The Rockwell Manifesto

[tremendoustie]

You can't have complete liberty without a morally just populace. We do not have a morally just populace. We are materialistic, self-centered douchebags who don't give two thoughts about our fellow man. As long as we're making bank, fuck everyone else.

Two points:

1: Of course actions that constitute violence against others should be illegal, based on the principle of self-defense. If, however, it is immoral to use violence to get others to behave in a personally moral way, it doesn't become moral because the others are scumbags.

2: If we're all materialistic self-centered douchebags, where are your great leaders coming from? Could it be that the leaders will be materialistic self-centered douchebags too, except they'll have even more power? In fact, given that materialistic self-centered douchebags would tend to love political power even more, where they get to use the threat of violence against others to achieve thier goals, could it be that the leaders would be even more douche-like than the general populace?

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

Lew Rockwell is most likely the author of the racist articles in the Ron Paul Newsletter.

He should be shunned by our movement

 

[Truth Warrior]

Lew Rockwell is most likely the author of the racist articles in the Ron Paul Newsletter.

He should be shunned by our movement

Explain THAT to Ron. Without Lew, Ron would not have run for POTUS.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

Explain THAT to Ron. Without Lew, Ron would not have run for POTUS.

A lot of bad, ignorant people can occasionally do positive things

I am not sure whether Rockwell is simply a bad person or if he is just misguided.

Ron Paul is a human being just like any of us, and he can make a mistake. Blinded by his loyalty to a close friend, Paul refuses to blame or attack Rockwell for associating racism with his campaign

Does anyone really believe that Dr. Paul has NO IDEA who wrote those articles? Of course he does. I pray to God that he was not responsible. More likely, Rockwell and a handful of other radical ideologues abused their positions and used Ron Paul's name to further their agenda. That agenda is to expand their movement by reaching out to neo-confederates, white supremacists, etc.

As a movement, we must distance ourselves from these racist views if we want to have any chance of breaking into mainstream politics.

Do you want to see liberty candidates elected in office? I do. And journalists will dig up these connections to racists such as Rockwell. Aren't we fighting a tough battle to begin with? We are going against the odds already and to further damage our ability to win elections is insane

 

[lodge939]

Lew Rockwell is most likely the author of the racist articles in the Ron Paul Newsletter.

He should be shunned by our movement

got any proof?

 

[The_Orlonater]

Racist Rockwell, I heard a Krugmanite say that.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

got any proof?

First source: http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html

If you look at the articles and people referenced on LewRockwell.com, you see the tacit approval of racists and their ideas. I always found references to Sam Francis and neo-Confederates as unnerving, but I wanted to believe that Rockwell was helping the liberty movement

It has been no secret in libertarian circles that Rockwell has utilized controversial means to "grow" the movement. It is also no secret that he was a chief ghostwriter in the Ron Paul newsletter

Connect the dots.

Reason is hardly the only group of people putting this forth...

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

Racist Rockwell, I heard a Krugmanite say that.

Does that make it false?

Wacky Greens say that our foreign policy is based on imperialism, fear, and lies. Is that wrong just because a Green said it?

How about we judge the validity of an idea or claim by the facts rather than WHO SAID IT.

 

[The_Orlonater]

Does that make it false?

Wacky Greens say that our foreign policy is based on imperialism, fear, and lies. Is that wrong just because a Green said it?

How about we judge the validity of an idea or claim by the facts rather than WHO SAID IT.

And you know the Reason magazine article is true?

 

[lodge939]

First source: http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html

If you look at the articles and people referenced on LewRockwell.com, you see the tacit approval of racists and their ideas. I always found references to Sam Francis and neo-Confederates as unnerving, but I wanted to believe that Rockwell was helping the liberty movement

It has been no secret in libertarian circles that Rockwell has utilized controversial means to "grow" the movement. It is also no secret that he was a chief ghostwriter in the Ron Paul newsletter

Connect the dots.

Reason is hardly the only group of people putting this forth...

if this is true, he should resign from the Mises Institute as well. I'm reading Human Action at the moment and it's clear Mises despised racists.

 

[DeadheadForPaul]

And you know the Reason magazine article is true?

1.) Reason provides a pretty solid case
2.) If you do some research into what long-time libertarians have to say on this matter, you will find that there is more than ample evidence in support of their claim

3.) Logically, this is the only scenario that makes sense. I was perplexed by the newsletter controversy for several months. I knew Ron Paul did not write it, and yet, how did he not know who wrote those articles when the 4 people on the newsletter payroll were 3 of his relatives and Lew Rockwell? During this time, Lew Rockwell was the editor and chief writer...

This leaves us with 4 possible conclusions:
1.) Ron Paul wrote the racist articles
2.) Lew Rockwell wrote the racist articles
3.) A ghostwriter wrote the racist articles and Lew Rockwell green-lighted their publication (Given that he was chief editor/writer)
4.) Ron Paul green-lighted these articles

Come to your own conclusion.
Either Paul or Rockwell (or both) are responsible for the publication of these articles

 

[Leadman584]

I read the Rockwell article and came away with a different take.

The Feds coerced the states to accept an arbitrary bac level of .08 as intoxicated. It used to be .10 not too long ago. So if Barry decides it should be .05 or lower, there is already precedent. It is a slippery slope. At some point, anyone exiting a bar is guilty. If you swerve to miss a dead squirrel on the road, "here's you DUI".

 

[Andrew-Austin]

He has a chapter on "legalize drunk driving"

Uh, no.

Why doesn't he just argue for privatized roads?

 

[jmlfod87]

The idea that drunk driving should be decriminalized is a technicality. Many libertarians who advocate it also advocate private roads, in which case the road company would be setting the rules and could ban drunk driving if it wanted to.

This statement should have ended the debate IMO.

For those of you arguing "the probability of creating an accident increases" I have this to say: more black teens commit crimes than white teens. The probability of committing a crime increases with a change in skin color. According to your logic we should incarcerate all teenagers who are black for being black in order to greatly reduce crime.

If roads were privatized this would be a nonissue. However as long as roads are public it is immoral to punish those who are engaging in activities that do not amount to aggression. There are many people who drink and drive all their lives and never cause an accident. It is not drunk drivers who kill people, it is drunk drivers who kill people, who kill people.

 

[Scofield]

Except you can't punish a person for something they cannot help.

You don't have to drink and drive. Those who do made a choice to do so.
You can't help it if you're black. Those who are have no choice in the matter.

There is a difference.

What you're essentially saying is that we should be aloud to go into public streets and shoot our muskets into the air. As long as no one is hurt, what's the problem?

 

[lodge939]

Sure, if they were private, the rules can be whatever the road owner wants.

They're public though, and IMO highways spending is a decent use of my tax dollars.

Why not argue against road markings or rules?

"How dare the government decide which side of the road I drive on! How dare they limit my driving freedom with stop signs!"

 

[Truth Warrior]

Scratch a STATIST and reveal the AUTHORITARIAN "control freak" barely hidden under the surface.

 

[jmlfod87]

In a libertarian society we don't punish people who are LIKELY to commit acts of aggression, we punish those who COMMIT acts of aggression.

People who own guns are more likely to kill people than those who dont. Should we ban guns as well?

The list goes on. Punishing someone for a victimless crime is immoral, period.

 

[powerofreason]

Except you can't punish a person for something they cannot help.

You don't have to drink and drive. Those who do made a choice to do so.
You can't help it if you're black. Those who are have no choice in the matter.

There is a difference.

What you're essentially saying is that we should be aloud to go into public streets and shoot our muskets into the air. As long as no one is hurt, what's the problem?

How stupid are you? In a free society, you follow the rules set by owners of private property. If you're on a road and the road owner doesn't want you to fire weapons on his road then you can't do it. Likewise, he can ban drinking and driving. Likewise, he can ban black people from his road. There is a built in penalty in that he will gain no revenue from black people. You're just another statist idiot flailing around for reasons to control the lives of others.

 

[Truth Warrior]

In a libertarian society we don't punish people who are LIKELY to commit acts of aggression, we punish those who COMMIT acts of aggression.

People who own guns are more likely to kill people than those who dont. Should we ban guns as well?

The list goes on. Punishing someone for a victimless crime is immoral, period.

Unfortunately, we're LIGHT YEARS from a "libertarian society". Here the BARBARIANS rule.