To Recap, the subject of Ron Paul began with this post by me:
liberty student:
When does Reason ever take a strong stand against the government? Never?
“Reason Magazine is a strong opponent of the War on Drugs, (the government’s) War on Poverty, The PATRIOT ACT, censorship in all its forms, they oppose government intrusions into privacy, while not exactly IP opponents they speak out against many abuses of IP, they are opponents of the War in Iraq and, unlike Ron Paul, they actually support the right of an innocent person to (gasp) cross a an invisible line drawn by government thugs. Shall I go on?”
Continued with this post by me:
liberty student:
You completely misconstrue Ron Paul’s immigration/border position.
"Really? Perhaps the Ron Paul flyers I was handed had some misprints. Does he not oppose “illegal immigration”?
And ended with liberty student suggesting:
“Start a new thread. If you insist on doing this, it is going to be a long one.”
I know exactly where you are going with this, but it is cherry-picking one position out of a philosophy he has and running with it as a reason to undermine him.
Invisible lines? How else would you divine property boundaries? Towers and walls?
Government thugs? You mean the ones that Reason gives a free pass to on taxation and inflation?
Ron Paul opposes the illegal immigration into America because it further undermines the liberty of Americans who are slaves to the tax system that supports welfare for non-citizen residents. He does not oppose immigration, and he does not oppose immigration from Mexico. He’s gone out of his way to explain that if the system was different, immigrant workers would likely be needed and welcome but under current conditions, they are scapegoated and made out to be villains.
Ron Paul has the most principled stand on this of any significant politician in America IMO.
PS, I’m going out for Dim Sum. I’ll be back in an hour or two.
The problem is twofold: 1. It is a position that is inconsistent with the philosophy he claims to hold. And 2. It is a position that has the potential to alienate a large and growing population from libertarianism when, truth be told, they are very much the type of people who should be our ALLIES, not our enemies. Everything about their story says libertarian ally to me: unable to find work back home because of government regulations they move to a new land where, yet again, they are persecuted by the government. They live underground and either start small businesses or work for companies that hire them knowing that they are breaking the law in doing so. That story is something out of an Alan Moore graphic novel. They should be our allies - we should not alienate them.
The federal government has no justly acquired property. Let me ask you something about property. Does a property owner in Brownsville, Texas along the Rio Grande River have a right to hire someone on the other side of that river to work on his or her property? Why or why not?
From a certain perspective illegal immigrants are providing a service to opponents of government-funded welfare services by making the system’s flaws more obvious and killing off coal-mine-canaries in border town areas. The very reason you Ron Paul, Bob Barr and others are opposed to illegal immigration is raising alarm bells about the government welfare system with people who might otherwise be willing to tolerate it.
Perhaps but he is, alas, a politician. I learned not to trust politicians back when I was a conservative and had high hopes for the “Republican Revolution” of the mid 1990’s. Man, that was a disappointment. I learned my lesson.
I support your position on Dim Sum. I LOVE Dim Sum. Bon Appétit.
Another thing is, this whole debate gives the impression that immigration is the problem, not the welfare state, as if by limiting the former the latter will function just dandy! The truth is the reverse, i.e. that the welfare state requires further immigration in order to finance it, only then the new immigrants want part of it, overheating it, causing a need for further immigration &c, sort of like what is happening in Sweden. It must be made clear that it is the welfare state that is the problem, and not immigration per se. All immigration does is hasten its demise by increasing the burden it imposes. It’s a parasite anyway, and is destructive of liberty either way, just when immigration is limited it might last a bit longer.
I’ll reply to your post, so I don’t have to reply to the similar assertions in others.
Ron Paul is not a good executive. That ad was horrible, and isn’t consistent with his speeches or writings. If you believe he should be judged by that ad, then you probably believe he wrote the racist newsletters, in which case, I’m not interested in wasting my time repeating arguments I had for the better part of Q1 2008.
I do not believe that he wrote the racist newsletters but I think he should (in the context of a run for POTUS) be judged by both those newsletters and that ad. You are right, he is not a good executive, but POTUS is an executive position. If he cannot control his own newsletter or he own political campaign why should I have confidence in his ability to run his cabinet?
Paul’s campaign was not well run. If you really believe all of his propaganda was written by him, then I have some racist newsletters to sell you. What you are doing, is ignoring what Paul has fought for and represented throughout his career at the expense of tasteless propaganda created by the idiots in his campaign staff, who even today with the Campaign for Liberty are now talking about making their Rally for the Republic a “family and conservative” affair, more so than one that continues to reach the base of young people not yet in love with Agorism.
Look, the root problem here isn’t even the welfare state, or certainly Ron Paul. It is the federal government. If a property owner can’t hire an immigrant, that is not Ron Paul’s policy, his fault or his responsibility. You’re doing what the Reason-ites do all of the time. You take a slice of a portion of a nugget of a fraction of an issue, and adopt a stance that totally excludes the rest of reality surrounding it.
In the context that a Federal government and laws exist, I support Paul’s position. In the absence of a federal government, my position may be different. While my principles are the same, the variables are not, the the answer or determination will have variance. I also see this as a sovereignty issue, one that is bigger than nationalism, but that there may be a world government, and while people pick their noses consideriing Agorism or other tactics, the wheels are in motion to unify economy, military and judiciaries, which will be a death knell to libertarianism.
W/E
Whether or not you trust politicians is irrelevant. He is speaking to millions of people who do. He’s not talking to you, or for you. He’s not carrying your standard, nor should he have to. It’s mind-boggling that libertarians single out Paul for constant beatings and haranguement, when there are hundreds of congressmen who can’t hold a candle to the guy on libertarian or free market thought. I suppose that is the self-destructive and self-defeating nature of individualists. They absolutely do not play well with others. They have no patience, or sense of selfless sacrifice for larger, long-range goals.
Thank you. I ate too much, but it was good. It’s my little ritual to go for Dim Sum on the weekend.
That is a fallacious argument. You don’t even believe in a government, why are you worried about how he will manage his cabinet?
The man was not running to win. He was running to challenge the system, and self-defeating libertarians, and sellout conservative shills like Reason undermined him instead of supporting him deeper into the process, onto bigger and bigger stages to talk about
Ending war immediately
Collapsing the Empire
Abolishing the income tax (my favorite)
Monetary reform
Shrinking government by removing regulatory agencies
Instead, we’re left with Barr, who rambles endlessly about RealID and the PATRIOT ACT, without ever discussing the philosophical reasons for liberty, and who ignores the concept of economic liberty almost entirely.
Any historians on the board? THIS IS AN OPEN CALL TO ANY HISTORIAN TO REPLY TO THIS POST. I honestly do not know. But here is the more important question: Has there ever been a case where everyone lost all of there wealth due to hyperinflation that was caused by illegal immigrants hopping on welfare roles?
What is Ron Paul’s goal? If it is promoting liberty he apparently needs to clean house in his organization. If his goal is something else perhaps he should keep them all.
If someone told you that theft was wrong unless committed by people dressed like Daffy Duck what would you say about that person’s consistency? All I ask for is consistency. Either you believe in free association among consenting adults or you don’t. If you don’t we can debate that issue.
is very protective of its sovereignty and they have very low immigration rates. Perhaps we should emulate some of their policies.
Ron Paul is not the only congresscritter I criticize - far from it. If it seems I single him out it is because, in the forums I visit, his name pops up more often that say, Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens or Nancy Pelosi.
In the context that a Federal government and laws exist, I support the position that Paul, if elected, should be capable of doing the job he was elected to do.
Then why should anyone bother voting for him or sending money to his campaign?
He could do that without running for POTUS. He could do that through a campaign of education.
Funny to hear you don’t like Bob Barr. Bob Barr has positions almost identical to those of Ron Paul. It seems like your only problem with Bob Barr is that he is not as good of a public speaker as Ron Paul.
Oh really? Are you signed up for the Campaign for Liberty? Going to the Rally for the Republic?
Gimme a break. Paul has been trying to educate for decades, and it’s only recently when he had a large television audience captive that he was able to get attention and mass market.
That’s like saying, “This is great music, by the way, I’m tone deaf”. Have you even looked at the platforms of these two guys? Barr doesn’t have half of Paul’s platform. That’s what I am getting at, the criticisms of Paul are usually half-baked, people run with the newsletters or some ad, when Paul has produced hundreds of speeches and articles that clarify his position, and despite being a constitutionalist, flirts with anarchist notions towards government constantly.
But, libertarians love to fight one another, so of course, we’ll spend more time and energy on how Paul is imperfect, than on how a likely President like Obama is going to ramp up 4 years of statism, and warp the minds of a lot of young people.
All you ask for is consistency? You applaud Reason, when they cry about immigration, but you free pass them on the fact that the federal government is the problem! That’s exactly my point about compartmentalizing issues away from their broader reality.
I do believe in free association between adults. I also don’t agree in welfarism or a state. Looks like I am outta luck on BOTH with the current paradigm.
You know, many Americans complain a lot, for a people who are a lot freer than Canadians, and spend all of their time bickering as it slips away.
I think we’ve both said what we wanted to say, I have at least. I’m done unless you have something new to add.
If Ron Paul was, in some alternate universe, going to become the president, what do you think the one thing that he would be able to accomplish? Probably just his statist immigration policy. The ruling class wouldn’t let him do anything else, if they let him live at all. The problem with Ron Paul is that he legitamizes, in the eyes of many, the strategy of electoral politics. Libertarians of one form or another have been attempting to take power to minimize or dismantle the state for over 200 years. It hasn’t worked.
If you can give me an instance when Reason Magazine has ever called for MORE intervention by government I will be happy to criticize them. So long as someone is throwing the ball towards the goal they are on my team.