Reason Magazine planning another article on the newsletters

[melianthus]

My husband was contacted today by a writer with Reason magazine seeking information on the authorship of the newsletters. Reason is sticking to this story like white on rice.

These newsletters were released by the New Republic courtesy of work done by members of CATO. This is an orchestrated attack to bring down the paleo wing of the libertarian movement by the lifestyle libertarians. Reason will continue with this story because their ideology is much closer to that of people like Tom Palmer of CATO, than to Lew Rockwell's.

Our candidate is being smeared by members of groups supposed to be dedicated to freedom. This is a really low blow folks.

 

[Dlynne]

I apologize for my ignorance. Can you explain to me the difference between paleolibertarian and lifestyle libertarian?

 

[integrity]

I knew reason sucked. they are actually shills for the North american Union, and they are showing their true colors. They suck eggs. Fake liberterians!

http://reason.com/news/show/122632.html

 

[LinearChaos]

Can you explain to me the difference between paleolibertarian and lifestyle libertarian?

Cocaine

 

[jamiewonder]

Our candidate is being smeared by members of groups supposed to be dedicated to freedom. This is a really low blow folks.

You know, if Reason magazine was being reasonable, then they drive over to the other side of the railroad tracks and go ask African Americans, their church and community leaders if they think RP is a racist. I guarantee that African Americans know exactly what is going on here, and that this latest round of political smear hasn't swayed their support of RP in the slightest. This smear, is designed to affect politically correct whites.

Someone with a contact at Reason ought to challenge them to speak to leaders in the African American communities across this nation. I bet Reason doesn't have the guts to do it, cause it'll blow the lid off this stupid and totally transparent political smear.

 

[melianthus]

I apologize for my ignorance. Can you explain to me the difference between paleolibertarian and lifestyle libertarian?

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.

 

[melianthus]

Cocaine

LOL!! That's a much better explanation that I gave!

 

[melianthus]

I guarantee that African Americans know exactly what is going on here, and that this latest round of political smear hasn't swayed their support of RP in the slightest. This smear, is designed to affect politically correct whites.

Unfortunately it is the vote of the pc whites that we need. No matter how personally conservative many blacks are, 90% of them vote for the Democratic candidate.

 

[John P Slevin]

Shills

Our candidate is being smeared by members of groups supposed to be dedicated to freedom. This is a really low blow folks.

CATO and Reason writers shill for their major donors. The major donors of each supposed libertarian think tank are not libertarians.

 

[integrity]

CATO and Reason writers shill for their major donors. The major donors of each supposed libertarian think tank are not libertarians.

no different than say, rudy or romney or clinton or bush. paid for puppets, but disguised as libertarians to divide us real freedom seekers.

SCUM

 

[WilliamC]

I apologize for my ignorance. Can you explain to me the difference between paleolibertarian and lifestyle libertarian?

As someone who has not done a detailed analysis and is just speaking off of the top of my head (or perhaps from somewhere else) paleolibertarians have a strong sense of traditional moral values often (though not exclusively) derived from religious beliefs. They may not want a government to impose these values upon others, but they most definitely want to be free to associate with and live in communities comprised of others who share these values. Thus they would probably be opposed to Federal laws regarding "sin" type behavior that harms no non-consenting adult, but may support the authority of a State or local government to make such laws.


Lifestyle libertarians are more libertine in that they think personal freedoms are paramount and that no government should be able to make laws restricting what anyone does anywhere at anytime.

So a paleolibertarian might not want a Federal law against, for instance, public practice of prostitution (i.e. brothels as businesses), but would see no problem living in a State or County that made brothels illegal. A lifestyle libertarian might want the Federal government to have the power to strike down any laws against brothels anywhere in the country.

I guess the dividing line is between strong local government and strong national government.

Again, I'm sure I could surf for a while and give a more cogent explanation, but that's my off-the-cuff impression. By these definitions I"m more of a paleolibertarian, not because of any religious reasons (I don't have any) but because I see no harm in like-minded people with customs different from my own chosing to make laws specific to their communities. When in Rome as it were.

 

[SuMuKong]

motivation unclear

My husband was contacted today by a writer with Reason magazine seeking information on the authorship of the newsletters. Reason is sticking to this story like white on rice.

These newsletters were released by the New Republic courtesy of work done by members of CATO. This is an orchestrated attack to bring down the paleo wing of the libertarian movement by the lifestyle libertarians. Reason will continue with this story because their ideology is much closer to that of people like Tom Palmer of CATO, than to Lew Rockwell's.

Our candidate is being smeared by members of groups supposed to be dedicated to freedom. This is a really low blow folks.

It is better that they hit RP with this piece, earlier than later. Actually it would have been better if they cleared the air at the very beginning.

What would be best, though, is if they allowed room for a rebuttal to be published in the same piece. Since this is ultimately a fact-driven character assassination, it would be only fair if they allowed others to opine on RP's character.

 

[integrity]

As someone who has not done a detailed analysis and is just speaking off of the top of my head (or perhaps from somewhere else) paleolibertarians have a strong sense of traditional moral values often (though not exclusively) derived from religious beliefs. They may not want a government to impose these values upon others, but they most definitely want to be free to associate with and live in communities comprised of others who share these values. Thus they would probably be opposed to Federal laws regarding "sin" type behavior that harms no non-consenting adult, but may support the authority of a State or local government to make such laws.


Lifestyle libertarians are more libertine in that they think personal freedoms are paramount and that no government should be able to make laws restricting what anyone does anywhere at anytime.

So a paleolibertarian might not want a Federal law against, for instance, public practice of prostitution (i.e. brothels as businesses), but would see no problem living in a State or County that made brothels illegal. A lifestyle libertarian might want the Federal government to have the power to strike down any laws against brothels anywhere in the country.

I guess the dividing line is between strong local government and strong national government.

Again, I'm sure I could surf for a while and give a more cogent explanation, but that's my off-the-cuff impression. By these definitions I"m more of a paleolibertarian, not because of any religious reasons (I don't have any) but because I see no harm in like-minded people with customs different from my own chosing to make laws specific to their communities. When in Rome as it were.

its a lot simpler than that: FOLLOW THE MONEY!!! a fake libertarian sells out to the establishment......

 

[integrity]

Reason is establishment shills....Liars too.

Reason Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization completely supported by voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, corporations, and the sale of our publications.

• 
  "Of all the nation's conservative or free-market policy groups, it may be the most libertarian among them, the Reason Foundation in Southern California, that ends up having the most direct impact on the actual functioning of government."
  - The Wall Street Journal
  “Thank goodness for Reason…one sane voice fighting tons of nonsense.”
  - John Stossel, ABC's 20/20
  “Reason Foundation’s tolerance, civility, and consistency in defending individual liberty make it a haven for believers in a free society of all shades of opinion.”
  - Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning Economist
  “Stimulating stuff from first-rate minds that understand that you can't create prosperity without freedom!”
  - Steve Forbes, Founder of Forbes Magazine and Former U.S. Presidential Candidate

 

[integrity]

It sounds like Lew Rockwell is a liability then. Somebody made racist and homophobic comments in that newsletter, and if they were not Paul himself, they were intended to sound like him. Nobody wants a crazy President with hate in his heart, a negligent and weak President who allows his friends to take advantage of him or lacks the courage to admit a mistake. The ongoing silence of the actual author is destroying RP.

no, the ongoing smear repeated by enemies is doing the harm, and reason and CATO are the enemies of RP. They have other agenda, get it thru your skull. They are shills. Lew Rockwell is a patriot and I stand behind RP and Lew.

This is an attempt at divide and conquer, and may be agents of T"reason" here in this forum.

 

[MsDoodahs]

no, the ongoing smear repeated by enemies is doing the harm, and reason and CATO are the enemies of RP. They have other agenda, get it thru your skull. They are shills. Lew Rockwell is a patriot and I stand behind RP and Lew.

This is an attempt at divide and conquer, and may be agents of T"reason" here in this forum.

+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.

 

[roversaurus]

no, the ongoing smear repeated by enemies is doing the harm, and reason and CATO are the enemies of RP. They have other agenda, get it thru your skull. They are shills. Lew Rockwell is a patriot and I stand behind RP and Lew.

This is an attempt at divide and conquer, and may be agents of T"reason" here in this forum.

Maybe it is an effort to divide and conquer,
But the original author.
THE EDITOR of the thing.
One of the OTHER original authors who worked there.

Should just tell what happened.
It is disgusting that they do not.

I've wondered if it was perhaps a relative of Ron Paul and he doesn't
want to say and make his relative look bad.

 

[Dlynne]

Thank you, everyone, for that education on the differences between the various libertarians.

I don't understand why Lew Rockwell doesn't simply make a statement denying he wrote those racist statements in the newsletters. I know that Reason reported that Rockwell denied it. But that isn't the same as Rockwell putting out such a statement himself, addressed to everyone. He is very close to the campaign, and I think such a statement would make a lot of people more comfortable.

 

[Mises]

Maybe it is an effort to divide and conquer,
But the original author.
THE EDITOR of the thing.
One of the OTHER original authors who worked there.

Should just tell what happened.
It is disgusting that they do not.

I've wondered if it was perhaps a relative of Ron Paul and he doesn't
want to say and make his relative look bad.

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.

 

[melianthus]

I don't understand why Lew Rockwell doesn't simply make a statement denying he wrote those racist statements in the newsletters.

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.