RSS 2.0 Feed
Ron Paul, Federalism, And Racism
Prior to Thanksgiving, I noted the criticism that law professor David Bernstein had leveled against the Ron Paul campaign for the associations that have been noted with neo-nazi groups like Stormfront.
In a follow-up post, Bernstein talks about the Paul campaign’s official statement on racism which in essence states:
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
Bernstein responds as follows:
[A]t best this statement reveals a naive faith in the idea that government is the root of all problems, as in the old joke, “How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, the market will take care of it!” Don’t like racism? Reduce the federal government and it will go away!
At worst, by completely ignoring the historical role of racism in American society, and the diminished but not insubstantial role racism by whites continues to play in our society, and focusing criticism only on advocates of “diversity,” (even, apparently, when they advocate only voluntary, non-governmental action to achieve diversity), the Paul campaign is appealing to the Pat Buchanan (and beyond) wing of the “Old Right”, while trying to preserve some plausible deniability on race to its more tolerant libertarian constituency.
That’s not to say that personally Paul isn’t really against racism; in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume that he is. Rather, the point is that his campaign seems to be taking the same unfortunate position that Goldwater did in 1964; condemning racism in general on principled libertarian grounds, but providing winks and nods that support from racists for racist reasons would be welcome.
Dale Franks makes even stronger comments about the Paul campaign’s statement:
In essence, Mr. Paul’s message is that government causes racism. But he ignores what must be a necessary corollary of that belief: if government has the power to cause racism, it must also necessarily have the power to combat it. You simply cannot have the power to do one without the other.
In a certain sense, of course, Mr. Paul makes a valid point. To the extent that government itself attempts to create favored and disfavored groups, it perpetuates racism. And one can certainly argue that government has in some cases done precisely that.
But one cannot ignore the fact that government action has, by and large, reduced overt discrimination in the last two generations. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 essentially destroyed—completely and permanently—the Jim Crow laws of the South. Yet, any acknowledgment of this is sadly lacking in Mr. Paul’s statement. Yes, government at the state level created Jim Crow. But government at the federal level eliminated it.
On some level, it seems clear that Bernstein and Franks are correct, at least about the naivety of the idea that it’s only primarily the Federal Government that is the source of the problems that create racism.
For one thing, such a view ignores a good part of the history of the United States from the end of the Civil War until the birth of the Civil Rights Movement when it was states and local governments that were the primary sources and enforcers of an entire culture of racism and second class citizenship for black Americans, both in the South and in the North. When the Civil Rights Movement finally came into being, it took the action of Federal Judges and a federalized National Guard to allow black children in Little Rock, Arkansas to go to a public school, or to stand up to an Alabama Governor who campaign on a platform of “segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” and who vowed to defy any effort to eliminate Jim Crow.
For more than 100 years, racism was enforced, and in some cases, imposed by the state governments, not the Washington, D.C. And when the time came that American society finally recognized that treating a group of people differently because of their race was inconsistent with it’s founding document, it was the states that resisted the efforts of the Federal Government to protect the liberty, property, and, in some cases, the lives of their African-American citizens.
Blaming the Federal Government for racism is, quite frankly, is as misplaced as blaming the United States for 9/11.
More importantly, the problem I have with Paul’s statement is the fact that it seems to suggest the racism is strictly a function of the evil of government when the truth is that it is, at its root, an example of imperfectability of man, something which Dale Franks also notes:
[A]ll to often, the problem is people themselves. And government, whatever its virtues or vices, does not solve the problems that arise from human nature. Neither, for that matter, does liberty. To argue otherwise is to argue for the perfection of man through political means. And that, my friends, is the very basis of collectivism.
In other words, and as I’ve said before in comments here, racism exists because certain people define themselves not as individuals but as members of a (racial, national, ethnic, or religious) group and believe either that their group is superior to all others, or that some other group is inferior.
That philosophy is incompatible with the idea that human beings are individuals entitled to individual rights, and it’s incompatible with anything that dares call itself libertarianism.
And that’s why anyone who considers themselves a libertarian or classical liberal should have nothing to do with Stormfront, David Duke, or anyone of their ilk.
WTF, Doug? You honestly don’t see the strawman there? I’m not even going to read the rest of this trash.
Campaign (emphasis added):
“most”, Doug. Not “only”, “all”, “sole” or any other absolutes that tucked in those trash arguments.
I’m really having a hard time believing that you could honestly be so dumb as to have missed such an obvious strawman in the fricking premise.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 24, 2007 @ 9:01 amfrom ronpaul2008.com
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
Comment by rick — November 24, 2007 @ 9:01 amlol maybe i should read before i post…
Comment by rick — November 24, 2007 @ 9:04 amI agree with Dr. Paul. I am a “latina” who resents to be called such, because..IT IS NOT TRUE. I am simply an individual with the rights and obligations my creator gave me at birth. I hate to be classified and have endured real alienation and separating treatment because of that government PASSION to group people like if we were animals. “The dogs in this side”, ” the horses in the back”… As a human being, I have responsibilities, rights and duties which are inherent to my natural being or condition. I don’t want the government to dictate/regulate them. By doing so, the gov. often victimizes me and others.
Comment by Maria — November 24, 2007 @ 9:12 amVote Ron Paul!
Thank you, Maria! That was very well said.
Comment by Richard — November 24, 2007 @ 9:13 amYou seem to share the same individualist vs collectivist understanding of racism that most Ron Paul supporters have. It’s like you understand the overarching theorem but not the corollary that government encourages collectivism.
“More importantly, the problem I have with Paul’s statement is the fact that it seems to suggest the racism is strictly a function of the evil of government”
If that’s what you think the statement suggests then consider rereading it a few hundred more times–I think you want his statement to suggest that because you’re trying to rip on RP. What I read is that government institutionalizes “the man.” Racial collectivism is a galvanized by this. For example, my Puerto Rican cousin scoffs at the suggestion that his last name somehow helped him get into Princeton, though otherwise logical Ivy Leaguers in our family have expressed the same because things like Affirmative Action are institutionalized.
The corollary drawn in Dale Frank’s statement shows equally poor logic: “if government has the power to cause racism, it must also necessarily have the power to combat it.” This is like saying a match can cause fire so it must also be a useful extinguisher.
Despite the intent of protecting individualism, government is a vehicle of collectivism.
Comment by Amir — November 24, 2007 @ 9:22 amBerstein quickly makes the case that RP is correct and he himself is actually guilty of racism. He quoted “as in the old joke,
“How many libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, the market will take care of it”
This statement alone says it all.. racism doesn’t have to be about skin color, race, age, or sex..it is about the alienation and stereotyping of a “group”..lumping them together, forming a generic opinion and building a straw man argument against them.
So, take the criticism as is..and consider the source. This is the pot calling the kettle black.
Comment by Bob A — November 24, 2007 @ 9:24 amLibertarianism is inconsistent with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Opposition to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is “racist”.
True libertarians are “racist”.
QED
When you use smear words like “bigotry” you can be hoist on your own petard.
Comment by James Bowery — November 24, 2007 @ 9:27 amFirst of all, Ron Paul hasn’t associated himself with any racist organizations, they may have associated themselves with him, but to negatively attribute that to Ron Paul would be the logical falacy of guilt by association.
Ron Paul’s not saying that the government is the cause of racism, he’s saying that when the government writes laws for certian races, that legislation is inherently racist itself. If you didn’t have any laws regarding at all regarding race, you wouldn’t have ever had laws that enforce segregation and disenfrachisement of races in the first place.
Racism is certianly a bad thing, but to try to correct it by the reorganization of society by the means of violent coercion, is in my very libertarian opinion, much worse.
Comment by robert — November 24, 2007 @ 9:31 amIn the absence of evidence to the contrary, I assume David Bernstein is a racist.
Comment by Bill Moore — November 24, 2007 @ 9:38 amThe hypocrisies on the far right and religious right is amazing. In my own personal experience, having been using using news groups, message boards and blogs for over 10 years, it had been the self described “conservatives”, always supporting the Right, the Pat Robertsons, the Wars, and every single person in the Bush administration..but when a crime concerning skin color happens..they are the first to scream the “N” word.. I recall when a black guy down south was dragged to his death being pulled behind a pickup truck..they rejoiced. I recall when Rosa Parks died…they suggested burying her in a bus.
But somehow Libertarians are “labeled” racist by the people who are “truly” racist.
Comment by Bob A — November 24, 2007 @ 9:42 amIt is the role of the federal government to protect our liberties. As such, it is the role of the federal government to step in the states when they are not giving their citizens equal liberties. I have no complaints, nor do I think many people would about the federal government stepping in during the 60’s to allow people to vote etc.
However, it goes beyond it’s role when it chooses to create it’s own laws in the NAME of preventing racism. Because when the federal government does it, then there is no function, no checks and balances to police them. This is the reason our government is setup in mulitple branches, and every time the federal government picks up new powers and takes them away from the states, it underminds that structure.
It seems this is just another issue people want to polarize. As if the only level of government is the federal government. As if all laws should be passed through the federal government, and if you aren’t in favor of those, well by golly you are just plain out against it. No, that is not the case at all, and you do a very big disservice to the people who read this blog when you present it as that.
The reason slavery is gone is not because of the civil war. The reason civil rights were given were not because of the federal government stepping in. Those were the results. The results in a change of consciousness among the majority of Americans. Based on the ideas that humans have equal rights. So it is the idea which brings on change.
And Ron Paul has the right idea, and that is to treat people as equal individuals, not to treat them as belonging to certain groups based on physical appearances and beliefs. Because that is where the real change will come from - the good idea that people know is true.
Comment by badmedia — November 24, 2007 @ 9:43 amJames,
Question:
If it hadn’t been for Supreme Court cases like Brown v. Board of Education and an activist Federal Government forcing states like Mississippi to recognize the individual rights of their black citizens, do you seriously think that Jim Crow would’ve died as quickly and effectively as he did ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 9:43 ambadmedia
The problem with your theory is that if it hadn’t been for the Civil War, slavery would have existed for at least another generation or two. If you consider than acceptable price to pay, that’s your choice.
Second, if it hadn’t been for things like President Eisenhower sending the Army to force states in the Deep South to allow black children to go to school, then Jim Crow would still be alive today.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 9:45 amAmir,
If you will point me to the part of the position paper that recognizes that state government can be as evil as the Federal Government, if not more so, I will be glad to reread it.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 9:46 amIm iranian, I came to the US after the 79 revolution, I started a business in LA and Im currently in Europe with my jewish friend to promote our firm as the dollar keeps dropping (poor poor managment by the FED), we want to sell to the EU to turn things around (high export earnings).
To call Dr. Paul a rascist by pointing at supporters here and there and by such judging an entire political movement to be rascist, is simply wrong.
I would bet my entire firm that Bernstein, Dale and AIPAC wont do hit pieces like this on Guiliani or Romney whom get full support of RACIST neocons (Podhoretz and so on) who find it perfectly acceptable to murder tens of thousands of middle-easterners in the name of “spreading freedom” (maybe even a million in Iraq), while dragging the US down the drain and pulling Israel and its neighbours into further bloodshed.
Its funny how Bernstein needs evidence to prove that Dr. Paul is not a rascist. Last time I checked, this country was buildt on the idea of “innocent until proven guilty”. Bernstein and Dale cant offer this evidence, so they point to extremist US citizens who use their rights to donate and participate in their national campaign, while forgetting extremist people in the neocon camp who wish a “Pax Americana” and willing to risk world war 3 for it.
As long as you cant quote Dr. Paul for a rascist statement, or rascist actions, you have NO GROUNDS for writing and doing immoral hit pieces like these which leave the readers to believe that Ron Paul is a shadowy figure with a possible rascist background. Bernstein and Dale should appologise and realise that in a free country you will have nazis, communists, greens, republicans, democrats and so on.. and here comes the main point, all of these people are allowed to vote and donate to WHOEVER they want to.
You cant seriously sit in your homes, judging people for being rascist, while paying taxes to a government whom uses that money to kill people in Iraq like if they were flies just because Oil and Military firms want extra income in their annual earnings. Get a serious reality check and view the world in a humane way.
Ron Paul: What would we think if China would do the same thing to us?
Donate to Dr. Pauls campaign, change will come, long live the US!
Comment by Reza and David — November 24, 2007 @ 9:49 amReza & David,
I am not saying that Ron Paul is a racist.
I am saying that racism of any kind is incompatible with a belief individual liberty and that there is no such thing as a viable coalition between a libertarian and group like Stormfront unless one abandons the core principles of liberty.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 9:52 amMy view is very similar to Dr. Paul’s. I have always thought that when you emphasize groups instead of individuality, there is racism. The Term “diversity” divides us. We are human beings. We are only one race: The Human race.
Comment by MY — November 24, 2007 @ 10:02 amRacism is a word made up by Leftists and Trotskites (Doug’s ideological cousins) to further their political goals; it has no real definition save as a hammer for Leftists to use.
And they wonder why we call this a neocon site?
Poor Patrick Henry has to have his name on this site.
Comment by C Bowen — November 24, 2007 @ 10:08 amI can’t believe people still think the way you do.
Bernstein and Franks just sounded ridiculous.
Comment by Dave — November 24, 2007 @ 10:12 amSorry, but that’s just not the reason the civil war was fought. Slavery was merely a political issue Lincoln threw in to get support as the northern states had already abolished it, and all but 1 of the southern states hadn’t(although their were movements in the south, the same people who ran the underground railroad etc).
And what if that issue had been decided at the time of the constitution? And what if it had been decided to make slavery legal across the entire nation, how would things like the underground railroad have been possible? Free states would not have existed if the federal government had decided the issue before the civil war.
Again, it’s not an issue of if we should do this, or if we should do that. The states do in fact have many more responsibilities on issues, and it is the federal governments job to make sure the states do their job, and to step in when they don’t. Again those rights as the constitution says that must be protected are listed in the constitution under the amendments. If you wish to add more federal tasks, then no problem, you just add an amendment because under an amendment it is a right, and therefore automatically given to people equally.
When the government does things which are not considered to be rights, and they are not protecting those rights, then they start to dive off in the realm of special interests groups, lobbyists and whatever else under the spin of “it’s for the good of the people”. When I have yet to meet a single adult in my life who thinks the government does a better job of managing their own life than they do. Ron Paul stands for individualism, and returning the power to the people. Because the smaller the government, the more power your 1 vote has, the more often issues can be changed, and the more ideas floating around. People naturally do what they see works best, and that is how and why individualism and freedom has been the best philosophy.
The fact that slavery happened, and some people were not allowed to indulge in those freedoms is not in any way, shape or form a reason to deny everyone those basic rights and call it equality. All the while attributing that things will somehow be worse than they are, when things under the status quo have continued to get worse. More of the same is not what the American people need, nor are they looking for. We want freedom, all our rights, and for everyone.
Comment by badmedia — November 24, 2007 @ 10:35 amWith the current crises, Could you imagine if all of us individuals are as “Problem Solvers” at all level? Educate ourselves and set our goal not to create another problem from this point forward.
“If I focus on create problem, I will succeed” same thing as “If I focus on solving it”
I’ve followed Dr. Paul for quite sometime and with his faith I truly believed that
Comment by Joseph — November 24, 2007 @ 10:44 am“The GOOD DOCTOR does not have a racist and/or mean bone in his body…”
badmedia,
The problem with your interpretation of history is that it ignores the facts.
Lincoln specifically said that he would never do anything about slavery in the South if elected, only that he would oppose its westward expansion.
Lincoln wasn’t even in office when the South, or more appropriately a minority faction of the citizens of the South, decided to take their marbles and go home like a bunch of spoiled children. Frankly, they were traitors and deserved what came to them.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 10:47 amIt is to laugh, Dr. Paul is not the problem, the problem is that the people are not use to the concept of freedom or personal responsibility. Dr. Paul has it right, and you two, for lack of a better label, Commie Hacks need to move the land of Hugo. Americans don’t need the government to tell us right from wrong, You pick and choose what parts of history you need to back up your marxist talking points,we will take back our country,he has united all Americans whatever your flavor we are all Americans the Consitution is are common bond. Ron Paul 08
Comment by RaferJanders — November 24, 2007 @ 10:47 ambadmedia,
Please provide a list of the members of the CSA who abolished slavery prior to April 1865.
There ain’t none.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 10:47 amHey, Dougie…are you tracking the money being hauled into the ADL by avowed Marxist donors, or is this irrelavent to “the cause”.
Comment by GeneG — November 24, 2007 @ 10:52 amWTF, Doug? You honestly don’t see the strawman there? I’m not even going to read the rest of this trash.
Campaign (emphasis added):
“most”, Doug. Not “only”, “all”, “sole” or any other absolutes that tucked in those trash arguments.
I’m really having a hard time believing that you could honestly be so dumb as to have missed such an obvious strawman in the fricking premise.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 24, 2007 @ 10:53 amLOL, Doug is now accusing the South of ‘treason’ for secession…oh. that great Libertarian Constitutionalist, Abe Lincoln. Doug is now playing the role of ‘anti-racist libertarian nationalist’, and not-surprisingly, seems to take Marx’s view on the American War Between the States.
This site must is a spoof…I finally figured it out.
Comment by C Bowen — November 24, 2007 @ 10:56 amThe federal government should make racism illegal and then set up a special federal agency to police white males to make sure they comply. More heavily armed federal employees are the answer. That will surely be the solution we have been waiting for.
Comment by Max — November 24, 2007 @ 10:56 amGene,
What does the ADL have to do with anything ?
Unlike the guys at Stormfront and David Duke’s buddies, I’m not obsessed with Jews.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 10:56 amC Bowen,
I didn’t say Lincoln was a great man, but that doesn’t make Jeff Davis (who was elected by at most a majority of 1/4 of the citizens of the CSA (i.e., white males eligible to vote)) a hero.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 10:57 am“In essence, Mr. Paul’s message is that government causes racism. But he ignores what must be a necessary corollary of that belief: if government has the power to cause racism, it must also necessarily have the power to combat it. You simply cannot have the power to do one without the other.”
Doug, you consider this an “even stronger comment”? Dale Franks argument is based on a false premise, the false premise being that “Mr. Paul’s message is that government causes racism” when the truth is that Mr Paul’s message is that government makes existing bigotry worse.
Comment by Mike — November 24, 2007 @ 11:04 amMike,
As I read the position paper, the clear implication (one that libertarians of the more radical variety have made before) is that racism would not exist without the state.
That is a patently absurd idea
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 11:06 amUmmm, have you actually read his campaign statement? He says exactly that.
And he does not say “government causes racism”. He says that the idea that people get their identity and value from their groups, and not from their inherent humanness, is what causes racism, and it also happens to be what causes bad government. He then expands on that point at great length, and on his own hostility to that underlying root ideology.
Understand too that Ron’s not an academic, he’s a politician. So he’s not going to go on about racism in some philosophical sense, but rather limit himself to commenting on what role he can play in combating it. And his role is in fighting, on the political level, the same base ideology that creates racism on the societal level.
All of which seems like a perfectly good answer to me. Pretty inspired, even. Of course, he could give a mealy-mouthed and functionally meaningless “racism bad; we should work to stop it” answer and leave it at that, as most every other candidate would and which I’m sure would appease the people currently harping on this meme, which is bizarre because if there’s any good way to NOT combat a dangerous perspective (racism, in this case), it’s in turning the opposing perspective into a hollow cliche (”racism bad!”, in this case). But he instead chose to say something a lot more interesting. And yet he’s now getting attacked by choosing to not be insipid.
This whole thing is an idiotic debate to even be having. Is race an issue in this election (for the Republicans at least)? Does anybody believe Ron Paul has some specific racialist agenda, and is that what you’re worried about? Is there some set of actions and agendas on the issue of race in America that we demand of our presidential candidates as a qualifier/disqualifier that I’m not aware of? I think the answer in all three cases is “no”, at which point this is just unsavory statement-parsing and attacking somebody, PC Police style, for giving perfectly good answers that nevertheless aren’t wrung of originality or complexity enough to fall into strict conventionality. And concern-trolling at this point is no excuse. “Oh sure *I* know this is stupid, but let me harp on it ad nauseum without coming to the defense of what is, strictly speaking, true and right,” is not a valid answer. You’ve just indicated that your stance on racism is exactly the same as Ron’s. Why not defend him then, against the sort of people now making accusations based on exactly the ideology that you (and Ron!) consider the ROOT of racism, rather than that answer to it.
P.S. Ron Paul doesn’t have anything to do with Stormfront or David Duke, unless you’re aware of some kind of connection that I’m not.
Comment by Brad — November 24, 2007 @ 11:07 amThe patently absurd idea is that such is the clear implication of the position paper. You’re reading into it what you want to read into it (as are the people smearing Dr. Paul based on this illusiary “neo-nazi” connection), rather than what the man himself actually plainly states, stands for, and has a public record 30 years long on. You’re looking past all the primary sources and relying instead on hazy tertiary “hunches” to make your judgments on.
The language in the position paper is not unclear. Read it again. This time with an emphasis on what is actually said, not what you’re reading into it.
Comment by Brad — November 24, 2007 @ 11:11 amBrad,
I never said there was a connection, other than the fact that the Stormfronters continue to use RP to promote their own agenda and the campaign still hasn’t told them to go-to-hell like it should.
The problem with this issue isn’t that RP is anything resembling racist — it’s that there is nothing good that can come from accepting campaign donations from guys like the founder of Stormfront, just like there is no good that can come from appearing on Alex Jones’ wacko radio program.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 11:11 amOh, now you’re re-writing the dictionary?
Coalition: the union of different political parties or groups for a particular purpose, usually for a limited time.
Do I need to define “union” for you too? This is not one. This is one group latching onto and supporting another.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 24, 2007 @ 11:15 amI see Doug is still pretending to support Paul while posting poorly thought out hit pieces.
Comment by C. Wesley Fowler — November 24, 2007 @ 11:20 amWesley,
I’m merely expressing my opinion, you can take it or leave it.
I’ve had doubts about this campaign from the beginning.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 11:21 amJeff,
As I’ve made clear before, I am referring to the movement, not the campaign.
It has more to do with who RP’s supporters are willing to ally themselves with than anything else.
As I asked once before (and never got an answer from anyone) — if you discovered that there were avowed racists or Stormfronters in your Ron Paul meetup group, would you ask them to leave ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 11:22 am“If it hadn’t been for Supreme Court cases like Brown v. Board of Education and an activist Federal Government forcing states like Mississippi to recognize the individual rights of their black citizens, do you seriously think that Jim Crow would’ve died as quickly and effectively as he did?”
First, Brown’s effect was largely symbolic. If you think otherwise, just look into the re-segregation of schools. It just happens, and government cannot do anything about it aside from forcing people into certain schools. I’d also like to add that many blacks were not too fond of Brown and the subsequent busing fiasco once they saw the results.
Regarding Jim Crow, as usual the movement came first and then the government comes along at the end and takes all the credit, proving once again that we cannot live without it. The Civil Rights movement began because of a growing black middle class and millions of individuals whose attitudes on race were changing.
Comment by The Vich — November 24, 2007 @ 11:31 amNo.
But I should add that I’ve been to dozens and dozens of Meetups all over, 15 rallies by now (plus all the afterparties and some of the organizing), and it would not be a stretch to say I’ve personally met and shaken hands and exchanged at least a few words with 1000+ Ron Paul supporters. And I have yet to meet or even hear of a single Neo-Nazi in the Ron Paul movement.
I did have to make the decision about 9-11 Truthers, and ultimately after a bit of exposure to them, I came to discover they were more or less harmless (some quite nice and intelligent in all other areas) who just believed something I think is kooky and with absolutely no evidence. More to the point, I decided that if their primary agenda is to get Ron elected, whatever kooky shit they believe in the rest of their personal life can stay kooky shit in their personal life for all I care.
If I ever came across a Ron Paul supporter that was actively, under the Ron Paul banner, spreading Trutherism or, worse, overt racism, I would ask them to leave. And, on a few occasions with the former, I’ve written exposes on a couple of more high profile ones that tried to do that, for the sake of other Ron Paul supporters (i.e. not just to be self-righteous).
So I guess the No is with qualification. If there was a Ron Paul guy I knew who was hard working and just out there promoting the Ron Paul campaign and its message, but I also found out he was a screaming racist when not doing Ron Paul stuff? I probably wouldn’t have a problem with that. The second he started mixing the agendas, wrapping them together, I would have a big problem with it. For the same reason, a few dozen random Neo-nazis (out of tends of thousands of supporters) somewhere out there in the ether sending Ron Paul money doesn’t bother me in the least, and let’s face it that’s exactly what we’re talking about. If they were organizing rallies to fly the Ron Paul Revolution banners with swastikas on them, or getting jobs in the campaign, I would have a big problem with that.
But that’s not what we’re talking about at all, is it.
The question, for me, comes down to the bleed through. Which is what you, or anybody else trucking this nonsense, haven’t answered at all. Meaning: what’s the net effect you can point to here that people should be concerned with?
That you’re offended that a miniscule minority of bad people support the best candidate?
Forgive me if that doesn’t exactly raise my heckles. I could give two shits who some random neo-nazis support. Why on earth would I let Alex Jones or David Duke decide my vote? I’ll make my own decision based on the candidate, his message, his record, his character, etc.
I’ve no idea why that should be controversial.
Comment by Brad — November 24, 2007 @ 11:36 amNo, you’re simply wrong. The campaign correctly notes the difference between bigotry and racism, and all the critiques seem incapable of discerning the difference.
Also, the campaign doesn’t have any ties to Stormfront. Saying it does is simply incorrect.
Also, again, Paul did not blame the United States for 9/11. Saying he does is simply incorrect.
You know, I think you folks are simply trolling for Ron Paul hits. Either that or many of you are profoundly bad thinkers. Either way, not worth my time.
Comment by rho — November 24, 2007 @ 11:43 amBrad,
There’s bleed-through all over the blogospher to the extent that matters.
The bleed-through in the MSM, if and when it happens, will only happen when and if Ron Paul becomes something more than just a happy curiosity in the race for the Republican nomination. If he doesn’t do something really spectacular in New Hampshire and follow that up with actual votes from real voters in other states, then the media is going to stop paying attention to him.
In which case this entire discussion may well be academic.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 11:43 amI told myself I would be boycotting Liberty Papers after reading an article about Ron Paul that was very offensive to me, but I chose not to be closed minded because I know there are alot of good articles printed here. Vote for Liberty, Vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul loves the American people and our country. Ron Paul does not exclude any American from supporting him, now that is what I call NOT being racist. He does not lump people into categories like Berstein and Franks do, to me that is racist. Ron Paul will represent ALL the People, and do it with our Constitution.
Ron Paul has my vote and support.
Comment by Tess — November 24, 2007 @ 11:44 amI never said it did. At the same time, it doesn’t repudiate those who claim to be it’s supporters.
I never said he did either. In fact, if you go back and look I actually agreed with RP when he got into the dustup with Giuliani over that issue.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 11:45 amYou said “a libertarian” when you could have easily said “libertarians”, so no, that wasn’t clear.
There are people who hold views that Dr. Paul and I both strongly oppose. It is policy within our meetup that such views must be swallowed while representing Paul in any capacity. If they can do so, they’re welcome to stay, because they’re advancing the cause of freedom.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 24, 2007 @ 11:48 amGod, did anyone ever teach this blog owner about the term ‘flogging a dead horse’? The issue is over and done with and no one cares about your objections.
Comment by NH — November 24, 2007 @ 11:49 amAnd since you seem content spend all of your time combating ancillary arguments rather than addressing the one that strikes straight at the fallacy of the entire post, I’m going to continue reposting it:
WTF, Doug? You honestly don’t see the strawman there? I’m not even going to read the rest of this trash.
Campaign (emphasis added):
“most”, Doug. Not “only”, “all”, “sole” or any other absolutes that tucked in those trash arguments.
I’m really having a hard time believing that you could honestly be so dumb as to have missed such an obvious strawman in the fricking premise.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 24, 2007 @ 11:50 amJeff,
You obviously disagree with what I said. Pointing that out and calling me dumb three times doesn’t impress me all that much.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 11:53 amIt’s academic anyways. If your ranting has any practical value, it’s negative. The campaign made its decision and I don’t expect it to change.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 24, 2007 @ 11:53 amThis isn’t a matter of opinion. I find fault with your ideologies, nor your logic.
Your mistake, if I assume it was unintentional, was in reading comprehension. You are factually and demonstrably wrong.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 24, 2007 @ 11:55 am*neither your ideologies, nor your logic.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 24, 2007 @ 11:56 amI noticed OJ Simpson has endorsed Hillary Clinton and also discusses Golf Dates with Bill http://www.thatpoliticalblog.com/serendipity/archives/1782-OJ-Simpson-Endorses-Hillary-Clinton!-video.html
Considering the logic of this article and the lack of any proof other wise, I guess we can safley assume Hillary and Bill are both murders or at least murder advocates…PUHLEESES
Skip
Comment by Skip — November 24, 2007 @ 12:06 pmJeff,
You and I obviously interpret the position paper differently. Frankly, I think the point that Bernstein makes has merit.
As for your point about the meetup group, my only response is that I do not see how the movement for liberty will ever succeed if it makes common cause with people who do not believe that all human beings are entitled to equal rights.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 12:10 pmYou know Doug,
If you ever managed to actually consider and read the writings of John Taylor, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson you might be less apt condemn the southern States in 1861. Regardless of the reasons for their secession, there is and was absolutely no constitutional basis for using force to oppose it. What article? What clause? To what section do you appeal?
So what if slavery had existed for another generation… we all agree slavery was an atrocious evil… but is it not difficult to claim the destroying the voluntary union of States in a deluge of blood was worth the cost? I was under the impression that the powers delegated to the United States are and were the only powers they could lawfully and justly exercise. I was under the impression that the federal government is not and was not to be the final arbiter of its own authorities… Did not James Madison, the “father of the constitution” write that “[T]he powers of the federal government [result] from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to them.”?
Lincoln was a chameleon, a Machiavellian politician through and through. He actually, as you may recall, supported the original proposed 13th Amendment, one which would have PERMANENTLY protected slavery in all the states in which it existed. What a champion of freedom eh?
You are wrong regarding the time at which the several States of the South withdrew their representatives from the federal government. VA, NC and the border-States seceded only AFTER Lincoln ordered the invasion and conquest of the departing States. Did the office holders and representatives of the seceding States swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States? How then are they traitors? What Article, what Clause, what Section did they betray? They withdrew from a union which had become injurious of their liberties, and formed a government more suitable to their needs.
I do in fact suggest that slavery could and should have been done away with peaceably, without the shedding of 750,000 American lives in a war of conquest and subjugation. The union was formed on compromise, not on some Utopian ideal.
As for Eisenhower… I certainly hope you are joking… the power he exercised in interfering in the domestic affairs, in education, of one of the several States doubtlessly trampled powers reserved to the States. We don’t know if Jim Crow laws would still be on the books… but we can say, that the racial animosity which was stirred up and continues to exist in some areas of the South would not emerged without the interference of popular majorities into the sovereign and exclusive domain of States.
I cannot imagine that you are possibly arguing for Brown… the case was decided on bad facts, bolstered by bad and subsequently discarded “scientific” studies regarding the skin color of dolls chosen by African-American children, and of course, was wrongly decided. Neither the Supreme Court, nor the federal government in any capacity, is given the constitutional authority to intervene in the domestic affairs of the States.
Comment by Ben Kuipers — November 24, 2007 @ 12:14 pmI interpret “many” to mean more than half, but less than all. You, Bernstein, and Franks then proceed to make arguments which literally state that Paul had said “all”.
Would you mind explaining which part of the above statement you believe is incorrect?
Because they are uniting behind our cause. I care not about their motivations. They are devoting their time, money, and energy to our efforts and they know what we expect of them.
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 24, 2007 @ 12:23 pmI concur with Jeff Molby on this one.
Congressman Paul and his supporters are not beholden to these “stormfronters” (of whom I have gratefully never met a representative at any Paul meet-up or rally), but rather, because these racists believe that merely because racism existed and ran rampant in years past when we had a decentralized “state” they should support someone who seeks to “restore” that order. They have it wrong. Congressman Paul does not seek to restore any old racist system. He seeks to restore the system of divided sovereignty and limited government, promote the rule of law and liberty, without falling prey to the afflictions of earlier classical liberals and American statesmen. He seeks to embrace all that was good in the early republic, and using our reason and consciences, move America forward.
Comment by Ben Kuipers — November 24, 2007 @ 12:28 pmBen,
So what if slavery existed for another generation ????
Surely you’re joking about that one.
I don’t disagree with you about Lincoln, but the Confederate States of America legalized and existed solely because of the most evil institution ever to exist on American soil. It deserves no fond place in the heart of true libertarians, and it’s passing is not to be regretted.
The Supreme Court ruled, correctly, that the 14th Amendment barred the states from segregating children in public education on the basis of race. The City of Little Rock — indeed the entire old Confederacy — refused to comply with that decision. Eisenhower did the only thing he could have under the circumstances — to do otherwise would have said that the Supreme Court is irrelevant and that Jim Crow was legitimate.
Wrong. Read the 14th Amendment.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 12:34 pmJeff,
How can people who don’t believe in freedom be united in anything with libertarians ? It’s a logical fallacy.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 12:35 pmJeff,
And to make it clear — the Stromfronters and Dukes of the world can support who ever they want.
That’s their choice.
The choice that Ron Paul’s supporters have to make is whether they think its okay to be associated with people like that.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 12:36 pmYou think they’re logically pure? Why do I care if they can’t see the contradictions in their actions?
Comment by Jeff Molby — November 24, 2007 @ 12:38 pmDoug,
You continue to do a disservice to both the Founder’s wise guidance and the innately obvious best course to achieve real equality, which is the basis of Libertarianism, insisting that power reside at the level of the individual. One must choose to be either on the side of promoting dispersed power to individuals or dangerously aggregated power to collectivist groups of individuals. Whether you realize it or not, whether deliberate or not, you Doug, are promoting the later. Why? Do you not truly understand Liberty/individual freedom, the rationale for same and the fact that it is the best among imperfect options. Again Doug, there is no doubt you are promoting collectivist thought; collectivism creates greater variations from theoretically perfect equality. Please consider promoting the path to the least possible inequality.
Individual liberty by it’s very nature grants no easy gains, no better than the “market” opportunities to make a killing at the expense of the “others”. Consequently, individual liberty has many natural enemies and very few friends. How many are motivated to expend effort to attain narrow advantage? How many are motivated to expend effort to ensure NO special advantage. Liberty does not need more enemies Doug, we need more friends. Please reconsider becoming a friend of individual Liberty/dispersed power and a foe of collectivist thinking/aggregated power.
Related to the above as it regards yours and some other “Liberty Papers” contributors on the subject of the Ron Paul campaign. Is there any doubt among anyone that understands Liberty that Ron Paul is clearly the best hope to advance the cause of Liberty in our lifetimes? No. Is Ron Paul perfect? No, what human is. Is the path to achieving a major victory for the cause of Liberty by electing Ron Paul POTUS easy under the best of circumstances. No. The priority NOW must be a best effort to elect Ron Paul POTUS. There will be ample time thereafter to discuss relatively unimportant extraneous matters.
Doug, if you truly support Ron Paul for POTUS then cease immediately what you contend is constructive criticism of the campaign, it is not helpful nor is this the time to (repeatedly) raise the issue you have been harping on in association(that word again) with the foes of Ron Paul/Liberty. Cease NOW adding legs to this nonsense. Stop being a double whammy against Liberty by promoting collectivist thought while at the same time assisting those that wish to scuttle RP’s run for POTUS.
Comment by gmason08 — November 24, 2007 @ 12:39 pmRon Paul is winning and a the revolution can not be stopped. I have created a website to help the skeptical understand just how much Ron Paul is dominating this race.
Please visit http://www.thecaseforronpaul.com and spread the word.
This is the resource for anyone that still believes it when the media tells them that Ron Paul can not win.
Comment by Cleaner44 — November 24, 2007 @ 12:45 pmWhile government itself doesn’t cause racism, it often enforces a single viewpoint (for good or ill) on the entire populace under the jurisdiction of that government.
This is the central problem with government solutions at whatever level: They enforce othordoxy. At one time, the orthodoxy was: non-whites were inferior and should be given inferior goods and services. The current (governmental) orthodoxy is: non-whites are inferior and should be given preferential goods and services.
Both orthodoxies are wrong. The fundamental problem of racism is an individual one; the solution should be individual also. If non-racist individuals had been allowed to set up their own competing lunch counters in Greensboro, North Carolina, that particular problem would have been solved non-violently. Ditto for bus service in Selma, etc., etc. Government isn’t staffed by some alien race of beings from another world, it is compposed of imperfect men who bring their own biases to the job.
Racism for the benefit of the minority is no better than racism for the detriment of the minority. In some ways it might even be worse. As Adam Smith says : “Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience.”
Later,
Kevin Houston
P.S. One more quote:
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
Comment by Kevin Houston — November 24, 2007 @ 12:48 pm- Ayn Rand “The Smallest Minority”
Doug,
I fail to see where in the U.S. Constitution the federal government is given the authority to intervene in the domestic affairs of States, especially in antebellum America. I repeat my query “Regardless of the reasons for their secession, there is and was absolutely no constitutional basis for using force to oppose it. What article? What clause? To what section do you appeal?”?
I do not believe that the abuses to American liberty were worth the cost of preserving the federal union. “Liberty”, says Lord Acton, “is the highest political end.”
You write that “the Confederate States of America legalized and existed solely because of the most evil institution ever to exist on American soil.”
“Solely”? This is an odd claim, what of the stated reasons for secession? Why do you think that the States which formed the Confederacy gave lies as reasons for leaving? Why are they disingenuous and Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and their slave-owning cronies to be taken at their word? What about the vast quantities of tracts and pamphlets printed and circulated throughout the southern States about the evils of wealth-transfer through the application of unjust tariffs as applied by a permanent sectional and special interest majority?
I’ve read and studied the 14th Amendment, and it clearly says absolutely nothing about prohibition or requiring segregation of any form. Your strained interpretation flies directly in the face of the clear intent of the drafters, and the intent of the state legislatures which ratified it. Isn’t it odd that the same Congress which passed the 14th Amendment passed segregation ordinances in D.C. and on federal lands? Perhaps it’s odd that the states which ratified the 14th Amendment had passed and maintained, in clear conscience, segregation laws??? Couldn’t be that, no.
Where exactly is the Supreme Court given the authority to intervene in the domestic affairs of States? I only see a guarantee of the privileges and immunities of the people of the several states, and of a guarantee of equal protection of the laws… Try reading the 14th Amendment instead of swallowing leftist drivel and historical revisionism.
Comment by Ben Kuipers — November 24, 2007 @ 12:48 pmIf you guys will entertain me for a second, I’d like to ask everyone a question. Can anyone actually point out any recent instances of legitimate racism and the problems that said racism caused, how our federal constitution (in its current form) fails to address those issues, and how a strict interpretation of said laws by judges appointed by Ron Paul would fail to address those issues?
That aside, I’d like to address something that Doug said. Hopefully, I can give an acceptable answer.
[quote]As I asked once before (and never got an answer from anyone) — if you discovered that there were avowed racists or Stormfronters in your Ron Paul meetup group, would you ask them to leave ?[/quote]
That’s a very tough question. Obviously, people don’t want to be associated with avowed racists. The problem that I have with making that determination is that I would then be the giver of approbation for opposing views. The same question could be asked about people who believe that our government was behind 9/11, people who believe in socialism, people who support our current monetary policy, people who support the war, and people who support any number of other views that RP is opposed to. As detestable as some of these views are to some people, those individuals support RP for their own reasons. The issue that I think concerns people is if those supporters are going to taint the campaign by pushing ideas that RP is opposed to. That is a very valid concern because there is no way to ensure that those people, or any other supporter for that matter, are not going to promote ideas that RP is opposed to (who knows, maybe other campaigns have infiltrated the meetup groups and are intentionally sabotaging his campaign by sending hate mail to reporters and other people who don’t support RP).
My answer to this problem is a difficult answer. I wouldn’t kick that person out based soley upon their ideology. After all, there are plenty of people in meetup groups who believe that the federal government was actively involved in 9/11, JFK’s assassination, and the attack on Pearl Harbor. I don’t think that their beliefs, however much I might disagree with them, are reason for them to be kicked out of the group. I would, however, kick that person out if that person was engaging in inappropriate behavior while campaigning on RP’s behalf. That goes for anyone (we already saw what happened to the head of the Michigan campaign). If I were the head of a meetup group, I don’t think I would have the right to be the judge of why a person supported Ron Paul. I do, however, think I would have the right to be the judge of how that person behaved while they were connected to my group (of course, if everyone followed that logic we would probably have fewer people in the meetup groups than we have now). If I found evidence that an avowed racist was using RP’s campaign to push beliefs that RP opposed, I would certainly kick him or her out of the group.
Satisfied?
Comment by Justin Bowen — November 24, 2007 @ 1:15 pmHey, for the record I disagreed with what you said too, and you’re not really responding to it anymore. Namely, your read of the position paper is, on the face of it, incorrect. What’s more, your stated position on racism is EXACTLY the one that Ron Paul is also stating. TO THE LETTER. Whatever implications you’re reading into it are your alone.
As far as bleed-through goes, that it’s happening in the blogosphere, I’d contend it surely isn’t. Has the Ron Paul movement gotten racist suddenly in a way that I’m unaware of? The only bleedthrough I can see are people openly skeptical/critical of Ron Paul grabbing onto this story and trumpeting it by way of concern trolling. And, in doing so, THEY’RE the ones bringing weird racialist attitudes into it, to say nothing of a pretty hazy perspective on “association”. In other words, they’re much more at fault than Ron Paul. Has anybody given Stormfront.org and Alex Jones more mainstream media attention lately than the concern trolls? Or given them more of an overinflated importance to American politics? If you want there to not be that kind of bleedthrough you’re talking about, then stop trying to conjure it.
But finally, I think the fundamental point of departure between you and myself, along with everybody else commenting it sounds like, is this:
That’s such a strawman it’s hard to believe.
No, the argument here is based on a rejection of premise. Namely, Ron Paul’s supporters are adamantly telling you they are NOT associated with people like that. You, on the other hand, are demanding that we are.
But the bottom line take-away message here is: Ron Paul repudiates racism. Ron Paul rejects 9-11 Truthism. Ron Paul patiently explains why his positions are no more anti-Semitic than they are racist against Norwegians. What’s more, he does that more respectfully, more intelligently, and more inspirationally than any other candidate running.
When did that stop mattering to you? Or rather, when did the perceptions of a handful of nuts become more important to you than that?
Finally, the campaign has explained more than a few times that if racists, anti-Semites, or Truthers are contributing to their campaign in the hopes of getting their agendas advanced, they’re barking up the wrong tree. Which makes it sort of doubly ironic. Would it be better if racists gave their money to overtly racist candidates? Or if they stupidly gave their money to the one guy in the race that really seems to believe all men were created equal, and that the greatest social evil or modern times is the belief that we derive our rights, values, or worth, from the groups that we’re divied up into?
Comment by Brad — November 24, 2007 @ 1:16 pmSecession is the only meaningful human right — that is to say the right of each individual to allodial subsistence land — land which is lost to a jurisdiction from which the individual emigrates.
In the absence of that right, all is despotism.
Comment by James Bowery — November 24, 2007 @ 1:38 pmHow many libertarians does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None the self reliant citizen will take it upon himself when he is in need of light.
Comment by matthew golden — November 24, 2007 @ 1:45 pmLOL, Doug, backing off? You called him a traitor and in your reply, could only muster, not a hero to you.
Show some backbone, for goodness sake.
Comment by C Bowen — November 24, 2007 @ 1:49 pm“In essence, Mr. Paul’s message is that government causes racism. But he ignores what must be a necessary corollary of that belief: if government has the power to cause racism, it must also necessarily have the power to combat it. You simply cannot have the power to do one without the other.”
This statement simply isn’t true. For instance, the government can cause us all to be poorer, but the government cannot mke us all richer. The government isn’t a mechanism of capital appreciation or growth.
But, I would like to point out one subtle mis-satement. Government does not cause collectivism - democracy does. If we didn’t have a democratic form of government, then we would not have the divisions and groupings that we currently do. Democracy by its nature causes divisions among groups. Throw in the power to redistribute wealth, and you have a mechanism for stealing from one group to give to another. If anything causes contention, division, and collectivism it is unfettered democracy.
Our Constitution was an attempt to limit the evils of democracy, by providing protection for the smallest minority to be themselves, to keep their property, and to belong to or reject any collective they wished without losing the power of the gang. When we undermine the Constitution we engage in a form of gang warfare, in which we are driven to choose the lesser of two evils for protection from the masses. We have ignored the Constitution to our own peril, and the division of black and white (Affirmative Action), rich and poor (Federal Reserve), young and old (Social Security), Male and Female (Roe v. Wade) has become the unfortunate result. We must now return to a time when democracy was tempered by the rule of law and minority rights. We must dissolve these distinctions by eliminating the ability of or democratic Federal Republic to redistribute wealth through the forms of regulation, subsidy, inflation, or entitlement systems.
Of course, to reduce the Federal power to do this, will increase the State power to engage in these ‘democratic’ schemes, but at least when this happens in one State, you will have 49 others to which you may flee.
Vote Federalism. Vote Freedom. Vote Ron Paul.
Comment by rhys — November 24, 2007 @ 1:52 pm“Lincoln wasn’t even in office when the South, or more appropriately a minority faction of the citizens of the South, decided to take their marbles and go home like a bunch of spoiled children. Frankly, they were traitors and deserved what came to them.” - D. Mataconis
Oh no you didn’t!
So, if we are playing ball, and you keep on fouling me, and I take my ball and go home, I deserve to be shot?
Lincoln threatend to arrest the head of the Supreme Court, Justice Taney, arrested 25 members of the Maryland State Legislature, deported an American Congressman, suspended Habeus Corpus, spied on all US Mail and Telegraphs, used the military and post office to physically destroy printing presses, arrested dissenting newspaper editors, and ‘freed slaves’ in the South, but not in the North. The man was the worst President ever! Trampled our Constituion, enacted the first income tax, stole from notherners using legal tender laws and a central bank to produce greenbacks. He was the worst President in our history, and I’m not surprised or upset that he got shot in the back of the head.
Comment by rhys — November 24, 2007 @ 2:14 pmRhys,
I am talking about what happened before Lincoln took office.
The racist slave holding white men in the South decided they didn’t like the way the election turned out so they decided to pretend to create their own country.
A war was fought.
They lost.
We can argue over whether Lincoln was right or wrong, but the Confederacy was a nation built on the idea that all men are NOT created equal.
For that reason, I am glad they were destroyed.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 2:40 pmYou and Karl Marx and Hitler in Mein Kampf, Doug.
What about the racist slave profiting firms of the North? Or the racist Railroad barrons whom Lincoln fronted who loved that cheap Coolie labor?
The Worker’s Papers would be a good name for this site. Please remove Pat Henry’s name for the sake of your souls (not that you believe you have one.)
Comment by C Bowen — November 24, 2007 @ 2:48 pmBowen,
We’re talking about the legitimacy of the CSA, or more appropriately the lack thereof.
Check the topic before commenting, ok ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 24, 2007 @ 2:55 pm“racism” is a stupid non-issue raised only by those desperate to find something to throw at Ron Paul with which they can slime him - because they are really pissed off that Ron Paul plans to cut off the gravy train to - and stop fighting wars for - israel. hail hail Neturei Karta http://www.nkusa.org
Comment by charles ranalli — November 24, 2007 @ 3:03 pmcharles ranalli
ps no i don’t hate jews.
God bless you Doug.
How are any governments legit, Doug? By voting? Are you dropping the libertarian facade all together and deciding to reveal yourself?
The DC-Regime stole from the South and gave to its friends. It murdered Indians by the thousands. Were Southern Middle Class and Lower Classes poorly served by the Ruling Class? Absolutely, so was the North.
That a self-proclaimed ‘libertarian’ like seems so squarely against the Northern Copperhead Abolitionist tradition reveals your Inner Marxist.
Comment by C Bowen — November 24, 2007 @ 3:10 pmWell, you may not hate Jews but it is hard to dismiss the observation that Jews make up 2 or 3 sigma more of the so-called “prominent libertarians” who oppose freedom of association than we should expect.
Comment by James Bowery — November 24, 2007 @ 3:11 pmI’ll tell you why the North invaded the South
Confederate States of America
Constitution
Article 1;Section 8;Clause 1
“Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises for revenue necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to prom