Ron Paul fact and fiction
Justin Raimondo correctly notes that neocon mouthpiece The Politico lies about Ron Paul.
The Republican smear machine is revving up its motors, getting ready to launch a typically vicious campaign against Ron Paul, the only real threat to their death-grip on the GOP. Since the first assault, a piece by Ryan Sager in the New York Sun, failed  the charges of “racism†were based on tenuous documentation and fall apart when examined up close  the second wave has been launched: a piece in The Politico, headlined: “Ron Paul Warns of Staged Terror Attack.†It links to a clip of a radio interview with Ron, conducted by Alex Jones, and hosted on the Breitbart.com site – part of the neocon-Drudge propaganda network.
If you listen to the interview, one thing is clear: Paul said no such thing.
Sheldon Richman, however, points out an inconvenient truth about Ron Paul:
“I’ve long known that Ron Paul takes an unlibertarian position on immigration. Still I am deeply disappointed to learn, from an article in the latest Liberty magazine, that he calls the illegal entry of Mexicans into the United States an “invasion.” This description, given in a fundraising letter, is outrageous. These are human beings, with rights, seeking better lives in an environment more free than the one they are in. For the overwhelming majority of them, complying with U.S. law, an immoral law that violates all our rights, means never getting here–ever. They mean us no harm; on the contrary, they seek a place in the division of labor.
Therefore, they are not invaders and their entry in no way constitutes an invasion. This is belligerent Pat Buchanan-talk, and it is unworthy of Ron Paul. I hope he will rethink his position.”
As an anarchist, I deny the legitimacy of any government, period — but in the specific context of the immigration debate, let me say that I deny the legitimacy of any governments attempts to impede the free movement of peaceful people across so-called international borders. Ultimately, unjust laws are made to be broken — and the sooner and more frequently, the better.
See also, “A Story from an ICE Detention Facility“.
Share This
Sheldon Richman is WRONG and so are YOU Brad. We have a country with borders and we have a right to regulate orderly entry.
Sorry but it is NOT libertarian to aid and abet the world government proponents who want open borders. IS that what you are doing? It’s an Orwellian nightmare!
SDS by the way, is a communist organization, so I am wondering why you have this on your site? We are not a democracy, we are a republic. If the NAU is instituted, you will have a constitution where your rights are given and taken away by GOVERNMENT. Is that what you want?
Sorry, illegals do NOT have rights in OUR country anymore than we have rights in THEIRS.
Why does America have to be the dumping grounds when no other country does that?
Lefties are NOT libertarian.
I agree with Brad about immigration. I’m frankly a bit bothered by the amount of libertarians who take a statist position on immigration. What they’re really doing is taking a paleo-conservative position, not a libertarian one. It’s quite simple: the “borders” represent the state’s land monopoly. “Border enforcement” is to enforce the very essence of the state: its territorial monopoly. I recognize only one kind of border: private property borders.
Anti-immigration libertarians are supporting the use of force to stop people from crossing either unowned land or state-owned land. State-owned land may as well be treated like unowned land in the sense that there is no discernable just owner. Any claim that “we”, “the community”, “the public” owns our quotal share over it gets into the classic error of the concept of public/collective property. Nation-states do not represent legitimate property titles, and their borders should be treated as imaginary lines on a map.
Paleo-conservatives are even worse about it: they support what is blatant economic protectionism on the issue, through the practise of illegalizing jobs and illegalizing market interactions between natives and immigrants in all sorts of ways. This is a massive violation of free asssociation and property rights. If I invite an immigrant into my home, if I sell a home to one, if I hire one, and you initiate force in order to stop me, then you are violating my property rights.
World government and being an anarchist against all nation states are not the same thing. Noone is aiding “world government” people. What anti-immigration people are doing is aiding nationalists and helping a police state to be brought about. They’re also usinng immigrants as a scapegoat for what was caused by the existance of our own welfare state. Instead of attacking immigrants, they should be attacking the welfare state.
I agree that “lefties”, if by that you mean the modern political left, are not libertarian. And neither are paleo-conservatives who take positions that are pretty much indistinguishable from national socialism. Libertarianism is not left or right. Left and right are practically meaningless terms at this point.
[...]In response to this morning’s post featuring both refutation of unfair attacks on Ron Paul and criticism of Ron Paul’s [...]
It never ceases to amaze me how some libertarians can be so blinded by the “non-aggression principle.”
If the U.S. were all private property, there would not be open borders. There would be controlled entry. So in order to abide by the non-aggression principle, you absolutist libertarians want something to be allowed to happen that would not happen under your idealized libertarian anarchist system
Reply found here.