the mainstream media has a weird problem.  they want to be hip, yet they don’t understand the concepts that Ron Paul is popularizing.  they make their living commenting on or reporting on the commenting on goverment actions, epxenditures, or future acts and expenditures.  the idea that someone wants to NOT have a huge goverment perplexes them and offends them.  I embrace the idea that an attack on the state is an attack on the punditocracy, but I’m not suprised they don’t.  But I’m sympathetic only to a point.  there is a creepy stalinism at work when dr pauls name comes up, particularly on the left.  yuo are alowed to say “ he’s a borken clock thats right twice a day” and “his followers are annoying”. those are the two politically correct things you are allowed to say about him if you are a liberal.  you must preface anything else you say with these remarks.  It’s uncanny

Joe Populist: It is also why most of us think “conservatism” is a bunch of bull as well.

It appears as if every entry Raimondo has at Taki’s Top Drawer, you play the same tune. No offense.

Raimondo obviously is well-aware of the sell-outs parading the label libertarian. It is no surprise to him. But then you also have a lot of sell-outs parading the label conservative. What else is new?

***

As a young “old right” libertarian supporter of Ron Paul, I can relate to what Raimondo says.

I do not read Reason and find them of little to no use. But I do read TAC, Antiwar, Rockwell, Sobran, Buchanan, Vdare, Chronicles, etc.

ron paul is the only alternative to perpetual war and a police state with hyperinflation.

america either wakes up or her constitution will continnue to be deconstructed as her citizens exchange freedoms for protection.

it’s like a friggin hollywood script.

so i still think that our only hope are the muslims who refuse to compromise their principles like the conservatives have in america, either that or the financial storm looming ever closer on the horizon from which the fed nor hollywallstreet productions will be able to save us from.

america will awaken, and itll be from the financial shockwave (if oil at $100. doesnt do it the dollar and gold will) which will cause the media induced stupor to knock them back to their senses.

A lot of this ‘modern libertarianism’ seems to go under the name of ‘neolibertarianism’. Going through a few ‘neolibertarian’ blogs, what I noticed was that what was being espoused was basically conservatism with legalised pot really. One blog seemed to see Irving Kristol as a guru, while Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Nock, Mencken, even Milton Friedman’s name seemed to be nowhere. Nothing about war being the health of the state, plenty about how evil muslims supposedly are. I wouldn’t really consider such bloggers as libertarians. The same goes for such bores as Neal Boortz and Larry Elder.Justin is right though. These ‘modern libertarians’ don’t have half as much influence on the libertarian movement than they think. Conservatism may be just a crock of shit dominated by neocons and talk show/radio demagogues, but as far as I can see, Ron Paul has far more influence over libertarians than the ‘modern libertarians’ do. In my opinion, Ron Paul is the best thing that has happened for libertarianism in years.If he pushes the phonies into the conservative movement where they belong, so much the better. It is really great that lots of his supporters are young people.

Reason does have some good stuff in it, but I do think that Gillespie is not a good editor. The CATO Institute does some good work, but I think they made a mistake in ever thinking they could have much influence in Washington. They would be better off moving back to California.

“As long as they can take drugs, abort fetuses, and sodomize each other to their hearts’ content, he and his Beltway buddies have no problem with the US rampaging over half the earth, regime-changing and taking out “rogue” states at will.”

Exactly!

I don’t care how liberal your beliefs are, forcing your beliefs on others with war is not libertarian.

Are they opposed to coercion or responsibility? Hard to tell.

I think you’re being too hard on Gillespie.  Reason’s coverage of Paul and his campaign has been overwhelmingly positive, and they are certainly an antiwar publication with the exception of one sometime-contributor.  Nick just doesn’t think Paul can win, and doesn’t think any principled politician can win.  Since right now the score of the “Lying A-Holes Vs. Principled Politicians” game has the A-Holes up by about 10,000,000 to 5, there’s a reason to be cynical.

Libertarianism has been about losing for a very, very long time.  There are people who are used to that who are cheering on the Paul campaign anyway - but there are also a lot of people who aren’t used to that and who will probably be horribly disappointed in a few months.  [Personally, I think Paul will almost certainly lose, but I’m going over the falls in his barrel nonetheless.]

The pro-war libertarians actually DO hate Paul, though, so you’re spot on there.

Ron Paul will win in NH.

Paul Revolution sez: “ (for) every entry Raimondo has at Taki’s Top Drawer, you play the same tune. No offense. Raimondo obviously is well-aware of the sell-outs parading the label libertarian. It is no surprise to him. But then you also have a lot of sell-outs parading the label conservative. What else is new? “

It’s not that Libertarian sell-outs that are the problem, it’s “Libertarianism”…the utopianism of the right that is the problem. As has been pointed out before, Ron Paul is not “libertarian” at all on gay marriage, abortion-on-demand, or unrestrained immigration. As for abolishing the FED and returning to the gold standard---Ron Paul’s other issue---we’ll that’s just as much out of step with Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan, and the entire Wall Street CEO crowd that finances the big “libertarian” think-tanks that Justin Raimondo calls “fake libertarians”. But because Ron Paul is so out-of-step with mainstream libertarians on economic reform as well as social issues, it’s questionable as to whether or not the Ron Paul campaign represents “libertarianism” at all.

In large part, I see Ron Paul’s tirade against the Fed as the surviving remnant of Nineteenth Century politics of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, or maybe Lysander Spooner: opposition to the national bank. In his opposition to the unfairness of the FED and it’s role in maintaining and supporting the inequity that is intrinsic to finance capitalism. This is hardly “libertarianism” but old fashioned populism. His opposition to internationalism and interventionism also addresses an old strain in American agrarian politics that ended with WWII.

What with the Ayn Rand cult, and the all the high powered “libertarian” think tanks representing the interests of Wall Street bankers, hedge fund managers, trust fund babies and the Park Avenue/Country Club crowd swarming all over DC, what you call “Libertarianism” are really just special interest politics the Democrat‘s “identity politics” represents the interests of blacks, single women with children and government employees.

Sorry man…I have nothing but admiration for Ron Paul’s efforts, and despite what you may think, am cheering for his campaign to succeed. But Justin is wrong, the “sell-outs” as he called them are in fact, the mainstream of libertarianism, and Ron Paul, Justin and you as much on the fringe as Nader and the Green Party were to the Left.

I have always been a Libertarian but I have never thought Cato or Nick Gillespie to ever be relevant.  Today’s Libertarianism had everything to do with the 1994 revolution and nothing to do with the Libertarian “Intelligentsia” and I do use sarcastic quotes like in the Politico article.  They still ride off of Goldwater’s coattails.  Now Ron is actually doing something and they are jealous.  Other guys at Reason are more reasonable, but when I saw that guy on the McLaughlin’s show I put in into the second classification. I could go on longer but I think my opinion of some members of the Libertarian “Intelligentsia” could best be summed up by this short video, especially the second classification:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oboyox3L_MI

Radley Balko is most definitely not in this group.

“As long as they can take drugs, abort fetuses, and sodomize each other to their hearts’ content, he and his Beltway buddies have no problem with the US rampaging over half the earth, regime-changing and taking out “rogue” states at will.”

Only thing is, they CAN’T take drugs, as the WOD hasn’t let up one iota since the days of Reagan and Meese. Which means that these “libertarians” have given up TWO of their key planks--drug legalization and an end to foreign entanglements. How utterly depressing.

In business circles there is what is known as the “wasn’t invented here” syndrome - the rejection of any idea not originated by our team.  Reason magazine didn’t invent Ron Paul and their tone is always a bit reserved about anything good they didn’t originate (and they didn’t originate anything that I can think of so that tone is pretty much their whole act).

As a big fan of Antiwar.com I can guarantee you that you won’t find a writer who backs up his logical viewpoints better than Justin. If only he could get his buddy Pat Buchanan to use a little more of his TV time to back up Ron Paul.

Pat, come on.  We need you, buddy.  You act as if you’ve never heard of Dr. Paul when we all know it’s not true.

Yeah, I am a rather big fan of The American Conservative.  I am glad that Philip Giraldi is getting better placement, his snippets of information are very useful and his sources are excellent.

These poser pro-war libertarians truly have no compass
of morality or an understanding of the
“Live and Let Live” philosphy that Ron Paul
and his gathering army are atuned to. They consider
themselves libertarian but are mostly id-ridden,
and lacking in comprehension that responsiblity also
rides the wave along with pleasure.

CATO and Reason magazine - such a disappointment to discover these people are not libertarian at all in any meaningful sense of the word.  They are as entrenched and indebted to the system as are the most corrupt defense industry lobbyists.  They dread and fear genuine change as much as does most inside or DC insiders.  If they were libertarians at all they would have been the first to be touting Ron Paul as the hope for this country he really is.

I used to read Reason but I stopped my subscription when I saw no support and inadequate discussion there for Ron Paul at the beginning of his campaign. I knew then that they were among those who like to debate the merits of liberty but not join the battle for it. Now to read here, Gillespie quoted as saying “younger voters who are too stupid to realize that’s not how politics works,” I am certain they do not realize that nuance is exactly what needs to change in Washington. I’ve heard Ron Paul mention before that he hires people from outside Washington so that they aren’t part of the political system there. As a Paul supporter I guess I’m too stupid to spend my money on his magazine anymore.

I feel the same way about Cato and some other groups. When they don’t rally support for the one honest guy that wants to restore the Constitution and bring liberty back to our country, I know where they stand.

It seems to be me that the word “libertarian” has become just about as worthless as “capitalism”.  Everyone has a different idea about what it means.  If Neal Boortz and Murray Rothbard can both be “Libertarians” then the word is so obviously void of any real meaning…

I had a ‘neo-con’ supporter tell me that Anti-War.com is a far left site.

Those nutty little nut nuts.

“sodomize each other to their hearts’ content,”

Justin:

I’d like to see you more fully develop this critique of social-issue-only libertarians - as a gay man supportive and extremely articulate about so-called Old Right values to a young cyber-audience, this is something you should really try and parse out.  You know that there is still an old right/libertarian crowd that is extremely partial to a ‘traditional values’ anti-gay message when it’s couched in ‘states-rights’ anti-coercion rhetoric.  I’m quite sure there’s room for gays and anti-neocon/anti-interventionism in the Ron Paul tent.  Although it’s never been your ‘mission’, some of us might be looking to you to help clear some space.

Joe,

But because Ron Paul is so out-of-step with mainstream libertarians on economic reform as well as social issues, it’s questionable as to whether or not the Ron Paul campaign represents “libertarianism” at all.

This is really not much different than the constant discussion we have with people on the conservative side. 

The fact that there are “mainstream” or “establishment” folks who claim a particular movement for themselves who have partly or completely abandoned the principles that name represents does not mean people who still hold to those principles are “out of step” with the movement itself.

Classical Liberalism / libertarianism has a history.  It has a meaning, and a definition.  If you read it, you will find that it is *exactly* what Ron is advocating.  The same goes for the old-right issue.  They’re one and the same.  The old right came right out of classical liberalism.

Allowing people to simply co-opt a name and then redefine its meaning to exclude the people who are faithful to its historical view and positions is simply absurd.

Apropos Pat Buchanan allegedly not having anything to say about Ron Paul, Pat posted a very pro-Paul article on his website not long ago and he has said good things about him on the McLaughlin Group from time to time.

I think you go overboard in your Cato-bashing. The institute’s official position was against both Iraq wars.

Funny thing: if you check where the contributions to Ron Paul are coming from, those dreaded “Beltway libertarians” are close to the top of the list.

As a disgruntled, formerly apathetic conservative Republican who has been a Ron Paul grass roots activist since April, I have run into hundreds of people who call themselves libertarian (both small ‘l’ and capital ‘L’).  The dumbing down of American youth is painfully evident when trying to discuss the difference between someone who, coincidently, holds a position that can be attributed as aligned with libertarian principles and Ron Paul who is a constitutional libertarian not because of some positions he holds but because of the principles he follows to arrive at those positions.  Principles, libertarian, progressive, monarchist, etc, should not be variable by geography, age or modern-ness. Libertarian principles have been the conscience of conservatism since long before Barry Goldwater so eloquently described them, without the use of a label since the term ‘libertarian’ wasn’t necessary until we became such a label-oriented society.  In US politics Conservatism traditionally meant the adherence to the rule of law and a conservative application of the force of government and liberalism meant the liberal application of force according to the rule of a small number of elite who comprise the ruling class. The best evidence of these meanings in practice is the fact that liberals have started ever war over the past century and conservatives have ended them, with the exception of Harry S. Truman, who found a way to both exert maximum force and end a war.  Yes, I am calling the Bush family liberals; there is nothing conservative about them.  Their ends justify their means in the boldest liberal fashion possible. I think a better word to describe them would be Republican-liberals rather than neo-conservatives since there is nothing conservative about them.
Yours in peace, prosperity and individual liberty,
Jahfre Fire Eater

The question of what “liberal” and “conservative” traditionally mean in US politics depends on how far back you look for tradition. Yes, during the twentieth century, conservatism came to mean opposition to progressivism/socialism/preservation of republican institutions, while liberalism was defined as identical with progressivism/socialism. But prior to the twentieth century, liberalism referred to an opposition to centralized authority in all things, and opposed a “conservative” defense of the status-quo: monarchism, mercantilism, state-backed ecclesiastic authority, and constant warfare.

Indeed, outside English speaking intellectual circles (particularly French), “liberalism” continues to refer to what we would call “libertarianism,” and is still associated with that old French term: lassiz-faire. They call socialism by its correct name.

Interesting discussion.  Just by way of introduction, this is my first visit to this site.  I’ve considered myself a L-/libertarian since late in high school in the mid-’80’s when FEE held a workshop for my debate team (my mother curses that day).

I generally adore Reason (disclosure: I’ve written exactly one article for them) and generally think of Cato as a positive force--though their seeming lack of enthusiasm for Paul disappoints.  Abortion and immigration are not my favorite policy areas for Ron Paul (though even here, especially when read between the lines, he is more to my liking than most of his GOPponents), yet I enthusiastically support him because of the total package and the rarity and significance of this opportunity (win or not).

It’s worth mentioning that Reason’s blog comments supporting Paul easily outnumber those opposing.  Numerous positive posts by editors, too.

I wonder if the small government think tanks, conservative or libertarian, really want the government to shrink too much.  Their money comes from people who are irritated by the leviathan state.  Are they serious about reducing coercion in our lives or do they just like getting paid to propose things? 

(Does the American Cancer Society really want to cure cancer?  Then why are they spending so much money promoting socialized health care and not medical research?  Same kind of thing.)

From what I have seen, the think tanks have been implicitly supporting the neocon candidates, by subtly giving them kudos or by omitting Ron Paul from discussions of the campaign.  I have been particularly disappointed that Cato has been so quiet on Ron Paul. 

Many pro-war Republicans are, like President Bush, members of the religious right, it seems to me.  Bush gives us tax cuts to keep us happy, but borrows and prints money to fund his wars.  Perhaps he is not concerned with the future because he is convinced that Jesus will return before all of that fiscal irresponsibility catches up with us.  Bush insists that nuking Iran is “on the table.”

And they say that Ahmadinejad is scary…

Shamear sed: “Classical Liberalism / libertarianism has a history. It has a meaning, and a definition. Allowing people to simply co-opt a name and then redefine its meaning to exclude the people who are faithful to its historical view and positions is simply absurd.”

Well, Communism was a nice theory too, but it’s reality was quite different from the utopian vision of most of it’s rank and file supporters. The same goes for Laissez Faire Capitalism---It was uncontrolled finance capitalism that created the turmoil that brought Europe to endless wars!  Hayek was wrong about that.

Today it’s reality is the sort of finance capitalism is the root cause of the conflicts with the “Islamo-fascism”. The so-called “Democracy” that the United States is determined to force on the Mideast is in fact, putting those resources into the control of international finance capitalism---which IS the IMF, the World Bank, and the FED--and the Wall Street Bankers and the Hedge Fund managers, the international corporations that sustain it. They are all intrinsically interconnected.

There is no such thing as the “free market”, and so-called “Classical Liberalism” can mean anything from the plutocracy of the Southern Plantation economy to the “Cross of Gold” that William Jennings Bryan spoke of that was destroying the lives of the agrarian American population in the “Gilded Age”.

Libertarianism is a dangerous utopians, and the “fake libertarians” that Justin complains about are in fact the mainstream, and it is Justin, and Ron Paul, and you so-called “Classical Liberals” that are the lunatic fringe, ranting in the dark about your dreams of “freedom” and “Liberty”.

If anything, “conservatives”means the negation of ideology, and you and yours are as deluded ideologues as the neo-conservatives you claim have stolen your movement.

Ugh, so many typos..I can’t see what I’m writing ‘cause of this web desgina. I wish Taki would fix it.

Reading Joe Populist is alays amusing. First he protests that he admires Ron paul, and then denounces him as belonging to the lunatic fringe.

Scoff. Scoff. Scoff.

Great article, especially the last paragraph about how the market has decided what libertarianism is.  yah baby.

“As long as they can take drugs, abort fetuses, and sodomize each other to their hearts’ content”

query the bizarro-hom-intern:  casual sex for thee but not me?

Martin’s amusement: “Reading Joe Populist is always amusing. First he protests that he admires Ron paul, and then denounces him as belonging to the lunatic fringe.”

Running nationally at 3% puts Ron Paul and you guys in the same category as Ralph Nader and the Green Party…or Mike Gravel and Dennis Kuchinch in the Republican Party.  So it’s about time you get over it and come down to earth. 

Obviously you haven’t read what I wrote. I admire Ron Paul’s efforts….because his contradictions of the Republican Party line on the Iraq War is, in my own words---if you bothered to read them---is “like farting at an tea party of Old Ladies.“.Furthermore I wrote that his positions of the social issues (abortion-on-demand, unrestrained immigration and gay marriage) and the economic issues (replacing the Fed with the Gold Standard and repealing NAFTA/CAFTA/IMF/Export Import Bank ---the institutions of finance capitalism) are evidence that he is not a “libertarian” at all.  I wrote that I view Ron Paul’s rants against the Fed as pure ild fashioned agrarian populism.

But the fact remains that you are avoiding is that it is Ron Paul, Justin and YOU who claim to be the true “libertarians” are avoiding that FACT that it is Alan Greenspan and Neuter Gingrich and Dick Armey who constitute real “libertarianism”---which is in my opinion just rationale for plutocracy.

Sorry, but the problem is “libertarianism” itself…from the lunatic rants of the evil bitch, Ayn Rand to the plutocratic policies of Alan Greenspan, the philosophy has proven itself to prove only rhetoric to justify giving those who have the most a little more. That you actually believe the crap handed out by Von Mises, Hayak or Rothbard, or Rand just makes YOU the mirror image equivalent of the “Old Left” whose utopian idealism blinded them to the crimes of Lenin and Stalin back in the old days.

The essence of the conservative impulse is to reject ideology.  It is the politics of prudence, of the practical, of the rational. Even including libertarianism in a “conservative coalition” under the philosophy of “fusionism” will doom the movement to the political sideline forever.

One could argue that ‘conservatives’ like you are not ‘real conservatives’ and that you just believe crap handed down to you by Burke, Buckley and Kirk, when in reality, the neocons, the religious right, and the Bush administration represent what conservatism is in reality.

ron paul is the only candidate that is not owned by the jews

If you guys are going to be critical of every party or movement that isnt in its PUREST form then all you will ever do is criticize.

we’re down to making choices on candidates based on what would come nearest to whatever we hold dear.

hopefully you are all seeing the dismantling of the constitution...and although we all know it cant happen here, because we are america, clean pure and democratic with a free press and a people whose heart is full of good intentions...the facts are that america is one terrible event away from being a total police state where noone will dare to question the authorities.

the libertarians’ stultifying irrelevance (including dr. paul’s) is partly disguised by everyone’s refusal to acknowledge the existence of peak oil and global warming.

the neocons can’t acknowledge peak oil and global warming because peak oil and global warming caused the neocon operation of 9/11… and so it’s no wonder that the AEI/exxon partnership is the most prominent of global warming/peak oil deniers.

israel is threatened, long term, by sea level rise ---sea level rise of 80 meters if greenland and antarctica melt… but way before that, israel’s meal ticket and protector and proxy military ---aka the united states of america--- will implode from oil shortages… and so something had to be done, and something was done on 9/11…

what did netanyahu say about 9/11...? “it’s very good.”

Bill W. posted: “Ron Paul will win in NH.”

That might be true if we assume that the next round of elections will be “clean.” However, based on the outcomes of the 2000 and 2004 fiascos, that would be a highly naive assumption, to put it kindly. 

I think we can all bet a year’s salary on the assumption that both factions of the Demopublican party will pull out all the stops to make Election 2008 one of the dirtiest, most lawless and most crooked political events of the 21st century, the last two such events being mere “dry runs.” Even assuming that he makes it through the primaries and wins the nomination (an almost hopelessly long shot, but one that I certainly hope comes to pass), the odds of Ron Paul making it into the White House are about as good as mine.  There is simply no way that the Establishment is going to let it happen.

Raimundo has my respect. His article on the Kurds is brilliant--and that from one who knows the area and the Kurds since the time of Xenophon (where the Kurds are prominent).

Kucinich also merits praise--without impeachment of both the President and Vice President (presumably Cheney first) there will be very little left constitutionally to salvage, whoever in the mainstream wins the presidential election.

At that point it is time to work for whatever is left after the Fall, presided over by Clinton or Romney or the like.

One would like to see Raimundo treat the issue of Stark’s apology at length.

He had nothing to apologize for--and the criminals in the White House never apologize for actually doing what Stark quite honestly described.

So the weakness in most of the elected opposition, save Paul and Kucinich, and perhaps one or two others.

Pelosi, who took impeachment off the table, is a disgrace.

raimondo puts it out there everyday for the world to see.
his research and knowledge is appreciated by this reader who hopes to introduce his writings to as many of his friends as are willing to stand up and notice that our nation is on the brink of our very own clean break.

a clean break from the separation of powers and headfirst into an autocratic watchful self interested government of elitist new world orderites.

Martin sez: “One could argue that ‘conservatives’ like you are not ‘real conservatives’ and that you just believe crap handed down to you by Burke, Buckley and Kirk, when in reality, the neocons, the religious right, and the Bush administration represent what conservatism is in reality.”

I don’t go by the handle, “conservative”, but you’re too pre-occupied with your own irrelevance to notice that.

Yuck yuck yuck yuck…

Justin is a tremendous journalist and commentator, no matter how much I disagree with him, or what anyone says about him. Antiwar.com is the premier antiwar site on the net, left or right, or inbetween.

He’s a lot out of the mainstream in San Francisco, which hes why I speculate he has these “left” tendencies on social issues like immigraton and atll.

Justin, move to DC. It’s a total gay town, full of gay men as San Francisco. But you’d be closer to the political action, and able to take a few field trips to Red State America, which might be valuable to your work.

JW

Beltway Libertarians?

Nah, that’s just people who want their rent to go down.  It’s worth a shot.  I should know, I am an amateur beltway libertarian myself.  I look out the window and the Elvis Costello lyric comes to mind, “Heaven is hell in reverse”.

After Super Tuesday, the GOP will back Ron Paul’s candidacy.  They’ll know he’s the best chance at bringing home a Republican win, and the fresh air breathed by the resonance to his message is a means-to-an-end towards refreshing the party’s currently stagnant ranks.

Ron Paul is going to win NH and he is going to raise millions more in donations.  The media has lost their power. It is like the story of the boy who cried wolf.
They can only lie to us so many times before the public just decideds to ignore them.

I’d like to take the media to task here a moment.  What was once a bulwark of our liberties has become a cheap whore.  Why has the press failed to pick up on the tremendous groundswell for Dr Paul.  Well, if you pull press releases from the wires and read them as news without injecting any sort critical thought process, eventually you can get to where you confuse that with news-gathering and reporting.  As for “conservative” the current definition is “frightened by sluts, gays and brown people with accents”.

Justin speaks like he knows what he’s talking about.  And if he doesn’t I do, because there was a time in my life when I was hanging out in DC and thinking of myself as a “libertarian” when I was nothing more than a low tax liberal.  I only started to think in radical terms once I gave up on getting a job in DC and moved as far away as I could get.  Its really impossible to escape the power mindset as long as you are living in DC, Virginia or Maryland.  There might be some radical teachers at GMU, Georgetown etc..  But the students need a lunch ticket and that means working for the government or the think tanks or (most likely) both.

People tease LMI and Rockford for locating policy think tanks out in the sticks.  Well, better the swamp than Babylon!  Or as that old-time swamp dweller Pogo would say..."We have met the enemy and he is us.” A description that fits power-hungry “libertarians” better than almost anyone else that I can think of at the moment.

One would think that by bombing Iran Bush would be handing the nomination and election to Paul. Not so, it’s the campaign that counts. The election is already rigged for any establishment candidate -probably Hellary on Wheels. Doesn’t matter, the President will be whoever the Supreme Court says is President - except Ron Paul.

So campaign like you hair is on fire for Ron Paul, then when the GOP locks him out. Go home and don’t vote. Clean your weapons instead.

Enjoyed the article and comments.  One thing about my two fave candidates Paul and Kucinich (I know I’m confused!), is that I think their polling numbers may drop a little now that Colbert has announced his run.  I think they share the same demographic (geeks/young(ish) people who are Net-literate and oppose war).  Also, they both did great when they appeared on Colbert’s show.

Yes, those old over the hill out of fashion libertarians who insist on defining a libertarian by one simple single criterion: Whether they live by the non-aggression principle or not. It cuts through ALL of the bull.

While pro-war hawks are obviously not libertarian (example: contemporary Objectivism), the real issue at hand is whether to assume individual states’ rights to make laws or whether to assert individual citizen’s rights to be free of the laws and coercion from the state where he/she lives.  Why should your state be allowed to trample individual rights, or even your city?  Majority rule is never libertarian, only individual rights matter, not the will of the masses.

If Ron Paul is against free trade agreements and abortion “rights”, it is only because of their “federal”, which today doesn’t mean federal, nature. Free trade agreements among nations, don’t mean free trade, but rather regulated trade. Abortion “rights”, as is true of the notion of homicide in general, should be an issue decided at the state level. Each of these positions would be consistent with libertarian and “old right” leanings. Preemptive warriors of an undeclared type of war are really the inconsistent defenders of liberty.

The Times did a piece on Paul a few months ago that began: Ron Paul will not be president of the United States. Pretty desperate, even for them.

Eurgene, you’re right; Kucinich does merit praise. He says all the right thiungs and he’s been saying them for a very long time. But it’s time; he’s never had the look, and now it’s Ron Paul or nothing.

The fake libertarians are those who claim advocacy for
liberty, yet could care less about the global struggle
against the most insidious threat to liberty in our
lifetimes: Worldwide Islamic Fascism.

Cato, Reason and other Mainstream libertarians are
right to distance themselves from the loony tune
Lyndon Larouchie views of Ron Paul.  He used to be
a decent libertarian.  Now he’s just a kook.

And how ironic that Raimondo, who screamed at the top
of his lungs at Paul at the 1988 Libertarian Party
Presidential Nomination Convention in Seattle, in
front of hundreds of shocked witnesses, is now
supporting Paul. 

Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003

All Eric is saying…

is give fear a chance…

Let us pray:

Lord, please preserve our Republic from the pathologically afraid.

I actually think that most of the Reason libertarians are favorable to Paul.  I don’t subscribe to the magazine but I read Hit and Run, and they frequently make favorable posts about him, although it is true that these are often filtered through “archaic hipness,” such as today’s post trumpeting Paul’s handshake with Johnny Rotten. I don’t remember the opinion of Gillespie himself, but Raimondo’s interpretation of his remarks in the Politico article at anti-Paul strikes me as very strained.

“Beltway Libertarians”

Now THAT is a contradiction of terms
and Justin is right to expose these
frauds to the faithful.
Anyone who calls themselves a libertarian
but disses Ron Paul is nothing less than
a LIAR and a PHONY that should be tarred,
feathered and run out of town on a rail.
Lead on Justin.

JR has the same bad habit as RP.  He not only tends to tell the truth, he tends to tell it using rather clear rhetoric - a definite no-no. 

The result, as seen in the comments here, is roughly similar.  Or similarly rough.

Yes,it is I, Islamic Fascism.

I come out once a year on All Hallow’s Eve to terrorize and torture...not that I need to because I’ve got the Americans and their Arabic allies to terrorize and torture all they want!  Really, I come out once a year to scare people into voting for people that promise to protect them against me, despite me not really existing in reality.  It doesn’t matter, as long as they believe!!!

BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“He has a set of principles applied consistently. He’s not a bullshit artist,” said Gillespie, who contrasted Paul’s plainspoken approach with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s waffling on abortion. ‘I think that’s very attractive to younger voters who are too stupid to realize that’s not how politics works.’”

Uh, Justin, does it occur to you that Gillespie may have intended that last sentence ironically?

Contrasting the dynamism and burgeoning growth of the Ron Paul for President movement, a thoroughly libertarian movement in both content and direction, even if if Congressman Paul runs under the label of Republican, the fake neocoon libertarians who oppose him are showing themselves to be a pretty empty and pathetic lot!

My guess is that we should concentrate on people (e.g. ordinary Americans) who are perceptive and intelligent enough to see that the path offered by the neocon establishment and their hired hacks and stooges can produce nothing more than more of the same. Let the Rush Limboughs, Seann Hannitys, Ncik Gillespies, et al go on as much as they please, and we can, and should, pursue more important and worthwhile activities, such as making Ron Paul the next President of the United States!!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

To be blunt I see very little in Ron Paul’s so called
Libertarianism that is in fact Libertarian. Libertariasm
being no more than an adherence to classical liberalism
which defended the interests of the individual, property rights,
capitalism and maintained a relatively minimal state.

Classical liberalism is essentially the watchman state expounded upon
by Locke. The notion of states rights isn’t a libertarian issue.
Its a constitutional issue, but really its not an argue about
the size of government just which government is going to deal with the matter.
Nor is it a matter of individual rights given that you’ve already ceded one arm of the state the right to deal with the matter.

The whole anti-war stance isn’t libertarian either. Libertarianism is a prescription for how a government should be constituted - not a foreign policy. That stance has precisely nothing to do Libertarism. It has far more in common with the old isolationsist policies that prevailed in some quarters of the right prior to the cold war. Isolationism really has nothing to do with Libertarianism.

Allowing people to opt out of social insurance and Medicare may be more of an libertarian stand. But quite frankly strikes me as more of a shell game. The two schemes are collective insurance, if people can opt out they will not work as they were intended too. Essentially come out and say you intend to abolish them or not. There really isn’t practically speaking a middle ground.

The abortion issue, he tends to be on the opposite side of the spectrum of where one would naturally place libertarians. Which isn’t to say all libertarians should be doctrinaire to the extent they sign onto the program without equivication or qualm. But still the position he’s taking is provincalist and conservative as opposed to libertarian.

The anti-free trade position is anethma to libertarism. Being against free trade is essentially an endorsement of government intervention into the otherwise free operation of the market and generally via tariff offering corporate welfare. Its a position of the left rather than the right and its ill-liberal and certainly not libertarian in its tenor.

If there is really any coherent label for his platform its simply that its populist. The fact some libertarians have been attracted to it, no more makes it libertarian than the fact many libertarians held there nose and voted for Bush makes him a libertarian.