Eek, a Libertarian!
The Washington Post is astonished (and outraged) to encounter a libertarian. Writes Libby Copeland: "Republican Ron Paul missed out on the 19th century, but he admires it from afar. He speaks lovingly of the good old days before things like Social Security and Medicaid existed, before the federal government outlawed drugs like heroin." Those are state initiatives of the 20th century, of course, but still read the rest.
Comments (15)
Just wait till the dollar falls on it's face and forces the US economy into a hyperinflationary great depression. I noninate this guy for president, and so will everybody else in a few years.
Published: July 9, 2006 3:29 PM
Well, the Washington post did really outdo itself in getting some opposing opinions on board. There was the outrage government-benefiting farmer and then the Pennsilvanian history Prof:
(Where to begin with this one?" asks Michael Katz, a historian of poverty at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied charity case records from the early 20th century. "The stories just break your heart, the kind of suffering that people endured. . . . Stories of families that had literally no cash and had to kind of beg to get the most minimal forms of food, who lived in tiny, little rooms that were ill-heated and ill-ventilated, who were sick all the time, who had meager clothing . . .")
This comment will do the most pro-government, because it again plays right into the bleeding-heart socialists.
Published: July 9, 2006 3:49 PM
Yes. Thank God that now that laissez-faire no longer dominates, all families are now middle class and live in spacious houses, in perfect health, with clothing from Nordstrom. And those that don't...well, it's all Ronald Reagan's fault. And Exxon's.
Published: July 9, 2006 4:53 PM
Um, what period in the 'early 20th century'? How many families suffered horribly because of limited government, compared to how many families that didn't? How wealthy were the families in the following decades before Social Security? Was it absolutely true that Social Security was the only benefactor to increasing their wealth and security? Was it true that it was raised at all? Does it show that more families were poor because of lack of government?, and hard work did not pay off in the least?
That little elitist academic blurb is just... hilarious, really. Great 'counter-argument', WaPo.
Can I write an article debunking that 'refutation' for Mises.org or Lewrockwell? Hell, I'm a college kid. You guys and gals want one of them writing for you...
Published: July 9, 2006 6:54 PM
"How many families suffered horribly because of limited government, compared to how many families that didn't?"
Brett don't you know that U$D57 Trillion NPV of liabilities will cure, Cure, I say, all manner of ills?
Published: July 9, 2006 8:06 PM
>Can I write an article debunking that 'refutation' >for Mises.org or Lewrockwell? Hell, I'm a college >kid. You guys and gals want one of them writing for >you...
E-mail Lew Rockwell and send him your article. He printed one of mine once.
Tracy
Published: July 9, 2006 11:50 PM
Not surprising coming from the Wahington Compost. Ron Paul is great, we could use 400 more just like him in Congress.
Chris
http://amateureconblog.blogspot.com/
Published: July 10, 2006 5:56 AM
I love the logic of the academic:
We had far less government in the 19th Century than we do now, and people were also a lot poorer.
Today we have far more government, and people are also a lot wealthier.
Therefore, people are a lot wealthier now because of the expansion of government (rather than private sector advances like increases in productivity and technology, accumulation of capital, etc.).
Without offering any evidence that one thing leads to the other, you could make the same argument about any change since the 19th Century leading to advances in wealth. As an example:
If the average annual temperature in the U.S. is one degree warmer now than it was 150 years ago, and people are wealthier today than 150 years ago, then increases in temperature lead to wealth. That's the same logic, and it's just as silly.
Published: July 10, 2006 8:28 AM
At least with Ron Paul, the other Congressmen can take a look at what liberty really looks like. Without him, they'd have no reference at all.
Published: July 10, 2006 9:07 AM
It always irritates me when they say that someone wants to "reinstate the gold standard" or something similar.
The market chooses gold. Millions of people voluntarily cooperating.
The idea that any one person is going to "instate" the form of our money, like an edict from the Emperor that we must all abide, shows how deeply ingrained their authoritarian mentality is.
Published: July 10, 2006 10:42 AM
The author makes a valid point. If you're not in congress to participate in the looting, why show up at all? Why not go home and deliver more babies?
Published: July 10, 2006 3:27 PM
I am suprised that the Washington Post was so nice to Congressman Paul. He is just about their worst enemy. He is against war, even the "good" ones, and against large government.
Published: July 10, 2006 4:51 PM
What are you guys whining about? That article was about as good as could possibly be expected, considering our authoritarian establishment.
It actually showed a relatively balanced, calm explanation of what Paul's politics are. Sure, they say he misses the 19th century, and they have some historian-bureaucrat cite meaningless anecdotal examples for emotional appeal, when the facts and statistics actually bear out Ron Paul's point.
But in the rest of the article, the point made steadily and repeatedly is "he's consistent, he's honest, so much that even the party bullyboys leave him alone" and "he believes in small government, he doesn't even make exceptions to loot the world to buy votes from his constituents".
You're not going to get a better piece than that, in the openly authoritarian, crypto-socialist mainstream media.
Don't buy into the DC attitude that the ignorant masses can't grasp the benefits of small government, closing agencies down, or honest, principled politicians. It's not true. As the article itself says...making me wonder if the author is less isolated from reality than you guys...most people really do have a healthy distrust of government.
Remember, in '96 Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes both lead the field over Dole, at least until the corrupt party machine managed to force the Heir Apparent into a nomination which was therefore wasted against Clinton.
And they did it while talking about which agencies they'd close down, how they'd strip government bare. Forbes wanted to get rid of the IRS, privatize Socialist Security and replace the income tax, Buchanan countered with "it'd be faster for me to list the few agencies I would NOT shut down", and yet after Arizona they both lead Dole.
Published: July 11, 2006 3:43 PM
Kaz, you are right. The WP story made it to front page on digg.com, and the majority of commentors saw through the lame attempts to smear R.Paul.
Published: July 11, 2006 9:57 PM
David C:
"I noninate this guy for president, and so will everybody else in a few years."
Unfortunately history shows that when governments collapse people usually look at a "strong man" and strong governments to help them. In the poorest parts of Italy, where government is corrupt and basic services are often missing, people don't look at libertarian solutions, but rather tend to vote for neo-fascist and authoritarian parties.
Published: July 13, 2006 9:27 AM