Thanks for the info on the Illuminati. I'd assumed that they were entirely fictional, but their origins as a liberal Enlightenment group makes the irony in the current JBS situation even richer. You seem to have a serious case of Conservative fellow-travelers in your movement.
Conservatives are not my fellow-travelers by any means. They are as opposed to classical liberal values (if not more so) than most socialists. And the JBS is not quite even conservative mainstream as lunatic fringes within the conservative movement. Their conspiracy stuff is plain crazy.
Okay, the defining JBS characteristic seems to be not so much conservative as crazy. But what I mean by conservative fellow-travelers are conservatives who pretend to be libertarians, as you've written about.
BTW, as someone who is non-libertarian but still possibly more so than some LP candidates, I whole-heartedly agree with your position on this. By letting conservative ideas into the LP, you lose the intellectual coherence and distinctiveness which I think is the main strength of libertarianism.
James L: I can only hope that some libertarians understand what you do.
This is hilarious. You base your article on attacking the crazy conspiracy theories of the "lunatic Right" and then go right in to your own wackjob statement about how "In reality there was an Illuminati" and explain the "reality" in your own tail of conspiracy. WTF!? Do you wear clown shoes? It's no wonder you don't understand Ron Paul's positions.
If you want to know what you are talking about start here:
The Money Masters (on Google video)
Confessions of an Economic Hitman - John Perkins (there is an interview on Google video if you don't want to read the book)
The Capitalist Conspiracy - Cleon Skousen
Creature from Jekyll Island - G. Edward Griffin
Nesta Webster - Secret Societies and Subversive Movements (1924)
The Committee of 300 - Dr. John Coleman
Proof of Conspiracy against all Religions and Governments in Europe - John Robins (179
Hey...sorry about the heated reply, but the marginalization of some of these conspiracies is counter productive to our liberties. Best regards.
Dear Huh:
Paranoid delusions about “conspiracies” are themselves counter productive. Once people start spouting off nonsense about secret plots they are ignored. Let us note that your sources are all the same lunatic Right-wing fringe that I was talking about -- Birchers like Griffin, Skousen and even more crazed people like Coleman.
I have read that bullshit and gone further. I then researched the sources they used and the sources used by those sources. Nesta Webster is a vicious anti-Semite yet you think her delusions are history. Webster herself believed she had special insight to history about secret societies because of she was reincarnated several times and was thus writing history as she lived it. Sounds sane to me : )
I read Proofs of a Conspiracy when the Birchers first republished it. And I have several other similar titles from that era as pdf files on my computer. I dismiss these theories because they don’t fit the facts.
Saying there was a group called the Illuminati doesn’t mean that proves that they were heading a World-wide, centuries old, Satanic plot to establish world government. Just because I know there are people who are Jewish doesn’t mean there is a Jewish plot to take over the world either. The Illuminati existed and was basically suppresed by the church and the state of the day in Bavaria. It ceased to exist. And when they did exist they were more proliberty and freedom than the people who suppressed them. They were early classical liberals. Did they want the social order of the day overthrown. Damn right -- just like our Founding Fathers did. They wanted limited government not aristocracies with vast powers combined with the church to crush individual rights.
It is unfortunate that they were crushed.
I meant to mention that I first met Ron Paul some twenty years ago. I received his newsletter for sometime. I have read most his speeches and the books that were written for him. I have followed his career and his votes for two decades. I do know his positions and understand them and that is why I can't support him. I also know how much he has changed and how he has deceived people about those changes. He previously was proimmigration not anti-immigration. That is a switch that he denies to this day. He also used to believe in legalizing drugs and now says he only believes drugs should be regulated by the States not the federal government. That is a conservative position. A libertarian one says neither should regulate them. Paul is more conservative than libertarian. These days there is little difference between him and Pat Buchanan except Buchanan doesn't spout conspiracy nonsense.
History is replete with conspiracies. To ignore history and learn from it is a personal choice. It's easy to make ad hominem attacks against any source of information, though when shown in the light of history this only exposes a course of fallacious logic.
I'll present you with several quotes of grand conspiracy from Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University. Dr. Quigley was Bill Clinton's professor of history at the Foreign Service School of Georgetown University. He also taught at Princeton and at Harvard. Bill Clinton paid tribute to Dr. Quigley during his inaugural address. You might have a hard time attacking his statements, but I don't doubt you will anyway. Some quotes from the doctor's book Tagedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time (Macmillan Company, 1966,):
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds' central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups." Dr. Carroll Quigley
"The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England ... [and] ... believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established." Dr. Carroll Quigley
"I know of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years in the early 1960s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies ... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known."
There are hundreds of quotes from well respected men on the same conspiracies. We can see the effects all around us. The loss of liberties through executive orders, the patriot act and the strengthening of the United Nations as a governing body. The conspiracy surrounding the dubious inception of the Federal Reserve bank and the personal income tax.
I find it difficult to believe that someone as well read as you appear to be would make blanket statements dismissing conspiracies when they are prevalent throughout history. Or is it that you choose to mislead?
Huh, exactly, agree with you
cls profess to be the only "pure libertarian" thinker.
Classical liberalism means tolerance for the positions of others that differ vastly from your own, yet he does not seem to possess those qualities. They are labelled either conservative or socialist. The reality is that a conservative viewpoint is no contrast to a libertarian one, but not exactly the same either.
He also use typical gulty by association type tactics and argumentation. If you endorse a person or group, you do not necessarily endorse ALL the views of that group or person and cannot be held accountable. ALso, with many large groups there are always differences in school of thought. Also the people with JBS do not necessary feel the same way about everything. Yet cls is using very unlibertarian, corporist absolutist way to "brand" JBS and Ron Paul, without the notion that groups evolve also in their view and without reference that the JBS was actually against the Vietnam war decades ago and now against the war in Iraq, for limited government etc. The last time I checked these were also very libertarian principles. SHould they not be endorsed? or does he want to live in his now little island of self-richeousness? BTW: I have read of a gay intellectual that attended a meeting of the JBS, against whom he has strong suspicion and feelings just lie this writer, yet he used his classical liberalism principles, to check them out, attended a meeting and actually got a very favorable idea about them, and did not find them homophobic at all, and they knew that he was gay.
Yes, Paul was pro-immigration, at a time when the economy was good, he is still pro-immigration, but anti illegal-immigration, which is perfectly lawfull for every society. He does NOT propose the building of a wall liek soem others. He just want better border control and the scrapping of benefits for illegal immigrants in the light of the economic situation of the US, so he takes away the incentive and still is a healthy and balanced way in the situation IMHO. I do see consistency in principles and an adaption to the situation. He is sitting on the banking commission and he knows more than most about the state of the US economy.
Stefan: It is lawful for a govt to be anti-immigration merely because govt. passes laws. The Soviets acted "lawfully" just not morally. Paul voted for the wall and he voted for the billions that it would take to fund it which means billions in taxes. That is one major reason he lies when he says he is not for taxes. If you vote for the spending you vote for the taxes needed to fund the spending.
Paul is dishonest when he says he is against benefits for illegals. Why? Because most benefits are not available to illegals. Only to legal immigrants. You say Paul supports legal immigrants. Really? That would be supporting people getting the right to benefits. Paul pretends to understand economics. He doesn't actually do so well.
Most free market economists say that immigration is beneficial to the economy. Basic economic theory explains that. And it doesn't matter if it is legal or illega. Since illegals get far fewer benefits than legals the benefits of illegals is higher. Paul is actually very weak on understanding free markets and most his articles on economics are ghost written for him by others. Sitting on a House committee is no sign of knowledge at all.
CLS
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issue...igration-
reform
Paul is not anti legal immigration, he is anti-illegal immigration. He could "be for legal immigration restricxtion (not prohibition) due to the current economic situation, which makes perfectly sense. Many European countries have also changed from open borders to more regulated immigration, they actually have much more strict immigration measures in Western European countries than in the US.
"No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services".
Paul is "weak on understanding free markets and msot of his articles are ghost written"... LOL give me a break. You have to come up with a better one.
Tip: try to moderate your attempt to total critique him, it just may make your accusations more believable. Sorry, I have seen him in the debates and in question time on Bernanke and that alone smash your irrational and unsubstantiated arguments.
There seems to be quite a misunderstand you have of classical libertarianism. The philosophy had a big/substantial influence on the US constitution and opens the way for different points of view to be tolerated and allowed for the maximum freedom, e.g. freedom of choice. One important role, also in Europe, is to avoid religious wars byt he state, the state is more neutral. So under classic liberalism, social conservatism is allowed as a way how to live out our freedom. It means by no means the opposite of libertarianism. It does mean that you cannot enforce all your own wishes on others, for instance a social conservative may hate smoking and drinking, and his right it allowed, but he should also allow others to smoke and drink as such.
Why is whether immigration is legal or illegal the main issue? That is why does he think state permission should be needed? And he voted to reduce the amount of legal immigration even while claiming he supports legal immigration. He just voted to restrict it. And since legal immigration is almost impossible it is this restrictive action that fuels illegal immigration. In addition the legal immigrants qualify for the welfare which is his excuse for being against open immigration. Yet the illegals don’t qualify. So to complain that welfare makes it impossible would indicate one ought to oppose legal immigration but not illegal immigration. Paul has it perfectly backwards.
The line “play by the rules” is stupid since the rules that now exist are vastly different than in the past and now make legal immigration impossible. I know when I tried to help a friend move here from overseas (who feared legitimately for his life) that we were told our chance of legal immigration was almost zero and that we should expect it to cost thousands of dollars and take about five to ten years to process.
Also note that as the laws became more restrictive the numbers of illegals staying in the US has increased. Most merely wanted seasonal work. And for decades they would come up and work then go back when the harvest season was over. Now the risk of trying to cross is so great that when they get here they stay here. So in fact the restrictive borders have encourages illegals to stay here instead of returning home as they previously did for decades.
Stefan: I have seen Paul in such things as well and yes, I’ve seen his question baffle people. But I’ve seen questions that baffle because they are strange that they don’t make sense even to free market economists. I don’t know any serious free market economist who thinks Paul has anything more than a middling understanding of markets and a fair understanding of Austrian economics.
As for you second comment I perfectly well understand that people may have various moral opinions. But very rarely are social conservatives actually libertarian. Most are different kinds of statists. The Bob Barr types want the control of social issues moved to the states. They don’t want it removed from the govt. They just want it more localized. Barr said he supports states enforcing drug laws because they will be more efficient at it.
Ron Paul has said he wants to have prayer in government schools. That is using tax money to foist religion on people. He just wants it controlled by the states. Ron Paul has said he wants the states to control abortion and to ban it. That is just local statism but still statism. These social conservatives are not saying that they disapprove but that others should be free to live as they believe. They are saying they disapprove and they want these actions banned, just at the state level not the federal level. That is not libertarianism.
Commenting by HaloScan
