Ron Paul

Don't Blame Ron Paul for Donald Trump

The guy who launched a movement running for president in 2008 and 2012 was not the guy from the notorious newsletters.


James Kirchick, writing in The New York Review of Books, offers the thesis that Donald Trump and his cause are somehow the fault of Ron Paul, the former Republican congressman from Texas and two-time seeker of the Republican presidential nomination (and one-time candidate of the Libertarian Party, in 1988). Trump, the headline asserts, owes a "Debt to Ron Paul's Paranoid Style."


His bill of particulars connecting Paul and Trump: Kirchick in 2007 "had obtained a trove of newsletters that the libertarian gadfly had intermittently published from the late 1970s through to the mid 1990s, which were chock-full of conspiratorial, racist, and anti-government ravings."

Further, "The ideological similarities between the two men, and the ways in which they created support, are striking." Among them in policy terms are that both men spoke out against entangling military alliances and the notion that we must be relentless foes of Russia; both said things that might appeal to white supremacists; and both in their private careers helped sell things to the public that positioned them as false "guru[s] of personal enrichment." Kirchick, perhaps carelessly, seems to imply that Paul was an Obama birther like Trump, which Paul was not.

At any rate, Kirchick goes on to argue with quoted examples that the strategy of newsletter-era Ron Paul "was to appeal to voters on three bases—racial animus, anti-elitism, and nativism." He rightly notes that Trump's winning campaign in 2016 played to some of the same themes (two of which are pernicious; one, anti-elitism, is not necessarily so).

Kirchick declares that Paul's message "shares the limited government principles of traditional libertarianism but places a heavier emphasis on conservative social values, white racial resentment, and isolationist nationalism." This stew, he notes, fed into a portion (how large a portion Kirchick doesn't pretend to know) of Trump's fan base.

Kirchick's evidence connecting Paul and Trump, then, is the reason many people know James Kirchick's name to begin with: newsletters from the 1983–1996 interregnum between two of his stints as a congressman.

What Kirchick is implicitly saying is that some of the people surrounding Ron Paul in the late '80s and early '90s—people who believed there was political capital to be gained by mixing anti-government ideas with right-populist white resentment—were not the utter loons assumed by most others in the libertarian community, who watched aghast as it happened in real time. In fact, he suggests, they were shockingly prescient. (Kirchick, like nearly everyone, most certainly including me, clearly also underestimated the political power of that toxic brew.)

The gap between Kirchick's evidence and his conclusions, the underappreciated fact that makes this article's causal connection between Paul and Trump fail, is that he doesn't sufficiently stress his own reportorial entrepreneurship. He forgets (or wants the reader to forget) the reason people who hadn't followed Paul closely for most of his career found Kirchick's articles a potentially gamechanging newsbreaker: The Ron Paul who ran in 2008 and 2012 evinced none of those awful qualities that Kirchick highlighted in his reporting on the newsletters (which is why it was easy for most people, supporter and enemy alike, to grant that Paul likely didn't write them in the first place).

I witnessed, both in person and via video, many dozens of hours of Ron Paul campaigning in those years. He did not have a standard stump speech, so I cannot authoritatively state he never said anything bad along those lines. But I never heard them. And that an inveterate Paul enemy such as Kirchick never quotes any either lends weight to the notion that white-backlash right-populist rage of the Trump variety was no part of Ron Paul's presidential campaigns.

That's important to Kirchick's thesis because the only place where Paul had a significant effect on the minds, thoughts, and allegiances of a mass of Americans was as a campaigner. If not for Kirchick's own work, likely fewer than a couple thousand Americans would have any idea that those newsletters even existed, much less any ugly specifics of them. Whatever nasty currents of American thought those newsletters tapped into, they didn't "cause" anything. Ron Paul's presidential campaigns did.

Kirchick's attempt to blame Trump on Paul fails because Kirchick doesn't probe the things Paul actually said as a candidate, that built his mass audience and his millions of votes: his actual influence on America. Before he was a candidate, Paul engaged with unpleasant strains of the American political psyche, strains that Trump proved were far stronger than many of us wanted to know. But "the pre-candidate Ron Paul and Donald Trump tried to appeal to a right-wing nativism that long predated either of them" is not the same as causation or reliance.

Put it this way: I don't see how or why anyone would think Donald Trump wouldn't have been who he was or done what he did (and had the same success) if Ron Paul had never been born. Kirchick himself notes that immigration was "an issue where Paul did not stake out a hard-right stance," as indeed he did not (the one time his campaign ran a right-leaning ad on the topic, not an issue Paul talked about on the stump, it appalled many of his fans); and border wall nonsense was the heart of Trumpism.

But what Ron Paul the presidential candidate was actually transmitting—what he indeed successfully transmitted, as I learned covering him for Reason—was a pretty consistent libertarian message of keeping government force out of individual's lives, at home and abroad.

Here are a couple of telling examples from my reporting on his campaigns, in which I spoke to many dozens of his new fans and found not a single one openly obsessed with any right-populist crap. (This is not to say none existed. But for Kirchick to conflate Newsletter Paul with Candidate Paul in message and appeal is historical and journalistic malpractice, and I think is designed to traduce what was actually good about Paul in Kirchick's obsession, "muscular" foreign policy.)

From the 2008 campaign, summing up a Paul campaign speech at the University of Iowa (in which immigrants were not mentioned at all):

Get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing; find the money to support those dependent on Social Security and Medicare by shutting down the worldwide empire, while giving the young a path out of the programs; don't pass a draft; have a foreign policy of friendship and trade, not wars and subsidies. He attacks the drug war, condemning the idea of arresting people who have never harmed anyone else's person or property. He stresses the disproportionate and unfair treatment minorities get from drug law enforcement. One of his biggest applause lines, to my astonishment, involves getting rid of the Federal Reserve. Kids have gathered, not just from Iowa but from Wisconsin and Nebraska, in classic hop-in-the-van college road trips, to hear a 72-year-old gynecologist talk about monetary policy.

He wraps up the speech with three things he doesn't want to do that sum up the Ron Paul message. First: "I don't want to run your life. We all have different values. I wouldn't know how to do it, I don't have the authority under the Constitution, and I don't have the moral right." Second: "I don't want to run the economy. People run the economy in a free society." And third: "I don't want to run the world….We don't need to be imposing ourselves around the world."

And from 2012 at UCLA:

there was a fresh strain last night among [Paul's] usual exhortations about the dangers of our profligate monetary policy and foreign policy, the unified glories of individual liberty, and the criminal idiocy of trying to police people's personal behaviors that don't directly harm others and government invasions of our privacy: he hit some high-toned notes about the larger meaning of liberty as he sees it, fitting in with a larger vision of proper human flourishing.

Paul stressed more than once—he hits a lot of his points more than once in his talks—that liberty gives us the greatest space to become the "creative, productive people we are meant to be." He is getting closer and closer to delivering a full-service libertarian philosophical vision in his speeches, though he leaves the teasing out of the coherent shape of it all mostly as an exercise for the attentive listener. He remains the total libertarian, though, taking the trouble to mention after a couple of those references to the properly creative and productive best-practices of human life that of course if you choose not to be a flourishing creative and productive being, that's cool too as long as you aren't hurting anyone else.

Paul continues to deliver his libertarian vision in language and with examples that seems 90 percent designed and ready to appeal to a progressive leftist as well, condemning crony capitalism and wealth disparities that arise from special connections and favors and stressing the wealth-creating possibilities for the masses of a truly freed market, along with his usual condemnations of war and government management of personal choices.

Things that get a panoply of booing at a Paul rally: Ben Bernanke, the 16th Amendment, UN and NATO, nuclear-powered drones, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, emergency powers for the president, government attempts to manage our food intake, and the idea that "we are all Keynesians now."

Kirchick starts and ends with the fact I suppose he thinks will unnerve readers the most: that both Paul and Trump have been frequent guests on the radio program of conspiracy promoter Alex Jones, and that Jones claims to regularly feed Trump scripts he essentially repeats.

Since I presume one of the very underlying premises of Kirchick's take is that Alex Jones is a delusional or opportunistic liar, I'm not sure why he concludes his story with the dire pronouncement that "the very archetype of the tinfoil-hat-wearing crackpot, whose claim to fame is standing on a street corner shouting obscenities, can have the ear of the most powerful person in the world" just because Jones says he does. (It would be an interesting deep-dive for a writer not Kirchick to explore the nuances of how those who have long believed the U.S. government is the endless source of baroque and sinisterly monstrous conspiracies balance that with the notion that a guy they dig for other reasons runs it. Born of such paradoxes are the sudden popularity of the phrase "deep state" and wild conspiracy theories claiming that Trump is secretly putting the kibosh on all and sundry past government evils.)

Jones makes an interesting entry point to why accusations like Kirchick's in this article rub many libertarians the wrong way. When reporting my 2012 book Ron Paul's Revolution, I asked Paul about appearing on Jones' show, which struck and still strikes many people who admired a lot about his campaign as unwise. "Because he says some things that are wrong, that I don't agree with?" Paul countered. "Well, that might exclude me from every national TV program, I mean, I get on these shows and they are pushing me on why they love assassinating American people, bombing foreign countries, and war." Whatever else those who interview him believe, he told me, doesn't "bother me one bit. I speak for myself, not for the people talking to me."

To Paul, and to many of his fans, the ideas James Kirchick has spent his career advocating—the U.S. using its wealth and lives to wage war (in Iraq), war (in Syria), and more war (in Iran)—are far more dangerous than even unhinged unsupported conspiracy-mongering. Kirchick obviously disagrees, and bases his accusations against Paul's fault for Trump on such grounds.

Kirchick's attempts to smear Paulism as the cause of the worst parts of Trumpism is likely rooted in the reason why libertarians emotionally or sociologically find it a little hard to accept his message of blame: Kirchick's most important policy concern has always been the imposition of American will around the world through war and violence, and Ron Paul was the first voice that gained any traction in the modern GOP against that sort of thing. In general, libertarians, for reasons that make sense to them, think Kirchick's world of sober foreign policy centrism is guilty of sins more significant than dumb, pandering, hateful comments made decades ago.

Alex Jones, most can agree, is crazy. Those who advocated and still advocate for the mass murder and civilization destroying powers of war are respected solons worthy of high-level publication. That's exactly the political problem that Ron Paul most tried to address, and why he most remains the target of attack and blame.

NEXT: Jeff Flake Highlights Donald Trump's Rhetorical Kinship With Censorious Autocrats

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This post is what happens when no one, and everyone, is an editor.

    1. It does seem rather discombobulated.

      1. That's Doherty's signature style.

        1. It's painful to read.

      2. Dis Combobulat and get it over with already

    2. I just started 7 weeks ago and I've gotten 2 check for a total of $2,000...this is the best decision I made in a long time! "Thank you for giving me this extraordinary opportunity to make extra money from home. go to this site for more details.....

      1. See, someone's benefiting from editing.

    3. I was pretty fleet-footed when I was a (white) kid.

    4. Finally! There is a great way how you can work online from your home using your computer and earn in the same time... Only basic internet knowledge needed and fast internet connection... Earn as much as $3000 a week.......

  2. Brian Doherty caused Trump, duh!

  3. Coke too? Thanks WOD.

    1. Fentanyl's a hell of an adulterant.

  4. So Ron Paul bear no responsibility whatsoever for content he allowed to be published under his own name in a newletter he was the sole owner of?

    1. Ron Paul was not openly racist like Trump is.

    2. He did take responsibility for the articles. He also said that those particular articles, which made up an extremely small percentage of content, were not his views. He had stated and people that know him have stated that he is not a racist. It's up to you as to how you judge him.

  5. We already knew that the left hates Libertarians as much as they hate Trump. That's why they see a connection where absolutely none exist.

    1. Nah. *Some* folks "hate libertarians". But most don't know you exist.

  6. We shouldn't "blame" Ron Paul for Trump, we should CREDIT him!

    Thanks Dr. Paul! MAGA

    1. Why would you take the credit away from Mrs. My Turn?

        1. More powerful in death than you can possibly imagine

  7. Paul deserves great credit for galvanizing a generation against the global elites and their agenda of white genocide. Racially centered politics are an inevitable consequence of multiculturalism and would have happened with or without Paul. What Paul did is help people understand who it was that brought us to this state.

    1. It was ((( them ))).

    2. You tell 'em Mr. FatDrunkAndStupid!

      Have you met Mr. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian by any chance?

  8. SIV and JB -

    Okay, do some editing. What would you cut? What would you rephrase?

    1. I just reread the first third of the article and I would rewrite the whole thing. For one thing, the interspersing of quoted and non-quoted text does not flow well at all. On top of that he's tossing in his own little shots at Trump rather than putting them all in one comprehensive critique which further breaks up the flow.

      1. Because of your comment, I went back and re-read the whole piece.

        Damn, you and SIV are right: editing needed.

  9. James Kirchick has a severe case of TDS.

    I recently spoke with a cousin, who is a clinical psychologist, and she said - off the cuff - that TDS is a form of mass hysteria.

    1. And it truly is. Living in Seattle I come across MANY with extreme TDS. I've told all of them "Well, I didn't vote for the guy, and have a lot of problems with him... But in reality he's not any worse than a lot of other politicians. Hell half of the views people are freaking out over are the same things Bill Clinton believed in!" and then proceed to try to bring them a little closer to reality. I think it's worked on a few. They've literally just never met anybody else who wasn't also freaking out that told them it's not as bad as CNN makes it out to be. LOL

  10. Yeah, I'm not convinced Drumpf's rise can be blamed on Ron Paul. If you want to point to a domestic social movement of the past 10 years, a good case can be made that GamerGate helped the expansion and normalization of the alt-right which, aided of course by Russian hacking, carried Drumpf to victory.

    1. Gamergate is far more complicated than that.

      1. "It's about ethics in game journalism," right?

        1. That and defending the patriarchy.

    2. Nobody but those in the immediate GamerGate sphere even care about GamerGate. It is a tiny sliver of a mirror that fell behind the sink, but still managed to reflect a distorted fragment of the then current zeitgeist.

  11. This is all true so far as it goes, but it elides an important connection that Doherty doesn't mention and Kirchick missed.

    Yeah, Ron Paul didn't run as the monster of the newsletters. But he did continue to freely associate with and promote that whole crowd: Rockwell, Woods, Hoppe, Block, Raimondo, etc., many of whom are far to Paul's right on race, immigration, supporting Trump, etc. The portion of the Ron Paul movement that became part of the LvMI/paleolib fan base, also formed a big part of the... if not pipeline, then at least the bridge.... from "Ron Paul libertarian" to "alt-Right Trump supporter."

    As for how much of Trump's base this accounts for: probably not a large segment. Not enough to make much difference in a general election. But plausibly, enough to have made a difference in the primaries. Exit polls shows Paul 2012 voters breaking for Trump in the 2016 GOP primary, and that's good for a few points in most states.

    1. Liberty is far better served by "that whole crowd" than the Reason Rainbow Coalition types.

      1. You're kidding, right? For Christ's sake, Hoppe looks favorably upon *monarchy*. In the 21st century.

        1. Regicide is easier than firing the civil service.

          1. Democracy is, after all, the god that died.

            1. Wut.

        2. 21st century monarchy is the worst kind!

      2. (I identify as a delicate) butterfly in the sky...
        (With legalization and common-sense regulation states can raise revenue and) I can go twice as high!
        (Private free-market actors caused transphobic governments to) take a look...
        (Subsidiarity-exercising cities can resist racist and Islamophobic isolationism whether or not) it's in a book!
        Reason Rainbow!

      3. Yeah, just think of all the laws repealed and bad policies changed thanks to Lew Rockwell!

        Like.... err, umm..... give me a minute, I'll think of one....

        1. "Like...err, umm....give [you] [all the time you need], [You'll] think of one...."

  12. "some of the people surrounding Ron Paul in the late '80s and early '90s" implies those unnamed people at some point ceased to surround him. But none of them did, except for the ones who died.

  13. During his campaigns, Paul not-infrequently gave shout-outs to Lew Rockwell and his website. A website that's currently in the habit of posting such thing as Lew quoting Raimondo as saying "Bannonism is libertarianism."

    I don't think Paul was a major factor that lead to Trump. But it's fair to say Paul boosted the people who became Trump's evangelists to the libertarians.

  14. I don't blame Ron Paul for Donald Trump, I credit Donald Trump for Donald Trump.

  15. So was it Ron Paul in the headline that brought everyone out to play? Nice.

    1. No, it was your criticism of Doherty's prose and Reason's abject editing fail.

      1. Winning!

  16. I think Kirchick's agenda is to undermine libertarianism in time for the next election - right when it is poised for a surge. But I think he's basically right that Paul's association with nutters is problematic and may have assisted Der Drumpf's ascendance. But guess what? No one's perfect, and certainly not the other political parties, and any insurgent party has to get support from somewhere and Rand Paul is not Ron Paul.

    Basically you could write similar articles about the ignoble origins of all political parties. And political leaders always have to sell out in various ways to electrify a constituency. If libertarians can win a race by demoralizing the opposition then that's fine by me.

  17. Sorry, but no one was thinking about Ron Paul if/when they voted for Donald Trump

  18. As the NYT and others have pointed out, Trump's message and ideology has been remarkably consistent since his 1990 interview with Playboy magazine:

    1. All I got out of that is that he used to hate the Japanese for some reason. Now it's the Mexicans. Go figure.

  19. Would it be such a bad thing if it turned out that most racists could achieve their aims better in a freer world, & therefore that libertarianism got a significantly bigger boost from racists than from anti-racists, & if racists got a boost from libertarians? I'll take a more racist world if it makes the world freer. I'd take a more vegetarian world if that made the world freer too. I can still think what I want about race & vegetables.

    1. There is a subset of "libertarians" who, when they say the state is too big, they mean because it's big enough to deter them from using violence against people they don't like.

      1. The quality of left wing trolls really is going downhill. Are Clinton and Soros running out of money?

        1. I don't know about that. This isn't 2004; a true leftist would never have said "subset." Looks more like a libertarian intramural attack to me. Perhaps it's Koch you should be excoriating for quality control.

          1. No, I'm not a Libertarian.

            1. You're not even a good commenter.

    1. Yeah, now I remember why I stopped coming here.

  20. IMO The root cause of Trump winning in the Republican Party is Barry Goldwater. Paul is certainly part of R's who identify as small-l - but all of them identify Goldwater as the basic modern origin of what is libertarian within the GOP.

    Compared to 1960 Nixon - 1964 Goldwater gained votes (absolute votes not %) in massive amounts in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, Florida (all where only whites still voted), Arizona, and Nevada (and the latter two only because of big population growth in those two states over the 4 years). He lost anywhere from 5-30% of the R vote in every other state.

    Goldwaters form of 'libertarianism' was highly assertive in foreign policy (always has worked in the South) and stood firmly in principle but via code words with racists (and very overt in 1964). Those two elements also worked for Nixon Reagan and the Bushes. Personally I think it is just Republican or conservative now - but when I was still in the R tent I rationalized small-l libertarian as (reasonably) compatible with both those too. Just cognitive dissonance.

  21. I will tell you "who is to blame for Trump": The Democrats. The Dems went all in on hate whitey, hate Christianity, hate capitalism.

    Trump is simply the reaction to that and he is brilliant at it. Trump's ascension is like a stock market top where the Democrats represent the euphoric buyers. They shot their wad. Everybody who bought their non-sense was all in, and there were no buyers left. The pendulum swung, and it was easy pickins for Trump who recognized the manic market top and sold it short.

    1. People are responsible for their own actions.
      The only ones responsible for Trump are Trump voters.

      1. you managed to be the dumbest poster in thread, despite Hihney

    2. It might explain why the numerically larger Democrat base neglected to show up at the polls, but does not explain how Trump won the nomination from the REPUBLICAN Party.

  22. There has definitely been serious effort by progs, starting with perhaps when Rand Paul ran in 2010, to conflate libertarianism with racism and now the alt-right. On the surface, it might appear that some of the things Ron Paul likes, Trump claims to like too-though I doubt Trump even has the faintest clue of what Austrian Economics is, but that is about it. Doesn't matter though, there has to be a scapegoat for Trump, other than Hillary...

    1. serious effort by progs, starting with perhaps when Rand Paul ran in 2010, to conflate libertarianism with racism

      The origin of that isn't progs. The origin of that is self-identified libertarians asserting that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is the actual beginnings of many American problems. The ideological black-and-white view that 1963 was great and 1965 is the beginning of the road to hell.

      Of course that sort of nonsensical rigidity is gonna be conflated with racism - because it IS racism.

      1. That could be the dumbest post in the history of written language.

  23. We all know who's really to blame for Drumpflestiltskins.

    Ralph Nader!

  24. So, Hihn admitted he was going to try to hurt Ron Paul in this thread.

  25. I'm not going to say whom, but someone here I believe is off of their meds. Lol.

  26. So....would the same apply if Hillary got elected?


  27. Don't Blame Ron Paul for Donald Trump

    When I started and set up a couple of Ron Paul 2008 groups, I discovered that his fan were one of three types. First, the bona fide libertarian. Somewhat rare, but did provide a lot of ideological bulwarks for the movement. The next group were the conspiracy loons. They thought he was one of them, and that if elected he would reopen Project Bluebook or something. But the final group was a strange lot. They seemed somewhat paleo, but stuff was off about them. Too much of the fever swamp. Defended the newsletters. Defended the Stormwatch article. Etc.

    Funny thing, I see that last group spread all throughout the Trump movement. They plastered over their faded R[love]ution bumperstickers with "MAGA" and "Deport Now" bumper stickers. Same people.

    It don't blame Ron Paul for this. But it does illustrate that the Ron Paul movement wasn't quite as NAP pure as some people like to remember it. Some people glommed onto Ron Paul only because he was perceived of as the outsider.

  28. I know a lot of Ron Paul supporters decided to vote for Trump not so much because they wanted him but because they just couldn't stand to have Hillary in office. They knew no other candidates could win or would be allowed to win.

    I remember that Trump said something derogatory about Ron Paul the last time he ran for POTUS and his supporters got pretty mad about it.

  29. There are not likely many people around now who witnessed the birth of Obama. Barack has NEVER publically provided LEGAL documentation for his birth, social security number or school records among other things. To question why he has provided only false records and not officially verified ones does not mean that he was not born in Hawaii, only that there is no LEGAL proof of his eligibility to qualify for ANY public office. This grand coverup has to make him the greatest fake office holder in United States History. I want to see REAL/ verified records of this person. Does that make me a "birther"?

  30. BLAME Ron Paul for Trump's behavior? Is this gigantic Fake Commentary? If Paul is partially responsible for Trump's non cave, non cowardice, stand up and attack the MSM, stand up and tell the Democrat politicians they are you know what, Paul deserved thanks!

  31. Why are we still talking about Ron Paul?

  32. If Ron Paul had run in the last election I wouldn't have left the Presidential part of my ballot blank. He's the only candidate I would have voted for in that election.

  33. You're going to need a lot more lipstick.

  34. How can there have been no mention of David Boaz in the article or the comments? Don't forget that Boaz (VP of a Koch-brothers institute) smeared Paul for his guilt by association during the Newsletter years. I think that I'll phone up Alex Jones and tell him that Boaz fed Kirchick the original Trump story...

    Truly, Paul was an ideological hero. Whether Boaz's objections were the misguided purity of a beltway lobbyist or simply jealousy, both Boaz then and Kirchick now show that libertarianism is still in the "and then they fight you" stage of its ascent. Any news is good news!

  35. Micheal Hihn is a crazy scumbag, everybody on here should pile on this psycho and beat him into the dirty. They say "don't feed the trolls" but it is possible to overfeed trolls until they explode, this one is bulging at the seams, lets see his guts spray all over this fucking comment board!!!

    1. Hihn: william-weld-taxation-is-theft #comment_6149425
      "Fiscally and socially conservative is ... conservative
      Fiscal and socially liberal is ... liberal
      Libertarianism, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, is neither."

      "Socially liberal *IS* what liberal believe on social issues.
      Fiscally conservative *IS* what conservatives believe on fiscal issues."

      Me: Is it socially liberal to want to enslave bakers or to want gun control?
      Is it fiscally conservative to want to increase spending on immigration control and "defense"?
      Hihn: "No, which has no effect on the definition of libertarian."

      There are two fallacies in here:

      #1, That "socially liberal" is part of the definition of libertarianism, but then what is socially liberal has no effect on the definition of libertarianism (same as with "fiscally conservative").
      #2, That "socially liberal" is what liberals believe on social issues, but that apparently doesn't include enslaving bakers or wanting gun control. drexel-professor-tweets-all-i-want-for-c #comment_6652623
      Uses 3 different handles, also uses his Hihn handle to respond to himself? 3 days after no one other than he or I were posting anymore. trump-nominates-neil-gorsuch-to-the-supr #comment_6730841
      Says precisely the same thing using 2 different handles. Begins with a quote of mine "If the child is a living human".

    2. More Hihn:

      Hihn declares that dropping someone you invited off in the ocean 100 miles from shore isn't murder. ron-johnson-and-ted-cruz-join-the-rand-p#comment

      "Hypothetically, assume an entire Congress is elected on the same platform -- single-payer healthcare. Would it then be proper for Congress to do so? Why not? (I assume you answered wrong.)"
      "Do governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Is that principle superior to the Constitution?"
      "You have NO power to shit on Will of the People and Consent of the Governed."

      So Hihn doesn't believe in any unalienable rights, as the majority can simply vote their way into giving government the power to stomp on any "right" you may claim.
      (To be fair, Hihn doesn't make any logical errors here. He does a very good job of showing why "consent of the governed" theorists can't believe in unalienable rights.)

    3. Even more Hihn:

      Hihn uses another handle, gets caught by 3 different people, and continues to deny it.

      Government only exists to protect the "right" to choose your ruler, no other rights:

      Me: Government isn't compatible with individual rights (unless there is 100% consent).


      Me: By 'liberty' you mean the liberty to leave when they take all you have, enslave you, and kill you?

      Government is apparently voluntary as well:

      "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.

  36. Every "news" outlet has an agenda of some kind. It is their fault that alternative views and non-dominant party candidates get better, fairer, coverage on shows like Alex's or on RT; those shows are like the television networks were mid-last-century.

    When ABC was in third place for viewership, it took more chances, and got more creative, to gain market share. When Fox came on the scene, they did the same in order to crash the NBC, CBS, ABC party.

    No one can criticize challengers for using any outlet that is willing to give them a soapbox on which to stand, and it's no coincidence that it is the "fringe" outlets that are eager to do so, especially when the guest has a loyal following like Dr. Paul's.

  37. Blame him? If he was responsible, I'd want to thank him.

  38. Comrade Michael Hihn ~ Please return to Alternet or Salon or whatever place lunatic Leftists like yourself hang out. This is a Libertarian website for Libertarian readers. You are clearly an unbalanced person in need of psychiatric care. No one here cares what you think, write or do.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.