The New Individualist on Ron Paul

[sjw]

About a month ago I received my "New Individualist" magazine. It had Ron Paul juxtaposed with a skull, the symbol of death. I was livid, but read the article inside anyway. The lack of any logic or substance to that article made me even more livid. I'll just list one low point: the writer suggests that you shouldn't vote for Ron Paul because he wants to return to an objective market-based monetary system, the gold standard. This in an allegedly "Objectivist" magazine!

It is fitting that they have recently invited Perigo to a conference, they'd already adopted his characteristic hyperbole, lack of logic, and willingness to trash good people in order to shock and offend. Indeed, that picture out of TNI looks just like something you'd have seen on the front of Perigo's magazine.

Objectivist leaders are making Objectivism more and more irrelevant. What should have happened here is that they called for all Objectivists to rally and back Ron Paul. They should send people and money to help him. He is the rare man that comes along once in a while that could make a huge difference in winning our freedoms back and putting the world back on the right course. Yet Objectivists spurn and ignore him.

TAS and ARI should close their doors, their mission has been accomplished: Objectivism is a dead movement.

Stop contributing to ARI and TAS, skip sending donations or going to their conferences, donate to Ron Paul instead: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Shayne

[Robert Campbell]

Shayne,

Well, no one here's too thrilled about TAS's decision to bring in Lindsay Perigo as a speaker.

I thought the "Dr. Phibes" rendition of Ron Paul on the cover was in bad taste. And Vodkapundit's article was remarkably shallow on the gold issue, among others.

I can't support Ron Paul, though, given his apparent recent decision to cater to those on the right who hate Mexicans. The flyers his campaign sends out, with the Mexican flag flying above an upside-down American flag, are disgusting. And the call in them to "end birthright citizenship" is a call to amend the 14th amendment--only never labeled as such. I never thought I would see Ron Paul advocate, even by implication, the nullification of part of our Constitution by Congress and the courts.

Vodkapundit was on target about Dr. Paul's tactic of putting in earmarks for special interests in his district, then voting against the final appropriation bill (which he and they know is going to pass).

Robert Campbell

[sjw]

I can't support Ron Paul, though, given his apparent recent decision to cater to those on the right who hate Mexicans. The flyers his campaign sends out, with the Mexican flag flying above an upside-down American flag, are disgusting. And the call in them to "end birthright citizenship" is a call to amend the 14th amendment--only never labeled as such. I never thought I would see Ron Paul advocate, even by implication, the nullification of part of our Constitution by Congress and the courts.

Whenever I've heard Ron Paul talk about immigration, he always mentions the Welfare State as being central to the issue. I have heard him support the idea of more immigration--IF there were no entitlements here. He thinks the free market would solve it: without immigration and with freer markets, we'd NEED immigrants to come take on the new jobs that would be created. I agree with him. We can't have both the welfare state and open immigration.

I think any implication that he's racist is ridiculous. American's are angry about immigrants coming here and getting entitlements. Ron Paul would eliminate the entitlements and therefore the anger. He would make it possible for vastly more immigration without the anger toward immigrants. Even if the Mexican flag was in poor taste, it doesn't compare to the poor taste of TAS in juxtaposing Ron Paul with the symbol of death. And it's not a reason not to support him.

Vodkapundit was on target about Dr. Paul's tactic of putting in earmarks for special interests in his district, then voting against the final appropriation bill (which he and they know is going to pass).

First of all, I do not regard this as a credible attack. If it were, he'd be attacked in the debates where he had a chance to answer it. But he hasn't been, probably because they know he'd have a chance to defend himself and would have a good answer. Second, even if he did engage in that, it is ridiculous not to support him because of it. It's even more ridiculous than the Mexican Flag issue. If anything is clear, it is that Ron Paul is by far the candidate with integrity. Given the choice between candidates who wallow in stuff like earmarks all day every day, nailing Ron Paul to the wall because he did it once is grossly unfair. It's so patently unfair that it implies a desire on the part of the accuser to discredit Ron Paul for some unstated reason.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

Over the top when you impune motives. I like Ron Paul, but he's too feeble, too elderly to actually serve as President or debate effectively. And most of the campaign literature for Ron Paul is being cranked out by others without his knowledge or participation. What Dr. Paul's staff does at a rally is to hand out copies of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, to which Ron Paul adds his autograph when you get close enough to shake his hand.

Bottom line: nice old guy, sincere, a little out of touch with existential reality. Me too. Maybe we all are.

W.

[sjw]

Over the top when you impune motives. I like Ron Paul, but he's too feeble, too elderly to actually serve as President or debate effectively.

Now I've heard everything. "The only man to defend individual rights is too feeble, so please vote for a statist". You didn't say that but you might as well have. Ron Paul does just fine in debate. He is not "feeble".

Even if he doesn't actually win, the stronger the showing he makes, the more it will encourage the younger freedom-lovers to follow in his footsteps. This is the most important reason to support Ron Paul NOW. This is about the moral principle of Justice. Many people do not vote because they do not see the point. Many people do not run because they do not see the point. Ron Paul almost didn't run because he thought it was too early. What does "too early mean"? What does it mean that there's "no point"? In substantial part: that there is not enough Justice in the world for a good man to be a success. So the good man shrugs.

I don't regard this as an optional issue for self-proclaimed Objectivists. Ron Paul is clearly the man. To fail to support him would be something to earn any Objectivist or self-proclaimed freedom-lover a permanent regret. It is ironic that the biggest hurdle most Objectivists have to get over to support Ron Paul is: faith in authority. Well the authorities (e.g. Bidinotto and Peikoff) are horribly off track. Time to throw off their shackles and start thinking for yourself.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

I don't regard this as an optional issue for self-proclaimed Objectivists. Ron Paul is clearly the man. To fail to support him would be something to earn any Objectivist or self-proclaimed freedom-lover a permanent regret.

Hey, wait a minuute, Shayne. In another thread I argued that it was extremely important for Ron Paul to accept the Libertarian Party nomination, which has been offered to him (according to Justin Raimondo), so that he splits the Republican vote and prevents McPain from taking power. If it was morally permissible for me to vote, I'd certainly vote for Ron Paul.

So, you see, we agree after all.

[Philip Coates]

*Ron Paul and Self-Defense*

Not having followed all of the candidates' positions until now, I watched almost the entire ABC nearly four hours of debates between the Republicans and then between the Democrats moderated by Charles Gibson Saturday night. Good way to find out from the horses' mouths what they stand for, as opposed to listening to the media.

I only got up to eat, take a fast ten minute jog, and perform some bodily functions. Like puking.

The single most offensive statement I heard by any one of the ten candidates of two different parties was by Ron Paul.

He argued for a moral equivalency between us and the Islamofascists, that we brought 9-11 on ourselves because of our foreign policy, in particular having troops overseas. And that isolationism and, in effect, waiting for them to explode a suitcase nuke in an American city would be when it would be appropriate to retaliate. Rather than preemption.

The single most important function of government is to protect the lives of its citizens. Even if a candidate is right on every other issue (abolish the IRS, shrink government, privatize various functions), if he is wrong on this during a time of danger, you

****CANNOT PROPERLY SUPPORT HIM*****.

The reason is simple: If you are dead or your infrastructure, ports, pipelines, factories have been made radioactive or subject to biological assault, all other values including the tax levels and domestic intrusions of government become irrelevant by comparison. If your policy as president will embolden enemies who seek to destroy us to think up new ways to attack beyond hijacking planes, you are ruled out by that single issue alone.

Doesn't matter if he's the perfect libertarian on every other issue.

To evade or be blind to the fact that . . .

i) the world's worst people are trying to acquire

ii) the world's worst weapons, and

iii) consider it a religious duty to cripple America and kill as many Americans as they can

. . . is such a staggering feat of other-worldly, off-this-planet, uninformed stupidity and self-inflicted blindness, that it would be a mistake to focus on ***anything else*** about the man's views in the context of being President of the United States and Commander in Chief.

.....

(And, yes, my fourth paragraph is what he said. And, no, I don't have time to debate something this obvious.)

[sjw]

Hey, wait a minuute, Shayne. In another thread I argued that it was extremely important for Ron Paul to accept the Libertarian Party nomination, which has been offered to him (according to Justin Raimondo), so that he splits the Republican vote and prevents McPain from taking power.

If anything he should run Independent. I think it'd be a horrible idea to run as a Libertarian. That'd be like asking to have the "Fringe" tag pinned on him, when his point is that he's getting back to the ideas that made this country great. Libertarianism would just be a distraction. Sure, it'd be good for the Libertarian party, but bad for freedom.

I don't like Libertarianism. Almost as much as I don't like orthodox Objectivism (whether it be the ARI or TAS variety). I prefer Independence. I'm an atheist, and I'd take the Christian Ron Paul over the unprincipled zealotry I see in all three of these movements any day.

If it was morally permissible for me to vote, I'd certainly vote for Ron Paul.

I think it is fair for someone who doesn't believe in voting to not vote (I strongly sympathize with "don't vote, it only encourages them"--but I will be voting for Ron Paul). On the other hand, that should not keep you from contributing to Ron Paul's campaign, which is arguably just as much about getting The Message out as it is about getting votes.

Shayne

[Philip Coates]

PS, I haven't read the New Individualist article.

But what I just stated is what they -should- have said.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Shayne,

Good to see you! I agree with Phil's post above concerning Ron Paul's positions on terrorism and Islamofascism and I am also disturbed by medical doctor who would take a pro-life stance. In this day and age I also think the most pressing issues of immigration involve immigration at the top end. The fact that current H1B visas are capped at ridiculously low levels will starve the US of competent people from all over the globe. H1B visas for individuals with a bachelor's degree and above or people who can demonstrate earning power above a certain threshold should be unlimited.

Also, I had a chuckle about your correct charaterization of most Objectivists being against Ron Paul because I regularly attend Arizona Objectivists where, to my knowledge non-Ron Paul supporters are in the minority :-).

Jim

[sjw]

He argued for a moral equivalency between us and the Islamofascists, that we brought 9-11 on ourselves because of our foreign policy, in particular having troops overseas.

This is such a gross distortion of Ron Paul's position that I wonder whether I should bother responding.

He has answered this particular charge several times. But even if he hadn't, you Phil are taking gross liberties with what he actually said. He merely said that we should look at the reasons they give for why they attacked us. He didn't condone the attacks. He pointed out the fact that if China set up military bases around the USA, we'd probably retaliate, so we shouldn't be surprised that it angers people in the middle east when we set up shop there. He didn't say they were right, he said we should comprehend what's going on in their heads. And he explicitly has reaffirmed this interpretation several times when asked.

You suggest that it is ridiculous to not use preemptive strikes. On the contrary, what's ridiculous is to only worry about suitcase nukes and not all the other ways that our infrastructure will be brought down if we aggressively get in everyone's faces around the world. And it's ridiculous to hold in your mind some notion that setting up military bases in someone else's territory is not going to incite hatred and "blowback".

Over the space of 6 years we couldn't even nab Bin Laden, I don't know what makes you and other Objectivists think we could possibly preemptively defend against all the various angles of attack that might come to the USA by someone who virulently hates us. And to not recognize a crucial cause of virulent hatred--us forcing them to do things our way--is emotionalist dishonesty.

Shayne

[sjw]

Hi Jim,

You need to reconsider your position on terrorism. I used to buy the Peikoff line of argument, but in retrospect, it is context-dropping nonsense. If we had stayed the hell out of the middle east, and *then* they attacked us, then we would have reason to aggressively respond. But that is not what happened. We threw our weight around there, occupied their territories, and then there were consequences. It's not that I recognize their right to those territories, it's that I don't recognize the right of the American government to take my tax dollars to pay for Imperialism around the globe and get us mixed up in intractable military situations when we could have been just fine staying out of it from the beginning.

For the record, I am not saying we had no right to respond to 9/11. We certainly had every right to aggressively pursue and to bomb states that supported it (nation building amongst primitives is another matter). But we created a sticky mess that led to 9/11 and to our subsequent inability to track down the perpetrators. We should announce our mistake from decades back, get the hell out, and then if we are attacked we clearly have the right to bomb the hell out of whoever is responsible.

His position on abortion is in fact the most troubling to me--but the fact that he would leave the issue to the individual states, and that it isn't a major part of his campaign, mitigates this. He is also notably against theocracy, and explicitly mentioned worry about Huckabee in connection to that. So he is no religious zealot.

Shayne

Edited January 7, 2008 by sjw

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Hi Jim,

You need to reconsider your position on terrorism. I used to buy the Peikoff line of argument, but in retrospect, it is context-dropping nonsense. If we had stayed the hell out of the middle east, and *then* they attacked us, then we would have reason to aggressively respond. But that is not what happened. We threw our weight around there, occupied their territories, and then there were consequences. It's not that I recognize their right to those territories, it's that I don't recognize the right of the American government to take my tax dollars to pay for Imperialism around the globe and get us mixed up in intractable military situations when we could have been just fine staying out of it from the beginning.

For the record, I am not saying we had no right to respond to 9/11. We certainly had every right to aggressively pursue and to bomb states that supported it (nation building amongst primitives is another matter). But we created a sticky mess that led to 9/11 and to our subsequent inability to track down the perpetrators. We should announce our mistake from decades back, get the hell out, and then if we are attacked we clearly have the right to bomb the hell out of whoever is responsible.

His position on abortion is in fact the most troubling to me--but the fact that he would leave the issue to the individual states, and that it isn't a major part of his campaign, mitigates this. He is also notably against theocracy, and explicitly mentioned worry about Huckabee in connection to that. So he is no religious zealot.

Shayne

Shayne,

I agreed with US involvement in the second Gulf War but not the first. If we have actionable intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, we have to act on it . The fact that the intelligence turned out to be faulty is another issue.

No great harm would have come from Saddam marching through Riyadh or Tehran or finishing off the Al-Sabah family in Kuwait. I don't think people realize how treacherous the Saudi Arabian monarchy and the Al-Sabah family really are.

Jim

Edited January 7, 2008 by James Heaps-Nelson

[sjw]

If we have actionable intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, we have to act on it.

Why?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

If we have actionable intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, we have to act on it.

Why?

Because as soon as it is smuggled into the hands of terrorists, it can show up in New York, London or Chicago.

Jim

[sjw]

If we have actionable intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, we have to act on it.

Why?

Because as soon as it is smuggled into the hands of terrorists, it can show up in New York, London or Chicago.

That isn't a complete reason. What about the weapons of mass destruction that were in Russia when it collapsed? Those could have been smuggled into the hands of terrorists too. Do you support the idea that we should have "acted" on their collapse too? What about Pakistan nukes, should we "act" on that? Or China?

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

We threw our weight around there, occupied their territories

We financed and armed Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. 9/11 was an attack on Cantor Fitzgerald and the Pentagon. But trying to bring clarity to a bipartisan, hysterical, mainstream article of political faith is like trying to deny the divinity of Jesus, one nation under God and all that. As Billy Beck rightly argued more than ten years ago, it's too late for a reasoned political solution.

The onlly value the Libertarian Party has is to throw additional votes and voices to Ron Paul for the reason I gave. Personally I gave $200 to subsidize an artist to paint a big framed canvas portrait of Ron Paul that was auctioned at a fundraiser. It was a covert operation to subsidize the artist, so he could pay his grocery bill.

I agree that Objectivists are a little bit blind about Holy places, Land of the Free, religious enemies, etc. What I honestly think we should do is put politics in perspective. Galt didn't vote for anybody.

W.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

If we have actionable intelligence about weapons of mass destruction, we have to act on it.

Why?

Because as soon as it is smuggled into the hands of terrorists, it can show up in New York, London or Chicago.

That isn't a complete reason. What about the weapons of mass destruction that were in Russia when it collapsed? Those could have been smuggled into the hands of terrorists too. Do you support the idea that we should have "acted" on their collapse too? What about Pakistan nukes, should we "act" on that? Or China?

Shayne

We have to assess the volatility of the regime and the likelihood that it will pass weapons to terrorists.

Jim

[sjw]

We have to assess the volatility of the regime and the likelihood that it will pass weapons to terrorists.

This thinking is muddled. If we are occupying some regime's territory, then yes it's likely they'll pass weapons to terrorists.

If you poke someone in the eye, and then they smack you upside the head, you don't blame their action on them. We got into the middle of a mess and have made a bigger one, and there's just no way to say who would attack us for what if we had just left them alone. If we had, and then we were attacked, then we have a great argument for proceeding to destroy them. Now, the only rational choice is to get out and expect them to back off. If they don't, then we proceed with 100 times the force we're using right now. But occupation and nation building is not going to work, it's putting us at far more danger than backing off would be. See Matus' graph, we can't stop someone who's really determined from killing millions of us. The best thing is to leave them in their hellhole and not provoke them.

Shayne

[James Heaps-Nelson]

We have to assess the volatility of the regime and the likelihood that it will pass weapons to terrorists.

This thinking is muddled. If we are occupying some regime's territory, then yes it's likely they'll pass weapons to terrorists.

If you poke someone in the eye, and then they smack you upside the head, you don't blame their action on them. We got into the middle of a mess and have made a bigger one, and there's just no way to say who would attack us for what if we had just left them alone. If we had, and then we were attacked, then we have a great argument for proceeding to destroy them. Now, the only rational choice is to get out and expect them to back off. If they don't, then we proceed with 100 times the force we're using right now. But occupation and nation building is not going to work, it's putting us at far more danger than backing off would be. See Matus' graph, we can't stop someone who's really determined from killing millions of us. The best thing is to leave them in their hellhole and not provoke them.

Shayne

Shayne,

For the most part we did this vis-a-vis terrorist incidents up until the first Gulf War. Especially with our withdrawal following the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983. Appeasement didn't work. The terrorists basically considered our embassies fair game. The 9/11 attacks were a difference in scale, but not in kind, to the terrorist attacks over the last 40 years.

Jim

Jim

[sjw]

For the most part we did this vis-a-vis terrorist incidents up until the first Gulf War. Especially with our withdrawal following the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983. Appeasement didn't work. The terrorists basically considered our embassies fair game. The 9/11 attacks were a difference in scale, but not in kind, to the terrorist attacks over the last 40 years.

It's not "appeasement" to refrain from poking someone in the eye. That you chose that term in this context demonstrates your lack of objectivity on this point.

And "for the most part" demonstrates pragmatism. Either we eschew nation building/Imperialism or we don't. A half-step won't work. I mean if I poke your eye half as hard what difference does that make? You still poked me in the eye. So you've made no point at all here.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Personally I gave $200 to subsidize an artist to paint a big framed canvas portrait of Ron Paul that was auctioned at a fundraiser. It was a covert operation to subsidize the artist, so he could pay his grocery bill.

Wolf,

You should run for President. You know how to turn politics into something useful. That's the best idea I've heard out of the entire debate.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

I have reported on my OL blog that the two small towns that have already voted. Ron Paul got no votes.

In 1992 the LP candidate actually carried one of them.

The other news is Hillary Clinton got no votes either.

Just to repeat I thought the TNI cover was over the top but the article raised some good points

Edited January 8, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[Philip Coates]

**improper argument through careless, emotionalist, fuzzy, sloppy, context-free use of floating or loaded concepts**

"threw our weight around there", "occupied their territories", "Imperialism", "If you poke someone in the eye, and then they smack you upside the head, you don't blame their action on them."

I'll try one more time and then give up. The problem here is lack of intellectual precision.

It's a fundamental mistake to debate with someone who doesn't use words with exact meaning or uses slanted or loaded language to substitute for detailed focus on what actually transpired. No matter what you say, they will trot out another distorted (or not tied to reality) concept.

I'll give only three examples:

i) the word 'occupying' when applied to Iraq omits the fact that we overthrew a hated dictator and the people there want us to stay...at least a little longer till things stabilize. When applied to military bases, such as in Saudi Arabia, it omits the fact that our presence was requested by a country with too small a population or military skills to defend its oil wells against seizure by Iran or by radical Islamists. 'Occupy' has a negative slant, suggesting lack of consent or the initiation of force, as when a squatter occupies your house and resists attempts to remove them.

ii) "throw your weight around" is an emotionalist, non-intellectual phrase which obscures the very precise distinction made by Ayn Rand (perhaps you've heard of her?) between the initiation of force and retaliatory force.

iii) "poke someone in the eye" and "imperialism" suggest the initiation of force, which has not been the case in the Middle East by the U.S. One could have more respect for an argument that the U.S. shouldn't police the world [true] and that preemptive force against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Saddam or Iran with nukes is unnecessary [false].

[Wolf DeVoon]

we overthrew a hated dictator and the people there want us to stay...at least a little longer till things stabilize. When applied to military bases, such as in Saudi Arabia, it omits the fact that our presence was requested by a country with too small a population or military skills to defend its oil wells against seizure by Iran or by radical Islamists.

Let's agree, first, that it's awkward and regrettable to quarrel with friends, colleagues, and likeminded men of good faith. I am not eager to make an issue of this. I'd much prefer to be excused from the question of US foreign policy.

However, your claims cited above are false. The Iraqi people do not want our occupation forces. Rather, a small coterie of grafters and crooks are desperate to keep US forces, so they can continue to hide in the Green Zone, which is the territorial extent of their "government." Every economic metric (oil production, electricity, medical services, education, reconstruction, refugees) shows that we lost and continue to lose whatever improvement the US allegedly hoped to achieve by conquest of Iraq's oil reserves. With respect to Saudi Arabia the "country" had no voice in deals made with the the United States, its defense contractors and its oil companies.

I agree we should always keep first principles in mind. Governments lie and dissemble. No WMD. No 'cakewalk.' No involvement in 9/11. Cheney ordered the invasion of Iraq before 9/11, and fabricated a string of lies, because the Pentagon (the world's largest oil consumer) needed Iraq's oil. Period.

W.

Edited January 8, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon