Something for all the Ron Paul supporters to read

I would like the link to the article he wrote about black terrorists etc after Rodney King riots.

As for making us more free, this is my perspective.

It sucks that he likes sodomy laws, but the good news is that he does not think they should be federal.

I am terrified of the dangerous symmetry between the US and Nazi Germany. I believe, as did De Tocqueville, that Federalism is the number one protector of our freedom and our liberty. Centralizing sodomy laws and abortion laws runs the risk of national bans should the right take over. Better to have these laws universally held to be none of the federal governments business than risk a country with universal sodomy laws and universal abortion ban should an economic downturn or terrorist incident bring the far right into absolute power. I don't think it is too hard to explain this basic fear and reasoning to progressives. I think it makes a whole lot of sense when looked through the lens of history, and looking at the yahoos we have to live with here on the ground.

Getting the federal government out of drug enforcement clearly helps bring about liberty especially for those most victimized by the drug war.

Too late to go on.

Phil

I share your concerns about the United States, Philip,
but I look at history and see that Hitler rose to
power in a federalist way.

In other words, first Bavaria embraced Nazism, and the
rest of the country followed, region by region.

As a Libertarian, I don't care if the jackboot on my
neck wears a federal, state or local badge -- it's
still a jackboot on my neck.

Even if I did believe it's better to have a federal
jackboot on citizens' necks than state or local ones,
I *still* wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, since he
supports federalization of marriage law,
federalization of abortion law, and federalization of
immigration law. Those are all powers that the Nazis
used to implement their agenda in Germany as well.

As Libertarians, if we're going to stop the growth of
the omnipotent, omnipresent state, we have to take a
stand against big government *at every level*. The
moment that we concede that maybe state big government
is OK, or that "limited" big government at a federal
level is OK, the battle is lost.

Cheers,

Brian

--- Philip Berg <philip@...> wrote:

I'd suggest that Brian's original link:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793

to the full text of the 1992 Ron Paul newsletter is reliable, since
page 4 of the NYT Magazine article at:

http://tinyurl.com/yvytj9

contains direct quotes from what Brian sent, and Paul acknowledges
that such an article was indeed written under his byline. He just
claims someone else ghost wrote it for him and that he doesn't believe
those things. That may indeed be true, but it doesn't mean Brian or
his source have perpetrated a "21st century forgery," as you put it.
Brian would not post a forgery, and the fact that the ideas were so
"out there" and un-libertarian that you were absolutely positive that
it had to be a forgery should be a clear signal to you that you and
Ron Paul (or at least you and his ghostwriter) don't share many values.

Here's the relevant paragraph from the NYT Magazine article which
corroborates the text that Brian originally sent out, so let's all
just cool it with the "Brian sent out a forgery" accusations:

I think you are nailing it here Rob. Ron Paul is a
better federal candidate. Some people are meant to be
in local office, some state, some fed and a few can
mix. That is my biggest frustration with the LP
supporting tons of unwinnable federal races with
candidates that would be very good and WINNABLE at
local office. I think Ron Paul is as much libertarian
as you or I, he just is working for the freedom
movement in a different area than us. I am just sick
of finger pointing and libertarian litmus tests. We
should support candidates that are helping to push the
freedom movement, however we can and wherever they are
at. We can always show our personal slants when we are
working for the movement ourselves, but to fight
against someone else in the same freedom movement
whose "total package" of ideals are not quite 100
percent in line with yours, and treat these people as
if they were nazis, statists, commies, socialists or
facists, is in no way the right way to victory over
the real statists. I think there are about 10 or 15
key things we can pick out that "draw a line" (but I
hate lines or litmus tests) between statist and
freedom movement, and those are things like habeous
corpus protetion, gun rights, scams like social
security etc. I guess it's hard to tell someone who is
adament for gay rights or abortion rights that their
issue isn't as important, and I really don't think
those issues are, because gay rights and abortion do
not affect as many people nationwide. I really think
the "rallying" points of Ron Paul are more towards the
LP's (or what they should be) and I don't feel that
gay rights, abortion or immigration are that important
of issues, because, they are so divisive (hence this
online discussion). We should be working on our common
issues and getting the job done and getting as much of
our LP agenda passed, and then we can debate abortion,
immigration, and gay rights with the Right leaners all
we want (and remember all of you that I too am a left
leaner libertarian so don't do any stupid personal
attacks) once we "libertarians" have power. That's
just how I am looking at the freedom movement today.
But it is very important, as Brian said, to listen and
stop trying to be right all the time. Maybe we can
present libertarianism from the left perspective for
those in SF and in Texas they can present from the
Right. Either way, I believe we all win.

-TJ Campbell
--- Rob <robpower@...> wrote:

I'd suggest that Brian's original link:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793

to the full text of the 1992 Ron Paul newsletter is
reliable, since
page 4 of the NYT Magazine article at:

http://tinyurl.com/yvytj9

contains direct quotes from what Brian sent, and
Paul acknowledges
that such an article was indeed written under his
byline. He just
claims someone else ghost wrote it for him and that
he doesn't believe
those things. That may indeed be true, but it
doesn't mean Brian or
his source have perpetrated a "21st century
forgery," as you put it.
Brian would not post a forgery, and the fact that
the ideas were so
"out there" and un-libertarian that you were
absolutely positive that
it had to be a forgery should be a clear signal to
you that you and
Ron Paul (or at least you and his ghostwriter) don't
share many values.

Here's the relevant paragraph from the NYT Magazine
article which
corroborates the text that Brian originally sent
out, so let's all
just cool it with the "Brian sent out a forgery"
accusations:

***
The question is whether the old ideologies being
resurrected are
neglected wisdom or discredited nonsense. In the
1996 general
election, Paul's Democratic opponent Lefty Morris
held a press
conference to air several shocking quotes from a
newsletter that Paul
published during his decade away from Washington.
Passages described
the black male population of Washington as
"semi-criminal or entirely
criminal" and stated that "by far the most powerful
lobby in
Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli
government." Morris noted
that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul's
newsletter as a
laudably "racialist" publication.
***

I don't think Ron Paul is a racist, but I do think
he only considers
himself a libertarian because he lives in an
all-white, all Christian,
all-straight, all-conservative bubble of a
community. If he were
instead a Supervisor in San Francisco, I think he'd
become a statist
over night, because so many people and things in
this city don't fit
well in his comfort zone. He'd be passing laws left
and right,
claiming all the while that it was okay, because it
was local
government constraining liberty, not the federal
government. I admit
that my evidence for this is thin, because the only
local government
he's ever had a say in is Washington DC. But I'd
suggest that his
votes like the one to ban same-sex adoption in DC
lend considerable
weight to my argument.

Rob
(speaking for myself not Outright)

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Berg"
<philip@...> wrote:
>
> I would like the link to the article he wrote
about black terrorists
etc after Rodney King riots.
>
> As for making us more free, this is my
perspective.
>
> It sucks that he likes sodomy laws, but the good
news is that he
does not think they should be federal.
>
> I am terrified of the dangerous symmetry between
the US and Nazi
Germany. I believe, as did De Tocqueville, that
Federalism is the
number one protector of our freedom and our liberty.
Centralizing
sodomy laws and abortion laws runs the risk of
national bans should
the right take over. Better to have these laws
universally held to be
none of the federal governments business than risk
a country with
universal sodomy laws and universal abortion ban
should an economic
downturn or terrorist incident bring the far right
into absolute
power. I don't think it is too hard to explain this
basic fear and
reasoning to progressives. I think it makes a whole
lot of sense when
looked through the lens of history, and looking at
the yahoos we have
to live with here on the ground.
>
> Getting the federal government out of drug
enforcement clearly helps
bring about liberty especially for those most
victimized by the drug war.
>
> Too late to go on.
>
> Phil
> From: Rob
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:11 AM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Something for all
the Ron Paul
supporters to read
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Philip
Berg" <philip@> wrote:
> >
> > Please give a reliable link
>
> To the NYT Magazine article? The tinyurl link
Michael Edelstein sent
> is working fine for me:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yvytj9
>
> Is it not opening for you, Phil? If you'd like,
I can send you the
> full text of the article off-list.
>
> Rob
> (speaking for myself not Outright)
>
> > From: Rob
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:25 PM
> > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Something for all
the Ron Paul
> supporters to read
> >
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Philip
Berg" <philip@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The biggest tipoff that this is 21 st
century forgery is the word
> > "black terrorist" down in the Reginald Denny
section. That is not an
> > expression that would likely be used in 1992.
> >
> > Sorry, Phil, but you're simply wrong. The
phrase "black terrorist"
> > was indeed used under Ron Paul's byline in
that 1992 newsletter. He
> > even admits it in the NYT Magazine article.
But his defense is that
> > the article was ghost written by someone
working for him, and
that he
> > doesn't agree with those sentiments.
> >
> > If you're going to defend Ron Paul, please
don't do it by claiming
> > that someone offering criticism is lying, when
the candidate himself
> > admits the facts and instead finds some other
way to weasel out of
> > responsibility.
> >
> > Rob
> > (speaking on my own behalf and not Outright's)
> >
>

=== message truncated ===

Oh, I believe that you also hit the nail on the head when you said gun
rights are a valid litmus test but equal rights for gay people aren't.
Not that I agree with you in the slightest, but you hit the nail on
the head by displaying oh-so-clearly the "only my favorite liberties
are the ones that really count" mentality that dominates in Ron Paul
circles: "I'm not an immigrant, so why should I care about
immigration rights? I'm not gay, so why should I care about gay
rights? I'm not a woman, so why should I care about abortion rights?"

Well let me say this. I'm not a gun owner. But I do care about gun
rights. I support gun rights even though handguns are a far more
divisive issue here than immigration, abortion, and gay marriage
combined. I support gun rights even though they don't affect me and
have a negative impact on my outreach to the left. I support gun
rights because I'm a Libertarian, and Libertarians don't pick and
choose which liberties we consider important and which ones we
consider unimportant. We defend all liberty, not just the liberties
that affect us personally.

Picking which liberties to defend and which liberties to sacrifice for
political expediency is what Republicans and Democrats do. And that's
why I'm not a Republican nor a Democrat, but instead a Libertarian.

Rob
(myself not Outright, etc.)

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Tim Campbell
<profreedomradical@...> wrote:

Rob,

  I've gotta agree with you that there is way too much of this type of attitude of picking some liberties (usually personal or civil liberties that appeal to the left) as politically expendable. As you know, I believe the LP leans too much to the right.

  At the same time, I can say with no hesitation that if Ron Paul were great on immigration and gay rights but took more conservative positions on drugs and prostitution, or even if he had good views on immigration and gay rights but advocated gun control (which I do think is absolutely a key issue even though I don't own a firearm and am not part of the "gun culture"), I would still support him.

  I'm really trying to look at the overall package, and not let myself get derailed by specific issues, even ones that affect me personally. Arguably Dr. Paul is not libertarian enough to support as a Libertarian (at least not when there are other good candidates from which to choose), but I think he's libertarian enough to support as a Republican.

Love & Liberty,
        <<< starchild >>>

I never said, or met to imply, that "my issues" are
better, just that you, me, Starchild, and Ron Paul
would agree on gun rights and tax systems changes...
so why not focus on these issues we have in common AND
THEN hash out in e=mail lists why we disagree on other
issues. Libertarians spend so much time beating each
other up over what we disagree on instead of coming
together on what we do agree on to get something
accomplished. This, my friend Rob, is why Democrats
and Republicans do that kind of thing, because THAT,
my friend, is how politics is done. I think
Libertarians need to learn how to play the game of
politics better. So no, I am not going to say your
issues aren't important, any more or less than my
issues are, just that we should start to work together
on what we can agree on and not tear each other apart
on what divides us. I think that is what Starchild is
maybe saying too?

I also need to say that I learned some interesting
things that make me like Steve Kubby a bit more now.
He has come out and said, although he does disagree on
some of Paul's stands, that a Paul nomination would be
good for the liberty movement. I think he sees the
writing on the wall. I hope others will come around a
bit on this "new" incrementalist/moderate approach to
do freedom's work.

-TJ

"I've gotta agree with you that there is way too
much of this type of attitude of picking some
liberties (usually personal or civil liberties that
appeal to the left) as politically expendable.

____________________________________________________________________________________Ready for the edge of your seat?
Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/

TJ,

  I just wish that those in the LP who tout compromise and focusing on where we agree as virtues would be more consistent. Many of them keep trying to water down the party platform, downplay the Non-Aggression Principle, get rid of the pledge, and so on, when it is perfectly obvious that these moves are strongly divisive and cause Libertarians to spend much more time attacking each other than they otherwise would. At the LP convention in 1974, delegates reached the so-called the Dallas Accord, which was meant to leave the LP neutral on the question of whether we favor abolishing "the last 10%" of the State, so that both anarchists and supporters of limited government would feel welcome in the party. But now many moderates insist on platform language that specifically embraces a role for government.*

  Virtually all of us in the LP can agree on supporting candidates who are near 100% libertarian; it's the less-libertarian candidates who are controversial in our movement. Thus, going by the moderates' standard, we shouldn't be supporting Ron Paul! But for the sake of Dr. Paul's campaign -- which I, like Steve Kubby, believe will help the cause of liberty -- it's a blessing in this case that they are inconsistent and don't always practice what they preach.

Love & Liberty,
          <<< starchild >>>

*Brian Holtz has argued that the pledge precludes government, but as a limited government supporter who is pro-pledge, I disagree; in any case, the pledge predates the 1974 agreement.

You're still missing the point that Libertarianism requires support of
all liberty, not just a subset.

The only reason Starchild and I agree with you and Ron Paul on guns is
because we're willing to support liberties that we ourselves never
have any intention of using. That's the difference between us and you
two. The two of you support those liberties that are important to you
and ignore the rest. If that's the model of "effectiveness," then I
should emulate it by dropping gun rights from my list of "must-haves"
when choosing a candidate to support. Also, my husband works at the
Federal Reserve Bank. So I'll take sound money off of my "must-haves"
list. And I live in downtown San Francisco, so I arguably get far
more out of my taxes in terms of federally subsidized mass transit and
such than I actually pay in. So take abolishing the IRS off my list
as well.

So, now, what's left that we agree on? Iraq. Well, heck. I agree
with basically all the Democrats except Clinton on that one.

So explain to me why the pragmatic thing for me shouldn't be to
support a Democrat, if the pragmatic thing for you is to support a
Republican?

You see, when you make it alright to ignore other people's liberty,
you cease being a Libertarian. So, I'll keep guns, the Fed, and the
IRS on my list after all. :slight_smile:

Rob

P.S. Enough with this "libertarian movement" BS. I joined the
Libertarian Party, and this is not the "LMSF" mailing list, but rather
the "LPSF" mailing list. I wish all the Republicans who aren't even
in San Francisco would just scram.

P.P.S. My words, not Outright's, yadda...

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Tim Campbell
<profreedomradical@...> wrote:

I never said, or met to imply, that "my issues" are
better, just that you, me, Starchild, and Ron Paul
would agree on gun rights and tax systems changes...
so why not focus on these issues we have in common AND
THEN hash out in e=mail lists why we disagree on other
issues. Libertarians spend so much time beating each
other up over what we disagree on instead of coming
together on what we do agree on to get something
accomplished. This, my friend Rob, is why Democrats
and Republicans do that kind of thing, because THAT,
my friend, is how politics is done. I think
Libertarians need to learn how to play the game of
politics better. So no, I am not going to say your
issues aren't important, any more or less than my
issues are, just that we should start to work together
on what we can agree on and not tear each other apart
on what divides us. I think that is what Starchild is
maybe saying too?

I also need to say that I learned some interesting
things that make me like Steve Kubby a bit more now.
He has come out and said, although he does disagree on
some of Paul's stands, that a Paul nomination would be
good for the liberty movement. I think he sees the
writing on the wall. I hope others will come around a
bit on this "new" incrementalist/moderate approach to
do freedom's work.

-TJ

"I've gotta agree with you that there is way too
much of this type of attitude of picking some
liberties (usually personal or civil liberties that
appeal to the left) as politically expendable.

____________________________________________________________________________________Ready
for the edge of your seat?

The Libertarian Party is one small part of the
Libertarian Movement. I am also not a Republican as my
party membership is with the Libertarian party of
California. I also believe you can support a Democrat
if that is what you want. I just wish you could see
the bigger picture of what is going on and needs to go
on and not just what is going on in your tiny area.
That is why I got on this list and began to network
with other libertarians around the bay so I could
begin to form coalitions and make friends and allies
and fight for those things we hold dear. The funny
thing in all this is that you and I probably agree on
99 percent of the same things. I am not asking you to
support Ron Paul, I am saying you should not attack
him, or at least not him alone, as you should know
that none of the other candidates comes even close to
the platform or OUR party, and I know you are smart
enough to know Ron Paul does come close and I think
you also know he is worth supporting but can't get
over that he has an "R" next to his name. Oh well, I
guess he won't get your support, you can't win over
everybody. You probably won't support any other
candidates that don't pass the 100 percent test
either, so I won't bother asking you (or probably
members of Outright) to help with John Inks cause he
doesn't call for gay marriage in Mountain View.

Peace

-TJ
--- Rob <robpower@...> wrote:

You're still missing the point that Libertarianism
requires support of
all liberty, not just a subset.

The only reason Starchild and I agree with you and
Ron Paul on guns is
because we're willing to support liberties that we
ourselves never
have any intention of using. That's the difference
between us and you
two. The two of you support those liberties that
are important to you
and ignore the rest. If that's the model of
"effectiveness," then I
should emulate it by dropping gun rights from my
list of "must-haves"
when choosing a candidate to support. Also, my
husband works at the
Federal Reserve Bank. So I'll take sound money off
of my "must-haves"
list. And I live in downtown San Francisco, so I
arguably get far
more out of my taxes in terms of federally
subsidized mass transit and
such than I actually pay in. So take abolishing the
IRS off my list
as well.

So, now, what's left that we agree on? Iraq. Well,
heck. I agree
with basically all the Democrats except Clinton on
that one.

So explain to me why the pragmatic thing for me
shouldn't be to
support a Democrat, if the pragmatic thing for you
is to support a
Republican?

You see, when you make it alright to ignore other
people's liberty,
you cease being a Libertarian. So, I'll keep guns,
the Fed, and the
IRS on my list after all. :slight_smile:

Rob

P.S. Enough with this "libertarian movement" BS. I
joined the
Libertarian Party, and this is not the "LMSF"
mailing list, but rather
the "LPSF" mailing list. I wish all the Republicans
who aren't even
in San Francisco would just scram.

P.P.S. My words, not Outright's, yadda...

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Tim Campbell
<profreedomradical@...> wrote:
>
> I never said, or met to imply, that "my issues"
are
> better, just that you, me, Starchild, and Ron Paul
> would agree on gun rights and tax systems
changes...
> so why not focus on these issues we have in common
AND
> THEN hash out in e=mail lists why we disagree on
other
> issues. Libertarians spend so much time beating
each
> other up over what we disagree on instead of
coming
> together on what we do agree on to get something
> accomplished. This, my friend Rob, is why
Democrats
> and Republicans do that kind of thing, because
THAT,
> my friend, is how politics is done. I think
> Libertarians need to learn how to play the game of
> politics better. So no, I am not going to say your
> issues aren't important, any more or less than my
> issues are, just that we should start to work
together
> on what we can agree on and not tear each other
apart
> on what divides us. I think that is what Starchild
is
> maybe saying too?
>
> I also need to say that I learned some interesting
> things that make me like Steve Kubby a bit more
now.
> He has come out and said, although he does
disagree on
> some of Paul's stands, that a Paul nomination
would be
> good for the liberty movement. I think he sees the
> writing on the wall. I hope others will come
around a
> bit on this "new" incrementalist/moderate approach
to
> do freedom's work.
>
> -TJ
>
>
> "I've gotta agree with you that there is way too
> much of this type of attitude of picking some
> liberties (usually personal or civil liberties
that
> appeal to the left) as politically expendable.
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________Ready