Libertarian History and the Paul Newsletters

For those seeking increased understanding of the placement of the Ron Paul newsletters in terms of libertarian history in the US, I recommend Steve Horwitz at Bleeding Heart Libertarians:  How Did We Get Here? Or, Why Do 20 Year Old Newsletters Matter So Damn Much?

FILED UNDER: 2012 Election, US Politics, ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter


  1. Peter says:

    Our Libertarians deserve being ridiculed.

    The simple fact that their presidential candidate is usually some dude who couldn’t make it on the Republican ticket is pathetic enough. But …

    Unlike British Liberal-Democrats (in the UK a Liberal is pretty much a Libertarian) who acknowledge the existence of a “common good” and actually propose workable solutions, American Libertarians have degenerated into a “liberalize pot” wing, “a “don’t tread on me and my gun” wing and a “chill for big-business” wing who share only one common denominator: a political expression for their selfishness.

    Ron Paul is the archetype of this “school of thought” As a physician most of his income came from Medicare recipients, an institution he bashes every-time he can. As a representative he adds pork in bills he votes against, and uses that cash for works that are handled locally in most districts. The excuse: it’s in my interest and that of my constituents. I would add let the rest of America pay for Defense and national infrastructure.

  2. Graham says:

    @Peter: Without getting into the others you listed, the “liberalize pot wing” is only motivated by their own selfish interests?

    I happen to be a member of that wing. How does someone smoking pot in the privacy of their own home harm you in any way? I’m not rotting in a prison cell for never having harmed anyone, and I happen to think it’s a terrible injustice that some people are.

    Of course, it’s not selfish at all to want to live in a world where everyone has to conform to whatever standard of traditionally acceptable behavior you happen support or be thrown in prison for years and deprived of any hope of ever living a full and successful life again, no sir.

  3. @Peter:

    As a physician most of his income came from Medicare recipients

    Paul’s never accepted Medicare or Medicaid patients at his medical practice, so whatever you think of his stand on that issue, he’s been consistent about it in his private dealings.

  4. Just nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Stormy Dragon: @Peter: If I recall correctly (and I may not) both of your comments are deficient. During the health care debates I recall the Congreseman saying that in his medical practice he accepted Medicare and Medicaid patients as paid in full on the Federal stipend for services when Medicare patients didn’t have supplemental insurance and praising the system as much easier to navigate for his billing staff. His objection to the pending law was based on his belief that such service is outside the scope of government responsibility.