From the same show: Ron Paul Newsletters - Innocent or Guilty? <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lkZPNOtqlCQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I really wish people would study more economics. Opposition to free trade and immigration hurts labor by restricting the allocation of resources to their most productive uses, something which reduces the cost of living for the average working person. Of course, it's difficult to explain to somebody working hard for their pay that a lower overall wage level can help their overall economic situation.
Ron Paul's March 1990 Reaction to the "Paleo-Libertarian" Strategy Matt Welch | December 29, 2011 As readers of Reason (and The New York Times!) know, Llewelyn Rockwell, Jr., made a "Case for Paleo-Libertarianism" in the January 1990 issue [PDF] of the libertarian journal Liberty, arguing that libertarians must "cleanse" the "libertine muck" off their movement and make alliance with "resurgent paleoconservatives" over issues such as crime, civil rights, family values, and "the Judeo-Christian tradition." What is less well known is that Liberty invited responses to the essay in its March 1990 issue [PDF], and among the respondents was Ron Paul, then in between congressional stints and coming off a 1988 Libertarian Party presidential run. Since the next couple of years would feature "Ron Paul"-branded newsletters produced by a company Rockwell worked for, some containing grotesque culture-war bombthrowing on the subjects listed above in language that sounds nothing like Ron Paul, I thought it would be of historical interest to republish Paul's real-time public response to the paleo-libertarianism initiative. First, some of the more contentious passages in Rockwell's original essay: Paul's response? Well, it was similar to the way he talks about Rockwell today. Under the all-caps headline "NO COMMMENT," he wrote only this: I hesitate to comment on Rockwell's article because I see the debate as being more divisive than productive. I prefer to use my energy attacking those who support statism, whether they do so intentionally or out of ignorance. Having said this, I will make one comment: it's obvious to me that the Libertarian Party would be a lot bigger than it is now if its image were perceived as more libertarian and less libertine. Keep in mind that at the same time these two very different conceptions of rhetorical strategizing were being aired, there were first-person "Ron Paul" newsletters being mailed out with content like this. You can draw any number of conclusions from this stuff, but the one that strikes me most is how little Rockwell's original complaints have to do with the modern-day content and spirit of Ron Paul's campaign and appeal (which is one reason that many cultural libertines find Paul copacetic). Looks like libertarianism was strong enough to survive the onslaught of Bahaus architecture enthusiasts after all.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mB7SG5gpWAw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Ron Paul looking as confused/muddle headed as many of his supporters trying to explain why in 2004 he stated on the floor of the house why he stated that the Civil Rights Act of 2004 did not enhance the "freedom" or race relations for African Americans. Now Ron may be able to bamboozle many of his young followers, but for anyone half way fair minded who was live then or shortly there after his statements must arise to at least the level of willful ignorance. Incredible. He seems to indicate that he is more concerned withthe property rights of private restaurant owners to discriminate than the "freedom" of African Americans. http://youtu.be/gOMCwr72Dig
paul considers property to be not only one's physical property but themselves as well. so you could make the argument that civil rights are exactly the same as property rights when assuming oneself as property. paul being a small goverment stalwart will always go with 1 law that covers everything instead of 20 different laws for the same thing. the problem is paul will say stuff like you posted without first explaining his positioning or reasoning. so in the end it sounds like a crazy statement that poeple/media run with. i blame paul for this because he is a bad communicator.
