Why the Cato/Reason Crowd Hates Ron

[Lord Xar]

Reason, imho, has been compromised, and is comprised and controlled by the very same entities that are for open borders, one world government/NAU (big government). They are like all the rest.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Reason, imho, has been compromised, and is comprised and controlled by the very same entities that are for open borders, one world government/NAU (big government). They are like all the rest.

Dean, you're making my point that such simplistic analyses and labels are counter-productive. Are we going to grow our movement or senselessly bicker until we're banished to some ideologically ever-purer backwater?

Here is a Lew Rockwell guy calling for open borders:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0410e.asp

I guess we'll be left with a table for one soon if we keep going down this road.

 

[ruggedindividualist]

>>>Dean, you're making my point that such simplistic analyses and labels are counter-productive. Are we going to grow our movement or senselessly bicker until we're banished to some ideologically ever-purer backwater?<<<<

Spoken like a true compromiser. Does Ron Paul compromise his principles? No, and that is the point. The Kochtopus got into bed with the enemy and have become a Neocon tool, a defused, sanctioned "official" Libertarian source. As such they are free to espouse un-Libertarian nonsense but have it viewed as official Libertarianism by the MSM, politicians, folks who can't tell the difference, etc. Call it "ideology" if you want, but Ron Paul promotes liberty at least as far as the original Constitution permits, and that is not "pure" libertarianism. But even that isn't statist enough for CATO, REASON, and other so-called small gov't, pro-liberty sites and sources. These so-called libertarian outfits have shown their true colors. They had an opportunity to put a man in the White House who is truly libertarian and they deliberately worked against him; they are wolves in sheeps clothing, pretenders and false prophets. "Using moderates" and compromising to "grow the movement" will get nothing but corruption of the RP revolution until it also becomes a Neocon tool. Why are you advocating that? Maybe you find that "simplistic" but the truth can be simple.

>>>Here is a Lew Rockwell guy calling for open borders:<<<

Open borders will not work in a welfare state. Bankruptcy will result. Even RP has said as much.

 

[Bradley in DC]

>>>Dean, you're making my point that such simplistic analyses and labels are counter-productive. Are we going to grow our movement or senselessly bicker until we're banished to some ideologically ever-purer backwater?<<<<

Spoken like a true compromiser. Does Ron Paul compromise his principles? No, and that is the point. The Kochtopus got into bed with the enemy and have become a Neocon tool, a defused, sanctioned "official" Libertarian source. As such they are free to espouse un-Libertarian nonsense but have it viewed as official Libertarianism by the MSM, politicians, folks who can't tell the difference, etc. Call it "ideology" if you want, but Ron Paul promotes liberty at least as far as the original Constitution permits, and that is not "pure" libertarianism. But even that isn't statist enough for CATO, REASON, and other so-called small gov't, pro-liberty sites and sources. These so-called libertarian outfits have shown their true colors. They had an opportunity to put a man in the White House who is truly libertarian and they deliberately worked against him; they are wolves in sheeps clothing, pretenders and false prophets. "Using moderates" and compromising to "grow the movement" will get nothing but corruption of the RP revolution until it also becomes a Neocon tool. Why are you advocating that? Maybe you find that "simplistic" but the truth can be simple.

>>>Here is a Lew Rockwell guy calling for open borders:<<<

Open borders will not work in a welfare state. Bankruptcy will result. Even RP has said as much.

Your arguments on confused on many levels. I argue against the simplistic analysis you offer here based on associational labels not ideas. I cite as an example an LRC contributor calling for open borders--by your level of analysis, Lew now isn't pure enough, a compromiser corrupting the movement.

I'm advocating that I want Dr. Paul to be the president of the Republic of all of us--not to use his presidential run to alienate potential allies as was the goal of some of the HQ incompetents.

 

[mdh]

Most libertarians are for open borders. The debate is over whether removing the socialist welfare state crap is a pre-requisite, and the majority of us believe it is.

Once you get rid of that and have a truly free market in place, closing down the borders becomes more of a hassle/expense than it's worth.

 

[familydog]

Dr. Paul isn't a hip libertarian like they are. He'd rather argue monetary policy and economics rather than seat belt laws and speed limits. He's so lame.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Dr. Paul isn't a hip libertarian like they are. He'd rather argue monetary policy and economics rather than seat belt laws and speed limits. He's so lame.

Yeah, we're having the same problems with Vern McKinley's race too.

 

[mdh]

Dr. Paul isn't a hip libertarian like they are. He'd rather argue monetary policy and economics rather than seat belt laws and speed limits. He's so lame.

I'm inclined to disagree with this. A lot of young people I talk to, the first thing I hear from them when I hand them a slimjim or mention Ron Paul is "oh, he's the guy who wants to legalize weed... right on, he has my vote!"

I'd say that his hard-line stances (and accompanying statements) against the federal drug war probably qualify him as "hip", if nothing else.

 

[ruggedindividualist]

>>>Your arguments on confused on many levels. <<<

It is more helpful to explain how instead of simply asserting this as if the assertion is itself proof.

>>>I argue against the simplistic analysis you offer here based on associational labels not ideas.<<<<

It doesn't matter what you call them. People who do not share true libertarian beliefs are not part of the RP revolution...period. Attempting to incorporate them to "grow the movement" will simply result in the more politically talented co-opting the collective to their own non libertarian "Libertarian" labeled agenda. We have seen this over and over in other groups and movements, from the NRA to the Catholic Church. Usually those who object to "purists" and advocate compromise (frequently to attract "moderates") are exactly those agents. There are plenty of compromised Libertarian groups out there. The RP revolution doesn't need to become another one, what's the point of that? RPs principled views are enough to attract people, once they understand those views.

>>> I cite as an example an LRC contributor calling for open borders--by your level of analysis, Lew now isn't pure enough, a compromiser corrupting the movement.<<<

Nonsense. I am for open borders. It is a consistent libertarian principle. However, it will not work in a welfare state as Ron Paul has stated. Not all LRC-ers agree on all ideas, BTW. There is a lot of debate there. As far as anti-statist purity LRC is all over CATO and REASON. I'll refrain from a snarky observation on the "level" of your "analysis".

 

[DrCap]

All the discussion about what divides us is useless. Ultimately we have a common enemy - big government at all levels, and control of our personal lives. Every dollar that is taken in taxes and every regulatory law is a freedom stolen from us.
The rift has been there for a very long time, but it really should remain an ACADEMIC rift, not a political rift. Political change will never come if a bunch of academics are always arguing about the details of the best way to privatize roads- it's just that it's no fun to argue about what people agree about so these rifts have grown. When I ran the libertarian organization in college we'd have Austrian/Friedman-Chicago school/IHS speakers all arguing about academic details. While everyone agreed on 98% of how to change the system, we'd spend hours in discussions about the 2% difference.
This is not a way to get politcal consensus - so we get no political change instead.
I say we need a relatively big tent to actually create true change. We will never see change otherwise.

(This statement in no way should be construed as a defense of Cato's lack of effort for RP- given their mission they should be ashamed of not openly supporting him - but Cato also should be welcome to join the big tent party if they so choose).

 

[Highstreet]

I support utilizing moderates but we shouldn't ever put them in positions of power.

Paul is the only Moderate.

We need to help redefine Moderation and Sensible Policies as the only chance this country has left.

We can't leave it to the Fringe elements like McCain, Bush, Obama, and Clinton. If we don't get some Moderates back in positions of power, then we can kiss our great Republic goodbye.

 

[Highstreet]

All the discussion about what divides us is useless. Ultimately we have a common enemy - big government at all levels, and control of our personal lives. Every dollar that is taken in taxes and every regulatory law is a freedom stolen from us.
The rift has been there for a very long time, but it really should remain an ACADEMIC rift, not a political rift. Political change will never come if a bunch of academics are always arguing about the details of the best way to privatize roads- it's just that it's no fun to argue about what people agree about so these rifts have grown. When I ran the libertarian organization in college we'd have Austrian/Friedman-Chicago school/IHS speakers all arguing about academic details. While everyone agreed on 98% of how to change the system, we'd spend hours in discussions about the 2% difference.
This is not a way to get politcal consensus - so we get no political change instead.
I say we need a relatively big tent to actually create true change. We will never see change otherwise.

(This statement in no way should be construed as a defense of Cato's lack of effort for RP- given their mission they should be ashamed of not openly supporting him - but Cato also should be welcome to join the big tent party if they so choose).

+1

 

[Hook]

I never understood why the players in this saga couldn't just agree to disagree on some fringe areas, and understand that they have 90% agreement on everything else.

Just because I disagree with some of my friends on monitary policy doesn't mean we need to be mortal enemies for 30 years.

Of course, when Cato starts supporting pre-emptive wars and such, there is obviously a problem.

So what is the "threshold of purity" before we jettison organizations as not representing our philosophy?

 

[revolutionary8]

I've found that the individuals who take part in Cato, who are each able to speak only for themselves, have some pretty varied views. Some of them sound pretty libertarian, while others sound downright neocon. There's definitly a pro-war contingent at Cato, for example. A lot of people are surprised, I think, as this didn't exist there two decades ago. Cato is a mixed bag.

As far as Reason mag goes, I'm not sure what has created the perception that they have any ill will towards Dr. Paul. I've spent some time talking to a few of their more prolific writers and never gotten that impression.

hello mdh,
to continue our conversation from the other thread, where I mentioned Eric Dondoero LOL-

Then there are the freaks. I don't use that word pejoratively. There is nothing too scary about "Lisa Marie" (no last name, thanks), who tells me that Paul is an "angel" who understands the threat posed by the Bilderbergs. Or Terry Cummings, a musician who tells me to go to BlackBoxVoting.org to see how these elections might be rigged. "There's supposed to a special tape on those voting machines," he says, "but anyone can rip the tape off and tamper with them. Watch the videos!" If they were the only people who showed up on Paul's Pennsylvania jaunt, it would be a problem. But they're only the leading edge of his fan base. They clarify why Paul is doing this and why he can still draw crowds. He is a counterculture figure now, and he doesn't know what to do about it. He knows only that he wants to speak on some campuses and bask in the applause.

http://reason.com/news/show/125959.html
Since you speak with some of these people, will you pass on a few words for me?
Please tell that David Weigel freak he can kiss my freakish ass.
This is one of the (several) reasons people "get the idea" that they are pwned/hate Ron Paul, as we all seem to understand guerilla attacks and counter intel.
And please do not get me started on the bloody letters.
That said-

brunner wrote:

I do, however, agree with the part about stopping the conflict where it is instead of carrying it on with new generations.
From my blog:
And to other young libertarians:
Take note of this ridiculous war and what it’s costing us, as libertarians. Remember that someday we will be the leaders of this movement and that it will be up to us to ally and accomplish things without letting past disputes get in the way. Don’t fall into the trap of collective thinking by hating various libertarians because of the organizations they work for or because of who they were taught by. Analyze each person based on his or her individual views, find common ground, and work to promote freedom. Let ours be the generation of libertarians, and not of ancient rifts that prevent us from doing something great.

I agree, the Libertarians need to stand their ground.
Weigle will get his wiggle one of these days.

 

[revolutionary8]

"Lisa Marie"-

she was a real "freak" for not giving that Weigle her last name, and calling RP an angel, or maybe she doesn't even exist, and no, the elections are not rigged, and there is no such thing as "the Bilderberg Group".
LMAO.
Bask in the sunshine Ron Paul- you attract very intelligent people- unfortunately they are followed by "journalists". lol

In the real world, the right thing never happens in the right place and the right time. It is the job of journalists and historians to make it appear that it has. ~Mark Twain

 

[Misesian]

I wish it were just a pissing match, but characterizing the situation in that way completely ignores what has happened.

The reality is that when Rothbard co-founded CATO, the meaning of "libertarian" included "anti-war", "anti-Fed" and "anti-state".

Thanks to the Kochtopus, this is no longer true. For many years now, CATO has been advocating a state-friendly neoconservative abortion of an ideology while continuing to call themselves libertarian. Thanks to them, it's now fashionable to call yourself a libertarian while advocating war, a federal reserve, certain taxes, school vouchers, and various other government interventions.

My beef with CATO has nothing to do with personal rifts, but the fact that they've destroyed the word libertarian.

kochtopus. I see somebody read that LRC article yesterday on the STATO Institute's disdain for Rothbard

In response to Bradley where do you see any "pissing matches" from the Mises Institute? I pretty much believe they ALL support free market banking if they are anarcho-capitalists but Rothbard clearly points out that in a free market system the de facto standard tends to become gold. They call it the STATO Institute for a reason but it might be a good bridge to get neocons over from keynesianism over to becoming an austrian.

 

[joemiller]

I hit your blog

Stay away from the Beltway, boys. It has a way of turning idealism into utilitarianism, then statism.

The Cato Institute is a ward of the state.

Good blogging, DM.

average joe

 

[ruggedindividualist]

Another opinion on "compromise"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/ruwart3.html

 

[Truth Warrior]

Ron's success would threaten the Cato/Reason cash flow.

 

[EotS]

Good blogging, DM.

average joe

ha! Thanks Joe. I'm assuming you read my post on fiat money, where I used the term "average Joe."

And nice post by ruggedindividualist:

We have seen this over and over in other groups and movements, from the NRA to the Catholic Church. Usually those who object to "purists" and advocate compromise (frequently to attract "moderates") are exactly those agents. There are plenty of compromised Libertarian groups out there. The RP revolution doesn't need to become another one,

I look across the "libertarian" spectrum and I see a lot of people co-opting the term. Hell, you've got Glenn Beck calling himself a libertarian, the socialist Mike Gravel calling himself a libertarian...

Count me out. Look what was done to the term "liberal." It is the methodology of statists and socialists to seize on a term given to a movement, water it down into another brand of statism, and drain the movement of energy.