Thoughts on the Ron Paul newsletters

The old story on Ron Paul's newsletters has surfaced again, with Ron Paul claiming he knew nothing about them and never read them.

While I doubt Ron Paul is a racist, and I understand that the story is old, and I get that all of the other candidates are far more evil, it still baffles my mind that Ron Paul would make such a bizarre and easily avoidable mistake.

Let's not pretend that these newsletters were merely "politically incorrect." They were, in fact, horrifically racist and incendiary. The comments on apartheid in South Africa especially made my stomach churn, as did the KKK-esque warnings of a "coming race war."

Ron Paul is probably telling the truth that he didn't write them, but surely he knew something about them. They were (most likely) written by his paleo buddies, and it's laughably unlikely that Paul doesn't know which of them were involved.

It's also ridiculously unlikely that Paul knew nothing about their content. While Paul may not be a racist, my honest opinion is that he didn't mind letting his paleo friends pander to them. This vile shit was going out under HIS NAME. Written in the first person. Sometimes with his SIGNATURE after it. I don't know about you, but anyone who published such filth under my name would get their lights knocked out--especially if I was in politics for Chrissakes. It clearly didn't bother Paul much..which is simply amazing.

I find that unbelievably bizarre. Why wasn't Paul bothered by the whole ordeal? Did he seriously think it wouldn't come back to bite him on the ass, if nothing else?

Strange, man.

Bachmann: Raise taxes on the poor! Fuck yeah!

Republicans are now aiming to hike taxes on the poor and middle class. Bachmann says everybody should "pay something" to the murderous state, and by "everybody" she means everyone except the rich (who will be on the "receiving" end of the robbery). The other big contenders seem to agree.

While we've come to expect this from Republicans, I'm surprised how few libertarians have jumped on this outrage. This is the most horrific and anti-human tax raise I've ever heard of, and it's from the "anti-tax" party.

Why freedom and capitalism are incompatible

Part of being a committed political blogger is evaluating and re-evaluating your views over time. While I remain committed to the demise of the state, along with market economics, I've come to accept most of the leftist critique of modern capitalism.

As the economy currently stands, large corporations and banks maximize returns for a dwindling number of wealthy absentee owners--who contribute no real labor (entrepreneurial or otherwise) to their enterprises. For obvious reasons, this tends to slant the entire economy in their favor, at the expense of everybody else. One credible study concluded that "reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in [recent profit] margins."

It's not just the inevitable (excessive) inequality of this arrangement that's problematic. It's the fact that the absentee owners couldn't care less about workplace safety, workplace liberty, leisure time, or local communities. A democratically-run firm would have a far stronger incentive to care about all four, instead of being concerned only with profits for outside investors.

That's not to say that there wouldn't be investors under my version of market anarchism. Investment is a form of mental labor that deserves to be compensated in the form of interest. But most capitalist "investment" consists of merely buying stock from other absentee owners, rather than pumping fresh capital into productive enterprises.

There would still be managers and entrepreneurs, as well. The difference is that everyone in the firm would have democratic control over people put in managerial positions (assuming they don't choose to manage in a more cooperative fashion). The division of labor remains intact, but the gratuitous authoritarianism of modern corporate America is dealt a big blow.

Kevin Carson et all were right all along. Markets =/= capitalism. We can and should embrace the first concept without the second.

A decision to be proud of

This afternoon, I did what I should have done a long time ago and joined the ACLU. After watching the Republican candidates brag about how they will invade Iran and murder every living thing there, I decided that I will do whatever it takes to fight these sick bastards (including the Obombya regime) and everything they stand for. I am proud to ally myself with such a fine organization, and happy that my donation will also go toward fighting the war on drugs, creationism in schools, the prison system, and all the other idiocy that conservatives support.

If O'Reilly hates them, they deserve support. Period.

What kind of "ist" am I?

Over the last few years, I've defined and redefined what kind of "ist" I am. In case anyone is wondering (who am I kidding?), I still identify as an individualist anarchist. And after becoming better read on worker self-management, especially by left-libertarian authors like Kirkpatrick Sale, I've come to accept the traditional anti-capitalist strand of individualist anarchism. I've had my issues with worker cooperatives in the past, but most of the objections I had have been answered. I just had to read the right books! (Thank you, Human Scale)

I'm a manager myself...at a big corporation. Does that not make me a hypocrite? My own answer is "no." Managers would still exist in worker-run companies. The big difference is that they would either be: a) everybody, or b) under democratic control. The structure of the company would change, but the role would still exist. And that's good enough for me!

Mitt Romney: blood-thirsty nacissist and wannabe child-murderer

No Republican debate was more terrifying than the last one, in which the candidates gave their opinions on foreign policy. Virtually all of the candidates supported torture, invading Iran, gratuitous threats to other countries, and eradicating anyone who objects to our evil government.

The candidates are all loons, but the worst is Mitt Romney because he will surely be the nominee. Rick Perry isn't a smooth-enough talker to keep a smiley face on the fascist machine, Cain is laughable, and none of the rest have a chance at being president. The elite have chosen Romney because he puts a "reasonable" face on the grotesque policies they seek to impose.

Romney wants the US to label China a "currency manipulator" (he doesn't see the irony, of course) and impose tariffs on their products to protect inefficient and idiotic American industries. The fact that China is holding all our government's debt is beyond him. The fact that this could lead us down the path to a nuclear war with a superpower is beyond him.

Romney is a hubris-filled lunatic with no grasp of reality. And he's exactly the kind of blood-thirsty egomaniac state power attracts.

God help us.

My triumphant return

I recently decided that I am going to go back to blogging regularly. I know I've said that before, but I *mean it* this time! My hiatus has not been without reason: it's been a crazy year--though also one of the best in my life. I moved into a new place (after much deliberation), went on a long safari through Africa (best vacation ever!), dealt with a number of personal issues (don't ask), and got the promotion I wanted at work (yippee!).

I had a lot I had to take care of this year, and it distracted me from nearly all of my other hobbies. Finally, I feel like I have the time to go back to what I've enjoyed doing for so long: blogging about how much I hate the elites. All of my new posts will be available both here and on Skeptical Eye. With the sham "elections" set for next year, there will be much to write about.

-Cork