NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just watching Ol Ronnie Poo on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, talking about the recent revealing of supposed Ron Paul racist remarks(there is a thread about that specific issue around here somewhere). Well, I don't have an exact transcript(yet) or link regarding his remarks today on CNN, it was something along the line of " I can't be racist because MLK and Rosa Parks are my heroes, and its not libertarian to be racist" So pretty much, its just like the racist people on here saying "I am not racist because I have -insert ethnic group here- friends"

So what do you think, is he just trying to hide the fact that he is really a racist? Why didn't he take any action against the people publishing those things if he didn't agree with them? And if libertarians cannot be racist as he said in the interview, then why did so many racist rants come in his libertarian new letter over the past 20 years? Something smells fishy, and its not a woman's smelly vagina.

Some people don't seem to understand that libertarians attract the most degenerate anti-social elements of society, pro-gun nuts, wacky feminists, states' rights rednecks, homophobes, racists, Milton Friedman bots etc etc. Most of us normal people are content just to conform to social norms because they are acceptable to living in a community, libertarians just want to not use social skills and and want an intellectual excuse not to do so. Imho libertarianism is the freedom to think and so stupid things.

I'm sure nobody will find this at all convincing. After all, the only people who would be convinced by this are the ones who already think the sun shines out DAWKTER RON PAUL's asshole.


Also, TRON PAUL /nsg/ (http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/1200001901933.jpg)

Some people don't seem to understand that libertarians attract the most degenerate anti-social elements of society, pro-gun nuts, wacky feminists, states' rights rednecks, homophobes, racists, Milton Friedman bots etc etc. Most of us normal people are content just to conform to social norms because they are acceptable to living in a community, libertarians just want to not use social skills and and want an intellectual excuse not to do so. Imho libertarianism is the freedom to think and so stupid things.

Blanket meet ideology.

Well, I don't have an exact transcript(yet) or link regarding his remarks today on CNN, it was something along the line of " I can't be racist because MLK and Rosa Parks are my heroes, and its not libertarian to be racist" So pretty much, its just like the racist people on here saying "I am not racist because I have -insert ethnic group here- friends"

http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

Some people don't seem to understand that libertarians attract the most degenerate anti-social elements of society, pro-gun nuts, wacky feminists, states' rights rednecks, homophobes, racists, Milton Friedman bots etc etc. Most of us normal people are content just to conform to social norms because they are acceptable to living in a community, libertarians just want to not use social skills and and want an intellectual excuse not to do so. Imho libertarianism is the freedom to think and so stupid things.

QFT, but you forgot to include Ayn Rand cultists.


Seriously, though -- Libertarianism is nothing more than institutionalized selfishness.

Some people don't seem to understand that libertarians attract the most degenerate anti-social elements of society, pro-gun nuts, wacky feminists, states' rights rednecks, homophobes, racists, Milton Friedman bots etc etc. Most of us normal people are content just to conform to social norms because they are acceptable to living in a community, libertarians just want to not use social skills and and want an intellectual excuse not to do so. Imho libertarianism is the freedom to think and so stupid things.

Actually, libertarians just want everyone to see what a "great" job all of these "social skills" have done for us. The reason we have social norms is because some people are too ignorant to realize that not everything everyone else does is to spite them. So instead, we develop a Judaic-esque system in which every time you breathe you have committed a social injustice.

Seriously, though -- Libertarianism is nothing more than institutionalized selfishness.

And that there is a QFT in itself.

... I read the subject line and my sleep deprived brain gave me "I'm not racist because I love milk."

... need to cut back on the medication 0x0

Actually, libertarians just want everyone to see what a "great" job all of these "social skills" have done for us. The reason we have social norms is because some people are too ignorant to realize that not everything everyone else does is to spite them. So instead, we develop a Judaic-esque system in which every time you breathe you have committed a social injustice.
No, my point is such our system of community has a naturally-evolving set of social norms for a reason, they reflect a set of common ethics and morality, and they change due to circumstances over time. The radical libertarian attempt to do away with such sensible norms which make sense to a stable community, can be explained no other way than libs just want the 'freedom' to think concepts so stupid and inadequate in normal situations that they need an intellectual excuse so they don't seem as completely lame.

From how I see it, these naturally-evolving social norms represent the majority will of the community, and as such represent the common will of the people, ie they make sense to us. Imho libertarians are just the champions of elitism and degenerate minority rights.

... I read the subject line and my sleep deprived brain gave me "I'm not racist because I love milk."

Yeah. Chocolate milk.

No, my point is such our system of community has a naturally-evolving set of social norms for a reason, they reflect a set of common ethics and morality, and they change due to circumstances over time. The radical libertarian attempt to do away with such sensible norms which make sense to a stable community, can be explained no other way than libs just want the 'freedom' to think concepts so stupid and inadequate in normal situations that they need an intellectual excuse so they don't seem as completely lame.

Well, you have my pity for being being led to believe that ignorantly following whatever people tell you is better. Four More Years of an A-hole being President!!! Give me a WOOT for conformity!!

Well, you have my pity for being being led to believe that ignorantly following whatever people tell you is better. Four More Years of an A-hole being President!!! Give me a WOOT for conformity!!
Not exactly sure what you're point is, but social norms, whether their source is legislative or cultural historical or whatever, only exist and continue to exist while they are supported by the majority of the community. A parliament may make a law but it takes the active consent of the people for that law to be enforced, you may think of police but in reality the people are the real enforcers of laws, by their conformity to these standards they enforce a social norm of behavior which ensures most people follow the law/norm. Those small amount that don't follow the norm fall back on direct law punishment.

This is what society is based upon, a common acceptance of accepted modes of behavior, we conform because to all of us these norms seem practical and make perfect sense, it's our acceptance that gives law it's legitimacy and is enforced.

Libertarianism, for this reason, is socially-dangerous.

Not exactly sure what you're point is, but social norms, whether their source is legislative or cultural historical or whatever, only exist and continue to exist while they are supported by the majority of the community. A parliament may make a law but it takes the active consent of the people for that law to be enforced, you may think of police but in reality the people are the real enforcers of laws, by their conformity to these standards they enforce a social norm of behavior which ensures most people follow the law/norm. Those small amount that don't follow the norm fall back on direct law punishment.

This is what society is based upon, a common acceptance of accepted modes of behavior, we conform because to all of us these norms seem practical and make perfect sense, it's our acceptance that gives law it's legitimacy and is enforced.

Libertarianism, for this reason, is socially-dangerous.

For starters, just so you understand, you have yet to make any factual reference and have simply name-called, so I decided to do such also. Secondly, if you have confused socially-dangerous with Constitutional, I will understand.

Also, BTW, Libertarians are not necessarily concerned with demolishing social norms, but to simply ask people to stop believing all the BS that the tube spills out and start creating new ideas for once.

I love chocolate milk and I'm pretty sure I'm still a racist. :(

That's onpossible! Do you like watermelons? What about fried chicken? Or rap music?

Yeah. Chocolate milk.


I love chocolate milk and I'm pretty sure I'm still a racist. :(

It's true that libertarianism is an individualist philosophy, so looking at people as members of a collective rather than individuals would be unlibertarian.

I've seen footage where Ron Paul is apparently making racist remarks such as, "...you see that it is black people that are causing all the crime in major cities." But I've heard that the context of those statements were regarding statistics that were presented to him. You don't always get to see the unedited version.

For starters, just so you understand, you have yet to make any factual reference and have simply name-called, so I decided to do such also. Secondly, if you have confused socially-dangerous with Constitutional, I will understand.

Also, BTW, Libertarians are not necessarily concerned with demolishing social norms, but to simply ask people to stop believing all the BS that the tube spills out and start creating new ideas for once.

No, libertarianism has from day one been the champion of elitist minoritism, it thinks that the tiny band of it's followers are the enlightened 'elite' who know this special ideology and everyone else is deluded, libertarianism shows utter contempt for people in general, instead it puts more emphasis of the cult of the individual and focuses on conspiracy theories. 'Freedom' is the freedom to act within social norms, that being what the community deems acceptable, libertarianism is the attempt to go beyond these bounds for the infantile childish reason of 'because we can'. Most sensible people recognize rules and sanctions exist for a reason, while libs are blindly opposed to 'rules' because it may prevent some stupid activities which only silly minorities do.

No, libertarianism has from day one been the champion of elitist minoritism, it thinks that the tiny band of it's followers are the enlightened 'elite' who know this special ideology and everyone else is deluded, libertarianism shows utter contempt for people in general, instead it puts more emphasis of the cult of the individual and focuses on conspiracy theories. 'Freedom' is the freedom to act within social norms, that being what the community deems acceptable, libertarianism is the attempt to go beyond these bounds for the infantile childish reason of 'because we can'. Most sensible people recognize rules and sanctions exist for a reason, while libs are blindly opposed to 'rules' because it may prevent some stupid activities which only silly minorities do.

Again, you have refused to make a single point. You have used abstract rhetoric to attempt to make someone think you have made a point.

Actually I love the title of this thread. It embodies what libertarians really believe in. There is no reason to hold groups, form alliances or this mumbo-jumbo. To view people as individuals and not try to isolate people. I <3 MLK simply suggests that you intellectually analyze your surroundings, choose who you believe was a benefit to society because of their actions not their label. I don't know if that makes me an elitist snob, or if I just have a better viewpoint than most. I guess only the wisdom of the social norms can evaluate that.

Great, another Ron Paul hate thread.

I'm not a great appreciator of irony, but this thread oozes with it so much it's hard not to laugh.

Hey Eureka,

'grats on your 1000th post

Great, another Ron Paul hate thread.

I'm not a great appreciator of irony, but this thread oozes with it so much it's hard not to laugh.

I see no irony......

That's onpossible! Do you like watermelons? What about fried chicken? Or rap music?

I like all of those things :( Especially watermelons! Though... rap in moderation :p

Hey Eureka,

'grats on your 1000th post
Actually it would be much more than that if I hadn't have got deleted for speaking the truth.

Actually it would be much more than that if I hadn't have got deleted for speaking the truth.

Oh lawdy
*facepalm*

Actually it would be much more than that if I hadn't have got deleted for speaking the truth.

Translation: the mods wouldn't let me be a twat! Wah!


:D

"its not libertarian to be racist"

of course, its not libertarian to be libertarian, so it all works out

I see no irony......

Well, let's just say the other Ron Paul on the front page has some substance to it. This one? I don't know what you call a group hug thread where people unite through hatred, but this is one of them. I'll do that thing some people do here and say it lowers my faith in humanity:(

The irony is, this is exactly what most racist groups do, to a different context. All the groups and individuals of that nature I've seen anyway.

Something smells fishy, and its not a woman's smelly vagina.

Oh, it's not?

*goes back to sleep*

Well, let's just say the other Ron Paul on the front page has some substance to it. This one? I don't know what you call a group hug thread where people unite through hatred, but this is one of them. I'll do that thing some people do here and say it lowers my faith in humanity:(

The irony is, this is exactly what most racist groups do, to a different context. All the groups and individuals of that nature I've seen anyway.

Ah, so the irony is that we're all coming together to laugh at and generally denounce a racist, and that's just like how racists come together to laugh at and generally whatever race they hate.

Except what we're doing isn't prejudiced, not does it assume that huge groups of people are all the same, and what we think actually has some basis in fact.

Well, let's just say the other Ron Paul on the front page has some substance to it. This one? I don't know what you call a group hug thread where people unite through hatred, but this is one of them. I'll do that thing some people do here and say it lowers my faith in humanity:(

The irony is, this is exactly what most racist groups do, to a different context. All the groups and individuals of that nature I've seen anyway.

No no no, racist groups judge masses of people based upon stereotypes. We're judging Ron Paul based on his words and newsletters. There's nothing remotely similar.

No no no, racist groups judge masses of people based upon stereotypes. We're judging Ron Paul based on his words and newsletters. There's nothing remotely similar.

True in general, but please show me these words and newsletters in this thread?

True in general, but please show me these words and newsletters in this thread?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html#cnnSTCOther1

Ah, so the irony is that we're all coming together to laugh at and generally denounce a racist, and that's just like how racists come together to laugh at and generally whatever race they hate.

Except what we're doing isn't prejudiced, not does it assume that huge groups of people are all the same, and what we think actually has some basis in fact.

The irony is that your acting exactly the same as the stereotypical racist would in a different context. Sure there is a plural, singular reversal. It's still "name calling" with no back up (I'm aware there is backup that can be used, but it isn't here).

You're not even taking him seriously, thus not helping show his followers what they are following, leading to them thinking you are a bunch of idiots. Leading to not helping a potential problem at all.

The irony is that your acting exactly the same as the stereotypical racist would in a different context. Sure there is a plural, singular reversal. It's still "name calling" with no back up (I'm aware there is backup that can be used, but it isn't here).
Ah, so if it isn't here we can't make judgements from it. So when we enter every thread about Ron Paul, for example, we have to act as though we know nothing about him and withhold judgement until someone reposts all the things we based our previous judgements one.

You're not even taking him seriously, thus not helping show his followers what they are following, leading to them thinking you are a bunch of idiots. Leading to not helping a potential problem at all.

What potential problem?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html#cnnSTCOther1

Hurray! Some substance!

Now the question is, is he still like that? I think people can turn racist and be turned from racism, so is it fair to not give him another chance?

I think his libertarian quote, is if he really is a libertarian, he can't be racist, because the two views are mutually exclusive.

The "vicious drug laws" bit I don't get at all though:confused:

You're not even taking him seriously, thus not helping show his followers what they are following, leading to them thinking you are a bunch of idiots. Leading to not helping a potential problem at all.

I take nothing seriously! :)

Hurray! Some substance!

Now the question is, is he still like that? I think people can turn racist and be turned from racism, so is it fair to not give him another chance?

I think his libertarian quote, is if he really is a libertarian, he can't be racist, because the two views are mutually exclusive.

The "vicious drug laws" bit I don't get at all though:confused:

We're not talking about some eighty year old southern senator who was on the wrong side of the Civil Rights Movement in the early sixties. This was a mere 15 years ago. I have older skivvies!

Ah, so if it isn't here we can't make judgements from it. So when we enter every thread about Ron Paul, for example, we have to act as though we know nothing about him and withhold judgement until someone reposts all the things we based our previous judgements one.

You don't have to do anything. This thread is at the top in terms of Ron Paul threads at the moment, so is someone reads this to see what NSG thinks of Ron Paul, I don't think they would be impressed.

The potential problem, is people supporting someone who, according to you, is a bigot. If true, that could lead to bad things right? Especially with the numbers behind Ron Paul.

EDIT: Isn't it generally seen as a good thing to not go into a thread spouting names without the backup for it? Instead assuming everyone will somehow know that there is evidence for the claims.

Hurray! Some substance!

Now the question is, is he still like that? I think people can turn racist and be turned from racism, so is it fair to not give him another chance?

I think his libertarian quote, is if he really is a libertarian, he can't be racist, because the two views are mutually exclusive.

The "vicious drug laws" bit I don't get at all though:confused:

Maybe if he didn't try to cover it up, blame it on others, and possibly even lie about it we would beleive he has changed.

We're not talking about some eighty year old southern senator who was on the wrong side of the Civil Rights Movement in the early sixties. This was a mere 15 years ago. I have older skivvies!

Do you wear them, or keep them for use as biological weapons?

And yes, Ron Paul is really doing nothing to convince anyone that he isn't a racist. So far he has claimed that he never wrote those newsletters, that they were written by ghost writers(which proves him to be utterly incompetent if true) and claim that he can't be racist, since he respects famous black people, which as has already been pointed out is just a rewording of the ancient "I'm not racist, I have [race] friends" argument.

Do you wear them, or keep them for use as biological weapons?

Exactly. :)

No, libertarianism has from day one been the champion of elitist minoritism, it thinks that the tiny band of it's followers are the enlightened 'elite' who know this special ideology and everyone else is deluded, libertarianism shows utter contempt for people in general, instead it puts more emphasis of the cult of the individual and focuses on conspiracy theories. 'Freedom' is the freedom to act within social norms, that being what the community deems acceptable, libertarianism is the attempt to go beyond these bounds for the infantile childish reason of 'because we can'. Most sensible people recognize rules and sanctions exist for a reason, while libs are blindly opposed to 'rules' because it may prevent some stupid activities which only silly minorities do.

How can you're skull be so thick as to think that freedom means acting how a group of people thinks you should act? That is the exact opposite of freedom.

You don't have to do anything. This thread is at the top in terms of Ron Paul threads at the moment, so is someone reads this to see what NSG thinks of Ron Paul, I don't think they would be impressed.
I don't believe I care what someone thinks about what NSG thinks about Ron Paul.

The potential problem, is people supporting someone who, according to you, is a bigot. If true, that could lead to bad things right? Especially with the numbers behind Ron Paul.
The numbers behind Ron Paul apparently didn't help him much in Iowa or New Hampshire, so I don't think America has much to worry about. His supporters seem more concerned with spamming his name across the internet than actually voting for him.

EDIT: Isn't it generally seen as a good thing to withhold judgement until all the facts are out, and not go into a thread spouting names without the backup for it? Instead assuming everyone will somehow know that there is evidence for the claims.

Whether other people are aware of the basis for my judgements has no bearing on what my judgements are. I'm not going to pretend that I don't know that Ron Paul wrote some racist newsletters in the early 90s just because someone else doesn't know it.

claim that he can't be racist, since he respects famous black people, which as has already been pointed out is just a rewording of the ancient "I'm not racist, I have [race] friends" argument.

It isn't just a rewording at all. It has the added advantage of not having to make friends with any black people.

Click Stand;13362223']Maybe if he didn't try to cover it up, blame it on others, and possibly even lie about it we would beleive he has changed.

Couldn't what he says be true?

If it was, like Ifreann said, it would show incompetence. That's hardly a new thing in elections though.

Is there evidence showing he is lying etc?

I don't believe I care what someone thinks about what NSG thinks about Ron Paul.

Then, like I said, don't do anything. I'm not using (or trying to use) a neccessity argument, just a "if you want A, do B" argument, you don't want A so don't listen to my argument.

Whether other people are aware of the basis for my judgements has no bearing on what my judgements are. I'm not going to pretend that I don't know that Ron Paul wrote some racist newsletters in the early 90s just because someone else doesn't know it.

I never said pretend you don't know about the newsletters, I suggested posting them when you say your judgements, so people don't mistake you for a bigot. Also, why argue if not to persuade other people? So what people are aware of has a huge affect on the bearing of what your judgements are.

Couldn't what he says be true?

If it was, like Ifreann said, it would show incompetence. That's hardly a new thing in elections though.

Is there evidence showing he is lying etc?

His name is on the letterhead. If you weren't a racist homophobe, would you let your name be on the top of a newsletter purportedly written by you(ghostwriters usually put to words the spoken thoughts of the person they are ghostwriting as the person in question isn't a skilled writer) that is chock full of racism and homophobia?

If he denounced it, pulled his name from the project, apologized and fired the writers shortly after it was written, I might believe him. Bt not now when it's inconvenient for his reputation.

The idiot opened his mouth again?

The idiot opened his mouth again?

You expected any different from the man that continually tries to pass the We the People Act
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300.IH:;)?

Also, Stormfront are like massive RP fans, something which RP has himself not even tried to distance himself from.

You expected any different from the man that continually tries to pass the We the People Act
(http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300.IH:;)?

SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.

A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.

Um...Dawctor Paul? Only the House can impeach a federal judge if he refuses to step down. It takes the Senate to remove him. :headbang:

SEC. 6. MATERIAL BREACHES OF GOOD BEHAVIOR AND REMEDY.

A violation by a justice or a judge of any of the provisions of section 3 or 4 shall be an impeachable offense, and a material breach of good behavior subject to removal by the President of the United States according to rules and procedures established by the Congress.

Um...Dawctor Paul? Only the House can impeach a federal judge if he refuses to step down. It takes the Senate to remove him. :headbang:

I prefer this one more:

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and...

Basically, if the states want to make any racist, homophobic, sexist, etc laws, the federal government can't stop them.

If you weren't a racist homophobe, would you let your name be on the top of a newsletter purportedly written by you(ghostwriters usually put to words the spoken thoughts of the person they are ghostwriting as the person in question isn't a skilled writer) that is chock full of racism and homophobia?

how much will i be getting paid?

oh wait, he was paying money out for this project...

I prefer this one more:

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and...

Basically, if the states want to make any racist, homophobic, sexist, etc laws, the federal government can't stop them.

And people wonder why I call him an anti-federalist and anti-constitutional.

His name is on the letterhead. If you weren't a racist homophobe, would you let your name be on the top of a newsletter purportedly written by you(ghostwriters usually put to words the spoken thoughts of the person they are ghostwriting as the person in question isn't a skilled writer) that is chock full of racism and homophobia?

If he denounced it, pulled his name from the project, apologized and fired the writers shortly after it was written, I might believe him. Bt not now when it's inconvenient for his reputation.

True. A point that strongly goes against him. But dismiss him as an idiot? Didn't one of the candidates suggest a plan to "deal" with the muslims? One of the most horrific documents I've read recently. Doesn't one have no experience with foreign policy? Possibly the most important factor currently.

He's as much an idiot as, say, half the other candidates at least. With less supporters than alot of them (including someone who's shown much more biggotry than RP), why so many threads dedicated to bringing him down?

I'm no expert on the election, but am slowly reading up on it. So if there's any ignorance about the facts, please be gentle.

True. A point that strongly goes against him. But dismiss him as an idiot? Didn't one of the candidates suggest a plan to "deal" with the muslims? One of the most horrific documents I've read recently. Doesn't one have no experience with foreign policy? Possibly the most important factor currently.

He's as much an idiot as, say, half the other candidates at least. With less supporters than alot of them (including someone who's shown much more biggotry than RP), why so many threads dedicated to bringing him down?

I'm no expert on the election, but am slowly reading up on it. So if there's any ignorance about the facts, please be gentle.

He's a medical doctor. How stupid can he be? Even a really stupid doctor got through eight years of medical school. He's not an idiot. He's just fucked up.

True. A point that strongly goes against him. But dismiss him as an idiot? Didn't one of the candidates suggest a plan to "deal" with the muslims? One of the most horrific documents I've read recently.

Guliani. Also by and by large dismissed.


Doesn't one have no experience with foreign policy? Possibly the most important factor currently.

Got me there. Sounds like something that'd be levelled at Obama or Clinton.


He's as much an idiot as, say, half the other candidates at least. With less supporters than alot of them (including someone who's shown much more biggotry than RP), why so many threads dedicated to bringing him down?

The other candidates aren't shooting off such blatant and completely transparent lies.

Also, his followers are blind to nearly everything wrong with him (once again, I refer to the We the People Act) and have a habit of being basically fanbois. It's Lord of the Rings/Firefly syndrome. People starting hating it based on interactions with the fanbase.


I'm no expert on the election, but am slowly reading up on it. So if there's any ignorance about the facts, please be gentle.

*savages* ;)

Most of us normal people are content just to conform to social norms

Uh...

Translation: the mods wouldn't let me be a twat! Wah!


:D

Which is ironic considering that's what he accuses Libertarians of constantly complaining about.

Of course libertarians can be racist, as long as they apply libertarian principles to some races and not to others.

Sure, that may not be philosophically consistent, but racism rarely is.

Which MLK?

The socialist one who supported revolutionary movements worldwide, collective direct action against oppression, affirmative action to solve the legacy of racism, and aggressive social programs and trade unionism to address poverty? Or the one who came out of the imagination of moderates, whose views are limited to a paragraph or so from the "I Have a Dream" speech, and even that interpreted in a pointlessly simplistic way?

Anyway, no one has ever said that racists must "hate" every member of a minority group. Indeed, such a pointless and stupid concept of racism suggests that Ron Paul is defensively trying to cover up real racist stances... which is quite likely, judging by his past statements.

And "libertarians can't be racist"? Um... that suggests exactly the same thing, only more. Bigoted asshole.

Edit: It also should be noted that the distortion of MLK's views in the first place reeks of racism. Though perhaps not... they did do the same thing to Helen Keller.

wacky feminists

Actually, libertarians tend to (in general--there are exceptions) accept only the most moderate formulations of liberal feminism... with perhaps an added element of "the real way to empower women is to not baby them," that is, to conveniently ignore male domination.

I'll agree that this is in a sense "wacky", but I don't think it's the sense you meant.

Most of us normal people are content just to conform to social norms

Like being Marxist-Leninists. It's so common these days in Western societies.

So what do you think, is he just trying to hide the fact that he is really a racist? Why didn't he take any action against the people publishing those things if he didn't agree with them? And if libertarians cannot be racist as he said in the interview, then why did so many racist rants come in his libertarian new letter over the past 20 years? Something smells fishy, and its not a woman's smelly vagina.

Yeah, the fact that the best he can come up with is "I'm so incompetent that in 10-15 years of several different newsletters published by several organizations I either founded or helped start, I never noticed that they were printing racist, homophobic, pro-violence, and inaccurate rants in my name."

Seriously, when all you can replace it with is "incompetent", are you really even trying to run for office any more?

Well, let's just say the other Ron Paul on the front page has some substance to it. This one? I don't know what you call a group hug thread where people unite through hatred, but this is one of them. I'll do that thing some people do here and say it lowers my faith in humanity:(

The irony is, this is exactly what most racist groups do, to a different context. All the groups and individuals of that nature I've seen anyway.

Wait. Criticism of a specific person for that specific person's actions is the same thing as stereotyping and criticizing an entire group of people based on arbitrary characteristics?

Ok, sure, makes perfect sense.

The trouble with libertarianism is that it's self-undermining. It just leaves the space wide open for any and every unpleasant so-and-so to run amok. And that's hardly a libertarian outcome.

EDIT: Isn't it generally seen as a good thing to not go into a thread spouting names without the backup for it? Instead assuming everyone will somehow know that there is evidence for the claims.

Isn't it generally insulting to Ron Paul supporters that we are to assume they haven't bothered to actually research him?

True. A point that strongly goes against him. But dismiss him as an idiot?

His own supporters are apparently trying to do that - by suggesting that he had no idea what was going out in his name for over a decade.

He's as much an idiot as, say, half the other candidates at least. With less supporters than alot of them (including someone who's shown much more biggotry than RP), why so many threads dedicated to bringing him down?

Probably for the same reason that there are more threads on Christianity than on Taoism. His supporters are much more vocal around here.

I'm no expert on the election, but am slowly reading up on it. So if there's any ignorance about the facts, please be gentle.

Here's some reading on Ron Paul:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
- The blogger obviously has his own political leanings, but the real usefulness here is the list of (and links to) bills proposed by Paul. Pay special attention to the "We the People Act"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html
- "It's unconstitutional and against everything I say about policy on this issue, but I'm voting for it anyways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons
Oh goody! A "doctor" organization that ignores scientific evidence. Woot!

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
(when you can get to it). This links to excerpts from his newsletters.


Of course libertarians can be racist, as long as they apply libertarian principles to some races and not to others.

Sure, that may not be philosophically consistent, but racism rarely is.

Indeed. From what I can tell, Paul's "libertarian" viewpoints apply to white, male, heterosexual Christians who agree with his viewpoints on moral issues.

It is true that the libertarian philosophy allows self-soverign entities to, essentially, be evil, as it gives individuals, and in extension, groups of individuals the right to do nearly whatever they please. It is also true that the libertarian philosophy accounts for the major principles of the U.S. Constitution that restrict the government's ability to violate these rights.

But there has been a major change since the times following the Revolution. Though the Constitution does not allow the nation to govern based on social norms, it assumes that the states, like any government that is practical and responsible for following the will of its people, have the duty to enforce the rules of civilization as they are generally accepted. The United States, at that time, were (note the plural form) a European Union-style collection of self-governing states than the singular nation, divided into states that are really more like provinces, that the United States is today.

The change came about because of the various civil rights movements that have occured throughout American history, due to which states were forced (by the national government) to adhere to the principles of protecting human rights. This constitutional change reduced the elements of libertarianism on the national level - a change that was required, at the time, to prevent social injustice and evil.

A libertarian on the national level could say of the segregatory regions of the early 20th century that if black people don't like the discriminatory practices that are going on where they live, they have every right to leave for another state, or better yet form their own state somewhere else. (Obviously there are flaws in this thinking - where are they going to form a nation, Antarctica? - but that isn't of concern right now.)

Of course, if a state itself was run by libertarians who imposed their philosophy on the state level (not just the national level), there would be no discriminatory practices in the state, since racism is a violation of human rights and is not compatible with libertarianism, as Paul stated.

The We The People act shows is an example of Ron Paul's belief in states' and local rights. He believes that the national government should be reduced back to the powers originally given to it by the Constitution. The question that should be asked of Ron Paul is whether or not state and local governments can be trusted to do what is best for society. Nobody can prove whether or not Dr. Paul is a racist, but racist groups support him because they believe that Paul's views would allow them the chance to gain enough power to impose their racist views. And it is evident that even today, some locales (for example, Jena, Louisiana) would likely revert to discriminatory practices that are evil in nature and must be prevented. It is for this reason that this philosophy of Ron Paul's is not what best for the U.S.

If ever there is a point when all of America has reached a point of nirvana, so to speak, and can be trusted to act in complete good nature, regardless of cultural and social diversity, then it would be time for the libertarian philosophy to be adhered to in its entirety. But because there will always be deviations in human thinking, no matter how slight, there will always be trends and dramatic changes in social norms that are supported by the will of the people. And so the concept of a society "living at peace" is utopian and unrealistic, which is why religion and generally philosophy are considered highly personal.

So libertarianism, like communism, is unfortunately doomed by human nature to be a dream effectively realized only in very small quantities.

In order to understand why Ron Paul has had obsessive support, remember that there is more to his platform than the supposed social impacts. Namely, the consquences of his philosophy on his foreign and economic policies also reveal an attempt to return to the intentions of the founding fathers, and have seen much approval from people disgusted by the actions of "American" institutions like the CIA and IRS. But those are not the subjects of this discussion.

The change came about because of the various civil rights movements that have occured throughout American history, due to which states were forced (by the national government) to adhere to the principles of protecting human rights. This constitutional change reduced the elements of libertarianism on the national level - a change that was required, at the time, to prevent social injustice and evil.

So you contend that the Constitution's protections of individual rights does not apply to the states?

The We The People act shows is an example of Ron Paul's belief in states' and local rights.

Governments do not have rights. People have rights.

If Paul believes that these rights are superseded by state or local government power, then he is not in favor of "individual liberty".

He believes that the national government should be reduced back to the powers originally given to it by the Constitution.

And that the states should have powers prohibited by the Constitution - power to infringe upon the individual rights guaranteed to the individual by the Constitution.

(Congrats on 12,999 posts, Demi!)

I've long since given up on American libertarianism, which tends to end up being pretty much the opposite of classic libertarianism. Instead of valuing individual liberty, American "libertarians" almost uniformly support policies and government models which would result in a loss of liberty for a great many individuals. Of course, the people who would stand to lose all belong to a group or groups which are disliked by the libertarian in question.

In the case of Ron Paul, this would be women, homosexuals, and non-whites. (In other words, the majority of the USA.) Forgive me for laughing when people claim that Ron Paul stands for "liberty" or the rights of the American people. He supports policies that would strip fundamental rights from the majority of the citizens of this country. There are many names for his politics, but "libertarian" really shouldn't be one of them.

Governments do not have rights. People have rights.

This. A thousand times this. :fluffle:

I fact, *sigs*

Governments do not have rights. People have rights.
Something that should be etched onto the face of every Ron Paul/State's Right's supporter with an angle grinder.

It is true that libertarianism and racism is completely incompatible.

Some people don't seem to understand that libertarians attract the most degenerate anti-social elements of society, pro-gun nuts, wacky feminists, states' rights rednecks, homophobes, racists, Milton Friedman bots etc etc. Most of us normal people are content just to conform to social norms because they are acceptable to living in a community, libertarians just want to not use social skills and and want an intellectual excuse not to do so. Imho libertarianism is the freedom to think and so stupid things.

Entartete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, you use such lovely words, liquidation, anti-social and degenerate, if i didn't know better, I'd expect that you acquired your vocabulary by reading translations of Hitler's speeches! The powers of language to both convince, as well as prove revelatory are astonishing, aren't they?

Die Sprache des Nationalsozialismus, so schoen, so schoen!

It is true that libertarianism and racism is completely incompatible.

how so? i'll give you that there is an inherent tension between racism and almost any form of left-wing libertarianism, but in the sense which the term is used by usian right-wingers, they apparently can and do overlap quite comfortably.

how so? i'll give you that there is an inherent tension between racism and almost any form of left-wing libertarianism, but in the sense which the term is used by usian right-wingers, they apparently can and do overlap quite comfortably.

But the term is not used correctly by American right wingers, but having said that I haven't seen much real evidence that American libertarians are racists impart from sensationalist media reports. The whole concept of libertarianism is based on personal liberty, anything restricting the liberty of anyone (such as racist policies) would be against the concept of libertarianism.

But the term is not used correctly by American right wingers, but having said that I haven't seen much real evidence that American libertarians are racists impart from sensationalist media reports. The whole concept of libertarianism is based on personal liberty, anything restricting the liberty of anyone (such as racist policies) would be against the concept of libertarianism.

Racism and racist policies are not the same thing.

Racism and racist policies are not the same thing.

Ok, but the same applies to liberals and communists and democratic socialists and so on and so on.

The whole concept of libertarianism is based on personal liberty, anything restricting the liberty of anyone (such as racist policies) would be against the concept of libertarianism.

actually, USian libertarianism is based on private property. this is a significant distinction - especially for racists - as it actually allows significantly more restrictions on the liberty of others by placing everything into the hands of private tyrants. no more big bad federal government telling people that they have to serve people of color at their lunch counters.

actually, USian libertarianism is based on private property. this is a significant distinction - especially for racists - as it actually allows significantly more restrictions on the liberty of others by placing everything into the hands of private tyrants. no more big bad federal government telling people that they have to serve people of color at their lunch counters.

Well, most real libertarians would accept that economic law is bound by the social law, or they would argue (it's rather flawed though) that a business will naturally allow anyone of any race to pay for their service or they would severely limit their market.

So you contend that the Constitution's protections of individual rights does not apply to the states?

Previous to the Civil War, yes. Otherwise slavery would have always been prohibited in the United States. The amendments passed after the Civil War applied the protection of rights to the states.

Governments do not have rights. People have rights.

If Paul believes that these rights are superseded by state or local government power, then he is not in favor of "individual liberty".

Okay, you're right. Government don't have rights. Individuals have the right to contract, and government is built upon the social contract. Through this social contract, people can extend their rights and responsibilities to a government by allowing it to enforce laws and collect taxes and the like. But these powers are only priveleges granted by the people, not rights inherent to the government.

Paul does not neccessarily believe exactly that state or local governments should have the power over individuals' rights. His belief is that by allowing the national government to regulate social aspects, it is more likely that the rights will be infringed upon, as it restricts the ability of smaller groups of individuals to make those decisions for themselves. For example, many Americans support the legalization of cannabis. Many others don't. Should the ban of cannabis be imposed on the large group that disagrees with it by the (at best) slightly larger group that supports it? A libertarian says no, the power to make that decision should be pushed as far back to the smallest group of individuals as possible.

And that the states should have powers prohibited by the Constitution - power to infringe upon the individual rights guaranteed to the individual by the Constitution.

Yes, these powers are prohibited now. But Paul believes in the return of the national government to what it was originally intended to be - meaning before the Reconstruction Amendments. But the U.S.A. was a disaster before it prohibited states' powers to violate individuals' rights.

...or they would argue (it's rather flawed though) that a business will naturally allow anyone of any race to pay for their service or they would severely limit their market.

This argument is rather flawed. If the market alone is enough to prevent discrimination or other racist practice, through the desire to do business by not refusing customers because of their race, why did all kinds of businesses discriminate against people due to their race prior to the intervention of government?

"The market will prevent it" might work now, since government has already gone to a great deal of trouble re-engineering the "social law" to make discriminatory and racist policies illegitimate. But prior to the application of law, before the government took such action, the market was clearly insufficient alone; otherwise such law and government intervention would have been unnecessary in the first place.

The simple fact of the matter is that whenever a market failure occurs -- in this case, where the individual pursuit of racist self-interest results in an overall inefficient allocation of resources (an entire race, culture, or other people find themselves excluded from said allocation) -- people will turn to other means.

Libertarianism cannot hold that people be free to limit access to their private property in a racially discriminatory way. The result otherwise is a gigantic market failure. If Libertarianism is to have us rely on the market, Libertarianism must actively institute those measures necessary to prevent market failures. Thus, Libertarianism must take active measures to prevent racism and associated discrimination.

Otherwise, Libertarianism sets its own market up for abysmal failure. That would make it look like silly self-contradictory nonsense.

Previous to the Civil War, yes. Otherwise slavery would have always been prohibited in the United States.

...except that slavery was validated within the Constitution.

The amendments passed after the Civil War applied the protection of rights to the states.

I would say they made it clear that those things applied to the states.

Paul does not neccessarily believe exactly that state or local governments should have the power over individuals' rights.

Yes, he does, and he tries constantly to give the states said power.

For example, many Americans support the legalization of cannabis. Many others don't. Should the ban of cannabis be imposed on the large group that disagrees with it by the (at best) slightly larger group that supports it? A libertarian says no, the power to make that decision should be pushed as far back to the smallest group of individuals as possible.

Pushing it to a smaller group simply pushes the possibility for infringement closer to the individual. It's like taking the gun away from the person 50 feet away and handing it to the person 2 feet away, then telling me I've been protected.

Yes, these powers are prohibited now. But Paul believes in the return of the national government to what it was originally intended to be - meaning before the Reconstruction Amendments. But the U.S.A. was a disaster before it prohibited states' powers to violate individuals' rights.

Then, like I said, he doesn't wish to uphold individual rights.

I would say they made it clear that those things applied to the states.

I hate to nit-pick when you are doing such fine work, but I can't help myself. :p

One could argue that fundamental liberties belong to individuals even when not codified in the Constitution. So states should not have violated those rights even before the 14th Amendment. This is a valid argument.

But, prior to the 14th Amendment, the limitations of the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. They did not constrain the states.

Keep up the good work. :cool:

And you and Offensive Mathematics are both right that Ron Paul seeks to effectively repeal the 14th Amendment and that is wrong and would be a serious threat to our liberties.