But If You Want Money for People With Minds That Hate…

Back in January there was a split, among friends of Ron Paul, about how to respond to criticisms of weird and bigoted passages in old issues of his (now defunct) newsletter. Some in his circle, like his congressional Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo, wanted Paul to cut bait and name the paleos (including Lew Rockwell) who'd ghostwritten the most offensive and non-Paul sounding sections of the letters. (Yes, I'm aware of the argument that there was nothing controversial in the newsletters unless you're a namby-pamby cosmotarian. If the people making that argument are interested, I hear Jeremiah Wright is hiring in his PR shop.) Paul never did, and the controversy faded.

What's Paul think about this today? From his just-released book, The Revolution: A Manifesto:

I urge those who agree with this important message to educate themselves in the scholarship of liberty. Read some of the books I recommend in my reading list. Learn from the Mises Institute and Mises.org, the most heavily trafficked economics Web site in the world. Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day.

The heterodox reading list includes a few Mises scholars and LR.com authors (Rockwell, Tom DiLorenzo, Paul Craig Roberts) among less controversial stuff by John Mueller, Andrew Napolitano, and Boris Pasternak. The Revolution is the best-selling book at Amazon.com today. I've read the book, though, and anyone expecting another bigot blow-up is going to be disappointed.

UPDATE: By way of explanation, here's Paul on racism:

In the long run, the only way racism can be overcome is through the philosophy of individualism, which I have promoted throughout my life… racism is a particularly odious form of collectivism whereby individuals are treated not on their merits but on the basis of group identity. Nothing in my political philosophy, which is the exact opposite of the racial totalitarianism of the twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking. To the contrary, my philosophy of individualism is the most radical intellectual challenge to racism ever posed.

Again, I'm flabbergasted by the attitude that there was nothing wrong about the newsletters. Paul clearly doesn't share it.

Comments

[Strawman]

Yeah I was expecting a "bigot-blow-up" and am very disappointed.

[Andy]

The idea that libertarians philosophically won't be racist seems pretty obvious to me, but i'd like to hear from other older people about how things "used to be". Are these types still relevent in actual Libertarian politics? I've seen some crazy white nationalist wbsites, but it seems society has done a pretty good job marginalizing the far-right. Now if we could do the same for the far-left...

btw - wasn't John Lennon a hippie/anarchist/socialist?

and another random comment/question, i just got a spam e-mail that said "Bigger copulation organ in three weeks". It's almost too funny to delete. Is that a result of a bad language translation from somewhere, or what?

[jbd]

Tom DiLorenzo is a hack economics professor at a third-rate college in Maryland who wrote an "expose" of Abraham Lincoln that relied almost entirely on spliced and truncated partial quotations from source material for its controversial assertions. ttp://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

It does not speak well of Ron Paul that he speaks of DiLorenzo as a scholar.

[jkp]

I assume that by "LW.com" you meant "LewRockwell.com"? LW.com is a page for Latham & Watkins, LLC, a law firm that is "a full-service international powerhouse with more than 2,100 attorneys in 26 offices around the world."

[Egosumabbas]

So what's the point of this post. You make no attempt to link the newsletters to his new book, yet you bring them up again with some links to old news. *yawn*

There aren't other things to write about?
How about some recent attempts by the liberal media to smear libertarianism?

Or, Libertarian perspectives of Nikolas Sarkozy's attempt to scale down the French Government on his one-year anniversary?

How about organizing a counter-protest to May Day?

Nope! You guys would rather kick some dirt in Ron Paul's face! I guess we don't need the liberal media to tear us down some more, we're going a great job of it ourselves!

Nice.

[Bug]

"bigot-blow-up"?? Reason is getting so full of shit.

[LT Nixon]

Sorry Lew Rockwell's site, which often directs hatred towards the proverbial "troops" doesn't sell too well with my kind. C'mon Mr. Weigel, let's hear more about Barr! He sounds a lot more suitable to be prez and less prone to conspiratorial rants about the Rothschilds controlling the CFR.

[John-David]

Lizardo? So Ron Paul prefers to surround himself with racists AND supervillains? Awesome.

[Naga Sadow]

I thought Dondero would be here by now . . .

[Colin]

At least now Paul is so rich that he no longer has to peddle his racist newsletter.

[David Weigel]

Egosumabbas - That "recent" attempt is eight years old.

[charlie]

"Minds that hate"? No, you'd never find anything like that at Reason. Why, sensible people like Dave Weigel merely agitated for an aggressive war on Iraq that has killed hundreds of thousands, in addition to counter-protesting anti-war gatherings (how brave! putting down the xbox controller for a whole hour!).

Remember: calling for poor foreigners to be killed in the the name of national security is just another policy option. Making insensitive and sometimes bigoted comments about minorities is hate. You see, the latter is completely different and obviously unforgivable, whereas promoting an illegal and immoral war is something one can rebound from. Obviously.

[somebody had to say it]

reason sucks

[David Weigel]

Is "reason sucks" the new "for a magazine called REASON"?

[Brandybuck]

I like the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and most of the scholars there. Even DiLorenzo. But LRC is just a nasty place. If it had a comments section, it would be the DK or LGF of libertarianism.

People who are otherwise erudite and rational on LvMI are somehow unable to resist puerile ad hominems at LRC. Everyone who is not a purist Rothbardian is called either a neocon or a cosmotarian. It's an echo chamber for angry white paleo-libertarians. As a paleo myself, I'm quite embarassed.

[Paul]

"Remember: calling for poor foreigners to be killed in the the name of national security is just another policy option. Making insensitive and sometimes bigoted comments about minorities is hate."

You were being sarcastic, but what you say is absolutely true. In our society, bigotry/racism- hell, even the hint or distant association with bigotry/racism- is considered the Biggest Crime Against Humanity. Murder, stealing, rape, yes, all these things are deplorable. But racism? Nothing will bring forth Canned Outrage quite like the smell of racism.

[Elemenope]

racism? Nothing will bring forth Canned Outrage quite like the smell of racism.

To be fair, our society went through a huge and not entirely non-violent convalescence on the varied issues of race not so long ago, and many people alive today still bear the scars (figurative and literal).

Forgive them for harboring. Clearly what was going on then isn't really that important anymore, right?

I'll readily agree on the point that the hypersensitivity tends to short circuit all sorts of otherwise important and interesting conversations, though.

[spur]

LewR.com is example number one of libertarians livinging in an ivory tower with the best echo chamber money the internet can by -- Cato would example #2 for me within the libertarian movement -- as much as they seem different Cato and LewR have always struck me as ineffective wastes of time and money.

[Adamness]

Libertarians are better at eating their own than the frickin' Democrats.

Can't we put aside just some of our differences to make some progress? All this infighting and cosmo-paleo-neo-libertarian bullshit is getting us nowhere.

[alan]

No one can dis on Libertarians like fellow libertarians can. I'm not complaining, it is a good thing.

[alan]

Libertarians are better at eating their own than the frickin' Democrats.

Can't we put aside just some of our differences to make some progress? All this infighting and cosmo-paleo-neo-libertarian bullshit is getting us nowhere.

Imagine how much less we would accomplish in our collective political capacity if we were not battle hardened by our internal fighting. Sure, it would take the imagination of a William Blake to see the difference between little and minuscule.

[T]

I'm halfway through the book. It was cheap, I have Amazon Prime, what the hell. I just wish Ron had been this eloquent when put on the spot instead of 4 months after the fact. Oh, well.

Of course, this just ties in with my belief that he ran exactly the kind of campaign one would expect from a third tier congressman who had no party support.

[T]

No one can dis on Libertarians like fellow libertarians can.

That's because nobody else pays us enough attention to figure out how to be truly insulting.

[Egosumabbas]

What bothers me is that this could have been a positive article on how many inroads libertarianism is making. Wow! A Libertarian best-seller on Amazon! Freedom is getting popular! Yay!

Instead it's used as a cheap shot against Ron Paul! WTF?

[joshua corning]

Yes, I'm aware of the argument that there was nothing controversial in the newsletters unless you're a namby-pamby cosmotarian. If the people making that argument are interested, I hear Jeremiah Wright is hiring in his PR shop.

Huh?

I thought the whole thing was simply an excuse to make "Cocktail parties is code for "jew"" jokes?

There aren't any real people who think this? Are there?

Plus there is the whole thing about making a huge hoopla about things you knew Ron Paul did not write but you had to say something or you might look bad to your lefty friends.

I like how they got you to attack him without writing one word about it.

[GG]

I'm pretty much a reason fangurl but it occurred to me some time back that, had one of the many reason editors done their jobs (you know, investigated the newsletters and broken the story before TNR did), you wouldn't have to try to constantly make up for your Paul cover, feature story and all-around support for him with bullshit H&R posts like this one.

Paul never did, and the controversy faded.

Until you come along and put another fresh coat of paint on it, of course.

Thanks for your insightful review on the book and your in-depth analysis on how it might affect the libertarian and conservative movements, Dave. *golf clap*

[joshua corning]

Is "reason sucks" the new "for a magazine called REASON"?

No...its the "We are pissed that you attacked Ron Paul but we lack any ability to be funny about it"

Sort of its own thing i think.

[John C. Randolph]

Careful there, Weigel. You don't know who wrote that material, and you just libeled Lou Rockwell on a guess. Better hope he doesn't sue your ass.

-jcr

[Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo]

There is much I disagree with Lew Rockwell on; his overtly religious articles are too over the top for my taste. But, I would never accuse him of hating someone because of their dermal melanin. Why is he accused of writing those controversial passages?

[jj]

What a pathetic "book review," Weigel. The release of the most important book of the year is serves just as an occasion for you to rehash the tired old newsletter story. I hear they have an opening of you at the National Enquirer, if only you can come up with new material.

[lgoldman]

Why don't you guys get out of the DC group hot-tub and find out what real libertarians are doing around the country to grow and energize the real libertarian revolution?

We are winning the battles that you "inside the beltway" blind men seem to be so bitter and p/o'd about. You keep beating on the same old, obsolete topics and you can't get any traction.

How about moving on and doing something worthwhile for the libertarian movement for a change -- after you dry off.

[Elemenope]

No...its the "We are pissed that you attacked Ron Paul but we lack any ability to be funny about it"

Sort of its own thing i think.

It's clearly a niche market, with few participants.

[Buddy]

Adamness speaks truth. I'm not sure who started the ongoing battle of insults between Rockwell and Reason Magazine, but it is beginning to sound like preteen boys arguing about whose private part is bigger.

I, personally, am in favor of any person or organization that is advocating drastic downsizing of government at any level. Rockwell and Reason agree on this goal. Isn't it time for a peace conference?

[theThia]

not only far and away the most important libertarian book for a long time, but massively popular too. and how does the libertarian Reason magazine respond?

i may have missed it, but was there any response to David Gordon's recent article?

and what is with Welch's "From the Top"?! is this a regular feature now?

oh, and did you write the two printed letters on your Ron Paul Revolution story yourselves, or what?!

i don't really like some of the religious stuff that Mr Rockwell publishes, but jesus christ, i can tolerate it because he sticks to libertarian principles.

Reason magazine, i thank you sincerely for the good times (of which there were many) and wish things were not to end in this way. you can always change your minds, but i'm guessing you won't. still, i'll keep on checking every now and then. _

[annoyed]

i've been very patient with reason and their insistence on beating a dead horse, but holy shit! weigel just can't let this go...and frankly it's pathetic. get over it you douche! i'm canceling my subscription to reason, simply because david weigel annoyed the shit out of me, just now. knee-jerk reaction? yes. what a whiny bitch.

[Ayn_Randian]

'm canceling my subscription to reason

Gin FOR THE WIN!

No, seriously, we're all so broken up to see you go.

As far as I am concerned:

1. I was on the Paul bandwagon for a week; now I am convinced that he's a huckster who panders to the yokeltarians in the interest of making money.

AND

2. Those newsletters bore his motherfuggin' name...if he (or someone else) won't tell us who authored them, I can only assume it's the man under whose name that trash was written. Ron Paul wrote it until he can prove otherwise.

[SmallGovIsBest]

David Weigel's posting over the course of many months reinforces the impression that Reason magazine, being a magazine with a very small circulation, has been taken over by people serving the interests of the GOP.

Sure, they must continue to feign support for libertarianism, or at least their version of "Free Minds and Free Markets", just enough to maintain some influence among libertarian circles, but that "support" apparently extends only so far as it does not result in advancement of libertarianism in the real world.

Since the inception of Reason magazine, nothing has advanced libertarianism as far into the "real world" political arena in the United States of America than Ron Paul's campaign for President in 2008.

One result of this election cycle is that Reason magazine will no longer be recognized as a vehicle for advancing libertarianism.

Instead, Reason will be recognized as a front group for the GOP.

[NOTE: I cannot say the exact time in which the take over of Reason magazine occurred. But, looking back at the coverage of LP campaigns since Harry Browne's first run in 1996, they were hostile back then, and especially so during his second run in 2000, when it was fairly transparent that Steve Forbes had bought influence at Reason by hiring Reason editors and writers to work for ForbesASAP.

[Alan Vanneman]

I'm sorry, but I'm not "mystified" by the bigoted items in Ron Paul's newsletter. Ron Paul came to libertarianism via the old southern states' rights route. It's true that Paul has entirely rejected the militarism that's rampant in southern Republicans today, but he still espouses the oldest and basest southern cliches about the Civil War, most notably, that it was fought not about slavery, but states rights. Why is it that all the libertarians who actually want to run for office are idiots? This must mean something, but I'm not sure what.

[SmallGovIsBest]

Ayn_Randian,

Why does it matter who wrote the comments?

Ron Paul renounced the statements, he has done so repeatedly during the campaign.

No one has ever produced even one video or audio soundbite of Ron Paul in which he uttered anything of the sort. Keep in mind that Dr. Paul has been in Congreess for 10 terms over the course of 30 years - if he is a racist, why do you think he so consistently advances the principle that EVERY individual should be treated the same under the law and afford ALL of the liberty?

Further, the comments in question were not presented in the context of promoting any form of a racist political agenda. In fact, the political agenda was the promotion of equal right for every individual.

You apear to be a prisoner to political correctness run amok - or just another fake using bullsh!t to attack a man of principle.

[Former Mises Inst student]

So. People have figured out that Lew Rockwell is a knuckle dragging neo-Confederate racist? Wow.

That guy is so nasty he makes even his hero David Duke (who got praise in the newsletters Rockwell wrote for Congressman Paul) look civil. And DiLorenzo makes the National Enquirer look like a scholarly journal. They at least have fact checkers.

[ABC]

There's never going to be progress unless you can convince people who are socially conservative in their personal lives that state intervention doesn't work, and federal intervention is especially bad for their interests. That seems to be the whole idea behind Rothbard's paleolib thing. If that means trying to win over intolerant folks then fine by me; if they can be convinced not to use the state to enforce their beliefs then that's a win in my book.

[alan]

I thought the whole thing was simply an excuse to make "Cocktail parties is code for "jew"" jokes?

I always thought cocktail parties was code for 'meet Jewish women over drinks with Stan Getz in the background to set the mood', at least that is what some of my paleo brothers have told me.

[Brandybuck]

he still espouses the oldest and basest southern cliches about the Civil War, most notably, that it was fought not about slavery, but states rights.

He's right of course. If the war was about slavery, then the North would have attacked preemptively years earlier. Or simply freed the slaves. Or done something other than vote on compromises about which states could or could not own slaves. Instead they waited until the South seceeded before they attacked. And they didn't free the slaves until very near the END of the war.

Slavery certainly was an emotional factor in the war, but it was not the cause. Slavery could have been ended for far less money and no loss of life if lincoln wanted to. Instead his goal was to "preserve the Union".

[John]

Useless invective again. Even if the newsletters where penned by Paul himself while he cackled wildly, how can a few newsletters 20-30 years ago permanently pigeonhole someone as racist? Show a single current (last 10 years, say) policy, statement or speech that is vaguely racist. Go ahead. Otherwise just do the libertarian movement a favor and shut up.

[Art_Vandelay]

Ok so I'm relatively new to the libertarian movement. "Hi my name is Art, and I'm a recovering Republican / Limbaugh fan".

John Stossel turned me onto the movement thru Give Me a Break segments on 20/20 and his books. Then I started subscribing to reason, and then I discovered Ron Paul..who I really like. I ALSO (*gasp*) like a lot of the articles I find on LRC. I guess it's like being a Cubs fan AND A White-Sox fan? Anyway, the reason gang reminds me of a music snob. You know, the guy who loves all these indie bands, but then hates on them and calls them "sell-outs" once they have a hit record? It was very interesting for me to read that reason also was harshing on Harry Browne back in the day. I'm seeing a pattern here...

[Brandybuck]

That seems to be the whole idea behind Rothbard's paleolib thing.

Actually, at the beginning the whole paleolib thing was that it was okay to be a libertarian AND a Christian, or heterosexual, or someone who never smoked pot, etc, etc. There was a time in the late 80's when being a libertarian implied that you were were an atheist or followed a non-mainstream religion, and probably had an alternate lifestyle to boot.

[Ayn_Randian]

Why does it matter who wrote the comments?

If it doesn't matter, why doesn't whoever wrote them (which to me is still Ron Paul because, again, his name was at the top) step forward and say so?

You apear to be a prisoner to political correctness run amok

You "appear" to be a prisoner to bad spelling.

I'm not a prisoner to anything, but I certainly do find someone who talked about "fleet-footed blacks" the "Bohemian Grove" and other some-such nonsense to be pandering to ignorant yokeltarians, black-helicopter types and stupid crackers.

[PK]

Isn't a bestselling libertarian book good news?

[Colonel_Angus]

For a while Reason was publishing all kinds of support for Ron Paul even though they knew about the old newsletter shit, saying the articles weren't written by him and it happened twenty or thirty years ago. Those douchebags dondero and edward wouldn't shut the fuck up about it, and plenty of people were defending Ron Paul. Then one day the new republic or some bullshit publishes an article about it and all of a sudden those same people who were defending Ron Paul turned to "Oh no he's a racist!!!111!!!!!".

[highnumber]

It is clear that, since Mr Weigel and his employer will not shill for libertarians, they are a propaganda machine.

[M]

I second Egosumabbas. A libertarian manifesto is the #1 selling book on Amazon and will debut at #7 on the NYT bestseller list, and THIS is Reason's response?

This is why I maxed out to Ron Paul but will probably never give a dime to Reason.

[John C. Randolph]

" his hero David Duke"

That's a baldfaced lie, and you damned well know it.

-jcr

[John C. Randolph]

"if he is a racist, why do you think he so consistently advances the principle that EVERY individual should be treated the same under the law and afford ALL of the liberty? "

More to the point, what racist would want to free all of the POWs of the War On Drugs?

-jcr

[Chris Potter]

but he still espouses the oldest and basest southern cliches about the Civil War, most notably, that it was fought not about slavery, but states rights. Why is it that all the libertarians who actually want to run for office are idiots?

I really doubt slave states Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware were fighting on the Union side during the Civil War because they wanted to free the slaves. Also, the Emancipation Proc didn't free the slaves in slave states that hadn't seceded (those same four). That happened when the 13th amendment was ratified some time after the Civil War was over.

[Danny]

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think that Occam's Razor would be very well applied here in all cases:

1) David Weigel is not some sort of creep. He has his own beliefs for what happened and why they did. He's not trying to singlehandedly bring down libertarianism or destroy the neocons. Perhaps he's just a human behind a computer, typing stuff up to meet deadlines and earn a paycheck.

2) Maybe Ron Paul really didn't author those letters. To me it doesn't matter because he doesn't behave like that. And I don't care who you associate with, there is never a guarantee that you will adopt other beliefs. It seems simple to me that he could have put his name on a stamper and never looked back at the magazine that bore his name. He's a doctor, and an economist, and a family man, and a politician. That's not even taking into account any hobbies. Sure he could have paid more attention, but is that really a crime? To pay attention to things that matter more to you in the here-and-now?

Idunno... I just think that people make up their own logic instead of thinking how it realistically could happen. If I've learned anything, it's that most people aren't trying to be evil or ruin your life. They are just trying to live their own lives. It's really as simple as that.

/Flame on.

[Jim Walsh]

It does not speak well of Ron Paul that he speaks of DiLorenzo as a scholar.

Indeed, it doesn't. Just because something is "politically incorrect" doesn't means it's right...

[washy]

I'm still waiting for the Israeli government to apologize for the Old Testament. "Happy is he who smashes their infants against the rocks." (Psalm 137:8-9) Yeah, there's political correctness for you.

[Danny]

washy,

That's gotta have some sort of other meaning, but it's effing hilarious that something like that made it in there.

Here's a website that tries to justify it. I'd say it's fair to at least read it.

[Jason Gordon]

I am so glad that Reason isn't trying to ride Paul's coattails and is actively turning away his supporters. His hundreds of thousands (millions?) of deluded minions would only destroy the purity of the Reason libertarian brand. Reason is right to remain the eagle eyed gatekeeper of the one true libertarian ethic.

I mean, lets admit it; just think how many books Ron would have sold had Reason gotten behind him. And let's get real, Reason doesn't need Paul to promote this website in his book.

In the end Paul will fade away, but Reason will continue to have a real impact in setting the tone for libertarian thought in this country.

[Gary]

It's great to see a libertarian book at number one on Amazon. It's a damn shame that there isn't a libertarian magazine out there to celebrate that fact.

What the hell, Reason? Something good happens and all that you can do is re-hash some old negative news? It's doubtful that I'll renew my subscription.

[Ayn_Randian]

It's great to see a libertarian book at number one on Amazon.

Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. I don't believe he's ever said he was.

It's doubtful that I'll renew my subscription.

Not to be crude, but nobody gives a flying fuck.

Let me get another beer.

[None]

And who exactly was expecting a "bigot blow-up", besides an obviously disappointed Weigel?

[Jack]

Isn't that second quote substantially derived from Ayn Rand's essay on racism? (And I'm not joking.)

[Ayn_Randian]

Isn't that second quote substantially derived from Ayn Rand's essay on racism?

Yes, and I believe when Paul said it I noted that before.

The problem is that it's basically third-hand from Murray Rothbard, who stole that idea from Rand and handed it down to all the yokeltarians, and then he promptly turned around and decided to court the racist vote.

[Shane Brady]

If you would like to see what Ron Paul said in 1996 about the newsletters, check this out:

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

"" Paul also wrote that although ""we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said. "

[B]

Hahahaha, it continues to amaze me how gullible some people are. If you honestly believe Ron Paul didn't write those bigoted comments, then you are a total idiot.

[surf]

"Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. I don't believe he's ever said he was."

i think he's a "lifetime member."

Seriously, as a former subscriber, I'm a bit embarassed that Reason has taken this tone with respect to Ron Paul. It's not that he is the "lesser of two evils" that I've come to support him, it's that he's not evil. I don't want to bankrupt this country, and Ron Paul is really our best hope to delay this as long as we can.

And, he's pro-decriminalization of pot.

if i misspelled anything, Ayn_Rander, fuck off.

[Ayn_Randian]

i think he's a "lifetime member."

Mike Gravel's currently a member of the LP. Doesn't make him libertarian.

Seriously, as a former subscriber

Ok, seriously, no one cares that you gave up (or are giving up) your subscription. Seriously, it does not give you some kind of Opinion Perch.

And, he's pro-decriminalization of pot.

Quote that or provide a source. I don't believe you.

if i misspelled anything, Ayn_Rander, fuck off.

You misspelled my name, fuckmuppet.

[jj]

Weigel, what are you accomplishing? 99% of us value 99% of the content on the Reason AND Rockwell sites. It's a sad thing that the leadership is too silly to stick to libertarianism. You insist on being racist or anti-religious bigots. You're destroying the movement for no good reason.

[jj]

Well said, surf.

[Marc]

Ayn_Randian:

And, he's pro-decriminalization of pot.

Quote that or provide a source. I don't believe you.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/2008/04/18.html
Barney Frank has introduced his Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008, co-sponsored by Ron Paul.

[Ayn_Randian]

you're right. My fault. I guess Paul is:

pro-decriminalization (of some amounts) of pot (on the federal level).

[joby]

dude, john lennon was not a socialist. that's why in the very same song quoted above he ripped on chairman mao. that's why he threw in a fever clever and biting tidbits to "taxman."

and of course i think this is a great summation of capitalist thinking: "and in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make."

okay, maybe that last one was a stretch. either way, its tough to look past the commercialism of the beatles long enough to call them socialists.

joby.

(happy ever after in the marketplace...)

[javier]

This pissing match is ridiculous. As someone who reads reason, lewrockwell, and mises.org, this shit gets annoying. We get it. there is a completely different foundation to everybodies libertarianism. I think you guys need a writer swap. Lewrockwell gets a reason writer who will look out for when things could be worded better and reason gets anybody that understands economics (cuz right now you are lacking).

It should also be noted that quite a few, at mises.org in particular, don't support ron paul because they reject the state all together. Lew is by no means the most radical in the libertarian movement.

And yes those comments were disgusting, i will trust though that it was 15 years ago and whoever wrote it has come around since.

[Evan McLaren]

Justin Raimondo releases plenty of venom to attack Reason for remarks like this one. I can't see why such effort is worth it. Figures in the media and the academy who are content to discuss Ron Paul exclusively in terms of his alleged hatred and bigotry are typical and unremarkable. Why should I be any more upset because a crowd of self-identified "libertarians" belongs to the same team of cowards? Weigel is horrified that Paul might have allowed some unflattering remarks about ethnic minorities into his newsletter. That's enough to delegitimize Paul in his eyes, no matter how noble Paul appears to be otherwise; no matter how urgently a movement like Paul's obviously is needed; no matter how empty the field is of actual alternatives; no matter how vulgar and chaotic our political disorder becomes. So let Weigel go to hell with the rest of the establishmentarian priesthood. I won't blink or lose any sleep.

[Brandybuck]

you're right. My fault. I guess Paul is: pro-decriminalization (of some amounts) of pot (on the federal level).

In 1988 he was interviewed on the Morton Downy Jr. Show. Ron Paul made it quite clear in no uncertain terms that he was in favor of legalization (not mere decriminatlization) of all drugs. He has affirmed that many times since. You can search for that interview on YouTube.

[Maciano]

That's it. I'm unsubscribing from this stupid magazine. Hell, I'd prefer a socialist over you guys--what cowardice, what self-defeating.. Just one thing though: scrap the "free minds" from the "free minds and free markets"-logo. You're just a bunch of neocons who like pot, illegals and transsexuals.

Fine by me too, but I also like 72-year-old-doctors who try to make a dfference in this world.

Y'know Paul could just have spent the rest of his pension among his grandchildren. He didn't. He chose to prevent his country from moving along the wrong path.

No good deed goes unpunished.

[Pablo Escobar]

David Boaz (cato institute) and David Weigel (reason) keep bringing up the newsletters because they're jealous they'll never be as respected as Ron Paul.

The gold standard of what an intellectual should be is Milton Friedman.

And the gold standard of what a politician should be is Ron Paul.

P.S. Ron Paul's book is at #7 on the NY Times bestseller list according to campaign blog.

[Brian N.]

"The problem is that it's basically third-hand from Murray Rothbard, who stole that idea from Rand and handed it down to all the yokeltarians, and then he promptly turned around and decided to court the racist vote."

The assertion that Rand originated anything to be stolen from her is wretched nonsense. The implication that Rothbard was so pig-ignorant as to have to steal it from Rand is also nonsense. You have a lot of homework to do.

[svf]

...the reason gang reminds me of a music snob. You know, the guy who loves all these indie bands, but then hates on them and calls them "sell-outs" once they have a hit record?

Bingo! Reason = the Pitchfork of libertarianism.

REVIEW
The Revolution: A Manifesto = 3.7 / 10.0
"Anyone expecting another bigot blow-up is going to be disappointed."

(disclaimer: I look at the Reason and Pitchfork websites every day anyway... and I get what I pay for...)

[Brank Mak Morn]

Gods of hell, people, the man already took responsibility for the bloody newsletter incident. He's done so again and again ever since the damned controversy began. Is that not enough? And you cannot expect him to rat out whoever wrote the bloody thing. It's bad enough that the newsletter is constantly used against HIS career. He's not going to let people like you use it against his AND the ghostwriter's. That would be spineless, underhanded and unprincipled.

And the fact that you still won't let this die certainly doesn't help your case as a "namby pamby cosmotarian," Weigel. Actions speak louder than words. Of course, if you believed that, you would drop the whole "Ron Paul is a crazy old racist" schtick and act like real libertarians for a change. Get your act together already.

[Philip Blumel]

While culturally I definitely fall on the side of the cosmotards rather than the neanderthals, I don't understand this blog's obsessive antipathy to Ron Paul. If our goal as libertarians is to promote the philosophy, are we not better served by presentations of our ideas that appeal to other groups of people outside the narrow slice of the culture we reside in? Relax, please.

[Ayn_Randian]

I see the venomous Paultrolls are out in full force again. Yep, a dig on Rand (despite the fact there's good evidence Rothbard stole from Rand . Oh and another threat to cancel subscriptions!

Y'know Paul could just have spent the rest of his pension among his grandchildren. He didn't. He chose to...

Laugh at you all the way to the bank.

I wish he had stayed at home with his grandkids. Then you'd be off of my boards.

[Ayn_Randian]

And you cannot expect him to rat out whoever wrote the bloody thing.

Rat out? He's not some brave whistleblower...his name was on top of the goddamned thing.

Sorry, but the stupid old codger doesn't get a free pass by letting others blame it on some alleged "ghostwriter".

His name, his words, until someone demonstrates otherwise.

[Dwayne]

Pablo,

It's true that Reason has run two articles since the blowup, but if Ron didn't want the critical attention, he shouldn't have written such tripe or let his backers put his name on them. And then, after denouncing the statements from his own newsletter, for Ron Paul to endorse the author of the remarks is disappointing, to say the least.

However, I googled and found that David Boaz had his dignified say and then, contrary to your broad brush, has NOT "kept bringing" anything up. Here's what a search of the Cato website AND of all websites via Google found:

A basically positive piece on Ron Paul
Ron Paul and the Reaction against Big Government (November 25, 2007)
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/11/25/ron-paul-and-the-reaction-against-big-government/

One dignified statement distancing himself
Ron Paul's Ugly Newsletters (January 11, 2008)
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/11/ron-pauls-ugly-newsletters/

That's it.

Lesson: Check the facts before you hit "Submit Comment".

[Bran Mak Morn]

"Rat out? He's not some brave whistleblower...his name was on top of the goddamned thing."

Yes, that's exactly why he took responsibility for it, and he hasn't pushed that responsibility on anyone else.

[Ayn_Randian]

Yes, that's exactly why he took responsibility for it, and he hasn't pushed that responsibility on anyone else.

No, he hasn't. He evaded the issue by claiming some kind of claptrap like "moral responsibility", or some such nonsense.

Who wrote it? As far as everyone knows, it was him and him alone. If he's "responsible" for it, then he's responsible for the writing, thoughts and sentiments. Case closed.

[Ayn_Randian]

Paulbots are amazing...you'd think you wouldn't want your Great and Wonderful Hero permanently tarred, but instead you choose to stick up for the fact that Paul is hiding the writer AND choosing to associate with him/her to this day.

[lester]

Yuo guys are 100% right. ending the war and restoring fiscal sanity can wait. these newsletters take presidence over that trivial stuff. i mean, what will we do if our children return home unharmed and our pockets are full of strong dollars and THEN we find out our president has politically incoreect views on liberal icons like MLK and Lincoln?

I'd prefer the 130 degree deadly streets of baghdad to that kind of "america".

[William R]

Unbelievable. Weigel has hit a new low. Reason has hit a new low. When it's all said and done Ron Paul's book will be the biggest selling libertarian book in history and Reason goes on the attack about a non story. Bigoted Newsletters. Bull shit. If you think calling people burning down their own neighborhoods animials or MLK a plagiarizing serial adulterer, all true is racist then there's no hope for you.

[David (not that one)]

Man, I love watching a good pissing match...

::: leaning back in my lawn chair, sipping a Mike's Hard Lemonade, then passing it to my 6 year old son :::

[The Democratic Republican]

Ah...so much material...where to start:

1) Maybe all you Lew Rockwell sympathizers should keep in mind that most of this "controversy" isn't about the content of the newsletters -- it's about someone (probably Rockwell himself) being too much of a chickenshit to take responsibility for his actions. If it was LR who wrote those things, he is a sack of shit and should be banished to the outer pits of darkness for betraying his friend.

2) Ron Paul is not and never was a libertarian. He is an anti-Federalist, and while there are MANY libertarian strains to this thought, there are many that come from different philosophical origins. Yes, reasonoids and the LRC crew should try to hang together, but let's get down to the truth: Rockwell and his gang are ONE OF THE MOST INTEROLERANT FACTIONS in the libertarian movement. After writing pages at LRC about how well established libertarians like Randy Barnett and Charles Koch and the reasonoids aren't "real" libertarians, they want to come to this blog and bitch about Ron Paul and his chickenshit friends being called out over the newsletters? Wa, wa, wa -- grow a spine, and quit being hypocrites.

[The Democratic Republican]

Oh, and by the way, I gave Paul TONS of my hard earned money, and my return on investment was a piss poor campaign that ENDED (and it did end) with $4 million in the bank. And now I'm told to be excited about this "best-selling" book when a) he's telling people to go read that piece of shit Rockwell and b) he used people like me to finance this publication (and, not to mention, sent out a "campaign" email telling all of us that buying his book would show the establishment that he's not finished). What a shill.

[William R]

Ron Paul is more of a libertarian than the idiots that write for Reason magazine. Matt Welch, Weigel, Julie Sanchez, and Nick.

[The Democratic Republican]

There are many ways to be a libertarian. But I can understand the concern of many (including me) who have deep reservations about Paul becoming "the" face of the libertarian movement.

[joe]

Nothing in my political philosophy, which is the exact opposite of the racial totalitarianism of the twentieth century, gives aid or comfort to such thinking. To the contrary, my philosophy of individualism is the most radical intellectual challenge to racism ever posed.

Nonsense.

Here, let's try that in some different garb.

Christianity is the exact opposite of racism, because it teaches us that every person is made in the image of God.

Socialism i the exact opposite of racism, because it teaches us that we are all equal, and that racism is an effort to divide us for the benefit of the powerful.

Islamism is the opposite of racism, because it teaches us that submitting to Allah makes us all brothers, and that we are required to extend the respect due to all Musliims to those who submit.

Yadda yadda yadda. The fact that the utopian end-game vision of a political philosophy does not include racial classes, or that there are teachings within the philosophy which refute ideological racism, tells us exactly nothing about the actual relationship between that philosophy, its adherents, and racism.

[Ayn_Randian]

these newsletters take presidence over that trivial stuff.

as if it were the newsletters that prevented a Paul presidency.

I'd prefer the 130 degree deadly streets of baghdad to that kind of "america".

No one forced you to sign the dotted line. Feel free to quit and really stand up for your principles.

[lester]

democratic republican

"There are many ways to be a libertarian. But I can understand the concern of many (including me) who have deep reservations about Paul becoming "the" face of the libertarian movement."

here here. the point of all this is to find someone who we can promote as a personality, not to end the war or stop inflation. I'd much rather have a fruitless search for someone who can be all things to all people than promote someone who has an anti state stance on every issue imaginable. ten times moreso than anyone else currently serving in any political body anywhere. throw him back, we can wait for someone better.

imagine if we could get someone, maybe someone from Reason, to be the sidekick on a cop show!! that would be the ultimate in liberty

[Ayn_Randian]

btw, lester, you are on the least funny and insightful commenters to come around since M1EK.

[Ayn_Randian]

*one of the least

[lester]

ayn randian- what does your screen name mean?

[Maciano]

@Bran Mak Morn

Don't try to 'reason' with these people, most of 'em are about as free-minded as the people running the former DDR.

It's actully quite hysterical how they're constantly trying to distance themselves from the only man who made a significant impact in spreading their ideology, because of old newsletters containing stupid and unfunny stuff about ethnic minorities et al -- even it was through six degrees of separation. Instead of trying to make the best of it, they jumped on RP. To watch people selfdestruct is so sad.

I say, give these men-childs their forum and let them do their important job, i.e. discussing RP's evil ways.

@Ayn_Randian

Ya momma.

[Brian N.]

That Rand wasn't original isn't a dig. She did have an over-developed sense of her own originality, however. This was a product of a severe ignorance which, in your case, seems to transmit on down to her adherents to this day.

If that (having not read the allegedly plagiarized documents at all, being completely ignorant of Thomism, and then pontificating on language and terminology not coined by the Randians) meets your standard of "good evidence" you don't have standards worth meeting or failing.

"Oh and another threat to cancel subscriptions!"

Given this, I'm forced to assume you don't know how the market works...if this is an increasingly common phenomenon, the magazine may cease to exist.

One last note, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Paul supporter. I don't vote, nor will I ever.

[Real Libertarian]

Anyone check out this bitch slapping of Reason? Bowing to the Gods of political corectness is one thing, being the grand inquisiters in a witch hunt is another.

The "cosmopolitan" faux-libertarians who have made the smearing of the most decent politician in the country their obsession are despised by the rank-and-file of the libertarian movement, and rightly so: what makes Reason's fixation even more pathetic is that they keep trying to claim that they really like Ron-they really really do!-it's just those evil right-wing "populists" and "conspiracy theorists" they hate. Of course, everyone knew about these newsletters, including the folks at Reason: it wasn't until The New Republic had a snit fit that they went into their "anti-racist" act. (Believe you me, bud, it is an act).

Of course, the Reasonoids could care less about the libertarian movement: they would much prefer that they be allowed to post articles on why methamphetamine should be legalized, and what Ayn Rand ate for breakfast, in their little subsidized literary sandbox, without having to bother with anyone who lives outside the Washington Beltway.

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/attack_of_the_reasonoids/

[Gene Callahan]

"Thanks for your insightful review on the book and your in-depth analysis on how it might affect the libertarian and conservative movements, Dave."

"What a pathetic "book review," Weigel."

Um, this was a fucking blog post, not a book review.

Dolts.

[The Democratic Republican]

Listen -- I'm not trying to distance myself from Ron Paul. Criticizing him and his choice of friends is not distancing. Saying that people should realize that RP's libertarianism is not the ONLY libertarianism is not distancing. Calling Lew Rockwell an intolerant chickenshit has nothing to to do with Paul.

I've been as big a Paul supporter as anyone, but I'm tired of the blind, stupid hero worship. Your Great Leader is a human being who is not right all of the time. There are MANY credible, active libertarians who disagree with Paul. Randy Barnett was skewered by Lew Rockwell and co. for suggesting that *gasp* one could be a libertarian and NOT believe that we have to whittle our military down to 6 nuclear subs.

To all of you so-called "paleos": stop acting like the only issue is racism. The main issue is Paul's lack of judgment about people. It's about the chickenshits who were supposedly his friends. Stop acting like you have a monopoly on truth (i.e., stop acting like Rockwell and co.).

[The Democratic Republican]

And does anyone else think the response to the following line from Weigel is silly:

"The Revolution is the best-selling book at Amazon.com today. I've read the book, though, and anyone expecting another bigot blow-up is going to be disappointed."

He's SAYING THIS AS A GOOD THING. He wasn't looking for shit to stir. Still, seeing as how the LRC crowd thrives on paranoia and conspiracy, I could see how you would want to create a problem where there isn't one.

[Egosumabbas]

""The Revolution is the best-selling book at Amazon.com today. I've read the book, though, and anyone expecting another bigot blow-up is going to be disappointed."

He's SAYING THIS AS A GOOD THING. He wasn't looking for shit to stir. Still, seeing as how the LRC crowd thrives on paranoia and conspiracy, I could see how you would want to create a problem where there isn't one."

No, this is a very bad thing. He was reading the whole book expecting a racist rant, instead of a manifesto on libertarianism and how to apply it to fix our current political problems.

It just shows Weigel's contempt for Ron Paul, and not objectively viewing Ron Paul's book in the greater context of libertarianism.

And he's probably annoyed that Ron Paul plugged Lew Rockwell's website instead of Reason. If you were Ron Paul would YOU want to plug Reason after how Reason handled the newsletter issue?

[surf]

"fuckmuppet"? - not to get personal here, but name-calling is a bit... republicratic. if you'd rather not have your factual errors pointed out and corrected, don't post.

if you want to point out spelling errors, well, have fun.

[Ayn_Randian]

if you'd rather not have your factual errors pointed out and corrected

Spare me. As I pointed out earlier, despite your assertion that membership in the LP makes you a life-long "libertarian", it does not. There's nothing libertarian about Paul's position on the borders, for example.

Given this, I'm forced to assume you don't know how the market works

I do...it just seems to be all-too-common a threat around here, especially from one-off posters who never show up on these boards ever again. I'm inclined to think they're fake. Of course, my real e-mail is attached to my name, so if any of these supposed lifelong reason readers who are now cancelling want to scan me proof their subscribers who are cancelling over Paul, I'd be glad to say "I was wrong."

I won't hold my breath, though.

One last note, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Paul supporter. I don't vote, nor will I ever.

Who cares?

[Curt Morgan]

Oh... deary me! A phony charge of racism! That'll shut up all the genuine libertarians.

Mr. Weigel, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell tell the truth. They matter.

On both counts... you don't.

[Ayn_Randian]

If that...meets your standard of "good evidence" you don't have standards worth meeting or failing.

No refutation or rebuttal? Just insults?

Obviously you didn't even bother to read the link. It's OK, I'm not the pseudo-intellectual losing out on actual learning here.

[Nick]

Of course, my real e-mail is attached to my name, so if any of these supposed lifelong reason readers who are now cancelling want to scan me proof their subscribers who are cancelling over Paul, I'd be glad to say "I was wrong."

Disgusting.

their -> they're (a contraction of they are)
"They are former subscribers." "They're former subscribers." "They are canceling their subscriptions." The following is incorrect: "Their canceling they're subscriptions." See the difference?

There is also little consistency between the use of punctuation inside or outside of quotations, but as this is more of a stylistic difference between UK and US use of grammar, free-thinking libertarians can get away using both on the same page. It does look messy when used inconsistently without explanation.

However, Grammar Nazis (in the least pejorative sense of the term) need to display the utmost discipline in their own writings when pointing out the grammatical and spelling mistakes of others. If they do not display this discipline, they risk losing legitimacy as grammatical authorities.

[Brenda]

So, what's it like to be a neocon shill?

[Red Phillips]

jbd,

So the neocon, Straussian/Jaffaite Claremont Institute doesn't like DiLorenzo? Wow! Now there is a shocker.

[Ron]

Just more neocon rantings and business as usual. Ron Paul's book is #1 on Amazon and it deserves to be there. I think there might be a little envy here. Go Ron Paul!

[Ayn_Randian]

yes, ladies and gentlemen, if you find it disgusting to talk about "fleet-footed blacks" and lunacy to talk in a serious tone about "the Bohemian Grove", you must be a "neocon". Which apparently means "a libertarian who thinks Ron Paul peddles crap to ignorant yokels."

So call me a neocon.

[Lucas]

Every day that goes by I hate Reason magazine more and more. It's just not enough that the wider world considers libertarians "kooky" and "unstable", no, Reason has to snipe on our only major figure.

To me, this seems like just another split between Koch and Rothbard. It's wrong, what has happened in the past with our infighting and God knows Reason won't just stand there and let it stop.

[Anthony Gregory]

Ron Paul has been solid on the drug war for at least 25 years.

[joe b]

Hmm...Hey dave,

Maybe you're just angry that Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and the whole gang can see through your watered down version of libertarianism. This would be a great time to talk about the recent successes of libertarian thought and instead you go after Ron Paul by bringing up those newsletters!! Whose side are you on?

Reason magazine's idea of "libertarianism" is posh, bored beltwayers discussing green technology at Starbucks before setting off for a short round of golf and adultrey. You guys are pathetic.

[Eric Dondero\'s Mom]

This just proves a couple things.

#1. Weigel is gay.

#2. See #1.

#3. Anybody can post any inane crap they want to on the INTERWEBBZZZ and people will argue about it for hours.

#4. You can say "shit" and "fuck" and have queers banging each other on sunday morning TV but god help you if you think the Civil War was a waste of life and $.

Come on dudes. Let's grow up. We all know what the real struggle is.

Don't we?

I'll give you a hint.

Do you:
A. believe that war is a useful and appropriate tactic under certain circumstances; or
B. believe that people who think that should be shipped to the moon and given forks to fight with, so the rest of us can get down to the advancement only capitalist peace and freedom can bring about?

THAT is why Reason hates Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, et al. That is, at least, my humble view. I could be wrong. I'm just some tard posting useless drivel on the internet.

[Stickboy]

And this kind of bs is why I'm not renewing my subscription to Reason!

[Brian N.]

"Obviously you didn't even bother to read the link. It's OK, I'm not the pseudo-intellectual losing out on actual learning here."

My (unedited) quote refers to the link. In addition to having no threshold or standards for truth or evidence when the conclusion supported is one you already want to believe, it seems clear now that you also have trouble reading even simple comments. That or you're hoping no one will notice the significance of the redacted portion.

"Who cares?"

You referred to me as a 'Paultroll' and I responded to that.

[Ryan]

Would it be disgusting for a basketball recruiter to talk about "fleet-footed blacks"? Why is it disgusting to talk about "fleet-footed blacks" in any other practical context?

[Ayn_Randian]

Brian N. - All I noticed is that your so-called "rebuttal" was just repeating Rothbard's, with nothing substantive of your own to add.

But, like you said, you have a conclusion you already want, so there's no point in continuing the discussion.

You referred to me as a 'Paultroll' and I responded to that.

Funny, though, how the ONE TIME I've seen you comment here, it's to take a dig at Rand and defend Rothbard. I'm not really surprised...what did this get posted over at LRC and antiwar.com? Is that why we have such a high level of idiocy here?

And this kind of bs is why I'm not renewing my subscription to Reason!

I doubt you ever a subscriber.

[Ayn_Randian]

Would it be disgusting for a basketball recruiter to talk about "fleet-footed blacks"? Why is it disgusting to talk about "fleet-footed blacks" in any other practical context?

God you are stupid.

[willb]

Having been attracted here for the first
time by way of Weigel's Paul envy, I have
to say that it's been entertaining at least.
My compliments.

[Brian N.]

"Brian N. - All I noticed is that your so-called "rebuttal" was just repeating Rothbard's, with nothing substantive of your own to add."

It wasn't necessary to add anything else. The point, that Rand didn't originate the ideas, that Rothbard was well aware of them elsewhere, that one must operate from a position of near-total ignorance in order to seriously entertain the charges at all, etc. is as complete a rebuttal as there need or can be. In the article you linked to, once again, the author admits to having not read the document that was supposedly plagiarized. It is impossible to make a case for plagiarism without having done so. So your "good evidence" is worthless.

[S Rosen]

"Yes, I'm aware of the argument that there was nothing controversial in the newsletters unless you're a namby-pamby cosmotarian. If the people making that argument are interested, I hear Jeremiah Wright is hiring in his PR shop.)"

This insult doesn't even make any sense. Wasn't the problem with the newsletter that it was racist towards blacks? Somehow I don't think Wright is being criticized for bashing blacks. You could have at least used David Duke or someone like that.

In any event, I don't understand Reason's animus towards Paul. I've known plenty of "left-libertarians" who supported Paul because they opposed the war, restrictions on civil liberties, and wanted less government.

I'm more on the LRC side, but I'd probably vote for an LP candidate who wanted to reduce to the size of government even if he had more "cosmopolitan" social views than I do.

[Brandybuck]

I'll reiterate my theory as to why Ron Paul won't "out" the ghostwriter: He's deceased. You know who I mean.

[Steve L.]

Nonsense.

Here, let's try that in some different garb.

Christianity is the exact opposite of racism, because it teaches us that every person is made in the image of God.

Socialism i the exact opposite of racism, because it teaches us that we are all equal, and that racism is an effort to divide us for the benefit of the powerful.

Islamism is the opposite of racism, because it teaches us that submitting to Allah makes us all brothers, and that we are required to extend the respect due to all Musliims to those who submit.

Yadda yadda yadda. The fact that the utopian end-game vision of a political philosophy does not include racial classes, or that there are teachings within the philosophy which refute ideological racism, tells us exactly nothing about the actual relationship between that philosophy, its adherents, and racism.

A principled adherent of any of those beliefs would not be a racial totalitarian (unless one views National Socialism as a form of socialism), so there is no contradiction--unless you're taking exception to the idea that only libertarianism is the exact opposite of racial totalitarianism.

[Brian N.]

A principled and consistently adhered individualism is inherently anti-racist, as racism, properly understood, is inherently anti-individualist. The specific content of libertarianism is neither opposed to nor in favor of racism. It, in itself, speaks nothing of it. However, many systems of ethics that lead to libertarianism (objectivism, deontics, natural law and natural rights theories, as leading examples) lead also to a natural opposition to racism. That, I think, is where the rub is here.

All, or most, of us participating in this and other discussions are libertarians of one kind or another. What precisely constitutes the positive substance of that position we're not entirely in agreement, but our overall positions are relatively close to each other. It's hard for us, looking back on twenty years ago, to see or even imagine the wisdom in the 'paleoism' strategy. This is easily explained; looking back, we can see its boneheaded stupidity. For those who were keeping tabs then (Virkkala, for example) it was obviously stupid then. There is no defending what Paul or Paul's cohorts have done. It will, happily, only marginalize people. The idea of liberty will live on.

[Ayn_Randian]

It is impossible to make a case for plagiarism without having done so. So your "good evidence" is worthless.

Not a circumstantial case for plagiarism, which is how the author characterized it. Which, incidentally, is how I know you didn't really read the article. You were target-hunting and stopped at a place where you could declare me "wrong".

[Ayn_Randian]

That being said, your 5:04 comment is very well-said.

[S Rosen]

"I'll reiterate my theory as to why Ron Paul won't "out" the ghostwriter: He's deceased. You know who I mean."

Brandybuck, I also assumed it was a certain late (dismissed) Washington Times columnist - if we're thinking of the same guy. It really doesn't sound like Lew - he's pretty vigilant about keeping his distance from the racists and anti-Semites. If you ever view any of their website/forums (not recommended), they are usually pretty harsh on LRC. I even heard that some of the information about the newsletters was leaked by a white nationalist who wasn't pleased about RP's unwillingness to deal with the "Jewish Question" - not sure if that's true, though.

[theThia]

Just wondering about this "I'm cancelling my subscription" thing. Perhaps Welch or someone in the know can inform us of the numbers of subscribers, new subscribers, printed copies sold, etc., over the past year or few.

On a related note perhaps, why would a successful libertarian magazine replace Nick Gillespie with Matt Welch? One possible answer is that Reason is now a less successful magazine than it has been for a long time, and it figured a more formal split from the Ron Paul crowd (i.e. hiring Welch as editor) is a better financial/strategic option than attempting to reconcile with what has undeniably become mainstream libertarianism. Worth considering, at least.

[The Democratic Republican]

Rockwellites, Paultards, LRC anti-war crowd: fundamentalists. Goddamned fundamentalists. The truth was dispense to their little group and all others are worthless. Such delusions are natural, I suppose, to a group of people that thrives on conspiracy theories and tin-foil hats.

[The Democratic Republican]

I mean, REALLY -- the LRC people out there are the ones crying about how reason and the Kochtopus are splitting the party, and yet THEY are the ones who are saying, "It's our way or the highway."

If you are so in love with Rockwell and Paul, and so committed to rabid pacifism, that you don't think their shit stinks, then that's your problem. Don't tell anybody else how to be a *true* libertarian, though.

[Brian N.]

You make two assertions, both of them false;

1, I have, in fact, read that article.
2, I did no such thing as target hunt.

The point is that a standard of proof is possible. Look; I'm going to lay this out.

1) - That article cites as examples of ideas lifted from Objectivists ideas that don't originate with Objectivism. They're well known to anyone who studies the history of philosophy, and some of them are older than Jesus. You can't even get from the pre-Socratics to Neo-Platonism (or from Augustine to Duns Scotus) without having to handle them at some point. We really ought to dump this article and look to the acid test of the two documents ourselves already, but...

2) - A case for plagiarism can only be legitimate if one can, with the original documents and the plagiarist's piece, show a passage that's been lifted, without proper attribution. A circumstantial case as that writer tries to insinuate into existence is worthless, and is not built on any sound evidence.

3 - In the assertions of the author, and the fellow he quotes 1/7 of the way down the page, a terrible ignorance is revealed of Aristotle, Aquinas, Spooner and many others. One would have to be to say what they do with a straight face. Otherwise they aren't, and I don't much care for liars. To continue by quoting the article.

(all from Jim Peron's article)

"The reason that Branden contacted Rothbard was to clarify this issue. But Rothbard refused to deal with Rand and the Brandens concerning the matter. If this were simply a misunderstanding Rothbard's cooperation would have helped immensely in clearing it up."

This is either a lie, or founded on a complete lack of knowledge. I can't imagine the latter at this point. Rothbard sent at least one letter to Branden answering him point for point.

"Rothbard does not claim that there were no similarities between his arguments and the ones offered by Barbara in her paper. One would think that he would immediately deny this if he wished to avoid the charges of plagiarism."

This is rather screwy when you consider Rothbard's (and Schoek's and Mises') reason for rejecting the Rand/Branden charge out of hand; they're ideas with a very long history that is very well known. They might just as well have accused him of stealing the concept of air, or time, or reason on the basis that Rand had innovated them. My point in all this is that the accusation is a monumental absurdity. No amount of circumstantial evidence will overcome that.

I'm considering this point done, and probably will for good. Unless I can get my hands on Branden's thesis and compare it to The Mantle of Science and learn otherwise, I stand by my defense and declare Rothbard the innocent victim of a most despicable attack.

[Ayn_Randian]

I stand by my defense and declare Rothbard the innocent victim of a most despicable attack.

Bwa ha ha! You mean like his constant hectoring, name-calling and other ridiculous exaggerations of Objectivism? Those kind of despicable attacks?

This is a matter of a standard of evidence. I'd like to ask why Rothbard didn't feel the need to footnote anything until after the charge of plagiarism, at which time he dug up Thomistic references.

George H. Smith (you may or may not be familiar), splits the baby:

Murray's failure to cite
Objectivist sources led to some hard feelings, and I think it
contributed to his falling out with the Randians. When I
talked to Murray about this matter, he admitted that he had
originally gotten the free-will stuff from the Rand circle
(whether he mentioned Barbara's dissertation specifically, I
don't recall), and he further conceded that he didn't want to
credit Randians, for the reason mentioned above. In his
defense, he maintained that the free-will arguments were not
original with the Randians, that they are more-or-less common
fare in Aristotelian literature

The question isn't whether the arguments were original; they question is Rothbard's mens rea...he thought he was stealing, and did it for a reason (childishness towards Rand, of course).

[Ayn_Randian]

oh lest we forget about despicable attacks, how about the entirely-fabricated story that Rothbard "fell out" with Rand because Joey Rothbard was Christian?

Completely...fucking...made up. And still parroted to this day, and previously spread by (now dead) asshole Samuel Francis.

And thus, I have tied the thread to the original topic-at-hand.

and yeah, I don't care if he is dead...Samuel Francis was an asshole.

[j1]

Ayn_Randian, is the real story of the fallout anywhere online? do you know what really happened between rand and rothbard?

[Ayn_Randian]

j1 - I wish I knew, but as you see, any theory to it would be lambasted by the Rothbardians.

My personal SWAG is to just take a look at the record: Rothbard bounced around from Old Right to Objectivism to founding Cato (then splitting from it) to the LP (and splitting from that), to starting the whole "paleolib" thing and cheering on Pat Buchanan, then Ross Perot, then (finally) George Bush. Oh, and I am sure I missed his time with the Radical Left in there somewheres.

He was range-of-the-moment and slapdash with alliances, coalitions, movements, etc. etc. Rand disliked inconsistency and a lack of thoughtfulness and (from what I can tell) was an excellent judge of character. She didn't like him from the start and it disintegrated from there.

I'll dig around and try to find a story that makes more sense, but right now: Who really knows?

[Julian Fondren]

For the uninitiated, a summary:

Ron Paul's new book is doing well. Have a good review of it.

Some libertarians, too crudely anti-intellectual to wonder what they themselves mean when they suggest that Ron Paul 'is a racist', still mutter about the unPC comments.

If you'd like to wash the bile out of your brain, I recommend:

Cato Event Podcasts - hour-long mp3s (or videos, if you like). With only one serious exception), these are professional, thoughtful, sincere, and pleasantly adversarial. To start, I recommend the book forums on Radicals for Capitalism, with reason's Brian Doherty (the author); Leviathon on the Right; and Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them.

LvMI media archive - again, mp3s and videos, but (with a few exceptions - debates and interviews) of an intellectual rather than a 'political forum' character. It's harder to give starting points for an archive this diverse, but try -- browsing by author -- Murphy's Austrian vs. Neoclassical Analytics (this mp3 is corrupted ATT, probably from a server issue, and sounds slower and deeper than normal); Rockwell's Katrina and Socialist Central Planning.

LvMI literature archive - with full PDF scans of relevant books and academic papers. Read Garet Garrett's The Bubble that Broke the World.

Or just watch this.

reason puts out a very nice print magazine, has interesting articles, and had great coverage of the Republican and Democratic debates. The comments often have jewels. If you take reason.com for what it is, and don't confuse it with what it is not, you'll gain from following it.

[Julian Fondren]

Rothbard bounced around from Old Right to Objectivism to founding Cato (then splitting from it) to the LP (and splitting from that), to starting the whole "paleolib" thing and cheering on Pat Buchanan, then Ross Perot, then (finally) George Bush. Oh, and I am sure I missed his time with the Radical Left in there somewheres.

Old Right -- Radical Left: Thomas Woods discusses (mp3, 27:43) Rothbard's Betrayal of the American Right, an autobiographical account of these apparent shifts.

Pat Buchanan: Rockwell's post-mortem.

Founding Cato: A nice, recent history.

George Bush: What, the 'humble foreign policy', 'no nation-building' George Bush? Disingenuous.

[Sean Scallon]

Is it just me or is it a coincidence that every time Ron Paul gains some attention for his campaign, like he's done for the past couple of weeks (Pennslvania, Nevada) or makes some money (Money bombs, book sales) Reason writers like David Weigel dredge up the newsletter issue as if some sort of red alert siren goes off we have to remind the American people once again of the evil that is Ron Paul?

You know, I wish you fellows at Reason make up your mind about Paul. Either you think he's a positive force for libertarianism, which means bringing up the issue of words he didn't write and the responsibility he's taken for them is downright silly, or you think he's a destructive force within libertarianism, which should mean daily attacks not just upon him but the ideas he represents.

Instead, Reason writers peddle the newsletter issue, one they've known about for many years, only when Paul gets in the news cycle.

How strange, the supposed guardians of libertarians can't quite make up their minds how to treat the biggest vote getter and fundraiser libertarians have ever had. Would it be too much to ask you get off the fence and come down on one side or another so the rest of us know where you fellows really stand?

[voxpo]

Three guesses what will play prominently at reason.com when Ron Paul goes to the libertopia in the sky. And after every mention of him until then. Because, obviously, it's the most important thing about him.

[voxpo]

"Socialism i the exact opposite of racism, because it teaches us that we are all equal"

joe: where?

[lgoldman]

Thanks to Lew Rockwell for pointing out on his page today that there actually is a true libertarian magazine...."Liberty". So there's no reason to subscribe to a fake, pseudo-libertarian rag like Reason. Indeed:
"Liberty is the embodiment of this fighting spirit. It has independence. It has integrity. It is written and edited on a human scale, without the feel of propaganda. This magazine will remind you of why you fell in love with ideas, and libertarian ideas in particular." Read the rest of Lew's comments here --
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/get-liberty.html

[Thomas Luedeke]

I guess it is time to stop reading Reason if they can't write anything better than ad hominem Fox News character hatchet jobs (and not done even half as well as Fox). This is a pathetic smear job on one of the most positive and public figures for libertarianism. It is laughable to call Ron racist, and only a dimwit would fall for the "I'm right because you are a Nazi" smear. It is insulting to your readers.

This truly is the most dismal moment I've ever seen at Reason.

[Brian N.]

"oh lest we forget about despicable attacks, how about the entirely-fabricated story that Rothbard "fell out" with Rand because Joey Rothbard was Christian?"

It was a part of it; Branden laid that out (get her to give up Christianity, or divorce her) as a condition of his cure. Raimondo's source on this was not the extraordinary creep Sam Francis; it was JoAnn Rothbard.

"I'd like to ask why Rothbard didn't feel the need to footnote anything until after the charge of plagiarism, at which time he dug up Thomistic references."

Well, ask away. But to answer anyhow; because, with anyone who possessed an even elementary knowledge of the subject, it wouldn't have been necessary.

Also, I don't know how Rothbard could have gotten the free will stuff from Rand:

"...she herself is involved in a contradiction. On the one hand, she charges that anyone who believes in free will - which is basic to any sort of individualism - is insane, because he is postulating an uncaused element. Yet she reduced everything back to "thinking" vs. "not thinking," and it is clear that on her own grounds this decision to "think or not to think" is "free" and therefore "uncaused" and therefore, she is as insane as anyone. And if she allows this little grain of free will, why not all of it?" --Rothbard to Richard Cornuelle, August 11, 1954

I'm not going to call Smith a liar. I'm not going to call anyone a liar until they actually start lying and I see it.

"The question isn't whether the arguments were original; they question is Rothbard's mens rea...he thought he was stealing, and did it for a reason (childishness towards Rand, of course)."

It would get to this, sooner or later, and your speculation is unfounded. If you're honest, you'll admit it. Your view of this is completely upside down, really.

I don't see any real value in continuing this discussion, however. It's obvious that your emotional investment in this has overthrown the importance of the truth. You have my e-mail address if you see some reason to continue.

[John McCain]

Shouldn't every mention of me in Reason contain some mention of the word gook and my right to call gooks; gooks?

[Dave]

I can remember when I first started learning about libertarian ideas some 15 years ago, starting with Ayn Rand, of course. For a while I read everything I could get my hands on but interestingly, even at my most fervent, I always found Reason to be boring and unreadable, and I had trouble understanding why.

Now I know it's because it's mostly full of favor-currying jagoffs who are playing at libertarianism, but otherwise have no interest in its underlying ideas, and the superficial writing of the magazine reflects that.

Was there ever a time Reason didn't suck? Probably, but it was well before my time, I guess.

[Davids]

Wow. In two days an article about Ron Paul gets how many hits? Compared to how many for other topics?

He really gets a lot of panties in a twist, doesn't he? For all the doubters above, why are you even talking about this guy, if he's so insignificant? The fact is, he's shaken the ivory towers of libertarianism and rattled libertarian policy into relevance, and nobody seems to know what to make of it.

He's making concrete proposals and actually bringing fresh people into this moribund, isolated, comfortably superior and yet irrelevant private club, and the dusty minded former major domos can't face their own retirement.

Get used to it folks. It's a revolution. If you don't think it's really happening, you haven't been paying attention, and who can blame you? You're so used to being irrelevant that actual scrutiny is like lifting the brick and watching the worms squirm underneath.

[Anita M.]

I think that this comment is indicative of what a lot of Reason subscribers are concerned about from the Rockwell hateful conservative side:

"#4. You can say "shit" and "fuck" and have queers banging each other on sunday morning TV but god help you if you think the Civil War was a waste of life and $. "

Rockwell brought a lot of trash into the libertarian movement. Ron Paul brought a lot of attention to the ideas of peace and freedom, which is positive. But if it means that Rockwell is pulling the levers, that's good reason for concern. Everyone who is acquainted with him points the finger at Rockwell as the author of the really grossly antiindividualist, antilibertarian racist remarks in the Ron Paul newsletters. Who would want to be associated with that kind of person? Really.

If Ron Paul were serious about not being a racist, he would have cut the ties with Rockwell, who is pure poison, and not taken space in his book to promote that kind of collectivist meanness.

[Al Blue]

Good god, what hole did AynRandian, Democratic
Republican and David Weigel crawl out of ?
Those newsletters were great, blacks commit
crime on a horrendous scale, homosexuality
is arrested development, Israel does run US
Mideast policy and the sexes are different.
Rothbard was brilliant, he forgot more than
Babs Branden ever knew, Joseph Stromberg rebutted that plagiarism charge in responding
to Jim Peron (not the most savory of people)
and Reason has always been boring.

[Al Blue]

Also there ARE conspiracies, remember
FDR's coverup on Pearl Harbor ? Or
Watergate ? Or Iran-Contra ? Or the
international communist conspiracy ?
Sam Francis was a great writer, he was
on target on "racism" and Israel.
The Joey Rothbard anecdote is irrelevant
either way. David Gordon discusses the
roots of the Rothbard-CATO split at LRC.
Rand also had terrible political judgment,
Goldwater, Greenspan, Nixon, Ford as four
examples. She refused to vote for Reagan
over Carter because of his anti-abortion
stand ! As if that was the most pressing
issue in 1980 !

[Al Blue]

There was nothing wrong with the
newsletters, whether Rothbard or
Rockwell wrote them doesn't matter.
The very concept of "racism" is an
artificial, invented one circa 1920,
like "sexism" circa 1970.There are
racial and sexual differences and
one is not a "collectivist" for
discussing them. As long as one
adheres to the noninitiation of
force principle one is a libertarian.
LRC does have a lot of dubious stuff,
anti-abortion, pro-religion nonsense
just as ARI has stuff advocating the
mass murder of billions of people in
war. That's even worse.

[Marcus Epstein]

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Lew Rockwell wrote those passages. What does that mean, it means that he was instrumental with Paul's support in the late 1980s and 1990s just as he was when he was Paul's chief of staff, just as he was when he supported Paul for President on the Libertarian Ticket, just as he has been when Paul decided to return as president, and just as he was when Paul decided to Run, and Reason had a "Ron Paul: pro and con" until it was clear that Paul was popular and you tried to jump on the bandwagon.

Now you're saying that it's a great shame that Paul isn't denouncing Rockwell because you say Rockwell's a racist!

[Marcus Epstein]

(accidentally posted that one before I finished)

Anyay so the great news item you have, is that Ron Paul doesn't turn his back on his longest and strongest supporters.

And again, that's assuming Rockwell wrote those letters, and that there was anything that wrong in them either.

http://www.vdare.com/epstein/080116_libertarians.htm

[Marcus Epstein]

And dave, I think you know very well that I'm joining up with Wright.

[TonyPivetta]

"#4. You can say "shit" and "fuck" and have queers banging each other on sunday morning TV but god help you if you think the Civil War was a waste of life and $. "

Why is it "hateful conservatism" to point out these misplaced priorities of the beltway libertarian crowd? Of course Lincoln's War was a waste of life and treasure. Insofar as it destroyed the South's economy, left tens of thousands homeless and destitute, and killed about 50,000 civilians (many of them slaves!), it was also hateful.

I subscribed to Reason from 1985 to 2002. The magazine's misplaced priorities had long irked me; its post-9/11 support for more U.S. interventionism was the last straw. I let my subscription lapse in 2002 and now contribute my money to LRC and LvMI.

[TonyPivetta]

I was addressing Anita's issues raised at 1:32 p.m., 5/02:

"I think that this comment is indicative of what a lot of Reason subscribers are concerned about from the Rockwell hateful conservative side:

"'#4. You can say "shit" and "fuck" and have queers banging each other on sunday morning TV but god help you if you think the Civil War was a waste of life and $.'"

[Julian Fondren]

Rockwell, who is pure poison,

It may be that even the following won't faze the thoughtlessness behind remarks like this, and behind the voiceless open-mouthed horror at your 'hateful conservative' person's remarks, but give it a listen anyway:

Government as Window Breaker: Hazlitt's Lesson Reapplied (mp3)
Katrina and Socialist (mp3)
How Empires Bamboozle the Bourgeoisie (mp3)
My Visit to DC: An Interview with Lew Rockwell (mp3)

Mind the corrupted, slowed-down mp3s.

Yes, 'having a clue' is how us weird people continue to like Lew Rockwell. If you look around, you may see your argument and my response repeated for Ron Paul.

[Dwayne]

I clicked on Marcus Epstein's link. It's not surprising that someone who writes for a "white nationalist" site, VDARE, would write, "And again, that's assuming Rockwell wrote those letters, and that there was anything that wrong in them either."

That is not the movement I have chosen. I've read Reason magazine for nearly twenty years and I've enjoyed it, learned from it, been infuriated by it, etc. I've disagreed with lots of the articles, but I don't want to live in a big echo chamber. But I would not subscribe to the "white nationalism" peddled by the people around Ron Paul. Never.

[Julian Fondren]

But I would not subscribe to the "white nationalism" peddled by the people around Ron Paul. Never.

Oh, goody, another comment of this class: look around and you'll see your argument repeated about Ron Paul, and the "You're clueless." reply to it. So, be a dear and go find me 'white nationalism' on Mises.org or LRC.

Listen:

If you do not have a foundation in Austrian Economics, you will ever fail against the statist pseudo-economists who say that destruction is good for the economy, that violent intervention in the market can make it 'more like the free market', that jobs are being 'stolen' or 'created' by trade, that the pain of money and credit manipulation can be reduced to immorality in the lending sector, that price controls and rent control and anti-price-gounging-laws are necessary and good, that the state is the enemy rather than the sole source of monopoly, that the state is the enemy rather than the primary source of inflation, that the state is the enemy rather than the necessarily enabler of Big Business, and ultimately that the state is the enemy rather than the primary agent of theft, slavery, violence, and death.

As gaps in intellectual armor go, this one's a killer -- and it's only the largest of the many soft spots you'll have if you deal exclusively with weakly-guided 'low-tax liberalism'. Block has noted how your sort (in the context of Greenspan) drift away from libertarianism; Rothbard has this, of indirect relevance.

[Cosmotarian Overlord]

Ron Paul's racism is so disgusting. All true freedom lovers know that Reason is the true beacon of freedom in our world. Luckily, communism died in 1991(thanks to Reagan for growing the military budget!, we all know that big government finally toppled the USSR). Now we do still face the serious problems of terrorism and cliamte change and we will ahve to radically change old fashioned notions of individual rights to deal with the se two problems, but other than that the world is going great! Capitalism has one the ideological battle and things will get better and better if we keep electing non-extremist.

[Cosmotarian Overlord]

oh great, it sounds like Julie wants us to go look at the white nationalist mises.org website now. No thanks, we don't like religous fanatics here, we believe in science thank you! The same science that has PROVEN that climate change must be dealt with by international treaties to tax carbon. If you don't believe this then take your jim crow ideas back to alabama.

If we followed your advice we'd all be ruled by the robber barrons still. I've never read much about it but EVERYONE who is educated in the modern world knows that the government fought the robber barrons tooth and nail. That is why oil companies are now essentially powerless in our country and the rockefeller family has made such little impact our society since 1920...once they had their monopoly trust broken up the rockefellers and morgans lost all of their power virtually over night.

[Dwayne]

Tony, The civil war was a fairly long time ago. It was a horror. So was slavery. But the weird obsession with the civil war at Lew Rockwell makes a lot of us libertarians pretty queasy. Why not an equal obsession with World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc? All killed a lot of people and increased the size of the American government. It's downright odd to be obsessed with refighting the civil war and to make it the touchstone of modern libertarianism. Combine that with the attraction of the "white nationalists" and you may just "get it" as to why a lot of us are not in tune with the Rockwell crowd.

[Tony Pivetta]

Dwayne, do you ever read LRC? "Why not an equal obsession with World War I, World War II, . . . etc.?" Are you kidding me? Check the archives sometime. LRC is obsessed with all of it (especially World War II, the Holy Grail of interventionists).

I expect statists to endorse the Civil War and World War II as exemplars of homicidal humanitarianism. I find it weird that "modern" libertarianism would do so. How does one who espouses non-initiation of force sanitize the crimes of Lincoln, FDR and Truman?

As for the "white nationalists," I wasn't aware of their affinity for the site. Sounds like somebody's trying to establish guilt by association to me.

[Rich]

Wow, this is damnation with faint praise if I've ever read it. H&R can't just be content to either ignore Paul or simply report on his new bestselling book. Heaven forfend! Instead it uses the news as a bizarre, tiresome excuse to harp on the newsletters scandal.

The MSM is taken to task for lesser forms of scandal-baiting. At least their rags know when a crowd has grown weary of it.

[lester]

who is this ayn rand you people keep speaking of? in paleo land we only have Pat buchanan's books and the holy bible.

[Al Blue]

Cosmoron, it's hard to decipher that semi-literate rant.
Reagan never won the cold war, the USSR
collapsed for internal reasons precisely
because of their big government.
We ARE governed by extremists of the religious
Right, neocon, kill an Arab for Christ persuasion.
Capitalism has not "one" (won) the battle yet.
Half the country now favors socialized
medicine. Under the GOP the state is bigger
than ever.
There is no problem of climate change and
the US Gov's Mideast policies are the sole
source of terrorism.
The Rockefellers are more powerful than ever.
The antitrust laws are a sick joke and the oil
companies collude more than ever. A carbon
tax for a nonproblem is a disaster. You spout
the usual lib-commie "green" line, read George
Reisman's Capitalism. Nothing with either
segregation or integration as long as it's
voluntary.
Julie, thanks for your perceptive comments.

[Edward]

In the words of Boris Johnson, this is "an inverted pyramid of piffle".

For the love of god, grow up. You're not a libertarian.

[Red Phillips]

Dwayne, VDARE is not white nationalists although I assume many white nationalists read the site. VDARE is immigration restrictionist and not whipped by PC. But many of the people who write for it are paleos (meaning among other things radical de-centralists) and are skeptical if not hostile to nationalism, white or otherwise. Ron Paul and most of his supporters are radical de-centralists as well.

[Vedran]

I would take Reason magazine a lot more serious if they actually were doing something. Just because you get invited to a few D.C. cocktail parties doesn't make you influential.

Agree or disagree with the LvMI and LewRockwell.com, they did something and got people excited and organized. That's more than can ever be said of Reason as of late.

So, please Reason Magazine lead the way. If you think, you can do better than Ron Paul and create as much excitement then go for it. I'll be behind you when it happens. But so far it seems that you have a complete inability to do so.

Show that you're better than Ron Paul by outperforming him not by talking crap on your blog. Put up or shut up

[Ben Kalafut]

Scholarship of liberty==Nozick, Epstein, Friedman, James Buchanan, Cato whitepapers, etc, all of which are off the Rothbard Institute's radar.

But anyway, what I'm wondering is whether Paul's book is as full of blatant stupid as Badnarik's. Is it just another "let's pretend that Austrianism is real economics" and "paleocon pretends he's libertarian because it's cool" tract or is it full of wacky fantasies and grossly incompetent "Constitutional scholarship", too?

[Al Blue]

Ben, you need to take Edward's advice.
Rothbard's Man, Economy and State combined
with Power and Market far outshines Epstein,
Nozick, Friedman, Buchanan and everything done
by CATO. Also Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty, his two volume work on Classical
Economics and Economics Before Adam Smith,
For A New Liberty, Egalitarianism As A Revolt
Against Nature, The Betrayal Of The Right and
too many more to list here. Nozick repudiated
libertarianism years before his death, Friednan
brought us the withholding tax during WW2 and
Rothbard demolished him at length.
Rothbard's four volume Conceived In Liberty
is one of the best American histories.
Hayek and Kirzner were students of Mises,
whose Human Action is the greatest economic
treatise ever written and directly inspired
George Reisman's Capitalism. Austrian Economics
is the only consistent, integrated economics
in defense of capitalism.
Paul in fact has been excellent on economics,
calling for the abolition of the Fed and the
restoration of the full gold standard.
As Edward wrote to you, time to grow up, Ben,
your not a libertarian.

[Ben Kalafut]

Being told I need to "grow up" by someone who takes Austrianism so seriously is like being told by an astrologer that I need to brush up on my understanding of General Relativity.

I don't know what one even means by "consistent, integrated economics". I do know that "praxaeology"/apriorism isn't even science. It's ideology. It may be in defense of capitalism, but it's akin to explaining gravitational redshifts by invocation of a flying spaghetti monster.

Kirzner could really have been something would he have done away with his teacher's limp-wristed, half-baked rejection of mathematics. The qualitative foundation for a huge leap forward in "general equilibrium theory" is there, but the Austrian lobotomy prevented him from seeing it through.

If Rothbard Institute Austrianism is the best libertarians have, then we deserve to lose. Fortunately, it's long been obsoleted.

A lot of fun stuff is happening around George Mason (including qualitative work by one of the few respectable Austrians). Some of it may even be correct, but who needs science when you can have propaganda, right?

[Vedran]

Ben Kalafut,

As I said earlier, if you're so smart and know how things should be done. Then shut your mouth and lead on. If there is a movement starting from Beltway libertarians with has as much enthusiasm and excitement as that which was created by the Ron Paul movement, I'll be happy to join.

It's easy to criticize the movement while sitting on your couch. You think things can be done better than DO IT!

[Joseph]

The title of the blog is "hit and run" which is apt for this sort of slimy, cowardly attack. Many neo-cons love your continued attack on the only real libertarian in the congress. Why do you do it?

[Adam S T]

I simply need to say "thanks" to Brian N above for refuting Ayn_Randian point for point. It's always cute to see a real-life Randian trolling internet boards (how they thrive online), skeptically attacking anything that moves. It's just as satisfying to see one get obliterated after being caught in its own contradictions.

The icing on the cake was seeing Rothbard rightly exonerated from the tired, old, Objectivist accusations.

[Al Blue]

Ben, where's the beef ? You have NO
specifics to back up your ludicrous
assertions. In this case Von Mises
and Hayek and Rothbard and Reisman
ARE the Einsteins while YOU are the
astrologer. Nothing EVER done at George
Mason will begin to approach Human Action
as the Summa of economics. The Chicago Boys
look like sandlot players in comparison.
The overkill of math has destroyed most
of the economics profession. Get David
Gordon's The Essential Rothbard and it
lists everything he wrote. Check out his
arguments against the math model in economics.
I guarantee you that you can't refute them.
All you are reduced to is lame ad hominems.
Ben, I feel sorry for you.

[Al Blue]

Rothbard refuted the whole concept
of general equilibrium theory in
Man, Economy and State almost half
a century ago and Mises noted this
succinct demolition in his review
of same in a 1963 issue of New Individualist
Review. They showed that supply
and demand could not be captured
by any mathematical predictions
and were only useful as hstory.
The lab methods of physics cannot be
applied to acting humans because
they exercise volitional choice.
Which is why the advocates of math
and Keynesian general equilibrium
theory are all statists precisely
because they believe in government
planning of economic action instead
of the spontaneous market. Individuals
can attempt to plan their course
of action but always subject to the
many imponderables of the market as
those of you playing the Stock Exchange
well know. Mises showed how government
planning always leads to chaos, see
his book Planned Chaos.
Henry Hazlitt in The Failure of Keynesian
Economics also shows the futility
of Keynes equilibrium theory.
But we have some wet behind the ears
recent (07) college grad who has never
taken the trouble to learn the foundation
of libertarianism, Austrian economics
and who has some status in the Arizona
LP ! No wonder so many have broken
with the LP, Paul's far more libertarian
than they are.

[Ben Kalafut]

Checking my vita to jog my memory, I got my MS in '06. You must be confusing me with someone else.

Human Action was interesting reading, but in the end, doesn't show anything.

I suppose there's no reasoning with someone who's made up his mind to be ignorant. It's a mindset I'll never understand, when somebody reads a book and says "there cannot be anything better". Ideologues can never be class-A intellects. They can be very good at aping whoever they've decided the guru is--as "Al Blue" repeats the usual BS line about mathematics--but cannot take on the more dynamic sort. Blue doesn't understand that one *must* resort to mathematics whenever there are competing, quantitative effects, and he'll likely never understand.

Why do the paleos always rant about Keynesian economics, anyway? Come into the 21st Century, already. When Mankiw (a Keynesian) is wrong he's wrong on subtle matters, and he's no economic planner, but Blue would have him being both a dunce and a tyrant!

As for lab methods, google "Vernon Smith". But of course, Rothbard writing about parents emancipating their children (who are their property) is Einstein and Vernon Smith is but an astrologer.

[Vedran]

Ben Kalafut,

See you have all the answers! Go change the econ world and show everyone how stupid we are. Come on now. You're the genius here and final arbiter on all economic knowledge.

By the way, saying that Mankiw is wrong only on "subtle matters" is not even a statement many mainstream economists would endorse.

[Vedran]

I just love the idea of attacking Mises dogmatism with Mankiw dogmatism. I mean seriously

[al blue]

Ben, what is SHOWS are that you are
an absolute moron.
If you have REALLY read Human Action
and can say it didn't vastly educate
you, you are not worth spending another
nanosecond on.
And why would you possibly think I never
read Keynesian, Chicago, Marxist, et al,
schools of economics ????????
I couldn't agree with the Austrians because
I think they are right ?????????
Ideologue is someone who has a consistent
politico-economic philosophy. I'll accept
the title.
And what would YOU know about first-rate
intellects ? Rothbard, Rand and Mises are.
None of your associates come close.
I don't need to google anything to know
that lab methods have nothing to do with
economics. The Arizona LP website gives
07 as your grad date, my point remains
the same.
Math methods cannot validate or prove anything
in economics, it is the correct theory that
settles disputes among conflicting data, not
the data themselves.
Vedran, are you high ? If you can read my
earlier comments you can see that Ben is
a know-nothing on economics.
Imagine, having to reinvent the wheel on
basic econ on a libertarian website.
You people are WORSE than Rand allowed.