Thursday, 28 June 2007

"Libertarian hottie" for First Lady

I might rethink my opinion on Ron Paul for US President.

Despite him being a complete flake on the threat from totalitarian Islamists (his policy consists of being nice to them in the hope they go away), these videos by "libertarian hottie" Rachel Mills have changed my mind.

As she says, it's great that everyone thinks her ideas about Ron are really hot, but doesn't she have a great chest too. I can't argue with that.



    Ron Paul in CNN debate on June 5, 2007!

    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot
    survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
    for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor
    moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling
    through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself.
    For the traitor appears not a traitor---he speaks in the accents
    familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and
    he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He
    rots the soul of a nation---he works secretly and unknown in the night
    to undermine the pillars of a city---he infects the body politic so
    that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.

    --- Cicero: orator, statesman, political theorist, lawyer and
    philosopher of Ancient Rome.

    "In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth
    is a revolutionary act" GEORGE ORWELL

    Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.

    Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
    Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
    Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.
    Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
    Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
    Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
    Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.

    Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
    Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
    Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
    Ron votes against the United Nations.
    Ron votes against the welfare state.
    Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.

    Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
    Ron votes to cut government spending.
    Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.
    Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
    Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
    Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform

    How can you not love this guy listen to him he is truly a man who
    tells the truth "We The People" are taking our country back and
    restoring the original Constitutional Republic and returning Amerika
    back to America not the United States of Surveillance!

    Listen To Ron Paul Speeches:
    Review over 100 Articles Ron Paul Authored by Subject:

    "None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
    -- Goethe

  2. Richard McGrath28 Jun 2007, 15:38:00

    Hottie is right!! She should be Ron Paul's vice-presidential nominee.

  3. His foreign policy is simple: wage war to only defend the US. That's why he voted no on Iraq, but yes on Afghanistan.

  4. I've openly admired Ron Paul for a long time. I was living in the US the year he ran for Pres.

    Although I strongly disagree with his "they mean us no harm; they just want us out of the Middle-East" naive attitude re Islamic fundamentalists, I share his opposition to the invasion of Iraq (for the reasons given by Washington). I always have. And I remember having many arguments on the old Libertyloop at the time.

    I always thought that the US went to war for the wrong reasons - and the EU opposed it for the wrong reasons. *Nobody*, in spite of the fuzzy rhetoric, gave a toss about the plight of the Iraqi people under that monster.

    But that one issue aside, how can any self-described libertarian ignore Ron Paul's long political history of liberal, small-govt, free-market actions?

    The Republican Party's screwed, and deservedly so. I see bugger all difference between big-govt conservatives and their socialist counterparts.

    If nothing else, the man supports limited govt. Hallelujah.

  5. I have been a fan of Ron Paul for years. It is bloody marvelous that people are starting to hear him.

    If you place anything ahead if individual liberty then liberty is lost.

    Dave Christian

  6. Unfortunately Paul has his weaknesses in the area of social freedom as this blogger well knows...

  7. Opps....cut off


  8. Quite so James.

    Ron Paul does have many views with which I don't agree. He does however make it clear that he does not wish to force his worldview onto other people (whilst of course reserving the right to express his views). This can be confusing, because the expression of political views usually comes with the clear implication of desiring to wield the power of the state to impose those views onto others. I hope that I am right, but I believe the Ron Paul is a rare exception.

    We have nobody like this in NZ politics. Even NZLibs want to decide for me who my friends and enemies should be and with whom (and with which goods) I should be permitted to trade.

    Dave Christian

  9. Dave said: "Even NZLibs want to decide for me who my friends and enemies should be and with whom (and with which goods) I should be permitted to trade."

    Hi Dave, I have not kept up with Libz comments lately however I have not heard of any policies which would indicate what you allege above. Could you comment further with reference to the relevant issues?

    Many thanks

    Julian Darby

  10. Well Julian I would be pleased to be wrong about NZLibz on this one. Their policies as written are pretty good. Although their defense policy evokes the usual statist fear word 'terrorism' and their trade policy makes much mention of western block trading partners and studiously avoids mentioning exactly what their attitude is to China, North Korea, Iran and others.

    The libertarian position is that free trade goes hand in hand with the promotion of individual liberty. The USA trade embargo of Cuba being the perfect example of the opposite situation where a totalitarian regime has been shored up by a refusal to engage in free trade.

    Reading blogs and comments in NZ from people claiming connections to NZLibz, I have often encountered the reasoning that engaging in free trade with any country implies an endorsement of that country's current leadership and as such is to be condemned. This reasoning is similar to - and as daft as - the 'war on drugs' justification.

    As to the 'war on terror', we're facing 1984's "War is Peace" paradigm there. Libertarians ought to recognise that.


  11. I heard the Libz support taxation as well. That's not exactly a policy supporting recognition of private property or freedom.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. Cleetus said...
    "I heard the Libz support taxation as well. That's not exactly a policy supporting recognition of private property or freedom."

    I agree and the Libz would agree with you. The Libz oppose taxation 100% and there would be no tax with a Libz government. However, I think what you are referring to is a transitional regime, when all taxes would be abolished except for a flat company tax for 3 or so years. The taxes would be used to meet external debt obligations. Not something that sits well with any libertarian however this would be the context which we would find oursleves in. I long for the day when we can have this debate with outcome having the possibility of being implemented.

    Julian D

  14. Cleetus Burgjman3 Jul 2007, 18:16:00

    Hello Julian

    Well, what that all means is that the Libz do indeed support tax and will indeed tax (that is, steal). I figured as much having read some of their writings.

    In the end a Libz govt would apply the premise that it has the right to tax. They would act as though principle of private property and freedom do not apply during a notional "transitional regime".

    Well then, the context is such that those pesky principles never will apply (nor be applied). That's too bad. So much for principle.

    Anyway, putting the philosophic arguments aside, it'd be interesting to see what you guys'd do to a property owner (or the manager of a company) who refused to pay tax to you. How far would you go to force his compliance...rude letters...threats...violence...kidnap...rape...torture...maiming and murder?

    As is well said, once principle is abandoned, anything goes. It's merely a matter of degree.


  15. HI Cleetus,

    Great to meet some one who has principles and is willing to stick to them.

    In this hypothetical situation which is the election of a Libz government , what are your practical suggestions then on how to deal with NZ's external debt?


  16. Cleetus Burgjman4 Jul 2007, 06:47:00

    Hi Julian

    I'd consider a few questions and there the answers will be found.

    Who borrowed this money? Whose debt is it?

    It aint mine. It aint some company's. It aint yours I'd wager.

    Just because one pack of stealing no-goods got themselves into debt, that does not bind anyone else to pay off THEIR debt. It does not bind other individual's property or freedom.

    And just because some greedy turds thought that they'd "invest" money with the govt ('cause govts are a safe bet as they can force everyone else to pay their debts), that does not bind anyone either. Tough luck oh greedy turds...

    An example, down the road from here is a fella called Whetu Kara. He is well known around the traps for being a welfare bludger and a thief. Recently he managed to get a car on hire/purchase or a lease to buy scheme or some such. He's been burgling and stealing and using some of the proceeds to pay the finance company. Meanwhile he's run that car into the ground. He managed to wreck it and stopped paying the finance company. Now he has spent all the money and the asset is a ruin. Would you agree with him that everyone else should pay HIS debts as we all live on the same street? I'm sure that he'd agree we are all obligated and have responsibilities to retire HIS debt.

    The Libz should consider that to collectivise the people who live on my street and force them to pay Kara's debt is no worse than to collectivise everyone who happens to live on the islands of NZ and force them to pay "NZ'S external debt."


  17. Thanks Julian

    As Virginia Postrel has it I'm culturally 'live-and-let-live' and intellectually 'skeptical-empirical'. Consequently NZLibs rhetoric rubs me up the wrong way at times.

    Postrel also says "The trick is to find genuinely shared values." You've said enough to persuade me to go along and talk to them sometime to see if maybe they're not as stridently absolutist and ideological as blog commentators sometime appear.

  18. Julian

    To clarify, the best policy is to forget about any "NZ" debt. Tell the lenders who "invested" that they are greedy turds who should never have been stupid enough to give money away as they did (what did they expect, dealing with collectivists...). They can either take a long walk or to seek redress from those individuals who they actually gave their money too.

    Best policy is to forget about the fiat money debt. It's not yours to worry about anyhow.


  19. Cleetus,

    You get no argument from me on your suggestion. Someone I know said this on Not PC a while ago :-).

    The issue which one probably needs to consider is what the impact of defaulting on debt would have on the individuals in the economy. But I for shall leave that for others.

    What you say is exactly correct re the importance of the principle of individual rights. But I don't think it is fair to say is that Libz advocate theft and violation of property rights as a principle. I doubt that any Libz government would ever use state force to steal and breach an individual's property rights. They will be too busy dismantling government agencies.


  20. Anonymous said:

    "You've said enough to persuade me to go along and talk to them sometime to see if maybe they're not as stridently absolutist and ideological as blog commentators sometime appear."

    But note that Libz are absolutist and ideological. And this is something to be appluaded especially given today's context. That is what allows them to offer a set of policies - based on individual rights - which are internally consistent and do not change through time. It is the idea that individual rights and freedom are paramount.To be sure there are sometimes disagreements as to what policy is consistent with individual freedom -I am reminded of the eternal discussion of whether an individual should be allowed to own a nuclear weapon - but these are issues which can be debated with reference to some objective principle.


  21. Julian said: "policies ...... do not change through time".

    Now that is odd. If we look back at our ancestors, we can see that it is in very many respects a good thing that policies have changed through time. Even if we look at the best of them - such as the Founding Fathers - we can see now how their policies might have been better. Future generations will be able to look at policies implemented today in any Country by anyone (including maybe even NZLibs - which would certainly be a great leap forward over many of the alternatives) and learn from experience what was good about those policies and what was not. Anyone who claims to know with certainty today what are the best possible policies ever is expressing a religious conviction. Religious convictions tend to stand in opposition to individual liberty whether they have a godly, environmental, altruistic, or any other foundation.

    Dave Christian


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.