"Ron Paul’s candidacy is proving the irrelevance of libertarianism"

So sayeth National Review anti-homosexualist and hot-babe connoisseur John Derbyshire, while yet again defending the content of Paul's old newsletters in the white-girl fanzine VDare. Much discussion ensues about "forward-thrusting 'dynamists'" and the like. As is typical of the genre, there is no attempt to explain the conundrum of why the candidate he defends so vigorously disagrees so vehemently with The Derb's own enthusiasms for the newsletters' content and fondness for pre-MLK race relations.

Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez investigated the Survival Report operation a couple of weeks back.

Comments

Jacob | January 28, 2008, 5:09pm | #

I fail to see how $30 million raised and the most successful candidacy of a Representative since the House was expanded to 435 members signifies the irrelevance of libertarianism. For all his limitations, he is kicking ass. If he were a young, well-spoken Senator or Governor and was stilling pulling only 10%, then we could talk.

Peter | January 28, 2008, 5:10pm | #

And this is worth posting why?

Matt Welch | January 28, 2008, 5:16pm | #

And this is worth posting why?

One of Paul's best-known supporters in the commentariat thinks his campaign's success is some kind of refutation of libertarianism? I'd wager some readers here would find that interesting.

Urkobold™ | January 28, 2008, 5:18pm | #

JACOB SPEAKS THE TRUTH. IF RON PAUL HAD APPEARED THUS, HE WOULD ALREADY BE THE NOMINEE. IN FACT, HE WOULD ALREADY BE PRESIDENT.

x,y | January 28, 2008, 5:19pm | #

And this is worth posting why?

Over/under = 234 posts. I'll take the under as it's late in the day already (East coast).

Episiarch | January 28, 2008, 5:19pm | #

It's good to know that not only is Derbyshire an idiot, but his taste in women sucks too. Jesus, he thought that chick deserved special notice? He must be used to real dogs.

shecky | January 28, 2008, 5:19pm | #

Just what Paul needs: support from vdare.com.

JasonL | January 28, 2008, 5:20pm | #

Odd. It took me a sec to sort out what Derb meant in Matt's headline.

I thought, okay, the candidacy collapsed thereby proving libertarian's irrelevance.

Then I saw, ah, Derb is a Paul supporter. Instead of focusing on the failure of his candidacy as an indication of libertarianism's irrelevance, I should focus on the, er, success(?) of Paul's campaign as an indication of libertarianism's irrelevance.

I'm still not sure I have it all straight, but I seem to lose no matter what, so maybe I shouldn't put too much thought into it ...

x,y | January 28, 2008, 5:21pm | #

I can get down with Derb sometimes, but not this time. If anything, Paul's success (however limited) signifies the relevance of libertariaism. As Paul himself notes, he's not the best messenger for the ideas. It stands to reason that the ideas, and not the candidate, are keeping the campaign afloat.

Brandybuck | January 28, 2008, 5:24pm | #

I would say the LP is irrelevant because Ron Paul has shown we don't need them to bust past the 0.5% barrier. If anything, Ron Paul has shown that libertarians need to start running as Republicans and Democrats.

But despite the Dynamists' claims to the contrary, Ron Paul is most certainly a libertarian. In that sense libertarianism is not irrelevant.

de stijl | January 28, 2008, 5:28pm | #

VDare? And you linked? No thanks! I guess I won't RTFA. At least you gave us a head's up.

jj | January 28, 2008, 5:29pm | #

If anything, Ron Paul has shown that libertarians need to start running as Republicans and Democrats.

Preach it brutha. The Libertarian Party IMHO serves only to sap money from fruitful avenues, and to enable idiot debate moderators to ask ad nauseam: "You're a libertarian; why are you running in the Republican Party."

Inkstained Wretch | January 28, 2008, 5:29pm | #

Derbyshire's comments support my own pet theory that Ron Paul has more support from paleocon Buchananites than from libertarians.

Granted, some of those paleocons may call themselves libertarians but that is another matter.

kq | January 28, 2008, 5:31pm | #

Just so everyone knows, Derbyshire supports Ron Paul.

But Derb is right on one thing: libertarianism hasn't exactly set the world on fire this election cycle. That doesn't make this cycle different in any way.

(Neoconservatism, au contraire, has set the actual world on actual fire.)

jj | January 28, 2008, 5:31pm | #

I'm all for paleocon Buchanites who vote for an anti-prohibitionist anti-tax pro-realfreemarket candidate. Go paleocons!

William R | January 28, 2008, 5:31pm | #

Welch, you'll always be remembered as nothing more than a nickel and dime beltway hack. Running with a story from some kid at Marty Peretz's kill all the Arabs rag the New Republic is only a reflection of how bad Reason truly is.

Hating Ron Paul: Nazis Join the Anti-Paul Popular Front

jj | January 28, 2008, 5:33pm | #

William R, Welch won't be running that article because it doesn't fit his Kramerotarian views.

Rhywun | January 28, 2008, 5:36pm | #

He's an ass, but he's still the only writer there worth reading. He's even right on occasion.

BakedPenguin | January 28, 2008, 5:37pm | #

Over at URKOBOLD, we have the illustrated adventures of the greatest libertarian hero ever (in addition to pictures of Angie Cepeda.) He will surely take us to the promised land...

Rhywun | January 28, 2008, 5:38pm | #

("he" = John Derbyshire)

Taktix® | January 28, 2008, 5:38pm | #

URKOBOLD is right (of course).

The next libertarian-ish candidate for president should be a hot libertarian chick.

As individuals free from the trappings of political correctness, one would view physical attraction as simply an additional positive attribute, and therefore cast aside some sexist stigma that is indicative to the decay a patriarchal society.

Please send applications to P.O. Box...

William R | January 28, 2008, 5:38pm | #

I read Derbyshire's piece and it is right on the money. Between CATO and Reason, libertarianism is more or less a joke.

Taktix® | January 28, 2008, 5:44pm | #

Hating Ron Paul: Nazis Join the Anti-Paul Popular Front

Between CATO and Reason, libertarianism is more or less a joke.

Must be happy hour.

DRINK!

Jerry | January 28, 2008, 5:46pm | #

The chicks in RP's campaign update report video are hot!

Matt Welch | January 28, 2008, 5:46pm | #

Kramerotarian? Did I miss a thread?

Anyway, shouldn't it be Kramer vs. Kramerotarian?

| January 28, 2008, 5:49pm | #

That thing's hard to follow. But where he quotes himself on Postrel's book, he makes what should be, and might be, his point. I'll change a couple words:

We are not [lacking a candidate] advocating liberty, wealth creation and open-mindedness. What we are short of is any large public sentiment in favor of those things.

What percentage of Paul supporters give a fuck about that stuff? The same who make up that less than .5% of America that could reasonably be called libertarian. The rest are just confused idiots (Derbyshire included).

It's a bad mess of a column, but he wins on his characterization of Reasonites as needy dweebs. Their desperately shifting relationship to Paul's campaign has shown that. As does this post.

My previous defenses of Welch against right-wing dumbasses feel like my own personal Ron Paul newsletters now. No one who calls that Weigel and Sanchez did an investigation can be defended.

A Reason Reader | January 28, 2008, 5:50pm | #

When I go to your website, I don't want some freakin' ad talking to me. How tacky!

GILMORE | January 28, 2008, 5:52pm | #

while I am no Paulista, it's a hard argument to make when the dude regularly creamed Giuliani in the polls, the ostensible 'front runner' in not so distant memory

If anything, it's a cue that libertarians are a constituency far more worth appealing to compared to say, racist-lite snobs. VDare is a huge piece of shit in my opinion. If ever i find myself there by accident it takes about 10 seconds before i want to throw burning bags of shit at the posters

BakedPenguin | January 28, 2008, 5:53pm | #

The next libertarian-ish candidate for president should be a hot libertarian chick.

Didn't Donna D'Errico endorse Paul?

The Wine Commonsewer | January 28, 2008, 5:54pm | #

Ink, I may agree with you. Most of the people I know, and there are many, who support RP didn't come from libertarianism. They are what I call "Second Tier". They are the true grassroots of the movement, that hopefully, will carry forward with another torchbearer after RP loses the nomination.

The Second Tier don't have any idea what a paleo-con is and don't care neither.

some of those paleocons may call themselves libertarians but that is another matter.

There's a lot of that going around. I've seen a lot of strange birds with a patch on their shirt that says libertarian.

some dude | January 28, 2008, 5:54pm | #

Thank you for introducing me to the term "anti-homosexualist." I didn't know it existed.

William R | January 28, 2008, 5:55pm | #

Taktix® | January 28, 2008, 5:44pm | #

Nope, cocktail hour is still a couple hrs away.

FWIW, I've been reading Ron Paul's newsletters since the mid to late 80s. Were they politically correct by todays standards? Of course not, but there just wasn't any racism in them. No anti-semitism either. At 54 years young, I've never seen so much garbage thrown at the best pro freedom candidate since Taft or Goldwater. This truly has been disgraceful

Warren | January 28, 2008, 6:00pm | #

The Derb is going to have to make peace his own desire to have another man's cock in his ass. Maybe then he'll be able to break with the conservatives and fully accept libertarianism.

hale | January 28, 2008, 6:00pm | #

When I go to your website, I don't want some freakin' ad talking to me. How tacky!

Couldn't agree more. Talking banner ads are tasteless and intrusive.

MikeP | January 28, 2008, 6:01pm | #

I vdared to go ahead and read the Derbyshire article. What a moron.

For example...

There is of course a difference of sensibility between the anarchist and the libertarian, resting mainly in the anarchist being hostile to money, private property, and markets, while the libertarian does not object to those things, but only wants them freed from state interference. Your anarchist believes that private property is the enemy of liberty; your libertarian, that it is liberty's guarantor.

Anyone who does not know there are libertarian anarchists has no credence writing anything about libertarians.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 28, 2008, 6:02pm | #

When I go to your website, I don't want some freakin' ad talking to me. How tacky!

Especially when it steps all over JJ Cale doing Call Me The Breeze live with Clapton.

Ah shit, she did it again! Sorry, Babe, none of us just fell of the Turnip Truck. We know TANSTAAFIN

I hate them dam pump top TV ads blaring at the gas station too. I avoid those like the plague. Unless there's a sledge hammer in the truck.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 28, 2008, 6:04pm | #

Mike, there are lefties who claim libertarian cred who are 100% against private property

MikeP | January 28, 2008, 6:07pm | #

They claim the libertarian word. I have never met or read one who uses the word the same way as the conventional definition used in these quarters.

BakedPenguin | January 28, 2008, 6:07pm | #

Instead of talking ads, couldn't they just have some Javascript to bring ads all the way down the threads or something? I agree with TWC, I like to listen to tunes, and IPod girl is (ironically) making that much harder.

How about if I buy a subscription?

Marta | January 28, 2008, 6:09pm | #

hahahaha..Reason so sucks

Craig | January 28, 2008, 6:10pm | #

It stands to reason that the ideas, and not the candidate, are keeping the campaign afloat.

I think you're underestimating Ron Paul. Voting consistently on the side of the American taxpayer and (almost flawlessly) on the side of the Constitution for 20 years in Congress buys a lot of credibility.

Being right about the Iraq war, and consistent in his opposition to it from the beginning helps too, as does being a plain-spoken country doctor and former Air Force captain who has been married for 51 years and has raised two generations of all-American-type offspring.

Compare his success to that of Harry Browne or Michael Badnarik, who were even more direct and consistent in their presentation of libertarian ideas, but lacked Ron Paul's political credibility and life story.

Peter | January 28, 2008, 6:13pm | #

Matt: The problem I have is that Derb is and idiot and I don't care what he says or anyone who supports the candidate I support says or why they do it. I freely choose not to associate myself with the 9/11 truthers and other jerks that support Paul but I support him for me and my reasons. I feel like we missed a great opportunity here. Instead of focusing on all the things that we do agree with Paul, we focused on the 20% or so of things we didn't. Here is a man who is by no means perfect but is singing our song and all we do is complain it is slightly out of tune.

Brandybuck is right when he posted "If anything, Ron Paul has shown that libertarians need to start running as Republicans and Democrats."

We need to fight the beast from the inside where it weak not the outside where it has all its armor. We looked at Paul and instead of seeing the things we liked we focused on all the dirt and wounds the man has. We could have embraced him as a fellow brother of truth and liberty who has slightly fallen off the path, but so many of us were too worried that the dirt and the blood the man has on him would tarnish us as well. We didn't help him up and carry him into battle with us a leader that would lead to newer and better leaders, ones who could sing our song in our tune. We left him and as a result no one is singing our tune, instead we all quietly hum it ourselves to ourselves our own way.

Some men will take the tools they have and build a house and some will sit in the cold begging to be let in while others ask for better tools and do nothing. I always thought libertarians were the people that built the house with what we had because in the end we have a house, it may not be perfect but we can always make it better, while the others remain waiting in the cold unwilling to use our less than perfect tools.

The more I see this race and the reactions of libertarians the more it pushes me to charge into the beast of Republicanism and change it from the inside, like Paul does. If you want to quietly hum your tune outside in the cold you can and I respect your right to do so. Real change comes from within and instead of letting this new republicanism push us out and out sing our song we need to be rushing in singing loud and proud and slightly out of tune.

Pro Libertate | January 28, 2008, 6:16pm | #

Taktix® and BP,

Well, as I've noted before, Salma Hayek would be the perfect libertarian candidate if she'd been born in the U.S. She gets an A+ in attractiveness, of course, but she also has one of the best names in libertarianism.

Add my voice to the talking-ad-sucks contingent. Nice to have sounds blaring out of your speaker at work from a heretofore silent web site.

SIV | January 28, 2008, 6:17pm | #

They claim the libertarian word.

I believe Sandefur made some noise about reclaiming "libertarian"(and denying it to us) from the evil paleos and an-cappers in his crap on the newsletters. Perhaps this is what derb' is referring to in the "irrelevance of libertarianism.

I mailed my absentee vote for Ron Paul today.
Can I now expect some courageous journalist to unearth copies of a Ron Paul Animal Welfare Activism Report or even a Ron Paul Vegan Cookbook to make me regret it?

Pro Libertate | January 28, 2008, 6:24pm | #

My wife and I both voted for Paul in early voting here in Florida. That's despite the number of McCain phone calls we've been getting. I think Paul will do surprisingly well here, though McCain and Romney will finish one and two, respectively (it'll be close between them, I suspect).

Ken Shultz | January 28, 2008, 6:25pm | #

"One of Paul's best-known supporters in the commentariat thinks his campaign's success is some kind of refutation of libertarianism? I'd wager some readers here would find that interesting."

If Ron Paul's candidacy is indicative of something here, it's the irrelevance of Derbyshire's support.

Tom Walls | January 28, 2008, 6:26pm | #

Paleos like him; what else is news? The revolution isn't about Paul Gottfried or Sam Francis or St. Patrick of Buchananomics. It's not about paleo-penned newsletters that slam MLK or ridicule Act Up activists.

It's all about da youts, and da peeps out pulling for Paul are not paleos.

My question is what are all the meetup groups and campaign offices going to do after the primaries? They sure seemed to have opened quite a few in recent weeks.

Pro Libertate | January 28, 2008, 6:29pm | #

I really think the Paul campaign will accomplish one major feat--getting a Mark Sanford or Jeff Flake to run for office next time around. A less on the fringe, more charismatic spokesman for libertarian views clearly can win. Not easily, but it's not impossible. That's something that was more debatable before this election.

William R | January 28, 2008, 6:34pm | #

Tell the beltway hacks to shove it and help Ron and Carol Paul celbrate their 51st wedding anniversary on FEB 1

Bill Woolsey | January 28, 2008, 6:47pm | #

Every post I see by some kind of paleo-paulite slamming the cosmatarians or whatever turns me further away from Paul.

hilda | January 28, 2008, 6:56pm | #

Derbyshire used to be an illegal alien!

Rain And | January 28, 2008, 6:57pm | #

As is typical of the genre, there is no attempt to explain the conundrum of why the candidate he defends so vigorously disagrees so vehemently with The Derb's own enthusiasms for the newsletters' content and fondness for pre-MLK race relations.


This is totally irrelevant to the point of the piece you linked to. Did you even read it, Matt? Do you have any commentary on the substance of the article?

And not only did you fail to provide any evidence that Derbyshire's racial/sexual *politics* (as opposed to racial/sexual sensitivity) are different than Paul's, you try to support the suggestion with a link to a Paul press release that you yourself demonstrated was 100% bullshit!

http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html

Amazing.

Ken Shultz | January 28, 2008, 6:58pm | #

"Tell the beltway hacks to shove it and help Ron and Carol Paul celbrate their 51st wedding anniversary on FEB 1"

You call them "beltway hacks", I call them the Illuminati.

Nash | January 28, 2008, 7:05pm | #

"Derbyshire's comments support my own pet theory that Ron Paul has more support from paleocon Buchananites than from libertarians.

Granted, some of those paleocons may call themselves libertarians but that is another matter."

I voted for Buchanan in 96, Browne in 1996 and 2000, Badnarik in 2004 and I'm voting for Ron Paul this year. Other than someone who votes for candidates that don't win, am I not also libertarian?

shrike | January 28, 2008, 7:06pm | #

He is correct - the LP is dead.

The LP I joined in 1986 has been overrun by Christo-fascists - those who join the LP strictly as a tax protest and bend to the will of the same authoritarian monster wearing a cross instead of a burka. Nothing less than a COMPLETE separation of church and state will do.

This is much like a Muslim saying they are Libertarian - there is no such thing. One cannot be free and wear the chains of religious dogma simultaneously.

The Republican Party is filled with these hypocrites. But - even with these charlatans the LP cannot muster more than 5% support.

Sad - but true. Death is final.

Eric Dondero | January 28, 2008, 7:10pm | #

The UK Guardian just called French Super Model and fiance' of Sarkozy a "libertarian." Alas, she's native born French, so we can't run her in 2012.

Eric Dondero | January 28, 2008, 7:12pm | #

Yes, Mark Sanford or Jeff Flake would be great. But of course, Sarah Palin would be even better.

Ironically, a GOP loss in 2008 with tired old grey guy McCain, makes a Palin run in 2012 even more likely.

LevStrauss | January 28, 2008, 7:28pm | #

To both sides whining about Paleos and Cosmos, I find it hilarious that people are complaining about our impotence when it comes to gaining traction when 50% of the 1% of the population can't stand the other 50% of 1% of the population. How will we ever become relevant when we are so touchy?

Eric Dumbdero | January 28, 2008, 7:28pm | #

JC WATTS!

Eric Dumbdero | January 28, 2008, 7:30pm | #

Clearly, the real Libertarian-Republican ticket in 2008 is Patreus/Watts.

LevStrauss | January 28, 2008, 7:33pm | #

How about if we pool all our money together and bribe Barack Obama to become a libertarian? He really doesn't have to change his campaign strategy since he never really discusses issues. We can "Hope" our way to the White House.

Brandybuck | January 28, 2008, 7:34pm | #

Every post I see by some kind of paleo-paulite slamming the cosmatarians or whatever turns me further away from Paul.

And every post I see by some kind of cosmotarian/dynamist/TrueLibertarian™ slamming Ron Paul sends me further into his camp. Like the bozo above who asserts that Muslims cannot be libertarian. WTF?

highnumber | January 28, 2008, 7:35pm | #

FWIW, I've been reading Ron Paul's newsletters since the mid to late 80s. Were they politically correct by todays standards? Of course not, but there just wasn't any racism in them. No anti-semitism either.

Word to the wise, kiddies:

Don't listen to a racist like commenter William R tell you what is and isn't racist.

Ken Shultz | January 28, 2008, 7:41pm | #

"This is much like a Muslim saying they are Libertarian - there is no such thing. One cannot be free and wear the chains of religious dogma simultaneously."

Yeah, nobody will ever take us seriously until we expel everyone with religious convictions--then and only then will people start to vote the way we want them to...

...and while we're at it, why not bash Mom, baseball, hot dogs and apple pie too?

Ken Shultz | January 28, 2008, 7:44pm | #

"FWIW, I've been reading Ron Paul's newsletters since the mid to late 80s. Were they politically correct by todays standards? Of course not, but there just wasn't any racism in them. No anti-semitism either."

But did he try to warn us about the Illuminati? ...'cause I understand they're tryin' to screw up his 51st wedding anniversary.

Joe Allen | January 28, 2008, 7:45pm | #

It wasn't Lew Rockwell and the Paleolibertarinas who started the civil war in Libertarianism. It was the willingness of Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie and their ilk to be used by the PC thought police on the left.

Chicago school and Austrian school people need to stick together to get anything done. CATO and Reason need to bury the Hatchet with the Von Mises institute because more is at stake than our petty little factional squabbles.

Cesar | January 28, 2008, 7:47pm | #

politically correct by todays standards?

Drink!

he PC thought police

Double shot! Bonus for using "PC" and "thought police" in the same sentence.

Ken Shultz | January 28, 2008, 7:48pm | #

Damn Illuminati, why can't they just leave us alone!? ...I think they were trying to screw with my sister's birthday party last week too!

Malt Liqour n Rimz | January 28, 2008, 7:51pm | #

Don't listen to a racist like commenter William R tell you what is and isn't racist.


I would add: don't listen to what joe tells you is and isn't racist either.

Taktix® | January 28, 2008, 7:59pm | #

Hey guys, I've just been selected to receive two free IPod Nanos. (Nanoes?)

Thanks reason!

Joe Allen | January 28, 2008, 8:04pm | #

I fail to comprehend how ridiculing a previoulsy banned non-entity like myself is promoting free minds and free markets.

Libertarianism isn't about promoting or attacking homsexuality or any other lifestyle. It is about freedom. Do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anybody.

Matt and the gang have allowed their hatred of Paul's conservative cultural position outweigh the political position he has taken.

There is no libertarian culture. There can't be. It is all politics. Reason has decided that promoting a cultural position (one that many Americans regard as little more than hedonism) is more important than promoting a political position of freedom.

Dan Warner | January 28, 2008, 8:29pm | #

Why in the world would anyone think that Ron Paul is bad for libertarianism. The guy is bringing EVERYONE together, repubs, dems, and yes even libertarians. HORRORS! If all you are gonna do is run around worrying about your 'image' then you may as well stay home on election day and let us adults vote. There is no shame in supporting someone who you MOSTLY agree with. If anything, this purist attitude is the downfall of libertariansm, not Ron Paul.

Joe Allen | January 28, 2008, 8:30pm | #

A racist is not a threat to anyone unless he acts on that racism in an way that violates someones's natural rights. A racist or a "anti-homosexualist" is no more a threat than an atheist or a polytheist is to a Christian. As Jefferson said: ":He neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

Government enforced tolerance is just as tyrannical as government enforced intolerance.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 28, 2008, 8:30pm | #

They claim the libertarian word. I have never met or read one who uses the word the same way as the conventional definition used in these quarters.

Point taken, Mike. :-)

The Wine Commonsewer | January 28, 2008, 8:34pm | #

... bribe Barack Obama to become a libertarian...

Nope. Go look at his website. Not much there to make me throw him a vote.

I am not voting for someone who plans to shoot me in the gut in order to keep someone else who has promised to stab me in the eye from getting elected.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 28, 2008, 8:35pm | #

TAX:

TANSTATFN

The Wine Commonsewer | January 28, 2008, 8:49pm | #

TAX is short for TAKTIX

Joe Allen | January 28, 2008, 8:51pm | #

Winey said "They claim the libertarian word."

Aye, that I do proudly. The progressives stole the term "liberal" from the Jeffersonians. The Neocons stole the term "conservative" from Taft, Goldwater and Reagan." Nobody is going to steal the term "libertarian" from me.

MikeP | January 28, 2008, 9:06pm | #

Joe Allen,

Are you an anarcho-syndicalist? Because that is the 'They' who we are noting claim the libertarian word...

Welcome to the first issue of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Review, continuing the Libertarian Labor Review.... The name change reflects our desire to avoid confusion with the laissez-faire capitalist Libertarian Party in the U.S., none of whose values we share, and to more clearly communicate our political tradition.

And, incidentally, whatever stripe of free market laissez faire libertarian you are, the leftist anarchists had the word first. Modern day libertarians own the word now because, thankfully, there are political positions that are even less popular than classical liberalism.

Ken Shultz | January 28, 2008, 9:13pm | #

"Government enforced tolerance is just as tyrannical as government enforced intolerance."

If a candidate allows his name to be used in a newsletter that panders to racists and bigots and I refuse to support him because of it, what does that have to do with government enforced intolerance?

James Anderson Merritt | January 28, 2008, 9:27pm | #

# Brandybuck | January 28, 2008, 5:24pm | #

# I would say the LP is irrelevant because Ron
# Paul has shown we don't need them to bust
# past the 0.5% barrier. If anything,
# Ron Paul has shown that libertarians
# need to start running as Republicans
# and Democrats.

I'm all for libertarians getting into office however they can. But if the LP goes away (and is not replaced by another, hopefully more vigorous and effective third party), that will be a sad thing, because you can bet that, unless there is a viable third party out there with the ability to deny victory to the GOP and Demos, they will fall back on their colluding, bi-partisan ways and play good-cop, bad-cop with us until the bus we're all on together falls right over the cliff.

# Brandybuck | January 28, 2008, 7:34pm | #

# ...And every post I see by some kind of
# cosmotarian/dynamist/TrueLibertarian™
# slamming Ron Paul...

My email address has been TrueLibertarian for years, so be careful with that (TM) unless you want me to sue you to enforce my prior usage! :-) And that goes for all of the cosmotarian dynamists LibertarianGOPNeoCons, too.

Go Ron Paul! Let's see how far he can get!

James Anderson Merritt | January 28, 2008, 9:30pm | #

# Joe Allen | January 28, 2008, 8:51pm | #

# Winey said "They claim the libertarian word."

# Aye, that I do proudly. The progressives
# stole the term "liberal" from the
# Jeffersonians. The Neocons stole the
# term "conservative" from Taft, Goldwater
# and Reagan." Nobody is going to steal the
# term "libertarian" from me.

What Joe said. A line must be drawn. Here and no further. Posers take a hike.

Joe Allen | January 28, 2008, 9:31pm | #

Ken said:
"If a candidate allows his name to be used in a newsletter that panders to racists and bigots and I refuse to support him because of it, what does that have to do with government enforced intolerance?"

Plenty, Ken. Government power and therefor abuse of power increases when you let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Ron Paul is far from ideal, but he is also by far the best of the available choices we have right now.

Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate left in the race. The only one even addressing the issues of civil liberties and limited government. Paul is more for free minds and free markets than any other candidates, yet he is rejected by the Reason/CATO guardians of libertarian purity. Matt and Co. sanctimoniously choose "none of the above."

With friends like these, Freedom needs no enemies.

Ken Shultz | January 28, 2008, 9:42pm | #

That's all fine and dandy there, Joe. ...but if you can't tell the difference between me refusing to support a candidate and government enforced tolerance, then we've got nothing to talk about.

...and from that comment up yonder, quite frankly, it looks like you've got an issue there.

William R | January 28, 2008, 9:49pm | #

Ron Paul Campaign to Hold Gun Rights Town Hall Meeting Tuesday

Joe Allen | January 28, 2008, 10:13pm | #

Ken wrote:
"That's all fine and dandy there, Joe. ...but if you can't tell the difference between me refusing to support a candidate and government enforced tolerance, then we've got nothing to talk about."

Silence implies consent. You critcize and wail and moan, but you offer no alternatives. No solutions. Nothing but condemnation and judgement.

If you have a better plan or a better candidate to put forward, we are all listening. If you do not, You would do well to shut the hell up.

highnumber | January 28, 2008, 10:20pm | #

Silence implies consent...You would do well to shut the hell up.

What?!

Joe Allen | January 28, 2008, 10:30pm | #

"Silence implies consent...You would do well to shut the hell up."

I thought that might cause some confusion. In this context I was saying Ken's silence regarding the government enforced tolerance implies consent.

Sorry I didn't make that more clear.

George Dance | January 28, 2008, 10:52pm | #

Derbyshire's still defending the contents of the newsletters, because most of them are fully defensible. Kirchick omitted context, cut pieces of sentences, presented cited material as Paul's own opinions, and otherwise tampered with the material to put Paul in the worst possible light. A quick read of even just the pieces of the /Reports/ that he chose to give confirms that.

Even discounting that, I'm sure that what's actually there is still enough to shock Kirchick and his after all that, I'm sure it's all just as shocking to Kirchick and his fellow "urbane, cosmpolitan libertarians"; but other libertarians (I suppose older ones, like Derb and me), who don't share the liberaltarian sentiments of the Beltway crowd, find them tolerable enough even if they don't agree with many of them. (Putting them in a newsletter or a blog certainly doesn't constitute a sin that must be expiated only by sacrificing a scapegoat, as some liberaltarians seem to believe.)

As for why Paul repudiated the quotes rather than defend them, I think the reason is simple; they have nothing to do with his campaign, so he doesn't want to talk about them. After 30 years in public service, at 72, this campaign may be his last and best chance to change the world; it's succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams so far; and he wants to give it his best shot by staying focussed. He can do that only by staying on message; not by defending old quotes about limp wrists and plagiarizing Nobel laureates.

Joe Allen | January 28, 2008, 11:01pm | #

Paul's alleged pandering to racists, homophobes and sexists,even if true, is no worse than Matt Welch's pandering to leftists, statists and libertines.

The difference is that Paul's goal is to promote liberty while the effect of Welch's actions is to promote statism and Welch.

Ken Shultz | January 28, 2008, 11:07pm | #

That comment doesn't merit a response. ...other than me not shutting up.

But for the record, there are an awful lot of us libertarians who would rather other self-described libertarians would refrain from arguing against, what, the government being too tolerant?

...um, no, we wish they wouldn't argue against the government enforcing tolerance? No, wait, I think I got it this time--it's we'd just as soon they kept it to themselves if they think the government shouldn't enforce tolerance on private citizens.

...but that's only because we keep coming across self-described libertarians of a certain stripe who can't seem to tell the difference between people refusing to support Ron Paul and the government enforcing tolerance.

sv | January 28, 2008, 11:19pm | #

1. derb is a weird old english guy who, in my opinion, has sometimes taken justifiable white pride (i'm non-white, but i admire your race as far as that goes) too far. so among other weird positions he's taken, the not-so-hot chick in the ron paul video he shouted out is 'hot.' (well he's an old guy i guess.) he's still really interesting, though. wrote a great book about the Reimann Hypothesis. and i think he's married to some asian woman. (!)

2. (Neoconservatism, au contraire, has set the actual world on actual fire.) HA!

Joe Allen | January 28, 2008, 11:37pm | #

Ken again:
"...but that's only because we keep coming across self-described libertarians of a certain stripe who can't seem to tell the difference between people refusing to support Ron Paul and the government enforcing tolerance."

There is no difference in the outcome. If you harm the greatest enemy of the leviathan state you are de facto aiding statism.

Critcizing Paul is easy. Defending Liberty is hard. I have not seen you do the latter.

If You want to fight racism, great. That is a noble calling. If you want to fight statism, that is a noble and libertarian calling. If you think racism is a bigger threat to the world than statism, you may be right, but you are not a libertarian.

If you condemn Paul for pandering to racists to fight statism, justify that on libertarian grounds. You have not yet done so, nor have you offered a viable alternative course of action.

We have warmongering totalitarians on both sides of the isle, as tonights SOTU demonstrated. I see Dr. Ron Paul doing something about it. I see beltway cosmotards wringing hands and pointing fingers.

Slather, A. | January 28, 2008, 11:48pm | #

Yeah, Derbyshire is married to an Asian woman, I believe Chinese, he lived in Hong Kong for a while and was in a Bruce Lee film, he was some random thug guy or something, and to Donna D'errico, she's got a sex tape out, well she didn't put it out, it leaked or whatever, would that tape be her RP newsletter? I wouldn't mind if the tape got covered as much as the newsletter though ;) (that face winks at you!) And yeah, the girl in the RP vid, for starters there was one, the rest of the people were men and little boys, and she wasn't that great looking, cute but nothing I would BLOG about, but whatevs :) (that face just smiles at you)

Ken Shultz | January 28, 2008, 11:52pm | #

I didn't really care about Ron Paul either way anyway. ...at least until I found out about those newsletters--whoa! Was that embarrassing or what? ...calling all those people and telling 'em how wrong I was? Ouch! But I couldn't let 'em think I, or libertarians in general, were a bunch of racists or bigots, right?

That's why it's so important that we leave the nuanced arguments, like the difference between being against state enforced tolerance and racism, to people who can tell the difference between state enforced tolerance and refusing to support Ron Paul.

Kolohe | January 29, 2008, 12:00am | #

RE: 'hot libertarian chick'

Wasn't there a blog a few years ago by "libertarian girl," or some name like that, who turned out to be just some dude who was just using some Ukrainian mail-order site for photos?

[cue Peter Townshend]

Kolohe | January 29, 2008, 12:02am | #

that should be mail-order bride site.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 12:02am | #

Ken:"I didn't really care about Ron Paul either way anyway. ...at least until I found out about those newsletters--whoa! "

You don't appear to care about freedom and less government either way also. You don't seem to care about civil liberites either way as well.

What exactly DO you care about, Ken? Inquiring minds want to know. Again, who's your candidate? What's your plan to make the world a better place?

That's the third time I have asked. Still no answer. You are a gutless coward.

William R | January 29, 2008, 12:34am | #

Principles Without Program:
Senator Robert A. Taft and American Foreign Policy

The Wine Commonsewer | January 29, 2008, 12:36am | #

Epi, have to agree, that chick was not special. No barking, but just ok.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 29, 2008, 12:38am | #

Joe Allen,

Winey said "They claim the libertarian word."

No, Mike P said that, I just agreed. And he was talking about guys like Kos claiming the term.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 29, 2008, 12:40am | #

You are a gutless coward.

Wonder if you would say that to Ken's face at a cocktail party in my fireplace room.

Ken Shultz | January 29, 2008, 12:50am | #

"What exactly DO you care about, Ken? Inquiring minds want to know. Again, who's your candidate? What's your plan to make the world a better place?"

I'm starting a write in campaign for Barry Goldwater's corpse.

Ken Shultz | January 29, 2008, 12:51am | #

I contend that as of today, Barry Goldwater's corpse would make a better president than any candidate running.

Ken Shultz | January 29, 2008, 12:55am | #

Seriously, I think there's an argument to be made that if there really is a definition of a true libertarian, it's someone who doesn't think politicians are the solution to our problems.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 29, 2008, 1:04am | #

I'm starting a write in campaign for Barry Goldwater's corpse.

Already been done

Ken Shultz | January 29, 2008, 1:11am | #

Well then I guess I'm jumping on the Goldwater bandwagon!

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 1:41am | #

I think I've proved my point.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 2:16am | #

Sgt Shultz writes:

"Seriously, I think there's an argument to be made that if there really is a definition of a true libertarian, it's someone who doesn't think politicians are the solution to our problems."

You don't get to decide who's a real libertarian, Kenny. You still (now for the 4th time) have refused to offer any solutions of your own. Until you do, you are not qualified to define liberatrianism or to criticize anyone.

You can be glib. You can be coy. You may even occasionally be clever, but that doesn't make you any less pathetic.

It's easier to destroy than to create. The second law of thermodynamics shows that it's the naturural order of things to break down. The two-bit beltway Neros are fiddling and Rome is burning.

Dr. Paul is a flawed man, but he has shown more courage, more character and more honesty than anyone I have ever known. Historians will discuss and debate his impact long after your own progeny (if you have any) will have forgotten you. Maybe that's why you hate him, despite your pretense of apathy.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 2:32am | #

It's cosmopolitans who are dependent on politicians. Us yokels out here in flyover country are the rugged individualists. If/when the shit hits the fan, we will be able to find our own dinner. You? Well, you're likely to become dinner.

Dr. Paul is trying to save your ass more than mine. I'm not sure you are worth the effort.

Pig Mannix | January 29, 2008, 4:22am | #

One of Paul's best-known supporters in the commentariat thinks his campaign's success is some kind of refutation of libertarianism? I'd wager some readers here would find that interesting.

What's peculiar about it? Given that the Reason and Cato crowd have pronounced Paul as "unlibertarian", why would they turn around and promote his relative success as a sign of libertarianism's relevance? That's a bit like claiming Obama's success as a victory for conservatism.

Libertarianism does not have a monopoly claim on political liberty (in fact, I strongly suspect if implemented as per Reason and Cato, the results would be the opposite). Paul and Derb may very well not be libertarians in the sense Reason would care to define it. All to their credit, given that a political order that preserved individual liberty in any practical sense would be unlikely to resemble Reasonista-style libertarianism. Pro-Liberty, yes! Pro-Libertarianism, no!

For my money, Derb called it exactly right. Paul's relative success is a victory for liberty. Libertarianism, however, is an irrelevancy.

badmedia | January 29, 2008, 5:04am | #

I quit reading after the first sentence. Multiple attacks on a person, rather than addressing the issue at hand, combined with blatant use of the irrelevant attacks as reason for you being right.

If you can't address an issue without the use of such personal attacks, then your opinion just isn't worth reading.

Either pick up the bar on your writing, or continue to be ignored. While a person may be wrong on homosexuality, it doesn't make them wrong on ever issue by default. It's an insult to your readers intelligence when you try to pass it off as such.

Kira | January 29, 2008, 6:25am | #

Are you trying to keep the smear alive to bring hits to your dying site that does nothing real to promote liberty? Enough already, lets see you actually motivate a considerable movement to restore and defend freedom and the Constitution. Please let us know when you can actually identify a human who meets your criteria as the perfect candidate. Until then, please stop assisting the neoCons with your unrelenting attacks on Ron Paul. Don't worry, we will remember how you distanced yourself from his candidacy - you can stop now.

highnumber | January 29, 2008, 9:18am | #

Hey, Kira,
If your guy wins, by chance, maybe you could have a pogrom, you know, in the name of liberty.

Ken Shultz | January 29, 2008, 9:51am | #

"It's cosmopolitans who are dependent on politicians. Us yokels out here in flyover country are the rugged individualists. If/when the shit hits the fan, we will be able to find our own dinner. You? Well, you're likely to become dinner.

Dr. Paul is trying to save your ass more than mine. I'm not sure you are worth the effort."

What are you talking about now? ...RaHoWa?!

If the enemies of libertarianism got together and stayed up all night trying to think up new ways to discourage people from supporting libertarian ideas, I'm not sure they could have come up with anything better than you.

Ever see Christians sometimes try to explain how that "God hates fags" guy is not representative of Christianity, that he is not what Christianity is about?

Well to the rest of us libertarians, you're that guy.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 10:15am | #

Sgt Shultz:
"Well to the rest of us libertarians, you're that guy."

"Us libertarians"? In what way do you consider yourself a libertarian? I haven't seen you state or defend a point of view that could be considered libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

As for me, I am not narccistic enough to think I am worth a fuss either way, but I am not surprised to see you resort to ad hominum attacks.

B | January 29, 2008, 10:19am | #

By blasting Derbyshire and his positions, you are turning the gun on yourself. After all, it is this site that has continued to cheer the Paul candidacy, even after the vile newsletters were publicized. And what is even worse is that the idiots at this site tried to legitimize the absolutely hysterical bullshit excuse that Paul didn't write those newsletters. Yeah, sure he didn't.


"It's good to know that not only is Derbyshire an idiot..."

Yeah, you are right about that. He proves it every time he posts something in support of Ron Paul. As dumb as you claim he is, I bet he still didn't fall for the "Paul didn't write those newsletters" bullshit excuse.

Ken Shultz | January 29, 2008, 10:32am | #

B, I think you're wrong about Hit & Run continuing to support Ron Paul after the newsletters came out. ...and they did an exposition, Sanchez and Weigel as I recall, about how even if he didn't write them himself, he apparently knew who did--despite him saying on national television that he didn't.

...most of the pro-Paul people you see here are mad at Reason and Hit & Run for pulling the rug out from under Ron Paul on the eve of New Hampshire. I think you've just got it wrong. Check the threads in the archives in the week of New Hampshire.

B | January 29, 2008, 10:33am | #

As far as libertarianism being irrelevant, this site is helping to ensure such an outcome by continuing to embrace a candidate who's writings are interchangeable with those of Tom Metzger.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 10:34am | #

"If your guy wins, by chance, maybe you could have a pogrom, you know, in the name of liberty."

That's not the way it works. We'll keep you around for amusement, like Biff who waxes George McFly's car.

Doug H. | January 29, 2008, 11:04am | #

That's not the way it works. We'll keep you around for amusement, like Biff who waxes George McFly's car.

Arbeit Macht Frei

Rhywun | January 29, 2008, 11:28am | #

If you condemn Paul for pandering to racists to fight statism, justify that on libertarian grounds.

Racism, homophobia, and sexism are anti-freedom. Funny how people who don't grok that are always crusty old white guys who've never been the victim of any of them.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 11:37am | #

I wonder if the Reason Foundation has enough money to continue subsidizing a money-losing magazine and website indefinitely.

I hope so. Reason does serve a useful purpose: everytime I see another news source site Reason or Cato as a credible libertarian organization, I know they are not to be trusted.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 11:48am | #

"Racism, homophobia, and sexism are anti-freedom. Funny how people who don't grok that are always crusty old white guys who've never been the victim of any of them."

A victim! Thank goodness we have a real, honest-to-goodness victim to tell us all how to think and vote!

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/01/pick-pockets-leg-breakers-and-bigots.html

It is not defending bigotry, sexism or racism to say that statism is a much bigger problem than any of the others. That's the libertarian position.

Rhywun | January 29, 2008, 12:00pm | #

Thank goodness we have a real, honest-to-goodness victim to tell us all how to think and vote!

Why would you automatically assume I was a victim?

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 12:08pm | #

"Why would you automatically assume I was a victim?"

Why did you assume I was writing about you? Why do you assume that the victims of racism or sexism or anti-homosexualism are more numerous or deserving than the victims of statism?

Click the link I posted. Read the article there. You'll have a better Idea what I think then.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/01/pick-pockets-leg-breakers-and-bigots.html

T | January 29, 2008, 12:28pm | #

It is not defending bigotry, sexism or racism to say that statism is a much bigger problem than any of the others. That's the libertarian position.

Since you've been busy telling everyone else, I'll hand it back to you.: Don't fucking tell me what the libertarian position on anything is. You no more get to decide what a libertarian position on racism is than you get to decide who I vote for, i.e. not at all. I'll rank order problems in any fashion I desire and you can piss off about whether or not it's libertarian. Standing up on your hind legs and thumping your chest about what's libertarian based on your incoherent opinion isn't an argument, it's an assertion.

On the plus side, you've quit posting huge cut and paste chunks, so that's something. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Rhywun | January 29, 2008, 12:31pm | #

Why did you assume I was writing about you?

Because you quoted me, asshole.

Why do you assume that the victims of racism or sexism or anti-homosexualism are more numerous or deserving than the victims of statism?

Why do you assume that I make that assumption? You're just full of prejudices aren't you?

For the record, I get your point. But let's not pretend that in today's America, some people value certain freedoms over other freedoms - usually those that have a more immediate impact on their lives. They make trade offs. You want to be the absolutist, go ahead. You clearly have little understanding of human nature.

highnumber | January 29, 2008, 12:35pm | #

Because you quoted me, asshole.

Call VM - he awarded the ownership of the internets for the week prize too early!

Rhywun | January 29, 2008, 1:07pm | #

Ah shit, I meant to say "let's not pretend that some people DON'T value certain freedoms over others".

Damn contorted sentence structure.

cook | January 29, 2008, 1:15pm | #

Lots of racists are married to people of other races. That doesn't make this idiot Derbyshire a better person. Wonder how his racist philosophy will be viewed by his own children.

MikeP | January 29, 2008, 1:32pm | #

Yeah, right. Next you'll be saying lots of sexists are married to people of other sexes.

Mitchell Young | January 29, 2008, 1:41pm | #

VDare? And you linked? No thanks! I guess I won't RTFA. At least you gave us a head's up.

Ah, yet another libertarian shows the open mind, the sense of inquisitiveness, the hunger to engage with ideas they disagree with that are so typical of the breed.

Mitchell Young | January 29, 2008, 2:06pm | #

Goldwater bandwagon

Goldwater opposed the major civil rights bills of the 1960s, on the grounds of freedom of associate, private property, states' rights and the like.

Ken Shultz | January 29, 2008, 2:16pm | #

"Goldwater opposed the major civil rights bills of the 1960s, on the grounds of freedom of associate, private property, states' rights and the like."

Perhaps, but my understanding is that his corpse has nothing to say on the subject.

Rhywun | January 29, 2008, 2:20pm | #

Were they politically correct by todays standards? Of course not, but there just wasn't any racism in them.

A statement such as "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions" is the very epitome of racism. Unless the context removed was something like "It is a ridiculous thing to say that...." there's just no way around it.

VM | January 29, 2008, 2:50pm | #

Rhywun, High#:

wow. "JoeAllen" is the front runner for "Twaddlenock of the Week"

You'll have a better Idea what I think then
we have a good idea of just how you "think", there, pal. For all of your whining and accusations and fecal-matter-and-mucus spewed rantings about 'statism', it's clear that YOU are the one who feels like a victim.

Although, you are looking a bit tired. Would you like to head to Stevo's bunk? I saw there's a reservation for "tuff gai of teh internets". Must mean yoooo.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 3:03pm | #

VM-"it's clear that YOU are the one who feels like a victim."

Aye, but no more than you or anyone else. We are all victimized. The difference is I am not advocating special previledges for or rights for some group to compensate for past mistreatment.

Statism is an equal opportunity destroyer. If we have to enlist the help of people we disagree with on other issues to fight a common adversary, that's just politics.


Still no support of a more libertarian candidate? Still no proposals for a better plan to restore constitutional freedoms? I think it wise to discount the words or opinions of anoyone anti-Paul who doesn't first demonstrate that they are pro-freedom.

I used to give reasonoids the benefit of the doubt, but y'all have demonstrated that you are unworthy of such consideration.

VM | January 29, 2008, 3:16pm | #

*resumes thinking about soups*

Mitchell Young | January 29, 2008, 3:20pm | #

Here's the quote in context, according to Justin 'Antiwar' Raimondo

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.”

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/

Take a look at that i.e. Of course, not that many whites have sensible opinions either.

Rain And | January 29, 2008, 3:21pm | #

A statement such as "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions" is the very epitome of racism

So 'the epitome of racism' is to communicate factual but unflattering sociological data?

Um, ok. I thought the 'epitome of racism' would be something like, oh, discriminating against an individual based on their racial appearance instead of relevant criteria. You know, the meaningful definition.

A great example of how Reason libertarians tend to be absolutely retarded about race. They define 'racism' in obscure, irrelevant ways that have more to do with parroting inane liberal taboos than protecting and upholding liberties.

In the inverted libertarianism of Reason mentioning IQ differences is a bigger sin than supporting affirmative action. Because it's not about the politics and economics but looking cool for liberals.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 3:24pm | #

"For the record, I get your point. But let's not pretend that in today's America, some people value certain freedoms over other freedoms - usually those that have a more immediate impact on their lives. They make trade offs. You want to be the absolutist, go ahead. You clearly have little understanding of human nature."

ROTFL! That's quite a non sequitur. Start off calling me an asshole, move on to general (admittedly true) platitudes that don't support your position at all, and then cap it of by concluding that it's my lack of understanding of human nature that's responsible for your hostility! Wow.

I honestly don't know if your problem is a lack of brains or a lack of courage or both. I'm just glad I'm not you.

highnumber | January 29, 2008, 3:29pm | #

Are you making soup?

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 3:33pm | #

"Reason libertarians tend to be absolutely retarded about race."

Now that's not nice. I would say that Reason libertarians tend to be brain dead about race.

I wouldn't want to unfairly insult retards.

VM | January 29, 2008, 3:45pm | #

No. Just thinking about soups. Much more interesting than some unreal, made up, silly bullshit that "joeallen" says. Although I oscillate between he's really cute and extra-crispy batshit insane. But then I start thinking about soups again.

Urkobold™ | January 29, 2008, 3:47pm | #

DOES IT HIT TOO CLOSE TO (THE) HOME, Joe Allen?

Ken Shultz | January 29, 2008, 3:49pm | #

I appreciate the applicable quote, but my issue with the newsletters isn't any particular instance of this or that, it's more the whole idea of using libertarianism to pander to racists and bigots.

It's the difference between saying that the government shouldn't force businesses to hire black people and encouraging racists to embrace libertarianism as a means to achieve the bigoted society of their dreams.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 4:15pm | #

Sgt shultz wrote:
It's the difference between saying that the government shouldn't force businesses to hire black people and encouraging racists to embrace libertarianism as a means to achieve the bigoted society of their dreams.

Libertarinaism CAN'T be used to achieve a bigoted society any more than government can be used to achieve egalitarianism. The only reason someone would think that it's possible is by listening to idiots like you, not by reading Ron Paul's old newsletters.

Rhywun | January 29, 2008, 4:57pm | #

I'm just glad I'm not you.

Very much likewise. Shooting down straw-men from my level of rarefied purity just gets boring.

In the inverted libertarianism of Reason mentioning IQ differences is a bigger sin than supporting affirmative action.

When did libertarianism become all about pigeonholing and group characteristics? God damn, paleos are even more annoying than liberals. I wish they would go away.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 6:33pm | #

"When did libertarianism become all about pigeonholing and group characteristics? God damn, paleos are even more annoying than liberals. I wish they would go away."

Another straw man. It's not about pigeonholing, it's about free and unfettered discussion. It's about presenting an unpopular view without getting one's I.P. banned (again).

I don't see the paleos acting as threatened by the neos as the neos are threatened by the paleos. Paleo's reject social determinism which you seem to embrace.

Ken Shultz | January 29, 2008, 6:34pm | #

"The only reason someone would think that it's possible is by listening to idiots like you, not by reading Ron Paul's old newsletters."

This from the observation that the authors of the newsletters were apparently pandering to bigots?

How? ...no, wait! I don't want to know.

Joe Allen | January 29, 2008, 7:38pm | #

The newsletters only appear to be pandering to racists because that is the way they were presented by Kirchick, Nick, Matt and Radley. A reading at face value and they are somewhat provocative, but benign.

The newsletters were written form a point of view that rejects social determinism. I can see how someone who embraces social determinism would consider them racist.

That type of writing appeals to a certain survivalist type, which includes some racists, but that doesn't mean it's inherently racist material, only politically incorrect.

If David Duke eats broccoli, does that make broccoli a racist food?

This is all much ado about nothing. Even if newsletters were pandering to racists, that doesn't mean the author was racist. Even it the author was a racist, that doesn't mean it was Ron Paul. Even if it was Ron Paul, that doesn't mean he isn't the most libertarian candidate in the field.

Ron Paul's message was more clouded by Reason than by the newsletters. The spin was unlibertarian and unethical. They damaged not only Dr. Paul, but themselves, libertarianism and the whole nation.

Rhywun | January 29, 2008, 7:50pm | #

It's about presenting an unpopular view

I have no problem with that, nor with pointing out that your ideas are shit.

Paleo's reject social determinism which you seem to embrace.

I don't reject or support it. When it comes to IQ, in fact, I find the entire concept irrelevant. Rather, I see people as individuals who have their own responsibility to improve themselves. What use is it to categorize one group as having a lower IQ than another, as paleos are always doing, if not to denigrate? Who is it helping? Such an activity is a mean-spirited, childish exercise that solves *nothing*.

Ken Shultz | January 29, 2008, 8:31pm | #

"The newsletters only appear to be pandering to racists because that is the way they were presented by Kirchick, Nick, Matt and Radley. A reading at face value and they are somewhat provocative, but benign."

Read it and weep.

"During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html

They quote a lot of people in the know in that piece. They wrote that piece just after Gillespie appeared on national television to champion R