Nick Gillespie Washington Post Op-ed : Five myths about Ron Paul

[Feeding the Abscess]

A lot of the anti-beltway thing is rooted in BS and works both ways. For a time there certain "paleo" libertarians ( I don't see why the purity thing is a such a big deal to other libertarians who have to qualify their libertarianism) were saying all kinds of lies like that all reason and cato employees were pro-war, which is just ridiculous. And it was mostly people who have a hardon for Pat Buchanan, who was never libertarian in any sense. Then of course you had the cato types saying unfair stuff about Ron Paul. A lot of it wasn't even about Ron Paul but more about Rockwell/Rothbard and certain Ron Paul "supporters" went out of their way to protect Rockwell at the expense of paul and vice versa. Then you had the whole cosmotarian thing which somehow implied that anyone with no personal objections to gays or drugs or admiration racist meant that "beltway cosmotarians" were all a bunch of coke fiends having gay orgies and all this nonsense. Meanwhile, for all the "pro-war" reasonoids objecting to the wars and working to free innocent people from death row, you have the paleos writing op-eds supporting police brutality and big government.

Heck, a lot of the people here HATE libertarians and go out of their way to talk about how conservative they are. I think Nick was doing a favor to those, by including a few more conservative beliefs. making RP a little more palatable to certain brands of conservatism.

personally, i disagree with RP on a few things, too. But he gets the big things very right. I'm not going to say that makes me any "more" libertarian than Ron Paul, but anyone who says it makes me "less libertarian" than Ron Paul is freaking nuts. FWIW, I am libertarian and disagree with conservatism. But you need a big coalition here in politics.

As far I know, Doherty was never anti-Paul. Some other reason people only really turned after the newsletter thing, and they were mostly anarchists who don't care about voting who sided with paul but didn't want libertarianism to be equated with race based police brutality and stuff like that.

They should have known that that was part of Rothbard's "reach out to rednecks" strategy.

 

[unknown]

Nice. The reason.com guy.

He seems to like Peter Schiff as well.

 

[surf]

Paul says abortion law should be settled at the state level, but in Congress in 2005, 2007 and 2009 and this year he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define life as beginning at conception.

this is going to be the tough point for me to sell some folks on, and one of the easiest for others. btw - got a dude to commit to March 3rd today (our caucuses). he's now sporting an RP bumper sticker.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

this is going to be the tough point for me to sell some folks on, and one of the easiest for others. btw - got a dude to commit to March 3rd today (our caucuses). he's now sporting an RP bumper sticker.

It's a legislative declaration, which means it's a nonbinding statement of policy. ie, it wouldn't ban abortion nationwide, but it would amend the federal judicial code to remove Supreme and federal court jurisdiction over abortion.

 

[muh_roads]

Now that Ron has a real shot at this thing...people like Nick, institutions like CATO, and others are going to start coming around. Because someone that agrees with you 80% of the time is not a 20% enemy. They may be pro-choice institutions, but if people could just put aside a few wedge issues...having a real shot at reducing spending and eliminating the income tax will always come first.

Keep phoning from home and donating people. This shit is working.

 

[Inny Binny]

Beltway libertarians are those who supposedly work within the system and advocate for half-baked libertarianism. That might be a bit harsh for some of them. The difference can really be described as consequential vs deontological.

It has nothing to do with specific disagreements - most 'true' libertarians are also pro-choice and in favour of open borders. Certainly I have some disagreements with Paul, the major ones being abortion, immigration, DOMA and right-to-work off the top of my head, and I'm almost an anarchist, so yeah.

 

[Xenophage]

Beltway libertarians are those who supposedly work within the system and advocate for half-baked libertarianism. That might be a bit harsh for some of them. The difference can really be described as consequential vs deontological.

It has nothing to do with specific disagreements - most 'true' libertarians are also pro-choice and in favour of open borders. Certainly I have some disagreements with Paul, the major ones being abortion, immigration, DOMA and right-to-work off the top of my head, and I'm almost an anarchist, so yeah.

I'm with you, too. I'd qualify it that I understand Paul's positions on these issues and I can live with them, considering the huge swath of other things that I agree with him on.

There hasn't been another libertarian candidate with such a good shot at actually winning the presidency, ever. So I don't understand, really, why so many deontological libertarians rally behind Paul, while the consequentialists seem more hesitant. A quick survey of prominent posters on this forum seems to confirm that's the case. There are some *hard-core* libertarians, from the Rothbardian wing of the movement, that back Paul. They're the ones that split with Koch back in the early 80's, and it's the "watered down, mass appeal" libertarians from the Koch wing that run Reason and CATO.

So how does that work?

My best answer is that the 'beltway' libertarians from the Koch wing of the movement never really were consistent libertarians. Again, however, that's a pretty broad generalization. Milton Friedman was a consequentialist, but once he became a libertarian he was always pretty consistent (regardless of what you might think of his analysis of The Great Depression, for instance, he still wanted to abolish The Fed).

 

[Xenophage]

Objectivists in particular amuse me with their non-support of Paul. If they practiced an unbiased, consistent application of their principles they'd see that supporting Paul is the only rational choice. If pre-Branden-break-up Ayn Rand was around, she'd be on the campaign trail for Paul, I'm quite sure.

 

[LibertyEagle]

And it was mostly people who have a hardon for Pat Buchanan, who was never libertarian in any sense.

Oh, yes he was/is.

FWIW, I am libertarian and disagree with conservatism. But you need a big coalition here in politics..

That is a very peculiar stance, since libertarianism and conservatism share a lot of principles in common. Which is probably why RP has supporters who think of themselves as libertarians and also supporters who view themselves as traditional conservatives.

 

[tsetsefly]

Beltway libertarians are those that live and work in or around DC..aka within the "495 beltway"...they are at reason, cato, and a few other think tanks and conservative social scenes. They represent a farily different strain of libertarians, in 2008 at least, many scoffed at Ron Paul and Reason at times was not supportive etc...

THat is not true, they where supportive in 08, but they didn't believe he had a chance. Now its much different, and they are more supportive.

Lately, hit&run has had ron paul news everyday this week and it's all good.

 

[BUSHLIED]

THat is not true, they where supportive in 08, but they didn't believe he had a chance. Now its much different, and they are more supportive.

Lately, hit&run has had ron paul news everyday this week and it's all good.

you are right they didnt think he had a chance and they were negative etc...to me, that was as good as putting him down because it is the same meme as FOX News etc...chance or not, they should have been avocating for him, rather they just didn't give a damn and that is a shame

 

[BUSHLIED]

Oh, yes he was/is.


That is a very peculiar stance, since libertarianism and conservatism share a lot of principles in common. Which is probably why RP has supporters who think of themselves as libertarians and also supporters who view themselves as traditional conservatives.

\\

Exactly, from what I can gather conservatism shares a lot with libertarianism...the evangelicals hijacked the party and somehow moved the movement away...Conservatives, should be civil libertarians...if the believe in limited government

 

[tsetsefly]

Objectivists in particular amuse me with their non-support of Paul. If they practiced an unbiased, consistent application of their principles they'd see that supporting Paul is the only rational choice. If pre-Branden-break-up Ayn Rand was around, she'd be on the campaign trail for Paul, I'm quite sure.

I think people are exxagerating here with the libertarians not supporting Paul, most in Cato, Reason where always Pro Paul, aside from that I have two thoguhts:

1. With both Objectivist and some libertarians it seems that the closer a candidate gets to their positions the more they dont like them if they are not 100% in agreement with them. They see Ron Paul being called a libertarian or inspired by Ayn Rand as a threat to the ideology because "He doesn't represent objectivism or libertarian ideals". THis is completely insane imo, especially when choosing among statist and a less than perfect "libertarian". I consider myself closer to the ARI Objectivist way of thinking and see their point in, for example, Ron Paul's position on Gay marriage, abortion etc. I see it as an individual rights issue meaning no state could outlaw it, still I can get past those issues.,they should also!

2. I think a good number of Objectivist and LIbertarians do support Ron Paul and in the voting booth they would choose Paul over Obama.

 

[eduardo89]

I saw Nick G. in an interview a couple days ago, he was not wearing the black leather jacket. That's one myth that is now busted.

It was under his shirt.

 

[Inny Binny]

There hasn't been another libertarian candidate with such a good shot at actually winning the presidency, ever. So I don't understand, really, why so many deontological libertarians rally behind Paul, while the consequentialists seem more hesitant.

Well, that needs to be qualified a bit. The right-libertarians - paleolibertarians, an-caps etc. - tend to support Ron Paul with ease, but the more leftish market anarchists are more hesitant. His positions on abortion, immigration, unions etc. are just a bit too untenable for some.

Oh, and I don't think libertarianism is even remotely close to conservatism, but obviously we'd be using different definitions so no point getting into that argument.

 

[ZanZibar]

 

[mconder]

Just reading the comments section on this one, proves to me that Ron Paul's positions are still seriously misunderstood and misrepresented.

 

[amy31416]

The worst at "Reason" is that Katherine Magoo Ward ass-nose, it's certainly not Gillespie.

 

[ZanZibar]

The worst at "Reason" is that Katherine Magoo Ward ass-nose, it's certainly not Gillespie.

I LOL'd