No one’s denying their right to free speech. The libertarian movement is not the government, which is the fundamental error you’re making.

Oddly enough, you’re saying that libertarians shouldn’t discriminate against people who themselves are discriminators. Your argument makes not one whit of sense.

it would be hypocritical to exclude them simply because they hold irrational personal biases that they don’t intend to force on others.

1. I don’t trust their intentions.
2. If you’re trying to win hearts and minds, having racists involved in your movement is a poor way to do it.

I am sure there is plenty of motive to go around. Eric Dondero has written extensively about Ron Pauls racist ties and even predicted this on the liberalvaluesblog:
# Eric Dondero Says: December 22nd, 2007 at 9:42 am

” You’re right Ron. As his former personal aide, I can verify that Ron was generally very loose with those who had wanted to take a photo with him over the years. I’d even predict there’s more controversial photos that may come out. After all, David Duke himself once claimed that he had “attended a couple Ron Paul for President meetings in Louisiana in 1988.” Duke was a nobody at the time. Entirely possible he got to take a photo with Paul.

By itself the photo with Black doesn’t mean much. Except to say it reflects badly on the Paul Campaign itself, most specifically on Paul’s Personal Travel Aides, who should have seen this coming.

But in context, with the fact that just 3 days earlier the Paul campaign released a statement saying they would not return the Don Black check of $500 it’s very damaging.

I predict we’ll be seeing more detailed reports of Ron Paul’s ties to extremist groups coming out in the coming weeks. ”

From the libertarianRepublican:
January 9, 2008 1:01 PM
Eric Dondero said…

I’m still reflecting on all this, and deciding on the best course of action to take that would be most beneficial for the libertarian movement, and more specifically the Libertarian Republicans.

Please give me some space.

I beg your indulgence.

I’ll have more to say in the coming days. And I’m sure all the information you all are waiting for will come out in time.”

Dondero may not have written the articles but he most certainly has not distanced himself from the smear campaign that has claimed the internet– quite the opposite.

MOTIVE? He claims to have mutually resigned over differences in foreign affairs (Eric’s warhawkish views versus Paul’s non-intervention), Based on Reasons interview where Paul claims Dondero was fired. Dondero acts more like a fired (spurned) employee with an ax to grind.
Reason:http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html

“Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

Paul: He’s a disgruntled former employee who was fired.”

Could it be he is upset about the man he created and now wants to unseat?

Eric Dondero, who commented on some of last night’s debate threads, has made an announcement http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/former-ron-paul-campaign-manager.html

I am this morning, declaring my candidacy for Congress in the GOP primaries against Ron Paul. If he does not resign his seat, and if another Republican candidate does not declare against him, I will run a balls-to-the-wall campaign for Congress in Texas CD 14.

I am the guy that got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996. I can and will defeat him in 2008.

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003

This topic has been all over the place, its like bad computer virus that continually spreads regardless of firewalls. Dondero is on a mission, my guess is that this pathetic soul who claims to have created Ron Paul, is looking to one day say he was the man that brought Paul down.

Hmmm, maybe my timeline is messed up on that. If that’s who it is though, it would do Paul well to just name the name and expose him considering that there isn’t really any good blood between the two.

My guess is that it isn’t him, though.

Dondero has claimed that he started working for Ron Paul in 1987 so the timeline does fit, and the rhetoric in the articles I saw does have some similarities to some of his more colorful comments he’s made, both on your site and others, and he’d certainly have a motive for not stepping forward and accepting responsibility for authorship or even highlighting those articles for the press.

But then again, it could very well be somebody else and this whole thing could have nothing to do with Eric Dondero at all. Probably best not to speculate publicly or make accusations until somebody with actual knowledge of the writer’s identity steps forward. This is how witch trials start.

Actually, from what I’ve read it seems like Dondero was not employed by Paul when the relevant articles were written.

Keep in mind that, for the most part, these newsletters were published during the period between 1986 and 1997 when he was not a Member of Congress.

And don’t believe Dondero when he comes on here to act like “some stranger” to cover his ass. He’s good at writing using someone else’s name.

Although I will say that I find it unlikely that NAMBLA would have significant common ground with libertarians. The racists don’t really have a lot either, but just because somebody is a bigot or a racist doesn’t automatically mean they believe in committing acts of violence against minorities or statutorily discriminating against them…many are content with just having freedom of association (or disassociation), which is a libertarian mainstay. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is an activity that consists entirely of non-consensual activity (since the victims are usually too young to give consent) and their policy arguments (to my understanding) are often about excusing that behavior so that would appear to make them incompatible with us. I suppose there would be common ground between us and them on arbitrary, unconstitutional or unenforceable sexual predator laws but beyond that I don’t see pedophiles being capable of having separation between their personal preferences and their policy arguments so there’s probably a case for exclusion there if your scenario ever came up.

As for death row inmates, there are quite a lot of libertarians who oppose the death penalty on a pro-individualism basis and, it turns out, quite a few people who ended up on death row without doing anything to deserve it so I’d be careful about putting that out as a universal example of people who we should immediately shun. Collectivism’s tricky like that.

“Say NAMBLA and the death row inmates of Texas publish statements in favor of libertarianism. Should libertarians repudiate them? Of course. So, your principle is wrong.”

You’ve either got a non-sequitur in there or you need to flesh out your case for exclusion before you start unilaterally declaring me wrong. I’m not a fan of pedophiles or murderers either, but they’re entitled to free speech the same as anybody else and they have rights as well.

“You can’t tell people, “We believe all people should be equal!” when a segment of your group says, ‘Except the coloreds!’”

You’re making the same error as Doug. I’m not saying that we should tolerate policy platforms that call for statutory discrimination (or that advocate violent, coercive behavior, as NAMBLA might do), what I’m saying is if the racists are willing to leave their personal prejudices out of the policies they advocate they’re capable of advancing libertarian doctrine as well and it would be hypocritical to exclude them simply because they hold irrational personal biases that they don’t intend to force on others.

Say NAMBLA and the death row inmates of Texas publish statements in favor of libertarianism. Should libertarians repudiate them? Of course. So, your principle is wrong.

Is there a place to draw a line, then? I think so. I don’t know where that line should go, myself, but I think it’s fair to say that people who think of other races as inferior do not belong in a group dedicated to the equal liberty of all people. You can’t tell people, “We believe all people should be equal!” when a segment of your group says, “Except the coloreds!”