Re the Paul campaign, Deane sums up my feelings, and those of many of my friends. One needn’t think RP is perfect, nor have any regard for LvMI, to recognize that the outpouring of support for RP is a hopeful thing.

Let’s return to the days of bootleg abortions. Now there’s a true libertarian idea, a touch of theocracy, militarism and socialisms all in one.

Have the government declare when life begins, and take the liberal view that it’s at conception and not preconception. Then go state by state and ban abortions, protecting fetal rights “since there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected,” says Dr. No.

No distinction made between a zygote and a full-term fetus, and the government should intervene on behalf of the rights of the fetus (unborn child, says Paul). Pregnant women apparently should have no say in the matter, and have no right to do anything except carry a zygote to term and deliver on demand for the sake of liberty.

What a great combination, liberty backed by police power to reassure “social conservatives” invested in theocratic socialisms that the US government’s word on life is on a par with that of leading Christianists.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=842

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/.....nterviews/

Haigh, if libertarianism’s a 2.0 consumable product, the Ayn Rand-churchocratic packaging doesn’t work.

Thanks for reading. I’ll not belabor such inconsistencies here again, since Tom Palmer needs to get back to his work for human rights without more blowback from the peaceful Paul Revolution camp.

Right, a peaceful lot, the 2.0 revolutionaries. Dr. Steele, I’ll send you an email if I go libertarian enough to feel the need for a Kalashnikov.

Cheers,
Anonymous

If indeed the Ron Paul candidacy can stay standing until the GOP convention, I hold out hope that Cato will find a little resonance.

Call the ideas of the RPR Liberty 3.0. At this point its not clear Cato will make the product transition out of their 2.0 outlook.

Because I really do think the work of both institutes are complementary, at least looking from a distance.

I really do think the Ron Paul run is the single most exciting thing that libertarians anywhere in the world had seen for a long long time. no actually let me rephrase it, this has been the most exciting thing ever.

No one would make money bombs, youtube videos, Blimps or go door-to-door with the message of Liberty for any institute. Ron Paul did that.

Ron Paul made liberty inspiring again, I refuse to believe that anyone remotely libertarian didn’t find the RP candidacy inspiring.

Whether you agree with him or not, At the very least Ron Paul deserve a simple thanks from everyone who claim to be libertarian.

Go Ron Paul, go Cato.

But if I thought he would win AND install the cabinet you mention, I’d likely donate every penny and second of my time to getting him elected, just for sheer entertainment value.

Afterwards, though, I’d also have to move to a safe place to watch, like Canada.

Itâ??s not necessary that Cato support the candidate but Cato should be taking advantage of the moment by amplifying the message.

When Ron Paul says any of the following
- Close down 700 bases in 130 foreign countries
- We need to return to a strict interpretation of the constitution
- America should not go to war without a declaration from Congress
- The legality of abortion should be determined by the states.
- The country is bankrupt
- Etc.

Cato could be reacting. Agree or disagree, it almost doesnâ??t matter, as long as the intent is true to the essence of liberty. Amplify the message, modify it, or bring it a new layer of detail. Cato could be catching the attention of all the young people who have been attracted to Ron Paulâ??s message, instead the moment is being squandered.

Charles, I don’t believe Dr. No can be trusted. He doesn’t seem to have a problem laying down the law in his imperious declarations on immigration and abortion. And don’t you worry a tad about the people he might choose for his cabinet? Or do you think all cabinet posts would be abolished, along with the IRS?

I don’t know about you, but I’d feel uneasy if he chose, say, Hoppe as Treasury Secretary, Gary North as Attorney General and Lew Rockwell as Secretary of State. And even if he didn’t, what kind of advisors are they now on the Constitution, economics, foreign policy? These people don’t inspire confidence. Not that everyone has to sound like Mahatma Gandhi, but their truculent prose makes the reader wonder also about the depth of their commitment to peace.

http://unforeseencontingencies.blogspot.com/

The success of Rothbard’s dream of the paleo-vanguard tricking the unwashed hick masses into libertarian anarcho-revolution?

1) failed miserably 2) made a joke of libertarianism and Ron Paul 3) was transparent enough to show Rothbard and Rockwell for the dishonest hucksters they are.

Lew Rockwell, you are no Henry Kissinger sir!

The left has been blogging about the Paul newsletters for some time. The Daily Kos link I gave is dated May 2007.

I know a number of “progressives” and leftists who don’t read anything from Cato, never heard of Reason, and have no idea what any “beltway libertarians” say about anything. They know I am a libertarian, and sort of get what I am talking about. When they heard I support Paul, I was asked whether he isn’t actually a racist — this was prior to the New Republic article (I keep mistakenly calling it National Review). It would be a lot easier for me to keep saying “no, he’s not” if he’d come clean.

This isn’t a conspiracy against Paul. It’s his own newsletter, for heaven’s sakes!

“Palmer and Boaz neither wrote nor publicized the RP newsletters. National Review did.”

When a mob is on a mission, every man makes a choice to join or not. I have found no evidence this mob accomplished anything for liberty.

Would the Rockwell-Rothbard approach to building a power base be described as “triangulation”?

I guess Ron Paul had a spontaneous remission of whatever little moral lapse he succumbed to. Or would it be more accurate to say he’s “repented”? What does it mean to take moral responsibility for Machiavellian tactics of this sort? Does the nice country doctor morph into Henry Kissinger when he’s with his “advisors”?

Maybe so, but the simple fact was that there were no “Yanqui go home” parades suggested strongly against the sort of resentment Rockwell clearly presumed present… so I stopped paying any attention to his commentaries in that regard, while never unsubscribing.

I will state that, for the most part, the Mises newsletter stays off of politics, and, as long as it does, and stays on economics ground, it is highly rational, thoughtful, and worth reading.

I know Rockwell may officially edit it, but there are apparently other hands there who seem to keep it on an even keel, and in the direction that I believe Mises and Rothbard would support, as would most Libertarians. I suggest that as long as Mises.org does this, you don’t tar them with the same brush you use against Rockwell.

By all means, if they make ridiculous political claims, nail their balls to the wall, but, as long as this is not a regular thing, I recommend that the site and its economic viewpoints are worthy of attention. They are one of the two alternative schools of economic thought to use against Neo-Keynesian idiocy and collectivist bullsh**.

Ron Paul sabotages himself by not denouncing the crap written in his name.

Here’s what the anti-war democrats have been saying about Paul for some time:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

The RP newsletter quotes from Daily Kos are much worse, IMO, than what NR posted. Good luck converting anti-war democrats with this stuff. What irks me is that a great deal of damage can be undone by being upfront and simply coming clean. I believe Paul isn’t a racist; he ought simply to denounce this crap and whoever wrote it.

Paul has taken responsibility for this petard but it was Palmer’s and Boaz’s choice to hoist it. Palmer and Boaz have a lifetime of contributions but in this choice of theirs I see nothing constructive.

One of the unique contributions of Paul’s campaign is its attraction to anti-war democrats. I don’t expect these supporters will ever cross over to libertarianism but progress is most likely when constituencies are consolidated. The newsletter affair is a petty distraction that undermines this opportunity.