avoided and you don't even have to lie about it. Just a sin of omission, that's all.

If you don't want me to vote for Ron Paul for President, fine, I'll vote for Bill Richardson or Tommy Thompson. I can't even send Ron Paul back to Washington because I'm represented by that idiot John Carter. But nothing that you have said yet has convinced me that you are anything more than a political hack.

Vaya con Dios.

joe | May 25, 2007, 2:43pm | #

'Joe, are you honestly saying with a straight face that because Al Aswar-Al Islam was physically located in Kurdish Territory it was "not inside Iraq." '

No, I am claiming that becasue Ansar was located outside of area controlled by the Iraqi government, "Iraq" was not "harboring" them, which was your original claim.

None of the rest of your simian chest-beating warrants a response.

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 2:44pm | #

McVeigh's behavior up to his execution really seems like that of a guy who was hiding information, which is not to say that I give any credence to any particular theory. He just seemed to be holding back information about possible conspirators, unlike some people who are executed who give every detail of their life prior to meeting their end. Another stupid execution, really.

MP | May 25, 2007, 2:44pm | #

Wow. Just wow. Anyone willing to play the "you're only a REAL libertarian if" card is already one who needs to be bitch-slapped. To play it using a pro-Iraq war position as your guidepoint is simply astonishing.

AXD | May 25, 2007, 2:47pm | #

The difference between Ron Paul and EVERYONE else in the race, is his consistency. He's not waffled on his beliefs or critical positions as long as he's been in Congress. Nobody else comes even close to being able to say that much less prove it. Unfortunately, he'll never win because the "powers that be" won't let him. But he's waking up the American public. BTW... not being a global bully is not being a pacifist

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 2:48pm | #

Jake, I think a little libertarian movement history is in order here:

Dana Rohrabacher headed the Libertarian Caucus of Young Americans for Freedom from 1966 to 1969. Bob Poole, of Reason Magazine was around in YAF back then, and can confirm all this.

Dana was then, AND IS NOW, a Pro-War Libertarian.

Well, Dana's views weren't "politicall correct" after the early 1970s. Yeah, the LP's First Presidential candidate John Hospers was a Pro-Defense guy. But by 1973, the LP was clearly in the Anti-War camp. So much so, that in 1974, the Anti-War fanatics completely took control of the LP Platform Committee led by Justin Raimondo, Rothbard, Bergland, et.al.

They took over so much control in fact, that they essentially whitewashed past Libertarian history. Dana Rohrabacher was castigated and forever banished from the LP, as were Dana's compatriots like Dr. Jack Wheeler. (Wheeler and Rohrabacher and other Pro-Defense Libertarians still appeared within the pages of Reason for years after that.)

So, why do I bring this up?

Cause I ain't no Dana Rohrabacher. You fucking think for a second, that just because my Pro-Defense views are in the minority within the libertarian movement, that I'm going to let you fuckheads drum me out of the movement, like you did to Rohrabacher?

Sorry. I'll admit, the Pro-Defense Libertarian movement in the past was rather weak in responding to the Pacifists within the libertarian movement. The Mike Dunns, Darlene Brinks, Rohrabachers, and other LDCers of the past sort of just finally threw up their hands and capitulated.

No more. There's a new Libertarian Defense Caucus in town. With strong-minded folks like Johnny Ringo, Bob Hunt, Tim and Jeannie Starr, DJ Entropy, Dick Bjornsen, Patrick Joubert, and many others who are not going to let you Pacifists off the hook.

Be advised: This time we're here to stay.

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 2:51pm | #

Will Allen,

Jake, your remarks interest me somewhat. I KNEW Bush was going to be horrible in regards to domestic policy; how could a guy who made his pile off the abuse of eminent domain and taxpayer subsidy avoid being horrible?

I was in the military stationed overseas during the 2000 campaign, and I didn't become fully aware of Bush's unpleasant background until later. His speeches sounded great - fiscal responsibility, less of the "world policeman" stuff, social security reform - compared to the Clinton years, that sounded pretty damned good to me. About the only news we got was filtered through AFN (the Armed Forces Network), so my access to hard information about the guy wasn't as good as it might have been.

Dave W. | May 25, 2007, 2:53pm | #

McVeigh's behavior up to his execution really seems like that of a guy who was hiding information, which is not to say that I give any credence to any particular theory.

The prosecutors seemed even worse in this regard.

Fluffy | May 25, 2007, 2:54pm | #

Hold on a second - who's drumming you out of any libertarian movement?

YOU turn on an employer and I would hope a friend and sell him out for the sake of a worthless piece of shit like George W. Bush, and then say other people are trying to drum you out?

I think a pro-war libertarian is certainly possible. Libertarians always say that defense is one of the only legitimate functions of government, and that means war. But a pro-George-Bush libertarian is absolutely impossible. Since you are choosing to stab Paul in the back solely because he opposes Mr. Bush's war, that makes me doubt your libertarian credentials. But I haven't seen ANYONE try to drum you out of ANYTHING which any tool more serious than mockery. By the way, is it 10 or 15 languages you speak? I can't remember.

joe | May 25, 2007, 2:54pm | #

It would appear that the lodestar of "pro-defense" libertarianism is Taliban Dan Rohrbacher.

It's not the patriotism of these people I question; it's their judgement.

Maybe Eric can go get his picture taken with some of the higher-ups from the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

NoStar | May 25, 2007, 2:54pm | #

Then there's the pesky little detail of my bonus. When I left Ron Paul's employ, I got a $10,000 bonus from him.

Dondero,
If we all chip in and raise 10 Grand, will you leave?

Hit&Runners,
How about it? Wanna chip in? Remember, you don't pay a prostitute for sex. You pay to make her go away. Eric Dondero Rittberg is nothing, if not a ho for Bushite military adventurism.

Will Allen | May 25, 2007, 2:55pm | #

There cannot actually be a Libertarian Defense Caucus with a member by the name of "Johnny Ringo". He better hope he doesn't run into Val Kilmer in a card game!

I'm also suspicious of "D.J. Entropy". Hmmmmm....I think this entire thread by Dondero may be shtick........

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 2:59pm | #

Dana Rohrabacher also used to be an anarcho-capitalist, as is described as such in David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom," first published in 1973. Obviously, Rohrabacher has sold out, changed his views, or however one wants to characterize it, which doesn't make him the best example you could cite.

Of course, Rohrabacher isn't the only one who has changed, since when Eric first went to work for Ron Paul, Paul was already closely associated with Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell and all of the other anti-war LP activists Eric was supposedly against at the time.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 3:01pm | #

No more. There's a new Libertarian Defense Caucus in town. With strong-minded folks like Johnny Ringo, Bob Hunt, Tim and Jeannie Starr, DJ Entropy, Dick Bjornsen, Patrick Joubert, and many others who are not going to let you Pacifists off the hook.

Would you support them using "every method they could think of" to not let them off the hook?

Jake Boone | May 25, 2007, 3:04pm | #

Dana was then, AND IS NOW, a Pro-War Libertarian.

And I'm a carnivorous vegetarian who drinks dehydrated water! Seriously, what the hell is your definition of "libertarian?" I think it must be pretty damned unorthodox.

But by 1973, the LP was clearly in the Anti-War camp.

Hmm. 1973. What was going on in 1973 that might make libertarians think that going out to find wars to fight could be a bad idea? It's right on the tip of my tongue...

You fucking think for a second, that just because my Pro-Defense views are in the minority within the libertarian movement, that I'm going to let you fuckheads drum me out of the movement[...]?

"Defense." There's another word you don't use correctly. We can't drum you out of the movement because you aren't actually in the movement. You're having your own little "movement" off in the woods someplace, then rolling around in it and flinging it at everyone you see.

No more. There's a new Libertarian Defense Caucus in town. With strong-minded folks like Johnny Ringo, Bob Hunt, Tim and Jeannie Starr, DJ Entropy, Dick Bjornsen, Patrick Joubert, and many others who are not going to let you Pacifists off the hook.

Ha ha ha! Okay, admit it. You saw yourself doing the cinematic "power walk" when you typed this bit, didn't you?

val | May 25, 2007, 3:10pm | #

This thread has devolved into a I'm a real liberatarian and you are not crap.

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 3:16pm | #

thoreau | May 25, 2007, 3:18pm | #

This thread is still going on?

I think Eric Dondero needs to go into the filter.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 3:23pm | #

Priceless Dondero internet confrontation

Apologies if someone else has linked to this already.

With all the flying off the handle and the F-bombs flowing freely, how long could a Dondero candidacy really last?

He quoted the American Spectator without irony. Maybe he'll start quoting the NY Post, too.

Jennifer | May 25, 2007, 3:39pm | #

That WAS funny, Highnumber. And I can't fucking help but wonder if some fucking dude who really fucking needs a bigger fucking vocabulary (as evidenced by the fucking fact that fucking is every third word he uses) has any fucking chance of being elected to the motherfizzucking house of Congress.

Bradley | May 25, 2007, 3:41pm | #

Mr. Rittberg,

It might be useful, as you intimate, to define our terms:

"Would someone here please explain to me how one can call themselves a "libertarian" yet at the same time align themselves with a group of people - Radical Muslims - who want to:

"Outlaw all pornography, prostitution, forms of gambling, marijuana and jail all those who deal in drugs [condensed version of Rudy's record as mayor]

"Have we libertarians forgotten that we are the ones who are supposed to stand up for civil liberties, including sexual liberties?
[sure Rudy is a sexual libertine, but no civil libertarian--care to elaborate here your views on monogamy being unnatural to be disfavored?]

"Why the maddening silence from the libertarian community about the atrocities against freedom committed by Radical Muslims in Western Europe and even right here in the United States?"

Dr. Paul proved his leadership by promoting a DIFFERENT, BETTER APPROACH, namely letters of marque and reprisal. Osama is still out there plotting against us with an easier time recruiting under the currrent policies.

Since you have absolutely zero legislative or public policy experience, you might be better off not wasting the Congressman's or anyone else's time on baseless rants.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 3:50pm | #

Nice try at a deflection there Bradley. Now how 'bout answering the question.

Again, why is it that Libertarians like you are completely silent about the rising threat of Islamo-Fascism?

Why never any comments from people like you about Muslims rampaging throughout Europe and seeking to outlaw Western tolerance?

Why no comments from people like you about the atrocities committed right here in the United States by Radical Muslims? like the Salt Lake City shooter, the Seattle shooter, Fort Dix Six and the Beltway sniper?

Why do you completely avoid subjects like Muslim Cabbies in Minneapolis refusing to carry the blind with seeing eye dogs, passengers carrying wine, and gays? Or, Muslims in Philadelphia trying to shut down liquor stores? Or Muslims protesting on a weekly basis in Southern Ohio against Co-Ed Gyms like 24-hour Fitness?

Doesn't quite fit your template now does it?

So, your only escape is avoidance, or deflection.

Terrorific | May 25, 2007, 3:50pm | #

No more. There's a new Libertarian Defense Caucus in town. With strong-minded folks like Johnny Ringo, Bob Hunt, Tim and Jeannie Starr, DJ Entropy, Dick Bjornsen, Patrick Joubert, and many others who are not going to let you Pacifists off the hook.

Forgive me.....but, who are these people again and why should I be scared of them?

Terrorific | May 25, 2007, 3:53pm | #

Hi Eric,

I'm new to the conversation. Can I ask a question?

If you don't like Muslims so much, why don't you raise your own army and go fight them yourself? Obviously you have the gumption. Perhaps because typing is easier?

Jennifer | May 25, 2007, 3:54pm | #

So Eric, do you still think Rockwell and Raimondo were wrong to say that the Iraq war would be a clusterfuck rather than the glorious democracy-building exercise Bush claimed it would be?

By the way, how's that Israeli-Palestinian democracy you crowed about two years ago working out?

joe | May 25, 2007, 3:57pm | #

I have seen Reason threads about every single one of the topics Eric brought up. Every single one.

MP | May 25, 2007, 4:01pm | #

Or Muslims protesting on a weekly basis in Southern Ohio against Co-Ed Gyms like 24-hour Fitness?

Wow. That's like...oh my...like...so not an issue.

Again, why is it that Libertarians like you are completely silent about the rising threat of Islamo-Fascism?

Because we don't find the "threat" credible. In fact, we give zero credence to threats. The those evil muslims are successful at imposing Sharia in this country, then maybe your threat is credible.

Terrorific | May 25, 2007, 4:05pm | #

Dammit. Where did Eric go? I ALWAYS come late to these things. Why didn't anybody send me a memo?

SugarFree | May 25, 2007, 4:09pm | #

You think he keeps all this stuff in a word document so he can just cut and paste every time? It must have been sent out as a whitehouse.gov email attachment.

He is just childish and sad.

How about we threadjack our way out of arguing with Bush-Bot?

MAN, I SURE DO LOVE ABORTIONS!

crimethink should be here any minute.

Pinette | May 25, 2007, 4:09pm | #

"Iraq never attacked us..."

Really? How'se that?

1987, USS Starke, Saddam Hussein's forces lob a missile killing 37 US Sailors. (I was on the USS Luce the Starke's sister ship out of Mayport, FL.)"

First of all, the attack on the USS Starke was not ordered by the Iraqi Government. Second, the USS Luce is not a sister ship to the USS Starke, and if Eric was really on that ship, it wasn't during the same period as 1987, as it sounds like he is trying to suggest.

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 4:20pm | #

This fraud. This anti-intellectual. This morally-bereft, unprincipaled, intellectually dishonest piece of shit has no business being here and dumbing down the discussions with his absurd, and already-discussed-ad-nauseum talking points and simple plattitudes.

Reason Magazine should distance itself in every way from this turd. He is anti-reason. A dishonest opportunist, who has made even more painfully clear with statements here he has nothing, no ability, to stand on either character nor intellect. Go back to your masters.

joe | May 25, 2007, 4:23pm | #

Face it, Eric: you're just not good enough for Pregnant lesbian sex.

(I've been wanting to make that joke for weeks. Nice handle.)

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 4:27pm | #

Thanks Joe. ^_^

Eric the .5b | May 25, 2007, 4:37pm | #

"My little libertarian movement" consists of the likes of Neal Boortz, Larry Elder, PJ O'Rourke, Dr. John Hospers, Dr. Jack Wheeler, Tammy Bruce, and other "Goldwaterites" who are strong on free markets, are completely socially tolerant and supportive of civil liberties, yet are also strong on defense.

And would any of these people say anything besides "Eric who?" if asked about you?

But, to take you at your word, your movement consists of some non-despicable Reds who have the problem of being bedwetters about the IslamoCommieJihadBadguys. This does not magically make them libertarians.

Would someone here please explain to me how one can call themselves a "libertarian" yet at the same time align themselves with a group of people - Radical Muslims

That's a doozy. Because we don't support the wars you want that will swell their ranks and keep them aimed at America, we're aligned with them. And we're not to ask why people who are "supportive of civil liberties" align themselves with a party and administration that overwhelmingly supports and practices indefinite detention and torture - especially when your alignment consists of shilling for them.

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 4:45pm | #

Are you people gonna (re)argue the entire Iraq War all the way from the beginning with this guy? For what purpose?

Rudolph Giuliani is a brave defender of all our civil liberties because he supports a woman's right to choose abortion. That's awesome. What's there to argue? Leave it at that.

Eric the .5b | May 25, 2007, 4:54pm | #

PLS, I'm just amazed at all the things someone could want to be a poser about, that any adult would choose to be something as lame as a poser libertarian.

SugarFree | May 25, 2007, 5:04pm | #

I run into poser libertarians all the time.

They're always Republicans who wan to distance themselves from the party for some reason, either as a stalking horse to lure lib votes to the Repubs, or anti-taxers who recoil at the social aspects.

Eric the .5b | May 25, 2007, 5:16pm | #

Well, since Dondero isn't recoiling at the Reds (and in fact uses the marketing strategy of libertarianism that doesn't actually involve libertarianism), he must just be a half-assed stalking-horse.

Dmitri | May 25, 2007, 5:25pm | #

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 5:30pm | #

It's not being a poser to have principaled disagreement with your party and drift a bit, if only on some things, to a party like the Libs, if it more accurately articulates your views on certain things.

The Libertarian party is a pretty big tent where you'll find a wide spectrum of political and intellectual thought represented, from Left(Hi Joe!) to Right, who all share a basic belief in a free-market system of some sort and a dislike of overbearing socialist-like government.

The Replubican party today is, I forgot who coined the phrase-it might've been Paul, The Socialist Party with less taxes; or even more accurately: The Socialist Party who promises less taxes. And who will maybe let you keep, out of the kindness of their hearts, some of your Civil Liberties like owning a shotgun or two for hunting. Big, bad 'assault' weapons must only be in the safe keeping of the government, of course.

libertarians | May 25, 2007, 5:35pm | #

When did we do this? Did I miss the memo?

Damn. I'm sorry. I forgot to cc you on the email. Yes, we libertarians are now aligned with Al Qaeda.

highnumber | May 25, 2007, 5:45pm | #

Pregnant lesbian sex,

joe is a Democrat. He'll even admit it. He is here as an agreeable contrarian. He likes the libertarians more than he'll admit, but if you call him one, you will confuse a lot of readers.

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 6:03pm | #

These Socialist-Statists who call themselves Republicans and Conservatives and fool their socially conservative base with moral grandstanding, and hypocritical moral grandstanding at that, on issues like abortion and gay-rights. And who like to sell wars by painting them in simplistic terms; as simple as kid standing up to a bully on a schoolyard! No more complicated or entangled or messy or duplicitous than that.

To even pretend there are easy answers when easy answers don't exist is the height of hypocrisy and intellectual and/or moral bankrupcy.

They must be fought against. They are the enemy of the People. They have sold them out. And they are the enemy of Freedom and of Thought. Maybe even in the quite literal sense.

Shit, at least Democrats admit they want more government and believe the solution is more government. True Democrats and what are called Liberals today, believe in the need of a government that should be made to work in the interests of the people, against powerful business and moneyed interests; like a powerful King might be made to treat his subjects kindly. Others, like the Founding Fathers, had a better idea.

They are not Conservatives or Republicans or even Neo-Cons or Neo-Libs. Proto-Fascist is is good. But even Fascism was Socialist. They are Socialist Hypocrites. Would-be Tyrants over the many in the interest of the few. And they must be exposed along with all their intellectual and moral fraud.

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 6:14pm | #

Sorry, Highnumber, I know. I more meant in an ideological sense than actual party-affiliation sense. There are friends among the enemies and enemies among the friends. ^_^

libertreee | May 25, 2007, 6:24pm | #

Would someone here please explain to me how one can call themselves a "libertarian" yet at the same time align themselves with a group of people - Radical Muslims - who want to:

Outlaw all pornography. Like the Republican Right?

Outlaw all prostitution Ditto?

Outlaw all forms of gambling Ditto again

Stamp out all alcohol use in society. Tried that once, probably not again.

Outlaw marijuana and jail all those who deal in drugs Yes, the Republicrat mainstream
Censor any depictions of the "Prophet" Muhammed in newspapers, magazines or other media. Or Jesus in piss, or made of chocolate?

Cut off the heads of all "Zionist" Jews who do not repent their beliefs in front of video cameras...The head cutting part did go out of style in 1796, and anyway, now we back all "Zionist Jews" no matter what they do.

Have we libertarians forgotten that we are the ones who are supposed to stand up for civil liberties, including sexual liberties? At home yes, we do. However, we allow those others (except for the beheaders) who want to live that way to do so, providing they let us alone.

Why the maddening silence from the libertarian community about the atrocities against freedom committed by Radical Muslims in Western Europe and even right here in the United States? I think many have spoken out about Western Europe, but gosh, Eric--SHOULD WE INVADE EUROPE NEXT?

NEVER FORGET THEO VAN GOGH!!! REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!! MAN THE TORPODOES, FULL STEAM AHEAD!!!
REMEMBER THE MAINE!!!!THE ONLY GOOD INDIAN IS A DEAD INDIAN!!!!WAR IS HELL!!!!GIMMEE SHELTER!!!!IMPERIALISM IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF CAPITALISM!!!

Seer | May 25, 2007, 6:47pm | #

So the question is:
what is the less authoritarian position: federal government mandating that abortion is illegal, or leaving the issue to the people via state regulation? Geez, I wonder dipshit.

Your views that libertarians are pro-war is ridiculous. It ignores the history of libertarianism. And no, not the shit "Libertarian movement" that you keep making tenuous connections to, but our history over the decades where classical liberalism preached non-intervention.

Tell me Eric, have you read John Locke's Two Treatises of Government? A legitimate government can NOT BE CREATED BY CONQUEST.

How can a libertarian, one who believes that our market, our economy, should be free of coercive forces possibly support using coercive force abroad? Why don't you apply the same principles to foreign policy that you apply to domestic policy? A libertarian can not support offensive, coercive force. Period.

Please, explain to me how our foreign policy is making us safer? Iraq was NOT a security threat to our nation. We are inciting even more hatred against our nation, we are making people more willing to attack us. Meanwhile, Bush has left our southern border open. Amazing, isn't it, how the government has neglected one of its few enumerated responsiblities. But please, explain to me how fighting overseas, how putting our defense half-way across the world makes us safer.

Where are your foreign policy experts? Where are your head analysts of the CIA's Bin Laden unit? Where's your Michael Scheuer, your Chalmers Johnson? Why should we believe that our current policy has done anything except destabilize the region and remove the buffer that was holding back Iran from the rest of the middle east?

And how the fuck do you expect to win? You call yourself a libertarian, then ignore the history, the John Lockes, the John Stuart Mills, the Thomas Jeffersons that outlined libertarian principles long before you and your asshole "friends" co-opted the term to describe some sort of twisted freedom at the end of a gun ideology. Well fuck you, the progressives already stole the word "liberal" from us, and we ought to be damned if we'll let "neolibertarians" take the word "libertarian" from us.

And again, how can you fucking win? You support the war, and you're on record on countless blogs as some kind of multi-lingual sailor that has used dozens of prostitutes (it's one thing to decriminalize them, it's another to actually use them). Oh yeah, and you swear like I am in this blog. Good thing I'm not running for elected office and that I'm using a pen name.

D.A. Ridgely | May 25, 2007, 6:48pm | #

NOBODY expects the Libertarian Inquisition! Our chief weapon is freedom...freedom and reason...reason and freedom.... Our two weapons are reason and freedom...and ruthless market efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are freedom, reason and ruthless market efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Ron Paul.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as freedom, reason.... I'll come in again.

Eric Dondero | May 25, 2007, 7:24pm | #

A final post on this particular thread. And thank you for Reason for tolerating and guest-hosting both my views and those of my opponents here.

I'll end on a somewhat positive note.

Atlantic Monthly on-line has an article up today, that hits the nail right on the head. It pinpoints the fundamental problem we've been arguing about here.

The article is titled the "Two Types of Libertarians." (Google it.)

The article talks about how some "Rudy Giuliani libertarians" are Pro-Choice and Socially Tolerant.

It then talks about how other Libertarians are "Ron Paul Libertarians" who are non-interventionists on foreign policy.

That's precisely what we're seeing here play out; the two types of libertarians.

There are those of us who are concerned about social tolerance and civil liberties.

There are others who are obsessed with a non-interventionist foreign policy.

That's it.

(Caveat: We Pro-Defense libertarians get to keep the term. You non-interventionist types have to find your own. I suggest "Liberal.")

Max | May 25, 2007, 7:42pm | #

Heaven forbid libertarianism become associated with having been right on Iraq from the beginning.

It's acceptable to be right when everyone else is also right, but it's downright rude to be right when "everyone" else is wrong.

MP | May 25, 2007, 7:44pm | #

"Rudy Giuliani libertarians"

Can you say, Oxymoron? I knew you could.

Seer | May 25, 2007, 7:47pm | #

(Caveat: We Pro-Defense libertarians get to keep the term. You non-interventionist types have to find your own. I suggest "Liberal.")

Libertarians should be happy to take back the word, given that this would mean that it had resumed its original meaning. Of course, you seem to be under the impression that libertarianism arose from weak social movements in the 1970's rather than having roots in "classical liberalism" that stretch back over 400 years.

Max | May 25, 2007, 7:49pm | #

Eric, yes, we get it. You're a demented neocon zealot, and you're so blind that you're unaware that the ship you're on is sinking fast. Better get on your knees and pray for another 9-11...

libertarians | May 25, 2007, 7:52pm | #

Mr. Dondero, I'm hereby putting you on notice that you are in danger of being drummed out of our movement if you don't start toeing the Al Qaeda line. Sorry, but if we just let libertarians run around thinking and doing whatever they want, there goes our carefully guarded image.

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 7:57pm | #

The article talks about how some "Rudy Giuliani libertarians" are Pro-Choice and Socially Tolerant.

It then talks about how other Libertarians are "Ron Paul Libertarians" who are non-interventionists on foreign policy.

That's precisely what we're seeing here play out; the two types of libertarians.

There are those of us who are concerned about social tolerance and civil liberties.

There are others who are obsessed with a non-interventionist foreign policy.

That's it.

(Caveat: We Pro-Defense libertarians get to keep the term. You non-interventionist types have to find your own. I suggest "Liberal.")

LOL!. I can't believe what I'm reading.

I'm not even a Libertarian or a particularly well-read person, and I find the way you phrased the 'debate' to be in the most illogical, ignorant and narrow terms. You make no sense!

"Rudy Giulliani Libertarians"? LOL

Libertarians must choose between being "Socially Tolerant" -OR- being "non-interventionists on foreign policy"?

Libertarians must be EITHER concernced about "social tolerance and civil liberties"
-OR-
be "obsessed with a non-interventionist foreign policy"?

You are either "Pro-Defense" -OR- "non-interventionalist"?

Loosk like it's not just Giuliani who needs to read more books.

tarran | May 25, 2007, 8:10pm | #

Guys, don't argue philosphy with Eric; he doesn't know much about it because he finds it "boring."

Because he has no coherent philosophy, he makes things up by the seat of his pants. Eventually he finds himself pushed into some internally contradictory set of positions and then he starts calling people names.

It's always the same with him. Eventually, it's just not worth the trouble.

Lenin had a term for guys like him: "useful idiot".

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 8:22pm | #

Sorry. Just one more thing, for laughs ;-)

Libertarians must choose between being "Socially Tolerant" or "non-interventionists"?

Wha?

That's like saying:

"Libertarians must either choose between building more Highways or planting more Corn!"

"The choice is now!"

"There is no room for compromise!"

What on earth do any one of those things have to do with the other?

It makes no sense! lol

It's the Chewbacca defense!

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 8:31pm | #

And for D.A. Ridgely:

NOBODY expects the Libertarian Inquisition! Our chief weapon is freedom...freedom and reason...reason and freedom.... Our two weapons are reason and freedom...and ruthless market efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are freedom, reason and ruthless market efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Ron Paul.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as freedom, reason.... I'll come in again.

Haha. I love H&R just for those contrarian sentiments. (Esp. against my turgid pontifications above). It's what attracts me to Liberterianism, precisely because it's the least dogmatic 'philosophy.' Its dogma is no dogma. OMG it's dogma is no dogma, that's its dogma!

You don't have to have a 'fanatical devotion' to Ayn Rand to think she had some brilliant, if utopian, ideas and made a few truely wonderful points here and there.

The appeal of Ron Paul isn't Ron Paul the man. It isn't a cult of personality. It's his ideas and what he says that is the appeal. Ron Paul's ideas aren't even really his own. He just seems, again seems, to articulate these ideas in a reasonable way; not overly dogmatic, not unbalanced or crazy idealistic. He seems willing to debate and think. He may be eventually backed into a corner and forced to take some unreasonable, rigid position, who knows. So far I like what I see.

(OMG did I just compare Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. I'm becoming an RP fanatic!)

To me he represents the 'good' side of Libertarianism along side people like Rothbard. (Good, in this case, meaning one that I agree with.) The little I've read of Rothbard finds me in almost complete agreement with him. Paul has the same effect.

All the while considering different points of view.

I would hardly call that 'fanatical devotion.' But I guess, a devotion to non-fanatical devotion can itself become a fanatical devotion. ^_^

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 8:31pm | #

There are those of us who are concerned about social tolerance and civil liberties.

And yet you support Rudi Giuliani, whose record on those issues is abysmal. Yes, he's pro-choice, and he might be pro-gay rights (although not in a libertarian way, but in a liberal "civil rights" way), but his actions as New York City mayor show clearly that he has little regard for free speech and free expression. Of course, I mentioned that before, and you simply ignored it because it goes to the heart of the matter: that Giuliani is no libertarian by any definition, including "neolibertarian." He is a thuggish party hack and former prosecutor who still has a prosecutor's mentality. Even the most charitable analysis of his positions leaves him as a two-issue candidate: he's pro-choice, and he is the most eager to drop bombs on Arabs (and with McCain in the race, that's really saying something). That's it. That doesn't make him a libertarian, libertarianish, or anything of the sort. It barely makes him a Republican. It does make him a slightly less drowsy Joe Lieberman.

Isaac Bartram | May 25, 2007, 8:57pm | #

OMG it's dogma is no dogma, that's its dogma!

There's no dogma, there's catma.

Seer | May 25, 2007, 8:58pm | #

FACT: Dana Rohrabacher is the Founder of the Modern Libertarian Political Movement. (1966-69 when he was the leader of the Libertarian Caucus of YAF.) Dana is Pro-Defense, and always has been.

FACT: Dr. John Hospers, the Libertairan Party's first Presidential candidate was and is now, a Pro-Defense Libertarian. Hospers was even a "Libertarian for Bush" in 2004.

FACT: Dr. Earl Ravenal, the LP's 1984 Presidential Nomination candidate who eventually lost to nutso Leftwing Libertarian Bergland, was hardcore Pro-Defense.

FACT: The Libertarian Defense Caucus headed by Mike Dunn, was an active and well-organized group within the LP for nearly two decades. One of their most prominent members was of all people, REASON MAGAZINE'S OWN BOB POOLE.

FACT: The Nation's Number One Libertarian Radio Talk Show Host Neal Boortz is stridently Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism.

FACT: The Nation's most prominent self-described "libertarian Democrat" Radio Talk Show Host Tammy Bruce is stridently Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism.

FACT: The Nation's Number One libertarian Author of all time (save possibly John Stossell), is stridently Pro-War and has been all along: Cato Institute's darling PJ O'Rourke.

Dana: Not the modern founder, and even if this was true, fuck him, I'll take 400 years of history. He's also one of those dipshits that said we'd be greeted with flowers. Who knew flowers were so lethal? Those aren't petals, their pieces of shrapnel.

Dr. Hospers: Former Libertarian candidate: guess what their platform is? NON-INTERVENTIONISM.

Earl Ravenal: Who? Sorry, google lead me to this: A critique of four types of "lessons" being drawn from the Vietnam War: (1) the instrumental (we can launch successful interventions with better methods); (2) the proportional (costs should not be out of line with possible gains); (3) the consequential (we neglected domestic priorities); and (4) the fundamental (we were immoral or doomed by our institutions). The author's own preferred lessons are "strategic": intervention cannot succeed; we must pursue henceforth a policy of defensive disengagement. Ravenal is even less hopeful than Hoffmann.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19780901fabook14646/earl-c-ravenal/never-again-learning-from-america-s-foreign-policy-failures.html

Mike Dunn: Again, who? Wikpedia calls him an English snooker player, and google is even less helpful.

Neal Boortz: AHAHAHAHAHAHA! This asshole supports Iraq, the Patriot act and is not a libertarian. He's a republitarian.

Tammy Bruce: From her own website: Tammy Bruce is an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, voted-for-President Bush authentic feminist. A lifelong Democrat, in the 1990s she worked to help elect Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and aided the Clinton for President campaign. No mention of being a libertarian.

PJ O'Rourke: Not the best libertarian author (if indeed, he is a libertarian, I can't find him ever describing himself that way), because the best libertarian authors are John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.

So you have given us a list full of hacks, nobody's (and being a nobody amongst libertarians is quite an accomplishment) and people who are outside of mainstream libertarianism.

I'll say it again. Neolibertarianism is to libertarianism what neoconservatism is to conservatism: fundamentally different and in no way deserving to claim the same name.

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 9:13pm | #

Hospers was tight with Ayn Rand's inner circle before, like most people capable of independent thought, he was cast out. Of course, that was back when Ayn Rand (no slouch on "national defense") was against the Vietnam War, and long before her heir, Leonard Peikoff, came out in favor of nuking (literally) Iran and several other Muslim countries.

P.J. O'Rourke, who stopped being funny after writing "Parliament of Whores," is a libertarian of sorts and is a fellow with the Cato Institute, but he's long had a militarist streak, as evidenced by his book "Give War a Chance," which pre-dates the present unpleasantness in Iraq.

As for Neal Boortz, he and I used to be the only two pro-choice Republicans on the Town Hall message boards back when Town Hall was hosted on Compuserve and not an independent web site. We had great fun getting into debates with pro-lifers together, but his libertarianism has always been a figment of his imagination, and it stems almost entirely from his opposition to the drug war. That makes him William F. Buckley, but it doesn't make him a libertarian. No self-respecting libertarian would be best pals with Sean Hannity.

Isaac Bartram | May 25, 2007, 9:18pm | #

"Rudy Giuliani libertarians"

Sounds like "Heidi Fleiss virgins".

Holy fuck, Dondero, where the fuck do you get off making up completely new definitions for words like "libertarian" and "pacifist" (I doubt that there are more than two pacifists among H&R regulars and I haven't seen any posting lately).

And then to trot out a bunch of conservative hacks as the soul of the libertarian movement is rich. Those guys long ago sold out to the Republican establishment and the War Party long ago.

And then for you to try to claim Earl Ravenal, one of the foremost anti-interventionists around, as one of "yours" is the icing on your bullshit cake.

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 9:48pm | #

And then for you to try to claim Earl Ravenal, one of the foremost anti-interventionists around, as one of "yours" is the icing on your bullshit cake.

Eric's "history" of libertarianism begins and ends in the 1980s. Ravenal was backed by Cato's Ed Crane for the LP's presidential nomination in 1984, but he lost out to a Rothbard-backed candidate. Eric has been at odd with the Rothbard-Rockwell faction of the movement since at least the early '90s, so, since Ravenal was part of the main rival faction, he's one of the "good guys" in Eric's mind, which Eric takes as giving him free reign to twist Ravenal's actual positions.

Of course, making this all the most interesting is that despite all of this, Eric worked for Ron Paul's presidential campaign in '88. Then he went back to work for Paul after Paul was re-elected to Congress, even though by now Eric was otherwise a bitter enemy of all of Paul's closet allies in the movement: Rothbard, Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, et. al.

I'll leave it to others to decide if this makes Eric look like a shameless opportunist. (If I rightly recall, he even supported Pat Buchanan's first presidential bid back when Rothbard and Rockwell were trying to put together their alliance with non-interventionist paleoconservatives. But maybe Eric was just mad at Bush I for raising taxes. You try figuring it out.)

Full disclosure: In the early '90s, I worked for Eric's former group, The Republican Liberty Caucus. That lasted a couple of years before I gave up on it, in part because Eric recruited not-at-all-libertarian hawks like Duncan Hunter to lend their names to the RLC advisory board. I think I was still listed as the RLC's contact person in Alabama long after I'd dropped out, however.

During my active involvement with the RLC, I stayed with Eric for two weeks in his home, helping put together an brochure for the group and making totally ineffective fundraising cold calls. Then the RLC sent me to help out with a congressional campaign in South Carolina. (Free advice: You don't want to manage the campaign of a pro-choice, libertarian Republican in a congressional district that includes Bob Jones University. That candidate, by the way, was a non-interventionist on foreign policy.)

Eric has always been a hawk, but this vitriol is new to me. Maybe someone who's actually spoken to Eric in the last 10 years can explain it better than I can. All I know is that I've always been non-interventionist and I could tolerate Eric's hawkishness in the early '90s. Now he's gone to a totally new level.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 10:11pm | #

(Caveat: We Pro-Defense libertarians get to keep the term. You non-interventionist types have to find your own. I suggest "Liberal.")

So, Eric, we are free to do as you tell us?

Why on Earth would we have mistaken you for an authoritarian?

JM | May 25, 2007, 10:13pm | #

If he actually goes through with his campaign for Paul's seat in the 14th I don't think it will end well. He will be running in a fairly conservative area of Texas. I doubt his admitted use of prostitutes and being pro-choice will go over well at all. He will be in favor of a war that is wildly unpopular and will probably be in the process of ending.

I doubt he will be seen as anything more than Paul's disgruntled former aide. If anything he will only succeed in embarrassing himself and unseating the only libertarian in congress. I suppose to a mentally unbalanced individual these are worth goals.

"Pro-Defense Libertarians for Giuliani". Really interesting concept...I don't think it is possible for anyone to craft a more nonsensical sentence.

rhywun | May 25, 2007, 10:38pm | #

Thats pretty fuckin dispicable.

It's not bloody likely that abortion is ever going to be outlawed at the federal level. I think sending it back to the states is much more likely. In which case, some states are going to outlaw it. My state, New York--which I have no intention of leaving anyway--will very likely not outlaw it. If Paul is against abortion, that's the best he could hope for and frankly, I don't have a problem with it.

Mike Espinoza | May 25, 2007, 10:41pm | #

And yet you support Rudi Giuliani, whose record on those issues is abysmal. Yes, he's pro-choice, and he might be pro-gay rights (although not in a libertarian way, but in a liberal "civil rights" way), but his actions as New York City mayor show clearly that he has little regard for free speech and free expression. Of course, I mentioned that before, and you simply ignored it because it goes to the heart of the matter: that Giuliani is no libertarian by any definition, including "neolibertarian." He is a thuggish party hack and former prosecutor who still has a prosecutor's mentality. Even the most charitable analysis of his positions leaves him as a two-issue candidate: he's pro-choice, and he is the most eager to drop bombs on Arabs (and with McCain in the race, that's really saying something). That's it. That doesn't make him a libertarian, libertarianish, or anything of the sort. It barely makes him a Republican. It does make him a slightly less drowsy Joe Lieberman.

All excellent points. The REAL Rudy Giuliani is exponentially more scary than the REAL Ron Paul.

After the Fox News debate, pro-Paul posts were flooding the foxnews.com message boards, irritating the conservatives, who were creaming over Romney and Giuliani. I kept trying to point out that Romney was a fraud and Giuliani was neither a conservative nor a libertarian. To be charitable, I begged them to support Tancredo, Brownback, or Huckabee if they insisted on supporting a pro-war conservative because, at least, they appeared to believe what was actually coming out of their mouths (Tancredo and Huckabee don't even believe in evolution), but if they insisted on supporting Romney or Giuliani, it would only prove that they valued style over substance even moreso than the Democrats. Nobody listened. They just kept blathering things like "he looked presidential tonight". *Gag*

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 10:53pm | #

This just in:

Joseph Stalin the father of Libertarians!

Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 11:35pm | #

Mr. F. Harris:

Very interesting comments.

At any rate, this has turned into a somewhat nice discussion of what and who is or isn't Libertarian.

Franklin Harris | May 25, 2007, 11:46pm | #

Very interesting comments.

Thank you. Too bad I'm now noticing all the typos. (I'm useless at proofreading my own work unless I've set it aside for 15 minutes.)

jf | May 26, 2007, 12:48am | #

Well, I'm late to this, but it should bear mentioning that Eric Dondero is such an egomaniac that he created his own wikipedia entry.

jf | May 26, 2007, 12:55am | #

Eric Dondero, for the love of God, PLEASE stop calling yourself a libertarian. Smurf Jones was bad enough.

Starting in 1999, Montana native Stan Jones drank colloidal silver daily, believing it to be a natural antibiotic which would save him from the forecasted Y2K disaster, with its exploding toilets, scant antibiotics, and menacing clouds of anthrax. Jones would later emerge transformed from his sun-dappled home on the Gallatin River, entering the 2002 Montana senate race as the first blue Libertarian candidate.

From this hilarious webpage.

Franklin Harris | May 26, 2007, 12:56am | #

(Tancredo and Huckabee don't even believe in evolution)

Franklin Harris | May 26, 2007, 12:58am | #

OK, somehow my last post got cut off. I was going to say Brownback raised his hand to say he also doesn't believe in evolution.

Franklin Harris | May 26, 2007, 1:10am | #

At any rate, this has turned into a somewhat nice discussion of what and who is or isn't Libertarian.

While I am a "radial" libertarian, I've always been hesitant to drum people out of the movement for lack of purity. Libertarians should learn from the mistakes of Marxists and be willing to disagree among themselves (sometimes heatedly) without excommunicating people. (Of course, I'm aware that a lot of that over the years has had more to do with personalities and power politics than actual substantive disagreements.)

That said, however, we shouldn't count as libertarians people who simply hold libertarian views on one or two "hot button" libertarian issues, for example, Boortz, who is against the drug war, but otherwise are far closer to conservatives or neoconservatives.

dhex | May 26, 2007, 1:53am | #

"With strong-minded folks like Johnny Ringo, Bob Hunt, Tim and Jeannie Starr, DJ Entropy, Dick Bjornsen, Patrick Joubert, and many others who are not going to let you Pacifists off the hook."

hooooooooookay.

do you practice in the mirror?

also if dj entrophy doesn't play mid 90s 2nd wave industrial rock i'm going to be super disappointed.

jf | May 26, 2007, 2:04am | #

While I am a "radial" libertarian

Yes, but are you steel-belted?

dhex | May 26, 2007, 2:05am | #

"The article talks about how some "Rudy Giuliani libertarians" are Pro-Choice and Socially Tolerant."

also, the only fucking people who can possibly talk like this about rudy are people who never lived in new york. anyone here who likes him does so because he does a good impression of authoritarian tuff guy (tm); anyone who doesn't well, he had very little to do with the mta so "trains run on time" jokes really don't work.

[obligatory "41 shots" / "it's guliani time" cheap shots here]

Fluffy | May 26, 2007, 7:58am | #

All that you need to know about Rudy Giuliani is that every chance he gets he rhetorically fellates W and the rotting corpse of Jerry Falwell.

W has easily been the worst President on civil liberties and the growth of government since FDR.

Falwell would have installed a theocratic state if he had the power to do it.

These men represent the politician Rudy wants to be, the party he wants to lead, and the nation he'd like to rule.

How anyone can use the phrase "Rudy Giuliani Libertarian" boggles my mind.

Max | May 26, 2007, 9:50am | #

How anyone can use the phrase "Rudy Giuliani Libertarian" boggles my mind.

The first few posts by Eric I read (not on this thread), I honestly thought were parody, and not even subtle parody, with the dead giveaway being the Random Capitalization of Important Words.

Jennifer | May 26, 2007, 10:17am | #

I think the word "dondero" would make an excellent verb meaning "to demonstrate the belief that a label has the magical power to transform whatever is labeled."

Here's how to use it in a sentence: "Jennifer completely donderoed herself when she kept insisting she was really a teenaged Christian virgin and took offense with those who begged to differ."

Mike Espinoza | May 26, 2007, 10:23am | #

The first few posts by Eric I read (not on this thread), I honestly thought were parody, and not even subtle parody, with the dead giveaway being the Random Capitalization of Important Words.

Y'know, that makes sense. This is performance art. Eric doesn't believe any of this shit. He's just trying to get a rise out of "the Reason crowd" because he thinks that we are all humorless, "black helicopter", sidewalk-privatizers. He's pulling an Andy Kaufman.

That makes a lot more sense. Nobody in their right mind thinks that Rudy Giuliani is a libertarian.

P Brooks | May 26, 2007, 10:44am | #

" I think the word "dondero" would make an excellent verb meaning "to demonstrate the belief that a label has the magical power to transform whatever is labeled." "

Precisely- much like claiming to be a Catholic who believes in homosexual group marriage and human sacrifice.

chris lawton | May 26, 2007, 10:59am | #

Tom Cornwell
May 24th, 2007 at 9:25 am
I would suggest that if one wanted to get a good fix on where Rep. Ron Paul stands on the issues, simply take a look at the principles on which the Libertarian Party is based. Read the Constitution of the United States. Read the Bill of Rights. Those conceptual thinkers who can look at the principles put forth can derive a likely outcome of Dr. Paul’s actions. This is why I like Ron Paul and this particular philosphy of politics/government - it takes all the guesswork out of it. Don’t vote for Ron Paul if you want government agencies to handle all of your problems, if you want never-ending new laws to quell your fears, if you want the government to continue (de)educating your children. Don’t vote for Ron Paul if you are not willing and ready to put some time in getting educated about and active in government at the local, state and federal levels (there is a lot to be undone). Don’t vote for Ron Paul if you don’t want to have to take on any work and responsibility for your liberties after walking away from the voting booth… If you want the status quo, vote for ANY other candidate, as it makes absolutely no difference in that case. This ‘freedom’ thing can be a very bitter pill to swallow to the majority of Americans, I believe.

Tom Walls | May 26, 2007, 11:00am | #

Falwell partially blames 9/11 on the Americans (you know, his remarks about having to point his finger at the pagans, they gays, the ACLU). He gets praised by Giuliani upon his death.

The very same day, Ron Paul says 50+ years of intervention contributes to attacks against us, and Rudy jumps all over him.

Eric Dondero | May 26, 2007, 11:00am | #

Sorry. I told you all I was departing from this thread. But I couldn't resist letting you all know about this breaking news.

There are two Presidential Polls out; one late yesterday, and another this morning.

The one from yesterday was small - Digeon Polling Co. Of 197 GOP voters, Ron Paul's support was at 1%.

But more importantly the Zogby poll has Ron Paul at 0%. That's a drop from 3% in March.

Where's the "Ron Paul surge" we've been hearing about?

This is post-debate. These are the first indications of Ron Paul's support, or lack thereof, post his lackluster debate performance.

Looks like the Ron Paul fanatics are the ultimate of all hyperspinmeisters?

Oh, and Rudy? He's still way ahead of the pack solid at 26%

Jennifer | May 26, 2007, 11:15am | #

As every good libertarian knows, when the majority sides with a candidate that conclusively proves he is right.

Jennifer | May 26, 2007, 11:16am | #

Which is why Clinton, Carter and FDR were such great presidents from a libertarian perspective, by the way.

joe | May 26, 2007, 11:33am | #

Wow, 197 respondants?

I guess that settles that, then.

Ken | May 26, 2007, 11:55am | #

Good point Joe. What goofball did that poll? I'm not disuputing that its conclusion is incorrect, Paul will be buried, as I have noted before ironically by the massive campaign funds and political adverstising which libertarians so foolishly cherish, and will be lucky to break 2%. It's just that that 197 figure was pretty funny!

Daze | May 26, 2007, 11:56am | #

"So the question is:
what is the less authoritarian position: federal government mandating that abortion is illegal, or leaving the issue to the people via state regulation? Geez, I wonder dipshit."

So the question is:
what is the less authoritarian position: federal government mandating that slavery is illegal, or leaving the issue to the people via state regulation? Geez, I wonder dipshit.

In other words, your formulation is moronic.

Some freedoms should be considered fundamental, not to be abridged by majority rule or state power, whether at the federal, state or local level.

For most Americans, the freedom to decide whether, when and how often to have children is one of those fundamental freedoms that is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS. Odd that so many "libertarians" think this freedom should be taken away and replaced by greater state regulation.

Eric the .5b | May 26, 2007, 12:01pm | #

You know, years back when I mistakenly supported the invasion of Iraq, I angrily defended my right to call myself "libertarian". But, you know, I was very specifically for invading Iraq because I thought it was threat, not for invading every country in the region - and I wasn't a laughable putz who tried to claim that the vast bulk of libertarians who disagreed with me were Blues.

OK, so I'm bragging about being a better libertarian than Eric Dondero; I'm also a complete badass when it comes to standing upright and speaking my native language. :D

Eric the .5b | May 26, 2007, 12:21pm | #

"Rudy Giuliani libertarians"

Well, we'll hear about "Hillary Clinton libertarians" eventually (probably similarly from posts by the leader that the other five affirmed by girlish squeal), so we might as well let them get that janitor's closet party started...

Franklin Harris | May 26, 2007, 12:30pm | #

Yes, but are you steel-belted?

Yeah, and I noticed that typo right after I clicked the submit button. I hate when that happens. Anyway, on to more substantive matters...

Eric came back, he wouldn't stay away...
Sorry. I told you all I was departing from this thread. But ....

In other words, you were full of it, as usual.

Ken | May 26, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Perhaps what they mean is that Guliani is simply preferable, from a libertarian perspective, than the other two frontrunners, Mitt Romney and McCain. Rudy has a lot to hate about him, but isnt he pro-choice and pro-gay rights while the other two are not? Is it the gun control that makes him so unpalatable to libertarians?

Fluffy | May 26, 2007, 3:10pm | #

Fine, fine. You're leaving the thread. Don't return until you find a way to square Giuliani's hagiography of Jerry Falwell with your assertion that you're a libertarian.

Really, I'd be interested to hear it.

And since there is currently no Bush policy Giuliani has spoken against, I also want to hear you square libertarianism with Bushism.

I note that you've been happy to argue about what Justin Raimondo ate for breakfast but don't seem to want to address these central questions.

Fluffy | May 26, 2007, 3:17pm | #

Daze, you actually reversed the polarity of the analogy, so your response makes no sense.

Even if you take the pro-choice position, which I assume you do, if you want to analogize the slavery question it becomes, "what is the less authoritarian position: federal government mandating that slavery be legal in all 50 states, or leaving the issue to the people via state regulation? Geez, I wonder dipshit."

If what you want is no slavery, a situation where slavery is legal in some states and not in others is closer to what you want than a situation where slavery is legal everywhere.

If what you want is legal abortion, a situation where abortion is legal in some states and not in others is closer to what you want than a situation where abortion is illegal everywhere.

And I'm pro-choice, but I can understand why some libertarians are not. They think it's murder. That takes it out of the realm of liberty for them in the same way that it's not "liberty" for you to walk in my house and kill me for fun. I happen to disagree with them, but the disagreement is about the nature of abortion and not about the nature of liberty.

Tom Walls | May 26, 2007, 3:25pm | #

Ansar al-Islam was a camp of nasties from all over the Arab and Islamic world that Saddam indirectly tolerated because they were making trouble for the relatively secular Kurds. It included some Al-Qaeda personnel. And they tried to get a foothold in Kurdish territory because Saddam would not have tolerated them elsewhere. This can hardly be considered an alliance with al-Qaeda.

Salman Pak was a government-run training facility for Saddam's special units with a real 707, mock buildings etc. The consensus is that they trained other Arabs. My guess is Palestinians and Yemenis.

The existence of a rogue terrorist camp and a government special-ops training facility were hardly worth the US going to war over. As I have said many times, we could have just bought Saddam off, just like we did Qaddafi in the last couple of years. And Libya was involved in international terrorism!

The prudent thing to do would have to to buy him off, coax him to lay off the torture and other unsavory practices with gradual lifting of sanctions etc. I think he would have been useful in combatting Al-Qaeda and also maintaining a bulwark against Iran.

But that would have never happened. The neocons had wanted him out since the '90s and even got Clinton to commit to the idea of regime change. Also, Saddam was a potential threat to Israel. The neocons and the PNAC convinced W. that it was going to be a cakewalk. It wasn't.

Michael Scheuer is my man. Read his stuff. It was great of him to come out and appear with Ron Paul. Of course, Scheuer is in favor of hitting these guys and hitting them hard - he's just in favor of doing it right.

Ken | May 26, 2007, 5:03pm | #

Was Ron Paul anti-Falwell and the like? From things I've read of his I would think not.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
So this guy's not so big on seperation of church and state. He's pro-life. He's against immigration (God bless him on that one). And he has not voted with the Dems against Bush's war once his year. His views on gay marriage are not very libertarian. So what is supposed to be so libertarian about him? His extreme fiscal conservatism? Some of my friends that are libertarians are people that are really concerned about liberty. They worry that by telling women what to do or who gays can marry or yes, even who can immigrate where that we are using government to impose our views on others. On the other hand many libertarians I know are just assholes who get riled up at the thought that the government is taking money from them to give to other folks who they'd like to kick around (like poor people, or the handicapped, or artists). Is Paul one of those libertarians?

jerry t. searcy | May 26, 2007, 5:57pm | #

If Ron Paul's policies were established in Washington here are a few results:
1.No income tax, 2.No capital gains tax,
3.No corporate tax, 4. No social security tax,
5. No tax I have missed except perhaps a small national sales tax (or something similar).
6.A MUCH, MUCH smaller, less intrusive and MUCH cheaper federal government.

In other words...a MUCH more prosperous and free America. Alas, this would require two things sorely lacking in America: Self responsibility and tolerance! That is why he has such a small chance of being taken seriously.
Jerry T. Searcy

Seer | May 26, 2007, 6:24pm | #

Perhaps what they mean is that Guliani is simply preferable, from a libertarian perspective, than the other two frontrunners, Mitt Romney and McCain.

Looking at their records, I think the preference out of those three would be Mitt Romney. Healthcare is a drawback, but Giuliani has been given three "muzzle" awards for stifling free speech in New York.

Ken | May 26, 2007, 6:48pm | #

I did not know that Seer, thanks. I have to say he gives me the creeps, I was just going on his record as I know it (which is admittedly imperfect). And as to that, when you say Romney is better on his record, which Romney record are we talking about, as it seems to change a bit. His current stands (as opposed to his record which he seems to run away from) don't seem very libertarian to me, more Moral Majority+big corporatism.
Jerry
1. I hate income tax, but some of it may be necessary for number 6.
2. I have very little capital gains to tax in my life. Most people can say the same.
3. I own no corporation, so I could care less here.
4. Ron would be against social security, so of course he would be against the tax. But I'm hoping to get me some SS money (hey, I've paid in over the years).
5. Again, I hate taxes, but again, see 6.
6. But I like things like interstates (its how I exercise my liberty to travel), subsidized student loans (its how I exercised my liberty to go to college), the military (they protect my liberty [at times]), the FDA and EPA (they protect my liberty to remain free from deadly toxins when I want to eat potato chips or breathe air), etc.. And I realize these things cost money. So if they impose a tax on me to pay for these things, I think, hey, these things enhance my liberty. But if they impose a tax to enforce federal laws to tell my wife what she can do with her body or whether we can smoke a blunt or not, or whether I have to support a church, I don't like that (on two of these Paul is wrong, on another right). So overall I'm failing to get worked up about Paul (of course I'm more a liberaltarian than a libertarian, but I also think that if one thinks hard there is little philosophical justification for distinguishing between the two: I just ask, does this law maximize my liberty (defined in terms of choices) or not?)

Brinck Slattery | May 26, 2007, 7:22pm | #

Hey everyone, I just got involved in the Ron Paul's campaign in an official capacity for Fairfield County, CT. If you are from the area (or not) and would like to offer your time and/or money, contact me at the e-mail address on my name also visit hier for the Fairfield County meetup group. This guy's the real deal for libertarians, so let's support him!

PS sorry but I'm going to post this on a bunch of threads - it's really important that people take their support from the internets to their REAL LIVES and do something for liberty!

usa liberty | May 26, 2007, 11:03pm | #

As a new libertarian, I am horrified by the suggestion that the party/movement morph into neocons a la Boortz or Dondero.

Eric, how do you seriously expect to promote small gov't and liberty while waging preemptive war? Or have you completely given up on small gov't and liberty?

How lame is Reason Magazine to shy away from supporting Ron Paul?

If you don't want to be marginalized, then avoid campaigns entirely, and support Downsize DC.

Grow a pair.

jh | May 26, 2007, 11:21pm | #

"Eric Dondero | May 26, 2007, 11:00am | #

There are two Presidential Polls out; one late yesterday, and another this morning.

The one from yesterday was small - Digeon Polling Co. Of 197 GOP voters, Ron Paul's support was at 1%.

But more importantly the Zogby poll has Ron Paul at 0%. That's a drop from 3% in March."

Let's see -- the Digeon poll shows 2 Ron Paul supporters out of 197. The Zogby poll shows a drop from 3% to 0% support for an unnamed number of respondents. What, did he go from 1 out of 33 to 0 out of 25 respondents? That is a statistically significant change! OMG, Ron Paul must be losing support!

Yeah, Ron Paul's gonna lose -- anyone in touch with reality knew that from the get-go -- but take a frickin' statistics and probabilities class, Dondero.

jh | May 26, 2007, 11:37pm | #

"Ken | May 26, 2007, 1:24pm | #

Perhaps what they mean is that Guliani is simply preferable, from a libertarian perspective, than the other two frontrunners, Mitt Romney and McCain. Rudy has a lot to hate about him, but isnt he pro-choice and pro-gay rights while the other two are not? Is it the gun control that makes him so unpalatable to libertarians?"

Ken, being "pro-choice" or "pro-gay rights" are not necessarily more libertarian positions. It all depends on what you mean by those words. If by pro-choice you mean it's OK to kill a nine-month fetus where the mother's life or health are not at stake, it's arguable that the nearly full-term fetus is a human being and that killing it is a very unlibertarian initiation of force. It all depends on at what point you believe that a developing fertiziled egg has made the transition into being a human being. So, this is not a litmus test for libertarians.

Similarly, if by "pro-gay rights" you mean "I want the right to sue a landlord for not renting to me because my gut feeling is that he doesn't like gays", or "I want the right to force my partner's employer to provide health insurance to me", those are arguably statist positions. Again, not a blanket litmus test. I've been told I'm not a libertarian because I believe that government should quit defining who's married, and treat us all as individuals, and leave that determination up to each private individual. Go figure.

Anthony Gregory | May 27, 2007, 12:13am | #

Ken, Ron is for religious freedom, ending the drug war, and stopping all censorship. He is not "against" immigration, though he does take a position on that that I don't. He is against big government partly because it hurts the poor, which is why he opposes monetary inflationism, which redistributes money from poor to rich. He always discusses how corporate interests benefit from government handouts, war, inflation, and contracts. He didn't vote with the Democrats because they were supporting the war in their vote. He voted against funding it, opposed the war from the beginning, and has been a vocal advocate of non-intervention since the 1970s. He warned against funding Islamists and warned against war with Iraq since 1998. He was against Reagans, Bush's and Clinton's wars. He thinks the feds should keep out of marriage altogether. He always opposes the flag burning amendment. He always opposes conscription. He voted against the Patriot Act and all other post-9/11 violations of civil liberties, including the erosions of the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus.

I disagree with him here and there, but I really think he's the most libertarian Congressman in American history, and probably by a long shot.

Ken | May 27, 2007, 9:45am | #

Anthony
That sounds good to me for the most part. Jerry's post above did not sound that great to me (as I've said, if libertarianism does not include social liberties then I'm not much for it), but the case you've made is very compelling. Thanks.

joe | May 28, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Do you Ron Paul supporters think he has what it takes to actually be an effective president, carrying out his duties as Commander and Chief and head of the executive branch, while effectively advancing a legislative agenda to that moves the ball down the field?

Or is he really just a protest candidate, who'd spend four years failing to abolish the income tax and Social Security while the next Katrina/FEMA debacle unfolds?

Liberty | May 28, 2007, 5:55pm | #

What I think is hilarious, Eric, is that you call yourself a libertarian and yet you support Giuliani. Giuliani is pro big government and anti-gun. What's libertarian about that, Eric? Eh?

Furthermore, you misstate his positions on national defense. He is very strong on national defense and was praised by none other than Ronald Reagan for being so.

Since when did pacifism equate with believing we should go after bin Laden and the Al Qaeda core, responsible for attacking us, rather than taking a U-Turn and going to Iraq, where Al Qaeda was not, and removing the sworn enemy of our enemy from office?

Seems rather logical to me.

Liberty | May 28, 2007, 5:58pm | #

Joe, from where I stand, I firmly say YES, he has what it takes. All I can tell you is that I have followed this man for over 20 years and he is the real deal.

Liberty | May 28, 2007, 6:07pm | #

Eric,

Who are you saying "aligned themselves" with the radical muslims?

It certainly was not Ron Paul.

Seer | May 28, 2007, 7:22pm | #

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260

Eric, only a fool would call himself a libertarian and support Rudy "Freedom is Authority" Giuliani. This guy doesn't want to be President, we wants to be Duce.

Doug | May 29, 2007, 10:52am | #

As someone who's been covering the Dondero-Paul crackup with interest on my own blog -- and who has received the usual f-bomb-laden e-mails from Dondero during that time -- I've coined a new phrase for authoritarian-loving pseudo-libertarians like Dondero: He's a "bread-and-circuses neoconservative."

As long as he gets legalized prostitution, legalized pot, and doesn't have to wear a seat belt, he doesn't care how many wars people like Bush start or how many of his Constitutional freedoms they curtail.

I don't pretend to be an expert on libertarian philosophy, but the very idea that an authoritarian like Giuliani could be a "friend" to people who love individual liberties is the height of absurdity.

Site Search

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Hit & Run Archives

RSS Feed

The New Republic on Ron Paul

Comments to "The New Republic on Ron Paul":