David Weigel and Julian Sanchez talk to enough veterans of both the libertarian movement and Ron Paul's campaigns to help answer a question on many people's lips: Who wrote those crazy old newsletters, and why?
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
theThia | January 16, 2008, 9:01am | #
thanks for nothing, guysCactus Jack | January 16, 2008, 9:10am | #
Lew Rockwell, just as I figured.Ken Shultz | January 16, 2008, 9:11am | #
"He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" at The New Republic.If I were to point a finger and suggest that somebody was being hysterical over this (not that I would use that politically insensitive word to defend myself against charges of insensitivity), I wouldn't point at the people who are walking away from the Paul campaign shaking their heads.
...but I might point at some of his shrill supporters who can't seem to restrain themselves from throwing sticks and stones.
Ken Shultz | January 16, 2008, 9:13am | #
"At the time, Paul defended the statements that appeared under his name, claiming that they expressed his "philosophical differences" with Democrats and had been "taken out of context." He finally disavowed them in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, explaining that his campaign staff had convinced him at the time that it would be too "confusing" to attribute them to a ghostwriter."Nice job, Mr. Paul!
It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
And to think that the Rothbard/Rockwell candidate for LP Chair came within one vote at the 1989 convention of being elected.
libertreee | January 16, 2008, 9:23am | #
Hey Reason--give this a fucking rest! The world doesn't give a good goddamn about this, and the pro war Cosmotarians like Tom Palmer at Stato are the jerks in all this, and you are enabling them!Stop already with the newsletter nonsense. Ron Paul beat Guiliani and Thomson in Michigan. Get over the damn newletters!
DavidS | January 16, 2008, 9:28am | #
Here's a passage that seems to me to capture what Rockwell/Rothbard were up to:The fact that millions of our people yearn at heart for a radical change in our present conditions is proved by the profound discontent which exists among them. This feeling is manifested in a thousand ways. Some express it in a form of discouragement and despair. Others show it in resentment and anger and indignation. Among some the profound discontent calls forth an attitude of indifference, while it urges others to violent manifestations of wrath…
To these latter people our young movement had to appeal first of all. It was not meant to be an organization for contented and satisfied people, but was meant to gather in all those who were suffering from profound anxiety and could find no peace, those who were unhappy and discontented. It was not meant to float on the surface of the nation but rather to push its roots deep among the masses.
ed | January 16, 2008, 9:30am | #
the pro war CosmotariansI was wondering when someone would utter the "C" word. I'm tired of it already. Time to nip it in the bud. I have the shears. Who will hold it down for me?
robc | January 16, 2008, 9:31am | #
"State-enforced segregation," Rockwell wrote, "was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one's own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse."Okay, I dont see what the quote above has to do with the article. Is there something wrong with what Rockwell wrote there? Maybe Im just some paleolib and I didnt no it, but for you cosmos out there - what is wrong with that statement?
robc | January 16, 2008, 9:32am | #
"know" not "no". Really, I have a decent education. Honest.Jeanette Doney | January 16, 2008, 9:32am | #
The honorable Senator from West Virginia, Democrat Robert Byrd, admitted to being a member of KKK. Calls it an albatross around his neck. It is. Dr. Ron Paul, republican, has never admitted to belonging to any racist organization, nor does he, an honest man, claim to have written the remarks, dug up on him in the name of smearing...and who would want to do that?The racist bastards who perpetuate a RACIST war on the ME, the RACIST war on Drugs, the RACIST wellfare sytem, the RACIST prison sytem, the RACIST education system, the RACIST connection to the UN NWO where nations of minorities are dictated through force by puppets like Saddam, who lost his republic in the name of democracy and freedom, while those who cheered for this assassination of sovreinity by the UN, have nothing better to do than create racists where they isn't any.
How pathetic.
robc | January 16, 2008, 9:33am | #
ed,I was wondering when someone would utter the "C" word. I'm tired of it already. Time to nip it in the bud. I have the shears. Who will hold it down for me?
Even though I used it seconds after you, I agree. I will stop using it once I never see the world paleolibertarian again. Deal?
OMG | January 16, 2008, 9:36am | #
Proof of RP's racism...ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE!http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/
bob | January 16, 2008, 9:36am | #
The article is well written, thoroughly researched, and meaningless."Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided...
If Reason is disappointed in the campaign's response, fine. But Reason's writers have no right to tell Ron Paul supporters what they do or do not deserve. (Who do you think you are, Bill Fucking O Reilly?
Remember the Internet? Ya know, the backbone of The Revolution's Paul's very effective communications network? This horse was been beaten to death there back in October, and there has not been measurable impact. I'm puzzled about why Reason continues to beat the dead horse.
sage | January 16, 2008, 9:37am | #
Is there something missing from this paragraph from AP:The former Massachusetts governor defeated John McCain, the Arizona senator who was hoping that independents and Democrats would join Republicans to help him repeat his 2000 triumph here. Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, trailed in third, and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is making a last stand in South Carolina.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080116/D8U6UN580.html
Paul did not get mentioned in this article until the 24th paragraph, after folks he beat and democrats too. Man I'm buying more ammo.
robc | January 16, 2008, 9:37am | #
bob,I agree. Especially since Reason itself killed the horse back last May.
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 9:38am | #
While our soldiers remain stationed in 130 countries worldwide and are being shot at daily in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the President continues the sabre-rattling against Iran and Syria, while the economy tanks and gold rises, while REAL-ID is being foisted upon us, while people are held for years w/o charge, while the largest database of our personal interests, etc., is collected, while the definition of "torture" becomes fuzzier by the day...On balance, it makes perfect sense that the only folks speaking out about all of this, and offering actual solutions, should be called to account for their views on the LA riots.
You are shaming the very term "Libertarian," and I have no doubt Rothbard is rolling over in his grave.
For the sake of liberty, "can't we all just get along?"
robc | January 16, 2008, 9:40am | #
ed,Okay, I think they are both stupid terms. Although cosmotarian is kinda funny.
robc | January 16, 2008, 9:41am | #
ed,Oh, I have to use the C word one last time, but I wont do it here. I have some friends who probably havent heard the term yet, I need to use it in conversation just to get a reaction. But, that will be my last usage of it.
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 9:42am | #
Still waiting for RonPaulBots to explain why he defended the newsletters in 1996.robc | January 16, 2008, 9:45am | #
Shane Brady,Because he realized it wouldnt make a damn bit of difference to some people if he said he didnt write them.
It appears he was right.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 16, 2008, 9:46am | #
Whew! I thought I was going to have to go a day with a newsletter entry.You guys are *this* close to ending my three year subscription and my daily reading of the blog.
Fucking knock off the newsletter shit. No one cares.
joe | January 16, 2008, 9:46am | #
To Rockwell, the LP was a "party of the stoned," a halfway house for libertines that had to be "de-loused."Except now instead of comparing you to lice, they use the term "cosmotarian."
You want some free advice? The Rothbard/Rockwell redneck strategy never got libertarianism as much as 1% of the vote. Ron Paul is beating nationally-hyped candidated with enormous war chests by attracting suburban and urban independents and liberals, many of whom are perfectly comfortable with black people.
Ali | January 16, 2008, 9:49am | #
Thanks David Weigel and Julian Sanchez for the informative article. Eye opening.Being a minority myself (religious and racial), and meeting with Paul on two different occasions, and his his family (namely his son Rand Paul and wife Carol Paul), I personally do not believe that this family, especially Paul, is racist. You know it when you speak to a racist. Paul, I do not think, is one.
With that said, what disappointed me is Paul's insistence on not unveiling the truth, full and complete. As Weigel and Sanchez note, by not providing a definitive explanation beyond "this is old news" is bound to crush this movement. Who would have imaging that a libertarian candidate would raise $30M? Who would have imagined that after only 3 races, a libertarian candidate would garner the votes of nearly 100 thousand voters?
I think Paul is weighing between sacrificing a few friends and an entire movement. I am sure that he will make the right decision. I hope so.
ed | January 16, 2008, 9:51am | #
I need to use it [the "C" word] in conversation just to get a reactionI predict their reaction will be, "What, the magazine?"
But if they comprehend, back...away...slowly.
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 9:51am | #
Shane Brady - "So was he lying then or now?"Please respond to my post, above.
You sound like a collectivist to me.
Al Federber | January 16, 2008, 9:53am | #
I'm sure that those who have now wounded Ron Paul, the only remotely libertarian candidate on the national scene, must be very proud of themselves. Maybe the pathetic bastards can have a big congratulatory circle jerk while they watch freedom die around them.Reinmoose | January 16, 2008, 9:54am | #
I hereby propose that all posts of the nature...1. I still support Ron Paul because he's the best thing that's come along or will come along in a long time.
2. I'm disappointed that he wasn't more honest about this earlier.
3. If he can't manage what goes out under his name than he's incompetent and shouldn't be running the country.
...should be banned from this and all further threads regarding the newsletters. Seriously. You've already said this. Try a different angle.
Greg N. | January 16, 2008, 9:54am | #
Here are the last two sentences of the piece I sent to Dave W. early last year (not on the newsletters, but on Paul's affiliation with Rockwell and his slimy brethren):"Paul should stop publishing at LewRockwell.com, ask that his columns be removed from the site, and issue a statement repudiating any LRC authors who publish racism, anti-Semitism, intolerance, bigotry, and anti-Americanism. His failure to do so may cause irreparable harm not only to his campaign, but to the libertarian movement he has spent his life supporting."
I feel vindicated, if as yet unpublished.
joe | January 16, 2008, 9:55am | #
The Robert Byrd example is exactly right.He engaged in a cynical, disreputable practice of associating himself with vile racists in an effort to reach out to them and gain a base of support.
He then admitted his mistake, took responsibility (rather than shifting it, this is the important part), apologized, and worked to make amends. This has allowed him to put his grievous error behind him, and re-enter the civilized world.
Everybody loves a good prodigal son story.
Warty | January 16, 2008, 9:55am | #
You guys are *this* close to ending my three year subscription and my daily reading of the blog.That's a drink, right?
So we're to believe that Ron Paul had absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of the material written in a newsletter that was bringing him in nearly $1 million in income, whose employees included not only Rockwell, but his wife and daughter?
joe | January 16, 2008, 9:56am | #
I'm sure that those who have now wounded Ron Paul, the only remotely libertarian candidate on the national scene, must be very proud of themselves. Maybe the pathetic bastards can have a big congratulatory circle jerk while they watch freedom die around them.I don't imagine Rockwell and Rothbard approve of that kind of self-abuse.
Ok People. We are on a highway to hell in a porsch going faster than the speed limit and all we do is argue in the damn car. Can you compare this crap to the sins of our current government and the banking cartel? Are we gonna give a crap about these letters when we are paying ten bucks for a gallon of milk? Wake up and get out of the car.
John C. Randolph | January 16, 2008, 9:57am | #
Kill the witch! Kill the witch!Seriously, why does Reason magazine feel this need to find someone to burn at the stake? All that mattered was whether RP is a racist, and he's not.
-jcr
robc | January 16, 2008, 9:58am | #
But if they comprehend, back...away...slowly.Trust me, with my friends, that is always the prime option. But, I will be using it in a context that will be gotten. I expect confused looks, but with realization. The person who I primarily want to hear it has adopted the wonkette "Paultard" as a description for himself.
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 9:59am | #
Greg N. "...LRC authors who publish racism, anti-Semitism, intolerance, bigotry, and anti-Americanism. "What are you talking about??
These accusations are madness! I challenge you to post a link to any single article at www.lewrockwell.com that fits the above description.
Are the posters here all RedState.com rejects? This sure a hell IS NOT the Reason magazine I remember, and that's going back years.
Oh My! | January 16, 2008, 10:00am | #
"Cato Institute President Ed Crane told reason he recalls a conversation from some time in the late 1980s in which Paul claimed that his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for The Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto until it folded in 2001."So much to explain!
adrian | January 16, 2008, 10:02am | #
and the cosmotarian cannibalization continues!Vincent Gigante | January 16, 2008, 10:04am | #
"Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks,""-------------------------------------
lol, "Outreach to Rednecks"... Its pretty sad that they have to pander to rednecks with racist drivel to get money, although frankly I am not that bothered by this I really doubt Rockwell or Rothbard where racist and this explanation makes sense...
Jeff | January 16, 2008, 10:05am | #
"So we're to believe that Ron Paul had absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of the material written in a newsletter that was bringing him in nearly $1 million in income, whose employees included not only Rockwell, but his wife and daughter?">Yes.
Cactus Jack | January 16, 2008, 10:05am | #
"The Robert Byrd example is exactly right."But the issue is, did Robert Byrd ever hold racist views and did Ron Paul ever hold racist views? I believe yes in the first case and no in the second case. Why should Ron Paul apologise for racist views he never held?
ed | January 16, 2008, 10:06am | #
"Paultard"? Whew!Whatever happened to individualist? Is that term hopelessly old-fashioned?
You never see it here, oddly. I blame the blogs. Labels are just too damn hard to resist.
Reason is right to "beat this dead horse." Reason readers will never drift towards, say, Huckabee because of this, and when the dust settles, Reason can't be accused of having Ron Paul blinders on. It's a no lose situation to beat this dead horse.
adrian | January 16, 2008, 10:07am | #
rein: here's a different take for you.The real libertarians (Reason libs) are racists. They see Paul gaining support from regular people and even minorities (Arabs!) and feel that these people are being turned on to libertarianism and that it will kill the (racial) purity of their party/ideals. So they slander Dr. Paul to try and convince the folks that he's a racist and they should go back to where they came (D or R). This keeps their party pure without having to actually admit that they are indeed the racist ones!
How's that sound?
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 10:08am | #
Dagny,Ron Paul uses the word collectivist so you have to use the same word? For the record, I am a libertarian. when I lived in Kansas I was officially registered as one (Missouri doesn't do that). I'm not a big government guy.
So now that's out of the way, just answer the question:
Was Ron Paul lying in 1996 when he defended the newsletters or in 2008 when he claimed he never even read them?
This has nothing to do with "collectivism".
smartass sob | January 16, 2008, 10:10am | #
You know, I could swear I remember Rothbard being part of the founding of Cato way back in the early to middle seventies. Wasn't he one of the original board of directors or something?Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 10:11am | #
In addition, while I don't place a religious test on candidates, Ron Paul's rejection of the theory of evolution, shows him to be an ignoramus, whose critical thinking skills must be so deficient, I wouldn't let him run the Ron Paul Fan club, much less the country.Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 16, 2008, 10:14am | #
The real libertarians (Reason libs) are racists. They see Paul gaining support from regular people and even minorities (Arabs!) and feel that these people are being turned on to libertarianism and that it will kill the (racial) purity of their party/ideals. So they slander Dr. Paul to try and convince the folks that he's a racist and they should go back to where they came (D or R). This keeps their party pure without having to actually admit that they are indeed the racist ones!I agree with this. Matt Welch is racist scum.
smartass sob | January 16, 2008, 10:15am | #
Whatever happened to individualist? Is that term hopelessly old-fashioned?It's probably too "paleo", ed.
adrian | January 16, 2008, 10:18am | #
shane: i'm pretty sure he just doesn't believe that the big bang and natural selection got us to where we are. I don't think he believes the earth is 6000 years old. (will try to find a link on that)Thomas Jefferson | January 16, 2008, 10:19am | #
If reason cant get behind and fully support the closest thing we Libertarians have had to a legitimate presidential candidate, then who needs them.Cancel my subscription!
Fazsha | January 16, 2008, 10:20am | #
I reviewed all the links in this article - none of them support the authors' premise.There's not a single thing under Rockwell's byline to support their argument. We are led to believe that Paul went from nonracist to racist and back to nonracist in his writings in 6 years. Come on!
This is all innuendo, and is a thinly veiled and unsupported attempt to SMEAR Ron Paul. Shame on you.
joe | January 16, 2008, 10:21am | #
Cactus Jack,Why should Ron Paul apologise for racist views he never held?
He shouldn't. He should apologize for pandering to racists as part of the "outreach to the rednecks" strategy the article describes.
BTW, watching people defend the content of the letters then shout "No, YOU'RE the racist" is teh funny."
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 10:21am | #
Shane,Your claim to have been "officially registered as a libertarian" rings hollow when you imply that the only one putting forth the term "collectivist" is Ron Paul. Have you actually read anything? (Rand, Rothbard, Hayek, Von Mises, Hazlitt, Rose Wilder Lane, Albert J. Nock...)
Also, the fact that I'm seeing the term "Paultard" in this forum convinces me there are many here who know nothing about the principles of liberty, haven't read anything, and get all their info from Limbaugh and Hannity.
Will the last one to leave this forum, who actually believes in (and comprehends) limited government and individual liberty, please turn out the lights and leave the cling-ons to chase their tails in the dark.
Thank You.
joe | January 16, 2008, 10:22am | #
If reason cant get behind and fully support the closest thing we Libertarians have had to a legitimate presidential candidate, then who needs them.Fuck principle, we want power!
Chris | January 16, 2008, 10:23am | #
tReason and the Stato warmonging "cosmotarians" try and throw Rockwell under the bus.Get the pitchforks and torches ready, there be witches to burn!!!11!
Jacob | January 16, 2008, 10:23am | #
Witch hunts are fun for the whole family! Don’t worry Reason, you’re sufficiently distancing yourself from the Paul campaign enough so that none of the controversy will wear off on you. Lets hope you don’t irreparably injure a more important pillar of the libertarian movement in the process.To Hell with Lew Rockwell | January 16, 2008, 10:25am | #
Some of the remarks above seem to be missing the main issue. It's time to cut off, shame, expel, throw out, and generally kick Lew Rockwell in the balls. Libertarians should refuse to be in the same room with that hate filled racist dirtbag. If he walks in, everyone else should walk out. That man has done a lot of harm to the cause that attracted so many people to Ron Paul's campaign.Lew Rockwell, GET OUT......slink away in shame.
Cactus Jack | January 16, 2008, 10:30am | #
"He should apologize for pandering to racists as part of the "outreach to the rednecks" strategy the article describes."I'm not so sure he was even doing that. I think he is just too loyal to his friend Lew Rockwell. Ali said it right when he said that Ron Paul needs to choose between loyalty to his friends and loyalty to the movement.
Tom Walls | January 16, 2008, 10:30am | #
Although I am fiercely interested in the newsletter authorship fiasco, and know some of the personalities involved, there is a rEVOLution going on...In the exit polls yesterday, Ron was a smash hit with the 18-29 year old voters. they were typically political independents, generally not religious, had at least some college and moderate incomes.
He received little to no support among the evangelicals or greedy geezers. "Ron who? Eh? Whadja say? Where's my metamucil? Free perscription drugs! Bob Dole! Eh!"
That is where the campaign should focus its efforts. There's no alternative.
Yesterday, an email from a guy at work (fairly young guy, IT worker) contained a pro-Ron Paul message and link in his work email signature - I had no idea he was a supporter. I went to lunch with him and was amazed at the degree to which he understood Paul's message.
Hess Sauerland | January 16, 2008, 10:31am | #
And in the after birthhttp://youtube.com/watch?v=J0RCkAazE8A
On the quiet earth
Let the stains remind you
You thought you made a man
You better think again
Before my role defines you
joe | January 16, 2008, 10:31am | #
You know what's really, really good for building a political movement's visibility and credibility with the general public?Racism. Boy I'll tell you, if you are really trying to expand your appeal among mainstream Americans, there's nothing like having your most prominent spokesman linked to race-inciting literature.
Tom Walls | January 16, 2008, 10:31am | #
I meant it should focus on young, independent, intelligent voters, not seasoned citizens or evangelicals.joe | January 16, 2008, 10:35am | #
Cactus Jack,I'm not so sure he was even doing that. I think he is just too loyal to his friend Lew Rockwell.
I suppose there's a small chance his family members never mentioned anything that appeared in the newsletters over dinner, but that's pretty unlikely. "I didn't do it, but I'm sorry those people I have nothing to do with did" isn't going to cut it. "I did it, it was a mistake, I understand why it was wrong to do what I did, and I'm sorry."
DavidS | January 16, 2008, 10:35am | #
I liked the suggestion on Lew's blog that Paul should try and brand Obama the "pro-slavery candidate" - more smart politics...Eric Garris | January 16, 2008, 10:35am | #
This article quotes only people who have expressed intense dislike for Rockwell in the past, hardly a fair mix. One of those quoted recently called Lew "the most obnoxious person in North America."It is interesting that this comes out the day that Rockwell announced he is going in for eye surgery, he won't be able to read and respond to it for many days.
crw | January 16, 2008, 10:38am | #
Jesus. I seriously wonder about the reading comprehension of some of you folks. This article does not say Ron Paul is a racist. It says he was complicit in a strategy to pander to racists to build a financial and political base. Y'know, kind of like the way Chamber of Commerce Republicans pander to evangelicals to get votes. And look how well that's working out for them this year.If Ron Paul would just come out and say "yes, I bought into Rockwell/Rothbard and pandered to racists. In hindsight it wasn't the brilliant political strategy we thought it was. It was the wrong road to take. Mea culpa." this issue would be completely defused. Since he wont, I can only assume he's comfortable with those kinds of tactics. I'm not. And worse, I think they are horrible politics. That kind of pandering to fringe elements is a great way to keep libertarianism in the 6% spoiler box.
David | January 16, 2008, 10:38am | #
How Mr. Rockwell responded to James Kirchick's questions about his role in the newsletters:"Rockwell is listed as a 'contributing editor' of The Ron Paul Investment Letter, but when I interviewed him last week for the story, he denied ghostwriting material in Paul's newsletters. He said that he was 'involved in the promotion' of the newsletters, as well as, 'writing the subscription letters' (maybe he wrote this ditty [PDF]?) and 'writing mailing lists.' Rockwell told me that there were 'seven or eight freelancers involved at various stages' of the newsletter's history.
When I asked him who was in charge of the editing and publishing of the newsletters, Rockwell got cryptic. 'The person who was in charge is now long gone ... He left in unfortunate circumstances.'"
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/10/who-wrote-ron-paul-s-newsletters.aspx
Who is Rockwell gesturing towards?
Murray Rothbard? Someone else?
Where's the Racism Come From? LEW ROCKWELL | January 16, 2008, 10:38am | #
Lew "Racist" Rockwell. Come out, muster whatever decency you can, and admit what you did. And then get thee behind us!Cactus Jack | January 16, 2008, 10:38am | #
"In addition, while I don't place a religious test on candidates, Ron Paul's rejection of the theory of evolution, shows him to be an ignoramus, whose critical thinking skills must be so deficient, I wouldn't let him run the Ron Paul Fan club, much less the country."I don't think Ron Paul is an ignoramus. I think sometimes, people's religious views overrule and keep them from using critical thinking on some issues.
DavidS | January 16, 2008, 10:40am | #
It is interesting that this comes out the day that Rockwell announced he is going in for eye surgery, he won't be able to read and respond to it for many days.I am sure we will be able to wait until Rockwell's return to work on Friday for his comments.
Gene Trosper | January 16, 2008, 10:44am | #
The article doesn't really expose anything new. long standing libertarian activists already knew most of this and if they didn't, Google and other sources (such as idle chit chat at libertarian gatherings) would reveal it.All in all, this just amounts to beating a dead horse.
Sorry, but that's how I see it.
I wish Paul would have nothing to do with Rockwell, Thomas "Confederate" DiLorenzo, or any of those other dirtbags.
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 10:46am | #
Shane, where did you go? ... and we were having such a good conversation :(BTW: Just visited your website Shane, and you've obviously hated Ron Paul for a long time. (went back as far as June 'o7, couldn't handle any more of your hatred, sorry buddy)
Question though: why do so many gays have tunnel vision when it comes to individual freedom? You know, like yours and yours alone?
The country is in serious trouble. Time to step outside of yourself and do something constructive, because if this ship goes down, we're all going down together.
Tom Biggs | January 16, 2008, 10:47am | #
Here we have the libertarian candidate with the best shot at actually attaining office, and Reason joins the braying pack of neocons trying to smear him. What the heck is wrong with you people?Now I remember why I dropped my subscription to the dead tree edition of Reason magazine. After 9/11, a significant percentage of the editors came down on the side of "endless war for endless peace". I was disgusted.
When you really *need* a libertarian magazine, you can count on "Reason" to be on the anti-libertarian side, hurling brickbats.
Tom Walls | January 16, 2008, 10:48am | #
Your average voter is not interested in libertarian back channel gossip. Of course, if some snowballs into a smear campaign, that's another story.The problem is, you can never deal with this to everyone's satisfaction, like some of the swizzleteats and jackanapes here.
I don't dislike Paul so much as I dislike the fact he can't say "no" to some of the shady characters he hangs around. Like Presidents Grant and Harding, hes a decent and nice man, a little too nice and decent, thus he is easily manipulated by others.
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 10:50am | #
Dagney:http://www.shanebrady.com/UserFiles/Image/spb/Screenshot.png
Craig S. List | January 16, 2008, 10:50am | #
AIDS sufferers "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."That anti-gay rag Rolling Stone finally got around to covering that story 10 or 15 years later.... :
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers
Gabe Harris | January 16, 2008, 10:52am | #
He has posted free electronic copies of "Human Action" and hundreds of other academic works on the libertarian philosophy and free-market economics. These works have been read and downloaded by millions of freedom loving folks all over teh world.I do not know anyone who has read Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig Von Mises and Murray ROthbard that isn't a devoted libertarian in their own way. I mean to the core, the type of person who will actually harm their own social standing rather that stand by silently while collectivist spout the crap that passes for "cosmopolitan" in todays world.
The racist charges are absurd...the people who call rockwell a racist are as silly as the folks who call ron paul a "anti-semite" for not wanting to give foreign aid to Israel, Eygpt and Saudi Arabia.
you guys have rally discredited yourselves
I wonder how it can be "beating a dead horse" when every post about on the subject generates 100+ comments.
Josh | January 16, 2008, 10:53am | #
Sorry to Ken whoever for being one of those nasty Shrill Shills... (Although I am not paid by Ron Paul so technically I can't be a shill)RANT Begin :
And the point is ?
Well I guess Reason must like the Democrats or other Republicans. Say so in you're articles and say we don't support Ron Paul because taking everything together he does not believe in Abortion or he is a pathological lair or he is a man without any integrity and character.
Say we at Reason believe that Paul is a bigoted and vile closet racist.
Say we intend to destroy this man's campaign because we can and we do not believe him. We cannot support him and we believe that the Democrats and Other republicans are better than Ron Paul.
State it, but don't continue to write your blithe articles without recognizing that this is what your articles are trying to achieve along with a wide readership. Ron Paul certainly provides traffic while he is a presidential candidate.
Those of us who look towards the future realize that upon his shoulder rest Hope, Peace, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When we look at the others we see Despair, War , internment and security (traded for out freedom).
We see the coming tyrants along with the current tyrants. The Ruling class the Clintons and Bushes being ordained.
Is it the destruction of free markets and destruction of Liberty that you want or liberty and free market that you want ?
It is obvious which side your magazine has chosen even if you can't see.
Just maybe you need to remove the log from your eyes before so vociferously removing someone else’s eyes because of the speck in it.
RANT End.
Gene Trosper | January 16, 2008, 10:53am | #
Let's see: Ron paul's campiagn has survived CNN, The New Republic, MSNBC and numerous other national media outlets thus far. Does anyone honestly believe that Reason's latest volley is going to make any difference?Ah...I pine of the Bob Poole days.
ed | January 16, 2008, 10:54am | #
jackanapesThat's a fine word and not used nearly enough, though I fully expect to see "Jackanapestarian" emerge here at any moment. That's a label I can get behind.
"Jackanapestarian" Copyright (C) 2008 ed
All Rights Reserved
Void where prohibited
jon | January 16, 2008, 10:55am | #
Of course none of the anti-Lew Rockwell sentiment is related to the following:Alexa website traffic ranking:
Lewrockwell.com 10,493
Reason 25,456
Cato 73,930
Ha, Cato would kill for those numbers...
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 10:55am | #
Dagny,Homosexuals don't have tunnel vision just because they want to be able to marry, have families, serve in the military, etc.
And yes, I've disliked Ron Paul for a long time for his non-libertarian views. I think he does damage when he isn't a true blue believer in freedom. He's more like a Christian populist. I really don't like what Ron Paul wants for the country. State sanctioned Christian prayer in schools, state sanctioned discrimination, back alley abortions, creationism in school It's scary.
Gabe, Get a Grip | January 16, 2008, 10:56am | #
Gabe...it's not antisemitic to want to cut off foreign aid. It is racist to call black people "zoo animals."Do you understand that or not?
Colin | January 16, 2008, 10:57am | #
You'd have to think Rothbard had become senile. Didn't he realize he'd be one of the first to go in this new order?Cesar | January 16, 2008, 10:59am | #
Cutting foreign aid to Israel is anti-semitic.If, however, someone said that Jews are "terrorists" or "manipulative bankers" that would be antisemitic.
Wow. You made your point well. You are truly committed to a cause. That is some impressive investigative work you have done and time well spent! Its helpful to point out your relevance by putting this in the proper context. We are currently watching the growth of a dangerous welfare/warfare state before our very eyes. Civil liberties are being eroded, the executive branch is going insane, the dollar is falling, we are $9Trillion in debt, and the people vying to be our President are all for continuing this ruinous course. All, that is, except one. Ron Paul is the most popular libertarian candidate our country has seen in 40 years. He has clearly stated all his positions through his voluminous writings and speeches. He wholeheartedly rejects racism, bigotry and collectivism. And rather than point out to the exceptional merits of Ron Paul and his candidacy, Reason invests all this time and money nitpicking about something his ghostwriter did 20 years ago?
Norbert Sykes | January 16, 2008, 11:03am | #
Why doesn't someone use that computer program that can compare the word choice, sentence structure etc. between writings of known authors and unknown authors and can determine with very high probability using a scientific method if Lew Rockwell wrote them. Then he would have to come out and say he did it and we would be done with this once and for allShane Brady | January 16, 2008, 11:06am | #
Tim,Can you not see how someone would find Ron Paul's explanations insufficient? Just saying you're against racism doesn't automagically wash away the newsletter issue. He hasn't fully explained what happened.
Butler T Reynolds | January 16, 2008, 11:06am | #
Good article. It confirms what I figured was the motive behind LewRockwell.com.There are some Southern conservatives who would be receptive to libertarianism. But, they have a lifetime of baggage that they drag behind them.
If that baggage is pure racism, then they are lost causes and not worth a moment's thought. But if it is a bit of prejudice -- justified or not -- then there's hope. I think that's what Rothbard and Rockwell recognized.
It is a segment of the population that is completely ignored by the kinds of libertarians at Reason and CATO (the kind I consider myself to be).
The idea is to get a conservative who might have a little bit of religious or prejudice baggage to consider the ideas of libertarianism, and perhaps over time you might have a convert.
Personally, I tend to take more of a Randian tact: if you don't like it, then screw you and the whim worshipping mule you rode in on. :) But you have to admit, that's just not the way the world works. ARI, for example, preaches to the choir. I suspect that they solidify resistance more so than they change minds.
Still not sure if the Rothbard/Rockwell approach is sound. Go too far and you end up getting mud on the name of libertarianism. Do nothing and you have no chance of winning over people who might have been receptive to your ideas. Who else can say that he was able to get a redneck (in the kindest sense of the word) to read Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard?
There's a reason that so many libertarians are secular technology geeks. We were already outside of mainstream thinking and open to new ideas before we discovered libertarianism. Getting bashed in the head by the writings of Rand was actually exciting for us. To others, it is not a pleasant experience and results in an immediate closing of the mind.
As the Advocates for Self Government has pointed out, you have to begin by meeting people where they are.
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 11:11am | #
Shane, being registered is one thing, but who in the libertarian movement has most influenced your thinking?Just read your last post re: "scary," and at least now we're getting somewhere! Cutting past the BS to the real issues.
What's really scary Shane, is what's happening today. Rep. Paul wants to get the government OUT OF YOUR WAY. Repeal drug war laws (approves medical marijuana, patient choice in medical care. etc.), get rid of the Dept of Education, repeal the PATRIOT Act, stop REAL ID, get rid of the income tax, etc...
Being Libertarian, in essence, means being pro-limited government. That means that we, as individuals don't have to agree with each other on everything, we don't have to march in lock-step with every PC mandate from on high (what happens for instance, when gov't is so large, maintains databases and then decides one or the other outside the mainstream are "undesirables?")
Believing in liberty I will fight for your right to be heard, whether what you say offends me or not.
Rep. Paul is not interested in forcing religion on us - he is a Christian but you might note that he's the only one NOT pimping Jesus in this race.
Rolling back gov't to a much more limited role, returning power to the States - these ideas are Consitutional and assure that we will have more liberty - not less. Please, you sound passionate and intelligent - go and read for yourslf, decide based on his words not heresy and innuendo.
btw: The question about gay tunnel vision is not to say that you are or are not gay - I could care less.
RR | January 16, 2008, 11:13am | #
jon | January 16, 2008, 10:55am | #Alexa? Um...read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet
It's easy to game Alexa and the Rockwell Groupies figured it out long ago.
But back to the issue at hand, jon. So you think that some guys at Reason and CATO got Lew Rockwell to write racist rants and put them out under Ron Paul's name so that they could then wait until a writer at The New Republic found them, and then do a war dance? Really, does that make sense? Or maybe...maybe everyone is really ashamed that they ever had anything to do with Rockwell, Mises Institute, and even Dr. Paul -- who should have known better than to hang with such creeps.
Herb Schaffler | January 16, 2008, 11:15am | #
"Now I remember why I dropped my subscription to the dead tree edition of Reason magazine. After 9/11, a significant percentage of the editors came down on the side of "endless war for endless peace". I was disgusted."I dropped my subscription because of Reason's support for Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I see it hasn't changed.
Are you the Tom Biggs that works at J.D. Fields?
I've been reading lewrockwell.com for years and I've never seen a single racist word on that site. We're all on the same side, so give it a rest.
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 11:19am | #
Dagny,I don't consider ignoring the 14th Amendment, which Ron Paul does a lot of the time, as pro liberty. Ron Paul wants the states governments firmly intertwined with Christian churches. That has been a big part of his career. I don't want *any* government intruding in my life, federal or state.
jon | January 16, 2008, 11:21am | #
RR writes : "So you think that some guys at Reason and CATO got Lew Rockwell to write racist rants and put them out under Ron Paul's name so that they could then wait until a writer at The New Republic found them, and then do a war dance? Really, does that make sense?"where the hell does it say anything like that in my original post?
please point it out.
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 11:21am | #
There are an awful lot of people who suddenly wany LRC to shut up and go away... Makes you wonder. These type of attacks are generally only aimed at the ones who stand up for the truth.Before you join the bandwagon, don't you think you ought to find some "evidence" that the authors posting at www.lewrockwell.com are ACTUALY "bigoted racists?" Seems to me that they are the only ones who haven't sold out to the idea that government knows best, and they are doing so in an environment that is quickly becoming less and less tolerant of independent thought.
Hmm.. that alone gets them my vote! Go Lew!
Rich DeYoung | January 16, 2008, 11:23am | #
"[This article] scares the living shit out of me, honestly, knowing how Ron Paul has literally indoctrinated tens (they would claim hundreds) of thousands of people on many of the Paleo political points that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard have been trying to popularize for years: gold standard, abolish the IRS/Fed, populist conspiracy theories involving "global elites and bankers", etc...the Paul grassroots can bleat these arguments on command. Rockwell looks poised to inherit a mighty and generous support base, after the Revolution has dissolved. And dissolving it is, due in no small part to a series of racist newsletters that some "Beltway" Libertarians will swear up and down were written by Rockwell himself, and not Paul.If the Libertarian Party doesn't feel like tussling with Rockwell for ANOTHER 20 years, perhaps they should start more actively recruiting from the Paul grass roots. Unfortunately, for a political party that has difficulties getting someone to run for dogcatcher of Potlatch, Idaho, that means doing a whole lot of things that the they aren't very good at: sobering up (just kidding), getting organized, talking to the hoi polloi, smiling, and, most difficult of all, feigning enthusiasm for Ron Paul. They are so screwed."
RR | January 16, 2008, 11:23am | #
No racism? Well, read this for startershttp://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/026647.php
Is attacking Rosa Parks repeatedly a noble thing to do after she died? What kind of people write such ugly things about such a beautiful woman?
There's plenty of racism over there. That's not to say that all of the writers are racists, but the Cuckoo for Confederates crowd that runs the place is racist.
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 11:23am | #
Dagny,How is introducing legislation that would give states carte blanche to have school prayer, gay marriage bans, abortion bans (all goalsof Ron Paul) without judicial review, pro liberty?
The kinds of laws that Ron Paul wanted to remove from jurisdiction of the Supreme Court mostly *restrict* liberty. People discriminated by state governments would then have no judicial recourse. Is that pro liberty?
Tron | January 16, 2008, 11:23am | #
Jeffrey Tucker was named as a possible co-conspirator in this mess. Please read this article if you think he could be a racist:http://www.mises.org/story/2817
Sheesh, what did people want, Reason bloggers to shut up on the subject? They're giving the readers what they want, and they want articles about Ron Paul. And it's not as if they're exposing anything too awful about Ron Paul, just that he like every successful entrepreneur and politician has experimented and taken advice to see how he could best attract money & att'n. It's not like he could take any of his support for granted.
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 11:25am | #
Shane -The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.
We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier” data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.
To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.
We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you’re vulnerable. Under so-called “medical privacy protection” rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.
Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 or more in cash in your local bank account will generate a federally-mandated report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Department of the Treasury.
And then there’s the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed, it:
Expanded the federal government’s ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
Authorized “sneak and peek” warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge; and
Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.
I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.
The above was written by Rep. Paul.
As to his wanting a greater involvement of the churches in government, read what he ACTUALLY says:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Civil%20Liberties
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 11:28am | #
Specific to the 14th Amend:http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/008430.html
T | January 16, 2008, 11:28am | #
Strangely, there was an entire book written about a bunch of very similar issues that only libertarians bought or read. What was that called again? Paging Brian Doherty...Seriously, while it is mildly disturbing, it's an intra-libertarian slap fight that the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about. Say Lew Rockwell to the average American or even the politically aware R/D and the answer is "Who?" The only people that care about this are libertarians, and we're back to the ideological purity/big-L little-l/i'm more libertarian than you bullshit that has crippled libertarianism my entire life. In the grand scheme of things (i.e. RP's continued electoral viability) this is a fart in a whirlwind. It won't make anybody who was going to vote for him vote for someone else, and it just provides an excuse for people who weren't gonna vote him to not vote for him. Business as usual.
I hereby declare anybody arguing about this a Jackanapestarian*, myself included.
*Copyright (C) 2008 ed
All Rights Reserved
Void where prohibited
Thanks, ed!
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 11:29am | #
Dagny,This was also written by Ron Paul:
"In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."
Look! A *federal* law that codifies his religious belief that life begins at conception. In his own words.
Fluffy | January 16, 2008, 11:30am | #
How is introducing legislation that would give states carte blanche to have school prayer, gay marriage bans, abortion bans (all goalsof Ron Paul) without judicial review, pro liberty?Well, we'll ignore the abortion issue, since even though I'm pro-choice I acknowledge that the definitions of "life" and "murder" can only be connected to liberty if you're willing to employ the Randian "the uterus is real estate" metaphor, which some people just aren't willing to do.
On the marriage issue, I think Paul has made it pretty clear that turning marriage over to the states and removing it from the purview of the full faith and credit clause is his strategy for destroying state involvement in marriage entirely, by making it such a mess that it's unworkable.
And with regard to the school prayer issue, I'm a militant atheist and I regularly demean and belittle Christians on this board, but even I have to agree that there is no basis for restricting the private religious speech of citizens on public property. If that makes public schools into shitty places, that's really just too bad.
Mr. X | January 16, 2008, 11:30am | #
Thank you for doing the research and providing a coherent narrative behind the newsletter story. It certainly beats the shit our of Jamie Kirchick's smug blog posts and sensationalist race baiting.Dr. Paul is making a mistake by not addressing this directly. Your article does some of the campaign's work for them by placing a lot of facts out into the open. The story is ventilated, there is no more oxygen for it.
Edvard Felcher | January 16, 2008, 11:33am | #
I wish people would stop wasting their time beating the dead horse that this is a dead horse and start pointing out EVER MORE FORCEFULLY to people skeptical of electoral politics that they simply must vote for SOMEBODY (I mean, it would be irresponsible for a libertarian not to vote, not to invest his hopes and dreams in politics, right?) and so they'd better get out of the way of raising massive sums of money for a feckless presidential candidate who will never break 4th place but who will give his massive donor lists to an organization run by his friend, the noted author of racist screeds. Reason, STAND DOWN lest you damage the fundraising prospects of Lincoln revisionists!T | January 16, 2008, 11:36am | #
I regularly demean and belittle Christians on this boardJust Christians, Fluffy? Admit it, you belittle and demean more people than just them.
Bravo | January 16, 2008, 11:40am | #
Well said Felcher!! Let's all send our bank account numbers and PIN information to Lyndon LaRockwell's fundraisers! Shame on you, Reason, for trying to find out who wrote the allegedly 'racist' newsletters (it's just their opinion that blacks are zoo animals....can't we all just move on and get along?)!Dagny | January 16, 2008, 11:43am | #
Shane,"How is introducing legislation that would give states carte blanche to have school prayer, gay marriage bans, abortion bans (all goalsof Ron Paul) without judicial review, pro liberty?
The kinds of laws that Ron Paul wanted to remove from jurisdiction of the Supreme Court mostly *restrict* liberty. People discriminated by state governments would then have no judicial recourse. Is that pro liberty?"
The US Constitution was designed to allow people to "vote with their feet." When all power is concentrated in a central government, then whatever that power dictates becomes law for all people under it. That central power may decide things that offend you, as it is doing today, but with the States stripped of their voices, there is no longer any way to avoid it.
Take for example, extreme of course, but for the contrast: let's say a Huckabee gains control of the reins of the Federal Government. Here's a guy who's aleady suggesting what you seem to fear - an amendment to empower the religion HE agrees with to control more of our actions... Now let's say that he decides that gays are undesirable and that homosexuality should be outlawed. Let's further suppose that there are enough people in the Congress to support this and it becomes law. It won't matter what State such a person lived in, he/she would be considered a "criminal." You get the picture...
Rep. Paul wants to tie the government down by the chains of the Constitutional, just as the Founders tried to do.
You don't have to agree with him on everything, that's the beauty of it! As a President constrained by the Constitution, he could not enforce his ideas on us. This isn't hollow talk either - look at his record. The man consisently upholds these principles.
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 11:46am | #
The founders also believed that African-Americans and women didn't deserve to vote or be treated like human beings. That's why we had amendments (like the 14th) to change the constitution.Ron Paul consistently ignores the fourteen amendment when he talks about states rights with regards to conservative christian issues.
Sean | January 16, 2008, 11:46am | #
Great piece. Would have been even better if someone had contacted Paul's former CoS (1981-1985) John Robbins who wrote the following open letter to Lew Rockwell:http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/open-letter-to-lew-rockwell/
Jerry | January 16, 2008, 11:48am | #
Congratulations to the Reason staff on finding the Texas on-line business registry.Dagny | January 16, 2008, 11:48am | #
Shane - you make my case for me! :)"Look! A *federal* law that codifies his religious belief that life begins at conception. In his own words."
------
Look Shane! A Federal law that returns the power to the States!!
Thanks, I'd forgotten about that.
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 11:49am | #
Which law would that be? My religion or lack thereof doesn't state that life begins at conception.Seems like there is nothing but hearsay in this article. It don't see how it helps your case to report on "open secrets", rumors of conversations with Paul over 10 years ago, and disaffected former staffers.
Julian Sanchez | January 16, 2008, 11:51am | #
Sean-We did speak to Robbins. He had suspicions and had heard rumors, but didn't really know about the newsletter production.
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 11:51am | #
Shane states:"Ron Paul consistently ignores the fourteen amendment when he talks about states rights with regards to conservative christian issues."
Find anything that Rep. Paul has written that supports your argument, otherwise there's no "there" there. Give me something real to answer to.
Scott Wickham | January 16, 2008, 11:52am | #
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.I appreciate this very detailed report.
But for the Ron Paul supporters you must understand that freedom Ron Paul wants for us will allow the racists to be racist without state intervention until they break the law.
If you want government thought control and destruction of property rights to "protect" blacks like me then you have no right to complain when they trample on your property rights to protect a tree on your property, or
a un paying renter living in your apartment.
freedom is not a part time job.
Public Enemy sampled "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude"
Freedom isn't pretty, freedom isn't P.C.
But freedom is moral correct in the long run.
Slavery and racism and ignorance can't survive in the free market without government supporting it.
Julian Sanchez | January 16, 2008, 11:52am | #
darjen-Then you need to reread it.
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 11:55am | #
Dagny,It's in is articles about religion and his belief that the separation of church and state is a mystical doctrine. He makes references to the first amendment only applying to the federal government not local governments. Which seems to me to leave out the equal protection clause and the fourteenth amendment.
I have to go, I'm sure I'll get sucked in on another post though.
Jackanapestarian | January 16, 2008, 11:56am | #
I hereby declare anybody arguing about this a JackanapestarianHuzzah! Join me, disenfranchised jackanapestarians of the world! No label too stupid! No argument too arcane! No hair too fine to split! On to South Carolina!
dhex | January 16, 2008, 11:57am | #
so is there a market for FUCK YOU LEW shirts?with a picture of abraham lincoln giving the finger?
Mr. X | January 16, 2008, 11:59am | #
so is there a market for FUCK YOU LEW shirts?with a picture of abraham lincoln giving the finger?
This is Libertopia, baby! Markets in everything.
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 12:01pm | #
Shane: "Which law would that be? My religion or lack thereof doesn't state that life begins at conception."Okay Shane, let's go back to my example or an overarching Federal gov't taking upon itself decisions that rightly belong (Constitutionally) at the State level.
Imagine for a moment that there are others who disagree with you - you're a "card-carrying libertarian" so this shouldn't be too difficult to grasp... Now let's say, hypothetically, that the idea of abortion offends them, yet because this is Federal law they too must suuport abortion via tax dollars.
Now, what if the issue was returned to the States? In State A abortion is legal. In State B abortion is illegal. Where do you want to live Shane? Now we all have choices. The same argument applies to marriage, or anything else.
Please read Rothbard's "For a New LIberty" to see how all of these things work in a free society.
The problem with strong, centralized government is that choices are hindered, and when choices are hindered, freedoms are diluted. Those in power decide what is and is not acceptable and the people be damned.
If you believe in liberty, you must desire greater choice, not less.
Rosa | January 16, 2008, 12:02pm | #
How about a SHAME ON YOU, LEW shirt with Rosa Parks wagging her finger? (She was a lady.)Or a GIT YER BIG, FAT, LAZY ASS OUT, LEW shirt (courtesy of Tom DiLorenzo, http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/009154.html)
Colin | January 16, 2008, 12:04pm | #
If you're gonna make that shirt, don't forget the comma after "You."Dagny | January 16, 2008, 12:05pm | #
Shane, had you pegged at the start as one of the clueless "talking heads" here, I was wrong. We may disagree on issues, but I now believe that you are a thinker and will look further into the bigger picture.Enjoyed it. Later.
Marek | January 16, 2008, 12:07pm | #
I don't see how Ron Paul gets off the hook on this even if Lew Rockwell or someone else fesses up to having written the racist newletters. It just isn't credible that he knew nothing of it. Whether he wrote it or allowed it to be written in his name makes little difference. If he allowed it to be written in his name not out of conviction, but only to raise money from racists, is he somehow less culpable? Frankly, if the revelation of the newsletters doesn't diminish his support, I think it's very worrisome.dhex | January 16, 2008, 12:09pm | #
no the comma gets in the way of sloganeering.hence the all caps.
FUCK
YOU
LEW
works better than
FUCK
YOU,
LEW
ok working on variations of the lincoln tie in.
-- perhaps "the south will be crushed again" with a giant robo lincoln smashing the plantation system.
-- "lincoln rolls 50 deep" with a cloned crew of lincolns looking to curtail states rights.
-- or just a good old bust with a DEATH TO THE NONBELIVERS across it for that extra dada kick.
man this niche market t-shirt thing is harder
dhex | January 16, 2008, 12:11pm | #
failing that i can always rip off the obey stuff with "ROCKWELL HAS A POSSE (of racists)" and all of his stats would have KKK filled in.that's pretty close to slander, ain't it? you need to dance on that border without crossing into LEW ROCKWELL SUED ME AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS T-SHIRT AND HATE MAIL FROM PEOPLE SUCKING ROTHBARD'S DEAD COCK AS WELL AS SOME INCOHERENT RACIST PIECES OF SHIT FROM EAST FUCKNUTS, TEXAS shirt territory.
dhex | January 16, 2008, 12:17pm | #
on a more serious note:btw, i don't see this as a purity issue so much as "people who raise money from racists are untrustworthy" thing.
Are you guys just mad about "One can almost detect what sounds like mellowing in Rockwell's reflections on the high and heady paleo days, unburdened by ominous warnings of the looming race war. Nowadays the fiery rhetoric is directed at the "pimply-faced" Kirchick, "Benito" Guiliani, and the "so-called 'libertarians'" at reason and Cato" or what? He isn't running on his newsletter and I don't really give a shit what he used to be.
Dagny | January 16, 2008, 12:24pm | #
to: dhex, Marek, Colin, Rosa, et al (that means the others like you that are posting here)Back up your screed against those few who are still fighting for YOUR right to be morons. As much as your stupidity offends others, "liberty for all" is the motto