Published Again

Eat The State is a Washington (and online for the world) treasure for progressives.

They have very similar positions to Ron Paul and Libertarians in many ways but they also staunchly oppose Ron Paul and his ilk. Click on the 'Published Again' title above to read my article and their reply.

They say he favours corporations- Um, he is the only candidate talking about limiting the power that corporations have been given in the past few decades.

They say he is a hardcore private property advocate, this is true, but that is what he bases his environmental stance on. Protecting the lungs and and of the people downstream. Noone should be allowed to pollute their neighbours property. The repubs and dems grandfather in the right to do so, not to mention the military industrial complex which has troops and bases all over the world. Did Clinton bring the troops home from Japan, Korea or other places in Asia or Europe? Nope.

'Eat the State' also accuses Ron Paul of 'surrounding himself' with brownshirts (nazi's fyi), militia members, racists, neo-fascists, etc. Why would Ron speak critically of fascists in interviews and even declare America as having a soft form of Fascism? This strikes me more as mudslinging than actual factual reality.

MLK jr had clingons of all stripes too. Communists and other radicals surrounded him and attempted to latch on to his popularity. But you don't hear that thrown at him every time we celebrate his day, nor should you. Ron Paul has spoken clearly about his perspective on racism and more importantly the political and social fallacy that IS racism. He has voted in all ways to improve civil liberties for all. The opposite of what a racist vote would be, but he gets no credit for that. In fact, his voting record jives ONLY with the Constitution, no matter what his personal views of others are (but what does a voting record matter mean anyway?).

Lastly, 'Eat the State' declares that Ron Paul does not care at all for the poor, the less fortunate. I say they are dead wrong on that account. He is seeking to maintain the economic power of the individual.

He is in full support of decreasing the gigantic size of the federal government and restoring financial power to the individual. People would be in less need of welfare if the government did not take so much from us in the first place.

You could pay for all the progressive programs, healthcare, welfare and the like and STILL not have an IRS and high taxes. See the problem is the way the government does things is via the most expensive possible method. Ron Paul even spoke about shoring up medicare and social security by bringing home the troops.

Ron Paul and his many level headed supporters have said, despite what you think of him, they will not go quietly in the night. They have fought for and promoted the desire to have a simple Constitutional form of government. We are not perfect. But why wet blanket the fire of Liberty?

Scott~

BTW-

Almost every morning since moving to Seattle in 1999 I have woken up to KEXP. On the weekends I wake up to the political news programme put on in part by Mike McCormick. HE often has guests on that cover issues that really matter to me on a local and national level. It is always thoughtful and interesting, and though it is the progressive ying to my libertarian yang, I almost always learn something about an issue and I learn, each weekend, how progressive and libertarian ideas sync up (oppose NAFTA, civil rights abuses, etc) it is also brought out how we differ (Property rights, free market economy).

One of Mike's regular guests (when available) is Geov Parrish who is with the printed and online paper 'Eat The State' : A forum for anti-authoritarian political opinion, research, and humor.

I find this paper at coffee shops and other places where people usually gather to gather and chat, and it is often read.

Though the concept of, "Eat the State" sounds Libertarian. Eat the state as an idea, makes me think that you want to state to be smaller. Then they talk about being the a forum for anti-authoritarian political opinion. That is what I thought the Libertarians want? To NOT have an authoritarian form of government.

Does it make sense to say, "We are staunchly anti-authoritarian. . . EXCEPT for the areas we want the government to be authoritative!"?