I’m not having a go, honest, but why is it that when you scratch so many (not all) libertarians, you find a crank underneath?
Lindsay at Majikthise reports:
Did you know that Ron Paul was a major player in the hard line conservative newsletter industry in the days before blogs? I didn’t.
Some of these early newsletters raise troubling questions about the Republican candidate’s views on race, homosexuality, Southern succession [sic], and various other hot button issues. We also learn about Paul’s intense feelings about some decidedly uncontroversial subjects, e.g., the Trilateral Commission.
“…why is it that when you scratch so many (not all) libertarians, you find a crank underneath?”
Oh Kim, may I remind you of the bizarre collection of Hayek and Ayn Rand nutjobs, not to mention delusional authors, over at Catlaxatives?
Republican candidate with a sordid past? Well, I never!
Orcinus has been following this for months. Some good coverage of Ron Paul, the American racist right and the religious right as well.
Forget the article, the pro Paul comments alone at TNR are worth their weight in gold. I’m also puzzled by the number of well known internet/online identities who appear to think he’s the second coming.
What are Paul’s views on fractional reserve banking?
/well, someone had to ask
I think this blog post is rather misguided.
Kim, you make the implication that libertarians in general are “cranks”. You marginalise the libertarian philosophy and its subscribers. Generalisations such as these, don’t exist inside the libertarian philosophy, as it deals with the individual, not contrived categories of people in society.
You also marginalise Ron Paul, just as the mainstream media has been doing, which has only been hurting his call for true freedom and civil liberties.
As for the newsletters, the subject of The New Republic’s perfectly-timed smear campaign against Paul, when one weighs these publications up against Paul’s public voting record, the books he has published, the newsletters just don’t stack up. It looks like Paul did write a portion of these publications, but I doubt he wrote it all; it looks as though there were other writers contributing op-eds.
Regardless, Paul’s name is a banner at the top of each page, meaning Paul did have a responsibility to review what was to be published. He said in his statement that he accepts responsibility for not reviewing a lot of what was published. Sounds fair to me.
I have been reading a few of Paul’s books, which make so much sense. Paul has also been extremely consistent in his public voting record, and he practices what he preaches.
I just don’t see how Dr. Paul is a crank at all. Sure, it looks like he made some mistakes during the period he was out of Congress, practicing medicine, by not being thorough in reviewing that which was published under his name. But, if you can name a public servant who has never been at fault in their life, please do.
I’m ranting here, but basically, this is a smear campaign that does have some merit, but taken out of proportion and context, I believe. When weighed up and put in the whole picture, it is insignificant. Dr. Paul is a man I continue to admire for standing up for something good; he is honest, fair, humble, and definitely not a crank.
Thanks you,
-M.
Can’t answer that one, Mark, but from the ideas I glanced at on the link to Orcinus Barry so kindly provided suggest that its anti-semitic, anti-banking, pro-financial conspiracy etc., rant is just good old-fashioned American (and for that matter Australian) populism. The only thing missing as some kind of a hullabaloo about silver. What amazes me is that people might think this stuff is new or ground-breaking in anyway.At the very least it goes back to the 1890s and I’ve found traces of it in the late Colonial Amarican and American Revolutionary periods.
Merovingian movingly defends Paul’s dignity as a fallible man.
Unfortunately, sustained absentmindedness of that magnitude disqualifies him from the White House. Vide George W. Bush.
Katz,
I do see your point. Still, there are worse Republican hopefuls vying for the nomination … i.e., all of them.
Err, Merovingian, Kim’s post is misguided why, exactly?
So, let me quote:
‘Kim, you make the implication that libertarians in general are âcranksâ?. You marginalise the libertarian philosophy and its subscribers.’
And you then go on to claim:
‘As for the newsletters, the subject of The New Republicâs perfectly-timed smear campaign against Paul, when one weighs these publications up against Paulâs public voting record, the books he has published, the newsletters just donât stack up. It looks like Paul did write a portion of these publications, but I doubt he wrote it all…’
And so, has Merovingian has disowned and disavowed them, these articles and newsletters?
Well, apparently not. Because he’s certainly supplied not a whit of evidence that RoPaul has done so.
Here’s a suggestion, mate: Stop trawling antipodean websites where you think you may have influence.
You’re clearly a sad character; apparently a complete nobody in the USA, which makes you an even a greater irrelevance on this modest little blog on the other side of the Pacific where (just guessing here) the few people who care are tracking Hillary and Obama.
So how about just fucking off?
You might just get a gig as a nutjob over at SadlyNo
Southern secession is a “hot button” issue? I may be wrong, not having much familiarity with American politics, but I think that one was settled pretty definitively in the 1860s.
That’s no way to welcome our great and powerful friends, CK!
That’s the problem, Liamista. Some button pushers never regard anything as settled in the U S of A.
And with all due respect to Monsieur Merovingian, I always thought he was pretty dumb to treat his woman bad:
<img src="http://www.comingsoon.net/nextraimages/monica.jpg"
CK, I am an Australian living in Australia, hence my trawling of antipodean websites. I happen to have an interest in US politics. I am sorry for offending you.
That’s good of you, Merovingian. I think that part of CK’s comment was unhelpful. But maybe the substantive question stands.
I must be out of favor here.Just wait until your own humanity is tested over and over again,It seems Ron Paul suffers this.I even suspect,that it is impossible to see the other candidates seriously after following what Ron Paul supporters bring to light.Conspiracy is real and rife.Can anyone in their right mind think otherwise when startling facts that dont make the mainstream media can be found on the Web!?So if you didnt know how the States counts its wounded from Iraq its as terrible as the impact!?if they find you injured officially before a helicopter take off it is a different thing statistically if you die,to others.Spent nuclear fuel rods in action.What Ron Paul is is a uncomfortable reality..How can such a conservative man be so obviously right in the major aspects of his standing!?Its like discovering someone in your family with a hidden talent,and they take off as important.I dont buy the problem,in not accepting he is completely honest in his attitudes..and that means you can take it or leave it.Gays and blacks will not have Gestapo at their doors..there are some problems in his attitudes re illegals,but I am too far away to even know the barest of truths..I dont think Ron Paul will mistreat those who are genuinely fearful of him,unless you are all turning to monkeys.Whats he got.. a banana?
Well, I dont know much about Ron Paul (pls tell me he’s ‘Ron Paul the Second’), but I do know this: in San Francisco I met one of his avid supporters in a (very fine) bar at North Beach, and said supporter was completely feckin BARKING.
I mean bananas. Nuts. Kangaroo loose in the top paddock. Few iced vo-vo’s short of the packet… if you get my drift.
How did you like San Francisco, LE?
Didn’t half of the LP commentariat migrate there for the summer?
I’ll raise you that and more LE. When I was in LA a few weeks back I stumbled across a Ron Paul rally at Santa Monica beach. His supporters struck me as being more than a little bit confused about what it is that they were supporting. I have photos which I may post at some point….
Oh, and Berkeley was ace though I didn’t get to spend anywhere near enough time there.
Any politician who can get Little Green Footballs and Daily Kos to team up together for a Big Smear, using white supremacists as a source (!) is obviously doing something right. Ten year old newsletter quotes written by someone else? So what does Paul think of civil rights and African Americans today? Who cares right?
Do you really think Billary or Obama is going to change the rules and power structure in the United States in the midst of a recession and expanding world war? Please.
Billary and Obama will be like Blair in the mid-1990s, promising Hope & Change and then causing absolute carnage once in power. Billary and Obama are both pro-war presidential candidates. Billary’s got her eyes on Iran, Obama wants to bomb Pakistan.
For seven years of Bush rule, Americans were bagged out for not taking an interest in politics. Now millions of previously uninterested young Americans take an interest in who is going to be president, and come round to believing Ron Paul might just be their kind of president, they’re still a bunch of ignorant, stupid hicks? Is that right, Lefty E?
Very sad. And weird.
You can easily find out where Ron Paul stands on any number of issues by looking at his extensive list of interviews on YouTube. Try the remarkable interview Paul did on the Jay Leno show a few days ago for starters.
What exactly is so crazy about wanting to destroy an economic system that consistently screws the poor, impoverishes the middle classes, and reaches so far across the globe that even Australians are now paying the price for the sub-prime robbery?
The fact that he wants to replace it with an unregulated free market, perhaps?
Does this mean that there is now open season on the time various Australian pollies spent editing “newspapers” in university, on behalf of unions or the various socialist workers parties? I am sure Julia, and many others, would love that.
I’m not aware that Julia ever spent any time as a student newspaper editor, but I, for one, imagine that I’d stand by most of what I wrote for Semper in the early 90s, though I might not agree with it all today.
The salient differences are:
(1) Ron Paul wasn’t a 20 year old student at the time but a former and then serving Congressman, and a former Senatorial and Presidential candidate.
(2) His “newsletters” weren’t meant to provide a range of views or represent the views of an organisation but rather his views as a politician and activist.
What was published under his name was clearly designed to advance his political causes and views and ambitions, and written at a time when he was of mature years and had already served in Congress, and some of these newsletters were written after he returned to Congress. It’s appropriate that he take responsibility for them, even if the content wasn’t authored by him.
SF was wild, thanks Kim, and others. I liked Berkeley campus a lot. Woah – Are we slumming it here in Oz Unis, or wot?
However, the town of Berkeley itself was a bit dull. Well, dull as all getup. Once Id given me lekchas I couldnt wait to get back to SF.
Basic San Francisco highlights for me:
North beach bars, and City Lights Bookstore
Buying Fluevogs in Haight Ashbury
Bars in the Mission
Alcatraz
Muir woods
Its one hell of a town. I’ll go back there.
Oh, and I’m not aware that there are any Australian politicians who ever edited magazines for “socialist workers parties”.
Mark,
As you rightly point out our views change. Even if (not conceded) his views were close to those of, say, David Duke 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago, does that mean that what he is saying is any less sensible now? Point to almost any ANC leader (except for maybe Jacob Zuma), for example, and compare the views of 1990 to today and the views will be likely to have changed substantially.
Playing the man, not the ball, is a very old tactic. I see a large element of that here.
Some footage of the scary, crazy Ron Paul supporters Mick and LE are apparently talking about :
Deeply disturbing stuff.
I look forward to more New Republic sourcing on LP in the future. Or you could link to Little Green Footballs instead, they run daily smears on Paul.
Perhaps so, Andrew, but 1996 isn’t so long ago. It does seem to be a feature of American politics that people trawl back for anything that anyone ever said or wrote. But I must also say I’d be a bit wary of David Duke popping up now and saying he’d changed his stripes.
There’s a bit of the problem with the ANC analogy – in that they were an insurgent and illegal revolutionary movement in the 80s and before, and a governing party now. That’s a hell of a lot bigger change of circumstance than being a congressional candidate in the mid 90s and a congressman in 2008.
Darryl, I’ll repeat the point I made earlier. You say the economic system in the US offends against social justice.
Here’s what Ron Paul’s view is:
This is his notion of social libertarianism:
Here’s his take on the environment:
And on healthcare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Political_positions
As far as I can tell, most LP bloggers are basically social democrats. Why you think we’d be enamoured of him is a puzzle.
http://www.fluevog.com/
Very good, Lefty E! Glad you mentioned shoe shopping.
They make great pumps.
I’m an alum of USF, which no one’s ever heard of so it’s not exactly Berkeley. But it’s a nice school, and has its own aesthetic charm:
<img src="http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/752/412230.JPG"
Mmmm, looks great, Kim!
Fluevogs rule.
I bought these: http://www.fluevog.com/code/?w%5B0%5D=attribute%3AMens&w%5B1%5D=order%3Afresh&p=11&pp=2&view=detail&colourID=2085
Oh, and these: http://www.fluevog.com/code/?w%5B0%5D=attribute%3AMens&w%5B1%5D=order%3Afresh&pp=3&view=detail&p=27&colourID=1931
Unfortunately I was working my ass off when I was at Berkeley so I didn’t get a lot of chances to sample the nightlife. I did manage to go to “The Albatross” which is a pretty famous Berkeley grad student hang out.
I also managed to sample some of the record stores at Berkeley, they were really great.
Very swish, LE!
Yeah, Mick, good book stores too. The area right around campus (up the hill) was good – the rest of the town, well, you didnt miss anything!
Still, that close to San Francisco – who’s complaining?
Yeah, I subscribe to Fluevog’s newsletter Kim. First “product” Ive ever done so with.
They’re pretty lairy – but in a good way. Extremely comfy too.
“… there are worse Republican hopefuls vying for the nomination … i.e., all of them.”
Oh well, in that case sorry for the harsh words Merovingian, because I absolutely agree with you on that point.
Clinton-Richardson ’08
Can someone post these newsletters Ron Paul was supposed to have written?
Neither were you :-p
My problem with Ron Paul is that he’s a “State Rights” guy that masquerades as a Libertarian. A lot of his policies can be summarised “States – Goood. Feds – Baaaaad.” Capital Punishment? It’s okay for Austin, but keep it out of Washington! Gay rights? Well, he says he’s for them, but he doesn’t like it when the Texas anti-Sodomy laws got struck down in court! Abortion? He says it should be a state issue, so he’s against Roe versus Wade. Education? It’s none of Congress’s business – let the states decide. And the pattern repeats.
Or to express it in Australian terms – Queensland’s illegal street march laws were and are ok, because it’s States sticking up for themselves. But it would be wrong if Canberra passed those laws.
In general, I support Federalism, but something about Ron Paul makes me think “State Rights can go and get fucked.”
Mark,
If I can just make one quick point – there is very little chance I would actually vote for him (even if I had a vote in the US) as I disagree with him on many issues, some of which you have highlighted above, but I would include his position on Iraq and other foreign policy matters (where you may actually agree with him). Whether I would vote for him or not would depend on his opponent in the unlikely event he got the nomination.
That said, I would much prefer to see his actual arguments being gainsaid than things he may, or may not, have said a decade or even decades ago. Allegations of crankery based on these sorts of things to me just appear (to me at least) to be a way of avoiding countering his arguments – i.e. playing the man.
24 is the new 20!
Follow the link in the post, Kymbos.
Ck #10 – That has to be the most arrogant and childish thing I’ve read today (day’s still young). Your argument against Merovingian’s assertion that one shouldn’t dismiss adherants of a branch of contemporary philosophy as cranks doesn’t wash either. If Ron Paul is a crank it doesn’t make other libertarians so anymore than the vast array of batshit environmentalists makes The Greens a hatful of loons.
That said if Ron Paul’s not a crank he’s at the very least not particularly pragmatic. No-one who lacks the wisdom to understand that you don’t take campaign donations from white supremacists belongs in the White House.
>
Not that that’s stopped others.
CK Said:
No worries, CK. All is good.
Yes, all this stuff is a terrible blow to the campaign. I am reluctant to engage in conspiracy theories (har har) about who did what and when.
Still, this site has admirably put the line that we should talk about politics and policy as if they mattered. If you want to dismiss Ron Paul, dismiss his current policies.
Incidentally, Paul said Dennis Kucinich was his favourite candidate amongst the Democrats.
Ron Paul’s got more going for him than most of the other Republicans, maybe all. However, I think it is relevant to consider past things he has said/written. It doesn’t mean he’s bound by them for life, but if he did believe those things once he needs to explain how he’s changed. Otherwise there is a suspicion that he may still believe those things and is just not saying them for electoral advantage.
People are entitled to change, but its also fair to ask if the change is real.
No, but Paul seems to be the most credible leader Libertarians have in the US, the country where they are strongest. If Bob Brown had such skeletons in his closet one might ask what it said about The Greens, and the environment movement more generally.
As Down and Out said, what’s libertarian about his states rights schtick? And as to criticising policies, I’ve highlighted some. Crank Austrian stuff and solve healthcare by allowing the market to sort it out. Woohoo!
feral;
This newsletter has been trotted out for years, which is why some folk are crying “conspiracy!” (given that it was re-revealed on the eve of the NH primary).
I believe Ron Paul has repudiated those views multiple times.
The problem is — and this will never leave him — that Paul did not repudiate it as soon as he knew. A good move would have been some sackings and some mea culpa newsletters. Too late now, alas.
On the other hand, don’t count Paul out. He’s still raising more funds than any Republican candidate and there’s a ways to go.
I don’t agree with Ron Paul’s views on abortion, public health, NAFTA or his isolationism and as I said before I think the guy’s just not practical enough to be prez.
>
But in his defence he stands for something that didn’t come from a focus group; he’s one of the few politicans in America asking what I think are vital question re the liberties of the citizenry, government accountability, the cronyism that dominates Washington – in short the shambling decline of democracy. On The Daily Show he told Jon Stewart that he didn’t want to spread democracy by forcing it on other countries. Instead he just thought the US should try to be the best democracy it could be and believed that others would follow if this path was taken.
>
On that point alone I think the guy’s made a worthwhile contribution. That’s exactly it. Democracy has inherent values that are attractive expecially to those who don’t live in democratic countries, ie the government can’t shoot you, rob you or lock you up without good reason and due process.
>
Unfortunately the hypocrisy of us democracies is turning people off the idea. Some of ‘em want Theocracy (poor dumb bastards). And meantime the folk who’re selling ‘democracy’ to foreign markets are wrecking it domestically.
Good point, Adrien.
Didn’t Derrida defend someone in this position?
For fascist writings a long time ago?
Wow – Post-modernism really is dead
As I understand it the Citizen’s Electoral Council thinks Ron Paul is the best presidential candidate. From their local followers. I don’t think I need to expatiate on that.
(You meet all types when you are a political activist in a country town. For the record, I am in no way a supporter of the CEC.But now and then they get past my spam filter.)
Professor: you’re thinking of Paul de Man. Quite an odd parallel. Ron Paul has a “out” – a lot of his more disgraceful newsletters appear to be ghostwritten. In contrast, Paul de Man’s work is his and his alone.
The CEC supports Ron Paul? No!
>
Their policies are almost the opposite of Ron Paul’s. Except as I think about it the credit thing and maybe AGW. Anyone ever see the CEC choir? You gotta hand it to Larouche, he’s the L. Ron Hubbard of politics.
I was thinking the same thing. But LaRouche is a creepy fella and I wouldn’t be surprised if he cooked up some doped-out reason about how the treat of westphal demands his supporters get involved in the Ron Paul campaign.
I don’t know that Libertarianism is necessarily a crank philosophy, but it does seem to attract more than it’s fair share of cranks. Ron Paul is definitely a crank, no matter whether you agree with him on what ails democracy. One of his first appearances after his announcement he was running for the Presidency was on the Alex Jones radio show. If that doesn’t firmly put you in crank/conspiracy territory, I don’t know what does. Secondly, his website proclaims his support for crank medicine as a plank of his election platform (and he’s a trained physician). I was jumped on at Andrew Nortons blog by some of the winged monkeys from Catallaxy for daring to call him a crank some time ago. I’m still not wrong.
It’s good to know in advance that Ron Paul is an evil “racist”, a “hater”, a “confederate”. All sensitive, pro-diversity, leftists can now in good conscience support one of the mainline candidates, so that we may continue the “tolerant” “unhateful” policies of:
-Throwing millions of blacks in prison for non-violent offenses (called the “War On Drugs”, but has had the reverse, possibly intentional, effect of flooding America with drugs, and filling the prisons with people who pose no threat to society, so that they can be raped and infected with AIDS, or otherwise trained into REAL hardcore criminals); this, by the way, is supported by virtually every single candidate except Ron Paul
-Invading or otherwise bombing Pakistan, Iran and possibly Sudan (which will hike the oil price WAY past Don Bradman territory – oh yes, and kill millions of people for no good reason); obviously, the only candidate who opposes all that is…Ron Paul (O-bomb-a wants to attack Pakistan, Hillary, *spit*, has already stood before AIPAC and shilled for an attack on Iran; McCain sings songs about bombing Iran and wants to occupy Iraq for 100 years, putting him on the same page as Benito Giuliani, while the Huckster, despite stealing Ron Paul’s clothes, is also planning plenty of foreign air-raids, for Jesus or something)
But we’d better be awares, otherwise Stormfront’s very own Manchurian Candidate might squeeze through the Republican primaries, and do some really horrible things like keep millions of blacks out of prison, or not blow foreigners to smithereens for no reason!
PS – “…what’s libertarian about his states rights schtick?”
This is a no-brainer – the most FUNDAMENTAL check on government is NOT in fact a Constitution, which can be torn to shreds or interpreted out of existence within a generation or two, but the genuine threat that a portion of a state’s territory may secede and form its own laws. There is virtually nothing that worries most rulers more than this threat. And of course, it’s a lot easy to monitor smaller, local polities, and to criticise or curb their policies than a vast, sprawling empire.
David,
If you want to look at differing levels of crankery in political philosophy, look no further than socialism for an outsized number of “cranks”. People in glass houses…
Socialist says: Libertarians are cranks
>
Libertarian says: Socialsts are cranks
>
Socialist: Libertarians!
>
Libertarian: Socialists!
>
S: Libertarians!
>
L: Socialists!
>
S: Crank!
>
L: Crank!
>
S: I know you are but what am I?
>
Children, children. Quiet. Relax. It’s okay. You’re both cranks.
“Secondly, his website proclaims his support for crank medicine as a plank of his election platform (and he’s a trained physician).”
I don’t know David, here’s his “crank medicine” proposal:
“I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.
I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.
I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements”
I think it’s crank medicine but then I’m an irretrievable captive of Big Pharma. OTOH, the Australian Greens would consider this to be a pretty good platform and Australians currently spend about 2 billion bucks a year on purchasing these nostrums…..I guess it depends on who is doing the promulgating.
This is a no-brainer – the most FUNDAMENTAL check on government is NOT in fact a Constitution, which can be torn to shreds or interpreted out of existence within a generation or two, but the genuine threat that a portion of a state’s territory may secede and form its own laws. There is virtually nothing that worries most rulers more than this threat. And of course, it’s a lot easy to monitor smaller, local polities, and to criticise or curb their policies than a vast, sprawling empire.
And your most fundamental check on government is completely and utterly useless for addressing misgovernment from Texas, or from any other State in the Union, or from Queensland, or from sub-national units in general. As an example:
“I hate Joh and his corruption… so I’ll… I’ll… I’ll get Brisbane City Council to secede! Nah, I’ll thinking too big. Start small, start small… I’ll get West End to secede, or at least the bit west of Hargreaves Road, and annexe it to New South Wales. Better organise a community meeting…”
Or for those conservatively inclined, substitute “Beattie council amalgamations” for “Joh and his corruption”. I will leave it to the reader to work out what happens next.
It seems like you and Ron Paul share the same blind spot.
Steve: on a serious side, I applaud Ron Paul’s stance on the War on Drugs. But then it underlines what shits the other Congresscritters and Senator are. Not all of them, but most.
“And your most fundamental check on government is completely and utterly useless for addressing misgovernment from Texas, or from any other State in the Union, or from Queensland, or from sub-national units in general.”
Maybe, but as a Western Australian, why should that be made MY business, and potentially a matter of my taxes and freedoms? Let the Queenslanders solve their own issues by themselves – I shouldn’t have to bankroll a federal power-grab, by legislation or fiscal decree, potentially destroying the liberties (and sovereignty) of Western Australians, to “save the union” over queer rights.
By the same anti-secessionist argument it would be perfectly justified to establish a world government and to wage total war on the entire African continent in order to stamp out “human rights abuses” and build “free” (i.e. occupational) governments. Obviously, this would not only lead to chaos over there, it would additionally destroy “liberty” among the “liberators” themselves by ceding their powers to a higher, unaccountable authority.
This is the essence of the argument against Lincoln – sure he freed the slaves albeit at an INCREDIBLY high cost…yet in the process he gave birth to an authoritarian plutarchy in Washington DC that is beginning to make the extinction of the human species appear more than a mere question of “if”. I quite LIKE the idea of divided powers, even if it DOES mean men like Jefferson Davis, or Joh Bjelke-Petersen, get to be in control of some of the smaller fragments.
Which is why that the natural denouement of classical liberalism MUST necessarily be support for secession whenever and wherever it arises – be it in Bolivia, the Deep South, Ireland or even WA.
Once again, the demands that a “freer” state interfere in a “less-free” state are a sure recipe for assimilate the former into the latter, and turning “freedom” into a distant memory.
The other “argument” against Ron Paul is that if he gets into power then the Chinese will start a world war, al-Qaeda will annex Washington, Iran will nuke Israel…the list is endless. Tim Russert even asked Ron Paul what he would do if Iran invaded Israel (!!) with the implication that this would be inevitable, particularly with Ron Paul in the White House.
Once again, when claims like these are made, they say far more about the hysteria, paranoia and unreliability of the advocate than they do about Ron Paul.
Maybe
…which I read as “I agree, but I don’t want to admit it.”
… but as a Western Australian, why should that be made MY business, and potentially a matter of my taxes and freedoms?
Now I understand you better. A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. A liberal is a conservative who’s been bashed up by the cops. And a libertarian is someone who thinks taxation is the same as mugging.
Libertarianism: Liberty or Death, but never my Money.
No it isn’t.
The most fundamental check on government is rebellion, of which secession is merely a minor, localised sub-set.
The most fundamental check on govt without resorting revolution or
civil warsuccession is: seperation of powers, rule of law, educated citizenry, free press…>
And um – elections.
Elections aren’t really that necessary. I agree with Katz that rebellions are definitely in order. In fact, elections are counter-revolutionary for my purposes – once you accept the logic of democracy and majority rule, you have no reason not to continually expand the democratic franchise until it encompasses every square inch of the planet; why indeed, restrict yourself to a majority in territory A, when you can combine with territory B to create a super-majority, and so on? Thus liberty, properly understood, MUST be anti-democratic, in refusing to allow any given gang of people to rob and mulct a smaller group sans the right of the latter to exclude and defend themselves from the former.
I could do away with elections so long as there is a condition of permanent revolution, in the direction of secession, against the elite.
This is the essence of the argument against Lincoln – sure he freed the slaves albeit at an INCREDIBLY high costâ¦yet in the process he gave birth to an authoritarian plutarchy in Washington DC that is beginning to make the extinction of the human species appear more than a mere question of âifâ?.
Steve, I reckon the plutarchy was always there – it was just a replacement of one group by the other. Or to misquote someone (Carlyle?) “What a war – and all because one side wanted to hire their servants for life, and the other by the hour.”
By the way, isn’t one sign of hysteria, paranoia and unreliability inventing arguments from imaginary people? You’ve done it twice on this thread.
That is a complete misunderstanding of democracy. Democracy is the rule of the people, not of 51% of them over the rest in a shifting majority. “The people” is the one hundred percent of the people and democracy therefore involves recognition and accommodation of the interests of the minority by the majority, while the minority recognises the right of the majority to dictate broad policy. Ultimately it involves respect and compromise from all parties and in that environment, and no other I can think of, liberty flourishes. Democracy therefore, properly understood, is a precondition of liberty.
I agree with GregM. Steve’s rhetoric is much closer to post-Lockean liberal attacks on democracy as enabling the lower sort to rob the better classes and threatening the sacred rights of property than any actual understanding of democracy. Libertarians evidently don’t believe in it, if Steve is representative.
Classical liberals CAN’T believe in democracy, even if you accept GregM’s revised definition of it. The notion that one group of people can aggress against another, however much “compromise” and “reasonableness” they might be prepared to hold out, is still the complete anathema of classical liberalism.
Properly understood, classical liberalism, to avoid morphing into social democracy, must necessarily take either one of two roots – principled support for secessionism no matter how small the scale; or advocacy of voluntary taxation (or possibly both).
See here for an excellent piece by the late Murray Rothbard on National Self-Determination – an inherently anti-democratic notion – encompassing Lincoln, the South and post-1989 in one fine essay:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard134.html
Steve, I think that you’ll find with a bit of research that my definition of democracy is the classical and conventional one. It is simply: δημοκÏ?αÏία) -literally, rule by the people. The ancient Greeks from whom we have inherited the term understood the nature of shifting coalitions. It is the revised definition that democracy is the oppression of the minority by the majority.
Then again there have been other revisions, such as “socialist” democracy, the rule of the hierophants over the majority.
Classical liberals, unlike Libertarians, who would like to appropriate the term “Classical Liberals”, live in the real world and understand the role of democracy, properly understood, as a bulwark of their liberty. Otherwise why, throughout the laqte eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, were they its great advocates?
Just for the record, since it seems like it may not be clear to some on this thread, “states’ rights” as an issue in American politics is a very large topic with a long and honorable history, and does not reduce readily to scare issues like secession and civil war, although it’s certainly been pressed into service on those occasions.
Also, as to the quarreling over the terms of democracy, it’s worth recalling that you don’t, strictly speaking, live in a democracy, and neither do we. You live in (what appears to me to be) a constitutional democratic republic (despite the name of commonwealth, besides the words commonwealth and republic mean something very similar at their roots), which is what I also live in. Democracy as an actual functioning institution is rarely seen in structures larger than the local Kiwanis Club. And though I don’t have any quotes handy from dead white males to support me here, I’m of the opinion that democracy, properly understood, is not a value or state of being in itself, it’s merely the best available tool to deliver the actual good which we desire, and that is Liberty. Like I always tell my friends, look at any American coin, and what’s stamped there. It doesn’t say Democracy, it says Liberty.
The Newsletter Issue has been around for 10 years or so and is trotted out semi-regularly by people who want to hurt him and his agenda.
Most of the impartial media analysts have accepted his statement that he didn’t write the articles as they don’t match with his rhetoric at all other times.
Why you accept that such a fanatical individualist would define people in a collectivist way such as race defies logic. Paul doesn’t believe people have rights because they are black, white, male, female, gay or straight. He believes they have rights because they are individuals.
j_p_z, we live in a constitutional monarchy. On the back of every coin is the head of Elizabeth the Second. Hopefully in the not too distant future this will change.
Point of order, JPZ and GregM. Thinking of nineteenth century struggles over franchise rights, an equally valid end to JPZ’s sentence would be “Representation”, or “Responsible government”, or “Order”. The preservation of a working Parliamentary (and class) system, in the face of the industrial revolution and radical threats to the social order, was just as important to nineteenth century classical Australian/British liberals as the preservation of abstract liberty. I can think of a few places in the world today where the co-option of fringe groups into parliamentarism would work wonders for order and security first, and liberty second.
I agree with JPZ’s main point, though, obviously, democracy is a process not an institution, etc. etc.
Andrew Reynolds wrote:
Yep, go ahead and defend your political philosophy by saying (a) yep we’re cranks but that’s OK because (b) so are (some other political group).
Why don’t you do a straw poll at Catallaxy and check just how many readers and lurkers believe in the lizard people conspiracy, then get back to us.
Steve Edwards, your cry for secession to be supported everywhere is interesting. I certainly agree that this should be the case everywhere it has majority support, but that doesn’t seem to be what you are arguing – after all, if Jefferson Davis had held referendums in every state he would only have got majorities in most if by preventing blacks from voting.
What you seem to be arguing is that if a small minority decides it wants to secede we are duty bound to support them, even if the majority want no truck with it. Or in other words it is the duty of the world to smash countries to pieces against their will. Now what does that sound like?
Steve Edwards says:
I’ve had this argument with you over at Catallaxy Steve. You caricature democracy. Part of democracy is the safeguarding of the rights of various minorities. What you describe is the rule of the mob. To be sure, as Machievelli observed, democracy can decay into mob rule, but as he argued, and modern states follow, one gets around this by incorporating aspects of the three political systems: monarchy, aristocracy, democracy into one thereby limiting and balancing the excesses that each is prone to.
>
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the property rights you hold so dear cannot be enforced universally without civil rights and universal suffrage. If the non-propertied, or not adequately propertied are excluded from political agency then those who control the state will entrench their priviledge. If there is no mechanism for removing an overly draconian government, and no right to speak out against its iniquities one can find one’s rights to property ignored.
>
It’s all academic anyway. Barring catastrophic social upheaval you’re not going to remove anyone’s franchise anytime soon. And in the event of said upheaval you can wave your rights to propety bye bye. In that event ‘rights’ to property will be determined by the law of the fist.
Well, fine. But why was Ron Paul allowing newsletters with such stuff to be put out under his name? To garner votes? To make or raise money? I don’t see that he gets a pass because he didn’t write all of it. If he didn’t believe in it, but still endorsed it, that seems to me pretty wrong too.
The point here is less what Paul himself thinks then what this reveals about the ‘liberterian right’, if it is to be an effective political movement capable of rallying mass support (rather than an internet cult) it has to be articulated with other doctrines such as racism.
Liam: “or Order”
Heh heh. That would be a hoot, a society where the word “Order” was stamped on the money as its highest value. Did you ever see that great John Carpenter movie “They Live,” where when you put on the magic decoder glasses, you discover that Time magazine is really called Obey Magazine?
I think it’s fair that Ron Paul as a candidate is queried about views to which he’s given his tacit assent, by lending them his name and association. I look forward to the MSM applying the same standards with Obama. Somehow I think I’ll be waiting for quite some time.
JPZ, have a look at the motto on the Brazilian flag.
“Ordem e Progreso”: the perfect motto for the world’s best footballing nation.