« Late night synthesis blogging | Main | What This Blog Really Needs On The Weekend »
November 19, 2007
Ron Paul Is Not Money
Via Shakespeare's Sister, I hear that a bunch of Ron Paul supporters were trying to coin their own money -- gold and silver "Ron Paul Liberty Dollars" -- and got busted by the Feds. I'm loving Melissa's comment on it: "Ron Paul Liberty Dollars are legal currency in Shakesville. They can be used to buy a fucking clue from many of our fine retailers."
I don't know whether supply has met demand in the clue market, but let me say that you shouldn't be taken in by the 'libertarian' label and think that Ron Paul is a liberal on social issues. In a column about how liberals hate Christmas, he claimed that "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." And as Steven White points out, the dude has written two books arguing for an anti-abortion version of libertarianism. White cites Paul making one of the most astounding anti-abortion arguments I've ever heard:
Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.
If I'm reading the bit about "the struggle between State-created classes" correctly, Paul is saying that legal abortion creates political strife between fetuses and women, preventing them from banding together to effectively promote libertarian ends. I've heard a lot of odd ideas about how to build a successful political coalition in my time as a blogger, but the idea that fetuses and women might join forces to overthrow Federal Reserve tyranny wins the crazy prize.
And in the end, I'm not a big fan of Paul's foreign policy either. It'd probably be better than what Bush is doing, and it'd certainly be better than Rudy Giuliani blowing up the world. But what I want is liberal internationalism, not isolationism. There's terrible poverty in developing countries, and this utilitarian wants plenty of money going over there to feed the hungry, cure the sick, and give clean water to the thirsty who are at risk of parasites and cholera. And if you want action on global warming and a number of other issues that affect our lives, you'll need America to play an active international role as well as a peaceful one.
Like everybody else, I'm happy enough to see Ron Paul running around and saying antiwar things in the GOP primary. Maybe it'll help the media get the point that a majority of the country is fed up with the Iraq War. But on the broader question, I'm with Amanda's advice for the "naive people who like the idea of legalizing weed and stopping the war" within the Ron Paul movement. They should "sack up, grow a brain and vote for the Democrats." As for you folks who want to mint your own gold coins, I'm sad to say that you're on your own.
November 19, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
That's got to be the best Ron Paul column or blog post I've seen yet. Kooky isolationist, crazy economic libertarian even by economic libertarian standards, and mixed at best on civil liberties. Most writers don't manage to hit all these important points about Paul. Well done.
I'd add that Ron Paul generally isn't a civil libertarian at all; it's not just limited to the abortion question. What he is is possessed of paranoid fear of the Federal government--this also informs his isolationism and economic libertarianism. There's very little power he'd deny to the states, regardless of the infringement on civil liberties.
Posted by: Rob J | Nov 19, 2007 1:27:51 AM
Paul: "the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God" I challenge anyone to find God mentioned in the US Constitution. I think "none" is a long way from "replete".
On abortion Paul is also wrong but in foreign policy he is not isolationist. That's a false charge. Paul: "I believe our founding fathers had it right when they argued for peace and commerce between nations, and against entangling political and military alliances. In other words, noninterventionism. Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not we that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst121806.htm
For many of us war is the primary issue and so, rightly or wrongly, we are inclined to treat other issues more lightly in the quest for peace on earth.
As for holding my nose and voting Democrat I'll do it when Arthur Silber does it.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 19, 2007 1:29:12 AM
Wow,
I'm a Ron Paul and being that I know his views quite well from primary sources, it's comical yet sad to watch people convince themselves of beliefs about Paul that simply not true.
A quote here, line there, no context and generous helping of blank-filling mix together and I shutter at the image that pre-disposed Paul haters conjure up for themselves with this mix.
Posted by: John | Nov 19, 2007 1:43:18 AM
I don't know if I understand why these coins break the law. The people making them don't seem to grasp that money means whatever people will accept for goods and services, true. And that makes them look silly. But the same principle casts doubt on the Feds' right to stop them. And arguing for changes in the law, even silly ones, is not and cannot be illegal.
Posted by: hf | Nov 19, 2007 2:03:36 AM
A quote here, line there, no context and generous helping of blank-filling mix together and I shutter at the image that pre-disposed Paul haters conjure up for themselves with this mix.
Well, are you going to bother explaining how Neil's post distorts Paul's views, or just shake your head and cluck your tongue?
I don't know if I understand why these coins break the law.
From the Washington Post: "In the affidavit, an FBI special agent states that he is investigating Norfed for federal violations including "uttering coins of gold, silver, or other metal," "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy."
Posted by: Andrew Levine | Nov 19, 2007 2:15:23 AM
Wow this has to be the most wacky fringe blog I've seen to date.
First of all, these coins have Ron's face on them, period. He is not connected in any way to the company who makes them....however, not that there is anything wrong with BUYING precious metals. They are NOT 'fake'. Many companies sell gold and many people invest in their products.
The government had no right to steal this stuff from them.
If people want to trade these coins for other goods and services it is their right just like baseball cards or marbles...or gift certificates. They are doing NOTHING ILLEGAL and this is NOT 'fake' currency.
Get a life would you?
Posted by: NH | Nov 19, 2007 4:25:01 AM
This article is lame. Ron Paul is not an isolationist and I don't know how many times this issue needs to be cleared up. He is for trading with other countries, not bombing them. As for mixed on social issues, he honestly believes that fetuses are human beings and protection of life is part of the constitution. I don't happen to agree, but I understand where he is coming from. As for voting for big government democrats who are more republican on the war than Ron Paul is, when the troops don't come home and more of them die with the democrat (or other republican) in the white house, don't complain about it since "you got a brain" and voted for the democrats.
Posted by: Timur Rozenfeld | Nov 19, 2007 4:25:11 AM
And so it begins...
Get ready for at least a couple of weeks of Ron Paul fanatics....
Posted by: Patrick De Oliveira | Nov 19, 2007 6:54:32 AM
I'm not really sure how 'libertarian' came to mean 'conservative on economic issues, liberal on social ones', but that is not actyually the definition of the term...
I don't really care one way or the other about Ron Paul, but the endless guilt-by-association; veiled (and not so veiled) accusations of racism; and general insistence that Ron Paul MUST be crazy without any actual proof of his suffering a mental disease is getting a bit stale.
Posted by: Soullite | Nov 19, 2007 7:38:54 AM
On just a general note, let me say that except for realistic questions of scale, I don't particularly prefer state or local level authoritarianism over federal authoritarianism.
There seem to be those who are only incensed by talk of Federal tyranny who never mention, say, State or Local tyranny. (I.e., Jim Crow was a State level tyranny.)
Posted by: El Cid | Nov 19, 2007 8:22:36 AM
Wow this has to be the most wacky fringe blog I've seen to date.
You need to get out more.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist ... He is for trading with other countries, not bombing them.
"Isolationism" is not normally used to mean that someone is against all foreign trade, so it doesn't make sense for someone to say, "I'm not an isolationist. I believe in trading with other countries." Rather, liberals and Ron Paul are at odds over the issue of pursuing international goals in the rest of the world at all. Some of us like international cooperation in order to use diplomacy to de-escalate conflicts and relieve some consequences of world poverty.
I pretty much have to agree with Amanda-- if people don't like the war, they need to grow the heck up and vote for the Democrats.
Posted by: Tyro | Nov 19, 2007 9:48:42 AM
Anyone's free to make medallions out of whatever metal they like (well, uranium could be a problem). I believe the thing that brought out the "jackbooted thugs" is that these are coins marked with dollar denominations.
Posted by: KCinDC | Nov 19, 2007 10:14:45 AM
... he claimed that "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
I believe he is correct. There is nothing in the consitution that prohibits what we contemporarily think of as comingling church and state.
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 19, 2007 10:44:09 AM
Tyro:
Are you so sure? Look at chumps like Steny Hoyer? And are the Democrats gonna grow a spine and not cave to a petulant child every time?
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Nov 19, 2007 11:05:18 AM
Ron Paul is a libertarian only with respect to the relationship between the federal government and state governments. With respect to the relationship between the state and its citizens, he is profoundly authoritarian.
Basically, the type of "freedom" he envisions is the freedom to use the apparatus of the state and the law to subjugate certain types of people - women, blacks, etc.
Posted by: Jason C. | Nov 19, 2007 11:19:33 AM
Tyro:
If "growing up" = lesser of two evils, then, yeah. Otherwise, not so much.
Incidentally, keeping permanent bases in Iraq is not ending the war.
Posted by: sparky | Nov 19, 2007 11:20:58 AM
Basically, the type of "freedom" he envisions is the freedom to use the apparatus of the state and the law to subjugate certain types of people...
I believe that is incorrect. What Paul wants the freedom from either side utilizing the power of the state to engineer society....including yours.
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 19, 2007 11:31:52 AM
I get it! Spam used to mean one sender sending to many receivers. Now it means many supporters sending to one blogger. Isolationism used to mean not trading. Now it means not bombing. Counterfeiting used to be immoral. Now, not counterfeiting is a "whako" economic idea. Abortion used to be immoral. Now, forcing people to pay for your abortion is "social justice". Charity used to mean giving of your wealth to others. Now it means forcing your neighbors to give to your favorite cause.
I get it! All we have to do is wreck the language and we can have mass murder, extortion, counterfeiting, and totalitarian government even sooner than we hoped. Cool!
As Lenin wrote, "First, confuse the vocabulary".
Posted by: John Howard | Nov 19, 2007 11:38:48 AM
Ron Paul is the only candidate with the courage to stand on principle. Anyone who doesn't fear the growth of state power at the expense of individual privacy and liberty should read some history. The proper role for goverment is to protect individual rights by providing for a defense against foreign enemies. Not to run our daily lives, not to gaurantee us that we will be happy, but we have succombed to these promises of big government and we are paying the price, especially our military who took an oath to defend the U.S., not police the world.
Posted by: DCUPtoejuice | Nov 19, 2007 12:02:34 PM
I'm loving Melissa's comment on it
Thanks! ;-)
Posted by: Melissa McEwan | Nov 19, 2007 12:07:17 PM
The idea that Ron Paul is an authoritarian is laughable. He clearly understands and has stated numerous times that the more controversial a question, the more local(smaller)should be the decision-making authority. He surly understands that if the question of abortion is turned back to the states, many - and probably most - states will keep it legal.
He also understands that the fierce opposition to abortion rights is fueled by the utterly immoral practice of government-funding. Forcing deeply-religious people to pay for what - to them - is a horrible sin is not just bad policy. It is sadism, guaranteed to result in near-hysterical opposition. The hatefully smug, "liberal" women who want to cram their grisly little choice down the throats of horrified tax-payers have created moral blowback on a gigantic scale.
While I personally support a woman's right to choose - and Ron Paul has said he would in some circumstances where her life was in danger - I still support his candidacy since a) even if he gets his way, abortion remains legal - probably in a majority of states, and b) his election promotes the principle of local governance over centralized authority, and the most local of all governance is the right of the individual to choose and c) he is entirely right about economics, the war on drugs (another strong indicator of his support for individual choice and self-ownership over authoritarianism) and foreign policy. He is the exact opposite of an authoritarian.
John Howard (a friend of mine BTW)has it right (above). Dishonest word-gaming and mis-representation is all Ron Paul's oppostion has going for them.
Posted by: John Reading | Nov 19, 2007 12:07:25 PM
IMO The war on drug is by far the biggest issue in this election and only Ron Paul is clearly on the right side of this issue.
Posted by: Floccina | Nov 19, 2007 12:13:26 PM
Whenever someone doesn't have any comment or any points to make, they call people names like "fanatic", "extremist", "kook" and "nut." It's a lot easier than having to think.
Posted by: Timur Rozenfeld | Nov 19, 2007 12:14:16 PM
what issues actually affects young affluent types other than war on drugs? Its not that crazy for people to vote their interests, instead of ideals that mostly just help out other people
Posted by: yoyo | Nov 19, 2007 1:12:15 PM
The idea that Ron Paul is an authoritarian is laughable. He clearly understands and has stated numerous times that the more controversial a question, the more local(smaller)should be the decision-making authority. He surly understands that if the question of abortion is turned back to the states, many - and probably most - states will keep it legal.
Authoritarianism is authoritarianism no matter how small the scale. No legitimate governing authority - not a national government, not a state, not a goddamned municipality - can legitimately deprive people of their fundamental rights.
Ron Paul is perfectly content with - even desires - governments at the state level that severely curtail individual liberty.
States may or may not keep abortion legal, but Ron Paul and his fellow travelers clearly think it would be perfectly acceptable if they didn't. This is a morally odious view.
Posted by: Jason C. | Nov 19, 2007 1:51:08 PM
