tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post8749541096055218246..comments2023-10-30T06:46:39.412-07:00Comments on A Fusionist Libertarian: The Ron Paul Bait-n-SwitchTerrence C. Watsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07332306056519991646noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post-39830562990026700452007-11-18T18:35:00.000-08:002007-11-18T18:35:00.000-08:00By the way, I am thinking about changing the name ...By the way, I am thinking about changing the name of the blog, too. Once I come up with something catchy, accurate, and just slightly sensationalist, I'll get to it. <BR/><BR/>I wanted a name that would bring people in, not keep them out, but I think I've failed in that regard.Terrence C. Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07332306056519991646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post-10616560348686933422007-11-18T18:33:00.000-08:002007-11-18T18:33:00.000-08:00"...and are they RIGHT to see this? Obviously a re..."...and are they RIGHT to see this? Obviously a relevant question. If you focus merely on trying to discover what they see in him, without looking for reasons why they might get it wrong, or be making a mistake in their support, you give the wrong impression."<BR/><BR/>I don't think they, the neo-Nazis, have a completely accurate perception of Ron Paul. However, I don't think they're completely wrong, either. As my post on the 14th Amendment tried to show, Ron Paul would make it easier for states to make racially discriminatory laws, and I think the Nazis know that.<BR/><BR/>For a less abstract discussion, see my update to the video post from the Ron Paul rally. I dug into a neo-Nazi swamp engaged in discussing that video: no, I don't think Ron Paul would make it any easier for neo-Nazis to beat up black people on the street. But he might make it easier for them to be discriminated against in terms of education, housing, etc. And the neo-Nazis seem to get that, if nothing else.Terrence C. Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07332306056519991646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post-18287437717409507112007-11-18T18:24:00.000-08:002007-11-18T18:24:00.000-08:00I wrote: "But I don't merely support Paul, as you ...I wrote: "But I don't merely support Paul, as you merely quasi-support Paul."<BR/><BR/>Second instance of Paul should have been "Huckabee".P. M. Jaworskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06786126111454336767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post-90247749429474798432007-11-18T18:19:00.000-08:002007-11-18T18:19:00.000-08:00When I wrote:"a) does x actually further the prefe...When I wrote:<BR/>"a) does x actually further the preferences of Q? Honest debate: R says "yes." I, too, say "yes." Here are my reasons. Blah, blah, blah. Interestingly, S says "no." She claims that blah, blah, blah."<BR/><BR/>It should have read: "a) does x actually further the preferences of P"P. M. Jaworskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06786126111454336767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post-47945979311466332802007-11-18T18:17:00.000-08:002007-11-18T18:17:00.000-08:00Oh, Jesus, you make it so easy:"1. The very vocal ...Oh, Jesus, you make it so easy:<BR/><BR/>"1. The very vocal support for Ron Paul from the organized neo-Nazi crowd is very interesting, considering Ron Paul is not himself a racist. So what do the neo-Nazis and other bad guys see in him?"<BR/><BR/>...and are they RIGHT to see this? Obviously a relevant question. If you focus merely on trying to discover what they see in him, without looking for reasons why they might get it wrong, or be making a mistake in their support, you give the wrong impression.<BR/><BR/>P likes Q because of (perceived) agreement on x. P is a dirtbag. Interesting questions: <BR/><BR/>a) does x actually further the preferences of Q? Honest debate: R says "yes." I, too, say "yes." Here are my reasons. Blah, blah, blah. Interestingly, S says "no." She claims that blah, blah, blah. <BR/><BR/>And then: S is wrong, and x will actually further P's filthy goals. Or: Reasonable people can disagree about the consequences of x.<BR/><BR/>Also: Here are three good (non-dirtbag) reasons to support x.<BR/><BR/>Second question set of interesting questions. Apart from x, is P's agenda served by Q's other policy planks?<BR/><BR/>"2. Unlike some other candidates who are blatantly against individual liberty, Ron Paul claims to support that idea. So it's interesting to point out ways in which his proposed policies seem to conflict with that more abstract idea, as I understand it."<BR/><BR/>Yes, it is, I agree. But I would also suggest that it makes sense, and is probably a requirement, to point to alternative, individual liberty supporting, reasons for a given policy plank. For instance, suppose the federal government could force states to abandon the income tax. Should a libertarian support this? Clearly they should support the elimination of income taxes. But would it be better, in the long-run, to limit the federal government's powers to prevent even pro-liberty positions here and there, for the sake of individual liberty?<BR/><BR/>That's an institutional question, not a policy-by-policy question. If someone believes (as RP does) that the institutional question is more important than individual policy questions, then you can see why they might oppose the feds from cutting state taxes. <BR/><BR/>There. These are relevant considerations to both of the motivating questions of your blog.<BR/><BR/>Separately: Why isn't your blog called something less incendiary? Like "Ron Paul's ideological conflicts" (or something more catchy, but similar).<BR/><BR/>Finally: I didn't start a "Huckabee is a Christo-fascist" (notice that I didn't say "Christo-fascists support Huckabee" or "C-fs for H") blog because I don't shit all over my friends. And I know you like Huckabee. I also know that the obvious inference would be: Whoever supports Huckabee also gets tagged with the Christo-fascist label.<BR/><BR/>But I don't merely support Paul, as you merely quasi-support Paul. I am busy campaigning on his behalf to the extent that I can. I drove to Michigan to see him talk. I have campaign signs for him. I encourage fund raising for Paul. I talk about him on my blog, with my friends, post up posters of him, and try to spread his message. I bought an RP silver dollar, and a bunch of RP bronze coins that I'll never see because the Feds raided the place that mints them.<BR/><BR/>If you did all that for Huckabee, I would feel as though the demands of friendship would require my not posting a blog that shits all over what you're excited and enthused about. The reason I'm so angry is because you didn't even think of that. <BR/><BR/>You had a prior blog where you were posting all this stuff, and I didn't say peep. It would have been good times to debate some of these issues. Instead, you've decided to go this route with your confederate flag and your title and your post after post without nary a peep from the other side.<BR/><BR/>It's not funny. It's not cutting edge. It's a dishonest smear veiled by caveats, nuances, and technicalities no run-of-the-mill blog reader can be expected to understand or appreciate. They won't get past the title. And you know that.P. M. Jaworskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06786126111454336767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post-55120223042217387732007-11-18T17:37:00.000-08:002007-11-18T17:37:00.000-08:00If you want to read and have people read stuff abo...If you want to read and have people read stuff about Huckabee or Guliani's racist supporters, you could start your own blog. Right now, I've decided only to focus on Ron Paul. I've explained why in other posts, but it's not hard to recap some of those reasons here:<BR/><BR/>1. The very vocal support for Ron Paul from the <I>organized</I> neo-Nazi crowd is very interesting, considering Ron Paul is not himself a racist. So what do the neo-Nazis and other bad guys see in him?<BR/><BR/>2. Unlike some other candidates who are blatantly against individual liberty, Ron Paul claims to support that idea. So it's interesting to point out ways in which his proposed policies seem to conflict with that more abstract idea, as I understand it.<BR/><BR/>Sure there are facts about Ron Paul I'm not presenting, like his age and shoe size. Show how those missing facts are relevant within the context of the TWO REASONS I JUST STATED and then they will become worthy of discussion here.<BR/><BR/>Or maybe I could just watch another ten montages of Ron Paul photos and quotations on YouTube and take his word on everything.Terrence C. Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07332306056519991646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post-29454701131587280382007-11-18T15:59:00.000-08:002007-11-18T15:59:00.000-08:00"Sorry, I don't pretend. I just report the facts."..."Sorry, I don't pretend. I just report the facts."<BR/><BR/>(EDIT): "Sorry, I don't pretend. I just report one side of the facts."<BR/><BR/>Fixed it for you.P. M. Jaworskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06786126111454336767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post-20851160477014693182007-11-18T15:58:00.000-08:002007-11-18T15:58:00.000-08:00Your whole blog reeks of the false syllogism. Ever...Your whole blog reeks of the false syllogism. Every post is teeming with the smell of it.<BR/><BR/>"Look, here's *another* article claiming Paul is a racist! Look, here's a racist who supports Paul! Boy, is Paul ever going to denounce the neo-nazis? Makes you wonder, doesn't it? Lol!!111!!"<BR/><BR/>What's that? You mean he GAVE A SPEECH DENOUNCING THE FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT WHEN HE PROPOSED THE BILL? (See Greenwald. Oh, fuck it, I'll do your research for you. Here's Paul:<BR/><BR/>"As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous. I want to make a few points along those lines.<BR/><BR/>It has been inferred too often by those who promote this amendment that those who oppose it are less patriotic, and I think that is unfair. . . .<BR/><BR/>It has also been said that if one does not support this amendment to the flag that they are disloyal to the military, and that cannot possibly be true. I have served 5 years in the military, and I do not feel less respectful of the military because I have a different interpretation on how we should handle the flag. But nevertheless, I think what we are doing here is very serious business because it deals with more than just the flag.<BR/><BR/>First off, I think what we are trying to achieve through an amendment to the Constitution is to impose values on people -- that is, teach people patriotism with our definition of what patriotism is. But we cannot force values on people; we cannot say there will be a law that a person will do such and such because it is disrespectful if they do not, and therefore, we are going to make sure that people have these values that we want to teach.<BR/><BR/>Values in a free society are accepted voluntarily, not through coercion, and certainly not by law, because the law implies that there are guns, and that means the federal government and others will have to enforce these laws.")<BR/><BR/>Of course, you can always <I>just ask me for the rebuttal</I>. There are rebuttals to everything you have posted. Everything. Whether or not you accept the response does not mean that there isn't another side.P. M. Jaworskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06786126111454336767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post-84173695061146677832007-11-18T12:39:00.000-08:002007-11-18T12:39:00.000-08:00One simple criticism of your post is that I never ...One simple criticism of your post is that I never made an argument of the form, "Ron Paul supports X; racists support X; therefore, Ron Paul is a racist."<BR/><BR/>Also, to respond to your comment that Ron Paul sometimes proposes bills he doesn't support -- that may be so. But where does the burden lie?<BR/><BR/>I guess I could pretend that he has good, valid reason for every one of his proposals, but then I'd just be like all the other Ron Paul supporters. Sorry, I don't pretend. I just report the facts.<BR/><BR/>If you think he had good reason for proposing to eliminate funding from programs that might merely suggest homosexuality is not an unacceptable lifestyle, then demonstrate those reasons. But it certainly looks like he picks-and-chooses which liberties to emphasize, based not on any kind of consistent libertarian principle, but on his own prejudices.Terrence C. Watsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07332306056519991646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post-67196681471600066672007-11-18T09:39:00.000-08:002007-11-18T09:39:00.000-08:00"The first thing to say is that, unlike the left-w..."The first thing to say is that, unlike the left-wing crowd at Orcinus, I actually approve of many of the proposals that can be found in this bill, like the idea of giving a tax credit for tuition paid to private schools."<BR/><BR/>Interesting... we know that all of the "smart" racists flock to private education, and homeschool supporters. They support vouchers, tax breaks, etc.<BR/><BR/>It sounds like you support private education. The obvious question is, "are you a racist?"<BR/><BR/>(Obviously not, you say? Just because a bunch of racists support homeschooling doesn't mean that there aren't very good, non-racist reasons to support the idea that parents should have control over their childrens education. <BR/><BR/>Interesting. And furthers the idea that your blog is bullshit.)P. M. Jaworskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06786126111454336767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4945885916072063437.post-40717504512283932502007-11-18T09:34:00.000-08:002007-11-18T09:34:00.000-08:00He proposed the flag-burning amendment NOT because...He proposed the flag-burning amendment NOT because he supports it, but because he wanted to emphasize that it requires violating the first amendment. He also put forward a bill to declare war against Iraq for a similar reason: To force Congresscritters to be in keeping with the Constitution, as he interprets it.<BR/><BR/>Nobody believes Ron Paul is pro-War in Iraq. Proposing bills, for Paul, is not always an act of demonstrating support for the content of the bills.<BR/><BR/>I repeat, check your facts, and do a bit of simple research.P. M. Jaworskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06786126111454336767noreply@blogger.com