GOP Primary Megathread!

[Admiral Yi]

I read the inconsistency as being that Paul endorses the idea that "All peaceful voluntary economic and social associations are permitted..." and that in an ideal libertarian world, borders would be "blurred," but that he pursues the tax issue unequivocally while hemming and hawing about immigration.  Again, it doesn't seem to be a true inconsistency, but I think the author is aiming at the difference in rhetoric, which fits in with his bigger point that Paul is mainly concerned with the big money part of libertarianism, rather than the other radical parts that he supposedly endorses.

Voluntary associations is not at all a gotcha line in my eyes.  If a country (the US) has laws against the immigration that suggests all parties are not entering into it voluntarily.

I don't know why the problems of where private property comes would be read as limited to real property in the piece, or in general.  Institutional capital and family wealth come from somewhere, and the fruits of one's labor are always derived from interactions with both, so the it seems like the same basic problem is there, however you end up resolving it.

I don't know that the fruits of one's labors are always derived from interaction with family wealth.  And I don't know that family wealth is always derived from misgotten real property.  And I don't know what institutional capital means.  Can you put that in bourgeois terms?

One of the problems with arguing against property rights on the basis that they were misgotten is that it assumes someone else possessed the property rights in the first place.  He he.

[Razgovory]

Wilkerson claims that Paul "would have us believe that the enormous gains over the past several decades in racial and gender equality, the dramatic rise of mixed-race marriages, and the happy detente in the gender wars have all occurred despite recent attempts to rectify centuries of legal oppression through law" (my bold)  This is a classic strawman.  Paul never said any such thing as far as I can tell, and Wilkerson makes no attempt whatever to show that he did. 

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

My bold.  I could see how Mr. Wilkerson came to this impression.  I am assuming this web-page and the speech is legit.  There is a slight chance that Lew Rockwell could have actually written it.

[garbon]

Thereby you destabilize your own society and economy, and ensure that your unskilled poor citizens get less access to employment.

Okay, Grapes of Wrath.

[Sheilbh]

Thereby you destabilize your own society and economy, and ensure that your unskilled poor citizens get less access to employment.

Okay, Grapes of Wrath.

Tamas's attitude to immigration seems extremely European.

[Capetan Mihali]

Voluntary associations is not at all a gotcha line in my eyes.  If a country (the US) has laws against the immigration that suggests all parties are not entering into it voluntarily.

I don't know why the problems of where private property comes would be read as limited to real property in the piece, or in general.  Institutional capital and family wealth come from somewhere, and the fruits of one's labor are always derived from interactions with both, so the it seems like the same basic problem is there, however you end up resolving it.

I don't know that the fruits of one's labors are always derived from interaction with family wealth.  And I don't know that family wealth is always derived from misgotten real property.  And I don't know what institutional capital means.  Can you put that in bourgeois terms?

One of the problems with arguing against property rights on the basis that they were misgotten is that it assumes someone else possessed the property rights in the first place.  He he.

I don't think I'm capable of debating the whole nature of private property at this point, in "bourgeois terms" or any other terms, if there are any.   I was just trying to explicate what I thought the article had to say, and to try to practice posting amiably.   

[Admiral Yi]

I thought you did very well.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Thereby you destabilize your own society and economy, and ensure that your unskilled poor citizens get less access to employment.

Okay, Grapes of Wrath.

Tamas's attitude to immigration seems extremely European.

One need only look at France or Germany to see how successful their policies are.

[Valmy]

One need only look at France or Germany to see how successful their policies are.

Meh.  It is always going to be harder in the Old World with their ethnic based states and identitiy.  I am not sure any policies can change the fundamental basis for a society and states' existance.

[garbon]

One need only look at France or Germany to see how successful their policies are.

Meh.  It is always going to be harder in the Old World with their ethnic based states and identitiy.  I am not sure any policies can change the fundamental basis for a society and states' existance.

Seems like the ethnic basis would get blurred and start to fade if you have more immigrants.

[Valmy]

Seems like the ethnic basis would get blurred and start to fade if you have more immigrants.

Which then calls into question the whole raison d'être of the state as a political expression of a nationality.  I mean what is Germany besides the homeland of the Germans?  Why else does it exist at all?  An interesting dilemma.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Seems like the ethnic basis would get blurred and start to fade if you have more immigrants.

Which then calls into question the whole raison d'être of the state as a political expression of a nationality.  I mean what is Germany besides the homeland of the Germans?  Why else does it exist at all?  An interesting dilemma.

To administer the territories of the country called Germany? Who else would do it?  Not like libertarianism works outside of Baen's stable of hack authors' masturbation books.

[garbon]

Seems like the ethnic basis would get blurred and start to fade if you have more immigrants.

Which then calls into question the whole raison d'être of the state as a political expression of a nationality.  I mean what is Germany besides the homeland of the Germans?  Why else does it exist at all?  An interesting dilemma.

Well on some level I suppose that's the bit about the EU and some people's hopes for it. On the other - I'm not sure that it is anymore interesting that any of the many states that exist for non-ethnic reasons. (See many of the American nations - and African ones to boot. Actually even pickup India.)

[Malthus]

Seems like the ethnic basis would get blurred and start to fade if you have more immigrants.

Which then calls into question the whole raison d'être of the state as a political expression of a nationality.  I mean what is Germany besides the homeland of the Germans?  Why else does it exist at all?  An interesting dilemma.

The notion, while widespread, has always been somewhat problematic.

The history of modernity is writ in the tension between ethno-nationalism and liberal universalism. 

[Tamas]

There were times, not so long ago, that a state was primarily the domain of a given crown and secondarily a dominion of a religion. When these two stopped making sense for the population, -surprise surprise- national identity became the prime importance.
We (well, probably not us, but a future generation) will see the day when national identity will be as obscure and secondary as religious is in Europe now.

[Valmy]

On the other - I'm not sure that it is anymore interesting that any of the many states that exist for non-ethnic reasons. (See many of the American nations - and African ones to boot. Actually even pickup India.)

On the contrary it is far easier fur us over here.  African nations have all sorts of problems because of ethnic issues, but supposedly because they are NOT based on ethnicity and thus struggle to get real national solidarity.  Same for India actually.  The very fact India exists at all is rather miraculous.  A very unexpected positive consequence for the otherwise dreary history of the Brits in India.

The problem in the New World is around race not ethnicity.  Thanks to our particular historical baggage.