Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wistom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harrassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”     P. J. Proudhon,    General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

January 13, 2008

Quote Of The Day: Explaining What’s Wrong Edition

by Doug Mataconis

From Mark @ Publius Endures:

People don’t have to be libertarian to be persuaded by libertarian policy arguments- but they do have to have at least a positive or neutral impression of the people making those arguments in the first place. The more that Ron Paul remains the face of libertarianism, the more negative the view of libertarians will become, and the less impact libertarians can have on a national, state, or local scale.

Any further evidence you need in that regard can be found in the jeers and laughter that Ron Paul received from the audience during last week’s debate in South Carolina.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/13/quote-of-the-day-explaining-whats-wrong-edition/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

209 Comments

  1. Huh? Those jeers were because of his opposition to the war and from a pro-war Republican audience. Are you suggesting he endorse the war? is that the hidden agenda here? I was beginning to think you guys really cared about the newsletter but am wordering now if it is primarily a pretext because you don’t like his antiwar stand.

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
  2. I’m suggesting he’s unelectable and not taken seriously by people who actually vote.

    A proposition that, so far, seems to be completely accurate.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 13, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
  3. And my citation of the jeers was merely a compliment to Mark’s broader point.

    The American people are not going to vote for a guy whose primary supporters seem to consist of 9/11 truthers, White sumpremacists, and conspiracy theory nutjobs.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 13, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
  4. Right now, by getting 10% of the GOP vote (more or less), Paul is getting about 3% of the population at large that is eligible to vote. This happens to correspond fairly well with my estimate of the population at large that are truthers, white supremacists and conspiracy theory nutjobs. Hmmmmm, I think you are on to something Doug.

    Hell, Perot did better, getting over 10% of the total vote. And he was pretty whacky.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
  5. Side note to this, I understood what Doug was getting at about electability in his post. Don’t people read for comprehension any more?

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
  6. Thanks for the link, Doug! For all the complaining about “cosmo-tarians,” the fact is that it’s the Cato-types who actually have influenced policy over the last 25 years. Have they achieved libertopia? By no means, and like any think tank, they’ve had their failures. But – and this is what bugs me about libertarian millenialists like the Rockwellians – this country is a lot better off today than it was 28 years ago, when Cato started. They can’t take credit for all or even most of that- but to say they haven’t played an important part in it would be wrong as well.

    We’ve had a bad president, and things have regressed a bit on the civil liberties front since he took office. But the losses on that front in the last 7 years have been nothing compared to the gains on every front in the previous 20 (the WO(s)D aside).

    Cato (and other libertarian and libertarian-ish groups) pointedly did not support Paul because of their concerns about things like this with Ron Paul (see David Boaz’s post the other day). It would be extremely unfortunate if they wind up losing some credibility via unwarranted guilt by association. That is precisely my concern with Ron Paul remaining the face of libertarianism.

    And for the record, I have no relationship now or previously with Cato or any other group of “Beltway Libertarians.” (Unless you include my subscription to Reason). But I respect the work they do a thousand times more than the drivel at LRC.

    Comment by Mark — January 13, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
  7. I for one do not care about the ideologies of the libertarian, republican, democrat or other group think chief priests and scribes of any political parties. Patience, the public will eventually see that there is only one that will end our occupation(s) of foreign countries. Without this single defining issue none of the others will matter. America will have it’s WWIII and we will deserve the outcome.

    Comment by Devils Advocate — January 13, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
  8. I don’t believe that Ron Paul is casting a negative portrait of Libertarianism, most Libertarians are grassroots-sponsored as it is. Just to see the type of push in the polls should provide a positive feedback to smaller known candidates and their campaigns. Hell, if anything it helps spread the word that other choices exist outside this bi=polar government.
    Would also like to add that Ross Perot was worth millions and had lots of media coverage only because he entered the race after the primaries as a conservative, and anti-Bush, Sr.
    Lastly, be a bit hesitant with the comments folks, I am no 9/11 truther, I am a middle age white man living in poverty in an all black neighborhood where I am treated no differently than I treat my loving neighbors, respect.
    And yes I plan to vote for Ron Paul even though I have been registered independent ever since I was able to vote. Come to my neighborhood and see who is really speaking the truth, jeers come from the media, and they ain’t here either, brother!

    Comment by brent — January 13, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
  9. Brent, you are a very small minority of those supporting Ron Paul. There’s always exceptions to the rule. The point about Perot is that with millions (which Paul has in his campaign warchest), and a fair amount of media coverage (certainly more than any other libertarian candidate has ever gotten), Paul can’t do as well as Perot, and Perot was fairly whacko.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
  10. man, are all libertarians woosies like you? I’m not a truther or a white supremacist. But I find myself agreeing with the policies that this guy Ron Paul proffers. this is hardball politics. if you can’t handle jeers and denigration in the midst of what would be a revolution if it were to manifest…..then go hide under your bed until it’ all over. Then come out afterward and whine about why things never change. these guys aren’t going to gleefully give up all the power that they’ve amassed. wake up.

    Comment by jim — January 13, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
  11. So you all here are for Liberty? Sure doesn’t sound like it to me; the portrait that is painted is one of a deck of cards that folds under the slightest breeze.

    Instead of bringing down a fellow libertarian (if you all here call yourselves one), you should be embracing him, referring to Ron Paul.

    So the media, which wishes to suppress liberties, bashes Ron Paul, and all of a sudden you all scurry to your corner and hope to dodge any association with him because of it.

    Let us for a moment deduct from the logic some of you here have set forth. If a white supremacist supports your views of Liberty then you must abandon them due to the wish of not having anything in common with such a person in order to not appear as he does.

    At any rate it is not TRUE LOGIC, it falls flat on its face.

    Ron Paul has helped to spread the message of Liberty and I think all of us owe him a great debt.

    Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is the highest political end. – Lord Acton

    Comment by Jay — January 13, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
  12. Adam, get outside the box, I’m not such a small minority when you look around with an unbiased eye. Not claiming you to have one but you have to realize that there ain’t no hope for the poverty striken. Where does the news come from?, around the corner. What happened?, somebody got shot, mugged, arrested, again. Who reports this? News at 11. What is the ultimate outcome? Fear, hope, strive for better down here. Up there it is written off as some crazy “nigger” went off and shot someone, the more the merrier. There’s a multitude of media fads against the poor and (yes lets face it) the blacks. Freedom of speech is one thing but the freedoms the medias use to report only add to the problem.
    Im here to tell you man, politicians get frowned upon down here, they pose no answers, only an incentive to get a vote. We know this, recent politicians such as NOLA’s Mayor Nagin is a perfect example. I don’t see that in Ron Paul and I can guarantee you, down here my friend, I ain’t the only one that looks at it that way. Keep an eye on us…the numbers are there, the information isn’t.

    Comment by brent — January 13, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
  13. Doug, honestly just shut the fuck up, im starting to think your just mentioning Ron Paul to get people to come to visit the neo-liberty papers.

    Ron Paul is the most pro liberty, constitutionalist, candidate in your life time and what do you do doug? For the past almost 6 months you have don’t nothing but tear him down, your a piece of shit who toe’s the official line, you are not part of the alternative media you never have and you never will.

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
  14. Brent,

    I respectfully disagree.

    The form of libertarianism that Paul is most closely associated to is cancerous, populist, collectivist and far more anti-state (or pro “states rights”) than pro-liberty. People far closer to “the movement” than I have known about this for quite some time, but it seems very few people knew how entwined the paleolibertarians are with these crackpot groups.

    Hell, Paul’s “constitutionalism” only goes so far as a fetish for Article I, Section 8. Otherwise, he’s more Robert Bork than Randy Barnett. Majorities decide rights. You want that? No principled libertarian I know does.

    http://eastcoastlibertarian.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-judicial-conservative.html

    Brent, I would also recommend Tom Palmer’s blog or Rightwatch which have done a rather good job of exposing the underbelly of this sort of far-right libertarianism.

    I didn’t realize the extent until late last week. I still have a bad taste in my mouth.

    Jim,

    I have no problem playing hardball. Because I care deeply about libertarian principles, I have no problem cutting loose any cancerous influences that I think hurt us more than harm us. The company Paul keeps, setting the obvious nutjobs aside and focusing on the paleolibertarians, have deeply hurt the cause.

    If people like you don’t like it, then we can play hardball. I’m fine with that.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 13, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
  15. Max- it’s their site. They can write whatever they want, and you have no authority whatsoever to tell them to STFU.

    If you don’t want to read something bad about Ron Paul, then don’t venture anywhere near the internet.

    (Slamming head into desk for feeding troll)

    Comment by Mark — January 13, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
  16. Doug you are noting more than an enforcer of the status quo

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
  17. Doug, if you are not a part of the solution, well you my just be a part of the problem. Whats your part?

    Comment by brent — January 13, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
  18. Okay so Ron Paul is either Too Libertarian (his war view) or not libertarian enough (his immigration policy). So let me ask you whom are you voting for (I will be sure to stay away from whomever it is) My bet is probably Giuliani he’s fairly open boarders, pro-war, He’s quite the authoritarian, but its unlikely that would bother you when he is pro-abortion.

    You can criticize, but there is not a single candidate out there speaking the truth like Ron Paul, he’s kinda quirky in his own right, but I would venture to guess that the guy has more intelligence in his left pinky than in all the people who run this ridiculous anti-liberty webiste.

    The country should be honored to elect a man who is putting his life on the line, a many who understands the flaws in our system and has the guts to do and say what has to be said and done. Ron Paul has spent a lifetime serving humanity as a doctor and this country as a congressman. Other than a lapse in judgement in letting a company use his name (too make money) for a newsletter, I cant think of one single thing he has ever done that would make me have anything other than full confidence in his ability to lead, to end the war (which we have won) and fix our ailing economy.

    If you can find someone else I would sure be interested to know who.

    Comment by Michael Cathcart — January 13, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
  19. Sorry when people bad mouth Ron Paul as bad a Doug has in the last 6 months, im not going to have nice things to say to them

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
  20. well…………..?

    Comment by Michael Cathcart — January 13, 2008 @ 7:55 pm
  21. jim,

    “man, are all libertarians woosies [sic] like you?”

    Don’t know…go ask Ron Paul. He’s one. Ran on the Libertarian Party ticket for President and everything.

    “I’m not a truther or a white supremacist. But I find myself agreeing with the policies that this guy Ron Paul proffers.”

    Well, if you’re not a libertarian I honestly have no idea why you’d vote for Ron Paul because that’s his policy platform.

    “if you can’t handle jeers and denigration in the midst of what would be a revolution if it were to manifest”

    The jeers and denigration are happening because he put out a newsletter with his name that published racist material and he did a very weak job of handling it…so the criticism is deserved. Any particular reason you think his performance lately has been worthy of praise?

    “these guys aren’t going to gleefully give up all the power that they’ve amassed. wake up.”

    Now it’s comments like this that make me think you’re not being entirely honest about not being a “truther”. When you start talking about “they” and don’t provide specifics about where you agree with Paul on policy that’s when I start looking for your tinfoil hat.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
  22. “if you are not a part of the solution, well you my just be a part of the problem”

    You hit the nail on the head Doug is definitely part of the problem not the solution

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
  23. it’s times like this that makes me smile to remember that Ron Paul snubbed the LP on the nomination. talk about the right decision.

    btw, Ron KICKED ASS at the debate, and it’s playing again right now :)

    Comment by oilnwater — January 13, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
  24. Max,

    “Doug you are noting [sic] more than an enforcer of the status quo”

    “Sorry when people bad mouth Ron Paul as bad a Doug has in the last 6 months, im [sic] not going to have nice things to say to them”

    That’s why we don’t take your suggestions very seriously, Max. The majority of your comments (and those of the other Paulestinians) have just featured you whining about Doug or how we’re not giving glowing evaluations on Ron Paul or how we don’t attack the other candidates enough (which we do). You generally don’t discuss specific policies in any sort of rational manner and most of your comments are either ad hominem attacks or unintelligible batshit craziness. So if you’d like us to take your comments seriously, perhaps you should do a better job of submitting some worth respect. We actually will debate you on them if there’s conversational merit to them. But “enforcer of the status quo” cracks don’t qualify.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
  25. You can criticize, but there is not a single candidate out there speaking the truth like Ron Paul, he’s kinda quirky in his own right, but I would venture to guess that the guy has more intelligence in his left pinky than in all the people who run this ridiculous anti-liberty webiste.

    You sound like one of those Doughface libertarians who simply attack anyone who dares question the integrity or views of your Golden Boy.

    Then again, I happen to like what I’ve read here so pardon me if I don’t take your silliness seriously.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 13, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
  26. Paulestinian? That’s funny. I thought I liked Paulbearer the best but I think it has competition.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 13, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
  27. Hey East Coast Libertarian –

    Why not answer my question – who are you supporting?

    Well…….?

    Comment by Michael Cathcart — January 13, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
  28. Sorry UC im not gonna preach or debate to deaf ears.

    I attack doug because he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing , with sean hannity, o reilley, beck, bill kristol etc its a wolf we know its a wolf its blatantly obvious but with doug he’s a little more slick then the other wolf’s

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 8:14 pm
  29. East Coast Libertarian,

    We even made up a drinking game for dealing with them.

    http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/01/paulestinian-drinking-game-open-thread.html

    Please feel free to add any rules you think might enhance the quality of it.

    And I prefer Paulestinian to Paulbearer because it succinctly captures the victim mentality of the subset of Ron Paul supporters it was meant to target, “truthers” and the insane primarily (because not all Ron Paul supporters are crazy people…of course with his handling of the newsletter scandal it appears he’s losing the sane ones).

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 8:15 pm
  30. Ok UC then, who are you gonna vote for?

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
  31. “You sound like one of those Doughface libertarians who simply attack anyone who dares question the integrity or views of your Golden Boy.”

    ….Reading Tim Sandefur’s excellent post much?

    Comment by Mark — January 13, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
  32. it’s not that he’s “slick” or anything resembling cunning or a similar trait. his incessant campaign to drum up racism and such is pretty blatant, and it’s fun to watch such an abandon of principles. yet still kind of sad to see at the same time, since i started looking at libertarianism last year and thought it was pretty noble at first. but then i looked more thoroughly at some of the leading personalities, and behavior like this is not surprising to see.

    Comment by oilnwater — January 13, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
  33. Max,

    “Sorry UC im not gonna preach or debate to deaf ears.”

    Awww, my friends in the military-industrial complex seeking to enforce the status quo will be so disappointed.

    “I attack doug because he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing , with sean hannity, o reilley [sic], beck, bill kristol etc its [sic] a wolf we know its [sic] a wolf its [sic] blatantly obvious but with doug he’s a little more slick then the other wolf’s [sic]”

    Hold on, I’m trying to down three beers after this comment. You’ve hit three of the key rules of the Paulestinian drinking game so I…wait, were you referring to Beck the musician? What did he ever do to you? “Midnite Vultures” was an excellent album so I can’t see him as being an enemy. Is he part of the military-industrial complex status quo too? Because I never saw him at any of our meetings. :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
  34. ECL, I read the article, I understand, clearly, where you come from. However, Paul is not running on a Libertarian front, my man. And yes, I agree that interpretation of these aforementioned Amendments in the article are open-ended, only to a degree. I don’t believe that this case is either a Federal or State level issue. However, policy-pro’s alike, and Ron Paul is one, want to somehow categorize such actions.
    However, I do firmly believe that for third party candidates (whom I avidly support, locally and statewide) to start cracking into the upper tiers of governmental branches, some decent candidates need to come forward with some support. Paul is not the best to represent, but lets face it, there is a moderate amount of “exposure” around every word he speaks. Harry Brown didn’t have that, neither did other recent hopefuls. Not to take away from the message because I am grateful for there service and the torch carried. But this time, my man, the message is getting out a little bit more, and I’m all for that, because the Donkephant has got to be brought down a notch. I feel like you do as a third-party watchman.

    Comment by brent — January 13, 2008 @ 8:24 pm
  35. Max,

    Depends on how Ron Paul handles himself from here on out. If he shakes up his staff or starts putting out specifics on how he plans to achieve his policies then I’ll vote for him. If he goes on as he has then I’ll probably skip the primaries altogether and vote 3rd party in the general election.

    Let’s just say that I wasn’t bothered by the newsletters so much because I knew about them before and I knew he didn’t write them, but as it appears that he is still involved with the people who did write it (which I didn’t realize) I have serious questions about his ability to hire a competent staff if he were elected president. A president depends on the people he hires to get things done and Ron Paul has demonstrated a very poor ability to hire people who will help him achieve his goals.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
  36. Just a thought,
    why not rally around common objectives in the forum, leave all the senseless badgering to myspace. We have an objective, and that is for our voice to be heard, not harassment.

    Comment by brent — January 13, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
  37. Hey East Coast –

    Come on, I’m waiting – For Whom are you casting your vote?

    My bet is Giuliani, but prove me wrong.

    Comment by Michael Cathcart — January 13, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
  38. Where pretty much done then, doug your a fraud and just over all scum bag. Your not as bad as the anglo american establishment that runs the policy here and in europe but you are a naive fool.

    Oh and if your not familiar with the anglo american establishment may i recommend this book.

    http://www.amazon.com/Anglo-American-Establishment-Quigley-Carroll/dp/0945001010

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
  39. Hey East Coast, nice to meet you. Join our drinking game, it’s fun!

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 8:36 pm
  40. Mark,

    Perhaps as much as some of the stuff on your blog and here as well. I can’t help myself. Paleolibertarian is too big a word for me. :)

    Brent,

    Good points on exposure. My concern is that people can easily conflate “limited government” with “anti-state” and even easier for people to conflate “anti-state” with “anti-American”. Given the company he keeps and has little interest in denouncing or cutting ties with, perception could be reality, no matter what positive message are trying to be spread.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 13, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
  41. Electability? You are so worried by electability but run for the hills whenever someone asks you to propose a better candidate. What do you guys want? Anarchy? Non-voting as a strategy.

    No….it is electability….apparently without any transition (a la Goldwater in 1960 or Reagan in 1964 or Paul in 2008), You want victory now apparently. Okay then, which more pro-liberty candidate is more electable. Sign me up! If you can’t find one, what the hell do you want?

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
  42. Michael,

    No way I vote for Guiliani. The thought of that makes me want to join that drinking game.

    I have no favored candidate. I think they all suck.

    Nice to meet you Adam. Brent as well.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 13, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
  43. East Coast Libertarian:

    Where have been lately? Paul is running the most anti-racist camaign of any GOP candidate. He opposes both the drug war and the federal death penality. He has callled for pardoning all non-violent drug offenders. Do you know what dramatic change that would mean for minorities. Have you been paying attention?

    Perhaps you should get down from the peanut gallery and tell us who is better. Or….Do you suggest we all become anarchists and stop voting? If so, what DO you suggest?

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
  44. They all suck eh?? That’s pretty much a given and has been since the beginning of Ameican history. If you’re expecting that situation to change, you’re fooling youself. Thus, your only logical option is consistent, pro-anarchist, non-voting, right….?

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
  45. ECL: Touche.

    By the way- consider yourself blogrolled.

    Comment by Mark — January 13, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
  46. “Where [sic] pretty much done then, doug your [sic] a fraud and just over all scum bag [sic]. Your [sic] not as bad as the anglo american [sic] establishment that runs the policy here and in europe but you are a naive fool. Oh and if your [sic] not familiar with the anglo american [sic]establishment may i recommend this book.”

    Ah, Max…just when you convince me to actually try and engage you on a conversational level you go and reveal yourself to be a conspiracy theorist. Of course the spelling errors should have tipped me off. Adios.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
  47. ECL,

    By all means, pop back here anytime. We’re always happy to have commenters who add good stuff to the conversation.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
  48. Dude, do you even know who Carol Quigley is? LOL Probably not

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
  49. The LP folks don’t know who Carol Quigley is but they apparently know about the nihlists…because that is their alternative to Paul: nothing. They aren’t anarchists really because anarchists at least have a strategy. These guys have nothing to propose and nothing to defend.

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
  50. There either dumb as dirt or they know exactly what there doing

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
  51. Mark,

    But – and this is what bugs me about libertarian millenialists like the Rockwellians – this country is a lot better off today than it was 28 years ago, when Cato started.

    Amen. Top tax rates were in 70% range, inflation was in the double digits, the 2nd Amendment was taking a beating around the country, and the welfare state was bigger than it is today. While there are problems with the nanny state, competent government, and erosions of civil liberties due to the War on Terror (though it should be pointed out, they are not as bad as in WWII, WWI, or the Civil War); dare I say that the country is already moving the in the right direction.

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
  52. Dodsworth:

    Thus, your only logical option is consistent, pro-anarchist, non-voting, right….?

    Do you know where my pseudonym comes from? How about who Bernardo de la Paz, aka Prof, is? If you know, perhaps you would understand what rational anarchy is?

    I suspect, though, that the references are lost on you. And most of the other Paulestinians. Not one of you have bothered to even once make a reference that would indicate you have any understanding of the significance. I’m crushed.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
  53. Mark,

    I’ll do the same, although I’m typically slow to update my blogroll.

    Dodsworth,

    How is not voting pro-anarchy? An anarchist believes the state is illegitimate. Are you suggesting that by choosing not to vote that I am considering the state illegitimate? If so, I would have to disagree with you.

    You want to put a gun to my head and force me to pick a candidate? I can certainly do that and I may end up holding my nose and voting for someone, but it won’t be for Ron Paul. I don’t like his positions on immigration. I don’t like his positions on free trade. I don’t like his pandering to states rights bigots. Last, while I do admire his anti-war positions to an extent, we were trading with the Saudis on 9/11 when several of their nationals flew planes into our buildings.

    As much as I have a soft spot for non-interventionism, I’m not 100% convinced that leaving the non-state actors who threaten us most alone is the most prudent thing to do. Please note that I am not suggesting anything even remotely close to the sort of foreign policy adventurism that those who have not read their Hayek would think is a grand idea. I may be more in the ethical realism camp but I haven’t worked out all these ideas.

    If I thought the situation would change and force the GOP back to principles I could live with, I’d suggest any and all libertarians not support the GOP in any way, shape or form, throw the whole thing to the Democrats and regroup while they go about screwing things up for at least the next four years.

    I know the game. I just don’t like your candidate.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 13, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
  54. ahhh… i love when it seems like the whole world is insane. somehow Ron Paul gives libertarians a bad name by speaking the truth and it being his fault that “truthers” support him.

    By the way, why don’t you try actually arguing or stating a case against the legit truthers, the ones who arent insane or white power lovers. You are the crazy one if you believe the 9/11 coverup.

    Comment by jimmy dean — January 13, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
  55. Thanks UCrawford. I have to read you guys through my Google reader because my work firewall blocks your site.

    Funny. All they allow through is the Weekly Standard and Commentary and the NYTimes only on days when Bill Kristol’s columns are new.

    I’m kidding btw (about the Weekly Standard, etc)

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 13, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
  56. Ah….so you are willing to vote for a candidate other than Ron Paul but you’re still being coy. Who is it? Who is better on the issues you support than Paul? Rudy, Huckabee, and McCain. You’ve ruled out Paul. How about them?

    It is easy to sit in the peanut gallery and heckle those of us who are actually participating in the electoral process (a process you endorse, right?) but a lot harder to actually take a stand and defend it. Critics and naysayers are a dime a dozen.

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
  57. Ive never seen so much of what I call fanclubism Rofl!!!!! on one blog, and at the top we have doug, the alpha male lol and then you have the followers, marc,kevin,UC,adam,nick etc its actually pretty pathetic

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
  58. Ah….so you are willing to vote for a candidate other than Ron Paul but you’re still being coy. Who is it? Who is better on the issues you support than Paul?

    None of your business.

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
  59. Ive never seen so much of what I call fanclubism Rofl!!!!! on one blog, and at the top we have doug, the alpha male lol and then you have the followers, marc,kevin,UC,adam,nick etc its actually pretty pathetic

    Mark and Crawford, may I suggest another rule for your Paultard drinking game:

    Rule #13 or whatever, whenever a Paultard comes on The Liberty Papers and says it’s a conspiracy led by Doug to destroy Ron Paul, have 2 drinks.

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
  60. Thats enough from you fanclub. Dods they actually call Carol Quigley a conspiracy theory, what gives

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
  61. Kevin,

    Done :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
  62. Do you mean Carroll Quigley? It’s helpful when you spell his name right.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
  63. Im stuck with either using fanclub or pretender to explain doug and his minions i can’t quite decide which to go with?

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
  64. Oh my, thank you for fxing my errr a grmmer

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
  65. Dodsworth,

    Of course I endorse the electoral process. I also endorse the right for people to choose not to engage in it.

    Kevin is right BTW but given I’ve spoken about Rudy and that populism gives me the willies, your list becomes a very short one.

    Critics and naysayers may be dime a dozen but I would argue that the most rabid Paulistinians are probably a deep discount even to that price. You’d have to pay me to take them.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 13, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
  66. Max,

    Actually I called you a conspiracy theorist…mainly because you use as evidence of whatever it is you believe a book that’s 60 years out of date written by a man who died 30 years ago. Hell man, why don’t you just start using Nostradamus or the I Ching to explain current politics?

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
  67. So adam your familiar with Carroll Quigley?

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
  68. “doug and his minions”

    That’s definitely going in the Paulestinian Dictionary.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
  69. Max,

    Im stuck with either using fanclub or pretender to explain doug and his minions i can’t quite decide which to go with?

    Why are you obsessed with Doug?

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
  70. “Actually I called you a conspiracy theorist…mainly because you use as evidence of whatever it is you believe a book that’s 60 years out of date written by a man who died 30 years ago. Hell man, why don’t you just start using Nostradamus or the I Ching to explain current politics?”

    Its actually just one example out of many. I look at history in a larger perspective

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
  71. Laughing and drinking beer at the same time means I end up spraying beer on my laptop. That’s a drawback to the game UC! Make sure and add a warning label.

    Max, I’m familiar with the guy, and your reference to him (including misspelling) confirms what I have thought of you.

    Tell you what, I’ll pick out my favorite loon to refute your favorite loon.

    P.S. picking a guy that Bill Clinton thinks highly of doesn’t help your case. ;-)

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
  72. Because he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
  73. I will no longer respond to any member from the LP fanclub

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
  74. ECL,

    All I’ll say publically is that I’ve already chosen my candidate in the GOP primary, and it’s not Ron Paul.

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
  75. I wanna be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, please, please, let me play too!

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
  76. Damn, I really need to stop feeding the trolls

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
  77. Max,

    So adam your familiar with Carroll Quigley?

    What conspiracy theory are you trying to push now?

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
  78. I will no longer respond to any member from the LP fanclub

    Then count me as a member.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 13, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
  79. Max:

    I will no longer respond to any member from the LP fanclub

    Promise?

    UC, do we have a timer, or something, to keep track? I think we may have to drink again, and I’m kinda buzzed now.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
  80. I will no longer respond to any member from the LP fanclub

    Come on, don’t run away now.

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
  81. For anyone who really cares ill give you a quote from one of his books.

    “The powers of financial capitalism had a far-reaching plan, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole…Their secret is that they have annexed from governments, monarchies, and republics the power to create the world’s money…”

    and fanclub im not going to respond to you unless it has something of substance i just wanna reach someone reading this blog who may not of heard of carroll quigley

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
  82. Adam,

    Tell you what, I’ll pick out my favorite loon to refute your favorite loon.

    I’ll raise your loon with my Alex Jones :)

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
  83. Ah yes Alex, you’re peddling the usual “international bankers” conspiracy theory. It’s responsible for the Great Depression, the Credit Crunch, and finally, it’s the reason why my car didn’t start this morning.

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
  84. Here’s another one

    “There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an institutional Anglophile network which opperates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the opperations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
  85. Max, other people said things very similar to your boy Quigley, including Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler. The only difference, of course, is that Quigley didn’t outright name a group he hated, unlike the others I mentioned.

    By the way, Max, we normally call ourselves the TLP fanclub, just to differentiate ourselves from the Libertarian Party. Sheesh, at least use our proper fanclub name.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
  86. I know the Masons and the Knights Templar are really running the world already! Just let me have my illusions, please?

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
  87. I thought I was running the world.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 13, 2008 @ 10:09 pm
  88. Actually, ECL, Doug is. He’s the closet Neo-Con grand master. He is also the secret chairman of the Trilateral Commission.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
  89. No man it’s the Antichrist that’s running the world. He’s got numbers like 11, 33, 77, 69 and only Alex Jones followers can decipher what they mean. It’s all encoded man, they are talking in numerology maaaaan.

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
  90. One more for good measure

    “It is also true that this group, from its control of funds, academic recommendations, and research or publication opportunities, could favor persons who accepted the established consensus and could injure, financially or in professional advancement, persons who did not accept it. It is also true that the established group, by its influence on book reviewing in The New York Times, the Herald Tribune, the Saturday Review, a few magazines, including the liberal weeklies, and in the professional journals, could advance or hamper any specialist’s career. It is also true that these things were done in the United States in regard to the Far East by the Institute of Pacific Relations, that this organization had been infiltrated by Communists, and by Communist sympathizers, and that much of this group’s influence arose from its access to and control over the flow of funds from foundations to scholarly activities.”

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
  91. “Brent, you are a very small minority of those supporting Ron Paul. There’s always exceptions to the rule. The point about Perot is that with millions (which Paul has in his campaign warchest)…”

    Adam-

    It is you who is in the minority! The vast majority of American’s want freedom and Ron Paul has done a great job spreading that message. If we could only, for a period of time, silence the corrupt media and people like you, we could win this country back and all of us could be free.

    Alas, you unfortunately are allowed a voice and so are the enslaving media elites. Though I do pray that someday the TRAITORS are silenced!

    “The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.” –Albert Einstein

    Comment by Jay — January 13, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
  92. So, Jay, how do you plan to silence the traitors?

    You know, commenters like you have me considering whether someone out there who is anti Ron Paul is disguising themselves as being pro Ron Paul.

    Max, you don’t really believe that the Masons, Trilateral Commission, Knights Templar, Catholic Church and Anglo-whatever are running the world, do you? I mean, seriously, right?

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
  93. Great job? His message is being associated with racism because he isn’t willing to find out and/or explain his newsletters. For a man deeply interested in history, his explanation of the history of his newsletters is nonexistent.

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
  94. “Anglo-whatever” really?

    Anglo American Establishment!! Do you understand

    Some people call it the Military Industrial Complex,Elite,New World Order it has many names there’s no debating it, the only part you can debate is weather you see it as good or bad? Or I guess you can be a naive twit and pretend it doesn’t exist

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 10:27 pm
  95. Jay,

    “Adam-It is you who is in the minority!”

    The election results state otherwise. Oh wait, I forgot those were all forged by the Illuminati and the Bilderbergers. :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
  96. Kevin,

    “Ah yes Alex, you’re peddling the usual “international bankers” conspiracy theory. It’s responsible for the Great Depression, the Credit Crunch, and finally, it’s the reason why my car didn’t start this morning.”

    If I’d had a mouth full of beer it would be all over my keyboard after that one…brilliant :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
  97. There may be some truth that electing Ron Paul will be an uphill climb, but what better alternative is there? Dr. Paul has been a consistent practitioner of libertarian policy while in Congress. He has waged a spirited and vocal campaign. No other libertarian has had any substantive recognition from the MSM, many of whom have come out of the proverbial libertarian closet.
    And, most importantly he is influencing a new generation of young people, who will hopefully carry on his work.

    Comment by rmg — January 13, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
  98. Last one I swear

    “In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.”

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 10:38 pm
  99. rmg:

    Dr. Paul has been a consistent practitioner of libertarian policy while in Congress.

    No, he hasn’t rmg, but you wouldn’t believe me or listen to me if I quoted you chapter and verse.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
  100. Adam,

    Traitors are handled through a legal process. Look up treason laws.

    And, no I would not go so far as to call you guilty of treason or of even being a traitor, I don’t know you well enough, nor do I know your views or actions well enough.
    What I do know is that it sounds to me that you have a pretty good two-step going on. On the one hand it sounds like you are for liberty, though you withdraw any support for the candidate that has the most libertarian views, so I ask, are you an enslaver acting like a libertarian?

    Uhn,
    Ron Paul has addressed the racist letters in the past numerous times and even recently and states that he did not know about them and completely condemns them. He also stated that he has a deep moral regret that he didn’t pay attention to what was being sent out under his name.

    Comment by Jay — January 13, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
  101. Jay there wolfs be cautious around them

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
  102. Max,

    I can clearly see that.

    I wonder if they have ever heard of the bilderberg group. And if so, have any of them pondered what all the ruling class people meet about.

    I really wish people did their homework before they come to class.

    Comment by Jay — January 13, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
  103. Yes, he has but it’s all vague. I believe he is not a racist and plan to vote for him (no one is better sadly) but how in the hell did that stuff get in there? Why in the hell isn’t he interested in telling us the history of the newsletters? He has known about it for years.

    Heck people been trying to pin someone on it. It isn’t going away even for supporters.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=85256

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
  104. Its just much easier for them to call it a conspiracy theory and say it doesn’t exist or that it isn’t important, it helps them sleep at night i guess

    Comment by Max — January 13, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
  105. Adam

    Not all of us accept the libertarian platform in its’ totality. I, for example, as a Catholic cannot stomach the thought of legal abortion. My point was that Ron Paul is more representative of libertarian ideas than the vast majority of people in Congress.
    Perhaps I should have phrased it that way.

    Comment by rmg — January 13, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
  106. Oh, by the way, I’m not closed-minded. Just six months ago I was a pro-war Bush supporter.

    Comment by rmg — January 13, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
  107. Jay,

    “And, no I would not go so far as to call you guilty of treason or of even being a traitor,”

    That’s because you’d be an idiot if you did…last I heard Ron Paul was not our Supreme Leader nor are libertarians bound by an oath of loyalty to him. If you are I’ve got so say you’re not much of a libertarian are you?

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
  108. “I believe he is not a racist and plan to vote for him (no one is better sadly)…”

    Yes that is very sad that he is the only one that wants to uphold the constitution, you would think that would just be a given with all the candidates.

    I can completely see how it got in there, something can be your “brain child” and when you leave it alone it can grow into something you don’t want it to be, especially if you neglect it and don’t pay attention to what it has become.

    I don’t know if that newsletter was his “brain child” to begin with or not, but I am certain that he is not racist.

    Comment by Jay — January 13, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
  109. So, rmg, you agree that claiming that someone who supports populist immigration positions, for example, and opposes expanding free trade, consistently practices libertarian policy isn’t a true statement?

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 11:02 pm
  110. rmg,

    “Oh, by the way, I’m not closed-minded. Just six months ago I was a pro-war Bush supporter.”

    Congratulations on abandoning one sinking ship for another.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
  111. Jay, your statements sound paranoid and like you plan to stand people up against a wall and shoot them for disagreeing with you. You also sound like you think that people who don’t agree should be silenced, even if you don’t think they should be shot.

    Not sounding real libertarian to me. More like a truther or one worlder?

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 11:05 pm
  112. Jay,

    “I can completely see how it got in there, something can be your “brain child” and when you leave it alone it can grow into something you don’t want it to be, especially if you neglect it and don’t pay attention to what it has become.”

    It’s not a kid, it’s a newsletter that he allowed to be put out under his name, staffed by people he knew, and he gained financial support and publicity from it. But if you insist on using the kid analogy, when you neglect your kids you’re rightly held responsible for that.

    “I don’t know if that newsletter was his “brain child” to begin with or not, but I am certain that he is not racist.”

    It was and he probably isn’t. But he still deserves to be held accountable for being a rotten manager and judge of character.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
  113. Adam,

    It has nothing to do with disagreeing… Disagreeing is fine and in fact can and should in a lot of cases be encouraged (e.g. disagreeing with you).
    One thing I would hope that every American can agree on is to go back to Our Constitution and enforce the laws that are given in it.

    One Worlder? What do you think the EU is? Why has Bush JR and SR both exalted the chance at having a One World Government. Even at a State of the Union address Bush JR mentioned it. Bush SR mentioned it at a lunch meeting with my parents.

    Oh yeah, Clinton has praised it too.

    All of that is beside the point, can’t we all just be free?

    UCrawford,

    What would you like him to do at this point? How many times can the guy say he is sorry. And yes the brain child analogy was a bad idea, sorry, I will strive to do better.

    Comment by Jay — January 13, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
  114. In a lunch meeting with your parents?

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 11:26 pm
  115. Yes…Presidential Luncheon.

    Comment by Jay — January 13, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
  116. All right, good talk gentlemen, have a good evening.

    Comment by Jay — January 13, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
  117. What did he say?

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
  118. Why hear it second hand….

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g

    Comment by Jay — January 13, 2008 @ 11:36 pm
  119. Adam,

    For what it’s worth, I agree with Ron Paul’s immigration policies. My father was an immigrant who came here legally from China; he would have agreed. The unrestricted flow of undocumented immigrants is a threat to our national security, and is unfair to both legal immigrants and to American citizens, especially the working poor. And, as Dr. Paul has stated (not a quote), an improved economy, resulting from conservative fiscal policies, elimination of the income tax, and a reformation of our money system would allow the United States to comfortably allow more immigration.

    I also believe that Dr. Paul is not against free trade. He is against the trade agreements which, so often, put the U.S. at a severe disadvantage.

    But yes, I submit that my statement was too broad, and not entirely correct.

    In response, to UCrawford, I am a champion of the lost cause. For example, I’m sure San Diego cheated somehow and the Colts really won today’s game.

    Comment by rmg — January 13, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
  120. Thanks Jay, I’ve heard about that speech.

    rmg, why do they come here?
    Is it:
    a) enjoy being raped by coyotes and welfare
    b) US subsidized agriculture corporations are kicking their ass

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 11:43 pm
  121. Uhm,

    At the risk of sounding stupid (which is nothing new), I don’t fully understand your comment.

    Comment by rmg — January 13, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
  122. Why do undocumented workers come here. Is it option a or b?
    A)http://chromatism.net/current/images/rapetree.jpg
    B)http://www.highlandercenter.org/pdf-files/arn-mexico-and-immigration.pdf

    Comment by uhm — January 14, 2008 @ 12:25 am
  123. Uhm,

    Thanks for the links (B, that is, A didn’t work).

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at:

    Are you saying that I support NAFTA, so I and people like me are to blame for the plight of the Mexican people? I don’t support NAFTA, and the corrupt government in Mexico is to blame. I know many Mexicans, including one who is a prominent member of the PRI so I have some perspective.

    Are you saying that I must be a racist or an elitist because I don’t support unrestricted immigration? I’m the son of a cook and a waitress, who grew up and still lives in the inner-city (in a primarily black neighborhood, and who owns a small accounting business which has a large percentage of hispanic clients. I was raised to admire our local black leaders, including Moselle Sanders and Father Boniface Hardin. My parents and I were in the crowd when Bobby Kennedy announced that Dr. King had been killed.

    My own family took over sixty years to immigrate to this country from 1923, when my father came, until 1984, when his youngest sister, and her family finally made it here. I think I understand the plight of the immigrant. My own family suffered the Japanese occupation and Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

    If you’re not saying any of the above, then I’m sorry for the diatribe. The simple answer, which probably would have been better, is that it doesn’t matter why illegal immigrants come to this country. It only matters that our laws are being broken and our national security is jeoparadized.

    I feel that we can best help the unfortunate of the world by contributing to charities, doing missionary work, and encouraging their leaders to foster democracy, by our example.

    Obviously, I prefer blue books over objective tests.

    Comment by rmg — January 14, 2008 @ 1:28 am
  124. Funny thing to me about all y’all taking Doug to task over Ron Paul – when I first got back to reading TLP after a many month hiatus from the world of political blogging, I was shocked as I felt that he gave Paul way too much credit. It has seemed to me from the get-go that Paul leans way too far into the John Birch brand of libertarianism – and I couldn’t believe that so many of the people that I’d come to know had been duped into really believing that this man was the best person for the highest office in the land. It’s not just that I’m a “neo-con, war loving republican” = no, it’s more than I’m NOT an appeasing “anti-war” libertarian. Yes, as far as it goes, there are a lot of Paul’s platform checkpoints with which I wholeheartedly agree – but to me, his unwillingness to stand up for this country against those who would tear her down are a complete and total dealbreaker – and in that way, he does NOT represent what our founding fathers put forth. They would have laughed him to shame.

    Comment by Kay — January 14, 2008 @ 6:30 am
  125. Jay,

    “What would you like him to do at this point? How many times can the guy say he is sorry.”

    1) If the editor of the newsletter is still working for him, identify him publicly and remove him from staff. I’m not saying that Paul has to call the guy a racist but I think the guy did enough damage to merit Paul’s disassociation from him.

    2) Start providing specifics about who he’s looking at hiring for Cabinet positions. I recognize that he’s got great ideas, but I want to know how he plans to implement those ideas and who he plans to have do it. This incident has squandered the benefit of the doubt I’d be willing to give him for his hiring practices

    Somehow, though, I don’t think he’ll do either. Paul comes off as a “nice guy”, meaning he doesn’t like doing things like canning people considers friends or who’ve been with him for awhile. Problem is, he doesn’t seem to be able to tell the difference between people who are helping him and people who are hindering him. There’s a very true statement that if you want friends in politics you should buy a dog…it’s a competitive field and if the people around you aren’t helping you or are damaging what you’re doing they need to not be around you because they’ll end up destroying what you plan to accomplish. Apologizing without making changes doesn’t actually demonstrate contrition, it demonstrates cluelessness.

    “And yes the brain child analogy was a bad idea”

    It happens, I’ve made them before too. But it’s important not to rationalize away the problems here (Paul’s poor judgment of character and management skills). Those are a very big deal, even though I agree with you that he’s probably not a racist.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 7:04 am
  126. rmg,

    “For example, I’m sure San Diego cheated somehow and the Colts really won today’s game”

    I think their Super Bowl chances this year pretty much ended with the loss of Dwight Freeney and Marvin Harrison’s knee.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 7:07 am
  127. January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

    ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

    “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

    “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

    “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

    “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters

    Comment by Jay — January 14, 2008 @ 7:47 am
  128. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u39z38xjraw

    There is a link to Ron Pauls interview concerning the newsletters that went out under his name.

    Comment by Jay — January 14, 2008 @ 8:05 am
  129. Jay,

    You’re not telling us anything we haven’t heard before. Nobody here has slammed Ron Paul for being a racist. We’ve slammed Ron Paul for being a horrible judge of character and an incompetent handler of crisis situations. If your entire defense of him revolves around links claiming he’s not a racist then you’re wasting your time because we’ve accepted that. We want to know why he continually puts incompetent people or people with their own agendas (some of whom are apparently racist) in positions to hijack his campaign. Until you come up with that answer or evidence that he’s changed, then you’ve got no valid point here.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 8:27 am
  130. One of the funniest things about this thread is just how few commenters have actually taken on the substance of the argument in my quote.

    I should say that there is in fact a valid argument to be made with my quote (I would say that it’s a losing argument, but it is most certainly a debatable question) . But none of the Paulestinians in this thread seem to be even making an attempt at it.

    Comment by Mark — January 14, 2008 @ 8:28 am
  131. Mark,

    That’s because a lot of them are idiots who are apparently incapable of reading (or spelling, or forming a thought not made up primarily of rhetoric and gibberish). So they don’t do nuance and they don’t debate on the issues even if they’ve got ammo to do so…they just attack the source or submit crazy conspiracy theories about how Paul’s poor handling of his campaign isn’t his fault because that’s pretty much all they’re capable of doing.

    It’s tough to respect the views of people who don’t actually have any views beyond idolizing Ron Paul. If he told them to commit ritual suicide because the alien mothership was coming to take them all back to Zergon I suspect quite a few of them would probably do it.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 8:34 am
  132. rmg, I wasn’t judging you.

    I’m saying border security isn’t going to stop the flow because they have no other choice but to come here. I’m really tired of people seeing it all in black and white. They don’t even attempt to look at the underlying issue. We aren’t going to defeat terrorism because not many people ask why they do it?

    Anthropologist went into Iraq to help out. Why is that a good idea? Because they study people and cultures. They try to understand. People live in a bubble in this country. It is why Iraq was such a cakewalk (we know it wasn’t). We are played based on our fear or altruism but not reason, clinging to our tunnel vision.

    Comment by uhm — January 14, 2008 @ 8:46 am
  133. I guess 10 % of Iowa and 8 % of NH
    are 911 truthers and conspiracy theory followers !!

    What about the military personnel , the black people, the arab people and the students I guess those are part of the white supremacists .
    Anyone that makes such a claim is either paid for it or brainwashed to the bone.
    Keep it real people :)

    Comment by deepak — January 14, 2008 @ 10:45 am
  134. deepak wrote:

    I guess 10 % of Iowa and 8 % of NH
    are 911 truthers and conspiracy theory followers !!

    10% of the GOP voters in the Iowa Caucuses. That is not at all the same thing as 10% of Iowa. What are the actual number of people, and what percentage of the actual adult population do they represent?

    If they represent somewhere around 3 to 4 percent of the adult population, which seems about right, then that aligns quite well with the number of people in our society who are conspiracy theorists on any given day.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 10:50 am
  135. East Coast Libertarian:

    You said in your earlier post that you might vote for another candidate (but never Paul)…..but you’re still playing evasive and refusing to take a stand. I asked you to name one, just one, person running who you MIGHT vote for. Just pick a name (names): McCain, Rudy, Fred, Huck, Mitt, Obama, Hillary.

    I would argue that the most rabid Paulistinians are probably a deep discount even to that price. You’d have to pay me to take them.

    Okay, we’re getting somewhere. I also don’t like his most rabid supporters. Who doesn’t have the liablity of equally loathsome rabid supporters? For example, all of the Republicans have supporters who support torture and believe in crazy conspiracy theories that Al Qaeda can take over the world with a World Caliphate..

    Does these qualify as worse than their counterparts who support Paul and thus would that disqualify them as candidates too? Are you willing to apply your standard to candidates other than Paul?

    Comment by David T. Beito — January 14, 2008 @ 11:05 am
  136. “I’m suggesting he’s unelectable and not taken seriously by people who actually vote.”

    Well, if popularity is the key criteria for you, whom are you voting for, Hillery or Obama?

    Comment by Patrick Henry — January 14, 2008 @ 11:12 am
  137. David, a small addition to your point. Al Qaeda wants to establish a new Caliphate, which is what I have heard said. I’m sure there are some hardcore Neo-Con types that actually think that Al Qaeda is one A-bomb away from the Caliphate, but I don’t hear them saying that.

    On the other hand, the vast majority of the people I run into that support RP, whether on the web or my local community, start ranting about Bilderberger, Anglo-something or other, etc.

    So, the difference is that in one group it’s the crackpot fringe of the group. In the other, the crackpot fringe IS the group.

    That’s a problem.

    “Patrick Henry”, not one person says a word about popularity. Electable is entirely different. A candidate with 10% of the GOP today, who is capable and competent, could use RP’s message to become the electable candidate of the GOP. Ron Paul is not electable, regardless of whether he is popular, or not.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 11:14 am
  138. Ucrawford,

    Given your logic then over half the entire country shouldn’t be voting because they are very poor at electing presidents (e.g. Bush and Clinton).

    As Ron Paul has stated he had little to no oversight of those Newsletters at that time. So what on earth are you talking about?

    There is poor management and no management. So what could be said and should be said is that he should have been managing the newsletters that went out in his name or had them completely shut down.

    Bottom line, just as everyone agrees, he is not a racist. As far as poor management, I just don’t see that as a valid point when he wasn’t managing the newsletters. It is more of poor judgment not to have had them closed down, a mistake… Not a lifetime of poor management like you make it sound.

    Comment by Jay — January 14, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
  139. Jay,

    “Given your logic then over half the entire country shouldn’t be voting because they are very poor at electing presidents”

    Works for me. Frankly I don’t think that anyone should vote who can’t be bothered to know what their candidate actually stands for or how competent he’d be as president.

    “As Ron Paul has stated he had little to no oversight of those Newsletters at that time. So what on earth are you talking about?”

    The fact that he defended the racist newsletter by claiming that he’s an inept manager, and the fact that this hasn’t changed in 20 years. He does a horrible job at running organizations and picking his subordinates…sorry to have to point this out yet again.

    “There is poor management and no management.”

    Yup, both are signs of incompetence.

    “So what could be said and should be said is that he should have been managing the newsletters that went out in his name or had them completely shut down.”

    Yup, but he didn’t choose either option. He let his newsletter be run by incompetents with poor quality control while he reaped the benefits of race-baiting. That’s a sign of a guy who can’t be trusted to do what he says he’s going to do because he hires the wrong people.

    “As far as poor management, I just don’t see that as a valid point when he wasn’t managing the newsletters.”

    Neglect is a form of incompetent management.

    “It is more of poor judgment not to have had them closed down, a mistake… Not a lifetime of poor management like you make it sound.”

    His inability to run an effective campaign that can place in the top three in even the most libertarian of states (New Hampshire) despite possessing a substantial war chest and the best set of ideas in the field indicates that he’s no better about selecting the people around him than he was 20 years ago. Ron Paul was an incompetent manager then, he’s an incompetent manager now. That doesn’t mean he’s a bad guy or that his ideas are bad, just that he’s not really suited to hold any elected office beyond the one he’s currently got. He’s a gadfly, good at discussing big picture issues, but a non-factor for implementation.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
  140. Jay:

    Given your logic then over half the entire country shouldn’t be voting because they are very poor at electing presidents (e.g. Bush and Clinton).

    I’d be fine with some sort of mechanism that provides criteria beyond warm body for voting in elections. It’s clear to me that warm body populist voting is a horrible idea. Democrats and Royalists both have some very silly ideas about how to select leaders.

    I’m tempted to vote for Hillary just because the President has always been a man and look how well that turned out …….

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
  141. Doug, for all you like to bash Ron Paul, I don’t see anyone else really carrying the libertarian banner right now. Cato has neither a large public following nor all that much influence in Congress (if they really had any influence over the Republican party, would spending have gone up so much over the last 7 years?). The fact is, no other libertarian has amassed the following Ron Paul has, no other libertarian has reached out to disaffected voters like Ron Paul has, no other libertarian has sparked a social movement turning out hundreds of thousands of activists and donors the way Paul has for many years. If you’ve got a better libertarian, put them forward and let them run. Ron Paul isn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, despite the way that a small fringe of his supporters treat him, but he’s done more to spread the message of limited government to a new generation than any libertarian in 20+ years.

    You don’t have to like everything he says or does, and honestly I wish some of his supporters would look at him more skeptically than they do, but you have to admit that 10% of republicans (and in NH, almost as many people turned out for the primary as turn out in the general election, so it is closer to 10% of republicans than 3%) is a heck of a lot better than the .5% that most libertarian candidates get.

    You want a new face of libertarianism? Show me someone who can do better than Ron Paul is doing. Other than Penn & Teller, who don’t reach as many people as Ron Paul has, I really can’t think of anyone trying to reach out to the public and convince them of libertarian ideals in the same way, and Penn & Teller aren’t exactly running for office and trying to change public policy directly.

    So my point is, put up or shut up. Don’t tell Ron Paul to step down and stop promoting libertarianism unless you can do the job he’s doing.

    Comment by AnonCastillo — January 14, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
  142. Adam,

    I’m tempted to vote for Hillary just because the President has always been a man and look how well that turned out …….

    Are you sure that’s as radical of a change as you think it is :)

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
  143. Jay,

    Given your logic then over half the entire country shouldn’t be voting because they are very poor at electing presidents (e.g. Bush and Clinton).

    I agree. I’m all for allowing only taxpayers who can pass a basic citizenship exam to vote. I am not a supporter of universal suffrage by any means.

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
  144. “AnonCastillo”,

    The problem is, I’m not sure if Ron Paul really is a libertarian.

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
  145. Adam & Kevin,

    “I agree. I’m all for allowing only taxpayers who can pass a basic citizenship exam to vote. I am not a supporter of universal suffrage by any means.”

    “I’d be fine with some sort of mechanism that provides criteria beyond warm body for voting in elections. It’s clear to me that warm body populist voting is a horrible idea. Democrats and Royalists both have some very silly ideas about how to select leaders.”

    As much as I dislike uninformed voters there’s absolutely no way in hell I’d ever consider a plan by which the government selects who can vote a good idea. Hell, you might as well go back to Jim Crow and poll taxes at that point. If it had to be done, I’d say Heinlein’s suggestion in Starship Troopers was the best idea, but since that would entail a massive expansion of government to be able to pull it off I don’t consider it a serious suggestion.

    If we really wanted to fix things, we should go back to having Senators be elected by the state legislatures. That would be a big step in the right direction.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
  146. I have no issues with that suggestion UC. I was pretty vague about the mechanism and criteria, but I can think of objective ways to make sure you aren’t just a warm body. In any case, one man, one vote populist democracy is great only if you like mild socialism.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
  147. Crawford,

    If we really wanted to fix things, we should go back to having Senators be elected by the state legislatures. That would be a big step in the right direction.

    I’d take it one step farther, and explicit state that only the governor can appoint Senators. I do not want the State Legislature to have a role for the same reason I do not support universal suffrage.

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
  148. Adam,

    In any case, one man, one vote populist democracy is great only if you like mild socialism.

    Which is why it’s been championed by people like Bismarck and the Progressives in the early 20th century.

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
  149. We started off only allowing property owners to vote.

    I got a better idea. The people who want to be taxed to pay for government should be the ones to vote.

    Comment by uhm — January 14, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
  150. Kevin,

    “I’d take it one step farther, and explicit state that only the governor can appoint Senators.”

    In a state like mine where the dominant party is extremely fractured in every aspect of government I think that’s recipe for disaster to have only one group get a say. I’d rather have the warring factions in the legislature hash out a compromise whereby they elect somebody who will be bland enough not to try and accomplish any grand policy initiatives.

    And keep in mind that many governors are looking to move up to higher office. I don’t think it’s a good idea to put that much power over state representation in the hands of one person…that just begs for corruption.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
  151. AnonCastillo:
    To say that Cato has had no influence on policy is absurd. Do you have any idea how crappy this country was for libertarians, policy-wise when Cato came into being? They can’t take credit for all of the good changes, but they certainly played a role. On top of that – yes, things have regressed slightly in the last few years, but how do you know they wouldn’t have been worse without Cato’s attempts at influencing policy? Did it occur to you that Cato is just one of many think tanks and interest groups, and that it is therefore necessarily going to have its wins and losses? But that’s a lot better than a situation where it has nothing but losses because it doesn’t exist at all. Also- did it ever occur to you that there are plenty of libertarians who were drawn to the movement by something they read from Cato and Reason?

    Comment by Mark — January 14, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
  152. I don’t mind the state deciding how to appoint their Senators. If they really want to directly elect, they deserve what they get.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
  153. Mark:

    Also- did it ever occur to you that there are plenty of libertarians who were drawn to the movement by something they read from Cato and Reason?

    Reading a Cato paper was the catalyst for me to become interested in libertarianism. Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and the other Paleo’s had nothing to do with it. If it was just them, I would have never been interested.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
  154. Mark,

    Reason was what got me into writing online and I actually consider it one of the best news sources out there (along with the Wall Street Journal) because they actually take the time to analyze and discuss the stories they write about instead of just summarizing as most of the major news outlets do. The Cato Institute is one of the best resources for libertarians for providing information on our policy arguments…you’re certainly not going to find that depth of credible study or presentation on CNN or Fox.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
  155. Adam,

    “I don’t mind the state deciding how to appoint their Senators. If they really want to directly elect, they deserve what they get.”

    I think it should be a uniform policy for electing Senators across the country since they also draft and vote on legislation that affects states besides their own. If you’re making that argument about officials who work only within their own state I’d agree.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
  156. In that case, I think I should appoint all 100 senators from a group of potential candidates presented to me every 2 years.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
  157. Mark,

    The (criminally misnamed) Mises Institute, Ron Paul, and that little cabal made me stop using the word “libertarian” to describe my political viewpoint.

    Whereas Cato is a highly respected think tank whose resources I use whenever I debate.

    Reason magazine just sucks, but it has nothing to do with the ideology.

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
  158. uhm,

    “I got a better idea. The people who want to be taxed to pay for government should be the ones to vote.”

    As tempting as that is, I’d still say that people who don’t pay taxes have some legitimate issues that require representation and therefore shouldn’t be excluded from the system. As much as I dislike democracy (or “mob rule” as I prefer to call it) I also recognize that stripping people of their representation is the first giant step towards tyranny. That’s why it’s important to have a Constitution that is strictly enforced in addition to representation for all…so that some rights are guaranteed that the majority can’t easily vote away.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
  159. Mark,

    Nice job standing up for Cato. Quite honestly, they’ve done more good for liberty than the guys at LVMI.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 14, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
  160. “In that case, I think I should appoint all 100 senators from a group of potential candidates presented to me every 2 years.”

    The first policy decree of Adam Selene, Supreme Executive Overlord over the ignorant masses. :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
  161. Heh, considering the source of my pseudonym, and the things that Prof wanted to do, it sort of fits. Although I really prefer Galactic Overlord ……

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
  162. Doug,

    Quite honestly, they’ve done more good for liberty than the guys at LVMI.

    What good have the guys over at the (misnamed) Mises Institute done for liberty?

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
  163. Mike or is it Michelle? When does it become inconvenient for you to continue to pose as Adam Selene? Is it when people catch on that you are a so-called skilled propagandist?

    Comment by Amyz — January 14, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
  164. Chuckles, shall I introduce you to my sense of humor?

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
  165. Relieved, Please do so !! :)

    Comment by Amyz — January 14, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
  166. Adam,

    Gosh, have we found ourselves another Paulestinian in Amyz?

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 5:26 pm
  167. The last few days, I’ve made it one of my missions to defend Cato- not that they should need defending. But, as with apparently most of you, Cato and Reason (combined with, you guessed it, Ayn Rand) played a huge role in my understanding libertarianism. The (misnamed) Mises Institute? Never heard of it until I finished Doherty’s book at the end of this summer.

    While Reason the magazine definitely has its ups and downs, I can’t help but read it cover to cover whenever it comes in the mail; and Hit and Run is a terrific blog on the whole, though partly because of the commenters’ sense of humor. And all of this leaves out the great work done by the folks at IJ and other similar “Beltway” type groups.

    But I’m sick of the paleos making unsupported assertions that the so-called Mises Institute has had a bigger effect than Cato or Reason ever could hope to. While they certainly have brought some libertarians on board, I wonder how many of those are really just neo-Confederates; I also wonder how many people they’ve completely turned off of libertarianism (making Cato’s job more difficult in the process, I might add).

    Comment by Mark — January 14, 2008 @ 6:24 pm
  168. Mark,

    The Mises Institute (at least as it exists today) is so flipping mis-named it’s not funny.

    Ludwig von Mises was a great economist and a great thinker. Somewhere along the way, his ideas and his name got hijacked by people who say things that, if he was around today, he’d reject categorically.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 14, 2008 @ 6:30 pm
  169. UC, I am now a Paualestian because I find humor with the Lunar Revolution? LOL, I am more intrigued to read “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress” if only to gain insight on the human animals on this site that dismiss and discredit non-fiction and formulate their own Utopia based on a science-fiction book .

    BTW, wasn’t there recent criticism of another poster that read out of date books from long ago deceased authors?

    Comment by Amyz — January 14, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
  170. Err, meant Paulestinian.

    Hey Mike, with all of your technological prowess do you think you could bring this web site into the millennium and add an edit button for us “loonies” ?

    Comment by Amyz — January 14, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
  171. David,

    If I’m evasive, it’s because I don’t have an answer, but if you’re looking for a ballpark answer: I would say Obama for the Democrats and McCain on the GOP. I’m far more comfortable with the former pick than the latter.

    I made my decision not to support Paul before any of this information came out about the newsletters or before I really saw how some of his most ardent supporters have defended him. The Paulistinians are a pain in the ass, but not the reason not to vote for him. For me, it’s the social conservatism, the free trade positions (a populist), the immigration positions (a nativist) and a foreign policy that may sound rather appealing in theory, but may fail to address some concerns I have about rogue states, failed states and the threat non-state actors pose.

    Furthermore, whether Iraq was sold on a bill of goods or not (I was against it in 2003 and believe nation building is a fool’s errand), we are there and I fear regional instability in the event of a withdrawl. I can be proven wrong, but as much as I hate to say it, I’d almost prefer the devil I know to the devil I don’t know at this point.

    Please let me reiterate: I don’t like any of this, especially my own views on how we should approach things.

    None of this has anything to do with his most rabid supporters who flood internet polls. Now, why he didn’t take a more forceful measure with those letters and throw his ghostwriters under the bus I don’t know. I don’t think I ever meant to imply that his supporters cost him my vote. I would like to think I’m not that petty but I’m not perfect in that sense I’ll admit.

    Hope this helps a bit. I appreciate the comments.

    You said in your earlier post that you might vote for another candidate (but never Paul)…..but you’re still playing evasive and refusing to take a stand. I asked you to name one, just one, person running who you MIGHT vote for. Just pick a name (names): McCain, Rudy, Fred, Huck, Mitt, Obama, Hillary.

    I would argue that the most rabid Paulistinians are probably a deep discount even to that price. You’d have to pay me to take them.

    Okay, we’re getting somewhere. I also don’t like his most rabid supporters. Who doesn’t have the liablity of equally loathsome rabid supporters? For example, all of the Republicans have supporters who support torture and believe in crazy conspiracy theories that Al Qaeda can take over the world with a World Caliphate..

    Does these qualify as worse than their counterparts who support Paul and thus would that disqualify them as candidates too? Are you willing to apply your standard to candidates other than Paul?

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 14, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
  172. David,

    I had your post at the bottom of my post so I could respond to it. I didn’t delete it (obviously). My apologies.

    Comment by East Coast Libertarian — January 14, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
  173. Amyz:

    UC, I am now a Paualestian because I find humor with the Lunar Revolution? LOL, I am more intrigued to read “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress” if only to gain insight on the human animals on this site that dismiss and discredit non-fiction and formulate their own Utopia based on a science-fiction book .

    Mmmmmmmm, I don’t think that would make you a RP supporter. Are you an RP supporter? Do you refuse to admit that he might be anything other than the libertarian messiah destined to bring us into the promised land, avert the massive deflation and depression that is sure to otherwise occur in November and oust the Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, Anglo somebody, Knights Templar, Masons and, for all I know, the Muppets from their secret positions of power in our One World Shadow Government?

    You don’t seem like one of those folks to me. Although the “other Amy” does.

    Ummmmm, as far as dismissing and discrediting non-fiction, I do that only when it deserves to be dismissed and discredited. Or, are you suggesting that all works of non-fiction automatically should not have that done? Perhaps you objected to my feelings about the book that Jimmy Carter passes off as valid geo-political writing? Well, that wouldn’t be the only non-fiction I’ve ever read, and I don’t dismiss it all. Just the stuff that deserves, in my humble opinion, to be dismissed. ;-)

    And, hmmmmm, I’ve never formulated Utopia based on what I read in TMIAHM. But I found it to have some interesting insights into how human animals organize ourselves, how we might be able to organize differently and the inevitability of government and the human animal’s desire to regulate the behavior of their neighbors.

    Not to mention being a fun book to read! I enjoy fiction, do you?

    Right now I’m reading “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable”, by Nassim Taleb. Fascinating book. Next on my list is Wikinomics. Mind if I ask what you’re reading, I always find reading lists fascinating.

    BTW, wasn’t there recent criticism of another poster that read out of date books from long ago deceased authors?

    And that has what to do with anything? Or are you asserting that I shouldn’t read and enjoy Robert Heinlein’s books and find it amusing to use a computer simulation in a work of fiction as a false front, so to speak? BTW, I don’t think that was me. The contributors here have their own opinions and beliefs, there’s no requirement that we all agree. That would be fairly collectivist on our part. And there clearly is no requirement that any person who is not a contributor must agree with us in their comments before they post a comment on this site. So, the point is that there is no requirement on this site that anyone agree with some position formulated by anyone else. Therefore, I don’t understand what point you are making.

    As far as having an edit button, that might be a good idea, perhaps Brad, the site owner, wouldn’t mind installing one. We do have a preview capability so that you can proofread your comment, that’s at least a partial solution.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
  174. Amyz,

    “UC, I am now a Paulestian because I find humor with the Lunar Revolution?”

    Not wanting to be harsh when I ask this, but what in the hell are you talking about?

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
  175. Oh, and we took Max to task because he was incorrectly using a source from 60 years to validate a conspiracy theory today that the source was not applicable to. We were calling bullshit.

    As for our fondness for Heinlein, we realize that his book was science fiction and we aren’t claiming that a giant sentient computer is in reality manipulating us. We just like some of the ideas that Heinlein was talking about. Kind of like how I liked some of the ideas in Starship Troopers without believing that giant bugs were planning to attack.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
  176. Actually UC, I’m pretty sure that if we don’t all fall in line soon our “Shadow Government” will launch a war between us and the giant bugs.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 7:40 pm
  177. Adam,

    “Actually UC, I’m pretty sure that if we don’t all fall in line soon our “Shadow Government” will launch a war between us and the giant bugs.”

    Quiet you fool!!! You’ll give away our evil neocon Bilderberger concern troll plans!!!

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
  178. Oooooops

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
  179. UC:

    Oh, and we took Max to task because he was incorrectly using a source from 60 years to validate a conspiracy theory today that the source was not applicable to. We were calling bullshit.

    Besides, Carroll Quigley is far too much fun to make fun of. He was a loon. And the fact that Bill Clinton considered his work important (at least according to Wikipedia he did) says a lot about Bill.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
  180. You know, even though he was a bad president and did some exceptionally stupid things, I find it a little difficult to believe that Clinton bought into conspiracy theories. He was probably just sucking up to the guy so that he’d look smarter. The man was/is the ultimate sycophant and attention whore.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
  181. Show of hands: How many people would feel comfortable with Doug as their wing man? “We’re on the same team buddy, I got your back.” Oh wait, someone said they won’t like our team if you’re in it. “You’re on your own, man.”

    Doug, I’ve defended you in the past. You still have a right to your opinions. I also have a right to have lost any respect I had for your writing.

    Would you please become a statist? They need your kind of help.

    Comment by Akston — January 14, 2008 @ 10:49 pm
  182. Akston:
    Your team analogy reeks of collectivism.

    Comment by Mark — January 15, 2008 @ 6:10 am
  183. Mark,

    I don’t really care what “team” Doug is on, which I implied with the prior post, so your point is well taken.

    Doug routinely professes to support liberty in his writing, and then relentlessly joins the voices opposing the most libertarian candidate available. While I admire Doug’s writing and thinking at times, I find any respect for his integrity – as it pertains to his professed desire for liberty – to be extinguished.

    I have not been reading the Liberty Papers of late. I remember perhaps one positive Paul post in 10 nitpicking negative posts when I was reading before. Has that changed? Perhaps there is a current candidate for president who would be pure enough for Doug not to undermine while he’s “defending individual freedom and liberty, one post at a time.” Perhaps none are good enough for that honor.

    In my view, Ron Paul’s record is “good enough”. I realize that is the enemy of “the perfect”. For Doug, Ron Paul’s record may not be “good enough”. A 20 year old, disowned, repudiated controversial speech may be enough for Doug to feel his team besmirched by association. I find myself thinking less about the Libertarian team, and more about libertarian results.

    We all give respect where it’s earned, whether to Ron Paul, Doug Mataconis, you , or me. From what I’ve read and seen, I respect Ron Paul. Less so for Doug. Your choices are your own.

    Comment by Akston — January 15, 2008 @ 8:38 am
  184. Askton,

    I reject your contention that supporting Ron Paul is a litmus test in defining whether or not someone is a “libertarian”

    Over the past year, I have posted about Ron Paul because the campaign was an important issue for libertarians. I’ve praised where I thought he deserved prasie and criticized him where I thought he deserved criticism.

    And when I criticized, I got attacked — mostly, not so much for my ideas but because I dared to attack St. Ron. This caused me to become more and more skeptical about this campaign and whether it will amount to anything in the struggle for liberty.

    But I was still rooting for him, because people were talking about libertarian ideas on CNN, FOX, and elsewhere.

    At one point I had even written a post that I intended to publish on my personal blog formally endorsing his candidacy. Then the Stormfront story started coming out, and I held back. Frankly, after this latest fiasco, I am glad that I did. Last week, I finally deleted the draft of that post.

    You might disagree with my opinion, but it is mine. And I think the worst thing that has come out of this campaign has been the assertion by some that if you don’t support Ron Paul, you’re not a “real” libertarian.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 15, 2008 @ 8:48 am
  185. Adam,

    RP is not my “new phoenix”, thus I am not a RP lemming. I am interested in him. I like how he is bringing real issues (broader issues) to the table. For instance, very few people talk about immigration as an economic policy. It is economic and it needs economic solutions-not a frickin fence. ( I do not agree with RP’s support for a fence.) I do agree that our borders (and ports) need more security, but not at the expense of my liberties. I strongly believe that Homeland Security is a farce; not a conspiracy theory, it is a feel-good “safety” measure that has been incompetent from the start.

    RP does understand our foreign and monetary policies- can he correct them? Probably not, can he educate the loonies? He already has. E.g., How many people had a clue that China is financing our War, or that troop “support” is privatized? How many people know what a fiat or petro-dollar is? I do wish that RP would discuss the sinking dollar using real terms; $1.00 USD is the equivalent of .67 cents EUR, and what does this mean when you have to by oil with the Euro?

    Books. For the record, I would never belittle anyone for reading, period. More people should.
    My reading list: I just finished “Clapton: The Autobiography”, “The Innocent Man”, by John Grisham. I am in the middle of “The Testament”, by Grishham.
    Next up are two books that I received as gifts: “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures In a New World”, by Alan Greenspan and “Free Lunch”, by David Cay Johnston. My wish list includes, “The Nine”, by Jefferey Toobin and “The Appeal”, by John Grisham.

    I do enjoy fiction, not so much a fan of sci-fi. I am an admitted “Twilight Zone” addict. My two all-time favorite episodes are “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street” and “Time Enough at Last”.

    I do like to debate and at times can be snarky. I do not like collectivism and contrary to the “other Amy’s” beliefs, I never have. I have never confused the differences of a Republic versus a Democracy. Democracies are slippery-slopes. In one regard, I concur with the “other Amy” and that is our country has (looong ago) taken a very wrong path, and I do not like it. I like sharing my thoughts and ideas and hope to learn from others as well.

    Comment by Amyz — January 15, 2008 @ 9:34 am
  186. The Fox Republican “Debate” held in SC was a complete sham of a debate. Not one candidate, save RP, directly answered any question asked. 1st question to RP was about the “911 Truthers”, not a real substantial question to be asking a presidential candidate. The mediators of the debate tried to throw him off with that question, but he logically responded saying he does not agree with any of it, then directed the his question in a more productive direction, which was to address teh same question each of the other candidates were asked.

    What I did hear was a lot of redneck hooting and hollering when the Huck talked about sending the Iranians to “the firery gates of hell” and when Thompson, answering the same question about the Iraninan boat incident, said he would send them,”to them 7 singing virgins” referring to Muslim beliefs. AND THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED RACIST?!?!?!?!?!

    Both of those responses merritted some hootin nd hollerin’ from the crowd of good ol’ boys they had up in there.

    Then, they have that mockery of a “focus group” after the debate. “Thompson just really hit one out of the park on the issues” was one of the replies from someone in their focus group. Apparently, Thompson should have won the debate, because by show of hands the group said Thompson did the best. Then, the FOX News corospondent asked the crowd of about 40 people (now this is supposed to be an off-the-cuff focus group mind you) who they all thought did the worst in the debate, and, in what sounded like a rehearsed unison, the ENTIRE crowd goes, “Ron Paul!” very enthusiastically.

    If that focus group really represents the sentiments of SC, then I will never go back there, because they are blatantly the most racsist, backwards state in the nation.

    Fortunately for all you S. Carolinians, I do not give FOX News one single once merrit, and my grandfolks are from down there, soI know this is not the general sentiment of your state.

    Comment by ShawnBoy — January 15, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
  187. SC is one of the most blatantly racists states. The NAACP continues to boycott SC.

    Comment by Amyz — January 15, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
  188. Amyz,

    My understanding is that the NAACP boycott is related to the fact that SC’s flag continues to utilize the Confederate Battle flag. Since I consider the CSA to be an apostasy and it’s flag a symbol of a bunch of traitors and slaveholders, I am not unsympathetic to their position.

    However, I have spent a lot of time in SC over the past several years and I can honestly say that, regardless of race, I don’t see the blatant racism you’re talking about.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 15, 2008 @ 3:12 pm
  189. Amyz, cool, snark in a debate is good. You’ll notice that some of us tend to get a bit snarky, too.

    The interesting thing is to bring disagreement to light, discuss it, find out what and why. Even if neither of us changes our mind, we should still learn something along the way. Besides, “changing of minds” happens in an incremental fashion. Both of us are saying something somewhat different than we were yesterday. Our interaction has allowed each of us to learn something and brought about some change in our thinking. That’s a good thing.

    About RP, I philosophically disagree with him on quite a bit. I like the debate he has caused to happen. I think that the RP lemmings, as you called them, have brought immense discredit to him and his campaign. I think, based on everything I know of him, and have seen and read, he cannot be elected. And if he were elected, I believe he would be a huge disaster as an executive and administrator of policy.

    That last is the most important reason why I won’t vote for him. If it was just philosophy, I would probably do like I did with Reagan and vote for him as a “best candidate for liberty” type of vote. Reagan, who was an average manager of people, couldn’t manage to even hold the line on the size of the fedgov, let alone reduce it, as intended. Paul will do better? Seems unlikely, at best. More likely, he will be remembered like Carter and leave the same distaste for his philosophy as Carter left for his.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 15, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
  190. I should never have been so stark. I apologize, to a point.

    The NAACP is boycotting because of the brew-ha over the flag. I imagine that one could reasonably argue that because the Aryan Nations and the Klan (along with other white supremacists) closely hold this flag as a symbol of racism (or supremacy) others that do not, should, in good-faith, disassociate themselves from it.

    I do not refer to the “average” citizen, I am talking about the “good ole boys” (and now girls) sporting their confederate memorabilia that are on a mission for the south to rise again. South Carolina has been the host state for these activities; why do you suppose theses racists would pick this state? Cheap convention rates?

    http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/65/23246

    Further the ADL which tracks this “movement”, has found that Klan activity and the Aryan Nations are restless and immigration reform is their buzz. This could also go to the points discussed on other threads that Paul should disassociate himself from these groups.

    Do not get me wrong, I am all about free association, as long as you take responsibility for it.

    Comment by Amyz — January 15, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
  191. The interesting thing is to bring disagreement to light, discuss it, find out what and why.

    I really enjoyed our debate on our buddy Hugo! There are so many facets and who knows which direction it could have taken. For instance, in that discussion I referenced Classical liberalism and in a discussion earlier you mentioned Anarcho-capitalism… Hmmmm. I was going to throw that in there… We are not too far apart. You may be a bit more extreme than I, yet I understand the correlation.

    P.S. I am trying out the new technology offered by you earlier at UC’s request… if it works great and thanks. If not, HELP!

    P.S.S Ahhh! As suggested, I am using my preview and it seems to be working!! Thanks!

    Comment by Amyz — January 15, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
  192. Amyz,

    The block quotes definitely help when you’re trying to discuss specifics in somebody’s comments. Otherwise it tended to look a lot more like rambling…never a desirable outcome :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 15, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
  193. Ucrawford you said:

    “I think it should be a uniform policy for electing Senators across the country since they also draft and vote on legislation that affects states besides their own.”
    That would completely negate the purpose of having senators. They are voted to represent the states to one another, in their own states best interest.
    In fact prior to the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Senators of the United States were elected by each state’s representative body. And the Founding Fathers did so for a great reason. The Congress is to represent the populous of their respective states, while the Senator was to represent the state itself.

    I greatly support the appeal of the 17th Amendment; I think it would do a great deal in the road back to state’s rights and returning government to The People. Not to mention there would also be a higher amount of accountability.

    Comment by Jay — January 15, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
  194. That’s not a terrible idea to only allow property owners to vote… Oh yeah one problem, how many people own land anymore? Doesn’t the government own just about all the land with maybe a few parcels as the exception? So who would be voting?
    Funny how limited it is now days, the option to own outright anything of value.

    Comment by Jay — January 15, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
  195. To those of you here that don’t support Ron Paul, who do you support and how in any fashion would they help us bring our laws back within the frame of Our Constitution?

    Adam?

    Doug?

    Ucrawford?

    Anyone or all of you care to weigh in on that question?

    Comment by Jay — January 15, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
  196. Jay,

    I think you misinterpreted my remark, I was actually in favor of returning the election of Senators to the pre-17th Amendment method. Others brought up other suggestions that I disagreed with and I was merely arguing that there should be uniformity in whatever method was chosen.

    To those of you here that don’t support Ron Paul, who do you support and how in any fashion would they help us bring our laws back within the frame of Our Constitution?

    To answer for myself, I used to support Ron Paul but he pretty clearly demonstrated to my mind that he’s not capable of accurately judging people’s character, assembling a competent staff, or handling crises so now I back no one. Whatever a candidate’s views, these are critical skills for the President to have and I cannot in all good conscience vote for a candidate who so clearly lacks them and exhibits an inability to learn from and not repeat his mistakes. He could be the most decent and intelligent man on the planet, but I simply don’t trust him not to staff his Cabinet with fools and friends who may have their own agendas.

    Whether I support another candidate or not, I guess we’ll see. If there’s nobody out there I find competent for the job I will probably not vote for President.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 15, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
  197. That’s not a terrible idea to only allow property owners to vote… Oh yeah one problem, how many people own land anymore?

    Every single homeowner. Even though I’m a homeowner, however, I’d still oppose changing voting qualifications. I believe in universal suffrage, I just don’t believe that people who have no interest in politics and don’t know what’s going on should be encouraged to vote in ignorance.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 15, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
  198. Ucrawford,
    If you truly own your own property I suggest you stop paying taxes on it for a few years and then tell everyone who truly owns it. I assure you, it’s not you.

    Comment by Jay — January 15, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
  199. Jay,

    I recognize taxes as the penalty I have to pay for choosing to live in a welfare state that offers services the free market could better provide. Once I figure a way to weasel out of paying them rest assured I will. :)

    As such, my ownership claim on it right now is stronger than anyone else’s, so I’d qualify for a vote under a system that only gave power to property owners. But I still think it’s a bad idea.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 15, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
  200. Ucrawford

    “…I just don’t believe that people who have no interest in politics and don’t know what’s going on should be encouraged to vote in ignorance.”

    I completly agree with you. I would further that statement by saying that everyone should be interested in politics and everyone should defend Our Constitution, first and foremost.

    Now I feel as if falling into a dream, that is the said part.

    Comment by Jay — January 15, 2008 @ 6:39 pm
  201. Ucrawford,

    I don’t advocate to go back to just property owners voting either. It is a shame though how many ignorant people vote and haven’t the slightest idea of what they are promoting.

    LOL, when you find out how to get out of paying property tax please let us all know. That is one of the biggest issues of a long laundry list to once again become a sovereign citizen of our respective states.

    Comment by Jay — January 15, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
  202. “Now I feel as if falling into a dream that is the (said) part.”

    Correction:

    Now I feel as if falling into a dream, which is the sad part.

    Sorry everyone…I did say I was falling into a dream, so I must have been sleeping. :)

    Comment by Jay — January 15, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
  203. when you find out how to get out of paying property tax please let us all know.

    Will do, although I suspect it will either have to do with finding a very good accountant or running for office myself. Sadly, even if Ron Paul won I seriously doubt he’d be able to accomplish it mainly because I don’t think he’s capable of putting together a staff that won’t screw him up.

    That is one of the biggest issues of a long laundry list to once again become a sovereign citizen of our respective states.

    Let’s not all go all batshit crazy here…we’re as much sovereign citizens of this country as any residents of any country are. There are certainly things we could do to make ourselves more free but we’re hardly slaves.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 15, 2008 @ 6:57 pm
  204. Jay,

    I support nobody at this time.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 15, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
  205. Ucrawford,

    Sorry for misunderstanding to your prior statement. I am glad to see another person recognize that going back to pre-Amendment would be beneficial.

    “…these are critical skills for the President to have and I cannot in all good conscience vote for a candidate who so clearly lacks them and exhibits an inability to learn from and not repeat his mistakes.”

    From what I have heard and read of Ron Paul it sounds to me that he has learned from those mistakes.

    And another reason, though maybe not a completely sound argument, any other candidate would willingly appoint people to further the stripping of our liberties and continue an un-just war.
    I know from your standpoint that sounds like the argument of “lesser of two evils.” And I suppose to be fair, given your view that is what it is. The only reason I add that is because I truly believe that he does recognize that error and has corrected it. So it becomes my default argument and this is one situation where that argument holds some weight.

    Comment by Jay — January 15, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
  206. Ucrawford,

    “Let’s not all go all batshit crazy here…”

    That put a big smile on my face!

    Alright all, good evening.

    Comment by Jay — January 15, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
  207. Jay,

    All things being equal I’d vote for the guy with the best ideas. But when the guy with the best ideas defends mistakes he’s made by claiming that he was an incompetent manager who wasn’t paying attention that tends to make him less good than somebody with not so great ideas who can at least appoint a competent staff and run them.

    My issue in this election that I care about most is the war in Iraq, I want it to end. However I believe at some point the President (whoever it is) will be forced to do this, regardless of who is elected. Ideally we’d have somebody who would end it sooner rather than later, which is what Ron Paul has promised to do. However, based on his past mistakes with the newsletter hires and the ineffectiveness of the official campaign staff he has (most of his momentum has come from the grassroots where he has had little involvement) and the lack of any examples of good management on Paul’s part I simply don’t trust him to put people in charge (at State and DOD) who can accomplish this. In fact I think there’s a good chance he’ll appoint people who will make the situation worse for our troops by screwing up the withdrawal with some ideologue at SECDEF who’s incapable of coming up with a plan for withdrawal that the military will be able to carry out…and to me that’s unacceptable because that has the potential to be just as bloody as staying.

    Ideas and speeches about freedom are nice, but honestly I haven’t heard Paul ever say HOW he plans to accomplish these ideas by providing specifics or plans or potential appointees to key offices, and that’s just as if not more important than WHAT he plans to do.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 15, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
  208. After reading these comments, I have come to the conclusion we are doomed. There are no good candidates, none of you have reached the point where you will even consider anarchy, you all still vote and think we are better off today than at any time in history. And, we haven’t heard from any of those nuts on the left. This country is splintered, fractured beyond repair. I don’t want to live in this country right now after Bushy I, Clintoon and Bushy II and yet all of you want more of the same to a greater or lesser degree. It seems to me that when the dollar finllay collapses, which it will eventually, we will all find ourselves in a socialistic police State far worse than any imagined to date.

    Comment by Bill — January 16, 2008 @ 9:21 am
  209. I suggest that anyone who wants anarchy should go live somewhere in the world where it exists. Like parts of Afghanistan. Or Somalia. Or the Ivory Coast.

    Can you anarchists please indicate to me any time in history that an anarchic civilization existed?

    Comment by grumpy realist — January 19, 2008 @ 12:50 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML