Yes, The Atlantic made the connection. They
[quote]
(http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/) Reason:
Rockwell is racist! Oh wait, he named teh Mises Institute after a Jew, and was extremely close to another Jew, Rothbard, and also is an intellectual descendant of many other Jews. WooOOOOO!!!
Well, it didn’t take that long to bring up the Nazis: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-ron-paul-and-the-nazi-century/
I have no idea what you’re talking about. It seems like the complete opposite of what you’re describing. A large part of the TSA is the notion that profiling has such a stigma.
a) What makes you think privatized security wouldn’t economize on information costs?
b) What’s wrong with racial profiling?
Speaking of Israel, it seems to work quite well for them…
Damn Tunk. This is getting blown to a whole new level. Looks like you produced this paper just in time. Thanks again.
I have no idea you are talking about. Are you telling me that there is no racial profiling at airports; not even just a little? If you think there is, then you must know what I am talking about.
What makes you think that I think that privatized security wouldn’t economize on information costs?
Why does it matter that I find racial profiling to be right or wrong?
I don’t get it. Do you think that I think that racial profiling doesn’t work quite well? If so, why?
This:
“Let’s not forget all of the racial profiling that would no longer occur by getting rid of the TSA.”
I didn’t say it does. I’m asking what you find wrong with it.
It sounds like you’re in favor of racial profiling not taking place. I want to know why.
Non sequitur on your part. You seem to think that I am saying that there would be less in total. Edit: You should have asked to what kind of racial profiling I was referring.
If it doesn’t matter, then why are you asking?
Re-read the entire thread. That Ron Paul is racist is irrelevent to me, but it is certainly relevant to voters who find it relevant; likewise, that TSA is racist is irrelevant to me, but it is relevant to voters who find it relevant.
You seriously gotta consider the context. Much of the support for the TSA comes from the belief that the market has failed to provide and will continue to fail to provide adequate security at airports. Given what the TSA does, that means that market will fail to provide enough racial profiling.
P.S. I don’t why you keep trying to catch me slipping.
You have got to be kidding me. We’re talking about Ron Paul and racism and how the two don’t mix. And as a supporting point you say “Let’s not forget all of the racial profiling that would no longer occur by getting rid of the TSA”.
If you do not intend that to mean Ron Paul would help create less racism by removing the TSA, the what the hell was the point of saying any of that?
Why do most people ask anything. I want to know. (If you can’t think of an answer, just say so. I can accept that.)
Okay I’ll make it simple for you. Are you in favor of racial profiling not taking place?
Did you seriously just respond to yourself?
Read my follow up post.
“would help create less racism” You’re putting words in mouth; “create less” is not the same as “get rid of.”
I don’t know and it doesn’t matter to me.
What you want to know doesn’t matter to you?
At all or in airport security?
Yet you faild by not being specific. sigh
No, but I did quote myself.
We can do this forever, bro.
Wow. Check out this headline: "In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast “race war”. The reporter wrote:
after RP’s interview with Wolf “The Situation” Blitzer.
If the amount of racism/racial profiling would essentially be the same, then I say again, what was the point of even bringing up the fact that Ron Paul would work to abolish the TSA?
That was a rhetorical question, as I provided the answer immediately following it. (Hence the lack of a question mark.)
Who’s putting words in who’s mouth? The fact that you have the opinion you do is what ultimately doesn’t matter. I want to know what leads you to that opinion.
Both.
Seriously? And you want to lecture me about being rude?
Then why did you respond to my post, and then quote your own response and respond to that?
It doesn’t matter to me.
Anyway, you make a good point about racial profiling that extends to everything else. Even if the drug war ended, then that doesn’t mean that there would be less racial profiling or less blacks in jail.
Also, as economists, whether racial profiling is good or bad is irrelevant since economics is value-free; likewise, whether we go through cancer machine or get felt up is irrelevant.
The problem to me is the state itself; I don’t mind getting searched at an airport, nor not being allowed to smoke certain drugs at a certain place, but I do mind the state forcing others to search me, etc.
So back to my original question, you’re saying you don’t find anything wrong with racial profiling?
I don’t think there is anything wrong with descriminating at all.
Right now the drug war makes it extremely easy for cops to arrest anyone- just have a bag of weed on you at all times and plant it on the “suspect”. I’m sure they’ll come up with some new way to make arrests for absolutely no good reason at all but ending the drug war would make it more difficult.
If Ron Paul honestly didn’t know that those newsletters were being sent out, he would’ve disavowed them in 1996. He didn’t fully deny responsibility on the advice of his campaign staff? Give me a break!
Walking out of an interview is almost always a sign that the interviewee has something to hide. Good Riddance RP.
Everyone complaining about the newsletters isn’t even a minority I’d bet 100%. I’m a minority in this country and I don’t know anyone else who cares about stupid things like this when it comes to presidential candidacy- they just care about the job situation turning around.
I mean we have actual real crimes against humanity going on as we speak when it comes to a lot of government policies and this is what’s on the news? What a waste of time. You’d have to be really into soap operas or other type of drama to think even think this newletter thing is meaningful. Ahh I feel more stupid just talking about it right now.
Here is an article Gene Callahan dug up on the subject:
http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/
I agree with AJ’s overall senitment - this won’t go away, that’s just the way the worl works. You can debunk and cry foul all you want, but it won’t matter. Whoever wrote those letters is certainly being a dick by throwing RP under the bus by not comming out though.
Of course, assuming there is more fact than fiction in the article and Ron Paul knew some Rothbardians were race baiting on his letters as a political tactic…that’s about as dumb a move as one can make.