I was referred to this article by a friend http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca. Apparently the Mises Institute and those who adhere to its principles are merely a bunch of bigots. Is this for real?
No it’s not.
The characterization of the Mises Institute in that article is absurd, as a glance through the Mises.org shows. Yes, the Mises Institute held a conference on the idea of secessionism in light of the falling apart of the Soviet Union. The conference explored the classical liberal idea of people separating from states, and the result was a scholarly book that is on sale in the store. (We would post it but we didn’t publish it so there are copyright issues).
Mises himself, of course, proposed secession as a way out of post World War I political conflicts. The racial element comes into play only in the American context, and several papers in that volume tried to show that it is possible to support secession and opppose slavery, which of course libertarianism and Austrian theory are completely dedicated to eradicating in all its forms. In other words, the article itself is refuted by the evidence of the whole history of the Mises Institute.
As for the rest of the article, Ron has completely separated himself from those quoted comments. In any case, the Mises Insitute is a non-political organization.
Forgive the initial phrasing of the question I posted for I what I meant to express was merely that it’s proposterous and outright insane to consider the admirerers and members of the Mises Institute as bigots of any sort. What’s particularly interesting is that this article demonstrates that, once again, the substance of the arguments possessed by many self proclaimed conservatives are such that they must resort to the tactic of character degradation. As is so often the case however, the attacks themselves are false, revealing even more the incompetence of the party which produced them.
Unless certain LVMI scholars were willing to adopt force to impose their ideals, it should not matter one way or the other what they believe, so long as they believe in the non-aggression axiom. Accusations of racism are a typical ‘progressive’ slur used to silence debate. Of course, these accusations are pure fiction - yet even if they weren’t, they are little but ad hominem attacks, of a sort.
I know the question is rhetorical, but to address it all the same, no.
At the very worst, Paul is guilty of not being careful of what was said in his eponymous newsletter, and not being the final approver. He took responsibility for that. It’s a far stretch to say that publication mismanagment = racism, but trying explaing that to a Leftist lunatic.
The thing is, even TNR’s article says as much. They freely admit that none of these hatful words can be directly attributed to Paul—and anyone with a mind for free inquiry can compare this borderline conspiracy theory to Pauls vasious books, congressional statements, and other actions and know that he’s no racist.
But just try to make that defense anywhere, and see if you don’t get labeled a racist yourself.
But who, outside of the libertarians, are familiar with the non-aggression axiom?
You’re correct about “racist” being a slur. When someone calls you a racist, the debate always turns into the accused defending his or her character instead of actually following through with the debate. Normally, this wouldn’t matter. But in debates that do, the accusation of racism is enough to bias popular opnion against the accused.
I’m sure everyone’s been there. Try keeping someone’s attention after you’ve criticized affirmative action, or the Civil War, or the Civil Rights Act.
It’s implicit in the Golden Rule and quite a few ethical systems. What I was trying to say is that so long as they adhere to the NAP, and only desire disassociation and favour voluntary means, charges of racism are inconsequential, and at best are a matter of scientific (and perhaps ethical) debate, and little more. By contrast, an egalitarian who wanted to force association by whatever means necessary would, as far as I am concerned, be deserving of far greater scorn than anyone labeled a ‘racist’. Your point is well taken though. Most ‘progressives’ seem unable to grasp such facts.
I’m a fan of Ron Paul and I don’t believe he is a racist – that is not really the issue – but you have to admit it doesn’t look good if people are publishing things under your name for decades that you don’t endorse. I should also note that some of the mainstream media reaction is political correctness, or in the case of secession totally off-base, but some is deserving criticism. (By the way, does it really matter that TNR is a statist magazine (which one isn’t?) or that it’s a deliberate hit-piece?)
I may be shunned for mentioned this but hey you guys don’t know me anyway. Dare I say it is likely the writers have written for or are affiliated with LewRockwell.com? Surely someone knows the history of these newsletters, is anyone talking about it anywhere?
I’ve read most of the “racist” articles from the newsletter that TNR provide. Its compeletely overblown when you read them in context. Didn’t read any of the Trilateral Commisson stuff. Most seem to be written by the same person, with a few exceptions (like the LA riot piece). My guess is that Paul wrote most, they were typical writings you’d find on any internet board at the time from libertarians of a certain perspective. No big deal to a long term libertarian though I can see in our current environment how people might view them as racist (I don’t).
Ron Paul is not a racist. He is the opposite of a racist – an explicit advocate of individualism.
When the New Republic hit piece by Kirchick first appeared, I created the following video in response and posted it on YouTube. It has since gotten quite a bit of attention and has since convinced quite a few people that not only are Kirchick’s allegations false, but that he has also committed a breach of journalistic etiquette in bringing them forward on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
Note: Whenever words like “racist” are used, you can be pretty sure that it is an attempt to smear someone. When your warning lights are going on, you should ask yourself: 1. Is someone using loaded terminology? 2. Are the words clearly defined and are they expressing anything relevant and meaingful?
If the answer is YES to 1 and/or NO to 2 you can be sure that someone is following a polemical or deceptive approach. In the past decades the word “racist” has become something like “heretic” or “witch” in earlier ages.
Excellent video, everything you said was right on point.
I do wander what the best way to combat accusations like this is, really. When this first “broke,” I tried to point people who had bad things to say about Paul in the direction of Mises.org, and they flat out refused, saying they wouldn’t go to a racist website. Other times, in discussions about healthcare, I’ve linked to articles on Mises, and people flat out refused to even read the content, saying that they wouldn’t trust a “right-wing think tank.” The irony is that they are more than willing to lap up whatever drivel a “non think-tank” like TNR offers.
More on Ron and racism. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
One thing that is driving me crazy about Ron Paul’s campaign are the inconsistencies in what he’s saying. He was just on Wolf Blitzer’s show talking about how the drug laws discriminate against “the blacks”, and uses statistics to back it up their incarceration rate (like in the LA riot piece, but I won’t go into that). But then, I also see him doing interviews where he uses ‘drug dealers’ as the heavy (eg: children born of illegal aliens, ‘drug dealers will cross the border have children that will be citizens’). Huh? In a Ron Paul USofA, drug dealing isn’t a crime, right? And I know he’s walking a tight rope on other issues, but one’s that are consistent with libertarian principles. This one stands out as one that doesn’t.
Lest we forget who the TRUE racists are.
Robert “KKK” Byrd. Democratic Senator from West Virginia.
Quotes therefrom:
“Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
“I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side.”
The esteemed Senator was a Grand Wizard of the KKK at one point.
Funny, how this NEVER comes up in the press. 
I listen to Ron Paul and I do not hear any racism in what he says. Looking at his career as a doctor and as a politician I can find no racists behaviors. My feeling is that is isn’t a racist.
I do believe that people fear what he says and will use any means they have to try to discredit his message which is Pro-Individual, Pro-Liberty, Pro-Free Markets, Pro-Peace, Pro-America/Anti-American-Empire.
Exactly. That IS racism. Nothing I read in those newsletters is anything like that.
This is old news, and an equally nonsensical smear. In fact, the New York times repeated most of those alligations, and since even the fools who still consider the Times “the paper of record” could see though it, they offered a retraction and apology.
If we end the “war on drugs” then there will be no drug dealers as we know them now. The drug dealers would be just like current liquor store owners. So there is no inconsistency in despising current drug dealers and also despising current drug laws.