Fuck Ron Paul

[overcoming hope]

http://iusrp.chipin.com/dunn-meadow-concert

fight the power

[Sweejak]

I might have to leave that to political scientists.

Sorry, that made me chuckle. If politics is now solely and ultimately in the hands of experts, I guess everything is. That is like leaving art to the art critics.

It made me laugh too.
How's this for a political philosophy:

"Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself...and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty."
-- Chief Joseph, American

I mean what is the definition of "political philosophy"?

.... we could call anything a political philosophy.

That may be just about true.

I don't think the essay needs to attack that aspect of it, because regardless of it's origins it sure seems like a political philosophy now, even if I can't figure out the various flavors. Do a wiki (yeah I know) on libertarianism and you'll see a whole complex of ideas, same with anarchy.
Have you run this by any libertarian thinkers for comment?

Yes, it offends people because they identify with it. A "whole complex of ideas" could be attached to anything - read rock music critics for an example of this.

This angle, that it is not a political philosophy, just doesn't work for me. Is Anarchy a political philosophy? Situationism?

That only disproves the existence of a secret all-powerful Mafioso-like cult of super-humans with elaborate and detailed evil plans for conquering the universe. Since that only happens in Hollywood scripts and never in real life, it goes without saying, I should think.

Hmmm, i don't know about that. But the essay proposed a lot of that, minus the hyperbole and I think lacking in the detail. A Mr. Anonymous, false appearances, "a list of begats", front organizations, etc. I know it's just a single essay so maybe I'm being a little too picky.

[11:11]

"Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself...and I will obey every law or submit to the penalty."
-- Chief Joseph, American


Dangerous!

[theeKultleeder]

It also means no borders!

Let me wander from village to village to partake of the wisdom of each.

And if any man deny you entry, I tell you, shake the dust of that town from your boots and keep marching...

[Sweejak]

Dangerous!

A mini bill of rights

[Sweejak]

It also means no borders!

Let me wander from village to village to partake of the wisdom of each.

And if any man deny you entry, I tell you, shake the dust of that town from your boots and keep marching...

Damn details! Who says there can't be a 'good' NWO?

[Spoonerian]

Chlamor said:

This is an unusually excellent definition for Wiki giving one a pretty good grasp on the subject. Well it's quite a dance done with Rothbard but when the song winds down it's all about Property and how to to capitalize on such. Just cause Murray plays endless notes in a minor chord doesn't distract from the fact that he's ensconcing property rights in the easy chair of the hallowed individual who happens to be the one who just a moment ago stole that land. (emphasis mine)

Rather than listen for feint undetectable tones from wiki, I think I'll stick with what Rothbard had to say about "stolen land.":

My second political difference with Spooner-Tucker is on the land question, specifically on the question of property rights in land title. Here, however, I believe that the Tucker position is superior to that of current laissez-faire economists who either take no position on land or else blithely assume that all land titles must be protected simply because some government has declared them “private property”; and superior to the Henry Georgists, who recognize the existence of a land problem but who deny the justice of any private property in ground land. The thesis of the individualist anarchists, developed by Joshua K. Ingalls, was that private ownership of land should be recognized only in those who themselves are using the specific areas of land. Such a theory of property would automatically abolish all rent payments for land, since only the direct user of a piece of land would be recognized as its owner.

While I strongly disagree with this doctrine, it does supply a useful corrective to those libertarians and laissez-faire economists who refuse to consider the problem of land monopoly in the State’s arbitrary granting of land titles to its favorites, and therefore who fail completely to tackle what is probably the number one problem in the undeveloped countries today. It is not enough to call simply for defense of the “rights of private property; there must be an adequate theory of justice in property rights, else any property that some State once decreed to be “private” must now be defended by Libertarians, no matter how unjust the procedure or how mischievous its consequences.

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_2.pdf

Chlamor, indeed many or maybe even most self-described libertarian-anarchists nowadays are just as lazy and sloppy about the issue of justly acquired property vs. stolen land as any authoritarian-statist.

But for the past 150 years or so it has been ONLY the libertarian-anarchists (left and right) who've dealt with this seriously. As I think I've pointed out previously somewhere around here, in the 19th century socialist and individualist anarchism were not contradictory positions--and they aren't today either despite the penchants of many to equate libertarian-anarchism with fascism.

Your efforts to conflate the long running serious individualist anarchist ideas with fascism aren't going to stop libertarian ideas from re-infecting the left.

Here's some Nock for you to chew on while your in the mode of contemplating property and land rights theory:

This imperfect policy of non-intervention, or laissez-faire, led straight to a most hideous and dreadful economic exploitation; starvation wages, slum dwelling, killing hours, pauperism, coffin-ships, child-labour--nothing like it had ever been seen in modern times...People began to say, if this is what State abstention comes to, let us have some State intervention.

But the state had intervened; that was the whole trouble. The State had established one monopoly--the landlord's monopoly of economic rent--thereby shutting off great hordes of people from free access to the only source of human subsistence, and driving them into factories to work for whatever Mr. Gradgrind and Mr. Bottles chose to give them. The land of England, while by no means nearly all actually occupied, was all legally occupied; and this State-created monopoly enabled landlords to satisfy their needs and desires with little exertion or none, but it also removed the land from competition with industry in the labor market, thus creating a huge, constant and exigent labour-surplus. (Emphasis Nock's)

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html

[11:11]

It also means no borders!

Let me wander from village to village to partake of the wisdom of each.

And if any man deny you entry, I tell you, shake the dust of that town from your boots and keep marching...

Here's something to ponder: Before we had the border situation created by globalists, Mexicans and Americans moved freely and easily between the two countries. There is a long friendship between Mexico and the US southwest, with shared cultures. Now that racist globalists have gotten invoved, there is a mass migration, economic problems, black Americans being pushed to the bottom, and a border fence being built.

[11:11]

From a leading Libertarian, Melida Pillsbury Foster:

Hugo Chavez: Socialist? George Bush: Socialist!

http://howtheneoconsstolefreedom.blogsp ... -bush.html

[theeKultleeder]

Adam Smith said a free market required open borders and free movement of labor. everyone knows that, right?

I would be Libertarian in saying state management is bad, but I'm not libertarian. State management is good when it represents the will of the people. We don't have that in our state, do we?

[Jeff]

Neo-Nazi leader gives Ron Paul $500

10/25/2007 4:59 pm

A LoneStarTimes.com investigation has conclusively established that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support to Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign.

The individual in question is Don Black, the founder, owner and operator of Stormfront, a “white power” website that both professional journalists and watch-dog groups have identified as the premier English-language racist/hate-site on the Internet.

Previous LST posts have focused on banner “widgets” appearing on the front-page of Stormfront. It is important to emphasize that these are NOT “advertisements” placed on Stormfront BY the Paul campaign, but rather publicly-available graphics that Stormfront’s owner has chosen to place himself, with links directly to Paul’s donation page.

Nevertheless, LST has in the past several weeks raised a series of questions for the Paul campaign; specifically–

1. Can Paul confirm that the donation widgets appearing on Stormfront are the result of the site owner’s actions, not the campaign’s?
2. Will Paul take measures to block Stormfront as a referring URL to his own website, so that no future donations can possibly flow into his campaign from a site that serves as the on-line nexus of neo-Nazism?
3. Will Paul ask his own web-staff to trace past donations that were made by anyone arriving at his campaign’s webpage from Stormfront, so that these contributions can be rejected?
4. Will Paul explore if there are any legal actions available to try to remove his donation widget from Stormfront, and if so pursue them?
5. At the very least, will Paul personally state publicly, vigorously and unmistakably that he rejects the support of white supremacists, and that he will not knowingly tolerate their involvement with his campaign in any form or to any degree?

LoneStarTimes.com’s managing editor Matt Bramanti left multiple messages last week for officials in Paul’s national campaign press office seeking comment. None were returned.

In the interim, a number of grassroots supporters of Paul’s campaign– including many honorable and regular readers of LST– have argued that…

* It is unfair to hold Paul responsible for receiving political support from racists/neo-Nazis if that support was unsolicited by Paul;
* Paul hasn’t, in fact, solicited white-supremacist support; AND
* Paul’s campaign has no practical way of knowing whether or not a specific financial contribution made has come from a neo-Nazi.

These abstract debates are now moot– a contribution to the Paul campaign by a known white-supremacist has been identified.

The evidence is as follows:

* Black proudly and openly identifies himself as Stormfront’s guiding hand, and publishes a contact address on the Internet– PO Box 6637, West Palm Beach, FL, 33405
* A search by LST of public databases indicates that there is only one “Don Black” residing in West Palm Beach, Florida, zip code 33405
* A 7/16/01 USA Today article identifies Black’s wife as being named “Chloe”
* That same article identifies Chloe as being the ex-wife of close Black associate and former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke
* Minutes of a 9/7/07 City of West Palm Beach code-compliance hearing identify “Chloe H. Duke” as owning a residential property located at 203 Lakeland Drive
* According to Federal Election Commission records, on 9/30/07 the Ron Paul presidential campaign received a $500 contribution from a Mr. Don Black, who lists his address as 203 Lakeland Drive and identifies his occupation as “self-employed/website manager”

In light of these facts, we believe our previously asked questions continue to have merit.

A final note– it is traditional in political campaigns for candidates to return contributions from “toxic” donors once sufficient public scrutiny and outcry has been generated.

he difficulty in this instance is that if Ron Paul returns these funds to Mr. Black, all he will have done is given a neo-Nazi $500 more dollars with which to spread his psychotic bile.

We would therefore like to suggest that the Ron Paul campaign donate Black’s $500 to any of the following worthy recipients–

* United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ($500 would make Dr. Paul a “sustaining member”)
* One Family Fund (which works to rebuild the shattered lives of Israeli victims of Arab terror; $500 would make Dr. Paul a “healer”)
* Aish Ha’Torah (dynamic Jewish educational foundation; Aish donations are set according to funky Kabbalah-based giving levels–$18, $36, $180, etc.–but for $500 Dr. Paul could simultaneously become a “Friend of the Wall” and a “Gate of Wisdom,” which would entitle him to both a Sterling Silver Menorah bookmark with certificate of authenticity from the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, and a Western Wall Images CD with over 500 unique photos of life at the Western Wall– perfect “re-gifting” items for the fast-approaching Hanukkah season)

We try to be helpful.

Matt Bramanti, Managing Editor (Gentile Stooge)
David Benzion, Publisher (Z.O.G. Chapter #1948 President)
LoneStarTimes.com


link

[IanEye]

We would therefore like to suggest that the Ron Paul campaign donate Black’s $500 to any of the following worthy recipients–

why doesn't he give it to his fellow Lone Star State citizen, Kinky Friedman?

Paul/Friedman '08 !?!

[11:11]

Isn't Stormfront an ADL front/provacatuer site?

[orz]

Probably not. I seem to remember a thread on this and the main 'evidence' seemed to be that their domain name was registered to an address in Florida.

[harflimon]

.