Ron Paul and Unsavory Supporters

Solid_Choke:

I guess I just hold Dr. Paul to a higher moral standard than any of the Democrats who I know are simply rent-seeking statists. I noticed that he added a section about racism on his website which is helpful but I think a public response to the open letter would be much better even if he didn't give the money back.

I would add two more points. I read in two places, and the americanthinker might be one, accusations of him making statements against the "Jewish" lobby. I have never seen such statements, only statements critical of the pro-Isreal lobby. I wrote to one site that made that statement and specifically asked for citations so I could check it. My comment was not responded to by the author. I also read a criticism that his weekly congressional column was routinely reproduced by a racist paper, but I thought, "That's in the public record so they're entitled to reproduce it." I then read this very rebut in a defence of Dr. Paul. These two points make me think that the americanthinker piece is an attempt by some Democratic campaign (or possibly Republican) to malign Dr. Paul by making him seem soft on racism, despite my hearing him denounce it, and it's being totally in contradiction to praxeological and anti-collectivist theory which he has espoused for decades.

The biggest threat to minorities in America is the overthrow of the Bill of Rights and the collapse of the dollar that will lead to economic chaos.

 

 

Solid, Watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIIHNvt__34 Ron Paul specifically says "I do not believe that the government carried out 9/11." Is that enough for you? My only problem with this "I'm a classical liberal but all people who believe 9/11 WAS NOT done by the Boogie Men, umm I mean Osama and his City Slickers, is a "troofer". Let us just demean them. Even though I don't trust government in ANY other area in life I'm going to believe them about the biggest historical event in my lifetime!" For some reason this does not add up for me. Another person posted awhile back about 9/11 proving the classical liberal position that ALL governments are inherently bad for society. I completely agree with that statement. As a classical liberal I don't trust my government at all! I especially don't trust them when 3,000 human lives are lost and they blame it on their former asset turned nemesis. Do you really believe Bush when he says the Islamofascists want to kill us all? Most likely you do not! Do you believe Bush when he says that Iran is going to nukes us all if we don't stop them now? Most likely you do not! Do you believe Bush when he says "No, no there really were WMDs in Iraq"? Most likely you do not! But you stand firm with Bush when he tells you the Boogie Men attacked us on 9/11? The Establishment has no credibility! I will repeat that for you: The Establishment has no credibility! None, nada, zip, zero! At the same time many of the people who advance the "9/11 was an inside job" theory lack credibility as well (Alex Jones, Dr. Steven Jones, Jeff Rense et al) and use the tragedy to push a pyramid based marketing scheme. But look at the current work of D.L. Abramhamson from False Flag News.com. He still believes that 9/11 was not carried out by the Boogie Men, but he also doesn't believe Bush, Fuiliani, or Silverstien ordered it. The most likely culprits of 9/11 are those Generals and Admirals who stay anonymous to the general public (just the way they like it). You know those guys who work 30 years in the "Defense" Department then make the "transition" into the "Defense" Contracting Industry. Those are your 9/11 criminals! Whenever you hear people debating "who did 9/11" remember these words: "9/11 Was A Black Op U.S. Military Attack!" Period.

It never ceases to amaze and comfound me that people still want to blame and believe 1 the obvious 2 those sources controlled by the Internationalists Bankers.

Inquisitor:

Do all the other candidates return funds originating from suspect sources? I doubt it. Probably because these sources are either low profile. There seems to be a sort of witch hunt going on with Paul.

Actually, they do. And rather quickly. Suspect sources constitute such a minor part of most campaign's donations (especially with the new finance laws, since its nigh-impossible to screen so many donors), that its never worth it to keep the donation, even if the campaign doesn't think the press will find out about it. Its just not worth the risk. If the press does find out before the campaign, the campaign generally returns the money.

I'm not exactly sure why its such a good thing to make scumbags richer than they'd otherwise be, but of course politics is all about image. 

Grant:

politics is all about image. 

It is about image for the other candidates, but not for Ron Paul.  Ron Paul's core beliefs have been rock solid for the past 30 years and they're not going to change because some extremist group gives him money.  Other candidate's views twist in the wind; voters know this, so candidates are always afraid that public opinion might assume they somehow agree with their donors or condone their activities.  I think Ron Paul wants to project a completely different image; that his views are so solid that when some unsavory character gives him money, it can mean only one of two things: either the donor's views have changed to agree with Paul, or, the donor is woefully ignorant of what Paul stands for.  In which case he's wasting his money, and I'm sure Ron Paul is happy to relieve him of it.

My own issues with Ron Paul do not have to do with his supporters (although libertarian criticism of Ron Paul apparently has become a grand heresy, and the paleocons bug me), but with some of his own positions and the mere fact that he is working inside of political power. Indeed, Ron Paul has not really changed his positions over the past 30 years. Yet I disagree with some of those positions. I disagree with constitutionalism, anti-immigration (I don't make a legal/illegal distinction, I find it disingenuous) and pro-life sentiments. And I disagree with voting as a means towards reducing political power. I am disturbed when I see life-long anarchists enthusiastically throwing money at a politician and involving themselves in the political process.

Before anyone attacks me as misrepresenting him, I am aware that he generally takes a state's rights position on abortion, which is indeed preferable to a federal approach. Yet I do not believe I am seeing illusions when I see him introducing and co-sponsoring federal legislation defining life as beginning at conception. I am aware that he rhetorically says we should get rid of the welfare incentives to solve the immigration debacle, yet it is plain and clear that since that isn't currently being done, he is willing to support measures such as federal border fences and he is willing to enforce currently existing immigration laws and quotas, if not strengthen them. I find these things disturbing. I do not go for "lesser evils".

I think his libertarian critics such as Wendy McElroy, Stefan Molyneux and Brad Spangler brings some good points to the table that are largely being ignored by libertarians. Not everyone who critisizes Ron Paul is a neocon or liberal, engaging in a smear conspiracy. Some of us feel that to financially support even Ron Paul inherently strengthens the very institutional framework by which the state thrives, by taking funds that could have been used on the market or "agoristically" and channeling them into campaign coffers. And some of us feel that voting, empirically speaking, simply does not work in the long-run as a means of reducing political power. And some of us do not think that even if Ron Paul made it into office, through some kind of divine providence, he could realistically do that much to reduce political power, let alone slow down its growth.

So my challenge does not go out to those 9/11 truthers, John Birchers and Neo-*** who just so happen to have tagged along his campaign, for whatever reason (ill-concieved or not). My challenge goes out to all of those die-hard libertarians who are enthusiastically supporting Ron Paul. What makes you think that anything is different about this than Goldwater or Reagen? What makes you think that Ron Paul can "restore the republic"? Please explain to me how Ron Paul could get much of anything meaningful done for liberty in the face of a hostile congress? Explain how voting for politicians has ever been sucessful as a libertarian tactic for change? And explain how well Ron Paul's position on issues such as immigration square with libertarian principles.

Brainpolice,

All valid points, and well made.  But I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that libertarians or anarchists ought not to participate in politics.  I can do no better than quote from the January 1972 issue of the Libertarian Forum (http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1972/1972_01.pdf).  The lead article by Rothbard presents his view on this issue, and another article on the subject by William Danks follows.  Rothbard's article also includes an excerpt from Lysander Spooner's No Treason.

 

In short, if the rulers allow us to make this one choice, as petty and miserable as it may be, this one say over our political lives, it is not immoral to make use of this opportunity. As I wrote somewhere else, if Richard Cobden and Ghenghis Khan were running against each other for President, the libertarian would surely have no hesitation supporting and voting for Cobden, despite his falling short of full purity. ...it is still not immoral to use the electoral process when a significant choice presents itself. The use of the electoral process is not, then, immoral per se,as the non-voting camp would have us believe.

--Murray Rothbard 

 

Refusal to become involved in poiitics is impossible. Everyone living in a nation-state is "involved" in politics to the very extent that their life is not theirs to live as they please. When the time comes when a person has a real option to not be involved in politics, then the revolution will be over and we will have won.

--William Danks

 

 

Brainpolice:

And I disagree with voting as a means towards reducing political power. I am disturbed when I see life-long anarchists enthusiastically throwing money at a politician and involving themselves in the political process.

Voting is a means to secure the force of government; its a means to use violence. Since the only thing that can defend against the force of government is defensive force, it follows that the use of government (i.e., voting) as self-defense is a perfectly logical and proper thing to do.

Or more pragmatically, Paul's election (or even his influence) may save countless lives in both foreign wars and the war on drugs. When compared to other candidates, the choice is pretty obvious. Most critics fail to realize that not voting is also a choice they make, and it has consequences which are most certainly not good for victims of government violence.

I don't think abortion is an act of aggression either, but it would be pretty un-libertarain of him if he defended abortion with his beliefs.

Voting has reduced political power in the past. It did drastically increase the freedom of blacks and other minorities in America, and to a lesser extend women. Think of voting like a gun; it can be used for defense or aggression. Its likely true that democracy will tend towards aggression, but that does not mean that employing it for defensive uses is at all unjust.

tgibson11:

Brainpolice,

All valid points, and well made.  But I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that libertarians or anarchists ought not to participate in politics.  I can do no better than quote from the January 1972 issue of the Libertarian Forum (http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1972/1972_01.pdf).  The lead article by Rothbard presents his view on this issue, and another article on the subject by William Danks follows.  Rothbard's article also includes an excerpt from Lysander Spooner's No Treason.

 

In short, if the rulers allow us to make this one choice, as petty and miserable as it may be, this one say over our political lives, it is not immoral to make use of this opportunity. As I wrote somewhere else, if Richard Cobden and Ghenghis Khan were running against each other for President, the libertarian would surely have no hesitation supporting and voting for Cobden, despite his falling short of full purity. ...it is still not immoral to use the electoral process when a significant choice presents itself. The use of the electoral process is not, then, immoral per se,as the non-voting camp would have us believe.

--Murray Rothbard 

 

Refusal to become involved in poiitics is impossible. Everyone living in a nation-state is "involved" in politics to the very extent that their life is not theirs to live as they please. When the time comes when a person has a real option to not be involved in politics, then the revolution will be over and we will have won.

--William Danks

 

 

Well, I'm not making an ethical arguement with respect to voting. Only an empirical one. I understand the Spooner-esc "voting as defense" arguement. I'm argueing that it is inefficient as a means of defense even if we grant voting's moral neutrality, and that the very nature of the political system is stacked against the attempting defender's favor, even if they manage to vote a "defender canidate" in. Not to sound like a fatalist, but it seems like the state practically always grows in general no matter who is the president; it has its own inertia. And I understand that it is to some extent impossible to not be effected by politics. But there is a huge difference between compulsory things that one cannot avoid and things that one has at least some leeway in being able to avoid. For example, I can totally understand libertarians driving on the public roads because they simply have no choice not to if they want to get around. But something such as voting is not compulsory (unless you live in a place such as Australia). 

The biggest threat to minorities in America is the overthrow of the Bill of Rights and the collapse of the dollar that will lead to economic chaos.

 

** That's why it is so important to vote for Ron Paul - he seems to be the only one who cares about restoring our Constitution, and he understands monetary policy.

Solid_Choke:

I don't mean denounce those people, I mean distance himself from their ideas. Shouldn't he make it clear that he dissapproves of racism and crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories if he does? I by no means want the law to be used against anyone because of their ideas, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out ideas for what they are: irrational collectivist craziness.

I can't help that it is not the alleged racists and conspiracy theorists that are suffering from irrational and collectivist thought here. What you bring up is actually a political correct shaming device. My company gets frequently contributions from the public and I can tell you that a contributor must go out of his way before I would "distance myself" from him. I'm no totalist that checks the ideas of other people and then makes a list from whom I will distance myself in a ritual.

Brainpolice recently wrote an essay on the subject on racism:
http://mises.com/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2007/11/30/the-rational-and-individualist-case-against-racism.aspx
It's not perfect, since he uses strawmen to further his point, but it is far more differentiating then the usual manipulative and poltical correct crap one reads. 

Personally one ought to start a thread on his own on the subject of "racism"...

Brainpolice:

And I understand that it is to some extent impossible to not be effected by politics. But there is a huge difference between compulsory things that one cannot avoid and things that one has at least some leeway in being able to avoid. For example, I can totally understand libertarians driving on the public roads because they simply have no choice not to if they want to get around. But something such as voting is not compulsory (unless you live in a place such as Australia).

I think you are missing the point. Voting isn't always "using" the state like collecting welfare is. Everyone at least has the potential to be effected by politics, because the power of government is really only limited by the populace. Voting in and of itself in no way supports or expands governments. On the contrary, if all libertarians did not vote, the state would certainly expand more than it does. When would libertarians abstaining from voting cause more desirable libertarian outcomes than if they did vote?

You aren't quite correct that the government always expands. During Clinton's presidency, spending relative to GDP was on a steep decline until Dubya took office.

I think what voting allows is a potential for "revolution" without the violence of a real one. For example, Quebec was almost able to succeed through democratic means. If it had tried to succeed the "old fashioned way", things would have likely gone worse. The ability of citizens to vote does hold their government in check to some degree (although it often expands it in others, outright Stalin-esque violence towards large segments of the population is less likely in a democracy).

Torsten:

Solid_Choke:

I don't mean denounce those people, I mean distance himself from their ideas. Shouldn't he make it clear that he dissapproves of racism and crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories if he does? I by no means want the law to be used against anyone because of their ideas, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out ideas for what they are: irrational collectivist craziness.

I can't help that it is not the alleged racists and conspiracy theorists that are suffering from irrational and collectivist thought here. What you bring up is actually a political correct shaming device. My company gets frequently contributions from the public and I can tell you that a contributor must go out of his way before I would "distance myself" from him. I'm no totalist that checks the ideas of other people and then makes a list from whom I will distance myself in a ritual.

Brainpolice recently wrote an essay on the subject on racism:
http://mises.com/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2007/11/30/the-rational-and-individualist-case-against-racism.aspx
It's not perfect, since he uses strawmen to further his point, but it is far more differentiating then the usual manipulative and poltical correct crap one reads. 

Personally one ought to start a thread on his own on the subject of "racism"...

Thanks for the plug, for whatever it's worth.

I'd like to know which parts are strawmen. My charge of collectivism and polylogism? My charge of extreme biological determinism? My characterization of the views of separatists? Just to clarify, I support one's right to be a separatist in a voluntary context, but I think that the cause loses out in the long-run due to harmony-of-interest considerations (I.E. incentives). I also do not see many separatists as being content with a mere propertarian right to discriminate, but pushing further for mandatory discrimination on other people's property and treating the state as if it were private property. And I'm with Walter Block on the "bum in the library" question.

Choke

Unreasonable is in the beholder's eyes.  As a business owner, some get angry and make accusations.  My business continued for over 42 years in two different locations.  Obviously we did something right.  I simply let folks complain and went on with my work.  There were few complaints; however, had I taken the time to address the petty crap, my work would not get done.  My mind would concentrate on nonsense.

Dr. Paul has been a true conservative for 10 terms in Congress, frequently referred to as Dr. NO!  It seems his record stands on it's own.  Perhaps you should research just who this man is.

I have tried listening to Michael Medved and believe he's an obvious plant--a neo-con--a RINO!  A Republican in name only.  His continual interruption of any caller who shows knowledge and disagreement is obvious.  Oddly enough, after Michael Medved labeled Dr. Paul a ____???, Mona Charin wrote a column--not based on any fact--just name calling--Nazi--Jew hater, etc.  Absolute nonsense!

Do I consider MM prominent?  Not hardly!  Check out his background.  Let us know what you find out.

You may have missed it; Ron Paul has said quite recently both that racism is an ugy form of collectivism, and that he believes 9/11 was carried out by Al Qaeda

.

I personally am not buying the *official* government version of 9/11. I've done my own researching (as opposed to letting agents of the state and their lapdog media do it for me) and I'm thoroughly convinced that we haven't been given anything close to the truth. The fact the term "truther" has become derogatory -- that idea that searching for the truth somehow denotes instability -- I think is profoundly Orwellian; a kind of Hayekian "End of Truth" scenario.

However, Dr. Paul has stated that he believes it was Al Qaeda. To each his own. One thing I do know, his idea of the role of government and his emphasis on individual rights are right in line with mine; so frankly I could give a damn what he thinks about 9/11.

But as for Nazi's and such contributing to his campaign.... thats the one bad thing about freedom -- everybody wants it.

Let's do this: Call on Rudy to denounce his supporters who believe that all Arabs should be bombed off the face of the planet. Ask Hillary about her contributions from defense contractors. Check on the Tancredo and Hunter supporters who want to build a double-thickness fence on the Mexican border at taxpayer expense. Then we'll talk about Ron Paul supporters who think the government might lie about terrorist attacks. Good points about 9/11 Truth. We have gotten a point where "truther" is an insult. This country deserves what it gets.

Brainpolice:

I'd like to know which parts are strawmen. My charge of collectivism and polylogism? My charge of extreme biological determinism? My characterization of the views of separatists? Just to clarify, I support one's right to be a separatist in a voluntary context, but I think that the cause loses out in the long-run due to harmony-of-interest considerations (I.E. incentives).

That's a good start for the strawmen.Actually it's not even a strawman, it's a phantom. So I think one can start earlier. For example you are not naming a person or organization that is supposed to hold any of these views. Nor do you quote any works or publications that would support any of those "charges" you made. Even if you would find support for some of the "charges", that doesn't have to mean that they are normative for this political spectrum as a whole. Take for example the former Nationalist Party in South Africa, or any of the White Separatist organizations to the right of it. The NP was interventionist, but they were hardly collectivists. The same applies to "extreme biological determinism". While they acknowledged that there are behavioral difference between people from different races that have genetical causes, the effects of nurture were not denied.   

As for the "polylogism", what exactly would you mean with this? Perhaps that the thinking patterns of people may differ similarly to difference i.e. in sound patterns. You didn't reference it, but I think you got this from Mises "Human Action", were he makes similar charges.

Nationalism, Racialism, Ethnocentrism are political/social ideas that hold that there are important differences between "them" and "us". They are basically preferences for the "us".

If you'd like to discuss this further, you ought to start a special thread on that essay. This thread deals with whether Ron Paul needs to distance himself from certain supporters or not.

 

 

Nationalism, Racialism, Ethnocentrism are political/social ideas that hold that there are important differences between "them" and "us". They are basically preferences for the "us".

Yes, and in both cases, this "us" and this "them" are collectivist abstractions.

Anyways, yes, this is getting too off topic.

If that is "collectivist" abstractions, so would be the McDonalds, the Christians, the New Yorkers, and The Ford motor company employees. If according to this a "racist" or nationalist would have to be a "collectivist" with necessity, so would be any republican, good father, competent mayor, boss or pastor. Personally I think you are attaching a meaning to the term "collectivist" that is too broad (anything that is grouping people somehow together), but I still think you should start a special thread on your essay. Then we can discuss that in detail. Let us know here once, you've started this thread.

You're the one who brought it out here. Anyways, you've been responded to in private message.