Genetics & Politics

aheram asked: The question I received was in regards to him receiving donations from repugnant individuals. I mentioned Ron Paul’s own take on racism and then made the argument that actions do speak louder than perceptions founded upon false premises. Paul’s record all but disproves the charges of racism. To call it a “bad argument” without once addressing the main thrust of my post is intellectually dishonest.

I assure you, it’s actually not in any way intellectually dishonest.

I’m not making an argument about whether or not Ron Paul is racist. I say, in the very first paragraph of my post, that it doesn’t really matter to me whether or not he’s a racist or whether he associated with racists some years ago or whatever.

All I’m saying in my post is that it’s a bad argument to say that one cannot be both a libertarian and a racist; of course one can. There isn’t anything about libertarianism that make its adherents immune from racism. Ron Paul’s take on the matter is wrong and all of the people who quote it as some sort of defitive argument are being myopic.

Your post was about trying to prove that Paul isn’t a racist. My post isn’t interested in that question; I’m interested in the phenomenon of Ron Paul fanatics who actually believe that holding a philosophical position means that one’s beliefs and actions are obviously beyond reproach, and thus shouldn’t even be mentioned.

My point was essentially proved on Twitter in the minutes after I posted a link to my blog post:

These are just the first few.

Claiming that “libertarian racist” is an oxymoron is just a bad argument. Here’s another take on the point I’m making. And here’s another. If you have other arguments about Ron Paul, that’s great. I linked to your blog post so that others could read it if they were interested. But, again, it doesn’t much matter to me since he’s not going to win the presidential election. If some Texans want him to be their Representative, so be it.