I will agree that a majority of the ad hominems seem to come from the pro-Paul camp.
I think there is a difference between an ad hominem and a descriptor. It is not an ad hominem to call Stalin a communist if in doing so it is merely your intent to describe his ideological outlook.
Pat Buchanan is not a libertarian. He does not even claim to be.
When it comes to alliances with non-libertarians of (almost) any flavor I have no problem so long as the alliance is issue specific. For example, there is a great deal I disagree with the Green movement on but I would have no problem supporting them on legalizing industrial hemp. This would be a plus for liberty. I would NOT want to ally myself with racists or Maoists. There are some groups that are so despicable that I would not want to associate myself with them at all.
I know. The question is, then, why did Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard ally with him so strongly in the late 80’s and 90’s? Because as far as I can tell, Pat Buchannan’s brand of “paleoconservatism” is quasi-fascist. This was much more then a few single-issue alliances. This was (and is) a “united front” between libertarians, paleocons and national socialists (and honestly I find very little distinction between the later two). Surely a desire to cut taxes and opposition to public education is not sufficient to constitute a meaningful broad alliance. Why do so many libertarians still form a “united front” with these people?
As far as I know, the reason Rockwell and Rothbard supported Buchanan was for his foreign policy views, and that they tried and failed to turn him away from trade protectionism. Buchanan was the most influential supporter of non-interventionism at the time, so it was strategic more than anything, I suppose. I can see the logic in allying with other groups on similar issues, although I do worry that it could lead to taking one step forward (in this case foreign policy) and two steps back (in this case trade protectionism and homophobic laws).
That makes sense. But as you seem to suggest yourself, sometimes the baggage that comes with it is counterproductive. It may threaten to pull the libertarian movement towards those other tendencies. In fact I already view the libertarian movement as drifting towards paleoconservative tendencies.
No one at the Mises Institute has used the term paleolibertarian in 15 years. The original point of it was to emphasize the Old Right origins of american libertarianism, particularly its antiwar and decentralist elements. It had NOTHING to do with nationalism, for goodness sake. As for Buchanan, there was briefly promise there, but nothing came of it. Big deal. As for alliances, the only “libertarians” who write for Chronciles these days all come from the Cato Institute.
brainpolice, why do you attack Ron Paul pro-life views? A federally enforced pro-choice legislation is just as bad as a federally enforced pro-life legislation. If Ron Paul was pro-choice, then you would not attack him. It is your personal opinion for abortion.
The Sanctity of Life Act was not a legislation for federal ban of abortion. It lets state judges to decide on abortion. The reason that it defines life at conception is just a marketing strategy to attract pro-life supporters to support the bill. Outlawing a federal decision on abortion (roe v. wade) is better than keeping it.
Stop attacking his vote for the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Roe v. Wade is a federal legislation and Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is also a federal legislation, so why don’t you attack Roe v. Wade? Abortion is already federally legislated, so supporting Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does not do much effect.
Don’t you know that the Roe v. Wade act causes federal funding of abortion? The racist Planned Parenthood program killed most black children. http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act does better things because it reduces federal funding.
You always scapegoat abortion as a religious issue. It is not always a religious issue. Private agencies have the right to protect unborn children.
If you support abortion, then you support murder of children and murder of women. Because children and women are weaker, do you have the right to kill them? Do you oppose anti-murder laws? You do oppose them, but why don’t you oppose them as the same way as abortion? You cannot logically conclude moral issues. Abortion issues must be defined as an axiom.