ron paul, ready to distort for profit and power
regarding ron paul’s desperation saga on CNN, i forgot to mention this recently gobbed twist where ron paul and others assert that racism’s incompatible with “libertarianism”. ron paul:
Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea — you see people in groups.
rather, says ron paul, libertarians like ron paul see everybody as an important individual.
got that, paulists? there’s your supposed banner carrier for libertarianism, and he can’t even get core principle straight. racism, of course, can be fully compatible with libertarianism, since my belief that race X is inferior to race Y needn’t interfere with my position and action regarding the rights of each individual. outside of freedom from initiated force, neither race X nor any of its components have a right to be treated as my equal. far from eating in a specific restaurant or sitting in a specific bus seat being a right, no man has the inherent right to eat in any restaurant, nor sit in any bus seat. he has the right to attempt to bring about those results via mutually voluntary interaction, and to use proportionate/necessary violent defensive force when another attempts to engage him involuntarily.
rather than take the opportunity to divest the mobsters of their entitlement goonism, ron paul swishes the “if rosa parks, martin king, and mohandas gandhi were alive and able to shit out a poop bouillabaisse right here on this plate in front of me, i’d eat that shit straight, without any salt or pepper; that’s how down i am with ‘civil’ rights and ‘civil’ ‘libertarianism’” shot. but ron paul doesn’t much care for educating the moron horde about the principles of liberty (which sound harsh to newbies, but — unlike every other doctrine on the planet — offer the only possibility for widespread peaceful, just, and satisfying human interaction). speaking honestly about such issues would fuck him even worse at the polls, so he fills his calendar with press appointments at which he continues to degrade the liberty message. suckers who sent in the accumulated millions, digging ever deeper, consider yourselves bureaucratized.
can’t say you weren’t warned by this pig.
January 11th, 2008 at 01:31
Damn, little piggie, that owned.
Oink oink!
(sometime in the future)
“Damn you, pig! Why didn’t you warn us?!”
January 12th, 2008 at 12:12
I can say I wasn’t warned by the “pig,” since this is my first time visiting your site. I have been talking about things along similar lines recently, though, and I suspected as much, but what do you honestly propose? The public is even less ready for that kind of dialogue than they are for Ron Paul’s more well received message.
I’m not saying he’s a great representative of the libertarian ideology, either. He’s obviously flawed in some ways (perhaps many), but something has to be done to make change. I’m not advocating that you either vote for or not vote for Ron Paul; I’m just trying to think of what the best course of action might be for all concerned.
Personally, I’ve looked over some of the letters mentioned, and I don’t think any of the ones I’ve seen were “offensive” or “racist,” inasmuch as a comment can even be “racist.” I wish he were able to defend the comments on their own merits, but, when you think about it, even the KKK or Neo-Nazis will shy away from the racist label these days. They’re ‘white nationalists’ or they’re for ‘white power.’ That’s really the point our society has come to. You can’t get away with even objectively looking at the ideas expressed in a piece of writing, lest you be accused of condoning said writing.
You certainly wouldn’t expect an atheist to come out and admit to being one, given our current stat e of politics, wherein atheists are the least trusted minority group. Although I think that example may be less accurate, being that some 10-15% of Americans are atheists or something similar (give or take; that number is pretty hard to pin down), and it seems to me that a lot of Ron Paul supporters are saying things along the lines of ‘I just wish he were an atheist,’ and a lot of would-be Paul supporters are saying ‘I won’t vote for him because he’s a religious nut.’ I think that might actually draw more voters to a candidate like Ron Paul. But the research is telling, nonetheless. Dialogue is restricted by virtually legislated morality, and, for that, it’s good that we don’t have a majority rule. I’m still wary of the Electoral College as it stands, though.
January 12th, 2008 at 13:44
, but what do you honestly propose? The public is even less ready for that kind of dialogue than they are for Ron Paul’s more well received message.
i propose addressing that problem honestly, as LRC did for years, not pretending one attains liberty with a liberty-lite message. apart from internal dishonor, the promises of the ron paul nitwit patrol are fraud (to the tune of many millions now). if the problem is education and disposition, lies won’t help that — nor will the pussified examples of vote-lever-orgasm “manhood”.
, but something has to be done to make change.
right. somehow, the criminal horde needs to be educated that their criminality is not only unacceptable, it lowers them as well. that takes resistance, not a rebranded adoption of the same criminal method. that resistance, of course, must begin individually. LRC was on the right path, but apparently figured “fuck it” — for reasons which i’m nearly sure were not innocently ignorant.
You can’t get away with even objectively looking at the ideas expressed in a piece of writing, lest you be accused of condoning said writing.
damned sure can’t when you won’t try. hiding the truth isn’t going to help spread the truth… unless there’s some really cool easy-way-out widget i and thousands of years of human action history missed.
I’m still wary of the Electoral College as it stands, though.
the electoral college is a bypassed joke, considering that in all cases now it simply passes on the popular vote with an adjusted formula known to all. far as i know though (don’t much care about it), the EC was bypassed constitutionally. so i got that going for me, which is nice.
May 24th, 2011 at 20:00
[...] racism as i’ve just defined is not at odds with liberty. [...]