Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on A Libertarian Takes On Ron Paul

1

Amen. Paul scares me.

But then, they all scare me.

Posted by Justin | January 2, 2008 3:12 PM
2

I've voted Libertarian for years, and I have not been supportive of Paul at all, for some of the reasons in the Green article and various other reasons.

Reason magazine has seemed to be mostly in the tank for Paul, so it's good to see a libertarian-leaning magazine taking a more skeptical view.

thanks Erica!

Posted by JMR | January 2, 2008 3:15 PM
3

Ron Paul will not be our next President and I'm willing to bet on that.

Seriously, I'll bet anyone $1000 on it.

Posted by Sigourney Beaver | January 2, 2008 3:16 PM
4

I agree with you that it is _inconsistent_ of Ron Paul to seek earmarks for his constituents (as I agree with you that it is deplorable for him not to believe in evolution), but I really can't see how anyone in her right mind could characterize any part of what you've quoted as "dramatically increasing the size of government to restrict rights he doesn’t agree with."

Posted by candid | January 2, 2008 3:27 PM
5

Your "takedown" wasn't very convincing and just sounded shrill. Anyways, your cause would be better served by encouraging support for the wedge candidate.

Posted by Joe Blow | January 2, 2008 3:35 PM
6

Sigourney, I'll take you up on that bet.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 2, 2008 3:36 PM
7

FT Eighty

Make it $5000. I'm in a betting mood.

Posted by Sigourney Beaver | January 2, 2008 3:39 PM
8

Oops, sorry, thought you said he WOULD be Prexy. My bad.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 2, 2008 3:40 PM
9

I'll offer you the same bet then, 5280; it'll be fun. Particularly because of the lovely irony of a supposedly economically ignorant liberal tricking a supposedly enlightened free market worshipper out of his hard-earned cash.

Posted by tsm | January 2, 2008 3:40 PM
10

@8 - D'oh! Never mind, then.

Posted by tsm | January 2, 2008 3:41 PM
11

That's kind of silly because for every one libertarian against him there's 1000 for him. Find me a ratio of liberals for Kucinich or something, that's more similar.

Mostly people dislike him because he is kind of a nut and wildly unintellectual.

I don't support him, but I would WAY rather republicans go the way of libertarians and cutting the waste out of the federal government and giving states back the rights than go the way of starting wars, setting up secret courts and giving churches more power.

Posted by Andrew | January 2, 2008 3:46 PM
12

Damn! I was counting on easy green.

But seriously, it's a nice parlor trick. Anytime you run into a die-hard Paulist, bet a big chunk of change on their candidate and see how convinced they are of his viability.

FWIW, I'm an Obama supporter, but I wouldn't bet on it. Shit's too unpredictable for that.

Having said that, go Obama!

Posted by Sigourney Beaver | January 2, 2008 3:48 PM
13

Wow, Erica. You are completely missing the point. Ron Paul's popularity is not because he is so great and such a smart guy and a fabulous candidate, it's that he's using the current political system to put forth alternative ideas.

It's a little similar to howard dean in 2004. I'm sure very few actually believe he'll win or even that he has a good chance to win.

Posted by Daimajin | January 2, 2008 3:54 PM
14
Posted by some dude | January 2, 2008 3:57 PM
15

But seriously, it's a nice parlor trick. Anytime you run into a die-hard Paulist, bet a big chunk of change on their candidate and see how convinced they are of his viability.

Even if a true-believer Paulist wanted to put his money where his mouth is, I'm sure they mostly have enough sense to go to an offshore website that accepts such bets and get 10-1 or 20-1 on their man, instead of betting $1000 straight-up with an anonymous Slog commenter.

Posted by JMR | January 2, 2008 3:58 PM
16

". . . is one of the most scathing reviews I’ve read of Ron Paul’s stands on the issues."
Stance! STANCE!!! Someone get this man an editor!

Posted by Chip | January 2, 2008 4:01 PM
17

There is nothing to gain by courting libertarians from the left, and a third party libertarian candidate only hurts the Republicans, never the Democrats.

The reason is that all the liberty stuff that libertarians supposedly care about (legalizing drugs for example) is pure window dressing. When it comes down to choosing between the two major parties, they always go with the Republican who promised them a tax cut. Libertarians will never lose a moment of sleep over the abuse of minorities or intrusive government: it just sounds better to talk and talk and talk about that kind of thing than to talk about their first and only love, which is money.

You can peel Christians away from the GOP by appealing to their compassion, but if you offered a libertarian more freedom without lower taxes, they'd say no thanks, take my freedom and let me keep my money.

Posted by elenchos | January 2, 2008 4:02 PM
18

It really doesn't matter. They're going into the wilderness for the next 40 years, and they deserve it, including the Libertarians.

Can't say I'll miss those unpatriotic slimeballs in the GOP.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 2, 2008 4:12 PM
19

Will @ 18: Are you willing to bet money on that? No GOP president for the next 40 years?

Posted by David Wright | January 2, 2008 4:36 PM
20

I love how this post is ostensibly about someone else's critique of Ron Paul, but in the end its just a chance for Erica to feel confirmed in and quote her own critique of Ron Paul, even though about the only aspect the two critiques share is the word "inconsistent".

Oh and by the way, no, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter.

Posted by David Wright | January 2, 2008 4:40 PM
21

I love how this post is ostensibly about someone else's critique of Ron Paul, but in the end its just a chance for Erica to feel confirmed in and quote her own critique of Ron Paul, even though about the only aspect the two critiques share is the word "inconsistent".

a REAL "takedown" would not require such confirmation.

Posted by JMR | January 2, 2008 4:53 PM
22

@17,

I'm sure they assume that they're money can buy them freedom, i.e. protect them from the government. To a great degree that's true. No matter how many of us plebs get pushed around, rich people can always buy their way out of trouble.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 2, 2008 4:56 PM
23

their money

Crap.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 2, 2008 4:57 PM
24

@19 - so, let me get this straight, you're not willing to put up $1000 of your own money to say Ron Paul will win, but you are willing to twist what I said about the GOP being sent off into the wilderness to ask me to put up $1000 of my money and somehow say that means they'll never elect a President ...

Um, no. I've given more than that before. You're not getting any of my money to support your comrades in China and Saudi Arabia, and other terrorist-supporting nations you Repubs love.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 2, 2008 5:16 PM
25

Will @ 24: So if "they're going into the wilderness for the next 40 years" doesn't mean they won't win elections in that time, what does it mean? Or is just a rhetorical flourish free of any empirical meaning?

I am, by the way, not a Republican. I am not a Democrat either, although I have voted for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election. I am simply a person who values clear argumentation and empirically verifiable assertions.

Posted by David Wright | January 2, 2008 5:43 PM
26

I am simply a person who values clear argumentation and empirically verifiable assertions.

then what the hell are you doing on the Slog?

Posted by JMR | January 2, 2008 5:46 PM
27

More ignorant shit from elenchos @ 17



Libertarians will never lose a moment of sleep over the abuse of minorities or intrusive government: it just sounds better to talk and talk and talk about that kind of thing than to talk about their first and only love, which is money.


It's a fair charge and it's one of the frustrating things about a lot of people who call themselves "libertarians". but you can also charge the Democratic party and it's so-called "liberal" supporters with being willing to talk and talk and talk about civil liberties but then throwing those principles to the wind and not lose a moment of sleep over doing so, or over the plight of minorities, if someone offers them a shiny new entitlement program and says that they're in favor of Roe v. Wade. Don't believe me? Well witness the brave stand that the four Democratic senators running for president took against Michael "waterboarding isn't torture" Mukasey. Oh wait, Clinton, Obama, Dodd and Biden didn't take a stand, not only did they not vote against Mukasey's confirmation (all four of them chickened out by abstaining) but they also didn't bother to do anything such as filibuster it until he promised to honestly answer questions about torture and whether or not the president has to obey the law just like everyone else. Nope, those four senators were too busy kissing ass in Iowa to bother taking a stand for civil liberties and the rule of law and against torture, an out of control unitary executive and a spineless rubber-stamp attorney general. But none of that matters to Elenchos because those candidates say that they're pro-choice, and are also offering up various and sundry shiny new national health care plans.


Of course Mukasey wouldn't have been up for a confirmation if it weren't for the completely chickenshit actions of Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer, both of whom gave him a pass when he was in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. But hey, Chuck and Di are OK with torture as long as you're doing it to brown people, especially brown people who are muslims, so let the Gitmo games continue, it's not as if the Democratic party is going to do anything to stop them and it's not as if Democrats and liberals, despite their protestations to the contrary, really give a shit.


So let's see, on one of the most important civil liberties issues of the last year two of the most prominent Democratic senators bent over and grabbed their ankles for George W. Bush and four Democratic senators who want to be president did nothing at all.


Then we have John Edwards, back when John was a senator he voted for the PATRIOT act, for the Iraq war resolution and for creating the wildly ineffective and intrusive Department of Homeland Security. Edwards enthusiastically on to the war bandwagon and rode it as far as he could. Edwards is also against gay marriage and it is interesting that the "liberals" (I put that word in quotes because so many people who consider themselves liberal are anything but) who shit themselves over Ron Paul's wanting to let the states decide the abortion issue have no problem with Edwards position on gay marriage, which is basically to punt it to the states and let them decide the issue.


After leaving office in 2004 Edwards went to work as a consultant for the Fortress Investment Group, a hedge fund that is involved with the subprime lending crisis. I don't know about you but I have difficulty reconciling all of that "two Americas" crap with working as a hired gun for a hedge fund. Edwards is the Democratic Party's answer to Mitt Romney, but Hell, at least the Republicans are calling Romney on his bullshit, which is more than can be said for the Democrats and John Edwards.


But the fact that not a single Democratic candidate for president has done anything of substance about the Bush administration's abuse of civil liberties and it's torture policies really doesn't matter to "liberals" like Elenchos. All a Democrat has to do is promise to be pro-choice and bloviate about national health care and working families and "liberals" like Elenchos will stand in line, as mindless as sheep being led to slaughter, to vote for them. Face it Elenchos, if a Democratic candidate said that he was going to keep the troops in Iraq, bomb Iran and Syria and wipe his ass with the Bill of Rights while quadrupling the size of Gitmo but said that he was going to implement single payer health care you, and most other "liberals", would flush all of your supposed concerns about civil liberties down the toilet just as fast as so many "libertarians" do when offered a tax cut by otherwise authoritarian Republicans.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | January 2, 2008 6:55 PM
28

Oh, and Erica, your "takedown" of Ron Paul was anything but. It was about as much of a "takedown" as the average piece by a conservatard shill such as Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin or Peggy Noonan and offered all of the incisiveness of the average Joni Balter column. I've seen a lot of very cogent and coherent arguments against many of Ron Paul's positions, but not a single one of them has come from you because not only are you ignorant, rabidly partisan and intellectually dishonest but you're also lazy and incompetent.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | January 2, 2008 7:05 PM
29
Exactly: An inconsistent right-winger who, as I wrote before, “believes in slashing government where it actually helps people, and dramatically increasing the size of government to restrict rights he doesn’t agree with.”

Pasting a snippet of someone else's quote did not make your point, ECB. Where will he dramatically increase the size of government?

Also, I fail to see the inconsistency with his stances on border security and foreign policy. Paul is a non-interventionist, true to his GOP roots, and is fiercely protective of our sovereignty. And so it makes perfect sense for him to support the wall -- for which there is some evidence of success in southern California -- and to advocate for getting our troops out of the Middle East.

Sometimes I think you people are so "open-minded" your brains fell out.

Posted by mjg | January 2, 2008 9:03 PM
30

Takedown, my arse. This is a teaching moment for ECB and a supposed libertarian*.

According to the Constitution, it is Congress' responsibility to determine how money will be spent.
For Congress to leave the spending decisions to the Executive branch is contrary to the separation of powers provided by the Constitution. Ron Paul puts in the earmarks to fulfill this responsibility.

However, Ron Paul VOTES AGAINST the spending bills!

*Just because someone calls himself a libertarian does not mean he understands freedom and the Constitution.

Posted by Vaya_Con_Gaia | January 2, 2008 9:54 PM
31

The New Individualist is an Objectivist magazine, not a libertarian one. Objectivists usually hate the libertarians and their political point of view is quite neoconservative.

Posted by pwa | January 3, 2008 5:33 AM
32

ha! @31

neofascists don't like ron paul? for shame!!!

Posted by pwned | January 3, 2008 7:32 AM
33
I've seen a lot of very cogent and coherent arguments against «issue of the day», but not a single one of them has come from you because not only are you ignorant, rabidly partisan and intellectually dishonest but you're also lazy and incompetent.

this is the most accurate, concise, and apt description of erica's "writing" i've ever read.

Posted by ...and another thing... | January 3, 2008 7:39 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).