Reason Magazine planning another article on the newsletters

[courtney]

+1

And that is truly unfortunate.

Anyone posting in this thread remember when the Reason guy came here and posted what he intended to post about Ron WAY early on? That guy posted unflattering shit even way back then.

I don't, but it was probably before my time. I'd like a link to it though.

However, I have two issues with this notion that somehow those with whom one disagrees with politically is therefore "Treasonous".

The first issue has to do with the notion that there exists a one and only political Truth. Nonsense. And anyone who is espousing this cult mentality ought to have their head examined because if anything it's this boneheaded notion of a "Political Purity" (including "Religious Purity") that has historically found itself at the heart of tyrannies the world over. Think about it. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, even mine and yours. None of us are correct 100% of the time, and we all know that. It's just that when we're wrong, we tend to play that down, whilst playing up the times when we're correct. It's human nature, that's all.

The second issue is this: Ron Paul is not God, and he is not your Saviour. Ron Paul is a Republican politician running for President of the United States, which incidentally, is term limited anyway. For some, he may represent the very best in a politician. For others, he may represent something to be desired. But either way, neither group of voters is "treasonous" for holding their views. To call the political opposition "Traitors" is to dehumanize them, which is a dangerous first step into violence, which again, is the gravest threat to everyone's liberty.

So, how about we cool it with the over-the-top rhetoric already? You folks wonder why we can't break out of the pack, but you never stop to think that you're scaring the shit out of a bunch of voters out there -- the same voters we need for success.

 

[jupiter]

In the simplest terms, lifestyle libertarians are all about making sure that all lifestyles are free from government persecution, like homosexuality, etc. etc. The paleo wing is much more socially conservative (although even paleos don't want the government telling you know you can sleep with). But they are not as concerned with the issues that obsess the lifestyle libs.

Tom Palmer of CATO has smeared Lew Rockwell again and again as a racist. There has been a virtual state of war between those two (with Tom mostly on duty as attack dog) for years.

The war has burst into Ron Paul candidacy in a big way.

Wait a second here.

My understanding is as follows (and differs from several of the other posters):

"Lifestyle libertarians" are libertarian only in social issues. They are still statist when it comes to fiscal and national-security matters (hence, another great nest for Neocons to burrow into).

"Paleolibertarians" are through-and-through libertarian, even in fiscal matters. Hence, paleolibertarians truly believe in a small government, whereas the same cannot be said of the "lifestyle libertarians".

 

[Mises]

It's better if he says nothing. This story needs to go away and go away fast. It is infuriating to me that Reason continues with this.

Most of us want to know who wrote the newsletters, but it is alot more important to me to get Paul to a brokered convention.

And for those who think Rockwell wrote the comments, or is responsible for them: if he comes "out" then the next article in Reason will be how Ron Paul is the best of friends with Lew Rockwell, a racist.

Paul's campaign goes down for good and Rockwell and paleolibs get smeared on national TV - exactly what the cosmopolitans have wanted for years on end.

It amazes me that some people know so little about politics that they can't see this coming.

 

[melianthus]

Wait a second here.

My understanding is as follows (and differs from several of the other posters):

"Lifestyle libertarians" are libertarian only in social issues. They are still statist when it comes to fiscal and national-security matters (hence, another great nest for Neocons to burrow into).

This wasn't always so obvious, though. Their reaction to the war in Iraq honestly was a surprise to many libertarians.

 

[courtney]

And for those who think Rockwell wrote the comments, or is responsible for them: if he comes "out" then the next article in Reason will be how Ron Paul is the best of friends with Lew Rockwell, a racist.

Paul's campaign goes down for good and Rockwell and paleolibs get smeared on national TV - exactly what the cosmopolitans have wanted for years on end.

It amazes me that some people know so little about politics that they can't see this coming.

Oh, I see it coming alright. I say let's have the facts (some of us have put in some hard work, and lot's of green for this campaign, only to have been hit by a train that Paul knew was coming from day one), and let the chips fall where they may. Let the Players duke it out.

The alternative is to have this BS hanging over our heads the entire trip, just waiting to burst at just the right moment (which, perhaps, has already occurred)....

There are no good answers, Mises. The only good answer has already passed, and that being that Paul & Co. should have preempted this loooong ago instead of being deceptive with his supporters.

 

[specsaregood]

The ongoing silence of the actual author is destroying RP.

Sorry, but no. The ongoing silence of the MSM and the fact that still 70% of eligible voters have no idea who Ron Paul is, is "destroying RP". Seriously, most eligible voters have not heard about this crap and still have no idea who he is.

If you want to change that, hit the houses of eligible voters and make sure that their first experience of RP is of a respectful polite supporter.

 

[Young_Apprentice]

The economist Murray Rothbard created the libertarian party as a sort of pet project in the sixties. Hippies and others who desired more personal freedoms jumped on the bandwagon. Paleos, however, follow the intellectual tradition of libertalism and their range of interests and concerns are far broader than the "lifestyle" libertarians. Rothbard himself quit the libertarian party after he was booed at a convention. Paleos aren't necessarily more socially conservative than lifestylers either. I know there are a few prominent paleos who are gay, and many are atheist and agnostic as well.

 

[Dlynne]

And for those who think Rockwell wrote the comments, or is responsible for them: if he comes "out" then the next article in Reason will be how Ron Paul is the best of friends with Lew Rockwell, a racist.

Paul's campaign goes down for good and Rockwell and paleolibs get smeared on national TV - exactly what the cosmopolitans have wanted for years on end.

It amazes me that some people know so little about politics that they can't see this coming.

You might be missing something, Mises. "It amazes me that some people know so little about politics that they can't see this coming" applies to everyone, including Paul's inner circle.

You might also be missing the fact that it would make a big difference to a lot of people if Lew Rockwell wrote that stuff. I don't know Rockwell or Paul personally. It is hard for me to believe that Paul wrote it. It would bother me if Paul hangs out with, and uses as a close campaign advisor, someone who wrote it.

Some people believe that if Lew wrote it, he needs to excuse himself from the campaign so Paul has a chance. As slim as that chance appears to be at this time.

 

[Francisco Suarez]

Most of us want to know who wrote the newsletters, but it is alot more important to me to get Paul to a brokered convention.

Honestly, I could care less who wrote them as long as I know that it wasn't Ron Paul. And I am confident it wasn't.

This obsessive need to "out" somebody over a silly political newsletter from two decades ago is getting annoying, especially since the loudest calls for it are coming from the glass houses.

If he's so concerned about the company that Ron Paul kept 20 years ago, why doesn't Tom Palmer disclose the identities of the sordid company he keeps in his own bed (both figuratively and literally)?

Why not tell us who Mr. Rightwatch is, and what relationship he has to Palmer and/or Cato? Why not disclose all communications between Palmer and Rightwatch, which mysteriously springs into action with a flurry of blog posts whenever Palmer's bashing Hans Hoppe or Lew Rockwell? Why not disclose any and all relationships between the Cato or Reason crowds and Jamie Kirchick? They exist, and the evidence of it is growing by the day. But the very same people who are in the know about it remain silent, all while demanding that Paul "out" his ghostwriter. Double standards everywhere.

 

[jacmicwag]

Honestly, I could care less who wrote them as long as I know that it wasn't Ron Paul. And I am confident it wasn't.

This obsessive need to "out" somebody over a silly political newsletter from two decades ago is getting annoying, especially since the loudest calls for it are coming from the glass houses.

If he's so concerned about the company that Ron Paul kept 20 years ago, why doesn't Tom Palmer disclose the identities of the sordid company he keeps in his own bed (both figuratively and literally)?

Why not tell us who Mr. Rightwatch is, and what relationship he has to Palmer and/or Cato? Why not disclose all communications between Palmer and Rightwatch, which mysteriously springs into action with a flurry of blog posts whenever Palmer's bashing Hans Hoppe or Lew Rockwell? Why not disclose any and all relationships between the Cato or Reason crowds and Jamie Kirchick? They exist, and the evidence of it is growing by the day. But the very same people who are in the know about it remain silent, all while demanding that Paul "out" his ghostwriter. Double standards everywhere.

Sounds like you've got some good dirt here. I love politics.

 

[Johncjackson]

In the simplest terms, lifestyle libertarians are all about making sure that all lifestyles are free from government persecution, like homosexuality, etc. etc. The paleo wing is much more socially conservative (although even paleos don't want the government telling you know you can sleep with). But they are not as concerned with the issues that obsess the lifestyle libs.

Tom Palmer of CATO has smeared Lew Rockwell again and again as a racist. There has been a virtual state of war between those two (with Tom mostly on duty as attack dog) for years.

The war has burst into Ron Paul candidacy in a big way.

Tom Palmer is definitely an attack dog, but there are valid reasons to question some of the things he does. I am not saying people should come to the same conclusions but there is stuff there to look at.

Your explanation of the difference basically says lifestyle libertarians support individual rights for all and equal treatment under the law. Paleos have a problem with that?

You could say maybe "cosmos" are more obsessed with drugs ( I would say they are more concerned with the government terrorizing drug users) and gay rights. Whereas 'paleos" are obsessed with States Rights and the Confederacy.

Fair?

I am just a regular old libertarian. If CATO is really "out to get Ron Paul" I'm not down with that. But on the whole I'm not going to buy into the bizarre sentiment here that LRC, LvMI, and their non-libertarian associates are some Angels beyond reproach while CATO and reason are some evil band of neocons.

 

[skeet]

Cato v. Mises, who cares. What I am concerned about is the 6 families that withdrew their support this week in my small part of the world. Two of those families were african american. Canvassing is hard work, and when you start to see the converted pull up their signs, it gets a little frustrating.
I have talked to them, I told them Dr. Paul didn't write the articles, mentioned MLK and Ghandi, women of color not charged by Dr. Paul, etc. etc. .....still I get crickets.

The damage is certainly done, but ignoring it will not make it go away. It will die down for a while, at least until we start to get traction again - then it will pop back up to squash our progress killing more than a presidential bid but even hampering the movement.
Let's get to the bottom of this, point fingers, and move on. If someone close to Ron is racist, that is still better than him being one in the eyes of the public.

Just my two cents.

 

[Spirit of '76]

You really believe this will go away if someone steps forward? Newsflash: the problem will escalate to levels you couldn't dream. The editor, writer, or whoever that comes forward will then be linked to Paul, called a racist, and this will go on and on. The only way to minimize the damage is to move on.

Very true.

 

[devil21]

It sucks that bullshit like this affects the rest of us RP supporters that dont give fuck about the libertarians.

 

[RonPaulalways]

Ron Paul doesn't want to run any one's life. Ron Paul wants to give freedom. The establishment is trying to make people think in terms of the big government paradigm where the president needs to be the supreme individual, able to give equal love to all his children. This is the paradigm we must reject. Ron Paul wants to return Constitutional rule so that each individual is his/her sovereign.

The establishment is trying to cement the paradigm of the celebrity politician. It's a bankrupt paradigm that doesn't stand the glare of scrutiny from a person with self-respect who understands that the proper focus of politics is to maximize each individual's liberty.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Very true.

The people pushing this story are not RP supporters. Asking RP fans on this forum to move on isn't going to do a damn thing.

The charges have to be addressed by an effective strategy from the campaign, and trying to ignore the charges is not it. Releasing a weak press release that Paul didn't know what was in a newsletter with his name on it is not it.

The author of the bigoted nasty crap needs to be pushed out of the campaign and thrown to the wolves, whoever it is. If the actual author can't be identified, then the editor responsible for the newletter needs to take responsibility. The sooner this is done the better. Anything less and this campaign is over.

All these RP heads trying to defend those nasty bigoted newsletters are really starting to make me wonder. Is this campaign really FULL of racists? I thought they were a fringe element, but more and more it seems like they are the heart of RP support.

 

[SeanEdwards]

If he's so concerned about the company that Ron Paul kept 20 years ago, why doesn't Tom Palmer disclose the identities of the sordid company he keeps in his own bed (both figuratively and literally)?

Is Tom Palmer running for President of The United States?

If he was, then you can rest assured that his "sordid" activities would end up in the public eye.

 

[RonPaulalways]

The newsletters aren't that impotant because there were no racist policies proposed in them, it was mostly an expression of fear and anger at the perceived reverse-racism that big government had allowed.

 

[loupeznik]

Cato v. Mises, who cares. What I am concerned about is the 6 families that withdrew their support this week in my small part of the world. Two of those families were african american. Canvassing is hard work, and when you start to see the converted pull up their signs, it gets a little frustrating.
I have talked to them, I told them Dr. Paul didn't write the articles, mentioned MLK and Ghandi, women of color not charged by Dr. Paul, etc. etc. .....still I get crickets.

The damage is certainly done, but ignoring it will not make it go away. It will die down for a while, at least until we start to get traction again - then it will pop back up to squash our progress killing more than a presidential bid but even hampering the movement.
Let's get to the bottom of this, point fingers, and move on. If someone close to Ron is racist, that is still better than him being one in the eyes of the public.

Just my two cents.

+1

I have been a long time Reason and Cato reader and contributer. I will continue to support them. Their philosophy is more consistent with mine than Ron Paul's.

I will continue to support Ron Paul so long as his contribution to a free society is positive. If he manages to associate Libertarians with racism in the minds of the general population, he will be a liability to the freedom movement. At that point I will no longer support him.

My loyalty is principle not party or person.

 

[SeanEdwards]

The newsletters aren't that impotant because there were no racist policies proposed in them, it was mostly an expression of fear and anger at the perceived reverse-racism that big government had allowed.

One word, "macaca" destroyed George Allen as a politician forever.

And you seriously think that years of racist and bigoted commentary in print is not important?

Delusional is the adjective that comes to my mind.