This is a shocking revelation in what way exactly?

smooshie: Er, isn't that in line with most Libertarians?

Depends!

I guess it all depends on today's definition of Libertarian vs libertarian.

now, if you've got a scoop about how he's a colony of scorpions operating a bio-organic RON PAUL cyborg, that I'd like to hear. not saying that's necessarily the case here... but, yeah, spread that one around.

smooshie: RON PAUL pretends to be a friendly Libertarian, but in truth RON PAUL is a true supporter of the rich. That's right, RON PAUL only cares about the rich.

Er, isn't that in line with most Libertarians? Viewing taxes as a bad thing, the whole Ayn Rand "self-made man" thing, American Dream, anyone can make it if they work hard, no government regulations on businesses, etc.

Yes, but most libertarians don't know that. They just want "smaller government" but probably don't want the rich to get richer at their expense, which of course, is what you get with smaller government.

//give a lost soul a joint and under the right conditions and indoctrination, you have a freshly minted Libertarian™

RON PAUL pretends to be a friendly Libertarian, but in truth RON PAUL is a true supporter of the rich. That's right, RON PAUL only cares about the rich.

So what you're saying, subby, is that he's a Libertarian.

Libertarians are Social Darwinists in disguise. (new window)

FTFA:
The success of the Ron Paul campaign with young voters, which David Sirota pointed out in Salon Monday, is but the latest example of how Americans can be persuaded to support the most reactionary politicians in America when they're suitably manipulated, even if they aren't reactionary

Translation:
"I don't agree with Ron Paul's policies, therefore the young folks that do agree with him must've been manipulated."

James F. Campbell: Libertarians are Social Darwinists in disguise. (new window)

Disguise? Not a very cunning one.

oldass31: FTFA:
The success of the Ron Paul campaign with young voters, which David Sirota pointed out in Salon Monday, is but the latest example of how Americans can be persuaded to support the most reactionary politicians in America when they're suitably manipulated, even if they aren't reactionary

Translation:
"I don't agree with Ron Paul's policies, therefore the young folks that do agree with him must've been manipulated."

I know a guy who's one of the most ardent Paulites I've ever met. He's also an atheist, and unlike myself, he's one of those "angry atheist" types. When I ask how he can reconcile supporting somebody like Paul, who has expressed some very theocratic views, he mumbles something about, "It's OK because Ron Paul believes in the Constitution." Never mind that people like Ron Paul never take the 1st amendment to mean what it says...

Um....subby, you seem to have missed where libertarianism always supported the rich.

Because remember kids, if you don't like massive, wasteful government, it means you hate the poor. Because as we've seen, our massive government that continues to grow at a run away pace really does benefit the poor and not the rich.

Rev.K: Jesus f*ck.

Ron Paul says - I'm involved with the 99%. I support you!

Ron Paul says - abolish income taxes.

I mean, what the actual f*ck?


I think Ron Paul is one of those people that believes the Sixteenth Amendment wasn't properly ratified to the Constitution or whatever. Don't quote me on that. That may be a large part of his complaint. Don't get me wrong, but even if the 16th Amendment was properly ratified to his standards, I'm sure he'd still complain that income taxes suck, and he'd be right.

Alphax: James F. Campbell: Libertarians are Social Darwinists in disguise. (new window)

Disguise? Not a very cunning one.

Perhaps, but you must admit that most people don't associate libertarianism with less freedom. They fail to realize that libertarianism allows a group of people known as "social dominators" to obtain more power over society, and that in fact these predatory elements of society actively encourage libertarianism for such an express purpose. (new window, PDF)

EWreckedSean: Because remember kids, if you don't like massive, wasteful government, it means you hate the poor. Because as we've seen, our massive government that continues to grow at a run away pace really does benefit the poor and not the rich.

Remember kids, if you don't have anything of value to say, just tell your opponents what they think. Works for Limbaugh...

EWreckedSean: Because remember kids, if you don't like massive, wasteful government, it means you hate the poor. Because as we've seen, our massive government that continues to grow at a run away pace really does benefit the poor and not the rich.

And remember, the best person to take care of that evil government is a guy who's spent over 3 decades sucking at its teat.

Well duh.
Ron Paul is a Neo-Confederate overall.
But even "true/pure" libertarians in the right wing sense are just tools of the rich.
Seriously, the American "libertarian" idea that sprung from the cult in the 70s, that the government should only exist to protect private property, combines the two most common opponents of "true" (original, what the term actually meant before the American 70s change and what it still means in much of Europe and elsewhere) libertarians.
Look up who first used the term libertarian to describe themselves sometime.

You guys need to wake up and realize that the 1% have in large part gotten that way through our flawed tax policy, our re-appropriation of tax dollars to the defense infrastructure, and our government's support of programs that put money in their pockets.

For every Bill Gates and Buffett, there are 10 or 12 mortgage brokers, Fannie and Freddie CEOs, and bank executives who rolled in the dough precisely because they were in a system the government helped create.

The 1% should be the last people to want Ron Paul elected. It would disturb the status quo. Which, Democrat or Republican, seems to have done just fine for them.

If you start with the initial assumption that not desiring to eat the rich = loving the rich then yes Ron Paul loves the rich.

Rev.K: oldass31: Don't get me wrong, but even if the 16th Amendment was properly ratified to his standards, I'm sure he'd still complain that income taxes suck, and he'd be right.

Uh huh.

And what pie-in-the-sky fantasy tale is Paul spinning when abolishing income taxes brings revenues to zero and public infrastructure and services have absolutely no funding?

What happens then?

State governments will increase taxes and provide services residents want without the threat of the federal government forcing regulations down their throats.

What a stupid article. For all of his crazy libertarian ideology he is 100% consistent and transparent about where he stands. It's not like libertarians hide their beliefs. No matter how conflicting and unrealistic they are.

FitzShivering 2011-11-29 10:14:56 AM

You guys need to wake up and realize that the 1% have in large part gotten that way through our flawed tax policy, our re-appropriation of tax dollars to the defense infrastructure, and our government's support of programs that put money in their pockets.

For every Bill Gates and Buffett, there are 10 or 12 mortgage brokers, Fannie and Freddie CEOs, and bank executives who rolled in the dough precisely because they were in a system the government helped create.

The 1% should be the last people to want Ron Paul elected. It would disturb the status quo. Which, Democrat or Republican, seems to have done just fine for them.

When you let government decide who the winners are, they aslo determine who the losers are.

I love how RON PAUL suggests that churches would fill in and help the poor pay for healthcare if Medicaid/Medicare were abolished.

Hey, asshat. The churches that actually DO care about people and not just fetuses and gay marriage ALREADY pay no taxes and are stretched thin. They can't spare a penny more, let alone pay hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills for the poor.

So go F+++ yourself you deluded little tosser.

Rev.K: oldass31: Don't get me wrong, but even if the 16th Amendment was properly ratified to his standards, I'm sure he'd still complain that income taxes suck, and he'd be right.

Uh huh.

And what pie-in-the-sky fantasy tale is Paul spinning when abolishing income taxes brings revenues to zero and public infrastructure and services have absolutely no funding?

What happens then?

The will of the people will pay for our roads and other services, because... uh... because of American Exceptionalism!

I am certainly not neo-confederate Paulite but this author is a moron.

His evidence that Ron Paul is a fraudulent populist is by pointing out how he agrees with the basic theme behind the Occupations? Bang up job, dumdum.

coeyagi: Yes, but most libertarians don't know that. They just want "smaller government" but probably don't want the rich to get richer at their expense, which of course, is what you get with smaller government.

As opposed to what we have now???

m2313: Well duh.
Ron Paul is a Neo-Confederate overall.
But even "true/pure" libertarians in the right wing sense are just tools of the rich.
Seriously, the American "libertarian" idea that sprung from the cult in the 70s, that the government should only exist to protect private property, combines the two most common opponents of "true" (original, what the term actually meant before the American 70s change and what it still means in much of Europe and elsewhere) libertarians.
Look up who first used the term libertarian to describe themselves sometime.

I wish people would stop repeating this. Paleo-conservative does not equal neo-confederate. The primary unifying concept behind neo-federalism is a southern heritage/the south will rise again outlook. Paul was born and raised in Pennsylvania.

But we'll get to smoke weed legally, right?

TheMadChaosopher: he wants to legalize/decriminalise marijuana.

that's all i need to know.

anyone who does that gets my vote.

of ALL the total crap we have to deal with in this country, the very least they can do is let us smoke weed without locking us in a cage and ruining our lives and careers.

You're either trolling or a frakking moron. You would put the entire country in turmoil so you could get high.

Prioritize, doucehbag. While you get high, the rich and powerful would destroy your air, water and land more than they already have, and rob you blind.

You are 99% of the problem.

TheMadChaosopher: he wants to legalize/decriminalise marijuana.

that's all i need to know.

anyone who does [x] gets my vote.

This is why we can't have nice things, America.

/FTR I support cannabis legalization.

TheMadChaosopher: he wants to legalize/decriminalise marijuana.

that's all i need to know.

anyone who does that gets my vote.

of ALL the total crap we have to deal with in this country, the very least they can do is let us smoke weed without locking us in a cage and ruining our lives and careers.

Depends where you live. I doubt Paul would have a problem if your state decided to make marijuana illegal and lock you up for using it.

Koalaesq: I love how RON PAUL suggests that churches would fill in and help the poor pay for healthcare if Medicaid/Medicare were abolished.

Hey, asshat. The churches that actually DO care about people and not just fetuses and gay marriage ALREADY pay no taxes and are stretched thin. They can't spare a penny more, let alone pay hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills for the poor.

So go F+++ yourself you deluded little tosser.

The idea of libertarianism is that government is significantly smaller than people will be retaining significantly more of their income, which means they will have significantly more to contribute to organizations they support, e.g. their church.

EyeballKid: EWreckedSean: Because remember kids, if you don't like massive, wasteful government, it means you hate the poor. Because as we've seen, our massive government that continues to grow at a run away pace really does benefit the poor and not the rich.

And remember, the best person to take care of that evil government is a guy who's spent over 3 decades sucking at its teat.

It's actually not been nearly that long. He has served off and on three different times, and has continued to run a medical practice through most of it.

EWreckedSean: I wish people would stop repeating this. Paleo-conservative does not equal neo-confederate. The primary unifying concept behind neo-federalism is a southern heritage/the south will rise again outlook. Paul was born and raised in Pennsylvania.

He's a "libertarian" who believes in allowing the state government to lord over your life instead of the federal government.

masercot: EWreckedSean: Because remember kids, if you don't like massive, wasteful government, it means you hate the poor. Because as we've seen, our massive government that continues to grow at a run away pace really does benefit the poor and not the rich.

Remember kids, if you don't have anything of value to say, just tell your opponents what they think. Works for Limbaugh...

That is exactly what the article is doing actually...

EWreckedSean: Koalaesq: I love how RON PAUL suggests that churches would fill in and help the poor pay for healthcare if Medicaid/Medicare were abolished.

Hey, asshat. The churches that actually DO care about people and not just fetuses and gay marriage ALREADY pay no taxes and are stretched thin. They can't spare a penny more, let alone pay hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills for the poor.

So go F+++ yourself you deluded little tosser.

The idea of libertarianism is that government is significantly smaller than people will be retaining significantly more of their income, which means they will have significantly more to contribute to organizations they support, e.g. their church.

Don't forget the weed. Libertarians love that weed. And guns.

EWreckedSean: EyeballKid: EWreckedSean: Because remember kids, if you don't like massive, wasteful government, it means you hate the poor. Because as we've seen, our massive government that continues to grow at a run away pace really does benefit the poor and not the rich.

And remember, the best person to take care of that evil government is a guy who's spent over 3 decades sucking at its teat.

It's actually not been nearly that long. He has served off and on three different times, and has continued to run a medical practice through most of it.

Yeah not nearly that long. Only 12 two year terms and one failed senate run. Working for the federal government is practically the family business now.

m2313: EWreckedSean: I wish people would stop repeating this. Paleo-conservative does not equal neo-confederate. The primary unifying concept behind neo-federalism is a southern heritage/the south will rise again outlook. Paul was born and raised in Pennsylvania.

He's a "libertarian" who believes in allowing the state government to lord over your life instead of the federal government.

exactly - which makes him a big L and not a little l, right-wing or otherwise.

EWreckedSean: Koalaesq: I love how RON PAUL suggests that churches would fill in and help the poor pay for healthcare if Medicaid/Medicare were abolished.

Hey, asshat. The churches that actually DO care about people and not just fetuses and gay marriage ALREADY pay no taxes and are stretched thin. They can't spare a penny more, let alone pay hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills for the poor.

So go F+++ yourself you deluded little tosser.

The idea of libertarianism is that government is significantly smaller than people will be retaining significantly more of their income, which means they will have significantly more to contribute to organizations they support, e.g. their church.

The IDEA. Like communism, sounds great on paper; doesn't work in real life. How do you enforce it? What if the money DOESN'T come in? Then what? We have the 1%; how much do THEY give to charities? The middle class give proportionally more than the richest in America. (I have a cite for that somewhere...)

Seems to me if he was for the rich, the rich would be supporting him, media wouldn't ignore him and there wouldn't be much competition against him.

So we are to believe he is for the 1% now?
Perhaps this is the old switcheroo game where they act like they don't want him so the people will vote for him- for them?

m2313: EWreckedSean: I wish people would stop repeating this. Paleo-conservative does not equal neo-confederate. The primary unifying concept behind neo-federalism is a southern heritage/the south will rise again outlook. Paul was born and raised in Pennsylvania.

He's a "libertarian" who believes in allowing the state government to lord over your life instead of the federal government.

And once that's done, we'll devolve those out of control, ever expanding state governments, so we can then be ruled over by local school boards, zoning commissions and housing associations.

Rev.K: oldass31: Don't get me wrong, but even if the 16th Amendment was properly ratified to his standards, I'm sure he'd still complain that income taxes suck, and he'd be right.

Uh huh.

And what pie-in-the-sky fantasy tale is Paul spinning when abolishing income taxes brings revenues to zero and public infrastructure and services have absolutely no funding?

What happens then?

Your premise is what's pie-in-the-sky fantasy.

Paul simply believes that government has degenerated into a tool that the worst and most powerful use to milk the 99%. His answer to that is to cut the balls off government and maximize personal freedom. I think a more rational answer is to reform government by cutting off the influence of the rich. Still, he's being more honest with you than almost anyone else in politics.

verbaltoxin: And once that's done, we'll devolve those out of control, ever expanding state governments, so we can then be ruled over by local school boards, zoning commissions and housing associations.

It's what amuses me about the idea.
Eventually if you keep devolving to the point of "anarcho-capitalism", it's still not anarchism, as that's incompatible with wage slavery and private property, so you just have a bunch of corporations and individual wealthy owners who have created private states with private security.
It doesn't devolve into more direct democracy, it just creates a series of private autocracies and a serf class.
That's why right/capitalist libertarianism, isn't.

m2313: verbaltoxin: And once that's done, we'll devolve those out of control, ever expanding state governments, so we can then be ruled over by local school boards, zoning commissions and housing associations.

It's what amuses me about the idea.
Eventually if you keep devolving to the point of "anarcho-capitalism", it's still not anarchism, as that's incompatible with wage slavery and private property, so you just have a bunch of corporations and individual wealthy owners who have created private states with private security.
It doesn't devolve into more direct democracy, it just creates a series of private autocracies and a serf class.
That's why right/capitalist libertarianism, isn't.

Hey man, long as I get to be some vassal over a plot in the Great Plains and get called a baron - oh and can smoke legal weed - I say bring it on.

The same RON PAUL that adds lotsa pork to guaranteed to pass legislation then votes against it ??
So he can tell half his constiuents "Hey look I got you this federal money" and the other half " Hey look I voted against this pork" ??