The Crime Campaign: The Hypocrisy of Ron Paul Friday, April 30, 2010

Bizarro-world echoing of Mattheus in his most recent post, I'd like to highlight a couple of blog posts on Ron Paul put together by an old friend, Salty Pig. In the first, Salty calculates that RP had, up to that point, enjoyed total taxpayer-financed "takings" of nearly $3,000,000 over the duration of his "service to the people," making him the $3M bandit of peace:
the US constitution. what value have words if the US constitution’s referred to as indestructible? isn’t the destruction of the constitution paulist complaint number one?
note that while lew cavorts with and encourages these RP deists, when the coast is clearer he maligns a different career thief for an office “built with stolen funds”. may i “privatize” ron paul’s stolen property in an anti-theft protest and receive a similar attaboy from the hypocrite lew rockwell? of course not. i would be an “enemy of liberty” if i took moral action against the career thief RP — in the case of LRC’s discordant perspective an anointed career thief.
note this other post, in which among other things lew criticizes the psycho mccain for his actions “on coerced salary and vast expenses from the US taxpayer”. again, this principle is as applicable to ron paul as mccain. did not ron paul spend years sucking milfare teat in the martial service of the emperor, patching up and maintaining the likes of mccain? has he not also spent almost 18 years (next 19) eating a salary of stolen wealth as a “representative” in congress? (presumably, lew rockwell was also eating stolen money as chief of staff during ron paul’s first congressional crime wave; if so, wither restoration of his victims?)
how is this ignored and ron paul painted as a friend to liberty when his record of profiting from stolen wealth competes with that of professional burglars, in amounts representing physical and mental duress for innumerable fedgoon coercion victims? and unlike lew rockwell, who marginally repudiated his participation in the goonery (making his recent cheerleading reuptake more perplexing), ron paul continues paving the trail of tears. that he’s not on the pointy end, waving gun in face directly, simply indicates he’s a dishonest pussy hypocrite version of a bandit. at least a burglar will risk death jumping through your window while you’re sleeping, and he doesn’t require you to deliver your burglary losses to him via systematic extortion payments over the course of your life. ron paul remains on the thievery rolls, proudly. he’s striving for and accepting stolen property for “you”!
In the second, Salty strikes at those who might cheer for a man who seeks to hold a position no man should:
“oh, ron — er, Dr. Paul… cutesy me once again, my lover. deny the core principle i aver. use my wealth to that end. let me man-crush you into history. i will cheer. i will shout your name. show us salvation via the state, as only you can.
 Now, the "seeking a position no man should hold" bit got me thinking. People who support Ron Paul and other libertarians in their quests for elected office often refer to the strategic objectives that could be obtained in such a run, coming in the form of "spreading awareness" about the libertarian message. What's offensive (to actual libertarians) about this logic, obviously, is that it's a violation of libertarian principle and is an example of ends-justify-means logic. The libertarian message is, "Nobody should be president; there should not be a president." How does running for president spread awareness of this message?

In Ron Paul's case, it doesn't and it never will-- Ron Paul believes in presidents! He believes in the Constitution and he believes in minarchy, that is, the institutionalized, systematic violation of people's property rights in the name of upholding and defending from violent assault individual property rights.

What about in the case of "ironic libertarians", who truly hope to gain office just to then have a (taxpayer-financed) public platform from which they can shoot themselves in the proverbial foot? It still doesn't. Unless...

...unless they accepted only voluntary campaign contributions, pledged to not occupy the office should their bid be successful and, here's the most important/ironic part, ran with a campaign slogan of "DON'T Vote [Myself] for [Office Sought] in [Year of Election]."

Imagine the kind of publicity that stunt would get. How many MSM-heads would explode after hearing about and then interviewing a candidate who is asking his supporters not to vote for him? The more the word of his campaign spread, the more people would be exposed to the logic and reasons behind why he DIDN'T want to win the office for which he was running.

Imagine: "No one should be president, not even me. Please, if you believe in human freedom, do your part and DON'T vote for me or anyone else for president in 2012!"

By the way, for people who clicked that last link, you may be interested to learn that Walter Block is up to his old tricks again. I haven't done a scientific survey to back this observation up as undeniable fact, but I am fairly certain that the only people who support libertarians in government (specifically, a libertarian in government, that libertarian being Ron Paul) are: Lew Rockwell and Walter Block, both of which were once members of Ron Paul's political campaign and later his political staff; and minarchists, who are hypocrites.

Does that tell you something about the veracity of the claim "libertarians can be politicians and still be libertarians"?

One last point-- "libertarians" who support Ron Paul and other "libertarians" as politicians often make their argument from the position of what they find to be practical and expedient. Given that, once elected to King Emperor, Ron Paul would be forced to deal with the many and devious aspects of the practical reality of the unlibertarian monstrosity he'd just been installed into the brain of, with none of his options for action including "Do nothing" or "Instantly dismantle this monstrosity", how might many of these former supporters feel watching their favorite guy jerking the levers of power back and forth all day long like your average backhoe operator?

I'd imagine for the more naive amongst them, watching RP sign into law bill after bill of liberty-trouncing new legislation would probably feel like getting punched in the solar plexus. And lord spare us should any of these people have to witness RP fully engaged in "Go!-Time" in the aftermath of his very own 9/11-like escapade.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

[ posted by Taylor Conant @ 6:58 PM | | Digg this! | del.icio.us | Permanent link | links to this post ]

2 Comments:

At Mon May 10, 06:57:00 PM EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you be a libertarian and still advocate violence? Is that term reserved exclusively for the anarchists?

 
At Tue May 11, 06:25:00 PM EDT, Anonymous James said...

Anon,

Most libertarians do advocate violence.

I'm a libertarian and I can even imagine cases where I'd be in favor of the initiation of force.

But no rational person can have one standard for people in the government and another standard for everyone else.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home