The Global Liberty Community
Open Letter to Ron Paul
In spite of not even being published until now, this letter has taken on a life of its own since last Friday. A question was asked and lines were drawn. We sit here on the verge of a changing libertarian movement.
Notwithstanding the overwhelming backlash Mackenzie, Cory, and I continue to stand behind this letter. While our tactics to express our concerns might have appeared unprofessional, we would like to clarify our intentions and overall goals of both the question and letter.
The purpose of this letter was never to insult or belittle the influence of leading figures of liberty. We understand that people came from many different places before coming to liberty: some from the left, some the right, and some who just didn’t care at all before they found it. Dr. Paul’s certainly did a lot in bringing people from all parts of the spectrum.
Our goal was to address issues that push away people who would otherwise support our ideas if it wasn’t for certain people with problematic histories and those who espouse disenfranchising ideologies. We want to open up the freedom philosophy as an avenue for all marginalized people. In order to create a better world we must first allow the most subjugated peoples a voice. Libertarianism can and should provide that. – Aarón Shelby Baca
Dear Dr. Ron Paul,
We would like to preface this letter by pointing out it is written with the utmost respect and appreciation for all you have done to contribute to the freedom philosophy and human liberty. However, as principled supporters of liberty, we find your appearance at the International Students For Liberty Conference troubling for a few reasons. Most of which relate to your past and current associations with certain individuals and organizations that we find un-libertarian.
We believe many of the people you have aligned yourself with and continue to align yourself with are libertarians only in name and their true ideology is one more akin to a bigoted and authoritarian paleo-conservatism. Your appearance at Mises Circle in Houston, Texas just a few weeks ago is a prime example of this.
The prevalence of an age gap in the libertarian movement has been underscored by the ideas discussed in conferences such as the Mises Circle and put forth by the Mises Institute itself. “Millennial” or “Second-wave” libertarianism is not going away and there seems to be irreconcilable differences between these new libertarians and the old guard, which includes figures such as Lew Rockwell, Hans Herman-Hoppe, Walter Block, Gary North, and yourself. In this letter, we would like to highlight the downright absurdity promoted by this obsolete style of thinking, as delineated in the racist, homophobic, and sexist undertones present in these thinkers’ writings.
The themes of bigotry at the Mises Circle and in many of your colleague’s writings are obvious. At the Mises Circle, Lew Rockwell, founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, compared the life of people under modern nation states to literal chattel slavery. We admit the state is a gang of thieves writ large. But this analogy is downright offensive to people have suffered actual chattel slavery as well as people who have relatively great living standards under modern states. Libertarians can expose the evils of statism without resorting to bad metaphors with blatantly obvious racist undertones.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, distinguished fellow of the Mises Institute, wrote just last year that, “it is societies dominated by white heterosexual males, and in particular by the most successful among them, which have produced and accumulated the greatest amount of capital goods and achieved the highest average living standards.” Hoppe has also advocated violence against homosexuals and other people who live lifestyles he doesn’t approve of, “There can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.” The racist and homophobic themes in these passages speak for themselves.
Walter Block, senior fellow at the Mises Institute, has argued, “Feminists and gays aren’t libertarians.” Also on the topic of homosexuals, Block has written, “If a seventeen year old is an adult, and voluntarily wants to have sex with an adult homosexual man, I may not like it. I may be revolted by it.” If that wasn’t clear enough, Block has made his bigoted views explicit, “I am a cultural conservative. This means that I abhor homosexuality, bestiality, and sadomasochism, as well as pimping, prostituting, drugging, and other such degenerate behavior.” In addition, he has put forth the idea that “lower black IQs” could explain productivity differences between blacks and whites. Again, the arguments speak for themselves.
Gary North, an associated scholar at the Mises Institute, is an outspoken Christian Reconstructionist and supporter of biblical theocracy. North advocates capital punishment by means of stoning for women who lie about their virginity, blasphemers, nonbelievers, children who curse their parents, male homosexuals, and other people who commit acts deemed capital offense in the Old Testament. These views are certainly not representative of the libertarianism we’ve come to know and love.
And then there’s you. The now infamous newsletters that had your signature several years ago contained rhetoric referring to people of color as “animals”, asserted that homosexuals with HIV “enjoy the pity and attention that comes with being sick,” and went so far as to sanction anti-semitic views.
When questioned about these newsletters in 1996, you told the Dallas Morning News, “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” You didn’t dispute the newsletters and you certainly never condemned this: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be,” which appeared along with your signature.
Bigoted subtext has consistently been condoned by so-called “pro-liberty” individuals; a contradiction of the most offensive degree. Liberty cannot exist if individuals of any group are viewed as inferior, whether it is outright, or merely in the connotations of an argument. Suppression means the absence of liberty; something the founding fathers of Libertarianism built up a wealth of rhetoric against. Hypocrisy to this extent cannot be permitted any longer in the libertarian movement.
In Ludwig von Mises’ classic work, Liberalism, he identified tolerance as a fundamental value of a free society, “Liberalism demands tolerance as a matter of principle, not from opportunism. It demands toleration even of obviously nonsensical teachings, absurd forms of heterodoxy, and childishly silly superstitions. It demands toleration for doctrines and opinions that it deems detrimental and ruinous to society and even for movements that it indefatigably combats. For what impels liberalism to demand and accord toleration is not consideration for the content of the doctrine to be tolerated, but the knowledge that only tolerance can create and preserve the condition of social peace without which humanity must relapse into the barbarism and penury of centuries long past.”
This isn’t about guilt by association. It’s about condemning evil, illiberal ideas and being clear about your principles. You continue to hide behind your prestige, refusing to admit this intolerance exists, although it was your name signed on the papers, and you who allowed this bigoted mentality to perpetuate by being closely associated with the Mises Institute. As the icon of the libertarian movement, you have a duty to eliminate this intolerance, not sit back and let it destroy the cause you helped create.
Do you think the Ludwig von Mises Institute has really embraced its namesake’s crucial insight here? Do you think you have? If not, then tell us. Condemn all forms of bigotry and intolerance as unlibertarian. Denounce these connections and the ideas of sexism, homophobia, and racism that have infected the Mises Institute and by extension the libertarian movement. Reclaim Mises and true liberalism. If libertarianism is to advance in the coming century, we must continue to build a community of peace, acceptance, and tolerance and whether you like it or not, it starts with you.
Sincerely and For Liberty and Tolerance,
Aarón Shelby Baca, Mackenzie Holst, and Cory Massimino
Join The Discussion
45 CommentsThoughts? Comments?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Lucy Steigerwald February 20, 2015 , 8:35 pm Vote0
“When questioned about these newsletters in 1996, you told the Dallas Morning News, “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.'”
This makes it sound like Paul said the words out loud. This Welch piece, and other sources, imply that is something written in the newsletters. http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d
Maybe make you get that right.
Thomas L. Knapp February 20, 2015 , 9:22 pm Vote0
The Steigerwald appears to be correct on that particular point.
But then it’s kind of a tangled mess. There are various claims as to what happened, Paul himself clearly just lied his ass off about it at one point or another (yes, when you tell two versions of a story and only one of them can be true, the other is a lie), and I can sympathize with Cory’s difficulties in getting all those stories straight.
Lucy Steigerwald February 24, 2015 , 12:01 am Vote0
If you’re sending a letter to Ron Paul, and publicly posting it, and it’s in reference to words that everyone agrees were not written by him, but by people working for him, it is really important to getting your point across that you make sure not to suggest that Ron Paul actually said something out loud that was written by his underlings.
Rick Rule February 20, 2015 , 11:23 pm Vote0
Remember that what we agree on has much greater mass than what separates us.
I am empathetic ( much more aligned than sympathetic) with every single important point in the letter. I also know from 62 years of life that the liberty community is very small compared to surrounding and often hostile constituencies, and we must invite all sympathetic types into our community, to persuade them through respectful, thoughtful dialogue.
I’m not saying to excuse wrong thinking, wrong action, or wrong speech, I’m saying to leave lot’s of room for potential friends to become friends.
Mart Grams February 21, 2015 , 12:16 am Vote0
As a Mises Institute member, I take the criticism to heart. Yet, if we are libertarian in more than name, we got to remember that human are imperfect (Mises) at best. Also Mises may not be in your good list either; he advocated a government (yikes) of a minarchist nature.
Objectivist Dad February 21, 2015 , 1:34 am Vote1
Are you serious? Saying that we are enslaved to the State is racist? That’s one of the dumbest things I heard in a while, and I have an active Twitter account.
By that “logic”, you are racist for assuming that slavery is only about whites enslaving blacks.
Also a tad bit hypocritical in some of your quotes. Yes they do appear to be what society calls “homophobes”, but shouldn’t we be tolerant of their beliefs as long as they don’t violate the NAP?
Also, since when is discrimination and bigotry force? Isn’t that the point of a truly free society? So that the Asian Communist hedonistic atheists can form their own commune and be left alone?
Not saying you didn’t show ample evidence that your conlusion is correct, but some of your evidence is suspect in my opinion.
Marchella February 24, 2015 , 8:01 pm Vote0
The 1st part of your comment is the best! I have a twitter account as well and I’ve seen loads of rubbish.
James MK June 5, 2015 , 10:35 pm Vote0
I was also confused as to why comparing chattel slavery to state slavery is ‘racist’ per se. Individuals of all races have been enslaved throughout history, but because Black Africans and their offspring were the predominant slaves in the same jurisdictions that we currently live in, people just seem to assume that’s the extent of slavery. They forget the far more brutal Arab slave trade in Europeans and Africans, the mass-exportation of Irish “indentured servants” by the British government in the 17th century and numerous other historical examples of non-black slaves. I know this argument is a bit of an aside but I felt this was an unintelligent remark in an otherwise thoughtful and well-argued piece.
Dianna Zisman February 21, 2015 , 2:57 am Vote1
You make interesting points, but I have a quibble: referring to Hoppe’s comments (which I haven’t read in their entirety — is there a cite?), you write:
“Hoppe has also advocated violence against homosexuals and other people who live lifestyles he doesn’t approve of[. ]”
Now, to be absolutely clear, I completely disagree with his thoughts on homosexuality as stated. But, if meant to prove that he advocates VIOLENCE against those with whom he disagrees, I don’t see that in the passage you quoted. I don’t agree, and “physically removed from society” sounds ominous, but…is it? Put another way, if YOU were to form a completely voluntary society of like-thinking libertarians (or whomever), and Hans Herman-Hoppe attempted to join you while proclaiming, “by the way, guys, I have no tolerance for homosexuality!” would YOU not be free to say, “sorry, Hans…you’re not welcome here and if you continue to try to join us, we’ll have you physically removed from our society/property.”?
Again, I haven’t had the chance to read his full statement, so if he advocates actual physical violence, I stand corrected. But, as such, I think you’re missing a KEY distinction between advocating violence and simply saying “I will not live in a VOLUNTARY society with those who don’t share my values.” The former is un-libertarian, but the latter almost certainly IS libertarian. There are a lot of people — bigots, racists, homophobes, misandrists, misogynists, and war-mongers to name a few — I generally choose to “physically remove” from my own sphere of influence (and vice versa, I’m sure), but as long as none of us are violent, I see no problem with — and nothing un-libertarian/anti-liberty about — choosing to distance yourself from people you consider to be jerks.
Joshua Resendez February 21, 2015 , 3:27 am Vote0
Pointing out differences between races isn’t racist. Making the stated analogy isn’t racist. Caring how offended slaves(their descendants?) are when making said analogy is a waste of time.
Matthew John Hayden February 21, 2015 , 3:34 am Vote0
I may be the first commenter who – despite being a slavish Mises Institute fanboy – completely agrees with the sentiments of the letter. When I spend my time watching lectures about economics or secession life is sweet. Off the cuff rude remarks about feminism or homosexuality when we live in the time we do – that is to say in a time when saying these things will put many people off; in fact it put me off watching Walter Block videos at first – will put people off who otherwise wuld be turned on by our ideas.
By now libertarianism should have pretty much won over all porn performers, prostitutes, gigolos, drug producers and dealers, goths, hippies, stoners, punks. By now we should count pretty much the entire BDSM and LGBTQ communities among our numbers.
Not to mention a hell of a lot more business owners. We’re too square, too white, and too old. And no, that is not a complaint about the existence and age of the folks running the show at the Mises Institute. Rather it is a complaint about them aiming their works at square, white, old people like themselves.
Here’s to a Misesian millenium, preferably one enjoyed by more than nostalgic oldies coplaining about the blacks, the immigrants and the queers.
Martin Brock February 21, 2015 , 12:35 pm Vote0
Actually, gay friends ridicule my libertarian thinking all the time. We haven’t won over Rachel Maddow. You can count her among your numbers if you want, but she doesn’t count you among hers. In fact, many gays these days are more interested in single-payer health insurance financed by carbon taxes than in your revolting ideas.
Olivia Valentine (LibertyNerd) February 21, 2015 , 5:01 am Vote0
My issue, simply, is this: “Most of which relate to your past and current associations with certain individuals and organizations that we find un-libertarian.”
‘We’ is the key word. How come you three individuals get to decide what is libertarian and what is un-libertarian?
Thomas L. Knapp February 21, 2015 , 3:36 pm Vote0
Olivia,
Everyone in the world gets to decide for themselves what is libertarian and what is un-libertarian.
Of course, if they want others to agree with them, they have to persuade others that they’re correct.
Olivia Valentine (LibertyNerd) February 21, 2015 , 9:55 pm Vote0
And when they try to do that, they become assholes about it. My point is that people shouldn’t be going around and labeling people on their specific “version” of libertarianism.
Jeff Peterson II February 21, 2015 , 5:48 am Vote0
You are retarded.
Jeremiah Harding February 21, 2015 , 10:15 pm Vote0
Fantastic analysis.
Jeff Peterson II February 22, 2015 , 12:16 am Vote0
Well everyone beat me to what I was going to say, but nonetheless, I almost gave up with Cory invoking chattel slavery. I mean, has he actually asked anyone who was a chattel slave if Lew Rockwell offended them?
Or, is he just offended on the behalf of people he will never talk to or associate with? Because only blacks were ever slaves anywhere and we ended that just like last week, instead of generations before any currently living people.
“Actual black people” as some sort of collective have no more insight into chattel slavery now than I do. That’s simply a fact.
Martin Brock February 21, 2015 , 12:26 pm Vote1
How is Ron Paul responsible for every word that Gary North ever said?
Why quote Walter Block out of context? “… I may not like it. I may be revolted by it” sounds like there’s a “but” coming. What does he say next?
Some people find some things that I do personally revolting. Why would that bother me? Why do these people owe me an apology or even an explanation? People are revolted by whatever revolts them. So what? Must everyone endure sensitivity training until they can watch gay porn as comfortably as I can? What are you advocating here?
I have read some of North’s queer apologetics for Old Testament standards of “justice”, and I agree that he can’t advocate stoning homosexuals and simultaneously be any sort of libertarian that I recognize, but he wrote this stuff decades ago. Ron Paul himself publicly opposes all capital punishment, so why this guilt by association with what a friend said in the nineties?
“Remove from society” is a lousy choice of words, and Hoppe’s peculiar vision of “the libertarian society” is no more universal than yours, but Hoppe may choose not to associate with homosexuals, even to deny them membership in a community of his choice, without denying homosexuals their liberty.
Martin Brock February 21, 2015 , 4:35 pm Vote0
“Consider a boy aged seventeen or over, where this the statutory cut off point between adults and children. The very idea of him joining the National Man Boy Love Association, and engaging in sex with adult men, is personally repulsive to me. But as a libertarian, I have to realize that only coercive acts against such a youngster should be punishable. Not non-coercive ones. If a seventeen year old is an adult, and voluntarily wants to have sex with an adult homosexual man, I may not like it. I may be revolted by it. But gays too have rights. They should not be put in jail for consensual behaviour with adults of a young age. [Footnote: The exact same situation should obtain for heterosexuals. That is, it should be legal for a 17 year old girl to engage in sexual relations with a male of any age, given this cut off point.]”
Walter Block, “Libertarianism vs. Objectivism: A Response to Peter Schwartz”, Reason Papers Vol. 26, Summer, 2000, p. 57
I emphasize the sentences you quote above. This passage is part of Walter Block’s answer to the question, “Do libertarians improperly support the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA)?” Being Walter Block (defender of the indefensible), he argues that a libertarian can properly support NAMBLA! The guy is defending the most notorious gay rights organization on Earth, an organization that Rachel Maddow wouldn’t touch with a nine inch nail! Anyone who wants to smear Block as a radical queer apologist could also have a hay day taking bits of this passage out of context.
“Consider a boy … joining the National Man Boy Love Association, and engaging in sex with adult men … They should not be put in jail for consensual behaviour …” – Walter Block
Somehow, I think you owe Walter Block an apology, not the other way around.
Martin Brock February 21, 2015 , 5:13 pm Vote0
Yeah, that should be “heyday”. Someday, the Messiah will come, and we’ll have an Edit button.
Martin Brock February 21, 2015 , 5:23 pm Vote0
Yeah, it’s “North American Man Boy Love Association”. I made the error when transcribing. Block has it right in the original.
http://www.reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf
Dianna Zisman February 22, 2015 , 12:17 am Vote0
Wow, that hatchet job on the Block quote is particularly egregious. Thank you for posting Walter Block’s comments in their entirety.
I gave this letter quite a bit of the benefit of the doubt (even with my qualms), but if someone can’t make his or her argument without completely misquoting or mischaracterizing the words/actions of another party…that person has no argument.
Martin Brock February 22, 2015 , 3:07 pm Vote0
Apparently, Cory knows just enough about Walter Block to be dangerous, and he’s willing to smear someone based on nothing else. Presumably, he quoted someone else quoting Block in a similar smear without bothering to research the quote, despite the ease of this research for anyone with a web browser.
Anyone more familiar with Block knows first that he’s not a virulent homophobe and second that he’s an habitual contrarian who doesn’t bother to surround every word with mind numbing political correctness to avoid being quoted out of context this way. And so he is routinely quoted out of context this way.
The first Hoppe quote is simply factual, so it’s hard to understand what Cory expects as an alternative. Stephan Kinsella addresses the second quote here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/hoppe-on-covenant-communities-and-advocates-of-alternative-lifestyles/
In context, Hoppe is explicitly discussing “a covenant concluded among proprietors and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property”. Is Cory suggesting that Augustinian monks may not exclude promiscuous homosexuals (and heterosexuals) from their monastery?
Gary North really was (and apparently still is) a Christian Reconstructionist. He really has defended Old Testament prescriptions like stoning adulterers and homosexuals to death, and I’ve searched in vain for evidence that he has ever repudiated these views, so I’m as curious as Cory to know why Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul consider him any sort of libertarian and why they publicly associate themselves with him. A private covenant between community members can never justify stoning anyone to death for any libertarian reason, not as I use “libertarian” anyway.
North hasn’t expressed these views since the nineties as far as I know, while he has expressed more (classically) liberal views, so maybe his private views have changed. I have asked Tom Woods to interview North on this subject myself in Woods’ discussion forum. If Cory had confined this post to North, he’d have made a cogent point warranting some sympathetic discussion, but unfortunately, he couldn’t resist fallacious misquotation and guilt by association undermining his point. We can all learn from this mistake.
Matthew Reece February 21, 2015 , 4:41 pm Vote0
I am reminded of this incident: http://christophercantwell.com/2014/05/12/fake-apologies-race-pimping-worse/
Jeremiah Harding February 21, 2015 , 10:24 pm Vote0
That was entertaining.
P_Fritz February 21, 2015 , 7:52 pm Vote0
“Libertarians can expose the evils of statism without resorting to bad metaphors with blatantly obvious racist undertones.”
How can an “undertone” be “blatantly obvious”? An undertone is by definition not obvious. It just sounds like your tripping over yourself, hands shaking in your excitement over pinning a racism tag on someone.
Jeremiah Harding February 21, 2015 , 10:25 pm Vote0
Undertones can well be obvious. Would it help if I pulled out Oxford for you?
P_Fritz February 23, 2015 , 2:50 pm Vote0
Jeremiah,
see Oxford:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/undertone
I’d consider “1.1 An underlying quality or feeling” to be most relevant. I STILL would not consider such a thing to be “blatant” or “obvious,” but you are free to differ in your personal interpretation. You say potato, I say potato.
Cheers,
Paul
James Smith February 21, 2015 , 11:19 pm Vote0
HHH may be bigoted, but he wrote ‘The Economics and Ethics of Private Property’. Walter Block wrote ‘Defending the Undefendable’. Lew Rockwell runs the most popular libertarian website.
You want to banish some of the most persuasive libertarian writers just so you can seem like a “helluva nice guy” to the SJWs? Good luck with that.
Anders Hass February 22, 2015 , 12:16 am Vote0
Rather these things are true (which they mostly are not) than being a child molester IMO
James Newcomb February 22, 2015 , 12:32 am Vote0
I am a senior fellow of the Royal Pancake Gorger’s Society of Sheboygan, Wisconsin. My arguments are valid.
Seriously, get a life dude.
Andkon February 22, 2015 , 12:52 am Vote0
You said: “Liberty cannot exist if individuals of any group are viewed as inferior, whether it is outright, or merely in the connotations of an argument.”
1. Cory, why aren’t you paid $10 million a year to play basketball?
Your quote of Walter Block: “Feminists and gays aren’t libertarians.”
2. You don’t link to the article for that quote (or any others). The original article says: “…most feminists are not libertarians, and neither are most gays.” He also gives arguments and in fact defends the Stonewall Inn riots in which gays physically assaulted cops. So much for a cookie-cutter homophobic bigot. Here is that article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/this-will-shock-you-gentle-reader-but-most-feminists-are-not-libertarians-and-neither-are-most-gays/
You say about Lew Rockwell’s comparison of the state to slavery (without quoting him): “Libertarians can expose the evils of statism without resorting to bad metaphors with blatantly obvious racist undertones.”
3. What is the racist undertone? I don’t get it. If anything, it’s to say that everyone, regardless of color, suffers from oppression. How is that racist? It’s not at all obvious, blatantly or otherwise.
Lucy Steigerwald February 24, 2015 , 12:04 am Vote0
Point: Block’s original article had a bizarrely unqualified generalization that said gays and feminists aren’t libertarian. Cory and others at the time objected, and Block edited his piece.
Tom Painter February 22, 2015 , 3:33 am Vote0
Is this letter for real?
Are we being punk’d?
Is it April 1st?
Matthew Reece February 22, 2015 , 10:34 pm Vote0
http://reece.liberty.me/2015/02/22/an-open-letter-against-an-open-letter-to-ron-paul/
Rob Petersen February 23, 2015 , 12:32 am Vote0
“If not, then tell us. Condemn all forms of bigotry and intolerance as unlibertarian.” Are you condemning intolerance? Isn’t that intolerance? Isn’t that a performative contradiction? Oops, no legs to stand on afterall, sorry guys.
Intolerance of others intolerance of your preferred beliefs while calling for them to be tolerant, is the highest state of a deranged mind incapable of critical self analysis. But I’ll be tolerant, you guys keep saying what you want, whenever you want, however you want, but you haven’t convinced me, and I’ll be sure to ignore you in the future unless you confront your own intolerance first. <—-that is how to deal with those you disagree with, not moralizing them to death in a long winded letter that accomplishes nothing but outing yourself as intolerant. 😉
Massimo Mazzone February 23, 2015 , 12:39 am Vote1
We have already been robbed of the word “liberal” from the left. I do not want to be robbed again by a bunch of politically correct primadonnas. Being libertarian is following the NAP, full-stop. Racists, homophobics or xenophobics are just as libertarian as anybody, provided they do not initiate physical aggression.
I have been supporting financially SFL, and I was proud of having helped setting up the chapter in Honduras that just won some type of trophy in Washington. If I find out that SFL officially agrees with letter, I am out. Keep your pizza, I keep my copy of “Defending the indefensible”.
Rick Rule February 24, 2015 , 5:28 pm Vote0
OK, Ms. Mazzone, you have convinced me.
It should have been easy, both Ron and Walter are personal friends and I can attest that they are in fact good people.
I have issues with some of Ron Paul’s ideas, so I did not send him a check to propagandize ( as I did for Harry Browne)
I still hope that we remember the admonition of Jeffery Tucker ,” the enemy is the state”, and accept that while the open letter to Ron Paul was inaccurate, damaging, and in error, we need to welcome the miscreants into our community, and continue the dialogue.
Adam Johnson February 23, 2015 , 1:01 am Vote0
Wow. Bringing up the Ron Paul letters? How many times does Paul have to disown what someone else wrote decades ago before you’re happy? I expect this kind of BS from the MSM, not from other Libertarians.
Let me get this straight. You’re calling for the disowning of the most important and influential members of the freedom movement, and you think you are the tolerant one?
You should retract this letter and apologize.
ChristianB February 23, 2015 , 1:18 am Vote0
Aaron, Cory, Mackenzie…. Thank you.
Trigger the Rookie February 23, 2015 , 1:40 pm Vote0
Here are my thoughts on the matter:
-Slavery is a condition where one is required to work for the material gain of another person or party which is granted (or has claimed) special status to make such illicit gains.
-Having an institution which has claimed the special right to claim a share of one’s material gains is a partial degree of slavery as defined above. This is the basis for making such claims.
-Slavery as it existed in previous incarnations of governments was not limited to black people. Irish were also slaves in America. Jewish were slaves in Egypt. Ukrainians were slaves in the USSR. There are all the other dynamics in the middle-east to consider as well. With these considerations in mind, to suggest that nobody apart from African Americans have a voice on the harm of slavery is difficult to justify, given the ubiquitous exceptions which show to the contrary.
Although the black community is the most recent and prominent example of slavery (The middle-east excepted), the black community does not hold a monopoly on indignation on the matter.
There is nothing racist about making comparisons which trigger uncomfortable memories of injustice. Using nuclear war as an illustrative example of a worst-case-scenario is not racist against Japanese. To say “I’m starving” is not racist against Ukrainians.
We can agree that there’s no political hay to be made in expounding gratuitously controversial ideas.
On the other hand, there’s no political hay to be made by inflaming controversy over something generally innocuous.
Let’s look at this: Was not the progress in the liberty movement in the past three or four years (in part courtesy of Ron Paul’s efforts) sufficient that we must whip up a storm over these matters? Was it necessary to force a confrontation in this manner? There has to be a better and more constructive way to break the negative stigmas of libertarianism than to put one public spokesperson on the spot and issue an ultimatum to throw four other public figures (and an institution) under the bus.
Dawn Hoff February 24, 2015 , 9:32 pm Vote0
Though police is un-libertarian, racism isn’t. You may remove yourself from racists and homophobes – I certainly do – but they can be just as libertarian as you as long as they don’t violate the NAP.
Mike DiBaggio February 26, 2015 , 8:24 pm Vote1
Inaccurate, misleading, probably dishonest, and definitely wrong. Libertarianism is not libertinism. Rejecting the initiation of force does not require that one embrace, or even remain silent, in the face of perversion, nor to subordinate personal preferences to politically correct thought police.
Thankfully, I do not have to waste time picking this apart point by point, as someone else has already done an admirable job of it: http://www.examiner.com/article/an-open-letter-against-an-open-letter-to-ron-paul
Will Porter March 19, 2015 , 8:14 pm Vote1
Oh, come on! Slavery analogy is racist and offensive? Gimme a break.
Statism, precisely BECAUSE it is “theft writ large,” is some form of human slavery. I grant that it isn’t CHATTEL slavery, but, in principle, it’s the same arrangement.
However, even if I agree that what Rockwell said is a total exaggeration, maybe offensive, how is it racist??? Does comparing certain aspects of our plight to that of enslaved peoples of non-white ethnicity mean we’re denigrating and debasing those people? How does that comparison equate to hatred or bigotry? You sound like identity-politics democrats, finding intolerance in every nook and cranny.
On the other hand, as far as Hoppe goes, I personally don’t go all the way endorsing 100% of what he says, but I don’t have to in order to appreciate his contributions. Hoppe says things that he knows will be mis-read to his detriment, so it’s often his own fault. Like the comment about white males, that’s a descriptive claim, it could very well be true, but I don’t know why he has to focus on that.
I was going to address all of your points, but I think I’ll just conclude by saying that we all have different visions for a free society. Some of those visions are compatible with other visions, some are more closed off. If Hans Hoppe wants to live in an all white community, so be it.
Do we laud free choice and free association ONLY when it matches our taste? I’m all for the use of debate and persuasion as tools for social and cultural change, so if that’s all your letter is, I respect it, even if I disagree with a lot of it.