Ayn Rand's Influence on Alan Greenspan
In The Age of Turbulence, Alan Greenspan describes the influence that Ayn Rand had on his intellectual development.

Ayn Rand became a stabilizing force in my life. It hadn't taken long for us to have a meeting of the minds -- mostly my mind meeting hers -- and in the fifties and early sixties I became a regular at the weekly gatherings at her apartment. She was a wholly original thinker, sharply analytical, strong-willed, highly principled, and very insistent on rationality as the highest value. In that regard, our values were congruent -- we agreed on the importance of mathematics and intellectual rigor.

But she had gone far beyond that, thinking more broadly than I had ever dared. She was a devoted Aristotelian -- the central idea being that there exists an objective reality that is separate from consciousness and capable of being known. Thus she called her philosophy objectivism. And she applied key tenets of Aristotelian ethics -- namely, that individuals have innate nobility and that the highest duty of every individual is to flourish by realizing that potential. Exploring ideas with her was a remarkable course in logic and epistemology. I was able to keep up with her most of the time.

Rand's Collective became my first social circle outside the university and the economics profession. I engaged in the all-night debates and wrote spirited commentary for her newsletter with the fervor of a young acolyte drawn to a whole new set of ideas. Like any new convert, I tended to frame the concepts in their starkest, simplest terms. Most everyone sees the simple outline of an idea before complexity and qualification set in. If we didn't, there would be nothing to qualify, nothing to learn. It was only as contradictions inherent in my new notions began to emerge that the fervor receded.

One contradiction I found particularly enlightening. According to objectivist precepts, taxation was immoral because it allowed for government appropriation of private property by force. Yet if taxation was wrong, how could you reliably finance the essential functions of government, including the protection of individuals' rights through police power? The Randian answer, that those who rationally saw the need for government would contribute voluntarily, was inadequate. People have free will; suppose they refused?

I still found the broader philosophy of unfettered market competition compelling, as I do to this day, but I reluctantly began to realize that if there were qualifications to my intellectual edifice, I couldn't argue that others should readily accept it. [...]

Ayn Rand and I remained close until she died in 1982, and I'm grateful for the influence she had on my life. I was intellectually limited until I met her. All of my work had been empirical and numbers-based, never values-oriented. I was a talented technician, but that was all. My logical positivism had discounted history and literature -- if you'd asked me whether Chaucer was worth reading, I'd have said, "Don't bother." Rand persuaded me to look at human beings, their values, how they work, what they do and why they do it, and how they think and why they think. This broadened my horizons far beyond the models of economics I'd learned. I began to study how societies form and how cultures behave, and to realize that economics and forecasting depend on such knowledge -- different cultures grow and create material wealth in profoundly different ways. All of this started for me with Ayn Rand. She introduced me to a vast realm from which I'd shut myself off.

From The Age of Turbulence, pp. 51-53. Omissions from the text are shown with bracketed ellipses. All other punctuation and spelling is from the original.

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/turbulence.html

Okay, so I had wrote out a response and saved it in MS Word--and it got deleted somehow on my comp before I posted it. Then I gave up...because that took a long time to write out thoughtfully.... But now that have the free time, I will attempt it again. Plus, I have OCD...

So;

1-Haven't we all? And even if he hasn't, I certainly am not the man to judge.
2-I do assume he would be neutral on race. The problem is his convictions, right or wrong, ere on the side of a dogma-like belief system. His ideals of "liberty" (Whatever that means) above all else is neutral; unfortunately America is not neutral and would turn those ideas into racial superiority somehow. (I.e., he is to stupid and would advocate "freedom" that would open the door for employers to be racist and oppressive, I thinks...)
3-I think John Edward's cheating on his cancer-afflicted wife is far worse than manipulating for power. Nearly every single politician has in some manner stoked the race fires--but not all have betrayed those who loved them personally. Look at the Zimmerman bs and the stoking of that fire pit. America is one big stoke factory whether we like it or not...
4-You don't need to forgive me for being racist, and you don't need to forgive Paul if isn't any longer a racist. In fact, in my case where open and malicious racism was instilled in me early--you should thank me for figuring out a better way. I don't need pitied with forgiveness...and I wish America would stop putting so much emphasis on forgiveness and just move on...
5-Nope... Read 5...
6-Its because its one thing to betray the public--its another to betray those who have loved you. In certain countries or the military Edwards would have been punished with severe prison time or even death. Why? Because such a barbaric betrayal is hard to forgive. A different kind of animal. One is psychotic, the other is opportunistic asshole-ism.

And then

1-When you find yourself smiling at your friend who you have hung out with for over a year, thinking to yourself how much lower he is than you because of his skin, then regretting those thoughts--I attribute it to racism. When you think that his pride in his Hispanic background is nasty--racism... When you try but can't care about his plights of racial injustice, when they stir nothing in your heart--racism.

I am trying to work on it, but that's all I can do. Try. That and be the damned nicest guy I can be, and treat him fairly as a human being should be treated...guess that's all I can do.

2-People can change and they change all the time. I used to hate gays, as I have noted, but now I do not. However, that is not saying I am capable of any change. For example, I doubt I will ever be gay. But who knows--it just isn't happening any time soon. I am more Buddhist in my ways of thinking---it will either change or it will not, and we will either live with it or will not. But try to be the best person you can with what you have and make it the best you can.

>> ^NetRunner:

@Lawdeedaw I think there are several problems with that rant:

1. It assumes Ron Paul has changed
   
2. It assumes Ron Paul would be "neutral" on race
   
3. It assumes John Edwards cheating on his wife is worse than stoking racial animosity for personal gain
   
4. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul still denies having made them in the first place
   
5. It expects us to forgive Ron Paul's sins, when Paul hasn't really acted as though this sort of thing is something you need to apologize for and be contrite about
   
6. It expects us to have not forgiven John Edwards, even though he's publicly confessed, and been both contrite and repentant
   

And then just for good measure:

1. I don't presume to know you better than you know yourself, but I don't think you're a racist...
   
2. And if I take what you said at face value, it implies that people don't change (i.e. you don't like being racist, but can't help it), and that people can't just purge that from their system and become pure as the driven snow in a short span of time.
   

And...besides which, Ron Paul signed off on what was written, protected the identity of the author (before it was independently discovered), and has pretty much acted as if this is somehow an unfair thing to criticize him for, and generally not a big deal.

Once again because of shitty media, I can't take any sides. The interview was just noise. Neither side makes their case well. The only argument I can make is that once again, there is this ridiculous notion that this supposed bombshell was just missed during the 2008 election and just magically is discovered coincidentally before another election. It just reeks of desperation. In addition it's nothing that dramatically bad. There is no smoking gun. When push comes to shove, the argument is "Obama will give preferential treatment to blacks" not exactly a bombshell.

You can tell a man by the company he keeps. If the left is going to brand Ron Paul a "racist" for things he didn't write in newsletters bearing his name 30 years ago, then King Obama introducing another kook to the podium is more than fair game.

I also find it funny. Conservatives get so angry when the left "plays the race card" but its ok when Conservatives play it?

It's not racist to shine the light of truth on Obama's well-hidden-by-the-non-FOX-media history.

I don't see the point anyway. As if conservatives need any sort of evidence or logic. They're going to hate Obama regardless of what he does.

Here's where we kind of agree, at least as far as there being no need to excessively castigate Obama on his shady history when we have his nearly 4 year RECORD OF FAILURE staring us in the face. If the fakeservatives lose it will be for this reason.

>> ^renatojj:

@SDGundamX so, either I'm trolling or doing politically-biased speculation, however your research could never be politically-biased, because those results were confirmed by the OECD, a respectable organization that happens to be run by members of various governments. Public servants, unlike me, would never have any political bias, specially towards statism.
Why stop at education then, why not leave newsletters, TV, and the internet with the government, so it can provide us with information and news? If we all believe in the dream of allowing everyone access to the truth, maybe the government, who is so much better at providing education, should be better at providing all kinds of information too, specially the truth, doesn't that make sense?


I read your post and I see you didn't provide any evidence that a competitive-based model is in any way, shape, or form better than Finland's model; you implied that because some (not all) of the research was confirmed by the OCED it must be biased and therefore discounted (without providing any evidence of bias in the studies under question and ignorning the fact that the studies were published in peer-reviewed journals that have no affiliation with either Finland or the OCED); you also threw out a red-herring by implying that the government ensuring free public education for all is equivalent to the government controlling the flow of information (yet again without any evidence).

Given the above, I don't see this discussion going anywhere. You're not bringing anything to the table other than your own unsupported conjecture and unfounded accusations. If you've got some links that support your position(s) by all means post them and maybe I'll have a look and get back to you. Otherwise, I won't be responding to any more of your posts on this topic.

@SDGundamX so, either I'm trolling or doing politically-biased speculation, however your research could never be politically-biased, because those results were confirmed by the OECD, a respectable organization that happens to be run by members of various governments. Public servants, unlike me, would never have any political bias, specially towards statism.

Why stop at education then, why not leave newsletters, TV, and the internet with the government, so it can provide us with information and news? If we all believe in the dream of allowing everyone access to the truth, maybe the government, who is so much better at providing education, should be better at providing all kinds of information too, specially the truth, doesn't that make sense?

@spoco2 why thank you kind sir. If my ideas intrigue you, perhaps you would wish to subscribe to my newsletter?

Speaking for myself, Paul could change my mind if he a) admitted fault, and b) gave some sort of speech about why racism is morally wrong.

>>> For the long speech you'll have to wait. As for the apology,

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

--Ron Paul, Business Wire

A poster on the site "The Daily Paul" summed it up nicely:

What if you rent your home out, and the people use the house. to molest children. Should you be required to accept responsibility? Your name is still on the mortgage, so are you accountable for every action of the renters?

All you could tell people is that you had no knowledge, but admit you should have kept a better watch on your property, and accept 'moral responsibility' (versus actual responsibility, since you did not molest anyone and don't advocate that action).

Instead he's denying any fault, and castigating people for asking him to say anything at all about it, as if he thinks that kind of racist rhetoric isn't something people should be upset about.

>>> Due to the above statement I disagree that Dr. Paul is denying any fault. Based on what I've read, he has taken receipt of this newsletter flap. That he hasn't worded an apology precisely that is satisfactory to you is out of his (or my) control. I could be 100% wrong, but I do not believe you harbor a change of heart that will be triggered by a Paul apology. You are no under no obligation to support or believe him. Can we agree you're not a libertarian frustrated only by the doubt created by the Ron Paul newsletters?

Ultimately that's what you yourself said with your response -- that all charges of racism are bogus. Why you think that, I can't fathom.

>>> Please allow me to clarify my original statement: the problem with LIBERALS labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless.

Ad hominem tu quoque -- which I like to think of as the "I know you are but what am I?" fallacy.

My point about "all of us" being racist is, if we're all covered in poop, no one can accuse anyone else of stinking.

Easy, (Paul) says people have an inalienable right to refuse to serve or hire minorities if they like, but that minorities have no inalienable right to be treated as free and equal citizens when they participate in our society and economy.

>>> I have no easy answer for you, not because Dr. Paul is wrong but because the details of how a libertarian society deals with racism are complex (yet probably less complex than the maze of government coercion now).

A private citizen has a right to refuse to associate with others s/he dislikes, but does the government have the power to create an underclass of citizens? The answer is NO.

Some good comments here on this topic. Not gospel, just snacks for thought.

Hey QM, I'll just respond to your quotes in order:

>>> As I reply in order.

-the old "white victimization by the race card" card. I don't buy it. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party, and even Ron Paul have become quite successful stoking anti-black resentment. I don't see them suffering because of it, unless you count that only a tiny minority among blacks will listen to them as fallout.

>>> The mainstream media has done a far better job creating class resentment, than the handful of conservative commentators have stoking "anti-black resentment", which even if there is such a thing, is dwarfed by anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-big government sentiment.

I assure you, black people, and any people know the difference between piss and rain water. They know racism when they see it, context and all.

>>> Based on the government school education and biased media of the past 50 years, a rational, fact-filled discussion on identifying racism' is just not possible. There's a lot of money in playing the victim. We're going to have to disagree on this one.

-The largesse of the elite doesn't change the fact that the racial makeup of the 1% is white. It also doesn't change the fact that the 1% is greedy.

>>> The 1% is greedy? Compared to whom? Aren't Black professional athletes and entertainers in the 1%?

-My point is, if you are going to put up unflattering statistics and facts about blacks, don't whine when unflattering facts about white people are brought up. Goose Gander.

>>> We have a right to our own opinions, but not to our own facts, and the FACT is that compared to their percentage of the population, Black males commit far more crimes compared to a similar percentage of Whites. That the libmedia covers up these facts isn't doing anybody any favors.
Where were these unflattering facts about Whites? Besides Ron Paul newsletters?

-I thought your original point is that sifters don't care about/endorse black extremist sifts. It looks like the sifters don't feel threatened by that video, and are using it to demonstrate the guy's kookiness.

>>> But the response would be far different if the racial roles were reversed, wouldn't you say?

What does it mean if a handful of people don't walk out and even clap? Does it impugn every African American?

>>> Of course not. But even calling those dummies who stayed to listen to that guy 'dummies' would be met with cries of racism.

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.

>>> Ron Paul isn't endorsing racial discrimination. Isn't it odd that before the Civil Rights Movement, there had to be laws in place to ENFORCE segregation?

>>> To me, Dr. Paul's criticism about the abuses of power wrought by expanded government is valid.

As I posited earlier to Net, do you believe the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?











>> ^longde:

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.
Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).

I disagree. Sure, you're never going to satisfy 100% of the people who call themselves liberal, but Obama putting out his long form birth certificate didn't satisfy 100% of people that he was born in the U.S. either. But it did put the issue to rest for anyone who isn't a paranoiac.

Speaking for myself, Paul could change my mind if he a) admitted fault, and b) gave some sort of speech about why racism is morally wrong.

Instead he's denying any fault, and castigating people for asking him to say anything at all about it, as if he thinks that kind of racist rhetoric isn't something people should be upset about.

Ultimately that's what you yourself said with your response -- that all charges of racism are bogus. Why you think that, I can't fathom.
>> ^quantumushroom:

You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?

Ad hominem tu quoque -- which I like to think of as the "I know you are but what am I?" fallacy.
>> ^quantumushroom:

I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing.

Easy, he says people have an inalienable right to refuse to serve or hire minorities if they like, but that minorities have no inalienable right to be treated as free and equal citizens when they participate in our society and economy.

I think we've discussed on several threads now how Paul would endorse a society that openly tolerates racial discrimination. In the context of everything he has done to support and encourage racism, even if he claims to be an angel, the newsletters are very relevant.>> ^quantumushroom:

@NetRunner
Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.
Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).
The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:
RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!
No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.
'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'
What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.
You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?
We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n gg rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.
Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

Hey QM, I'll just respond to your quotes in order:

-the old "white victimization by the race card" card. I don't buy it. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, the Republican Party, and even Ron Paul have become quite successful stoking anti-black resentment. I don't see them suffering because of it, unless you count that only a tiny minority among blacks will listen to them as fallout.

I assure you, black people, and any people know the difference between piss and rain water. They know racism when they see it, context and all.

-The largesse of the elite doesn't change the fact that the racial makeup of the 1% is white. It also doesn't change the fact that the 1% is greedy.

-My point is, if you are going to put up unflattering statistics and facts about blacks, don't whine when unflattering facts about white people are brought up. Goose Gander.

-I thought your original point is that sifters don't care about/endorse black extremist sifts. It looks like the sifters don't feel threatened by that video, and are using it to demonstrate the guy's kookiness. What does it mean if a handful of people don't walk out and even clap? Does it impugn every African American?>> ^quantumushroom:

Hey QM, thanks for taking the effort to respond. Now:
Black and white people clap differently? You're making my point for me. For some guy to speculate on racial differences--not racial inferiority or superiority--doesn't make him a racist.

>>> It's fair to say that when a White non-liberal even mentions race, no matter the context, s/he's a racist. That's just the way it is. FOX be damned, liberals still run the mainstream media and that's their M.O.

On the second quote, "white folks greed", yeah that's a racist quote. Given the setup of America, whose oligarchy is dominated by white people, I think it's accurate.
>>> How much money has "the oligarchy" spent on the war on poverty? 5 trillion. What percentage of that money has gone to directly aid Blacks, who make up only 13%-14% of the American population?
But it's racist all the same. But if this is racist, then posting those crime statistics of African American youth, as you often do, is racist as well.
Facts is facts, however unpleasant. You would think those that are trying to fix the problems would be grateful for accurate data. They might even see the fall of the Black family unit coinciding 'somehow' with the rise of the welfare state.
Where are the sifts demanding white people be destroyed? I guess I missed those.
http://videosift.com/video/Exterminate-White-People-Off-of-th
e-Face-of-the-Planet
>>> Yeah, he's likely a lone kook, but why aren't people walking out?

@NetRunner

Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, no matter how he explains (or fails to explain) liberal accusations of being a racist, he can't win.

Paul has said his aides told him he has to take responsibility for the newsletters' content, whether or not only "a few" statements were terrible, and whether or not he was the author (it's generally conceded he was not, but as you and others will readily point out, his name was in big letters on the top and he was the publisher).

The problem with labeling anyone a racist is that in 2012 it's the equivalent of crying wolf. It's so overused as to be meaningless. In Dr. Paul's case, because the drive-by media refuse to do their damned jobs, you get jabs like this:

RoPaul voted AGAINST awarding Rosa Parks a Congressional Gold Medal! OMG RACISM!

No one bothers to note that Paul also 'opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.

'Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.'

What I'm saying in too many words is that the entire anti-Paul/anti-libertarian brigade is howling about an ace hidden in Dr. Paul's sleeve, while every game in their casino is rigged.

You say whether Obama, Wright and you (and/or me) are racist has no bearing on whether Paul is racist. Well, if we're ALL 'racist' then what does it matter?

We're looking for a President, not a saint. LBJ was crazier than a sh1thouse rat, but to the left he was some kind of hero for pushing the Civil Rights Act. Yet LBJ is also quoted as saying "I'll have those n*gg*rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

I didn't go looking for Dr. Paul's writing on the moral evils of discrimination. As he is a believer in individual rights (and responsibility) I don't see how he could be either an overt or closet racist to the extent you're describing. He's against Drug Prohibition, which is inherently racist, and more questionably, against "wars" because minorities, according to him, have it harder in the military.

Our common framework is you're going to find plenty of dirt to dislike him, and peeps like me will see enough good in him to atone for any misgivings, despite Paul's wacky, totally unrealistic worldview where we recall ALL our troops from all over the world (allowing red china to easily take over). Again, we're electing a ripe-for-corruption American President, not a saint.

@quantumushroom, I'm trying to figure out how to we can find some sort of common framework between us so we can have a conversation about this. For the moment, let's just talk about Paul himself.

Upfront, here are the things I see as facts about Paul:

1. Ron Paul owned a company that published several newsletters with his name in the title.
   
2. Those newsletters contained overt, incontestably racist commentary
   
3. Ron Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act
   
4. Ron Paul opposes having a national holiday for Martin Luther King day
   
5. Ron Paul says he's not racist
   
6. But Ron Paul has not, as far as I've been able to find, given any sort of speech where he explains the moral problem with discrimination
   
7. Ron Paul protected the identity of the author of the articles in question
   
8. When that author was independently revealed, he did not condemn the author or disassociate himself from him
   
9. People can lie about what they believe
   
10. Which Paul demonstrated by saying he didn't know about or approve what was in the newsletters, then later a reporter uncovers proof that he did know about them and approved them
    

Now what I have about Paul is what you would call a theory (and what eggheaded people like me call a hypothesis). This theory explains all those facts, and more. That theory is: Ron Paul is a racist.

I don't know it's necessarily the explanation, I'm just saying it's the best theory that fits the available facts.

Now this theory could be easily destroyed by Paul if it were false. All Paul would need to do is give one speech, where he admits to just being so grossly negligent and incompetent that he couldn't even manage a newsletter, or where he admits to having been racist in the past and tells us about his journey towards becoming a believer in racial equality.

But he hasn't done that. Instead he's gone after his accusers and critics, while refusing to concede he's made a mistake of any kind at any point, even though clearly something must've gone wrong -- his name ended up on a bunch of racist articles.

Until someone comes in with new, verifiable facts that contradict that theory, or comes up with a new theory that fits the facts better, I see no reason for anyone to say "you're wrong about Paul being racist" to me.

And just as an aside, even if Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and I were all racists, it would have zero bearing on whether Paul is racist or not.

Hey QM, thanks for taking the effort to respond. Now:

Black and white people clap differently? You're making my point for me. For some guy to speculate on racial differences--not racial inferiority or superiority--doesn't make him a racist.

On the second quote, "white folks greed", yeah that's a racist quote. Given the setup of America, whose oligarchy is dominated by white people, I think it's accurate. But it's racist all the same. But if this is racist, then posting those crime statistics of African American youth, as you often do, is racist as well.

Where are the sifts demanding white people be destroyed? I guess I missed those. Is it the Louis Theroux one?

>> ^quantumushroom:

As much as people bemoan Reverend Wright, I never really got the controversy.
Can you please give me a direct quote where the pastor denigrates white people?
In his speech to the NAACP, Wright speculated that, "Africans have a different meter, and Africans have a different tonality. Europeans have seven tones, Africans have five. White people clap differently than black people. Africans and African-Americans are right-brained, subject-oriented in their learning style. They have a different way of learning." The comments were labeled as racist,[85] and likened to eugenics. This initiated a revival of the controversy, which had been slowly waning. --wikipedia
Obama stated that he was aware of Pastor Wright's controversial comments, and had personally heard "remarks that could be considered controversial" in Wright's church, but denied having heard the particular inflammatory statements that were widely televised during the campaign. Obama was specifically asked by Bill O'Reilly if Reverend Wright had said white people were bad, to which Obama replied "no." In his book Dreams from my Father, Obama had quoted Reverend Wright as saying in a sermon "It's this world, where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where White folks' greed runs a world in need."
To me it's just another ridiculous Obama fable that in 20 years he heard "nothing unusual".
When running for President, I don't think you'd want to be associated with a church where a d1psh1t shouts "God damn America!" from the pulpit, and "Reverend" Wright went on a vitriolic tour calculated to destroy Obama when the latter left his church.
Also, we've got more than one sift of Blacks demanding White people be exterminated and liberalsifters couldn't care less, because only Whites and non-liberals are truly racist.

@NetRunner

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.

Some criticism of "Black Liberation Theology"


I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.

>>> Well, aren't you claiming Dr. Paul is a racist? The man is not a fool, and knows that the libmedia is against him. Yet he continues to run for office and suffer what is assuredly unfair scrutiny.

>>> What's truly in Obama's heart no one knows. I see either a closet racist--more concerned with accruing power than skin color--or a crafty politician--more concerned with accruing power than anything else.

As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.

>>> You may very well be making a fair statement about a majority of "self-identified American white supremacists", to which I reply, "So what?" Don't those people have a right to vote for whomever they wish? It's obvious they are not a large or serious base. Those people wear shoes, right? If they favor Keds, is everyone who wears Keds a racist?

Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.

>>> Rather far-fetched. I can't seriously believe you're worried about this. You think the only thing holding the system together--guiding the economic, religious and moral decisions of 300 million people--are a few recent laws on the books?

So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.

Ooops.

It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.

It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.

IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.

>>> The Civil War was far more complex than "slavery". For at least the first 18 months of the war, slavery was not THE issue, and the South had every right to secede.

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.

Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848
Congressional Globe, Appendix
1st Session 30th Congress, page 94

>>> Lincoln made the war primarily about slavery, but slavery was already on the way out before the War even began. Slavery had been abolished in most of Europe. Only wealthy Southerners owned slaves, and industrialization made plantations less and less able to compete with the North.

>>> I have to take this moment to remind that it was Republicans who ended slavery, and Democrats who donned the white sheets.

>>> The alternative to a proper balance of power between States' Rights and the feds is what we have now: an all-powerful federal mafia, ruling without the rule of law, made all the more dangerous when Democrats are in power due to their mainstream media media lackeys.

>>> There's plenty of valid criticism of Dr. Paul out there without the non-issue of some 20-year-old newsletters. Because our time and interests are finite, I assume this charge of racism is just an easy way for the left to refute the libertarian message, though it be simple, neat and wrong.


>> ^NetRunner:

I second longde's reply above. I haven't seen anything from Reverend Wright that sounds racist to me. On the contrary, when I listen to Rev. Wright speak, he seems to be someone deeply interested in bridging racial divides.
I certainly don't think Obama is a racist, which is what you're trying to say as well.
As for my problem really being with libertarianism, it's both. One can be libertarian without being racist, and one can be racist without being libertarian, but the self-identified American white supremacists really adore libertarianism and Ron Paul.
Why? Because instituting libertarianism would legalize racial discrimination, religious discrimination, sexual discrimination (both gender and orientation). Depending on the type of libertarianism, they might even get slavery back via indentured servitude.
So smart racists get really, really solidly behind libertarianism. Even smarter racists pretend not to be racist, they're just libertarians...who just happen to believe the Civil Rights Act is an unconscionable exercise of state power, and oh yeah, used to have this newsletter they published saying all kinds of racist crap.
Ooops.
It's actually Ron Paul who helped me realize that the true lineage of libertarianism can be traced right back to the South's self-serving claims that fighting for slavery was actually a fight for freedom. Basically everything having to do with State's Rights, property rights, right to contract, all that crap was used to justify slavery.
It was used again to defend Jim Crow, separate but equal, opposition to the Civil Rights Act, etc.
IMO, any legal or moral framework which can justify that rogue's gallery of policies should just be discarded, not whitewashed, spun, and resold to people as some bright vision of the future.
>> ^quantumushroom:


@NetRunner and others, I question your collective "concern" over this non-issue, which is comical considering Dr. Paul has no chance of wining the nomination (or does he)?
I don't know if you voted for Chicago Jesus, but if the facts that he spent 20 years in the Church of Hate Whitey under the tutelage of the deranged Jeremiah Wright, got married in said church and also gave it 20Gs doesn't bother you, then your problem with Dr. Paul isn't "racism", it's libertarianism.