facebook comments:

66 responses

  1. Owl
    January 13, 2012

    A response to your response:

    1.You are clearly a right to lifer, and clearly, with that research bias, you can’t see the forest for the trees. You have rationalized Paul’s “protection of the unborn” into not being “anti-feminist,” which also clearly establishes you are NOT a feminist, and thus don’t “understand” a woman’s right to her own body and processess, and don’t “get” that any law that allows a DEVOLUTION to the era BEFORE Roe v. Wade is ANTI-WOMAN. Arguing instead for EVERY STATE TO SET THEIR OWN ODIOUS AND INVASIVE STANDARDS, you completely ignore the fact that making abortion illegal neither halts abortions or saves many lives. In fact, statistical evidence shows that abortions still occur at a high rate, JUST ILLEGALLY AND DANGEROUSLY. The entire “pro-life” agenda has nothing to do with ending abortion, which, like I said, can clearly be proven to continue at high levels legal or not, but simply to PUNISH LOWER INCOME WOMEN WHO CANNOT GET THEIR ABORTIONS PRIVATELY.

    2.Most folks can agree, if they have common sense, that Meth and Crack and Ketamine are all pretty bad drugs. Unlike Heroin, and weed, which may cause Euphoria, Coke, Meth and K can cause folks to “go werewolf.” I think it’s one thing to “allow everyone their vices,” quite another for some of those vices to be uncontrollable 5x human strength violence against others

    3.Once again, your myopic States’ Rights argument trumps human decency and common sense. You talk about “states” like they are “people,” as if the “state” of S. Carolina is a “person” that can do what they wish. Utter nonsense. The state of S.Carolina is FILLED WITH PERSONS. And some of them (maybe a majority) don’t like a lot of the other ones. As an example, the S.Car. Legislature just passed voter ID laws that would have excluded 20% of all the blacks that voted in the last election. The Civil Rights Act has a special clause for states like S.Car. and Texas that are known to pull stunts like that REGULARLY, which allows the Federal Justice Department to summarily reject ANY law related to voting in those states FOR EXACTLY THIS REASON, and they used it less than a month ago at the Department of Justice to nullify S.Car. Draconian laws that were CLEARLY meant to disenfranchise 3-4% of the state’s electorate. What’s happening here is you are using “Logic without morality” to justify your positions. Your reference to Pot Laws is wrong: the pro pot lobby is demanding FEDERAL RECOGNITION of Pot’s legality, not a “state laboratory” “experiment” where 100,000’s get fined or go to jail.

    4.You are deluding yourself. Ron Paul has made it VERY CLEAR what he believes in:

    “Interviewer: But under your philosophy, it would be OK for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworths?

    Paul: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part–and this is the hard part about believing in freedom–is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example–you have too, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things. . . . It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior.”

    In other words, beyond all the OBFUSCATION, YES!

  2. john
    December 24, 2011

    There are a few other things libertarians believe or used to believe.

    Open borders, more or less.

    Stop funding war. Isolationism.

    No tariffs.

    Gold standard.

    No cops.

    No socialism. Only insurance. (meaning no Social Security)

    No miniumum wage.

    But, the fact is, the contemporary libertarians are just conservative right wingers with a fascist streak, who want to say they are into “freedom”.

    • ron
      December 29, 2011

      Republicans took over the Libertarian Party when they arranged
      for Bob Barr as Presidential Candidate of the Libertarian Party in 2008. Amazing how ignorant Republicans keep themselves. BUT they turned their brains over to Cheney Rowe…

    • steph
      February 6, 2012

      To add to that list:

      No Department of Education

      No E.P.A.

  3. Liberty Revival
    December 23, 2011

    There are two types of Libertarians: Royal Libertarians and Real Libertarians. Ron Paul is considered a Royal Libertarian.

    Real Libertarians are considered classical liberals and Georgists. They believe the government should issue sovereign debt-free legal tender. Real Libertarians believe in the separation of commodity markets and state. Real Libertarians believe the government should print money rather than borrow money.

    Royal Libertarians believe that government support corrupt the free market in gold and declare it legal tender. Royal Libertarians want the Old World Order’s one world currency, gold, King George’s currency of choice. It should be noted that the Roman Empire was built with the cheap money of copper and bronze coins. The Roman Empire collapsed due to deflation when it went onto a gold standard, the same type of standard which caused the Great Depression. Royal Libertarians believe in the royal free lunch and that the state should grant the right of private banks to lend the supply of the public’s legal tender into existence. Royal Libertarians believe the state should help bankers steal the wealth of the productive people who give the money value in the first place. Royal Libertarians believe the government should borrow money and that people should pay income taxes to those aristocrats around the world who hold the bonds.

    Real Libertarians believe undeveloped land values are unearned wealth and should be fully taxed while labor and capital produced with labor should be fully untaxed. Real Libertarians believe land is common wealth and that labor is private property. Real Libertarians do not believe in the theft of wealth through the government granting royal titles to own land.

    Royal Libertarians believe in the royal free lunch. Royal Libertarians believe the state should grant privilege to the wealthy members of society to monopolize the land and steal the wealth of the working class through economic rent on the land values. Furthermore, Royal Libertarians believe in flat taxes, regressive taxes, and taxes on labor.

  4. Winski
    December 23, 2011

    I hate to plagiarize Jon Stewart’s stuff but in this case I will…. ‘Look it up bitches’…. Any document you can find that deals with all the positive aspects of the KKK, the John Birch Society, the Aerian Movement, etc. will probably have Paul’s fingerprints on it.

    Do you folks KNOW where Lake Jackson / Clute Texas is? That’s where the Jon Stewart work comes in. Go find it on a map… Think about what was going on in that part of the nation over the last 50 years… Ron Paul was ABSOLUTELY built by that environment.

    Bigot and racist labels barely scratch the surface…. It’s WAY worse than that…

  5. Jason Widerstrand
    December 23, 2011

    I went to this article hoping for some insight, but all i walked away with was frustration at how much dis/misinformation there is concerning liberal, libertarian, ron paul, economics, foreign policy. throughout the comments left on this article i found disturbing levels of blatant arrogant ignorance. thank you, to those who posted corrections and intelligence. to the rest of you, shame on you for not pursuing the truth. your proliferation of ignorance is our ‘weakest link.’

  6. Bob Jones
    December 23, 2011

    Let me fix this simplistic bullshit:

    1. Women’s Rights:

    Liberals believe: Women should have the right to choose what to do with their own body, and it is up to the Government to make sure women are granted this right.

    Libertarians believe: Abortion is a personal choice, that shouldn’t be regulated by the Government.

    Ron Paul believes: States should have the right to choose whether or not women can legally have an abortion. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would deny a woman the right to choose.

    Reality: Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would give to individual states the power to regulate and remove that power from the Federal Government.

    2. Drug Laws

    Liberals believe: The Government should reexamine its drug policies, to make them more relevant to the 21st Century.

    Libertarians believe: Drug use is a personal choice, and shouldn’t be regulated by the Government.

    Ron Paul believes: The government should legalize all drugs.

    Reality: Ron Paul is the only major candidate to correctly equate the “War on Drugs” to an insane war on the population, an excuse to militarize the nation’s police forces, an excuse to erode our freedom, and the driver of the decimation of the African American young male, currently being incarcerated at a rate of 1 out of every 4 young black males in the country.

    3. Marriage Equality

    Liberals believe: Marriage equality means that everyone should have the right to marry the legally consenting adult they love, and that the Government should guarantee that equality for everyone.

    Libertarians believe: Marriage is a personal choice, and shouldn’t be restricted by the Government.

    Ron Paul believes: State governments should have the right to decide whether they legalize same-sex marriage or not.

    Reality: Ron Paul has always supported the right of gays to serve in the military and has consistently opposed the denial of rights of gays to marry.

    4. Corporations and Regulations

    Liberals believe: It’s the government’s job to regulate corporations, to protect the people from predatory practices.

    Libertarians believe: The Government shouldn’t have the right to regulate businesses.

    Ron Paul believes: Telling businesses to do anything is unconstitutional, and so is investigating them. After the BP oil spill in 2010 Ron Paul was the ONLY congressman, out of over 400, that voted AGAINST giving subpoena power to the independent committee responsible for investigating BP.

    Reality: The Democratic Party is just as beholden to the money of Big Corporate donations and has actually received more campaign donations from Big Banks than the Republican Party. Obama’s administration is loaded top-to-bottom with former Goldman Sachs executives.

    5. Discrimination

    Liberals believe: Discriminating against anyone for any reason is unconstitutional, and the Government’s job is to protect the minorities from bigotry from the majority.

    Libertarians believe: People are entitled to their own beliefs as long as they’re not hurting anyone else.

    Ron Paul believes: Businesses should have the right to discriminate against anyone for any reason, and that it’s unconstitutional for the Government to tell businesses they can’t discriminate against people. Ron Paul has said repeatedly that he would vote against the portion of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits businesses from discriminating and segregating their customers.

    Reality: Ron Paul is not a racist.

    • Robert Renner
      December 23, 2011


    • Eyevan
      December 23, 2011

      Bob: Thanks for the clear and accurate response to an unfair slant by Matthew Desmond

    • Rusty
      December 25, 2011

      LMAO! So how did you get to “Reality: Ron Paul is not a racist.”? I’m guessing you have completely overlooked his newsletter (from which he made a load of cash) his strong ties to Stormfront and the John Birch Society. I think the saying “Can’t see the forest for the trees” applies here!

      • ron
        December 29, 2011

        I see you let Karl Rowe and Dick Cheney do your thinking for you! You are how this Country went from a budget surplus to huge deficits…

    • Greg
      December 26, 2011

      If, on the Census form, you enter anything other than ‘Other, Human’, then you are, functionally, Racist.

    • JerseyCynic
      December 28, 2011

      THANK YOU — well done, sir

    • JerseyCynic
      December 28, 2011

      that was a “well said” to you, Bob Jones.

    • Owl
      January 13, 2012

      Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he sure acts like one. His argument that the Civil Rights Act is invalid due to “States’Rights” is, coincidentally, the EXACT argument used by every racist against anti-discrimination laws since 1865. His argument that Businesses should not be injuncted against prejudice, regardless of “his beliefs” clearly allow discrimination and racism. Your argument is hollow, unlike many MILLIONS of Americans, Ron Paul is on the WRONG side of most issues for the WRONG reasons. Your nonsense is clear if we substitute “Nixon” for “Ron Paul,” because Nixon supported free markets, ended the Vietnam war and was pretty much on point with every position of Ron Paul’s concerning the economy, should we have elected HIM over Obama? Or how about Ross Perot? Utter nonsense. These are super conservative wolves wearing liberal lambskin clothing. They are NOT liberals, despite Nixon opening China and supporting the EPA, Perot being against Political corruption, and Paul being against “war.” Really? Who, exactly, isn’t “against war?” Even Paul must have some scenarios (he’s pro gun rights right?) in which there is “justifiable” war, and now it goes back to “what is justified?” not “never wage war.” It’s a BAIT AND SWITCH.

  7. adkyriolexy
    December 22, 2011

    Medical freedom, or the right to privacy—which this writer lists as “women’s rights”—encompasses SO MUCH MORE than elective abortion. Many people will never seek, or want, or be in a position to consider, elective abortion. Those people might, still, however, want things like….
    The right to refuse a blood transfusion.
    The right to issue an advance patient directive.
    The right to use non-abortificient methods of contraception (such as condoms).
    The right to have private sexual relations with a willing adult partner of one’s choice.
    The right to refuse a C-section or other obstetrical interventions.
    The right to refuse psychotropic drugs or other psychiatric treatments.
    The right to be free from involuntary sterilization.
    The right to refuse vaccinations.
    The right to refuse physical examinations.

    And many, many others.

    Put bluntly, Ron Paul (and other Republicans) believe that There. Is. No. Such. Thing. as any kind of natural individual right to one’s own body.

    They, and the federal judges they seek to appoint, consider such matters solely the jurisdiction of individual state legislatures.

    The underlying legal issue has NOTHING to do with abortion or any of the philosophical issues surrounding elective abortion (such as when life begins, or whether embryos are persons, or whether sexual activity outside marriage is morally correct, or whatever).

    It has EVERYTHING to do with what limitations the federal judiciary may place on state legislatures’ authority over the bodies of their citizens.

  8. Jerry C.
    December 22, 2011

    He may have some beliefs I don’t agree with but at least he’s willing talk about it. Not like all the politicians who say what you want to hear and then go do whatever they want.

    • Owl
      January 13, 2012

      Great, so an almost Hitlerian figure, with a huge retinue of racist asshats that donate money, is “honest” about his insane beliefs. He’s honest about wanting Gold (a volatile commodity) as legal tender’s standard. He’s “honest” about not wanting any Federal Anti-Discrimination law, and he’s “honest” about his beliefs that the states, not the Federal government, should have the right to regulate your body. Great. Mussolini was also “honest” about his anger at Mafia corruption and the injustices of WW1. Ron Paul “honestly” has almost the exact same beliefs as Mussolini about corporations.

  9. Rev. Luficarius van Ratspeed
    December 6, 2011

    I’ve written a dissenting blog post in reply to the article above. I invite people to come check it out:


  10. 60srad
    September 4, 2011

    The only good thing that might come out of a Ron Paul presidency would be a total collapse of the crapitalist system as it devours itself out of sheer, unregulated greed, but even a radical leftist like me isn’t extreme enough to wish for that.

    • Owl
      December 23, 2011

      ^ is the multiplier/captcha code exclusionary? I think so. I guess you have to read to type in code or converse, but why should you have to do math? Are you folks “Philo-Mathists?”

      One other good thing that might come out of the Paul Presidency: an angry congress, hateful of the Executive.

      • milli
        December 23, 2011

        And the absolute best part of a Ron Paul Presidency? A reduction in the amount of money the government needs to take away from me, one way or another, by about HALF

        That’s right, stop spending TRILLIONS on wars and propping up other governments around the world, stop spending on hundreds of useless get-in-our-way agencies, and getting rid of the IRS and the income tax.

      • zericha
        May 5, 2012

        Yeah, cause it’s not like we need air traffic control, interstate highways, trains or buses, federal crime investigation or federal discrimination protection, decent education standards, labor standards, clean air, clean water, protected agricultural land, healthcare for the poor, elderly, infirm and children, national parks, a safety net for the 80% of people who don’t have enough saved for any kind of comfortable retirement, or the 20% of people who don’t get enough to eat, despite being employed full-time. Nah, we don’t need public schools or public universities, or federal aid for students of any kind (Pell grants for example). Nah, we don’t need the Internet, or alternative energy, or any of the major medical breakthroughs made at universities that were paid for with Federal tax dollars. (I could go on…)

        Nah, we don’t need no stinkin’ taxes. In Amurika, its everyone for themselves. And if for some reason you can’t figure out how to educate yourself and survive without all these things (because they’d be GONE without federal taxes), well it must be your stinkin’ fault, you’re so lazy.

        Or maybe you just want your state and local taxes to multiply TWENTYFOLD to make up the difference in what federal subsidization does to help the states provide much needed services.

    • Erik
      December 23, 2011

      LOL @ “crapitalist system”
      Couldn’t put it better myself.

  11. Scott Amundsen
    September 3, 2011

    The Gospel According To Ayn Rand: I Got Mine; The Rest Of You Can Go Fuck Yourselves.

    • Eric
      September 5, 2011

      You completely missed Rand’s point. A more accurate statement would be:

      Just as I have my freedom to not be interdependent with the rest of you; the rest of you have your freedom to be interdependent if you choose.

      • activity
        September 18, 2011

        why else would someone further this line of argument for everyone having this sort of ‘freedom’? Ayn Rand was about a total BS line of argument because she and others did not want to contribute to society. That is the ‘freedom’ she wanted. It is childish to assume people will contribute if one does not have to. This short essay exposes why her so called theory, is not a functional one. Her ‘theory’ makes for horrendous results too. The essay mentions great examples but interestingly when you get to reading…think of the holocaust too, things like that are only possible because of this ugly line of reasoning she and others celebrate.


      • Kent Williams
        December 22, 2011

        “It is childish to assume people will contribute if one does not have to.”

        I assume then that charities are also childish for believing people would give?

        If you don’t think that people would give, what right do you have forcing them to do so in a democracy?

      • Bean
        December 23, 2011

        “It is childish to assume people will contribute if one does not have to.”

        As a socialist, I’d say that’s a scary way to think about things…

      • Greg
        December 26, 2011

        Be very careful about the references you make. If you look at the political structure of Nazi Germany, you’ll find that ‘Manditory Contributions’ were the order of the day. Further, you do a great diservice to the men and women of the U.S Military, which service remains voluntary…

      • x
        December 23, 2011

        We are all interdependent, whether you like it or not.

        Rand presupposes this interdependence in her work. What is the point of running off to the the Gulch and depriving the world of your glorious works if not to illustrate this interdependence to the rest of us, the leaches and moochers? Unfortunately, she believes this interdependence is only one way: total dependence on the “producers”. The Gulch Utopia fantasy completely falls apart when you think two steps ahead and realize that if don’t have ditch diggers, ditches don’t get dug.

        If you leave all the telephone sanitizers behind, all the smart people die horrible deaths from nasty telephone related diseases.

      • Mike
        December 28, 2011

        “Just as I have my freedom to not be interdependent with the rest of you…” That’s crap. If you have enough language to formulate that thought, you’ve already proven your dependence. Maybe you don’t think the price of the dependent years of your life is reasonable, but you don’t get to decide that unilaterally once society has gotten you to the point where you could actually begin to give back.

      • zericha
        May 5, 2012

        On a finite planet, THERE IS NO SUCH THING as the “freedom to not be interdependent.” It just doesn’t exist. We are inherently interdependent and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Even in death, we affect other people and the natural world. Ayn’s understanding of the world was, frankly, childish, myopic and dated. Her philosophy was nothing short of sociopathic.

  12. Andre Schmeichel
    September 3, 2011

    Ron Paul can be said to be practicing a practical libertarianism. I have to agree that some of the distinctions made by the author between RP and Libertarians seem somewhat forced.

    As a liberal, I’ve found that there is a LOT of common ground between libertarianism and liberalism, despite what many of both groups might say. The difference tends to be that liberals see the government as a collective tool to achieve, monitor and enforce many of the same goals libertarians espouse. When you break down what those goals ARE – both sides agree. Libertarians just don’t like the idea of government being the vehicle of those goals.

    • 60srad
      September 3, 2011

      I’ve been told by libertarians that there is a lot of common ground between us, but I have yet to see it. I don’t even respect Obama’s fascination with the “free” market, let alone that of full-fledged conartistives.

      • zericha
        May 5, 2012

        There are Libertarian Socialists. They are considered “left-wing libertarians.” You don’t hear about them much, and they DON’T agree with the Libertarian Party, which is comprised of “right-wing” libertarians. But Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, David Graeber, Peter Kropotkin, Ursula Le’Guin, Michael Parrenti and John Cage are libertarian socialists, for example. You may find more common ground there.

        A libertarian socialist would argue that a society based on such huge disparities of wealth is unfree. Libertarian socialists believe in voluntary association and economic democracy (such as worker-owned cooperative businesses like Evergreen in Ohio http://evergreencoop.com/.)

        A libertarian socialist sees the state as a coercive authoritarian institution which the elite uses to exploit the people. A libertarian socialist sees capitalism as a way for the ones with money, i.e. power, to enforce oppression on the ones who don’t. A libertarian socialist believes the “Free market” is about as fair as the freedom to kill an innocent person.

    • activity
      September 18, 2011

      Economics is main point of difference between these groups assuming all real libertarians are ‘free market’. Even this assumption is not true, because to further liberty does not mean only in the economic realm, and even considering the government and economics, unregulated capitalism does not necessarily mean people on the whole will be more free.

      This notion that one must be free market to be a ‘libertarian’ is a joke and thats why some are using other titles like ‘social’ libertarian, or others identify with the progressives to make ‘progress’ with all the tools that are available.

    • Owl
      December 23, 2011

      Libertarians and Liberals agree about one thing: we don’t like police. That’s about it. Our positions dovetail at that juncture.

      Where we disagree is here: Liberals like detectives, Libertarians don’t. Libertarians not only want to do away with inappropriate use of police power: they want to do away with police power entirely, in REAL TIME, while we are still facing off with criminals and ne’er-do-wells.

      To explain this, they tell us that “criminals will cancel each other out when unregulated.”


      • Greg
        December 26, 2011

        You clearly don’tunderstand the difference between Libertarians and Liberals. The differences are the veiws of Government and Personal Responsibility. Liberals believe the Government exists to provide them with Services and absolve them of personal responsibility. To accoplish this, the Government has to be Huge.
        Libertarians don’t like Government, which liberals interpret as meaning we don’t like the services they provide. Which isn’t true. We’re fine with Detectives, as long as they aren’t beholden to the state. As a point of fact, the oldest Detective Agency in the Country is privately owned. Haven’t got a problem with them, at all. It’s the ones working for the Government run Domestic Military organizations, i.e. Police that I have difficulty with. Since they work for the government, in any situation involving a conflict between the People and the State, suddenly those ‘protect and serve’ concepts get applied to their mealticket, and the People lose.

  13. Bo
    September 3, 2011


    A little insight as to why he votes that way. It’s not a war on anything but keeping the Government in line with the Constitution. He votes on principle and I applaud it.

    • 60srad
      September 3, 2011

      In other words, it’s a war on anyone who doesn’t agree with his warped interpretation of the Constitution. FYI, we fought a war against conartistism in 1776, but the Tories are baaaaack!

  14. Doc
    September 3, 2011

    Don’t forget that Paul always wants to do away with the EPA.

  15. memefilter
    September 3, 2011

    @Palin Power: “He has a VAGINA,” and apparently Palin does not? You betcha!

    For the rest, seems to me the author is looking for differences where few exist. For example: “Libertarians believe: Drug use is a personal choice, and shouldn’t be regulated by the Government. Ron Paul believes: The government should legalize all drugs.”

    Those two things are *exactly* the same. “Not regulated” means no laws to make regular, which means not illegal, which means “legalized”.

    Or: “Ron Paul believes: Telling businesses to do anything is unconstitutional, and so is investigating them.”

    False. If they violate a contract he is all for “government” enforcing that contract. He has clearly stated that a company that pollutes your land is liable for damages as determined by… wait for it… a court of law, i.e.: the government.

    Mr. Desmond plays fast and loose w/ the few facts he has, and we might guess he fills in the rest with facts he doesn’t have. Par for the course.

    • Ganeshax
      December 22, 2011

      Actually both you and the author are splitting hairs. Your motives seem to be different though. The author is trying to show some difference where there is only slight differnce but it sets up a nice comparison table to enhance the difference a bit. You, on the other hand, seem merely to want to discredit the author and the entire comparison for some untold reason.

    • Woodsgardener67
      December 23, 2011

      @memefilter,, And we all know that enough money can buy you what you want in a “court of law”. Rich man wins again..

    • Nathan smith (blk rnbw)
      December 23, 2011

      Legalized does NOT mean not regulated it means regulated by state and local governments as well as federal govt.. If i go and buy a dimebag from a friend.. It’s unregulated.. He pockets and amount and gives an amount to his distributer.. Free market. If you “legalize” all drugs you have to pay for a plant to manufacture these drugs into a form, you have to pay taxes on it to pay for this manufacture and distribution.. Yu also have to pay for all of the workers who make this stuff. And then you also have to have oversight to make sure what you’re producing is standardized and up to grade. All in all there is a lot wrong with “legalizing” i’m a fan of “turning the other way” i think people would be better off if people just left each other alone and ONLY interfered in someones life when they do something actually wrong like rape or murder.

    • Greg
      December 26, 2011

      Sir, you’d best be careful about accusations of playing fast and loose. The differences between not regulated vs. legalized are paramount, and your equation of the two is rather insulting to most of the population, especially when applied to the Market…

  16. Palin Power
    September 3, 2011

    Ron Paul will NEVER be President. He lacks the BALLS and DICK to be President! He has a VAGINA! Sarah Palin will PWN Ron Paul in the GOP primaries and she will also PWN Obozo in 2012, becoming our next and greatest President of ALL TIMES!

    • Downthemiddle
      September 3, 2011

      OMG! I certainly hope that we can do better than Sarah Palin! You think she might quit the presidency like she did being governor of Alaska. She did that, not for the people, but because she knew she could make more money in the private sector. I am all for a female president if we could find one that is qualified. So far, the Republican party has not found any female that is qualified for dog catcher never mind president!

      • Songstar
        September 3, 2011

        Sarah did how many $1000 plate dinners across the USA.. set the schedule of them and by some broken nai or such lame excuse was “unable” to attend her own function. Then of course.. NO REFUNDS.

    • Eric
      September 3, 2011

      Your intellect and general character certainly adds to ensuring Palin is never again executive to anything. Thank you. Keep commenting please.

    • The Panic Man
      September 3, 2011

      Wow, stupid AND sexist! You’re a sub-human.

  17. Oh hi, it’s me.
    September 2, 2011

    so “libertarian” = anarchist.

    • Eric
      September 3, 2011

      No, Anarchists want zero government and in any case anarchy (chaos) is historically only a general transition from a democracy to an oligarchy. The essence of libertarianism is a philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of any society. The rule of law ensures the security of individual liberty. Governments are established to secure liberty. Libertarians are equally apposed to anarchy as they are government which has gone rogue and abandoned the rule of law which protects liberty, not values or economy. With liberty comes both security and economic growth. Without liberty, law has no meaning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTQqvDtPzY0

      • @Battleforce3327
        September 3, 2011

        Well put Eric, Excellent video, thanks for sharing. Passing it on with others.

      • js
        December 3, 2011

        Once again, we anarcho-capitalists (all three, or four of us) are thrown under the bus by our LP comrades. Oh well. If it’s any consolation, the left-wing ananchists hate us too. A couple minor points; 1. Ron Paul is hopeless, and an opportunist whose found a small loyal group of people and is milking that, just like those newsletters were a way of staying on both sides of a fence and raising money.

        Ron Paul once actually quoted Lysander Spooner in some speech or statement of his, using Spooner’s arguments to argue against taxation. Which well and good and all, except he forgot to go on and explain that Spooner – for the same reasons – was against *elected officials* like, uh, Ron Paul. (Lysander Spooner was also an extremely radical abolitionist, something that might also go unmentioned by R. Paul) Looking at fine people like Ron Paul is just one of the reasons I don’t regret not having voted for over a decade, now.

        The other point is this; Look around you on this comments thread, and for that matter at the rest of this lowest-common-denominator liberal website. Note the intellectual level. Note the malice and barely concealed resentment of anyone who doesn’t want to subsidize their health care, their student loans, or who just wants to be left alone. And libertarians actually believe that liberals mean what they say, all that lying rubbish about “compassion” and “caring.”

        Any libertarian who thinks that some kind of political “liberaltarian” coalition is possible is not actually opening their eyes to see what is so well demonstrated here – it’s impossible, that’s all.

        It’s not that I don’t wish you luck with electoral politics, however you do it. But look around you. These, these people whose fair-minded and intelligent comments about liberty, the role of government, libertarianism – do you think these people will be satisfied with your limited government, the rule of law, individual right. No, not even if it made them wealthier and it was less unjust. They don’t care about that. I’m not even sure they care about free stuff from the government so much anymore. Now it’s increasingly just hatred. No argument you make will ever put a deent in that.

      • Andy K
        December 23, 2011

        I’m sorry, Eric, but you’re using the kindergarten definition of anarchy. Do some reading on anarcho-socialism, anarcho-syndicalism, Bakunin and Durutti- amongst other subjects- before you make that mistake again.

    • @Battleforce3327
      September 3, 2011

      Yes, for the most part Libertarians are Anarchists, but not in the way that they have been portrayed in the Media to be like, which are Radical Thugs that act like Progressives and Terrorists. Libertarians are a Peace Loving People, as explained above by others, who treat others the way they want to be treated. We stand on a Higher MORAL ground with that alone. The ones causing Chaos give Peace Loving Libertarians like us a bad name.

      • activity
        September 18, 2011

        How does that explanation of libertarianism make any sense? How can one want as little government as possible and claim they are not bringing us closer to anarchy?

        Imagine if our government had the sole purpose of enforcing contracts and removed all other regulations and government functions. You do not think that would be close to anarchy? What of inequality, cheating, and gross accumulation of wealth? Monopolies that work to suppress competition and innovation?

        Is libertarianism really all about having government for the sole interests of protecting people conducting business? There is plenty more to achieving ‘limited government’ and that includes going beyond what the founding fathers established because they were not perfect as humans and they were not perfect in intentions either, they were all elites of their time. So was the revolution (Taxation without rep).

        A real revolution handles issues other than just reducing one’s obligation’s to society, one also needs to further their rights and protections. Many feel this should expand much farther than just the business elite class or land owners.

        The real libertarians that want a complete approach to liberty will recognize this and this is why deregulating every sector of the economy and government does not make sense.

    • john
      December 24, 2011

      No. Anarchist are against corporations and traditional businesses. Many are against many forms of private property. They are against states as they are constituted today.

      Anarchists are not against government – what they want is a fully participatory government, where communities act together to maintain the commons, coordinate production, etc.

  18. Nate Abele
    September 2, 2011

    #2 isn’t really an accurate characterization. Ron Paul wants to end the drug war at the federal level, because it’s outside the scope of (and not in line with the values of) the Constitution, and leave regulation (or lack of, if they so choose) to the states. This is very different from explicit legalization, which is a position that Paul has never espoused. Thus, in practical terms, Ron Paul’s position is in fact the Libertarian position.

    As for #5, if you consider the question without a sense of entitlement, you’ll see again that Ron Paul’s position is actually perfectly in line with Libertarian ideals. It’s important to understand that property rights and freedom of association are cornerstones of a free society, and the abridgment of either inevitably results in dire consequences.

    The idea that a private establishment cannot discriminate against anyone for any reason assumes that one is *entitled* to do business with that establishment. In other words, you have to believe they owe you. Now, I’m all for the *sentiment* of the Civil Rights Act, but as economics teaches us, it is imperative to separate the intentions of a policy from it’s actual effects. For example, the Civil Rights Act has been used in court to force restaurants to accept patrons carrying guns. Does that seem right to you?

    I could go on and address the rest of them, but to summarize, they’re all matters of perspective. The important part is that, unlike just about every other politician, Ron Paul is a man of sincere conviction. Whether you agree with him or not, you gotta admit, he’s a straight shooter.

    Finally, every other available 2012 candidate represents basically the same thing: bigger government, more wars, and more deficit spending. There are really only shades of difference in domestic policy (i.e. what they want to spend more money on). If we elect any one of them, we’ll just keep heading down the course we’re on. We might stave off disaster for a little while longer, but eventually, the bottom will drop out of the economy completely, and no amount of overseas intervention will hold back the tide of resentment built up against the US.

    When that happens, *nobody* will be thinking about any of the issues brought up in this article.

    • The Panic Man
      September 3, 2011


      You’re an idiot. Ron Paul is no different from the others – he’s a scum, a liar, and a racist and sexist to boot. Look up the REAL Ron Paul – start by Googling “ron paul survival report”. Then look up why his gold standard madness will kill the whole economy.

      You’re a privileged white male and you should have no rights so you can feel what it’s like to be the minorities you don’t give a fuck about. You hear me?

      • Nate Abele
        September 3, 2011

        Gee, I’m sure glad we can have a reasoned discussion about the issues without resorting to petty rants and name-calling…

        Seriously though, the “newsletter attack” is getting pretty old. It’s been discredited repeatedly. He didn’t write it, he apologized for it, he’s never said anything remotely racist or sexist. Let’s move on now, kay?

        I have to say though, this bit is priceless:

        “You’re a privileged white male and you should have no rights so you can feel what it’s like to be the minorities you don’t give a fuck about.”

        Hate to break it to you, but your attempt to invalidate my opinion because I’m a white male is… wait for it… *racist*! (Also sexist). You wanna try that one again with less hypocrisy?

        Oh, and if you think the gold standard is madness, I should probably ask: how’s fiat currency working out for ya? We broke our final link to the gold standard in ’71; that’s 40 years. Here’s a little experiment: compare a graph of the value of gold over the last 40 years against the value of the dollar. Then, compare the 40-year value of oil to the dollar. Finally, compare gold to oil.

        Notice anything? Gold and oil stay relatively consistent to one another, while the dollar drops sharply against both. Not saying gold’s the greatest asset in the world, but unless you tie currency to something meaningful, it’s, well… meaningless. Meaningless and easily manipulated by corrupt governments (i.e. ours).

      • Andy K
        December 23, 2011

        So this past summer,when Ron Paul, who’s heavily invested in gold mining, votes against raising the debt ceiling- which would have had a very negative effect on the strength of the dollar, but a very positive effect on gold prices- wasn’t there a huge conflict of interest? http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/ron-paul-owns-millions-in-gold-interests/244157/

      • Buddy
        December 25, 2011

        HAHAHAHA. Yeah, a gold standard will kill the economy. I think you mean, a lack of a gold standard is killing the economy, or don’t you pay attention to current events?

Leave a Reply

You must be to post a comment.

Back to top
mobile desktop