Posted on 12/16/2011 10:18:39 AM PST by mnehring
1. Paul’s intellectual mentor Murray Rothbard was the founder of anarcho-capitalism and opposed the legitimacy of all nation-states, including ours.
2. Paul openly proclaims himself a revival of the Old Right, the movement which opposed our entry in World War II. He and his followers proudly reject the New Right tradition established by William F. Buckley Jr., Ronald Reagan, and Barry Goldwater.
“When I was deciding whether or not to run for President as a Republican, I re-read Justin Raimondo’s Reclaiming the American Right and it gave me hope—that the anti-interventionist, pro-liberty Old Right, which had once dominated the party, could and would rise again. Here is living history: the story of an intellectual and political tradition that my campaign invokved and reawakened. This prescient book, written in 1993, could not be more relevant today.”
— RON PAUL, Ten Term U.S. Congressman (TX) and 2008 Presidential Candidate
3. Paul is an antisemite.
This is not a complicated point (as some polite conservatives might think it is.) And it has nothing to do with Paul wanting to end foreign aid to Israel and all other nations. (I know plenty of passionate Zionists who think the same thing for different reasons.)
If you believe that the ideas of the Old Right have great value and that we should have followed a “non-interventionist” path during the rise of Nazism then you are an antisemite. You know good and well that the practical consequence of American inaction would have meant an even higher body count in the Holocaust. But dead Jews are apparently not something that concerns you much.
Just as today Paul doesn’t care if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arms the Islamic Republic of Iran for a nuclear-charged assault against Israel.
Yet when conservatives talk about Paul they just politely note that they disagree with Paul’s policy of standing by while the next Holocaust begins.
When will the Conservative Movement finally finish the job Buckley started and stop tolerating the racist, anarchist, useful idiots for Jihad in their midst? Ever?
Update: Ex-Conservative Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul for the GOP nomination today. Perhaps I’ll have a response later…
Michelle Bachman pretty much called Ron Paul an imbecile last night.
The Founding Fathers rejected anarchy because they knew that in the long run it would evolve into gang warfare and a form of statism of gang rule.The Founding Fathers were seeking a golden mean of freedom between big government statism and anarchy.
The only good Paul does is to expose the “high level” nut bars that support him. That way we can keep track of them...:)
Along with dead Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, etc. (Of course Stalin was doing a good job with those races as well), and in the end without our intervention, most likely we would have been dealing with either an All-Nazi Europe, or an All-Red Europe, neither of which would have been good.
When Hannity tried to interview him after the debate, all he did was dodge and weave. I tried to listen to his views with an open mind, but they just crashed and burned for me...
Ayn Rand had a great quote skewering Libertarians like Paul’s mentors- basically she called them (paraphrased) ‘hippies of the right that trade rationalism for political whims and capitalism for anarchy...’
I just wish Mrs. Paul would take her husband to an upscale men’s store with good tailors and buy several suits that actually fit.
..not to mention do something about his prosthetic eyebrow.
She is probably to busy with her fish sticks.
haha
“The Founding Fathers rejected anarchy because they knew that in the long run it would evolve into gang warfare and a form of statism of gang rule.”
Ridiculous. Anarchy was not even on the table for rejection because local and state governments alredy existed as legitimate respected authority against gang warfare and gang rule.
“The Founding Fathers were seeking a golden mean of freedom between big government statism and anarchy.”
Wrong again. The Founding Fathers were seeking a balance between the several states’ authority and a Federal Government they feared would evolve into big government statism.
WWII was an inevitable consequence of our totally unjustified intervention in WWI, where no U.S. security interests were involved, but liberal fascist Wilson had to meddle.
Even those obsessed with the survival of Israel need to consider where our intervention in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East has led us. Israel is now painted into a corner. Millions of Christians face genocide or exile. Thanks a lot, rich punk G.W. Bush, for listening to the Clintonist CIA director who led you to invade Iraq. Thanks for lying during the campaign that you were against nation-building (in Haiti, right in our hemisphere), then pursuing unprecedented nation-building thousands of miles away.
The country is broke. Wars and interventions inevitably lead to unforeseen adverse consequences. We need to bring the troops home and defend our homeland from illegal immigrants and stop Muslim immigration.
1. Governor Mitt Romney and Rep. Michele Bachmann are the most conservative candidates in the race.
They were talking about Coulter’s comments and wasn’t part of the main article’s content.
As the article you cited to notes, "Murray Rothbard used the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish his philosophy from anarchism that opposes private property,[21] as well as to distinguish it from other forms of individualist anarchism."
Rothbard's theoretical analysis of the role of the state in fact supports many fundamental concepts of conservatism. For example, as the article you cited notes:
"Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray Rothbard said that the difference between free-market capitalism and "state capitalism" is the difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the free market.[13] "Capitalism," as anarcho-capitalists employ the term, is not to be confused with state monopoly capitalism, crony capitalism, corporatism, or contemporary mixed economies, wherein market incentives and disincentives may be altered by state action.[14] So they reject the state, based on the belief that states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, restrict trade, and restrict personal freedoms via drug laws, compulsory education, conscription, laws on food and morality, and the like."
In large part isn't that what conservatives believe in? Or don't you really believe in free markets, less taxes, private property, and the fact that people own themselves, and aren't the property of the state?
You don’t have to defend RP because you sound like you are him.
You are a complete idiot if you think we shouldn’t have entered WWII. Of course that’s understandable since you appear to be RP.
Furthermore, WWII was not a result of us entering WWI. WWII was a direct result of the sanctions imposed on Germany at the conclusion of WWI.
Finally, our invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the fact that the Arabs always have and always will desire the complete and utter destruction of Israel. The islamonazis don’t hate us or Israel anymore now than they did 30 years ago.
He’d be a good choice for appointment to some position where he can effectively push his government-cutting ideas (which are good) but has no bearing on national defense.
You really have to think about what you just wrote, had the US not entered the war the Nazis would have had the bomb and millions of Jews and Slavs would have been slaughtered and enslaved.
This type of historical para-analytics is dangerous, really really dangerous.
“Wrong again. The Founding Fathers were seeking a balance between the several states’ authority and a Federal Government they feared would evolve into big government statism.”
Great point; and for a good part of the nation’s history - with the exception of the Civil War, that balance we believe was intended to be resolved in the Constitution prevailed.
It began to be undone with the change to popular election of Senators (eliminating the “direct representation” of the states in the Federal government), the personal income tax, the “New Deal” additions to the “regulatory state”, all the “progressive” additions to that state since then and the slide into the “living Constitution” by the judiciary.
Those who feared most about the slide into statism seem, at this point, to have been more prescient than their detractors.
At this point in our Republic, no major party acts in true opposition to that slide into statism. We have been reduced to a competition for the financial and power-levers of the state between crony-capitalists and Marxists, and with that competition more and more dominant at the Federal level and the Federal level more and more dominant in the economy and society.
True “free enterprise” “Libertarian capitalism died, possibly, in the period from WWII to the 1970s. Even in the “hi tech” world private enterprises spend only an “infant” period before joining the competition in trying to secure (buy) their place within the embrace of the state, and few are truly seeking to secure more of their Liberty and ours from that state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.