Ron Paul and Invisible Lines Drawn by Government Thugs

This thread is a fork of this thread. http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/3315.aspx

To Recap, the subject of Ron Paul began with this post by me:

liberty student:

When does Reason ever take a strong stand against the government?  Never?

"Reason Magazine is a strong opponent of the War on Drugs, (the government's) War on Poverty, The PATRIOT ACT, censorship in all its forms, they oppose government intrusions into privacy, while not exactly IP opponents they speak out against many abuses of IP, they are opponents of the War in Iraq and, unlike Ron Paul, they actually support the right of an innocent person to (gasp) cross a an invisible line drawn by government thugs. Shall I go on?"

Continued with this post by me:

liberty student:

You completely misconstrue Ron Paul's immigration/border position.

 

"Really? Perhaps the Ron Paul flyers I was handed had some misprints. Does he not oppose "illegal immigration"?

And ended with liberty student suggesting:

"Start a new thread.  If you insist on doing this, it is going to be a long one."

I know exactly where you are going with this, but it is cherry-picking one position out of a philosophy he has and running with it as a reason to undermine him.

Invisible lines?  How else would you divine property boundaries?  Towers and walls?

Government thugs?  You mean the ones that Reason gives a free pass to on taxation and inflation?

Ron Paul opposes the illegal immigration into America because it further undermines the liberty of Americans who are slaves to the tax system that supports welfare for non-citizen residents.  He does not oppose immigration, and he does not oppose immigration from Mexico.  He's gone out of his way to explain that if the system was different, immigrant workers would likely be needed and welcome but under current conditions, they are scapegoated and made out to be villains.

Ron Paul has the most principled stand on this of any significant politician in America IMO.

 

PS, I'm going out for Dim Sum.  I'll be back in an hour or two.

liberty student:

undermines the liberty of Americans

Those damned students!!!

liberty student:

I know exactly where you are going with this, but it is cherry-picking one position out of a philosophy he has and running with it as a reason to undermine him.

The problem is twofold: 1. It is a position that is inconsistent with the philosophy he claims to hold. And 2. It is a position that has the potential to alienate a large and growing population from libertarianism when, truth be told, they are very much the type of people who should be our ALLIES, not our enemies. Everything about their story says libertarian ally to me: unable to find work back home because of government regulations they move to a new land where, yet again, they are persecuted by the government. They live underground and either start small businesses or work for companies that hire them knowing that they are breaking the law in doing so. That story is something out of an Alan Moore graphic novel. They should be our allies - we should not alienate them.

liberty student:

Invisible lines?  How else would you divine property boundaries?  Towers and walls?

The federal government has no justly acquired property. Let me ask you something about property. Does a property owner in Brownsville, Texas along the Rio Grande River have a right to hire someone on the other side of that river to work on his or her property? Why or why not?

liberty student:

Ron Paul opposes the illegal immigration into America because it further undermines the liberty of Americans who are slaves to the tax system that supports welfare for non-citizen residents.

From a certain perspective illegal immigrants are providing a service to opponents of government-funded welfare services by making the system's flaws more obvious and killing off coal-mine-canaries in border town areas. The very reason you Ron Paul, Bob Barr and others are opposed to illegal immigration is raising alarm bells about the government welfare system with people who might otherwise be willing to tolerate it.

liberty student:

Ron Paul has the most principled stand on this of any significant politician in America IMO.

Perhaps but he is, alas, a politician. I learned not to trust politicians back when I was a conservative and had high hopes for the "Republican Revolution" of the mid 1990's. Man, that was a disappointment. I learned my lesson.

liberty student:

PS, I'm going out for Dim Sum.  I'll be back in an hour or two.

I support your position on Dim Sum. I LOVE Dim Sum. Bon Appétit.

Another thing is, this whole debate gives the impression that immigration is the problem, not the welfare state, as if by limiting the former the latter will function just dandy! The truth is the reverse, i.e. that the welfare state requires further immigration in order to finance it, only then the new immigrants want part of it, overheating it, causing a need for further immigration &c, sort of like what is happening in Sweden. It must be made clear that it is the welfare state that is the problem, and not immigration per se. All immigration does is hasten its demise by increasing the burden it imposes. It's a parasite anyway, and is destructive of liberty either way, just when immigration is limited it might last a bit longer.

-Jon

scineram:

liberty student:

undermines the liberty of Americans

Those damned students!!!

Good post. To me, this got to the meat of the matter:
 

Justin Raimondo :

To begin with, it is odd, indeed, for a libertarian to be invoking the concept of collective guilt: is every citizen of these unnamed “terrorist nations” to be declared persona non grata on account of the actions of a minuscule number of their countrymen?

Jon Irenicus:

All immigration does is hasten its demise by increasing the burden it imposes. It's a parasite anyway, and is destructive of liberty either way, just when immigration is limited it might last a bit longer.

-Jon

Good point! This is indeed to our ADVANTAGE if anything. I want the welfare system to die. Come one, come all!

I'll reply to your post, so I don't have to reply to the similar assertions in others.

Ron Paul is not a good executive.  That ad was horrible, and isn't consistent with his speeches or writings.  If you believe he should be judged by that ad, then you probably believe he wrote the racist newsletters, in which case, I'm not interested in wasting my time repeating arguments I had for the better part of Q1 2008.

Yup.  Like Agorism. 

Has this ever happened?  Has immigration ever hit critical mass before everyone lost all of their wealth to hyperinflation?

Like I have said, Paul is being taken out of context, because his position on welfarisim is well known.

liberty student:

I'll reply to your post, so I don't have to reply to the similar assertions in others.

Ron Paul is not a good executive.  That ad was horrible, and isn't consistent with his speeches or writings.  If you believe he should be judged by that ad, then you probably believe he wrote the racist newsletters, in which case, I'm not interested in wasting my time repeating arguments I had for the better part of Q1 2008.

I do not believe that he wrote the racist newsletters but I think he should (in the context of a run for POTUS) be judged by both those newsletters and that ad. You are right, he is not a good executive, but POTUS is an executive position. If he cannot control his own newsletter or he own political campaign why should I have confidence in his ability to run his cabinet?

 

ryanpatgray:

The problem is twofold: 1. It is a position that is inconsistent with the philosophy he claims to hold. And 2. It is a position that has the potential to alienate a large and growing population from libertarianism when, truth be told, they are very much the type of people who should be our ALLIES, not our enemies. Everything about their story says libertarian ally to me: unable to find work back home because of government regulations they move to a new land where, yet again, they are persecuted by the government. They live underground and either start small businesses or work for companies that hire them knowing that they are breaking the law in doing so. That story is something out of an Alan Moore graphic novel. They should be our allies - we should not alienate them.

Paul's campaign was not well run.  If you really believe all of his propaganda was written by him, then I have some racist newsletters to sell you.  What you are doing, is ignoring what Paul has fought for and represented throughout his career at the expense of tasteless propaganda created by the idiots in his campaign staff, who even today with the Campaign for Liberty are now talking about making their Rally for the Republic a "family and conservative" affair, more so than one that continues to reach the base of young people not yet in love with Agorism.

ryanpatgray:

The federal government has no justly acquired property. Let me ask you something about property. Does a property owner in Brownsville, Texas along the Rio Grande River have a right to hire someone on the other side of that river to work on his or her property? Why or why not?

Look, the root problem here isn't even the welfare state, or certainly Ron Paul.  It is the federal government.  If a property owner can't hire an immigrant, that is not Ron Paul's policy, his fault or his responsibility.  You're doing what the Reason-ites do all of the time.  You take a slice of a portion of a nugget of a fraction of an issue, and adopt a stance that totally excludes the rest of reality surrounding it.

In the context that a Federal government and laws exist, I support Paul's position.  In the absence of a federal government, my position may be different.  While my principles are the same, the variables are not, the the answer or determination will have variance.  I also see this as a sovereignty issue, one that is bigger than nationalism, but that there may be a world government, and while people pick their noses consideriing Agorism or other tactics, the wheels are in motion to unify economy, military and judiciaries, which will be a death knell to libertarianism.

ryanpatgray:

From a certain perspective illegal immigrants are providing a service to opponents of government-funded welfare services by making the system's flaws more obvious and killing off coal-mine-canaries in border town areas. The very reason you Ron Paul, Bob Barr and others are opposed to illegal immigration is raising alarm bells about the government welfare system with people who might otherwise be willing to tolerate it.

W/E

ryanpatgray:

Perhaps but he is, alas, a politician. I learned not to trust politicians back when I was a conservative and had high hopes for the "Republican Revolution" of the mid 1990's. Man, that was a disappointment. I learned my lesson.

Whether or not you trust politicians is irrelevant.  He is speaking to millions of people who do.  He's not talking to you, or for you.  He's not carrying your standard, nor should he have to.  It's mind-boggling that libertarians single out Paul for constant beatings and haranguement, when there are hundreds of congressmen who can't hold a candle to the guy on libertarian or free market thought.  I suppose that is the self-destructive and self-defeating nature of individualists.  They absolutely do not play well with others.  They have no patience, or sense of selfless sacrifice for larger, long-range goals.

ryanpatgray:

I support your position on Dim Sum. I LOVE Dim Sum. Bon Appétit.

Thank you.  I ate too much, but it was good.  It's my little ritual to go for Dim Sum on the weekend.

That is a fallacious argument.  You don't even believe in a government, why are you worried about how he will manage his cabinet?

The man was not running to win.  He was running to challenge the system, and self-defeating libertarians, and sellout conservative shills like Reason undermined him instead of supporting him deeper into the process, onto bigger and bigger stages to talk about

1. Ending war immediately

2. Collapsing the Empire

3. Abolishing the income tax (my favorite)

4. Monetary reform

5. Shrinking government by removing regulatory agencies

Instead, we're left with Barr, who rambles endlessly about RealID and the PATRIOT ACT, without ever discussing the philosophical reasons for liberty, and who ignores the concept of economic liberty almost entirely.

liberty student:

Has immigration ever hit critical mass before everyone lost all of their wealth to hyperinflation?

Any historians on the board? THIS IS AN OPEN CALL TO ANY HISTORIAN TO REPLY TO THIS POST. I honestly do not know. But here is the more important question: Has there ever been a case where everyone lost all of there wealth due to hyperinflation that was caused by illegal immigrants hopping on welfare roles?

liberty student:

What you are doing, is ignoring what Paul has fought for and represented throughout his career at the expense of tasteless propaganda created by the idiots in his campaign staff, who even today with the Campaign for Liberty are now talking about making their Rally for the Republic a "family and conservative" affair, more so than one that continues to reach the base of young people not yet in love with Agorism.

What is Ron Paul's goal? If it is promoting liberty he apparently needs to clean house in his organization. If his goal is something else perhaps he should keep them all.

liberty student:

You're doing what the Reason-ites do all of the time.  You take a slice of a portion of a nugget of a fraction of an issue, and adopt a stance that totally excludes the rest of reality surrounding it.

 

If someone told you that theft was wrong unless committed by people dressed like Daffy Duck what would you say about that person's consistency? All I ask for is consistency. Either you believe in free association among consenting adults or you don't. If you don't we can debate that issue.

liberty student:

I also see this as a sovereignty issue, one that is bigger than nationalism, but that there may be a world government, and while people pick their noses considering Agorism or other tactics, the wheels are in motion to unify economy, military and judiciaries, which will be a death knell to libertarianism.

 

North Korea is very protective of its sovereignty and they have very low immigration rates. Perhaps we should emulate some of their policies.

liberty student:

It's mind-boggling that libertarians single out Paul for constant beatings and haranguement, when there are hundreds of congressmen who can't hold a candle to the guy on libertarian or free market thought.  I suppose that is the self-destructive and self-defeating nature of individualists.

 

Ron Paul is not the only congresscritter I criticize - far from it. If it seems I single him out it is because, in the forums I visit, his name pops up more often that say, Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens or Nancy Pelosi.

liberty student:

That is a fallacious argument.  You don't even believe in a government, why are you worried about how he will manage his cabinet?

liberty student:

In the context that a Federal government and laws exist, I support Paul's position.

In the context that a Federal government and laws exist, I support the position that Paul, if elected, should be capable of doing the job he was elected to do.

liberty student:

The man was not running to win.

Then why should anyone bother voting for him or sending money to his campaign?

liberty student:

He was running to challenge the system,

He could do that without running for POTUS. He could do that through a campaign of education.

liberty student:

Instead, we're left with Barr, who rambles endlessly about RealID and the PATRIOT ACT, without ever discussing the philosophical reasons for liberty, and who ignores the concept of economic liberty almost entirely.

Funny to hear you don't like Bob Barr. Bob Barr has positions almost identical to those of Ron Paul. It seems like your only problem with Bob Barr is that he is not as good of a public speaker as Ron Paul.

ryanpatgray:

Then why should anyone bother voting for him or sending money to his campaign?

If you have to ask this....

ryanpatgray:

He could do that without running for POTUS. He could do that through a campaign of education.

Oh really?  Are you signed up for the Campaign for Liberty?  Going to the Rally for the Republic?

Gimme a break.  Paul has been trying to educate for decades, and it's only recently when he had a large television audience captive that he was able to get attention and mass market.

 

ryanpatgray:

Funny to hear you don't like Bob Barr. Bob Barr has positions almost identical to those of Ron Paul. It seems like your only problem with Bob Barr is that he is not as good of a public speaker as Ron Paul.

That's like saying, "This is great music, by the way, I'm tone deaf".  Have you even looked at the platforms of these two guys?  Barr doesn't have half of Paul's platform. That's what I am getting at, the criticisms of Paul are usually half-baked, people run with the newsletters or some ad, when Paul has produced hundreds of speeches and articles that clarify his position, and despite being a constitutionalist, flirts with anarchist notions towards government constantly.

But, libertarians love to fight one another, so of course, we'll spend more time and energy on how Paul is imperfect, than on how a likely President like Obama is going to ramp up 4 years of statism, and warp the minds of a lot of young people.

 

ryanpatgray:

If someone told you that theft was wrong unless committed by people dressed like Daffy Duck what would you say about that person's consistency? All I ask for is consistency. Either you believe in free association among consenting adults or you don't. If you don't we can debate that issue.

All you ask for is consistency?  You applaud Reason, when they cry about immigration, but you free pass them on the fact that the federal government is the problem!  That's exactly my point about compartmentalizing issues away from their broader reality.

I do believe in free association between adults.  I also don't agree in welfarism or a state.  Looks like I am outta luck on BOTH with the current paradigm.

You know, many Americans complain a lot, for a people who are a lot freer than Canadians, and spend all of their time bickering as it slips away.

I think we've both said what we wanted to say, I have at least.  I'm done unless you have something new to add.

 

liberty student:

Oh really?  Are you signed up for the Campaign for Liberty?  Going to the Rally for the Republic?

But you just told me it is not well run . . . I DO donate to the LVMI.

 

liberty student:

when Paul has produced hundreds of speeches and articles that clarify his position, and despite being a constitutionalist, flirts with anarchist notions towards government constantly.

Do you have links that show this?

liberty student:

But, libertarians love to fight one another, so of course, we'll spend more time and energy on how Paul is imperfect, than on how a likely President like Obama is going to ramp up 4 years of statism, and warp the minds of a lot of young people.

If Ron Paul was, in some alternate universe, going to become the president, what do you think the one thing that he would be able to accomplish?  Probably just his statist immigration policy.  The ruling class wouldn't let him do anything else, if they let him live at all.  The problem with Ron Paul is that he legitamizes, in the eyes of many, the strategy of electoral politics.  Libertarians of one form or another have been attempting to take power to minimize or dismantle the state for over 200 years.  It hasn't worked.

liberty student:

All you ask for is consistency?  You applaud Reason, when they cry about immigration, but you free pass them on the fact that the federal government is the problem!  That's exactly my point about compartmentalizing issues away from their broader reality.

If you can give me an instance when Reason Magazine has ever called for MORE intervention by government I will be happy to criticize them. So long as someone is throwing the ball towards the goal they are on my team.

You are a poster I really like here, I don't enjoy trying to kick dirt on your shoes.

ryanpatgray:

If you can give me an instance when Reason Magazine has ever called for MORE intervention by government I will be happy to criticize them. So long as someone is throwing the ball towards the goal they are on my team.

Oh, so maintaining the status quo is fine?  Reason totally giving the state a pass, and only being concerned with policy is fine/

By your standard, Paul is on your team.  Think about that.

 

wombatron:

Do you have links that show this?

A better question is "are there links..." because I am not going to waste the rest of this afternoon doing research for a forum discussion.

Of course, seeing as how you comment on Paul, you must be very knowedgeable of his articles on LRC or at ronpaullibrary.org.  You must also be aware of his references to Spooner when being interviewed on TV.

 

wombatron:

If Ron Paul was, in some alternate universe, going to become the president, what do you think the one thing that he would be able to accomplish?

I don't think he would take the job if he won.  He has no desire to be the President.

wombatron:

Probably just his statist immigration policy.

This is assinine.  His policy is not statist.  Given that the issue is the welfare state, one could stretch this and say his position is a defense of private property rights of American citizens.

wombatron:

The ruling class wouldn't let him do anything else, if they let him live at all.  The problem with Ron Paul is that he legitamizes, in the eyes of many, the strategy of electoral politics.  Libertarians of one form or another have been attempting to take power to minimize or dismantle the state for over 200 years.  It hasn't worked.

Yes, the guy who would be assassinated by the statists is obviously the problem!

Paul was not trying to take power or dismantle the state.  He was trying to reach the remnant.  To assess the size of the remnant.

 

liberty student:

You are a poster I really like here, I don't enjoy trying to kick dirt on your shoes.

Thank you, you are a poster I like here as well. I don't like trying to kick dirt on anyone's shoes either. Debates sometimes become heated around here, I understand that.:)

liberty student:

By your standard, Paul is on your team.

Just because I will not vote for someone or donate to a campaign does not mean I think of that person as "the enemy". I just think that my money is better spent donating the LVMI, ISIL and, yes, my Reason subscription. I just think that his tactics (or perhaps the tactics of his staff) are counterproductive to the cause. Ron Paul is not "the enemy", I just wish he would fire some people on his staff or phrase his concerns in a different way. We do not need to alienate a large and growing segment of our population through a choice of wording.

liberty student:

This is assinine.  His policy is not statist.  Given that the issue is the welfare state, one could stretch this and say his position is a defense of private property rights of American citizens.

He supports the use of the state to keep people out of an arbitraily defined area.  Hence, statist.  And how does that protect the property rights of Americans?  The state is going to continue stealing just as much even if there was no "illegal" immigration.  Also, if we are going to talk about context, why don't you focus on the billions and billions of dollars of corporate welfare, instead of focusing on the people that the state shits on the most?  There is nothing inherently immoral in recieving money from the state, especially since those who receive it (in the case of welfare) are those who are screwed over the most by the state.

liberty student:

Paul was not trying to take power or dismantle the state.  He was trying to reach the remnant.  To assess the size of the remnant.

Then why a presidential campaign?  Whether or not he is trying to take power, he is trying to "improve" the state.  He is not an anarchist by any strech of imagination.  If there was a speech or article that said that he supported, say, an absolute right of secession, then it would be different.

In the context that a Federal government and laws exist, I support Paul's position.  In the absence of a federal government, my position may be different

If you don't see the blatant inconsistancy involved here, I don't know what to tell you. The idea you're putting foreward reduces to "so long as the current laws exist, the current law should be enforced" and then adding "but in hypothetical situation X, I'm against the laws". This seems very inconsistant and illogical to me, saying that because a federal government and welfare state exist, the federal laws may as well be enforced or that intervention Y (in this case, immigration restriction) is justified by previous intervention X (the welfare state). Mises had a word for this kind of thinking: interventionism.

Sweden is living proof of the phenomenon. Restricting immigration is the wrong solution. Doing away with the welfare state, OTOH, is not. Once it is demonstrated that it is a parasite that will die without a continuing supply of hosts to feed on, and which will enlarge itself as time goes on, it will be all the easier to abolish it. The more burdensome it becomes, the more cost-prohibitive it is. This is basic economics, and part of why Hoppe argues the welfare state will inevitably collapse. Only he believes limiting illegal immigration to limit the oppression is justified. I think it's better to just let the whole thing overheat, rather than let people think the welfare state is salvageable.

-Jon

"Only he[Hoppe] believes limiting illegal immigration to limit the oppression is justified. "

So...It would seem that, for Hoppe and for Paul, the use of lethal force against peaceful individuals trying to cross a political border, is consistent with libertarian principles ? Otherwise they wouldn't advocate the restriction of immigration ?

Juan:

So...It would seem that, for Hoppe and for Paul, the use of lethal force against peaceful individuals trying to cross a political border, is consistent with libertarian principles ? Otherwise they wouldn't advocate the restriction of immigration ?

Indeed.  And because of Paul's wonderful "educational" campaign, such deviations are being passed off as "libertarian".

The gnat tries to snap at my heels again. Such a pesky little troll.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

The gnat tries to snap at my heels again. Such a pesky little troll.

-Jon

Ah.  I see what he's doing now.  Sorry if it seems like I have been supporting him in his trolling

 

Juan:

"Only he[Hoppe] believes limiting illegal immigration to limit the oppression is justified. "

So...It would seem that, for Hoppe and for Paul, the use of lethal force against peaceful individuals trying to cross a political border, is consistent with libertarian principles ? Otherwise they wouldn't advocate the restriction of immigration ?

Nice strawman.  Given that the federal government (right or wrong) is charged with the maintenance of the borders (right or wrong) and national sovereignty ( right or wrong) it almost looks like a property rights issue.  Or in the libertarian future, will you allow peaceful people to trespass on your land?

Yes, the government doesn't own the land.  But, for all intents and purposes in the real, flesh and blood world, they do.  Paul doesn't operate in the world of the theoretical, he has to operate within the world of the real, ad the calls for him to be an anarchist in government are not only naive, they are more self-destructive libertarianism.

It overheats, and then there is a backlash.  So basically, the theory is that we should all suffer more, until we are righteously indignant and pissed off? 

Excellent strawman.  Despite the investment you have made into angry YouTube videos, you still have not lost your ability to create machines to rage against!  Kudos to you!

liberty student:

Juan:

"Only he[Hoppe] believes limiting illegal immigration to limit the oppression is justified. "

So...It would seem that, for Hoppe and for Paul, the use of lethal force against peaceful individuals trying to cross a political border, is consistent with libertarian principles ? Otherwise they wouldn't advocate the restriction of immigration ?

Nice strawman.  Given that the federal government (right or wrong) is charged with the maintenance of the borders (right or wrong) and national sovereignty ( right or wrong) it almost looks like a property rights issue.  Or in the libertarian future, will you allow peaceful people to trespass on your land?

Yes, the government doesn't own the land.  But, for all intents and purposes in the real, flesh and blood world, they do.  Paul doesn't operate in the world of the theoretical, he has to operate within the world of the real, ad the calls for him to be an anarchist in government are not only naive, they are more self-destructive libertarianism.

The point is that either the principles are valid or they are not. You cannot pick and choose. The viewpoint you put foreward is a legitimization of the status quo and the state. It's a defeatist attitude to proclaim that since the state controls the territory in the present, we may as well act as if such control is legitimate even though we are well aware that it isn't. At such a point, you've ruined the entire purpose here. This claim of "realism" is really nothing but pragmatism and utilitarianism gone wild, a reversion to conservatism. Brushing off those who wish to stick to their principles and who actually favor change as idealists is BS. Btw, noone is calling for someone to be an anarchist in government, since that is impossible.

I can't think of anything more self-destructive than claiming to have a principle and then functioning on a premise in direct countradiction to the principle.

No, it's basically for people to actually see with their own eyes what a government policy does exactly, rather than insulating them from short-term harm - to actually realize there are internal structural problems with the very notion of a "welfare" state.

-Jon

liberty student:

I know exactly where you are going with this, but it is cherry-picking one position out of a philosophy he has and running with it as a reason to undermine him.

Invisible lines?  How else would you divine property boundaries?  Towers and walls?

Government thugs?  You mean the ones that Reason gives a free pass to on taxation and inflation?

Ron Paul opposes the illegal immigration into America because it further undermines the liberty of Americans who are slaves to the tax system that supports welfare for non-citizen residents.  He does not oppose immigration, and he does not oppose immigration from Mexico.  He's gone out of his way to explain that if the system was different, immigrant workers would likely be needed and welcome but under current conditions, they are scapegoated and made out to be villains.

Ron Paul has the most principled stand on this of any significant politician in America IMO.

 

PS, I'm going out for Dim Sum.  I'll be back in an hour or two.

 

Libby, you do realize that on a whole immigrants contribute about an increase of 1-3% in the US economy right? A net increase easily defaults the "decrease" through welfare - for which I have seen absolutely no evidence for.

 

The fact is, Ron Paul isn't a libertarian. The man is a xenophobe, period.

 

As far as the whole trade-off bull *** for "good politicans" goes, however, you really need to start pulling your head out of your *** and read something about public choice. Also, immigration is a big issue for some people and as Hispanics are the most likely to support libertarian ventures like secession, it's a net loss for libertarianism to have racists like Ron Paul associated with it.

liberty student:

Nice strawman.  Given that the federal government (right or wrong) is charged with the maintenance of the borders (right or wrong) and national sovereignty ( right or wrong) it almost looks like a property rights issue.  Or in the libertarian future, will you allow peaceful people to trespass on your land?

Yes, the government doesn't own the land.  But, for all intents and purposes in the real, flesh and blood world, they do.  Paul doesn't operate in the world of the theoretical, he has to operate within the world of the real, ad the calls for him to be an anarchist in government are not only naive, they are more self-destructive libertarianism.

 

If a man claims ownership to land but has not homesteaded it, then absolutely a "trespasser" possesses the right to "trespass" on the unowned land.

 

P.S. Paul operates in the world of the Klan and the Earmark. So, you're right, he isn't principled or willing to act like it.

Brainpolice:

You cannot pick and choose.

This is the crazy thing about the real world.  You can pick and choose.  You can be irrational.  You can be emotional (even on YouTube!).  You can be happy, sad, pensive, thoughtless, hedonistic whatever.  I've got bad news for you, our opponents are not as fanatically rigid as you are.  They are willing to be whatever they need to be to win.

Nicky, all of your boilerplate nonsense about Paul is fascinating (and redundant, tired, worn etc.), but how come you didn't comment on Dim Sum?

If you are a good boy in school and ace all of your state exams, maybe Mommy and Daddy will take you out for Dim Sum one day.  After all, Dim Sum in the west, is a gift from immigrants!