An article in The American Thinker talks about how Ron Paul will not renounce neo-*** and other racists who are contributing money to his campaign.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
The article mentions that Medved has made an open letter calling for Ron Paul to speak out against racists and 9/11 conspiracy people but so far he hasn't responded. I recently registered Republican so I can vote for Paul in the primaries but if he doesn't distance himself from these types of people I might just sit the election out.
What do you guys think?
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Why should a political candidate denounce someone for their beliefs? Even neo-*** have a right to their opinions, as long as their actions don't hurt anyone. You'd let a candidate's refusal to denounce someone solely for their beliefs prevent you from putting action to your "classically liberal" words?
Solid_Choke:What do you guys think?
Here's what the Communciations Director of his campaign had to say:
Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money.
Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTJmOWM2ZGQzNzAzOTQwYWJlMDg4YjJiMjE4MWRlZTY
Seems pretty clear to me. If you're willing to sit out the election because a very small number of people as savory as moldy cheese are flocking to Ron Paul, then why bother supporting him in the first place? As they say, there's one in every bunch, and Congressman Paul's campaign is no exception.
un_gitano_perdido:Why should a political candidate denounce someone for their beliefs? Even neo-*** have a right to their opinions, as long as their actions don't hurt anyone. You'd let a candidate's refusal to denounce someone solely for their beliefs prevent you from putting action to your "classically liberal" words?
I don't mean denounce those people, I mean distance himself from their ideas. Shouldn't he make it clear that he dissapproves of racism and crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories if he does? I by no means want the law to be used against anyone because of their ideas, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out ideas for what they are: irrational collectivist craziness.
Even racists have rights. Shame on you for denying them.
Ron Paul fights for all of us.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger:Even racists have rights. Shame on you for denying them.Ron Paul fights for all of us.
I never said that racists don't have rights. Everyone has the same rights. I said that if Ron Paul isn't a racist he should say so. Is there anything about that you don't agree with? Also I wouldn't vote for someone who believes that 9/11 was carried out by the Bush Administration. Some supporters of Ron Paul believe just that. Shouldn't Ron Paul make clear what he believes about these issues?
Solid_Choke:I mean distance himself from their ideas. Shouldn't he make it clear that he dissapproves of racism and crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories if he does?
I've seen him on TV saying he doesn't have anything to do with the 911 troothers. As for the racism charge, it's usually best not to respond to those.
Solid_Choke:Some supporters of Ron Paul believe just that. Shouldn't Ron Paul make clear what he believes about these issues?
What supporters believe doesn't equal what Ron Paul believes.
Your line of reasoning is quite compelling though, I've decided I'm not going to vote for any politician who doesn't denounce the Easter Bunny.
Listen to what Ron Paul has to say. Can there be any doubt in your mind that this is a good, honest decent man whose views are diametrically opposed to these neo-*** extremists? Ron Paul has spent most of his adult life esposuing the virtues of freedom, tolerance and non-coercion. He has frequently denounced racism.
So, why doesn't he specifically denounce these groups and try to distance himself from them? Well, the obvious answer is that if you know what Ron Paul stands for, it's completely unnecessary. But I think there might be more to it than that. When members of these extremists groups first hear Ron Paul's message of freedom, they mistakenly believe that a Ron Paul presidency will give them the poltical means to advance their agenda, not realizing that Ron Paul is in fact the last person in the world who would allow the presidency to be used in that manner. They fail to understand that the freedom they have under the Constitution to express whatever crazy intolerant views they may have, does not give them the freedom to impose those views on others. Their views are logically inconsistent, and their understanding of Ron Paul's message, and what Ron Paul would do as president, is completely backwards, But here's the beauty of the Ron Paul campaign: No matter how stupid, bigoted and intolerant you might be, you are still free to support him if you want, but the more you hang around Ron Paul, the more you listen to his message, his logic and his rational arguments, the less stupid, bigoted and intolerant you will become. That's the power of Ron Paul.
You have misunderstood my argument. I am not saying his supporters determine his ideology, simply that if he is called out by prominent public figures and accused of something he should respond or else he looks like he is guilty. If someone accused me of being a racist or 9/11 troother because they gave me money I would respond and set the record straight. Is this unreasonable to expect?
What's so special about racism and conspiracy theories that they have to be treated seperately from all other kooky ideas? Or would you want a candidate explicitly to "distance" himself from all kooky contributors?
One thing to keep in mind, is that if Ron Paul is put in a position to speak out when every "prominant" person calls him out on something. He would be caught up in playing the back and forth game and never get anything accomplished. And if you have been following Ron for any period of time you will know, and these prominant people who call him out will know what his positions are. They just need to do a little research.
Thank you
Ed Brotherton
Solid_Choke: An article in The American Thinker talks about how Ron Paul will not renounce neo-*** and other racists who are contributing money to his campaign. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html The article mentions that Medved has made an open letter calling for Ron Paul to speak out against racists and 9/11 conspiracy people but so far he hasn't responded. I recently registered Republican so I can vote for Paul in the primaries but if he doesn't distance himself from these types of people I might just sit the election out. What do you guys think?
If it were my campaign,I'd give the money back and denounce the guys organization. But maybe I'd be doing the wrong thing. If I take the money, I have financially weakened the racist, whose views are diametrically opposed to mine, and perhaps I may win an election because of it, which will bring anti-racist views into government and prominence. I have heard Dr. Paul state his views at least three times in public that racism is a form of collectivist thinking, in complete opposition to Libertarian individualism. If the other candidates return these donations, I believe it is completely for show. Dr. Paul is probably the only candidate who could take such donations, and argue a position that would make me think what he did was not invalid from his perspective. Also, it's his campaign, not mine.
The other issue is why does the other side not vigorously repudiate its racists and their donations. I have never heard the leading candidates of the Democratic party demand that Farrakhan, Sharpton, and Carter, who has accepted about a million dollars from a Saudi racist who has published virulently anti-Semitic literature, be removed from the Democratic Party. When critics, like Alan Dershowitz, pointed this out and some demanded Carter return the money, Carter refused to give it back. I haven't heard any Democrats denounce him at length on public television for this. Or Sharpton or Farrakhan. Do you think that's more moral that Dr. Paul's position?
So the sheep said...
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
I think no matter who supports Ron Paul, it shows that we all want the same thing, freedom and liberty. We already know that this is a man who can't get bought. He's not going to change his principles because of certain donations that are voluntary to his message.
And if you watch Zeitgeist - The Movie: The Federal Reserve (5 parts but fairly short) on youtube, you may change your mind about asking Ron Paul to denounce the 911 conspiracy people. You see, it's never been proven either way, except more investigation of facts has been done on the part of others than by the 911 Commission. If you are open-minded, and if you dare, check it out. History proves that governments have been using "false flag" operations for about 100 years so it wouldn't be the first time.
Ron Paul stands for the Constitution, and so all of us get a chance to retain our freedoms. All American's deserve that. Don't you think?
Solid_Choke:I guess I just hold Dr. Paul to a higher moral standard than any of the Democrats who I know are simply rent-seeking statists. I noticed that he added a section about racism on his website which is helpful but I think a public response to the open letter would be much better even if he didn't give the money back.
I would add two more points. I read in two places, and the americanthinker might be one, accusations of him making statements against the "Jewish" lobby. I have never seen such statements, only statements critical of the pro-Isreal lobby. I wrote to one site that made that statement and specifically asked for citations so I could check it. My comment was not responded to by the author. I also read a criticism that his weekly congressional column was routinely reproduced by a racist paper, but I thought, "That's in the public record so they're entitled to reproduce it." I then read this very rebut in a defence of Dr. Paul. These two points make me think that the americanthinker piece is an attempt by some Democratic campaign (or possibly Republican) to malign Dr. Paul by making him seem soft on racism, despite my hearing him denounce it, and it's being totally in contradiction to praxeological and anti-collectivist theory which he has espoused for decades.
The biggest threat to minorities in America is the overthrow of the Bill of Rights and the collapse of the dollar that will lead to economic chaos.
It never ceases to amaze and comfound me that people still want to blame and believe 1 the obvious 2 those sources controlled by the Internationalists Bankers.
Inquisitor:Do all the other candidates return funds originating from suspect sources? I doubt it. Probably because these sources are either low profile. There seems to be a sort of witch hunt going on with Paul.
Actually, they do. And rather quickly. Suspect sources constitute such a minor part of most campaign's donations (especially with the new finance laws, since its nigh-impossible to screen so many donors), that its never worth it to keep the donation, even if the campaign doesn't think the press will find out about it. Its just not worth the risk. If the press does find out before the campaign, the campaign generally returns the money.
I'm not exactly sure why its such a good thing to make scumbags richer than they'd otherwise be, but of course politics is all about image.
Grant:politics is all about image.
My own issues with Ron Paul do not have to do with his supporters (although libertarian criticism of Ron Paul apparently has become a grand heresy, and the paleocons bug me), but with some of his own positions and the mere fact that he is working inside of political power. Indeed, Ron Paul has not really changed his positions over the past 30 years. Yet I disagree with some of those positions. I disagree with constitutionalism, anti-immigration (I don't make a legal/illegal distinction, I find it disingenuous) and pro-life sentiments. And I disagree with voting as a means towards reducing political power. I am disturbed when I see life-long anarchists enthusiastically throwing money at a politician and involving themselves in the political process.
Before anyone attacks me as misrepresenting him, I am aware that he generally takes a state's rights position on abortion, which is indeed preferable to a federal approach. Yet I do not believe I am seeing illusions when I see him introducing and co-sponsoring federal legislation defining life as beginning at conception. I am aware that he rhetorically says we should get rid of the welfare incentives to solve the immigration debacle, yet it is plain and clear that since that isn't currently being done, he is willing to support measures such as federal border fences and he is willing to enforce currently existing immigration laws and quotas, if not strengthen them. I find these things disturbing. I do not go for "lesser evils".
I think his libertarian critics such as Wendy McElroy, Stefan Molyneux and Brad Spangler brings some good points to the table that are largely being ignored by libertarians. Not everyone who critisizes Ron Paul is a neocon or liberal, engaging in a smear conspiracy. Some of us feel that to financially support even Ron Paul inherently strengthens the very institutional framework by which the state thrives, by taking funds that could have been used on the market or "agoristically" and channeling them into campaign coffers. And some of us feel that voting, empirically speaking, simply does not work in the long-run as a means of reducing political power. And some of us do not think that even if Ron Paul made it into office, through some kind of divine providence, he could realistically do that much to reduce political power, let alone slow down its growth.
So my challenge does not go out to those 9/11 truthers, John Birchers and Neo-*** who just so happen to have tagged along his campaign, for whatever reason (ill-concieved or not). My challenge goes out to all of those die-hard libertarians who are enthusiastically supporting Ron Paul. What makes you think that anything is different about this than Goldwater or Reagen? What makes you think that Ron Paul can "restore the republic"? Please explain to me how Ron Paul could get much of anything meaningful done for liberty in the face of a hostile congress? Explain how voting for politicians has ever been sucessful as a libertarian tactic for change? And explain how well Ron Paul's position on issues such as immigration square with libertarian principles.
Brainpolice,
All valid points, and well made. But I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that libertarians or anarchists ought not to participate in politics. I can do no better than quote from the January 1972 issue of the Libertarian Forum (http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1972/1972_01.pdf). The lead article by Rothbard presents his view on this issue, and another article on the subject by William Danks follows. Rothbard's article also includes an excerpt from Lysander Spooner's No Treason.
In short, if the rulers allow us to make this one choice, as petty and miserable as it may be, this one say over our political lives, it is not immoral to make use of this opportunity. As I wrote somewhere else, if Richard Cobden and Ghenghis Khan were running against each other for President, the libertarian would surely have no hesitation supporting and voting for Cobden, despite his falling short of full purity. ...it is still not immoral to use the electoral process when a significant choice presents itself. The use of the electoral process is not, then, immoral per se,as the non-voting camp would have us believe.--Murray Rothbard
--Murray Rothbard
Refusal to become involved in poiitics is impossible. Everyone living in a nation-state is "involved" in politics to the very extent that their life is not theirs to live as they please. When the time comes when a person has a real option to not be involved in politics, then the revolution will be over and we will have won.--William Danks
--William Danks
Brainpolice:And I disagree with voting as a means towards reducing political power. I am disturbed when I see life-long anarchists enthusiastically throwing money at a politician and involving themselves in the political process.
Voting is a means to secure the force of government; its a means to use violence. Since the only thing that can defend against the force of government is defensive force, it follows that the use of government (i.e., voting) as self-defense is a perfectly logical and proper thing to do.
Or more pragmatically, Paul's election (or even his influence) may save countless lives in both foreign wars and the war on drugs. When compared to other candidates, the choice is pretty obvious. Most critics fail to realize that not voting is also a choice they make, and it has consequences which are most certainly not good for victims of government violence.
I don't think abortion is an act of aggression either, but it would be pretty un-libertarain of him if he defended abortion with his beliefs.
Voting has reduced political power in the past. It did drastically increase the freedom of blacks and other minorities in America, and to a lesser extend women. Think of voting like a gun; it can be used for defense or aggression. Its likely true that democracy will tend towards aggression, but that does not mean that employing it for defensive uses is at all unjust.
tgibson11: Brainpolice, All valid points, and well made. But I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that libertarians or anarchists ought not to participate in politics. I can do no better than quote from the January 1972 issue of the Libertarian Forum (http://www.mises.org/journals/lf/1972/1972_01.pdf). The lead article by Rothbard presents his view on this issue, and another article on the subject by William Danks follows. Rothbard's article also includes an excerpt from Lysander Spooner's No Treason. In short, if the rulers allow us to make this one choice, as petty and miserable as it may be, this one say over our political lives, it is not immoral to make use of this opportunity. As I wrote somewhere else, if Richard Cobden and Ghenghis Khan were running against each other for President, the libertarian would surely have no hesitation supporting and voting for Cobden, despite his falling short of full purity. ...it is still not immoral to use the electoral process when a significant choice presents itself. The use of the electoral process is not, then, immoral per se,as the non-voting camp would have us believe. --Murray Rothbard Refusal to become involved in poiitics is impossible. Everyone living in a nation-state is "involved" in politics to the very extent that their life is not theirs to live as they please. When the time comes when a person has a real option to not be involved in politics, then the revolution will be over and we will have won. --William Danks
In short, if the rulers allow us to make this one choice, as petty and miserable as it may be, this one say over our political lives, it is not immoral to make use of this opportunity. As I wrote somewhere else, if Richard Cobden and Ghenghis Khan were running against each other for President, the libertarian would surely have no hesitation supporting and voting for Cobden, despite his falling short of full purity. ...it is still not immoral to use the electoral process when a significant choice presents itself. The use of the electoral process is not, then, immoral per se,as the non-voting camp would have us believe. --Murray Rothbard
Refusal to become involved in poiitics is impossible. Everyone living in a nation-state is "involved" in politics to the very extent that their life is not theirs to live as they please. When the time comes when a person has a real option to not be involved in politics, then the revolution will be over and we will have won. --William Danks
Well, I'm not making an ethical arguement with respect to voting. Only an empirical one. I understand the Spooner-esc "voting as defense" arguement. I'm argueing that it is inefficient as a means of defense even if we grant voting's moral neutrality, and that the very nature of the political system is stacked against the attempting defender's favor, even if they manage to vote a "defender canidate" in. Not to sound like a fatalist, but it seems like the state practically always grows in general no matter who is the president; it has its own inertia. And I understand that it is to some extent impossible to not be effected by politics. But there is a huge difference between compulsory things that one cannot avoid and things that one has at least some leeway in being able to avoid. For example, I can totally understand libertarians driving on the public roads because they simply have no choice not to if they want to get around. But something such as voting is not compulsory (unless you live in a place such as Australia).
** That's why it is so important to vote for Ron Paul - he seems to be the only one who cares about restoring our Constitution, and he understands monetary policy.
Solid_Choke:I don't mean denounce those people, I mean distance himself from their ideas. Shouldn't he make it clear that he dissapproves of racism and crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories if he does? I by no means want the law to be used against anyone because of their ideas, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out ideas for what they are: irrational collectivist craziness.
Brainpolice recently wrote an essay on the subject on racism:http://mises.com/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2007/11/30/the-rational-and-individualist-case-against-racism.aspxIt's not perfect, since he uses strawmen to further his point, but it is far more differentiating then the usual manipulative and poltical correct crap one reads.
Personally one ought to start a thread on his own on the subject of "racism"...
Brainpolice:And I understand that it is to some extent impossible to not be effected by politics. But there is a huge difference between compulsory things that one cannot avoid and things that one has at least some leeway in being able to avoid. For example, I can totally understand libertarians driving on the public roads because they simply have no choice not to if they want to get around. But something such as voting is not compulsory (unless you live in a place such as Australia).
I think you are missing the point. Voting isn't always "using" the state like collecting welfare is. Everyone at least has the potential to be effected by politics, because the power of government is really only limited by the populace. Voting in and of itself in no way supports or expands governments. On the contrary, if all libertarians did not vote, the state would certainly expand more than it does. When would libertarians abstaining from voting cause more desirable libertarian outcomes than if they did vote?
You aren't quite correct that the government always expands. During Clinton's presidency, spending relative to GDP was on a steep decline until Dubya took office.
I think what voting allows is a potential for "revolution" without the violence of a real one. For example, Quebec was almost able to succeed through democratic means. If it had tried to succeed the "old fashioned way", things would have likely gone worse. The ability of citizens to vote does hold their government in check to some degree (although it often expands it in others, outright Stalin-esque violence towards large segments of the population is less likely in a democracy).
Torsten: Solid_Choke:I don't mean denounce those people, I mean distance himself from their ideas. Shouldn't he make it clear that he dissapproves of racism and crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories if he does? I by no means want the law to be used against anyone because of their ideas, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't point out ideas for what they are: irrational collectivist craziness. I can't help that it is not the alleged racists and conspiracy theorists that are suffering from irrational and collectivist thought here. What you bring up is actually a political correct shaming device. My company gets frequently contributions from the public and I can tell you that a contributor must go out of his way before I would "distance myself" from him. I'm no totalist that checks the ideas of other people and then makes a list from whom I will distance myself in a ritual. Brainpolice recently wrote an essay on the subject on racism:http://mises.com/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2007/11/30/the-rational-and-individualist-case-against-racism.aspxIt's not perfect, since he uses strawmen to further his point, but it is far more differentiating then the usual manipulative and poltical correct crap one reads. Personally one ought to start a thread on his own on the subject of "racism"...
Thanks for the plug, for whatever it's worth.
I'd like to know which parts are strawmen. My charge of collectivism and polylogism? My charge of extreme biological determinism? My characterization of the views of separatists? Just to clarify, I support one's right to be a separatist in a voluntary context, but I think that the cause loses out in the long-run due to harmony-of-interest considerations (I.E. incentives). I also do not see many separatists as being content with a mere propertarian right to discriminate, but pushing further for mandatory discrimination on other people's property and treating the state as if it were private property. And I'm with Walter Block on the "bum in the library" question.
Choke
Unreasonable is in the beholder's eyes. As a business owner, some get angry and make accusations. My business continued for over 42 years in two different locations. Obviously we did something right. I simply let folks complain and went on with my work. There were few complaints; however, had I taken the time to address the petty crap, my work would not get done. My mind would concentrate on nonsense.
Dr. Paul has been a true conservative for 10 terms in Congress, frequently referred to as Dr. NO! It seems his record stands on it's own. Perhaps you should research just who this man is.
I have tried listening to Michael Medved and believe he's an obvious plant--a neo-con--a RINO! A Republican in name only. His continual interruption of any caller who shows knowledge and disagreement is obvious. Oddly enough, after Michael Medved labeled Dr. Paul a ____???, Mona Charin wrote a column--not based on any fact--just name calling--Nazi--Jew hater, etc. Absolute nonsense!
Do I consider MM prominent? Not hardly! Check out his background. Let us know what you find out.
You may have missed it; Ron Paul has said quite recently both that racism is an ugy form of collectivism, and that he believes 9/11 was carried out by Al Qaeda
I personally am not buying the *official* government version of 9/11. I've done my own researching (as opposed to letting agents of the state and their lapdog media do it for me) and I'm thoroughly convinced that we haven't been given anything close to the truth. The fact the term "truther" has become derogatory -- that idea that searching for the truth somehow denotes instability -- I think is profoundly Orwellian; a kind of Hayekian "End of Truth" scenario.
However, Dr. Paul has stated that he believes it was Al Qaeda. To each his own. One thing I do know, his idea of the role of government and his emphasis on individual rights are right in line with mine; so frankly I could give a damn what he thinks about 9/11.
But as for Nazi's and such contributing to his campaign.... thats the one bad thing about freedom -- everybody wants it.
Brainpolice:I'd like to know which parts are strawmen. My charge of collectivism and polylogism? My charge of extreme biological determinism? My characterization of the views of separatists? Just to clarify, I support one's right to be a separatist in a voluntary context, but I think that the cause loses out in the long-run due to harmony-of-interest considerations (I.E. incentives).
As for the "polylogism", what exactly would you mean with this? Perhaps that the thinking patterns of people may differ similarly to difference i.e. in sound patterns. You didn't reference it, but I think you got this from Mises "Human Action", were he makes similar charges.
Nationalism, Racialism, Ethnocentrism are political/social ideas that hold that there are important differences between "them" and "us". They are basically preferences for the "us".
If you'd like to discuss this further, you ought to start a special thread on that essay. This thread deals with whether Ron Paul needs to distance himself from certain supporters or not.
Yes, and in both cases, this "us" and this "them" are collectivist abstractions.
Anyways, yes, this is getting too off topic.
If that is "collectivist" abstractions, so would be the McDonalds, the Christians, the New Yorkers, and The Ford motor company employees. If according to this a "racist" or nationalist would have to be a "collectivist" with necessity, so would be any republican, good father, competent mayor, boss or pastor. Personally I think you are attaching a meaning to the term "collectivist" that is too broad (anything that is grouping people somehow together), but I still think you should start a special thread on your essay. Then we can discuss that in detail. Let us know here once, you've started this thread.
You're the one who brought it out here. Anyways, you've been responded to in private message.