Is he?
http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rep-ronpaul.shtml
These people say he is.
Libertarians like Paul are for removing any legislative barriers that may restrict business owners’ profits, but are openly hostile to alleviating economic restrictions that oppress most workers. Only a boss could embrace this perverse concept of “freedom.”
I was surprised to see the little quip about AIDS in this, but really, at the time this was written it was widespread in the gay community. Those who have unprotected and/or frequent sex in the gay community were risking it then. It’s like saying someone who contracts an STD in a hetero relationship is a “victim of their own lifestyle”–Because they are. It’s funny when you rip things out of context how you can make people sound like uneducated bigots.
“Racism” is the cry uttered by white guilt-ridden apologetic liberals as they resort to their frequent ad-hominem outbursts because they cannot logically argue against a certain position. Most leftists assume that anyone in favor of private property rights and doing away with (GASP!!!) affirmative action is a minority-hating Nazi.
The liberty or Libertarian philosophy is about protection of everyone’s rights. No one gets special treatment from the government. It is not a government’s role to punish a person or business for being racist; it is the role of the customer. At the same time it is not a role of government to protect a business or help it as is the case where a restrictive number of licenses are used to limit competition and give advantage to someone. Claims of racism would only be handled by the government if it infringes on the rights of an individual.
He’s not racist. He got 30% of the black vote in the 2008 GOP primaries. I think that was taken down however, as I can’t find it anymore.
He’s not racist. He got 30% of the black vote in the 2008 GOP primaries.
I do not see how the former follows from tha latter. Why do you think blacks cannot vote for a racist?
As a matter of fact, a lot of whites vote for racists who infringe on whites’ rights (affirmative action anyone?).
This article contains a rat’s nest of anti-freedom concepts that would require an unjustifiable amount of time and space to refute. The penetration of these concepts into the broader culture and their nearly conditioned effects on the average individual only reinforce the importance of LvMI’s mission.
The issue of popular freedom will not be won by refuting news articles and opinion pieces point-by-point. The very fact that such monstrous myths as that “all evidence points to the fact that unregulated capitalism means low wages and rampant polluting” can be repeated with a straight face - not only in a dedicated socialist periodical but in mainstream media outlets everywhere - shows that a more comprehensive strategy is required.
This is why I appreciate what LvMI is doing. I despise tyranny and I love the thought of human freedom, not only for myself but for the people, generally. And the disagreements between anti-statism and mainstream political theory over the conditions of freedom are not merely theoretical. It is not a mere matter of opinion. Whether through bad economic theory, naivete or outright hostility to human freedom, the mainstream political theory only serves to reinforce the Establishment. And it is really the Establishment that is the single largest cause of most of our social ills, like racism.
Clayton -
We already covered this starting here.
You really have to ask yourself is an article in a site called “international socialist review” that is clearly using buzzwords / propagnada words just writing an article for an echo chamber, or actually trying to communicate and seriously engage an idea with a system that is inherently against. That answer is very obvious and clear to me.
Since it’s sort of related, how about this?
Even assuming every word of that hit-piece is true, what does it have to do with the Holocaust? Anyway, let’s take this apart;
Bell Curve: I think the suppression of scientific knowledge and politically motivated censorship (such as the hoo-haa over James Watson’s mere mention of African IQ, even though it’s entirely possible the cause of such a difference is down to diet and nutrition) should be a subject of concern for classical liberals and libertarians. The counter-egalitarian point is just nice icing on the cake of such a project.
David Duke: There’s a huge difference between supporting Duke and noting a lot of his political programs had merit to them. Is every politician who advocates building interstate highways akin to Hitler, because of the Autobahn?
Malcolm X: Huh? As far as I recall, Rothbard had quite a few words of praise for Malcolm. Those words seem more directed at black nationalism in general, which had evolved in a variety of significantly different direction’s since Malcolm’s assassination.
Unleashing Cops: That’s an odd one, I’ll definitely admit. Largely irrelevant now, though; you’re about as likely to find apologetics for police brutality on LRC as you are to find radicalism in the Economist.
Jewishness: It’s well documented that American Jewry “has the income of Episcopelians and the voting patterns of Puerto Ricans”. There’s also the neocons, which the Teddy-Progressives are the step-grandfathers of. It’s not like Rothbard was any more favorable to gentile financiers, either. Just read any of his works on the Fed or the wars of the 20th century.
Also, it appears a “narrow” definition of antisemitism means one neocons can’t use to smear their opponents, by the looks of it. Somebody who hates Jews as a group is, AFAIK, the dictionary definition, and that’s the one Rothbard uses. There’s plenty to criticise about Pat Buchanan, but anti-semitism is not among his flaws.
All in all, a weak article, and one that comes off as desperate to dredge up the newsletter non-controversy the cosmos are still hooting about.
Why give a sh*t if someone is a racist?
That article doesn’t even try to create an argument for Ron Paul being racist- it just says “He wants to remove some regulations so hes a racist”. For the poor and poor minorities- Ron Paul’s policies would be the greatest way to pull themselves out of their current situation. He wants to end the war on drugs and pardon everyone who was arrested for a non-violent drug related crime, for godsake how the hell is this man racist.
That’s how a lot of people think though auctionguy. Thier angle is that Paul either doesn’t care about, or is actively scheming against minorities. And of course we know that the only thing keeping the population from starving to death is state support…
They should come to a minority neighborhood sometime. Taxes, license fees, broken roads(aren’t taxes supposed to pay for this?), prices of food/gas going up doesn’t really do much to help the poor. Not to mention cops that have nothing better to do then throw you in a jail cell for 24 hours for walking around at night and actively preventing people from giving money to the poor(panhandling can land you in jail in NYC too). A pretty useless savior- this state structure.
Why give a sh*t if someone is a racist?
Your non-sequitur is an argument against coercion, not racism.
You speak words, I show pictures.
If all that matters in this subjective department is what sells ask ther random man if they are disgusted by this - than ask them why or even some better NON leading question - I will bet you most wil point to racism before they point to coersion
If you tell me “what sells and concering oneself with what is unfashionable” is disgusting - than ask yoursef why the actual source of power who caused such things “why they did what they did.” and than ask yoursellf, honestly now, “what were the expectations and social categories in society that permited such things” Did the Ottomans kill these random people, or did they signal out Armenians, etc,
To piggyback on what I think vive is saying, consider this. No one here is against coercion per se, mostly just aggressive coercion, ie some kind of unjustified coercion. But in the case of defense of life or property, my guess is that plenty of people here find defensive coercion acceptable (a case such as “stop pointing that knife at me or I’ll shoot you with my gun”).
The guiding principal behind that is some style of libertarianism. Now if someone is a racist it’s not insane to claim that their racism probably has an effect on what they view as justified or unjustified violence, as well as a number of institutionalized or uninstitutionalized social action. That’s why people care if someone is a racist.
I don’t think he’s a racist. I think he’s incompetent.
Consider the racist/homophobic newsletter contreversy. That newsletter had some seriously “wrong” things going on for quite some time. RP says it was a ghostwriter. Taking his word for it means he was too incompetent to realize what was being put out in his name (even talking about his hometown) for years.