Ron Paul still in the race, any point in helping!?

[galtgulch]

If Ron Paul remains in the running isn't there anything to be gained by getting involved if for no other reason than to help to enlighten those who are interested in him about what Objectivist thinking and Austrian Economics have to offer?

I know I heard Ron Paul speak to a room full of wildly enthusiastic supporters and he mentioned Austrian Economics, abolishing the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the Income Tax, etc, all to rousing applause.

At the risk of sounding like a doomsday prophet, you must admit that things are getting precarious, with the growing Federal Budget which is becoming asymptotic, US troops in virtually every country in the world, endless regulations and interventions in education, medicine, charity, personal behavior and who knows what is next?

The worse things get you know the government will assume even more powers.

None of us are alone in this battle, but some are fighting it while others sit by and claim that it is a waste of time, that the proper ideological basis isn't yet prevalent, that this candidate is too religious, or too extreme, or not consistent.

What in heaven's name are you waiting for?

I know Ron Paul is not the ideal candidate but the others all make me sick. I just registered Republican! I will switch back to unenrolled after its over. In the meantime I will talk to people about the election and focus on the ideas I wish they all knew as we do about limited government and the free market and individual rights and stuff like that. Not to mention Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Ludwig von Mises.

Now go ahead and talk me out of it!

galt

[syrakusos]

If Ron Paul remains in the running isn't there anything to be gained by getting involved if for no other reason than to help to enlighten those who are interested in him about what Objectivist thinking and Austrian Economics have to offer?

I am not sure that this is true.

This is a choice with some consequence for me because in 2006, I was elected to be a Republican Party precinct delegate and I have a state convention coming up.

This George Will TownHall.com column about the rift between religionists and economists is an old story to Objectivists.

The recent revelations via New Republic about memoranda from his office just reminds me that you get racism on the right all too easily. Dr. Paul is not a racist. I accept that readily. However, he cannot ferret out the traditionalists for whom Ayn Rand's atheism and advocacy for abortion as a choice are just the beginning of the problems. Just by comparison, Newt Gingrich has a yarn about being at a Georgia barbeque where he asked some guys in bib overalls in front a pickup truck with a shotgun in the rack what they thought about Clarence Thomas and they were happy that President Bush had nominated a fellow Georgian. It's not the truth of the story that matters, any more than it is with Dr. Paul's problem. What matters is what stories come out of the candidate's office. Can the man manage public relations or not? If he were a physicist, it would be one thing, but he claims to be a politician.

The thing with the Federal Reserve is another indicator of the attachment with and for right wing populism. Click here to see why gold was never illegal in the United States. I owned gold coins legally even before President Ford lifted all restrictions on it, via Executive Order 11825 December 31st, 1974. The United States Mint resumed minting gold coins and selling them at market prices in 1987. So, from that point on, there has always been gold currency in America. The dollar is freely convertible to gold at the market rate via (authorized sellers for) the US Mint. That the US government is running a horrific deficit certainly devalues its "greenback" dollars. But so, what? We all have credit ratings. Equifax, Experian and TransUnion tally mine. Anti-semitic, anti-capitalist rightwing populists are too easily accepted in Objectivist circles. (On the other front, we have the neo-conservatives whom Dr. Paul has bravely taken on in opposing the war in Iraq. They also hold social capital within Objectivism.) Conservatives are the cross that Objectivists bear. Myself, I shrugged it off. I agree with much of his rhetoric, but I really cannot support Ron Paul's bid for the presidency.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[BaalChatzaf]

Conservatives are the cross that Objectivists bear. Myself, I shrugged it off. I agree with much of his rhetoric, but I really cannot support Ron Paul's bid for the presidency.

Neither can I. R.P. will Sound Retreat and our enemies will pounce upon us. It would have been nice if the U.S. had remained both strong and self-sufficient, trading with all, but ready to obliterate anyone who attacked us. That is not the way it turned out. Now we are in a situation such that retreat is not a viable option.

Lest we forget, lest we forget.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[georgedonnelly]

I'm sticking with Ron Paul to the end, no matter what happens.

Ron Paul may not be a perfect objectivist but if you consider more protection for civil liberties, less initiation of force and smaller government to be in your self-interest, there is one else in this race on either side.

I fail to understand why a lot of objectivists either cave in to "electability", instead of standing up for their principles, or just shrug it all off and withdraw. Galt is the great shrugger but the world of "Atlas Shrugged" is a lot farther along in the wrong direction than this world. We still have time to turn this thing around.

If you truly value Ayn Rand's philosophy then you must feel compelled to take action to protect your own civil liberties, protect yourself and those you value from the initiation of force by large government and protect your own integrity by not allowing your productive capacity in the form of tax dollars to be used to murder innocents here and overseas.

Ron Paul may or may not win, that's not necessarily the point. The point is to stand up for our principles and values. It's in our self-interest.

[Chris Grieb]

I'm sticking with Ron Paul to the end, no matter what happens.

Ron Paul may not be a perfect objectivist but if you consider more protection for civil liberties, less initiation of force and smaller government to be in your self-interest, there is one else in this race on either side.

I fail to understand why a lot of objectivists either cave in to "electability", instead of standing up for their principles, or just shrug it all off and withdraw. Galt is the great shrugger but the world of "Atlas Shrugged" is a lot farther along in the wrong direction than this world. We still have time to turn this thing around.

If you truly value Ayn Rand's philosophy then you must feel compelled to take action to protect your own civil liberties, protect yourself and those you value from the initiation of force by large government and protect your own integrity by not allowing your productive capacity in the form of tax dollars to be used to murder innocents here and overseas.

Ron Paul may or may not win, that's not necessarily the point. The point is to stand up for our principles and values. It's in our self-interest.

George; I like what you have to say.

Ron Paul is not an Objectivist. Some of the people he has been associated with in the past greatly disliked Ayn Rand. Lew Rockwell being one example. Many of the people associated with the Murray Rothbard Institute share Rockwell's dislike of Ayn Rand.

I hoped Ron Paul would do better. I never thought he had a chance for the nomination.

[Reidy]

So you were in it to the end? Now that the end of Paul's credibility has arrived, what are your plans?

[georgedonnelly]

Chris, it's unfortunate they don't like AR. I wasn't aware of that. I have noticed sometimes that when RP speaks I hear bits and pieces of AR, especially when he talks about racism. I like that.

btw when I said "Ron Paul may not be a perfect objectivist" I meant that he may not always align completely or correctly with objectivism. I don't know or care whether he himself is or professes to be an objectivist.

So you were in it to the end? Now that the end of Paul's credibility has arrived, what are your plans?

I would have expected a more reasoned argument on this website.

Edited January 11, 2008 by George Donnelly

[Reidy]

The argument for this has been all over the news for the last 2 days. The only way to avoid it is to ignore current events the way Paul claims to have ignored his newsletters. Just don't run for president if you do.

[georgedonnelly]

The argument for this has been all over the news for the last 2 days. The only way to avoid it is to ignore current events the way Paul claims to have ignored his newsletters. Just don't run for president if you do.

RP gave a strong rebuttal on CNN about the newsletters.

All candidates have warts. This wart does not result in his campaign being over. I'm sure that your favorite candidate or desired candidate has or would have his or her own warts as well.

At least RP is in the right on most issues, and a lot more in the right than the other candidates in the race.

Edited January 11, 2008 by George Donnelly

[sjw]

I know Ron Paul is not the ideal candidate but the others all make me sick.

Ron Paul is so far above the others it's ridiculous. The support he is getting among the general populace is amazing. Objectivists who don't support him are cutting of their nose to spite their face and have their heads up their, a... ahem...

Now go ahead and talk me out of it!

Yeah right.

[Chris Grieb]

The Ron Paul newsletter controversy explains why Ayn Rand was so careful about the use of her name.

You don't allow items to go out with your name on them without knowing what is in them. I don't believe Ron Paul is a racist but the content sounds racist to me.

[sjw]

The Ron Paul newsletter controversy explains why Ayn Rand was so careful about the use of her name.

You don't allow items to go out with your name on them without knowing what is in them. I don't believe Ron Paul is a racist but the content sounds racist to me.

And Ron Paul took the moral blame of letting his name be tied to a newsletter he didn't review.

This controversy is only about his radical views vs. those in the culture at large. Of all people, Objectivists should know better than to pile on along with the evil pundits and their sheep following.

Shayne

[Reidy]

Grieb and sjw apparently accept Paul's claim that he didn't review the offending newsletters. I find that hard to believe, since they span something like ten years and this was a small, local organization, not a national campaign. Failure to read the material would explain at most a month's worth, at the end of which he would have fired the responsible people. A likelier surmise, not original with me, is that he knew what was going out with his name on it and didn't care as long as it brought in the money and the votes and kept the base fired up. That would mean in turn that he considered his real base to be the kind of people who go for this message, not intellectually or politically serious libertarians.

Paul's excuse is that he was too busy, and that's as implausible as his underlying explanation. Part of the reason for the implausibility, again, is the long timespan of the letters. Another is that if he didn't read the publications, others in his organization did and warned him. If the media haven't completely forgotten the guy a month from now, we'll be getting the details on this.

[sjw]

Grieb and sjw apparently accept Paul's claim that he didn't review the offending newsletters.

It's not about whether you accept his claim about the newsletter, it's about whether you accept the ideas he is fighting for in his campaign and his sincerity about them. The only people who care about this newsletter in any way other than that it's a distraction for the sheep that might have otherwise woken up somewhat, are those who don't give a damn about ideas or individual rights.

Shayne

[emb021]

Grieb and sjw apparently accept Paul's claim that he didn't review the offending newsletters. I find that hard to believe, since they span something like ten years and this was a small, local organization, not a national campaign. Failure to read the material would explain at most a month's worth, at the end of which he would have fired the responsible people.

FWIW, while the newsletters existed for about 10 years (I have yet to hear exactly how long they did run), I am not sure the items that people are pointed out existed over the whole course of those 10 years. For all we know, the bad items occured during a very small time period.

I can kind of accept that he didn't review the newsletters himself, probably thinking he had left this to other, more capable hands. I wouldn't have done this, but I'm not him. I do wonder why he hasn't pointed out who was responsible for the content, and some have made some wild speculations that I don't think are well founded.

[Chris Grieb]

Radley Belko on his excellent blog The Agitator has a post about the Wolf Blitzer interview. The comments on the post are good too. Just google Radley Belko if you are interested.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[sjw]

Radley Belko on his excellent blog The Agitator has a post about the Wolf Blitzer interview. The comments on the post are good too. Just google Radley Belko if you are interested.

That blog entry is disgusting trash. Ron Paul is the *only* candidate talking about restoring this country to what the Founders intended. He's the only one for limited government, and yet alleged Objectivists/libertarians want to shove him into the gutter while he tries to defend us against creeping statism. And why? Not because he's fighting for the wrong ideas. But because he "embarrasses" you (that's what the writer said). What utterly abject second-handedness.

(I realize there are some that disagree with Ron Paul's foreign policy--and I regard that too as abject second-handedness. Get a clue--you're with the mainstream Republican party, something must be rotten in Denmark).

Shayne

[sjw]

"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies....if the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency....first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

- Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826

http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Cut_...ant_you_too_see

For now here's what FOX took down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mffpkCH-PJw

Shayne