MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

The Apostles of Ron Paul

News: How does a 72-year-old conservative Texas congressman become the hottest thing in online politics? Ask the techies, hippies, tax haters, and war protesters who believe that only Ron Paul can save America from itself.

January/February 2008 Issue


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


RELATED ARTICLES

At a gun show in San Francisco's Cow Palace, between a table of switchblades and a rack of Enfield rifles, David McBride sat glumly under a "Ron Paul for President" banner. The shy, 28-year-old software tester had driven in from Silicon Valley and wasn't sure how to chat up nra members chewing elk jerky—or, for that matter, the dozen-or-so Paul supporters he'd come to know via Meetup.com but had never met in the flesh. So he pulled out his iPhone and began searching for the latest Paul headlines. Instantly, the geeks gathered: Was the phone's camera 2.0 megapixels? Was Paul gaining in the Iowa Republican straw poll? "I'm waiting until they come out with the one that has ActiveSync," a ponytailed computer consultant said. The group nodded knowingly.

Their candidate, a 72-year-old obstetrician from Lake Jackson, Texas—land of duck hunters, ranchers, and oilmen—has improbably become an Internet sensation. He counts more Facebook and MySpace supporters than any Republican; more Google searches, YouTube subscribers, and website hits than any presidential candidate; and more Meetup members than the front-runners of both parties combined. In recent months he was sought out on the blog search engine Technorati more often than anyone except a Puerto Rican singer with a sex tape on the loose; his November 5 Internet "Money Bomb" event pulled in $4 million from more than 35,000 individual donors, a single-day online-fundraising record in a primary. (The previous best was $3 million, by John Kerry.) "The campaign calls itself the Ron Paul Revolution," notes Republican Internet consultant David All. "And I don't think that's a far stretch."

Indeed, Paul's literature is dominated by the word "revolution," though with the middle letters inverted to make "love"—a hippie touch that would be countenanced by few Republicans other than the congressman, who has been elected 10 times on the GOP ticket (and who also ran as a Libertarian in the 1988 presidential election). The truth is, Paul's revolution is a conservative one, by his own account—and thus all the more noteworthy for Democrats, who until now comfortably assumed that progressive bloggers, YouTubers, and ex-Deaniacs would give them, and only them, an edge online. As it turns out, nobody has more Internet buzz than a pro-gun, pro-life, antitax, and antiwar Republican.

In the Cow Palace, the buzz came mostly from a table of 100,000-volt stun guns; McBride's table was just a sideshow. "I don't know anything about him," said the guy selling Jungle Survivor knives a few tables down the aisle. The national media has mostly ignored Paul, who garners no more than 6 percent of the gop electorate in phone surveys, and Democrats liken his surprising victories on Internet straw polls to the Sanjaya effect: The web loves weirdos.

But maybe the offline world just hasn't seen the right YouTube clips. McBride had downloaded them onto dvds, intending to bring the Net into meatspace. He steeled himself, pocketed the iPhone, and corralled Brian Timpanaro, who was walking by in a bulging stp Oil shirt. "Here's some of Ron Paul's stances," he said, quickly ticking off Paul's position against drug prosecutions, gun control, and the Iraq War. Timpanaro shot back with a cranky denunciation of peace protesters, but walked off clutching a dvd. McBride stacked the remaining discs on his table and called it a day. "I'm one of the more introverted activists you will find," he explained.

And yet McBride is also part of a surprisingly powerful political phenomenon—a shock troop of volunteers who've been working long hours, often within the autonomous confines of their living rooms, to make Paul's online machine the envy of Washington. "You might not know it, but when I'm not eating, sleeping, at work, or taking care of my daughter," McBride told me, "I'm working to get Ron Paul elected."

Paul, a popular doctor who maintained the only ob-gyn practice in his county, was first elected to Congress in 1976. He voted with clinical precision against almost every government-spending bill to cross his desk, even when it meant that his constituents lost out on farm subsidies or money for hurricane protection, earning him the nickname "Dr. No." Politically, his forebears are Senator Robert Taft and Rep. Howard Buffett—the Old Right, pre-National Review. "They understood that war was a big-government program," says Paul's former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell, whose website is one of the most popular libertarian destinations on the Net.

By and large, Paul's acolytes are not the kinds of people you'll find in a Republican campaign—or any campaign. Having, in many cases, never even voted, they are driven by an unalloyed certitude that Americans will be won over to Paul by the sheer force of his antigovernment ideas (and judicious use of social-networking tools). You could call them techno-publicans. And while their success doesn't readily translate to the offline world, their passion and organization have made them a force to reckon with. Once Paul is knocked out of the gop contest, will they dissipate, gravitate toward someone else, or reemerge with a third-party bid? (Libertarians have been spoilers for the gop before; in Montana's close 2006 Senate race, a Libertarian drew more votes than the entire Democratic margin of victory.) Whichever way the Paulites go, other candidates would be smart to study their movement's trajectory. It, not Paul, is the real revolution.

Growing up in Pinetop, a conservative town of 3,000 in the White Mountains of Arizona, McBride learned to cherish freedom and blast clay pigeons with the family's 10-gun arsenal. Then, for three glorious months in 1992, he found a Marvel Comics chat room and legions of fellow X-Men fans. When his parents looked at the phone bill—and realized that connecting to aol meant a long-distance call—14-year-old David went back to target practice.

In 1994, McBride's father, a physician, was disabled in a car accident. His mother died a year later of a prescription mix-up. The family fell into debt. "That's when I came to the realization that life isn't fair," says McBride, whose shaved head, goatee, and coiled physique contrast with a soft voice and gentle demeanor. At 16 he took a job bagging groceries; unlike his older siblings, he'd have to pay for community college himself.

In 1999 McBride dropped out of school and drifted from a job as a used-car-lot manager in Tucson to a seasonal gig supporting the Intuit software MacInTax. Three years later Intuit brought him to Silicon Valley as an application tester. Now there were no limits to his surfing; for hours each night he sat glued to his iMac, sating a growing Apple obsession on sites such as daringfireball.net. "Everything on a Mac makes sense," he says, "when you are coming from a Windows world."

Outside his operating system, the world seemed ever more inscrutable. He read on Google News about the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and the profiling of Muslim Americans. Through his brother in Tucson, he discovered LewRockwell.com, which convinced him that the U.S. government had brought on 9/11 with its policies in the Middle East. McBride had never gotten much help from the government; now he felt downright threatened by it. He was, in other words, becoming part of the 15 or so percent of Americans who consider themselves libertarians. This group has historically voted Republican—enthusiastically for Goldwater in 1964 and Reagan in 1980—but by 2004 many of them broke from the gop. McBride was outraged by the invasion of Iraq, registered to vote for the first time in his life, and cast a ballot for Senator John Kerry, even though he disagreed with his economic policies. "I just thought he would be less dangerous than Bush," he said. "Thousands of people were dying for no good reason."

The next year, after Hurricane Katrina struck, McBride seized on the pressing question on LewRockwell.com: Why had fema blocked Wal-Mart from bringing in supplies? "They understand the environment better, the people better; they know what's needed," he thought. It became clear to McBride that private entities such as the Gates Foundation were more likely to end poverty than the government, that Toyota was best equipped to stop global warming, and that Intuit knew more about taxes than the feds did.

By 2006, McBride was so disgusted with the federal government that he sat out the election, and the new Congress' failure to extricate America from Iraq wiped out his last bit of allegiance to the system. He told himself he'd never vote again. Why bother? Nobody who was against big government, the war, and the Patriot Act could ever win.

During the second Republican primary debate, held on the campus of the University of South Carolina in mid-May, Ron Paul stood at a lectern at the far end of the stage. He'd seldom be allowed to speak that evening, but a rare chance came when Fox's Wendell Goler asked why he wanted the gop nomination given that he opposed the war. Paul said terrorists had attacked the United States because of its entanglements in the Middle East. Murmurs filled the hall. "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?" Goler inquired.

"I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reasons they did it," Paul replied. When the bell cut him off a few seconds later, Rudy Giuliani jumped in. "That's an extraordinary statement," he seethed. "I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11." Egged on by the audience's cheers, Giuliani demanded that Paul withdraw the comment. Goler swiveled in his chair. "Congressman?"

What Paul said next would stream from YouTube more than half a million times, and inspire McBride like no other moment in his young political existence. "I believe very sincerely that the cia is correct when they teach and talk about blowback," Paul said. "[Terrorists] don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if other foreign countries were doing that to us?"

Straw polls on abc and msnbc showed Paul as the debate's resounding winner, and even on Fox's own text-message poll, he nearly tied Mitt Romney for first. For McBride, "It was enough to get me to jump on the bandwagon and say, 'Maybe this guy does have a shot.'" In the following months, the San Francisco Ron Paul Meetup group grew more than thirtyfold; nationwide, more than 60,000 people have signed up for Paul Meetups. Many listed Paul's stance on Iraq as a top reason for their support. While antiwar Democrats such as Dennis Kucinich want to pull out the troops as they are replaced by international peacekeepers, Paul would have them "just come home" no matter what—and, immediately thereafter, kill off the entire military industrial complex along with the "medical industrial complex" and the "educational industrial complex" and the personal income tax. "We can't cut anything until we change our philosophy about what government should do," Paul said in the debate. On that night, he politicized a new generation of libertarians.

Paul fever soon spread to the popular, tech-oriented news aggregator Digg, where McBride and other enthusiasts began to search, post, and comment on everything Paul, to the point where the candidate now consistently dominates the top 10 election stories on Digg's front page. Paul continues to win major Internet polls with the help of emails and chat-site notes exhorting his troops to vote. His victories have often been such routs—87 percent of the vote in the abc post-debate poll, for example—that some media outlets have spiked the polls or removed his name, and bloggers have wondered if his supporters were unleashing malicious web bots. The true answer is probably far simpler: At the core of the Ron Paul juggernaut are thousands of obsessive techies for whom online organizing is not a special effort, but second nature.

The Venn of Paul: As befits a movement with mainstream aspirations, libertarians have taken a big-tent approach to ideological purity. A pro-life, anti-immigration conservative like Ron Paul is welcome, as is a free-love prophet like the late Robert A. Heinlein—and, of course, libertarian thought overlaps with segments of both left and right.
—J.H.

The Venn of Paul

Photograph: Michael Sugrue



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

A question for you “Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters, in which I have yet to receive an answer: My 80 year old African American mother, who was born and raised in New Orleans, would tell us stories concerning the south’s Jim Crow laws. One story in particular goes beyond belief: After paying full fair to ride the commuter bus system, she would have to exit the bus and enter through the back door to sit in the “colored section”. Questions: 1: How long should she had waited for “market forces” to restore her rights given to her by the constitution; 2: Did the State of Louisiana have a “right” to discriminate against her? Should the Federal Government have not intervened?
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 11:10:27 AMRespond ^
biznesschic, It is unfortunate that your mother suffered as she did. It is shameful to know that human beings, through the power of government, would impose such restrictions on fellow children of God. Be sure, Libertarians and Ron Paul himself would be the first in line denouncing the authoritarian government that imposed such restrictions. Peace and freedom.
Posted by:LBDecember 17, 2007 11:23:25 AMRespond ^
I can't speak for the campaign, but I can only surmise that since your mother's Constitutional Rights were violated by discrimination (and because she was forced to deal not just with discrimination, but with inferior facilities, facilities that she were financed with public money)that the federal government would have been entirely justified in enforcing her Constitutional rights, even if the state of Louisiana disagreed.
Posted by:JeremyDecember 17, 2007 11:26:26 AMRespond ^
A question for you “Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters, in which I have yet to receive an answer: My 80 year old African American mother, who was born and raised in New Orleans, would tell us stories concerning the south’s Jim Crow laws. One story in particular goes beyond belief: After paying full fair to ride the commuter bus system, she would have to exit the bus and enter through the back door to sit in the “colored section”. Questions: 1: How long should she had waited for “market forces” to restore her rights given to her by the constitution; 2: Did the State of Louisiana have a “right” to discriminate against her? Should the Federal Government have not intervened? If it were a private bus system then no the government should not intervene. However, there would be nothing stopping African-American citizens from establishing their own bus system that excludes whites. Faced with the loss of a significant portion of it's passengers the original bus line would be strongly influenced to change it's discriminatory practices. The point is that the government can not enforce ideals on people it just fails miserably like with the "war on drugs" and the global "war on terror" that only incites more hatred toward the US killing thousands of innocent people in the process. Market forces will always be superior to central planning and this has been proven over and over again by history.
Posted by:RonPaulForTheLongHaulDecember 17, 2007 11:28:44 AMRespond ^
Your sentiments are touching however, while it is honorable to denounce such practices, would you or Dr. Paul had supported the Civil Rights amendment to the constitution that outlawed Jim Crow?
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 11:29:24 AMRespond ^
Nope, the individual states don't have any right to discriminate, because that would violate the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. Enforcing the protections of the Constitution within the individual states is one of the roles of the federal government.
Posted by:John ShuttDecember 17, 2007 11:33:33 AMRespond ^
The Jim Crow laws were already invalid according to the Equal Protection Clause; the clause just had to be properly enforced.
Posted by:John ShuttDecember 17, 2007 11:34:50 AMRespond ^
Questions: 1: How long should she had waited for “market forces” to restore her rights given to her by the constitution. Libertarians think that all people should be treated equally under the law. If the bus company received tax dollars or other subsidies, then it should've been required to treat all passengers equally, regardless of race. If the bus company was privately owned, with no government subsidies, then they should be free to set the terms for for riding their buses, just as you should be free to decide who rides with you in your car. To mandate how the bus owners used their buses would be to violate the bus owner's property rights and right to freedom of association. 2: Did the State of Louisiana have a “right” to discriminate against her? No, they did not.
Posted by:Christopher RaschDecember 17, 2007 11:48:18 AMRespond ^
Biznesschic, The policies that failed you mom are came about in a restless time. The market forces would have won out, had they been given time and not interveined. The role of government is to protect ones liberty, and obviously her liberty was under attack. Ron Paul would not say, well too bad people don't like blacks, its her fault. He looks at everyone and believes they are equal. Since her liberties were under attack, he would have interviened. The state has no right to discriminate against anyone, and if you really read what the man says you would not have to even ask this question. He is the most racially tolorant person running. We all know the war on drugs disproportionitly puts minorities and blacks in jail. He would like to end it because he sees that as not fair and impeading on their liberties, not to mention that its a failure and extreamly expensive. I would ask you to read his book "A forign Policy of Freedom" You will not have to ask random people what he thinks, because you will know for yourself. Thats the best way to really understand Ron Paul. Don't listen to what others say he says or would do, just look at what the man says and his consistant record, and you willknow for yourself.
Posted by:JasonDecember 17, 2007 11:49:25 AMRespond ^
What planet did you grow up on? If a black person couldn’t even ride buses, what makes you think that lending institutions or municipalities were lending money to African Americans for such an endeavor? What makes you think that the city of New Orleans would even grant a permit to any African American who wanted to start a bus company? This is the fallacy to the Libertarian argument as well as Doctor Paul’s. One’s involvement in this great system of liberty and law means that the pursuit of each individuals happiness should not and can not infringe on the rights of others. That is the role of the Federal Government to ensure that Paul for the long haul: the constitution is upheld. You ideology is just that, and unless you start dealing with what is, as opposed to what is ideal, Mr. Paul’s campaign will sink like a ton of bricks.
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 11:50:38 AMRespond ^
Nice article Josh. Mostly fair and accurate, with few snide comments.
Posted by:Christopher RaschDecember 17, 2007 11:53:04 AMRespond ^
While its a shame you mother went through that, we have no right at all to tell that bus company what to do. Its a private company and if they want to lose that revenue, then so be it. Having the government tell you you have to do something is against all we stand for. What makes you say market forces didn't eventually win?
Posted by:jaosnDecember 17, 2007 11:55:36 AMRespond ^
It's often ignored that liberty, free markets, and freedom to contract are the only forces that have ever been shown to overthrow racism. Jim Crow laws are a classic case-in-point. They were REGULATION (in stark opposition to free choice). Still, few ever stop to question that if whites in the South had not decided to patronize black mechanics (for example), then there would have been no need for racists to pass Jim Crow laws to forbid blacks from being mechanics. Only freedom is color blind. Government regulation, whether Jim Crow or Civil Rights Acts is collectivist, racist, and is not concerned otherwise. Ron Paul stands for freedom and liberty for all, and also speaks to the means of achieving this--by treating all individuals equally.
Posted by:DukeDecember 17, 2007 11:56:27 AMRespond ^
BizNessChic...thats exactly what the judicial system is for. That is exactly how Thoroughgood Marshall advanced the rights of so many African-Americans.
Posted by:silusDecember 17, 2007 12:00:53 PMRespond ^
Jason Well there you have it. My hard working mother would not have equal protection under the law afforded to her by the constitution of the United States, because some guy has the right to make money in America, yet discriminate against a fine American. I would advise Mr. Paul to answer that question differently if asked during a debate, (as John Shutt answered correctly). If not, he will become a 15 minute of fame presidential candidate fairly quickly!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 12:03:05 PMRespond ^
The question asked is irrelevant in today's world. As today's laws are quite clear. With modern technology, satellites, internet the rest of the country would be informed what was happening in the South. You have to ask the question in today's world where everyone is equal. If you wish to think in terms of in the past then you will never venture into the future.
Posted by:BorisDecember 17, 2007 12:03:16 PMRespond ^
A black person shouldn't have to get a 'permit' to start a bus company. If white bus owners want to alienate black customers, someone else will serve them. It's not hard to start a taxi service, all you need is a car - unless the government intervenes by passing regulations that prevent you from starting a business. Boycotts and civil disobedience work.
Posted by:John ShuttDecember 17, 2007 12:03:35 PMRespond ^
The bus company is PRIVATE property. How can you justify forcing someone to do something with their private property? Even if they are wrong, which they were, they have that right. Your mother does not have the right to use someone elses private property. If the bus company was a public utility, then the state should have been pounced on by the fed. I gurantee Ron Paul would have been there for her, however, not if it involved private property. This gets much deeper than people riding buses, private property gurantees many of our rights. I would never sacrifice that companies right to tell you mom no, however I would have never told her that in the first place. Its like the saying, I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death so you have the right to say it.
Posted by:JasonDecember 17, 2007 12:07:44 PMRespond ^
biznesschic, You mention this thing about local government issuing permits for a bus company. What makes you think the government can discriminate or prevent anyone from starting a honest business? The fallacy of your argument is that you're already talking for granted that the government can and will discriminate in another way. Don't make that assumption and explore the possibilities.
Posted by:TanGengDecember 17, 2007 12:08:03 PMRespond ^
To answer biznesschic, To discriminate based on age, color, sex, religion, etc. is against the constitution. Now one has the "right" to discriminate as we are all created equal with inalienable rights by our creator (whomever that may be). The bill of rights trump any and all 'state laws'. Let me ask you something, do you think that racism has gone away, or has it simply been hidden? Racism is simply horrible, and it is not dealt with correctly. Instead of equal rights we rely on the federal government to give special benefits to some and take away from others simply based on the color of ones skin and not the content of ones charicter. Programs like this help breed racism. You can't legislate morality, but you can teach and grow through society. The African America is becoming 'Mainstream' right now, but look what's happening to the illegal Mexican immegrants or those of middle eastern descent. We had an original draft of the Constitution, thanks to Jefferson, that would have made slavery abolished. Unfortunately they found this 'radical' at the time and they omitted this from the constitution. A libertarian is simply someone that loves liberty. Let's not forget that Ron Paul has almost 30 years as a Republican and only ran as a Libertarian Presidential candidate back in '88. One can be a Republican and love liberty. I wonder why no one has asked why Giuliani isn't running as Independant or Democrat as he ran for BOTH in the '70s. McCain got endorsed by Lieberman, I wonder why no one is asking McCain if he's running for the wrong party. Liberty is simple, do what you want, accept the consequences. You have the freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't impose on other's freedoms and/or liberties. So the State of Louisiana was imposing on her liberty, thus they were acting unconstitutional.
Posted by:TimDecember 17, 2007 12:12:21 PMRespond ^
Duke Eh—Jim Crow laws were not regulated, it varied from state to state. There were no laws saying the Black couldn’t be mechanics, however, they failed to grant equal protection to African Americans concerning employment practices, police protection, etc. You people can’t have it both ways. The constitution grants certain liberties, (Capitalism, right to privacy), however, you can’t ignore the stipulations that you don’t like. Granting all Americans equal protection under the law! Silus: Mr. Marshall argued Brown vs. the Board of Ed. In the Federal System, not state courts. Jon and Tangen--Give me a break about regulations. You need a permit to even drive a car! Need a permit to open a bus company? You bet. That’s the price we pay to ensure the safety and well being of passengers. “The Liberating argument is this: If the bus is unsafe, and kills 50 people, no one else will ride on that bus line again, it will go out of business, so the great market worked again”. Until the next unregulated bus line kills 60 people. Your reasoning does not make much sense! Tim—I don’t see how letting a person who is paying full fare for a bus ride, yet must leave and enter through the back a “special benefit”
Posted by:LisaDecember 17, 2007 12:29:42 PMRespond ^
Hello, BiznessChic! The opinion of one man (Jaoson) is never enough to make conclusions. I repeat, you cannot talk about these issues without acknowledging the role our judicial system plays. You need to look up the inroads made by Thoroughgood Marshall. You cant isolate this to one branch of government.
Posted by:silusDecember 17, 2007 12:31:20 PMRespond ^
People are getting sick and tired of the same old song-and-dance from their presidential candidates. See this YouTube music video, featuring horror movie icon, Reggie Bannister, from the international award-winning feature film, "Song of the Dead." It's a great satire on the president, the MSM, and the war on terror. The filmmaker is giving a share of his profits from the film to the Ron Paul campaign. http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw
Posted by:mketcherDecember 17, 2007 12:32:05 PMRespond ^
Lisa, i'm not sure how the example you gave relates to this discussion.
Posted by:silusDecember 17, 2007 12:38:29 PMRespond ^
Why should I have to be regulated if I want to start a taxi service? If I have a car and people want to pay me for a ride, why on Earth is it the government's business? And if it's an unsafe car and people want to ride it anyway, why shouldn't they be allowed to take that risk? What you're suggesting is that all business should be controlled and directed by the government because it can be dangerous, but you shouldn't try to protect people from themselves. They should be allowed to do what they want to do. I wonder, how do you feel about drug laws?
Posted by:John ShuttDecember 17, 2007 12:38:53 PMRespond ^
Once again the fear card is being played again be the people who would rather be enslaved and eat maggots than know what real fruit tastes like. The many people who claim Ron Paul will eviscerate civil liberties have never read any of Ron Paul's books, or understand that their tax dollars are murdering people at this very moment. Ron Paul's supporters are not easily placed in the stereotypical boxes people would like in order to "tell the story" as the journalists would like it. Ron Paul supporters will certainly be out en mass in the primaries and this will make for a very compelling election. Check out thisfebruaryfifth dotcom
Posted by:JohnDecember 17, 2007 12:40:15 PMRespond ^
Because John, 1: Those who contracted for your services do not know that it is unsafe, and are blindly taking a risk, 2: It is not only your passengers who are at risk, but any other car which may be on the same highway, and it explodes because of emissions hazards! This really is a no-brainer! You divulge into ideological arguments instead of truly finding answers to where we can limit government and not jeopardize the health and well-being of our citizenry!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 12:48:38 PMRespond ^
Regarding discrimination. It's sad to see people still make decisions based on someone's skin, but there's simply no way the government can remove this kind of behavior from society. We need to ensure that government is blind, but we cannot force individuals to let go of their baseless prejudices.
Posted by:Willem de WitDecember 17, 2007 12:50:15 PMRespond ^
Prejudices, no, acting upon them by denying a person’s constitutional right to equal protections under the law—you bet it’s the governments roll to ensure that it doesn’t happen!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 1:06:38 PMRespond ^
If we had more people in this world like David McBride (whom the article is also about) we'd be far better off. It easy to sit at your chair espousing your opinions in a text box - it's much harder (and more noble) to get out of your chair and do real work to make a difference. Kudos to David McBride for actually trying to change things instead of just bitching about what's wrong to anyone who'll listen.
Posted by:ecsiiiDecember 17, 2007 1:08:42 PMRespond ^
If Ron Paul really believes in the "states rights" meme concerning abortion why the efforts, as recently as Sept. 2007, to ammend the constitution to outlaw abortions and a womans choice?
Posted by:captDecember 17, 2007 1:09:06 PMRespond ^
Uh, capt... Better back that up with some facts and citations before expecting a response.
Posted by:ecsiiiDecember 17, 2007 1:11:15 PMRespond ^
Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional and in opposition to 'natural rights' which is a concept that Ron Paul firmly believes in and defends. The concept that all people are bestowed with equal natural rights by their creator (of choice) is, in my view, the basis of Ron Paul libertarianism. The role of government is to protect those natural rights and in the case of the Federal government it is to protect those rights when they are infringed upon by state laws. Don't forget that it was government that created Jim Crow laws just as it was government that prevented women from voting. So while it is true that government overturned Jim Crow and provided for suffrage it is crucial to recognize that all it was doing in both instances is what it should have been doing in the first place!
Posted by:NomascerdoDecember 17, 2007 1:14:43 PMRespond ^
It was mindless for companies to treat their customers like that. The end of such treatment came from blacks boycotting the bus companies, not from FedGov forcing certain policies on private business. Market forces DID make that change, not the coercive force of government. Racial harmony is much more likely when people are left alone. Government's answer is to force together people who do not like each other. Imagine a white dog and black dog who do not get along. Are they more likely to learn to coexist in the same house by feeling each other out, and giving one another a wide berth for a while, or by being locked in a small bathroom together? Which situation is likely to make things better? All government knows is force, and it rarely works.
Posted by:Artus RegisterDecember 17, 2007 1:17:10 PMRespond ^
Trying to tie Ron Paul's candidacy to whether or not a company should need a license to operate a bus company in a city, county, or state is irrelevant. It would only be relevant if Ron Paul were running for mayor or a county seat or a governorship. This is a local issue and the POTUS has no authority or mandate to be involved. As with all local issues, they are best handled at the local level by the people in a community who will actually have to enforce and live by the laws and regulations. This system allows for referendum and for solutions to be applied that account for the local conditions. As long as local and state laws do not infringe upon the natural rights of all people as protected by the US Constitution it just simply isn't an issue that is relevant to the Federal government, and certainly not relevant when attempting to determine if Ron Paul is a suitable candidate for President.
Posted by:NomascerdoDecember 17, 2007 1:22:53 PMRespond ^
Ecsii: Excuse me, but the story I told you about the treatment of my mother during the segregated south entitles me to ask these serious questions. If Mr. Paul or his supporters fail to uphold the Civil Rights amendment, I believe his potential supporters need to know these facts. My family and ancestry has paid with its blood to guarantee that I am afforded every opportunity allotted to the citizenry of this country and quite frankly: I will not be lectured by you or anyone about voicing an opinion or question on this matter!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 1:23:16 PMRespond ^
Nomascerdo: Driving charter buses on federal funded highways is absolutely a federal issue. If state law is found lacking in safety requirements, the Feds can and will withhold these funds until the requirements are met!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 1:28:32 PMRespond ^
Buzznesschk, I have a real hard time believing what you are saying. You say your mothers rights tramp the bus company rights. Private property rights are what this country was founded on. Please explain how equal rights under the law means your mother can do as she pleases on someone elses property. I do not condone what they did, and I am not racist, but what you are saying is just inconsistant. There is a difference between private and public property. Public property she has any and all rights of use as anyone and the government should have stepped in. Private property is different.
Posted by:JasonDecember 17, 2007 1:31:24 PMRespond ^
biznesschic: I was not responding to your comment. I was making a general comment to this article. This article is not about you or your mother, it is about Ron Paul and David McBride as a Ron Paul supporter. If you want answers to your questions, ask them on any of the "Ron Paul" sites where many Ron Paul supporters will be willing to try to answer. Better yet, send a message to Ron Paul himself and ask. Regardless who you ask, don't expect that everyone here is responding to you.
Posted by:esciiiDecember 17, 2007 1:31:44 PMRespond ^
Artis: Only in Birmingham where the bus boycott took place did the bus company relent. However, some of these riding practices did not cease until the Civil Rights act of 1965. My problem with your view is this: How long does a person have to suffer and perhaps die before market forces alleviates the problem. That is not the America that I and so many other want to live in!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 1:36:02 PMRespond ^
Not just alienate black customers, but ALL customers who disapprove of their policies. I would boycott a company that I felt had racist behavior, and I believe many would. That's the reality today. People's individual choices in the marketplace will reflect how society as a whole regards the questions. The Philosophy of Liberty is the most effective method for making the attitudes of the people manifest. You first defend Liberty for all, then work on changing the attitudes.
Posted by:DavidDecember 17, 2007 1:46:46 PMRespond ^
Jason It trumps property rights because we don’t live in a communistic country that does not allow you the right to own property. That being said, if you want that right, then you must obey all the rules of the constitution and not discriminate against it citizens. However, you could move to China, own a company under the “cloak" of capitalism, and sell to whomever you want. However, the government has the right to seize your property at anytime for purposes that they deem necessary, but hey, it’s your choice!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 1:48:21 PMRespond ^
Escii: Since I was the only person “bitching” on this site, I believe that your comments were directed at me!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 1:53:36 PMRespond ^
"Jason It trumps property rights because we don’t live in a communistic country that does not allow you the right to own property." That does not make sense. You are saying property rights are null because we dont live in a communist country? That is in fact the total opposite of communist. Private rights are natural rights. I think you have a litigimate question, but I dont think you are willing to take letigimate answers. Just because they dont advance your agenda does not make them wrong. If you can explain why your mother should be able to use my car without my permission, then I'll quit.
Posted by:JasonDecember 17, 2007 1:58:02 PMRespond ^
biznesschic - you have a point regarding federal vehicular safety standards but it still isn't relevant to Ron Paul's campaign nor any Presidential campaign. I am unaware of any plans of his to undue existing federal safety regulations or standards and I am pretty certain that the President does not have the power to do so anyhow so it is a moot point. Any major changes in the law like that would need to be passed by Congress and would require a consensus. I don't think there is a consensus or even a desire (even among libertarians) to dramatically roll back federal highway safety regulations.
Posted by:NomascerdoDecember 17, 2007 2:00:21 PMRespond ^
Lisa: It's as though you are talking about something entirely different. I simply point out that Jim Crow laws were regulation on the marketplace. They deigned to control who could provide certain services and who others could choose for services. Clearly, such is in direct opposition to principles of free markets. The salient point is that free markets undermine racism, and clear evidence is provided by Jim Crow laws themselves. You argue these laws prevented fair hiring practices. Okay, so ask yourself why would those laws be necessary unless people in the south WERE willing to hire blacks under free market principles. Jim Crow laws were a RESPONSE to the market doing something those in power did not like: providing competition based upon merit, not color.
Posted by:DukeDecember 17, 2007 2:04:58 PMRespond ^
"How long should she [a black southerner] had waited for “market forces” to restore her rights given to her by the constitution? Did the State of Louisiana have a “right” to discriminate against her?" They didn't violate her Rights. The Constitution does not give individuals the right to sit anywhere they want on a bus. A just State has no Rights, and equal protection under the laws is just. Louisiana might have been an unjust State, in which case, she should have moved, she should have practiced civil disobedience, or the Federal government should have demanded compliance in return for continued inclusion in the Union. These are the only three libertarian choices. The Civil Rights Act undermines true justice and liberty because it promotes 'group rights' over individual Rights. The Federal government may interven, but can only demand inclusion in the Union at the cost of compliance. The Federal government has no 'right' to force compliance because only individuals have Rights.
Posted by:rhysDecember 17, 2007 2:05:57 PMRespond ^
Again it is important to recognize that prior to the Civil Rights movement, government WAS the problem in most cases. Not to say that racist beliefs weren't obviously the basis of government's misdeeds but it was still the power of government that institutionalized and enforced those beliefs with unfair laws. Regarding private property, it is true that any business owner can refuse service to anyone and that right should be protected, otherwise government is infringing on another's private rights. If this is done under a racist pretense then shame on the business owner. Private citizens that are disgusted by the practice can voluntarily boycott the business and encourage others to voluntarily do the same. In today's information age doing so would be extraordinarily easy to do. I would personally never patronize a business that discriminated against anyone based on race, ethnicity, or sex and I think I am with the majority of sensible Americans on that one. If there is discrimination in public services that is an entirely different story obviously and one that has already been addressed.
Posted by:NomascerdoDecember 17, 2007 2:12:00 PMRespond ^
"Driving charter buses on federal funded highways is absolutely a federal issue. If state law is found lacking in safety requirements, the Feds can and will withhold these funds until the requirements are met!" -biznesschic Again - wrong. The Federal government is unjust to with-hold revenue, unless they will allow the State to with-hold payment or secede. To require payment and deny service is a form of theft worse than the type in which the Federal government currently engages. It is the equivalent to taking a guys money for protection and then torching his store anyway. The policy desicions you advocate are the reason that we are slaves. When I am taxed without receiving services, I am ready to start shooting people. Currently, the Federal government is not bound by anything. It used to be bound by the Constitution, but it worked around that. Then it was bound by public opinion, but it is finding ways around that. You advocate unfettered democracy without the possibility of secession. You advocate the tyranny of the majority.
Posted by:rhysDecember 17, 2007 2:16:27 PMRespond ^
I have always been so far to the left of American politics that there hasn't been a candidate who comes anywhere close to my position since McGovern. However, given that I am resigned to never finding a candidate I can agree with on everything, I find that Ron Paul matches my position on overseas adventures, the Federal Reserve, and most importantly on the preposterous "War on Drugs". For this I can tolerate the areas of disagreement, and I believe Paul is an honest man.
Posted by:Michael J RigbyDecember 17, 2007 2:20:07 PMRespond ^
XML request call to all bots, spiders, trojan horses and malware Debug, Recompile and Deploy RON PAUL President! Post votes via biological peripherals on Election Day.
Posted by:WebBot234December 17, 2007 2:40:58 PMRespond ^
Lots of libertarians are anti-NAFTA. Libertarians however are pro-free trade. Theres's a difference
Posted by:JohnDecember 17, 2007 3:01:01 PMRespond ^
Libertarians are pro-free trade and anti-NAFTA. That error in the above graph sticks out like a sore thumb.
Posted by:Alexander S. PeakDecember 17, 2007 3:29:56 PMRespond ^
There is a difference between free trade and NAFTA. Just because something has the words "Free Trade" attached to it, doesn't necessarily mean it is truly free trade. Much like "exporting freedom" doesn't always mean those on the receiving end will become free.
Posted by:LBDecember 17, 2007 3:40:51 PMRespond ^
EXCELLENT article! You captured the street reaction quite well! Well done!
Posted by:TannimDecember 17, 2007 4:01:06 PMRespond ^
Regarding the positioning of NAFTA on the Venn diagram: Nick Gillespie, the editor of Reason, told me that libertarians generally supported NAFTA, and that Paul differs from the "mainstream" (if such a thing exists) libertarian position on that. It is true that Paul does oppose NAFTA because he believes it does not go far enough in breaking down trade barriers. Still, he voted against it. Part of the purpose of this diagram is to illustrate how particular issues can create strange bedfellows.
Posted by:Josh HarkinsonDecember 17, 2007 4:05:40 PMRespond ^
Biznesschic: Despite the Civil Rights Act, discrimination in hiring continued for decades. There is still bias in hiring today, it's just been papered-over with forms, check-lists, background checks, etc. There is always a reason to not hire someone, a racist employer just has to find it. Wouldn't it be more honest for a white racist to simply say "I'm not going to hire you because you're black" than to do the human resources dance and pretend it's for some other reason? If racism were more visible, it would be easier to shun and to ridicule. Now that it has been driven underground, it is almost impossible to know when we are seeing a racist act or a good business decision. Our society is markedly less racist today than it was in 1964, and it was better then than in 1944, or 1924, etc. The changes in attitudes toward race have fluctuated over time, but the general direction has been toward a more color-blind society and away from judging people by skin color. While it is not possible to re-run history with a new set of circumstances, it is possible that racism against blacks would have gone out of vogue faster if there had been fewer attempts to force it out by law. (Forced behavior changes almost always result in negative backlashes...just ask the parent of any teenager.) The only sure way to irradicate racism is to always speak against it, just as Ron Paul has done.
Posted by:RonDecember 17, 2007 4:13:14 PMRespond ^
I like Paul because he's pro-constitution, and for ending the war.
Posted by:BertDecember 17, 2007 4:17:22 PMRespond ^
Jason you know better! Whites are not the only race of people who have rights! If you own a taxi with the express interest of making money in a this capitalistic system, and refuse to pick up someone because of the color of his/her skin, then you lose the right to profit from this system. That is the problem with you Ron Paulers, you create straw men and convoluted your arguments to fit your reasoning. Keep it up, that type of rhetoric will ensure that your boy will be back at his desk in congress after election season.
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 4:30:51 PMRespond ^
The problem Ron Paul has with NAFTA, CAFTA, and other "free trade" agreements isn't that they don't do enough to reduce trade restrictions, it's that they allows trade agreements to be essentially written by lobbyists and big businesses. Real free trade doesn't require hundreds of pages in rules and countless retaliatory tariffs and identical regulatory structures and the shelling out of small producers, it only requires low, generalized tariffs put into place voluntarily by both sides.
Posted by:John ShuttDecember 17, 2007 4:33:02 PMRespond ^
Re: to biznesschic "Jason you know better! Whites are not the only race of people who have rights! If you own a taxi with the express interest of making money in a this capitalistic system, and refuse to pick up someone because of the color of his/her skin, then you lose the right to profit from this system." Do you understand the difference between a "right" and a "privelege"? It seems like you think that people only have rights because the government allows them to. ("Capitalism" is another word you might want to look up.)
Posted by:John ShuttDecember 17, 2007 4:37:47 PMRespond ^
Nomascerdo: The Federal Government was not the problem--States were. The constitutional congress met after the Civil war and as not to "offend" white southerns already dejected from losing the war, agreed to let each state determine laws concerning the newly freed slaves. Fast forward 100 years later, and my mother still had to pay the same fare, exit a bus, sit in the back. There is no reasoning to that type of logic. Dr Paul should disavow any sort of ideology and realize that there is a place for Federal intervention for the well being of all citizens of this nation, or he is doomed as a presidential candidate!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 4:41:36 PMRespond ^
Business woman, you need to take your questions directly to ron Paul if you want to know where he stands instead of using his supporters (varied as they are in many ways) to try and get Dr. Paul's supposed stance. If you aren't too biased against him already then you should be able to find enough information about the man to make an informed decision on your own as to how he would have handled this situation had he been President during this occurrence.
Posted by:Scott M.December 17, 2007 4:45:39 PMRespond ^
Well John, in the case of Civil rights, it is sad, but true! African Americans were granted the same right as everyone else because of a stroke of a pen!. Stop dealing with ideology and start searching for the truth. If we don't learn from it, we are bound to repeat!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 4:47:14 PMRespond ^
Well Rhy: Traveling interstate to leave a certain state during a disaster, I was really glad that our interstate system received federal funding. That created a uniformity due to strict regulations so that I didn't run into pot holes, roads to no where, etc. I see that you have not travel out of the country much. If you did, you would appreciate the quality of our federally funded highway system. You should get out more!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 4:54:30 PMRespond ^
I have one word to add: Choice. No libertarian would dare tell a woman what to decide. No?
Posted by:bbuccaroobonsaiDecember 17, 2007 5:00:28 PMRespond ^
Scott--Didn't know that Mother Jones only wanted to hear from Ron Paul groupies. For a party that is so pro "Liberty" you are quick to dictate what should be said in a blog and where I should go to ask questions and voice my opinions! Interesting!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 5:02:53 PMRespond ^
Hmmmmmm. Silence. Interesting.
Posted by:bbuccaroobonsaiDecember 17, 2007 5:16:16 PMRespond ^
Libertarians are split over the issue of abortion. Having debated it many times, I am sensative to the polar opposite approaches of each side. While I believe the woman's right to control her own body is absolute, it begs a number of questions about whether or not a fetus' life can be ended at any point up to birth, or if "viability" is the real test. If you accept the latter proviso, then the woman's right to control her own body is not absolute. One has to get comfortable with the idea of killing a viable fetus to hold my position. I am not comfortable, but I don't see a principled way to adjudicate it any other way. I am still open to the debate. Ron Paul has repeatedly said that it is better for such sticky questions to be dealt with at the state level where there can be multiple solutions in various states. Maybe we can all learn from some real-life experiments in dealing with this dillema.
Posted by:RonDecember 17, 2007 6:03:55 PMRespond ^
biznesschic: Dr Paul should ... realize that there is a place for Federal intervention for the well being of all citizens of this nation, Dr. Paul believes that federal intervention is justified to protect the rights specified in the Constitution. He would have sent the feds after all the state police and legislators that refused to uphold African American's individual rights to own a gun, to peacefully assemble, to be secure in their property, and other rights that that were routinely violated in the Jim Crow states. He will do the same now.
Posted by:PamDecember 17, 2007 6:13:44 PMRespond ^
Great job MoJo for giving some exposure to Ron Paul. I think that most of your readers are like biznesschic and will never get it, but I appreciate your effort. There is a lot to be learned from your mother’s experience. I think it is something that we as citizens repeat every four years. We pull the lever and then go to the back of the bus while corporate/special interests move right on up to the front. We just sit back and accept that that is the way it is. Ron Paul gives us hope that we, as a people, can change that. I think most voters are just like biznesschic’s mom. They are tired and really don’t want to cause a fuss, they just want to get to and from work and spend time with their families. Ron Paul supporter’s, on the other hand, are more like Rosa Parks. They have had enough, and if the political parties and media won’t listen then they just will take care of it themselves; without regard to the consequences. I know I will probably get blasted for referencing Ms. Parks, but really people. It is time to wake up. Democrat and Republican differences are really miniscule. There is only one person running for President that will return your civil liberties and stop invading and occupying foreign countries. His name is Ron Paul and you should give him a look.
Posted by:busboycotterDecember 17, 2007 6:30:08 PMRespond ^
Well Pam, Dr. Paul has a little problem: Writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, Paul commented about black men in the nation's capital. Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." "These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report. He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action." Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." which is why I posed the question in human terms, will he uphold the tenants of the Civil Rights Movements, or does the views that he expunged in 1992 still valid? I need to know
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 7:02:28 PMRespond ^
Business woman, you sound like one of the spinners on Fox, I said nothing of this sort..."you are quick to dictate what should be said in a blog and where I should go to ask questions and voice my opinions!" I was just saying that you shouldn't take his supporters answers to your questions and make it sound like they are his answers. Clearer?
Posted by:Scott M.December 17, 2007 7:08:43 PMRespond ^
he didnt say that, if you actually research that comment you will find out that he didnt say that and it was written by someone that did not have his permission or his approval. he was actually sad about that because he was good friends with the lady that is referred to in the article. just look ron paul up on wikipedia and there is a full explanation. he is not racist, i promise you that on MY WORD!
Posted by:jasonDecember 17, 2007 7:10:27 PMRespond ^
So let me get this straight, biznesschic: you think that Ron Paul is for Jim Crow laws just because of a comment he made? Further, you think that "market forces" matter to government-instituted discrimination? Does not make sense.
Posted by:DonDecember 17, 2007 7:12:14 PMRespond ^
If YOU owned a bus company, and YOU didn't want some people to ride it, shouldn't YOU be the one to make that decision?
Posted by:garyDecember 17, 2007 7:15:25 PMRespond ^
If YOU owned a bus company, and YOU didn't want some people to ride it, shouldn't YOU be the one to make that decision?
Posted by:garyDecember 17, 2007 7:16:00 PMRespond ^
Business woman, you must be kidding? If this is all about your concerns about whether Ron Paul is a racist or not then the answer is a simple "no". And I've been wrong because any of his supporters can speak for him to that query. But it wouldn't matter to me if he himself was because he would still uphold the constitution and protect the individuals liberty. Case in point, I'm an athiest, I don't care that he believes in God fervently because I know that he respects my rights and liberty as a non-believer as much as I respect his right and liberty to believe. It does make me feel better about him knowing that he does believe that racism is immoral, and he has said so in an interview when asked about money received from a white supremacist group. So vote for Ron Paul in comfort and peace in knowing.
Posted by:Scott M.December 17, 2007 7:35:39 PMRespond ^
The market didn't work in this case because you have to get a "certificate of need" to start a bus company. The board that decides whether or not you get to start your new bus company is largely made up of the people who run the current bus service. Not surprisingly, because of this it's hard to start a new bus company. If it had been easier, it's likely that a company would have jumped at the opportunity to cater to African Americans. That way, they could dominate that portion of the market and possibly even force the racist bus company out of business. The Jim Crow laws were never legitimate in anyway, although libertarians argue over whether the push for repeal should haven take place at the state or federal level.
Posted by:EPhilDecember 17, 2007 7:42:09 PMRespond ^
How well is fema and the government restoring your home to your rightful ownership? Is NEw Orleans still on the map for anyone but brad pitt and casinos"?
Posted by:Disaster CaptialismDecember 17, 2007 7:43:09 PMRespond ^
I am a high ranking manager for a major university located in the northeast segment of our great country. If I would have allowed my name to be associated with the hateful racist diatribe of that newsletter, I would have been canned by the end of the day! And yes, If I denied access to a person riding my bus because of the color of his skin, I am denying that person of his constitutional right that all men all created equal. You are not making a good case for your prophet. If Dr Paul, adheres to your nonsense, his bid for the presidency would be over by the end of the week!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 7:45:30 PMRespond ^
speaking of 15 minutes, are you enjoying yours, biznesschic? Jim Crow? Do you honestly think that the USA of 2008 is the same USA that you grew up in? Do you honestly think that the State of Louisiana would enact laws like that again? Is so, then what planet are YOU from? This is the 21st century, act like it.
Posted by:ChrisDecember 17, 2007 7:46:56 PMRespond ^
Ron Paul is a fundamentalist Christian who uses the Nazi tactic of the Big Lie to push his fundamentalist Christian agenda. Google his "War against religion," in which he claims that the constitition Is "replete" with references to God and that the founding fathers envisioned a "robust Christian nation." Ron Paul is a pandering deemogogue who appeals to and has accepted dinations from Nazis and White supremicists.
Posted by:Anti-Ron PaulDecember 17, 2007 7:47:28 PMRespond ^
"Ron Paul is a pandering deemogogue" First, define a "deemogogue", then prove it.
Posted by:ChrisDecember 17, 2007 7:49:08 PMRespond ^
The ultralibertarian answer is really harsh. Ultralibertarians refute on principle to use public transport. It is the government that allowed that bus company to function without sufficient competition and consequently disdain for the marginal users that are the poor African-Americans.
Posted by:HankDecember 17, 2007 8:02:58 PMRespond ^
Why is everyone just glossing over the hate groups love of Ron Paul, and his failure to return donations from neo nazis
Posted by:Worried AmericanDecember 17, 2007 8:07:51 PMRespond ^
Lisa said: "“The Liberating(sic) argument is this: If the bus is unsafe, and kills 50 people, no one else will ride on that bus line again, it will go out of business, so the great market worked again”. Until the next unregulated bus line kills 60 people. Your reasoning does not make much sense!" Unfortunately it is your understanding (or lack thereof) of Libertarianism that is nonsensical. The free market will give rise to its own regulations. Since they won't be government mandated ones, they will inherently be better. E.g., no one would insure companies that hire poor drivers or use improperly maintained buses. There is no knee-jerk reaction to disaster as you state. You are viewing the question in a very narrow way. Look for instance at the bridge that collapsed recently in MN. Look, the great gov't protected us again! We are paying to build bridges in other countries and can't even maintain our own, but I digress. Please inform yourself of other positions before you state what you make up as fact.
Posted by:RayDecember 17, 2007 8:08:34 PMRespond ^
"Why is everyone just glossing over the hate groups love of Ron Paul, and his failure to return donations from neo nazis" Is this really the best you can come up with against Dr. Paul? Does the fact that person A supports person B mean that person B necessarily supports, is similar to, or even likes person A? If any other candidate received a donation from some extremist group (and they probably have) no one would even mention it. Would they (campaigns) really spend their time and money going through donation records trying to keep away money from "bad" (in someone's view... I am not implying that white-supremacists aren't bad) people. Again Ron Paul answers this the most succinctly. On PBS' NOW on Friday night (12/14), the reporter asked the same question. Dr. Paul essentially said (paraphrasing), "I see it as a good thing, because they don't have the money anymore." Then he said that his campaign doesn't want or need the money, and asked for those groups to stop donating. There, does that settle it for you, Worried American?
Posted by:RayDecember 17, 2007 8:20:56 PMRespond ^
Good job of stealing the conversation with an attack of presupposition. Or in this case is it post? Can we keep the conversation in the here and now and remember all of the soldiers in harms way? black white brown beige yadda and so forth? Forgive me for not hustling for Hillary "lets study that some more" Clinton? Thank you no. Biznesschic: THE COUNTRY OWES YOU????!!!! GET IN LINE WITH YOUR GRIEVANCE AND GET THE F OVER IT. Oh, and a union job. Thank an Irishman.
Posted by:Chris G.December 17, 2007 8:21:20 PMRespond ^
Worried American: Ron Paul does not subscribe to the views of white supremacists, and he has said so many times. The money they send him goes to further HIS causes, not theirs (except to the extent that they agree with some of his policies, such as opposing the war, or eliminating the IRS, etc.) Imagine the irony: racist money going to promote a non-racist society. Nothing could be sweeter.
Posted by:RonDecember 17, 2007 8:23:18 PMRespond ^
Rep Ron Paul - ANti war, anti-tax, anti-fiat currency. That's all i need to know.
Posted by:Disanster CapitlaismDecember 17, 2007 8:23:19 PMRespond ^
But Ray: You have already stated that the right of "market forces" to kill people due to unregulated policies is superior to the loss of life? Is that the America that you want to live in? The mortgage crisis that threatens our well being is due to an unregulated market, it failed and our federal government must issue a "bail out" to avert a financial melt down. Is it fair for the feds to bail out our "free market system" due to greed and corruption? You can't have it both ways!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 8:27:19 PMRespond ^
"Why is everyone just glossing over the hate groups love of Ron Paul, and his failure to return donations from neo nazis" ...... ...... ...... Hillary gets her money from ... war contractors and other such related members of the military industrial complex. Ron Paul gets his money from informed individuals. Go figure...
Posted by:Chris G.December 17, 2007 8:28:46 PMRespond ^
i think your venn of paul is not completly right. paul is for free trade and not for nafta which is not free trade. libertarians like free trade too, but perhaps not really naft. and paul is not anti immigration. he is strongly pro immigration. but only without the welfare state which attracts people to come who just want to take profit.
Posted by:Markus RebstockDecember 17, 2007 8:33:08 PMRespond ^
RE to biznesschic: "Whites are not the only race of people who have rights! If you own a taxi with the express interest of making money in a this capitalistic system, and refuse to pick up someone because of the color of his/her skin, then you lose the right to profit from this system." I'm sure you would agree: no one has any "right" to anything because of their skin color. Nor does anyone have a "right" to make a profit, but everyone has a natural "right" to work for a living, as a taxi driver is doing. As a taxi driver, I cannot be forced to pick up anyone (whether white, black, red, yellow, man, woman, boy, girl, Muslim, Christian, Hindu!) or be forced to STOP serving anyone for those same reasons. Why? Because I, and all other people, have a natural, God-given right and freedom to contract with WHOM I WILL -- that is what true INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM means. And that is what all people want! Suppose a black taxi driver hates all biznesschics and refuses to pick them up. That is his right, and if biznesschics get a law passed saying that every taxi driver must pick them up, then they have just forced their will on the taxi driver, and have given their own group a special privilege while simultaneously taking away the taxi driver's right to freedom of association. That is discrimination. See, you just don't seem to understand what a society based on freedom to contract and freedom of association is all about. You are free to associate and do business with me, and I am free to associate and do business with you -- or not, as we choose. If I am forced to do or not do business with you, then I HAVE LOST MY FREEDOM! I want to retain MY RIGHT and YOUR RIGHT to choose who we do business with, and not be coerced by others or by laws -- don't you? The same freedom you want for yourself, you must extend to others -- even if you don't like the choices they make. Racism is a moral evil, and cannot be solved by laws, but only by example. The only thing a government can do is enforce equal treatment BEFORE THE LAW. That means, the government itself cannot discriminate or choose not to associate --it must serve all equally! Therein lies the difference. BTW, I think you are a bit in love with your own ignorance, because you appear not to really listen to anyone's arguments here, or maybe you lack the capacity to understand those arguments, but I do thank you for providing an opportunity for me to put in simple terms the 1st amendment guarantee to freedom of assembly (and freedom of association).
Posted by:JenniferDecember 17, 2007 8:33:58 PMRespond ^
AntiRonPaul - that is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read. Sadly it isn't even original, I have seen it plastered all over the internet, always right next to comments where Ron Paul is called a racist white supremacist. All of it is baloney and anyone who has done their homework can see though it. Furthermore, Ron Paul's political philosophy couldn't be further from the ideas of National Socialism, nor is he interested in any form of theocratic government. He does oppose the constant secularization (removal) of long standing, harmless, religious symbols and traditions from public view because they might 'offend' one group or another. He uses this exact same argument as to why he is opposed to censorship of adult material and other 'controversial' material. The logic and principle is that you cannot pick and choose what you censor when it comes to free speech. Biznesschic - as a manager at presumably a liberal university in the Northeast it is no surprise that you are opposed to Ron Paul. I went to a liberal university in the Northeast and was literally never taught Austrian economic theory despite being an economics major. The liberal, statist bias of the majority of our universities is well entrenched and explains why so many people, once they leave the hallowed halls of college and enter the real world they end up voting Republican. No other candidate has a solution to helping the American middle class besides Ron Paul. We are turning into a third world country with a massive poor class and a super wealthy rich class. This is due to the inflation tax and our monetary policy which destroys the purchasing power of working people. It has nothing to do with tax cuts for the rich. Stop reading Krugman and Keynes and pick up some Mises and Hayek. History is on the side of the Austrians.
Posted by:NomascerdoDecember 17, 2007 8:34:38 PMRespond ^
Biznesschic: There is NOTHING unregulated in the mortgage market. From the artificially low interest rates, to the several mandatory disclosures, to the inspections, to the appraisals....this is a highly regulated market. It was the artificially low interest rates that caused housing prices to rise dramatically in the last several years, causing the market to misinterpret current and future values of homes, and causing marginal borrowers to believe they could afford large mortgages. This was all a creation of the Fed and it's manipulations, not the "unregulated" market.
Posted by:RonDecember 17, 2007 8:34:40 PMRespond ^
Thomas Sowell on back-of-the-bus laws here. Sowell was one of my most important intellectual influences and I am very upset that he has acted like such a GOP hack in the Bush years. Don't bother with most of his columns (especially the "passing thoughts" types that are like a bizzarro Anna Quindlen), the books are way better.
Posted by:TGGPDecember 17, 2007 8:40:52 PMRespond ^
Whoops, the url I meant to link to is http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-10_27_05_TS.html
Posted by:TGGPDecember 17, 2007 8:41:31 PMRespond ^
"You have already stated that the right of "market forces" to kill people due to unregulated policies is superior to the loss of life?" Please show me where I stated that. Did I black-out while typing? Wait, no, I never said that. Libertarianism doesn't state that either, so... what are you talking about? "The mortgage crisis that threatens our well being is due to an unregulated market" Quick question: What do unregulated, free-market economics and the Federal Reserve Bank have in common? Answer: Absolutely nothing! You are greatly mis-informed if you really think that the sub-prime collapse is a result of Austrian economics in action. Here: http://www.mises.org/ Now you can inform yourself before making silly statements like that.
Posted by:RayDecember 17, 2007 8:41:38 PMRespond ^
Chris: I assure you, my successes in life are in spite of, not because of the policies set forth in these United Sates of American, so no one owes me anything, accept an explanation: Will Dr Paul uphold the Constitution of these United States that all men are created equal, or bow to states rights with a racist agenda?
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 8:44:33 PMRespond ^
biznesschic, good question As a lefty libertarian it highlights the major difference I have with the Paul campaign- the privileging of state's rights over federal power where basic personal rights are concerned- such as racial discrimination and the decision to end a pregnancy. The main problem I have with your question is the role the federal government is assumed to play in ending discrimination. Segregation didn't end because a politician or a bureaucrat decided to end it- it ended because people like Rosa Parks and Dr. King and thousands of others put their life on the line and governmental regulation followed. The mechanism of the civil rights movement was the boycott- a great example of "market forces" in politics if there ever was one. Now if the federal government had not put teeth into the people’s demands by enforcing anti-discrimination laws, would the tide have rolled back? Perhaps, which is why I'm uncomfortable with the hard-line state’s rights position. I think personally though this gets at why I call myself libertarian. I look at moments in history like the Civil Rights movement and see people organizing from the grass roots to effect change. Any progressive law coming from our government had similar origins. Left to it's own devices government is just as likely to enforce cruel prejudices as any greedy business.
Posted by:GVDecember 17, 2007 8:48:07 PMRespond ^
How long are we going to go on reviving events of racism that took place so many years ago? What is owed to you for something that happened to another person 40 or 50 years ago? It's embarassing that it happened, especially that it happened here in the US where people came to be free. Nobody can change the past. Go live your life. Move on. Let the past go so you can live your life free, not be improsoned by what happened to another person. Maybe I'm naive thinking that it's that simple, but to be it seems that racism would be dead if people would stop resuscitating it. Let it go! DNR!!
Posted by:bkmcbrydDecember 17, 2007 8:58:08 PMRespond ^
Oh... let me once again explain this to a Ron Paulilte--who has no conception of the Gilded Age and why certain regulations were put in place before the Bush debacle: Banks were regulated by the FDIC, meaning that for each loan that a bank issued, a percentage of cash reserve must be present on the balance sheet to guarantee the loan. The Bush Administration laxed these rules, so that fly by night lending agencies took liberties of these rules. The end result, fly by night lending agencies "bundled" these loans and sold them to banks (for a fee) who in turn bundled these loan and sold them on the stock market as blue chip stock. This is the "free market system" at work. I have no problem with this however, wall street is looking for a "bail out". The market did not work in this situation and is looking to the Feds to avert a financial meltdown. Capitalism has survived only because socialism has always been around for a bail out.
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 9:03:55 PMRespond ^
biznesschic, give it up, will ya? What year did the grievance you are bewailing take place? The country has come a long way since that time. You want to decide the 2008 elections on circumstances of the 1950's? What do you want? Reparations? Step back and take a look at what is taking place today. The Patriot Act is kind of like a color blind Jim Crow law. EVERYBODY loses their rights. Apart from Ron Paul, every other candidate for President seems ok with that. Are you?
Posted by:phaethonDecember 17, 2007 9:04:16 PMRespond ^
Bkmcbryd or whatever! It truly concerns me if someone running for the president of the United States believe that the policies enforced 50 years ago that ensured the equality of me and my family should have been left up to states that considered me second class citizens. Get over it? Tell that to my qualified children who may go for a job interview, only to be denied because of the color of their skin?
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 9:20:17 PMRespond ^
biznesschic, you might want to ask why in the 1950's 70% of black children lived in 2-parent homes while today the figures is 17%. Federal government welfare programs destroyed black families by forcing fathers out of the home. And the federal "war on drugs" further attacks the black community by locking up a high percentage of young black males, further diminishing their status in and value to the community, while black women forge ahead and become more highly educated and successful, continuing the cycle of single-parent homes. Ron Paul would end the "war on drugs" and would seek to diminish the destructive aspects of the welfare state.
Posted by:Jim KellyDecember 17, 2007 9:21:50 PMRespond ^
Do you remember the Montgomery bus boycott? Which is better: working and fighting for one's rights or having the federal government declare one's race a "protected class" in perpetuity? I would prefer to fight for myself, even if success took much longer. Are you really happy with what the federal government has done "for you"?
Posted by:Richard CarpenterDecember 17, 2007 9:50:24 PMRespond ^
It makes no sense to put faith in government at the federal level while criticizing it at state level (Jim Crow laws). It's all government. The only difference is that when the federal government makes a bad law, there's no escaping it. At least with a bad state law you can move to another state. In 1997 some men immigrated from Ethiopia to America, "land of the free", in Portland Oregon where they wanted to start a taxi company to serve the poorer part of town. Portland government shut them down. Read about it here: http://www.cascadepolicy.org/pdf/env/transit.htm Explain to me again how government helps these people? Racism is best eliminated by personal relationships between people. It's slow, but sure. Even in the '60's it was the freedom marchers who did the heavy lifting. Good article by the way. One quibble with the Venn diagram: libertarians don't really like NAFTA. Just like Ron Paul says, it's nothing but government-managed trade, a benefit for big corporations. Libertarians want free trade, that is, government stays out of it entirely.
Posted by:Paul XDecember 17, 2007 10:02:52 PMRespond ^
Ah Richard... I was wondering when this conversation was going to regress into the ill's of some other poor black sole on drugs with no father figure, which is totally removed from the Constitution. What I want to know, is Dr. Paul going to uphold the tenants of the civil rights legislating that ensures equal protection under the law?
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 10:08:35 PMRespond ^
Paul: It is a sorry state of the union which shares the same constitution, that a person would have to move to get due process under the law. That's a great stump speech for Dr Paul to use. Why don't you suggest that to him so he can be assured not to win the presidency to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
Posted by:biznesschicDecember 17, 2007 10:15:14 PMRespond ^
There is no question in my mind that the artificial manipulation of the price of money by the Federal Reserve created the problems that we are currently facing in the mortgage market. Ask yourself how Alan Greenspan and the board of Fed governors has any clue what the real 'price' of money is? How is it possible for a small group of people to ever know the demand for money in such a massive system. Considering that the dollar has enjoyed status of global reserve currency and the fallacy of their prowess is even more obvious. The purchasing power of the US dollar has declined over 90% since the creation of the Fed in 1913. In recent years the money supply has been growing double digits which explains why prices of nearly everything not imported from China have been growing year after year after year well above the inflation numbers quoted by the government figures which are manipulated to make the picture look better than reality. Education is another great example of how well intentioned government intervention has dramatically driven the price up. Government guaranteed student loans that are artificially subsidized by a 3rd party (government) have driven the costs of education up dramatically. The universities are thrilled that they can continue to raise prices year after year but the students who now have to borrow $100K to finance an education are getting the shaft, not to mention the folks ineligible for student aid who have to pay the ever higher prices. Before the government was involved, universities themselves offered low interest loans to the students who needed aid and as a result, it wasn't in their interest to constantly raise the prices because it would put their loans at risk. People that think that government controlled healthcare is going to provide 'free' healthcare and improve the system are fooling themselves. Ask yourself why, if universal healthcare is going to be so great for consumers, that the pharma and managed care companies are spending tons of money lobbying for this to happen. Look at who they support financially in the presidential race. Also, if you look at the stock prices of the major defense companies you will see that investors are quite convinced that despite the Democrats are favored to win the White House, the wars will not be ending. If Ron Paul surprises in New Hampshire and Iowa and looks like he will win the nomination watch those stocks get hammered. Follow the money. The big corporate interests are NOT lined up behind Ron Paul and it isn't because they don't think he can win. It's because they don't WANT him to win. The federal government is a tool for the powerful interest lobbies to have laws written that benefit them over others. That is not a free market. Our foreign policy is neo-mercantilism gone wrong.
Posted by:NomascerdoDecember 17, 2007 10:17:43 PMRespond ^
biznesschic - I'm still not getting why you think that Ron Paul who believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and also believes that our natural rights are bestowed upon us by our creator, and not by government, wouldn't uphold the tenants of equal protection under the law? I am voting for him because I believe he will fiercely defend those natural rights of every citizen far better than anyone in the field. His platform is based on the defense of liberty and fighting against government oppression and coercion.
Posted by:NomascerdoDecember 17, 2007 10:23:01 PMRespond ^
To biznesschic: I know that you've already received about a dozen replies to your queries, but here I go again. Discrimination only hurts the discriminators on the free market. The segregation on buses and trains was created and enforced by the government, not by the market. It is not the government which saved people from the horrors of discrimination, it was the government that was the cause. Thomas Sowell makes this quite clear: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4457 And while it shouldn't matter, Dr. Sowell is black (I dislike the term African-American), and he personally lived through the era of racial discrimination. Unlike just about all other people in America he actually has some economic education, with which to understand the issues. Also as a black man here in America (though of course my admitting that shouldn't make my words any more authoritative than the facts that I convey) and at the same time a far more radical libertarian than Rep. Paul could ever be (anarchist, countereconomist, agorist, etc.), I have all conviction that market forces and non-violent social actions would destroy all forms of discrimination in society, be they racial, sexual, age based, or what have you. I'm not going to continue with my criticism of your first post (there's much to say), but I sincerely hope you take the time to think about this stuff with an open mind. Don't immediately take the narrative that the state is/was the savior in the situation. Your interpretation of history is simply flawed, but it is exactly what I'd expect to be the dominant view in an America more dedicated than ever to membership in the cult of the benevolent, omnipotent state.
Posted by:It Doesn't matter