Elusive Trope's picture

    The Liberal Conundrum and Ron Paul

    By Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:38am |

    The mixed reactions from those on the Left regarding Ron Paul seems to me to come the collision between two very strong perspectives or attitudes.

    On the one hand, liberals believe in a strong role of the government when it comes to ensuring an equitable and just society.  We don't believe anybody should be left behind and those who would lessen the common good for their individual benefit should be thwarted.  We believe it does take a village and a corporation shouldn't dump toxic waste into the nearby river because it is cheaper.

    The conundrum arises because in the modern world, the village has to operate in many or most cases through the state.  Whether it is educating our children, enforcing environmental laws, assisting those in poverty, or dealing with our global neighbors, it is the state - local, state and federal - that has take at least the lead role in the matter.

    And while on the one hand, we know it takes a village, on the other hand we have a deep and ideological belief of anti-authoritarianism.  The Civil Rights Movement which then fed into the anti-war movement, along with the rise of the counter-culture of the late 60's, intensified this belief.  The Man or Big Brother or whatever one wanted to call those who controlled the power apparatus took on a near absolute evilness.  Revolution was in the air.

    While this became toned down in subsequent generations, the liberal mindset has an issue with authority when that authority resides in the state (and in other manifestations as well I would argue).

    We want the village to be involved in our lives, to protect and promote the common good; but we don't trust the institutions of the village that have been set up to get involved to do just that.  We don't trust the individuals walk the hallways of those institutions and don't trust the agenda of those institutions.  We reflexively oppose the oppressor State who seeks to undermine the common good.

    A politician like Ron Paul taps into that distrust.  If he's against The Man, then he can't be all bad.  It is hard to not see him as being on our side (since there is only the side of the good and the side of the bad, one has to be either this or that).

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  If we not only not support Paul, but also actively seek to undermine him, are we not at the same time supporting The Man continue with the oppression, the corruption, the attack on the common good?

    Yet we also know Paul doesn't like the federal government being part of the village.

    Such is the liberal conundrum. 

    Comments

    You have some hell of a nerve poaching on Destor's longest running blog. Why, that blog has become something akin to waking up and seeing the Sun rise again. Like the Sun, all is well, the Ron Paul blog is still going, thank God, all is right with the world. wink

    Now what were you saying?(stolen from Dick Day).

    Kidding aside, it's a worthwhile shift. And excellent post. Ron Paul is a harbinger, a canary, a cancer sore that confirms that some pretty important problems exist in the body I wouldn't have said this before the longest running blog was established, but if you pick and choose, he has at least brought some things---particularly our war mongering and profiteering to light. Is there someway we can cut him out of the picture, view him as a weird harbinger who has no relevancy beyond that definition.?

    Happy New Year.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 11:09am

    i actually have a lot of nerves, and most of them are frayed. 

    Ron Paul is a harbinger, a canary, a cancer sore that confirms that some pretty important problems exist in the body....Is there someway we can cut him out of the picture, view him as a weird harbinger who has no relevancy beyond that definition.?

    That about sums up it up as far as I am concerned.

    Ron Paul highlights the human propensity to seek a human embodiment of the abstract ideologies and concepts swirling in our heads.  The Cult of Personality - whether Paul or Obama or Reagan or Gerry Garcia - is something with which we will always struggle I am afraid.  If we cut Ron Paul out of the picture, people will only try to find his replacement, bringing along whatever baggage this individual has gathered in their quest to be the replacement.

    Happy New Year.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 11:36am

    There is truth in both comments.

    When there are 2,536 comments it is hard for me to get into that groove so I do not mind another look from another perspective.

    The Ron Pauls will always be with us and it is better that the chosen leader for this populist, racist, isolationist, anti-empathetic movement is 106 years of age and looks like that old man at the end of the cul de sac who yells at kids when puppies poop on his lawn.

    I think I laugh at him--every time I see him--because he would be mostly clean with regard to normal bribes and he would never stand for extortion attempts.

    Which means that Exxon and rejuvenated Enrons and hedge funds and all the evil giant fictional constructs of law who really do run just about everything in this country and every other country would be at a loss as to how to deal with the old fart.

    At least in the days of yesteryear the big unions of old could compete in the arenas of bribery and extortion; the key factors in all of politics.

    But if Mr. Paul were 30 years younger and a great speaker, I for one would be scared to death of him.

    And I guess I really have forgotten what the original point of this comment was going to be! hahahhaha


    by Richard Day on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:25pm

    Ron Paul is sad, funny poster child for hey-you-kids-get-off-my damn-lawn politics.  But if he did have a little more charisma, he would downright scary.  Of course, there is his son (cue ominous music).

    When there are 2,536 comments it is hard for me to get into that groove....And I guess I really have forgotten what the original point of this comment was going to be! hahahhaha

    Maybe that is the brilliance of Ron Paul.  He gets us going every which but loose we end not even knowing what it was we were talking about.  Is it racism? The Fed? Foreign Policy? Addicts and the drug laws?  The mindset of his followers?  Freedom and the Constitution?


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 12:50pm

    I would add Destor's blog has gotten down into the details of Paul's positions and stances - which is where the devil is, or so they say, and why it is important to discuss them. But I think the more general view of what it is about the liberal perspective or paradigm makes him an attractive candidate, regardless of the specific details and how Paul personally views them, is also important, and has gotten lost in the back and forth over Paul as the man and politician.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 1:45pm

    First, you have me laughing hard. No kidding.

    Second, I assure you I have been spending time on Destor's blog.

    Great insights and great comments.

    The left is mad and at times I am ready to throw up my hands and state:

    TEAR THIS BUILDING DOWN!


    by Richard Day on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 2:17pm

    Why tear it down when you can burn it down.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 2:36pm

    I think it's canker sore.


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 3:17pm

    Thanks, that's what I meant.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 3:28pm

    I think cancer sore works, though.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 4:04pm

    There's no conundrum. Liberals are starting to realize the merits of Ron Paul because liberals are realizing that government doesn't necessarily do things liberals would like. Government can throw African Americans in prison under the Drug War. Government can kill thousands in questionable wars. Government can bail out Wall Street for failed bets.

    A lot of enlightened liberals are opening up to the libertarian social contract. Sure, you won't get all your shiny welfare state programs, but you can stop the Government from doing harmful things in your name with your tax dollars. At this point, it's not looking like a bad deal.


    by KeithinVA (not verified) on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 4:07pm

    See this is where I get mad and I wish to tear the building down.

    Except Paul and his moronic followers would look away, look away, look away from Dixie Land as they imprison 50% of the minorities within their state lines.


    by Richard Day on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 4:23pm

    ahh the *early vegas elvis--shoulda' gotten the stamp...

     

    *while the speed still had enough effect to keep him from hoovering up peanutbutterhoneybanana croques preslies.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 4:34pm

    hahahahahahahah

    Ah Jolly my buddy! ha


    by Richard Day on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 4:45pm

    Let us mourn together for the king...(whadda these kids today know about rock 'n roll?)


    by jollyroger on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 4:48pm

    got a bite


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 4:24pm

    If there was no conundrum, liberals would be flocking to Ron Paul.  But they're not.  And for many, such as myself, it is a bad deal.  It is agreeing to jump out of the pot and into the fire.  If government isn't doing what it is suppose to be doing than the goal is to find a way to ensure that it does.  Just because some broke it doesn't mean it can't be fix or that it shouldn't be fixed.  I shouldn't have to have corporations doing whatever they see fit in order to keep the government out of questionable wars.  We can keep out questionable wars and regulate corporations in a just and efficient manner, and which supports the greater good.

    I would posit that the liberals who are opening up to the libertarian social contract are far from enlightened.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 4:29pm

    My enemy's enemy is my friend?  Any takers?


    by jollyroger on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 4:36pm

    Steve "Kingmaker" King - if not a friend, than definitely a strange bedfellow.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 4:38pm

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    OK, I'm an old fart too.  Just remember, if you live long enough you will also enter that sacred ground of old fartism.  And believe me, you will get gassier as you get older!  Anyhow, I hope you don't buy all the stuff about Ron Paul being a racist.  If you look at the man's actions and not the words of a couple newsletters that some ghost writer authored, you will find the truth.  Ron Paul provided medical services at no charge to people of all colors and backgrounds.  Don't you think it's strange that it is all rich white Republicans that keep churning these charges in the media?  Don't you think it is odd that he has promised to pardon all non-violent federal drug offenders - particularly because he feels blacks are disproportionately charged, convicted, and jailed?  Also, be really careful about what you read in the MSM - they are for the large part run by neocons and big business.  For example, you will hear he refused to vote for a medal for Rosa Parks, won't you won't hear is that he ponied up his own money to buy the medal but the other millionaires refused.  It's just a matter of principal with him.  Agree or disagree, but don't be mislead by the MSM.

    Rick Duffin

    Cleveland, OHio

     


    by Rick Duffin (not verified) on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 6:11pm

    While I appreciate you taking the time to post your thoughts, as far as this blog is concerned whether Ron Paul is or isn't a racist is irrelevant. In fact Ron Paul's particular beliefs about anything are irrelevant.  This blog is concerned with the liberal's attraction to anti-authority rhetoric, while at the same time having an attraction to governmental intervention for the common good. 


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 6:44pm

    Don't you think it is odd that he has promised to pardon all non-violent federal drug offenders 

    Well, Obama's gonna do that too,....soon....I'm pretty sure...


    by jollyroger on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 6:45pm

    Can you wait another year or so until the economy picks up?


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 6:59pm

     I can wait, but I'm not in the slam

    If , as Duffin has alerted us above, when voting in an improbable Obama v. Paul contest, one were obliged to frame a vote for Obama as a vote to continue caging hundreds of thousands of innocent victims of prohibition, I think I'm pullin' that Paul lever, help me Jesus!


    by jollyroger on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 7:10pm

    Please don't take this as a specific argument with you, but in general there seems to be a lot of disillusioned former Obama supporters who are now doing to Ron Paul exactly what they did to Obama. (1) They're projecting their own beliefs on to Ron Paul where there is at best ambiguity, and (2) (and this one applies more to your comment above) They somehow are under the impression that Ron Paul isn't a politician who will find reasons not to deliver on his campaign promises.

    Granted, Ron Paul has a lot more voting history under his belt than Obama, but as has been pointed out many times, it's sometimes hard to remember that President Obama used to be Senator Obama.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 7:51pm

    Comparing the behavior of an individual as Senator (or Representative) with his or her behavior as President brings to mind an addendum to a publication about the Stanley Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures.  The addendum was discussing studies done by the military during WWII on what factors and barriers there were in soldiers not firing their weapons.  Apparently, from the military point of view, there was a high incidence of soldiers out in the "trenches" not firing their weapons even when they were under attack.  One of their studies found that as the number of individuals involved in a big gun/cannon firing, the more likely they were to fire the weapon.  In other words, the larger the group, the less the individual felt personally responsible for the consequences of firing the weapons.

    When someone is just a member of Congress, the actions and consequences of those actions are further removed form one.  One is just part of the system, the machine.  Much as the same way a prosecutor can seek the death penalty with greater psychological ease because he or she knows there is an appeals process and they are not making the final decision, let alone not being the one who flips the switch.  Ultimately it is the president who signs it into law.  He or she can veto it.  Moreover, an executive order is solely the President's and only the President's.  The buck stops here.  The same kind of dynamic is at play with Supreme Court justices in regards to them suddenly making decisions that are more liberal or conservative than when they sat on the bench below.

    (Another interesting tidbit from addendum was it was as a result of these studies which led them to change their basic training instructions from "shoot the enemy" to "protect your buddy."  They found when the soldiers perceived their shooting of their weapons as means to protect the guys alongside them, they firing rate was much higher than when they perceived the same firing as a means to kill the person on the other end.)


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 8:38pm

    You mean he won't free the junkies?  Shit, burned again.  I was sure Obama would filibuster telecom immunity, I mean, he promised.


    by jollyroger on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 9:16pm

    Exactly. I knew Obama would disappoint me, and then he disappointed me beyond what I expected. I don't know why anyone would think that Paul wouldn't similarly disappoint. The only Presidents who don't disappoint me are the ones I had no hope for in the first place.


    by Verified Atheist on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 9:23pm

    and then he disappointed me beyond what I expected. 

    This teases out to a strangely Escher like concept....


    by jollyroger on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 9:30pm

    I think you're right about the conundrum. He does appeal to our anti-authority roots.  And those are very American roots.  But born from an era where regal, rather than corporate, power was the problem.  Paul wants to further free the corporations.  In that sense, he's no libertarian.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 6:56pm

    As someone who identifies with liberals, I'm trying to figure out this conundrum that's being offered up.  I don't get it.  (maybe pick a different word?)  In fact, I think conservatives are the ones stuck in a conundrum with respect to Ron Paul.  Trope's reply to KeithinVA above demonstrates this confusion  -- "If there was no conundrum, liberals would be flocking to Ron Paul. But they're not."  That defies logic.  Liberals aren't flocking to Ron Paul because -- well there are a thousand reasons -- but if there was a conundrum, wouldn't we see more liberals supporting him?

    Try imagining a debate between Barack Obama and Ron Paul and then apply the conundrum tag.  I just don't see it.   


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 9:17pm

    Read Jollyroger's latest blog and you will see the conundrum in real time.  It is not a conundrum for everyone who see themselves as a liberal.  I don't personally experience it myself.  But there are many liberals out there in the blogosphere it would seem who really like his anti-foreign intervention, stop the war on drugs, anti patriot act, we are becoming a Police State, et al. stuff (the anti-authority or anti-authoritarianism).  He is one of the few politicians out there with much of a media presence who is taking these positions.  Because of that, some liberals find themselves wanting to support Paul in order to support those causes / positions.

    But - and here is the conundrum - by supporting Paul on these fronts, there is sense or the reality (depending on who you talk to) that you are, by virtue of that support, also affirming his other positions which relate to ripping out the social safety net among other things [the whole anti-it takes a federal village). 

    Life is easy if one can just say: "I'm a supporter of [insert politician's name here]."  But with Paul, liberals cannot do this.  They have to immediately qualify that statement lest they come across as supporting ripping out the safety net, etc.

    Yet these liberals feel really really strong about the anti-authoritarian side.  Paul really really hits a positive nerve.  The urge to support him is strong.  But dang it - it does take a village.  We can't just let the free market decide who suffers and who doesn't.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 9:36pm

    And just to respond specifically to this:

    Trope's reply to KeithinVA above demonstrates this confusion  -- "If there was no conundrum, liberals would be flocking to Ron Paul. But they're not."  That defies logic.  Liberals aren't flocking to Ron Paul because -- well there are a thousand reasons -- but if there was a conundrum, wouldn't we see more liberals supporting him?

    My response was to someone who was implying that liberals were beginning to flock to Paul because they becoming enlightened to his wisdom and brilliance.  I don't see this flocking, just like you.  Yet there is plenty of evidence on this site and elsewhere that there particular stances taken by Paul which liberals are in agreement with him. 

    Now how is it that you have a politician who has people very passionately agreeing with him or her on a number of issues, yet these same people are not flocking to this politician.  Well, as you said, there are a thousand reasons, or hundreds if we're being kind. 

    So - if there are a thousands reasons to not support him, and you go around spreading the word about these thousands of reasons, would you not also be implying that this man's thinking is seriously flawed.  And would it not follow that this would mean such positions like occupying Afghanistan is a bad thing is a product of a man whose thinking is seriously flawed. 

    Are you not by demonstrating the flaw-ness of Paul, in effect supporting the continued occupation of Iraq? Actually no, you are not, as we both know.  But that is how it feels or is perceived in the public political discourse. 

    And then we get back to the flip side of this where supporting Paul, by saying he has some good ideas or he has reasonable and intelligent thoughts about this or that issue, can be perceived as saying it reasonable and intelligent to get rid of the social safety net we currently have.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 9:49pm

    I follow it, Trope, I just really don't agree, with all due respect to Jolly.  Ron Paul is no conundrum for liberals.  I'd say in the framework you've constructed, Obama is more of a conundrum.  That's while I'll repeat my desire to see the two debate.  I think it could be fascinating.


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:04pm

    There plenty of conundrums out there.  I chose just one to talk about.  As destor points out below, the conservatives have a conundrum with Ron Paul.  And there are liberal who face a conundrum with Obama.  But although you and some other liberals don't feel the Paul conundrum, liberals like jolly do.  So you can't really make the blanket statement "Ron Paul is no conundrum for liberals."

    I would add that the reason this particular conundrum has arisen is because some liberals see themselves faced with the possibility of voting for him, or at least rooting for him during this primary season - in the past he never stood a chance, and the media completely ignored, and he made little dent on the blogosphere.  Now he is a "rising star" - and some liberals are finding themselves torn about their feelings toward Paul.  They may be more torn in the feeling about Obama, but that doesn't negate the torn-ness they feel regarding Paul.

    In short, this blog is not about what is the greatest conundrum faced by liberals or what conundrum is experienced by the most number of liberals.  To those questions I have not given my pondering mind.


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:17pm

    Okay, Jolly makes 1.  Maybe.  Give me some more numbers.  Show me all these liberals torn over whether or not to throw in their lot with Ron Paul.  I did a cursory search that turned up nothin'.


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:39pm

    Nothing huh?

    In a few seconds I had this piece

    But it's not just [John] Stewart or high-profile self-professed liberals who like Paul. In a New York office this week, a man who sits near me is a life-long Democrat, who I don't think has ever cast a single national vote for a conservative. Typically, he's carrying on with displeasure about Rick Perry's comments and antics, professing loud disdain for the Texas Governor's politics.

    Yet when discussion turned to Paul this week, the gentleman rose from his chair, waving his arms, while saying how much he liked Ron Paul. He wasn't planning to vote for Paul, of course, but the affection was obvious. "He's a bit crazy," the man said, referring to Paul, "but he's quite interesting. I really like him."

    As this blurb brings up ("He wasn't planning to vote for Paul, of course,...") I am not talking about people throwing their lot in with Paul.  I am talking about liberals who in essence find themselves talking positive about Paul, in the blogosphere. 

    Here is the opening paragraph from a piece by Kyle Victor on Huffington Post.

    Many liberals, myself included, have long harbored some sympathy for Ron Paul. I suspect that this is not only because of his refusal to follow the neo-conservatives on issues like civil liberties, but also because the man, like a squirrel, has always seemed so very harmless. As long as his chances of actually running the country remained about nil, it was easy to concentrate on the refreshing and the brave of his positions and to ignore the paranoid and the bizarre.

    I don't have time to go find some threads over the years and find the comments by this or that liberal (which by the way are not going to come up on some search engine).

    There was a similar issue with McCain, for different reasons, when many liberals who found him acceptable in the 2000 election ('he's the only Republican I could see myself voting for' kind of sentiment), but in 2008 election had to reassess their affection for the maverick.

    Beyond this I'm not that interested in convincing you of this phenomenon.


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 12:17am

    Count me as number 2, then. I wouldn't vote for the guy, and there are a lot of things about him that trouble me, but I'm glad he's in Congress raising the stink that he tends to raise. I think Ron Paul is valuable, I just don't want him as President.


    by Verified Atheist on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 10:16am

    I'd agree that conservatives (which is a broad term, broader than we sometimes credit it) also have a Ron Paul conundrum.  I think this is part of the problem with both of the parties, so far as what a lot of people want and believe.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:07pm

    Yes.  How about we just say Ron Paul is a conundrum, and leave it at that.


    by kyle flynn on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:12pm

    Sounds like the words of someone doesn't want to delve into the messiness of one's own paradigm, to shift through the psyche and see what pops up for fear of what one might find, to ponder the potential inconsistencies and gaps. wink 

    But seriously, one could say that the point of the blog is to highlight the fact that Ron Paul is not a conundrum.  He merely is a phenomenon which acts as a catalyst and facilitator of the internal conundrum existing within the modern liberal in America. 

    This is actually related to when Camus said neither man nor the universe are absurd.  Absurdity arise in the relationship between the two as man seeking clarity confronts a silent universe which refuses that clarity.

     


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:25pm

    Well, way back in the New Left of the Sixties, we were more libertarian-ish, anti-government than conservatives. Free speech. Do your own thing. Anti-draft. Tax protesting. Conservatives were more law and order-ish. (Not the show.)

    Libertarians can't address corporations. In their terms, there's NO difference between GE and the corner store. They're both private enterprises and should be given maximum freedom to pursue happiness and gold.

    Liberals are now pro-government and in some ways always were because it is the only entity big and powerful enough to provide a counterbalance to corporate power.

    It's really only in foreign policy that libertarians and some liberals coalesce. Thanks to Bush's wars and some of Obama's moves, foreign policy has become extremely deadly so it looms large. Were it not for foreign policy, we would not be discussing Ron Paul on dagblog. Full stop.

    Remember, Ron Paul ran in 2008 and was saying the SAME THINGS he's saying now. When he ran on the Libertarian ticket, he was saying the same things. This is not a secret; he will tell you that he's been working on this his entire adult life.


    by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 01/03/2012 - 1:51pm

    Ron Paul is popular with the socially liberal, fiscally conservative aka libertarian section of the political compass for the simple reason that he was right about gold, never mind that he was right in the same way that a broken clock is at least twice a day.

    FWIW,  I read here that it was Lew Rockwell who actually penned the questionable newsletters.  While I have never read Paul's newsletters, LewRockwell.com was once one of my regular reads.  The writing there was never racist or sexist.  Not sure why I stopped checking in.  Sometimes there are some interesting voices featured.  And gold quotes, of course.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 8:31pm

    So Lew is a paleolibertarian? Hmmm.  I've heard it is those post-neo-paleolibertarians one has to really watch out for.  Those guys are really whacked. 

    But seriously, I don't know much about the gold standard in large part because from what I little I do know it seems to me that it has a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming a reality, so why bother my brain with it.  I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the complexities of the global market economy, the existence and power of the multi-national corporations, and just the overall enmeshness of everyone's economies means a country like the US just is in no way going to go back to the gold standard.

    As such, it is like anarchists professing their allegiance to countries operating under the principles of anarchy - it will never happen, so they never have to confront the realities of ideology, and yet they can point to it and claim since it is not a reality yet this is why there are the problems we have.  This ultimately gives them an out of having to participate in the real work of finding and implementing solutions that will improve the situation. (It also allows them to feel superior to those fools who "support" the status quo and in general "just don't get it." - and since the fools can't prove a negative, the anarchists and libertarians can't be proven wrong.  Because of this they embrace their fringe-ness because it only proves that they are superior to the ignorant masses, duped by the media and the government.  They are like the people who get actually angry when the band they discovered in some hole in the wall suddenly gets discovered and the fools who don't what real music are now eating up this 'best unknown band.') 


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 9:01pm

    So Lew is a paleolibertarian.

    Well, sure he is, at least to Reason magazine and a couple of its writer/editors. :-)

    The problem with the gold standard is that there is a relatively finite quantity of gold.  As such it appeals to people who are more interested in the store-of-value function of money than its medium-of-exchange function; iow, the scrooges.  They want to play Monopoly for real and control most or all the gold which general population growth would only make more valuable.

    Oh, and please do not mock the fringe-ness of outside the Overton window political ideas just as I am developing my own.  It is way better than all those other guys'.

     


    by EmmaZahn on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:01pm

    Actually I love that which is beyond the fringe


    by Elusive Trope on Fri, 12/30/2011 - 10:27pm

    I don't believe in "the state."  It doesn't exist.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 1:08am

    That's okay, it doesn't believe in "Dan Kervick" either. wink


    by Elusive Trope on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 1:59am

    I read your blog and then went to google because I did not know the definition of ‘conundrum’ though I thought I understood its meaning as you used it. I had a vague idea that “conundrum” was not quite the correct word unless the *Ron Paul* question was defined in a narrow way and objective way. I was surprised to find that most definitions say that the answer to a conundrum commonly involves a pun. That was evidence for me that the RP question does not qualify as a conundrum because there is absolutely nothing puny about it.

    One definition was, “A question or problem having only a conjectural answer”. Using that definition does make most any question about RP a conundrum.

    Another definition is, “A paradoxical, insoluble, or difficult problem; a dilemma”. This definition seems to me to best fit the way you framed your blog.

    Since I am usually about as hard headed and defensive of my positions as anyone I want to say that your blog has taught me something. I now have a more nuanced understanding of the word ‘conundrum’ and I will concede that it was a fair word to use. [That isn't really all I got from it] What prompts me to make this comment though is my fascination with ironic coincidence. The link below goes to the seventh hit in my google search. It is to a collection of conundrums. The advertising banner at the top is for donations to Ron Paul’s campaign and has a picture fit for Mt. Everest of his ugly mug. So it actually is the case that next to the word conundrum is a picture of Ron Paul.

    http://www.angelfire.com/oh/abnorm/

    Happy New Year to you and all.

     

    　


    by Anonymous LULU (not verified) on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 12:10pm

    Latest Comments