A suprising and excellent piece. I wanted to make sure no one missed it...
by Tom Mullen
I was in Jacksonville last Friday for an event called “Ron Paul on the River.” The Republican presidential candidate was supposed to speak at a luncheon after appearing at another area event in the morning, but had to cancel at the last minute due to votes on Libya in the House scheduled on short notice. While it was disappointing that the congressman would not appear, the keynote speaker that appeared in his place was well worth the trip.
Doug Wead is a self-confessed former member of the Establishment. In addition to being a best-selling author and world-renowned speaker, Wead has worked as a special advisor to President George H.W. Bush and on the campaign of George W. Bush. According to Wikipedia, Time magazine called Wead “an insider in the Bush family orbit.”
A good portion of Wead’s speech in Jacksonville focused on issues on which he had formerly disagreed with Paul. At one point, he made the startling statement, “but now I agree with him on everything.” He encouraged Paul supporters to persevere through the difficulties of supporting an anti-Establishment candidate and to remember that “logic and the truth are on your side.”
It is not fashionable to admit that you agree with anyone “on everything.” To make that admission is to invite accusations of belonging to a personality cult whose members blindly follow their leader no matter what position he takes. Indeed, this criticism is leveled at Paul’s grassroots supporters, who are called “Paulites” by detractors, implying that they have a pseudo-religious devotion to Paul rather than informed positions on the issues.
In modern America political thinking, where only the results of political action are considered rather than the rights of the parties involved, it is not considered reasonable to agree with anyone 100% of the time. For someone like Wead, whose living depends upon his credibility as an expert on those things he writes and speaks about, there is a certain amount of risk in making this statement. Yet he did it in Jacksonville without hesitation, emphasizing the words “on everything” to ensure that no one missed the point.
This immediately struck me, because it was the second time in as many weeks that I had heard a statement like this from someone who had something to lose by saying it. Appearing on The O’Reilly Factor, John Stossel answered O’Reilly’s assertion that Ron Paul hadn’t won the New Hampshire debate by saying, “But he’s right about everything and you’re wrong.” O’Reilly retorted, “Everything?” Stossel repeated, “Everything.” When O’Reilly pressed yet again with the same question, Stossel finally backed up to “Just about everything.”
Stossel is a television journalist, so credibility is arguably even more important to his living than it is to Wead’s. That is not all the two have in common. Stossel also admits that he regrets much of the first 20 years of his career when he attacked the free enterprise system and championed increased government regulation over business. Like Wead, Stossel was a member of the Establishment, albeit from the other side of its aisle. Now, despite the risk to his credibility, he says that Ron Paul is right about everything.
So is this some sort of quasi-religious devotion? Are Paul’s followers simply caught up in a mass hysteria over someone who is likeable and has demonstrated his integrity for so long that they abandon their reason to avoid critical examination of his positions? Isn’t it impossible for an intelligent person to agree with someone on everything?....[continue reading...now it gets really good]
I agree with Paul on almost everything. He is the only politician who says "educate yourself."
I think the establixhment is more scared of someone gaininng popularity by calling all of the mainstream candidates hacks. It is alos scary for TPTB because he is able to pull voters from both sides of the isle because both sides have been fully alienated by their core candidates.
And anyone from the Bush camp who says Paul is right on 'everything' must be confirming the CFR/TC connections to rule the political / banking system and all of the world's drugs and natural resources.
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
Everything but evolution.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-on-c-span-in-depth-interview-the-road-to-the-white-house.html
Pretty good interview
I will vote for him if given the change. I also donated to his campaign just yesterday.
Although I don’t necessarily agree with him on everything, he is the only capitalist I know.
The rest are a bunch of socialist, they just disagree on what so suck on.
Corporatism is using state means to enhance market share and profitability of a few favored firms, at the expense of the citizen.
The Paul 2012 campaign facebook page has Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner maked as "like", I can't imagine that he isn't at least sympathetic to the an-cap position, if not a "closeted" ancap himself. What other politician would make those associations public? If he gets the nomination, I'd be estatic.
It's always good to be wary about getting too enthusiastic for a politician, just look at how the fanatic Obama supporters got burned. But Paul's been so consistent and principled over the years, I'm more optimistic. Due to the fact that the system is so entrenched, his administration might not get a whole lot done, but I doubt I'd be dissapointed with the man himself. Most of his flubs have been over moral issues (abortion, same-sex marriage) or argueably tenable positions (anti-immigration policy due to welfare).
He's admitted he's is a voluntarist. [1] [2]
Obama was principled. I agree that his supporters got burnt but they got burnt because they didn't know anything about the voting record of the candidate that they supported.
No2statism:Obama was principled.
what do you mean by this?
I love Dr. Paul but if the libertarian movement is ever going to have a chance politically, it needs an dedicated army of ruthless sociopathic liars running for various offices from top to bottom.
We are the soldiers for righteousnessAnd we are not sent here by the politicians you drink with - L. Dube, rip
No, Ron Paul and his son for that matter have terrible positions on immigration and operating the USA borders.
Bogart:No, Ron Paul and his son for that matter have terrible positions on immigration and operating the USA borders.
Care to articulate?
"I agree with Paul on almost everything. He is the only politician who says "educate yourself."
Too bad many go to Alex Jones for an education. I have friends that have totally lost their minds because of that dude and I'm the one who turned them on to Ron Paul. It really bothers me too because they really think nobody can be trusted other than conspiracy theorists.
I'm still a RP supporter though.
Sure, here are the high points. There is more detail on his web site:
1. RP wants to secure the borders. How, there are thousands of miles of land much less coastline to secure. It is near impossible to keep people out who want to be here and do not want to do the expensive paperwork. Who will pay for this security? Surely he wants to use any savings from ending the war machine deployed abroad and not just deploy those assets on the border? Well who will then secure it?
2. RP does not want to grant anyone amnesty. Well what is the plan to deal with the millions of folks here without proper documentation?
3. RP wants to end welfare for illegal immigrants. How about just ending welfare and solving the issue?
4. RP wants to enforce visa rules. Again is RP for limited government or not. Subjecting immigrants of both legal and illegal status to the ICE is hardly pro-limited government.
I agree with Bogart, but there is hardly anyone that I agree 100% with... But you have to remember, he is a conservative and these are very conservative views. I know he might have called himself a voluntaryist and has stated that he advocates voluntary governnment, but he really only says that on interviews and shows where most of the audience are some type of radical minarchist or anarcho-cap. When he is on any mainstream channel, he, generally, has a more conservative approach.
Edit:
now, do i think he is sympathetic to an-cap, of course he is. He has even hired people like Rockwell and Block as advisors. Does he show it to the mainstream? Kinda, he does mention Rothbard sometimes and Spooner but he never directly says he is in support of it in the mainstream.
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
I am not anti-RP. He is the only game in town. He seems to be the only person who is for ending the war on drugs and dismantling the entire war machine.
I understand that he is a Texas politician and there is so much negative propaganda against immigrants and especially those with out government permission that to get elected he has to advocate their views on issues.
Is there a YouTube with Ron Paul expressing semi-anarchist ideas or talking to anarcho-capitalists?
I totally understand Bogart. you and I have very similar views about Ron Paul.
@Eugene
the links John James posted for starters
Can you be specific please?
John James: He's admitted he's is a voluntarist. [1] [2]
Bogart: 1. RP wants to secure the borders. How, there are thousands of miles of land much less coastline to secure. It is near impossible to keep people out who want to be here and do not want to do the expensive paperwork. Who will pay for this security? Surely he wants to use any savings from ending the war machine deployed abroad and not just deploy those assets on the border? Well who will then secure it? 2. RP does not want to grant anyone amnesty. Well what is the plan to deal with the millions of folks here without proper documentation? 3. RP wants to end welfare for illegal immigrants. How about just ending welfare and solving the issue? 4. RP wants to enforce visa rules. Again is RP for limited government or not. Subjecting immigrants of both legal and illegal status to the ICE is hardly pro-limited government.
1) It's near impossible to stop people who want to rape women and children. Is that an argument for not making an effort to do so? And I guarantee you it wouldn't take much to do a lot better than what is currently being done.
2) What does this even mean? Is there some kind of deadline? Something has to be "done" to every single illegal alien by a certain time and we can't catch and deport them all so the only option is to just make them citizens? This isn't even a coherent argument. Again, what is the plan to deal with the millions of other people who have committed a crime?
3) You think he's not in favor of ending welfare? Maybe you should have read his site more carefully: "Abolish the Welfare State – Taxpayers cannot continue to pay the high costs to sustain this powerful incentive for illegal immigration. As Milton Friedman famously said, you can’t have open borders and a welfare state."
4) Which visa rules? He goes off on a syndicalist tangent in the middle, but I think this article hits the nail on the head in much of the rest of it...especially the beginning.
And finally, what exactly is your argument here? You can't be libertarian unless you're "open borders, no matter what"? And more importantly, what exactly are you in favor of? What is your alternative?
I think RP's goal is a an-cap society, but to reach this goal you need to make a lot of small steps, securing the border is one such step. The process has to be gradual, for example first you need to eliminate welfare and have a better definition of property rights, only then can you consider opening borders. So RP is just doing what he thinks is best now for this long term process.
Good question. He was always a principled statist; he was always principled for war and against civil liberties. His far left supporters screwed themsefves by voting for a man whose voting record they didn't check.
Obama is a pricnipled statist, just as Dr. Paul is a principled paleolibertarian.
No2statism: Good question. He was always a principled statist; he was always principled for war and against civil liberties. His far left supporters screwed themsefves by voting for a man whose voting record they didn't check. Obama is a pricnipled statist, just as Dr. Paul is a principled paleolibertarian.
Huh? Did you even listen to the guy before he was President? He was "the peace candidate". He was the guy "opposed from the start." (Note that second video is on his official 2008 campaign channel). He was "the transparent government" candidate. He was the "eliminate wasteful programs" and "cut deficit" candidate.
And then if you want to get to his voting record, I'm not exactly sure how you can make a claim either way with his record of "present." Your response here is about what I figured it would be. I'm not sure you really had an actual assessment so much as you were just trying to be cute.
This is not a principled individual, statist or otherwise.
Good opportunity for a bump...
The Deal with Jack Hunter: Is Ron Paul Right About Everything?
@Eugene, I used to follow at least 99% of all RP content I could find. He's an outspoken anarchist by other names, and yet he's an outspoken statist. He's said he thinks government should be as decentralized and local as possible, to the point of there being "6 billion governments." But then he says we need to return to the constitution for the sake of limited government. He's said several times he's a voluntaryist and is for free markets. Rothbard wrote the intro to Paul's gold book, and Ron Paul has spoken highly of Rothbard and recommended him by name when given the opportunity at least once that I remember distinctly.
But at the same time he's a politician, and that has rubbed off on his son, whom appears fairly corrupt to me (not even close to anarchist in rhetoric and probably not in voting either).
Ultimately, I think Ron Paul is an epic hero, but nobody's perfect and hindsight is 20/20 and in my opinion if he doesn't pull some anarchist stuff in a huge way then he has wasted a chance that only rare legends get in history. That doesn't mean he's a failure by any means, but he knows the truth and if you listen to him he's completely selling out like a preacher, he advocates strongly for one of the purest evils imaginable: limited constitutional government.
This has been my view since I started arguing it on Ron Paul's own C4L forums years ago. It must have been at least that long ago when he said the 6 billion governments thing.
There's a simple explanation for this tendency of Paul supporters to "agree with Paul on everything." Namely, the fact that Paul's beliefs are not an ad hoc amalgamation of random positions (like virtually all other politicians) but rather a coherent system of thought. Once you accept the basic premises of libertarianism, the rest follows. Do I agree with Paul on everything? No, almost certainly not. I'd wager we have different tastes in food, art, women, et al. But on politics, yes, I do in fact agree with Paul on everything (to my knowledge).
Agreement Politically or personally? *new to this forum*
To my understanding since he 'represents' a constitutional government, it's the closest thing this country has to take back liberty (economically especially).
I bought his book "Liberty Defined" and only disagree with him on the point of abortion ("federal involvement increased the rates; a woman that had an abortion once would have it over and over again", and I don't see the effects of having state laws defining it either on how they would handle punishments or if they would go as far as monitoring women from point of conception. I'm from VA, so we almost had to go through the 'trans-vaginal' debacle so that might have placed a smear on any GOPers. I understand his view on "states' rights" but this day and age it's a bit difficult to communicate to others who would fear "Any one of the 50 states turn theocracy" on personal issues like gay-marriage and/or abortion [majority voting to ban it etc while proclaiming those as 'civil rights'].
EDIT: Well even if it is a limited government (not like the Constitution stopped or maybe condoned growth of the state), the message of a voluntary society would not really reach the masses (since the people feel there should be a 'need' for the state to keep things from going chaotic etc).
if you listen to him he's completely selling out like a preacher, he advocates strongly for one of the purest evils imaginable: limited constitutional government.
Sigh....
One of the purest evils imaginable? Really? I'm damn sick of anarcho-capitalists who pretend as if a government within the confines of our Constitution is more or less in the same category as Soviet Russia - as if one State is always more or less as bad as another. What utter rubbish. What damn fools you are!
And assuming that Paul is an anarcho-capitalist, he's not "selling out," he's working toward his goal. I have nothing but contempt for those of you who attack those who try to move the dial toward freedom. There is no "compromise" or "selling out" in working gradually toward a goal. The alternative strategy, hoping for the mystical dissolution of the State, is only fit for children and useful idiots.
I don't know which are worse, the beltway "libertarians" who betray the cause for scraps from the establishment's table, or the worthless, do-nothing quietists within the ranks of the anarcho-capitalists. I'd rather be around morons who don't know the truth than around cunts who know the truth and won't do anything about it.
he's a politician, and that has rubbed off on his son, whom appears fairly corrupt to me
Agreed.
The Paul's don't talk about politics because Rand is neocon lite. He'll stop before Graham and McCain on war with Russia, but he'll bully the third world countries with all of the other cool kids. Cashing in on his father's dignity will be a great gesture of affection towards TPTB.
but he knows the truth and if you listen to him he's completely selling out like a preacher
I think Ron Paul acts this way because he has realized that Tocqueville was right (this is a direct quote) "The public banhammer is far more of a burden than the law." ie. public opinion is what matters. Therefore, I suspect that Paul has reached a rhetorical comprimise. Anarchy (Voluntarism, w/e) will not fly with the public and Paul found a reasonable medium with the Constitution. After all, who can argue with that appeal to authority? We all know that if the Constitution were adhered to the government would be much smaller. Paul, as any reasonable person would, has taken the first logical step which is to reduce the government down to it's original level. Once that is done we can worry about the '6 billion governments' aspect with all of its psychological ramifications.
The Libertarians, Bob Barr and Gary Johnson, seem to be the kind of beltway Libertarians that will lick the boot of the Establishment when offered a high end prostitute. Both Gary and Bob will promote warfare when the time comes.
The do nothings better be writing or something. I've noticed in my poly sci classes that the libertarian theory of bureaucracy is almost ignored. Anthropologists are the ones who investigate what illegal things states do. Central banking implications are sheared out of economics and banking in school. There are many places where we could investigate.
Academics, writers, know it alls, all of us should be attempting to spread the word that the State is and has always been and will always be a corrupt institution. It's not like there aren't "respectable" methods of doing this.
Personally, the truly outspoken people, I think, seem to drive people away. We need to play the game of rhetoric and destabilize the intellectual community. What word do 'they' use..."infiltrate"? Yes, we need to infiltrate more than local GOP boards.
Just as a reminder.
A reminder of what? That you are here?
We get it.
Aristophanes:A reminder of what?
Of the evidence that points to Ron Paul being a voluntarist (as suggested by the title of the thread that is linked to, as well as the title of the video in the post.)
How does "
translate to
??
as suggested by the title of the thread that is linked to
The thread covers why people stand so firmly behind Ron Paul. The reasoning elaborated on seems to indicate the congruence of libertarian logic from issue to issue, then moves to the potency of language (selling out) and effectiveness of rhetoric.
Aristophanes:How does "Can Ron Paul Really Be Right About Everything?" translate to "evidence that points to Ron Paul being a voluntarist" ??
"evidence that points to Ron Paul being a voluntarist"
I didn't say it did.
as suggested by the title of the thread that is linked toThe thread covers why people stand so firmly behind Ron Paul. The reasoning elaborated on seems to indicate the congruence of libertarian logic from issue to issue, then moves to the potency of language (selling out) and effectiveness of rhetoric.
The thread that is linked to in the post you're so concerned about is entirely focused on the subject of Ron Paul being a voluntarist...something that was brought into question in this thread.
It appears as though you didn't realize the words "Just as a reminder." are a hyperlink, and you don't understand the difference between "thread" and "article".
Minarchist:One of the purest evils imaginable? Really?...as if one State is always more or less as bad as another.
Minarchist:I'm damn sick of anarcho-capitalists who pretend as if a government within the confines of our Constitution is more or less in the same category as Soviet Russia...as if one State is always more or less as bad as another.
Minarchist:What utter rubbish. What damn fools you are!
Minarchist:I have nothing but contempt for those of you who attack those who try to move the dial toward freedom.
Minarchist:There is no "compromise" or "selling out" in working gradually toward a goal.
My point is that limited government is evil. So selling it is, as a matter of fact, advocating an evil, and government is surely the purest evil. Any crime you can commit, the government can (does) commit better.
Minarchist:The alternative strategy, hoping for the mystical dissolution of the State, is only fit for children and useful idiots.
Granted, he may have good intentions. But then again, you know what they say the road to hell is paved with.
Minarchist:I'd rather be around morons who don't know the truth than around cunts who know the truth and won't do anything about it.
Anyways, you know what I think is a better solution for the cause of liberty? Not selling out. I wouldn't mind if RP told people that liberty is amazing and blah blah blah, but that limited government is the most viable means to that end. But he doesn't, he just sells limited government. We need to just be uncompromising anarchists. Molyneux is a great, outstandingly charismatic counterexample to someone who said hardcore anarchists turn people off. We need to be more like Molyneux in the sense of being successful anarchists. It's why people take mormons seriously. Mormons and minarchists are a dime a dozen. It's time to put anarchists on the map.
This thread, that thread w/e blah semantics.
You stay classy with that condescension, JJ! You posted that link to include yourself. If you need a psychotherapy session we can have one. sociopathic? narcissistic? That constant need to be the center of attention (especially on the internet) is a deep seated insecurity issue. Putting people down on the internet in a nonstop everyday fashion is tell tale a sign of psychosis that we can deal with.
=D
My point is that limited government is evil. So selling it is, as a matter of fact, advocating an evil, and government is surely the purest evil. Any crime you can commit, the government can (does) commit better. Minarchist: The alternative strategy, hoping for the mystical dissolution of the State, is only fit for children and useful idiots. False dichotomy. Also, I think the anti strategy is to advocate for evil as the end. Notice, Ron Paul does not advocate for statism as a means to the end of liberty, but he advocates for the end statism as liberty. It's a perfect fraud. Granted, he may have good intentions. But then again, you know what they say the road to hell is paved with.
Minarchist: The alternative strategy, hoping for the mystical dissolution of the State, is only fit for children and useful idiots.
False dichotomy. Also, I think the anti strategy is to advocate for evil as the end. Notice, Ron Paul does not advocate for statism as a means to the end of liberty, but he advocates for the end statism as liberty. It's a perfect fraud.
Dude, do you know what "rhetoric" entails? It is a manipulation of the concepts behind symbols (letters and words). Paul using the terms "constitutional government" and "individual liberty" are what is SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE.
How many people do you know that can swallow the pill of anarchism? Do you think people would take Paul seriously, in todays vernacular with todays lexicon, if he walked around saying, "Well shit, the State is evil as all hell?" "We should push the red button and watch the economy collapse into chaos since people are so dependent on the system."
For an example...when people ask Paul what to do about the economy...what does he say?
He says, "Well, we need to liquidate the debt that is out there." This is something people can swallow.
If Paul was to walk around, jovially saying, "Well, we should let those big banks collapse. Sure everyone who is involved with those banks will be ruined, but that is the free market; anarchy!" Do you think people would even listen? It might be the truth, but people don't want to hear the truth, they want (=D the truth! =P).
It is people like you that insist on rhetorical honesty that doom us in politics. Plato hated rhetoric for how it is used and I agree, but unfortunately, just as Molyneux says, 'are you gonna shoot for the original goal if everyone else will undermine your honesty?'
The answer is no. We cannot march around with black flags screaming at people while expecting them to listen to us. No matter how right we are.
Ron Paul does not advocate for statism as a means to the end of liberty, but he advocates for the end statism as liberty. It's a perfect fraud."
This kind of reasoning is what dooms you. If you see Paul promoting "statism as liberty" then you are in fact "hoping for the mystical dissolution of the State." There isn't any political way to achieve the end without a pragmatic use of politics. We either look at that non existent red button and scream at people to be anarchists or we pragmatically use the state to attack the states own power centers.
Think if an ancap sneaked into the white house somehow. The damage he could do simply be repealing former Executive Orders is immense. But people like you will accuse him of abusing power....so where are we? We are back to that nonexistent red button.
This is similar to JJ insulting everyone in a vain attempt to show his eDominance on a forum. This kind of behavior will turn people off to listening. Failure to see this and rectify behavior will doom the project.
Aristophanes:This thread, that thread w/e blah semantics.
Yeah, why would anyone bother with little details like what thread is even being mentioned. All the same thing.
You stay classy with that condescension, JJ!
Seriously? "One would think you'd say something different". Apparently that's my line. I guess "you lack creativity".
You posted that link to include yourself.
[1], [2]