(sigh) Typical. But of course it makes me feel less bad about making fun of the crazy ones who show up here and spout random phrases that even a top psychologist probably couldn’t delve through..

Wait, what am I saying? I never felt bad about it in the first place :)

The guy called out all of the “Beltway libertarians” who were attacking Ron Paul. Even though I was not specifically named, I figured I would comment to show that contrary to his implication, there are plenty of bloggers from outside the Beltway who have dropped Paul because of the newsletters.

Anyways, you’ll see Will Wilkinson’s various responses, and the responses of about a dozen pro-Paul people. What you won’t see, though, is my response, which simply answered the question Wilkinson didn’t and supplemented a couple of Wilkinson’s other answers. I avoided any invective or anything like that; the point I was making was just that racism as a government policy is every bit as bad as socialism, and in many ways is really just a form of socialism. A racist individual is also worse than a socialist individual since a racist can do harm just with a torch and a white hood, whereas an individual socialist actually needs the coercive support of the state to do harm.

In any event, the point is that the guy didn’t want any dissenting opinions other than Wilkinson’s.

Way to lose some respect, and show true colors with your revealingly dismissive and mocking choice to use the term “Paulestinian” in commentary elsewhere,

We make a distinction between Ron Paul supporters willing to discuss the issues and their policy disagreements with us rationally and those who are just bitter-enders with no ideals beyond their slavish devotion to one man and the persecution complex they all trumpet. Paulestinians is the term we use because Paulestinians fits.

I hope you come to reconsider your position with respect to Ron Paul

If he changes his position on immigration and disassociates himself from the racists and conspiracy theorists I’ll consider it.

This sort of thing Coming from echo chamber Statists like Red State and full on binary political left wingers like Wonkette was something I could see coming, but from people who are supposedly on the side of the cause of liberty, well, it gives me pause, I feel a bit betrayed.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t those all sites that barred you guys to varying degrees because you offered so little in the way of useful discussion? Frankly, before you start bitching about how “betrayed” you feel by sites like ours I think you should be glad that someone is still willing to let you post on their private sites and express your opinions, even if it does result in mockery. Practicing freedom of speech does not in any way, shape or form indicate that all ideas have equal validity…or that we’re required to treat them all with equal respect. If you’re unhappy with that, perhaps you should consider tailoring the manner in which you deliver your messages or making them more coherent and linear so you aren’t immediately dismissed as a rambling loon.

I can’t help but wonder what is the relevance of the “incompetent manager” jab that UCrawford, Doug, Reason’s Hit&Run and countless other “cosmopolitan libertarians” keep throwing out there.

Because I’m tired of presidents picking people who do a “heck of a job” for even the limited things governments are supposed to do.

We want someone who will not manage the country. We want someone who will spend the next four years vetoing unconstitutional bills and using the bully pulpit to sell the ideas of limited government to an ignorant populace.

I want somebody who will end the war in Iraq by withdrawing our troops in a fashion that won’t have the country blow up on them while we’re leaving and get a lot of them killed.

I want somebody who will phase out the different Cabinets but not do so in such a way to strip of of the benefits those agencies provide while still strapping us with the liabilities.

I want somebody who will have the capability of negotiating non-entangling treaties with other nations, because despite the fact I’m a non-interventionist I’m damn sure no isolationist and I recognize that America has a place in this world and that occasionally alliances or cooperation with other countries will require our government to intervene and plead a convincing case.

Basically I want less government but I don’t want a president who appoints incompetents to Cabinet posts that will wreck the country getting us there…especially in the middle of a war (regardless of what your opinion of that war is) and I want someone who will be able to get these ideals implemented by convincing the people to buy in. And it’s tough to get other people to buy in when you’d rather sit on your bully pulpit instead of work with the “ignorant populace” to understand their concerns and get their input. What you’re looking for is a cult leader, not a president, and it never turns out well when you give cult leaders power…even if they have the best of intentions.

Who Ron Paul associates with and how he manages his affairs is directly relevant to whether or not he would be a good President.

It’s also relevant because we still don’t know who he’d appoint to the Cabinet and various advisory positions.

Someone who was irresponsible enough to lend their name to a publication without keeping at least a casual eye on what was published would arguably have questionable judgment in making the decisions a President, even a limited government President, needs to make.

You make it sound like we’re looking for a competent manager. We are not.

We want someone who will not manage the country. We want someone who will spend the next four years vetoing unconstitutional bills and using the bully pulpit to sell the ideas of limited government to an ignorant populace.

How about the overt racism and hostility shown to the Muslim world by the other Republican candidates today? This is coming out of their own mouths on the debate stage but you guys seem to be completely oblivious to it.

Who is advocating racism against Muslims?

This sort of thing Coming from echo chamber Statists like Red State and full on binary political left wingers like Wonkette was something I could see coming, but from people who are supposedly on the side of the cause of liberty, well, it gives me pause, I feel a bit betrayed.

How about the overt racism and hostility shown to the Muslim world by the other Republican candidates today? This is coming out of their own mouths on the debate stage but you guys seem to be completely oblivious to it. You’ve got these madmen running for president and yet you’re wasting your time lambasting Ron Paul of all people who has never stooped to making reckless overtly racist comments against any group in any of his speeches, interviews or books!

Gain some perspective and look at what is happening to your damn country as you argue over these petty comments from decades ago. You have candidates that border on the insane advocating violent pre-emptive war against the Muslim world all in the name of the “global war on terror” – isn’t that pretty damn racist? And doesn’t dropping bombs have slightly more impact on a group of people than a handful of comments that were made in some newsletters that are not directly attributable to Dr Ron Paul.

Wake up people!

There is no way Rothbard wrote those. He was writing things favorable to blacks at that time, even adocating expropriating land to turn over to families to slaves.

Apparently Murray Rothbard changed a lot in his later years. The Reason article pointed out instances where he advocating “unleashing the police” against people he considered undesirable.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html

And his hatred of the state was sold through a hatred of the “underclass” to appeal to angry taxpayers (primarily white) who might buy in.

I was disappointed to hear it too.

Jeff,

Jacob Sullum just published another article on Reason that agrees with my sentiments pretty much exactly:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/124417.html

I have news for you- in a civil case, this one would have been won on summary judgment. In a criminal case, I have a hard time seeing where the “reasonable doubt” comes from with respect to whether Paul knew what was going out under his name.

How about, the falling dollar and our fiat currency. Or Civil liberties and how the patriot act rapes them. Or Empire. Or War on “whatever”, what it costs the taxpayers in dollars and freedoms.

I’ve covered some of those (PATRIOT Act, “empire”, and the war) on my own blog. I agree about the falling dollar and I don’t care about fiat currency. I’ll probably write about the first three things again at some point here.

The rest of your first post was gibberish and non-sequiturs that ran all over the place so I’m not even going to bother attempting to address them until you come up with a coherent argument to state your position.

“ASSUME” is what you guys do to much of. That is why these articles don’t merit much attention!

FACT: The newsletters in Ron Paul’s name went out with his endorsement, whether or not he had a hand in day-to-day management.

FACT: Ron Paul profited monetarily and by reputation from those newsletters at the time they went out. They were an issue in his 1996 bid for office.

FACT: Ron Paul has denied authorship but has not named either the author of the articles or the editor of the newsletter, nor has he given any indication those people were removed from his circle…he has merely said that it was a long time ago and that it doesn’t matter (dodging responsibility).

We can therefore reasonably assume that 1) he’s either lying about holding those beliefs or 2) that he did a poor job of vetting the people who worked for him then and that if Lew Rockwell (who is still working with Paul) was the author or editor of that newsletter then Ron Paul’s judgment hasn’t improved much over the last decade. Either assumption should automatically disqualify him from serious consideration for the White House for libertarians.

I’m glad, at least for now, that the courts don’t convict on assumption alone. You should have a higher standard.

Courts have a higher standard because they’re the government and they impose punitive measures to deprive us of life, liberty and property. I’m not depriving Ron Paul of anything except my vote. I also believe that any reasonable person should do the same thing based on his failure to live up to his own standards of accountability or to demonstrate that he’d be an effective President (where the ability to appoint quality people to important positions is a necessary skill).