alt-right racism is Ron Paul's fault (Salon article)

[Dr.No.]

I worked for RP's campaign in 2012. The man is not racist. He just isn't. Not really even in the ignorant/soft way that some older people are (like Joe Biden, for example).

 

[Peace&Freedom]

I think that the kind of national sovereignty that you just described is pretty much what Ron Paul seems to believe. But notice that this concept of national sovereignty leaves no room for that government regulating immigration or trade, which is precisely what LE wants when she refers to national sovereignty.

No, I don't notice that, because it's not so.

 

[Superfluous Man]

No, I don't notice that, because it's not so.

It is so.

Since I am sovereign, and the only powers the government can have are those I delegate to it, it can't dictate to me that I can't have people on my property because they didn't jump through the hoops someone else wanted them to.

That's why Ron Paul repudiates your views.

 

[LibertyEagle]

He cares about it. But the version of the concept of national sovereignty he cares about is diametrically opposite to the version you care about. Don't misrepresent him by equivocating the terminology like that.

No it isn't, bucko.

 

[osan]

It's not over yet. They're still after Ron Paul. Don't read this on a full stomach. -

h ttp://www.salon.com/2016/12/09/how-the-alt-right-became-racist-part-2-long-before-trump-white-nationalists-flocked-to-ron-paul/



Unfortunately the libertarians aren't representing well in the comments. More alt-righters there than real libertarians and they're predictably either impenetrably nerdy or awkward and inarticulate.

What human with an IQ in the positive integers bothers with salon.com?

Reading tripe like this seems mostly an exercise in bothering oneself.

 

[Superfluous Man]

No it isn't, bucko.

Yes it is. You believe in protectionism, requiring passports to enter the USA, deportation, a wall, and punishing people who hire unlawful immigrants, all of which Ron Paul repudiates. His idea of national sovereignty is as something subordinate to individual sovereignty. Your version makes the government sovereign over us.

In reality, while you use the same words, you actually support the exact opposite view of Ron Paul.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

It is so.

Since I am sovereign, and the only powers the government can have are those I delegate to it, it can't dictate to me that I can't have people on my property because they didn't jump through the hoops someone else wanted them to.

That's why Ron Paul repudiates your views.

It's still not so. Among the powers delegated to civil government by the people is providing for its self-defense, and the enforcement of contract. By bypassing the lawful procedures, these supposed migrants never entered into a contract to become Americans permanently domiciled here. Thus they can't dictate to US that they must be recognized simply because they are on an American's property, any more than a tourist can, or an invading combatant can.

National and individual sovereignty are equal in their acknowledgement of the relevance or contract, or two-way agreement about the migration, between the relocating party and the new host country. You are disavowing the need for two-way consent, while trying to describe a forced invasion as a voluntary situation. That is not Ron Paul's position.

 

[Superfluous Man]

It's still not so. Among the powers delegated to civil government by the people is providing for its self-defense, and the enforcement of contract. By bypassing the lawful procedures, these supposed migrants never entered into a contract to become Americans permanently domiciled here.

If they enter a contract with me, then their contract is with me, not someone else. And the powers I delegate to the government are up to me, not you. If the government tries to stop me from entering a contract to hire an unlawful immigrant, then that government is not acting as my agent with powers I delegated to it.

Apparently you don't actually believe that individuals are sovereign. And if you think you do, then your concept of that is the diametric opposite of Ron Paul's.

Whether they have any intention of residing here permanently is irrelevant. No contract with some abstract corporate American population is necessary for them to do that if they want to. Nor is any contract with such an abstraction necessary for them to reside here for any short period of time, nor to work here. These arrangements with unlawful immigrants are ones that each sovereign individual American has a right to make for themselves.

 

[seapilot]

It's interesting that some in the media have decided that this is a good time to attack Ron and Rand. Why would that be?

They can no longer ignore alternative medias influence. Ron and Rand are trusted sources for alternative media.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Apparently you don't actually believe that individuals are sovereign. And if you think you do, then your concept of that is the diametric opposite of Ron Paul's.

Apparently you have confirmed you don't actually believe that the government has been delegated powers from sovereign individuals, and thus embodies that same sovereignty. Your every utterance puts down or characterizes as irrelevant the delegation of sovereignty you claim to defend. Your position innately denies a minarchist government, or the ability of a free people to choose such an order to establish the contract for migrants.

In fact, you never established under your concept that the migrant even consented to your contract. It's all you letting them onto American soil unilaterally, not them ever evidencing that they entered a contract to become Americans. I say again, this is not Paul's concept of immigration:

The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual — including a potential terrorist — can enter the United States...We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

If we took some of the steps I have outlined here — eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders — we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2005/08/ron-paul/immigration-and-the-welfare-state/

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

It's still not so. Among the powers delegated to civil government by the people is providing for its self-defense, and the enforcement of contract. By bypassing the lawful procedures, these supposed migrants never entered into a contract to become Americans permanently domiciled here. Thus they can't dictate to US that they must be recognized simply because they are on an American's property, any more than a tourist can, or an invading combatant can.

National and individual sovereignty are equal in their acknowledgement of the relevance or contract, or two-way agreement about the migration, between the relocating party and the new host country. You are disavowing the need for two-way consent, while trying to describe a forced invasion as a voluntary situation. That is not Ron Paul's position.

Beside the fact that it would be immoral to allow a fiction to infringe on people's rights, you neglect to note what was written in "The Constitution" (or rather what was NOT). You will find no mention of regulating immigration within that document and indeed this whole idea of regulation is maybe 100 years old or so. Borders were signs that you rode past on your horse as you went to trade in a town of your choosing and no one asked your "citizenship" and for the most part they new it the first time you spoke.

No, in "The Constitution" (which you claim to hold so dear) there is only a short passage on "naturalization" and this has ZERO to do with "immigration". And if I'm wrong, please enlighten me...

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Break the link
The official RPF web protocol is hXXp://stoopidwebsite.com/trasharticle

http://archive.is

Better.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

http://archive.is

Better.

I like it... We all should be using this resource often!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I like it... We all should be using this resource often!

Yeah, no reason to drive traffic (and thus fund) our enemies, The Media.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Very important truth to keep in mind:

If the press could interview the Founding Fathers (or any pre-1960s national leaders) on their racial views today, they would deem them Evil Nazi White Nationalist Supremacists.

So..... should we care? Why should I care again?

 

[tod evans]

Very important truth to keep in mind:

If the press could interview the Founding Fathers (or any pre-1960s national leaders) on their racial views today, they would deem them Evil Nazi White Nationalist Supremacists.

So..... should we care? Why should I care again?

Reported...

 

[The Gold Standard]

Apparently you have confirmed you don't actually believe that the government has been delegated powers from sovereign individuals, and thus embodies that same sovereignty.

This can only be done with a contract, and I've never signed one. And no, a fairy tale "social contract" does not count.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

No, in "The Constitution" (which you claim to hold so dear) there is only a short passage on "naturalization" and this has ZERO to do with "immigration". And if I'm wrong, please enlighten me...

My exchange with Superfluous involved that passage on "naturalization," and the fact that he didn't even think migrants were obligated to do that much, in order to become Americans. What you called a "fiction" is the means by which our country gives consent, their following it is how their right is exercised. Migrating is a two-way voluntary action, as with other human transactions. A one way action is simply force, upon the party that did not volunteer.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

My exchange with Superfluous involved that passage on "naturalization," and the fact that he didn't even think migrants were obligated to do that much, in order to become Americans. What you called a "fiction" is the means by which our country gives consent, their following it is how their right is exercised. Migrating is a two-way voluntary action, as with other human transactions. A one way action is simply force, upon the party that did not volunteer.

No, your "fiction" claims the Constitution as it's "authority". There's NO authority to regulate immigration. If some immigrant (after many years living here) wishes to become a "citizen" then and only then does the constitution have anything to say about this immigrant. If you don't believe me you can check any history book on life in the 1800's...

 

[osan]

they're gunning after Ron?

They have to. There is too much in the written/video record from RP that could serve to discredit the progressive agenda. Therefore, they need to keep as many eyes away from that record as possible. Survival 101 because as stoopid as most Americans are, they are not stupid. That means they are capable of rejecting the stupidities to which they have subscribed themselves, which is the one thing the progressives cannot survive. Therefore, the best defense is to always be on the offensive. Just look at how Theye still go after McCarthy. Why? Because McCarthy was 100% right about the communist infiltration; every last one of the names on his infamous little list proved to be Kremlin assets, and many more as proven by Venona. But the good senator erred greatly in his tactics and it is upon that which progressive attacks remain focused, sixty five-plus years later.