Bill Weinberg calls out Ron Paul: bogus “libertarian”!

In the sixth YouTube edition of the Moorish Orthodox Radio CrusadeWorld War 4 Report editor Bill Weinberg calls out Ron Paul as a neo-Confederate crank and pseudo-libertarian reactionary—and particularly defends the memory and honor of the great homegrown American anarchist and abolitionist Lysander Spooner against Paul's slimy revisionist attempt to appropriate his legacy. Share this with all your friends who are rooting for Ron Paul!

ERRATUM: Frederick Douglass was not ambassador to Haiti under Lincoln, but consul to Haiti from 1889 to 1891 under President Benjamin Harrison.

If you support our message, please support us! Even a small donation will help assure that we can continue our work! Thank you…

See our last post on the Ron Paul pathology, and the last episode of the Moorish Orthodox Radio Crusade.

Please leave a tip or answer the Exit Poll.

  1. Pay-to-play policy for Ron Paul posts
    We know from bitter empirical experience that if we allow the comments in a post about Ron Paul to be a free-for-all, it will quickly become a forum for pro-Confederacy revisionism and other such noxious propaganda. Because we have no desire to loan these vile voices any more of a soapbox than they already have, we are charging a minimum of $5 per comment—only on posts about Ron Paul. As you Paulistas should understand, this website is our private property and we therefore have the perfect right to do this. You may use the PayPal button below. Please make sure you post under the same name that you use for the PayPal payment so we can keep track. This will also be a measure of the quality of the comments: The price will go up as the comments get more asinine, or (less likely) drop as they get more intelligent. Our Posting Policy still applies, so please read it first.

    OK, fire at will…

  2. What’s the trouble?
    I challenged you to a debate at another location, and you refused. Surely you can best a wacky Ron Paul supporter in a debate, can’t you? It can’t be that hard, can it? You wouldn’t put your money where your mouth was, though. So, I paid you $5 to make sure that we could have the debate, or, failing that, so any visitor to this article could know how afraid you are of debating a Ron Paul supporter. I thus created the website for the debate:

    See you there.

    Oh, and Ayn Rand wasn’t a libertarian. She was an objectivist. Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian either – nor does he claim to be. He is a constitutional conservative. A baby doesn’t have the right to be born? Whatever inconvenience the mother may face is more important?

    We’ll see what you’re made of. Either you’re a debate, or you’re going to prove how scared you are of Ron Paul supporters on your own website.

    Oh yeah, and if this comment doesn’t make it up, I’m going to sue you for false advertising. The free market can do that, too.

    1. No trouble at all
      There are so many of you freaks spewing incoherently every time I post about Ron Paul that I can’t keep track of you all. I don’t recall the debate challenge, and I don’t know what you mean by “another location.” Right here is fine with me. When I go to the website you claim to have created (I welcome the publicity), I get the following: is COMING SOON to REGISTER.COM

      I agree with you that Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian! That’s what I’ve been saying! Unfortunately, he claims to be. He ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988. As far as I know, he has never repudiated the Libertarian ideology. If you have information to the contrary, please share it! It would make me very happy! (Next, we can argue about whether he is a “constitutionalist,” since he doesn’t uphold constitutional rights.)

      Objectivism is the philosophical foundation (if we may so flatter it) of right-wing libertarianism. This is made clear on the website of The Atlas Society, which, to its credit, makes note of left-libertarianism, stating:

      Libertarianism is the political position that all human relationships should be voluntary, i.e. not subject to the initiation of force by another person. Inasmuch as this is also part of the Objectivist politics, Objectivism is a libertarian philosophy. Not all libertarian thinking is compatible with Objectivism, and some libertarians promote philosophical ideas that would destroy liberty if put into practice, such as skepticism, ethical subjectivism, and anarchism.

      This is actually very astute. I am a radical skeptic and an anarchist. Of course I disagree that these ideas would “destroy liberty,” but I give the writer credit for acknowledging that they exist and are part of the libertarian tradition. I didn’t say that Ayn Rand was a libertarian, I said that she was an icon of libertarians. And she is.

      I note you have nothing to say about Murray Rothbard, who I also invoked, and who was definitely a libertarian. See his essay, “Why Be Libertarian?” on the website of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. You aren’t arguing very honestly.

      It will cost you another five dollars to reply.

      1. Paul-suckers are easily intimidated
        Well, Tony? I expected you to come back swinging. You could at least admit you were talking out your ass.

        Tell you what, I will drop the price to $1 just for you, and even offer a discount: You can have 12 responses for $10.

        And if you admit defeat, you should be man enough to pay me my one buck and admit it before the reading public.

        Or maybe I should go register…

        1. debate

          I would love to debate you. I am just not paying you any more money. That is why I want to do it elsewhere. I do apologize for making rude and crass comments – I want our debate to be respectful and civil. Although I don’t agree with your ideas, I would go to the grave defending your right to have them and make them public.

          So, what do you say?

          1. Pay to play
            Tony, since you toned it down a little, I will respond, and won’t charge you for this post.

            But this is the deal: As Saul Alinsky explained in Rules for Radicals, you have to have enough common ground with someone to make dialogue worthwhile. My goal is to warn progressives away from Ron Paul. I have no interest in “debating” whether a woman has the right to control her own reproductive system. If you aren’t with me on this question, we do not have enough common ground for “debate” to serve any purpose. I would consider it more like educating you, and you have to pay me for this. One dollar per post, with a 12-for-$10 discount, is very affordable.

            It isn’t a question of “elsewhere.” We could do it for free here just as well as anywhere. It is a question of it not being worth my time to “debate” someone who disagrees with me on the very fundamentals of free choice. Not without the modest remuneration I am asking.

            1. Sorry, Tony
              If I approve your posts, it’ll be a Paulista pile-on in no time. I can’t bend the policy. Pay $10 and I will approve (and reply to) your two new posts, and you will still have another 10 to go. That’s how it works.