Is Lew Rockwell a liability?

[Mastiff]

I wonder if Ron's ties to Lew Rockwell could end up as a liability later. Lots or most of the LRC guys are anarchists. What do you guys think? Anyone know the extent of the RP/LRC connection?

[njandrewg]

they already lable him a truther, his response on that Fox show can be used for all such attacks...as a candidate you have no power over who supports you

[austin356]

Well Lew has not tied himself to the official campaign so I see nothing of the sort developing.

If someone tries to smear RP because of the Mises Institute it will result in the opposite effect.

[constituent]

HELL NO!! Lew Rockwell is awesome!!

and what's wrong w/ being an anarchist?

i thought self-reliance was what this country was all about?

[lucius]

No

[ARealConservative]

Lew Rockwell is a major asset, not a liability.

[Kregener]

Thinking people actually "get" everything Lew Rockwell is about.

No, it will not be a detriment.

[austin356]

Us anarcho-capitalist should not be mixed up with the people who are traditionally thought of as anarchists.

[constituent]

people that are 'traditionally' thought of as anarchists are yuppie scum in black bandanas.

not anarchists.

i wish [more] folks around here would start waking up to this fact and compensating for it in their posts.... they don't have to... willfull ignorance, god bless it!

but really though.

[RonPaulalways]

Lew Rockwell is a major asset, not a liability.

I second that, Lew Rockwell is a major asset, and we are all indebted to him for his role is spreading Ron Paul's message.

[david.griffus]

Lew is definitely an asset. Believe me, any attempt to dog RP by linking him to Lew or the Mises Institute is sure to fail.

[aghman]

I think Lew is a great asset. He's how I came across Ron Paul in the first place. :)

[Rick Williams]

Lew has been the best thinker in America on freedom issues for many years. My nominee for next Secretary of the Treasury. Or perhaps Fed Chairman during the closeout process.

[constituent]

resident stoic? does the president have one of those?

i saw him at the bbq, he seemed really even tempered. i was kinda suprised, i'd walked by him once and thought "why does that guy look familiar? maybe a RP fan video on youtube or something?" but he was just kinda chillin' and then the guy talking said something about lew rockwell being there and i looked to where everyone was focused and was thinking, "i'll be damned, i just walked past lew rockwell... that's friggin' awesome!"

[jjschless]

Lew is an asset.

[Harry96]

Lew is a great man who has done as much as anyone in the past 25 years to educate people about liberty.

Besides, plenty of anarchists are supporting Ron Paul. Doug Casey is another.

[ARealConservative]

A true anarchist wouldn't support Dr. Paul, or elections in general.

They generally look at voting itself as a form of endorsment for the state.

[constituent]

'a true anarchist'.... bleh....

no a true anarchist wants to end the govt's stranglehold on civil society. some think violence is the answer, some think the ballot box.

'they generally'

that tells me there you have no friggin' idea what you're talking about...

[Mastiff]

In what sense can he be an assett? I've been digging deep into libertarianism for years and I'm not on board with the ancap thing. Most people would find it flat out crazy. If people thought that RP could be heavily influenced by people who want to get rid of the entire government, including the military, courts and police, I think it's bad news.

Even for me personally, I'm really hoping that Ron Paul takes all the LRC stuff with some grains of salt, since they go over the top frequently IMO. There's a lot of good economics there, then they take it too far and it all falls apart.

In any case, whether you like it or not, it's fringe stuff and I hope RP doesn't have to ever defend it.

[Kregener]

You understand Dr. Paul has written NUMEROUS articles for LewRockwell.com, right?

[ARealConservative]

In what sense can he be an assett? I've been digging deep into libertarianism for years and I'm not on board with the ancap thing. Most people would find it flat out crazy. If people thought that RP could be heavily influenced by people who want to get rid of the entire government, including the military, courts and police, I think it's bad news.

Even for me personally, I'm really hoping that Ron Paul takes all the LRC stuff with some grains of salt, since they go over the top frequently IMO. There's a lot of good economics there, then they take it too far and it all falls apart.

In any case, whether you like it or not, it's fringe stuff and I hope RP doesn't have to ever defend it.

I'm not on board with the libertarian thing either. the losertarians aren't much of an asset IMO.

How about we compromise - and work within the constitutionalist thing?

[ARealConservative]

'a true anarchist'.... bleh....

no a true anarchist wants to end the govt's stranglehold on civil society. some think violence is the answer, some think the ballot box.

'they generally'

that tells me there you have no friggin' idea what you're talking about...

unhinged

anarchy is a lack of state. Everything else is minarchy - which isn't anarchy

[Harry96]

A true anarchist wouldn't support Dr. Paul, or elections in general.

They generally look at voting itself as a form of endorsment for the state.

I understand your point, but I'm not sure I agree.

Walter Block is another anarchist supporting Ron Paul. He wrote an article recently addressing your idea:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block78.html

"III. Libertarians shouldn’t be voting for ANYONE, Ron Paul included, since this goes against their principles

"Stuff and nonsense.

"If a slave master allows his property to vote between a harsh and a more humane overseer, we are to blame to slaves for choosing the latter? This is a perversion of libertarianism.

"Murray N. Rothbard was interviewed on this matter by the New Banner in 1972. Yet, apart from the date, and the mention of the presidential candidates of that day, so fresh is his voice he could well have been talking about Dr. Ron Paul, his good friend and confidant.

NEW BANNER: "Some libertarians have recommended anti-voting activities during the 1972 election. Do you agree with this tactic?"

ROTHBARD: "I'm interested to talk about that. This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don't think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement – if five million people, let's say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On the other hand, I don't think voting is a real problem. I don't think it's immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people.

"Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist's position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you're really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy – that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing.

"I don't think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited choice – there's no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn't try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can't say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It's not a fully voluntary situation. It's a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can't vote out of existence. For example, we can't vote the Presidency out of existence – unfortunately, it would be great if we could, but since we can't why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don't see that it's immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open – provided that you don't think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! – which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote.

"The second part of my answer is that I don't think that voting is really the question. I really don't care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say "I don't want to sanction the state" and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they'll elect. And it's important, because I think that there is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn't endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don't agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn't vote: he is also saying that we shouldn't endorse anybody. Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins? I don't see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us."


(This post isn't meant to imply that Rothbard's is the only view; the point is that a number of people who call themselves anarchists and eloquently espouse anarchist positions may still have preferences in elections. But, yes, we could now get into a semantics argument about whether such people are "really" anarchists; what "anarchism" is as opposed to "anarcho-capitalism," etc.)

[sickmint79]

lew rockwell is full of awesome.

[paulitics]

Lew Rockwell is an asset.

[quickmike]

I dont think hes a liability at all. Only thing I can find about Lew that I dont really like is that he seems so pessimistic about so many things when I see him in an interview. I agree with the things he is pessimistic about but I just dont think it serves his cause to say "we cant defeat big government, its never gonna happen" Those arent his exact words, but he just comes off that way to me sometimes.

I agree with him about 98% of the time though. Just needs to be more positive sometimes thats all.

[Green Mountain Boy]

In any case, whether you like it or not, it's fringe stuff and I hope RP doesn't have to ever defend it.

LewRockwell.com gets twice as many visitors as RonPaul2008.com

[paulitics]

LewRockwell.com gets twice as many visitors as RonPaul2008.com

shhh. Keep facts to yourself.

[Nash]

In what sense can he be an assett? I've been digging deep into libertarianism for years and I'm not on board with the ancap thing. Most people would find it flat out crazy. If people thought that RP could be heavily influenced by people who want to get rid of the entire government, including the military, courts and police, I think it's bad news.

Even for me personally, I'm really hoping that Ron Paul takes all the LRC stuff with some grains of salt, since they go over the top frequently IMO. There's a lot of good economics there, then they take it too far and it all falls apart.

In any case, whether you like it or not, it's fringe stuff and I hope RP doesn't have to ever defend it.


I think there is a distinct difference with philosophical political ideas and writings and actually governing effectively against opposition.

LRC promotes all sorts of conservative/libertarian/ANC views. Pat Buchanan even writes for them, so does Charlie Reese and other "mainstream" small L Libertarians like Steven Greenhut.

Heck if you go to their site there are banner ads for John McCain and Newt Gingrich. Obviously these guys don't have a problem with the association or they wouldn't be advertising there.

Anyway Lew Rockwell is a great person to have on board. He carries a lot of influence even among those who depart from his rigid views on the ANC front.

If it wasn't for Lew Rockwell I wouldn't have discovered Ron Paul 5 years ago.

[MsDoodahs]

Yeah, those anarchists are so crazy!

:rolleyes:

MsD <--- anarchist

[PaleoConservative]

With Lew is that he seems to personally attack to many people who are good solid conservatives because they don't agree with his ideas. Sometimes I think that is a little over the top, but otherwise I like him a lot.

[Colleen]

My vote is that he is an asset.

[Wyurm]

I'm going to say this once again and I beg you to listen up very very closely.

We dare not distance anyone what-so-ever. If Satan is a US citizen and can vote and wants to vote for RP, sweet. While that's a tad drastic, still we need to stop asking if we should alienate anyone. Its horridly unproductive and if anyone was actually successful in getting anyone to stop supporting RP, it would definitely not be a good thing in any way shape or form.

People who will be put off by any one group that supports RP will surely find some other reason to stop supporting him later on. As for "fringe" well, I'm highly sick of hearing that word. I see NeoCons and the sleeping masses as fringe. They are on the border of sanity. They are the ones that will happily let the last of our freedoms go. Please don't ask our friends to leave just because you are prejudice against them.

[Revolution9]

I wonder if Ron's ties to Lew Rockwell could end up as a liability later. Lots or most of the LRC guys are anarchists. What do you guys think? Anyone know the extent of the RP/LRC connection?

Hell.. Let's just knock off anybody that is not exstablishment approved. Don't wanna scare ANYBODY away with a pair of goggles not aligned to paralell perfection with theirs. And their optometrist is The Establishment..so we must properly filter organic alliances to meet the stringent structuralizations necessary for polarized lensing to not get the glare of association disabling said goggles predetermined function.

Well... time to somnmbulate back to the one eyed Dajaal and see what Oprah sez. She may look like look 400 pounds of bear liver in a plastic pouch but she sure comes off as smart. Least between the Rush segments when he goes to commercial..Then I'll stuff back about four or five meaf and cheesefood GMO tacos, microwaved to perfection and turn on the Glen Beck fella., sit back and know he makes me proud to be an amurikan.

'Nuff Sed:cool:
Randy

[Kregener]

LMAO!!!

Nice rant Randy!

;)

[Revolution9]

My vote is that he is an asset.

Best to have the brainy people that can flesh out concepts and philosophy working for free on your side than getting them alienated and having them use their genuine power of the pen as a sword of the mind and lasting substitute for the ephemerality of the tongue of the spkoen word wielding their talent against you.

If you look at Ben Franklin for instance, the smallest of disputes with the mildest of contrary views exchanged are enshrined in history as bombastic exchanges full of explosive historical content and meaning.

So, I agree with you and contextually Dr Paul should never alienate an intellectual and philosophical ally for political gain. Nor would he expect them to wear polarized paralelll POV goggles.

Regards
Randy

[MsDoodahs]

Anyone know the extent of the RP/LRC connection?

I believe they have been friends for DECADES.

I attended a Mises Institute event in I think about 1999, maybe 2000 - and there was a dinner to honor Dr. Paul as part of the event.

I think I heard yesterday at the BarBQ that Lew worked for Dr. Paul in his first Congressional term? Maybe I misunderstood, but I could have sworn I heard that....

[Revolution9]

I believe they have been friends for DECADES.

I attended a Mises Institute event in I think about 1999, maybe 2000 - and there was a dinner to honor Dr. Paul as part of the event.

I think I heard yesterday at the BarBQ that Lew worked for Dr. Paul in his first Congressional term? Maybe I misunderstood, but I could have sworn I heard that....

Wow.. Long time.. Somene introduced him and said we got a legend in our meetup group..or one of the neighboring ones as many do several area meetups..but he hasn't posted to the list yet.

Best
Randy

[Mastiff]

I'm absolutely not saying that RP should turn anyone away. What we're talking about here is the extent of his voluntary ties to LRC and how "on board" RP is whith the whole LRC ancap program.

Think if you were checking out Kucinich and you found out he was long time friends with the founder of a communist organization and that he frequently volunteered articles for communist web sites. You might think, hey this guy is even crazier than I thought.

So now we have Ron Paul. To lots of people it's like, whoa, he wants to get rid of the department of education. They look into it and he's associated with people who want to get rid of ... the government, period. Whoa.

I know we're on the internet here, and half the libertarians are ancaps, but this is fringe stuff even to more mainstream groups that seem fringe to average people, like, say Cato Institute, or the editors of Reason magazine, etc.

[libertarianguy]

test

[Thunderbolt]

...

[david.griffus]

This thread is pointless. If you want to consider Lew Rockwell and people like him as a threat to the campaign, you can take me right out as well. LRC and the Mises Institute are where my loyalties lie.

[LibertyEagle]

they already lable him a truther, his response on that Fox show can be used for all such attacks...as a candidate you have no power over who supports you

When was Lew on FOX?

[LibertyEagle]

Lew Rockwell went to D.C. to work with Dr. Paul when he was first elected to Congress. They have been friends for a long time. In addition, Dr. Paul has been affiliated with the Mises Institute for a long time and what's wrong with that? Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, etc....

If you're expecting Dr. Paul to throw Lew Rockwell or the Mises Institute under the bus, you'll be waiting a LONG time.

[Mastiff]

Well, I guess you guys shouted me down, but without really answering my concern - that mainstream people might be alarmed that a candidate is very closely associated with an organization that promotes anarchy (ancap, whatever).

I'm starting to feel like I'm unwelcome as a Paul supporter because I'm not an ancap person. I hope that's not the way it is.

[sunny]

good grief!

lew is an asset - period!

ps yes, wouldn't he be an awesome secretary of the treasury or something
during transition - i second that!

[iamso910]

Well, I guess you guys shouted me down, but without really answering my concern - that mainstream people might be alarmed that a candidate is very closely associated with an organization that promotes anarchy (ancap, whatever).

I'm starting to feel like I'm unwelcome as a Paul supporter because I'm not an ancap person. I hope that's not the way it is.

Yes, the mainstream is weary of LRC, the Mises Institute, arnarchocapitalism, libertarianism and even constitutionalism. The truth is often on the fringe.

That is why they are weary of Ron Paul. His ideas are also on the fringe, though they are wise and powerful.

I think the Austrian School provides the intellectual underpinnings of Ron Paul's ideology and for the coming revolution. It is hence crucial.

As a long time supporter of the Mises Institute and LRC, I am still a believer that minarchism (small government) should be the aim, and is likely the only possible end.

But there is so much of what is done by government now, that can be done better by the private sector.

The only way to move into that direction, as I see it, is to return more of the government to the states, to allow for competition among governments.

We are a long long way from anything resembling an anarcho-capitalistic society. In fact, I doubt it is even possible. But an anarcho-capitalist mindset is probably necessary to remain eternally vigilant against the tendency for the growth of the state and the concomitant loss of freedom that comes with it.

No doubt libertariansim strikes a harsh chord to the uninitiated, but libertarianism, especially as it is espoused by the Austrian School via LRC.com and mises.org, is the strongest underpinning for liberty and a return to a constitutional government imho.

I hope all who are attracted to the openess, honesty, integrity and intelligence of Ron Paul will make themselves better acquainted with mises.org and the many thinkers associated with them. There is a healthy and respectful debate among scholars associated with the Austrian school. It is not a purely anarcho-capitalist school of thought.

[iamso910]

This recent audio interview with Lew Rockwell goes into detail about his relationship and support for Ron Paul:

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/08/21/lew-rockwell/

The last 3rd of the interview is mainly by Lew on Ron Paul.

Lew is an intellectual heavy weight. No doubt about that!

[Swmorgan77]

I wonder if Ron's ties to Lew Rockwell could end up as a liability later. Lots or most of the LRC guys are anarchists. What do you guys think? Anyone know the extent of the RP/LRC connection?

No, he's very intelligent and well spoken like all of the academics involved with Mises.org from what I can tell.

Let's not spend any time worring about what individuals are liabilities. I advise we spend our time making sure that we, as individuals, have a positive net effect... and this IMO doesn't count.

[LibertyEagle]

Well, I guess you guys shouted me down, but without really answering my concern - that mainstream people might be alarmed that a candidate is very closely associated with an organization that promotes anarchy (ancap, whatever).

I'm starting to feel like I'm unwelcome as a Paul supporter because I'm not an ancap person. I hope that's not the way it is.

I'm a traditional conservative (ie.. libertarian-conservative). The Mises Institute is nothing but a good thing and it is a highly respected organization. Even Ronald Reagan spoke highly of it.

[Kuldebar]

We are all liabilities. Get over it.

Stop worrying about being defined, define yourself.

[Mastiff]

I'm a traditional conservative (ie.. libertarian-conservative). The Mises Institute is nothing but a good thing and it is a highly respected organization. Even Ronald Reagan spoke highly of it.

Interesting. I used to pledge money to Mises. It lead me down a path to learning a lot more about economics. Human Action may be the most impressive book I've read. I also started reading stuff by David Friedman and saw different ways of looking at things.

Somewhere along the line, LvMI seemed to turn into the Murray Rothbard Institute, and I never found any of Rothbard's stuff very impressive. That's when I started to tune out a little. I still get the daily E-mail from Mises, but the anarchism put me off.

If I ever get a chance to talk to Ron Paul in person, I'd like to ask him how "in synch" he is with Lew. Maybe they agree on 90% but diverge after that. I hope so - selfishly, because I want RP to agree with me as much as it seems like he does from his writings.

[Colleen]

Best to have the brainy people that can flesh out concepts and philosophy working for free on your side than getting them alienated and having them use their genuine power of the pen as a sword of the mind and lasting substitute for the ephemerality of the tongue of the spkoen word wielding their talent against you.

If you look at Ben Franklin for instance, the smallest of disputes with the mildest of contrary views exchanged are enshrined in history as bombastic exchanges full of explosive historical content and meaning.

So, I agree with you and contextually Dr Paul should never alienate an intellectual and philosophical ally for political gain. Nor would he expect them to wear polarized paralelll POV goggles.

Regards
Randy

Brilliant. I think there is a big enough tent for all of us. Personally, I wish anarchy could work, but I doubt human nature would allow it. A freer republic is/would be much better than what our system has evolved (or is it devolved) to. Freedom is a rough and tumble affair, but much nicer than the alternative, in my view, which is this sort of quasi-corporate oligarchy we now have.

While we may not all always agree, I would love to see a respectful tolerance for differences of opinion as being a healthy process in the apprehension of truth. As it stands now, it seem the oligarchs want to legislate, not only our actions, but even our words. It is this freedom of speech which is allowed to flourish at LR which I find completly refreshing. I feel certain Dr Paul would appreciate that much more than the New York Times.

[Harry96]

Brilliant. I think there is a big enough tent for all of us. Personally, I wish anarchy could work, but I doubt human nature would allow it. A freer republic is/would be much better than what our system has evolved (or is it devolved) to. Freedom is a rough and tumble affair, but much nicer than the alternative, in my view, which is this sort of quasi-corporate oligarchy we now have.

While we may not all always agree, I would love to see a respectful tolerance for differences of opinion as being a healthy process in the apprehension of truth. As it stands now, it seem the oligarchs want to legislate, not only our actions, but even our words. It is this freedom of speech which is allowed to flourish at LR which I find completly refreshing. I feel certain Dr Paul would appreciate that much more than the New York Times.

Colleen, I'm curious what you mean when you say anarchy doesn't work. Anarchy is all around you all the time. In fact, almost all of our daily lives are anarchist in nature; if you didn't live as an anarchist, you would very quickly find yourself unemployed and with no friends.

People should consider that the majority of the "crime" that government purports to "protect" people from are peaceful, voluntary actions that the government doesn't condone (prostitution, gambling, non-violent drug "crimes," etc.). You can avoid all of that by just choosing not to participate in it.

And a great deal of real crime (where someone's body or property have been forcibly violated) is caused or exacerbated by government, through things like creating black markets and gun control.

The governments of the world murdered 200 million people in the 20th century through things like war and genocide, which is probably more people than have been murdered by common criminals on the street, acting with no political authority, throughout all of human history. Yet people still look to the state to protect them from crime.

The 19th Century U.S. was probably the most anarchist society that has ever existed; contrary to the fictional "wild west" novels and movies, the scholarly evidence indicates that there was virtually no crime then. I believe I read somewhere that Dodge City, the archetypal "wild west" town, averaged one murder every five years in the 19th Century.

[Kuldebar]

Colleen, I'm curious what you mean when you say anarchy doesn't work. Anarchy is all around you all the time. In fact, almost all of our daily lives are anarchist in nature; if you didn't live as an anarchist, you would very quickly find yourself unemployed and with no friends.

People should consider that the majority of the "crime" that government purports to "protect" people from are peaceful, voluntary actions that the government doesn't condone (prostitution, gambling, non-violent drug "crimes," etc.). You can avoid all of that by just choosing not to participate in it.

And a great deal of real crime (where someone's body or property have been forcibly violated) is caused or exacerbated by government, through things like creating black markets and gun control.

The governments of the world murdered 200 million people in the 20th century through things like war and genocide, which is probably more people than have been murdered by common criminals on the street, acting with no political authority, throughout all of human history. Yet people still look to the state to protect them from crime.

The 19th Century U.S. was probably the most anarchist society that has ever existed; contrary to the fictional "wild west" novels and movies, the scholarly evidence indicates that there was virtually no crime then.

Great post. Here's an enjoyable read on the subject in order to exercise the imagination:

http://www.lneilsmith.org/pictures/tpb1.jpg

Anarchy has a bum rap, like most things that are truly wholesome. Anarchy is the natural state and the natural order of things. Nature is self organizing and people are part of the natural world regardless of what some people think.

[Harry96]

Thanks.

To elaborate on a couple of things:

Liberty is a condition where everyone is legally free to do anything they want except forcibly violate anyone else's body or property.

For as much as it dominates the headlines, I doubt that one person in 10 would be able to give a coherent definition of what a "government" is. A government is not "us;" it's not God's agent on earth; and it's not the arbiter of morality. It's nothing but a group of people who grant themselves a monopoly on the legal use of force within a certain area. Governments inherently engage in behavior that would be universally regarded as criminal if anyone without political authority did the same things; governments operate by a different set of rules than all of the rest of society, except for criminals.

And, again, the state is the biggest mass-murderer in history. The idea that the state should be the arbiter of morality is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

It's also important to point out that libertarians or anarchists are not necessarily hedonists or libertines, and that just because someone believes something should be legal, that doesn't necessarily mean they personally engage in, or even condone, the behavior. I personally know a lot of libertarians / anarchists who are practicing Christians, and the vast majority of libertarians / anarchists I know drink socially or not at all, don't use illicit drugs, don't patronize prostitutes, etc.

[Colleen]

Colleen, I'm curious what you mean when you say anarchy doesn't work. Anarchy is all around you all the time. In fact, almost all of our daily lives are anarchist in nature; if you didn't live as an anarchist, you would very quickly find yourself unemployed and with no friends.

People should consider that the majority of the "crime" that government purports to "protect" people from are peaceful, voluntary actions that the government doesn't condone (prostitution, gambling, non-violent drug "crimes," etc.). You can avoid all of that by just choosing not to participate in it.

And a great deal of real crime (where someone's body or property have been forcibly violated) is caused or exacerbated by government, through things like creating black markets and gun control.

The governments of the world murdered 200 million people in the 20th century through things like war and genocide, which is probably more people than have been murdered by common criminals on the street, acting with no political authority, throughout all of human history. Yet people still look to the state to protect them from crime.

The 19th Century U.S. was probably the most anarchist society that has ever existed; contrary to the fictional "wild west" novels and movies, the scholarly evidence indicates that there was virtually no crime then. I believe I read somewhere that Dodge City, the archetypal "wild west" town, averaged one murder every five years in the 19th Century.



Right, well I could not disagree with any of the points that you have made. I am well aware of all of these concerns. I think we can learn a lot about people if we can just keep our minds open. To be honest, I need to do more research into your of connotation of the term. I think we can easily get slipped up in semantics here, as I truly do not understand your take on that. How you perceive and experience the ideology.

The only thing which concerns me now...does this movement have amongst them persons in positions of leadership? Do they organize to any extent? Because if they do, I wonder if they have a written platform of some sort? Because if they do, then we have the beginnings of some sort of governing principle at work; do you think???

Perhaps you might further elighten some of us sometime.I would look forward to that.

I am more of an Ayn Rand type of bent. But I am very open to differing paradigms. It is the only way to learn, in my view of things.

[Locke_rpr]

I'd say he's an asset. Fact is that most people who wouldn't like him have absolutely no idea who he is or that he even exists. He can only help bring votes from those who do like him, and his archives are fantastic for those supporters of Ron's who are looking for more info. Complete anarchy only works in large scale on paper just as communism, because real people are the weak link. Both sound like they'd work on paper, but just fall apart once you plug real flesh and blood into the equation. I can't think of any anarchist utopia movies atm, but I always use Star Trek for the communism example. If that was how communism would really turn out, heck ya, sign me up. Unfortunately, what you'd get would be the USSR in space in the real world. .... but I digress... Lew good.:)

[ksuguy]

The average person doesn't even know who Lew Rockwell is.

[inibo]

I am a Ron Paul supporter today because I read this article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/paul16.html) on LRC about six months after September 11.

How many other Ron Paul supporters do we have Lew Rockwell to thank for?

[Mastiff]

The average person doesn't even know who Lew Rockwell is.

If RP gets to the general election, they will.

[murrayrothbard]

Complete anarchy only works in large scale on paper ... because real people are the weak link.

Lol, i would have thought that that is why 'limited' government is utopian, not anarchy. :p

[Colleen]

I'd say he's an asset. Fact is that most people who wouldn't like him have absolutely no idea who he is or that he even exists. He can only help bring votes from those who do like him, and his archives are fantastic for those supporters of Ron's who are looking for more info. Complete anarchy only works in large scale on paper just as communism, because real people are the weak link. Both sound like they'd work on paper, but just fall apart once you plug real flesh and blood into the equation. I can't think of any anarchist utopia movies atm, but I always use Star Trek for the communism example. If that was how communism would really turn out, heck ya, sign me up. Unfortunately, what you'd get would be the USSR in space in the real world. .... but I digress... Lew good.:)

Communism always works better on paper & in movie scripts than in flesh and bones reality, doesn't it? People have always been after Utopia, where they differ is in how to attain it. And are able to sometimes kill one another over differences in opinions to do with the how.

Contrary to popular propaganda, the bloodiest wars of the twentieth century were not wars of religion, but rather of ideology. I hope we can find common ground in the case of Ron Paul in our quest to build a better tomorrow. We could easily be manipulated against one another if we are not able to do this.

As I said in my first post here, I think Lew Rockwell is an asset. If Ron gets the nomination, I think LR will be the least of his concerns.

[Y. Kelly]

Without writing a book here, I'll just try to list few points about why Lew the man and lewrockwell.com are huge assests to Ron and his campaign:

1) LRC is the best read libertarian website on the internet and continues to grow daily. Lew's "Breaking News Blog" (www.lewrockwell.com/blog ) is the premier site for the latest info about the campaign, news, videos, etc. Recently, Lew sacrficed it's tax-exempt status to openly advocate and promote Ron's candidacy.

2) Lew's daily page (www.lewrockwell.com) has always been the major distribution media for Ron's weekly articles. With a worldwide daily mailing of many, many thousands, Ron's speeches, videos and writings have been circulated widely for years -- which would not have been possible any way else. Lew's archive of "everything Ron" is extensive and a valuable resource/campaign tool: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

3) Ron and Lew have been friends and colleagues for >35 years. Lew used to be Ron's Chief of Staff in Congress in the late 70's. I won't even get into Austrian economics here, and the Mises Institute (www.mises.org). If you know about Ron economic policy and mastery of economic matters --- you know something about the Austrian school. Lew is the president and founder of the Mises Institue which is celebrating it's 25th anniversay this year.

You can find the best-read libertarian, free-market analysis & commentary on the net at www.lewrockwell.com . Read it every day -- just like Ron does.
Thanks,
Yvonne

PS: Last Sunday at Ron's huge Birthday BBQ Bash, 1700 people also gave Lew a loud, noisy standing O! Some liability............

[DocGrimes]

If RP gets to the general election, they will.

If such were the case I would have to say I believe even that would be a positive outcome.

I learned of Ron through Lew's site as well some years ago.

It may be true that in time some could try to use materials from Lew or Mises as attacks. But really what would be the net effect of such an event?

It would likely start a dialog on those issues which would raise awareness and understanding of liberty principles, particularly in regards to economics.

I have to agree with the others that Lew is an asset. I think any attempt to use Lew as a weapon against Ron would backfire.

Certainly it is true that some things could be twisted or used to make some think Ron is 'out there' but let's face it. Those are the same folks that already think so and are never likely to really delve into the issues in a manner that would lead to understanding Ron's stances.

Basically, I think that those that could be scared off by Lew are the same folks that prefer political empty promises, ear tickling and government handouts. Those votes are unlikely to go to Ron anyways.

Mastiff, in what way to you forsee Lew could be a liability? If we knew that perhaps we could better understand your concerns.

[SlapItHigh]

On a message board of almost 90,000 women, Ron Paul is being accused of racism like you would not believe. Ron Paul's association to Lew Rockwell and Ludwig von Mises is considered as him being associated with racist organizations. I kid you not. These women believe these organizations are neo-confederate and therefore racist. Check out this blog where Lew Rockwell is listed right along with Council of Conservative Citizens - http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2006/11/deranged-lew-rockwell-ranting.html

[Spirit of '76]

Check out this blog where Lew Rockwell is listed right along with Council of Conservative Citizens - http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2006/11/deranged-lew-rockwell-ranting.html

lol

Edward Sebesta is a complete and utter hack. Let him shout to the heavens. Nobody takes him seriously but accused pedophile Morris "The Sleaze" Dees and his handful of race-baiting cronies.

[SlapItHigh]

I just put a link for the first thing that came up in a google search. The fact remains that many people consider Lew Rockwell and Ludwig von Mises to be neo--confederate racists.

[Spirit of '76]

I just put a link for the first thing that came up in a google search. The fact remains that many people consider Lew Rockwell and Ludwig von Mises to be neo--confederate racists.

Yeah, and many people use the term "racist" as a catch-all insult for anyone they don't like. These people -- if they vote at all -- are going to vote for the far Left no matter what we say or do, so who cares?

I'm not going to throw Lew Rockwell under the train because of the marginal efforts of Noel Ignatiev, Morris Dees, Edward Sebesta, and a handful of other race-pimps who make big bucks by calling other people nasty names.

[beermotor]

I wonder if Ron's ties to Lew Rockwell could end up as a liability later. Lots or most of the LRC guys are anarchists. What do you guys think? Anyone know the extent of the RP/LRC connection?


I'm an anarchist, does that make me a liability?

[SlapItHigh]

Yeah, and many people use the term "racist" as a catch-all insult for anyone they don't like. These people -- if they vote at all -- are going to vote for the far Left no matter what we say or do, so who cares?

Very true. I agree with you 100%. My concern is that I've seen these people spin the info to change the minds of people who were considering RP. I just want people to be aware so that they are prepared to combat the accusations for the sake of anyone else that might be influenced.

[Spirit of '76]

You're definitely right that we should be prepared to counteract any attempts by these groups to influence the election.

Still, I can't help but think that if guys like Sebesta start attacking Ron Paul, it could actually help him in some states. If nothing else, it will add to name recognition, which is our number one obstacle at this point.

[spiteface]

Considering Lew was Dr. Pauls chief of staff in the late 70s early 80s and they've remained very close since, I don't think he's going anywhere, nor should he. He is a tremendous asset. Sometimes I wonder if the people supporting this campaign are really familiar with Dr. Paul's views other than opposition to the war. :confused:

[inibo]

E-mail from me to Lew Rockwell:


Subject: I thought you might find this amusing.

Sir,

The question was asked "Is Lew Rockwell a liability?"

http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=14470

Godspeed,
Chris Kahn


E-mail from Lew Rockwell to me:


Subject: Re: I thought you might find this amusing.

Ohhh.

Anybody care to venture a guess as to what he might be trying to say? Keep in mind that:

According to a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, people manage to correctly interpret the tone and mood of an email only half the time. In other words, you might as well read an email and toss a coin to decide whether the person who sent it was serious, kidding, flirty, sarcastic, or angry because you misinterpreted their last email. To compound this, respondents thought they could interpret the tone correctly 90 percent of the time, so not only are we bad at it, we don’t have the first inkling of how bad we really are.

[Kuldebar]

If we adopt the concerns of all those collectivist race mongers we will indeed discover that our freedom movement is just packed with liabilities as they define them. Do we allow them to define us?

We must ask ourselves whether the values of our detractors are our values as well.

We must either conclude that we need to be more like our opponents or whether we will follow our own convictions and values.

I know what I have chosen.

[Original_Intent]

E-mail from me to Lew Rockwell:


E-mail from Lew Rockwell to me:


Anybody care to venture a guess as to what he might be trying to say? Keep in mind that:

My guess is he is saying, " Ron appears on the Alex Jones show, and someone is asking if I'M a liability?"

[MsDoodahs]

lol, OI!

[LibertyEagle]

I just put a link for the first thing that came up in a google search. The fact remains that many people consider Lew Rockwell and Ludwig von Mises to be neo--confederate racists.

What?/// :eek: I've got to get out more. I've never heard that one.

I've never seen anything racist come out of this organization. I'm chalking this up to an attempt to smear the truth-tellers.

[Kuldebar]

What?/// :eek: I've got to get out more. I've never heard that one.

I've never seen anything racist come out of this organization. I'm chalking this up to an attempt to smear the truth-tellers.

Yeah, because they have been out spoken against affirmative action and against the belief that the "Civil War" was fought to free the slaves. Oh, and they don't think Lincoln was a saint.

So, obviously they are racists, through and through.

[SlapItHigh]

Yeah, because they have been out spoken against affirmative action and against the belief that the "Civil War" was fought to free the slaves. Oh, and they don't think Lincoln was a saint.

So, obviously they are racists, through and through.

Exactly. The funny thing about it, is the same people who accuse those who think the Civil War wasn't truly about slavery of being racist are the same people who go on and on about how the Iraq war was started under false pretenses. These people complain about being referred to as "unamerican" or "not supporting the troops." Yet they have no problem calling people racist just because they believe another war was not really about what the government would have you believe.

You can't use the words "south" or "southern" or refer to slavery in any way else you be labeled a racist. They don't look to see what you actually said about slavery, they just see the word and assign you the label.

[Politeia]

I haven't taken the time to read all 80 posts, so maybe this has been said before, but ...

If Lew Rockwell is a liability, then maybe Ron Paul is a liability. Why don't we all just move over to the Obama camp, so no one can accuse us of being racist, or anti-government, or any other cardinal sin?

[thomj76]

Please let us put this energy to getting the message of Liberty and Limited Government out there to the People.

here are some youtubes

http://www.youtube.com/user/ConstitutionChris

Get out there and effect positive change, people. There are, in my opinion, better ways to effectively use our energy.


Earnestly Submitted,

Chris

[beermotor]

I haven't taken the time to read all 80 posts, so maybe this has been said before, but ...

If Lew Rockwell is a liability, then maybe Ron Paul is a liability. Why don't we all just move over to the Obama camp, so no one can accuse us of being racist, or anti-government, or any other cardinal sin?


Haha...priceless.

RON PAUL, YOU BIG JERK, YOU ARE RUINING YOUR CAMPAIGN JEEZ! JUST STOP IT!

:)

[ceakins]

HELL NO!! Lew Rockwell is awesome!!

and what's wrong w/ being an anarchist?

i thought self-reliance was what this country was all about?

Depends on what you mean by anarchist. So called anarchist were lobbing water balloons, beer bottles etc at people in the Anti-NAU protest here in Seattle, including people holding Ron Paul signs.

[constituent]

those were cops.

[constituent]

if they really cared, they'd start their own demonstrations and they wouldn't stop demonstrating once the crowd is busted up.

-as another side note:

the cops are out there making a target of themselves everyday. if you really hate the cops why are you gonna wait until they are in
full out riot gear? think about it... does that make strategic sense?

why would anarchists fight like an army from the 18th century?

[FluffyUnbound]

I just put a link for the first thing that came up in a google search. The fact remains that many people consider Lew Rockwell and Ludwig von Mises to be neo--confederate racists.

Ludwig Von Mises wasn't even an American. He lived most of his life in Austria and Switzerland. He was a postwar emigre to the US where he worked in academia as an economist. If someone is dumb enough and parochial enough to consider Von Mises a neo-confederate, they really need to get out more. There are issues in political thought that don't revolve around the parochial history of the United States.