PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Roundup (1-15-08)




RSDavis
01-15-2008, 11:30 AM
http://laceylibertarian.us/wp-images/rPaulRev.jpg

Ron Paul Roundup (1-15-08)
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=347737664&Mytoken=705E0783-B1B2-4CD8-A6786A81400EAE8D14013704)


Hello Freedomphiles! Sorry about yesterday - I wanted to come and write for you, but I woke up with serious stomach issues. Maybe it was my body unclenching from finally getting all that newsletter stuff off my chest. Either way, here I am, back and at it again.

I'm a little curious to see how this comes out, as I assume new newsletter information will be in here today. I'm not going to dwell or be a downer about it (it's not in my nature, as Nettie likes to say), but if it comes up, I will give my opinion of the story.

I've never been a "love is blind" Paul supporter. I'm not a cheerleader, I'm a freedom fighter. Of course, I do all my fighting behind a keyboard, unless someone is getting too rough in the mosh pit.

When I disagree with Dr Paul, I have never hidden it. I've mentioned that I disagree with his positions on gay marriage, abortion, and immigration, for example. Never, though, had I had cause to question his character before this issue came up. Indeed, he has lost some luster in my eyes, but he's still a lot better than any of the other empty skinbags running.

So, let's begin. Looks like the racism and homophobia claims were just the tip of the iceberg:

It has long been rumored that there was a vast, "snake oil factory" deep in the heart of Texas, where religious republicans were trained in snake handling. Also, a vast army of black, gay, and transgendered slaves were supposedly forced by overseer Ron Paul, who cannot win, to create vast vats of Snake Oil to deceive republican foes.

It turns out that, unlike the old "Nixon's going to make us go to school on Saturdays" rumor, this one was true. Located in Paul's district just outside the town of Exploitia, Texas, the euphemistically named "Serpente Centre" apparently was situated illegally on some 200 acres of prime wetlands filled with endangered species which the visiting republican bigwigs reportedly took turns killing and torturing for fun.

Records seized indicate that the secret snake center was originally planned by the Evil Nixon, opened by the Stupid Reagan, and ruthlessly expanded by the Evil-yet-Stupid George W Bush, on his daddy's orders, in consultation with Lord Cheney and other evil ones (republicans).

Is there no evil to which Dr Paul will not submit?!?! Thanks to The Spoof! (http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i28732) for making my morning.

Okay, so on a more serious note, Libertarian Phil Manger writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1108.html) over at The Nolan Chart about the newsletter fiasco. He doesn't defend the writing or make the absurd Orwellian leap I have seen other places that somehow the racist comments were "anti-racist," but he makes a good point:

So, what about those newsletters? According to The New Republic article, the newsletters reveal "decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays". Actually, that's a gross overstatement. It's more like a careless phrase or choice of words here and there sometimes very careless, and sometimes even mean....

....So, did Ron Paul write that awful stuff posted on TNR's website? I'm a former writer and editor and also a former college professor who got to be pretty good at sniffing out plagiarism in student papers, and I have to say I very much doubt it. It isn't at all like Ron Paul's style of writing (you can go to the Mises Institute website, where there is an extensive archive of Dr. Paul's writings, if you don't believe me), and there's nothing in his voting record over 10 terms in Congress to suggest those are his views. I don't find it at all implausible that someone would use his name to sell subscriptions to a newsletter written and edited by others.

But I agree with Alex Wallenwein and Bill Westmiller that we need to know who did write that objectionable material so that we can move on. Otherwise, this stuff will come up again and again.

It would also do a lot to help those of us who are appalled by what we've read to move past this and look to the future for Ron Paul without reservations.

On Op-Ed News, Peter Martin gives some good advice (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_peter_ma_080113_a_message_to_ron_pau.htm) to Ron Paul supporters:

We are passionate, we are angry. So the Union Leader posted a video of us on all four corners of Elm Street, shouting "Fox News Sucks!" (I was there.) But we need to accept responsibility that that anger and passion turned people off.

Our extraordinarily loud presence on Elm Street in Manchester that last week, I believe, was extremely harmful to the public perception. I had to reconvince an old mainstream Reagan conservative to vote for Ron Paul on primary day, because he didn't want to be associated with a fringe, "whacko" movement. My own wife stopped going to the Ron Paul websites after she watched a video in which Ron Paul supporters accosted Frank Luntz and told him to f*k off. I myself was appalled to see another video in which Sean Hannity was swarmed by a horde of angry supporters and told him the same.

The Ron Paul revolution eclipsed the campaign. In future primary states, we need to decide: is this about the revolution, or is it about a campaign for president? If you want a majority, we'll need to be much more mainstream than we were.

You need to choose your battles. This is not a war against the media. This is not a war against the prevailing paradigm. Ron Paul is electable without discussing the CFR, 9/11, and legalizing marijuana. If this is a war against people's prevailing ideas, it will take a lot longer than this election season. If it's about electing Ron Paul, we've got to play by the rules. So let's make some adjustments and try to make Ron Paul look legitimate by current, prevailing standards. And get out of the way. Clean up, folks. Put on some ties. Get out of the internet blogs. Start being nice to national pundits. Stop shouting. If you want to win the majority, you need to appeal to the majority. Period. We blew it.

In related news, Right-Libertarian Gary Wood writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1116.html) over at The Nolan Chart that a misunderstanding about his latest video led him to feel the wrath of Ron Paul supporters:

I now know this to be fact. Ron Paul supporters, those of which I am among, have called me a Nazi, a terrorist, a traitor, and many other names I cannot repeat. Ron Paul supporters, of which I am among, have sent me emails threatening my life, wife, and family. Ron Paul supporters, of which I am among, have threatened to silence me and have threatened to destroy my existence on Earth. Ron Paul supporters, of which I am among, have stated in no uncertain terms they wish my very life were extinguished so as to have less confrontation in the path of liberty. Reactions from Ron Paul supporters have voiced opinion from my life being worth nothing to my voice needing to be silenced forever.

All this reaction was triggered because many Ron Paul supporters initially did not understand my latest video, "Hey Paul; Give Me My Due." (After viewing it twice many actually sent apologies for their attacks.) I will say only this, Ron Paul supporters, be careful with your hatred and misunderstandings.

He's definitely right about that. I have seen some real vitriol aimed at people who are critical of Ron Paul. I can understand when the article is a hit-piece, aimed at nothing other than spreading innuendo and discrediting Ron Paul.

But others are serious concerns about policy prescriptions, and it is those people we need to be extra careful with, because an optimistic, friendly explanation of why freedom is always good goes a lot farther than purple-faced rage. And it could bring one or two silent fence-sitting readers over to our side of things.

That said, unlike Mr Wood, I actually did write something negative about Dr Paul on Saturday, and I will say, from my experience, that the responses haven't been that bad. Some people disagree with me, but they have all been respectful. I honestly expected to be thrown under the bus. Thanks for surprising me. In case you are curious, here is the video he was talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7ysy3D6da4

Libertarian AJ Antimony writes (http://www.nolanchart.com/article1105.html) on The Nolan Chart about the possibility of election fraud:

Not even one week after polls closed, major efforts are being made to address some major concerns regarding the integrity of the final results in New Hampshire's primary. The piece of news that has been getting the most publicity is the recount of New Hampshire votes urged by Democratic hopeful Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. He claims that there are "serious and credible reports, allegations and rumors" regarding the reliability of the reported vote totals.

A piece of news that has not received much publicity is that in Sutton, New Hampshire, Congressman Paul was reported as receiving 0 votes. As Devvy Kidd from newswithviews.com points out, this number appeared on prominent web sites such as politico.com. It was not until the following day that Sutton confirmed that Ron Paul actually received 31 votes. They claimed it was simple human error. Kidd's article also points out other oddities on election night seen from Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org, the leading activist in the fight against crooked voting machines. She points out how in some precincts, results were not reported until four hours after the polls had closed. She points out how one would expect that these votes were the ones being hand counted. Not the case. She says most of those precincts were using Diebold voting machines. Harris goes on to suggest "How the heck can you not push "print" for four hours???" This is certainly a valid point since voting computers are theoretically used to, you know, make the whole process faster.

So how does all of this specifically pertain to Ron Paul supporters? The purpose of bombarding you with credible sources claiming vote fraud is to propose to you the possibility that no matter how many Ron Paul signs you put up, no matter how much money Ron Paul receives via donations, and no matter how truly popular the guy is, it is entirely plausible that your votes will not win an election for Dr. Ron Paul.

Well, he has no need to fear because The Granny Warriors are getting the recount done (http://grannywarrior.chipin.com/recount)for Republicans on behalf of logshot candidate Albert Howard:

To all lovers of freedom and liberty,

As of 1:30 PM EST Friday, January 11th 2008 I did in fact pay the required $2,000 Fee to initiate an official recount of the New Hampshire primary election for the Republican Party.

Much discussion and speculation has been hitting the News and Blog sites. I would like to make my position perfectly clear as to where I stand regarding this recount effort.

First and foremost I want everyone to know exactly where I stand regarding the Ron Paul Campaign. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Dr. Paul and in no way do I want the issue of a recount to cause any riff in the support of his candidacy. In fact I can only hope that my actions will strengthen the cause for which he so passionately stands for.

I support the Ron Paul Revolution 100%.

My real concern is the controversial Diebold Electronic Scanning machines. They were used for 81% of the vote counting in New Hampshire. For the security of a free State we must keep our election process clean, open and fair. This is why I as well as many others supporting this effort feel it is necessary to challenge the discrepancy between the hand counted votes and the Machine counted votes. I believe it is better to take action now in the first primary than later.

Thank you for all your support in the cause of truth, righteousness and liberty.

Albert Howard

Reuters reported (http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/01/11/republican-ron-paul-flies-high-above-debate/) that Ron Paul was "flying high" at the South Carolina Republican debate:

Ron Paul was flying high before Thursday's Republican presidential debate here.

We're not talking about the gadfly libertarian candidate. We're talking about the blimp.

"Who is Ron Paul?" read the sign on the white dirigible that circled high above the Myrtle Beach Convention Center before the squabbling at the debate.

"Google Ron Paul," it said as an explanation.

Paul, of course, is the Texas congressman running for president on a libertarian platform that calls for pulling out of the Middle East and abolishing the Federal Reserve.

The JTA reported (http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/106357.html) on Ron Paul's position on the Isreal question from those debates:

During the debate on Thursday night, sponsored by Fox News and held in South Carolina, Paul argued that the United States should keep out of the Israeli-Arab conflict and the Middle East in general. At one point he argued that one problem with America's support for Israel is that it ends up robbing Jerusalem of its sovereignty.

"In many ways, we treat Israel as a stepchild. We do not give them the responsibility that they deserve. We undermine their national sovereignty. We don't let them design their own peace," Paul said. He added: "And I just don't see any purpose in not treating Israel in an adult fashion. I think they would be a lot better off. I think they, one time in the '80s, took care of a nuclear reactor in Iraq. I stood up and defended Israel for this. Nobody else did at that time."

So did Haaretz.com, focusing (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944012.html) on the Iran issue:

As usual, the talk on Iran eventually turned to Israel. The isolationist candidate Ron Paul warned against confronting Iran, later saying the U.S. should keep its hands off the Middle East, including mediating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - exactly as President George W. Bush was doing just that. Paul is the only candidate who seeks to withdraw all U.S. aid to Israel and the Palestinians.

"We've got one true ally in the Middle East. That's Israel," Huckabee said in response to Paul. "It's a tiny nation - for us to give the world the impression that we would stand by if they were under attack and say it's not our problem, that would be recklessly irresponsible."

Yes, because what we have been doing so far has brought peace and prosperity to the Middle East - second only to Mohammed and Moses in popularity.

Reinhold Ploep, the Co-Chairman of the Libertarian Party for St. Clair and Sanilac counties in Michigan wrote (http://www.thetimesherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080113/OPINION03/801130318/1014/OPINION) in to The Port Huron Times Herald about Dr Paul:

If you want to increase the value of the dollar; if you want jobs in America; if you want the troops home now; if you want to live in a sovereign country that can control its borders; and if you want to live in an America that gets along with other nations, rather than fighting them constantly - we will have to change policies and the way we act globally.

Dr. Ron Paul may be the shot in the arm America needs. Please vote for him on Tuesday's Republican Primary ballot.

Speaking of Libertarians, Michael Kinsley of The Washington Times uses the candidacy of Ron Paul to launch (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011101859.html)on a critique of libertarianism:

So what is wrong with the libertarian case for extremely limited government? Economics 101 teaches some of the basic justifications for government interference in the economy. Some things, such as the cost of national defense, are "public goods." We can't each decide for ourselves how much defense we want. We have to decide that together. Then there are "externalities," which are costs (or, sometimes, benefits) that your decisions impose on me. Pollution is the classic example. Without government involvement of some sort to override our individual judgments, we will produce more pollution than most of us want.

There are "market-oriented" solutions to this problem, but there is a difference --often forgotten, especially by Republicans -- between using market forces and leaving something to the market. The point of principle is whether the government should intervene at all. How it chooses to intervene is purely pragmatic.

Libertarians have a fondness for complex arrangements to make markets work in situations where the textbooks say they can't. Hey, let's issue stamps, y'see, and use the revenues to form a corporation that sells stock to buy military equipment, then the government leases the equipment and the stockholders vote on whether to user it -- and so on. The point becomes proving a point, not economic or government efficiency.

I don't think this really is the place to refute the whole article, so I'll probably post a separate blog later today making a point-by-point refutation of this. It'd be a nice diversion to jump back into policy after covering so much politics lately. See you tomorrow!

http://www.brendangates.com/forumlogo.jpg

Focus Liberty
01-15-2008, 12:41 PM
Seems to me like The Freedom Files have either lost faith in Ron Paul or have grown tired of the burden of perpetual vigilance and optimism required for such a post. Perhaps it is time to hand the BLOG over to someone with Ron Paul inspiration?

RSDavis
01-15-2008, 01:10 PM
Seems to me like The Freedom Files have either lost faith in Ron Paul or have grown tired of the burden of perpetual vigilance and optimism required for such a post. Perhaps it is time to hand the BLOG over to someone with Ron Paul inspiration?

Why would you say that? I am a little sad to have found that Ron Paul is a politician, but he's still the best of the bunch. As far as handing the blog over to someone else - my blog is not a Ron Paul blog. It is a libertarian blog that happens to be covering Ron Paul currently. It was around before he announced, it will be around after the election, one way or another.

- R

IRO-bot
01-15-2008, 02:29 PM
If you don't wan't to post a detailed refutation of his critique, someone on LRC already has, a damn good one too. I believe it was written by Walter Block.

RSDavis
01-15-2008, 02:56 PM
Libertarianism 101
by RS Davis (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194780914&blogID=347793512&Mytoken=675860DB-0DBF-499C-B9C85518E861C69E14760828)


Hello Freedomphiles! As promised, I am going to take on Washington Post writer Michael Kinsley and his op-ed entitled The Church Doctrines of Pope Ron Paul. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011101859.html)

I believe a good place to start would be with the idea of "Pope Ron Paul." It's a pretty bad analogy, considering libertarians bristle at the idea of taking their marching orders from on high, as it goes against the economically efficient idea of decentralization - not to mention we're not hip on authoritarians.

The second issue with that, of course, is that Ron Paul is a Republican, not a Libertarian. He'd be the first to tell you that. But Mr. Kinsley was using that headline to grab your attention, so that he could jump off into a greater screed against libertarianism in general.

Let's look at it, shall we? Here's the intro to the intro:

Libertarians get patronized a lot. Chipmunky and earnest, always pursuing logical consistency down wacky paths, they pose no real threat to the established order.

Yes, we do get patronized a lot, Michael, and most recently by you in that very essay. After a couple of other backhanded compliments, he gets down to the meat of his argument:

So what is wrong with the libertarian case for extremely limited government? Economics 101 teaches some of the basic justifications for government interference in the economy. Some things, such as the cost of national defense, are "public goods." We can't each decide for ourselves how much defense we want. We have to decide that together.

Kinsley's first issue here is in confusing libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism. These are two wholly different things. If libertarianism is a car, anarcho-capitalism is the make. There are many kinds of libertarianisms, and anarcho-capitalism is just one.

The basic prinicples of libertarianism are the same - small government, low or no taxes, individual liberty. It is to what degree that these principles go that differentiate the various forms of the ideology.

Anarcho-capitalism is the strain of libertarianism that finds its roots in the works of Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek, Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard. Most anarcho-capitalists follow the Austrian school of economics.

They believe that just about everything can be left up to markets, including law enforcement, the courts, fire protection, and national defense. They also are gold bugs, wanting to go back to the gold standard and abandon fiat money.

Then there are the Chicago School libertarians. They are exemplified by The Cato Institute, and to a degree, Reason Magazine. Famous Chicago-school libertarians include Milton Friedman, David Boaz, and Radley Balko.

Austrian libertarians tend to be more socially conservative in their point-of-view, while Chicago-school libertarians tend to be more liberal in their view. It usually works out to mean the same thing - government-wise - because they both believe in personal freedom.

But getting back to what I quoted up there - it is only the Austrian School of libertarian thought that advocates free-market defense. There is a certain logic to it, because as the founders argued, a standing army is very bad for liberty.

But still, the basic premise of libertarianism is that the government's only duty should be to protect us from aggression, whether that comes from within our borders or without. So there is nothing anti-libertarian about a federal government that provides for the common defense.

Let's grab another chunk:

Libertarians have a fondness for complex arrangements to make markets work in situations where the textbooks say they can't. Hey, let's issue stamps, y'see, and use the revenues to form a corporation that sells stock to buy military equipment, then the government leases the equipment and the stockholders vote on whether to user it -- and so on. The point becomes proving a point, not economic or government efficiency.

So, now we are not talking about what the government should be allowed to do, but how to fund it. That's okay - I can jump tracks. I guess that is one option that you could go with to fund the military, but personally, I like a tariff. It's simple, easy to administer, and is self-adjusting. I haven't actually heard a libertarian advocating the plan of which he writes above.

Libertarians also have a tendency to see too many issues in terms of property rights (just as liberals, they would counter, tend to see everything in terms of discrimination and equal protection). Pollution, libertarians say, is simply theft: you are stealing my clean air. Settle it in court. This is a really terrible idea: inexpert judges, lawyers and juries using the most elaborate and expensive decision-making process known to humankind -- litigation -- to make inconsistent decisions in different cases. And usually there is no one "right" answer: There is a spectrum of acceptable answers, involving tradeoffs (dirty air versus fewer jobs, etc.) that ought to be made democratically -- that is, through government.

That is one option among libertarians, yes. That also tends to be the plan of the Austrians. Again, Kinsley goes to the more extreme examples found in anarcho-capitalism to lambast all of libertarianism. An Austrian might ask, "Doing it your way, what is the moral rationale for allowing people, through a tyranny of the majority, to impose their pollution costs on someone who is not polluting. Why should I subsidize the local steel manufacturer?"

The Chicago school tends to be more pragmatic about it. They believe that environmental issues effect everyone, and are therefore covered under the "general welfare" clause of the US Constitution.

That said, they are equally skeptical of doom n gloom claims by junk science of the next big thing that will kill us all. When the preponderance of evidence indicate a real environmental issue, they believe a government remedy is okay, unless there is a better market solution.

Sometimes libertarians end up reinventing the wheel. My favorite example is an article I read years ago advocating privatization of highways. This is a classic libertarian fantasy: government auctions off the land, private enterprise pays for construction and maintenance, tolls cover the cost, competition with other routes keeps it all efficient. And what about, um, intersections? Well, markets would recognize that it is more efficient for one company to own both roads at major intersections, and when that happened the company would have an incentive to strike the right balance between customers on each highway. And stoplights? Ultimately, the author had worked his way up to a giant monopoly that would build, own, and maintain all the roads, and charge an annual fee to people who wanted to use them. None dare call it government.

Again, going with the anarcho-capitalists. They do have a point on this issue because there are certain issues that arise on "public property" that do not happen on private. Free speech issues, for one. They also rightly believe that if your income depended upon clean, reliable streets in your neighborhood, you would be a better steward of your local streets than a distant beuracracy.

But that is the Austrian school. The Chicago school would say that we have found the perfect way to pay for roads - the very libertarian user fee - aka "the gasoline tax," whereby the only people that pay for the roads are the ones who pay for its upkeep. That even includes bus and taxi riders, as they pay a higher premium for the service based on the local tax rates on fuel. Perfect.

If you have the right to end your own life, you must have the right to do anything else you wish, short of that. If you're allowed to shoot yourself through the head, why aren't you allowed to drive without a seat belt?

The answer is that it's a bad analogy. When you drive without a seat belt, you are not motivated by a desire to die, or even a desire to take a small risk of dying. Why should your motive matter? Because your death -- especially your death in a car crash -- does impose externalities on others. I would pay good money not to have to see your bloody carcass lying beside the highway, or endure the traffic jam, or pay the emergency room costs. A serious right like the right to die may be worth the cost, while a right to be careless or irresponsible is not.

I'm sure it has happened, but in my years of libertarian activism and study, I have never heard the argument that all rights stem from your right to die. Perhaps your right to life, from which the right to die comes, but not specifically from your right to die.

I'll give him some credit, here. This argument's fallacy does not come from not understanding the different types of libertarianism. He has broadened his scope and revealed that he doesn't really understand libertarianism at all.

For one thing, we are not going to prevent people from having accidents, so traffic jams and gross sights are something to which you are always going to be occassionally subjected.

As far as the emergency-room cost, there are several things that come to mind. First, the only reason you have to bear that cost is because the government forced hospitals to take everyone who comes through the door. So, you don't take one loss of freedom and fix its problems with another loss of freedom. Second, you also don't take someone's freedom to save a buck.

That said, if someone dies in an accident, they are going to save the welfare state all that money that would have been spent adding a couple of years on at the end of their life. Dying in an accident would be a net gain for the government, if that callous thought is your true concern, Mr. Kinsley.

A similar flaw affects libertarian thinking about government-mandated redistribution. Extreme libertarians believe this is immoral or even unconstitutional, and even more moderate libertarians disapprove of government social welfare programs as an infringement on the freedom of taxpayers. But freedom is only one of the two core values our nation was built on. The other is equality. Defining equality, libertarians tend to take a narrow view, believing that it means only political equality with no financial aspects. Defining freedom, by contrast, they take a broad view, and see a violation in every nickel a citizen must spend.

This final bit is just collectivist claptrap. Of course you want a narrow view of equality and a broad view of freedom. When dealing with equality, we can only deal with equality of opportunity because equality of outcome is both too difficult to define and impossible to achieve, the pursuit of which always entails a loss of freedom.

Equality of opportunity simply means we all have the ability to choose for ourselves what risks we will take in pursuit of our own personal happiness. We each have different goals. Some of us would be happy making $20,000 a year, as long as we had time to follow The Grateful Dead and eat our weight in LSD. Some of us would not be happy with anything under $100,000 a year. We all have different goals, and we all have different paths to those goals. To judge the happiness of one based on the lifestyle of another is just broad-brush collectivist garbage.

Secondly, trying to achieve equality of outcome negates the good choices and hard work of the one who initially achieved. If we have the same annual income, same degree, and live in the same neighborhood, what right do I have to force you to pay for my lifestyle when you saved your money and I blew mine on new rims and a diamond-encrusted iPod?

The only kind of equality you can ensure is politically equality. Economic equality is an oxymoron. The minute you take from Person A to subsidize the bad choices of Person B, Person B is "more equal" than Person A. He is entitled to more than he earned, while Person B is entitled to less.

Person B took on certain risks by not delaying his gratification, while person A mitigated his risk by saving and deferring gratification. Why shouldn't person B have to live with the outcome of that risk, and why should Person A subsidize the consequences of the bad choices of Person B? In the name of freedom?

Freedom is quite the opposite. We can and must assure freedom is as broadly defined as possible, because freedom lost is rarely regained.

Freedom stems from the right of self-ownership. I am my own person, and as such, I own both myself and the fruits of my labor. You have no right to that which I do not offer voluntarily. Seems simple enough, right? But to Statists like Michael, there is a fundamental battle between freedom and equality.

Personally, I say allowing someone to succeed or fail based upon their own efforts and choices is the only freedom. It's not that charity is out of the question - but virtue only comes from choice. If Bob needs help and I reach into my pocket to alleviate his suffering, I'm awesome. If I reach into your pocket to do it, I'm a thief. Simple as that.

PC_for_Paul
01-15-2008, 02:57 PM
Why would you say that? I am a little sad to have found that Ron Paul is a politician, but he's still the best of the bunch. As far as handing the blog over to someone else - my blog is not a Ron Paul blog. It is a libertarian blog that happens to be covering Ron Paul currently. It was around before he announced, it will be around after the election, one way or another.

- R

The one thing we need more of inside the movement, is to each his own.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, if elected he couldn't get everything done anyway. But I reserve the right to not support him on certain issues, even though I support him in this campaign.

As long as you are free and I am free, then we need not always agree.

RSDavis
01-15-2008, 03:19 PM
If you don't wan't to post a detailed refutation of his critique, someone on LRC already has, a damn good one too. I believe it was written by Walter Block.

Too late, haha...

I'll check it out.

- R

RSDavis
01-15-2008, 03:20 PM
The one thing we need more of inside the movement, is to each his own.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, if elected he couldn't get everything done anyway. But I reserve the right to not support him on certain issues, even though I support him in this campaign.

As long as you are free and I am free, then we need not always agree.

Well-said!

IRO-bot
01-15-2008, 03:39 PM
Too late, haha...

I'll check it out.

- R

You talked about mostly the same stuff. Best part is about the roads. Walter has wrote a ton of books about that issue. He said he wouldn't be suprised if the writer got that from one of his essay's. You did a good job, but I prefer the Austrian strain myself.

RSDavis
01-15-2008, 04:45 PM
You talked about mostly the same stuff. Best part is about the roads. Walter has wrote a ton of books about that issue. He said he wouldn't be suprised if the writer got that from one of his essay's. You did a good job, but I prefer the Austrian strain myself.

I lean that way, but I can't really be tied down to either. I mostly wanted people to know that it's not as rigid as he said. Clearly, Block is coming from the Austrian perspective.

- Rick

IRO-bot
01-15-2008, 07:50 PM
Yeah, but why is Austrian rigid? I mean Ron Paul is of the Austrian side and yet he believes in a strong defense? Do Austrians really believe that defense can come from the free market? Or are the open to the Constitution?

RSDavis
01-17-2008, 08:18 AM
Yeah, but why is Austrian rigid? I mean Ron Paul is of the Austrian side and yet he believes in a strong defense? Do Austrians really believe that defense can come from the free market? Or are the open to the Constitution?

Well, I wouldn't call Ron Paul a rigid Austrian. He's not pushing to privatize roads or police departments, either, remember. Austrian is rigid because it is ideologically-driven, whereas Chicago School economics is more loose because it is based more on pragmatism. I am actually more an Austrian than the other, but not quite an anarcho-capitalist.

- Rick

RSDavis
01-17-2008, 08:19 AM
BTW, sorry I wasn't around yesterday. Had some personal crap to take care of. I'll be starting my Roundup shortly. Hope to have it posted by 1PM.

Dan D.
01-17-2008, 09:26 AM
Ron Paul's economic views are decidedly Austrian. His policy views are best described as "Constitutional"

IRO-bot
01-17-2008, 10:08 AM
RS - I am beginning to believe that alot of this stuff really is merely a smear campaign brought about by the Cato "cosmo's". I have been able to give up some interesting writing you might find interesting. I think the biggest problem for me is that I was just a child when most of the fight when down so I don't know what really went on. I have some link for you to check out if you are interested.