Rand Paul

Rand Paul Co-Author Jack Hunter Used to Write Weird Crap Like 'John Wilkes Booth Was Right'

|

Just not a good look. ||| IsRebellion.blogspot.com
IsRebellion.blogspot.com

The Washington Free Beacon this morning combed through the public statements and professional affiliations of Jack "Southern Avenger" Hunter, a 39-year-old aide to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and co-author of the libertarian-leaning Republican's 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington, and found a white-pride, Confederacy-sympathizing record not particularly compatible with Paul's serial attempts this year to broaden the GOP's appeal to non-white voters

From 1999 to 2012, Hunter was a South Carolina radio shock jock known as the "Southern Avenger." He has weighed in on issues such as racial pride and Hispanic immigration, and stated his support for the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln.

During public appearances, Hunter often wore a mask on which was printed a Confederate flag.

Prior to his radio career, while in his 20s, Hunter was a chairman in the League of the South, which "advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic."

Do follow those links. In an interview with the Free Beacon, Hunter stepped away from many of his previously stated views:

"I was a young person, [the League of the South] was a fairly radical group – the same way a person on the left might be attracted in college to some left-wing radical groups." […] 

He said he has changed his position on Lincoln's assassination but still believes the Civil War was a mistake.

"You can be for the conclusion of a war without being for a war," Hunter said. "I don't think assassinating a president is ever right, unless it was somebody like Adolf Hitler."

Behind the mask. |||

He said his comments about Hispanic immigrants and culture was meant to be "a point [about] how the culture changes with migration patterns. That's true. The difference between now and then is I saw that as a serious problem then. I don't think I see that as a serious problem now."

He expressed surprise when read his remarks about race, saying, "Hearing you even read that to me, because I just don't speak like that, sort of bothers me." He said his views had changed dramatically. […]

While Hunter declined to say that he no longer supports secession, he told the Free Beacon that the issue is "sort of a dead letter" in the United States.

"There's a lot of people who write in print and radio that go out and beat their chests and try to just say the craziest things they can because that's how you make a living. For awhile that's how I made a living," said Hunter. "And it's not that you don't mean it—it's just you express it in ways that does more harm than good."

Paul's office provided a statement to the Free Beacon.

"Sen. Paul holds his staff to a standard that includes treating every individual with equal protection and respect, without exception," said spokesperson Moira Bagley.

Reason has reached out to Hunter and the Paul campaign for comment. After the jump, some comments of my own.

I know and have had friendly exchanges with Jack Hunter, and I will never in my lifetime understand the kind of mindset that elevates Abraham Lincoln as "Satan" while flying the colors of a short-lived polity organized around the principle of defending human slavery. As David Beito and Charles Nuckolls wrote for Reason back while Hunter was raising his annual toast to John Wilkes Booth,

If the Confederate multiculturalists believe in liberty, as many of them assert, they will stop waving the Confederate Battle Flag, abandon the cause of a nation state that championed an unforgivable violation of inalienable rights, and embrace the rich American heritage of individualism.

Which, perhaps ironically, Hunter appears to have mostly done since collaborating with Sen. Paul. It will be interesting to discover what kind of vetting process the Paul office undertook with a man who still identifies as the "Southern Avenger," and whether this latest controversy will occasion any reflection by self-identified libertarians who have ever dabbled in "try[ing] to just say the craziest things they can" about the poisonous issue of race in America.

NEXT: Pilots Union Complains Feds Revealed Too Much Info About the Asiana Crash

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The media will spend the next three years telling us how this totally disqualifies Paul for public office. But Obama palling around with Bill Ayers and attending a racist church every Sunday for decades was totally irrelevant.

    1. Van Jones and Eric Holder too.

    2. Maybe Rand Paul can give a speech about race and get praised in the NY Times for confronting America’s racial etc. etc., so why don’t we put this silly controversy behind us?

      Ha ha ha, sometimes I crack myself up.

      1. The headline: Rand Paul Calls for Nazi-style Eugenics to Confront America’s Racial Issues

    3. Every single one of us is now disqualified from any form of public office for vaguely associating with each other. Oh, and because… SugarFree. He qualifies us for everlasting shame and disgrace.

  2. You get no love from me about the Confederacy, but is there any room in the non-intervention, right-to-self determination libertarian camp for contrarian notions of the Confederacy’s right to exist independent of the Union?

    1. If there is not any room, then it is manifestly not the “non-intervention, right-to-self determination libertarian camp.”

      1. SlAVERy is fReedom /lm

    2. States don’t have rights, they have powers. Only individuals can have rights.

      1. How about the individual right to criticize Abe Lincoln’s mass murder campaign without fear of incarceration or exile?

        1. Oh great, the Head Yokeltarian In Charge (HYIC) is going to clog up the thread with his false equivocations of Lincoln and Stalin.

          1. Stalin did not have the contempt for the negro that Lincoln did.

            1. Irrelevant.

              1. They were both totalitarian cunts who seized extra-constitutional powers illegitimately. Obviously to varying degrees, and with differing results. If you don’t think Lincoln was a piece of shit though, I don’t know how on earth you could offer much criticism of the executive in the modern context. All of the shit you hate about Obama and BOOOOOSH? Lincoln more or less invented it.

                1. No he didn’t.

      2. So how you would classify the United States’ break with England?

        1. See, the use of correct terminology makes it quite easy to classify:

          Did the US have the POWER to break from England? Self-evidently yes.

          Did the South have the POWER to break from the Union? Self-evidently no.

          1. That’s a might-makes-right argument.

      3. Pedantic. I actually never said anything about the constituent “states” of the Confederacy. By “Confederacy” I meant the individuals citizens of the South, each of whom have the right to self-government.

        1. I agree; Stormy’s implied invocation of Ayn Rand is wrong and tiresome.

        2. So you’re arguing every individual person has a right to form their own individual country if they want to?

          1. Sure!

          2. And more specific to the point, did the slaves in the Confederacy have the right to be in an individual country? If so, why should I be more bothered by the Union’s violation of the Confederacy’s “country right” than the Confederacy’s violation of the slaves’ “country right”?

            1. Since we no longer have slaves, can we now secede for realz?

            2. What about the Union’s violation of the slaves’ “country right”?

          3. I don’t think many 1-man governments would be recognized, but get enough people together who think the same way and they certainly should be able to. At least if you believe the Declaration of Independence. At any rate, no violence should have been done to keep the southern states in the union against their volition.

            1. At any rate, no violence should have been done to keep the southern states in the union against their volition.

              Oh I agree with that. But a bullshit argument for a correct conclusion is still a bullshit argument, and the whole “state’s rights” argument is a bullshit argument.

            2. get enough people together who think the same way and they certainly should be able to

              Is that the same alchemy of the collective that makes theft no theft when some magical threshold of popularity? You either have the right to your own country or you don’t. You may not be able to enforce the right as a practical matter if you’re too small a group, but popularity doesn’t change the nature of the right.

              1. Right, I would contend that technically you do have the right to a 1-man revolution to achieve a 1-man government, I just don’t think it’s practically achievable.

            3. “I don’t think many 1-man governments would be recognized”

              This guy was pretty close:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…..Hutt_River

          4. Perhaps this is the crux of why the Confederate government was illegitimate .

            The Declaration makes the case that the Right to Revolution is a right that must not be exercised for “light and transient” causes. Needless to say, the Abolition of Slavery comes no where near to the necessary level of abuse for the People of the South to rise in rebellion.

            If the Confederacy could have offered a much more robust example of abuse, their secession could have been justified. Because they didn’t, the Confederacy was not a justifiable exercise in the Right to Revolution.

            1. This. No the band of criminals called The Confederate Government did not have the right to seize half the nation and declare it their own Slave State. FTS. Anyone who believes otherwise is no libertarian.

    3. Sure, a new novel – “Stars and Bars Over Philadelphia” – by two noted libertarians makes an anti-war, anti-slavery case and still manages to advance the idea that Lincoln trashed the Declaration of Independence by invoking violence to keep the South in the Union. While one could debate all day whether or not the Constitution gives states the right to secede, it is pretty clear the Declaration does give that right. One could also say that Lincoln justified putting down the secessionists under the Constitution, but curiously you will note in his Gettysburg address that it is the Declaration he refers to instead.

      1. The Constitution supercedes the Declaration, which, by the way, isn’t even legally binding.

        And while it is true Lincoln did some terrible things to the Constitution, the South (a) started the war and (b) participated in the 1860 elections. You don’t just get to participate in electing a President and then try to cop out when you don’t like the results.

        1. Who says the constitution supercedes the declaration of independence?

          To the extent that the constitution conflicts with, or deviates from, the unanimous declaration, the former must give way.

          The charter is the Declaration of Independence; hence any legal act which is at odds with the charter is void as ultra vires.

          This is reflected by:

          (1) the practice of many in the founding generation of signing official acts by noting the length of time since 1776, including the constitution itself.

          (2) the requirement set by Congress for territories seeking admission as states. Such states had to covenant that their state constitutions and laws would conform to the Declaration of Independence.

          1. I can cite a lot, and I mean a lot, of law that says the Declaration of Independence is nonbinding. It isn’t law.

            To the extent that the constitution conflicts with, or deviates from, the unanimous declaration, the former must give way.

            The Constitution is unanimous as well, by definition. And you’re just making that up – who says the Constitution must “give way”? It’s 3rd grade civics that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

            The charter is the Declaration of Independence; hence any legal act which is at odds with the charter is void as ultra vires.

            You’re just making that up too.

          2. Uh WRONG. Constitution = law
            DOI = independence

        2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..nstitution

          I would contend that there’s enough latitude given by the Ninth Amendment for at least a discussion, if not an outright proclamation, for the Right to Revolution.

      2. I will concede that the Constitution does indeed make secession illegal.

        By I will contend that it doesn’t matter. The Constitution is a legal framework for forging the goals expressed under the Declaration of Independence.

        Secession and self-determination are inalienable rights that are not expressly manifested in the Constitution (for obvious reasons), but whether or not they are enumerated in the Constitution, they exist nonetheless.

        1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…..nstitution

          And I would suppose that the Constitution allows a little bit of interpretation about the non-enumerated rights of the People, especially that of political independence.

          1. No, you’re wrong. The constitution does not specify that a state cannot secede.

            Moreover, the states were the principals whereas the feds were the agent; it is axiomatic that a principal calls the shots, not his agent.

            1. That’s one legal theory. The other legal theory is that The People are the principals and all of the other various governments are their agent, which is why the 10th Amendment reads the way it does.

              1. The People of the South therefore were not required to keep the feds as their agent.

            2. Libertymike,

              I was arguing that though the Constitution binds the States into a Union, the Ninth Amendment could allow the people the Right to Revolution if it could be successfully argued to be an inalienable, if non-enumerated, right.

              I think we are on the same side.

              1. The Lincoln cult created the false dichotomy of secession and right of revolution.

                The Declaration of Independence heralded the secession of the colonies from the british empire. Jefferson only recognized that all people have the right to secede from any political union.

                That right is not vitiated just because the people who want to assert it own slaves.

                1. Yes, but suppose it is invalid because the People who assert it justify their desire because of the impending loss of their ability to hold others in bondage?

                  That, to me, seems like one of those “light and transient” reasons that Jefferson warned against in the Declaration.

                  Surely, the modern NSA surveillance state is a much better and justifiable reason for Revolution than the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment.

                  1. What is greater?

                    The right to secede itself or the notion that seceding should not be done for light and transient reasons?

                    1. Yes, revolting against or seceding from the current tyranny is more urgent than what the CSA were facing.

                2. Libertymike, what about the rights of those slaves to their own self-determination? In some states, black slaves outnumbered whites.

                  1. They had every right to revolt and make their own lives free from the yoke of their taskmasters and owners.

                    Funny though, Lincoln supported the fugitive slave act.

                    1. “They had every right to revolt and make their own lives free from the yoke of their taskmasters and owners.”

                      Pretty hard when the US (and later Confederate) army is on the side of your slaveowners, who have the guns to begin with.

                      Here’s my point. Let’s take the example of South Carolina, the first state to secede.

                      You’re saying, “Because the people of South Carolina no longer wanted to remain in the Union, they had every right to secede.” And normally, I’d agree with that. I support the general right to secession. The thing is, in this specific instance, that sentence is only true if we ignore the wishes of 60% of the people of South Carolina, who didn’t have a voice in the matter.

                      And for the third time, I don’t give a fuck about Lincoln. I’m under no illusion that the guy was a saint or anything. Jesus Christ, get some help

        2. I disagree. The Constitution acts as a successor to the Articles of Confederation, where the phrase “Perpetual Union” is found.

          Regardless, I maintain it was the Confederacy that started the war. Certainly attacking a Federal fort is a sufficient casus belli, yes?

          1. No. The fort was in South Carolina and the latter was well within its purview to oust the former.

            1. That’s just question-begging. A Federal Fort does not just magically become the property of the Confederacy.

              1. Again, the federal fort is just a physical manifestation of the principal / agent reality. The fort was built for the benefit of the principal, at the principal’s direction and consent. If the principal says get out, that’s it. Get out.

                1. ‘The principal’ was an illegitimate entity of criminal rebel scum with no legal basis. Fuck them they got what they deserved.

                  1. South Carolina was an illegitimate entity?

                    Or am I mistaken and the confederacy was already formed when they attacked the fort?

          2. First, I will concede the evils of the Confederacy.

            But I would contend that, if the Confederacy did have the right to secede from the Union (which is what I’m wishing to argue), then Fort Sumter could be seen as a military occupation by an foreign government.

            Granted, the act of firing on the Fort is a case of the most grievous impropriety on the part of the Southern government, but, nevertheless, it doesn’t seem to diminish the Southern government’s claim of independence.

            1. I would contend that the South impliedly signed on to a least a reasonable term of shared governance under the Constitutional Compact by participating in the 1860 election. As it stands, however, the South was committing all sorts of acts of war while Buchanan was in office.

              1. Must have been another one of those “social contracts” we all signed at birth, eh?

                1. There seems to be a bit of a difference from “signing on at birth” and “Sending Electors to the Electoral College”. But maybe that’s just me.

                  1. Because every southerner voted in 1860? And voting precludes secession? Or revolution? You would have had a hard time selling that argument to the radical secessionist revolutionaries who founded the government that later secessionist revolutionaries wanted to secede and revolt from.

                    1. “Because every southerner voted in 1860?”

                      Well we do know that the millions of black slaves, who in a few states were a majority of the population, didn’t vote.

                    2. Yokeltarians would rather have secession than freedom for black people.

                    3. Yes, that’s exactly what they’re saying.

          3. See, we can debate long and hard about secession and the Constitution. But doesn’t the Declaration declare a revolutionary right to secede from a government that exercises unjust powers?
            So what Lincoln did was to repudiate the revolt against King George III, used force of arms to crush self-determination, and embarrassed those who would uphold constitutional republicanism. That said, of course the South’s support of a continuation of slavery was an abominable reason to invoke self-determination.

            1. Well, sorry to say, but I don’t believe the Union was exercising unjust powers prior to 1860.

              1. Well, sorry to say, you are wrong.

            2. Re: creech,

              But doesn’t the Declaration declare a revolutionary right to secede from a government that exercises unjust powers?

              The Declaration of Independence doesn’t need to declare what is obvious, and that is that the freedom of association implies the freedom to dis-associate yourself from the group whenever you feel like it.

              1. Tell that to the slaves.

                Can I disassociate from the United States because I want to be a pedophile?

                1. Re: Neoliberal Kochtopus,

                  Tell that to the slaves.

                  Tell what to the slaves?

                  Can I disassociate from the United States because I want to be a pedophile?

                  I don’t answer loaded questions.

                  1. “Tell what to the slaves?”

                    That they had the right to freedom of association. Read his post.

                    I agree that Lincoln is respected too much, and did a lot of bad and/or unnecessary things, and I also agree that the North’s motives for fighting the war were not pure. That said, the right of black slaves to be free of slavery superseded the right of white Southerners to have an independent country so they could preserve the institution of slavery.

                    1. That said, the right of black slaves to be free of slavery superseded the right of white Southerners to have an independent country so they could preserve the institution of slavery.

                      But that gets back to my point about the moral justification for the Civil War from the perspective of a non-interventionist libertarian.

                      What I am afraid of is that if you concede that the Confederacy could not exist because of how it treated its citizens, what then happens to the same moral outrage for the interventionist stance of modern American foreign policy?

                      My vantage point is not as a Confederate citizen (as I would gladly admit that the Union was a far better country to live in) but as a Union citizen worried about a long and bloody war.

                      What justifies the invasion the South that wouldn’t justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

                    2. If you were a free black in 1859-1860, you were subject to the “black codes” imposed by many northern states, including Illinois. Do you know who was from Illinois? Do you know who supported Illinois’ black codes?

                    3. “If you were a free black in 1859-1860, you were subject to the “black codes” imposed by many northern states, including Illinois. Do you know who was from Illinois? Do you know who supported Illinois’ black codes?”

                      Your obsessive hate of Lincoln makes you completely incapable of rational argument. For Christ’s sake, I explicitly criticized the guy and did not write a single positive thing about him in that post. Yet you respond with this post. Lincoln was a racist. The North was racist (though anyone who tries to argue that blacks were not treated better in the North than they were in the South in 1860 is a moron). What’s your fucking point?

                    4. Cali-come off of it.

                      You’re first sentence in your second paragraph is irrational. Yes, you criticized Lincoln and you did not write a single positive thing about Lincoln in the ONE SENTENCE you devoted to him, specifically, in your post.

                      Did you happen to notice that my post was in response to caleb’s post at 5:57 pm?

                      Did you happen to notice that I responded to your 5:51 pm post below?

                    5. I admit I didn’t check the time stamps and apologize for assuming that post was towards me. Reason’s threading can be confusing.

                      That said, your point is still stupid. Black codes or not, blacks were still treated far better in the North in 1860 than they were in the South. That’s not debatable.

                    6. Logically, you lose. Please explain how my point is still stupid.

                      Did I assert that blacks were treated better in the south than they were in the north? Please show me where I wrote that.

                      You can’t.

                    7. You said that post was a response to Caleb’s post. The only paragraph in Caleb’s post that your post serves as a somewhat coherent, logical response to is this one:

                      “My vantage point is not as a Confederate citizen (as I would gladly admit that the Union was a far better country to live in) but as a Union citizen worried about a long and bloody war.”

                      So what was the point of your comment, otherwise? Do you think people here don’t know that the North wasn’t a postracial paradise in 1860? Or that Lincoln was a racist? I’m not sure how you’re point is relevant to his post otherwise

                    8. Life in the North was not necessarily better than life in the South. IOW, an undifferentiated, generalized assertion that life was better in the North for everybody and that life was worse in the south for everybody is just garbage untethered to reality.

                    9. It was certainly better for free blacks. Do you ever get tired of apologizing for a slave state?

                    10. Who is apologizing?

                      But, are you apologizing for the slave state forced upon the people by Lincoln? Witness the income tax, mass incarceration of those opposed to Lincoln, crony capitalism writ large, scandal after scandal, the rejection of individual liberty trumping “democracy”, suspending HB, conscription et al.

                      Do you ever get tired of apologizing for the state which planned and executed the annihilation of the plains Indians?

                      People in the south also had the right to secede from the CSA. In fact, the right was absolute.

                    11. Where exactly did IT apologize for any of that?

                      To answer your previous post, yeah I’m sure life was great for Southern plantation owners, and I’m sure life wasn’t all sunshine and lollipops for poor Northern factory workers. But when a huge portion (of the top of my head, wasn’t it greater than one third? And a majority in a few states) of your population is in a state of chattel slavery, it’s not really comparable on the aggregate. And if we’re strictly comparing the treatment of blacks, despite all the shortcomings in the North in that regard, there is absolutely no comparison

                    12. First off, I’m not necessarily saying that war was the best path. I’m against the draft in all cases, and I don’t think the North could have won the war without it. I would have tried to end it in the manner it was ended in most countries. I think William Lloyd Garrison’s approach could have worked. Had the Northern states abolished slavery there, and repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, it would have been very difficult for the South to maintain the institution if runaways simply had to make it to Maryland or Kentucky and didn’t have to worry about getting caught afterwards. I think war would be acceptable, if it could be carried out without a draft or the other violations of liberty that took place, such as suppressing free speech, no habeas corpus, etc.

                      To answer the point you brought up here:

                      “What justifies the invasion the South that wouldn’t justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq?”

                      US slaves were born and raised in the United States. The only reason they weren’t citizens of the country because of racist, unjust laws. That’s not a good analogy to the people of Iraq. If, for example, Russia invaded Alaska, I would support the US military stopping them, even if the Russians had no plans or capability of invading the US mainland

                    13. If, for example, Russia invaded Alaska, I would support the US military stopping them, even if the Russians had no plans or capability of invading the US mainland

                      Okay,

                      Now, throw in the monkey wrench of the Right to Secession.

                      We seem to have a hard time coming to a resolution of whether the Confederacy had the right to dissolve political association with the Union (a right that seems to be advocated by the Declaration of Independence, with the caveat that Jefferson added about “light and transient” reasons for revolting).

                      But suppose we all agreed that the CSA was well within its right to secede from the Union, and at the time of the Civil War (1861-1865) it was an independent nation, wouldn’t the CSA fall into the category of of a nation like Iraq and not like Alaska from your example.

                      So, it seems that the Civil War, no matter how you cut it, hinges on the legitimacy of the Confederate government’s claim as national and independent government of the Southern states.

                    14. “But suppose we all agreed that the CSA was well within its right to secede from the Union, and at the time of the Civil War (1861-1865) it was an independent nation, wouldn’t the CSA fall into the category of of a nation like Iraq and not like Alaska from your example.”

                      No, because the secession doesn’t change the fact that the black slaves (who had no say in the matter) were born in the United States, and if not for biased, unjust laws would be US citizens. Iraq is not and has never been a part of the United States. The US government’s relationship and obligations towards Iraqis are not comparable to those with slaves in 1861. If a state seceded today, I would support the government allowing them to leave, but I would also support the government ensuring that the people of that state who did not want to leave the Union were not enslaved, if something like that happened (not that I think that’s a likely scenario these days).

                      I support the general right to secession, but motive matters. There is no right to secede so you can enslave people. Although, I should clarify; after the Civil War, I think this should have happened – 1) Elections, with blacks allowed full and equal voting rights, were held in all Southern states to determine whether or not they wanted to stay in the Union, or secede and 2) The newly-independent states or confederacy guaranteed (and I mean that in a substantive, not verbal, manner) that blacks, or anyone else who wished to leave, was free to do so.

                    15. Your last sentence is right; however, Lincoln had no right to engage in mass murder in support thereof.

                    16. Last post directed at Calidissident.

                  2. I don’t answer loaded questions.

                    You mean “I don’t answer questions which are inconvenient to my argument”.

                    The question is EXACTLY on point and analogous. You don’t want to answer it because you know that.

                    1. Let the pedophile go!

                    2. Even if he has some small children locked up in his house?

                      Yeah, that’s what I think of when I think of liberty

                    3. So, do you think its okay for an armed mob to confiscate your property in order to finance their apprehension / capture / murder of the pedophile?

                      Anyway, the right to secede does not admit of any exceptions, even pedophiles.

                      With respect to the variables you have introduced, has the pedophile been convicted by an independent tribunal?

                      Do you know for a fact that “small children are locked up in his house?”

                      Do you know the identities of the small children?

                      Are you prepared to punish those who will not join you in your crusade to prevent the pedophile from seceding? The moment you say yes, you have lost the moral high ground.

                    4. If the pedophile is seceding, then presumably he is seceding from an existing government. Assume for this example that there is enough evidence that there is a warrant for searching this guy’s home. The cops get there and He announces “I have seceded from this country and declare my own sovereign territory.” You’re saying that the cops would be wrong to enter his house?

                      Granted, I know you’re an anarchist. But if we’re debating secession, the existence of government is a given. And not all governments are equally awful. A government that prosecutes child molesters is better than one that turns a blind eye to it.

                    5. HUR dUR BUT LINCOLN BlACK CODES /LM

                    6. As a practical matter, the cops will enter his house, one way or another as governments that prosecute alleged child molesters will also kill the children in order to save them, witness WACO. You do recall that allegations of child molestation were leaked by the government, particularly early on in the siege.

                      However, the right of secession trumps the right to prosecute criminal allegations unless the person(s) accused are state actors. IOW, if GWB and Obama are indicted for war crimes, they do not have the right to secede and immunize themselves from prosecution as they themselves engaged in the war crimes UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW, whereas the alleged child molester did not.

                    7. “However, the right of secession trumps the right to prosecute criminal allegations”

                      Ok bud. As for me, I don’t really think a system where someone is free to commit a crime and then say “Fuck you guys, I’m seceding, you can’t do shit!” is a pro-liberty system*

                      *And before you accuse me of thinking it, no I’m not saying that our current system is a perfect one of maximum liberty

      3. The first prez to explicitly make the argument that there was no right to secede was Jackson, interestingly enough.

  3. I think we can see the themes of any Presidential campaign where Paul is involved:

    -The Civil Rights Act of 1964

    -The Southern Avenger and his wrestling-style confederate flag mask

    -Aqua Buddha

    1. It should be pointed out that it is his Luchador-style mask. Apparently he forgave the Hispanics for whatever he was upset about.

  4. A should not be forced to do business with B – even if B is black.

  5. Rand Paul Co-Author Jack Hunter Used to Write Weird Crap Like ‘John Wilkes Booth Was Right’

    “Weird crap”? You mean John Wilkes Booth WASN’T right? Because what I gathered from the arguments and apologetics posited by neo-cons and Lincoln worshippers is that Violence Settles Things(TM). Or am I wrong???

    1. You’re tiresome, at least.

      1. Aside from Cytotoxic and maybe a fellow Lincoln apologist or an Ayn Randophile, no person here thinks that you can successfully engage Ole Mex in debate on this topic.

        1. It’s hilarious that you think I give a shit.

          1. Given the differences in your respective presentations, I would have to agree.

            OM brings facts and reason to the table in support of his positions. You, otoh, too often invoke ad hominems and false dichotomies and false premises and straw to support your positions.

            1. “Made up bullshit revisionist history” does not equal facts and reason.

              1. Go ahead, take on OM. Better yet, take on DiLorenzo or Woods.

                Please educate us. What is the “made up bullshit revisionist history” upon which OM relies?

          2. It’s hilarious you think that’s a good substitute for an argument.

            1. How about TAO / Neoliberal Kochtopus vs. Tom Dilorenzo?

              Or TAO / Neoliberal Kochtopus vs. Tom Woods?

              THAT WOULD BE HILARIOUS!

              1. Huh. I still don’t give a shit.

            2. It’s hilarious you think that’s a good substitute for an argument.

              I don’t think it’s an argument. I think it’s an expression of me not giving a shit who Libertymike wants to fluff at any given moment.

              1. “to fluff”?

      2. You’re a nitwit, at most.

    2. Violence sure settled slavery and the south’s uppitiness. Lincoln was evil for instituting the draft (military slavery) and suspending HC but he’s still one of America’s best presidents. He did a lot more to preserve freedom than to hurt it, revisionist horseshit notwithstanding.

      The real hero is Sherman. He knew how to subdue the south and why his methods were both effective and moral. His tactics should have been used in Afghanistan.

      1. “The real hero is Sherman. He knew how to subdue the south and why his methods were both effective and moral. His tactics should have been used in Afghanistan.”

        How would Sherman’s tactics have helped in Afghanistan? It’s a completely different situation and not one that’s very comparable, for multiple reasons

        1. Duh, you just tear up the Afghan railways and their economic base would be ruined. Do I have to explain *everything?*

  6. Lincoln had it comin’

    “The chickens came home to roost”

  7. Ever notice how TAO fails to mention facts such as the following:

    (1) Lincoln’s gulag-Fort Washington.

    (2) The expulsion of Indiana Congressman Clement Vallindigham by Lincoln. Lincoln ordered his expulsion because Vallindigham consistently criticized Lincoln’s trashing of the constitution and his mass murdering.

    (3) Lincoln thought blacks were inferior to whites and that whites should “be assigned the superior position”.

    (4) Lincoln’s intent to make total war – to take the war to civilians. He set out to burn and loot and rape the civilians of the Confederacy. It is this fact which both Hitler and Stalin admired.

    (5) Lincoln’s plan of exterminating the Plains Indians.

    (6) Lincoln’s shutting down of hundreds of NORTHERN NEWSPAPERS.

    (7) Lincoln’s incarceration of thousands of reporters, editors and publishers, including the grandson of Francis Scott Key.

    (8) Lincoln’s gargantuan crony capitalism.

    (9) Lincoln’s love of the income tax.

    1. Because none of that is relevant to the discussion. I never said LINCOLN IS THE GREATEST EVAR!, even though that’s what you hear every time you’re challenged. Read what’s there.

      1. You just think it was all justified because the South was worse? Hasn’t the same thing been said about all of the trampling of our liberties in the name of the War on Terror?

        1. Let’s add that to the long list of, “Things I Didn’t Say”

          Are you really going to be dumb enough to let hyperventilating nancy Libertymike distract you?

          Let’s be clear: I DO NOT NOW NOR HAVE I EVER SUPPORTED ANY LIBERTY-TRAMPLING LINCOLN ENGAGED IN.

          There. Now fucking stuff it already.

          1. I don’t know why you even bother with them.

            1. I just realized that as well. Thank you for the sanity check.

      2. Its all relevant to the discussion. Funny, that seems to be one of your tried and true debate tactics:

        Simply assert that facts unfriendly to your narrative are irrelevant.

        1. It isn’t relevant because I don’t have any reverence for the guy, so you bringing up a tangential list of evils is just a smokescreen.

          1. Wrong again.

            Look at my 4:43 post and your response at 4:44.

            1. You don’t understand how argument or logic work.

              1. Okay, amateur.

  8. The Great Hypocrite suspended habeus corpus and gave us military conscription and the income tax. What’s not to hate?

  9. So you’re telling me that a senator from the south hired a guy from the south that once harbored radical secessionist beliefs? Getthefuckouttaherewiththatshit. Next you’ll try to tell me is that there’s a socialist or two in Obama’s circle of friends in Chicago.

  10. Oh good, now we can look forward to Reason beating this horse for the next however many years Rand is politically active. Doesn’t the saltyseacaptain link to this guy’s website?

  11. I’m an idiot. I have seen Jack’s band Dante’s Camaro play and read his columns but never realized same person.

    http://imgur.com/WqzskIY

    1. Is that Jack in the deer shirt? It’s hard to tell from the side.

  12. I don’t care what this guy said, there’s no way he’s a bigger douche than Adam kokesh

    1. You’re just mad because his RT show was about taking you on.

  13. Matt you are such a little pussy.

  14. What bothers me about Rand is that he is clearly capable of making compromises in his rhetoric to appeal to new people who, for example, are more hawkish. So what it seems like is that he is somehow not even aware that these race issues are going to be a big deal. Race is the absolute last thing Rand and co. need to be pushing the envelope on given his dads issues. My biggest fear is well put our hopes and dreams into his presidential run just to watch him self-sabotage.

    1. I’m starting to think Johnson or Amash would be a better bet. Amash would probably be way better.

      1. I don’t really get it. He acknowledges the need to have a broader appeal, and at times he seems to be a more shrewd politician than his father was, but there’s still things like this, or the gay marriage/bestiality thing, where he just does/says stuff that’s completely unnecessary and jeopardizes his stated goals

  15. Can’t believe this thread isn’t dead.

    At any rate, there are two ways of looking at this:

    1) The southern states never had a legal right to secede. As with any extragovernmental agent looking to do harm to citizens and property, the first duty of government is to bring such parties to heel, violently if need be.

    2) The southern states had a legal right to secede, and successfully did so — at which point they proceeded to attack another sovereign nation while they were in the middle of arbitrating borders and divestment of property owned by that other country. In this case, the government is obliged to protect its property and that of its citizens — and can, upon conclusion of the war, subject the conquered nation to any terms which would have been legitimate under NAP, up to and including annexation.

    Any way you square it, the Union had a legitimate casus belli.

  16. How about the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians? Is that sanctioned by the NAP?

    How about the imposition of the income tax? Does the NAP sanction income taxes, i.e., is it okay for an armed group of thugs to confiscate your property in the name of preserving a certain polity?

    How about the mass incarceration of reporters, editors and publishers who disagree with the policies of a mass murderer? Is that sanctioned by the NAP?

    How about the conscription of men to fight a war? Is that compatible with the NAP?

    1. All of those issues relate to wartime conduct; none of those issues concerns valid casus belli.

      As far as I’m concerned, the Union could have (and should have) won the war without the use of conscripts, the income tax, and the violation of civil liberties. As far as “mass murder” of civilians goes, that is something which should be pinned on the Confederacy’s obstinacy, not the Union. If you want your people to remain safe, don’t establish large arms manufactories and legitimate war targets near population centers.

      I would point out that on every issue which you cite, the Confederacy was much worse — for example, the Confederacy established the first conscription bill and it was far more wide-reaching than the Militia Act in the north.

  17. I find these threads hilarious. I mean the Rockwellians are taking their “fuck the USG” and “US wars are bad” attitudes to their logical conclusion. And reasonoids then get upset that attitudes that they hold are being taken to their logical conclusion.

    1. “And reasonoids then get upset that attitudes that they hold are being taken to their logical conclusion.”

      That’s only true if you have absolutely no ability to think logically. Which you clearly do not, based on this post.

      But don’t let that get in your way of lecturing libertarians about how we must support the government in all their wars, spying, and other bullshit

      1. Well I don’t think too many posters here think logically. I think it’s pretty clear that the CSA love is an extreme take on the attitude that many libertarians have toward the USG and its wars. This attitude can also lead to dictator apologia. I just wish that libertarians would be logical when they say stuff like “fuck the USG.”

        But don’t let that get in your way of lecturing libertarians about how we must support the government in all their wars, spying, and other bullshit

        Considering that I don’t support “the government” (which?) in “all their wars, spying, and other bullshit” it looks like you can’t think logically either.

        1. “I think it’s pretty clear that the CSA love is an extreme take on the attitude that many libertarians have toward the USG and its wars. This attitude can also lead to dictator apologia”

          Go to antiwar.com and tell them. I don’t think that applies here.

          “I just wish that libertarians would be logical when they say stuff like ‘fuck the USG.'”

          Fuck the US government. That doesn’t mean I think they’re the worst government ever, automatically completely wrong on everything, or that anyone who opposes them is a saint. And aside from the actual Rockwellians here, I don’t think anyone else here thinks that.

          “Considering that I don’t support “the government” (which?) in “all their wars, spying, and other bullshit” it looks like you can’t think logically either.”

          You criticized people here for saying “Fuck the USG” and “US wars are bad.” So the options are either 1) You support the USG and their wars or 2) You’re completely unable to comprehend what people are actually saying when they say those things. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with option 2.

          1. You criticized people here for saying “Fuck the USG” and “US wars are bad.” So the options are either 1) You support the USG and their wars or 2) You’re completely unable to comprehend what people are actually saying when they say those things. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with option 2.

            No my position is more that how do libertarians apply the positions of “Fuck the USG” and “US Wars are bad” to the American Civil War? Not so simple as can be seen in this thread.

            1. I mean “US Wars are bad” is a statement that has no ambiguity in it. If that were true then that would include the North freeing the slaves. If freeing the slaves is good then US wars can’t be all that bad. A bit of a quandary.

              1. As I said, you’re completely failing to actually understand what people actually mean. Cite one poster, aside from Libertymike, who has ever said “All US wars are bad.” If anyone has ever said that, or something similar, I guarantee you it’s in the context of modern times. And these days, it’s a pretty good bet that a US war is bad. Seriously, to think that despising the US government and opposing Iraq and Afghanistan, or a hypothetical war with Iran, means that one logically must support the Confederacy is sheer lunacy. But who cares, as long as you get to lecture libertarians in a snarky manner, right?

                1. Cite one poster, aside from Libertymike, who has ever said “All US wars are bad.”If anyone has ever said that, or something similar, I guarantee you it’s in the context of modern times.

                  Considering that you accused me of being a warmonger for criticizing libertarians for making a similar statement doesn’t this quote by your own logic make you a warmonger?

                  Seriously, to think that despising the US government and opposing Iraq and Afghanistan, or a hypothetical war with Iran, means that one logically must support the Confederacy is sheer lunacy.

                  No I think the Rockwellians are nuts but I can see where their Lincoln hate and CSA love comes from.

                  1. Err I mean “Yes I think the Rockwellians are nuts”

                  2. “Considering that you accused me of being a warmonger for criticizing libertarians for making a similar statement”

                    If you simply said “Not all US wars are bad” in a proper context that’s one thing. Your post comes off as a random comment lecturing libertarians for being anti-war and criticizing them because they fail to see that the supposedly logical conclusions to their arguments is supporting the Confederacy.

                    I realize now that you’ve posted here before, and remember some of your posts. But do you not see how your post could easily be interpreted as a conservative or progressive troll taking a shot at libertarians?

                    “No I think the Rockwellians are nuts but I can see where their Lincoln hate and CSA love comes from.”

                    If you think the Rockwellians are nuts, then why do you think they’re taking the logical conclusions of things. Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that they’re taking the illogical conclusions to such arguments? I’ll say it again; opposing the US government in general, and generally opposing their wars, especially those in recent years, does not in any way logically necessitate supporting the Confederacy in any way, shape, or form. That SOME people who are anti-USG and anti-war does not change that in any way

  18. So long as Rand Paul, and conservatives, and libertarians are going to be accused of racism anyway why would this association matter?

    Rand Paul has an aide and adviser who used to make a living playing a cartoon Confederate-nationalist.An “implicitly racist”-by-association accusation isn’t going to carry any weight with anyone who matters. And it shouldn’t.

    1. “So long as Rand Paul, and conservatives, and libertarians are going to be accused of racism anyway why would this association matter?”

      Because it lends credence to such accusations? (Note: I don’t think Rand Paul is racist)

      “An “implicitly racist”-by-association accusation isn’t going to carry any weight with anyone who matters.”

      I think you might be giving too much credit to American voters.

      “And it shouldn’t.”

      Agreed.

  19. John Wilkes Booth was right. Abe Lincoln deserved what he got for ruining “Hamlet”.

    1. That Abe Lincoln, I’m glad he’s dead. What, too soon?

      If I could pick one president to beat the fuck out of, it would have been FDR. Being lame, it wouldn’t be much of a fight.

      I once dug up the graves of Jefferson Davis and General Sherman, I mixed them together and then I shat on them before placing them back in the ground. Fuck the Union, fuck the Confederacy. May you both rot in Hell, murdering scum.

      1. If there was one president that should’ve been pushed off a cliff before he took office, it was Wilson. His foreign policy stupidity eventually gave rise to Hitler. Had he kept the U.S. neutral, as he promised to do, then Germany might have been able to procure a negotiated end to the war instead of the “unconditional surrender” with all the nonsensical stuff that accompanied it, then the nation could have rebuilt without the difficulties that plagued the Weimar Republic; the Kaiser would have remained (like the British monarchs) as a symbol to unify the nation and keep the radicals from gaining too much power.

        Ugh. What a stupid, stupid mess…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.