7 posts tagged “ron paul revolution”
I can't wait to read it and hope you all purchase the book too.
But, alas, the "libertarian" magazine Reason is not celebrating.
[In addition, I bought Prejudices: A Philosophical Dictionary by Robert Nisbet and The Commercial Society: Foundations and Challenges in a Global Age
by Samuel Gregg. Both of these books I'm looking forward to as well.
The late Robert Nisbet is one of my favorite conservative
intellectuals. As Mr. Daniel McCarthy, an editor of The American Conservative,
has said, while Nisbet never called himself a libertarian, nonetheless,
the implications of his work is highly libertarian, be it a kind of (and, I believe, rightfully so) "anti-atomistic-individualistic" libertarianism. Just read, for example, Twilight of Authority
to see what I mean. His work has had a great impact on my thinking
about a free society and what that means.]
The Meaning of $1,000 Gold: Ron Paul tells all.
Gary North on the Upside-Down Mortgages and Sinking Home Prices and Bernanke's Mortgage Market House of Cards.
------------------------------------
The Revolution: Mr. McCarthy on The Tory Anarchist blog provides a syllabus for Ron Paul libertarians. Check it out!
See also his recommendations for newbies to paleoconservatism and libertarianism.
Woods on NY Times' outrage over Ron Paul Republican Murray Sabrin.
Here is a message from Ron Paul:
Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans -- and friends in many other countries -- have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.
Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties -- just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.
I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.
In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.
Sincerely,
Ron
Um. How shall I say this?
I might as well repeat: "Down with Democracy."
Mr. John Zmirak is right:
Well, then. Now we know. It’s nice to know what percentage of my fellow citizens of New Hampshire actually value peace and freedom: Around 10%. That may be the same ratio as prevails across the nation. Not terribly encouraging. It will make me a little more careful leaving my laundry in the dryer in Nashua.
It reminds me of the utter futility of “democracy” which trumpets one’s right to “participate” in a system that confiscates 30-50% of the individual’s wealth, so that 51% (duly led by the likes of Nurse Ratched and the Manchurian Candidate) can squander it. Hans Hermann Hoppe’s title, ”Democracy: The God that Failed” sounds more apt by the day.
Thank heavens we were “freed” from systems which enshrined a hereditary monarch--however inbred, who only had claim to 2% of one’s wealth, and would never dream of imposing conscription. We are so much freer, and more virtuous now.
My grandfather left Austria-Hungary in 1917 rather than fight for the Kaiser. Thanks a lot, Grandpa.
Never was I naïve enough to believe that Dr. Ron Paul, the great man
and hero that he is, would get the nomination of the Republican Party,
but, I must say, I am still disappointed that he did not do a bit better number-wise and rank-wise. I would be lying if I said otherwise.
Yes, I know it is not over. The primary still goes on. There is the chance, even if small, that he might place comparatively higher in the upcoming states.
In the overall picture of things, nonetheless, it is difficult to say that "Freedom is Popular." Make that not so popular. The mass of the public might enjoy a man with good, (somewhat) highbrow rhetoric on the virtues of individual freedom, free markets and capitalism, and some mysterious thing called "limited government." The trouble is, is this is where it ends with them. As long as it is equivalent to the fake and empty talk and promises of a Reagan-like character men like it. If it goes beyond that backed-up with actual devotion to such rhetoric, then we are speaking of something different.
Hogs on a farm come to mind. The farmer rattles the bucket a little. The hogs run to the trough for a dinner of slop. Something not fit for human consumption, but they love it and eat it like you wouldn't believe. Day after day they get their slop. All happy and fat. Rolling in the mud. Thinking they were in hog heaven. Then, one day, all happy and fat and unaware, they are to be taken to get slaughtered. To make bacon, ham, pork chops, and so forth.
Besides, let us all be honest, the Republican Party (and their supposed "opposition" party in D.C.) will never be reformed away from corruption and ideological bankruptcy. Not even Ron Paul and the Revolution movement can change this (meaning directly----more on this later). It has always been rotten to the core. Any exceptions are just anomalies. That is all. So has the federal---actually, make that national (it is not "federal," as it was designed to be)---government. It too has been rotten.
Make that from day one. Congress use to be viewed, as John Adams put it, as a "meeting place of ambassadors" for the independent, sovereign states. The so-called Federalists (actually, due to the ever changing nature of words in the political world they would be best described as anti-Federalists) wanted a centralized state. Alexander Hamilton and James Madison this was particularly true. The early stages of the Philadelphia Convention were heavily tilted in the nationalist direction. The Virginia Plan was trying to push a national government, and according to the notes of James Madison, "consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative, and executive." The meaning of "supreme" meant that the federal government would have say if a conflict arose between a state and the national government. Naturally this is something that would not sell-well with the public, thus the convention was done in secret.
As we know, this group failed. A national government was not implemented. Instead what was implemented was a limited, federal government with a Bill of Rights designed to protect the rights of the independent states and people. However, as we can see, the push for this centralized government was not white and pure as the snow. There were far more sinister forces at work than most people realize. In fact, most people do not even realize or know that there was a time without a Constitution. On Independence Day people act as if it is a day in celebration of a nation-state. On the contrary, the Treaty of Paris was not directed to a nation-State----it did not exist----but to the 13 separate states. You might as well say 13 nation-states.
While compromise happened, i.e., the dreams of a national government were put on hold, a coup d'état still happened. It didn't take too long for this centralization of governmental power to increase on the momentum. (And, hey, why want a Constitution when the Articles of Confederation were better?) Time travel back to today and it can be easily seen that what exists is a national government, and one that would even pass (by far) the dreams of the nationalists at the Philadelphia Convention. It would probably (hopefully) scare them. (It would scare the Jeffersonians!)
The impetus driving power for the Washington political parties and the entire national government (or state governments, for that matter) to just turn 180 degrees and move in the other direction is too strong, nor possible given the structure and incentives of statism. There is too much power and special interest groups invested in the status quo. Too much dependence on the current system to be changed internally.
Thinking that it will change in such a way is like saying that the laws of gravity will inverse tomorrow.
Voting has never made anyone free. Thinking that voting will someday make us all free is a sign of a man who is not paying attention and who is only kidding himself. I fully agree with the following statement: If voting really made a difference, then it would be illegal. As far as I am concerned, voting "rights" only show us how un-free we really all are.
But back to the Ron Paul Revolution... Am I completely disappointed, or something of this effect? No, not at all. This Paleo Blog entry should not suggest that. Overall it has been triumph! Because of the spreading of ideas.
I am still amazed and thrilled at the grassroots. God bless them all, and God bless Dr. Paul. (I am not sure how this man does it. He is a saint.) The Revolution has won in spreading some good ideas. Hopefully they have made, and will continue to make, some dent in the fabric of public opinion. That is why I support him and why everyone should. Dr. Paul is a natural (non-establishment) aristocrat.
Plus I am relatively more hopeful long-term than before because of the Revolution.
So what I mean when I said that "not even Ron Paul and the Revolution movement can change" the nature of statism and the political system, I mean that in a direct way. Indirectly it can and (I very much hope) it is. Enough people that realize the nature of statism can end it. Without public support it would just blow away. And every system----stateless, monarchical, democratic, dictatorial, etc.----depends on public support, even if it is just passive support.
All empires crumble in the long-run. As long as there are people, like Dr. Paul, out there, it is possible that the masses will realize why and what direction to take. A major economic crisis (even catastrophic ones) can result in, at least temporarily, a more despotic government emerging, as the ignorant and power-seeking erroneously fault the free market for the dilemma. Then again, if the voices of gentlemen like Dr. Paul are heard, the public might wise-up and move in a more liberty direction. Ideas are vital.
Are You Against Violence (except in self-defense)?
What don't you understand about State coercion, though? Stefan Molyneux writes "A Handout for Statists."
In this mid-1950s article Rothbard answers the question, "Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?"
The "minimal state" is impossible to maintain, as Gene Callahan says in this 2001 essay. Those that are liberty-leaning (e.g., supporters of a return to the constitution) should reject the State.
On this subject of a "natural order" or anarcho-capitalist society, in the 2006 article "Attack of the 50-Foot Minarchist," Wilton D. Alston addresses some statist complaints and confusions.
Clyde N. Wilson Writings
"The Way We Are Now—Facts That Just Won’t Sink In." He answers such questions as: What is the difference between Bush and Clinton? Or Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney? Is there a conservative movement? What will happen if Dr. Paul is not elected and another Republican is?
Plus see his "What Is History, Part 7." 6, 5, 4b, 4a, 3, 2 , 1.
Capitalism is the Answer
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. reviews The Commercial Society: Foundations and Challenges in a Global Age. Cultural conservatives, and traditionalists, should be fans of capitalism.
If only we were listening to Rep. Ron Paul, then the housing bubble would never have come into being. Rolfe Winkler writes for the Baltimore Sun, "What will we do if big two go bust?"
Election 08 & The Ron Paul Revolution
Update: Ron Paul to be on Jay Leno's show Monday.
Lew Rockwell writes: "Ron will make his second Tonight Show appearance Monday night. Jay, btw, is also upset at FOX's exclusion. Plus, of course, he wants good ratings, and that's what Ron brings."
Ron Paul vs. John Edwards: Who is anti-war?
No competition, says principled radical leftist, Joshua Frank.
Jack Kenny on FOX vs. Ron Paul.
(Hey, no one is perfect.) Justin Raimondo is right on Dr. Paul's immigration ad.
Thomas Fleming writes about "The Oprah Obama Show."
Richard A. Viguerie says that Fred Thompson is a "Faux Conservative." Mike Huckabee, he says, is "Wishy-Washy."
[Edited... I probably should have posted this Sat. morning. It should be fixed now.]
Politicians give me the creeps: All that calculating and conniving, pandering; all the baloney and hot air; all of the insincerity and impossible promises; all of the staged events and acting; and all the illusory “debate” that characterizes politicians and the general political scene of deceit.
It is a Friday evening. That means it is time to watch The McLaughlin Group. (By the way, Mr. Buchanan gave Rep. Ron Paul the award for Most Underrated in 2007 on the show.) I turned PBS on early and watched some other program. It was your typical establishment-type show. Not worth your time.
Watching it got me thinking on how I always cringe (and, at the same time, laugh) when I listen to the commentary on how a given politician is battling it out now with his opponent on this issue or that or with this dirt or that versus in the future time-wise for the greatest political score he can acquire or by saying this or that to pander to X interest group. But, he must be careful with the latter. He has to do his best not only with X interest group, but with the juggling of Y, Z, A, B, and so on. A politician might, perhaps, please X group, but that might come at the expense of B. He might be able to please Z and A, but that might cut into Y. Oh, no! For the former, if he attacks his opponent a little later versus now, then maybe he can cause the most damage when Election Day (always Capitalized, of course) comes.
Politicians have their behind the scenes staff with all of this in mind. Plotting and scheming.
Nothing seems strange, odd, or bizarre about this; especially to the commentators on these types of shows. Well, it is politics as usual. No doubt about that. No amount of satire can top it. It is the best show in town. Not even a real circus show, filled with honest men trying to make a living.
In case you are wondering, that program had no verbal mention, unless I missed it by some small chance, of Ron Paul. But how can you talk about him with the above? How does he fit into all of that? The questions answer themselves.
***
LRC Blog: "Has Fox News Excluded Ron Paul?"
Not surprising, if true.
In one sense, though, as long as there is enough outrage and enough people that hear about this outrageous exclusion, from a candidate who has raised such a staggering amount of money proving that he is a viable candidate, it will only make the establishment look bad. Of course, it would be hard for the establishment to make itself look any worse than it already looks (at least for those of a pro-liberty bent)!
Once Fox "News" gets a few* hundred emails and plenty of phone calls, he will be there. :-) Sorry, establishment.
*(This needs the award for understatement.)
However, if they still do not let him in, the grassroots will then embarrass the establishment by, maybe, holding another large rally in his honor and will make sure it gets some good publicity in one way or another. This is what happened the last time when an exclusion occurred. It most likely gave him a little boost, one larger than if he attended that----what they call----"debate."
Merry Christmas
The Ron Paul Revolution Continues
Listen to Ron Paul's essay "Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View" here [mp3].
The Establishment Attempts to Attack Rep. Ron Paul. But fail.
Dr. Paul did a fine job combating Cavuto's smears on FOX "NEWS." You know, I would hate to find out who the donors of Giuliani are! Supporters include, but not limited to, pro-nuclear strikes against Iran (and beyond), pro-torture, pro-mass bombing of innocents, pro-patriot act, pro-dictatorial power in the executive, etc. Such things have more in common with any kind of Nazism than Ron Paul's attack on 90% of the federal government's coercive apparatus which is unconstitutional. And, by the way, the last time I checked Nazism or some kind of supremacy is a "big government" and socialist philosophy. As of yesterday when I went to www.ronpaul2008.com, I saw the opposite philosophy. Hmm. Interesting.
The Opponents.
In The American Conservative, Michael C. Desch writes that "Giuliani has surrounded himself with advisors who think the Bush Doctrine didn’t go nearly far enough." No wonder neoconservatives love this guy: a complete fascist in the true economic sense of the word. A guy that has made millions after 9-11 in big government contracts for his "private" security firm. Glenn Greenwald writes he is an "Authoritarian Temptation."
(Also check out Philip Giraldi's "No More Slam Dunks" in TAC.)
Daniel McCarthy, at Taki's Top Drawer, writes on "Huckabee: The New Huey Long." Huckabee is Mr. "Tax-Hike Mike." And, of course, pro-empire. Great... just what we all need.
Marcus Epstein writes on "Romney and the Rockefellers." If someone asked Gov. Romney if he supports affirmative action, it is obvious his response would likely be "No" to please the College Republican baking activists. But how is today's notion of civil "rights" to be enforced in the private or educational sectors? Why, by affirmative action! How else do you think it can be enforced?
John Derbyshire & Ron Paul.
Not all that surprising was National Review's endorsement of the empty suit Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination. But what is surprising is a gentleman named John Derbyshire, a political pundit associated with this magazine who seems not all bad and who is also a guru in mathematics (a subject I also enjoy). Derbyshire wrote an article endorsing Ron Paul!
Justin Raimondo speaks about Derbyshire. He also gave him the honor of being the "Conservative of the Year" at AntiWar.com here. ... Be careful, Mr. Raimondo, you are going to make Mr. Derbyshire's job security uncertain. Soon he will be called an "unpatriotic conservative."
The Empire, Neocons, and More
It’s the end of a year that sets a record for American casualties in Iraq --and yet, we are told, the "surge" is "working." We’re well into an election season in which the American voting public overwhelmingly opposes this war, and wants our troops out by the end of ’08 – and yet the "major" presidential candidates of both parties are pledged to keep us in, indefinitely. As we look back on the events of 2007, we can’t help but detect this strange pattern of inversion, which I have previously dubbed the "Bizarro World effect."
"The Latest Neocon Hissy Fit" by Thomas DiLorenzo.
Making War: A Conversation with Thomas E. Woods Jr.
Are anti-Ron Paul conservative Republicans allies to freedom or limited government? Of course no. Jacob G. Hornberger writes about it.
"The beginning of political wisdom," says Robert Higgs, "is the realization that despite everything you've always been taught, the government is not really on your side; indeed, it is out to get you." Read his "Four Types of Government Operatives: Bullies, Muggers, Sneak Thieves, and Con Men."
With some Christmas money I am going to purchase The Economics of Liberty ed. by Llewellyn Rockwell. It has essays from Rockwell, Rothbard, Tucker, Sobran, and others. The price is right: just $5.
Also, for those interested, Thomas Woods has a new book on Catholicism. It is called Sacred Then and Sacred Now: The Return of the Old Latin Mass. You can buy it here. I purchased two copies. One for me and another for a gift to someone else. (See Relighting the Flame of Catholicism.)
