You are a poster I really like here, I don’t enjoy trying to kick dirt on your shoes.
Oh, so maintaining the status quo is fine? Reason totally giving the state a pass, and only being concerned with policy is fine/
By your standard, Paul is on your team. Think about that.
A better question is “are there links…” because I am not going to waste the rest of this afternoon doing research for a forum discussion.
Of course, seeing as how you comment on Paul, you must be very knowedgeable of his articles on LRC or at ronpaullibrary.org. You must also be aware of his references to Spooner when being interviewed on TV.
I don’t think he would take the job if he won. He has no desire to be the President.
This is assinine. His policy is not statist. Given that the issue is the welfare state, one could stretch this and say his position is a defense of private property rights of American citizens.
Yes, the guy who would be assassinated by the statists is obviously the problem!
Paul was not trying to take power or dismantle the state. He was trying to reach the remnant. To assess the size of the remnant.
Thank you, you are a poster I like here as well. I don’t like trying to kick dirt on anyone’s shoes either. Debates sometimes become heated around here, I understand that.
Just because I will not vote for someone or donate to a campaign does not mean I think of that person as “the enemy”. I just think that my money is better spent donating the LVMI, ISIL and, yes, my Reason subscription. I just think that his tactics (or perhaps the tactics of his staff) are counterproductive to the cause. Ron Paul is not “the enemy”, I just wish he would fire some people on his staff or phrase his concerns in a different way. We do not need to alienate a large and growing segment of our population through a choice of wording.
He supports the use of the state to keep people out of an arbitraily defined area. Hence, statist. And how does that protect the property rights of Americans? The state is going to continue stealing just as much even if there was no “illegal” immigration. Also, if we are going to talk about context, why don’t you focus on the billions and billions of dollars of corporate welfare, instead of focusing on the people that the state shits on the most? There is nothing inherently immoral in recieving money from the state, especially since those who receive it (in the case of welfare) are those who are screwed over the most by the state.
Then why a presidential campaign? Whether or not he is trying to take power, he is trying to “improve” the state. He is not an anarchist by any strech of imagination. If there was a speech or article that said that he supported, say, an absolute right of secession, then it would be different.
If you don’t see the blatant inconsistancy involved here, I don’t know what to tell you. The idea you’re putting foreward reduces to “so long as the current laws exist, the current law should be enforced” and then adding “but in hypothetical situation X, I’m against the laws”. This seems very inconsistant and illogical to me, saying that because a federal government and welfare state exist, the federal laws may as well be enforced or that intervention Y (in this case, immigration restriction) is justified by previous intervention X (the welfare state). Mises had a word for this kind of thinking: interventionism.
Sweden is living proof of the phenomenon. Restricting immigration is the wrong solution. Doing away with the welfare state, OTOH, is not. Once it is demonstrated that it is a parasite that will die without a continuing supply of hosts to feed on, and which will enlarge itself as time goes on, it will be all the easier to abolish it. The more burdensome it becomes, the more cost-prohibitive it is. This is basic economics, and part of why Hoppe argues the welfare state will inevitably collapse. Only he believes limiting illegal immigration to limit the oppression is justified. I think it’s better to just let the whole thing overheat, rather than let people think the welfare state is salvageable.
-Jon
"Only he[Hoppe] believes limiting illegal immigration to limit the oppression is justified. "
So…It would seem that, for Hoppe and for Paul, the use of lethal force against peaceful individuals trying to cross a political border, is consistent with libertarian principles ? Otherwise they wouldn’t advocate the restriction of immigration ?
Indeed. And because of Paul’s wonderful “educational” campaign, such deviations are being passed off as “libertarian”.
The gnat tries to snap at my heels again. Such a pesky little troll.
-Jon
Ah. I see what he’s doing now. Sorry if it seems like I have been supporting him in his trolling [:)]
Nice strawman. Given that the federal government (right or wrong) is charged with the maintenance of the borders (right or wrong) and national sovereignty ( right or wrong) it almost looks like a property rights issue. Or in the libertarian future, will you allow peaceful people to trespass on your land?
Yes, the government doesn’t own the land. But, for all intents and purposes in the real, flesh and blood world, they do. Paul doesn’t operate in the world of the theoretical, he has to operate within the world of the real, ad the calls for him to be an anarchist in government are not only naive, they are more self-destructive libertarianism.
It overheats, and then there is a backlash. So basically, the theory is that we should all suffer more, until we are righteously indignant and pissed off? [;)]
Excellent strawman. Despite the investment you have made into angry YouTube videos, you still have not lost your ability to create machines to rage against! Kudos to you!
The point is that either the principles are valid or they are not. You cannot pick and choose. The viewpoint you put foreward is a legitimization of the status quo and the state. It’s a defeatist attitude to proclaim that since the state controls the territory in the present, we may as well act as if such control is legitimate even though we are well aware that it isn’t. At such a point, you’ve ruined the entire purpose here. This claim of “realism” is really nothing but pragmatism and utilitarianism gone wild, a reversion to conservatism. Brushing off those who wish to stick to their principles and who actually favor change as idealists is BS. Btw, noone is calling for someone to be an anarchist in government, since that is impossible.
I can’t think of anything more self-destructive than claiming to have a principle and then functioning on a premise in direct countradiction to the principle.
No, it’s basically for people to actually see with their own eyes what a government policy does exactly, rather than insulating them from short-term harm - to actually realize there are internal structural problems with the very notion of a “welfare” state.
-Jon
Libby, you do realize that on a whole immigrants contribute about an increase of 1-3% in the US economy right? A net increase easily defaults the “decrease” through welfare - for which I have seen absolutely no evidence for.
The fact is, Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian. The man is a xenophobe, period.
As far as the whole trade-off bull shit for “good politicans” goes, however, you really need to start pulling your head out of your arse and read something about public choice. Also, immigration is a big issue for some people and as Hispanics are the most likely to support libertarian ventures like secession, it’s a net loss for libertarianism to have racists like Ron Paul associated with it.
If a man claims ownership to land but has not homesteaded it, then absolutely a “trespasser” possesses the right to “trespass” on the unowned land.
P.S. Paul operates in the world of the Klan and the Earmark. So, you’re right, he isn’t principled or willing to act like it.
This is the crazy thing about the real world. You can pick and choose. You can be irrational. You can be emotional (even on YouTube!). You can be happy, sad, pensive, thoughtless, hedonistic whatever. I’ve got bad news for you, our opponents are not as fanatically rigid as you are. They are willing to be whatever they need to be to win.
Nicky, all of your boilerplate nonsense about Paul is fascinating (and redundant, tired, worn etc.), but how come you didn’t comment on Dim Sum?
If you are a good boy in school and ace all of your state exams, maybe Mommy and Daddy will take you out for Dim Sum one day. After all, Dim Sum in the west, is a gift from immigrants!